Well, here’s a first.
George Conway, the husband of Kellyanne Conway who normally spends his day bashing President Trump on Twitter, is defending the president from a Reuters article that argued foreign government renting apartments in Trump buildings could be a potential violation of the Constitution’s emoluments clause:
Obviously I carry no brief for our Sleazebag-in-Chief, but we used to own an apartment in this building, which is across First Avenue from the U.N. This article seems to suggest that if we still owned that apartment, and privately negotiated a lease with the French mission, … https://t.co/bHYRHNGGiT
— George Conway (@gtconway3d) May 2, 2019
From the article, which admits that the president doesn’t even own the units and is therefore not benefitting from say an exorbitant rent. These “legal experts” think the common charges which go to a management fee are the issue:
Six legal experts said that regardless of who owns those units, the fact that Trump was collecting fees for managing the building while foreign governments were paying to live there represents a potential breach of the emoluments clause. Certain constitutional scholars counter that the definition of “emolument” should be more narrow, a view that Trump’s attorneys share.
And as Conway points out, that’s an inane interpretation of the policy:
… our common charges would become a foreign emolument. If that’s true, why wouldn’t the same argument apply to the common charges paid by a translator who owned a unit in the building, got a job at the Belgian mission, and then used her salary to pay her common charges?
— George Conway (@gtconway3d) May 2, 2019
The theory proves too much.
Trump is bad, but his badness shouldn’t be used to justify bad legal arguments—on either side.
— George Conway (@gtconway3d) May 2, 2019
Twitter’s emoluments experts hardest hit:
Another impeachable offense. #IndictTrump #ImpeachDonaldTrump https://t.co/J2qUHTyYqd
— Nathan Schneider (@NSchneiderAZ13) May 3, 2019
Pretty sure there's nothing "potential" about this. It is a violation of the emoluments clause. https://t.co/MxHfDhu6IW
— Emily Mills (@millbot) May 3, 2019
This kind of begs the question of money laundering, and our president's recurring cash flow problems. https://t.co/fWfMr2mLHe
— Leon Lazaroff (@LeonLazaroff) May 2, 2019
— Eric Geller (@ericgeller) May 2, 2019
the republican party has suspended the rule of law for this president. https://t.co/tIBtQ1ie7L
— Tim Dickinson (@7im) May 3, 2019
