Posted on Dec 1, 2016
Legal experts think Donald Trump could be impeached on his first day of presidency
4.55K
89
39
7
7
0
Listen. I already hear the those of you bemoaning the fact that "Trump hasn't taken the oath of office and you are already impeaching him. Give him a chance!"
Here is what's at issue:
First, he's not putting any of his businesses in a blind trust as it was suggested to eliminate the appearing of impropriety. Instead, he is turning control of those companies to his children, which is the same as loaning your child your favorite vehicle but putting a camera in the dashboard "just to make sure they don't screw it up." Perception is reality.
Lastly, and this is important Kids, The emoluments clause is a little-invoked piece of the Constitution that basically says that the President can't accept gifts from foreign powers without the consent of Congress. As quoted from Refinery 29 UK: " Trump's wide variety of business interests at high levels place him in contact with members of the ruling party of a wide variety of countries around the world. The New York Times has an excellent list of these potential conflicts. But you don't even have to leave Washington D.C. to find a potential immediate violation of the emoluments clause.
His Washington D.C. hotel, the much-publicised site of his fake-out presser in which he temporarily disavowed his Birther stance, has been a hotbed for foreign diplomats seeking to curry favour with the President. Should he encourage the diplomats to stay there at a rate different than the market rate, he would be accepting cash from a foreign power and would therefore be in violation of the emoluments clause. He told the Times that his hotel has become a hot property since he's been elected. Should its rates rise, that would be a potential violation.
Of course, by taking office he will violate his lease. That's saying nothing of the potential violation arising from the lease that the Industrial & Commercial Bank of China Ltd holds in Trump Tower, which could result in a violation if it is renewed. (Trump owes the bank, which is operated by the Chinese government, around $650 million.)"
Perception is reality
Here is what's at issue:
First, he's not putting any of his businesses in a blind trust as it was suggested to eliminate the appearing of impropriety. Instead, he is turning control of those companies to his children, which is the same as loaning your child your favorite vehicle but putting a camera in the dashboard "just to make sure they don't screw it up." Perception is reality.
Lastly, and this is important Kids, The emoluments clause is a little-invoked piece of the Constitution that basically says that the President can't accept gifts from foreign powers without the consent of Congress. As quoted from Refinery 29 UK: " Trump's wide variety of business interests at high levels place him in contact with members of the ruling party of a wide variety of countries around the world. The New York Times has an excellent list of these potential conflicts. But you don't even have to leave Washington D.C. to find a potential immediate violation of the emoluments clause.
His Washington D.C. hotel, the much-publicised site of his fake-out presser in which he temporarily disavowed his Birther stance, has been a hotbed for foreign diplomats seeking to curry favour with the President. Should he encourage the diplomats to stay there at a rate different than the market rate, he would be accepting cash from a foreign power and would therefore be in violation of the emoluments clause. He told the Times that his hotel has become a hot property since he's been elected. Should its rates rise, that would be a potential violation.
Of course, by taking office he will violate his lease. That's saying nothing of the potential violation arising from the lease that the Industrial & Commercial Bank of China Ltd holds in Trump Tower, which could result in a violation if it is renewed. (Trump owes the bank, which is operated by the Chinese government, around $650 million.)"
Perception is reality
Legal experts think Donald Trump could be impeached on his first day of presidency
Posted from independent.co.uk
Donald Trump
Ethics
Business
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 14
5
5
0
If they have not Impeached BHO in the last 7 1/2 years What makes anyone think they are going to go after Trump on the first Day...
What is more interesting the News article is from a British news source...
What is more interesting the News article is from a British news source...
(5)
(0)
SSG Michael Hartsfield
SFC George Smith You did read the article, yes? If you did and if Trump will not put his businesses in a legitimate blind trust, then you will know why he'd be in violation of the emolument clause of the Constitution
(1)
(0)
CDR Jon Corrigan
SSG Michael Hartsfield - The NYT? The same publication that admitted they were biased against President-elect Trump? Why would anybody read that rag and take anything they say seriously, unless they were also similarly biased?
(0)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
SSG Michael Hartsfield - There is nothing in the emolument clause that states that Trump needs to keep his businesses in a blind trust. There is significant legal precedent for presidents keeping business interests just not having a controlling factor. I like your idea, but it's more of an opinion based on private interpretation rather than a legal fact. I'd like to see your idea made into law but Nancy Pelosi and individuals like here would never allow it.
(0)
(0)
5
5
0
So your argument is to impeach Trump because he may do things similar to what Hillary did?
(5)
(0)
PO3 (Join to see)
Well actually HRC broke the laws with money and transfer of for her position in a government office as well as a felony for you or me about the handling of confidential documents, allowing non-qualified people (like her maid-the Filipino I believe) to download print or even see classified documents oh and just flat out using none approved equipment for classified documents.
?????
If that was you SSG Michael Hartsfield or lowly me can you tell me what type of conversation the FBI, CIA or who knows else would be having with us?
?????
If that was you SSG Michael Hartsfield or lowly me can you tell me what type of conversation the FBI, CIA or who knows else would be having with us?
(0)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
SSG Michael Hartsfield
No doubts that it could, but I sense the hypocrisy in the mainstream media as they had no problems with the secretary of state violating the clause.
No doubts that it could, but I sense the hypocrisy in the mainstream media as they had no problems with the secretary of state violating the clause.
(0)
(0)
MAJ Eric G Troup
Actually Trump has not done anything remotely similar to what the Clintons have done.
The Clintons obtained several hundred million dollars in wealth by selling influence and access to U.S. Government leadership, in secret from the public, and in contravention to explicit rules of engagement set forth between Obama and HRC. She sold the promise of favors from the U.S. Government to foreign companies and governments. She set up an unauthorized and total unsecure email system to avoid FOIA requirements that might expose her wrongdoing.
Trump made Billions as a private entrepreneur spanning many businesses over a period of decades. He made money representing himself and his company's merits. There was never a conflict of interest involved, nor any question of bribery, nor violations of cyber security regulations.
The two are in no way equivalent.
Now he may need to establish an "arm length" relationship to his businesses but that is an entirely different matter that was well-known when the voters chose him to be President. His business success is a net asset - not a liability.
The Clintons obtained several hundred million dollars in wealth by selling influence and access to U.S. Government leadership, in secret from the public, and in contravention to explicit rules of engagement set forth between Obama and HRC. She sold the promise of favors from the U.S. Government to foreign companies and governments. She set up an unauthorized and total unsecure email system to avoid FOIA requirements that might expose her wrongdoing.
Trump made Billions as a private entrepreneur spanning many businesses over a period of decades. He made money representing himself and his company's merits. There was never a conflict of interest involved, nor any question of bribery, nor violations of cyber security regulations.
The two are in no way equivalent.
Now he may need to establish an "arm length" relationship to his businesses but that is an entirely different matter that was well-known when the voters chose him to be President. His business success is a net asset - not a liability.
(1)
(0)
CWO3 (Join to see)
I think he's supposed to speak on the subject this Friday? Nothing wrong with jumping out ahead of the issue but let's wait and see....and go from there. Unless he clearly violates the law the only other court is the one of public opinion. That court <which is not a court> has no powers. It can only create heat and stir up emotions, but other than the loss of political capital can't award any punishment. The entanglements are of concern but we've never seen a situation such as his, nor has he, so it's new territory. Time will tell and all we can do is try to stay informed for now.
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
The political reality is that the GOP controlled congress didn't seek impeachment of BHO, despite some harebrained calls for it. It was untenable. It's improbable a GOP controlled congress would consider it for any GOP POTUS elect, even one who has so little in common with any previous GOP POTUS.
(3)
(0)
SN Greg Wright
Careful using facts and logic on the interwebs, Master Sargent. It'll get you ridiculed!
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google