President-elect Donald Trump's global business interests continue to come under intense scrutiny, with two top ethics lawyers saying the Electoral College must reject Trump on December 19 if he does not divest his holdings and establish a truly blind trust.

Norman Eisen, chief ethics counsel for Barack Obama, told ThinkProgress this week that "the founders did not want any foreign payments to the president. Period."

"This principle," explained ThinkProgress editor Judd Legum, "is enshrined in Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution, which bars office holders from accepting 'any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.'" The provision, he said, is aimed at limiting foreign influence over the president.

However, according to Legum:

Eisen said that Trump's businesses, foreign and domestic, "are receiving a stream of such payments." A prime example is Trump's new hotel in Washington, D.C. which, according to Eisen, is "actively seeking emoluments to Trump: payments from foreign governments for use of the hotel."

Citing Trump's recent statements to the New York Times, Eisen added to the Guardian on Sunday:



Trump was totally wrong when he said the conflict of interest doesn't apply to me. It shows he doesn't know the constitution. The most fundamental conflict clause in the U.S. constitution is the prohibition on emoluments on payments, presents or other things of value being given to American political officials including the president. Because of [Trump's] international investments he gets these payments, presents and things of value and he'll be in violation of the constitution by the moment he takes the oath of office.

In turn, "to vote for Trump in the absence of such complete divestment...would represent an abdication of the solemn duties of the 538 electors," said Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe to ThinkProgress, concurring with Eisen's analysis of Trump's holdings.

"Trump's ongoing business dealings around the world would make him the recipient of constitutionally prohibited 'Emoluments' from 'any King, Prince, or foreign State'— in the original sense of payments and not necessarily presents or gifts — from the very moment he takes the oath," Tribe said.

SCROLL TO CONTINUE WITH CONTENT Never Miss a Beat. Get our best delivered to your inbox.







Both ThinkProgress and the Guardian point to comments by another former chief White House ethics counsel—Richard Painter, who served under George W. Bush—as evidence that such concerns are non-partisan.

"I don't think the Electoral College can vote for someone to become president if he's going to be in violation of the Constitution on day one and hasn't assured us he's not in violation," Painter said in a recent interview on CNN.

But as the Guardian writes: