Trump's Ethics Critics Get Their Day in Court

Ethics Experts have been Pressing President Trump in the Media for Months. On Wednesday, they'll finally get their day in Court. At the Center of a Federal Lawsuit in New York is the U.S. Constitution's Foreign Emoluments Clause, which Bars the President from accepting Gifts from Foreign Governments without Permission from Congress.

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a Watchdog Group, will lay out its Case before Judge George Daniels. Lawyers for the Justice Department have asked the Judge to Dismiss the Case.

The Obscure Provision of the Constitution is an Issue because Trump Refused to Sell his Business Holdings before the Inauguration. Instead, he placed his Assets in a Trust and handed the Reins of the Trump Organization to his two Oldest Sons, Don Jr. and Eric. The Terms of the Trust make it so Trump can technically Withdraw Cash Payments from his Businesses any time he wants. He can also Dissolve the Trust when he leaves Office, so if his Businesses do well, he'll ultimately Profit.

CREW Claims that because Government Leaders and Entities frequent his Hotels, Clubs, and Restaurants, Trump is in Breach of the Emoluments Clause. The Fear is that International Officials will try to Curry Favor with Trump by patronizing his Properties. In its Complaint, CREW cites a number of Examples, including the decision by the Embassy of Kuwait to move its National Day Celebration to Trump's Washington Hotel after the Election. Secret Service paid Mar-a-Lago at least $63,000, documents show.

"It was our hope that President Trump would take the necessary steps to avoid violating the Constitution before he took office. He did not. His constitutional violations are immediate and serious, so we were forced to take legal action," said Noah Bookbinder, CREW's Executive Director, when the Case was filed back in January.

In April and May, a Nonprofit Restaurant Group, and a Woman who Books Events at D.C. Hotels, and a New York Hotel and Restaurant Owner joined CREW as Plaintiffs. For its part, the Justice Department says CREW and Company don't have a Case.

Presidents have long held on to their Private Businesses while in Office, the Administration said in a Court filing. The Defense Lawyers point out that George Washington maintained his Plantation at Mount Vernon while he was President, and that Thomas Jefferson kept both his Monticello Farm and a Nail Factory running during his tenure.

The Trump Administration also argues that the Plaintiffs can't prove that their Businesses actually Sustained any Damage. They need to Demonstrate that in Order for the Case to Proceed. According to the Justice Department, the Plaintiffs only Speculate about the "loss of business due to competition with restaurants and hotels in which the President has financial interests."

Though CREW has received significant attention because it was the first Group to take Legal Action over Emoluments, Trump also faces Two other Lawsuits related to the Clause. One comes from the State of Maryland and the District of Columbia, while the other was filed by nearly 200 Democratic Lawmakers.

A Key Objective in both Suits is to Compel Trump to Release his Tax Returns during the Legal Process known as Discovery.









NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker

CREW Wins Major Lawsuit Against FEC

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) is a non-profit legal watchdog group dedicated to holding public officials accountable for their actions.

A Federal Judge ruled yesterday that the Federal Election Commission (FEC) dismissal of CREW’s complaints against American Action Network (AAN) and Americans for Job Security (AJS) was “arbitrary and capricious” and “contrary to law” and directed the FEC to reconsider the cases using a greatly expanded standard of what counts as a political ad.

This will have a major impact on disclosure by dark money groups, as the FEC can no longer only consider ads that expressly advocate for or against candidates when deciding whether a group is a “Political Committee” that must reveal its donors to the public.

United States District Judge Christopher R. Cooper wrote, “CREW’s citations to legislative history, past FEC precedent, and court precedent certainly support the conclusion that many or even most electioneering communications indicate a campaign-related purpose. Indeed, it blinks reality to conclude that many of the ads considered by the Commissioners in this case were not designed to influence the election or defeat of a particular candidate in an ongoing race.”

This decision marks a major victory not just for CREW but for believers in an open and transparent political process. The court found that Campaign related spending is not limited to express advocacy, that the FECA’s Political Committee provisions impose only “modest” burdens that serve the same important Campaign-Transparency interests as one-time event disclosures, and that the FEC needs to accept that an organization’s major purpose can change with time, specifically that if a once non-political organization starts acting like a political organization, then it is now one.

“This is a huge victory on many important grounds,” CREW Executive Director Noah Bookbinder said. “From now on, we hope to see a major change in the way the FEC approaches investigations of non-profit organizations engaged in politics. This could be the beginning of meaningful enforcement of rules meant to ensure transparency and restrict the ability of powerful interests to influence politics without disclosure.”

CREW initially filed complaints against AJS and AAN in 2012 alleging that due to their extensive Political Advertising Campaigns, the groups’ major purposes were to impact elections, meaning they should have had to register as Political Committees under federal law and reveal their donors.

This is not the first major victory this year for CREW involving AJS and the FEC. In July, AJS was fined $43,000 by the FEC as part of a record post-Citizens United fine against Koch brothers network groups stemming from a CREW complaint.











NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker

Update on CREW v. FEC

After obtaining more than 1,600 pages of internal documents from the Federal Election Commission (FEC)’s investigation of the dark money group Commission on Hope, Growth and Opportunity (CHGO), it makes it clear that CHGO was created for the explicit purpose of influencing elections while evading disclosure.

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) filed a motion in Federal court for judgment declaring that the FEC’s failure to act against CHGO violated the Federal Election Campaign Act.

CLICK HERE to read the 55 page Motion.

Late last year, CREW sued the FEC for not acting despite the fact that the FEC’s own Office of the General Counsel recommended three times that the agency take action against CHGO for violating the law.

The new documents reveal false testimony to the FEC, obstruction of an FEC subpoena, missing and likely destroyed documents and a previously unreleased fundraising letter bragging about CHGO’s purpose being Electoral spending without disclosure.











NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker