Why Hasn't the Government Gone After Trump for His $180 Million Breach of Contract?

[Native]

Trump's in violation of the lease for his posh new D.C. hotel – and the General Services Administration has yet to do anything about it.

Though Trump announced last week that he was handing over management of the Trump International Hotel to his son, Don Jr., the president still owns the business. The hotel actively caters to foreign diplomats – and the Constitution explicitly prohibits presidents from accepting money from foreign governments. It's an impeachable offense.

But the primary issue for the GSA is that Trump is presently in violation of his lease, which specifically forbids any government employee from being a lessee.

And since he's president, Trump gets to pick the person to head up the agency he'll be negotiating next year's lease with.

What's most maddening to ethics watchdogs about the GSA ignoring Trump's breach is that the case really couldn't be more straightforward for the agency to pursue. "It's the only conflict of interest where the government holds all the cards," says Steven Schooner, a George Washington University government procurement law professor who's spent his career poring over government contracts like the one Trump signed with the GSA. Schooner has been following the Old Post Office building project since its inception.

"We now have empirical information – we have facts – that show that foreign governments, lobbying firms and special-interest groups plan to spend money lavishly in Trump's hotels, paying premium prices, because the president cares about it, he appreciates their patronage and they believe it will curry favor with the president of the United States," Schooner says. And that puts President Trump in direct violation of the emoluments clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Trump's lawyer's are arguing that paying for a room is a value-for-value transaction and not a gift, but Schooner points out that all a foreign power would have to do is make a reservation, forget to cancel it, and then have to pay for it anyway. If someone wanted to give Trump money, they could book an event, give the hotel a non-refundable deposit, and then not go through with the event.

Another idea floated by Trump's lawyers would be donating profits to the treasury. Schooner easily nixes that idea with another plausible scenario that would still result in "profits" realized by Trump.

And don't you all love how cozy Chaffetz and Trump seem to be?

The day after Trump announced he would not be divesting from his businesses, Chaffetz threatened to subpoena not the president, nor any of his family members or business associates – but rather the director of the federal Office of Government Ethics for saying Trump's plan to hand over his business to his children was ethically insufficient.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/why-wont-the-feds-go-after-trump-for-his-huge-contract-breach-w462703?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_content=daily&utm_campaign=021517_16