Article 5 – Emoluments; Soliciting and Taking Emoluments in defiance of the Constitution.
 |
| https://www.citizensforethics.org/2000-trump-conflicts-of-interest-counting/ |
Donald J. Trump and his family have displayed a contempt for his office by his actions and inactions. He has shown a flagrant disregard for the emoluments clause and and the rules and laws that Presidents are supposed to abide by.
Congressional and Constitutional Expectations
The emoluments clause is intended to prevent self dealing and corrupt actions by the officers of the United States, and applies directly and explicitly to the President in Article 2 Section 1 of the Constitution.
“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.” [COTUS Art 2 Sec 1]>
This blanket prohibition on receiving Any! emoluments is in addition to the prohibition in Article 1 Section 9 prohibition on any
“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.” [COTUS Art 1 Sec 9]>
It is observed that the Presidential Emoluments Clause doesn't give Congress permission to make exceptions for the President. The President is expected to take no other income from any source other than that provided by Congress.
5 U.S. Code § 7342. Receipt and disposition of foreign gifts and decorations
The entire of Article 1 of the constitution rests power with Congress, and most of that power has been embodied in US Law. In the case of article 1 and 2 emoluments, Congress has weighed in in detail in 5 U.S. Code § 7342. Receipt and disposition of foreign gifts and decorations
Congress consents by law to “minimal value” gifts. It originally set this value at 100$ but subsequently allowed for inflation. But not to emoluments of the kind that Trump is seeking and receiving. None of these are of “minimal value” in any way shape or form. The law is clear that emoluments not of minimal value should not be kept for personal profit. The intent of 5 U.S.Code 7342 is clear. If there is no specific provision for the personal business of a criminal Government officer, the general law states that any such gift or emolument shall be:
”forward[ed] the gift to the Administrator of General Services in accordance with subsection (e)(1) or provide for its disposal in accordance with subsection (e)(2).” [USC 7342]
Why Receiving Emoluments from Foreign Governments is so serious
Federalist 73 talks about how serious the Emoluments clause is:
“Neither the Union, nor any of its members, will be at liberty to give, nor will he be at liberty to receive, any other emolument than that which may have been determined by the first act. He can, of course, have no pecuniary inducement to renounce or desert the independence intended for him by the Constitution.” [Fed 73]
The Founders knew the corruption that allowing any officer of the government to earn emoluments from outside his job. Trump's behavior is corrupt and unconstitutional.
Trumps Abuse of the Emoluments clause
Violations of Emolument Clause from the beginnings of his term.
The Record shows that Donald J. Trump:
- refused to put his properties into a blind trust, running them through family enterprise and continuing to use his government position to do business with them.
- has “visited his golf clubs more than 150 times in his first official year in office, and at least 77 times in his second year in office.” NBC tracking
- plays Golf nearly weekly. As of June 15th 2019 Trump had played 86 games of Golf on his own properties, [Golf Count] This in itself is not impeachable but he promised he would be too busy to play golf during his run.
- has illegally used his properties as a means to solicit and receive emoluments from people seeking business with the United States, including foreign powers.
Affirmation Via Lawsuits
A lawsuit, dismissed by the Feckless Courts, nevertheless affirmed the facts of the case that:
“On January 11, 2017, Defendant, then-President-elect, announced that he would turn over the “leadership and management” of the Trump Organization to his sons, Donald Trump, Jr. and Eric Trump. (Id. , 43.) Defendant also announced that he would donate all profits from foreign governments' patronage of his businesses to the U.S. Treasury.” (Id.; see also Donald Trump's News Conference: Full Transcript and Video, N.Y. Times (Jan. 11, 2017), http://nyti.ms/2jG86w8.) [Emoluments Decision]
This indicates that Donald Trump understood that the emoluments clause were meant to apply to himself and his business. Yet, the record establishes that:
“Although Defendant had established a trust to hold his business assets, Plaintiffs allege that Defendant continues to own and is permitted to take distributions from the trust at any time. (SAC , 44.) Plaintiffs allege that Defendant continues to be informed of the Trump Organization's business activities and that Eric Trump provides business updates to Defendant on a quarterly basis.” [Emoluments Decision]
More importantly the facts are already established that from:
“Defendant's inauguration earlier this year, he has violated and continues to violate the Domestic and Foreign Emoluments Clauses of the Constitution due to the ownership and controlling interests he continues to hold in the Trump Organization and other entities, and the monies he receives as a result.” [Emoluments Decision]
- He has continued to “visited his golf clubs at least 77 times in his second year in office.” NBC tracking
- He plays Golf nearly weekly. As of June 15th 2019 Trump had played 86 games of Golf on his own properties, [Golf Count] In this fashion he has forced the Secret Service to pay his properties so he can play golf and be guarded at the same time.
- He has forced the Secret Service to pay rent at the properties where he stays Golf and benefited from their payments and need to setup operation at them.
- He has illegally used his properties as a means to solicit and receive emoluments from people seeking business with the United States, including foreign powers.
Continual Violations of Emoluments rules and laws
Trump International
A number of parties sued the President sued on the grounds that:
the Trump International Hotel's lease with the General Services Administration ("GSA")-an independent agency of the United States, whose administrator is appointed by the president-violates the Domestic Emoluments Clause. (Id. ~~ 130-44.)[Emoluments Decision]
Their complaint noted that the Trump Organization:
Prior to taking office, GSA entered into a 60-year lease for what eventually became the site for the Trump International Hotel. (Id. ~~ 130-31.)[Emoluments Decision]
That agreement explicitly included a provision that Section 37.19 of the lease agreement provides that
“[n]o ... elected official of the Government of the United States ... shall be admitted to any share or part of this Lease, or to any benefit that may arise therefrom.” (Id. ~ 132.)
The Plaintiffs alleged that by virtue of his election, Defendant has been in breach of the lease since he took office on January 20, 2017. They further alleged that Trump used his budgetary power to lean on the GSA to ignore the contract they'd signed with the Trump Organization:
“One week after Defendant released a proposed federal budget increasing GSA's funding while cutting nearly all other non-defense-related spending, GSA issued a letter indicating that, in its view, there were no compliance issues with respect to the lease. As of the date the SAC was filed, GSA has not made any effort to enforce the apparent breach against the Trump Organization. (Id. iii! 135, 140-41, 145.) [Emoluments Decision]
Plaintiffs also contended that “Defendant has also benefitted and will continue to benefit from payments to his hotels and restaurants by foreign governments and their agents, as well as federal, state, and local government officials.” (Id. iii! 200-01.)
“Plaintiffs assert that they are injured by Defendant's alleged violations of the Emoluments Clauses. Phaneuf and Goode allege that due to Defendant's ongoing financial interest in hotels and restaurants receiving payments from governmental sources, they will suffer increased competition resulting in "loss of commission-based income" and "loss of revenue[.]" [Emoluments Decision]
Benefiting from Emoluments
Trump and his family have sought and received emoluments from foreign and domestic supplicants alike seeking access to Donald J. Trump, his family, and to influence his decision making. As a result the Trump Organization hotels and properties have received a whose who of foreign dignitaries seeking favors.
For example:
“After the 2016 election, and under pressure from the Trump Organization, the Embassy of Kuwait in Washington D.C. moved its National Day celebration from the Four Seasons Hotel to the Trump International Hotel, spending an estimated $40,000 to $60,000 for the event.” (SAC ifif 72-74.)
Evidence of Influence and Self Dealing
The court established that &dquo;One press account quoted a "Middle Eastern diplomat" as saying,
“[b ]elieve me, all the delegations will go [to the Trump International Hotel].” (Id. if 62.)
The same account quoted an "Asian diplomat" who explained,
“[w]hy wouldn't I stay at his hotel blocks from the White House, so I can tell the new president, 'I love your new hotel!' Isn't it rude to come to his city and say, 'I am staying at your competitor?'” (Id.) [Emoluments Decision]
President Trump has not tried to hide his self dealing with foreign and domestic supplicants.
“ the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, as well as the Permanent Missions to the United Nations from India, Afghanistan, and Qatar purchased property at the Trump World Tower, paying anywhere from $4.5 million up to $8.375 million. (Id. ifif 90-106.)
The Court acknowledged that:
“Plaintiffs believe that these foreign entities continue to pay yearly common charges for building amenities amounting to tens of thousands of dollars each year. (Id.) Plaintiffs point out that none of these countries were included in Defendant's original or revised executive orders barring visitors from six Muslim-majority countries.”(Id. if 110.)
In addition to rent seeking through directing business to his properties, Trump has leaned on foreign governments in other ways. They noted that Plaintiffs noted that:
“since 2006, Defendant has unsuccessfully sought trademark protection in China for the use of his name in connection with building construction services. After his application was rejected by China's Trademark Office, Defendant appealed to the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board, the Beijing Intermediate People's Court, and the Beijing High People's Court, to no avail. (Id. ~ 111.)
However after leaning on the Chinese over allegations of currency and trade violations Trump sought to extort a deal from Taiwan:
In December 2016, shortly after he was elected, Defendant spoke directly with the President of Taiwan, suggesting that the United States might abandon the "One China" policy that it had observed for decades. According to Plaintiffs, Defendant had previously suggested he would end the "One China" policy unless some benefit were received in exchange. (Id. ~ 112.) [Emoluments Decision]
And he also sought to extort from Mainland China:
“On February 9, 2017, Defendant spoke with the President of China and pledged to honor the "One China" policy.”[Emoluments Decision]
These methods extracted personal concessions:
“Five days later, China reversed course and granted trademark protection for the "Trump" name. (Id. ~~ 113-14.)[Emoluments Decision]
And naturally Trump also leaned on Chinese business. Plaintiffs also alleged that:
“the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China, a Chinese majority-state-owned entity, is one of the largest tenants of Trump Tower.” (Id.~ 49.) [Emoluments Decision]
Violations of Emoluments clause in relationship with the Saudis
But the evidence of Trump, his family and his organization taking improper emoluments doesn't end with the complaints that started at the beginning of his Presidency and embodied in the dismissed suit. The House oversight committee has developed information that:
“corporate and foreign interests are using their unique access to advocate for the transfer of U.S. nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia.”
The Saudis have been paying lobbyists, and Trump properties in order to influence the Trump Administration:
“corporate and foreign interests are using their unique access to advocate for the transfer of U.S. nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia.”
The Company IP3, which has financial ties to both Trump Family and administration members is lobbying for unrestricted proliferation of nuclear weapon technology to the Saudis. In July 2019 a study reported that:
“IP3 is currently pushing the Trump Administration not to require Saudi Arabia to agree to the “Gold Standard,”” [House Report]
Which is a requirement that they not use that technology to make nuclear weapons! This is highly corrupt but it is also lucrative for Trump and the Trump organization so the Saudis have gained direct access:
“including meeting directly with President Trump, Jared Kushner, Gary Cohn, KT McFarland, and Cabinet Secretaries Rick Perry, Steven Mnuchin, Mike Pompeo, Rex Tillerson, James Mattis, and Wilbur Ross. IP3 described the Trump Administration as “an extended team member.””
Trump's lieutenant:
“Thomas J. Barrack, Jr.—a longtime personal friend, campaign donor, and inaugural chairman—negotiated directly with President Trump and other White House officials to seek powerful positions within the Administration—including Special Envoy to the Middle East and Ambassador to the United Arab Emirates—at the same time he was
- promoting the interests of U.S. corporations seeking to profit from the transfer of nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia;
- advocating on behalf of foreign interests seeking to obtain this U.S. nuclear technology; and
- taking steps for his own company, Colony NorthStar, to profit from the same proposals he was advancing with the Administration.”
- In addition to the emoluments that have been publicly reported, there are almost certainly many more that are not yet known about — that, in fact, it is impossible to know about absent judicial process to compel Trump to provide information about his businesses and the benefits he has received from foreign states.
The white house is refusing to cooperate with Congress to prevent the Saudis from doing an end run around laws meant to prevent proliferation of nuclear weapons, by buying a few officials. The fact that the administration is accepting these bribes, emoluments and should not be allowed to let IP3 and Trump get away with putting the world in peril for a few million dollars in personal income.
Foreign Emoluments in General
CREW notes:
“Since President Trump took office, officials from 65 foreign governments, including 57 foreign countries, have visited a Trump property. Altogether, foreign officials account for 137 visits in total, 97 of which have been made to the Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C.”
They also document private corporation visits and his self dealing with political events at his properties.
Preponderance of Evidence of willful disregard of constitution and law
There is thus a preponderance of evidence of willful disregard for the Emoluments clause, related rules and regulations, of extortion, self dealing and corruption. There is also a preponderance of evidence that emoluments paid to his properties have influenced his decisions as President. Yet even were that not the case, Trump's disregard of the emoluments clause is a violation of law and unconstitutional.
Failure of Judicial Department Remedies
Some of the crimes detailed are high misdemeanors, but some would be high high crimes, felonies and violations that prosecutors would indict him for were he not President and the Department of Justice under his thumb. Sadly, every President before Trump, paid at least lip service to the emoluments clause and so many of the enforcing rules were previously expectations rather than codified, because every single President before this one understood the importance of abiding by it. Along with this article we will be submitting codifications of previously expected behavior so that no person may try to do this again.
Failure of the Courts as Remedies
State and local Governments, including the District of Government, had sued due to the direct and indirect damage that Donald Trump's self dealing has caused to their economies and to competing business. They sued alleging,
“Defendant's "vast, complicated, and secret" business interests are creating conflicts of interest and have resulted in unprecedented government influence in violation of the Domestic and Foreign Emoluments Clauses of the United States Constitution.” (SAC ~ 1 (citing U.S. Const. art. I,§ 9, cl. 8 & art. II,§ 1, cl. 7, respectively).)
The Court reduced the suit to the issue of whether Trump can continue to run his business:
Defendant seems to argue, without explicitly stating so, that the "political question" doctrine bars Plaintiffs' claims. The doctrine would suggest that Plaintiffs' suit presents a political issue that should be resolved between Congress and the President, without any preemptive interference from the Judiciary. [Emoluments Decision]
They accepted this argument!
“Here, the issue presented under the Foreign Emoluments Clause is whether Defendant can continue to receive income from his business with foreign governments without the consent of Congress.”
This corrupt "reductio ad absurdum" basically said that as long as emoluments and bribes were laundered through his businesses, they were exempt from current law or legal remedy.
Thus instead of ruling on the merits of the Presidents obvious corrupt activities an appeals court determined that they lack standing to sue for emoluments violations under rule (12b). Admitting that:
“In deciding a motion to dismiss "pursuant to Rule 12(b )( 1 ), ... the Court must accept as true all material factual allegations in the complaint, but should refrain from drawing any inferences in favor of the party asserting jurisdiction.” [Emoluments Decision]
Additional Counts
CREW has documented 2000+ conflict of interests and states;
“During his run for president, Donald Trump promised that he would “drain the swamp” in Washington by rooting out corruption and wrenching power from lobbyists and special interests. In the two and a half years since he assumed the office of President of the United States, he has done exactly the opposite: placing former lobbyists in positions of power while giving foreign governments and special interests the opportunity to purchase access to his administration by patronizing his businesses. Instead of limiting Washington corruption, President Trump has pushed it into uncharted territory, innovating forms of corruption.” [CREWonCOI]
Use of His Properties to Charge Federal Government and self dealing
CREW has now tallied 2,310 conflicts resulting from President Trump’s decision to retain his business interests.
“Since his inauguration in 2017, President Trump has made 362 visits to his properties, sometimes going to more than one in a single day. In all, he’s spent all or part of almost one-third of the days he’s been president at one of his properties. Mar-a-Lago tops the list, with 99 visits—followed by Trump Bedminster (84), Trump International Golf Club in West Palm Beach (64), and Trump National Golf Club in Potomac Falls, Virginia (60).
President Trump’s visits to his properties often appear to be intended to draw attention to his businesses, rather than a simple personal preference for where to stay or play golf. Not only does he enjoy mingling with paying customers—sometimes polling them on policy issues or questions about his White House staff—but he has also repeatedly used his businesses for official meetings and campaign events, bringing people to his properties and blurring the lines between his political career and his personal financial interests.
From meeting with executive branch officials and hosting foreign dignitaries to holding press conferences, the president’s activities at his properties are often official in nature. This affinity for carrying out executive business at his properties transforms his private clubs, resorts and hotels into centers of power, akin to the White House. For example, in June, President Trump made his first visit as president to Trump National Doral in Miami to celebrate the launch of his 2020 reelection campaign—where, in addition to bringing publicity to the resort, Trump raised millions for his political committees.
Last March, Caribbean senior government officials from the Bahamas, the Dominican Republic, Haiti, Jamaica and Saint Lucia paid a “working visit” to Mar-a-Lago to discuss China’s “predatory economic practices” and the crisis in Venezuela. In February, President Trump tweeted that he would host China’s top leader Xi Jinping for a summit at Mar-a-Lago to discuss trade between the United States and China. When President Trump announced the resignation of Small Business Administrator Linda McMahon in March, he had reporters meet him at Mar-a-Lago for a news conference that resulted in publicity for the resort.
On three occasions, the president has altered his international travel itinerary to make taxpayer-funded detours to his hotels and golf courses. While on an official trip to Europe in June, President Trump insisted on flying hundreds of miles out of the way after a visit to the U.K. to stay at his Doonbeg golf course in western Ireland, even though he had to fly to France on Thursday morning for a D-Day celebration.
President Trump stayed at Doonbeg on both Wednesday and Thursday night, which he insisted was for “convenience,” despite the fact that it required that he and his staff fly from Ireland to France and back in a day.
In 2017, President Trump made a pit stop at the Trump International Hotel in Waikiki, Hawaii on a trip to Asia in 2017. The following summer, he took a break from state visits in Europe to stay at his Turnberry golf course in Scotland.
During his run for president, Trump frequently criticized President Obama for playing too much golf and assured voters that when he was elected, he was “not going to have time” to play golf. Yet, not only has President Trump spent much of his presidency golfing, his golf trips have been almost exclusively to properties he profits from—219 trips in all, most frequently to the Trump National Golf Clubs in Bedminster, N.J., West Palm Beach, Florida, and Potomac Falls, Virginia.”
WHITE HOUSE OFFICIALS
Trump also induces his officers to spend money, often government funds, on his properties.
“Over the course of the Trump administration, 250 executive branch officials have made 630 visits to Trump properties. Ivanka Trump, who herself has an ownership interest in the Trump D.C. hotel, and her husband Jared Kushner, both White House employees, have made the most visits of any executive branch officials, according to CREW’s tracking—23 and 28, respectively. In June, Kushner followed the president to Trump National Doral for a 2020 campaign launch event. Jared and Ivanka also spent Christmas together at Mar-a-Lago and returned to the property just over a month later on the weekend of the Super Bowl.
Trump administration officials are especially loyal patrons of the Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C. In total, CREW has recorded 193 officials who have visited this single property. These visits give other hotel patrons—who include lobbyists, corporate executives and foreign officials—an exclusive perk: The chance to mingle with the President and other high-level administration officials. The President’s D.C. hotel offers paying customers access to powerful officials as well as patronage that puts money directly in the President’s pocket. These are valuable commodities that no other luxury hotel in D.C. can offer its clients.
Many of these visits take place en masse, with Trump administration officials flocking to the hotel for an event or party, giving hotel patrons valuable access to many officials at once. Both former White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders and former Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs at the U.S. Department of the Treasury Tony Sayegh held going away parties at President Trump’s D.C. hotel this year. Sanders’ party brought 35 administration officials to the hotel, including Secretary of Energy Rick Perry, Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross, and Counselor to the President Kellyanne Conway, among others.”
Refusal of Senators to hold Trump Accountable
CREW Notes that:
“Presented with the unprecedented conflicts of interest posed by President Trump’s refusal to divest his business interests, Republican members of Congress have refused to hold him accountable. Rather, they seem to have embraced the arrangement by attending and hosting events and making appearances there, giving Trump’s clientele the chance to mingle with powerful people.”
Instead:
At least 90 individual members of Congress have visited Trump properties 188 times. Senator Lindsey Graham’s twelve visits to Trump properties make him the most frequent visitor. Most recently, Graham visited the Trump National Golf Club in the D.C. suburbs, where he golfed with Senators Rand Paul (R-KY), David Perdue, (R-GA), and the president himself. Graham is followed by Rand Paul (10), Kevin McCarthy (10), Mark Meadows (8), and Lee Zeldin (6) for most frequent visits.”
Many of the Republicans in Congress have been virtually Trump Surrogates:
“If one member of Congress is spotted at the Trump Hotel, there is a strong chance that others are nearby. As with administration officials, members of Congress frequently attend events together or dine with one another at the president’s hotel. For example, earlier this summer, Rand Paul was honored at a gala at the hotel, also featuring Representatives Dan Crenshaw of Texas and Thomas Massie of Kentucky. Last summer, Representatives Ron DeSantis (R-Fla.), Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), and Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), and Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) attended judge Jeanine Pirro’s book signing at the hotel. In late 2018, Reps. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) and Raul Labrador (R-Idaho) dined together at BLT Prime, overlooking the hotel lobby.”
CREW observes:
“Republican members’ silence on the matter of Trump’s conflicts of interest is particularly striking given that the Trump business they tend to be spotted at the most, the Trump Hotel, just up Pennsylvania Avenue from the Capitol, is leased to the Trump Organization by the United States government, meaning that the legal and ethics questions raised by the arrangement fall squarely within the oversight responsibilities of Congress.”
Only Remaining remedy for these violations is Impeachment
This failure of the courts to enforce the law has in effect mandated that Congress punish Donald J. Trump and his confederates for their emoluments violations with the only remaining remedy available to them until after Donald J. Trump leaves office, when these many crimes could be punished by a DOJ or Courts with integrity.
The Court refuses to do its own duty, recommending that this has to be adjudicated in Congress:
“Defendant argues that Plaintiffs' claims are better left resolved through the "political process," rather than the courts, because Congress is "far better equipped" to address whether Defendant's particular activities violate the Foreign Emoluments Clause.” (Opp'n at 50.)
The Courts even accepted Donald J. Trump's suggestion that the "remedy" would be for Congress to Consent to Trump's gross violations of the letter and intent of the emoluments clause. Citing testimony:
“Defendant points out that Congress has more tools at its disposal, including the ability to legislate and consent to Foreign Emoluments Clause violations. (Id.) [Emoluments Decision]
Essentially the court ducked responsibility from enforcing the law by claiming that only Congress can give permission to Trump to take emoluments. But Congress never gave him permission to do so, and the constitution doesn't give the President an exemption from its own language.
“shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument”
The courts have no power to duck enforcing the law, when it is clear that Congress was never going to grant the President exemption from the emoluments clause for emoluments far in excess of the 100$ limit in USC 7342. If it did consent to such corrupt acts Congress would be recklessly negligent in performing its own duties. This decision is so feckless and reckless that the judges who made it ought to be subject to an impeachment inquiry themselves! The courts duck nevertheless:
“ As the explicit language of the Foreign Emoluments Clause makes clear, this is an issue committed exclusively to Congress. As the only political branch with the power to consent to violations of the Foreign Emoluments Clause, Congress is the appropriate body to determine whether, and to what extent, Defendant's conduct unlawfully infringes on that power. If Congress determines that an infringement has occurred, it is up to Congress to decide whether to challenge or acquiesce to Defendant's conduct. As such, this case presents a non-justiciable political question. [Emoluments Decision]
USC 7342 ought to give some guidance to the courts that Congress, the founders, and years of regulation and rulings, have already weighed in on this matter, even if we never have faced a President who ignored emoluments the way this one does. When the courts say:
“unless and until Congress speaks on this issue, Plaintiffs' Foreign Emoluments Clause claims are not ripe for adjudication.” [Emoluments Decision]
They are saying that we must impeach Donald J. Trump, put previous expectations and regulations into loophole proof law, and perhaps impeach some judges.
Impeach, rebuke, censure and find in contempt of Congress
Therefore since Congress has never consented, cannot lawfully consent, nor has Trump sought such consent, Trump is in violation of the emoluments clause, and this article of impeachment is necessary to:
- punish him for ignoring the constitution.
- Place into law the requirement that no President should profit while in office from outside business, nor continue to run such business, nor make or appear to make decisions based on his private, separate business.
- We rebuke and censure the President and every one of his officers, employees, and surrogates who are involved in these corrupt activities.
- We find him in contempt of congress for failing to put his properties into a blind trust or to respect 240 years of tradition and policy.
- We censure the president for his self enrichment, lawlessness and disregard for the law in pursuing and taking emoluments from both domestic and foreign sources.
- We recommend this article of impeachment be delivered to the Senate for an immediate trial under The Courts timidity in refusing to give remedy to Trump's obvious obvious corruption. Therefore the only remedy for Trump's crimes of bribery, emoluments violations and self enrichment, is impeachment, rebuke and censure. We censure Trump for his crimes of self enrichment, his violations of the emoluments clause, and rebuke his lawlessness. We find Donald J. Trump in contempt of Congress for his willful contempt of the constitution.
- Upon approval by the house we recommend that this article of impeachment be immediately forwarded to the Senate for Trial and adjudication as indicated under Article 1, section 3, of the constitution, along with the entire corpus of allegations, evidence, and proofs and a list of co-conspirators to be impeached and removed from office with him.
- We further recommend that all of this testimony and evidence be entered into the congressional record and preserved for use by Federal and State prosecutors when he is out of office.
- Attached to this article shall be legal changes to ensure that these kinds of violations never happen again.
Sources and Further Readings
- Decision on Emoluments
- https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000160-7b12-dcd4-a96b-7f3bae5a0000
- https://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed84.htm
- CREW has been documenting Trump's Conflicts of Interest and corruption:
- https://www.citizensforethics.org/2000-trump-conflicts-of-interest-counting/
No comments:
Post a Comment