WE WILL KEEP OUR SHARPEES OUT OF THIS ONE.
THIS ONE. >> Reporter: ALL RIGHT.
SOUND GOOD.
SOUND GOOD. >> THANKS.
>> THANKS. >>> THIS WEEK, VICE PRESIDENT
MIKE PENCE SPENT TWO NIGHTS AT
PRESIDENT TRUMP’S GOLF RESORTS.
HE THOUGHT IT WAS AT PRESIDENT
TRUMP’S SUGGESTION.
TRUMP’S SUGGESTION. HE DENIED THE DECISION.
THIS IS REKINDLING A DECISION OF
THE EMOLLIENT CLAUSES, HEAMERICA
ARE FOOTING THE BILL FOR THE
HOME.
HOME. HE HAD HIS MEETINGS, O, OF
COURSE, IT MAKES SENSE FOR THE
LEGAL PERSPECTIVE.
LEGAL PERSPECTIVE. DANNY, WHAT DISCUSS THE
CONSTITUTION SAY?
CONSTITUTION SAY? IT SOUND SO SILLY.
WHAT DOES THE COMPETITION SAY
ABOUT THIS?
ABOUT THIS? >> IF FRAMERS OF THE
CONSTITUTION WERE ALMOST
OBSESSED WITH CORRUPTION.
THEY WANTED TO AVOID IT AT NO
COST.
COST. LOOK NO FURTHER THAN THE
IMPEACHMENT CLAUSE THAT THE TWO
MENTIONED EXEMPLARY CLAUSES ARE
NOT MURDER, CRIMES OF THEFT,
THEY ARE CRIMES OF CORRUPTION,
TREASON AND BRIBERY.
SO, INTO, THIS WAS THE REASON
THEY PUT IN THE EMOLLIENTS
CLAUSES, THERE ARE FOREIGN AND
THE FOREIGN ONE IS ABOUT THE
PRESIDENT NOT RECEIVING ANY
BENEFIT FROM ANY FOREIGN COUNTRY
IN ADDITION TO HIS SALARY.
THE DOMESTIC EMOLLIENTS CLAUSE
IS SIMILAR.
IS SIMILAR. THE PRESIDENT HAS A SALARY.
HE SHOULDN’T RECEIVE GIFTS OR
ADDITIONAL PAYMENTS FROM
INDIVIDUAL STATES OR THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT.
GOVERNMENT. NOW IN THIS CASE IN IRELAND, IT
SEEMS AT FIRST PLUSH TO BE A
FOREIGN EMOLLIENTS CLAUSE ISSUE.
IN FACT, IT’S CLOSER TO A
DOMESTIC EMOLLIENTS CLAUSE, THE
PAYMENT FOR PENCE IS NOT COMING
FROM A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT.
>> RIGHT.
>> RIGHT. >> IT’S COMING FROM THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT.
GOVERNMENT. THERE IS PLENTY INVESTIGATION
GOING ON ABOUT THE EMOLLIENTS
CLA US IN DIFFERENT FEDERAL
COURTS AROUND THE COUNTRY.
THE ISSUE IS STILL UNSETTLING.
IT’S AMAZING MOST OF US DIDN’T
KNOW WHAT AN EMOLLIENT WAS TWO
OR THREE YEARS AGO.
IT’S AN OUTDATED ANTIQUATED
WORD.
WORD. NOW IT’S BEING HEAVILY LITIGATED
AND MUCH WILL TURN ON HOW IN THE
MODERN ERA WE DEFINE WHAT AN
EMOLLIENT S. AN EXPANSIVE VIEW
IS IF IF PRESIDENT TRUMP
RECEIVES ANY BENEFITS, EVEN WITH
HIS HOTEL IN BETWEEN, HE’S
VIOLATED THE EMOLLIENTS CLAUSE.
ON THE OTHER HAND, A RESTRICTED
VIEW IS THAT AN EMOLLIENT, IT’S
ONLY FOR PERSONAL SERVICES
PERSONALLY RENDERED.
PERSONALLY RENDERED. IF IT’S A RIDICULOUS EXAMPLE,
PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS DOING BED
SERVICE OR BRINGING UP ROOM
SERVICE OR TURNING DOWN THE
SHEETS, THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING
HE WAS BEING PAID FOR IF HE WAS
PAID DIRECTLY.
PAID DIRECTLY. >> OKAY.
>> OKAY. >> SO PENCE’S DEFENSE, WOULD IT
HOLD UP IN COURT, FOR EXAMPLE, I
KNOW THAT WOULD UNLIKELY HAPPEN,
IF THIS WERE TO GO TO COURT,
WOULD HIS DEFENSE HERE HELP?
>> WELL THE KEY TO THE
EMOLLIENTS CLAUSE IS ARGUING
THAT EMOLLIENTS DON’T HAPPEN IN
SUCH A WAY THE CONSTITUTION IS
VIOLATED WHEN A HOTEL IS PAID
THAT THE PRESIDENT HAPPENS TO
OWN.
OWN. MAYBE YOU MAKE AN ANALOGY JIMMY
CARTER WHO ARGUABLY DIVESTED.
HE HAD A PEANUT FARM.
IF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PAID
MONEY TO THAT PEANUT FARM AND
SOMEWHERE TRICKLED DOWN TO JIMMY
CARTER, THEN THAT DOESN’T COUNT
AS AN EMOLLIENT.
>> IT’S ABOUT HOW YOU DEFINE AN
EMOLLIENT.
EMOLLIENT. ACADEMICS ON BOTH SIDES DISAGREE
ON THIS ARGUMENT.
ANOTHER ARGUMENT IN THE
EMOLLIENTS WORLD IS WHETHER OR
NOT IT’S WITHSTANDING.
IT DOESN’T HAVE A REMEDY.
CAN ANY OF US BRING SUIT TO
ENFORCE IT?
ENFORCE IT? >> FASCINATING STUFF.
THANK YOU SO MUCH, IT’S
SOMETHING WE HAVE TROUBLE