U.S. Presidential Security: "The Northern White House"? Complications multiply

S

sear

serene
U.S. Presidential Security: "The Northern White House"? Complications multiply

When either President Nixon or Reagan visited their California home, the press sometimes referred to it as "the Western white house".

President Trump may wish to spend some, or perhaps much time at Trump Tower in NYC.

BUT !!

There are problems.
For example:
There's commercial enterprise, retail establishments inside Trump Tower.
It's very expensive real estate. And they need high volume and high profit to afford to pay the rent (to Trump?).

It is recent custom that when U.S. presidents visit NYC they stay at the Waldorf Astoria. The Waldorf is suited to accommodating the presidential secret service / security entourage a presidential visit involves.

Can Trump Tower provide that?

And if President Trump opts out of the Waldorf, out of his preference for his more familiar digs @Trump Tower, where will his security detail mount their HQ?

And if Trump Tower is chosen for that, how will Trump dodge the emolument clause prohibition? The secret service pays its hotel bills. So what if it stays at a hotel Trump owns?

And if standards of security are maintained at presidential level, how will the retail outlets inside Trump Tower survive?
Would you want to get felt up by presidential security every time you wanted a taco salad?
 
That's fine.
But China dropping a nuke on a Trump business interest in Europe doesn't invoke Constitutional law conflicts.

If Trump violates the emoluments clause there are legal implications.
ARTICLE 2. SECTION 1.
7 Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:-"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." *

ARTICLE 2. SECTION 3.
He [POTUS] shall ... take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed ...

ARTICLE 2. SECTION 1.
6 The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be encreased [increased] nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the united States, or any of them.
Click to expand...
Why do you think the "blind trust" issue is prominent in today's news cycle?

* Please note that "so help me god" is not a specified part of the oath, but every U.S. presidential inauguration I've ever televiewed has included it; Democrat and Republican alike.
 
sear said:
That's fine.
But China dropping a nuke on a Trump business interest in Europe doesn't invoke Constitutional law conflicts.

If Trump violates the emoluments clause there are legal implications.

Why do you think the "blind trust" issue is prominent in today's news cycle?

* Please note that "so help me god" is not a specified part of the oath, but every U.S. presidential inauguration I've ever televiewed has included it; Democrat and Republican alike.
Click to expand...

Will he enter into a blind trust, he doesn't seem willing at this point, and if that trust means his family overseas the business, is it really any different? keep in mind the guy lives a life of total secrecy in his business dealings, we don't even know all that he is involved in now
 
sear said:
That's fine.
But China dropping a nuke on a Trump business interest in Europe doesn't invoke Constitutional law conflicts.

If Trump violates the emoluments clause there are legal implications.

Why do you think the "blind trust" issue is prominent in today's news cycle?

* Please note that "so help me god" is not a specified part of the oath, but every U.S. presidential inauguration I've ever televiewed has included it; Democrat and Republican alike.
Click to expand...

Secret Service problems guarding the President don't invoke Constitutional law conflicts either....

and guarding Trump is what your op is about....
 
#4

I gather there's an announcement pending on that. I'm a few minutes away from the news. We'll see if I can get more info on it.
"Secret Service problems guarding the President don't invoke Constitutional law conflicts either...." N #5
Click to expand...
Potentially correct; if the POTUS stays at the Waldorf Astoria.
In that scenario, the SS detail stays in the same hotel as the president.

BUT !!

What if the president OWNS the hotel?
Would he then not be profiting from the Secret Service paying to locate there?

I don't know of any precedent for it N. Do you?
 
sear said:
#4

I gather there's an announcement pending on that. I'm a few minutes away from the news. We'll see if I can get more info on it.

Potentially correct; if the POTUS stays at the Waldorf Astoria.
In that scenario, the SS detail stays in the same hotel as the president.

BUT !!

What if the president OWNS the hotel?
Would he then not be profiting from the Secret Service paying to locate there?

I don't know of any precedent for it N. Do you?
Click to expand...

They can stay for free.....no problem.
 
#9

a) "can"
Splendid.
I didn't state it was an absolutely insoluble problem.
I raised it as an issue.

b) The solution you propose, even if it passes Constitutional muster, may not comport with the president's wishes.

Trump here to fore has refused to release his tax records. So we don't know for certain how much (if any) he's donated to charity over the past 5 years. Has he donated a penny?

In addition, Trump has business partners. Even if President Trump is willing to make such sacrifice; are his business partners?

c) "no problem" #9
I'm not a Constitutional Law attorney. So I'll take your word for it.

But I've worked federal security long enough to know, it's not quite that simple.
 
#11

Rich people should hold public office ethically.

"Blind trust" seems to be the legal experts path to that end.
I am not aware of any persuasive indication Trump is determined to follow that path.
You?

PS
I don't think wealth / power imparts legitimacy to rules violations.
The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets or steal bread.
Anatole France (1844–1924), French author
Click to expand...
 
#13

President Elect Trump hasn't been inaugurated yet.
Have to wait until next year for that.

I'll leave it to you to decide the "crisis" aspect.

But yes, when a U.S. president violates Art.2 Sect.3, it's illegal.

Art.2 Sect.1-7 obliges the president to uphold the Constitution, not to violate it.
 
sear said:
#9

a) "can"
Splendid.
I didn't state it was an absolutely insoluble problem.
I raised it as an issue.

b) The solution you propose, even if it passes Constitutional muster, may not comport with the president's wishes.

Trump here to fore has refused to release his tax records. So we don't know for certain how much (if any) he's donated to charity over the past 5 years. Has he donated a penny?

In addition, Trump has business partners. Even if President Trump is willing to make such sacrifice; are his business partners?

c) "no problem" #9
I'm not a Constitutional Law attorney. So I'll take your word for it.

But I've worked federal security long enough to know, it's not quite that simple.
Click to expand...

But it is quite that simple.....the Clintons did exactly that.....
 
#16

If you're accusing the Clinton's of disclosing their tax records, they plead guilty.
If you're accusing the Clinton's of charitable good works, there again, they have already pleaded guilty. "It is quite that simple".

Not sure what any of that has to do with Trump and the emoluments clause.
 
#18

a) har dee har har

b) It's not merely about partisan contempt for Trump's survival.
There's serious question about whether they'll do in NYC to the traffic lanes outside Trump Tower what has already been done on Penn. Ave in DC.
Pennsylvania Avenue used to be an automobile thoroughfare. I was on it, in a BMW, driven by a congressional staffer.

Can't do that anymore. It's closed to motor vehicle traffic.

The real estate those NYC traffic lanes serve is not merely among the most expensive in NYC. It's among the most expensive in the U.S., & in fact the world. (I've read Tokyo exceeds it)

The economic viability of a lot of New Yorkers may hinge on how this is handled. That's an economic / humanitarian consideration.

BUT !!

It doesn't remove the Constitutional questions.

Whether Trump can be persuaded to settle for the Waldorf Astoria I don't know. I kind of doubt it. Trump's ego was titanic to start with. What do you think it'll be like when they start calling him "Mr. President"?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top