"Do you have clarity about whether or not Mueller and his team looked at the President's finances and his taxes?" ― @maddow

"I don't think the Mueller team looked at his finances. I don't think they followed the money."
― @RepAdamSchiff

June 24, 2019 https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/schiff-looks-to-follow-up-where-muller-left-off-with-trump-probe-64496709953

Yes, Mueller thought he had a limited mandate to look into interference in the election. But Mueller apparently did not look into *why* Trump has acted so oddly deferentially toward and secretively with Putin, has denied Russia helped, and was desperate to stop the investigation.

I don't know that there is something damning in Trump's tax returns (Why would his accountants record damning evidence in black and white to the federal and state government?) but given the odd ways he has acted, their disclosure seems to be common-sense, fair, transparency.

If a sitting president cannot be changed with a crime by the Department of Justice because of the OLC opinion,

the Constitution says bribery is grounds for impeachment and foreign emoluments are prohibited,

a president must be transparent in their finances with Congress.

Not only does Section 6103(f) say Senate Finance chair or House Ways and Means Chair can ask for any tax return, Congress should receive any financial information that may pertain to bribery or foreign emoluments (for example, Deutsche Bank, Allen Weisselberg, or inauguration).

It is a high bar but given the bribery and foreign emoluments clauses, federal officers must be transparent with Congress about their current finances and any previous financial gift that might potentially influence their future execution of their responsibilities.

The person appointed to or elected or running for public federal office has only limited financial privacy from Congress. Congress has the duty to make sure federal officers are not receiving foreign emoluments or bribery. Federal employees must disclose any relevant information.

Investigative journalists should not have to uncover every instance of bribery and foreign emoluments, then Congress investigates, then public pressure mounts for the politician to resign.
If you don't want to be transparent about your finances, you can't serve in federal office.

In summary, it is unconstitutional and impeachable for President Trump to not be transparent with Congress about any financial records he has that may have to do with bribery or foreign emoluments. Congress should subpoena and fight for all current and relevant past records.

Many were under the assumption for the last two years that Mueller was looking to see whether Trump had received or was receiving financial gifts from Russia because of public evidence of Russian investment in his properties. But Mueller did not look.

Many assumed that Mueller was looking into the financial ties between Trump and Russia to see if that explained Trump's odd cooperation with Russia, and that Mueller would refer any illegal activities uncovered to a DA or Congress. But Mueller didn't look into Trump's finances.

Thread:
Mueller didn't look at Trump's finances. Congress must under bribery and emolument clauses.

Resources:

@Fahrenthold

@ZoeTillman

@RichardRubinDC

@ColinWilhelm

@_colleenmurphy_

@byHeatherLong

@johnson_carrie

@jeremyherb

@publicintegrity

@SethAbramson

Thread:

Mueller didn't look at Trump's finances. Congress must under bribery and emolument clauses. 

Resources:

@propublica

@MargLTaylor

@BarbMcQuade

@JoyceWhiteVance

@PreetBharara 

@neal_katyal

@Susan_Hennessey

@ericuman

@AndreaWNYC

@JasonLeopold

@page88

Thread:

Mueller didn't look at Trump's finances. Congress must under bribery and emolument clauses. 

Resources:

@adamdavidson

@moscow_project

@joe_palazzolo

@Isikoff

@marty_lederman

@JRubinBlogger

@davidfrum

Thread:

Mueller didn't look at Trump's finances. Congress must under bribery and emolument clauses. 

Resources:

@joshtpm

@jthorndike

@NatashaBertrand

@TimothyDSnyder

@davidenrich

@atrupar

@MaddowBlog

If a sitting president cannot be charged with a crime (as the OLC opinion suggests), then Congress must be given broad authority to investigate the sitting president under the grounds stipulated in the Constitution ("Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors").

The OLC opinion that the DOJ cannot charge a sitting president is certainly not in the Constitution. It allowed Trump to avoid a campaign finance violation. With authority to pardon, and if his party holds both houses of Congress, the OLC opinion puts the president above the law.

Again, if a president can pardon in order to reward any would testify against him, not be charged with any crimes himself, and the Congress is dominated by his party or is limited in what information it can receive for investigation, the president is frighteningly invincible.

The president instead must expect that they will need to be transparent with Congress regarding any hint of treason, bribery, or foreign emolument. And the OLC opinion is in error. The DOJ should be independent and be able to charge its boss, the president.

None of these 16 lawyers defend the OLC opinion thoroughly and many denounce it.

Yes, a president could overrule the decision to bring charges against himself or pardon himself but this would throw his "high crime" into sharp relief. https://www.vox.com/2019/5/29/18644304/robert-mueller-statement-donald-trump-russia

"The OLC conducted its own analysis (in 1973 and again in 2000) ... As the DOJ interpretation has not varied regardless of the political party of the president, it is reasonable for us to move past that question." ⁠—Joshua Dressler.

Who was president? https://twitter.com/RonBrownstein/status/1154042774401900545?s=19

The House is using the term "impeachment" to remind the Courts the authority and duty Congress always has to investigate whether a sitting president has committed "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/1154792417620631552?s=19

It is true that a Congress has harassed and will harass a president for information using its investigative authority implied by its constitutional impeachment authority. But a president who is financially transparent and has his staff ensure scrupulous ethics need not worry.

With the ineffectuality of the electoral college as a check, gerrymandering in the House, and executive power to: manipulate the census, appoint an Attorney General, pardon, and vetoe, the president must put up with the investigative check of Congress.