D.C., Maryland may proceed with lawsuit alleging Trump violated emoluments clauses

[del]

A federal judge ruled that the District of Columbia and Maryland may proceed with an unprecedented lawsuit against President Trump alleging that Trump’s business dealings have violated the Constitution’s ban on receiving improper “emoluments,” or payments, from individual states and foreign governments.

The ruling, by U.S. District Judge Peter J. Messitte in Maryland, marks the first time that a lawsuit of this kind has cleared the initial legal hurdle — a finding that the plaintiffs have legal standing to sue the president in the first place.

In this case, Messitte found that D.C. Attorney General Karl A. Racine (D) and Maryland Attorney General Brian E. Frosh (D) have legal standing to sue Trump over the business of the Trump International Hotel in downtown Washington.

As part of that ruling, Messitte said he rejected an argument previously made by critics of the lawsuit — that, under the Constitution, only Congress may decide whether the president has violated the emoluments clauses.

“In absence of Congressional approval, this Court holds that it may review the actions of the President to determine if they comply with the law,” Messitte wrote.

D.C., Maryland may proceed with lawsuit alleging Trump violated emoluments clauses

it's lucky for trump that all the top flight legal talent is chomping at the bit to work for him.

 

[Lakhota]

Great news! Thank you!

 

[Tijn Von Ingersleben]

The endless shitlib distractions campaign. Keep it going. When YOUR boy gets in there it will be on like Donkey Kong niggas...bet.

 

[TNHarley]

A hotel?
So a person renting a room for the night is a gift? Or a profit from his position as president? LOL Im no lawyer but that seems a tad ridiculous.

 

[depotoo]

Yeah, never heard a complaint about Carters profits from his peanut farm. Lol

A hotel?
So a person renting a room for the night is a gift? Or a profit from his position as president? LOL Im no lawyer but that seems a tad ridiculous.

 

[TNHarley]

Yeah, never heard a complaint about Carters profits from his peanut farm. Lol

A hotel?
So a person renting a room for the night is a gift? Or a profit from his position as president? LOL Im no lawyer but that seems a tad ridiculous.

There is a lot of things people never complained about till now.
Imagine if trump wrote a book and the state dept bought 70K copies of it? He would get sent to GITMO. Its sad really...

 

[SassyIrishLass]

LOL They got him now!!!!!!!!!.....number 287

 

[Stormy Daniels]

A hotel?
So a person renting a room for the night is a gift? Or a profit from his position as president? LOL Im no lawyer but that seems a tad ridiculous.

It's not ridiculous that a foreign government could choose to give business to Trump's hotel, over other hotels, as part of an attempt to indirectly bribe or sway him. But there's a huge difference between theoretical possibilities and actual occurrences.

This emoluments clause chatter is the liberal equivalent of birthers. Yes, the President is mired in a swampy mess of conflicts of interest. Yes, the President has willingly, maybe even intentionally, allowed those conflicts to happen. Yes, it's unethical to purposely use those conflicts of interests to profit. But not everything bad is illegal. Instead of trying to pretend that the constitution is supposed to protect them from every bad thing ever, they should be spending their energy to enact stronger conflict of interest laws.

 

[depotoo]

Yeah, I’m sure he checks the occupancy list daily, for just that reason. Lol

A hotel?
So a person renting a room for the night is a gift? Or a profit from his position as president? LOL Im no lawyer but that seems a tad ridiculous.

It's not ridiculous that a foreign government could choose to give business to Trump's hotel, over other hotels, as part of an attempt to indirectly bribe or sway him. But there's a huge difference between theoretical possibilities and actual occurrences.

This emoluments clause chatter is the liberal equivalent of birthers. Yes, the President is mired in a swampy mess of conflicts of interest. Yes, the President has willingly, maybe even intentionally, allowed those conflicts to happen. Yes, it's unethical to purposely use those conflicts of interests to profit. But not everything bad is illegal. Instead of trying to pretend that the constitution is supposed to protect them from every bad thing ever, they should be spending their energy to enact stronger conflict of interest laws.

 

[jc456]

 

[TNHarley]

A hotel?
So a person renting a room for the night is a gift? Or a profit from his position as president? LOL Im no lawyer but that seems a tad ridiculous.

It's not ridiculous that a foreign government could choose to give business to Trump's hotel, over other hotels, as part of an attempt to indirectly bribe or sway him. But there's a huge difference between theoretical possibilities and actual occurrences.

This emoluments clause chatter is the liberal equivalent of birthers. Yes, the President is mired in a swampy mess of conflicts of interest. Yes, the President has willingly, maybe even intentionally, allowed those conflicts to happen. Yes, it's unethical to purposely use those conflicts of interests to profit. But not everything bad is illegal. Instead of trying to pretend that the constitution is supposed to protect them from every bad thing ever, they should be spending their energy to enact stronger conflict of interest laws.

Few hundred dollars a night room, minus the overhead, is buying a billionaire? I think not.
Yes, they could make stronger laws. Thats a great idea!
But then again, are we to expect Presidents to throw away everything they built to lead our country for a few years?

 

[del]

The endless shitlib distractions campaign. Keep it going. When YOUR boy gets in there it will be on like Donkey Kong niggas...bet.

yeah, that never happened before

 

[del]

A hotel?
So a person renting a room for the night is a gift? Or a profit from his position as president? LOL Im no lawyer but that seems a tad ridiculous.

you're right

you're no lawyer

 

[TNHarley]

A hotel?
So a person renting a room for the night is a gift? Or a profit from his position as president? LOL Im no lawyer but that seems a tad ridiculous.

you're right

you're no lawyer

If you ever argued with me using substance, id probably go into shock.

 

[Tijn Von Ingersleben]

The endless shitlib distractions campaign. Keep it going. When YOUR boy gets in there it will be on like Donkey Kong niggas...bet.

yeah, that never happened before

Yeap...it's an endless game of FU buddy. The problem is it is getting incrementally worse. The polarization, the stagnation it's just getting absurd. Then when a D gets in...more of the same with the ante upped. We are all cruisin for a bruisin. What a shitshow.

 

[TNHarley]

A hotel?
So a person renting a room for the night is a gift? Or a profit from his position as president? LOL Im no lawyer but that seems a tad ridiculous.

you're right

you're no lawyer

If you ever argued with me using substance, id probably go into shock.

LOL you ass

 

[007]

A hotel?
So a person renting a room for the night is a gift? Or a profit from his position as president? LOL Im no lawyer but that seems a tad ridiculous.

you're right

you're no lawyer

Poor smell.

 

[del]

Poor smell.

what's happening, gimp?

 

[OldLady]

A hotel?
So a person renting a room for the night is a gift? Or a profit from his position as president? LOL Im no lawyer but that seems a tad ridiculous.

It's not ridiculous that a foreign government could choose to give business to Trump's hotel, over other hotels, as part of an attempt to indirectly bribe or sway him. But there's a huge difference between theoretical possibilities and actual occurrences.

This emoluments clause chatter is the liberal equivalent of birthers. Yes, the President is mired in a swampy mess of conflicts of interest. Yes, the President has willingly, maybe even intentionally, allowed those conflicts to happen. Yes, it's unethical to purposely use those conflicts of interests to profit. But not everything bad is illegal. Instead of trying to pretend that the constitution is supposed to protect them from every bad thing ever, they should be spending their energy to enact stronger conflict of interest laws.

Few hundred dollars a night room, minus the overhead, is buying a billionaire? I think not.
Yes, they could make stronger laws. Thats a great idea!
But then again, are we to expect Presidents to throw away everything they built to lead our country for a few years?

Trump was totally clear before the election that he wasn't liquidating Trump & Co. He was elected anyway. I agree the hotel suit is crap.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

Few hundred dollars a night room, minus the overhead, is buying a billionaire? I think not.
Yes, they could make stronger laws. Thats a great idea!
But then again, are we to expect Presidents to throw away everything they built to lead our country for a few years?

A room night here or there isn't the concern. The problem starts to develop when foreign governments are spending a hundred thousand dollars to host events at Trump's properties, or when they start making habits of doing business with Trump's businesses, giving first preference to his businesses, etc.

Trump made his own choice to run for President. Nobody said a person should have to give up their wealth in order to be President. In the past, Presidents with wealth put their holdings into blind trusts, so this has never been an issue before. Trump decided not to do that. It was an irresponsible decision, but not illegal. But it's why we now are faced with having a President who has unpresedented conflicts of interest. Creating new laws to mitigate those conflicts doesn't mean Presidents would have to give away their wealth. It doesn't even mean that they would have to necessarily liquidate.

A large part of the conflicts could be solved by requiring independent auditing, prohibiting business from foreign governments and from lobbyists (foreign and domestic), and prohibiting the federal government from transacting business with the President's companies. That would make a whole lot of sense and could easily gain bipartisan support. But Democrats don't want to make sense, they want scandal.