RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Reich writes: "President Donald Trump's Washington hotel saw almost $20 million in revenue during its first few months of operation - a period that coincided with his election and inauguration. His Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida, which he's visited seven times as president, pulled in millions of dollars more than it had previously."

Robert Reich. (photo: unknown)
Robert Reich. (photo: unknown)


The Question Isn't Whether or Not Trump Has Committed an Impeachable Offense. It's Whether or Not Congress Will Act.

By Robert Reich, Robert Reich's Facebook Page

17 June 17

 

resident Donald Trump’s Washington hotel saw almost $20 million in revenue during its first few months of operation — a period that coincided with his election and inauguration. His Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida, which he’s visited seven times as president, pulled in millions of dollars more than it had previously.

The “Emoluments Clause” of the Constitution – essentially, an anti-bribery provision -- forbids officials from profiting from their office by taking in money from foreign governments eager to curry favor by, for example, sending their top officials to Mar-a-Lago for the weekend, or putting up their diplomats at Trump’s Washington hotel.

Trump refused to divest his business holdings. To the contrary, he put them under the control of Donald Trump Jr., from whom he can take back control at any time. He’s also free to withdraw cash from them as he pleases. His promise give the Treasury any hotel profits resulting from payments by foreign governments was a lie; the hotel has said it’s not keeping such records.

Trump is knowingly and brazenly violating Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution – another impeachable offense.

This issue is not whether Trump has committed an impeachable offense. It's when and whether Congress will commence an impeachment proceeding.

What do you think?

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 

Comments   

We are going to return to our original fully-moderated format in the comments section.

The abusive complaints in the comment sections are just too far out of control at this point and have become a significant burden on our staff. As a result, our moderators will review all comments prior to publication. Comments will no longer go live immediately. Please be patient and check back.

To improve your chances of seeing your comment published, avoid confrontational or antagonistic methods of communication. Really that is the problem we are confronting.

We encourage all views. We discourage ad hominem disparagement.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

 
+19 # bevin 2017-06-17 14:25
Presidents regularly commit impeachable offences. Obama committed several and W more. The thing is that they are never held to account unless powerful interests want them to be weakened.
The rule of law is a nice idea but it doesn't exist in the USA.
 
 
+22 # logical1 2017-06-17 23:29
If Obama had committed impeachable offenses, the Rethug Congress would have impeaches in a minute. There is a bias in Congress never seen before the last 20 years. Whenever Republicans have control they abuse the system and try to make up for the real impeachable actions of Nixon who was not impeached. Amazing!
 
 
+7 # ericlipps 2017-06-19 05:07
Too true. Republicans let it be known before the election that if Hillary Clinton won, they'd impeach her as soon as she was sworn in.
 
 
+17 # Diane_Wilkinson_Trefethen_aka_tref 2017-06-18 04:25
Quoting bevin:
Presidents regularly commit impeachable offences.
As do members of Congress and the Supreme Court.

However, this phenomenon is part of the slippery slope we've been on for a long time. An official of the US gov't commits a "little stretch" of the law or a "little violation" of the Constitution and/or her/his Oath to uphold the same, and no one with the authority to correct the violation takes necessary action. When people violate "the rules" and get away with it, they invariably break more rules. They get bolder.

What commentator or member of the Obama administration or member of Congress protested McConnell's highly impeachable offense of pocketing the Merrick Garland appointment? "What?" you ask. "Was that unconstitutiona l?" Damn straight it was and that "so-called Constitutional lawyer" President damn well knew it. But not a word was said. No House indictment, Presidential or ACLU lawsuit was forthcoming. With such a truly egregious violation of the separation of powers getting a pass by all concerned, why would you think a measly little emoluments violation would stir anyone to action? Or a concerted effort to strip American citizens of their right to vote?

The swamp has been with us for quite a while and it's stench isn't limited to the Executive Branch. There was more reaction and protest from the American people when the DH appeared in baseball than when the Patriot Act stripped them of rights guaranteed by the 1st Amendment.
 
 
+13 # ER444 2017-06-17 15:05
Fat chance!!
 
 
+34 # Wise woman 2017-06-17 18:41
Not until the midterms and only then if this country is smart enough to install competent people in congress. It is naive to think that this will happen any sooner with repubs in control of both the house and Senate. Trump would have to be found unquestionably guilty of charges against him that the repubs would have no choice. I don't see that happening.
 
 
+6 # John Escher 2017-06-18 07:25
Quoting Wise woman:
Not until the midterms and only then if this country is smart enough to install competent people in congress. It is naive to think that this will happen any sooner with repubs in control of both the house and Senate. Trump would have to be found unquestionably guilty of charges against him that the repubs would have no choice. I don't see that happening.


Looks like an impartial court WOULD find him unquestionably guilty.
 
 
+11 # thehodges1 2017-06-17 22:27
This country has always had this saying and it is "Money talks..." and everyone of them have all the money they want now they need the power and they are using it and will keep it.
 
 
+7 # lfeuille 2017-06-18 00:09
Yes, he has been committing impeachable offenses since the inauguration by refusing to divest. But not, congress won't act. At least not yet and maybe not at all unless Dems retake congress in 2018. Maybe they should make it a campaign issue.
 
 
+3 # diamondmarge7 2017-06-18 00:51
IMHO RETHUGS r all sociopaths. I do not grieve for the MOC who was hit; it is HIS party that enables the NRA to keep pushing for more guns. Chickens to roost.
 
 
+7 # ericlane 2017-06-18 05:00
So the simple-minded wanted a businessman in office. They got him. And everything he does is for personal gain. His love of Putin is because Putin is today one of the richest men in the world. Trump wants to copy Putin and become the richest man ever. In other words, Trump is a huckster.
 
 
+5 # Rodion Raskolnikov 2017-06-18 06:08
I don't see a republican congress impeaching Trump for the emoluments issue. Almost all politicians now profit from their positions. And the people paying them are very often foreign governments and corporations.

Ex-presidents are the worst. Bill Clinton has received easiy a hundred million dollars in deferred bribes. Obama is now on the speaking circuit around Europe and he's pulling in millions from corporations and governments that he worked for while in office.

This is truly a corrupt system but I don't see congress doing anything about it. For years, republicans have been crowing about running government like a business and putting business people in office. Now they have one in the white house.

Trump may be impeached but it would be for something like conspiring with communist Russia to rig the US election. That's something both republicans and democrats could get behind -- loonie as it is.
 
 
+7 # librarian1984 2017-06-18 08:37
Trump may break the mold there, too. I don't expect many will be willing to pay him $400,000 for a speech after he's out of office.

In a similar vein, the Clinton Foundation seems to be taking in a lot fewer donations. I wonder why.
 
 
-2 # Cassandra2012 2017-06-18 15:59
I hear assertions galore (e.g., about Clinton) but not a shred of unassailable EVIDENCE.
 
 
+1 # CL38 2017-06-20 08:25
http://www.election-justice-usa.org/Democracy_Lost_Update1_EJUSA.pdf
 
 
+6 # librarian1984 2017-06-18 06:16
D'oh. Welcome to the party, Dr. Reich. Nice of you to finally join us. This is what many here have been saying. Not that Trump shouldn't be held accountable but that the likelihood of it is so miniscule that it's a waste of our our time, energy and resources to focus on that right now.

Instead we should be focussed on healthcare and whatever-the-he ll McConnell and Ryan are up to. We cannot afford to concentrate (only) on the circus. Not when the deconstruction crew is so busy behind-the-scen es, working against US.

But notice who goes on and on about impeachment and Trump's tweets. It is the msm. Why? Why is the media doing this? Why aren't they covering healthcare, war etc? THAT is the more interesting question.

What do you think?
 
 
0 # John Escher 2017-06-18 10:19
Quoting librarian1984:
D'oh. Welcome to the party, Dr. Reich. Nice of you to finally join us. This is what many here have been saying. Not that Trump shouldn't be held accountable but that the likelihood of it is so miniscule that it's a waste of our our time, energy and resources to focus on that right now.

Instead we should be focussed on healthcare and whatever-the-hell McConnell and Ryan are up to. We cannot afford to concentrate (only) on the circus. Not when the deconstruction crew is so busy behind-the-scenes, working against US.

But notice who goes on and on about impeachment and Trump's tweets. It is the msm. Why? Why is the media doing this? Why aren't they covering healthcare, war etc? THAT is the more interesting question.

What do you think?


I think that the word "minuscule" is spelled MINUSCULE. And that you are the person who always believes, when faced with two evils, in voting for the worse one (in effect). And that seeing Trump impeached and convicted would indeed be very interesting, not only for the sake of justice and vindication, but because that might open up better opportunities to advance the other serious issues you have identified.
 
 
+4 # librarian1984 2017-06-18 17:10
I'm a good speller but a terrible typist, and have certainly never claimed to be error-free. I make mistakes all the time, don't you? So what?

I used to go over my posts and correct them but now when you do that they often disappear -- so you're stuck with my bad spelling AND typos. You'll live. I'm actually surprised I don't make more. It's a pain not being able to edit.

But also, having consulted Merriam-Webster , I see they recognize 'miniscule' as a legitimate variant. I like the look of that spelling better, and it makes sense to me, though I do thank you for your kindly correction. Not at all crowing or pathetic :^D

But I'm curious. With all the outrageous things I say, why are your criticisms so substanceless? Is that the best you can do? There ARE important issues to discuss, you know.

Or are you conceding on matters political?

If you believe Pence would be better for US, I respectfully disagree, as does Thom Hartmann, among others. Pence would actually get legislation passed, and he's a dangerous religious zealot who could do great harm, especially to women and LGBT.

Are you against women and LGBT? I notice you 'always' choose attacking Trump over protecting vulnerable populations. In other words: How kind of you to tell me how I 'always' think. Quite astute are you? Tell me. What am I thinking riiiight .... NOW. Hint: it's about YOU lol

Is there anything you don't like about my punctuation? I invite your input.
 
 
0 # lfeuille 2017-06-18 17:34
I think he should be impeached. I don't think it will happen right away, but that does not mean we should stop talking about it. The demand for it is building and will continue to build because he can't keep from shooting himself in the foot. I do not think it is a waste of time. But Russia should not be a consideration. It is our problem, no other country is to blame. There is plenty of other avenues of investigation and this article is focused on one of them.
 
 
+7 # Time Traveller 2017-06-18 06:24
Thirty years ago I read that there were four times as many laws here than there were during World War Two. I assume that figure is closer to ten times as many by now.

Are we any safer from danger or financial or judicial or legislative it executive predators? Of course not. If anything, we are in far MORE danger.

Something tells me things would be LOT different if both Houses of Congress were 50% WOMEN. Typically, we men are the predators, yes some women can be predators, but not nearly so much as we men.
 
 
+1 # lfeuille 2017-06-18 17:36
Because people like Trump ignore the law and get away with it. We have to start enforcing it.
 
 
+1 # PeacefulGarden 2017-06-18 08:29
Why would the act? They are criminals also.
 
 
+2 # Depressionborn 2017-06-18 09:57
A Russian citizen accused of being a hacker by both Russia and the U.S. has claimed U.S. officials offered to cut him a deal if he admitted to interfering in the 2016 presidential election.

trump must go!
 
 
+1 # KarlRKaiser 2017-06-18 13:41
How about this then:

"The question isn't whether the black guy in the back seat has committed an illegal act. It's whether or not the policeman will act."
 
 
+8 # Wise woman 2017-06-18 13:42
Thanks Time Traveller for recognizing that fact. Women, for the most part, are eager to dwell on things like health care and education because they bear children whom they want to keep safe. Men see themselves as the head of the household they have to support and are particularly attached to money and power. In a more equal society, these roles are shared and no job more important than the other which is the antiquated system we live under even though technically it no longer exists. Until we recognize that, nothing will change. Sad.
 
 
0 # Time Traveller 2017-06-18 18:28
You are quite welcome, Wise Woman! I have been around strong, smart women all my life, so feminism is in my DNA by now.

I think you will enjoy this feminist tirade/symposiu m I penned for the ultra powerful Bilderberg Group that often chooses our presidents for us. I don't think they saw Dump coming tho, since they probably promised Hillary the presidency when she stepped aside for Barack a week after they both attended a Bilderberg Group meeting in Reston, Virginia in 2008.

Prince Charles skewers Trump in many Tweets before and after the election. When I Tweeted him, saying, "You Bilderbergers REALLY screwed up by not backing Bernie, I earned a "like" from him.

http://readersupportednews.org/pm-section/22-22/37172-talk-i-would-like-to-present-to-the-bilderberg-group-asap
 
 
+1 # JSRaleigh 2017-06-20 12:35
The GOP controls both houses of Congress. They won't impeach Trump unless/until they believe Trump is going to make them lose their majority.
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN