Dr.Dross

It is not an option for a US president to keep or divest their financial interests: not to do so defies two articles in the Constitution. It is a federal crime of severe proportions. Giving it over to his family violates the Constitution. He needs to create a blind trust or be subject to prosecution. Also, he needs to finally release his tax statements, the only president who has failed to do so, so that the extent of his holdings will clarify any potential conflict of interest.

As patriots and loyal to the Constitution, we would expect this of Trump. Why not? Those articles in the Constitution he would violate by not divesting himself of his worldwide financial empire were not recently written by MSNBC or Pelosi into the margins of the single greatest constitution ever created; they were inserted by the Founding Fathers of democracy to protect the office and this country from undue foreign and domestic influence and to avoid compromise by the self-interests of the president at the detriment of the republic. It is an extremely serious matter.

Breaking precedent by refusing intelligence briefings and limiting free press access and reports may bolster the view of Trump as being out of "the swamp" and ready to shake things up to "make America great again" (that is and always has been great), but these actions violate public safety and the First Amendment. A free press is crucial to maintaining our Republic. You may like to think the Media is totally corrupted and controlled by Soros or the liberal One World Order, but the Media also includes Fox News and Rush Limbaugh on radio, for example. Access to public airways is neither restricted nor controlled by the Left or Right. And the internet is wide open. In surveys and research taken by dozens of respectable organizations over the past fifty years, the skew since the 60s favors more conservative outlooks in the general Media. I know, I know, it is vital you disbelieve those reports. If not, who can you blame for contrary facts to your beliefs and biases. Merry Christmas!

jimahrens Loc: California

Because he failed to turn over tax report is not against the law. If you think so show me the law.

Mr Bombastic

Two words for you. Clinton Foundation. Now, STFU!

Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone

Please provide your Constitutional reference.

archie bunker Loc: Texas

Specify the violated Constitutional articles please.

vernon

Rush is not a news show.he is an entertainer .as far as giving the main stream media access to his news conference,the reporters allowed in is his discretion.Now do you think that propaganda media who lies and misrepresents what is said should be invited.

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

Article II is the only one dealing with the president and there is nothing in it that specifies anything about a presidents private business. The possibility lies only in the Article I Section 6 "Emoluments Clause", and that's a stretch.

Trump’s kids to run businesses via ‘blind trust,’ Trump attorney says

Asked who would run the Trump Organization, a privately held company with international and U.S. dealings in everything from hotels to real estate, golf courses to investments, Cohen explained that Trump’s adult children Donald Jr., Ivanka and Eric would take charge through a blind trust.

Does the Constitution put limits on a president’s private business ties?

Even Americans who have only a passing acquaintance with their Constitution tend to understand that it provides a system of checks and balances and those supposedly answer almost every problem that crops up in the functioning of their government. But the reality is that, even where a check does exist, there has to be some way to put that into motion, to make it work. As a basic example, a president cannot conduct a war unless Congress puts up the money to pay for it, so a refusal to approve a Pentagon budget could actually stop a war (however politically risky that might be).

The Constitution, in other words, is generally not self-executing; it creates a series of government mechanisms, but someone must put them in operation. That fact is now central to the widening public discussion in Washington, and elsewhere in America, about an obscure provision in the founding document – the so-called “Emoluments Clause.”

There is a lot of talk about employing that Clause as a check upon President-elect Donald Trump as he apparently plans, while in the White House, to keep within his family the management of their global holdings in a private business enterprise, rather than disposing of the enterprise or putting it into a “blind trust” over which the family would have no control.

Such an unprecedented, ongoing linkage of a president with a commercial operation is regarded as potentially unethical and may even be illegal. Some of those potential woes led President Jimmy Carter, for example, to put his Georgia peanut business into a trust arrangement, although his brother continued to have a job in it.

Problems arising from having presidents as business operators could arise both domestically, and internationally.

On the home front, any number of official government policies could contribute to the success, or hamper the operations, of stateside Trump companies. For example, a major new public works project – an “infrastrure” rebuilding program – could provide facilities that serve Trump properties. For another example, a government edict on overtime pay could have a direct impact on those properties’ business costs.

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.

It at least can be argued that this provision could come into play as a result of interaction between the Trump companies and foreign business interests – if those interests are a part of foreign governments, and if their operations affect the value of the Trumps’ overseas properties or make payments that directly benefit the family business. The exact scope of the overseas activity of the Trump business is not known publicly (but might be revealed if the President-elect’s tax returns were to be made public).

The Emoluments Clause, though, has only one enforcement mechanism: Congress has the authority to pass specific legislation to authorize – or to prohibit – financial dealings between a foreign government and any federal official, including the president, according to rulings over many decades by Justice Department lawyers in advisory opinions.

Most of those advisory opinions have dealt either with the receipt of medals or awards by federal officials — including, for example, President Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize (he was allowed to take the medal and the prize money of about $1.4 million because the prize was awarded by a non-government entity), or actual employment by a federal official by a foreign government operation (in most instances, not allowed).

Justice Department lawyers, in their rulings, have concluded that the Clause works not only in the context of actions by foreign government agencies as such, but also in relation to enterprises that a foreign government actually runs, such as a public business corporation.

No citizen can try to put the Emolument Clause to work; basically, it has been interpreted within the government only when a legal opinion is sought for a particular factual situation.

The Library of Congress’s authoritative volume, the Annotated Constitution, records no court rulings interpreting the Emoluments Clause, so the primary source of how tight, or loose, the Clause may be construed depends upon Justice Department advisory opinions (which do not have binding legal force).

Overall, then, it appears that, so far as the Constitution is concerned, the American people must rely upon Congress – no matter which party controls the House and Senate – to monitor the relationship between a president and a family business.

Of course, the ultimate constitutional check would be an impeachment proceeding. But that is such a seldom-used check upon the president (twice in history) that it probably would only be attempted in the most scandalous kind of business misconduct linked to the White House. The Constitution does not define what impeachment charges can be brought (other than “high crimes and misdemeanors”), so it is up to the House of Representatives to decide what it believes would be appropriate. The Senate actually tries the charges, but cannot decide what to charge.

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

You'll get some of the best news out there from Rush along with top notch analysis.

steve66613

We didn't hire a politician for POTUS...we wanted a business man. We'll see how it works out. I have a strong feeling it'll workout better than a gay, socialist, non-Christian, racist, globalist, liar, lead-from-behind, divisive, law-and-order hating, hopeless, whining, woman AND HER HUSBAND!

Super Dave Loc: Realville, USA

Good Grief you're ignorant of Constitutional Law.

Every POTUS is immune from being arrested as long as he's in office.

A POTUS has to be impeached to be removed from office, and has to be removed from office before he can be arrested. Oh.... And before he's impeached he can pardon himself if he chooses, and will then be forever immune from prosecution from whatever possible past crimes for which he pardons himself.


Here's a little lesson for the future.

Think more. Hate less. You'll look foolish less often.

Dr.Dross

Too funny. His tax statements, as with all those elected to the presidency, are crucial information about the capacity to hold office. It is decency, transparency, and wise to do so, not law. Their is also precedent in doing so, which eventually becomes law, as in the IRS.

However, given his worldwide financial ventures and connections in many countries, revealing his tax statements becomes an absolute. Oh, it is not law that I wish my friends and family a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year, but it would nonetheless be wrong not to do so.

Dr.Dross

Yet you had nothing to say about the bigger issue: divestiture of his finances to a blind trust.

Dr.Dross

Typical low-info vapid reaction. And off-topic! And typical low-info vapid reaction. It is truly amazing how consistent the the Right can be in depending on insult and vagueness to defend their delusions.

Dr.Dross

Please read http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brianne-j-gorod/on-trump-conflicts-dont-f_b_13721348.html

http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2016/12/economist-explains-2

https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/olc/opinions/1982/02/31/op-olc-v006-p0156.pdf

I have many more but you could have done this yourself. You know he is presently in violation of the Constitution. A Trump amendment, perhaps. "Let me get even richer and more powerful as president, and it some rights have to fall, so be it"? Is that what you are saying?

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

Are you going to give us the specific constitutional violation or are you going to continue doing the Tiny Tim routine tip toeing through the tulips?

Read Article V