Subpoenas For Payments to Trump Properties; Emoluments Clause

[Care4all]

Not sure if this is part of the Mueller investigation or not.

Keep in mind that the reason Trump’s name is on the subpoena MAY be because he’s President and records of the Executive Branch are being subpoenaed. Dunno. Good to see his name on a subpoena though. We’ll probably see a lot more of them. LOL

It's NOT Mueller, it is the State of Maryland that is suing him for breaking the emoluments clause of the constitution

http://oag.dc.gov/sites/default/files/2018-03/Trump-Amended-Complaint.pdf

How can the State of Maryland file as plaintiff under the auspices of "District of Columbia"?

Clue: They can't.....The document in the OP is likely a fake.

i'm sorry, the State of Maryland and the District of Columbia are both plaintiffs, not just Maryland.
I don't know if the op document is fake.... likely it is not. The case/suit was ruled to have merit is what was in the News not long ago and the request to dismiss it was denied. So this would give ''discovery'' processes... and finding out the information in the op document would be permitted and needed for the suit to be able to go forward... imo.

I'm certain with a few minutes of time it can be searched and we could find out for certain in the Public records if it is real... which I will try to spend this time, and find out.... I'll post what I can find on it... when I have the time...

 

[Care4all]

Not sure if this is part of the Mueller investigation or not.

Keep in mind that the reason Trump’s name is on the subpoena MAY be because he’s President and records of the Executive Branch are being subpoenaed. Dunno. Good to see his name on a subpoena though. We’ll probably see a lot more of them. LOL

It's NOT Mueller, it is the State of Maryland that is suing him for breaking the emoluments clause of the constitution

http://oag.dc.gov/sites/default/files/2018-03/Trump-Amended-Complaint.pdf

and that is dated 02/23/18...….

they filed suit, Trump lawyers fought it and tried to have the case dismissed, the judge recently ruled the suit had merit, and could go forward.... I guess that all took some time?

 

[Care4all]

this is a Civil Suit, not a Criminal Case...

 

[Care4all]

Not sure if this is part of the Mueller investigation or not.

Keep in mind that the reason Trump’s name is on the subpoena MAY be because he’s President and records of the Executive Branch are being subpoenaed. Dunno. Good to see his name on a subpoena though. We’ll probably see a lot more of them. LOL

It's NOT Mueller, it is the State of Maryland that is suing him for breaking the emoluments clause of the constitution

http://oag.dc.gov/sites/default/files/2018-03/Trump-Amended-Complaint.pdf

How can the State of Maryland file as plaintiff under the auspices of "District of Columbia"?

Clue: They can't.....The document in the OP is likely a fake.

i'm sorry, the State of Maryland and the District of Columbia are both plaintiffs, not just Maryland.
I don't know if the op document is fake.... likely it is not. The case/suit was ruled to have merit is what was in the News not long ago and the request to dismiss it was denied. So this would give ''discovery'' processes... and finding out the information in the op document would be permitted and needed for the suit to be able to go forward... imo.

I'm certain with a few minutes of time it can be searched and we could find out for certain in the Public records if it is real... which I will try to spend this time, and find out.... I'll post what I can find on it... when I have the time...

here it is....
the public document is real in the op...

http://oag.dc.gov/sites/default/files/2018-12/Emoluments-Trump-Organization-Subpoenas.pdf

that document and 255 other pages... same link Candy gave... it is a government link

 

[bripat9643]

Saw this on Twitter; Trump is named as the defendant.

View attachment 232826

http://oag.dc.gov/sites/default/files/2018-12/Emoluments-Federal-Government-Subpoenas.pdf

Just by looking at it, they seem to be probing possible violations of the Emoluments clause

They're barking at the moon, just like you do on this forum every day.

 

[Snouter]

Jake E. Lee discusses the proper way to play it.

 

[candycorn]

Not sure if this is part of the Mueller investigation or not.

Keep in mind that the reason Trump’s name is on the subpoena MAY be because he’s President and records of the Executive Branch are being subpoenaed. Dunno. Good to see his name on a subpoena though. We’ll probably see a lot more of them. LOL

It's NOT Mueller, it is the State of Maryland that is suing him for breaking the emoluments clause of the constitution

http://oag.dc.gov/sites/default/files/2018-03/Trump-Amended-Complaint.pdf

and that is dated 02/23/18...….

Incorrect:

 

[candycorn]

Subpoenas legally mean nothing. They legally define the scope of what is requested. But it’s pretty clear what the prosecutors are going after….

 

[MisterBeale]

Subpoenas Coming Soon In Trump Emoluments Lawsuit

Not sure if this is part of the Mueller investigation or not.

Keep in mind that the reason Trump’s name is on the subpoena MAY be because he’s President and records of the Executive Branch are being subpoenaed. Dunno. Good to see his name on a subpoena though. We’ll probably see a lot more of them. LOL

Would it have been good to see Obama's name on a subpoena?

If he committed a crime, absolutely

He did commit a crime.

I find your ignorance appalling.


ACLU & CCR Lawsuit: American Boy Killed By U.S. Drone Strike

Habeas corpus - Wikipedia

 

[BlackFlag]

Subpoenas Coming Soon In Trump Emoluments Lawsuit

Not sure if this is part of the Mueller investigation or not.

Keep in mind that the reason Trump’s name is on the subpoena MAY be because he’s President and records of the Executive Branch are being subpoenaed. Dunno. Good to see his name on a subpoena though. We’ll probably see a lot more of them. LOL

Would it have been good to see Obama's name on a subpoena?

If he committed a crime, absolutely

He did commit a crime.

I find your ignorance appalling.


ACLU & CCR Lawsuit: American Boy Killed By U.S. Drone Strike

Habeas corpus - Wikipedia

Trump Ramped Up Drone Strikes in America’s Shadow Wars

Eight-year-old American girl 'killed in Yemen raid approved by Trump'

 

[Wyatt earp]

Saw this on Twitter; Trump is named as the defendant.

View attachment 232826

http://oag.dc.gov/sites/default/files/2018-12/Emoluments-Federal-Government-Subpoenas.pdf

Just by looking at it, they seem to be probing possible violations of the Emoluments clause

George Washington had guest over at valley forge. This is as meaningless as the Logan act.



.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

For every fool calling the OP fake news and/or deriding the content irrelevant in some manner, here is the very basis for the subpoena and orders noted in the OP.

"Judge Peter Messitte denied President Trump’s motion to dismiss in July of 2018 ruling that the Emoluments Clauses, put in place by the framers of the Constitution to protect against corruption, are broad and can be enforced in court. The decision gave Plaintiffs D.C. and Maryland the legal standing to sue. Read the decision here."
~~ THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE STATE OF MARYLAND V. DONALD J. TRUMP - CREW ~~

Here is the decision handed down by Judge Messitte DENYING Trump's attempt to quash the civil suit regarding his profiteering from the WH from last July 25th;
~~ https://s3.amazonaws.com/storage.ci...18/07/25161515/2018-07-25-123-MTD-Opinion.pdf ~~

That decision to quash Trump's response to the suit, presented directly above, allowed the Order noted in the OP to be issued by the Court. All of it quite legal under the law! Additional documentation regarding the case can be found in the listing below;

• Complaint - Jun. 12 2017
• Memorandum In Support of Government's Motion To Dismiss - Sept. 29 2017
• Scholar Seth Barrett Tillman / Judicial Educational Project Amicus in Support Of The Defendant - Oct. 6 2017
• Plaintiff's Motion For Leave To Serve Document Preservation Subpeonas - Oct. 25 2017
• List of Entities To Receive Preservation Subpoena 2017
• List of Documents To Be Preserved Pursuant to Subpoena Definitions - Oct. 25 2017
• Defendant's Response to Motion For Leave To Serve Document Preservation Subpoenas - Oct.27 2017
• Reply In Support of Plaintiff's Motion For Leave To Serve Document Preservation Subpeonas - Nov. 2 2017
• Memorandum In Support of Plaintiff's Opposition To Motion To Dismiss - Nov. 7 2017
• Declaration of Rachel J Roginsky - Nov.7 2017
• Expert Declaration of Christopher C. Muller, PH.D. - Nov.7 2017
• Former Government Ethics Officers Amici Curiae Supporting Plaintiffs - Nov. 14 2017
• Sarah P. Chayes Amica Curiae In Support of The Plaintiffs - Nov. 14 2017
• Administrative Law, Constitutional Law, and Federal Court Scholars Amici Curiae In Support of Plaintiffs - Nov. 14 2017
• Brief of Admin Law, Constitutional Law, and Federal Court Scholars Amici Curiae In Support of Plaintiffs - Nov. 14 2017
• Former National Security Officials Amici Curiae In Support of Plaintiff' - Nov.14 2017
• Legal Historian's Brief of Amici Curiae on Behalf of Plaintiffs - Nov. 14 2017
• Government's Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss - Dec. 1 2017
• Oral Argument Order - Dec. 17 2017
• Amended Complaint - Mar. 12 2018
• Opinion on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss - Mar. 28 2018
• Order on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss - Mar. 28 2018
• Plaintiff's Opposition to Motion to Dismiss - May 18 2018
• Declaration of Brandon Brockmyer In Support of Plaintiff's Opposition to Motion to Dismiss - May 18 2018
• Exhibits- Dec. of Brandon Brockmyer - May 18 2018
• Defendant's Reply In Support of Motion to Dismiss - May 25 2018
• Court Opinion - July 25, 2018

 

[Lesh]

A word of caution.

While emoluments unapproved by Congress are a breach of the Constitution...it's unlikely that they lead to impeachment and certainly not indictment (by themselves). They likely would lead to a demand by Congress for divestment.

More importantly, it's what a court case involving those emoluments would reveal

 

[Siete]

"District of Columbia" as plaintiff?...By whose authority?

By who's motherfucking authority, indeed...

stupid shit RW's dont have a f'n clue where DC is ..

 

[MisterBeale]

Subpoenas Coming Soon In Trump Emoluments Lawsuit

Would it have been good to see Obama's name on a subpoena?

If he committed a crime, absolutely

He did commit a crime.

I find your ignorance appalling.


ACLU & CCR Lawsuit: American Boy Killed By U.S. Drone Strike

Habeas corpus - Wikipedia

Trump Ramped Up Drone Strikes in America’s Shadow Wars

Eight-year-old American girl 'killed in Yemen raid approved by Trump'

And?

 

[candycorn]

For every fool calling the OP fake news and/or deriding the content irrelevant in some manner, here is the very basis for the subpoena and orders noted in the OP.

"Judge Peter Messitte denied President Trump’s motion to dismiss in July of 2018 ruling that the Emoluments Clauses, put in place by the framers of the Constitution to protect against corruption, are broad and can be enforced in court. The decision gave Plaintiffs D.C. and Maryland the legal standing to sue. Read the decision here."
~~ THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE STATE OF MARYLAND V. DONALD J. TRUMP - CREW ~~

Here is the decision handed down by Judge Messitte DENYING Trump's attempt to quash the civil suit regarding his profiteering from the WH from last July 25th;
~~ https://s3.amazonaws.com/storage.ci...18/07/25161515/2018-07-25-123-MTD-Opinion.pdf ~~

That decision to quash Trump's response to the suit, presented directly above, allowed the Order noted in the OP to be issued by the Court. All of it quite legal under the law! Additional documentation regarding the case can be found in the listing below;

• Complaint - Jun. 12 2017
• Memorandum In Support of Government's Motion To Dismiss - Sept. 29 2017
• Scholar Seth Barrett Tillman / Judicial Educational Project Amicus in Support Of The Defendant - Oct. 6 2017
• Plaintiff's Motion For Leave To Serve Document Preservation Subpeonas - Oct. 25 2017
• List of Entities To Receive Preservation Subpoena 2017
• List of Documents To Be Preserved Pursuant to Subpoena Definitions - Oct. 25 2017
• Defendant's Response to Motion For Leave To Serve Document Preservation Subpoenas - Oct.27 2017
• Reply In Support of Plaintiff's Motion For Leave To Serve Document Preservation Subpeonas - Nov. 2 2017
• Memorandum In Support of Plaintiff's Opposition To Motion To Dismiss - Nov. 7 2017
• Declaration of Rachel J Roginsky - Nov.7 2017
• Expert Declaration of Christopher C. Muller, PH.D. - Nov.7 2017
• Former Government Ethics Officers Amici Curiae Supporting Plaintiffs - Nov. 14 2017
• Sarah P. Chayes Amica Curiae In Support of The Plaintiffs - Nov. 14 2017
• Administrative Law, Constitutional Law, and Federal Court Scholars Amici Curiae In Support of Plaintiffs - Nov. 14 2017
• Brief of Admin Law, Constitutional Law, and Federal Court Scholars Amici Curiae In Support of Plaintiffs - Nov. 14 2017
• Former National Security Officials Amici Curiae In Support of Plaintiff' - Nov.14 2017
• Legal Historian's Brief of Amici Curiae on Behalf of Plaintiffs - Nov. 14 2017
• Government's Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss - Dec. 1 2017
• Oral Argument Order - Dec. 17 2017
• Amended Complaint - Mar. 12 2018
• Opinion on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss - Mar. 28 2018
• Order on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss - Mar. 28 2018
• Plaintiff's Opposition to Motion to Dismiss - May 18 2018
• Declaration of Brandon Brockmyer In Support of Plaintiff's Opposition to Motion to Dismiss - May 18 2018
• Exhibits- Dec. of Brandon Brockmyer - May 18 2018
• Defendant's Reply In Support of Motion to Dismiss - May 25 2018
• Court Opinion - July 25, 2018

I’m the OP and I don’t know how relevant it is. I do know that it looks like the prosecutors or investigators or whatever you want to call them is going after the records of money the Government is spending at Trump properties and investigating whether or not the President is on a spree of self-enrichment as a result.

What is sort of a “things that make you go hmmmm” thing to me is (maybe I missed it) is the subpoenaing of records of monies spent at specific properties and apparently not Mara Lago.

When investigations get focused, that is when they get serious; I know that from my job at internal audit. From time to time, I have to look at the work of others and you start off very general; give me the records from who was in our ER on 1/1/2000 for example. Then you request the chart of a Jane Doe to see what tests were run. Sometimes there is just a reference to a procedure without the record itself… Then you have to request that record. It’s like a funnel. The link in the OP seems awfully specific.

Care4all supplied an additional link to additional subpoenas which would give me pause if I were the target; specifically #2:

I’m not a lawyer but it sounds like the sharks are circling. Perhaps they have been circling for a long time…maybe not… Its just a subpoena; not a judgement so we’ll see what happens.

Sounds serious to me.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

For every fool calling the OP fake news and/or deriding the content irrelevant in some manner, here is the very basis for the subpoena and orders noted in the OP.

"Judge Peter Messitte denied President Trump’s motion to dismiss in July of 2018 ruling that the Emoluments Clauses, put in place by the framers of the Constitution to protect against corruption, are broad and can be enforced in court. The decision gave Plaintiffs D.C. and Maryland the legal standing to sue. Read the decision here."
~~ THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE STATE OF MARYLAND V. DONALD J. TRUMP - CREW ~~

Here is the decision handed down by Judge Messitte DENYING Trump's attempt to quash the civil suit regarding his profiteering from the WH from last July 25th;
~~ https://s3.amazonaws.com/storage.ci...18/07/25161515/2018-07-25-123-MTD-Opinion.pdf ~~

That decision to quash Trump's response to the suit, presented directly above, allowed the Order noted in the OP to be issued by the Court. All of it quite legal under the law! Additional documentation regarding the case can be found in the listing below;

• Complaint - Jun. 12 2017
• Memorandum In Support of Government's Motion To Dismiss - Sept. 29 2017
• Scholar Seth Barrett Tillman / Judicial Educational Project Amicus in Support Of The Defendant - Oct. 6 2017
• Plaintiff's Motion For Leave To Serve Document Preservation Subpeonas - Oct. 25 2017
• List of Entities To Receive Preservation Subpoena 2017
• List of Documents To Be Preserved Pursuant to Subpoena Definitions - Oct. 25 2017
• Defendant's Response to Motion For Leave To Serve Document Preservation Subpoenas - Oct.27 2017
• Reply In Support of Plaintiff's Motion For Leave To Serve Document Preservation Subpeonas - Nov. 2 2017
• Memorandum In Support of Plaintiff's Opposition To Motion To Dismiss - Nov. 7 2017
• Declaration of Rachel J Roginsky - Nov.7 2017
• Expert Declaration of Christopher C. Muller, PH.D. - Nov.7 2017
• Former Government Ethics Officers Amici Curiae Supporting Plaintiffs - Nov. 14 2017
• Sarah P. Chayes Amica Curiae In Support of The Plaintiffs - Nov. 14 2017
• Administrative Law, Constitutional Law, and Federal Court Scholars Amici Curiae In Support of Plaintiffs - Nov. 14 2017
• Brief of Admin Law, Constitutional Law, and Federal Court Scholars Amici Curiae In Support of Plaintiffs - Nov. 14 2017
• Former National Security Officials Amici Curiae In Support of Plaintiff' - Nov.14 2017
• Legal Historian's Brief of Amici Curiae on Behalf of Plaintiffs - Nov. 14 2017
• Government's Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss - Dec. 1 2017
• Oral Argument Order - Dec. 17 2017
• Amended Complaint - Mar. 12 2018
• Opinion on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss - Mar. 28 2018
• Order on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss - Mar. 28 2018
• Plaintiff's Opposition to Motion to Dismiss - May 18 2018
• Declaration of Brandon Brockmyer In Support of Plaintiff's Opposition to Motion to Dismiss - May 18 2018
• Exhibits- Dec. of Brandon Brockmyer - May 18 2018
• Defendant's Reply In Support of Motion to Dismiss - May 25 2018
• Court Opinion - July 25, 2018

I’m the OP and I don’t know how relevant it is. I do know that it looks like the prosecutors or investigators or whatever you want to call them is going after the records of money the Government is spending at Trump properties and investigating whether or not the President is on a spree of self-enrichment as a result.

What is sort of a “things that make you go hmmmm” thing to me is (maybe I missed it) is the subpoenaing of records of monies spent at specific properties and apparently not Mara Lago.

When investigations get focused, that is when they get serious; I know that from my job at internal audit. From time to time, I have to look at the work of others and you start off very general; give me the records from who was in our ER on 1/1/2000 for example. Then you request the chart of a Jane Doe to see what tests were run. Sometimes there is just a reference to a procedure without the record itself… Then you have to request that record. It’s like a funnel. The link in the OP seems awfully specific.

Care4all supplied an additional link to additional subpoenas which would give me pause if I were the target; specifically #2:

View attachment 232910

I’m not a lawyer but it sounds like the sharks are circling. Perhaps they have been circling for a long time…maybe not… Its just a subpoena; not a judgement so we’ll see what happens.

Sounds serious to me.

Full disclosure... no JD in my CV here either!

What is sort of a “things that make you go hmmmm” thing to me is (maybe I missed it) is the subpoenaing of records of monies spent at specific properties and apparently not Mara Lago.

The very first thing that comes to my mind is the reason for the path of a civil action vice the criminal path; the question of standing first and foremost. Maryland and D.C. could and did have that question properly settled in July. However, they do not have the prosecutorial authority to criminally adjudicate issues under the US Code. I believe what D.C. & Maryland wanted most was to get the truth about the Trump using his office for grifting and self-enrichment, while targeting the easily spotted low hanging fruit and to move on from there.

This civil suit is separate and distinct from those investigations going on under Mueller , New York, Southern, et al, under the penumbra of the "Russia Investigation" and those issues directly related, including emoluments. There's a lot of folks out there representing taxpayers with axes to grind looking for answers to how our Ship of State ran so foully aground. Trump's a damn crook hanging an albatross around our Nation's neck!

But there could be cross pollination going on between the civil and criminal investigations given the limitations of the of one to the other such as getting a subpoena for certain items by one being barred for the other. But who knows. We'll wait a few more weeks to see what breaks...it will be soon, I believe, and the sooner the better for the nation before Trump spends away the greater part of US reputation and trust with our allies, the Damn fool!

 

[candycorn]

For every fool calling the OP fake news and/or deriding the content irrelevant in some manner, here is the very basis for the subpoena and orders noted in the OP.

"Judge Peter Messitte denied President Trump’s motion to dismiss in July of 2018 ruling that the Emoluments Clauses, put in place by the framers of the Constitution to protect against corruption, are broad and can be enforced in court. The decision gave Plaintiffs D.C. and Maryland the legal standing to sue. Read the decision here."
~~ THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE STATE OF MARYLAND V. DONALD J. TRUMP - CREW ~~

Here is the decision handed down by Judge Messitte DENYING Trump's attempt to quash the civil suit regarding his profiteering from the WH from last July 25th;
~~ https://s3.amazonaws.com/storage.ci...18/07/25161515/2018-07-25-123-MTD-Opinion.pdf ~~

That decision to quash Trump's response to the suit, presented directly above, allowed the Order noted in the OP to be issued by the Court. All of it quite legal under the law! Additional documentation regarding the case can be found in the listing below;

• Complaint - Jun. 12 2017
• Memorandum In Support of Government's Motion To Dismiss - Sept. 29 2017
• Scholar Seth Barrett Tillman / Judicial Educational Project Amicus in Support Of The Defendant - Oct. 6 2017
• Plaintiff's Motion For Leave To Serve Document Preservation Subpeonas - Oct. 25 2017
• List of Entities To Receive Preservation Subpoena 2017
• List of Documents To Be Preserved Pursuant to Subpoena Definitions - Oct. 25 2017
• Defendant's Response to Motion For Leave To Serve Document Preservation Subpoenas - Oct.27 2017
• Reply In Support of Plaintiff's Motion For Leave To Serve Document Preservation Subpeonas - Nov. 2 2017
• Memorandum In Support of Plaintiff's Opposition To Motion To Dismiss - Nov. 7 2017
• Declaration of Rachel J Roginsky - Nov.7 2017
• Expert Declaration of Christopher C. Muller, PH.D. - Nov.7 2017
• Former Government Ethics Officers Amici Curiae Supporting Plaintiffs - Nov. 14 2017
• Sarah P. Chayes Amica Curiae In Support of The Plaintiffs - Nov. 14 2017
• Administrative Law, Constitutional Law, and Federal Court Scholars Amici Curiae In Support of Plaintiffs - Nov. 14 2017
• Brief of Admin Law, Constitutional Law, and Federal Court Scholars Amici Curiae In Support of Plaintiffs - Nov. 14 2017
• Former National Security Officials Amici Curiae In Support of Plaintiff' - Nov.14 2017
• Legal Historian's Brief of Amici Curiae on Behalf of Plaintiffs - Nov. 14 2017
• Government's Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss - Dec. 1 2017
• Oral Argument Order - Dec. 17 2017
• Amended Complaint - Mar. 12 2018
• Opinion on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss - Mar. 28 2018
• Order on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss - Mar. 28 2018
• Plaintiff's Opposition to Motion to Dismiss - May 18 2018
• Declaration of Brandon Brockmyer In Support of Plaintiff's Opposition to Motion to Dismiss - May 18 2018
• Exhibits- Dec. of Brandon Brockmyer - May 18 2018
• Defendant's Reply In Support of Motion to Dismiss - May 25 2018
• Court Opinion - July 25, 2018

I’m the OP and I don’t know how relevant it is. I do know that it looks like the prosecutors or investigators or whatever you want to call them is going after the records of money the Government is spending at Trump properties and investigating whether or not the President is on a spree of self-enrichment as a result.

What is sort of a “things that make you go hmmmm” thing to me is (maybe I missed it) is the subpoenaing of records of monies spent at specific properties and apparently not Mara Lago.

When investigations get focused, that is when they get serious; I know that from my job at internal audit. From time to time, I have to look at the work of others and you start off very general; give me the records from who was in our ER on 1/1/2000 for example. Then you request the chart of a Jane Doe to see what tests were run. Sometimes there is just a reference to a procedure without the record itself… Then you have to request that record. It’s like a funnel. The link in the OP seems awfully specific.

Care4all supplied an additional link to additional subpoenas which would give me pause if I were the target; specifically #2:

View attachment 232910

I’m not a lawyer but it sounds like the sharks are circling. Perhaps they have been circling for a long time…maybe not… Its just a subpoena; not a judgement so we’ll see what happens.

Sounds serious to me.

Full disclosure... no JD in my CV here either!

What is sort of a “things that make you go hmmmm” thing to me is (maybe I missed it) is the subpoenaing of records of monies spent at specific properties and apparently not Mara Lago.

The very first thing that comes to my mind is the reason for the path of a civil action vice the criminal path; the question of standing first and foremost. Maryland and D.C. could and did have that question properly settled in July. However, they do not have the prosecutorial authority to criminally adjudicate issues under the US Code. I believe what D.C. & Maryland wanted most was to get the truth about the Trump using his office for grifting and self-enrichment, while targeting the easily spotted low hanging fruit and to move on from there.

This civil suit is separate and distinct from those investigations going on under Mueller , New York, Southern, et al, under the penumbra of the "Russia Investigation" and those issues directly related, including emoluments. There's a lot of folks out there representing taxpayers with axes to grind looking for answers to how our Ship of State ran so foully aground. Trump's a damn crook hanging an albatross around our Nation's neck!

But there could be cross pollination going on between the civil and criminal investigations given the limitations of the of one to the other such as getting a subpoena for certain items by one being barred for the other. But who knows. We'll wait a few more weeks to see what breaks...it will be soon, I believe, and the sooner the better for the nation before Trump spends away the greater part of US reputation and trust with our allies, the Damn fool!

Its likely nothing...but when a court is subpoenaing your tax returns, I doubt too many who are targeted look at it as a positive thing

 

[Lesh]

when a court is subpoenaing your tax returns, I doubt too many who are targeted look at it as a positive
thing

Sunlight is the best disinfectant

 

[JustAnotherNut]

Not sure if this is part of the Mueller investigation or not.

Keep in mind that the reason Trump’s name is on the subpoena MAY be because he’s President and records of the Executive Branch are being subpoenaed. Dunno. Good to see his name on a subpoena though. We’ll probably see a lot more of them. LOL

It's NOT Mueller, it is the State of Maryland that is suing him for breaking the emoluments clause of the constitution

http://oag.dc.gov/sites/default/files/2018-03/Trump-Amended-Complaint.pdf

and that is dated 02/23/18...….

Incorrect:

View attachment 232858

I wasn't referring to your link but to Care4all's.


For some reason I had thought you've been here long enough to know how to follow a string of quotes to know I wasn't talking to you. My bad