Type to search

Are Mainstream Outlets Normalizing Trump’s Impeachable Offenses?

Media Politics Top News US White House

Are Mainstream Outlets Normalizing Trump’s Impeachable Offenses?

Trump, Emoluments Clause, Impeachable

Reprinted with permission from Media Matters for America.

During the first month of Donald Trump’s presidency, broadcast evening news shows and Sunday political talk shows devoted a total of just over 10 minutes to discussing the allegation that Trump is violating the U.S. Constitution by receiving foreign government payments. The scant reporting that did address this issue failed to mention that such conduct is an impeachable offense.

Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution, known as the Emoluments Clause, creates a broad prohibition on federal officeholders, including the president, receiving payments from foreign governments without the consent of Congress. It reads: “No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.”

The provision is much broader than a ban on receiving bribes. According to legal experts, even “fair market value transactions that result in any economic profit or benefit” count as an emolument, because the Founding Fathers wanted a “prophylactic” rule aimed at preventing even the appearance of corruption.

A president’s violation of the clause is an impeachable offense.

According to legal experts, Trump’s retention of an ownership interest in the Trump Organization as president means that he has been violating the Constitution since the moment he took the oath of office. Indeed, just two days after the inauguration, the watchdog organization Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) filed a lawsuit in federal court “to stop President Trump from violating the Constitution.” A press release about the suit notes that the president “is now getting cash and favors from foreign governments, through guests and events at his hotels, leases in his buildings, and valuable real estate deals abroad.” (Other presidents have avoided violating the clause by placing their assets into an independently controlled blind trust, something Trump has refused to do.)

In what should serve as a prompt for investigative journalists, the exact nature of the emoluments Trump has received is unclear in many instances due to Trump’s refusal to release his tax returns. As Emoluments Clause expert Zephyr Teachout, an associate law professor who is a lawyer on CREW’s lawsuit, explained in The Washington Post, while some emoluments Trump is receiving are known — including rent paid by the Qatari state airline at a Trump property, licensing fees paid by several foreign countries for rights to the TV show The Apprentice, and construction permits granted by the Indian government — the full extent of his violations is unknown because “Trump hasn’t disclosed any information about his finances.”

In spite of Trump’s secretive business dealings, two concrete new violations emerged during the first month of his presidency.

According to a February 9 report from Politico, “A lobbying firm working for Saudi Arabia paid for a room at Donald Trump’s Washington hotel after Inauguration Day, marking the first publicly known payment on behalf of a foreign government to a Trump property since he became president.” The article notes that the payment “raises questions about whether it represents a violation of the foreign emoluments clause.”

Politico quoted Obama ethics attorney Norm Eisen, who described the payment as part of a “systemic problem,” and constitutional law expert Laurence Tribe, who said, “This example is bound to be one of a vast stream of instances.” Both Tribe and Eisen are lawyers on CREW’s lawsuit.

Then The Associated Press reported on February 14 that Trump was set to score an “unlikely” legal win in China by way of a “trademark for building construction services” following “a decade of grinding battle in China’s courts.” According to the report, the legal victory “could signal a shift in fortune for the U.S. president’s intellectual property in China. At stake are 49 pending trademark applications — all made during his campaign — and 77 marks already registered in his name, most of which will come up for renewal during his term.” (China announced the trademark two days after AP’s article.)

As the AP report aptly noted, “Trump’s foreign trademarks have raised red flags with ethics lawyers across the political spectrum who say they present grave conflicts of interest and may violate the emoluments clause of the U.S. Constitution.” (Indeed, a post at the libertarian Volokh Conspiracy blog concluded that the trademark grant qualifies as an emolument received by Trump.)

The nation’s leading news programs have insufficiently covered a story about a president openly taking actions that not only violate the Constitution but also are grounds for impeachment.

CBS Evening News, ABC World News Tonight, and NBC Nightly News have each devoted a single segment to foreign payments to Trump.

A January 20 CBS Evening News segment didn’t mention the Emoluments Clause explicitly, but it included an interview with George Washington University law school professor Steven Schooner, who explained how Trump can profit from foreign governments via the Trump Organization.

ABC World News Tonight and NBC Nightly News each devoted brief segments on January 23 to CREW’s lawsuit.

In total, the issue was covered for just over seven minutes on broadcast nightly news between January 20 and February 20. None of the segments mentioned violating the Emoluments Clause is an impeachable offense:

Sunday political talk shows provided even less coverage. During the January 22 broadcast of ABC’s This Week, host George Stephanopoulos directly asked White House counselor Kellyanne Conway and Sen. Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) about Trump and the Emoluments Clause. During the January 29 edition of NBC’s Meet the Press, host Chuck Todd asked White House chief of staff Reince Priebus why Muslim-majority countries with business ties to Trump were left out of Trump’s travel ban, although the Emoluments Clause was never directly cited. CBS’ Face the Nation, Fox Broadcasting Co.’s Fox News Sunday, and CNN’s State of the Union all failed to discuss the issue.

Sunday show coverage of the issue totaled just under four minutes, with no discussion of how the offense is grounds for impeachment:


Media Matters searched Nexis transcripts for ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox News, and CNN for “emoluments,” “emolument,” “Trump Organization,” “Trump Hotel,” Trump w/10 “trump international hotel,” Trump w/10 impeach, Trump w/10 constitution, Trump w/10 “conflict of interest,” Trump w/10 conflicted, Trump w/10 payment, Trump w/10 “foreign payment,” and Trump w/10 divest. We identified segments that mentioned foreign payments to Trump in the context of conflict-of-interest questions and/or the Emoluments Clause directly, and then counted those segments for time in iQ media.

IMAGE: Sarah Wasko / Media Matters for America



  1. A. D. Reed March 7, 2017

    Of course the mainstream media isn’t covering this issue. The progressive side of America doesn’t have scores of AEIs, Rutherfords, AFPs, and other “think tanks” churning out talking points every day, calling the presidents of news outlets, buttonholing them at home in the Hamptons, and demanding that they cover a story they want to promote. They did that for eight years beginning in 1993-2001, then again from 2008-2016, with great success. If George Soros and the DNC and a few other progressive groups had the kind of focus, clout, and money and influence to force coverage–or if they had major media outlets like Faux and NY Post and Breitbart, etc. to generate it–it would be a different story.

    But I doubt that, even if the current suits get to the courts and are in our favor, the left will know how to capitalize on the rulings to generate coverage, outrage, focused organizing to use it to take over in 2018.

    1. Leannjrawls March 8, 2017

      Google is paying 97$ per hour! Work for few hours and have longer with friends & family! !mj457d:
      On tuesday I got a great new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $8752 this last four weeks.. Its the most-financialy rewarding I’ve had.. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
      ➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleFinancialJobsCash457HomeGreatGetPay$97Hour ★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★:::::!mj457d:….,…….

    2. kep April 29, 2017

      Unmitigated BS. The mainstream media IS liberal and in the pockets of the DNC. This IS a proven FACT.

      1. A. D. Reed April 29, 2017

        Proven fact? Like the thousands of Muslims celebrating on 9/11 on rooftops in New Jersey, and the 3 million illegal aliens who voted for Hillary Clinton, and the largest crowd in world history attending Hair Furor’s inauguration.

        No, Kep,. the “Mainstream Media” is liberal only to the extent that people who think with open minds, and ask questions in search of the truth, and believe in the Constitution’s guarantee that the media will have unfettered access to pubic officials in order to inform the public of the people’s business … tend to have open minds, which translates into liberal, which has the Latin root “liber” meaning free. So people who do serious reporting are liberal by intellect and inclination; but real newspapers and broadcast stations, what you call the MSM, look at both sides of a story, interview everyone they can reach, and try to ascertain facts that way.

        Unfortunately, your preferred “media” like Faux and Breitbart do none of those things. They don’t hire journalists but conservative advocates, and they don’t search for truth or facts but for support and rationalization for their right-wing bosses.

        Like Mr. Trump, you’re wrong on every subject, and on every count. So sad.

        1. kep April 29, 2017

          So, the acting DNC chair, who worked for CNN, did not give the questions for the debate to Hillary. And it’s only by chance that CNN edits clip to only give part of what is said, in the most unflattering light? Yeah,MSN is sooooo fair.

          1. A. D. Reed May 1, 2017

            No, in fact Ms. Brazile did NOT “give the questions for the debate to Hillary” Clinton. She provided a memo that outlined the topics that would almost certainly be asked about and to be prepared for, especially the question of the Flint, MI water supply. That’s not providing the questions, it’s providing an overview of what to be prepared for.

            And I have no idea what you’re babbling about regarding CNN and MSN. On the other hand, I do know that Mr. Trump edits and lies about what Congressman Cummings said to him in the Oval Office. And I do know that there are scores of examples of Faux Noise editing what Democrats say, and taking their words out of context, and flat-out lying about their statements, without any of you snowflakes whining about it.

          2. kep May 1, 2017

            Funny how she had to resign from both CNN and
            as DNC chair. I find it hard to believe she did so and disappeared from public view after no wrong doing, but then again, what MOST REASONABLE people think as wrong doing, LIBERALS see as perfectly normal, just as Obama elevated lying and deceit into a virtue among liberal commies.
            You may also want to explore other info outlets other than liberal propaganda sites. If you watch both sides, and watch the interviews, FOX will run the ENTIRE clip, while CNN will only air a small snippet that reflects what they want their brain-dead followers to see.
            Nope, I’m more than happy to know the difference between truth and LIBERAL commie LIES.

          3. kep May 2, 2017

            What? No liberal lies to counter the truth?

  2. Kate Murray March 8, 2017

    I have made 104 thousand bucks previous year by working on-line from home a­­n­­d I did that by wor­king in my own time f­o­r 3+ h on daily basis. I was following work opportunity I stumbled upon from company that i found online and I am so amazed that i made so much money. It’s really beginner-friendly and I’m just so thankful that I found out about it. Here is what i did… http://itreplaceitall.com

  3. Stuart Ravn March 12, 2017

    Not that I’m not concerned, but those graphs don’t match those numbers, and now it also concerns me that Media Matters is playing fakey with their data.


Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.