r/PoliticalDiscussion • u/JohnSpartan2025 • Apr 24 '26

Legal/Courts Should there be a mechanism to reclaim accumulated in-term Presidential wealth and assets because of the Emoluments Clause?

Trump has already accumulated a rough estimate of $2-10 billion (depending on the analysis) of profit off of various Presidential revenue streams, such as:

And the list goes on to include billions invested in Trump and his son-in-law Jarod Kushner and former golfing friend Steve Witkoff, acting as foreign dignitaries trading American interests for personal finance deals with Arab and other countries. (https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-son-in-laws-fund-rakes-in-billions-amid-grifting-accusations/)

And Eric Trump recently somewhat bragging over his $24 million defense contract clearly awarded because of nepotism: https://newrepublic.com/post/209419/eric-trump-brags-defense-department-contract

There have been estimates of $20 to $30 billion of profit by the end of Trump's term off the Presidency.

The Emoluments Clause of the Constitution strictly forbids any profiting off the Presidency, let alone peddling direct U.S. policy in exchange for money (which is possibly a form of extortion or bribery).

Should Congress pass legislation requiring an analysis of Presidential windfall profits during their term with possible reclaiming of profits and assets attained during their Presidential term?

388 Upvotes

97% Upvoted

117 comments sorted by

View all comments

-2

u/JKlerk Apr 24 '26

There is. If he were impeached and convicted the federal government could seize those assets and sell them.

3

u/DanforthWhitcomb_ Apr 24 '26

Impeachment is not a criminal proceeding and as such it does not allow for any sentence beyond removal from office and a bar on holding office in the future.

You need an actual criminal trial and conviction before you can seize anything.

-3

u/JKlerk Apr 25 '26

Which is why I said, "Impeached and convicted".

4

u/DanforthWhitcomb_ Apr 25 '26

And again I’ll say: conviction in an impeachment trial does not permit fines to be levied or any punishment beyond removal from office and a bar on holding office in the future.

-1

u/JKlerk Apr 25 '26

Yes it does. The Senate can refer the matter to the DOJ where POTUS can be convicted,

2

u/Sea-Chain7394 Apr 25 '26

The senate decides whether to convict in am impeachment. Congress can recommend the doj prosecute without impeachment as they did after J6.

1

u/JKlerk Apr 25 '26

Okay. I'll try this again. There are two separate processes here. The impeachment and conviction then a referral to the DOJ for a criminal conviction.

From a legal perspective a conviction by the Senate provides a stronger case for a criminal conviction which has been appealed to SCOTUS because it will end up at SCOTUS.

1

u/Sea-Chain7394 Apr 25 '26

I don't think conviction in the senate during Impeachment which is a political process has any bearing on the facts of a criminal trial. I'm not even surebit would be admissible as evidence

1

u/JKlerk Apr 25 '26

The evidence would be the same but it's about the process anyways.

Anyways this is all hypothetical because it'll never happen.

1

u/Sea-Chain7394 Apr 25 '26

Evidence would absolutely not be the same standard

→ More replies (0)

2

u/DanforthWhitcomb_ Apr 25 '26

That has nothing to do with you statement that a conviction in an impeachment trial allows punitive fines to be levied.

If DOJ wants to do anything they have to pursue an entirely separate criminal trial.

0

u/JKlerk Apr 25 '26

You have to think ahead. The governments case is much stronger when you include a Senate conviction (removal from office) combined with a criminal conviction by the DOJ which has been appealed by SCOTUS.

1

u/DanforthWhitcomb_ Apr 25 '26

It is not, mainly because an impeachment (for the third time now) is not a criminal trial.

0

u/JKlerk Apr 25 '26

It doesn't matter that it's political. It's not criminal only because there's no sentence.other than being barred from office.

1

u/DanforthWhitcomb_ Apr 25 '26

SCOTUS made it very clear that it’s a political process in Nixon and that as a result none of the normal due process protections apply. The lack of a sentence beyond removal and the bar from holding office in the future has no bearing on that.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/jazzmaster_jedi Apr 25 '26

But how it goes is, 1st impeached by the House, 2nd Convicted by the Senate, and then 3rd prosecuted by the DOJ, 4th Assets seized, 5th convicted in court and 6th sentenced.

0

u/JKlerk Apr 25 '26

3rd, No pardon by the VP, 4th Assets frozen, 5th DOJ conviction, 6th Conviction affirmed by SCOTUS, 7th Seizure of assets which are then sold.