Attorneys general for the District of Columbia and the state of Maryland say they will sue President Trump on Monday, alleging that he has violated anticorruption clauses in the Constitution by accepting millions in payments and benefits from foreign governments since moving into the White House.
The lawsuit, the first of its kind brought by government entities, centers on the fact that Trump chose to retain ownership of his company when he became president. Trump said in January that he was shifting his business assets into a trust managed by his sons to eliminate potential conflicts of interests.
This clever legal gambit focuses on Trump’s possible violation of the emoluments clause. The first hurdle will be for the states’ attorneys general to show standing — that is, that Trump’s receipt of foreign monies harmed them. They will claim that the Trump International Hotel has an unfair advantage over other venues as foreign governments seek to give their business to the president and thus gain influence with him. (“The Embassy of Kuwait held an event at the hotel after initially booking at the Four Seasons. Saudi Arabia, the destination of Trump’s first trip abroad, also booked rooms at the hotel through an intermediary on more than one occasion since Trump’s inauguration. The hotel may be drawing business away from both the taxpayer-owned D.C. convention center and one in nearby Maryland subsidized by taxpayers.”)
As with other litigation, this suit offers the possibility that Trump may need to turn over tax returns and other financial records and even testify under oath.
In addition to the litigation, Trump faces the ongoing investigation by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III and the inquiry from the Senate Intelligence Committee. Collectively, these legal avenues offer the potential to require much more transparency than Trump has ever allowed. We might even get a full accounting of possible financial ties to regimes that he has gone out of his way to indulge (e.g. the Philippines, Saudi Arabia, China). Then let’s not forget about separate inquiries into Paul Manafort’s dealings with Vladimir Putin’s stooge in Ukraine and former national security adviser Michael T. Flynn’s unreported work for Turkey. Ironically, the man who gleefully litigated in order to bully a variety of business and media antagonists now finds himself caught in a web of civil and possible criminal litigation.
Russia provides the nexus between the emoluments clause lawsuits and the Mueller investigation. The meetings between Jared Kushner and Russian officials, for example, may tell us something about Russia meddling in our election, but also about financial deals. Was Kushner’s meeting with the chief executive of Vnesheconombank (VEB) about business or Russian relations or both, and why would he leave this off of his security clearance paperwork?
The multiplicity of inquiries creates several challenges for Trump and his high-octane, buffoonish lawyer Marc E. Kasowitz. With so many actions, the Trump-Russia probe in some form or another may come to dominate the news, eradicating any hope of achieving policy aims. In addition, if one action doesn’t meet the “standing” requirements or succeed in prying loose Trump’s financial records, perhaps another one will. With enough bites at the apple and enough courts, chances are that one or more actions will find their way through the maze of Trump finances and connections between Russian officials and Trump campaign officials. The burden on Trump aides and the legal peril in which some high-profile figures (Kushner, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Trump’s adult children, Flynn, Carter Page, etc.) find themselves will heighten — raising the prospect that one or more of them will become cooperating witnesses.
In short, the picture of an administration under siege and a president no longer anxious to travel overseas to a close ally such as Britain only adds to the sense of chaos. Trump still wants his staff shake-up — but if he cuts staff loose, will he lose control of them as potential witnesses? Will these scorned employees be motivated to tell courts and prosecutors what they know? Trump might well be president for the next 3½ years, but it’s hard to see what that is worth if his days and nights are spent beating back litigation. And for Republicans, the prospect of achieving any significant legislative ends recedes as the wave of litigation washes over the White House.