Would hosting the G7 summit at Trump Doral be grounds for impeachment?
- Huh?Lv 73 weeks ago
It would be a clear violation of both the domestic and foreign emoluments clause of the Constitution, so yes, it could be grounds for impeachment.
The argument some have used that he would not profit because he would only charge cost is nonsense. It is an argument that only a non-business person would accept. A business owner understands that they have fixed costs, which even if the single event were not "making me a profit," by allocating fixed costs to the event the business will still increase the profitability of the company. it is a false argument.
Also the Taxpayer would have to pay for massive renovations and upgrades, including security upgrades, heliports and other amenities that will remain after the summit.
Lastly the exposure would be free marketing for the property, especially after all the negative information about bedbugs and the 70% drop in revenues at the site. This would be a boost for the property at taxpayers expense.
Trump would absolutely benefit personally from having the summit at his property, making it a violation of the Constitution and yes, impeachable.
- SallyLv 73 weeks ago
It's a violation of our CONSTITUTION, meaning it's illegal. That's even worse than impeachment.
- ocularnervosaLv 73 weeks ago
If he took one dime, yes, it's a violation of the emoluments clause in the Constitution.
- Christian sinnerLv 73 weeks ago
I don't think so. I think it was a good idea.Source(s): bisexual Christian
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- 3 weeks ago
Trump entered his Presidency with a net worth of $4.5 billion. His net worth is now about $3 billion. He is the only President in recent history who has not gotten filthy rich off of being President. The Clintons and the Obamas have both multiplied their wealth about ten times by being President.
- ndmagicmanLv 73 weeks ago
It would clearly be a violation of the Emoluments Clause which states, It prohibits any “Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under [the United States]” from accepting “any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.” Only explicit congressional consent validates such exchanges.
- humptyLv 73 weeks ago
As part of a pattern of violations of the emoluments clause, yes. As a stand alone, technically, yes, but one incident does not justify removal.
- 3 weeks ago
It would be too easily written off as stupidity.
- SummertimeLv 73 weeks ago
So far he is Mr. Impeachment.