How Trump violated the Constitution

The 45th president of the United States is still a persistent guy. Another in his place, if he had not resigned, he would have been embittered, hysterical, or withdrawn into himself. But this guy somehow holds on and even continues to bend his line. But what just did not blame him! And that he is a “Kremlin agent”, and in racism, and in sexism, and in dementia. But somehow, the definition of “lawless president” stuck to him (with a light hand of liberal media, of course). Without any clear explanation. Just lawless - and that’s it.

On CNN and MSNBC, “talking heads” often threatened Trump: “In the United States, no one is above the law. Even the president! ”And in what Donald put himself above the law? Why did he break this? Why is still, despite the tremendous failure that resulted in the investigation of the special prosecutor in the "Russian case" Robert Muller, the House of Representatives is considering the impeachment of the president?

At least some explanation of claims against Trump appeared in the lawsuit filed by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), a lawsuit filed with the Federal Court for the Second Circuit of New York State. The plaintiff claimed that the president violated the US Constitution by prohibiting the receipt of remuneration from American and foreign companies and individuals while in office.

The essence of the matter is as follows. Donald Trump, taking office, transferred his assets to the management of his sons, although ethics consultants advised him to completely get rid of shares in various companies. For example, to sell them and give the proceeds to the management of a hired independent specialist. Or transfer their assets to the so-called blind trust, thus losing the opportunity to even monitor the state and profitability of their investments.

CREW lawyers, apparently, have been at a low start since November 2016, when Trump won the election. The lawsuit was filed and considered for the first time in 2017. Donald's lawyers then stated that the plaintiff was too free to interpret the Constitution, so that the charges were extremely speculative. The relevant provisions of the basic law of the United States were designed to protect the White House from corruption and foreign influence, thereby guaranteeing the independence of decisions taken by the head of state. However, according to the defense, the plaintiff was not at all interested in the independence of the president. His lawsuit was only an attempt to get a decision giving the basis for considering the issue of impeachment.

In 2017, the court agreed with the arguments of the lawyers. He saw a political motive in the lawsuit, and also did not see in Trump's possible actions any (even potential) damage to CREW. In this regard, the case was closed. The judge explained that the plaintiff, in fact, did not act on his own behalf and not to protect his interests, as required for a civil lawsuit, but tried to represent the interests of all US citizens, which is the prerogative of Congress (because legislators declare impeachment), but not trial.

After a pause, CREW representatives decided to appeal. Their lawyers managed to justify why this NGO can be considered the injured party. CREW also has stakes in the leisure and tourism industry in New York State. So the high state post of the defendant gave him the opportunity to provide preferences to his hotels and resorts, thereby infringing on the interests of the plaintiff. This argument to two of the three judges of the Court of Appeal was enough to issue a decision on the admissibility of the claim. The opinion of the judicial majority also said that the trial court did not provide sufficient justification for his lack of jurisdiction in this case.

The judge who voted against the ruling wrote in his private opinion that in the entire history of the United States such claims to the president had never been examined by the federal district court. There are no judicial precedents or rulings of the Supreme Court that would allow such consideration. Moreover, the Constitution does not indicate that potential preferences may amount to remuneration.

Be that as it may, with a majority of one vote, the Court of Appeal again sent the case to the first instance, which was to find out whether Trump had violated the law and whether his actions led to damage to the plaintiff. That is, this is not a final decision, but only an order to accept the claim for consideration.

Most U.S. legal and constitutional experts believe that CREW's chances of winning the case are negligible. But Democratic operatives are rubbing their hands pretty. Still would! There was an occasion to launch another media campaign against Trump. In 2017-2018, the Democrats and the media under their control used every Malomian sink from the Mueller team to repeatedly and again discuss (sometimes weeks) the president’s "crimes" and relish the process of "tightening the noose around his neck." And now, all the US media have announced the decision of the New York Court of Appeal.

It is difficult to say how successful such tactics are. So far, Trump's approval rating is surprisingly stable. Moreover, he is now even slightly above Obama’s rating in the fall of 2011, that is, a year before the re-election. Apparently, liberal strategists believe that water sharpens a stone. However, they have no special choice. Considering the successes of the American economy and the completely inaudible primaries of the Democratic Party before the presidential election, Donald’s foes only have to pour in new accusations against him.

Of course, this lawsuit can not contribute to impeachment. From a legal point of view, possible violations of the president, which CREW speaks about, do not involve “betrayal, bribery or other especially serious crimes”, for which the head of state can be removed from power. Of course, the House of Representatives is not obliged to explain to anyone why she began the impeachment procedure. That is, politics can prevail over the accuracy of law enforcement. Democratic congressmen could at any time, without even waiting for Mueller’s report, bring charges against the owner of the White House. But then and now they have no chance that the Senate will condemn Donald with two-thirds of the votes. And this for liberal legislators can result in a big problem. As historical practice (for example, the Bill Clinton case) shows, failed impeachment hurts the side that initiated it.

In a word, the cart is still in the same place as on January 20, 2017, when Donald Trump took the presidential oath.

However, something has changed. CREW activists and lawyers opened Pandora's box. If for some reason (New York is still a very liberal state, the judges there, as well as the voters, are extremely negative towards Trump), the trial court finds the president guilty, this will become a case-law. As stated above, such a decision will not affect impeachment, but there will be a lot of people who want to get a couple of million dollars from the head of state.

Even if the decision is in favor of the defendant, a precedent will still be created. On rather vague grounds, the appellate court decided that the claim should be accepted for consideration. This means that now, theoretically, everyone who is not lazy can sue the highest official of the country. It is enough to indicate the connection between the presidency and the name of the potential losses of the plaintiff.

Given the extreme fragmentation of American society, it can be expected that claims will be rained down from a cornucopia. This does not correspond at all to the letter or the spirit of the Constitution, but from a formal point of view everything will be correct. A precedent is a precedent. The first in 230 years.

But maybe the whole point is that Trump was the first to "stand on a slippery track"? Not at all! You don’t have to go far for examples. Hunter Biden, son of former US Vice President, was actively involved in business in Ukraine, while his father outsourced "young European democracy." Everyone knew about it, but no one began to do anything. And not because they loved old Joe, but because they understood: impeachment is difficult to finish, and suing the White House is a bad idea.

Hillary Clinton traded the United States foreign policy right and left, as Secretary of State. Clintons earned tens of millions thanks to the fact that she received this appointment. Her simple two-way circuits in the style of "you to me - I to you" were no secret to anyone. They were described in detail in three books and countless newspaper publications. But again, zero reaction. No one ran to the Texas federal court with a lawsuit against the former first lady. And Trump himself in the very first days of his presidency rejected the idea of ​​criminal prosecution of an ex-election candidate. For all his lack of system, he understood that the US legal system is separated from the legal system of the Banana Republic by a subtle, but still very important feature that cannot be advocated.

But the Democrats decided on this step. Inflamed with righteous anger at the “impossible Donald” and decided that all means were good in the fight against him, the liberals managed to seriously shake not only prestige, but also the very foundations of the American justice system. They managed to undermine and disgrace a lot of things during the time of Trump's presidency: the press, the legal system, special services ... Democrats, not embarrassed, will no longer be beaten by the "red-haired clown" they hate, but by America itself.

Well, at all times and in all countries this has been a hallmark of the liberals. The Americans held on for a long time ...

The author’s point of view may not coincide with the position of the publisher.