‘A recipe for scandal’: Trump conflicts of interest point to constitutional[W:304]

Constitutional lawyers and White House ethics counsellors from Democratic and Republican administrations have warned Donald Trump his presidency might be blocked by the electoral college if he does not give up ownership of at least some of his business empire.

Click to expand...

Since the surprise outcome of the 8 November vote, foreign diplomats have been flocking to the newest Trump hotel in Washington to hear sales pitches about the business and vie to book their delegations into its rooms overlooking Pennsylvania Avenue for the inauguration on 20 January.

Trump, meanwhile, used a meeting with a delegation of Brexit activists including his closest British ally, Nigel Farage, to urge them to oppose wind farms which he felt would spoil the view from one of his Scottish golf courses. He also took time out from selecting cabinet officials to meet his Indian business partners and pose for pictures with them, while the Philippines government announced it was appointing his business partner in Manila as its next ambassador to Washington.

A day after a phone conversation between President-elect Trump and Argentinian president Mauricio Macri, Trump’s Argentinian associate – who was reported to have organised the call – confidently predicted that construction would start next year on the planned Trump Tower Buenos Aires, to be completed by 2020.

The associate, Felipe Yaryura, seemed supremely confident that the zoning restrictions that had stalled the project for years would soon be swept away.

Click to expand...

“My company is so unimportant to me relative to what I’m doing, ’cause I don’t need money, I don’t need anything,” he said. “The only thing that matters to me is running our country.”

Yet much of what he has said and done since winning the election suggests that Trump comes to the presidency in the spirit of a tycoon making a new acquisition, overseeing the merger of Trump Inc and America Inc – a merger in which it is far from clear which would be the senior partner.

Click to expand...

Cardinal said:

While Trump's temper tantrum regarding the recount or his comments on removing citizenship for people exercising their first amendment rights are all very amusing, I believe a more genuine threat is the unnerving relationship between the office of the Presidency and his business. At what point do establishment Republicans become too uncomfortable with the optics of the glaring conflict of interest to ignore it? At what point is there a genuine "Constitutional crisis?"

This thread is not about Clinton.







https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...rump-conflicts-interest-constitutional-crisis

Click to expand...

The president and vice president are mostly exempt from federal conflict of interest laws, under Title 18, Section 208 of the U.S. c]

Click to expand...

Cardinal said:

While Trump's temper tantrum regarding the recount or his comments on removing citizenship for people exercising their first amendment rights are all very amusing, I believe a more genuine threat is the unnerving relationship between the office of the Presidency and his business. At what point do establishment Republicans become too uncomfortable with the optics of the glaring conflict of interest to ignore it? At what point is there a genuine "Constitutional crisis?"

This thread is not about Clinton.







https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...rump-conflicts-interest-constitutional-crisis

Click to expand...

MaggieD said:

"They" will say, do and threaten ANYTHING to attempt to disenfranchise the American people. Please find me a law that the President would be breaking by owning his companies . . . And, for that matter, a law applying to the POTUS re conflicts of interest with same.

Click to expand...

Trump seems to have received only a partial legal briefing on his exposure. Although the conflict-of-interest clauses do have a loophole for presidents, there is no such loophole for the “emoluments clause”, Article I, Section 9 of the constitution, which prohibits public officials from taking payments “of any kind whatever from any king, prince or foreign state”.

“Trump was totally wrong when he said the conflict of interest doesn’t apply to me,” said Norman Eisen, a former ethics counsellor to the Obama administration. “It shows he doesn’t know the constitution.

“The most fundamental conflict clause in the US constitution is the prohibition on emoluments on payments, presents or other things of value being given to American political officials including the president.”

Eisen, now a fellow at the Brookings Institution, added: “Because of [Trump’s] international investments he gets these payments, presents and things of value and he’ll be in violation of the constitution by the moment he takes the oath of office.”

Click to expand...

Cardinal said:

.........

Click to expand...

BrewerBob said:

As soon as we knew the choices would be between Trump and Clinton it became a forgone conclusion that the next 4 years would be full of scandal.

Click to expand...

Cardinal said:

While Trump's temper tantrum regarding the recount or his comments on removing citizenship for people exercising their first amendment rights are all very amusing, I believe a more genuine threat is the unnerving relationship between the office of the Presidency and his business. At what point do establishment Republicans become too uncomfortable with the optics of the glaring conflict of interest to ignore it? At what point is there a genuine "Constitutional crisis?"

This thread is not about Clinton.







https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...rump-conflicts-interest-constitutional-crisis

Click to expand...

Cardinal said:

While Trump's temper tantrum regarding the recount or his comments on removing citizenship for people exercising their first amendment rights are all very amusing, I believe a more genuine threat is the unnerving relationship between the office of the Presidency and his business. At what point do establishment Republicans become too uncomfortable with the optics of the glaring conflict of interest to ignore it? At what point is there a genuine "Constitutional crisis?"

This thread is not about Clinton.







https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...rump-conflicts-interest-constitutional-crisis

Click to expand...

Cardinal said:

.........

Click to expand...

Trump seems to have received only a partial legal briefing on his exposure. Although the conflict-of-interest clauses do have a loophole for presidents, there is no such loophole for the “emoluments clause”, Article I, Section 9 of the constitution, which prohibits public officials from taking payments “of any kind whatever from any king, prince or foreign state”.

Click to expand...

justabubba said:

give him enough rope to hang himself [figuratively speaking]

Click to expand...

MaggieD said:

He's not an idiot. He wouldn't take any money.

Click to expand...

MaggieD said:

"They" will say, do and threaten ANYTHING to attempt to disenfranchise the American people. Please find me a law that the President would be breaking by owning his companies . . . And, for that matter, a law applying to the POTUS re conflicts of interest with same.

Edit...here...let me help...



Best not to believe our crappy media...

Click to expand...

MaggieD said:

He's not an idiot. He wouldn't take any money.

Click to expand...

justabubba said:

nor would he spend the donations received by the trump foundation to pay his personal expenses

Click to expand...

MaggieD said:

He's not an idiot. He wouldn't take any money.

Click to expand...

MaggieD said:

Who cares?

Click to expand...

justabubba said:

only people concerned about his integrity

Click to expand...

Cardinal said:

That's assuming there's a hangman to pull the lever for the trap door to open so that he can be hung. That hangman won't be The Trump Supporter -- that was evident a very long time ago. The hangman won't be the Democrats -- they have no power to challenge him. For the present time that hangman won't even be the establishment Republicans -- they're the embodiment of moral cowardice. And yet establishment Republicans are literally the only hope we have, and which is why they were the subject of the question posed in the OP.

Click to expand...

justabubba said:

nor would he spend the donations received by the trump foundation to pay his personal expenses

Click to expand...

MaggieD said:

Who cares?

Click to expand...

mbig said:

He certainly is an idiot.. and a sociopath
He's already broken the law re spending money in Cuba, and Violations in NY State re his Foundation.
Not including his statements and actions re Groping/Molesting women.
And tweeting like an 12 yr old.... Idiot.

Click to expand...

reinoe said:

There's no kind of concern like faux concern.

Click to expand...

Cardinal said:

.........

Click to expand...

Cardinal said:

That's assuming there's a hangman to pull the lever for the trap door to open so that he can be hung. That hangman won't be The Trump Supporter -- that was evident a very long time ago. The hangman won't be the Democrats -- they have no power to challenge him. For the present time that hangman won't even be the establishment Republicans -- they're the embodiment of moral cowardice. And yet establishment Republicans are literally the only hope we have, and which is why they were the subject of the question posed in the OP.

Click to expand...

BrewerBob said:

As soon as we knew the choices would be between Trump and Clinton it became a forgone conclusion that the next 4 years would be full of scandal.

Click to expand...