Mormons have never liked Trump. For whatever their other failings, they do tend to value dignified behaviour.

That's true, but it's interesting to see them turning on one of their own over it.

MichaelJacksonPopcorn.jpg

It's not a jpg, it's a gif!

Goddammit, you're right and I'm drunk.

MichaelJacksonPopcorn.vrml

Vrooml-Vrooml?

“You’re not going to like this part: the president, under the law, is exempt from conflict of interest laws,”

I thought Mormons weren't supposed to smoke pot.

He's not wrong though.


Mind you, this is domestic. There are still rules against foreign conflict of interest.

Yeah, the law exempts the president. His hands are tied. It's not like he's the member of a legislative body that can change those laws. That sure would be handy.

Yes, obviously this should be the next argument.

Clearly the legal systems in place for the President never considered a litigious asshole. If there is a loophole, no decency would keep Trump from it.

There's no shortage of issues Chaffetz could go after our so-called president for if he wanted to, but even if the office shields him from most conflicts of interest, his cabinet and staff are rife with blatant corruption and ethics issues. This latest one with Flynn is a beauty. But Chaffetz, grovelling partisan that he is, still promises to go after Hillary Clinton.

What about 5 CFR 2635.702 - Use of public office for private gain.
The definitions in that section explicitly state that sections b ( sanctions ) and c (endorsements) apply to the president.

Sorry, one supercedes the other here (and not the way you or I'd like.) And no, the president is not mentioned in section B or C.

The only part of Title 5 that applies to the president is this. And even then, not really since it only mentions the employees of the Office of the President, not the President himself.

§2635.102 Definitions.

(h) ..... For purposes other than subparts B and C of this part, it does not include the President or Vice President. .....

It is hard to get any clearer that those sections are intended to apply.

Read that again.

(h) ..... For purposes other than subparts B and C of this part, it does not include the President or Vice President. .....

Not that it even matters, because a later, actual law (not a regulation) was passed by congress superceding this if it did. The president is immune to any domestic conflict of interest charge.

Yes, that mean the rest of it does not apply to them. These two parts do apply to them.

You missed the part I had edited.

The first law I posted, totally voids this. A CFR is a regulation enforced by the executive. The other is a law passed by congress.

I am certainly not an expert in this area, but my understanding is that Congress promulgated the code and that the regulations are the detailed implementation of it.

My understanding would be that the definitions you cite (which include) (c) "Except as otherwise provided in such sections"

Then section § 208 ( which seems to be the relevant part of the code, correct me if I am wrong) makes it clear that the implementation will be governed by regulation as to where those exceptions apply.

Followed by the regs I cited.

I'm not sure how the code supersedes it if this is the implementation of it. ( guessing that is where my problem is.)

The CFR are regulation started by FDR, and enforced by the executive. They are not laws, they are regulations. The law does site the executive as being those who will enforce and regulate it. However, it does not retract this at any point:

Except as otherwise provided in such sections, the terms “officer” and “employee” in sections 203, 205, 207 through 209, and 218 of this title shall not include the President, the Vice President, a Member of Congress, or a Federal judge.

Meaning any regulatory power or enforcement power is not extended to the President.

I appreciate it.

"High crimes and misdemeanors" was specifically intended to address corruption and abuse of the power of office. Or as Alexander Hamilton put it, "those offences which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust." Conflict of interest would be an abuse of public trust, not that the GOP will care as long as they benefit somehow.

That's an argument you can take to the Supreme Court to try and overturn 18 U.S. Code § 202, however by de-jure law, he's got immunity.

No, he doesn't. It's true that section 208 doesn't apply to the President, but section 208 is not the whole of the law. Impeachment is an absolute limit on his power and Congress doesn't need the Supreme Court to tell them that. If Trump acts in a way that benefits him personally at the expense of the country, that's grounds for impeachment. Section 202 also excludes federal judges, but federal judges have been impeached and convicted for, among other things, having an improper business relationship with litigants, denying a motion to recuse based on their relationship with lawyers in a case, or committing "honest services" fraud, which btw is a crime under 18 U.S.C. § 1346 and specifically covers both bribery and "failure to disclose a conflict of interest, resulting in personal gain". The President is not immune to § 1346. As long as he discloses and doesn't benefit at the expense of the country, he's in the clear, but that doesn't mean he has immunity.

You can impeach someone for completely wrong charges. That doesn't change the fact the law is the law. For example, if congress was pissed they could vote to impeach they may do so for "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."

Meaning if the charge is not treason or bribery, then it must actually be a crime or misdemeanor. Domestic conflict of interest is not a crime for the President, sadly.