CONYERS: 200 members Of Congress File Complaint Against Trump In Violation Of The Foreign Emolument Clause

Dean of the U.S. House
of Resprentatives
John Conyers, Jr.

Nearly 200 Members of Congress filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against President Trump. President Trump’s ongoing failure to obtain the consent of Congress before accepting payments, benefits, or gifts from foreign states violates one of the Constitution’s critical anti-corruption provisions: the Foreign Emoluments Clause.

Congress v. Donald Trump Lawsuit in Violation of the Constitution’s anti-corruption Foreign Emoluments Clau... by Beverly Tran on Scribd

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

CONYERS: Judiciary Democrats Press Ivanka Trump Brand About Conflicts Of Interest

After Vague Response to Previous Inquiry, Dems Want Real Answers

Washington, D.C. – After receiving a vague response to a previous inquiry, below, House Judiciary Committee Democrats today pressed Ivanka Trump Operations, below, for answers on their business dealings with foreign countries and Ivanka Trump’s involvement with the company. 

On May 3, 2017, every Democratic member of the House Judiciary Committee sent letters to White House Counsel Donald McGahn and to Abigail Klem, president of Ivanka Trump Operations LLC, seeking information about potential conflicts of interest.  The Committee received a response from Mrs. Klem on May 17.  Describing this response as “somewhat incomplete,” today the members wrote again, below, to Mrs. Klem to request additional information.

These letters were prompted by Ms. Trump’s meetings with leaders from China and Japan and the swift, subsequent approval of valuable trademarks for her company by those foreign governments. 

Federal law prohibits the participation of any federal employee in any “decision, approval, disapproval, the rendering of advice, . . . or other particular matter” that will affect his or her own financial interests.  Although Ivanka Trump resigned from her management role with IT Operations LLC before joining the White House as an advisor to her father, she still stands to benefit financially from the expansion of her brand overseas.  Recent reporting suggests that Ms. Trump may have participated in several official meetings with representatives from countries in which her brand seeks to do business.

Today’s letter was signed by every Democratic member of the U.S. House Judiciary Committee, including: Representatives John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI), Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX), Steve Cohen (D-TN), Hank Johnson (D-GA), Ted Deutch (D-FL), Luis Gutierrez (D-IL), Karen Bass (D-CA), Cedric Richmond (D-LA), Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), David Cicilline (D-RI), Eric Swalwell (D-CA), Ted Lieu (D-CA), Jamie Raskin (D-MD), Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) and Brad Schneider (D-IL). 

The May 3^rd letters to the WH Counsel and IT Operations are available here.

The May 17^th letter from IT Operations is, below.

Judiciary Democrats Press Ivanka Trump Brand (IT Operations, LLC) About Conflicts Of Interest 6.12.2017 by Beverly Tran on Scribd

Ivanka Trump Brand (IT Operations, LLC) Response Letter To U.S. House Judiciary Ranking Member Conyers 05.1... by Beverly Tran on Scribd

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

CONYERS: Top House Judiciary Democrats Call On Trump To Provide Details On All Foreign Gifts & Emoluments

Washington, D.C. – Today, top House Judiciary Committee Democrats sent a letter, below, to President Donald Trump to request that he provide a detailed accounting of all items constituting a “present” or “Emolument” from all foreign governments and their agents. This letter comes after the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee released a document from the Trump Organization, also below, which states, in part, “To fully and completely identify all patronage at our Properties by customer type is impractical in the service industry and putting forth a policy that requires all guests to identify themselves would impede upon personal privacy and diminish the guest experience of our brand.”

In their letter, the Members wrote, “…the Trump Organization indicated it would be ‘impractical’ to ‘fully and completely identify all patronage’ at the Organization’s properties.   As a result, it is now all the more important that we ask you directly to provide an accounting of items constituting a “present” or “Emolument” from foreign governments, their agents, and instrumentalities as set forth below.”

The letter is signed by House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI); House Judiciary Subcommittee Ranking Members Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX), Steve Cohen (D-TN), David N. Cicilline (D-RI); and House Judiciary Committee Vice Ranking Member Jamie Raskin (D-MD).

In March 2017, Democrats on the Committee released a document to highlight 15 facts rebutting the myths President Trump has perpetrated regarding the applicability of ethics laws to the Executive Office of the President, his conflicts of interest, his plans to address those conflicts of interest, and his claims regarding the application of the Constitution’s Emoluments Clause. 

In February 2017,  House Judiciary Committee Republicans voted to kill a resolution of inquiry which would have directed the Justice Department to provide the House of Representatives with information relevant to President Trump’s conflicts of interest, his potential violations of the Emoluments Clause, and ties between his campaign advisors and the Russian regime.

Judiciary Democrats Letter For Trump To Details On All Foreign Gifts & Emoluments by Beverly Tran on Scribd

Trump Organization Pamphlet on Foreign Profits by Beverly Tran on Scribd

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

House Judiciary Democrats Demand Answers on Ivanka Trump’s Overseas Business Interests

Washington, DC – Today, every Democratic member of the House Judiciary Committee joined Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr., in sending letters both to White House counsel and the CEO of Ivanka Trump Collection, LLC, expressing concerns that Ivanka Trump may be using her official position for private gain.  The letter focuses on Ms. Trump’s meetings with leaders from China and Japan and the swift, subsequent approval of valuable trademarks for her company by those foreign governments. 

These letters come after the public release of new guidance from the Office of Government Ethics, confirming that Ms. Trump is considered a government employee covered by federal ethics rules, as well as new reports describing how Ms. Trump may have used her official position to promote both her new book and Trump Tower in the Philippines.

Today’s letter was signed by every Democratic member of the U.S. House Judiciary Committee, including: Representatives John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI), Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX), Steve Cohen (D-TN), Hank Johnson (D-GA), Ted Deutch (D-FL), Luis Gutierrez (D-IL), Karen Bass (D-CA), Cedric Richmond (D-LA), Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), David Cicilline (D-RI), Eric Swalwell (D-CA), Ted Lieu (D-CA), Jamie Raskin (D-MD), Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) and Brad Schneider (D-IL). 

U.S. House Judiciary Committee Letter to White House Legal Counsel Donald McGahn on Ivanka Trump 5.3.17 by Beverly Tran on Scribd

U.S. House Judiciary Committee Letter to Abigail Klem, CEO of Ivanka Trump Collection, LLC 5.3.17 by Beverly Tran on Scribd

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Republicans File Final Report On Nadler Resolution, Effectively Blocking Effort To Conduct Meaningful Oversight Of Trump

House Judiciary Majority Reports Rep. Nadler’s Resolution of Inquiry Seeking DOJ Information on Trump Conflicts and Russia Ties Unfavorably to House of Representatives

Washington, D.C. – Late in the evening of March 9, 2017, House Judiciary Committee Republicans filed a Committee report to the House, officially blocking Democrats’ efforts to demand transparency from the Trump administration about the President’s wide ranging conflicts and ties to Russia.  A copy of the Republicans’ full report and a copy of the Democrats’ dissenting views are below. House Rule XIII, Clause 7 provides that “If such a resolution [of inquiry] is not reported to the House within 14 legislative days after its introduction, a motion to discharge a committee from its consideration shall be privileged [on the House Floor].”  The Nadler Resolution (H. Res. 111) was introduced on February 9, 2017.  By filing their report on March 8, 2017—before 14 legislative days had passed—Judiciary Republicans have prevented further action on the bill.

The newly released report and dissenting views follow last week’s vote to adversely report out of Committee the Resolution of Inquiry introduced by Congressman Jerrold Nadler and voted on in Committee February 28^th, 2017.  Nadler’s resolution of inquiry directed the Department of Justice to provide the House of Representatives with any and all information relevant to an inquiry into President Trump and his associates’ conflicts of interest, ethical violations—including the Emoluments Clause—and connections and contacts with Russia.  This was the first resolution of inquiry introduced by Democrats since Trump was inaugurated, and the party-line vote was the first time Members of Congress were required to vote concerning an investigation of Donald Trump's conflicts of interest and his Administration’s connections with the Russian government. 

During the Committee’s consideration of this matter, Committee Republicans also voted against two amendments.  The first, offered by Rep. Deutch (D-FL), would have enabled the Committee to examine communications between the White House and the FBI about the investigation into the President's connections to Vladimir Putin.  The second, offered by Rep. Jeffries (D-NY), focused on whether Attorney General Sessions should recuse himself from the Russia investigation.  Notably, the Majority criticized this second amendment as "based on nothing more than a supposition" just hours before the Attorney General announced his recusal from any matter involving the 2016 campaign.

Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI) and Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) issued the following statement upon the release of the Report:

Dean of the U.S. House
of Representatives
John Conyers, Jr.

“This resolution was a simple request for information from the Department of Justice.  Republicans voted to continue stonewalling our efforts to investigate President Trump’s conflicts of interest, ethics violations, and ties to Russian officials.  The report filed by Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee puts them on the record as preventing this information from being shared with Congress, thereby abdicating their duty to provide oversight of the Executive Branch.  As we learn more and more information on a daily basis about Donald Trump, his campaign, transition team, and administration, we hope that our dissenting views will serve as a record of the Majority's refusal to uncover the truth or examine the facts.

“We note with interest that on the same day that the Republicans on the Committee sent a letter to the FBI requesting information on President Trump’s reckless accusations of wiretapping by former President Obama, they filed this report--which officially terminates our efforts to obtain critical information from the Justice Department through this resolution.  We also note that, although Chairman Goodlatte and Rep. Issa (R-CA) pledged to send a bipartisan letter to the Department concerning the information we requested last week, those letters have not yet been shared with us or transmitted to the Attorney General.

“When given the opportunity to ask the Department of Justice for information about the Trump Administration’s ties to Russia and the President’s refusal to address his conflicts of interest, the Majority has looked the other way.  These matters have the potential to do real and lasting harm to our democracy.”

In their dissenting views, the Committee Democrats forcefully responded to the Republican’s argument that the “resolution is unnecessary, premature, and not the best way for the Committee or the House to conduct oversight over the issues covered by the resolution”:

“On November 30, 2016, every Democratic Member of the House Judiciary Committee wrote to Chairman Goodlatte to request hearings on “the federal conflict-of-interest and ethics provisions that may apply to the President of the United States.”   We took note of President Trump’s repeated insistence that the President cannot have a conflict of interest—and enclosed a long list of federal ethics and conflict-of-interest statutes that, in fact, apply to the President.   To date, we have received no reply to this letter.

On January 24, 2017, every Democratic Member of the House Judiciary Committee again wrote to the Chairman, insisting that “the Committee hold hearings on President Trump’s conflicts of interest, at home and abroad, in possible violation of federal law.”   Citing to the analysis of legal experts across the political spectrum, we showed that “[t]he Administration’s attempts to address its ongoing conflict of interests are, so far, wholly inadequate.”   To date, we have received no reply to this letter either. 

On February 15, 2017, at a markup of the Committee’s annual oversight plan, Chairman Goodlatte announced that he had “requested, for the benefit of the full committee, a briefing by the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation for the matter involving Mr. Flynn in the White House, both what took place and how that that was leaked.”   To date, no such briefing has been scheduled.

At that same February 15 meeting, the Committee considered several amendments to the Committee’s annual oversight plan.  One amendment offered by Chairman Goodlatte, as subsequently amended by Rep. David Cicilline, stated the Committee’s intention to conduct oversight into allegations of misconduct by executive branch officials and to continue oversight into allegations of foreign interference with federal elections.   We took this initial step as a positive sign.  The Majority then proceeded to reject amendments that would have focused the Committee’s attention on a number of urgent matters—including enforcement of the Foreign Emoluments Clause, allegations of contact between the Russian government and the Trump campaign, and the specific conclusion of the intelligence community that the Russian government engaged in a massive effort to influence the presidential election in favor of President Trump.”  (Democratic Dissenting Views, pp. 19-20). 

U.S. House Resolution 111 Of Inquiry Directing The Attorney General To Transmit Certainm Documents To The... by Beverly Tran on Scribd

U.S. House Resolution 111 Dissenting House Judiciary Majority Reports Rep. Nadler’s Resolution of Inquiry S... by Beverly Tran on Scribd

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

CONYERS: We need an Independent, Non-Partisan Commission To Investigate Trump and Russia Ties

 

Dean of the U.S. House
of Representatives
John Conyers, Jr.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced that he would recuse himself from Trump Campaign related investigations. However, his recusal should not be limited to only investigations involving the Trump Campaign. Under 28 CFR § 45.2, the Attorney General is required to recuse himself from a criminal investigation when he has a “personal or political relationship with any person or organization substantially involved in the conduct that is the subject of the investigation or prosecution,” and must also recuse himself from any investigation where his participation would “create an appearance of a conflict of interest likely to affect the public perception of the integrity of the investigation or prosecution.”

Serious allegations of misconduct involving President Trump and his associates occurred subsequent to the presidential election—including but not limited to communications between General Flynn and the Russian government, potentially improper contact between White House aides and officials within the Justice Department, and misstatements by the Attorney General himself.

Just as importantly, we need to ensure that any investigation involving issues which overlap between the campaign and the Administration are fully and fairly investigated, including what influence the Russian government, Russian intelligence and Russian financial interests may have with regard to Mr. Trump and his Administration, and whether there have been any efforts to cover-up the same.

As such, the Attorney General must recuse himself from any and all investigations involving the campaign, the transition, and the Trump Administration. He must obviously step aside from any investigation in which he himself may be a target.

I am not persuaded by the Attorney General’s effort to explain his misstatements to the Senate Judiciary Committee, in response to questions asked verbally by Senator Franken and in writing by Senator Leahy, and it is not at all clear that an after-the-fact clarification to the Committee will resolve this matter. As every Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee wrote, the question of whether or not the Attorney General’s statement constitutes perjury should be reviewed by the FBI and the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia.

I am troubled by President Trump’s statement that he does not think Attorney General Sessions should recuse himself from any Russia-related investigations. It was wholly inappropriate for the President to discourage the Attorney General or anyone else from recusing themselves from any ongoing criminal investigation—let alone an investigation in which he and members of his Administration are potential suspects. Such statements fly in the face of applicable DOJ guidelines. They also smack of an attempted cover-up.

These events and statements also make abundantly clear, as I and many other Members of Congress have stated previously, that we need an independent, non-partisan commission to review the entire matter.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Judiciary Committee Democrats Release 15 Myths vs. Facts On Trump Administration Conflicts

Washington, DC – Today, House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI) and Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice Ranking Member Steve Cohen (D-TN) released a document entitled “Alternative Facts” v. Reality: Ethics, Conflicts of Interest, and the Emoluments Clause. This document highlights 15 facts rebutting the myths President Trump has perpetrated regarding the applicability of ethics laws to the Executive Office of the President, his conflicts of interest, his plans to address those conflicts of interest, and his claims regarding the application of the Constitution’s Emoluments Clause. 

The release of this document comes after House Judiciary Committee Republicans voted to kill a resolution of inquiry yesterday, introduced by Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), which would have directed the Justice Department to provide the House of Representatives with information relevant to President Trump’s conflicts of interest, his potential violations of the Emoluments Clause, and ties between his campaign advisors and the Russian regime. It also comes after a Congressional Black Caucus forum on President Trump’s potential conflicts of interest, ethics violations and Russia ties.     

Ranking Member Conyers and Subcommittee Ranking Member Cohen released the following joint statement:

“To safeguard our democracy, Congress must act in accordance with its constitutional oversight duties because the ethical dilemmas presented by the Trump Administration have the potential to undermine the American people’s trust in government.  Since winning his election, President Trump has flouted the ethical norms established by his predecessors. President Trump has failed to take adequate steps to address conflicts of interest and to ensure he does not run afoul of the Constitution’s Emoluments Clause.  House Republicans refuse to perform the most basic oversight that might shed light on these pressing issues surrounding President Trump’s administration.”

Ethics experts from across the political spectrum have condemned the President’s unwillingness to separate from his business interests in any meaningful way.  According to a recent poll from McClatchy-Marist, nearly six in ten Americans believe that President Trump’s conflicts of interest are illegal, unethical, or both.  According to that same poll, 58 percent of the country is embarrassed by Donald Trump’s conduct as President of the United States.

House Judiciary Committee Alternative Facts v Reality Fact Sheet 3.1.17 by Beverly Tran on Scribd

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

HOUSE JUDICIARY GOP VOTE TO KILL TRUMP CONFLICTS & RUSSIA TIES RESOLUTION

Washington, DC – On February 28, 2017, House Judiciary Committee Republicans voted to kill Rep. Jerrold Nadler’s (D-NY) resolution of inquiry, H. Res. 111. The resolution would have directed the Department of Justice (DOJ) to provide the House of Representatives with information relevant to President Trump’s conflicts of interest, his potential violations of the Foreign Emoluments Clause, and ties between his campaign advisors and the Russian regime.  The full text of the Resolution of Inquiry can be found here.

House Judiciary Republicans Offer Excuses Instead of Oversight: During the hearing, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) attempted to justify his opposition to H. Res 111 by claiming that he plans to send a letter to request information from DOJ.  Chairman Goodlatte (R-VA) also indicated that he was working on a letter to DOJ. However, there is nothing that would prevent Members from voting for a resolution as well as sending letters.   

GOP arguments ignored the fact that the resolution already follows two letters to Chairman Bob Goodlatte—both signed by every Democratic member of the Committee—requesting hearings about federal conflict-of-interest and ethics provisions that may apply to the President.  Democrats have also sent several letters to Speaker Paul Ryan, the Department of Justice and the White House requesting this and related information concerning Trump’s ties to Russia.

House Judiciary Republicans Won’t Acknowledge Concerns over Clear Russia Ties:During the hearing, Rep. Darrell Issa mischaracterized statements by Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), Ranking Member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, suggesting that he had reviewed evidence and found nothing to suggest contacts between the Russian government and the Trump campaign.  In reality, the intelligence committee has not yet received any new information, a point that Rep. Schiff made clear yesterday and confirmed to Democratic Members today.

During the markup, Rep. Steve King (R-IA) questioned the unanimous conclusion of the Intelligence Community that the Russian government attempted to influence the recent election--a conclusion that even President Trump has come to accept.

House Judiciary Republicans Reject Critical Amendments: House Judiciary Committee Republicans rejected an amendment offered by Rep. Ted Deutch (D-FL) that would have requested the Department of Justice to disclose information concerning inappropriate contacts between the White House and the FBI. The amendment failed on a party line vote of 15-18.View amendment text here.

The Majority also rejected an amendment offered by Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) that would have asked the Department of Justice to provide information about the possible recusal of Attorney General Sessions, in light of his personal and political connections to the Trump campaign. The amendment failed on a party line vote of 15-16. View amendment text here.

During the markup, Republicans also moved to “take down” from the Committee transcript (or censor) Rep. Ted Lieu’s words even though he had merely sought to state that President Trump was responsible for repeated lies and misstatements.

House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI) released the following statement after the markup:

“Today’s vote is part of a concerted effort by Republicans, from Donald Trump and his White House staff to the Congressional Majority, to block efforts to expose the truth about alleged wrongdoing by the Trump campaign and the Trump administration.  I’m deeply disappointed in the Majority’s refusal to provide proper oversight over President Trump and his Administration. If passed, this resolution would have granted us access to information on Mr. Trump’s conflicts of interest and alleged ties to Russia. It’s long past time for the Majority to do their jobs and hold the Trump administration accountable.  I am hopeful that the American people will continue to make their voices heard in their pursuit of the truth.”

Background: A resolution of inquiry requesting information to be provided by the Administration can be brought to the floor if the relevant Committee fails to report it within 14 legislative days.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

CONYERS Statement for the Markup of H. Res. 111, Resolution of Inquiry

Dean of the U.S. House
of Representatives
John Conyers, Jr.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  I strongly support this important resolution of inquiry.

In the days leading up to consideration of this resolution, I have had ten names on my mind:

Edward Hutchinson.  Henry Smith.  Charles Sandman.  Charles Wiggins.  David Dennis.  Wiley Mayne.  Delbert Latta.  Trent Lott.  Carlos Moorhead.  Joseph Maraziti.

These men, of course, were the ten members of this Committee who, in the summer of 1974, voted against all three articles of impeachment against President Nixon. 

Looking back, it seems obvious to us that these members misjudged the moment. For political or personal reasons, they refused to engage with mounting evidence that the President had violated both the law and his oath of office.

I was here, later that summer, when the Supreme Court ruled that the White House owed this Committee full and unedited copies of conversations recorded in the Oval Office.

I watched my colleagues react to the so-called “smoking gun” tape, in which the President ordered his staff to obstruct the FBI’s investigation of the Watergate break in.

I saw the looks on the faces of those ten members as they each, one after another, reversed themselves and stated their intention to support impeachment on the House floor. 

           

For some of these men, the reversal came too late.  Their initial decision to place party over duty cost them a future in politics.

The Resolution under consideration today is, of course, not as weighty a matter as a vote on articles of impeachment.

A resolution of inquiry is merely a request for information.  In this case, Mr. Nadler has asked the Attorney General for information related to ongoing investigations that directly affect White House personnel.  He has also asked for information about the President’s decision not to distance himself from his businesses in any meaningful way.

These matters fall directly within the jurisdiction of this Committee.  It is our official responsibility to investigate them.  And it is perfectly appropriate that we ask the Department of Justice for information to further that investigation.

I know that there is resistance to this proposal.  Many of my colleagues do not want us to investigate President Trump or his associates. 

Perhaps they are unconvinced by near-daily reports of ongoing contact between the President’s advisors and the government of Vladimir Putin.

Perhaps they agree with the President’s belief that conflict-of-interest laws do not apply to his office—although I note that this resolution makes reference to the Foreign Emoluments Clause and to nine federal statutes that clearly apply to the President and prohibit some of his current behavior.

Perhaps my colleagues simply hope these problems will go away.  But they will not go away.  And I believe that we have a responsibility, to our constituents and to our Constitution, to ask these questions until they are fully and satisfactorily answered. 

One of the privileges of being Dean of the House is that, after he is elected, I get to administer the Oath of Office to the Speaker.

Each of us has taken that oath: to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and to faithfully discharge the duties of the office.

The resolution before us is an opportunity to be faithful to that oath—to do the jobs we were put here to do, and get to the truth of these matters at the Department of Justice.

I think about those ten names from the summer of 1974, and I wonder how history will judge us today.

           

I urge my colleagues to support the Nadler resolution.  I thank the Chairman, and I yield back.

U.S. Representative Nadler - Resolution of Inquiry Relating To The Financial Practices of The President 2-2... by Beverly Tran on Scribd

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

ADVISORY: Congressman Nadler Holds Press Conference on Resolution of Inquiry into President Trump Conflicts of Interest, Ethics Violations, and Russia Ties

Press Conference on Resolution of Inquiry into Donald Trump’s business conflicts, ethics violations, and Russia ties.

WHEN:    Tuesday, February 28^th, 2017 at 9:15AM (ET)

WHERE:  HVC Studio A

WHO:      Congressman Jerrold Nadler (NY-10)
                  Members supporting the Resolution of Inquiry 

On February 28, 2017, Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) will hold a press conference ahead of the House Judiciary Committee markup of his Resolution of Inquiry (H.Res. 111) directing the Department of Justice to provide the House of Representatives with any and all information relevant to an inquiry into President Trump and his associates’ conflicts of interest, ethical violations—including the Emoluments Clause—and Russia ties.  Congressman Nadler’s Resolution of Inquiry, which House Republicans scheduled the same day as President Trump’s first address to a Joint Session of Congress, will be the first legislative item Members of Congress will have to vote on concerning conducting an investigation into Donald Trump.

MEDIA RSVP: Only Capitol-accredited media are eligible to attend. If you plan to attend, RSVP to Daniel Schwarz at Daniel.Schwarz@mail.house.gov or(202) 225-5635.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

HOUSE JUDICIARY DEMOCRATS RENEW CALL FOR HEARINGS ON TRUMP’S CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

Washington, DC – All House Judiciary Democrats, led by Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI), today renewed their request to have House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) hold hearings to examine the federal conflicts-of-interest and ethics laws that may apply to President Donald Trump.

The members of the committee originally requested a hearing in November 2016, after then President-elect Donald Trump’s vague announcement that he would leave his “…great business in total...” Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. also requested the Congressional Research Service (CRS), a non-partisan legislative agency operating out of the Library of Congress, to prepare a list of federal ethics and conflict-of-interest rules that may apply to Trump when he assumed office. This list includes four criminal statutes and the Emoluments Clause of the U.S. Constitution. 

Today’s letter was signed by every Democratic member of the U.S. House Judiciary Committee, including: Representatives John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI), Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX), Steve Cohen (D-TN), Hank Johnson (D-GA), Judy Chu (D-CA), Ted Deutch (D-FL), Luis Gutierrez (D-IL), Karen Bass (D-CA), Cedric Richmond (D-LA), Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), David Cicilline (D-RI), Eric Swalwell (D-CA), Ted Lieu (D-CA), Jamie Raskin (D-MD) and Pramila Jayapal (D-WA).

House Judiciary Democrats Second Request For Hearings On Trump's Conflicts Of Iinterest by Beverly Tran on Scribd

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

CONYERS JOINS CLARK & DEMOCRATS TO INTRODUCE BILL TO REQUIRE PRESIDENT & VICE PRESIDENT TO FULLY DIVEST PERSONAL FINANCIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

Washington, DC – Today, House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI) joined Congresswoman Katherine Clark and Democratic members of Congress to introduce bills in the U.S.  House and Senate that would require the President and Vice President to disclose and divest any potential financial conflicts of interest. The Presidential Conflicts of Interest Act would require presidential appointees to recuse themselves from any specific matters involving the President's financial conflicts of interest that come before their agencies. The bill’s primary sponsors are Representatives Katherine Clark (D-MA), John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI), Richard Neal (D-MA), Elijah Cummings (D-MD), Peter Welch (D-VT), David Cicilline (D-RI).  At the time of introduction, 82 members in the House have cosponsored this legislation.

Dean of the U.S. House
of Representatives
John Conyers, Jr.

"President-elect Trump campaigned on the promise that he would 'drain the swamp' and put an end to self-dealing in Washington. Just days before he takes office, his actions speak louder than his words. Mr. Trump has failed to take even modest steps to resolve his conflicts of interest, let alone explain to the public how he will avoid using his office to his own financial benefit.  If the president-elect will not act, it is imperative that Congress do so.  I urge my colleagues in the majority to act on this important legislation without delay," said Committee on the Judiciary Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr.

“The President of the United States has the power to affect how our tax dollars are spent, who the federal government does business with, and the integrity of America’s standing in a global economy,” said Congresswoman Clark. “Every recent president in modern history has taken steps to ensure his financial interests do not conflict with the needs of the American people. The American people need to be able to trust that the President’s decisions are based on the best interests of families at home, and not the President’s financial interests.”

"President-elect Donald Trump claimed last year he would hold a big press conference to explain to the American people exactly how he planned to resolve his vast conflicts of interest, but he never did it,” said Rep. Elijah E. Cummings, Ranking Member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. “Both Republican and Democratic experts have warned repeatedly that President-elect Donald Trump must completely divest his ownership interests in his companies around the world and place the assets in a truly independent blind trust, or else he will breach federal contracts and violate the United States Constitution.”

“On January 20, Donald Trump will take the oath of office to become the 45^th President of the United States.  At the appointed time, he will raise his right hand and swear to ‘Preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.’ This legislation will ensure that President Trump will follow through on the requirements of this solemn oath,” Rep. Welch said.  “The American people should have every confidence that actions taken by our new president are in the country’s best interest rather than his own.” 

“The American people should always have confidence that their elected officials are acting only in the public interest,” said Congressman Cicilline. “This is especially true for the President of the United States and his appointees. I’m proud to join Congresswoman Clark and our colleagues today to improve transparency, enhance disclosure and divestiture requirements, and ensure that the President of the United States is always acting in our nation’s best interests.”

Original co-sponsors of this legislation in the Senate include Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Ben Cardin (D-Md.), Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Chris Coons (D-Del.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), Bob Casey (D-Pa.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Al Franken (D-Minn.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Gary Peters (D-Mich.), and Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.).

Presidential Conflicts of Interest Act of 2017 by Beverly Tran on Scribd

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©