Tag: emoluments

Chaos as Civics Lessons

Emoluments

I’ve been trying to reframe the last few years. Maybe we should embrace the chaos as civics lessons.
ITEM: There were discussions about whether the previous guy in the White House was profiting off the office. “Generally, these anti-corruption provisions, the so-called Emoluments Clauses, prohibit the president from receiving any profit, gain, or advantage from any foreign or domestic government. Impeachment, as outlined by Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 65, is a political remedy (though not the only remedy) for a president’s egregious violations of these prohibitions.”
Alas, in January 2021, the justices of the Supreme Court “dismissed two cases about then-President Trump’s alleged violations of the Emoluments Clauses… In doing so, the Court forfeited a golden opportunity to clarify just what these mandates mean for future presidents. And its refusal to rule one way or another may inadvertently encourage another president to brazenly leverage his or her power for profit.”
I dare say most readers had never heard of the word “emoluments” before 2017. So the citizenry is better informed, right?
Counting the electoral votes
ITEM: Did you know that Congress meets on the 6th of January after the Presidential election to count the electoral votes? Well, since 2021, NOW you do. It’s right there in 3 U.S. Code § 15.
As an old poli sci major, I was aware of it, but I never paid any attention until 2001, when there was some noise about challenging the Bush victory, but it was all bluster. I did follow it in 2009 because I couldn’t believe, in a good way, that Barack Obama was going to become President. But I all but forgot in 2005 and 2013, after W and Obama were reelected.
I noted it in 2017 because I couldn’t believe, in a not-so-good way, that djt was going to become President. Then I heard him, in his idolatry, say that Mike Pence could overturn the 2020 election results.
Still, the 2021 event was supposed to be largely ceremonial, with Pence, Nancy Pelosi, and others bringing their families to watch the beginning of the peaceful transfer of power. That didn’t work out as well as it might have.
And the US has exported political chaos to Brazil as  Bolsonaro backers stormed government buildings in a January 6-style attempted coup. The country’s President, Congress, and its top court have jointly said the actions were terrorist acts. Last I checked,  Bolsonaro had taken refuge in Florida.
Picking the Speaker
ITEM: Electing a Speaker of the House is usually a pretty straightforward process, though some horsetrading takes place. For instance, when Nancy Pelosi was up for the job in early 2019, she agreed to limit her tenure to two two-year terms. (I remembered that, but I also read it in a right-wing publication trying disingenuously to show that Kevin McCarthy’s difficulties weren’t all that uncommon.)
Well, a 15th ballot is rather unusual.
I knew one did not need to be a member of the House of Representatives to be the Speaker, though I believe it’s always been a Congressperson. So when Matt Gaetz nominated djt, there was no specific prohibition against that.
What ARE the legal requirements?

“Constitutionally, a current member of the Executive branch is prohibited from simultaneously holding office in the Legislative Branch. The Ineligibility Clause (Article 1, Section 6, Clause 2 states:

No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.

But I could find nothing SPECIFICALLY that indicates whether the Speaker must be a certain age; members of the House have to be 25. I suppose someone too young to vote could be selected.
Incidentally, during the first week in January, C-SPAN Was America’s Hottest TV Drama.

Use of public office for private gain

An employee shall not use or permit the use of Government position to endorse any product, service, or enterprise

public office for private gainWay back in early 2018, the Washington Monthly noted A Year in Trump Corruption, indicating every time the man profited off the presidency.

The piece cited the U.S. Constitution twice. One was Article I, Section 9. “No person holding any office of profit or trust under [the United States], 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.”

There is also the Code of Federal Regulations. 5 CFR § 2635.702 covers Use of public office for private gain. To wit:

B. Appearance of governmental sanction. Except as otherwise provided in this part, an employee shall not use or permit the use of his Government position or title or any authority associated with his public office in a manner that could reasonably be construed to imply that his agency or the Government sanctions or endorses his personal activities or those of another.  

C. Endorsements. An employee shall not use or permit the use of his Government position or title or any authority associated with his public office to endorse any product, service, or enterprise except:

(1) In furtherance of statutory authority to promote products, services or enterprises; or
(2) As a result of documentation of compliance with agency requirements or standards or as the result of recognition for achievement given under an agency program of recognition for accomplishment in support of the agency’s mission.

Sleazy

Remember back in 2017? Kellyanne Conway Promotes Ivanka Trump Brand, Raising Ethics Concerns. Yet he looked the other way, which the specific law technically allowed.

Or 2019? Trump plugs son’s book while accusing Bidens of self-dealing. “For the children of the politically powerful, personal business and public dealings can often be indistinguishable, especially when private projects depend on foreign governments that are looking to bolster ties with Washington.”

Or last month: Ivanka Trump defends Goya post that watchdogs call unethical.

I point these things out, not because they’re new phenomena, but because they are not. Regularly before the election, I want to note why IMPOTUS is unfit for office. It’s certainly not because he’s a Republican. Nor is it because I disagree with him, though Allah knows I do. It’s because he and his family are grifters.

Earlier this year, in a piece about impeachment, I wrote: “Frankly, I wish the House had gone after the emoluments issue. He may have been guilty of that on January 20, 2017, when he failed to put his businesses in a blind trust and maintained controlling interests.”

To paraphrase Wayne and Garth, “He’s not worthy.”

Lest We Forget again

“Early in [his] term, McSweeney’s editors began to catalog the head-spinning number of misdeeds coming from his administration. We called this list a collection of his cruelties, collusions, and crimes…

“It felt urgent then to track them, to ensure these horrors — happening almost daily — would not be forgotten. This election year, amid a harrowing global health, civil rights, humanitarian, and economic crisis, we know it’s never been more critical to note these horrors, to remember them, and to do all in our power to reverse them. This list will be updated between now and the November 2020 Presidential election.”

Emoluments clause: public office for private gain

The wholesale looting of America is apparently not an impeachable offense.

My good friend Anne, who I’ve known at least since Gerald Ford was President, asks: Why hasn’t the current regime been charged with using public office for private gain? (Sorry, kinda rhetorical).

It’s a reasonable question, given a recent ruling in which a judge dismissed suits claiming Trump violated the emoluments clause.

“The plaintiffs argued that because Trump properties rent out hotel rooms and meeting spaces to other governments, the president was violating a constitutional provision that bans the acceptance of foreign emoluments, or gifts from foreign powers.

“But Judge George B. Daniels of the Southern District of New York ruled that the plaintiffs, led by the government watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), lacked standing to bring such a case, saying it was up to Congress to prevent the president from accepting emoluments.”

To the first point, it wasn’t merely that the Trump organization was renting out space, it was with the (wink, wink) impression that those countries would receive favored status in dealing with the United States.

Precisely how much benefit IS the regime leader receiving from these deals? Who knows since he doesn’t release his tax returns. That, of course, is why most of us believe the dreadful tax bill that was recently passed and signed will favor him economically. We don’t even need to read the tea leaves.

To the second point, about standing, Judge Daniels wants THIS Congress to hold him accountable? I’m hoping that lawsuits still out there by “a group of congressional Democrats and another filed by the attorneys general of Maryland and the District” will have more success.

Unfortunately, engaging in class warfare and participating in the wholesale looting of America is apparently not an impeachable offense as long as two branches of government agree to it.

Yes, I think it’s obvious that the emoluments clause has been violated, and repeatedly. But I’m not king.

Social media & sharing icons powered by UltimatelySocial