In the summer of 2017, President Donald Trump was widely accused of using a private email server during his campaign and that it was his responsibility to have the server locked down.
He was also accused of lying about the server’s contents, and for using the server for his own personal business.
In an interview with CNN’s Jake Tapper on January 28, Trump said he would never be held accountable for the server and that the issue was his “responsibility.”
Tapper later told a crowd of supporters at a rally that Trump had said he wanted to get rid of the server, and that he wanted a private server.
The following day, Trump tweeted that he would be “totally transparent” on his server and promised that he had asked the FBI to look into it.
“They told me to get a lawyer,” Trump said.
Trump’s tweet led to the resignation of former Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats, who was the deputy attorney general at the time.
Trump has said he will release his tax returns to the public.
He has also said that he did not know about the existence of the email server and had no idea the FBI was investigating the server.
But the FBI director, James Comey, testified to Congress that Trump did know about it, and he said he was concerned about the FBI’s ability to investigate Trump because the president was using it for personal business, and because it would have been a breach of the president’s constitutional obligations.
The Justice Department has not publicly disclosed whether it has launched any investigations into Trump’s business dealings.
It is unclear whether Trump would face legal consequences for the email-server issue if he were elected president.
What about the ethics of the presidency?
The question of the Trump presidency has been a source of heated debate among legal scholars.
Many of the arguments about the president are based on the separation of powers doctrine.
This doctrine, which was developed by Chief Justice John Marshall, says that the president does not have the power to take the oath of office by virtue of the office.
The separation of power doctrine was first used by the Supreme Court in 1896, in a case called United States v.
Miller, in which the court held that Congress can not pass laws that violate the Constitution.
In that case, the court explained that the President does not possess the power of “impeachment” because he does not take the constitutional oath of allegiance.
The case was later upheld by the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, but the court ultimately struck down the Miller decision as unconstitutional.
But as the chief justice put it, “the doctrine is a useful tool for understanding our constitutional system, because it gives us some flexibility when interpreting our own laws.”
The Supreme Court has said it will not review the constitutionality of the federal government.
But some legal scholars say the separation-of-powers doctrine should not be applied to the presidency because it leaves much to be desired in terms of transparency and ethics.
“It is not a question of transparency or ethics, but of how much power the president is really entitled to,” said Yale Law School professor David Boies, a former federal prosecutor and chief counsel for the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.
“The power to impeach the president of the United States is the only power that the Constitution gives him, and the president has no way of making an exception to that.”