Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Did Trump Funnel Money Intended for Kids with Cancer into his Own Business?

President Donald Trump allegedly funneled money from his son Eric’s children cancer charity into his own business. Eric Trump has held a golf tournament to raise money for his charity for the past 10 years. As the event takes place at his dad’s golf course, he said the charity could use the course for free, allowing all the donated money to go straight to the children’s fund. However, according to Forbes, the costs quickly soared over the years, making it clear that the golf course was not free.

It just cannot get worse than this: pocketing money from a kids’ cancer charity. https://t.co/8qXpxxdpgQ

— Tina Jordan (@EWTinaJordan) June 6, 2017

“The Trump Organization received payments for its use, part of more than $1.2 million that has no documented recipients past the Trump Organization. Golf charity experts say the listed expenses defy any reasonable cost justification for a one-day golf tournament,” Forbes states. Roughly $100,000 of the donations were funneled into revenue for the Trump Organization, and more than $500,000 were donated to other charities, often benefiting Trump family members. This does not look good for the Trump family, and obviously, a lot of people are outraged.

“Morality is just gone,” says Eric Trump, who Forbes earlier today reported used a charity to (literally) steal money from kids with cancer. pic.twitter.com/4XyZZOdZcw

— Matt McDermott (@mattmfm) June 7, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: June 7, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

There are few things more unsavory than manipulative gifts and bribes, especially when they are received by someone holding a public office. To protect against such foreign meddling and intrusion in American politics, the framers of the Constitution decided to embed language in the document strictly prohibiting such conduct. The Emoluments Clause was established to ensure the new government of America was insulated from corruption.

However, there is increasing concern among politicians and citizens that President-elect Donald Trump, with his vast corporation that has interests all over the world, will violate the Emoluments Clause when he steps into the office. Moreover, the President-elect will be in an extremely unique position; since he has not yet divested himself fully of his business holdings. He’s poised to make a profit as money comes into his privately-held corporation, the Trump Organization. Read on to learn more about the Emoluments Clause and these concerns.

What is the Emoluments Clause?

The framers of the Constitution were deeply afraid of foreign interference in the American political system, particularly after seeing its effects in Europe. Thus, Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 of the Constitution, commonly referred to as the Emoluments Clause, prohibits any person “holding any Office of Profit or Trust” from accepting “any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.” Additionally, it prohibits the federal government from bestowing titles of nobility. Explicit congressional consent has the ability to validate these particular exchanges, otherwise these payments are strictly prohibited. In 1787, America was still a brand-new government, one highly vulnerable to manipulation by world powers; thus, those who gathered to construct the Constitution wanted to break from the corrupt practices of previous governments.

Generally, America’s Founding Fathers were very cognizant of how private financial interests could potentially sway even the most moral of leaders. Historical evidence has even suggested that some of our Founding Fathers saw the Emoluments Clause as a broad anti-corruption measure. While the basis of the clause was to reject gifts that pertained specifically to diplomacy, it was also deemed a way to reject any corruption or foreign influence.

Emoluments is a broad term, but the construction of it is meant to be as broad as possible. So, an emolument is any transaction between a federal officeholder and a foreign state, in which the benefits are inconsistent with a fair market exchange in an arms-length transaction. There is not a firm consensus in the community regarding the definition of the term, but arguably emoluments could cover ordinary, fair market value transactions that result in economic profit or benefit to the federal officeholder.

Foreign Interference in the U.S. Political System

There is substantial evidence that a foreign power interfered in the American political system during the 2016 presidential election. According to many on Capitol Hill, the CIA, and the White House, Russia actively attempted to affect the outcome of the 2016 election. This was accomplished via the hacking of the Democratic National Committee and other political arms of the Democratic Party, resulting in the release of thousands of emails.

Strictly prohibiting foreign government presents and emoluments, of any kind, is even more important for national security purposes. Mitigating conflicts of interest with foreign governments is of the utmost importance as America ushers in a new administration in 2017.

Trump, Conflicts of Interest, and Foreign Entanglements

President-elect Trump has diverse business interests on a global scale. Even after Trump takes his oath of office on January 20, 2017, he will still continue to receive steady streams of income from a vast array of entities and foreign powers. Trump’s continued interest in the Trump Organization, as well as his stake in hundreds of other entities, make him arguably the most entangled president-elect in conflicts of interest in American history. As one political ethics and compliance lawyer in Washington noted, any sort of business with a foreign corporation, whether it is owned in part or completely controlled by a foreign government, that benefits Trump could be a violation of the Emoluments Clause.

In the domestic arena alone, there are over ten cases challenging Trump’s labor practices that are pending before the National Labor Relations Board, with two vacancies to be filled by Trump himself. Moreover, the Internal Revenue Service auditing Trump will soon pick its new chief. Trump will become both the landlord and tenant of the Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C., and he is now responsible for picking the new Treasury Secretary while owing several hundred million dollars to banks.

On the global scale, Trump has business holdings all over the world. While many transactions may not involve a bit of impropriety, it is still highly possible that they have the ability to cause blurred lines. Moreover, Trump has consistently declined to make his business dealings transparent, enshrouding the full extent of potential issues with his businesses in secrecy.

The full extent of his businesses, which include real estate, clothing, jewelry, golf courses, and much more, give rise to a variety of ethical considerations. When Ivanka Trump appeared on “60 Minutes” in November 2016, the business took advantage of a potential marketing opportunity by urging reporters to write about the $10,800 gold bangle bracelet she wore during the interview. Furthermore, Trump’s sons and their Texas nonprofit organization came under fire in December 2016 for soliciting million-dollar donations for unnamed “conservation” charities in exchange for access to Trump during inauguration weekend. Eric Trump stopped fundraising for his charity, which raised money for childhood cancer, after the foundation came under scrutiny for posting an online auction for coffee with Ivanka.

There are a lot of questions about how Trump’s businesses will function while he is in office. Currently, all Trump has identified is that he would leave his businesses before inauguration, leaving his children, Don and Eric, to manage them. He has also commented that no new deals will be done during his term(s) in office.

Does the Emoluments Clause Even Apply to the President?

Some scholars contend that the Emoluments Clause does not apply to the President. Many point out that there’s no real case law or precedent as to how courts could interpret the clause. But throughout American history, U.S. presidents have acted as though it does apply to them. There is evidence that at least one president, however, did not follow the Emoluments Clause. President George Washington, during his time in office, received gifts from both the French ambassador to the U.S. as well as the Marquis de Lafayette. Scholars also dispute whether the clause applies to a specific kind of payment, such as a gratuity or a gift, or if all types of payments are subject to the clause. Additionally, there is disagreement over whether the payment must be favorable or any fair market payment.

“Trump Vodka” Courtesy of Michael Lehet : License: (CC BY-ND 2.0)

The Congressional Research Service has also noted that the Emoluments Clause is one of a few ethics statutes that potentially apply to the president. However, the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel specifically affirmed in 2009–when President Obama accepted the Nobel Peace Prize–that the president holds an “Office of Profit or Trust.” Moreover, the Constitution explicitly refers to the president as holding an “Office.” A record going back even before the OLC and DOJ further shows a litany of government lawyers and previous presidents applying the clause to the presidency.

Trump, as a business man, is navigating in uncharted territory with his position in the Trump Organization. It is unprecedented that payments going to a corporation will eventually materialize as a profit for Trump. Since the business is a privately-held corporation, it is essentially an extension of Trump; conversely, if the Trump Organization were a publicly-held corporation, such questions would likely not arise even if potential conflicts of interest could still exist.

Potential Legislation to Force Trump to Divest His Empire

Some in Washington are extremely concerned about foreign influence and conflicts of interest in American politics because of Trump’s businesses. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) has promised that she and four other Democratic senators will introduce a bill to implement and enforce the Emoluments Clause in January 2017. Such a bill, if passed, would force Trump to divest himself of his empire, placing his assets in a true blind trust.

A true blind trust would likely mean no involvement in his businesses from any of his family members, Don and Eric included. It would require a completely independent manager, not closely tied to the holder, to run the business. Presidents are certainly held to a higher standard than other Americans. Considering Trump’s platform was to root out corruption in Washington, his critics argue that divesting himself of the Trump Organization may be in the best interest for the country.

Conclusion

Despite these concerns, Trump has demonstrated no real intent to divest himself fully from his business interests once he steps into the White House. If the bill presented by Senator Warren and other supporters is passed, then Trump’s current plans may drastically change. One thing is quite clear: Trump, a billionaire with business holdings all over the globe, may find himself knee-deep in many conflicts of interest. Maintaining a presidency free from bribery, corruption, and self-motivated profits is absolutely critical, just as the Constitutional Convention intended.

Nicole Zub

Nicole is a third-year law student at the University of Kentucky College of Law. She graduated in 2011 from Northeastern University with Bachelor’s in Environmental Science. When she isn’t imbibing copious amounts of caffeine, you can find her with her nose in a book or experimenting in the kitchen. Contact Nicole at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post How Could the Emoluments Clause Affect Donald Trump? appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

The Morning After

Last night, it became clear that Donald Trump was the unexpected winner of the election and is going to be the 45th president of the United States. Wednesday morning saw people on the streets of New York in tears and many fear that this is the start of a xenophobic and sexist presidential period. The hashtag #StillWithHer trended on Wednesday morning.

I hope @HillaryClinton knows there was nothing more she could’ve done. She was a warrior. And she made me proud. #StillWithHer

— Max Weiss (@maxthegirl) November 9, 2016

Donald Trump doesn’t respect women, LGBT, Muslims, or any people of color. Therefor, I won’t be respecting him back. #NotMyPresident

— antonio (@antoniodelotero) November 9, 2016

But when the shock subsides, let’s come together and keep fighting to make the world better and more united, not more divided.

We all need to give President-Elect Trump a chance. Support the good. Lobby against what we disagree on. No one is bigger than us all

— Mark Cuban (@mcuban) November 9, 2016

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: November 9, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Both Donald Trump and Eric Trump have made some truly upsetting comments about women and workplace sexual harassment over the last few days–statements that show that neither have any idea about the issues that many women face in the workplace. And it’s worth asking: is this the kind of treatment women can expect in the Trumps’ America?

It all started when Donald Trump was asked about the sexual harassment allegations against Roger Ailes, the head of Fox News, who is stepping down as chairman and CEO. Chuck Todd was interviewing Trump and asked about his thoughts on the allegations against Ailes, and Trump spouted off some routine victim-blamey rhetoric about how women who praised Ailes in the past couldn’t possibly have done so if he had been less than polite to them in any way. Trump said:

Some of the women that are complaining, I know how much he’s helped them…And when they write books….and say wonderful things about him….[N]ow, all of a sudden, they’re saying these horrible things about him.

Trump, is obviously ignoring the fact that oftentimes women have to turn a blind eye to inappropriate behavior or sexual harassment from a boss or higher up at a company if they fear retribution at work in any way.

Then, Kirsten Powers, a journalist for USA Today, followed up with Trump on the topic. She framed it as a more personal issue–how would he feel if his beloved daughter, Ivanka, experienced sexual harassment at work. His answer?

He hopes that she would find a new job.

Let that sink in for a minute.

Trump is advocating that if a woman experiences harassment at work, it should be on her to go out and find a new job. Never mind the fact that she could have to relocate for this new job, could have to give up other work relationships she has cultivated, will have to consider whether she can transfer her benefits, and so many other related issues. Nope, it’s on the woman to leave that environment, not on men to treat women fairly in the workplace.

Then, Trump’s son, Eric Trump, was asked a similar question. He was asked by Charlie Rose whether a woman leaving her job was really the solution his father was advocating for, or whether “perhaps, a better answer would be drawing it to the attention of Human Resources and other things that we can do with regard to sexual harassment in the workplace.” The younger Trump’s response was just as illuminating–he said:

Hey, listen, we all run a company, my father runs a company, we take this – that is an absolute no-go anywhere, and that’s very much the case. I think what he’s saying is, Ivanka is a strong, powerful woman, she wouldn’t allow herself to be objected to it, and by the way, you should take it up with Human Resources, and I think she would as a strong person, at the same time, I don’t think she would allow herself to be subjected to that. I think that’s a point he was making, and I think he did so well.

So while Eric Trump conceded that if someone is being harassed they should take it up with HR, he also managed to imply that only non-strong women “allow” themselves to be subjected to sexual harassment. Again, the younger Trump puts on the onus of sexual harassment on women–not men.

Suppose that Trump does become president. What does this mean for his presidency? What if a woman in say, his cabinet, is sexually harassed, is she supposed to leave that job? Is it because she’s a weak woman? That’s obviously an extreme example, but as we get closer to the general election in November, it’s worth asking–will Trump’s actions speak as loud as his words?

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Let’s Talk About the Trump Family’s WTF Comments on Sexual Harassment appeared first on Law Street.

At this point, the disbelief that Donald Trump could actually win a primary has worn off. But worry still remains for many, especially after hearing about Trump’s support of waterboarding and other more severe forms of torture. Other candidates such as Cruz and Rubio were also in support of waterboarding in the most recent Republican debate. But these candidates’ desire to be tough on terrorism seems to only be a test of masculinity, leaving basic human rights unrecognized.

At recent debates, Ted Cruz spoke in support of waterboarding in an all-means-necessary approach to interrogation; Rubio took a similar approach. The collective opinions of these three candidates has ignited backlash from their own party, and again raises awareness of the dissonance within the Republican Party as its candidates endorse compromising measures. Senator John McCain had to distance himself from the words of these candidates, and remind them of the severe impact of torture. He responded to their statements in a Senate address, highlighting:

It might be easy to dismiss this bluster as cheap campaign rhetoric, but these statements must not go unanswered because they mislead the American people about the realities of interrogation, how to gather intelligence, what it takes to defend our security, and at the most fundamental level what we are fighting for as a nation.

One American already mislead by these comments is none other than Donald Trump’s son Eric Trump. In defense of his father’s torture stance, the younger Trump actually said that waterboarding was no different from hazing in frat houses across American college campuses.

These comments had several people doing a double take just to ensure he actually said those words. Eric Trump and these candidates want people to see torture as a sign of toughness, and candidates are able to capitalize off the fear and tragedy of Americans after terrorism attacks.

Infighting between the candidates over their toughness has occurred too–Donald Trump actually laughed when one of his supporters called Ted Cruz a pussy during his speech because Cruz’s support of waterboarding did not measure up to the strictness of Trump’s future plans for torture. After laughing, he went on to repeat the words of his supporter to his entire audience after laughing.

This long back and forth over the use of torture begs the question: is this a race for presidency or a contest in masculinity?

Dorsey Hill

Dorsey is a member of Barnard College’s class of 2016 with a major in Urban Studies and concentration in Political Science. As a native of Chicago and resident of New York City, Dorsey loves to explore the multiple cultural facets of cities. She has a deep interest in social justice issue especially those relevant to urban environments. Contact Dorsey at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Macho Enough to Torture?: Cruz, Trump, and Rubio All Weigh In appeared first on Law Street.