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

[Faun]

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.

Woohoooo

 

[Tom Horn]

you're no lawyer

And neither is Doc....right, Doc?

 

[depotoo]

And then they would bitch about something else. We are in for a number of years of this crap, unless they lose at the ballot box and finally wake up, whether it be from crossover votes or just not showing up. And even then they would have to somehow miraculously wrestle control from the ghosts behind all this crap, which I doubt would be an easy feat.

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.

 

[OldLady]

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.

I don't see how that could work, for a lot of reasons.
-In a city like D.C., a high end hotel is going to be full of folks from foreign governments and lobbyists. Prohibiting that business would be significantly harmful to the business.
-The President prefers Mar a Lago and holding meetings at his other properties.That would forbid him from doing that.
- I don't know if the Dems WANT scandal, but the Pres is not doing anything illegal and he made it clear this was how it would be and we might as well accept it. There are a lot more important things to fight Trump over.

 

[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.

I don't see how that could work, for a lot of reasons.
-In a city like D.C., a high end hotel is going to be full of folks from foreign governments and lobbyists. Prohibiting that business would be significantly harmful to the business.
-The President prefers Mar a Lago and holding meetings at his other properties.That would forbid him from doing that.
- I don't know if the Dems WANT scandal, but the Pres is not doing anything illegal and he made it clear this was how it would be and we might as well accept it. There are a lot more important things to fight Trump over.

Oh gee, you're a bright one, aren't you! No shit it would prevent those things. An anti conflicts of interest law would prevent the things that cause the conflicts of interest? Unbefuckinglievable!

 

[Lakhota]

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.

Sounds like Trump is in deep trouble!

 

[oreo]

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.

Trump has always been in violation of the Emoluments clause. The judge basically said that Trump can't use the U.S. Justice department to defend himself, and since Republicans are one party rule there is no balance check and his violation could go on for as long as he is in office.

I am so glad the judge ruled this way, and this may actually be the reason this Ass Clown is finally booted out of office.
Trump has been summoned in a lawsuit alleging that he's violating the Constitution

 

[Confounding]

Thoughts?

Donald Trump loses bid to toss out corruption lawsuit brought by Maryland, DC

President Trump lost a bid on Wednesday to toss out a lawsuit that claims his business with foreign and state governments violates anti-corruption provisions of the Constitution.

U.S. District Judge Peter Messitte ruled that the governments of Maryland and Washington, D.C., have legal standing to pursue their case, which argues that Trump's continued ownership of the Trump International Hotel in the nation's capital gives him an unfair advantage over other area businesses.

 

[TNHarley]

If they do, it will set a precedent that every president from now on will have to throw away their previous lives to serve us for a few years. You know, since NOW that ridiculous shit matters.
And using a hotel for emoluments? Lol..
I dont want pols using their position for enrichment like most people but this is ridiculous
A fucking hotel room influencing a billionaire? Lol as if
And for the argument in the OP, I thought the world hated him? Why would they stay in his hotel simply because of who he is?
I am sure some people have stayed there simply because of trump but who gives a shit? He is a multi billionaire.. Did people buy obamas book simply because he was President? Sure. Where was the outrage? Where was the outrage when the State dept bought tens of thousands of copies?
Where was the outrage when ol jimmy sold peanuts while president?

 

[Confounding]

Did people buy obamas book simply because he was President? Sure. Where was the outrage? Where was the outrage when the State dept bought tens of thousands of copies?
Where was the outrage when ol jimmy sold peanuts while president?

There was partisan outrage over those things too; Jimmy actually had to sell his peanut farm.

 

[TNHarley]

Did people buy obamas book simply because he was President? Sure. Where was the outrage? Where was the outrage when the State dept bought tens of thousands of copies?
Where was the outrage when ol jimmy sold peanuts while president?

There was partisan outrage over those things too; Jimmy actually had to sell his peanut farm.

He sold it after i think. Thanks for reminding me he did put it in a blind trust though.
The people that ran it while he was president gave him a lot of debt.
I was referring to the outrage from the left though. I know there were some retards that got their panties in a twist our President wrote a book.
Partisanship brings out the worst in people. Its sad.

 

[OKTexas]

Did people buy obamas book simply because he was President? Sure. Where was the outrage? Where was the outrage when the State dept bought tens of thousands of copies?
Where was the outrage when ol jimmy sold peanuts while president?

There was partisan outrage over those things too; Jimmy actually had to sell his peanut farm.

Wrong, he turned it over to his mother and brother to operate, that's much different than sons, right?


.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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.

Isn't this like charging Obama under the Clean Water Act for his activities during the Foamy Parties at the Chicago bathhouses?

Silly stuff, Del