Once this error is noticed, the rest of Chong’s analysis falls apart. Chong can point to other language in Hoyt using “emolument of office.” It is there, and she takes it to mean that “emolument” can be used in a context unrelated to “office” and other employment-like relationships. But she offers nothing akin to proof for that bold claim. It is conceivable that the Hoyt Court added “of office” language to “emolument” because it believed that there were “emoluments” which were unrelated to office, but it is also possible that the Hoyt Court thought all “emoluments” were tied to office-and-employment-type relationships. Without her initial misreading of Hoyt or any other substantial reason to believe the former, the rest of her analysis makes no sense.
5 thoughts on “Seth Barrett Tillman: <i>A Response To Jane Chong’s Reading the Office of Legal Counsel on Emoluments: Do Super-Rich Presidents Get a Pass?</i>”
Comments are closed.
“Chong’s language here is a little difficult to follow.” Then why didn’t the editors reject the paper? Maybe they liked the conclusions?
Lawfare is the Deep State Swamp’s legal counsel
“Emoluments” is this year’s “Kenyan birth certificate”. A great signal to stop listening to anything else that person has to say.
And of course “Putin” is this summer’s “Emoluments”…Who knows what they’ll move on to by Labor Day.
Who knows what they’ll move on to by Labor Day.
Collusion.