Thread by @jedshug

Inspector General concludes that Trump's GSA ignored the Emoluments Clauses when it permitted lease for DC hotel. The report's conclusions (p. 11-16) are consistent with our historians' amicus brief w/ @_John_Mikhail @ArsScripta @gauthamrao & Jack Rakove. wapo.st/2FwTpdQ?tid=ss…

2/ The GSA inspector general reviewed contemporary dictionaries, Blackstone, use by Founders, early statutes, Supreme Court usage, and George Washington's transactions. Their conclusion is consistent with ours: that "emoluments" broadly applied to private profits and gains...

3/ "In sum, we found evidence that the term emolument as used historically and today includes the gain from private business activities. If emoluments include an official’s gains from private bus. activities, POTUS’s interest in the lease raises potential constitutional issues."

4/ The full GSA report is here, esp. p. 10-16 and Appendix A. The GSA seems to have found new evidence the land that Washington purchased was private, not public. Thus, he was not in conflict w/ the Presidential/Domestic Emoluments clause. gsaig.gov/sites/default/…

5/ It's also worth noting Judge Messitte's conclusion that the GSA lease itself for the Trump Hotel in DC was an invalid benefit and a violation of the clause, making the Hotel itself a monumental Emoluments violation, if you will.
My @slate explainer: slate.com/news-and-polit…

6/ Barr might not know about Emoluments clause, but credit those who got it right: @CREWcrew @ZephyrTeachout @NormEisen @tribelaw @JoshuaMatz8 @NoahBookbinder @deepakguptalaw @AGKarlRacine @BrianFrosh @RWPUSA @BrianneGorod @MyConstitution @ElizabethWydra @SenBlumenthal