The Case for Removal from Office: The Brookings Institution
Yesterday, the Brookings Institution issued a position paper authored by Norman Eisen, Richard Painter, and Laurence Tribe called THE EMOLUMENTS CLAUSE: ITS TEXT, MEANING, AND APPLICATION TO DONALD J. TRUMP. Here are the brief bios on the authors as published by Brookings:
“Norman L. Eisen, a fellow at the Brookings Institution, was the chief White House ethics lawyer from 2009 to 2011 and ambassador to the Czech Republic from 2011 to 2014. He is the chair of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW). Richard W. Painter, a professor at the University of Minnesota Law School, was the chief White House ethics lawyer from 2005 to 2007. He is the vice chair of CREW. Laurence H. Tribe is the Carl M. Loeb University Professor and Professor of Constitutional Law at Harvard University.”
These knowledgeable and deeply experienced legal professionals are ringing the alarm bells about the many ways a Cheeto Jesus presidency would be in violation of the Emoluments Clause should he take office. Emoluments is an 18th century word that means remuneration or in short, payments. They say that the Emoluments Clause was drafted into the Constitution because the Founders were intimately familiar with the subtle corruption practiced by English aristocracy, especially the king, who bought his own countrymen and subjects in the colonies to maintain power by giving gifts to win loyalty. Avoiding corruption was so paramount that the Founders didn’t just support legislation against it, they drafted it into the body of the Constitution itself. In the words of Fordham Law School professor Zephyr Teachout,
“Corruption, in the American tradition, does not just include blatant bribes and theft from the public till, but encompasses many situations where politicians and public institutions serve private interests at the public’s expense. This idea of corruption jealously guards the public morality of the interactions between representatives of government and private parties, foreign parties, or other politicians.”
After laying out their reasoning, Eisen, Painter, and Tribe come to this conclusion:
“It is plain that a President Trump would be subject to removal from office for the intentional abuse of power that this manifestly unconstitutional intermingling of private and public concerns would entail. When this guillotine might fall is a matter of political more than legal calculation, and is thus beyond the scope of our analysis. Likewise, just how the ongoing prospect of such an ignominious end to a Trump presidency would embolden his political adversaries at home and abroad, and undermine his legitimacy in the eyes of the American public and global community, is impossible to predict. So too, we cannot anticipate how the omnipresent prospect of such a disgraceful end would distort the dynamics of a President Trump’s ability to serve the domestic and national security interests of the nation. But that this looming constitutional shadow over his time in office would grievously disserve the people of the United States is beyond doubt.”
The authors also offer several options to resolve this clear violation of the Constitution:
- The Electoral College is well within its Constitutional authority to decline to vote for CJ.
- If he takes office without resolving this violation, he could be impeached.
- The Congress, under the Necessary & Proper Clause, the “Consent of Congress” language in the Emoluments Clause, can pass legislation requiring CJ to adhere to the Constitution ordering him to remove the conflicts by divestment of his assets.
- Private actions against CJ by parties injured by his actions (disadvantaged competitors) can also be filed that require disgorgement of ill-gotten gains he received as president.
It’s clear that the very second that CJ takes office he’ll be in direct and actual violation of the Constitution. I’m wondering how many lawsuits and legislation will be introduced to remove him. It will be fun to see the damage and fraud suits that will be filed. However, the ensuing days after January 20 will be historic, and pretty frightening, especially knowing how thin skinned and vindictive he is.
All I know is that the sooner this is resolved and this threat to our democracy removed, the sooner we can start repairing the damage.
And would the electors be committing treason if they were advised and knew the facts and still voted for Trump? Inquiring minds want to know. Frankly its a darn good thing that I don’t have a thing to wear to an inaugural!
1A fine piece of reporting. The legal establishment can contribute mightily by keeping an eye on Trump.
2Bud, we’re counting on your help. After all, you taught a generation of Americans how to fight.
3Virtually every word of te Constitution and the Bill of Rights is expounded upon in The Federalist Papers yet, nrly the only time these papers are quoted is when gun control or religion is brought up?
4The 15th of this month ws the 225th anniversary of the Bill of Rights but, there was no mention of it. Anywhere at all!! Probably the most liberating and enlightening of documents and is ignored.
At the risk of some degree of misunderstanding on my part, this posting sounds kinda ok on the surface.
5However, some questions come to my mind regarding possible weaknesses as it stands.
1. with the repubs controlling congress, how to get some of those repubs to vote against trump given his track record of vindictiveness;
2. not sure how long it would take to put any of the suggestions, except the elecrtoral college option, into effect but guessing many months, years, before judgement. So, what’s to stop him from doing a lot of damage given his proclivity for going against tradition, rules, by implementing his own rules?
3. what will it take to get some of the more “reasonable repubs” – oxymoron alert! – to start opposing trump?
4. wonder if some of those who voted for him will need to suffer, requiring time, before changing their minds; of course, the innocent will also suffer but they will anyways.
Anyone care to argue that all of us, to some degree, have responsibility for this CF?
Well, must be off now; have some caroling to do:)
As do we all, politicians must calculate risks against benefits. Unlike us, thankfully, they must always be concerned about the next election, always the next election. So if a Trump presidency benefits Republicans, impeachment is not likely. If, however, Trump imperils enough Republicans and endangers their re-election possibilities, it’s Hello, President Pence. I have no doubt that any Republican member of Congress will make a decision about Trump’s entanglements based on principle, ethics, integrity, or the good of the country. But then I don’t have to tell you that.
The question for my district is how to make Kevin Brady blink. He’s so settled into his job with virtually no threat of primary opposition that he’s very unlikely even to express a public position on Trump’s behavior. The next election is just an inconvenience for him and, most likely, many if not most gerrymandered House Republicans. They would have to be asking, “What’s in it for me to take a position on impeachment?” We’ve got to make them uncomfortable with their answer. Appealing to moral outrage probably won’t work; only a threat to re-election will.
6When G. W. Bush’s ethics! lawyer is concerned, the rest of us had better as hell be terrified. Just sayin.
7Since when did Drumpf pay any attention to the laws of the land other than to protect himself in bankruptcies?
8And then there is this story int he NYT about Ivanka having her own personal office in the WH and “selling” Tours with Ivanka for the piddling price of $50 grand. That whole family is nothing but a bunch of traveling shills. Tours of the WH are open to the public through the booking office or even through their House Representative’s office. Even gypsies have more class!
9Hi everyone!
10As it looks as if we’re going to be in the streets next year, I am enclosing the URL of a live document authored by former Congressional staffers on tactics for pulling a reverse tea party movement.https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DzOz3Y6D8g_MNXHNMJYAz1b41_cn535aU5UsN7Lj8X8/preview. Lacking our own Koch brothers, we will have to do this on our own.
Y’all, I have been watching Mark’s link for a couple of days now as it has been edited and grown. I was fixing to post it myself but am delighted that mark beat me to the punch. It give some ideas that may serve us well. Please don’t be afraid to click the link. Pick and chose from the list as you like.
11Anybody else think that Congressional Repubs will WANT TO impeach Cheato so they can elevate Pence to the presidency?
(Then who would they make as VP?)
12My senators are good, but I don’t know much about my new sleezeball congressman, Jason Lewis, except that he’s a sleezeball. I’ll work out how to get to whatever is left of his misogynistic, withered, theoretically existing soul.
13If Trump were removed we’d get Pence. If he were removed we’d get Ryan. And the Repubs would still control Congress and SCROTUS.
Same if the electoral college bypassed Trump, plus we would be letting a small, highly partisan, unqualified, unrepresentative group of political bigwigs set aside the results of an American election and choose who they want. It was bad enough when the Supreme Court did that.
Dems/liberals/progressives should have won this election based on voter numbers, issues and character.
But instead we got our butts whipped. It may seem early, but I’d sure like to see the majority of our attention focused on winning the next election in 2018 instead of revisiting the one we lost.
For starters, let’s scare voters over real issues like the destruction of Social Security, which is already in the works.
Repub win because they vote Repub. They know that winning is what counts. I wish Dems would learn that lesson.
14LynnN, Dems do know and they do vote. Unfortunately, there are areas of the country that do not count those votes. There are about 75,000 votes missing in Michigan that some R decided were not necessary. They mostly come from around the Flint area. there is a good chance that these were the votes that would have won the state for Hlllary. And thats only one example.
15Drumpf’s so dumb he thinks the emoluments clause has to deal with soothing dry skin.
16