It was only weeks ago that the opposing candidate, Clinton, was being pilloried in the press for anything that might conceivably give off the “optics” of a conflict of interest: Trump here is openly stating that he’s free to run his businesses from the White House itself and there’s not a damn thing anyone can do to stop him. Any other president would, if they conducted themselves as Trump is proposing to do, be immediately impeached. It’s not even close.

This is a formalization of his similar dismissal of ethics concerns yesterday; after a New York Times report revealed that his meeting with British politician Nigel Farage included, in addition to the usual foreign policy pleasantries, a request from Trump that Farage work to block proposed wind farms that Trump feels will mar the view from his Scottish golf course.

Trump reacted to this egregious mixing of presidential duties and for-profit dealings as usual: With a snotty condemnation of the “crooked media.”

x Prior to the election it was well known that I have interests in properties all over the world.Only the crooked media makes this a big deal! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 22, 2016

And a proposal from the president-elect on how Britain should conduct their own affairs:

x Many people would like to see @Nigel_Farage represent Great Britain as their Ambassador to the United States. He would do a great job! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 22, 2016

Of course he would; Donald Trump believes him to be a person who will help him turn a profit.

As for the law, Trump may have come close to breaking it already. The Constitution itself explicitly forbids the president from accepting foreign gifts without congressional permission. Already, Trump’s Washington hotel is billing itself as an easy way for foreign dignitaries to ingratiate themselves with Trump—with the profits of their stays going directly into Trump’s pockets. Trump’s personal request that a foreign politician take a specific action to profit Trump’s Scottish business holdings would fall within those bounds as well.

The responsibility of action would lie with the Republican-led Congress, however; if they too declared that from now on, it was all right for the president to be openly corrupt, they could do so. In the days of Nixon, Republicans could not stomach such corruption; the modern party may not have anyone of similar mettle.

So then: It’s been two weeks since the election, and Donald Trump has already committed two impeachable acts. He’s now declaring to the New York Times that he has no intention of divesting himself from his conflicts of interest after the inaugural, flatly telling them that if the president does it, it’s not illegal.

It shouldn’t be lost on anyone that he’s making this declaration to the very outlet that so reliably hounded Clinton for “appearances” revolving around her charitable foundation, or the “optics” of an email server. He’s all but daring them to make an issue of his moves to profit directly off his office. If Clinton, or Obama, or George W. Bush made identical declarations the newspapers would devote their entire frontpages to it, the Congress would immediately start impeachment proceedings, and there would be protests in the streets. You know it, I know it, and the press knows it.

This isn’t normal. A president declaring that regardless of precedent, he may conduct private for-profit business ventures from the White House isn’t normal even if Donald Trump declares it to be. A president interrupting meetings with foreign politicians to request that they take acts to benefit his business is very, very far from normal.

Just because Trump says it doesn’t make it so. At no point in modern history has it been “acceptable” for a president to profit off his office while in that office. It’s plainly impeachable. And it’s a dramatic test of a press that is forever obsessed with the appearance of corruption but very nearly incompetent when faced with the actual thing. We may be in deep, deep trouble here.