Subpoenas For Payments to Trump Properties; Emoluments Clause

[2aguy]

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

The President isn't covered by the emoluments clause dip stick....

 

[OKTexas]

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

Blah, blah, blah, right up to when a higher court overturns this dumbass judge.

An interesting article.

Five Things You Didn’t Know About the Emoluments Clause

4. It might not even apply to the president.
Even though the DOJ letter regarding Obama’s acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize said the president “surely” holds an “office of profit or trust” under the United States, not all constitutional scholars agree.

University of Chicago Law School constitutional law professor William Baudeexplains in The Journal of Things We Like (Lots) that “office” and “officer” may not have a static meaning in the Constitution. He points to the emoluments clause as an example.

“President George Washington publicly received gifts from French officials (the key to the French Bastille and a portrait of Louis XVI) without asking Congress’s permission,” Baude wrote. “This suggests that he was not subject to the Foreign Emoluments Clause, which applies to a ‘Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under [the United States].’ ”

He also notes that “in 1792, Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton was instructed to report to the Senate ‘every’ person holding ‘office … under the United States’ and their salaries. His ninety-page list included every appointed officer, including those in the legislature, such as the Clerk of the House, but excluded elected officials such as the President, Vice President, and members of Congress.”

“This suggests that some definitions of office will turn on whether one is elected rather than which branch one is in,” Baude wrote.

Five Things You Didn’t Know About the Emoluments Clause

.

 

[deanrd]

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

Democrats in the house are also going to look into it.

Jan 3rd, Democrats opening 85 investigations into Trump and the GOP. Finally, it's about time!!!!

 

[rightwinger]

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

The President isn't covered by the emoluments clause dip stick....

He specifically is

 

[bripat9643]

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

What "court" is that?

 

[bripat9643]

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

True, which is why Trump needs to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the deep state plot to stage a coup against Trump.

 

[edward37]

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

For trump we need lye soap

 

[bripat9643]

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

For trump we need lye soap

There is no soap that cleans out your brain damage.

 

[edward37]

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

For trump we need lye soap

There is no soap that cleans out your brain damage.

You support one with brain damage doesn't speak so well for you

 

[bripat9643]

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

For trump we need lye soap

There is no soap that cleans out your brain damage.

You support one with brain damage doesn't speak so well for you

Trump is perfectly rational.

 

[edward37]

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

For trump we need lye soap

There is no soap that cleans out your brain damage.

You support one with brain damage doesn't speak so well for you

Trump is perfectly rational.

Please don't hand me that BS bri Tell me you hated hillary ,obama but please don't don't tell me trump isn't one fucked up AH

 

[TheMoreYouKnow]

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

For trump we need lye soap

There is no soap that cleans out your brain damage.

You support one with brain damage doesn't speak so well for you

Trump is perfectly rational.

Except when he isn't which happens quite often, Bot!

 

[bripat9643]

Sunlight is the best disinfectant

For trump we need lye soap

There is no soap that cleans out your brain damage.

You support one with brain damage doesn't speak so well for you

Trump is perfectly rational.

Please don't hand me that BS bri Tell me you hated hillary ,obama but please don't don't tell me trump isn't one fucked up AH

Trump isn't a fucked up AH.

 

[edward37]

For trump we need lye soap

There is no soap that cleans out your brain damage.

You support one with brain damage doesn't speak so well for you

Trump is perfectly rational.

Please don't hand me that BS bri Tell me you hated hillary ,obama but please don't don't tell me trump isn't one fucked up AH

Trump isn't a fucked up AH.

Can't believe you can't see he is

 

[Thinker101]

For trump we need lye soap

There is no soap that cleans out your brain damage.

You support one with brain damage doesn't speak so well for you

Trump is perfectly rational.

Please don't hand me that BS bri Tell me you hated hillary ,obama but please don't don't tell me trump isn't one fucked up AH

Believe it or not...well believe it...Donnie is one stupid swindling son of a bitch....much worse are his supporters who have been grabbed by the puzzy. Bunch of punk asses...including the Russians bots who run the show on this board!

Dood, get a grip.

 

[candycorn]

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

The President isn't covered by the emoluments clause dip stick....

 

[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

Blah, blah, blah, right up to when a higher court overturns this dumbass judge.

Blah, blah, blah, right up to when a higher court overturns this dumbass judge.

You're far behind the curve, little one! Trump & Co. have drug this crap out since June 2017 and lost over 4 months ago.

The Crook-in-Chief and his minions have had since July 25 to appeal it to the Circuit Court of authority to whine about the decision, but obviously they never bothered, which is why Maryland and D.C. filed the discovery subpoena this week to continue their civil suit, FOOL! All the info you need to wise the fuck up I've already posted, child!

If you're going to continue to troll me just to do your sharp shooter thang, you pathetic poor looser little shit, at least read up on the topic so you don't keep walking on your tongue and convincing everyone you're, indeed, the fool and ass you seem. Happy Trails, Tex!

 

[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!

Thanks for the information.

 

[OKTexas]

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

Blah, blah, blah, right up to when a higher court overturns this dumbass judge.

Blah, blah, blah, right up to when a higher court overturns this dumbass judge.

You're far behind the curve, little one! Trump & Co. have drug this crap out since June 2017 and lost over 4 months ago.

The Crook-in-Chief and his minions have had since July 25 to appeal it to the Circuit Court of authority to whine about the decision, but obviously they never bothered, which is why Maryland and D.C. filed the discovery subpoena this week to continue their civil suit, FOOL! All the info you need to wise the fuck up I've already posted, child!

If you're going to continue to troll me just to do your sharp shooter thang, you pathetic poor looser little shit, at least read up on the topic so you don't keep walking on your tongue and convincing everyone you're, indeed, the fool and ass you seem. Happy Trails, Tex!

Child do you seriously think they will just comply with the subpoenas? Did you even bother to read the article I posted? BTW show me where the Constitution gives the courts any jurisdiction over emoluments. You children need to learn how to read and comprehend instead of just parroting what you're told to parrot.

.

 

[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

Blah, blah, blah, right up to when a higher court overturns this dumbass judge.

Blah, blah, blah, right up to when a higher court overturns this dumbass judge.

You're far behind the curve, little one! Trump & Co. have drug this crap out since June 2017 and lost over 4 months ago.

The Crook-in-Chief and his minions have had since July 25 to appeal it to the Circuit Court of authority to whine about the decision, but obviously they never bothered, which is why Maryland and D.C. filed the discovery subpoena this week to continue their civil suit, FOOL! All the info you need to wise the fuck up I've already posted, child!

If you're going to continue to troll me just to do your sharp shooter thang, you pathetic poor looser little shit, at least read up on the topic so you don't keep walking on your tongue and convincing everyone you're, indeed, the fool and ass you seem. Happy Trails, Tex!

Child do you seriously think they will just comply with the subpoenas? Did you even bother to read the article I posted? BTW show me where the Constitution gives the courts any jurisdiction over emoluments. You children need to learn how to read and comprehend instead of just parroting what you're told to parrot.

Child do you seriously think they will just comply with the subpoenas? Did you even bother to read the article I posted? BTW show me where the Constitution gives the courts any jurisdiction over emoluments. You children need to learn how to read and comprehend instead of just parroting what you're told to parrot.

Child do you seriously think they will just comply with the subpoenas?

So you're claiming that Trump & Co. are above the law and will defy District Court Judge Peter Messitte's ruling last July 25th as if Trump was a fucking Emperor? Foolish little boi! Where is his immunity from the law we common folk are required to follow? Pathetic thinking, Tex!

BTW show me where the Constitution gives the courts any jurisdiction over emoluments.

I've told you over and over little one, read and commit to memory what is contained within the four corners of the Great Contract with the People, but your pitiful dumb ass hasn't taken heed. Now pay attention this fucking time, little one, and check out:

Art. III, § 2;
"The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed." [Emphasis Added]
&
Art.VI, Cls. 2;
"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." [Emphasis Added]

You children need to learn how to read and comprehend instead of just parroting what you're told to parrot.

Exactly, you dim witted pile of cow flop! See ya around, little guy, and try to work up your own material rather throwing my thoughts back to cover and disguise your limitations, Tex. Now don't go to your room and take your frustrations out on another pillow, little fella'. Stop trolling my posts and you'll be rewarded with much less frustration, Lil' Tex!