Trump's business ethics and conflicts of interest.

President-elect Donald Trump has been involved in quite a few lawsuits that raise questions about his business practices. He has multiple business bankruptcies, many lawsuits with contractors, the recent settlement of a lawsuit over questionable business practices of Trump 'University' and Trump has even forced his own lawyers to sue him for their fees.

According to Bloomberg,

in more than four decades in business, Trump has prided himself on stretching, not following, rules. "The Outlaw archetype loves to break the rules," Trump once advised aspiring entrepreneurs in "Midas Touch," his 2011 book. "The motto of the Outlaw is: 'Rules are meant to be broken.'

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-06-02/donald-trump-might-ma...

Constitutional prohibitions of Presidential profiteering

Since the days of Lyndon B. Johnson most presidents have put their assets in blind trusts so their personal finances will not influence their official decisions. Since Trump has refused to put his money in a blind trust there are a stunning number of conflicts of interest between his personal business interests and his future Presidential duties. Donald Trump does not feel that there is an ethical requirement to avoid using the Presidency for personal profit. In a New York Times interview on November 22, 2016 Trump said, “The law’s totally on my side, meaning, the president can’t have a conflict of interest.”

A king may not have conflicts of interest because everything in their kingdom belongs to him. Presidents of the United States are expected to run their personal finances in an ethical way and make their decisions for the good of our country. The Presidency is not supposed to be operated for the personal profit of the President. The US Constitution clearly states that Presidents will be paid a salary and they cannot take any other money from the government while they are in office. A President cannot even give himself a raise in salary after the election. The Constitution says:

The President shall, at stated times, receive for his services, a compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that period any other emolument from the United States, or any of them.

The Framers of the Constitution chose the word emolument because it describes money received as a salary, fee, profit, tip or other income. They clearly meant that, aside from his salary, a President is not allowed to use his office to make money.

A President is not supposed to make money from his construction company by doing work for the U.S. government, especially on no-bid government contracts. A President is not supposed to make money renting out his property to the government. A President is not supposed to privatize public property and then buy it at pennies on the dollar. A President is not supposed to influence regulatory agencies for his own financial benefit. Although a President cannot use the Treasury for his personal piggy bank, it is not clear exactly what the restrictions are for relatives who are peddling purses.

The Constitution does not allow a President to take money from any foreign government because the President's first loyalty must be to the United States. President Obama was able to accept the Nobel prize because it is awarded by a committee that is not connected to any government. The Constitution would have required Obama to refuse the prize money if the award had been given by a foreign government. The Constitutional clause that covers this is known as the Emoluments clause.

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, 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.

Some of the ethics problems caused by Trump's refusal to put his wealth in a blind trust are described by Richard W. Painter, professor at the University of Minnesota Law School and former chief White House ethics lawyer for George W. Bush:

The fundamental problem, of course, is one the founders envisioned: They did not want our government officials being paid off by foreign sovereigns. This is why the Constitution has the Emoluments Clause. We also have criminal statutes barring any quid pro quo involving public officials (bribery, solicitation of a bribe or offering of a bribe).

The possibility of quid pro quo will emerge every time somebody working for either the government or the Trump organization talks about government business and Trump business in the same conversation or with the same people. Nobody in the American government, including the president, should ask a foreign diplomat about any aspect of Trump business, including such matters as, for example, unsightly windmills that are too close to Mr. Trump’s golf courses. Such conversations will inevitably suggest a link between official government action and benefits for the Trump businesses. In other words, a bribe.

Even absent a quid pro quo, the Emoluments Clause bans payments to an American public official from foreign governments. Yet they will arise whenever foreign diplomats stay in Trump hotels at their governments’ expense; whenever parties are organized by foreign governments in Trump hotels (Bahrain just announced such a party in a Trump hotel this week); whenever loans are made to the company by the Bank of China or any other foreign-government-owned bank; whenever rent is paid by companies controlled by foreign governments with offices in Trump buildings; and whenever there is any other arrangement whereby foreign government money goes into the president’s businesses.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/01/opinion/trumps-business-empire-isnt-ju...

Can Presidents pardon themselves?

With his extensive business empire and creative business practices there is a significant chance that Trump will break some law while he is President. The many conflicts of interest between his personal interest in his businesses and his Presidential duties greatly increases his risk of committing illegal acts. As President he can pardon people who break a Federal laws. There are disagreements over whether a President can pardon himself. Article II of the Constitution says

The President . . . shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment."

Shortly before Richard Nixon resigned from his presidency Nixon's lawyers said that it would be Constitutional for the President to give himself a pardon for his involvement in covering up the Watergate break in. Nixon decided not to try to pardon himself. The next President, Gerald Ford, gave Nixon a blanket pardon. It is not necessary to admit guilt or even define any specific crime to receive a blanket pardon. Gerald Ford pardoned Nixon for every Federal crime he might have been guilty of at any time during the Nixon Presidency.

Now, Therefore, I, Gerald R. Ford, President of the United States, pursuant to the pardon power conferred upon me by Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, have granted and by these presents do grant a full, free, and absolute pardon unto Richard Nixon for all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 20, 1969 through August 9, 1974.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=4696

George HW Bush pardoned several people who were about to go to trial for involvement in the Iran-Contra scandal, but GHW Bush did not choose to try to pardon himself for his possible involvement. It was noted at the time that the Constitution did not specifically prohibit a President from pardoning himself.
http://digitalcommons.law.msu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1233&conte...
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/feb/15/usa.philhoad

Impeachment
If Trump commits a crime while in office he can be removed by Congress. Impeachment is the prelude to possible political removal of a President or other official from their office. A President is kicked out of office if Congress votes to remove him. A President who is impeached by the House of Representatives and convicted by 2/3 of the Senate does not necessarily face any criminal punishment after being thrown out office.
According to the Constitution:

The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

If Donald Trump commits a serious crime while in office he can be impeached and removed. He really should not be impeached just for being undignified or even for being a lousy President. Disagreement with his policies should not be sufficient grounds for impeachment; Separation of Powers should not allow Congress that much control over the Executive branch. Grotesque incompetence may be grounds for impeachment. The exact meaning of “high crimes and misdemeanors” is not clear.

"What, then, is an impeachable offense? The only honest answer is that an impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history; conviction results from whatever offense or offenses two-thirds of the other body considers to be sufficiently serious to require removal of the accused from office...

" Congressman Gerald Ford, 116 Cong. Rec. H.3113-3114 (April 15, 1970).

One interpretation of the Constitution says that a President should only be impeached if he has committed an actual crime. During the Watergate scandal some Republicans pointed out that Nixon had not been convicted of any crime (yet) and claimed that this meant Nixon could not yet be impeached. Clearly Gerald Ford did not share this opinion. Some scholars think that:

. . . an indictable crime is not required to impeach and remove a President. The proponents of this view focus on the word "misdemeanor" which did not have a specific criminal connotation to it at the time the Constitution was ratified. This interpretation is somewhat belied by details of the debate the Framers had in arriving at the specific language to be used for the impeachment standard.
Initially the standard was to be "malpractice or neglect of duty." This was removed and replaced with "treason, bribery, or corruption." The word "corruption" was then eliminated. On the floor during debate the suggestion was made to add the term "maladministration." This was rejected as being too vague and the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" was adopted in its place. There are many legal scholars who believe this lesser standard is the correct one, however.

http://litigation.findlaw.com/legal-system/presidential-impeachment-the-...

Can a President pardon himself to avoid impeachment?
A pardon lets someone who may have committed a crime either escape punishment or get all their civil rights back as if they had not committed any crime. The Constitution says that “The President . . . shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment." This has been read to mean that a President cannot overturn an impeachment, including his own. It might also mean that the President cannot issue pardons once he has been impeached, but this does not seem to be an accepted reading.

Another way to read this could be that a President could not pardon anyone involved in the matter that led to his impeachment. It would not be in the personal interest of a President to pardon someone the President committed a crime with, because then the President’s fellow criminal could not use the 5th Amendment to refuse to testify.

A president or governor may grant a full (unconditional) pardon or a conditional pardon. The granting of an unconditional pardon fully restores an individual's civil rights forfeited upon conviction of a crime and restores the person's innocence as though he or she had never committed a crime. This means that a recipient of a pardon may regain the right to vote and to hold various positions of public trust.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Presidential+pardon

What if a President pardoned himself for a crime before he was impeached for it? Would a full pardon would then ‘erase’ the crime and restore the President’s innocence as if he had never committed the crime? Would this block impeachment and allow the President to remain in his office of public trust?

Unless the pardon expressly states that it is issued because of a determination that the recipient was innocent, a pardon does not imply innocence. It is merely a forgiveness of the offense. It is generally assumed that acceptance of a pardon is an implicit Acknowledgment of guilt, for one cannot be pardoned unless one has committed an offense.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Presidential+pardon

A Presidential pardon does not really make the fact of a crime disappear. If a President pardons himself he is essentially admitting that he committed a crime. He also can still be tried and convicted for any state or local laws he violated. Private individuals he has harmed can still sue him.

A “pardon” is a presidential act of forgiving a person for a federal crime . . . a pardon does not imply innocence. A pardon may also include forgiveness of fines and restitution imposed as part of the conviction. Unlike a commutation, however, a pardon does remove any potential civil responsibility.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/thepresidentandcabinet/fl/Presidential-Par...

If Trump commits a crime while he is President he could probably still be impeached and kicked out of office even if he managed to get away with pardoning himself. A self pardon to avoid responsibility for a crime might in itself be impeachable as a high crime or misdemeanor. A President who pardoned himself to avoid justice or impeachment could be considered guilty of obstruction of justice or self-bribe.
http://digitalcommons.law.msu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1233&conte...

There is a significant chance that grounds for impeachment could be found among the many conflicts of interest caused by Trump’s diverse business interests. Trump is also involved in ongoing lawsuits that may reveal impeachable offenses. Two thirds of the Senate must convict Trump of “high crimes and misdemeanors” in order to remove him from the Presidency. This will require votes from at least some Democrats. The Democrats would be likely to cooperate. A major problem with the situations is that Trump would then be replaced by Vice President Pence.

The threat of impeachment will be a tool that Republicans can use to control Trump. We need to be careful about precedents that are set if Trump is impeached. For the Separation of Powers to be maintained Trump should not be impeached just because he is annoying or because he refuses to sign something the Republicans in the House put in front of him. On the other hand, if there is a legitimate reason for impeachment the proceedings should not be unreasonably delayed. Any unfit President needs to be removed promptly. Impeachment threats should be legitimate, not a lever to control Presidents.

The decision in United States v. Lee sums up the situation:

No man in this country is so high that he is above the law. No officer of the law may set that law at defiance with impunity. All the officers of the government, from the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law and are bound to obey it.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/106/196/case.html