Nearly 200 congressional Democrats to file emoluments lawsuit against Trump
"Holy Conflict of Interest! The Firm Holding Much of Trump's Debt May Be Up for Sale."
President Donald J. Trump, along with his daughter Ivanka, walks across the South Lawn as he departs the White House on June 13, 2017. (JIM LO SCALZO / EPA)
Tom Hamburger and Karen TumultyWashington Post
June 13, 2017. 11:30 AM
Nearly 200 Democratic members of Congress agreed to file a lawsuit Wednesday against President Donald Trump alleging that by retaining interests in a global business empire he has violated constitutional restrictions on taking gifts and benefits from foreign leaders.
The lead senator filing the complaint in federal district court, Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., said Tuesday that the lawsuit has already drawn more congressional plaintiffs — 196 — than any legal action previously taken against a president. No Republicans have yet joined in the lawsuit, although they will be invited to do so, Blumenthal said. ADVERTISING
An advance copy of the legal complaint reviewed by The Washington Post argues that those in Congress have special standing because the Constitution's "foreign emoluments clause" requires the president to obtain "the consent of Congress" before accepting any gifts.
The legal effort, led in the House by Rep. John Conyers Jr., D-Mich., is likely to escalate tensions between the White House and Capitol Hill, where at least five committees are investigating various issues related to the Trump administration.
News of the lawsuit emerged less than 24 hours after attorneys general in the District and Maryland, both Democrats, filed suit alleging that payments to Trump violated the Constitution's anti-corruption clauses. In another lawsuit filed against Trump by business competitors, the Justice Department recently defended Trump's actions, arguing that he violated no restrictions by accepting fair-market payments for services.
Legal scholars consulted by the congressional plaintiffs said their complaint is distinctive because of the special standing granted to Congress.
"The framers of our Constitution gave members of Congress the responsibility to protect our democracy from foreign corruption by determining which benefits the president can and cannot receive from a foreign state," said Erwin Chemerinsky, the incoming dean of the law school at the University of California at Berkeley.
"When the president refuses to reveal which benefits he is receiving - much less obtain congressional consent before accepting them - he robs these members of their ability to perform their constitutional role," Chemerinsky said. "Congressional lawmakers ... have a duty to preserve the constitutional order in the only way they can: by asking the courts to make the President obey the law."
Other legal scholars were skeptical, particularly since the lawsuit was filed only by Democrats, the minority party in both houses of Congress.
"Just because they can't convince their peers doesn't mean you can go to court to get what you want," said Andy Grewal, a law professor at the University of Iowa.
Generally, a lawmaker can sue if he or she has suffered individual injury, Grewal said. In addition, Congress can sue as a body, as has happened in the past, such as with the lawsuit challenging President Barack Obama's health-care overhaul.
But a case like this is problematic, he said.
"Because this is individual legislators who don't have any individual injuries, it will be hard for them to get standing," he said.
However, Norman Eisen, who served as a co-counsel in the other two emoluments-clause lawsuits, said he thought "the congressional plaintiffs in this case do have proper" standing to sue. He pointed out that in the lawsuit filed on behalf of Trump competitors, the Justice Department argued that Congress had special capacity to deal with questions related to emoluments.
The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment Tuesday night, but on Monday, press secretary Sean Spicer dismissed the lawsuit filed by the two state attorneys general, saying it's "not hard to conclude that partisan politics may be one of the motivations."
The 37-page congressional complaint contends that the nation's founders were concerned that foreign powers could interfere with American affairs. The suit says that the founders were particularly worried that "foreign states would give benefits and rewards to the nation's chief executive to subvert his loyalty."
As a result, they wrote the emoluments clause of the Constitution with language "both sweeping and unqualified," the lawmakers' lawsuit says.
The obscure clause in Article I of the Constitution says: "[N]o 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." The language is interpreted as prohibiting any officeholder - including the president - from accepting a gift, payment or other benefit from a foreign state without the consent of Congress.
A memo prepared by the Senate plaintiff states that "these benefits include any compensation for services rendered in a private capacity such as when a foreign government throws a party at a hotel owned by a federal official."
Although the emoluments clause has a complex history, the request by the lawmakers is rather simple. It asks the court to enjoin the president from "accepting any benefits from foreign states without first obtaining Congressional consent."
While the president-elect’s finances remain murky, due largely to his refusal to release his tax returns, the newspaper reports that he owes at least hundreds of millions of dollars, that the debt is held by more than 150 institutions, and that some of it is backed by his personal guarantee. “As a result, a broader array of financial institutions now are in a potentially powerful position over the incoming president,” it states. “If the Trump businesses were to default on their debts, the giant financial institutions that serve as so-called special servicers of these loan pools would have the power to foreclose on some of Mr. Trump’s marquee properties or seek the tens of millions of dollars that Mr. Trump personally guaranteed on the loans.”
One wonders whether to be more worried about Big Finance using its leverage to influence the president or the president abusing his power in order to thwart his creditors.
Either way, Trump’s decision to hold on to his opaque business empire while president, rather than liquidating his interests to focus on the good of the country, has created unprecedented conflicts of interest that even a saint would have difficulty navigating in office. In a prior column, I noted .. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/11/congress-is-duty-bound-to-probe-trumps-finances/508826/ .. a New York Times investigation into a portion of Trump’s business dealings in foreign countries, arguing that in India, China, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Brazil, Argentina, and other countries besides, there will be countless occasions where the interests of the United States and the interests of the Trump organization diverge.
If the Times story was the best look we’ve gotten at specific conflicts of interest abroad, the Wall Street Journal article is the domestic analog, highlighting facts like this:
- Wells Fargo .. http://quotes.wsj.com/WFC .. & Co., for example, runs at least five mutual funds that own portions of Trump businesses’ securitized debt, according to an analysis of mutual-fund data conducted by Morningstar .. http://quotes.wsj.com/MORN .. Inc. for the Journal.
The bank also is a trustee or administrator for pools of securitized loans that include $282 million of loans to Mr. Trump. And Wells acts as a special servicer for $950 million of loans to a property that one of Mr. Trump’s companies partly owns, according to securities and property filings.
And then there’s this alarming detail: “It is impossible to identify all the firms or individuals that now hold Trump businesses’ securitized debt, as these investments often don’t have to be disclosed.” As a result, it is easy to imagine Trump covertly benefitting or punishing one of his creditors (depending on his analysis of what’s preferable). He needn’t be in a position to directly appoint regulators to do so. He often posts tweets that laud or vilify corporations with huge consequences for their stockholders. How many corporate leaders would quietly forgive debt if the stock of their biggest competitor would be tanked, rather than their own?
This should concern even Americans who voted for Donald Trump. The underlying case here isn’t that he is unusually corrupt, but that the extreme power of the presidency requires a responsible country to put anyone who rises to the position under a microscope. Trump’s unusually big business conflicts create even more problems than usual, temptations to which the vast majority of humans might succumb. If Trump merely behaves as most people would, the country will lose, bigly.
Tens of millions of people will be harmed.
Trump is nevertheless offering less transparency than any predecessor in the modern era, and entering office with both houses of Congress controlled by Republicans who show no inclination to fulfill their responsibility to scrutinize his conflicts. Until members of Congress launch a full probe into Trump’s financial assets and debts, so that at the very least they can understand where his interests and America’s interests diverge, there is no way that they can adequately represent their constituents.
And it is particularly ironic that their historic abdication of responsibility is rooted in partisanship, given that it will benefit a man with no loyalty to the Republican Party.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
