From the
instructions for OGE form 278e:
Reporting of Liabilities instructions:
Liabilities Part 8 discloses liabilities over $10,000 that the filer, the filer's spouse or dependent child owed at any time during the reporting period. This section does not include the following types of liabilities: (1) mortgages on a personal residence, unless rented out (limitations apply for PAS filers); (2) loans secured by a personal motor vehicle, household furniture, or appliances,unless the loan exceeds the item's purchase price; and (3) revolving charge accounts, such as credit card balances, if the outstanding liability did not exceed $10,000 at the end of the reporting period. Additional exceptions apply.
Truth and completeness declaration:
Filer's Certification - I certify that the statements I have made in this report are true, complete and correct to the best of my knowledge:
Trump didn't report the $130K liability on his 2016 disclosure. But for the DoJ's policy against indicting a sitting POTUS, Trump could be
criminally prosecuted for not reporting that debt. That is very likely perjurious; the man had all of 2017 to file an amended statement and he did not.
The relevant
DoJ policy derives from a memorandum Randolph Moss wrote toward the end of Clinton’s second term. In short, the DoJ policy is currently binding on the DoJ and it states that "a sitting President is immune from indictment as well as from further criminal process." Indeed, that Mueller is a special counsel (regulatory designation) and not an independent counsel (statutory designation) he, like the rest of the DoJ must follow DoJ "rules and policies," The DoJ's Office of Legal Counsel's opinions while “controlling” on the Executive, are not immutable. The OLC can simply issue a new memorandum and prosecutors can indict a sitting POTUS.
All well and good, Trumpkins might think....Not so fast. Moss notes that a central distinction between the applicability of the DoJ rules is that the Independent Counsel statute gave thus appointed persons statutory protection from being removed. Accordingly, it stands to reason that were Congress to legislatively prohibit Mueller's removal, he would, in effect, become an independent counsel and be thereby no longer bound by DoJ policy.
The 25th Amendment obviates the legitimacy of the argument that criminal prosecution would so distract the president as to make him unable to ably and aptly perform his duties.
Notes:
- No privilege of [the kind given to Congress] was intended for your Executive...[because] the Convention which formed the Constitution well knew that this was an important point, and no subject had been more abused than privilege. They therefore determined to set the example, in merely limiting privilege to what was necessary, and no more.
-- Charles Pinckney
- Gravel v. United States
"Executive privilege has never been applied to shield executive officers from prosecution for crime."