This article does not speak to what happen during the election. It helps us understand the person that was elected and how the election may ultimately be resolved. The concerns regarding the Emoluments clause and other constitutional issues may lead to law suits being filed as soon as the President-elect is inaugurated. Consequently, I have decided to include this article and the issue of emoluments in this investigation of the 2016 election.
The article is written by a conservative columnist for The Washington Post, Jennifer Rubin. It was published today. She argues,
President-elect Donald Trump’s showy press conference on Wednesday did not put concerns about his conflicts of ethics and potential violations of the emoluments clause to rest. Far from it. Informed observers could quickly ascertain that this was a hoax, not a good-faith attempt to resolve serious ethical problems.
On Wednesday afternoon, Walter M. Shaub Jr., director of the Office of Government Ethics, made clear that Trump had failed to even come close to removing ethical violations that will go to the heart of his ability to govern.
The chief ethics lawyers for presidents Obama and George W. Bush, Norman Eisen and Richard Painter, are in agreement.
Both Painter and Eisen stressed that the emoluments clause explicitly prohibits foreign governments’ money from flowing to the president. “The president is not above the law,” Painter said. Eisen predicted that Congress “won’t allow these emoluments flow.” Donating the proceeds of illegal emoluments is no solution, Eisen said. Eisen and Painter pointed out that foreign emoluments may flow from other parts of his business beyond the hotels. (These include trademarks, bank loans and other financial benefits.)
… “The president-elect has nine days to fix this problem,” Painter warned. Bribery prosecutions can proceed under federal law, and Congress through its impeachment power is the ultimate enforcer of the emoluments clause.