The Anti-Trump Hoaxes Are Getting More Unbelievable, But No Less "Persuasive."
Democrat "leaders'" claims that Trump violated the Emoluments Clause are baseless.
This past Thursday, Democrat “leaders” unveiled a 156 page “report” claiming that former President Trump violated the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution because his “businesses received at least $7.8 million from foreign entities while he was president.” The report was breathlessly produced by Oversight Committee Democrats and their ranking minority leader Congressman Jamie Raskin. The release claimed:
RM @RepRaskin and @OversightDems released a report showing former President Trump pocketed at least $7.8 million from 20 foreign states while in office, violating the Constitution and selling out U.S. foreign policy.
This claim obviously is untrue. No person in their right mind would believe that Trump received $7.8 million in “emoluments” from foreign states to “sell out” foreign policy in plain sight. Making the lies harder to swallow, one must consider that Trump did this in the open and Congress, which impeached him twice over a phone call and a rally, never bothered to look into it, nor did the Press, which spent his entire Presidency broadcasting even the slightest misdeed on his part. But truth or plausibility rarely matter in the Trump era.
The hoax has three (3) distinct designs and, poorly crafted as it is, likely will succeed on all desired fronts. Before turning to why Democrats have launched this farcical claim, let us first debunk it.
The emoluments clause has no application to a President earning money from his businesses while in office. No one has ever suggested that it does. This should be the end of the inquiry. However, in the Trump Era, the fact that nothing has been suggested in American history is no bar to advancing theories that border on the fantastic.
That is does not apply to business in the ordinary course also is self evident from the clause’s language. The Emoluments Clause is found in Article I, Section 9, Clause 8. It provides:
No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.
Your business continuing to earn money after you take office is not an “emolument” or a “present” from a “King,” “Prince,” or “foreign State.” This is plain to see from the ordinary meaning of the language of the Emoluments Clause. It was designed to prohibit gifts from foreign leaders with the intent to create a “Title of Nobility.” Doing business with the Trump organization not only is not a “present” or “Emolument,” no one is doing such business to bestow upon Trump a “Title of Nobility.” However, the history and language of the Clause clearly have not stopped Democrats from advancing this hoax.
Indeed, it is not even the first time is has been tried, making it all the worse. The Left has been advancing this frivolous theory throughout the Trump Presidency. As per usual, the idiocy sprang from poor “reporting” from the Mainstream Media. For example, in September of 2019, The New York Times ran an article claiming that Trump had been “merging [his] official duties and his commercial interests.” The article was the usual hit piece which made two (2) vague references to the Emoluments Clause without actually examining it, instead referencing so-called experts who, of course, opined on Trump’s plain guilt. From there it shifted to a supposed increase in business at Trump properties, claiming:
Federal Election Commission records, meanwhile, show that since January 2017, at least $5.6 million has been spent at Trump properties by political candidates or party organizations, including by Mr. Trump’s own political operation, according to an analysis by Public Citizen.
In the four years before Mr. Trump’s bid for president, these same hotels and other venues collected a total of only $119,000 in federally regulated payments from political groups.
A careful examination of the language reveals that the Times is playing fast and loose with the comparison—money spent by “political candidates or party organization” is not the same as that spent by “federally regulated political groups.” The Times does not bother to explain why it used two (2) sets of distinct figures. Indeed, the incredible disparity between the numbers makes it clear a trick has been played. It is of no moment of course because we have already established that business spending, even if it does increase, something that has by no means even been proven, is not a violation of the Emoluments Clause.
This brings us back to the three (3) points of the hoax. First and foremost, it is designed to grab headlines from a compliant Press to smear Trump to unwitting “voters.” One would think that at this point, the public would have Trump exhaustion and a claim this baseless would not succeed in this endeavor, but it was picked up by every major outlet and, of course, the fringe outlets such as MSNBC as gospel. Mission accomplished.
The scheme’s second goal is to cover from the corruption of the Biden Crime Machine. Democrats must be given credit, notwithstanding the evilness of their plots, for their ability to plan well ahead. This is a case on point. As the Oversight Committee continues to unearth and release additional rock solid evidence of Biden’s corruption, Democrats will use their “report” to claim that Trump is guilty of receiving funds from foreign sources, thus diminishing what damage there would be to Biden.
The final design of the hoax is to further undermine the Constitution and the Rule of Law. Democrats barely hide their desire to have a system of authoritarian government where they choose who leads, who succeeds and fails, etc. As the many Trump and other show trials have demonstrated, you can indict anyone for just about anything and the systems in place designed to check such excesses will not push back sufficiently to stop them. So too is the design of this plot. If the Emoluments Clause can be expanded to encompass any payment from a foreign source, even to a prior existing business, then any future politician can be severely damaged, if not taken out entirely, with an accusation. Back when people respected the Rule of Law, the public could see far enough into the future to hold back such ridiculous, evidence free claims. This is increasingly, if not entirely, the no longer the case. Since the Left controls the levers of power in just about every American institution, they alone will be in a position to level the necessary accusation. Indeed, Oversight Democrats launched their baseless claim as minority representatives in a House controlled by Republicans.
It boggles the mind to see the increasing baselessness of these claims. However, that too likely is part of their design; to see how farcical they can become and still be accepted. We shall see. In the meantime, rest assured no American President has violated the Emoluments Clause and be mindful that another chip in the granite of our Constitutional Republic has been extracted.