US President Donald Trump became the defendant in a civil lawsuit. It was filed by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), a human rights organization that operates in this case on behalf of a number of American entrepreneurs. The main complaint of human rights activists is that Trump did not abandon his business assets, including foreign ones, but transferred them to the trust management.
According to the lawsuit, this created an unjustified competitive advantage for the trustees of the President’s property trust, but also one of the provisions of the US Constitution was directly violated. Fundamental law of the United States prohibits the head of state from receiving money from abroad. And Trump's property is also located outside of America.
The U.S. Court of Appeals decided to initiate proceedings in this lawsuit.
"If President Trump wants to avoid further development of this case and to compensate for the large losses caused by his unconstitutional actions, now it is time for him to abandon his enterprises and stop violating the constitutional provision prohibiting receiving remuneration from other states," CREW Executive Director quoted Reuters as saying Noah Bookbinder.
At the same time, the US Constitution and laws do not oblige the country's president to give up his property and assets. For the duration of the performance of his duties, it is enough for him only to transfer them to trust. At the same time, the trust does not have to be “blind,” that is, with a manager who is not connected in any way with the owner and is completely independent of him in his decisions.
As The New York Times previously reported, the trustee of the president’s trust since 2017 was his son, Donald Trump Jr. At the same time, he is executive vice president of the family-owned development company The Trump Organization, the main asset of the business empire of the American leader.
If the lawsuit is satisfied, the US president may be required to get rid of his business. In this way? an unprecedented precedent will be created in the country's history, experts say.
“It is impossible to imagine that a candidate for the presidency of the United States burns all his money and declares that from now on he will have no income other than a presidential salary. This is not done in the USA, ”says American political scientist Dmitry Drobnitsky in an interview with RT.
Democratic Tactics
This attempt by CREW to hold Trump accountable for not abandoning his assets is the second in a row. The first lawsuit was filed almost immediately after the incumbent US president took office. However, in December 2017, the Federal District Court in New York ruled that the plaintiffs were guided by political motives. Therefore, their appeal was rejected.
- Protesters against US President Donald Trump's visit to Baltimore
- Reuters
- © Leah Millis
The fact is that CREW Executive Director Noah Bookbinder for many years was the legal adviser to Democratic Party Senator Patrick Leahy, Trump's staunch opponent and one of the most ardent critics of his foreign policy.
Nevertheless, the Court of Appeal of the Second Circuit of the USA ruled that in this case it is not the political convictions of the plaintiffs that matter, but the plot of the claim itself.
According to the director of the Franklin Roosevelt Foundation for the Study of the United States, Yuri Rogulev, the prospects for the victory of CREW in court are small, but she is unlikely to rely on it.
“The plaintiffs rely solely on public reaction, on drawing attention to Trump, on creating his negative image, that is, on the political consequences,” Rogulev said in an interview with RT.
He draws attention to the fact that the lawsuit will be considered against the backdrop of the ongoing US election campaign for the presidential elections, which will be held in November 2020. Today, Trump is actually an uncontested candidate from the Republican Party. For Democrats, the situation is much more complicated. There is no clear favorite in their primaries - intra-party elections. Now there is a fierce struggle between the liberal and socialist wings of the party, the outcome of which is impossible to predict.
Mutual accusations of Democratic candidates may scare away their electorate, which in this case may well support Trump, says Dmitry Drobnitsky. You can avoid this option, which is extremely undesirable for the party, if the incumbent president is discredited, analysts say. According to them, the goal of the Democrats is to make Trump look like a completely inappropriate alternative to any Democrat candidate.
“In the sympathetic Democratic Party press, media coverage of everything positive that the president is doing will be reduced. And on the contrary, very much will be said about alleged offenses. Therefore, we need a conveyor from the bad news about Trump. We need claims, even if the probability of their satisfaction is close to zero. Something like that, through their press, Republicans acted against Barack Obama in 2012. True, they did not succeed, ”said Drobnitsky.
Recall that Barack Obama won the 2012 presidential election, beating Republican Mitt Romney.
The prospect of impeachment
Experts also draw attention to the fact that CREW's appeal to the Court of Appeal of the Second Circuit coincided with the consideration by the Legal Committee of the US House of Representatives of a resolution that defines the rules for conducting an investigation against the country's president. This document was adopted on September 12. When voting, the Legal Committee was divided on a party basis: all Democrats included in it voted “for”, all Republicans spoke out “against”. Since there are more members of the Democratic Party in the committee (24 versus 17), the resolution was approved.
- Trump Tower Building in Chicago
- globallookpress.com
- © Uwe Kraft / imageBROKER.com
This document will allow the Legal Committee to set up impeachment hearings for the head of state, as well as interview witnesses. Democrats intend to take this opportunity. Jerry Nadler, a member of the party, chairman of the Legal Committee, has already announced a series of hearings on Trump’s numerous allegations made by Democrat supporters.
“We, as members of the Congress, as well as the Legal Committee of the House of Representatives, are responsible for investigating each of these allegations and determining the range of appropriate measures. The same responsibility obliges us to resolve the issue of whether to bring charges for impeachment, ”said Nadler.
He emphasized that the committee’s decision cannot be based on a personal relationship with President Trump.
“You should not invest in it your assessment of reckless political steps or personal behavior of the president. It must be conditional on the evidence that has been provided to us and continues to flow, ”says Nadler.
Dmitry Drobnitsky notes that although the Democrats are trying hard to find grounds for impeachment to the president, it is unlikely that he will be removed from power before the November 2020 elections.
“Now there is no scenario according to which the impeachment procedure may end with the expulsion of Trump from the White House. This requires the support of two-thirds of the members of the Senate, and this is almost impossible. The Republican Party has the majority there, and it supports Trump. Moreover, the current leadership of the Democratic Party sharply opposes the discussion of impeachment to the president before the election, ”the expert said.
He recalls that in 1998, during the congressional election campaign, Republicans tried to sack their then-President Bill Clinton. They failed - the allegations were not convincing enough. The intention to impeach without good reason was perceived by the Americans as an attempt to remove a competitor from the political arena. As a result, Democrats gained several additional seats in congressional elections.
“We can also note an ethical moment, which is also not in the hands of Trump’s opponents. There are very few poor politicians in the congress who have no business interests. And of course, there is a significant difference between the person who made a fortune at the time of being elected president and those people who became rich thanks to their high position in Washington, ”Drobnitsky emphasizes.