Impeach Trump!

The question I am often asked these days is: “Will Trump be impeached?” My answer has been “for what?” Impeachment is a remedy reserved to Congress to remove a President (and other government officers) found guilty of “treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors committed whilst in office.”  So, until Trump takes over on 20^th January next year, the question is moot and he is free and clear.

Last week, the President-Elect met with reporters from The New York Times. When questioned about how his business interests would be run, he stated that conflict of interest laws did not apply to him and he could run his businesses from The White House. “In theory,” Trump said, “I could run my business perfectly and then run the country perfectly.” This was Trumpese at its best but his assertion came as a surprise to me. Trump’s interpretation of the law is wrong. The law does not permit a President to have a conflict of interest as of right. Whilst it is correct that Congress has exempted the President and Vice President from conflict-of-interest laws in general, it has reserved the right to judge individual conflicts.

In 1974, uber-wealthy Nelson Rockefeller, heir to a fortune and the presumptive VP for Gerald Ford, agreed to Congressional hearings when his multitude of business interests were examined closely. The Justice Department subsequently confirmed Rockefeller’s right to conflict exemption. Four years later, the Ethics of Government Act and then the 1989 Ethics Reform Act codified the principle, effectively that where conflicts of interest were concerned, Congress could assume the President and Vice President can be trusted to do the right thing. However both statutes reserved to Congress the right to examine any situation where the chief executive or his second in command might have done the wrong thing, especially if it amounted to a ‘high crime and misdemeanour.’

When Rockefeller received his exemption, he offered to put his assets into a blind trust but Congress decided this was unnecessary in his case. A blind trust is one where trustees independently administer the private business interests of a person in public office to prevent or avoid conflict of interest. Trustees cannot be family members. Former Presidents Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton each placed their personal assets in a blind trust, even though they may have had no legal obligation to do so. In none of these cases did family members act as trustees because this would be a breach of federal law. Incidentally, President Obama did not follow the blind trust example but all his assets were invested in mutual funds and Treasury bonds, thus there was no need for trustee administration.

Much of Trump’s wealth is contained within his corporations and tied in with the Trump brand. Trump’s choice for chief of staff, Reince Priebus, has promised that White House counsel will review all potential areas that could pose a conflict: “I can assure the American people that there wouldn’t be any wrongdoing or any sort of undue influence over any decision-making.” But how can this assurance be worth anything if White House counsel are not aware of all the facts? Neither Trump nor Priebus has undertaken to ensure full disclosure of Trump assets to the lawyers. One only has to remember Richard Nixon and his failure to tell his lawyer, James St. Clair, about the full extent of his participation in the Watergate scandal. As a result, in court St. Clair was hung out to dry.

Trump’s Achilles heel might be his refusal to disclose his tax returns. The Washington Post reported this week that Congressional Democrats are calling for an investigation into Trump’s ‘business entanglements.’ Democratic members of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee have called on the chairman, Jason Chaffetz, to review Trump’s financial arrangements in order to identify and protect against potential conflicts of interest. To date, Chaffetz has not responded. Probably, there is little in the Trump’s tax returns which will discomfort him, save that he may have over-stated his wealth. Politically, however, he will face trouble if he continues to refuse disclosure. The media will ask what he is hiding and will not give up until they get what they want. Eventually Trump will be forced to publish so the best thing he can do is disclose the returns right away.

There is little point in my examining further the legalities of conflicts of interest and blind trusts as I suspect these issues will occupy the time of countless numbers of attorneys all over the United States for many months. Conflict of interest law suits against Trump interests are hovering. Trump’s nature will make him want to defend all such suits vigorously. However, after the Inauguration, he will be a politician first, one who, according to American myth, is vested with enormous powers. Every action he takes will be scrutinised. And I mean every action. There is a log kept by White House officials called “the ticker” which records all the President’s actions on a three minute basis. Every call, every conversation and everything he does will be committed to paper. He will have no privacy. Even if Trump behaves within the letter of the law, politically his Presidency will be damaged, perhaps permanently, if the voters believe he is hiding his financial moves and using Presidential power to further his personal interests.

I am certain that in America’s criminal code there is an offence which prevents a President from using his office for personal financial benefit. However, referring back to the impeachment proceedings against Nixon and Clinton, it was never suggested that either man had acted in this way. None of Nixon’s men who were imprisoned over Watergate sought wrongful financial gain from their actions. As for Clinton, he did nothing at all wrong in the Whitewater affair. In fact, his investment proved to be a total loss.

It is clear from the impeachments of Nixon and Clinton that the process is far more political than legal. For example, Ronald Reagan was caught red-handed in the Iran-Contra affair when he twice knowingly broke Acts of Congress, clearly impeachable offences. But there was no political will within Congress to pursue him. Did Trump’s recent encouragement of an Argentine delegation to use his new Washington hotel cross a line? If so and if this type of action is left unchecked after Inauguration, such behaviour could put the new President into serious hot water.

Will Trump be impeached? Much depends on whether Trump’s Presidency is perceived as a success or a failure. For example, if his economic policies result in a boost for US manufacturing, improved wages for US workers and a better tax take, the voters will not encourage their legislators to try to remove him, even for cause. However, D.C. politics tells me Trump is regarded as an Independent, not a Republican. Congressional Republicans might leap at any opportunity to remove Trump from office because he would be replaced by VP Mike Pence, a politician who fits the current Republican blueprint so much better than his boss.