1. Questions swirl about President Trump’s conflicts of interest, especially since he never released his tax returns. But there are also plenty of other questions to be asked about the ethical conduct of Trump’s White House staff, cabinet and family members. Please join me and fellow government ethics experts Richard Painter, Kathleen Clark and Danielle Brian for a live chat to discuss these issues this Wednesday from 12:30 to 1:30 EST. Ask us anything! You can even submit your questions in advance.

  2. Hi everyone, let’s begin! I’m Norm Eisen, former White House “ethics czar” to President Obama. Welcome to our chat. We’re here to discuss Trump’s businesses and conflicts of interest, ongoing investigations regarding possible Trump campaign collusion with Russia, the ethical conduct of the White House staff and cabinet — as well as answer any questions you have. Please chime in!

  3. Hello! I’m Danielle Brian from the Project On Government Oversight (or POGO). We’ve been working towards a more ethical, accountable, open and effective federal government for over 35 years.

  4. I am Richard Painter, former chief ethics lawyer for President Bush from 2005-2007 and now a professor at the University of Minnesota Law School.

  5. Hi. This is Kathleen Clark. I’m a law professor at Washington University and previously worked as a government ethics lawyer for the District of Columbia.

  6. Before we begin taking questions, what’s been on everyone’s mind, and what are you hoping to discuss today?

  7. I am most worried about Russia. After that, I am worried about other foreign governments’ business relationships with top US government officials.

  8. President Trump and his appointees have so many conflicts of interest, it’s a struggle to identify the most significant and urgent.

  9. I agree with Kathleen — so many different problems we have never seen before — largely because President Trump did not divest from his business holdings.

  10. Richard, as usual we are in bipartisan accord. The reason ethics matters is because it keeps our officials serving the public interest, not special interests. Russia has got to be one of the most dangerous special interests–they just attacked our elections. So we need to study the president’s, and his colleagues and family’s, financial and other ties to Russia, if any.

  11. I want to see the Trump Tower wiretapping claim resolved for good. That was a very serious accusation coming on the heels of very clear evidence that a foreign power was in fact spying on US candidates during the election. The White House has now alleged spying by our own government and that allegation needs to be addressed or 100% repudiated by all, including the President.

  12. I see the House Intel committee just announced they found no evidence of Trump Tower being tapped.

  13. Kathleen and Danielle, I hear you on the proliferation of issues. The way I try to deal with it is to focus on the most important, follow the money and follow the conflicts. For me, that’s Russia and China, the Muslim Ban, health care, climate change and Dodd Frank.

  14. It is troubling that President Trump and the White House make unsupported assertions of fact.

  15. Yes, ethics are not only about conflicts of interest. Ethics also means being truthful and upholding our country’s democratic principles.

  16. I believe that one of the most pressing ethics issues is to identify with specificity President Trump’s financial ties — and in particular his liabilities. How much does the President owe, and to whom does he owe it?

  17. The lying is a failure of the first principle of ethics and compliance — “tone at the top.” Here, it is more like “tone deaf at the top.” So that calls whole ethics programs into question, and leads to issues like the Kellyanne Conway violation, or the apparent issues with Mr. Liddell that CREW exposed yesterday, or Carl Icahn running amok as a “special advisor.”

  18. Untrue statements about espionage undermine our national security. The Russians are among the foreign powers spying on us, and we need to know who in the US has been helping them. Enough James Bond fantasy stories about Obama wiring my microwave.

  19. We are also faced with a White House counsel who unlike the two of you, Norm and Richard, believes ethics rules do not apply to White House officials. Even with good rules in place - they have to be enforced!

  20. In addition to dismantling the administrative state, the Trump administration seems intent on dismantling the culture of ethics compliance that the Office of Government Ethics and agency ethics officers have worked hard to develop in the last 30+ years. The Kellyanne Conway ethics violation and its aftermath may not be a mistake, but part of their strategy of undermining public trust in government.

  21. But the ethics rules do apply to the White House staff. End of discussion.

  22. And now, we will see what some of you are asking. Just type into the program, or speak into your television!

  23. From a Reader

    Seems like there are a lot of issues with Donald Trumps vast holdings. I don’t think he is being held accountable for not completely divesting. What is being being done to look into these issues?

  24. There are a number of organizations and media outlets investigating the conflicts posed by the fact that Trump didn’t divest. That’s why a free press and strong civil society are essential for our democracy

  25. We are all watching to see if the President files a form 278 financial disclosure in May as has every other president before him in the first year in office.

  26. We need a full court press in addressing Trump’s conflicts of interest. Achieving any kind of accountability has to involve civil society (like CREW), journalists, citizens, the courts and Congress.

  27. A lot, Kristen! My organization is suing because some of those holdings produce foreign cash and other benefits that are forbidden under the Constitution. Congress is starting to look into the Russia ties, if any. The FBI is doing a Russia review. And the media is all over it. The scrutiny is just beginning.

  28. I’d like to underscore the importance of individuals reaching out to their members of Congress — at town halls and by phone — to pressure reluctant members into action.

  29. Republicans in particular need to do this, Kathleen, the Republican members of Congress are the members who need to feel the heat. This is a bipartisan issue and indeed the Republican Party is at greater risk right now.

  30. And I want to add that it will also help if citizens reach out to the members of Congress who have already started pressing for accountability on these ethics issues, and let them know that they have public support for those efforts.

  31. The lawsuit aims to find out what foreign government money and other benefits are going to the President and then to have a federal judge tell him what he can have and what he cannot have under the Constitution. This is a lot better approach than the more politicized process of a congressional investigation and possible impeachment.

  32. The CREW action is an effort to enforce the Constitution’s “emoluments clause,” the prohibition on presidents getting presents, cash or other things of value “of any kind whatever.” Like that Chinese trademark for example. Since Trump won’t follow it, we are asking the courts to make him do so.

  33. From a Reader

    What are your thoughts about whether the federal processes that are in place will be sufficient to hold Trump accountable? Jack Goldsmith wrote about this in an Op-Ed in today’s NYT.

  34. The federal processes could be sufficient if they are fully enforced. In particular we need bipartisan Congressional oversight.

  35. We are beginning to see it now on the questions of Russian involvement in the U.S. and relationship with the Trump campaign.

  36. The federal processes in place are only as good as the officials who use them. If nothing happens to fix these conflicts it is not a constitutional problem, but a personnel problem. Voters should let their senators and representatives know that now.

  37. The federal processes vary. Career prosecutors and FBI are independent, and its important that Jeff Sessions stepped aside at the DOJ. Congress will only fully exercise oversight authority if there is grass roots pressure in both parties; so far, the GOP is not feeling it sufficiently. That’s a failure of those of us who do work in DC, we need to be better at talking to the rest of the country. Danielle is good at that by the way!

  38. And Congress needs oversight too. I am still waiting for an answer as to why my own Congressman (Jason Lewis, MN 2nd) voted to gut the office of Congressional Ethics his first week on the job…

  39. I do think the courts are the most independent of the oversight authorities, and that’s why many of us are resorting to them too. We trust them to get it right, insulated from electoral politics and partisanship.

  40. Thx Norm! and yes we have seen that constituent pressure DOES matter. Only as few as six phone calls can cause a Member of Congress to rethink a vote - that is how we helped to save that Office of Congressional Ethics despite Richard’s representative doing the wrong thing.

  41. One significant concern is whether any Congressional investigation will be thorough, or instead a white-wash. The public is more likely to trust a Congressional investigation that is open to the public rather than conducted behind closed doors.

  42. From a Reader

    This panel goes back to the Bush administration. But historically, what’s the ethics principle under which the president operates? I seem to remember Nixon claiming that whatever he did was OK because he was the Chief Executive. That’s more or less Trump’s attitude. Does this have a historical context?

  43. That Nixonian claim seems more steeped in monarchy than democracy. Our government ethics standards are based on the idea that government officials must serve the public, not pursue their own private interest. While Congress exempted the President from the conflict of interest statute in 1989, only Trump has seemed to relish and take advantage of this statutory exemption.

  44. Nixon indeed had that attitude – that the president is above the law – which is why he had to resign. But at least there was no evidence of Russian spies being involved in the Watergate break in. Unlike the 2016 computer hacking of DNC, the Watergate break-in was a job by a bunch of third-rate burglars.

  45. And what Trump is doing goes far beyond Nixon, who did not try to open the floodgates to foreign government cash, presents, benefits. Nixon violated the constitution in other ways, but no president has ever chased “emoluments” like Trump.

  46. Historically, the watershed moment is the 1978 Ethics in Government Act. It is true that presidents are exempted from a few provisions in there. But of course many rules — quid pro quos, financial disclosure, gift rules — still apply, as of course does the Constitution.

  47. Let’s also remember that it was the Senate Church Committee investigations that helped to crack open the White House, Justice Department and intelligence agency abuses.

  48. Richard’s answer is a good example of how to follow the themes in the daily swirl of ethics and conflicts issues: Follow the rubles, and the contacts with Trump and his people by the government that prints ‘em.

  49. Many of our most important anti-corruption statutes — from the 1978 Ethics in Government Act to the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act — have their roots in our salutary reaction to Nixon’s Watergate abuses and what we learned through the investigations spawned by Watergate. So I’d come back to theme Norm and Richard alluded to: We must follow the money. Follow Trump’s money — and his debts.

  50. As important as following the Russian rubles is, I’m also very concerned about the many, many other special interests that are already getting undue influence and special favors — like the oil and gas industry quickly getting Congress to gut an anti-corruption measure. That was one of the first bills that Trump signed.

  51. In order to follow Trump’s money, I believe that we need more tools than the 1978 Ethics in Government provided us. Trump may not make another financial disclosure until May of 2018. We need more detailed disclosures before that.

  52. The grave risk – and I write about this in a January 2016 book on campaign finance that does not even mention Trump – is that foreign governments will use their wealth in a global economy to corrupt our government in the United States. The 2016 election and Russia’s role, and now the emoluments flowing into the Trump organization from all over the world, are the latest manifestation of this very dangerous situation.

  53. From a Reader

    Given how Trump’s latest I.R.S. disclosure shows how much he was personally affected by the alternative minimum tax, how could he be held accountable if he pushes for elimination of the A.M.T.?

  54. David, that is where voters put pressure on their members of Congress. Make it too painful for them to support that kind of self-serving move by the President.

  55. Interesting question. Congress could mandate that elected officials disclose how they would specifically benefit from the changes in law that they advocate or vote on.

  56. Media — and leaks to media — will be important. Last night’s tax returns leak is a good example. (I doubt Trump leaked that by the way, as tempting as that thought is, and as much evidence as there is to support it.)

  57. The Alternative Minimum Tax was designed to make sure that very rich people, such as President Trump, pay taxes. We learned yesterday how big a difference it makes. In 2005, almost all of his tax was A.M.T. The A.M.T. income level should be adjusted for inflation so it does not catch middle class people, but abolishing it would be lunacy unless we really want to exempt very rich people from paying any taxes. He of course wants that, but the rest of us don’t.

  58. The key is raising the income level at which A.M.T. kicks in to reduce hostility to the tax.

  59. Those of us who care about good government may need to learn lessons from communications professionals in other fields who have experience reaching people not just intellectually but also on a visceral, emotional level. We need to identify narratives that grab people.

  60. From a Reader

    Can the panel shed light on the ethical concerns regarding Rex Tillerson, his past as Exxon CEO, his cozy relationship with Russia and Putin, and the drive for fossil fuel extraction in Russia that will seemingly inject a shot of adrenaline in Russia’s economy?

  61. Tillerson divested, had a strong ethics agreement, is recusing broadly from issues related to his (former) financial ties, and he seems suitably leery of Putin and Russia at the moment. I wish all of that were true of Trump!

  62. Rex Tillerson is actually better than many on the team. He sold the stock and other investments creating conflicts of interest. At least we know about his ties with the Russians. And he knows that there is such a thing as global warming which puts him in the top half of the class at Trump University.

  63. Daniel — There are definitely MANY questions raised by the Exxon/Russia/Tillerson/Trump relationships that require serious investigation. We are already seeing Big Oil having an outsized influence on public policy from the gutting of the Cardin-Lugar anti-corruption provision aimed at oil and gas companies to the vast new production opportunities opening up on public lands and waters.

  64. Our ethics laws address only incompletely the concern that appointees will favor those with who they used to be affiliated. I understand why the public may wonder about Tillerson’s affinity for Russia, even if he has divested from Exxon.

  65. And Danielle is right. The repeal of that statutory anti-corruption provision is shameful.

  66. See people: Painter and I don’t automatically criticize the administration on ethics, we call ‘em like we see 'em, while respecting that others may see 'em differently. The big problem is Trump’s own failures, including the secrecy about his taxes. If he followed Tillerson’s example, things would look a lot different.

  67. But broadly, we need to know which organizations, individuals and countries Trump has had financial ties to, and the financial disclosure statement that he filed in May of 2016 does not provide us with that information.

  68. From a Reader

    Doesn’t the fact that the president goes to Mar-a-Lago most weekends, and the Secret Service must pay a Trump business to stay there, represent some sort of breach of ethics?

  69. Nance - I think the ethics problem posed by Mar-a-Lago is the fact that it is also a private club. It isn’t like Camp David where the President can conduct official business, it’s also a place where people are able to pay-to-play for special access to the President and his guests. Totally uncool.

  70. Yes, Nance. It appears that Trump is using his weekend stays to promote his Mar-a-Lago business, just Kellyanne Conway used a TV interview to promote Ivanka’s clothing business. We may not be able to prevent him from doing so, but Congress should find out just how much taxpayers are paying to help Trump enrich his business.

  71. We may not be able to prevent Trump from acting this way, but we need to make sure that there is transparency about the cost to taxpayers — that there is some political accountability for Trump’s actions.

  72. Normally, secret service protection and other costs are allowed. But this is not normal. POTUS is using the machinery of government to keep three residences (Don’t forget Melania in NYC). And he is nakedly promoting Mar-A-Lago and his other properties. It is wrong, and I think at some point raises questions under the domestic emoluments clause.

  73. Just like foreign governments can’t give the President cash, so too the U.S. cannot supplement his official salary. At what point do the massive expenditures that he is forcing — in essence to promote his properties — become that kind of compensation?

  74. Good point, Norm. Congress could use its appropriations power to limit this kind of abuse.

  75. I believe that the domestic emoluments clause may prohibit Trump from receiving any benefit from the federal or state government, such as money for renting space in Trump Tower to the Secret Service or the Defense Department.

  76. The biggest problem with Mar-a-Lago is that people can pay to become members and have access to the president and his team. This was not the case for other presidents who spent sometime — although not as much time — at private residences they owned. Trump should not allow paying members to have access to him or his staff during these visits. Secret Service protection and travel is expensive, but, on the other hand, it might be better for the President to get out of the White House, particularly if he leaves Steve Bannon and some of the others behind. Jared and Ivanka are actually more reasonable individuals to have at the helm.

  77. But I would not address this by cutting back on Secret Service protection. The risk is too high. The President and his family must be protected while he is in the job, but if he cannot do the job ethically he will have to be removed.

  78. From a Reader

    What about China, and Jared Kushner’s sale of property to a Chinese company while he arranges the meetings with Chinese officials? What can the American people do about this?

  79. Unlike his father-in-law, Jared is subject to the ethics rules — all of them. We are awaiting his financial disclosure and ethics agreement. The American people can study those (all of us in this chat will help you!) and then applaud if the administration solves the problems like this one, or cry out if they don’t. The Office of Government Ethics, Congress and the media will have an important role to play, good or bad. Reportedly Anbang is now saying they aren’t doing the transaction, which is convenient timing…after the outcry over the public reporting in the Times.

  80. The Bloomberg story from a couple of days ago indicates that a Chinese company that may have ties to the Chinese government has given a sweetheart deal to Jared Kushner’s family. This is a classic corruption move: Attempt to influence a government official by enriching that official’s family members. It is troubling, and it is not clear to me whether our ethics standards address this situation if Kushner had already divested from the property that is at the heart of the deal.

  81. I am not sure on the details of the transaction between Mr. Kushner or his family and the Chinese businesses (there was some talk about Anbang, an insurance giant). These transactions might require him to stay away from some government matters involving China. More information is needed. Ethics rules, like travel bans, should not hinge principally on nationality but on specific facts. And here I don’t have the facts yet.

  82. Gordon - The American people can and should demand that their members of Congress focus on the issues that matter to their constituents. See the videos from local town halls: Don’t think those outraged constituents aren’t making politicians think about how they are spending their time. Make them investigate and demand more transparency about the operations between the White House, the Trump family and their various business dealings!

  83. I should also add that Jared says he sold his interest in the property in question to a trust, so in fairness we will need to scrutinize his filings to understand the terms of the trust as well, and the comfort level all of us have with its structure. Again, if only his father-in-law had done the same, scandal would not be swirling around every single decision he makes.

  84. Let’s take one more question if my friends can stay on a bit?

  85. OK, last question. That’s a good idea. I just scrolled up — we have covered a lot of turf! Making me hungry….

  86. From a Reader

    How do you all see this (Russia, emoluments, Trump’s presidency) ending up? Do you think this will go the full 4 years or do you foresee it ending in disaster?

  87. Mark, no one has a crystal ball, but there will be a massive scandal. Probably more than one. Depending on the facts that come out, Trump-Russia may be the a much bigger deal. It has all the ingredients, but there is money yet to be followed, investigations yet to be done, and the key question yet to be answered: What did the President know, and when did he know it?

  88. From a Reader

    My representatives support ethics enforcement and getting to the bottom of apparent ethics violations. Calling them would not seem to make a difference or advance the cause. What else can I, as a citizen, do?

  89. Alan — If the public, the media and civil society groups (like POGO and CREW) continue to engage on this issue, and if they are successful in pressuring Congress to take action and hold the Trump administration accountable, then we will avoid disaster. But if Congress acquiesces in Trump’s wholesale abandonment and undermining of ethics standards, that could be disastrous for our republic.

  90. Yes! Alan — we at POGO believe the next step is to join organizations like ours so that you can be kept in the loop when there are urgent matters that need your voice immediately (for example, the near closing of the Office of Congressional Ethics). We’d love to have you! Sign up at our website.

  91. Thanks for the terrific questions, and for the chance to engage on these vital issues.

  92. Thanks so much for including me in this chat Norm, Richard and Kathleen! It was great fun and great questions from NYT readers.

  93. Thanks to my colleagues (love you guys!), and most of all to everyone reading and sending questions. This was fun!

  94. Thank you!!

  95. For readers who want more — The Atlantic has collected information about dozens of Trump-related ethics issues at this website.

  96. Yes, and if people still want more right now: In 30 minutes there is a livestream of a panel we are hosting at the Newseum on Getting Information During the Trump Era.

  97. And please check out all we are doing @crewcrew!