The framers worried about corruption. Their words may now haunt the president.; The Washington Post, July 27, 2018

Editorial Board, The Washington Post; The framers worried about corruption. Their words may now haunt the president.

"The government is certain to appeal, and the matter will probably be settled in a higher court. Nonetheless, the judge’s ruling opens the way for fact-finding to proceed in the case against Mr. Trump, meaning the plaintiffs may now seek financial records of his hotel and business — as well as his tax returns, which the president has refused to divulge.

In cutting through the definitional underbrush, it’s fair to think of the emoluments clauses as the means by which the framers intended to impede corruption and ensure officials would be beholden to the public interest, not private interests. Mr. Trump has seemed heedless of such distinctions. This lawsuit could change that."

Ethics Report On Trump Administration: The Most Unethical Presidency; NPR, January 16, 2018

[Podcast] Morning Edition, NPR; 

Ethics Report On Trump Administration: The Most Unethical Presidency

"Steve Inskeep talks to Richard Painter, top ethics lawyer for President George W. Bush, and Norman Eisen, top ethics lawyer for President Obama. They argue Trump's administration has been unethical."

Reminder: the Trump International Hotel is still an ethics disaster; Vox, August 11, 2017

Carly Stirin, Vox; Reminder: the Trump International Hotel is still an ethics disaster

"Who’s spending all that money at the hotel? Since visitation records are not made public, The Washington Post sent reporters to the hotel every day in May to try to identify people and organizations using the facilities.

What they found was a revolving door of powerful people holding galas in the hotel’s lavish ballrooms and meeting over expensive cocktails with White House staff at the bar.

They included Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), whom Politico recently called "Putin’s favorite congressman”; Rep. Bill Shuster (R-PA), who chairs the General Services Administration, the Trump hotel's landlord; and nine other Republican Congress members who all hosted events at the hotel, according to campaign spending disclosures obtained by the Post. Additionally, foreign visitors such as business groups promoting Turkish-American relations and the Romanian President Klaus Iohannis and his wife also rented out rooms.

Ethics experts — including the former top government ethics official who resigned last month — say this is exactly what they were worried about in a Trump presidency."

Trump Adds More Trademarks in China; New York Times, June 13, 2017

Sui-Lee wee, New York Times; Trump Adds More Trademarks in China

点击查看本文中文版

"President Trump is poised to add six new trademarks to his expanding portfolio in China, in sectors including veterinary services and construction, potentially renewing concerns about his possible conflicts of interest.

The latest trademarks expand Mr. Trump’s business interests in China, the world’s second-largest economy and a country he frequently blamed during the election campaign for the decline in American industrial jobs. Since taking office, he has softened that rhetoric.

He has nevertheless continued to receive approval in China for new trademarks. The country’s trademark office gave the president preliminary approval for six trademarks on June 6, according to the agency’s website.

Under Chinese law, a trademark with preliminary approval is formally registered after three months if the agency receives no objections."

Pick Your Favorite Ethics Offender; New York Times, April 1, 2017

Editorial Board, New York Times; 

Pick Your Favorite Ethics Offender

"President Trump and his administration are offering the country a graduate-level course in the selling of the presidency. Much attention has focused on how Mr. Trump is using the White House for personal gain, but many other officials, including members of his family, friends and close aides, also stand to rake it in at the public’s expense.

Mr. Trump has driven right over the Constitution by allowing foreign governments to funnel money to him through his hotels and golf courses, in violation of the emoluments clause. So it comes as no surprise that the people who work for him have felt free to abuse their positions and run roughshod over ethics rules. He has created an anything-goes culture in which some aides and advisers are openly working to bend government policy to serve their personal interests. In other cases, the potential for corruption is less obvious but no less dangerous. Here are some of the most egregious offenders."

The day of Trump toilets and condoms in China may have just ended. Here's why that's controversial; Los Angeles Times, March 6, 2017

Jessica Meyers, Los Angeles Times; 
The day of Trump toilets and condoms in China may have just ended. Here's why that's controversial

"Could Trump benefit from the decision?

Some analysts believe investors, wary about the delicate relationship between China and the U.S., will veer away from anything bearing Donald Trump’s name. But two chief ethics lawyers under former Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama argue China could still use Trump’s ties to his family empire to influence policies.

They’re part of a lawsuit filed in federal court in New York that alleges the president’s foreign business connections violate the Constitution.

“We should be seriously concerned about Mr. Trump’s ethical standards,” [Haochen] Sun [director of the Law and Technology Center at the University of Hong Kong and a specialist in intellectual property law] said. “The registration carries the message that Trump is still doing business.”

Feinstein: Trump trademark in China may violate Constitution; Politico, February 17, 2017

Kyle Cheney, Politico; 

Feinstein: Trump trademark in China may violate Constitution

"A decision by the Chinese government to grant President Donald Trump a trademark for his brand could be a breach of the U.S. Constitution, a senior Democratic senator warned Friday.

“China’s decision to award President Trump with a new trademark allowing him to profit from the use of his name is a clear conflict of interest and deeply troubling,” said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) in a statement. “If this isn’t a violation of the Emoluments Clause, I don’t know what is.”

The Emoluments Clause of the Constitution prohibits federal officials — including the president — from accepting payments from foreign governments. Trump’s critics have argued that Trump’s opaque and byzantine business network could run afoul of this principle.

“The fact that this decision comes just days after a conversation between President Trump and President Xi Jinping where President Trump reaffirmed the U.S. policy of ‘One China’ is even more disturbing as it gives the obvious impression of a quid pro quo,” said Feinstein, ranking member of the Judiciary Committee."

Emoluments: Trump's Coming Ethics Trouble; The Atlantic, 1/18/17

• RICHARD W. PAINTER, LAURENCE H. TRIBE, NORMAN L. EISEN, AND JOSHUA MATZ, THE aTLANTIC; 

Emoluments: Trump's Coming Ethics Trouble

"The underlying concern here is that it is precisely Trump’s beneficial government services that foreign powers may hope to purchase for their money whenever they patronize or advantage his businesses. That is, foreign powers (and their agents) may pay Trump, in his capacity as owner of valuable business assets around the world, so that Trump, in his capacity as president, will play in their interest and push U.S. policies in their direction. It may be impossible to prove this on a case-by-case level, given the complex and often hidden motives guiding presidential conduct, but the whole theory of the foreign emoluments clause is to guard against the very possibility of transactions raising this creeping danger.

Trump’s lawyer, Sheri Dillon, has said that “Trump wants there to be no doubt in the minds of the American public that he is completely isolating himself from his business interests.” But if that were actually true, Trump would have done more—much more—to separate himself from his global business empire. Instead, he adopted the mere shell of a plan, utterly inadequate to the demands of the Constitution.

Trump will thus place himself in clear violation of America’s basic charter from the very first instant of his presidency."

Jason Chaffetz Doesn’t Care About Ethics; Slate, 1/13/17

Dahlia Lithwick, Slate; Jason Chaffetz Doesn’t Care About Ethics

"In a letter to [Jason] Chaffetz, [Elijah] Cummings called for a public hearing with Shaub as the main witness, as opposed to the closed-door meeting Chaffetz is seeking.

But of course, there is no shaming Chaffetz, the guy who announced that he could never again look his daughter in the eye if he endorsed Trump in October, subsequently promised to vote for Trump, and now feels the need to carry Trump’s top secret manila folders around...

Whether it meant attempting to dismantle the congressional watchdog or gunning for the independent ethics chief, it’s now clear that working in a nonpartisan fashion to try to uphold ethical norms is now prohibited in Republican-controlled Washington. You can be sure that so long as it’s ethically bankrupt individuals like Chaffetz in charge of enforcing these norms and laws, then our system will be as rife with corruption as our incoming president wants it to be."

Trump is headed toward an ethics train wreck; Washington Post, 1/12/17

Jennifer Rubin, Washington Post; Trump is headed toward an ethics train wreck:

"Ironically, for someone who ran on changing the way Washington does business, Trump has distinguished himself as the sole example of a president unprepared to comply with bipartisan ethical norms and the text of the Constitution. The question for Republicans is now whether they want to collaborate in an egregious violation of the Constitution and in an arrangement that will inevitably call into question virtually every regulatory action, policy decision and personnel pick the administration makes. (Any senator with judicial aspirations should register complaints loudly and clearly; consent to an unconstitutional arrangement should be a disqualifier for any future judicial post.)

Republicans who opposed Trump predicted that he would intellectually, morally and financially corrupt his party and others around him. Nothing we have seen so far indicates that this prediction was off-base. Voters who want a check on an imperial, amoral president will need to elect Democrats to check Trump if Republicans are not up to the job."

Donald Trump didn't save the ethics committee. You did; Guardian, 1/4/17

Richard Wolffe, Guardian; 

Donald Trump didn't save the ethics committee. You did:

"As ethics experts from both the Bush and Obama administrations have written, the founders saw the so-called Emoluments clause as a way to stop corruption by foreign powers. If a president accepts any gifts and benefits from foreign nations, he faces the threat of impeachment.

Instead the newly-elected Trump claims, wrongly, that there is nothing to prevent him from being president of the United States and CEO of his company at the same time. “In theory I could run my business perfectly and then run the country perfectly,” he told the New York Times.

It takes real leadership to create a culture of ethics, and it takes very little leadership to destroy any semblance of ethics. It’s only natural that the House Republicans would follow Trump’s lead by treating ethics as some kind of low priority interference with their real business: business itself."

Congress May Hold Key to Handling Trump’s Conflicts of Interest; New York Times, 11/28/16

Peter J. Henning, New York Times; Congress May Hold Key to Handling Trump’s Conflicts of Interest:

"The key to dealing with conflicts — whether actual or potential — is transparency about any decision that could have an effect on Mr. Trump’s business interests if he decides not to divest his holdings or create a truly blind trust. Unlike the approach of many teenagers, who believe that it is easier to beg forgiveness than permission, in business the advance notice of a potential issue can lessen its impact.

The challenge is coming up with a mechanism for dealing with questions that might arise from Mr. Trump’s business interests rather than relying on the good faith of the parties involved or deflecting the issue with claims that any criticism is only political, especially in foreign countries in which the president-elect has investments, as The New York Times points out...

Some critics have pointed to potential problems Mr. Trump’s business interests could present under the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution. That obscure provision provides that “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.”"