A prominent watchdog organization, known for its relentless pursuit of holding Donald Trump accountable for constitutional violations, is currently conducting an investigation into the legality of his meeting with oil company executives at Mar-a-Lago last month.
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) is currently conducting an investigation into the dinner at Trump’s club, which involved over 20 executives from oil and gas companies. According to The Guardian, during the dinner, Trump made a request for a $1 billion contribution to his presidential campaign. Simultaneously, he expressed his intention to reverse Joe Biden’s regulations on natural gas export permits, oil drilling, and car pollution, as reported by The Washington Post.
Related posts
According to Virginia Canter, Crew’s chief ethics counsel, the organization’s legal team is currently examining a matter of significant concern. Canter stated that they are carefully considering whether President Trump’s fundraising request to oil executives for $1 billion would warrant further action.
According to Canter, the conversation between the ex-president and the oil companies raised concerns due to the specific focus on one industry. The mention of a $1 billion amount being referred to as a deal also brings into question the nature of the meeting and whether it had a transactional aspect to it.
In a recent development, it has been revealed that Crew is currently under investigation. This news coincides with a notable announcement made by House Democrats, who have initiated their own inquiry into the Mar-a-Lago dinner. The House oversight committee has taken action by sending letters to nine oil executives, requesting specific information about their companies’ involvement in the event.
Sheldon Whitehouse, the senator from Rhode Island, is currently chairing the Senate budget committee with subpoena powers. He is actively considering an investigation in response to Trump’s reported pledge to eliminate fossil-fuel restrictions on day one of a potential second Trump administration. Whitehouse views this promise, along with the request for campaign funds, as a clear example of a blatant quid pro quo.
Whitehouse expressed his concern over what he called an invitation to inquire about the political corruption and manipulation by big oil. He emphasized that his budget committee is actively exploring ways to prevent the industry from influencing politicians to burden taxpayers with the costs.
Crew has a proven track record of taking legal action against Trump and his close associates. The group recently made an attempt to remove Trump from the presidential ballot in Colorado. They argued that he had violated the 14th amendment, which sanctions individuals involved in insurrection. However, the US Supreme Court blocked this move.
On his first day in the White House in 2017, Trump was sued by Crew for violating the emoluments clauses of the US constitution. These clauses prohibit federal officeholders from accepting gifts from foreign states. The lawsuit was filed because Trump had chosen not to divest his business interests. As his presidency came to a close, the case remained unresolved.
More than a dozen officials in the Trump administration faced reprimands due to crew ethics complaints.
According to the bribery statute, 18 USC 201(b), public officials are prohibited from requesting or accepting any valuable item in exchange for performing an official duty. Presidential candidates, on the other hand, are permitted to seek campaign donations within the boundaries of campaign finance laws and are also able to communicate their policy goals to companies that could potentially benefit from them.
In office, politicians are prohibited from directly requesting money in exchange for performing beneficial actions.
According to Professor Deborah Hellman from the University of Virginia law school, in order for the bribery statute to be applicable, there needs to be evidence that Trump made promises to dismantle regulations in exchange for donations. She explains that if he were to say, “I’m doing it because you’re giving me the money,” that would be considered a quid pro quo. However, if he were to say, “I’m going to do it, so you should want me to get elected,” that would not qualify as bribery.
The focus of the investigations into the Mar-a-Lago meeting has primarily been on Trump’s behavior. However, there is also growing scrutiny on fossil fuel companies. According to a recent report by Politico, the US oil industry is making preparations for a potential second term for Trump. They are reportedly drafting executive orders for him to sign.
The orders will unlock offshore oil drilling and enhance the export of natural gas.
According to data compiled by the nonprofit watchdog OpenSecrets, the fossil fuel industry has already contributed $7.3 million to Trump’s campaign and groups supporting his candidacy during this election cycle.
