Podcasts about emoluments clauses

Folge 1 "Wehrhaftigkeit und Verletzlichkeit" (aufgenommen am 13. Januar 2021) Begrüßung Housekeeping Online-Panel: Restoring Transatlantic Relations - Eine Agenda für die kommenden Jahre, Dienstag, 19. Januar 2021, 18.00-19.15 Uhr, Online via ClickMeeting Atlantisches Forum Online: Populismus—eine Gefahr für die Demokratie?, Dienstag, 26. Januar 2021, 18.00-19.30 Uhr, Online via ClickMeeting News stories Diskussion um General Austin: DefenseNews - US Congress Passes Waiver for Mattis to Lead Pentagon The Atlantic - Joe Biden: Why I Chose Lloyd Austin as Secretary of Defense New York Times - Biden's Pentagon pick reignites debate over civilian control of military Verteidigungshaushalt: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 Presidential Veto Message to the House of Representatives for the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 DefenseNews - Congress overrides Trump veto of defense bill Extremismus im US-Militär: MilitaryTimes - Signs of white supremacy, extremisim up again in poll of active-duty troops Politico - The military has a hate group problem. But it doesn't know how bad it's gotten Secretary of Defense - Actions to Improve Racial and Ethnic Diversity and Inclusion in the U.S. Military Congress.gov - Alarming Incidents of White Supremacy in the Military - How to Stop It? Widerstandsfähigkeit der US-Demokratie: The Guardian - America's flawed democracy: the five key areas where it is failing New York Times - 2016 Presidential Election Results New York Times - 2020 Presidential Election Results Loyola Law School - Änderungen föderaler und einzelstaatlicher Wahldistrikte Daniel McGlone and Esther Needham - The Most Gerrymandered States Ranked by Efficiency Gap and Seat Advantage New York Times - Ivanka Trump Wins China Trademarks, Then Her Father Vows to Save ZTE Business Insider - Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner earned at least $36 million in outside income in 2019 Congressional Research Service - the Emoluments Clauses of the U.S. Constitution Constitutional Accountability Center - Blumenthal, et al. v. Trump - Holding President Trump accountable for his violations of the Foreign Emoluments Clause. Trump White House Flickr - Picture: President Trump Watches as U.S. Special Operations Forces Close in on ISIS Leader Verletzlichkeit der US Gesellschaft: United States Department of Agriculture - Food security in the US Feeding America - The Impact of the Coronavirus on Food Insecurity in 2020 (October 2020) The Washington Post - A growing number of Americans are going hungry Heinrich Böll Stiftung - Der CARES Act - die wirtschaftliche Antwort auf die Coronavirus-Verwerfungen in den USA Stuftung Wissenschaft und Politik - Verletzliche Staaten von Amerika - Die Covid-19-Pandemie als Hypothek für die Zukunft The Washington Post - Stealing to survive: More Americans are shoplifting food as aid runs out during the pandemic Jeehoon Han, Bruce D. Meyer, James X. Sullivan - Real-time Poverty Estimates During the COVID-19 Pandemic through November 2020 The New York Times Podcast - A Day at the Food Pantry

Donald Trump’s current legal battles likely won’t be his last. According to a New York Magazine article by Olivia Nuzzi, he understands the hot water he’ll be in once leaving the White House. “He wants to lose. He’s out of money. He worries about being arrested,” a friend of the president told Nuzzi before the election was called for Joe Biden. But could Trump actually be arrested? It would be unprecedented — but so has been much of his American reign. For nearly four years, allegations of Trump breaking the law have run rampant, from accusations of financial corruption to when, in 2019, he literally asked a foreign government to investigate his “political opponent” Joe Biden. But each time, he seems to have gotten off without more than a few damning headlines. “Right now [Trump] is protected by the office of the presidency,” says Asha Rangappa, a CNN legal and national security analyst. The presidency acts like a shield, courtesy of 1973 and 2000 opinions by the Department of Justice, the former following President Nixon’s Watergate scandal. But once Trump leaves office, he could be indicted, Rangappa tells Bustle. It would be a first. Since the country’s founding, not a single former president has been indicted for a crime. After Watergate, Nixon was pardoned by his vice president and successor, President Gerald Ford. “Where Trump is different is that he's been able to distort our normal processes by breaking norms [and] by crossing lines that we haven't seen crossed before,” Rangappa says. “We're relying on the Biden administration to come in and basically do an audit, not just on the president's actions, but also what may have been covered up.” Biden, for his part, has said he will not pardon Trump. (Could Trump pardon himself? “It would end up being litigated,” Rangappa says. “[But] if his pardon is declared invalid, then he's screwed.”) Here are just a few of the criminal and civil cases that could follow Trump outside of the White House. Since last year, Manhattan’s district attorney, Cyrus Vance Jr., has been probing Trump’s finances, both personal and business. This includes the alleged “hush money” paid to two women regarding alleged affairs with Trump, according to Politico. Because the payments were intended to keep the women from talking during the 2016 campaign, they would have violated campaign finance laws. However, Politico reports that the probe may be looking into financial crimes well beyond those alleged payments, according to court filings from the district attorney in August. “Pardon power only extends to crimes against the United States,” Rangappa says. “So any state or local jurisdiction that is investigating Trump could charge him for anything.” Trump has faced multiple lawsuits for profiting off the presidency, which is illegal per the Emoluments Clauses of the Constitution. The Supreme Court allowed one such lawsuit against Trump, brought forth by Congressional Democrats, to be dismissed. Separately, the attorneys general of Washington D.C. and Maryland have an ongoing lawsuit against the president that alleges he’s illegally used the office to turn a profit by receiving funds from foreign governments via his hotels. At least two women who’ve accused Trump of sexual assault, out of 26 sexual misconduct allegations, have also filed defamation lawsuits against him. In one such case, brought forth by journalist E. Jean Carroll, the U.S. government tried to substitute itself as the defendant. A U.S. district judge refused to allow the swap, so the case should move forward, according to Reuters. In Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s March 2019 report and subsequent hearing, Mueller never explicitly stated that Trump obstructed justice in the Russia investigation. But he did allude to it. “I’m not saying it’s out of the ballpark,” Mueller testified when questioned about Trump’s attempt to interfere with the investigation. The New York Times reported that Mueller didn’t make direct accusations in part because of Trump’s presidential immunity but that he presented evidence for other prosecutors to work with. “Any prosecutor could review their work and determine whether to prosecute Trump for obstruction of justice,” former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti wrote in an op-ed for Politico. (More than 1,000 former federal prosecutors, including Mariotti, signed a letter confirming that Trump would have been charged with obstruction of justice if he wasn’t a sitting president.) “There can be no serious question that sufficient evidence exists to charge Trump with obstructing justice, and leaving office does not absolve him of accountability,” he wrote.

President Donald Trump attended the G7 summit recently and suggested that next year the meeting could be held at one of his properties in Florida. That news, in addition to a recent ruling by the Second Circuit allowing a case from the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington to move forward against the President. These reports led me to wondering. What exactly is the Emoluments Clause? A recent report titled, "The Emoluments Clauses of the U.S. Constitution," was prepared by the Congressional Research Service and posted on August 23, 2019, provides background on the emoluments clauses and summaries of court cases in various stages of litigation against the president. Episodes of Government Unfiltered will be created using the value-for-value model. If you find value in the information provided, please help support the creation of more episodes by going to insiderfriends.com or glow.fm/insider.

THE EMOLUMENTS CLAUSES. They seem remote & unsexy, but this is probably why Trump is able to flagrantly violate them with such ease. This week, we go through what the clauses mean, their honorable and elephant-heavy history, and who can challenge the Trump Administration's violations thereto. Happy 13th episode (and recent Friday)!

Today's episode takes a deep dive into an 1832 decision, Worcester v. Georgia, to try and answer the question of what happens when the executive and judicial branches come into conflict. Yes, there's a lesson to be drawn to today's Supreme Court-vs.-Donald Trump showdown over the citizenship question on the census. We begin, however, with a pair of updates to previous shows, including "Joey Salads" and his nonsense "complaint" against AOC, and a listener email and update from our friend Seth Barrett Tillman regarding the status of the emoluments clauses litigation in both Maryland and DC. In fact, a late-breaking decision in the DC case led to a Patreon-only bonus extra on the topic! Then, it's time for the main event: breaking down the case that led to the famous aphorism, "Justice Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it." As is usually the case with these deep dives, there isn't an easy answer as to what the outcome will be when the executive and judiciary stare each other down, but we can always learn from history. In the "C" segment, we check out an update from friend of the show Randall Eliason, who taunts us with an Andrew Was Wrong about the future of Bridgegate (from Episode 232). Learn what issue is in fact going before the Supreme Court and why Prof. Eliason thinks the Bridgegate conspirators are going to get off scot-free. After all that, it's time for #T3BE #135, in which Thomas once again manages to analyze a question absolutely perfectly... only to pick the wrong answer yet again. You won't want to miss the full discussion. Appearances Andrew was a guest on the latest episode of the Registry Matters podcast discussing the Supreme Court, as well as the most recent episode of Mueller, She Wrote from the live show in Philadelphia talking.. well, pretty much everything! Show Notes & Links We last discussed the Emoluments Clauses litigation in Episode 297. and for more, check out our Patreon-only bonus extra on the topic! Here's the full text of the 1832 Supreme Court decision in Worcester v. Georgia. We last discussed Bridgegate in Episode 232, and you can click here to read Prof. Eliason's latest blog on the topic. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs -Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed!  @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at openarguments@gmail.com! Download Link

Today's episode features a grab-bag of stories that have been making the rounds, including the recent ruling out of the Second Circuit regarding Donald Trump's use of Twitter, a setback for our buddy Brian Frosh's efforts to enforce the Emoluments Clauses of the Constitution, and an update on the real-word consequences of the Janus v. AFSCME decision we decry so much around here. We begin with the Second Circuit's ruling in Knight First Amendment Inst. v. Trump, which established that a government official may convert a social media platform such as Twitter into a "limited use public forum," from which he may not block users on the basis of the political content of their speech -- i.e., viewpoint discrimination. Almost no one understands this decision; we'll make sure you're one of the lucky ones who do! Then, it's time for a breakdown of the 4th Circuit's ruling in In re Trump, which directs the lower court to dismiss the lawsuit (and pending discovery) against Trump in the lawsuit brought by Maryland and D.C. alleging violations of the Foreign and Domestic Emoluments Clauses. Find out what this case is all about, whether the outcome is reasonable, and what's next. After that, it's time for a quick look at the real-world implications of the Janus v. AFSCME decision allowing public-sector union employees to withhold a portion of their dues otherwise allocated for administrative duties under... some crazy right-wing theory that something something something, because Sam Alito knows diminishing the power of unions will hurt Democrats. But what else did that decision do? Listen and find out! After all that, it's time for the most controversial #TTTBE yet, in which we discover the answer to Thomas Takes The Bar Exam (regarding larceny and robbery) ... or do we? You won't want to miss this one! Appearances Andrew was a guest on the latest episode of the Left at the Valley podcast discussing abortion, as well as the most recent episode of Mueller, She Wrote talking.. well, pretty much everything! Show Notes & Links Click here to read the Second Circuit's ruling in Knight First Amendment Inst. v. Trump (the Twitter case), and here to check out the Fourth Circuit's ruling in In Re Trump (the Emoluments case). We first covered the emoluments case way back in Episode 78, and we interviewed Seth Barrett Tillman for his unique take in Episode 35 and Episode 36. We learned that bad stuff was coming in the emoluments litigation in Episode 239 when the 4th Circuit issued a stay of all discovery; you can read that stay order here. Finally, click here to read the LA Progressive article on Mark Janus and his conservative activism. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs -Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed!  @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at openarguments@gmail.com!

On this week's 100th episode of Versus Trump, Charlie, Easha, and Jason offer a few quick hits and then have a discussion about the effect of litigation against the President personally and against the Administration.Charlie begins with a quick hit on the Devin Nunes defamation lawsuit (which Charlie says "reads like it's written by a crazy person"), and Easha mentions a new case by a Russian oligarch who claims he shouldn't be sanctioned by the U.S. Jason then highlights recent developments in the case of Summer Zervos, who was allegedly sexually harassed by the President before he took office, and a case about the Emoluments Clauses. This leads to a big picture discussion of where've been and where we're going.Thanks to Take Care for hosting us for 100 episodes, to We Edit Podcasts for editing most of the 100, and, most of all, to our listeners for tuning each week. We look forward to many more—but not too, too many, to be honest. This is a podcast that we hope does not go on forever.You can find us at @VersusTrumpPod on twitter, or send us an email at versustrumppodcast@gmail.com. You can buy t-shirts and other goods with our super-cool logo here. NotesThe Nunes complaint is here.The Zervos decision is here. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

On this week's episode of Versus Trump, Jason talks about the past, present, and future of impeachment with Joshua Matz. Joshua is the publisher of Take Care and the co-author, with Laurence Tribe, of the acclaimed new book To End a Presidency: The Power of Impeachment. Jason and Joshua start the discussion with the history of impeachment, and Joshua explains why the Framers permitted impeaching the President in the first place. They then discuss what impeachable offenses are, and Joshua explains why he thinks that impeachable offenses have three characteristics: they subvert the tenets of government; they were intentional, evil deeds; and they are plainly wrong by any reasonable standard. He then applies the standards to the present moment, and Joshua explains what Congress might consider as more evidence comes out about Trump's potential violation of the Emoluments Clauses, his potential involvement in a scheme of foreign influence in our election, and his potential obstruction of justice. Finally, Joshua closes with some big picture thoughts about the proper role of Congress and the people in any impeachment discussion.You can find us at @VersusTrumpPod on twitter, or send us an email at versustrumppodcast@gmail.com You can buy t-shirts and other goods with our super-cool logo here. NotesTake Care's impeachment database is here.You can buy the book here. It's quite good, and appropriate for lawyers and non-lawyers alike.Take Care's symposium on the book is here. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Several lawsuits are moving through the courts, claiming that the President has violated something called the Emoluments Clauses of the Constitution. But what, precisely are these Emoluments Clauses? And how has the President allegedly violated them? We’ll speak with two experts, on opposite sides of the issue: Jed Shugerman of Fordham Law School, and Josh Blackman of the South Texas College of Law in Houston.

On January 20, 2017, President Donald Trump was inaugurated as the 45th President of the United States. In the year since he took office, a variety of novel constitutional issues have arisen, from the interpretation of the Emoluments Clauses, to the constitutionality of Executive Orders on immigration, and even the meaning of the Twenty-Fifth Amendment. In this episode, we look at the past year of the Trump presidency and what it means for our Constitution. Joining us to discuss the past year of constitutional debates are two of America’s leading scholars of constitutional law. Josh Blackman is an Associate Professor of Law at the South Texas College of Law in Houston who specializes in constitutional law, the United States Supreme Court, and the intersection of law and technology. He filed an amicus brief in the CREW v. Trump and DC and Maryland v. Trump lawsuits on behalf of another legal scholar, Seth Barrett Tillman. Lisa Manheim is an associate professor of law at the University of Washington School of Law and co-author of a recently published book, intended for lawyers and non-lawyers alike, called The Limits of Presidential Power: A Citizen’s Guide to the Law. Questions or comments? We would love to hear from you. Contact the We the People team at podcast@constitutioncenter.org And don't forget to take our new podcast survey at constitutioncenter.org/survey The Constitution Center is offering CLE credits for select America’s Town Hall programs! Get more information at constitutioncenter.org/CLE. 

The Constitution says that a “person holding any office of profit or trust” cannot accept gifts from any foreign state. In Article II, it also says the president specifically cannot accept gifts from “United States, or any of them.” If Trump businesses profit from a foreign or domestic state, is that a violation of either one of the emolument clauses? It’s hard to say, because there is literally no case law when it comes the emoluments clause. None!

The Constitution says that a “person holding any office of profit or trust” cannot accept gifts from any foreign state. In Article II, it also says the president specifically cannot accept gifts from “United States, or any of them.” If Trump businesses profit from a foreign or domestic state, is that a violation of either one of the emolument clauses? It's hard to say, because there is literally no case law when it comes the emoluments clause. None!