# The Trump Presidency HAS to end with Impeachment... right? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [May 11, 2017, 11:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-presidency-has-to-end-with-impeachment-right/786406 "2017-05-11T23:48:39Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 19
**Author:** ![JohnT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnt/32/15048_2.png) [@JohnT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnT)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2017, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-presidency-has-to-end-with-impeachment-right/786406/361 "2017-05-18T00:27:51Z")
Looks like Bob’s prediction has slightly better odds now than when he made it. Slightly, like it went up 1/2 of a percent. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2017, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-presidency-has-to-end-with-impeachment-right/786406/362 "2017-05-18T00:38:46Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > (1) Who cares? We’re talking about the Emoluments Clause. Congress cannot legislate it away. Can they? > (2) Let’s say I accept this limit for some bizarre reason. Whitcoulls of New Zealand bought 1,000 copies of the book. What then? No constitutional rule is absolute. Congress makes laws circumscribing constitutional protections all the time (e.g. gun restrictions). Then it is left to the courts to decide if they have gone too far. Nothing new there. As far as I know the emoluments clause and/or the Foreign Gifts and Decorations Act have not been litigated so they stand as they are for now. The Foreign Gifts and Decorations Act makes sense too. We do not want to punish a president (or congresscritter) who visits a German school to be impeached because he/she accepted a school jersey from the kids. Heck, taken to the extreme even foreign state sponsored dinners could be considered a violation of the emoluments clause. As it happens the government is a bit more rational than that at least on this count. Are the lines they drew arbitrary? Yes but they seem reasonable enough. So, buying books is no big deal but yeah, somewhere there is a line where it would go too far. Buying a freighter load of Obama’s books veers sharply into backhanded bribery (if done while he was still president). I just checked the price of a room at Trump’s DC hotel for Memorial Day weekend. Lowest rate is $352.75/night. Bit far off the purchase of a book. Initiation fee in Trump’s Mar-a-Lago club was doubled to $200,000 after Trump became president. I wonder why they felt they could double the price? Any ideas? ---
**Author:** ![Fiveyearlurker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/da6949/32.png) [@Fiveyearlurker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiveyearlurker)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2017, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-presidency-has-to-end-with-impeachment-right/786406/363 "2017-05-18T00:59:37Z")
> [@Beren\_Erchamion](#): > > What do we know about the demographics of people who play those markets? > > Are they dominated by people like me, who are engaging in wishful thinking? I don’t know, but all of a sudden, I think even odds on Trump making it to 2020 is a pretty good bet. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Pig](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/c57346/32.png) [@Little\_Pig](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Pig)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2017, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-presidency-has-to-end-with-impeachment-right/786406/364 "2017-05-18T01:14:16Z")
\*\*“No politician in history, and **I** say this with **great surety** , has been treated worse or more unfairly.” [Right…](http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/17/politics/trump-coast-guard-speech/) Assuming Shit For Brains has the attention span of a gnat, well yeah. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2017, 1:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-presidency-has-to-end-with-impeachment-right/786406/365 "2017-05-18T01:25:57Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > No constitutional rule is absolute. Congress makes laws circumscribing constitutional protections all the time (e.g. gun restrictions). Then it is left to the courts to decide if they have gone too far. > > Nothing new there. > > As far as I know the emoluments clause and/or the Foreign Gifts and Decorations Act have not been litigated so they stand as they are for now. I’m asking you what they stand for, specifically. For example, the conflict of interest laws Congress passed specifcally excludes the President. I assume you’re OK with that, based on what you just said. (" …have not been litigated so they stand as they are for now.") Since the Foreign Gifts and Decorations Act has a limit of less than $400, I asked if the purchase by New Zealand retailer Whitcoulls of 1,000 copies of _Dreams of My Father_ violated the Emoluments Clause. How about 10,000 copies? You’re not really answering these specifics. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2017, 1:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-presidency-has-to-end-with-impeachment-right/786406/366 "2017-05-18T01:25:58Z")
> [@Little\_Pig](#): > > \*\*“No politician in history, and **I** say this with **great surety** , has been treated worse or more unfairly.” [Right…](http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/17/politics/trump-coast-guard-speech/) > > Assuming Shit For Brains has the attention span of a gnat, well yeah. Top comment on this story on [Reddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/6bpsxw/trump_to_graduates_no_politician_in_history_has/?submit_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F2017%2F05%2F17%2Fpolitics%2Ftrump-coast-guard-speech%2F&already_submitted=true&submit_title=Trump+to+graduates%3A+%27No+politician+in+history...+has+been+treated+worse%27) nails it: _“I know it’s your graduation and all…but let’s talk about me for a second.”_ ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2017, 1:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-presidency-has-to-end-with-impeachment-right/786406/367 "2017-05-18T01:31:38Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I’m asking you what they stand for, specifically. > > For example, the conflict of interest laws Congress passed specifcally excludes the President. I assume you’re OK with that, based on what you just said. (" …have not been litigated so they stand as they are for now.") > > Since the Foreign Gifts and Decorations Act has a limit of less than $400, I asked if the purchase by New Zealand retailer Whitcoulls of 1,000 copies of _Dreams of My Father_ violated the Emoluments Clause. How about 10,000 copies? > > You’re not really answering these specifics. I said there is a line to be crossed in there somewhere. One book? Nope. One million books. Yeah. In the end it is for congress or a court to decide. If you are looking for a bright line of exactly how many books is too much you won’t get one because there isn’t one and I suspect you know it. This reminds me of Justice Potter Stewart’s concurrence in the pornography case Jacobellis v. Ohio. “I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that.” There is some element of “I know it when I see it” with this stuff too. In my opinion I think Trump has crossed the line and is using his position as president to line his own pockets and he cares not if the money is foreign or domestic. It’s all green to him. And to turn the table you are not answering my question on the rationale to double the initiation fee for membership at Mar-a-Lago to $200,000. What would be your guess as to why that is? Did they finish a major renovation and the club was now doubly better? Or something else? ---
**Author:** ![raventhief](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/raventhief/32/4_2.png) [@raventhief](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raventhief)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2017, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-presidency-has-to-end-with-impeachment-right/786406/368 "2017-05-18T01:34:50Z")
Apparently, Trump has put his Caribbean estate up for sale. [http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/5/17/1663264/-Trump-quietly-put-his-Caribbean-estate-on-the-market-at-a-higher-than-market-rate](http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/5/17/1663264/-Trump-quietly-put-his-Caribbean-estate-on-the-market-at-a-higher-than-market-rate) ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2017, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-presidency-has-to-end-with-impeachment-right/786406/369 "2017-05-18T01:42:20Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > For example, the conflict of interest laws Congress passed specifcally excludes the President. I assume you’re OK with that, based on what you just said. (" …have not been litigated so they stand as they are for now.") I forgot to answer this part: What I am “ok” with and what is the law are not always the same thing. I will agree that since it has not been litigated that is the law today. Period. Full stop. That does not mean I have to like it. ---
**Author:** ![Aspenglow](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aspenglow/32/76_2.png) [@Aspenglow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aspenglow)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2017, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-presidency-has-to-end-with-impeachment-right/786406/370 "2017-05-18T01:49:01Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I’m asking you what they stand for, specifically. > > For example, the conflict of interest laws Congress passed specifcally excludes the President. I assume you’re OK with that, based on what you just said. (" …have not been litigated so they stand as they are for now.") > > Since the Foreign Gifts and Decorations Act has a limit of less than $400, I asked if the purchase by New Zealand retailer Whitcoulls of 1,000 copies of _Dreams of My Father_ violated the Emoluments Clause. How about 10,000 copies? > > You’re not really answering these specifics. Obama put his assets into a blind trust, including profits from his book sales, so yours is not really a germane question. You keep demanding answers from others to your questions but haven’t answered any yourself. What case law or any other argument shows that your interpretation of the applicability of the Emoluments Clause is the correct one? So far, all we have is your private opinion and some weird analogy involving exothermic reactions. My understanding is that the Emoluments Clause is broad on purpose and subject to wide interpretation, but the spirit of the clause is meant to prevent government officials – including presidents, based on the case over Obama’s acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize – from enriching themselves at the expense of their oath to safeguard the welfare of the American people. Do you have any serious disagreement with this? If yes, please show why. Here’s another link that supports mine: [Trump Would Be Violating the Constitution if He Continues to Own His Businesses](https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-would-be-violating-constitution-if-he-continues-to-own-his-businesses) ---
**Author:** ![coremelt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/4491bb/32.png) [@coremelt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/coremelt)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2017, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-presidency-has-to-end-with-impeachment-right/786406/371 "2017-05-18T02:46:26Z")
Well odds of impeachment must have just shifted a point or two: > **[Robert Mueller, Former F.B.I. Director, Is Named Special Counsel for Russia...](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/17/us/politics/robert-mueller-special-counsel-russia-investigation.html?smprod=nytcore-iphone&smid=nytcore-iphone-share)** > > The decision came after a cascade of damaging developments for President Trump in the wake of his abrupt firing of the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey. Justice dept appointed a special prosecutor. Now in theory they are under Trump, but Trump attempting to interfere or get the special prosecutor fired would be such a blatant play for play of Watergate that it would surely have to backfire very badly. ---
**Author:** ![eulalia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eulalia/32/457_2.png) [@eulalia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eulalia)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2017, 2:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-presidency-has-to-end-with-impeachment-right/786406/372 "2017-05-18T02:52:03Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The Democrats have helpfully handed Trump and his crew a can’t miss line. > > Sure, there’s a majority in the House and in the Senate, but look at the unrelenting assault by the Democrats in collusion with the mainstream media, calling for impeachment over anything and everything. > > Emoluments! Impeachment! > Hiring relatives! Impeachment! > Lease on government property! Impeachment! > Ties to Russia! Impeachment! > Revealing classified information! Impeachment! > Firing Comey! Impeachment! > > It’s the perfect cover for his failure to legislate. It’s not his inability to grasp the dictates of a complex job and work successfully with Congress. It’s not his utter misunderstanding of the complications surrounding health care policy. It’s not his simplistic view of the world. > > No, no. It’s the Democrats, and the media. Which are the same thing, really. How about money-laundering and racketeering? They’ve been mentioned also, but I don’t know how difficult proving any of it would be. Will Trumpists blame that on Democrats and the media? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2017, 2:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-presidency-has-to-end-with-impeachment-right/786406/373 "2017-05-18T02:55:50Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > I said there is a line to be crossed in there somewhere. One book? Nope. One million books. Yeah. > > In the end it is for congress or a court to decide. But neither Congress nor the courts have spoken at all to construe this issue. I’m perfectly fine with saying that until Congress or the courts speak, the Emoluments Clause limits are not defined. Is that what you’re saying? > [@](#): > > But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that." There is some element of “I know it when I see it” with this stuff too. What happens when I know it when I see it, and what I know doesn’t mesh with what you know? Back to waiting for Congress and the courts to define it, yes? > [@](#): > > In my opinion I think Trump has crossed the line and is using his position as president to line his own pockets and he cares not if the money is foreign or domestic. It’s all green to him. In my opinion he’s doing that, too, but it’s not a violation of the Emoluments Clause. > [@](#): > > And to turn the table you are not answering my question on the rationale to double the initiation fee for membership at Mar-a-Lago to $200,000. What would be your guess as to why that is? Did they finish a major renovation and the club was now doubly better? Or something else? I’m sure they were selling the fame of the Presidency, and the hint that access to a Presidential ear might be possible. So what? What law does that violate? ---
**Author:** ![coremelt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/4491bb/32.png) [@coremelt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/coremelt)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2017, 3:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-presidency-has-to-end-with-impeachment-right/786406/374 "2017-05-18T03:12:06Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > So what? What law does that violate? Why are we arguing about the emoluments clause? At the end of the day it might be tax evasion which takes Trump down just like Al Capone. As I posted above a special prosecutor has been appointed, lets see what they come up with. And secondly as I understand the impeachment process “high crimes and misdemeanors” is not defined, so the senate can vote to convict on impeachment even if a hypothetical President never broke the law. Eg The senate could simply say “well the public is so outraged at your blatant self enrichment and abuse of the office that we’re going to convict you anyway even though it’s not illegal”… The conviction then merely removes the President from office, then criminal charges could be filed, only then would it be relevant if it was actually illegal. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2017, 3:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-presidency-has-to-end-with-impeachment-right/786406/375 "2017-05-18T03:25:07Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I’m perfectly fine with saying that until Congress or the courts speak, the Emoluments Clause limits are not defined. > > \ > > Back to waiting for Congress and the courts to define it, yes? Since it sure seems there is a LOT of debate over this I would suggest this is a GREAT time for congress and/or the courts to have at it. Wouldn’t you agree? > [@](#): > > In my opinion he’s doing that, too, but it’s not a violation of the Emoluments Clause. What do you think the emoluments clause means? (sorry if I missed you saying this before…long thread) > [@](#): > > I’m sure they were selling the fame of the Presidency, and the hint that access to a Presidential ear might be possible. > > So what? What law does that violate? The emoluments clause if it is a foreign government doing it. Sadly it seems these days it is a-ok if it is Americans doing the same. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2017, 3:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-presidency-has-to-end-with-impeachment-right/786406/376 "2017-05-18T03:32:05Z")
> [@Aspenglow](#): > > Obama put his assets into a blind trust, including profits from his book sales, so yours is not really a germane question. Does the Emoluments Clause contain an exception for blind trusts? Where? > [@](#): > > You keep demanding answers from others to your questions but haven’t answered any yourself. I’ve tried to answer every question asked of me. If I miss one, flag it to my attention again, and I’ll certainly get to it. > [@](#): > > What case law or any other argument shows that your interpretation of the applicability of the Emoluments Clause is the correct one? So far, all we have is your private opinion and some weird analogy involving exothermic reactions. I have elsewhere provided an overview of my reasoning, but briefly: I argue that the Emoluments Clause as it was understood in 1790 is what the Clause must mean today, absent some intervening court construction. George Washington accepted personal gifts of [key to the Bastille](http://www.mountvernon.org/digital-encyclopedia/article/bastille-key/) from the Marquis de Lafayette, and a [new and elegant print of the King of the French in an ornate frame](https://founders.archives.gov/?q=Jean-Baptiste%2C%20chevalier%20de%20Ternant%2022%20december%201791&s=1111311111&r=1) from Jean-Baptiste, the French Ambassador. This was acceptable to the people who had literally just passed the Emoluments Clause. The word didn’t mean “anything of value,” in other words. It referred to benefits in money or in other items of financial value, other than periodic pay (salary), received as a result of occupying a particular civil or military position. See, e.g., “the pay . . . in addition to the Emoluments,” as appears in 19 MASS. RESOLVES, supra note 2, at 535 (1776-77); see also 22 J. CONT. CONG. 398 (Jul. 18, 1782) (“his emoluments and one half of his pay be suspended”); 21 J. CONT. CONG. 1079 (Oct. 29, 1781) (“his request for pay cannot be complied with, and that all the emoluments he derives from the United States are to cease”). Separately listing pay from emoluments is exceedingly common in the record. E.g., 5 CONN. RECORDS, supra note 2, at 207 (“Pay and emolument”); DEL. COUNCIL MINUTES, supra note 2, at 906 (“pay and emoluments”); 23 J. CONT. CONG. 541 (Sept. 3, 1782) (repeating the phrase “pay and emoluments” three times on a single page). (Quoting “The Original Meaning of ‘Emoluments’ in the Constitution,” Georgia Law Review, Vol. 52, No. 1, footnotes 25-27). > [@](#): > > My understanding is that the Emoluments Clause is broad on purpose and subject to wide interpretation, but the spirit of the clause is meant to prevent government officials – including presidents, based on the case over Obama’s acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize – from enriching themselves at the expense of their oath to safeguard the welfare of the American people. Do you have any serious disagreement with this? If yes, please show why. I think the spirit of the clause is open to wide interpretation. I’m more interested in what the OPERATION of the Clause is. > [@](#): > > Here’s another link that supports mine: [Trump Would Be Violating the Constitution if He Continues to Own His Businesses](https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-would-be-violating-constitution-if-he-continues-to-own-his-businesses) Your own link says that the Nobel Prize money was acceptable “primarily because the Norwegian group that awards the prize was not deemed a governmental entity.” If that’s the operative word, then which of Trump’s supposed violations come at the hands of a “governmental entity?” In any event: > [@](#): > > But if Trump decides not to dispose of his business, it will be up to Congress to decide whether to do anything about his apparent violation of the Constitution. Also from your link. That article was written before Trump took office. Congress had ample opportunity to decide what to do, and did nothing. Even if I take your article as gospel, then, the answer is plainly that at present, the Emoluments Clause violation (if it exists) has no consequence. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2017, 3:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-presidency-has-to-end-with-impeachment-right/786406/377 "2017-05-18T03:34:31Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Since it sure seems there is a LOT of debate over this I would suggest this is a GREAT time for congress and/or the courts to have at it. Wouldn’t you agree? Absolutely. But if Congress and the courts don’t take any action, are you goign to accept that the answer is: Trump’s not violating the Clause? Certainly if Congress and or the courts rue differently, I’ll accept that as a finding that the Emoluments Clause meant something different than what I thought. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2017, 3:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-presidency-has-to-end-with-impeachment-right/786406/378 "2017-05-18T03:43:44Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > But if Congress and the courts don’t take any action, are you goign to accept that the answer is: Trump’s not violating the Clause? Of course not. If some AG decided not to convene a grand jury for a lynching does that mean there was no crime? Considering the people needed to take action are exactly the same people who have every reason to not take action I am not prepared to let Trump off the hook on this issue. No action does not mean Trump is not violating the Clause. ---
**Author:** ![Aspenglow](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aspenglow/32/76_2.png) [@Aspenglow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aspenglow)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2017, 3:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-presidency-has-to-end-with-impeachment-right/786406/379 "2017-05-18T03:51:24Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I’ve tried to answer every question asked of me. If I miss one, flag it to my attention again, and I’ll certainly get to it. I thank you for sharing your reasoning. I had not seen it in any other thread, but then I don’t read every thread here and don’t always have time to participate in discussions to a great extent. I’ll answer the questions you posed but not tonight and probably not tomorrow. I personally think it’s an important question. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2017, 4:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-presidency-has-to-end-with-impeachment-right/786406/380 "2017-05-18T04:15:23Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I’m sure they were selling the fame of the Presidency, and the hint that access to a Presidential ear might be possible. > > So what? What law does that violate? I dunno about laws, but that’s pretty gross, isn’t it? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-presidency-has-to-end-with-impeachment-right/786406.md?page=18) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-presidency-has-to-end-with-impeachment-right/786406.md?page=20)