Trump: Orb Says I'm Exempt so Fork Over Millions
(Background smiley face)
Trump cabinet officials violated public trust
(Either out or close to it)
Major Update (Oct 20, 2019): Doral 2020 G-7 Site Yanked Due to Backlash
Developing story here
from The Hill and here from the NY
Times.
Two days after the White
House announced that Trump National Doral near Miami, FL would host the gathering
of world leaders at the June 2020 G-7 summit, he pulls the plug.
The original decision was
widely panned by critics who viewed it as a brazen move for the president to
enrich his family brand, then Trump tweeted (as usual): “Thought I was doing
something very good for our Country by using Trump National Doral, in Miami,
for hosting the G-7 Leaders,” as he boasted the property's proximity to major
airports and its physical spaces, and beautiful view.”
Then another tweet: “I announced
that I would be willing to do it at NO PROFIT or, if legally permissible, at
ZERO COST to the USA. But, as usual, the Hostile Media & their Democrat
Partners went CRAZY!”
A mere 35 minutes later, another tweet: “Therefore,
based on both Media & Democrat Crazed and Irrational Hostility, we will no
longer consider Trump National Doral, Miami, as the Host for the G-7 in
2020. We will begin the search for another site, including the possibility of
Camp David, immediately. Thank you!”
Note: The man is incorrigible...!!!
ORIGINAL POST: Very timely and pressing issue
Today’s post follows this short historical look at the current law passed in 1989
thanks to persistence of then President George H. W. Bush that exempts the President
and Vice President from the law.
Ergo: They seem to be clearly saying that while in office those two can have
tons of special interests and rake in tons of money and that’s Okey-Dokey.
I wonder: Did voters know at provision of the law in 2016, or
if they did, would it have mattered how they voted or not? First part, highly doubtful;
second part: No one will ever know until now!!
I did not and that is why I advocate now changing that law ASAP.
Details
in this analysis from Politico from November 23, 2016 just when Trump had won and waiting to take office.
Then that law re: Application and violations therein resurfaced vis-à-vis him.
A law with basically good intentions that got way out of control ever since and
now 1,000 times worse under Trump.
Key from that article (November 23,
2016):
As Trump faces a flood of stories about how his businesses could
complicate his work as president, he made it clear that he's well aware that
that the key federal legislation aimed at separating personal interests from
official responsibilities does not apply to the president.
He said during a NY Times roundtable: “The law's
totally on my side: the president can't have a conflict of interest. I'd
assumed that you'd have to set up some type of trust or whatever and you don't
[but] I would like to do something.”
The carve-out Trump alludes to became
law in November 1989 as part of ethics legislation that also granted members of
Congress — and other government officials — a pay raise they had long sought.
The exemption — walling off the
president, vice president, lawmakers and judges from conflict-of-interest
provisions — was contained in a proposed bill that Bush sent to Congress in
April of 1989.
The language appears to have been drafted by lawyers in Bush's White
House counsel's office, but may have arisen from a blue-ribbon ethics panel
Bush created just after he took office.
Now this
update on his critical issue vis-à-vis that law: U.S. Code 18
§ 208 from the NY TIMES (from Cornell Law).
WASHINGTON — The rules are clear for nearly everyone who works
in the executive branch: “Officials are prohibited from playing even a minor
role in a decision that directly creates a financial benefit for the employee
or the employee’s immediate family.”
But those rules do not apply to the
president and vice president, the only executive branch officials who are
exempt from a criminal statute and a separate ethics regulation that govern
conflicts of interest.
That exemption is the reason President Trump could legally play a role
in the selection of the Trump National Doral resort near Miami as the site of
next year’s summit meeting of the G-7.
If anyone in the executive branch other than Trump or Vice President
Mike Pence tried the same thing, they would likely have been blocked by
government lawyers, faced an ethics investigation and perhaps become the
subject of a criminal inquiry, federal ethics lawyers from both parties.
Violating the law, which initially
dates to 1962 (discussed above in the Politico article), is a felony punishable up to five years.
This from Trevor Potter, a Republican and former
chairman of the FEC: “Suggesting that your own business be used
for an expensive government event over which you have control would violate the
prohibitions.”
This from Steven Schooner, the Administrator for
Procurement Law in the Clinton OMB said:
“Mr. Trump’s actions — if he were not
exempt — would have at least lead to a referral to the Justice Department.”
He further said using Trump’s
Doral resort for the 2020 G-7 would be the least expensive, “Because the Trump family will offer the
hotel at cost, which means it will not profit from the event.”
Separately, the Trump
Organization has vowed to “identify and donate profits derived from foreign
government patrons” to the Treasury.
But a Trump Organization
spokesman also declined to explain how the company is going to determine what
“at cost” means or how it will calculate what part of a hotel bill paid by a
foreign government official is considered profit.
Schooner said Doral during
the off-season in June when it is hot and muggy in FL has a low occupancy rate.
So even if otherwise empty rooms are sold at a discount, it is still a major
financial benefit to the company, as would be the global publicity from an
event like the G-7 meeting concluding: “The
leaders of the free world walking around in someone’s resort: That is priceless
advertising.”
Now, at least three different
lawsuits are pending in federal court that are testing if Trump is violating
the Constitution’s emoluments clauses by continuing to own, through a trust,
the collection of hotels, golf courses, and resorts that at times are taking
payments from foreign government officials and the United States government.
After a series of decisions
both for and against the president, a case brought by the state of MD and the
District of Columbia will be heard by the full Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.
It alleges that the Trump International Hotel in Washington has illegally
siphoned off business from hotels and convention centers in which the local
governments have a financial interest.
And, now also, Democrats in
Congress who filed one of these cases will now revise the lawsuit to include
the plan by Trump to have the G-7 held at his Doral resort in FL.
Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT)
is the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit that now involves more than 200 House and
Senate Democrats, said: “He is certainly
digging deeper in his failing defense by violating the Constitution in plain
sight, in real time. It is really absolutely striking.”
My 2 cents: Plain and simple, change this law as currently written to say
in a simple sentence or two: “No exemptions.
None, nada, nil, zero, goose eggs for anyone period.”
Stay tuned – still a long way to go.
Thanks for stopping by.
No comments:
Post a Comment