14 ms·

> I'm really confused by how impeachment works in the U.S. Impeachment requires a crime. Lying isn't usually a crime, and as best I can tell hasn't been one a

> I'm really confused by how impeachment works in the U.S. Impeachment requires a crime. Lying isn't usually a crime, and as best I can tell hasn't been one any of the times Trump has done it (.. yet?). It also hasn't been a crime any of the times Obama has done it. Failure to give up business interests is breaking precedent and confounding ethicists, but also doesn't seem to be illegal. When we come up with something criminal (and especially if it rises to the level of "high crimes") we can hope Trump gets impeached. As yet, I don't see it, and certainly not in your examples.

anubisresources 10y ago
Failure to give up his business interests is an impeachable offense. He literally does not meet the requirements set forth in the Constitution. He isn't being impeached because his party controls both houses.
- dllthomas 10y ago
  > He literally does not meet the requirements set forth in the Constitution. You need to be more specific. If you mean the emoluments clause, I think it's more accurate to say that it's hard to verify whether he meets "the requirements set forth in the Constitution." If you know of an instance of his business accepting a gift from a "king, prince or foreign state" since he's assumed office, then he's actually in violation. > He isn't being impeached because his party controls both houses. There is also that. Although I think a not insignificant fraction of that party would much prefer Pence, and if they were going to oust him doing it as far from the next election as possible would seem preferable.
  - ryanhuff 10y ago
    Does it say "gifts" or "payments"?
    - dllthomas 10y ago
      "accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever" Payments in exchange for regular business which would have been engaged in anyway would seem not to apply, although there's disturbing room for corruption there.
      - JumpCrisscross 10y ago
        U.S. Const. art. I, § 9, cl. 8. states: "No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state." [1] Add to that: - The lack of case law or Congressional guidance; - George Washington receiving and accepting "two gifts from officials of the French government" without asking for nor receiving any Congressional consent [2]; and - Almost every Founding Father from the South operating their plantations while in public service. I think it's safe to say (at least as a non-Constitutional scholar) that this clause is far from definitive on anything. Please note that I am not defending Trump's behavior nor saying this clause cannot be interpreted to apply. I'm saying we cannot comment on this with any reasonable degree of certainty. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_of_Nobility_Clause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_of_Nobility_Clause [2] http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2016/11/17/would-trumps-foreign-business-ties-be-constitutional/constitutional-restrictions-on-foreign-gifts-dont-apply-to-presidents http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2016/11/17/would-trumps...
        redler 10y ago
        It's certainly untested. One scenario that might be trouble for Trump would be, for example, an easement, tax credit, extraordinary incentive, or other streamlining of a Trump project in a foreign state. What nation, looking to create a favorable deal of some kind with the US, would allow a Trump project to languish in frustrating red tape -- or allow a Trump project to lose out to a competitor in cases where the government is the decision-maker? What would the informal Trumpian chatter be like around that international negotiating table?
      - 10y ago
  - chris_va 10y ago
    While they would prefer Pence, their base is still enamored with Trump. The legislators are scared, and don't want to endanger their reelection until he is no longer popular.
    - jakeogh 10y ago
      Na, he just won in a near landslide. Sure Pence could have won too, but he's nowhere as capable as Trump taking on the established false left-right MSM.
      - rat87 10y ago
        What landslide he barely slid in a electoral vote disaster, despite the electoral vote being meant to be used against men like Trump
        jakeogh 10y ago
        227 vs 306 is not close. I said near-landslide because a landlside (I think) is usually something >=370. No worries, it might still happen.
        twright0 10y ago
        I'll also point out that Trump lost the popular vote by almost 3 million votes (2%), which makes it really stretch the imagination to even call it a "near-landslide".
        jakeogh 10y ago
        Sure, except popular vote does not matter, nor should it. If it did, CA and NY's echo boxes would run the US, and there would be no US in short order. Don't forged why the Unites States exists; taxation without representation. He could have lost FL _or_ OH and still won.
        10y ago
- maxerickson 10y ago
  I think they are just taking their sweet time with it because he is well enough aligned with their agenda. The second a big enough scandal comes up, away we go.
  - aaronbrethorst 10y ago
    I think you have it backwards. The second he is no longer aligned with their agenda, they will clutch their pearls, blow up one of the existing scandals, and away we go.
    - maxerickson 10y ago
      That too, but I think a big enough scandal will be used regardless of alignment. Pence isn't unpredictable.
      - aaronbrethorst 10y ago
        Trump won the Presidency, and his impeachment by Paul Ryan et al would tear the Republican Party asunder. Impeachment has to be an option of last resort for them. There's absolutely no guarantee that they'll be able to maintain their majority in the House after that. There's indirect evidence of this in how Republicans treated Trump in the run-up to November.
        eropple 10y ago
        There's also no indication that they'd be able to get enough Democratic support for it. I would hope so, because frankly Trump is such a loon that I would rather Mike "electrocute the gay away" Pence, but... Sigh.
- JumpCrisscross 10y ago
  > Failure to give up his business interests is an impeachable offense...[as] set forth in the Constitution U.S. Const. art. I, § 9, cl. 8. states: "No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state." [1] U.S. Const. art. II, § 1 cl., 7 states: "The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be 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." [2] There isn't a lot of case law surrounding these clauses [3] nor guidance from Congress. It could be an impeachable offense, though frankly that's true of anything. Impeachment is a political, not judicial, process. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_of_Nobility_Clause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_of_Nobility_Clause [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Two_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Clause_7:_Salary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Two_of_the_United_Stat... [3] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/what-is-the-emoluments-clause-does-it-apply-to-president-trump/2017/01/23/12aa7808-e185-11e6-a547-5fb9411d332c_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/what-is-the-emolumen...
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- edblarney 10y ago
  "Failure to give up his business interests is an impeachable offense." Nope. They've had lawyers on this for a while, and I think he's ok on it. FYI - do you know how many Republican secretly wished that Trump were 'gone'? Probably most of them. He's a) a loose cannon and b) not actually a conservative on many issues. I think he's legally in the clear on his ownership issues.
  - int_19h 10y ago
    They wish he were gone for sure, but they're also too scared of his voters. If they impeach him? They're going to be facing a new pro-Trump Tea Party-like wave in the primaries, and many of them will get kicked out pronto. They need a really, really good excuse to kick him out... to the point where they could say "we really didn't want to, but we had no choice" to their constituents.
  - arachnids 10y ago
    The Republicans don't want him gone at all. With him in the office, they can aggressively push the conservative agenda and have him be the fall guy if things don't work out.
knz 10y ago
We've probably all seen the emoluments clause raised as one way he may be breaking the law. I'm not a legal expert but I would assume, if it's true, that breaking the Constitution would be illegal? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_of_Nobility_Clause https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_of_Nobility_Clause "The Title of Nobility Clause is a provision in Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution, that ... restricts members of the government from receiving gifts, emoluments, offices or titles from foreign states without the consent of the United States Congress." I suspect we will hear a lot more about the "consent of Congress" in the next 6 months if this has any merit.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- caseysoftware 10y ago
  Except Congress already consented decades ago: > The financial conflict statute prohibits federal employees from participating in matters where they could enrich themselves. It applies to everyone in the executive branch, from the lowliest file clerk up to the White House chief of staff – except for the president and vice president. Ref: http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2016/12/07/can-congress-end-donald-trumps-conflict-of-interest-exemption http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2016/12/07/can-congress... You could try to convince Congress to re-apply the rules, but that's a different discussion.
  - sfeng 10y ago
    Sure, but the courts enforce the constitution, not congress.
    - azernik 10y ago
      The issue isn't who enforces the constitution; it's what the constitution says. Congress has the power to decide which emoluments are okay. Assuming parent comment's interpretation of the law is correct (which it may not be), Congress has given blanket permission, in the same way that it has historically signed away large parts of its Constitutional war-making powers to the executive.
jupiter90000 10y ago
Do people really want him to get impeached and convicted, with Pence being the successor? Seems like a terrible idea...
- knieveltech 10y ago
  Pence has successfully kept it more or less between lanes for the ~17 years he's been a career politician. The guy might have snakes in his head but part of me would rather risk that than what is, to all appearances, an unhinged budding fascist surrounded by sycophants. YMMV.
  - dsfyu404ed 10y ago
    >an unhinged budding fascist surrounded by sycophants. YMMV. I'm not so sure. I almost get the impression that he doesn't really care about a lot of those things except as a means to get that part of the republican base to the polls.
- davesque 10y ago
  I've heard people say this on a number of occasions. Let me say why I'm not so worried about it. The thing that makes Trump different from almost any other politician I've seen is the control he has over his followers. They don't care if he lies or if any unpleasant fact about him comes to light. They're just transfixed by the guy. I don't believe that Pence or any other current politician has the same power or the same ability to do this. I imagine that, if Pence did have to assume office for some reason, he would just come off to Trump supporters as seeming like a typical politician. He wouldn't be able to drum up the same kind of enthusiasm.
- noobermin 10y ago
  Going to take off the objective hat and talk as a liberal. The answer I give to this is for the US, the President is both the head of state and the head of government. As is clear from recent articles about Trump's manner in the white house, his team is very much making many of the small policy decisions while Trump gets to strut out as the figurehead. So yes, Trump stepping down wouldn't mean much difference when it comes to his role as a head of government since his team seems to be handling that, but the head of state is still a very important role. Don't forget, he said, "I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. Just kiss. I don't even wait. And when you're a star they let you do it. You can do anything ... Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything[,]" essentially describing sexual assault, emphasized by me. Not to mention his poor demeanor, his lack of likeability, his unpopularity, the fact he was a reality-TV star. Having such an individual represent the nation is an embarrassment and does not inspire confidence in the nation nor does it abroad. Understand, no international body would respect Trump if he weren't the President. He does not prop us up as a country, he receives respect because we prop him up, and even then, he still depreciates his image by trying to project and strengthen his fragile pride and by involving himself in frivolous engagements on Twitter. So yes, having a different head of state would be beneficial for us, at least in our view. It would not make much of a difference in terms of actual policy, but it would give us with a better representative, which isn't a difficult bar to exceed. EDIT: I almost forgot, despite the politics of it, I do personally feel that a conflict of interest as a President is detrimental to the role as the head of government. We have already seen for example his orders on DAPL, which he still owns some shares of, a direct conflict of interest. And worse, of course, there are his foreign investments, which is worse from a national security standpoint. Sorry, but a head of government should represent us, not their own personal financial interests. You don't even need all my feeling about Trump as a figurehead, although that is important, but his conflicts of interests are a significant issue with him as an elected official.
xname2 10y ago
I can't believe there are so many people here suggest DJT should totally give up his business. This is basically the same as saying no business person should run for the president, so just leave it only to career politicians. Gets lots of downvotes for no reason. The hates toward DJT are crazy.
- imauld 10y ago
  The reason people believe he should give up his business is because there is a conflict of interest. He does business in countries where many of the corporations his company could deal with are owned or operated by the government at least in part. You can't be sure he is making a decision that is best for the people of the US if he stands to personally gain from it. Add to the fact he won't be releasing his taxes so the American people won't have a clear picture of who he owes money to or who owes money to him this makes for a very uncomfortable situation.
  - ElectronCharge 10y ago
    "The reason people believe he should give up his business is because there is a conflict of interest. He does business in countries where many of the corporations his company could deal with are owned or operated by the government at least in part. You can't be sure he is making a decision that is best for the people of the US if he stands to personally gain from it." Are you aware that all profits from his foreign holdings are going to the federal treasury? If not, rethink.
    - PJDK 10y ago
      Is this in perpetuity? Deals made today will impact profits in 10 years time!
    - baddox 10y ago
      I am not aware of that. I am aware of a pledge Trump made to donate profits when foreign governments use his hotels. That pledge does not apply to all profits from his foreign holdings.
- 10y ago
WalterBright 10y ago
> Lying isn't usually a crime It also isn't lying if the person saying it believes it to be true.
- beefield 10y ago
  What is it then called when you could and should have easily verified your belief and even after pointing out that your belief is wrong, you refuse to admit that your belief was actually wrong, if not lying? "No, sir. I did not lie in my CV. I _believe_ that this funny looking letter I received from my mother some time ago means that I have Ph.D from MIT"
  - pg314 10y ago
    Technically it's still not a lie. But you would be delusional. I don't know what is worse in a president.
  - WalterBright 10y ago
    > even after pointing out that your belief is wrong Some people believe their arguments are so strong that the other person must have been secretly convinced, and is therefore lying. Setting aside for the moment that people often believe their arguments are far more convincing than they actually are, people can and do believe anything, so a better reason than that is necessary to accuse people of lying.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
ElectronCharge 10y ago
"Failure to give up business interests is breaking precedent and confounding ethicists, but also doesn't seem to be illegal." It is not "breaking precedent". George Washington kept his farm. It's entirely unreasonable to expect a regular citizen to give up his business simply because he's elected to public office. Trump has taken many steps to ensure there's no conflict of interest.
- hiharryhere 10y ago
  He's taken the appearance of many steps. Owning a farm is a little different to being involved in sprawling international ventures that leave you open to pressure from foreign powers.
  - ElectronCharge 10y ago
    Since he's gifting all profits from foreign ventures to the US Treasury, there is no "pressure".
    - pg314 10y ago
      When did he say he was gifting all profits from foreign ventures to the US Treasury? Last I read about it, his pledge only related to profits from foreign governments for his hotels and similar businesses. The WaPo addressed the shortcomings of that pledge in [1]. Since it is a pledge, it also supposes that his word has any value. Anyone who looked at his business or charity dealings knows that his promises are worthless. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-plan-to-donate-foreign-hotel-profits-cant-be-checked/2017/01/12/816fced4-d918-11e6-a0e6-d502d6751bc8_story.html?utm_term=.90856a341559 https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-plan-to-donate...
    - vidarh 10y ago
      Even if that was true, this would not solve the issue. Consider if any Trump company decides to pursue a big new project in, oh, say China. Consider that just the knowledge of that, which might not be more than he might read in the papers, could very well cause him to adjust his policies either in the hope of favours, or even just subconsciously to avoid causing trouble for them. Beyond that there is plenty of scope for outright blackmail. E.g. what if some Chinese representative whisper in the ear of some Trump employee that significant legal problems might appear as long as China's relationship with the US is still strained over Trumps apparent lack of support for the One China principle. They'd not even need to mention his company, for that matter, or contact him. A slightly pointed press release about how there will be a crackdown on companies believed to not represent interests that don't fully support the One China principle would work too. Chances are we'll never find out how Trumps policies are affected (or not) by foreign interference, but it'd be naive to think that there aren't multiple powers that have people considering how they can take advantage of Trumps business ventures presence or prospective interests in their country to curry favour with him or try to pressure him right now. I know if I was running a country, then at this point I'd have a whole team on looking into opportunities, because even though it'd be rather unethical I'd want something in my back pocket in case Trump were to do something unpredictable that'd harm our interests. I'm sure there are plenty of regimes with less scruples about unethical methods.
joss82 10y ago
Is lying about the presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq a crime? Is lying about WMDs and then destroying the lives of millions of human beings (also known as iraqis) a crime?
koolba 10y ago
> Failure to give up business interests is breaking precedent and confounding ethicists, but also doesn't seem to be illegal. On the contrary, it's explicitly legal as nothing the President does is considered a conflict. It's like that because otherwise everything and anything could be a construed a conflict of interest. In the interests of not having a continual flood of lawsuits the top of the executive branch is considered to be exempt from conflict of interest laws that otherwise affect the rest of government.
empath75 10y ago
It doesn't, in any practical sense. It requires an extremely unpopular president, and a congress who dislikes him enough to vote him out.

anubisresources 10y ago

Failure to give up his business interests is an impeachable offense. He literally does not meet the requirements set forth in the Constitution. He isn't being impeached because his party controls both houses.

dllthomas 10y ago
> He literally does not meet the requirements set forth in the Constitution. You need to be more specific. If you mean the emoluments clause, I think it's more accurate to say that it's hard to verify whether he meets "the requirements set forth in the Constitution." If you know of an instance of his business accepting a gift from a "king, prince or foreign state" since he's assumed office, then he's actually in violation. > He isn't being impeached because his party controls both houses. There is also that. Although I think a not insignificant fraction of that party would much prefer Pence, and if they were going to oust him doing it as far from the next election as possible would seem preferable.
- ryanhuff 10y ago
  Does it say "gifts" or "payments"?
  - dllthomas 10y ago
    "accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever" Payments in exchange for regular business which would have been engaged in anyway would seem not to apply, although there's disturbing room for corruption there.
    - JumpCrisscross 10y ago
      U.S. Const. art. I, § 9, cl. 8. states: "No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state." [1] Add to that: - The lack of case law or Congressional guidance; - George Washington receiving and accepting "two gifts from officials of the French government" without asking for nor receiving any Congressional consent [2]; and - Almost every Founding Father from the South operating their plantations while in public service. I think it's safe to say (at least as a non-Constitutional scholar) that this clause is far from definitive on anything. Please note that I am not defending Trump's behavior nor saying this clause cannot be interpreted to apply. I'm saying we cannot comment on this with any reasonable degree of certainty. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_of_Nobility_Clause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_of_Nobility_Clause [2] http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2016/11/17/would-trumps-foreign-business-ties-be-constitutional/constitutional-restrictions-on-foreign-gifts-dont-apply-to-presidents http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2016/11/17/would-trumps...
      - redler 10y ago
        It's certainly untested. One scenario that might be trouble for Trump would be, for example, an easement, tax credit, extraordinary incentive, or other streamlining of a Trump project in a foreign state. What nation, looking to create a favorable deal of some kind with the US, would allow a Trump project to languish in frustrating red tape -- or allow a Trump project to lose out to a competitor in cases where the government is the decision-maker? What would the informal Trumpian chatter be like around that international negotiating table?
    - 10y ago
- chris_va 10y ago
  While they would prefer Pence, their base is still enamored with Trump. The legislators are scared, and don't want to endanger their reelection until he is no longer popular.
  - jakeogh 10y ago
    Na, he just won in a near landslide. Sure Pence could have won too, but he's nowhere as capable as Trump taking on the established false left-right MSM.
    - rat87 10y ago
      What landslide he barely slid in a electoral vote disaster, despite the electoral vote being meant to be used against men like Trump
      - jakeogh 10y ago
        227 vs 306 is not close. I said near-landslide because a landlside (I think) is usually something >=370. No worries, it might still happen.
        twright0 10y ago
        I'll also point out that Trump lost the popular vote by almost 3 million votes (2%), which makes it really stretch the imagination to even call it a "near-landslide".
        jakeogh 10y ago
        Sure, except popular vote does not matter, nor should it. If it did, CA and NY's echo boxes would run the US, and there would be no US in short order. Don't forged why the Unites States exists; taxation without representation. He could have lost FL _or_ OH and still won.
        10y ago
maxerickson 10y ago
I think they are just taking their sweet time with it because he is well enough aligned with their agenda. The second a big enough scandal comes up, away we go.
- aaronbrethorst 10y ago
  I think you have it backwards. The second he is no longer aligned with their agenda, they will clutch their pearls, blow up one of the existing scandals, and away we go.
  - maxerickson 10y ago
    That too, but I think a big enough scandal will be used regardless of alignment. Pence isn't unpredictable.
    - aaronbrethorst 10y ago
      Trump won the Presidency, and his impeachment by Paul Ryan et al would tear the Republican Party asunder. Impeachment has to be an option of last resort for them. There's absolutely no guarantee that they'll be able to maintain their majority in the House after that. There's indirect evidence of this in how Republicans treated Trump in the run-up to November.
      - eropple 10y ago
        There's also no indication that they'd be able to get enough Democratic support for it. I would hope so, because frankly Trump is such a loon that I would rather Mike "electrocute the gay away" Pence, but... Sigh.
JumpCrisscross 10y ago
> Failure to give up his business interests is an impeachable offense...[as] set forth in the Constitution U.S. Const. art. I, § 9, cl. 8. states: "No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state." [1] U.S. Const. art. II, § 1 cl., 7 states: "The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be 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." [2] There isn't a lot of case law surrounding these clauses [3] nor guidance from Congress. It could be an impeachable offense, though frankly that's true of anything. Impeachment is a political, not judicial, process. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_of_Nobility_Clause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_of_Nobility_Clause [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Two_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Clause_7:_Salary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Two_of_the_United_Stat... [3] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/what-is-the-emoluments-clause-does-it-apply-to-president-trump/2017/01/23/12aa7808-e185-11e6-a547-5fb9411d332c_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/what-is-the-emolumen...
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
edblarney 10y ago
"Failure to give up his business interests is an impeachable offense." Nope. They've had lawyers on this for a while, and I think he's ok on it. FYI - do you know how many Republican secretly wished that Trump were 'gone'? Probably most of them. He's a) a loose cannon and b) not actually a conservative on many issues. I think he's legally in the clear on his ownership issues.
- int_19h 10y ago
  They wish he were gone for sure, but they're also too scared of his voters. If they impeach him? They're going to be facing a new pro-Trump Tea Party-like wave in the primaries, and many of them will get kicked out pronto. They need a really, really good excuse to kick him out... to the point where they could say "we really didn't want to, but we had no choice" to their constituents.
- arachnids 10y ago
  The Republicans don't want him gone at all. With him in the office, they can aggressively push the conservative agenda and have him be the fall guy if things don't work out.

knz 10y ago

We've probably all seen the emoluments clause raised as one way he may be breaking the law. I'm not a legal expert but I would assume, if it's true, that breaking the Constitution would be illegal? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_of_Nobility_Clause https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_of_Nobility_Clause "The Title of Nobility Clause is a provision in Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution, that ... restricts members of the government from receiving gifts, emoluments, offices or titles from foreign states without the consent of the United States Congress." I suspect we will hear a lot more about the "consent of Congress" in the next 6 months if this has any merit.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
caseysoftware 10y ago
Except Congress already consented decades ago: > The financial conflict statute prohibits federal employees from participating in matters where they could enrich themselves. It applies to everyone in the executive branch, from the lowliest file clerk up to the White House chief of staff – except for the president and vice president. Ref: http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2016/12/07/can-congress-end-donald-trumps-conflict-of-interest-exemption http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2016/12/07/can-congress... You could try to convince Congress to re-apply the rules, but that's a different discussion.
- sfeng 10y ago
  Sure, but the courts enforce the constitution, not congress.
  - azernik 10y ago
    The issue isn't who enforces the constitution; it's what the constitution says. Congress has the power to decide which emoluments are okay. Assuming parent comment's interpretation of the law is correct (which it may not be), Congress has given blanket permission, in the same way that it has historically signed away large parts of its Constitutional war-making powers to the executive.

jupiter90000 10y ago

Do people really want him to get impeached and convicted, with Pence being the successor? Seems like a terrible idea...

knieveltech 10y ago
Pence has successfully kept it more or less between lanes for the ~17 years he's been a career politician. The guy might have snakes in his head but part of me would rather risk that than what is, to all appearances, an unhinged budding fascist surrounded by sycophants. YMMV.
- dsfyu404ed 10y ago
  >an unhinged budding fascist surrounded by sycophants. YMMV. I'm not so sure. I almost get the impression that he doesn't really care about a lot of those things except as a means to get that part of the republican base to the polls.
davesque 10y ago
I've heard people say this on a number of occasions. Let me say why I'm not so worried about it. The thing that makes Trump different from almost any other politician I've seen is the control he has over his followers. They don't care if he lies or if any unpleasant fact about him comes to light. They're just transfixed by the guy. I don't believe that Pence or any other current politician has the same power or the same ability to do this. I imagine that, if Pence did have to assume office for some reason, he would just come off to Trump supporters as seeming like a typical politician. He wouldn't be able to drum up the same kind of enthusiasm.
noobermin 10y ago
Going to take off the objective hat and talk as a liberal. The answer I give to this is for the US, the President is both the head of state and the head of government. As is clear from recent articles about Trump's manner in the white house, his team is very much making many of the small policy decisions while Trump gets to strut out as the figurehead. So yes, Trump stepping down wouldn't mean much difference when it comes to his role as a head of government since his team seems to be handling that, but the head of state is still a very important role. Don't forget, he said, "I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. Just kiss. I don't even wait. And when you're a star they let you do it. You can do anything ... Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything[,]" essentially describing sexual assault, emphasized by me. Not to mention his poor demeanor, his lack of likeability, his unpopularity, the fact he was a reality-TV star. Having such an individual represent the nation is an embarrassment and does not inspire confidence in the nation nor does it abroad. Understand, no international body would respect Trump if he weren't the President. He does not prop us up as a country, he receives respect because we prop him up, and even then, he still depreciates his image by trying to project and strengthen his fragile pride and by involving himself in frivolous engagements on Twitter. So yes, having a different head of state would be beneficial for us, at least in our view. It would not make much of a difference in terms of actual policy, but it would give us with a better representative, which isn't a difficult bar to exceed. EDIT: I almost forgot, despite the politics of it, I do personally feel that a conflict of interest as a President is detrimental to the role as the head of government. We have already seen for example his orders on DAPL, which he still owns some shares of, a direct conflict of interest. And worse, of course, there are his foreign investments, which is worse from a national security standpoint. Sorry, but a head of government should represent us, not their own personal financial interests. You don't even need all my feeling about Trump as a figurehead, although that is important, but his conflicts of interests are a significant issue with him as an elected official.

xname2 10y ago

I can't believe there are so many people here suggest DJT should totally give up his business. This is basically the same as saying no business person should run for the president, so just leave it only to career politicians. Gets lots of downvotes for no reason. The hates toward DJT are crazy.

imauld 10y ago
The reason people believe he should give up his business is because there is a conflict of interest. He does business in countries where many of the corporations his company could deal with are owned or operated by the government at least in part. You can't be sure he is making a decision that is best for the people of the US if he stands to personally gain from it. Add to the fact he won't be releasing his taxes so the American people won't have a clear picture of who he owes money to or who owes money to him this makes for a very uncomfortable situation.
- ElectronCharge 10y ago
  "The reason people believe he should give up his business is because there is a conflict of interest. He does business in countries where many of the corporations his company could deal with are owned or operated by the government at least in part. You can't be sure he is making a decision that is best for the people of the US if he stands to personally gain from it." Are you aware that all profits from his foreign holdings are going to the federal treasury? If not, rethink.
  - PJDK 10y ago
    Is this in perpetuity? Deals made today will impact profits in 10 years time!
  - baddox 10y ago
    I am not aware of that. I am aware of a pledge Trump made to donate profits when foreign governments use his hotels. That pledge does not apply to all profits from his foreign holdings.
10y ago

WalterBright 10y ago

> Lying isn't usually a crime It also isn't lying if the person saying it believes it to be true.

beefield 10y ago
What is it then called when you could and should have easily verified your belief and even after pointing out that your belief is wrong, you refuse to admit that your belief was actually wrong, if not lying? "No, sir. I did not lie in my CV. I _believe_ that this funny looking letter I received from my mother some time ago means that I have Ph.D from MIT"
- pg314 10y ago
  Technically it's still not a lie. But you would be delusional. I don't know what is worse in a president.
- WalterBright 10y ago
  > even after pointing out that your belief is wrong Some people believe their arguments are so strong that the other person must have been secretly convinced, and is therefore lying. Setting aside for the moment that people often believe their arguments are far more convincing than they actually are, people can and do believe anything, so a better reason than that is necessary to accuse people of lying.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

ElectronCharge 10y ago

"Failure to give up business interests is breaking precedent and confounding ethicists, but also doesn't seem to be illegal." It is not "breaking precedent". George Washington kept his farm. It's entirely unreasonable to expect a regular citizen to give up his business simply because he's elected to public office. Trump has taken many steps to ensure there's no conflict of interest.

hiharryhere 10y ago
He's taken the appearance of many steps. Owning a farm is a little different to being involved in sprawling international ventures that leave you open to pressure from foreign powers.
- ElectronCharge 10y ago
  Since he's gifting all profits from foreign ventures to the US Treasury, there is no "pressure".
  - pg314 10y ago
    When did he say he was gifting all profits from foreign ventures to the US Treasury? Last I read about it, his pledge only related to profits from foreign governments for his hotels and similar businesses. The WaPo addressed the shortcomings of that pledge in [1]. Since it is a pledge, it also supposes that his word has any value. Anyone who looked at his business or charity dealings knows that his promises are worthless. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-plan-to-donate-foreign-hotel-profits-cant-be-checked/2017/01/12/816fced4-d918-11e6-a0e6-d502d6751bc8_story.html?utm_term=.90856a341559 https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-plan-to-donate...
  - vidarh 10y ago
    Even if that was true, this would not solve the issue. Consider if any Trump company decides to pursue a big new project in, oh, say China. Consider that just the knowledge of that, which might not be more than he might read in the papers, could very well cause him to adjust his policies either in the hope of favours, or even just subconsciously to avoid causing trouble for them. Beyond that there is plenty of scope for outright blackmail. E.g. what if some Chinese representative whisper in the ear of some Trump employee that significant legal problems might appear as long as China's relationship with the US is still strained over Trumps apparent lack of support for the One China principle. They'd not even need to mention his company, for that matter, or contact him. A slightly pointed press release about how there will be a crackdown on companies believed to not represent interests that don't fully support the One China principle would work too. Chances are we'll never find out how Trumps policies are affected (or not) by foreign interference, but it'd be naive to think that there aren't multiple powers that have people considering how they can take advantage of Trumps business ventures presence or prospective interests in their country to curry favour with him or try to pressure him right now. I know if I was running a country, then at this point I'd have a whole team on looking into opportunities, because even though it'd be rather unethical I'd want something in my back pocket in case Trump were to do something unpredictable that'd harm our interests. I'm sure there are plenty of regimes with less scruples about unethical methods.

joss82 10y ago

Is lying about the presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq a crime? Is lying about WMDs and then destroying the lives of millions of human beings (also known as iraqis) a crime?

koolba 10y ago

> Failure to give up business interests is breaking precedent and confounding ethicists, but also doesn't seem to be illegal. On the contrary, it's explicitly legal as nothing the President does is considered a conflict. It's like that because otherwise everything and anything could be a construed a conflict of interest. In the interests of not having a continual flood of lawsuits the top of the executive branch is considered to be exempt from conflict of interest laws that otherwise affect the rest of government.

empath75 10y ago

It doesn't, in any practical sense. It requires an extremely unpopular president, and a congress who dislikes him enough to vote him out.