To force Congress to confront, before Nov. 8, 2016, whether it is badly corrupt or not, and to pass reform for voters to consider. To get started, click on "A. Declarations" at right.
Daddy, did you see the article about Chelsea "flagging 'serious concerns' about Clinton Foundation conflicts?" It's posted at Ivanka to President-Elect. Now there's the below AP story today about Eric. I think we really need to talk about this as a family. Love, Ivanka
PALM BEACH, Fla. -- One of President-elect Donald Trump’s sons will stop directly raising money for his namesake foundation, saying he worries the donations could be perceived as buying access to his father.
Eric Trump said Wednesday that it pained him to cease soliciting donations for his organization, which he says has raised more than $15 million for children terminally ill with cancer. The foundation came under scrutiny recently after posting an online auction for coffee with his sister Ivanka.
“Fighting childhood cancer is a cause that has been central to my life since I was 21 years old,” Eric Trump told the Associated Press. “It’s an extremely sad day when doing the right thing isn’t the right thing. That said, raising awareness for the cause will be a lifelong mission for me.”
Trump, the younger of the president-elect’s two adult sons, has raised enough money over the last decade to fund a new intensive care unit at St. Jude’s Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee, which provides free medical care for children. But criticism mounted after an invitation offered a hunting trip with Eric or his brother Donald Jr. in exchange for donations of $500,000 or $1 million to a new charity that Eric Trump supports.
Both the coffee and hunting ventures have been scuttled.
News of Eric Trump’s decision was first reported Wednesday by The New York Times.
Eric Trump said he will likely wind down the Eric Trump Foundation - which had just one employee - but plans to continue public advocacy against childhood cancer. About $5 million of a $20 million, 10-year commitment to St. Jude’s remains outstanding, money that likely will be raised by donations from patrons at Trump-owned hotels and golf courses.
Don Jr. and Eric Trump, who were among the Republican businessman’s closest campaign advisers and have played an active role in the transition, are planning to remain in New York to run the massive Trump Organization once their father takes office. Critics have demanded the president-elect divest himself from his business. He was to have addressed the future of the company at a press conference last week, but it has been postponed to January.
The future also remains murky for the Donald J. Trump Foundation, a separate charity run by the president-elect that solicited outside gifts and has been criticized for using donations to fund business interests.
In the constitutional oath of office, the President-Elect solemnly swears (or affirms) that he will "faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States . . .."
President-Elect Trump said in his interview with The New York Times that "the president can’t have a conflict of interest."
That, and other things he and his transition team have said, seem to give no recognition to the word "faithfully" in the constitutional oath of office.
Electors might, before they vote, require a written statement to be submitted by President-Elect Trump that he is aware of the word "faithfully" in the oath of office and that such statement set forth the President-Elect's understanding of what "faithfully" means relative to his conflicts of interest (in fact). Such statement might also address what role the President-Elect believes Congress has to play, including whether Congress has the power to make its own determination of whether a President is faithfully executing his office, and the power to impeach the President if the Congress determines that the President has not faithfully executed his office.
Chelsea Clinton flagged “serious concerns” about her father’s closest aides trying to cash in by using the former president’s name to gain access to government officials on behalf of paying clients, according to hacked emails released this week.
The emails, which were disseminated by WikiLeaks, reveal bitter tensions within the Clintons’ inner circle that were inflamed when Chelsea Clinton tried to put an end to practices that blurred the line between the foundation, governments and a consulting firm called Teneo that paid Bill Clinton.
Some of the concerns raised by the former first daughter echo attacks that have been dogging her mother, Hillary Clinton, during her presidential campaign. Clinton’s GOP rival Donald Trump and other Republicans allege that the Clintons used their foundation and private business arrangements to enrich themselves by essentially auctioning off access to the powerful family and their associates in government — including during Hillary Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state.
Teneo, in particular, did lucrative work for foundation donors and entities with business before Clinton’s State Department. And it signed a contract reportedly worth $3.5 millionwith Bill Clinton to serve as an adviser (though the former president ultimately kept only $100,000 of that, according to his tax returns and a source familiar with the arrangement). Teneo also paid Huma Abedin, Hillary Clinton’s right-hand woman at the State Department, as a “senior advisor.”
One of the pair of Clintonites who founded Teneo, Declan Kelly, was working for Clinton’s State Department while laying the groundwork for the firm, as revealed by POLITICO. POLITICO also exposed that the other Teneo founder, longtime Bill Clinton aide Doug Band, was drawing salaries from both the Clinton Foundation and the former president’s taxpayer-subsidized personal office, while another early Teneo official, Justin Cooper, was being paid by Clinton’s taxpayer-funded office, even as he was performing maintenance on Hillary Clinton’s controversial private email server.
In December 2011, Chelsea Clinton sent a sharply worded email to top family confidants saying that people in London had raised "serious concerns" about the way Teneo was using her father's name to set up meetings for clients, according to private emails released by WikiLeaks. "I will raise all of this and more with my father this evening," she wrote. "Wanted to update you all in the meanwhile about my augmented concerns post London."
At the time, Chelsea Clinton had already been pushing to enact tougher rules at the foundation regarding conflicts of interest and outside income. In response, Band blasted her behind her back as an irrational ingrate who runs “to daddy to change a decision or interject herself in the process.”
In the emails released by WikiLeaks on Monday and Tuesday, Band dismissed Clinton as an entitled and power-hungry young woman who wreaked havoc at the Clinton Foundation — and who created a stressful environment that contributed to one person's contemplating suicide — simply because she was bored and protective of her relationship with her father.
“She is acting like a spoiled brat kid who has nothing else to do but create issues to justify what she's doing because she, as she has said, hasn't found her way and has a lack of focus in her life,” Band wrote in a November 2011 email to longtime Clinton family adviser John Podesta.
Band added that Teneo “has almost nothing to do with the Clintons, the foundation or [the Clinton Global Initiative] in any way.”
Podesta urged Band to try to avoid sparring with Chelsea Clinton, but at the same time he was emailing with her and others in a manner that seemed to validate Chelsea's concerns about setting up outside procedures for dealing with Teneo.
A former White House chief of staff to Bill Clinton, Podesta is now serving as the chairman of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, and the emails WikiLeaks released came from his personal account.
Podesta and Band did not respond on Tuesday to questions about the emails, nor did representatives for Chelsea Clinton, Bill Clinton or the Clinton Foundation.
Glen Caplin, a spokesman for Hillary Clinton’s campaign, declined to answer questions about the dispute over Teneo, instead alleging that the hack was the work of Russia and intended “to help Donald Trump become President of the United States.”
While U.S. intelligence officials have fingered the Russia government for other hacks intended to influence the presidential election, there is no evidence that Russia is behind the hack of Podesta’s emails.
Podesta has been a close personal adviser to the Clintons for decades.
In late 2011 — the period covered by most of the WikiLeaks emails related to the foundation and Teneo — Podesta agreed to serve as the Clinton Foundation’s temporary CEO after its longtime CEO, Bruce Lindsey, the Clintons’ longtime Arkansas lawyer, suffered a stroke.
Podesta inherited an organization that was still being run to some extent like a Bill Clinton personality cult steered by the former president’s friends and former aides, even as it had grown into a $2 billion global philanthropy credited with major breakthroughs in fighting childhood obesity and AIDS.
At the time, Chelsea Clinton — newly married, bearing an Ivy League master’s degree in public health and coming off stints on Wall Street and at the consulting powerhouse McKinsey & Co. — had joined the board of one of the foundation’s subsidiaries and begun seeking to instill data-driven management techniques across the foundation.
Clinton initiated a 2011 audit by the New York law firm Simpson Thacher focusing partly on “potential conflicts of interest.” The firm conducted 38 interviews with employees and officials, explaining in a Simpson Thacher document released by WikiLeaks on Tuesday that “many interviewees were unaware” of the foundation’s policies related to conflicts of interest and outside employment.
Chelsea Clinton’s efforts to reform the foundation were perceived within the foundation as a vote of no-confidence in Band, Lindsey and the Clinton old guard, according to interviews with a handful of sources who worked with or around the foundation.
During a November 2011 meeting, Band complained to Bill Clinton that his daughter’s efforts to implement conflict of interest rules were actually a thinly veiled effort “to push him out, take over,” according to an email from Chelsea Clinton to Podesta. “Dad kept asking him — has she said that to you? To anyone? She's never said it to me and I think she's been very clear and consistent in her goals, etc.,” Chelsea Clinton continued in the email, which was sent from a pseudonymous email address bearing the name Anna James and associated with New York University, where she served as an assistant vice provost.
Those goals, according to Chelsea Clinton’s email, “were to help to take stock, professionalize the Foundation, build it for the future and build it in such a way that supported his work and mom's.”
But, as POLITICO reported last year, Chelsea Clinton, who had by that point become the foundation’s vice chair, was seen by some in the foundation’s rank and file as distant and intimidating, while some officials saw her as using her relationship with her father to get her way.
In a December 2011 email to Podesta and Cheryl Mills, who was then serving as Hillary Clinton’s chief of staff in the State Department, Band alleged that “the stress of all of this office crap with [Bill Clinton] and [Chelsea Clinton]” had contributed to pushing a top foundation official to the brink of suicide.
And Lindsey “said the stress of specifically the office had caused his very serious health issues,” according to Band’s email. Lindsey did not respond to a request for comment, nor did the foundation official who Band indicated had become suicidal, who has since left the foundation.
Band suggested that Chelsea Clinton should have been more concerned about “her role in what happened to” Lindsey and the allegedly suicidal staffer, as well as “what she is doing to” the Clinton Foundation, and with stories about her father’s marital infidelity.
Instead, though, Band contended in a January 2012 email to Podesta, Mills and family friend Terry McAuliffe (now the governor of Virginia) that Chelsea Clinton was courting trouble by openly telling people outside the foundation “that she is conducting an internal investigation of money within the foundation.” According to Band’s email, which was released Tuesday, Clinton relayed this to “one of the bush 43 kids,” who “then told an operative within the republican party … Not smart.”
In another email, Band suggested that Chelsea was trying to drive a wedge between him and Bill Clinton by highlighting a news story reporting that a controversial financial services firm called MF Global had been paying Teneo $125,000 a month.
In fact, Chelsea Clinton had forwarded a version of that story in December 2011 to Podesta, Lindsey, McAuliffe and two Simpson Thacher officials. Clinton requested that the story be added to the news clips presented to her father, presumably via printouts, since he eschews email, suggesting that negative coverage of Teneo is typically kept from him.
Chelsea Clinton indicated that during a trip to London “two people separately voiced concerns directly to me about Teneo,” while a third told her chief of staff that a Bill Clinton staffer “has called Members of the House and Members of Parliament, ‘on behalf of President Clinton,’ for Teneo clients” including Dow Chemical, a major Clinton Foundation donor.
These calls, according to Chelsea Clinton, were made “without my father's knowledge and inelegantly and ineffectually at best.” The situation has led to “people in London making comparisons between my father and Tony Blair's profit motivations. Which would horrify my father.”
Podesta responded: “We need to move to a resolution of this quickly,” to which Clinton agreed, asking whether Mills and McAuliffe had made any progress working out an agreement with Band and Cooper relating to outside income.
Less than two weeks later, Mills emailed Podesta, Band and Cooper with a draft of a document proposing what it called an “Infrastructure Model” for the Clinton Foundation.
The draft outlined a number of proposed structures for handling Bill Clinton’s personal, political and foundation business, but the common theme in each is that Band and Cooper would be less central to the operation. They would “not have any obligation or authority regarding the implementation of decisions,” the document says, and “would no longer serve as either employees or consultants to the Foundation; should the Foundation or its affiliated entities desire their services, they would engage them directly, through a personal consulting contract, to provide mutually agreeable services.”
A later draft of the document indicates that Bill Clinton’s role with Teneo — which it says began in July 2011, with Clinton serving “as an advisor to Teneo in support of its establishment and start-up” — would end. “Commencing January 1, 2012, the President instead will become a client of Teneo; Teneo principals will provide consulting services to the President in his personal capacity.”
On Dec. 22, 2012, a Simpson Thacher official forwarded to Mills and Podesta a draft of Bill Clinton’s letter resigning from Teneo’s advisory board, in which he said he applauded “the wonderful work that you are doing, and I wish you and the firm all success in the future.”
Band continued to be paid by the Clinton Foundation into 2012, and by Bill Clinton’s taxpayer-subsidized personal office through January 2013, but he has since become distanced from the family, even as Teneo’s clientele continued to overlap with the Clinton Foundation’s donor rolls.
Josh Gerstein and Nolan D. McCaskill contributed to this report.
To: AL legislative delegation; AL Governor; AL Attorney General
During a rally in Colorado, Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump pledged to introduce a constitutional amendment that would impose term limits on members of Congress. (The Washington Post)
Donald Trump wants to make members of Congress step down after a few years. But it's wishful thinking, mostly for these four reasons:
1) The Supreme Court says passing term-limit laws is unconstitutional.
In 1995, the Supreme Court decided in a 5 to 4 vote that states or Congress can't just make a law limiting the number of terms members of Congress can serve. The decision essentially wiped off the books term-limit laws that 23 states had for their congressional delegations. (The decision didn't affect term limits for state legislatures, and there are 15 states that impose them.)
The court said that for term limits to be constitutional, we'd have to amend the Constitution.
And actually, changing the Constitution is exactly what Trump proposed Tuesday:
“If I'm elected president I will push for a constitutional amendment to impose term limits on all members of Congress. They've been talking about that for years,” Trump said in a speech in Colorado championing his new package of ethics reforms. “Decades of failure in Washington and decades of special interest dealing must and will come to an end.”
But there's a problem with that idea, too. And it's:
2) Constitutional amendments are really, really, really hard to pass.
Presidential candidates routinely call for constitutional amendments, but rarely with success.
For one, changing the Constitution requires one of the hardest things to do in politics. It requires an agreement by a two-thirds supermajority of Congress and then to be ratified by three-fourths of states, or 38 out of 50.
Only 27 proposals out of countless ideas in our country's 240-year history have climbed that steep hill.
This isn't the first time Trump has proposed one this campaign cycle alone. Back when he and other GOP presidential hopefuls floated the idea of changing the 14th Amendment to eliminate birthright citizenship, I dove into the circumstances surrounding those 27 changes to our Constitution. I found that the United States is often only spurred to change it under extenuating circumstances, such as political crises, war and death.
3) Many political scientists think term limits are a bad idea.
There is evidence that term limits create more competitive elections, said Josh Chafetz, a law professor and congressional expert with Cornell University. But he said most political scientists would agree that term limits don't make sense in a body that deals with as many complex issues as Congress. In fact, paradoxically, term limits could increase the power of those who can stay around the Hill for as long as they want: lobbyists.
“If members are restricted to only serving a few terms,” Molly Reynolds, a congressional expert with the Brookings Institution told The Fix in an email, “the logic goes, they have neither the time nor the incentive to develop the relevant expertise they need to be good at their jobs. If members don’t have that expertise themselves, they’re more likely to rely on outsiders, including lobbyists, to replace that expertise.”
4) Congress would probably never agree to it (and never has).
Trump is right, imposing term limits on Congress isn't a new idea. Politicians — especially those on the right — have been floating the idea for years as a way to crack down on corruption. The thinking goes that once a lawmaker spends too much time in Washington, he or she becomes part of Washington and incapable of effectively serving people outside of it. So let's put a limit on how long they can be in Washington.
But once those pro-term-limit lawmakers get into office, very, very few of them have actually tried to put their words into action.
Back in 1995, when the Supreme Court ruled term limits unconstitutional, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted on four versions of term limits. But three of those proposals, as the New York Times reported at the time, even failed to get a bare majority. There really hasn't been a major push for term limits since.
And that makes sense when you think about it: Why would lawmakers agree to campaign for a job they're just going to leave in a few years?
Some lawmakers have decided to impose their own term limits. But history is littered with broken term-limit promises. Rep. Matt Salmon (R-Ariz.) resigned his seat in 2000 to honor a campaign pledge to retire after three terms. But in 2011, he was back, saying the idea of term limits is flawed unless everyone agrees to them.
“When it came to getting committee assignments it harmed me,” hetold the Weekly Standard in 2004. “When I say harmed me, I mean it harmed my district.” (Salmon says he's retiring at the end of this year.)
We're picking on Salmon, but lots of lawmakers have and continue to run for office despite making campaign pledges to leave office at a certain date.
In other words, proposing term limits for Congress is a popular thing to say on the campaign trail. But it's not such a popular thing to advocate for once you're actually in Congress. And of all the reasons Trump's term-limit proposal won't happen, this is probably the most salient: Congress doesn't want it.
Amber Phillips writes about politics for The Fix. She was previously the one-woman D.C. bureau for the Las Vegas Sun and has reported from Boston and Taiwan.
The President-Elect has also proposed lobbying bans applicable to Congress and Congressional staffs. Congress should consider these proposals for fixing itself. Members of Congress should decide, and announce to their constituents, where they stand on the proposals. The voters should demand this of their Senators and Representatives in Congress. For doing this in Alabama, see AL Cong'l delegation lobbying ban positions.
WILL CONGRESS BE FLAT ON ITS BACK?
President-Elect Trump has, since the election, said and done things which are suggestive that he would just as soon have Congress flat on its back, in order that he as President can have his way on every matter of governance of interest to him. For this purpose, President-Elect Trump may lose complete interest in anything to "fix" Congress. Members of Congress should evaluate this and figure out whether Congress is going to "fix" itself just so that it will be able stand up to President Trump.
Conceive of the Clinton Foundation as a giant web of contacts, with Bill Clinton as the mastermind at the center.
The contacts include hundreds of governmental entities and officials, businessmen, politicians, charities, media publicists, Clinton entourage members, and others. The web has large financial resources to draw on for its activities. The primary attraction of the web has been the Clinton machine for political access and influence, which, before November 8th, had the prospect of being incomparably augmented by Hillary Clinton being elected President.
The web has existed for benefiting the participants through the trading of financial inducements and governmental, political and commercial favors.
Bill Clinton is the mastermind in charge of the operation of the web. Proposals for projects for the web come to him, He vets them with a view to benefits for web participants and assembling a team of web contacts to provide needed services and assets for a particular project, including pulling needed strings with involved governmental bodies and officials.
The Clinton Foundation was hugely successful in its purposes and grew spectacularly for 15 years. Many, many persons wanted to get on the Clinton Foundation roster of participants in order to partake of large financial and other benefits that could be obtained through the massive Clinton web of contacts and connections.
Besides enriching themselves through the trading of financial inducements and governmental, political and commercial favors, the Clintons ultimately had their eyes on supporting Hillary Clinton's quest for the Presidency. This made the Clinton Foundation a virtual precursor of the Hillary Clinton Presidential campaign, enabling immediate donations to the Foundation (and payment of speaking fees) that would nurture the Clinton political machine for its ultimate quest, and donors being deserving for recognition in the future if Hillary Clinton was elected President ("pay to play" in advance, so to speak).
One gauge of how much present and prospective pay to play went on in connection with the Clinton Foundation will be how much the Clinton Foundation donations and activities fall off now that the value of the Clinton political brand has been very substantially reduced by Hillary Clinton's losing the Presidency with little prospects ahead.
Trump Inc.
The Trump business empire is a massive web of contacts and connections that Donald Trump has developed over 25 years in business, and that most in the country are just beginning to learn about.
Before Trump's ascendancy to the Presidency, Trump was a governmental outsider (compared to the Clintons being governmental insiders), and it is likely Trump Inc. currently has a lesser degree of contacts, access and influence in the governmental and political realm compared to what the Clintons cultivated over 25 years in their governmental spheres. So long as Trump was in the private sector, the Trump Inc. web of contacts and connections did not present the troublesome aspects that the Clinton web of contacts presented in the form of the Clinton Foundation and the Clintons' outsized role in political fundraising (and its concomitant "pay to play").
Trump will become the ultimate governmental insider and have more access and influence in the governmental domain than anyone else.
Trump has given the impression that he is going to keep the business empire fully operational. As a result, now the massive web of contacts and connections of Trump Inc is potentially available for use in new ways. These new ways could create "pay to pay" problems like the Clinton Foundation and raise other novel questions that are troublesome.
1. The Trump Inc web as an adjunct to regular Presidential powers
One way for Trump web to be used by Trump is as an adjunct to Trump's regular Presidential powers for carrying out his Presidential agenda.
For example, Trump could simply ask his Trump web contacts to support his legislation, including that they contact their Congressional representatives to urge the representatives to support Trump legislation. Trump could couple his requests with indications of favorable treatment of business interests of web contacts who help out, and Trump may even signal that failure to support Trump legislation could be met with some unfavorable business treatment by the Trump administration.
Besides using the Trump business web, Trump has already exhibited a willingness to go outside of regular Executive Branch modes of governance in order to carry out his Presidential agenda. This was shown in his contacting the Carrier Air Conditioning Company directly over the Thanksgiving holiday to try to keep jobs in Indiana. Trump has lived by the "art of the deal" in his business career and is on course to bring it to his Presidency. Trump stands to expand enormously already massive web of contacts in business and government in order to make "deals" to advance his Presidential agenda.
This prospective form of governance by Trump is to be contrasted with regular modes of governance by the Executive Branch. The regular modes start with Congress passing laws, making appropriations, funding programs and incentives under the law, and specifying punishments for non-compliance with the law. The Executive Branch executes the laws Congress passes, including by means of administrative agencies which act by general rule making and by enforcement in particular cases for which there are administrative and judicial protections for those against whom enforcement is sought.
Governing by "deals" (such as exhibited by the Carrier Air Conditioning Company) raises questions of whether it is constitutional rule by law or is impermissible extra-legal means of governance. Troubling problems include lack of transparency and improper inducements or punishments to obtain the "deal".
2. Increased "pay to play"
If Trump uses his Trump Inc. web to help him in carrying out Trump administration agenda, those whom Trump calls on to help may want to obtain something from Trump in return.
To the extent it is perceived that Trump is using his Trump Inc. web as an adjunct to his regular Presidential powers, many will vy to participate and augment their participation in the Trump web, so they may curry favor with Trump and possibly receive things in return for helping Trump (a form of "pay to play")..
"Pay to play" is significant problem in the regular political fund raising domain, and efforts are made to counter the problem by means of such things as reporting and disclosure about campaign contributions
Trump's adamancy that the President cannot have "conflicts of interest" may provide rationalization and induce willingness of those in the Trump Inc. web to engage in "pay to play" with Trump.
Further, in the Trump Inc web, "pay to play" can be camouflaged, and reporting and disclosure may be not work very well to combat problems with that form of "pay to play."
Trump's use of the Trump Inc. web and his "art of the deal" method give rise to undesirable secrecy in how Trump is governing the country (compared to Trump operating within the organized Executive Branch of government).
3. Conflation of the USA and Donald Trump
There does not seem to be a limit to Trump's sense of grandiosity about himself.
If Trump keeps his business empire, there is a risk he will conflate his Trump businesses and Trump name with the greater interest of the country as a whole, and Trump will develop a mindset that the greater the success of Trump businesses and the ever more prominently the Trump name figures in the nation and in the world, the greater America is and the greater America will be so viewed.
Trump may simply conceive of himself as having two empires to run and build, one being the country and the other being the Trump private empire.
If that conflation happens in Trump's mind, particularly if he continues in his view that the President cannot have conflicts of interest, there is likely going to be rampant blurring of lines between Trump as President and Trump Inc., rampant violation of "conflicts of interest" standards that are applied throughout the governmental realm, and rampant "pay to play."
4. Trump Inc. as the Clinton Foundation on steroids
If Congress and the voters do not strenuously oppose Trump in the course he is on regarding Trump Inc., it is fair to say that Trump Inc. will become the Clinton Foundation on steroids.
UPDATE 11/30/16
Trump tweeted today that he will "be leaving my great business in total in order to fully focus on running the country in order to make America great again." His tweets further said,‘‘While I am not mandated to do this under the law, I feel it is visually important, as president, to in no way have a conflict of interest with my various businesses.’’ Also, legal documents are ‘‘being crafted which take me completely out of business operations,’’and the presidency is ‘‘a far more important task!’’
Trump's saying he is "not mandated" to do anything regarding his businesses ignores consideration of what the word "faithfully" means in his constitutional oath of office to "faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States."
It is far from clear, if the rest of the Trump family is left to run the Trump businesses, that Trump will be able to "faithfully" execute the Office of President of the United States.
Today's tweets by Donald Trump come after the below letter that the Democrats on House Oversight and Government Reform Committee wrote to the Chairman of the Committee.
November 28, 2016
The Honorable Jason Chaffetz
Chairman
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
It has now been two weeks since Ranking Member Cummings wrote to you requesting that the Oversight Committee immediately begin reviewing President-elect Donald Trump’s financial arrangements in order to identify and protect against conflicts of interest.
Although you have stated publicly that you will hold Mr. Trump to the same standards as President Obama and Secretary Clinton, you have not responded to Ranking Member Cummings’ letter, and you have not taken steps to conduct basic oversight of these unprecedented challenges.
Since Ranking Member Cummings sent his letter, Americans across the country have flooded our Committee’s offices with thousands of calls in strong support of this investigation, jamming our phone lines with more calls than we have ever received in response to any other issue.
At the same time, during this two-week period, troubling new revelations about Mr. Trump’s actions ― as well as those of his family members and business associates ― have made the need for robust congressional oversight even more urgent.
For these reasons, we are now all writing to you in support of Ranking Member Cummings’ request, and we ask that the Oversight Committee begin its work as soon as possible.
President-Elect Trump’s Refusal to Acknowledge Bipartisan Concerns
Mr. Trump has exhibited a shocking level of disdain for legitimate bipartisan concerns about his conflicts of interest. For example, during an interview with The New York Times, Mr. Trump stated, “The law’s totally on my side, the president can’t have a conflict of interest.”
Of course, this statement is incorrect. Mr. Trump can ― and already does ― have obvious conflicts of interest between his widespread global business interests and his Constitutional obligations as president.
The relevant question is whether he will follow the model set by his predecessors to mitigate these conflicts by liquidating his assets and placing them in a blind trust. If he refuses, then Congress must fulfill our own responsibilities by closely examining the Constitutional and statutory provisions that govern Mr. Trump’s actions, determining whether his approach meets these standards, and proposing appropriate reforms to address any problems we identify.
Unfortunately, Mr. Trump does not appear to be taking these concerns seriously. On November 21, 2016, he tweeted, “Prior to the election it was well known that I have interests in properties all over the world. Only the crooked media makes this a big deal!”
Again, this statement is clearly incorrect. The nation’s leading Republican and Democratic ethics scholars have called on Mr. Trump to place his financial holdings in a blind trust.
For example, the top ethics counsels for former President George W. Bush, Richard Painter, and President Barack Obama, Norman Eisen, published an op-ed in The Washington Post titled, “Trump’s ‘Blind Trust’ is Neither Blind Nor Trustworthy.” They wrote:
Donald Trump must urgently rethink his plan to allow his children to run his businesses. As drastic as it may seem to him, he should instead put all his conflict-generating assets in a true blind trust run by an independent trustee. The good of his own administration, and that of the country, demand nothing less.
Mr. Painter and Ambassador Eisen recommend that Mr. Trump “appoint an independent professional trustee to take charge of liquidating and converting to cash Trump business holdings through an initial public offering or leveraged buyout.” Second, they recommend that the proceeds “be turned over to the trustee to be managed.” Third, they recommend that as long as Mr. Trump’s children and their spouses are dealing with Mr. Trump’s business matters, “he should ask them to step away from the transition team and the White House, and to not advise him or be involved in any U.S. government affairs.”
Similarly, a group of 19 government accountability experts and organizations called on Mr. Trump to place his assets into a blind trust. They wrote:
Contacts about the Trump businesses should be prohibited between all other administration officials and people involved in the businesses, including any of the children who maintain an ongoing involvement with the businesses. Except for personal communication with the president or first lady, such telephone calls and emails should be routed to the White House counsel to make sure that the firewall is not breached.
Even The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board argued that “Mr. Trump’s best option is to liquidate his stake in the company.” In addition, the editorial board of The Salt Lake Tribune agreed with Ranking Member Cummings’ request to conduct a rigorous review, writing: “that, if he wants anyone to take him seriously, is exactly what Chaffetz and his Oversight Committee should start preparing to do.”
Global Scope of President-Elect’s Conflicts of Interest
The scope of Mr. Trump’s conflicts of interest around the world is unprecedented. Over the past two weeks, new revelations have raised serious concerns about the intermingling of Mr. Trump’s businesses and his responsibilities as president.
For example, according to The Washington Post, at least 111 Trump companies have done business in 18 different countries, including projects in Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, and Panama. Mr. Trump has admitted he has “a little conflict of interest” in Turkey because he has a “major, major building in Istanbul.”
In addition, Mr. Trump’s daughter Ivanka ― who now serves on the transition team as she continues to lead Mr. Trump’s businesses ― reportedly participated in a meeting with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. According to Japan Today, “For the last 30 years, Donald Trump has attempted to negotiate deals with Japan.”
She also reportedly participated in a meeting with Indian business developers involved in Trump Tower, a hotel in Pune, India which pays to use the Trump name. One of the developers, Kalpesh Mehta, reportedly “expressed satisfaction with the pace of Trump Organization’s India business and showed interest in expanding it further.” Another developer, Sagar Chordia, posted pictures with Ivanka and Eric Trump and confirmed to The New York Times that “they had discussed the desire to expand the deals with the Trump family.”
Ivanka Trump also reportedly participated in a call between Mr. Trump and Argentine President Mauricio Macri on November 14, 2016. The Trump Organization reportedly has pursued building an office tower in Buenos Aires, but it was not completed before the permits expired.
In addition, it has been reported that when Mr. Trump spoke with British politician Nigel Farage, he raised concerns about the impact that offshore wind farms could have on the view from one of his golf courses in Scotland. When The New York Times asked Mr. Trump about this exchange, he admitted that he “might have brought it up.”
It has also been reported that Mr. Trump’s organization filed a lawsuit during this period against the District of Columbia to evade local property taxes on his new Trump International Hotel in the former Post Office Building. Mr. Trump argues that the value of the property is millions of dollars less than the official government assessment, yet Mr. Trump told The New York Times that “occupancy at the hotel will be probably a more valuable asset now than it was before” and that his “brand is certainly a hotter brand that it was before.” In fact, approximately 100 foreign diplomats met during this period at the Trump International Hotel, which is now reportedly “the place to be seen.”
In addition, Mr. Trump will be responsible for appointing the head of the General Services Administration, who will have responsibility to ensure taxpayers are not being cheated by that lease. Procurement experts Steven Schooner and Daniel Gordon have warned:
The Post Office Pavilion lease is between GSA ― whose administrator President-Elect Trump will appoint ― and Trump’s company. It’s a casebook example of both the appearance of a significant conflict of interest and an intolerable intermingling of Trump’s official governmental duties and his and his family’s personal financial interests.
As Mr. Schooner and Mr. Gordon noted, “Any reasonable person would worry about the undue pressures and the inherent risk of favoritism that the government might show to such a well-connected contractor.”
Request to Fulfill Our Constitutional Obligations
The troubling examples cited above are only those that have been reported publicly over the past two weeks, and more are coming to light by the hour. It is difficult to imagine the actual number of conflicts of interest that currently exist around the world and no doubt will cause serious ongoing problems if no action is taken to mitigate them now.
You have the authority to launch a Committee investigation, and we are calling on you to use that power now. You acted with unprecedented urgency to hold “emergency” hearings and issue multiple unilateral subpoenas to investigate Secretary Clinton before the election. We ask that that you show the same sense of urgency now.
Mr. Trump’s refusal to release his tax returns has already demonstrated a troubling lack of transparency and accountability, making it even more critical that the Committee conduct rigorous oversight right away ― before he is sworn in as President.
When you were asked about this in August, you responded:
If you’re going to run and try to become the president of the United States, you’re going to have to open up your kimono and show everything, your tax returns, your medical records. You are going to just going to have to do that. It’s too important. ... I promise you, you I don’t care who is in the White House. My job is not to be a cheerleader for the president. My job is to hold them accountable and to provide that oversight. That’s what we do.
For these reasons, we request that the Committee begin this review by inviting officials designated by Mr. Trump for Committee Members to hear directly about their plans for protecting against conflicts of interest. We also ask that the Committee formally request that Mr. Trump provide the Oversight Committee with copies of his tax returns.
Thank you for your consideration of this request. [link]
There are many questions relative to the pending Trump presidency. These questions are deserving of prioritizing by the President-Elect and Congress.
The conflicts of interest presented by the Trump business empire should be of very high priority, because they potentially have bearing on every action to be taken starting on day one (January 20th) of the Trump administration. The questions need addressing starting now, and not waiting until January 20th.
Here are some priority questions for immediate consideration by Congress:
1. What is the relationship between the constitutional oath of office to "faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States" and the exemption for the President that is provided in the "conflicts of interest" statute? What does the word "faithfully" mean in the constitutional oath of office? Can Trump do anything he wants in service of the interests of his business empire and his family, or does the word "faithfully" limit what Trump can do?
2. If the word "faithfully" means there are limitations on what Trump can do, do you think Trump understands that?
3. What is the role of Congress in overseeing whether the President is "faithfully" executing his office? Can Congress impeach the President if it determines that the President has failed to faithfully execute his office? What if the President has one view of what "faithfully" means, and Congress has a differing view?
4. Do you currently have any concerns that President Trump will not faithfully execute his office? What assurances have you gotten thus far, or do you think assurances have been lacking? What do you understand is the President-Elect's understanding of the word "faithfully"? To the extent you understand what Trump's understanding is, do you agree or disagree with Trump's understanding of what the word "faithfully" means?
5. Given that the question of whether Trump is faithfully executing his office will be relevant immediately starting January 20th, don't you and other members of Congress need to start your own consideration of this matter immediately, so that the country, the Trump administration and Congress are on good ground for moving forward starting January 20th?
Getting Congress to address the above questions:
Efforts to get Congress to address these questions will be more effective if done in an organized and coordinated way.
I am a resident of Alabama and am posing the questions to the Alabama legislative delegation in Washington per Priority questions for AL legislative delegation. I have sent tweets to the Alabama delegation and have posted the tweets in Priority questions for AL legislative delegation. In the next week or so, I will send hundreds or thousands of tweets to Alabama residents giving a link to Priority questions for AL legislative delegation. My tweets will say something like, "Please join with me in asking our AL legis. delegation these questions re Trump business empire. http://al6thcongdist-ihaveuntiljan13.blogspot.com/2016/11/prioriy-questions-for-al-legislative.html"
To others who want Congress to face up to the Trump business empire, I say, let's try to act in an organized and coordinated way to make demand on Congress about this.
My suggestion would be for others to send tweets to their state's legislative delegation in Washington (as I have done with the Alabama delegation), and I would create a separate blog entry for that state and post the tweets that are sent. This would be followed by the sending of tweets to other residents in the state (as I am going to do in Alabama).
This approach would be subject to development as those participating in the effort think appropriate.
Please let me know what you think.
Is Trump seeking to establish government of Trump, by Trump and for Trump?
Can Trump fulfill his constitutional oath of office to "faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States" if he pursues establishing government of Trump, by Trump and for Trump in connection with his business empire?
Is the proper course of action of "we, the people," through their Congress, to impeach Trump for violating his constitutional oath of office for acting to establish government of Trump, by Trump and for Trump?
In the incredible 2016 elections, Donald Trump astounded us with his shameless mendacity, hyperbole, hypocrisy, and double standards.
A lot of it was entertaining and taken with a big grain of salt.
Also, that was just citizen Trump speaking, and what he said lacked the seriousness attending speech made by someone who is or was a public official.
Clinton lying
Secretary Clinton was burdened with the serious consequences of being a public official who lies or lied to the public.
With her private email server, most now believe that Secretary Clinton lied right from the start when she said the reason for the server was a matter of her convenience in using her Blackberry.
Most now think the private email server was a calculated decision by the Clintons of what would best enable them to keep the public from learning about questionable things related to the Clinton Foundation and possibly other questionable matters. This conclusion was particularly supported by the "bleaching" of 33,000 emails when the private email server became publicly known.
Secretary Clinton could never have given the honest answer that the reason for her private server was to be able to keep the public from finding out about things related to the Clinton Foundation, So, she had to lie about the reason, that lie dogged her for 18 months, and it may have cost Secretary Clinton the Presidency.
Trump lying
President-Elect Trump has now moved into the serious zone when it comes to lying to the public as a public official (or public official-elect), and a lie may have now started in a way very similar to the way Secretary Clinton lied about her private server.
Central attacks in candidate Trump's Presidential campaign included that Hillary Clinton was one of the most corrupt politicians in American history, growing out of conflicts of interest and blurred lines between her State Department business and the Clintons' personal financial, charitable and political activities, which may have risen to criminality.
Candidate Trump spoke about how his personal business empire was small and unimportant compared to interests of the American people that he was going to serve.
Since the election, President-Elect Trump has given the impression that he alone will determine how conflicts of interest between his Presidency and his business empire are dealt with, and President-Elect Trump will expect the American people to trust him completely regarding the matter.
A very intense tussle appears looming on what President-Elect Trump needs to do about the Trump business empire. Already it is being argued, given how candidate Trump promised to change Washington’s culture of self-dealing, that, if he wants to succeed, he’s going to have to make a sacrifice and lead by example and liquidate his businesses.
President-Elect Trump is not going to take kindly to reporters throwing up to him his campaign statements about the Clintons' corruption, conflicts of interests and blurring of lines between their official governmental roles the Clintons' personal financial, charitable and political interests, and such reporters then asking President Trump about his conflicts of interest and blurring of lines between his Presidency and his business empire. The same goes for reporters bringing up the Trump condemnation of "pay to play" by the Clintons, and wanting to dig deeper about whether Trump was doing his own "pay to play" with Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi or his other participation in "pay to play".
Today it was indicated that President-Elect Trump has decided against further investigation and/or criminal prosecution of Secretary Clinton. The reason given was that this was in order to help Secretary Clinton's healing process in her election defeat. Donald Trump Drops Threat of New Hillary Clinton Investigation
Is this stated reason a lie by President-Elect Trump similar to Secretary Clinton's lie that she had a private email server for reasons of convenience, when the real reason was to keep the public from finding out questionable things about the Clinton Foundation?
To answer this, consider how the voters heard for more a year and a half about the rigged and corrupt political system. Consider how candidate Trump charged that Secretary Clinton was one of the most corrupt politicians in American political history.
There is clearly a public interest that the voters obtain more information about exactly what is rigged and corrupt, and what should be done to fix the same. If Secretary Clinton is one of the most corrupt politicians in American political history, it is important for the American people to get to the bottom of exactly what Secretary Clinton's wrongdoing was in order to address what is wrong with the rigged and corrupt political system.
Digging into the conflicts of interest and blurring of lines that allegedly went on with the Clintons would tend to keep in front of the people whether improper conflicts of interest and blurring of lines is going on between the Trump Presidency and the Trump business empire.
It is fair to think that President-Elect Trump does not want a Clinton investigation to keep in front of the people the matter of whether there is improper blurring of lines between the Trump Presidency and the Trump business empire.
In short, it is not unreasonable to think that it is a lie by President-Elect Trump to say that the reason not to continue investigation and/or prosecution of the Clintons is in order to help Secretary Clinton with her healing from election defeat (when the real reason is to keep a Clinton investigation from calling attention to the Trump conflict of interest situation), in the same way Secretary Clinton lied that her choice of a private email server was for matters of convenience (when the real reason was to keep the public from finding out about improper profiting and other things related to the Clinton Foundation.)
If President-Elect Trump continues the way he has done the past few days related to addressing conflicts of interest between his Presidency and his business empire and related to continued investigation of Secretary Clinton or not, a Twitter hashtag #crookederthanHillary could become warranted.
Update 11/23/16
President-Elect Trump seems bound and determined that the President is exempt from the conflicts of interest law, and, if he wants to bring Ivanka to meetings to help her hustle business, that's entirely his prerogative, and it is none of the country's business if he does so. I think this warrants commencing use of hashtag #crookederthanHillary.
Update 10/19/17
Matters of Trump's own corruption have been accumulating for 10 months, and he is getting cornered. To try to deflect from his growing problems, Trump now wants the country to reopen the Clinton investigation in order to try to save himself.
Uranium deal to Russia, with Clinton help and Obama Administration knowledge, is the biggest story that Fake Media doesn't want to follow!
