Morgan wrote:
White House refuses to hand over documents relating to former National Security Advisor's foreign payments
Samuel Osborne Thursday 27 April 2017 12:22
George W Bush's chief ethics lawyer has called for Donald Trump to be impeached if he doesn't comply with Congress's demand to release documents relating to Michael Flynn.
Mr Flynn resigned less than a month into the job after it was revealed he had failed to tell Vice President mike Pence about conversations he had with Russian officials during the transition period.
Watergate journalist Carl Bernstein has said the investigation could reveal a "cover up" of alleged connections between Mr Trump's team and Russia.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/george-w-bush-ethics-lawyer-donald-trump-impeachment-president-white-house-michael-flynn-documents-a7705331.htmlI for one wish I knew the truth of Trump's business dealings, which includes under the table, by his own words he's a deal maker.
White House refuses to hand over documents relatin... (
show quote)
What Impeachable offense???
Do we also impeach Podesta, Hillary's right hand to the campaign tactics used, for failing to oops~~ disclose his not one but three business venture with Russian companies that ironically were listed on that ledger of Hillarys racketerring foundation?? He forgot to list them for two years that we know of and got some pretty good payments and stocks out of them too..
Not withstanding that what did President Trump do???? Have they refused to release the documents ??? You know they do have to issue a subpeana as it it protocal and that is handled by the lawyers for the White House, not Trump~~
Additionally, after BO and Hillary not being impeached, no one else ever will be either..Rather sad, but that's how our government work, cover up, lie, deflect and create another scandal to take the heat off the one brewing at the moment....
Another smoke screen here, elections coming you know..There have been too many in the intel committe and people of the past administration even that call it all a smoke screen with nothing found....
http://dailycaller.com/2017/03/26/exclusive-john-podesta-may-have-violated-federal-law-by-not-disclosing-75000-stock-sharesAnother on "the alledged refusal"
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/25/us/politics/michael-flynn-white-house-documents-russia.html?_r=0Right now it is th White House Director of Legislative Affairs doing the talking .............
So Flynn and Podesta could be looking at jail time ?? Once again, smoke screens, they have to give it the good fight though.....
You also must know that President Trump had to disclose all of his business holdings when becoming President, right?? If they found nothing to be concerned with or even if they did they would have addressed to him for clearification..I know everyone against him would like to nail him for profits made while President on these businesses but aain, that is not likely..He knows the rules and if he has any question at all then he submits it to Congress for approval..He, knowing just how bad people want to find any little thing to impeach, I rather doubt hes that stupid...The Emolient Clause is well kmown to Trump...
The Constitution has nothing to say about those domestic situations. A more-or-less independent arm of Congress – the General Accountability Office – has the power to investigate any such links involving the use of government funds, but only Congress would have the authority to take specific action to correct any conflicts of interest over money. It would take an extreme situation, however, for Congress to be willing to directly confront a president – especially, a president of the same party.
There is also the possibility that a citizen could find a way to sue, under an old Civil War-era law, the False Claims Act, if government money was paid out improperly to a Trump business entity. The Act specifically allows for citizen enforcement.
The Constitution, though, may have something to say if problems arose abroad for the Trump enterprise. That is the Emoluments Clause, a part of Article I and the powers of Congress. It says specifically that “no person holding any office of profit or trust…shall, without the consent of Congress, accept…any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.”
That was written into the Constitution by unanimous vote at the Philadelphia Convention in 1787, and it was explained – by James Madison, for example – as a necessary provision to “exclude corruption and foreign influence.” At that time in America, there was deep concern that the king of France might try to use his riches to illicitly influence the new young America.
https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/does-the-constitution-put-limits-on-a-presidents-private-business-ties<snip, more to read>