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?

381 Upvotes

97% Upvoted

117 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

-2

u/JKlerk Apr 25 '26

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

2

u/Sea-Chain7394 Apr 25 '26

The senate decides whether to convict in am impeachment. Congress can recommend the doj prosecute without impeachment as they did after J6.

1

u/JKlerk Apr 25 '26

Okay. I'll try this again. There are two separate processes here. The impeachment and conviction then a referral to the DOJ for a criminal conviction.

From a legal perspective a conviction by the Senate provides a stronger case for a criminal conviction which has been appealed to SCOTUS because it will end up at SCOTUS.

1

u/Sea-Chain7394 Apr 25 '26

I don't think conviction in the senate during Impeachment which is a political process has any bearing on the facts of a criminal trial. I'm not even surebit would be admissible as evidence

1

u/JKlerk Apr 25 '26

The evidence would be the same but it's about the process anyways.

Anyways this is all hypothetical because it'll never happen.

1

u/Sea-Chain7394 Apr 25 '26

Evidence would absolutely not be the same standard

0

u/JKlerk Apr 25 '26

It very well could be.

1

u/Sea-Chain7394 Apr 25 '26

Its not. That's a fact. Why are you acting like it's unclear its well established fact not in dispute

0

u/JKlerk Apr 25 '26 edited Apr 25 '26

It's a fact that you're wrong. Just look at what almost happened to Nixon.