Presidential conflicts of interest. Laws are arguable.
Update: Jeff Paul Mitch. Think America.
How to press legal, equitable and ethics issues in presidential conflicts of interest, which are capable of repetition, yet evade review for any concrete, particular example. Our law requires actual cases and controversies, and one that does not stay around long enougn to litigate, or otherwisefades by passage of time (the sales contract was completed, and then resold), or replacement, may not meet the definition, see http://federalpracticemanual.org/chapter3/section3 Are we left with mere gamesmanship, whack-a-mole? No. Pursue diligently. Pregnancy was one such issue. The Supreme Court heard it anyway, see http://joshblackman.com/blog/2016/06/16/scotus-applies-capable-of-repetition-yet-evading-review-standard-for-short-term-contracts/
A better route is Congress. There is a clear gap in the law, exempting the President from attacks based on conflict of interest, self-enrichment by mean of office (personal kleptocratic behavior), apparently. Has that really been argued, with vigor and tenacity? Not at first look. So, Congress, change the law. See http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2016/12/07/can-congress-end-donald-trumps-conflict-of-interest-exemption.
Will this Congress do it? Possibly, with enough pressure and Mar-a-Lago type egregiousness, see https://hellofodderhellobuyer.blogspot.com/2017/02/mar-a-lago-ghost-of-marjorie-merriwether-post-history-of-uses.html
On the other hand, why get on that horse if you might actually have to put nation ahead of party. Perish the thought.
1. Moot. In legal terms, it means generally that there will be no review because the issue has faded with passage of time or agreements, or other reasons. Nobody has a stake it in any more. The case is now just a hypothetical. Like pregnancy. This one peaks at the birth, so do actions triggered by situations before that birth fade? No -- situation recurrent, but evading review for good reason, so hear it now.
- Where a specific fact situation may have faded, yet recurs as a situation encountered by others, and each such case will be shot down unless somebody addresses the genre, exceptions to "mootness" are available. See three exceptions to the fatal mootness: at https://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/art3frag23_user.html. Recurrent, yet incapable of review. No mootness will arise.
3. Apply to presidents, presidents-elect, other elected officials. If too much is happening in economic empires, deals and more deals, for news and watchdogs to keep track, how to use courts to review when it is over by the time of filing.
Use the good side of mootness: It will not be moot, evade review, if the situation as generic recurs.
Recurrent, but evading review, because the particular stakes can be sold off just in time.
4. The solution is to press the issue. Collect similar situations. How to act against Presidential conflicts of interest in specific acts by the boys to further the brand? Sounds good, but like a wet kite, will not fly, Why? Because we have Three Blind Mice at the helm, at the Gate: Mitch, Paul and Jeff. And they will not act to challenge their personal piper, the President, and so hurt the party, in order to serve the nation. Selah.