How Republicans Justify Unlimited Trump Corruption
There are many countries in the world that are governed by men who use their office to enrich themselves and their families. Before now, or at least for the last 200 years (since Andrew Jackson secretly profited off his own land grabs) the United States of America has not been a country like this. The modern American tradition has required political leaders to renounce any financial interest that might bias their decision. Donald Trump has abruptly demolished this tradition. And the Republican Party is happy to oblige.
The U.S. government’s imperviousness to the kind of deep corruption that infects kleptocratic states had a key vulnerability: It rested on two completely voluntary norms. The first, a requirement that presidential candidates publish their tax returns so that their financial interests are public, was already discarded during the campaign. After some feeble, initial protest, reporters stopped bringing up the subject, and Republicans stopped suggesting that Trump comply. The second is a requirement that presidents divest their wealth and place it in a blind trust, so that they cannot knowingly make any decision that might redound to their personal benefit. Trump has discarded this norm as well. The only remaining obstacle to Trump leveraging his power for personal gain is a Congress controlled by his own party.
Republicans have mostly dealt with Trump’s conflicts by ignoring them altogether. Darren Samuelson moves the ball forward by asking many of them why they’re okay with a president leveraging his position for personal benefit. Some of them simply argue it is too soon to take any steps. “I take anything in the Constitution very seriously. I don’t want to leave any misinterpretation to you,†says House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy. “But I’m just saying, he hasn’t been sworn in yet.†Republican strategist Chris Wilson sneers, “If there was a situation that came up in which later there was a true conflict of interest, that created a dangerous national security situation, the problem is now nobody would believe them … They’re just jumping into it so quickly and on such a stupid issue that it’s almost embarrassing to watch.â€
The notion that Trump’s conflicts of interest represent some hypothetical future case that may or may not arise is bizarre. For one thing, his unprecedented lack of transparency means the full extent of his financial interests will not be known to the public. If business leaders were giving Trump and his family stock or gifts in return for favorable policy, we would have no way to know. For another, a president-elect has power; since everybody knows Trump will become president soon, they have no reason to wait before ingratiating themselves with him. And even without public disclosure, reporters have already uncovered numerous conflicts of interest. Jeremy Venook has collected a dozen, a list that is already out of date.
Jason Chaffetz, chairman of the House Oversight Committee, scoffs at requests for hearings about Trump’s conflicts of interest. “It is a little ridiculous to send me six letters before he’s even been sworn in to go on, essentially, fishing trips,†he tells Samuelson. “That’s not what we do.†In fact, it’s exactly what they do. Before the election, Chaffetz boasted of his plans to line up investigations into Hillary Clinton’s conduct: “Even before we get to Day One, we’ve got two years’ worth of material already lined up.†Some of the Chaffetz’s investigations had centered on conflicts not remotely as shady as those already involving the president-elect. Chaffetz referenced a $12 million donation from Morocco to the Clinton Foundation in 2014. The conflict here lay between Hillary Clinton’s hypothetical future power as president — which, in fact, she never acquired — in return for a donation to a charity. Chaffetz considered this a scandal worth investigating. Meanwhile, Trump is making money personally — not through a charity associated with his name — on the basis of powers he is actually, not hypothetically, scheduled to assume.
There are many countries in the world that are governed by men who use their office to enrich themselves and their families. Before now, or at least for the last 200 years (since Andrew Jackson secretly profited off his own land grabs) the United States of America has not been a country like this. The modern American tradition has required political leaders to renounce any financial interest that might bias their decision. Donald Trump has abruptly demolished this tradition. And the Republican Party is happy to oblige.
The U.S. government’s imperviousness to the kind of deep corruption that infects kleptocratic states had a key vulnerability: It rested on two completely voluntary norms. The first, a requirement that presidential candidates publish their tax returns so that their financial interests are public, was already discarded during the campaign. After some feeble, initial protest, reporters stopped bringing up the subject, and Republicans stopped suggesting that Trump comply. The second is a requirement that presidents divest their wealth and place it in a blind trust, so that they cannot knowingly make any decision that might redound to their personal benefit. Trump has discarded this norm as well. The only remaining obstacle to Trump leveraging his power for personal gain is a Congress controlled by his own party.
Republicans have mostly dealt with Trump’s conflicts by ignoring them altogether. Darren Samuelson moves the ball forward by asking many of them why they’re okay with a president leveraging his position for personal benefit. Some of them simply argue it is too soon to take any steps. “I take anything in the Constitution very seriously. I don’t want to leave any misinterpretation to you,†says House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy. “But I’m just saying, he hasn’t been sworn in yet.†Republican strategist Chris Wilson sneers, “If there was a situation that came up in which later there was a true conflict of interest, that created a dangerous national security situation, the problem is now nobody would believe them … They’re just jumping into it so quickly and on such a stupid issue that it’s almost embarrassing to watch.â€
The notion that Trump’s conflicts of interest represent some hypothetical future case that may or may not arise is bizarre. For one thing, his unprecedented lack of transparency means the full extent of his financial interests will not be known to the public. If business leaders were giving Trump and his family stock or gifts in return for favorable policy, we would have no way to know. For another, a president-elect has power; since everybody knows Trump will become president soon, they have no reason to wait before ingratiating themselves with him. And even without public disclosure, reporters have already uncovered numerous conflicts of interest. Jeremy Venook has collected a dozen, a list that is already out of date.
Jason Chaffetz, chairman of the House Oversight Committee, scoffs at requests for hearings about Trump’s conflicts of interest. “It is a little ridiculous to send me six letters before he’s even been sworn in to go on, essentially, fishing trips,†he tells Samuelson. “That’s not what we do.†In fact, it’s exactly what they do. Before the election, Chaffetz boasted of his plans to line up investigations into Hillary Clinton’s conduct: “Even before we get to Day One, we’ve got two years’ worth of material already lined up.†Some of the Chaffetz’s investigations had centered on conflicts not remotely as shady as those already involving the president-elect. Chaffetz referenced a $12 million donation from Morocco to the Clinton Foundation in 2014. The conflict here lay between Hillary Clinton’s hypothetical future power as president — which, in fact, she never acquired — in return for a donation to a charity. Chaffetz considered this a scandal worth investigating. Meanwhile, Trump is making money personally — not through a charity associated with his name — on the basis of powers he is actually, not hypothetically, scheduled to assume.
Comment