Trump Organization Says It's 'Not Practical' to Comply With the Constitution

Elijah E. Cummings Ranking Member, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform:

Unfortunately, your meager response does not include the vast majority of documents we requested in our letter. Instead, you provided only a single document -- a glossy, eight-page pamphlet that contains a total of 40 sentences -- and an email forwarding this pamphlet to various Trump Organization entities. This pamphlet raises grave concerns about the President's refusal to comply with the Constitution merely because he believes it is "impractical" and could "diminish the guest experience of our brand."

Complying with the United States Constitution is not an optional exercise, but a requirement for serving as our nation's President.2 If President Trump believes that identifying all of the prohibited foreign emoluments he is currently receiving would be too challenging or would harm his business ventures, his options are to divest his ownership or submit a proposal to Congress to ask for our consent.

Even if the President's companies were willing to carefully track of all their foreign government payments, the President still would be required under the Emoluments Clause to request and obtain permission from Congress to accept those payments.

Previously.

Tags: , , ,

9 Responses:

  1. nooj says:

    I'm alarmed that the options listed do not include stepping down from the Presidency.

  2. Wil E. Coyote says:

    So, let's sum it up.

    It has become clear for the last few months that Trump and his campaign have been compromised and/or are actually in cahoots with a hostile foreign power. Despite this, the political party that holds the majority in Congress refuses to do anything about it (except copy a page from the European Union's response to humanitarian crisis: put out a statement saying they are "deeply concerned").

    Why? The response, we are told by political pundits, is that the party in question hopes that Trump will help them pass a large round of tax cuts for the wealthy. In other words: a large part of the richest americans are willing to literally let their country be taken over by a foreign power, if that results in lower taxes for them.

    Given this... would it be too incendiary, too stalinist, too controversial to say that a big part of the richest americans are literally traitors to the motherland? That they are, literally, "vendepatrias"? (as we say in spanish).

    Or would that be a sad degradation of political discourse?

    • jwz says:

      I believe you have hit the penguin on the Napoleon, Sir. As we say in Antarctica.

    • pavel_lishin says:

      Not all of them! Don't raise pitchforks against your neighbors just because they're wealthy.

      Check senators' voting records before raising those pitchforks, and then go to town. (Well, not town. They don't live in town. It's more of a "gothic castle on the cliff" situation.

    • Elusis says:

      I just read this article and I think the word we are looking for is "coup."

  • Previously