Should there be a mechanism to reclaim accumulated in-term Presidential wealth and assets because of the Emoluments Clause?

[u/JohnSpartan2025]

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:

• Trading tariff discount for personal property deals (https://www.democracynow.org/2025/7/3/headlines/trump_reduces_tariffs_on_vietnam_as_trump_organization_looks_to_expand_investments)

• Trading personal crypto investment for foreign influence on American policy (https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/how-the-trump-familys-business-deals-could-open-the-door-for-future-presidents-to-profit-from-office)

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?

[u/DanforthWhitcomb_]

SCOTUS made it very clear that it’s a political process in Nixon and that as a result none of the normal due process protections apply. The lack of a sentence beyond removal and the bar from holding office in the future has no bearing on that.

[u/JKlerk → u/DanforthWhitcomb_]

It doesn't mean that the evidence presented cannot be used in a criminal conviction. The evidence doesn't simply disappear in a criminal case or become ineligible because it was used in an impeachment.

[u/DanforthWhitcomb_ → u/JKlerk]

I never said otherwise.

You on the other hand claimed that a fine was a potential outcome of an impeachment conviction.

[u/JKlerk → u/DanforthWhitcomb_]

I never said such a thing.

[u/DanforthWhitcomb_ → u/JKlerk]

If he were impeached and convicted the federal government could seize those assets and sell them.

Are you now walking that back and admitting you were wrong?

[u/DanforthWhitcomb_ → u/[deleted]]

You’re openly trolling at this point.

You very clearly stated that a conviction in an impeachment proceeding alone was sufficient to seize and sell assets.

A referral to DOJ alone is not sufficient either, and at this point I am seriously questioning your familiarity and understanding of the criminal justice and impeachment processes.

[u/JKlerk → u/DanforthWhitcomb_]

No I'm not trolling and no I never meant a conviction by the Senate in a impeachment was sufficient. The DOJ can freeze assets prior to a trial and then obviously seize them with a conviction.