George W. Bush's Ethics Lawyer: Trump Will Be in Violation of Constitution on Day One


Published on Dec 28, 2016
http://democracynow.org - Could Donald Trump be in violation of the Constitution on his first day in office? That’s the conclusion of some leading constitutional law experts. The Constitution prohibits officeholders from accepting "any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state." Law experts say many of Trump’s businesses are already benefiting from his presidency. Kuwait, for example, recently moved its National Celebration Day from the Four Seasons in Georgetown to the Trump International Hotel instead. According to ThinkProgress, Kuwait faced political pressure from the Trump camp to move the location. Other diplomats have reportedly been urged to hold events at Trump’s hotel. Trump and his family also have holdings or projects in Argentina, Brazil, Georgia, India, Ireland, Japan, Philippines and Turkey. In addition, Trump’s businesses owe hundreds of millions of dollars to foreign banks, including Deutsche Bank, UBS and Bank of China. We speak to Richard Painter, professor of corporate law at the University of Minnesota. He was the chief White House ethics lawyer for President George W. Bush from February 2005 to July 2007.

Democracy Now! is an independent global news hour that airs weekdays on nearly 1,400 TV and radio stations Monday through Friday. Watch our livestream 8-9AM ET: http://democracynow.org

__________________
Hope is the dream of the waking man.
Aristotle

For there is hope of a tree, if it be cut down, that it will sprout again, and that the tender branch thereof will not cease.
Job 14:6-8

The 12 best gifts world leaders gave the Obamas

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd

This sentence, alone, should bar anyone from ever being called an "expert" again...

Trump has been president for ZERO days...

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd

According to our resident expert on the Constitution,,,; PE Trump does not yet hold any office. Or have any authority.

Therefore, until he is sworn in, technically he can accept gifts from anyone.

Frankly this is just more of the same desperate BS from the left, and those who oppose TRUMP. And I would point out the obvious name dropping here. This is not from GWB but one of his former legal advisors on ethics. I would ask why, all of a sudden, the left is at all enamored with GWB appointees? And I would, by extension ask when does ethics have anything to do anymore with politics?



The Bush dynasty, along with the Clinton dynasty, are hopefully behind us. Making the casual attachment of their names to current events irrelevant.

__________________
I am going to hang a Batman Costume in my closet. .......... Just to screw with myself when I get alzheimer's.
sola gratia, sola fide, sola scriptura.

I AM NOT A REPUBLICAN, I AM A FREEMAN, THE DEMOCRATS WORST NIGHTMARE

But don't you understand Franc?!?!?!...

This is a BUSH LAWYER!!!...And BUSH LAWYERS have been 100% acceptable FOREVER!!!!!...

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd

And nothing will happen.

He'll sit in office, Setting a garbage precedent and paving the way for the next wannabe oligarch to run for election with the same baseless lies and rhetoric as before.

All because we don't have the checks and balances we think we do. Our Democracy is weak, flawed even, and it's too late to change.

It's a byproduct of how partisan the system has become. the legislature doesn't exist to be a check on the president, but to fight for more power for their side, so even when there are obvious problems they'll never do anything because it would give the other side a win.

__________________
People have said not to just dismiss the right as stupid, as it's polarizing and you won't get through to them that way, etc. But it's hard to imagine that someone with even average intelligence could be so lacking in self-awareness as they are.

An ethics lawyer that worked directly for a standing president since the turn of the century is saying that Trump will be in violation of the constitution of the US upon assuming office, and your interpretation is that there is some "side" against you and your PEOTUS?

There are no sides in this matter. We're all being told what we already knew, this time from a lawyer that worked for the previous Republican presidential administration. No amount of crying fake news, or invoking HRC can unfu*k the quagmire of conflicts of interest and potential treason that constitute the foundation of the Trump administration. Oil deals with Russia, debts to China, hotel deals at home and abroad; so many cats are already out of the bag, it's going to take a mountain of Trump steaks and failed Trump U students turned cat catchers to even begin to put Humpty Trumpty together again.

If W is really on the side of the leftists that hate him, all that should indicate to you is that your political group and ideology are the least popular movement in the US since fuc*ing secession.

__________________
People have said not to just dismiss the right as stupid, as it's polarizing and you won't get through to them that way, etc. But it's hard to imagine that someone with even average intelligence could be so lacking in self-awareness as they are.

I'm beginning to question your reading skills. Article clearly states "Trump Will Be in Violation of Constitution on Day One", it does not state the day before. Or is this another one of your strawmen?

This isnt about gifts. I feel like you're missing the core-concept of what owning a business is. His business is and will be accepting payments from foreign governments.

Its also this:

"And the problem is, if [Trump] decides to allow [his children] to carry out governmental functions without a formal appointment, that is much worse than a violation of the anti-nepotism statute, as I interpret it...you cannot have people who aren’t government employees, who don’t have the conflict of interest requirements of government employees, running around setting policy, influencing other people in the United States government."

It's really quite simple, according to the republican Ethics lawyer, If the Trump Organization still exists after Jan 20th, with either Trump or his children in charge... Then he would be in violation of the Nobility Clause and foreign emoluments clause, unless they somehow sell all parts of their organizations and overseas assets.

You'll notice that you guys never actually argue that he won't be violating the Emoluments Clause. Why is that?

I've heard "give him a chance," or "it would be hard for him to sell his businesses," or "quit complaining Hillary lost," various other permutations of those. But I've never heard anyone seriously argue "Trump won't be violating the Emoluments Clause."

Why cant you defend Trump? Why the constant obfuscation?


Oh, now I get it. Ethics and laws only apply to Democrats.

__________________
People have said not to just dismiss the right as stupid, as it's polarizing and you won't get through to them that way, etc. But it's hard to imagine that someone with even average intelligence could be so lacking in self-awareness as they are.

"8: 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."

U.S. Constitution
you know, highest law in the land
(at least the 2nd amendment part means what it says amiright fellas )

Look, where's the Constitution loving TEA PARTY right when you need them?
seems they're splitting hairs, dodging the point and asking if ETHICS have anything to do with running our Federal Government!

Has it really come to this?
As long as our boy is in there we give him a blank check and the constitution really doesn't count for squat? If it ever did.

Where's "the RULE of LAW" right on this?
Where are cries of "of course there's NO favoritism" and "OF COURSE there's equal justice for everyone no matter what" this is AMERICA!!! right?

When i say that both parties ... leadership and rank and file... like to talk a good game about the love of the constitution and equal justice but they don't mean half of what they SPOUT, i'm being generous.

__________________
Hope is the dream of the waking man.
Aristotle

For there is hope of a tree, if it be cut down, that it will sprout again, and that the tender branch thereof will not cease.
Job 14:6-8

Add to that the Other laws on the books having to do with Bribery and Gratuities

The federal bribery statute, 18 U.S.C. § 201
(b), criminalizes the corrupt promise or transfer of any thing of value to influence an official act of a federal official, a fraud on the United States, or the commission or omission of any act in violation of the official's duty.[33] 18 U.S.C. § 201(b)(1)–(2) provides:

(b) Whoever –
(1) directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers or promises anything of value to any public official or person who has been selected to be a public official, or offers or promises any public official or any person who has been selected to be a public official to give anything of value to any other person or entity, with intent –
(A) to influence any official act; or
(B) to influence such public official or person who has been selected to be a public official to commit or aid in committing, or collude in, or allow, any fraud, or make opportunity for the commission of any fraud, on the United States; or
(C) to induce such public official or such person who has been selected to be a public official to do or omit to do any act in violation of the lawful duty of such official or person;
(2) being a public official or person selected to be a public official, directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity, in return for:
(A) being influenced in the performance of any official act;
(B) being influenced to commit or aid in committing, or to collude in, or allow, any fraud, or make opportunity for the commission of any fraud, on the United States; or
(C) being induced to do or omit to do any act in violation of the official duty of such official or person . . .
shall be fined under this title or not more than three times the monetary equivalent of the thing of value, whichever is greater, or imprisoned for not more than fifteen years, or both, and may be disqualified from holding any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.[34]

The federal gratuity statute,
18 U.S.C. § 201(c), criminalizes the transfer of any thing of value to a federal official for or because of an official act.[35] 18 U.S.C. § 201(c)(1) provides:

(c) Whoever –
(1) otherwise than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duty –
(A) directly or indirectly gives, offers, or promises anything of value to any public official, former public official, or person selected to be a public official, for or because of any official act performed or to be performed by such public official, former public official, or person selected to be a public official; or
(B) being a public official, former public official, or person selected to be a public official, otherwise than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duty, directly or indirectly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally for or because of any official act performed or to be performed by such official or person . . .
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than two years, or both.[36]

The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78dd-1,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federa..._United_States


He'd be subject to supiusioun of and indidicent for any number of acts that might otherwise seem innocent.

And it goes not only for hi But those in his cabinet.
the Former head of Exxon going to divest himself from all of his exxon holdings.
as Secretary of sate might HE ... As Hillary's Emails suggest she did... influence Oil rich nations to favor exxon?

Look, either we're going to PRETEND that it WILL NEVER happen,
OR where going to demand that they divest themselves as ALL public officials are REQUIRED to do.
THIS is part of the CLEARING the SWAMP Trump CLAIMED he was going to Washington to do. To remove the Corporate and Foreign MONETARY Influence.

either he's going to set an example or he's going to leave the appearance of CONTINUED Washington corruption and leave himself open for indictments and impeachment. And Feign Innocence while getting fat just like the rest of the corrupt politicians.

__________________
Hope is the dream of the waking man.
Aristotle

For there is hope of a tree, if it be cut down, that it will sprout again, and that the tender branch thereof will not cease.
Job 14:6-8