Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Saturday, April 15, 2017

Robert Reich: [President] Trump's business (now run by his two adult sons) has 157 trademark applications pending in 36 countries, according to the New York Times. Registered trademarks are huge financial assets for a business like Trump's, which is now focused on marketing his name rather than building or making anything. And all these countries depend on decisions Trump will have a hand in making -- over trade, foreign policy, international banking, foreign aid, and the use of military force. So it wouldn't be surprising if several of these countries granted the trademark applications in order to court Trump's favor (or avoid his disfavor).

Advertisement

Advertisement

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

When the Chinese granted Trump preliminary approval of 38 trademarks of his name soon after he was sworn into office -- and right after Trump backed off of his brief flirtation with a "two China" policy -- China gave Trump the equivalent of a huge amount of money.

"It was a gift," said Peter J. Riebling, a trademark lawyer in Washington. "Getting the exclusive right to use that brand in China against everyone else in the world? It's like waving a magic wand."

Meanwhile, Ivanka Trump has 37 trademark applications pending in 10 countries,

Doesn't all this violate the Constitution? After all, Article I, Section 9 (the so-called "emoluments clause") prohibits government officials from accepting any economic benefit from a foreign power -- presumably including trademark approvals.

We may soon find out. A lawsuit filed in January in the Southern District of New York, by a group called Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) joined by several prominent law professors, seeks a judgment that Trump has violated the emoluments clause.

Who's representing Trump in that lawsuit? The United States, in the form of senior attorneys in the Department of Justice.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

"In a legal brief expected to be filed this month, Department lawyers will argue that the framers of the Constitution meant only to rule out gifts and compensation for services rather than for any favorable policies; that, in any event, the court has no authority to intervene because the power to waive the clause lies with Congress; and plaintiffs have no standing to sue, anyway.

Why is U.S. Justice Department representing Trump's personal financial interests, and not the broader interests of the citizens of the United States? Don't the rest of us have a right to be represented?

Interpretations of the U.S. Constitution by the Department of Justice aren't like the musings of any random defense attorney. They carry special weight. They're supposed to represent the views of the United States.

But there's no justification for the United States getting behind an interpretation of Article I Section 9 that favors Trump's personal financial interests.

Having the U.S. Department of Justice represent Donald Trump's financial interests around the world is just another way Trump is fleecing America and making money off of his presidency."

#1 | Posted by PunchyPossum at 2017-04-14 12:52 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Why is U.S. Justice Department representing Trump's personal financial interests, and not the broader interests of the citizens of the United States?"

Because Trump appointed Jeff Sessions to be his AG. What did you actually expect to come from that?

#2 | Posted by danni at 2017-04-14 05:13 AM | Reply

If I was some jack-wad know it all whining bitch named Mookiestang this is where I would post some childish crap about this thread being "Kryptonite" on the DR Expert --------.

In all caps

#3 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2017-04-14 12:13 PM | Reply

How the once mighty/now tiny have fallen...Reich is writing for Alternet?

SMH.

#4 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-04-14 11:02 PM | Reply

Because Trump appointed Jeff Sessions to be his AG. What did you actually expect to come from that?

Nope, the answer is found here:

16. Defendant is the President of the United States of America. He is being sued here in his official capacity as President. s3.amazonaws.com
Who do you, or Reich for that matter, expect to defend a president sued in his official capacity?

#5 | Posted by et_al at 2017-04-14 11:37 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

2018, Dems win control, Jeff Sessions mug shot on my t-shirt

#6 | Posted by Bubba10 at 2017-04-15 02:55 PM | Reply

#6

Numerically improbable if not impossible, but thanks for playing!

#7 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-04-15 03:01 PM | Reply

#7 - Think again. If this ---- show continues in the WH and this slathering dogs in Congress a lot of people are going to get registered and come out to vote who normally don't. Especially when the FBI is able to make cases against Drumpf officials and Congress refuses to do their jobs.

#8 | Posted by _Gunslinger_ at 2017-04-15 06:06 PM | Reply

Sessions co-operates only if he gets a piece of the action.

#9 | Posted by nutcase at 2017-04-15 06:35 PM | Reply

#5 "Who do you, or Reich for that matter, expect to defend a president sued in his official capacity?"

Asking, not telling: Why woldnt that be the job of White House Counsel rather than AG? Wouldnt the AG be more aligned with the prosecutor in the role of "chief law enforcement officer" if the allegation going before congress is a violation of the presidents constitutional duty TO the United States?

#10 | Posted by leadbelly at 2017-04-17 07:39 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2017 World Readable

-->
Drudge Retort