What did the president know about the Mar-a-Lago advertisement that appeared for a time on official government websites? And when did he know it?
These questions might sound trivial. They aren’t. The webpage about President Donald Trump’s private club, which had all the features of a marketer-drafted puff piece, is a prime example of corruption, namely the knowing use of government means to enhance the private wealth of the president. And corruption is the classic example of a high crime or misdemeanor under the impeachment clause of the Constitution.
To be very clear, it doesn’t matter whether advertising Trump’s for-profit, members-only club using government property is a “crime” under federal law. “High crimes and misdemeanors” aren’t the same as statutory violations. That phrase refers to the misuse of government authority to contradict and undermine democracy and the rule of law.
In this constitutional sense, using the perks and tools of government to enrich the president personally is an impeachable offense, an offense that would grow out of a pattern of such acts of corruption.
Because the subject of impeachment is so serious, let me begin with an important caveat: One post that went unnoticed for several weeks on a State Department website before being pulled down Monday would not on its own be enough to count as a high crime for purposes of impeaching a president. Without a lot more evidence, the post isn’t enough.
The Mar-a-Lago post, however, needs to be seriously investigated as part of a broader analysis of whether and how the executive office is being used to enhance the president’s existing businesses and brands and thus enrich the president now and in the future. The impeachable act of corruption is the use of the tools of government for private gain.
So now let’s turn to the webpage. We learned two important legal lessons back in February after White House adviser Kellyanne Conway promoted Ivanka Trump’s merchandise on television.
One is that it’s a violation of federal regulation (5 CFR 2635.702 if you’re keeping track at home) for a government employee to “use his public office … for the endorsement of any product, service, or enterprise.”
The second thing we learned is that nothing much necessarily happens if a government employee violates that regulation. Conway got less than a slap on the wrist — because it was up to the White House to decide on discipline, if any.
The Mar-a-Lago post is much worse. Conway just used the airwaves and her job title to make an endorsement. The webpage uses the resources of the government itself — the State Department’s Share America website and the imprimatur of the U.S. embassies’ diplomatic functions — to promote the club.
Lest we forget, memberships prices doubled after Trump was elected. And he has hosted several foreign leaders there. These acts were both troubling. But neither was as explicitly an instance of the use of government resources for private presidential gain.
Imagine that after an investigation, it turned out that the president or someone close to him ordered the post or knew about it and allowed it go forward.
The president could credibly claim that the regulation against endorsements doesn’t apply to him, because he’s not an employee under its terms. Trump has made clear that he believes that Congress’s conflict of interest laws don’t apply to him either.
Constitutionally, that wouldn’t be the end of the matter — far from it. Congress has the authority and the responsibility to consider presidential conflict of interest when crafting articles of impeachment and deciding to bring them against a sitting president.
Some misunderstanding of “high crimes and misdemeanors” has snuck into the popular imagination, mostly I think since Bill Clinton was impeached in 1998.
The two articles of impeachment approved by the House against Clinton consisted of perjury and obstruction of justice in connection with the Paula Jones case and his relationship with Monica Lewinsky. Both of those are prosecutable offenses under criminal law.
But Congress filed those articles of impeachment because Clinton hadn’t done anything else that would’ve counted as a distinct misuse of his government authority. Lying about his affair under oath wasn’t a distortion of the office of president. It was personal wrongdoing, not professional.
The articles of impeachment proposed against Richard Nixon made it only through the House Judiciary Committee, and were never adopted by the full House. They are more complicated — and more in keeping with constitutional tradition.
The first article does allege obstruction of justice. But all three of the articles charge Nixon with acting against his oath to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. Several of the specific allegations are for conduct that might not have been ordinarily criminal, such as maintaining a secret investigative unit in the White House or failing to stop his subordinates from thwarting the Watergate investigation.
These are classic “high crimes” — “high” in the sense that they relate directly to the president’s misuse of his own high office.
That’s the historical meaning of “high crimes and misdemeanors,” a phrase that the framers of the Constitution took from English constitutional tradition and the impeachments undertaken by Parliament against royal officials.
Corruption is the archetypal instance of a high crime. And it can be defined simply as the use of government office for the president’s private gain.
Small violations can add up to an impeachable offense. Nothing weakens the rule of law more effectively than gradual erosion. That’s why it’s important not to treat the Mar-a-Lago post as minimal or insignificant.
The rule of law takes centuries to build. It can be destroyed much quicker. And when it comes to a president, the criminal laws are not the constitutional answer. Impeachment is.
“Military service academies see decline in sexual assaults” said the headline at Military.com. The subject interests me because I 1.) am retired Air Force, 2.) was a Navy WAVE early in my life, 3.) was stationed at the Air Force Academy in both my military and civilian career. While at the AFA, I saw my share of incidents that made me aware that all who were there were not necessarily keeping the honor code.
The headline sounds good, right? The problem was that two academies actually had more assaults — on a base of less than 20 each while the Air Force Academy had a decline from 45 to 36 assaults. One set of results greatly skewed the overall picture. I’m sure the AF preferred the story as reported.
There is truth. There are lies. There is fiction. And there are statistics. A problem for all of us in this information age is that statistical data has been developed to make truth more precise, but the pure mathematics of statistical analysis can be hijacked by bias and design. What could be clear, accurate information is not always that at all.
A course in statistics was required for graduation from college and was not everyone’s favorite course because of the math involved. I couldn’t do any of the math today, but I do remember a few things. Not many answers were 100 percent, and the data you are using is more important than the numbers.
I certainly wish that, in today’s world, I could read an article or a headline and completely understand its meaning by looking at the numbers, but that is not always wise. Sometimes you need to drill into the data. Who, what, when, where, and especially why was the data collected? There is also the question of lie or fiction. Was there ever research at all? Were the results reported accurately?
When discussing facts, we perhaps have become too inattentive in noticing the inconsistency of the numbers. I’ve been guilty of throwing out what I remember as being “close to” the numbers I read in an article, and I expect others have too. This is not a terrible thing in casual conversation, but when inaccurate information is used to make decisions, it can prove to be disastrous.
In the last year, we as a nation have learned that there is more inaccurate and false information available from formal and informal sources than we ever could have imagined. Although who is spreading it and why is open to investigation, it is a fact that disinformation and misinformation (deliberate or unintended) is a problem as we seek to be informed.
We can, of course, give up and stop trying to be on top of what’s happening. That leaves decision-making to others. Or, we can realize this significant problem and fight for truth. We need to seek clarity and we need to search out “trusted actors” — those sources we can count on to be reliable. I weep for those who search out only the information they know or want to know. Where would we as Americans be if we had let our preconceptions and biases govern the future? Let’s not give up. Let’s fight for facts.
An interesting editorial in the T-N on Sunday, April 9. The first third of the article was spot on, just what has happened here in the last 100 plus years.
I quote, “If you’re tough enough to try it here, chances are you’ll be rewarded. If you have enough guts to take a chance, Twin Falls is where dreams come true.” So true! Say no more!
That to me says it all. Just because Boise and Ketchum passed a resolution proclaiming those cities a “Welcoming City” is no sign Twin Falls has to do the same. I reference the T-N quote above. Twin Falls is Twin Falls; don’t we have bigger and possibly better things to spend time on? Most would agree we do.
You will notice I have said nothing pertaining to refugees. Let this issue die a natural death; it will take care of itself. It is controlled by the feds anyway. You said so, it must be right. Boise and Ketchum don’t have refugee centers anyway like Twin Falls.
Those such as Dr. Mark Crandall are to be commended for the work with the Boy Scouts and doing public service projects. Do we need to be a “Welcoming City” for this to continue? No, for these types of projects have been going on for the last number of years. Service clubs and churches help in similar ways.
I again refer to the T-N quote “If you have enough guts to take a chance, Twin Falls is where dreams can come true.”
I know this to be a fact. It started some 50 plus years ago. There was no sign over Main Street that read “Welcoming City.” We moved here, went to work, started a business, raised a family, made a lot of great friends and never regretted one moment of the journey.
I wonder if it might have been different if Twin Falls had a sign saying “Welcoming City?”