Trump's ethical train wreck - Emoluments: Trump's Coming Ethics Trouble

The Atlantic

RICHARD W. PAINTER, LAURENCE H. TRIBE, NORMAN L. EISEN, AND JOSHUA MATZ

The president-elect’s lawyers have explained why they don’t think he’ll violate the Constitution’s foreign emoluments clause—but their arguments fall apart under closer scrutiny.

Last week, President-elect Donald Trump’s lawyers issued a brief, largely unnoticed memo defending Trump’s plan to “separate” himself from his businesses. We believe that memo arbitrarily limits itself to a small portion of the conflicts it purports to address, and even there, presents claims that depart from precedent and common sense. Trump can convince a lot of people of a lot of things—but neither he nor his lawyers can explain away the ethics train wreck that will soon crash into the Oval Office.

It’s been widely acknowledged that, when Trump swears the Oath of Office, he will stand in violation of the Constitution’s foreign-emoluments clause. The emoluments clause forbids any “Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under [the United States]” from accepting any “any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State” (unless Congress explicitly consents).

By “emolument,” this provision means any benefit derived from dealing with a foreign government. It is well-settled that receipt of such emoluments is strictly prohibited for persons holding positions of trust with the U.S. government. A U.S. official need not also have an “office” with a foreign government in order to receive an emolument from it.

The Framers included this provision in the Constitution to guarantee that private entanglements with foreign states would not blur the loyalties of federal officials, above all the president. Yet that lesson seems lost on Trump, whose continued significant ownership stake in the Trump Organization forges an unbreakable bond between Trump and a global empire that will benefit or suffer in innumerable ways from its dealings with foreign governments. Trump’s actions in office will thus be haunted by the specter (and perhaps reality) of divided interests.

As we have argued, the only adequate solution to this and other conflicts of interest, taken by presidents of both parties for the past four decades, is divestiture into a truly blind trust or the equivalent.

At last week’s unusual press conference, Trump—lawyer in tow—refused to take those steps. Instead, after marveling at his own generosity, Trump finally explained his big plan: keep an ownership stake in the Trump Organization, but resign from management and have his adult sons (joined by an executive) run the business during his presidency.

Trump’s lawyer then elaborated: The Trump Organization will make no new foreign deals while Trump is president; all new domestic deals will be subject to internal ethics review; Trump will not receive regular updates about the business; and the profits that Trump hotels make from foreign governments will ultimately be donated to the U.S. Treasury.

Several hours later, the law firm Morgan Lewis issued a memo entitled “Conflicts of Interest and the President.” In three short pages, this memo outlined why Trump’s plan purportedly complies with the Foreign Emoluments Clause.

First, it’s worth noting a critical concession in the memo. While somecommentators have taken the extreme view that the emoluments clause doesn’t apply to the president—a claim that doesn’t withstand scrutiny—Trump’s lawyers did not rely on that position. In fact, they squarely rejected it, stating that the president’s “obligations under the Constitution” include “the obligations created by the … Foreign Emoluments Clause.”

From this promising start, however, the memo goes badly awry. It bases its defense of Trump exclusively on the proposition that the president may engage in arms-length, fair-market-value exchanges with foreign powers—on the theory that the phrase “emolument” covers only “payment or other benefit received as a consequence of discharging the duties of an office.”

There are two specific problems with this defense: First, it utterly fails to account for the many other ways in which Trump will still violate the foreign emoluments clause; and second, it is wrong on its merits.

The first problem alone is fatal. Trump has promised not to enter any new foreign deals, and, at the end of each year, to return “profits” from “hotels and similar businesses” to the U.S. Treasury. But this arrangement leaves open a vast universe of ways in which Trump will, by virtue of his continuing ownership interest, foreseeably benefit (or suffer) personally from how foreign nations interact with the Trump Organization. This is the core evil that the foreign emoluments cause sought to address. [...]

In sum, the Morgan Lewis memo—by focusing on hotels and “similar businesses,” and defending only fair-market-value transactions—simply misses a huge part of Trump’s constitutional violation.

But even with respect to this limited set of transactions, the Morgan Lewis memo is lacking.

The fundamental problem is that it loses sight of the purpose of the foreign emoluments clause. As then-Assistant Attorney General Samuel A. Alito, Jr. emphasized in 1986, the “answer to [an] Emoluments Clause question must depend [on] whether the [arrangement] would raise the kind of concern (viz., the potential for ‘corruption and foreign influence’) that motivated the Framers in enacting the constitutional prohibition.”

Given the undisputed purpose and sweeping text of the clause, it makes no sense under any approach to constitutional interpretation to say that an otherwise forbidden foreign payment to the president is allowed, but only if the president is not engaged in the specific duties of his office when he gives that foreign government its money’s worth in services. Imagine if the president owned a company that made billions of dollars annually, all as a result of profitable, fair-market-value transactions with Russia and China. Is it really conceivable that such an arrangement would be constitutional, given the basic purpose of the foreign emoluments clause?

For this reason, the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel has, in its well-reasoned opinions, prohibited federal government employees from accepting any sort of payment—fair market value or otherwise—from a foreign government. Trump’s legal team doesn’t distinguish the logic of these opinions; it just asserts that they involve “different factual circumstances.” Of course, that could be said about pretty much any precedent, especially since Trump represents a sui generis conflicts maelstrom.

The underlying concern here is that it is precisely Trump’s beneficial government services that foreign powers may hope to purchase for their money whenever they patronize or advantage his businesses. That is, foreign powers (and their agents) may pay Trump, in his capacity as owner of valuable business assets around the world, so that Trump, in his capacity as president, will play in their interest and push U.S. policies in their direction. It may be impossible to prove this on a case-by-case level, given the complex and often hidden motives guiding presidential conduct, but the whole theory of the foreign emoluments clause is to guard against the very possibility of transactions raising this creeping danger.

Trump’s lawyer, Sheri Dillon, has said that “Trump wants there to be no doubt in the minds of the American public that he is completely isolating himself from his business interests.” But if that were actually true, Trump would have done more—much more—to separate himself from his global business empire. Instead, he adopted the mere shell of a plan, utterly inadequate to the demands of the Constitution.

Trump will thus place himself in clear violation of America’s basic charter from the very first instant of his presidency.

Obama's commutation of 35 year sentence for transgender traitor causes outrage

Fox News

Top Congressional Republicans condemned Tuesday the decision by President Barack Obama to commute former Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning’s 35-year prison sentence for leaking classified documents.

House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., blasted the decision, calling it “outrageous.”

“Chelsea Manning’s treachery put American lives at risk and exposed some of our nation’s most sensitive secrets. President Obama now leaves in place a dangerous precedent that those who compromise our national security won’t be held accountable for their crimes,” Ryan said in a statement.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said the decision was a “grave mistake.”

"It is a sad, yet perhaps fitting commentary on President Obama’s failed national security policies that he would commute the sentence of an individual that endangered the lives of American troops, diplomats, and intelligence sources by leaking hundreds of thousands of sensitive government documents to Wikileaks, a virulently anti-American organization that was a tool of Russia’s recent interference in our elections."

Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla, went on further to echo the statements of Ryan and McCain.

“It is shameful that President Obama is siding with lawbreakers and the ACLU against the men and women who work every day to defend our nation and safeguard U.S. government secrets.”

Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn, R-Texas, told Fox News that while pardons are a Constitutional tool in the president's repertoire, Obama is "undermining our ability on criminal justice reform by granting clemency at an alarming rate."

According to ABC News, Defense Secretary Ash Carter was one of the U.S. officials who were also opposed to the White House’s decision to commute Manning’s sentence.

Manning is more than six years into a 35-year sentence at the military prison at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas for leaking classified government and military documents to the anti-secrecy website WikiLeaks. Her sentence is now set to expire May 17.[...]

Maharal - Why a husband can go to Gehinom for listening to wife's advice about the world or spirituality

Maharal (Avos 1:5 ):One who frequently has idle talks with his wife will inherit Gehinom.... The woman is attached to deficit and when he frequently has idle talks with his wife he deviates from his level and heads toward negativity. Therefore he inherits Gehinom because Gehinom is the absence of reality as we have explained. But this is not equivalent to the woman herself who is attached to deficit because we don’t say about her that she is inherently going to Gehinom. In fact her portion is in Gan Eden just as the man. But when the man deviates from his level to increase idle talk with his wife who is attached to deficit relative to the level of man – concerning him it says that in the end he will inherent Gehinom. That is because Gehinom refers to the loss of man and the absence of reality of the man. Gehinom has various names all of which indicate teach that one who goes to Gehinom is one with a definite deficit. And this matter doesn’t require additional discussion,. Consequently that is why it says that in the end he will inherit Genhinom. 

Without any doubt, this is the correct way of understanding the words of our Sages and not like those who explain the words of our Sages as being mere conjecture and guesses. That is because these things which we said are words of wisdom, we explain elsewhere concerning the words of our Sages. Bava Metzia (59a), “Whoever follows the advice of his wife will fall into Gehinom...But people say if your wife is short then bend down and hear her whisper? That is not a contradiction because the one that says not to listen to you wife is referring to worldly matters while the other is referring to household matters. Alternatively do not listen to your wife in spiritual matters but it is permitted concerning worldly matters.” Now I will explain with this the words of the Mishna which says that a man who follows the advice of his wife will fall into Gehinom. 

The man who is compared to the Form, if he follows after his wife who is Substance and substance is inherently deficient and he obeys her advice then it is definitely fitting that he should fall into Gehinom. That is because as we explained before – Gehinom is complete deficiency – as the names of Gehinom teach... Therefore since the Form deviates from his proper level to be drawn after Substance he is attaching himself to deficit and falls into Gehinom as the Form is drawn to Substance. 

The question was raised from, People say If your wife is short then bend down and hear her whisper. The answer was given that one should not listen to her for worldly matters only for household matters. The explanation of household matters is that the man is not deviating after his wife when he listens to her in thes matters since the wife is the foundation of the home. And that is the way it has been in the order of the world. And consequently if he follows the advice of his wife in household matters we don’t say that the man is like the Form following after Substance and thus deviating from his spiritual level. That is because in this that the wife is the foundation of the home, from that aspect he is not attaching himself to deficit. In fact the opposite is true since the wife is the basis of the existence of the home and therefore she should be listen to in household matters. However in all other matters in which the wife is not the prime figure, if the man follows after her advice then he will be in fact going after deficit and will fall into Gehinom.

And even according to the alternative answer of listening to worldly matters and not to spiritual matters – he should listen to her in worldly matters because that would not be deviating towards deficit. That is because this world is materialistic which is relevant to the woman who is Substance and therefore for advice in worldly matters he will not fall into Gehinom. In fact the opposite is true – he should follow her advice in worldly matters since that involves material things and that is the wife’s domain. It is only in spiritual matters that he should not listen to her because concerning spritual matters he is the Form and she is only Substance to which is associated the deficit. Consequently if he listens to her in spiritual matters he is deviating after the deficit and he will fall into Gehinom because he is being brought into a deficit and a state of lacking. 

I am writing these things to explain to you that the words of the Mishna are clearly correct and are not mere conjecture.

Furthermore in Berachos (61a), They say that it is better to go behind a lion and not go behind a woman. In other words even though a lion can maul a person, nevertheless one who goes behind a lion is not in as much danger as one who goes behind a woman. That is because the lion is not deficit as is a woman. Because going after a woman is the Form following the Substance which causes completely loss to the Form when he deviates to follow after Substance. There is no question that it is worse for him then what the lion can do to him. Because even if the lion harms him, the lion’s main concern is to maul to eat and is nothing personal. But the deficit which is attached to Subtance - that involves his essence. Thus a lion will sometimes damage and sometimes not as is in all cases of accident which is not the case of following after a woman. I will offer addition explanations of this with G-d’s help.

One big happy family: Philly Kollel is proud to be associated with R S. Kaminetsky and also published an ad from the adulterous couple he created and supports

The Back Story on Trump and Vaccines

Donald Trump Picks Fight with Civil Rights Legend John Lewis on MLK Weekend

Daily Beast    President-elect Donald Trump would start a fight in an empty broom closet. As a candidate in the Republican primary and then later in a hard fought campaign against Hillary Clinton, the former real estate developer exuded precious little grace—preferring brickbats to olive branches. Without question, Trump is far less prone to rise above the bar of decency than he is to slither beneath it.

In a mere six days he will rest his briefcase in the Oval Office, where he will face a myriad of critical issues— both foreign and domestic. However, if his latest skirmish on social media is any indication, Trump will step onto the world stage and come face-to-face with his most formidable foe: himself.

His latest outburst—an attack on Congressman John Lewis just before the nation celebrates Martin Luther King Day-- drew consternation from both sides of the aisle and social media erupted with indignation. That’s because Lewis was not only a King foot soldier. He was president of the Student Nonviolent Coordination Committee (SNCC) and is the youngest and only living member of “The Big Six.” Lewis was one of the original 13 Freedom Riders, young people who risked their lives to challenge racial segregation in the South. He was arrested 45 times, beaten and bloodied in the name of human rights.

After one of the most divisive national contests this country has endured and with looming suspicions of Russian intervention, Lewis declared that he would not attend the upcoming inauguration. In an interview with NBC’s Chuck Todd, Lewis—clearly angered by intelligence briefings—said he did not see the former reality show personality as a “legitimate president.”

That, of course, did not sit well with Trump.

He might have responded with some modicum of grace, urging the country to come together in perilous times. He might have thanked the venerated civil rights icon for his service, affirmed his own commitment to human rights and welcomed Lewis to meet with him to discuss the issues. I mean, if he has time for Ray Lewis, Steve Harvey and Kanye West, surely there is room on the calendar for someone who is steeped in public policy and who possesses decades of experience both building and crossing bridges.

Instead, Trump hit back in a pair of outlandish tweets, he saying, “Congressman John Lewis should spend more time on fixing and helping his district, which is in horrible shape and falling apart (not to mention crime infested) rather than falsely complaining about the election results.”

“All talk, talk, talk — no action or results,” Trump concluded. “Sad!”

That Trump would respond in such a feckless and disconnected manner should surprise no one. That he appears to have a nascent understanding on our nation’s history—and Lewis’s critical role— should not raise an eyebrow. With skin as thin as unsweetened tea, surrounding himself with sycophants who dare not question him, it is abundantly clear that he has spent no time thinking about who Lewis is and even less time in Atlanta.

Lewis’s “results” are a proliferation of human rights, as well as increased economic and political opportunity. He was on the right side of history when it came to LGBT and reproductive rights, among other issues. In 1994, when the country was caught up in hysteria and pushed a crime bill that later destroyed whole communities, John Lewis was one of only eleven black members of the House to stand against it.

One can argue about the validity of a “dossier” strewn with behavior unbefitting the Oval Office, but there can be no dispute about the “good trouble” Lewis has gotten himself into over the course of his adult life. One of the “results” of his activism was the Fair Housing Act, the very legislation under which the Justice Department sued Donald Trump and his father.

While Trump was getting repeated military deferments for his sore feet, Lewis’s feet were on the avenues, highways and byways attempting to fashion a more inclusive society.

Let's be clear: Georgia’s 5th Congressional district is thriving. Comprised by a large swath of the city and cutting through two counties, it is home to the Georgia governor’s mansion, Spelman and Morehouse Colleges, Georgia Tech, the Buckhead business and entertainment district, and the world’s most travelled airport—Hartsfield Jackson International. Home to Fortune 500 companies, the district is both racially and economically diverse.

Migration to Atlanta from other regions of the country over last three decades tells a story of growing, comparatively broad based prosperity.

Like every other big city in America, public safety is a priority for local leaders. However, Atlanta is certainly not “infested” with crime. And nothing about my city says it is “falling apart.” In fact, just as the city seal implies, Atlanta has been rising from the ashes since General Sherman burned down the west end.[...]

The truth is Donald Trump is a lot like Bull Connor, only with much more bull. Connor, the Birmingham public service commissioner Lewis and others took on as Freedom Riders, at least understood the math. Trump is walking into the White House based on a 70,000 vote margin across three states. That’s no mandate. That’s a fluke.

Rav Herschel Schachter - A posek can give binding pesak concerning whom you must marry

Seforim Blog by Dr. Marc Shapiro

Among other interesting comments in R. Schachter's shiur  [“Da’as Torah – What are Its Parameters in non-Halachic Issues”], is that he states that a posek can give you a binding pesak concerning whom you must marry.[3] This too I find difficult, since where does a posek get the authority to tell someone whom he must marry? An individual can certainly consult with a posek for his advice in this matter, but since this consultation is done voluntarily by the potential groom, how do we go from there to a situation of pesak which binds the person asking the question? 

[Subsequent to writing these words I saw R. Schachter and asked him about this matter. He reaffirmed his position, stating that whom one marries is a halakhic matter and therefore a posek can indeed tell you whom you must marry. He added that this is almost always theoretical since in order to make such a ruling the posek would need to know both the bride and groom for many years so as to be sure that what he is saying is correct. But he also insisted that if the posek does have the requisite knowledge he can indeed give a binding pesak about whom one must marry.] 

====================================

3] At 1:14:30. The Lubavitcher Rebbe had a different perspective. See Joseph Telushkin, Rebbe: The Life and Teachings of Menachem M. Schneerson, the Most Influential Rabbi in Modern History (New York, 2014), p. 189, who quotes what the Rebbe told R. Leibel Groner: "When it comes to a marriage, not I can help you, not your father can help you, not your mother can help you, not your seichel [your intellectual faculties] can help you. The only thing that can help you is your heart. If you feel for her, go ahead. If you don't do not."

German court rules that Muslims firebombing synagogue is not anti-Semitic but justified protest against Israel

Jerusalem Post   A German regional court in the city of Wuppertal affirmed a lower court decision last Friday stating that a violent attempt to burn the city's synagogue by three men in 2014 was a justified expression of criticism of Israel’s policies.

Three German Palestinians sought to torch the Wuppertal synagogue with Molotov cocktails in July, 2014. The local Wuppertal court panel said in its 2015 decision that the three men wanted to draw “attention to the Gaza conflict” with Israel. The court deemed the attack not to be motivated by antisemitism.

Israel launched Operation Protective Edge in the summer of 2014 to stop Hamas rocket attacks into Israeli territory.

The court sentenced the three men – the 31-year-old Mohamad E., the 26 year-old Ismail A. and the 20-year-old Mohammad A.—to suspended sentences. The men tossed self-made Molotov cocktails at the synagogue. German courts frequently decline to release the last names of criminals to protect privacy.

The attack caused €800 damage to the synagogue. The original synagogue in Wuppertal was burned by Germans during the Kristallnacht pogroms in 1938. Wuppertal has a population of nearly 344,000 and is located in the state of North Rhine-Westphalia.[...]

After the local Wuppertal court decision in 2015, Volker Beck, a leading Green Party MP, said the “attack on the synagogue was motivated by antisemitism” and blasted the court for issuing a decision stating that the goal of the attack was to highlight the war in Gaza.[...]

Hatzalah: Terror attack with truck which killed four soldiers in Jerusalem

Supreme Court rules in favor of Women of the Wall

Arutz 7

The Supreme Court issued a challenge to Israel’s status quo on religion and state, ordering administrators of the Western Wall to justify the ban on women from leading prayers at the holy site, as sought in a petition.

In accordance with Jewish tradition and historical precedent, there are separate prayer sections for women and men at the Western Wall.

As per tradition at the Wall, and in accordance with the custom of most worshippers at the holy site, women are not permitted to lead group prayers or read from Torah scrolls. A small group of left-wing activists, however, have been campaigning for the religious status quo at the Western Wall to be altered.

The Israeli Supreme Court's decision on the side of the activists who submitted the petition demanding the changes was issued on Wednesday.

The petition came after a dramatic but controversial agreement was reached last year to create a third space for alternative prayer groups at a part of the Western Wall not bordered by the Kotel plaza and which would be open to both women and men. It is located near historic Robinson's Arch, the remnant of a bridge that was used to enter the Temple Mount area in 2nd Temple times.

The Women of the Wall organization, which for years has agitated for an end to the status quo at the Wall, accepted the agreement.

Maharal - woman was created before man because she is less important

Maharal (Vayikra 12:2):... in fact the woman was created before the man because even though regarding the taking of one of Adam’s ribs (Bereishis 2:21) this was done after the creation of man – but the actual creation of Eve was prior to this. Because it says in Bereishis (5:2), Male and female they were created and He called their name Adam. That shows that prior to the taking of Adam’s rib a female was created as one of the two faces of Adam (Bereishis Rabba 8:1) and the creation of the female was first. That is because the order of creation was first the animal and then the woman and afterwards the male was created. You see that in creation it is always that which is most important is created last. So also here, the male was created last because he is most important. Because of this reason our Sages (Nida 45b) say that the woman matures faster then the man because as the age of adulthood for a girl is 12 years and one day while for a male it is 13 years and one day. This is an example that which is more complete finishes completion later. Therefore the forming of the male was at the end and not the beginning.