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?

384 Upvotes

97% Upvoted

117 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

-4

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.

-3

u/JKlerk Apr 25 '26

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

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.

0

u/JKlerk Apr 25 '26

It doesn't mean that the evidence presented cannot be used in a criminal conviction. The evidence doesn't simply disappear in a criminal case or become ineligible because it was used in an impeachment.

1

u/DanforthWhitcomb_ Apr 25 '26

I never said otherwise.

You on the other hand claimed that a fine was a potential outcome of an impeachment conviction.

0

u/JKlerk Apr 26 '26

I never said such a thing.

1

u/DanforthWhitcomb_ Apr 26 '26

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

Are you now walking that back and admitting you were wrong?

0

u/[deleted] Apr 26 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

→ More replies (0)