Trump just lied about the Emoluments Suit on live TV.

deanrd

Gold Member
Joined
May 8, 2017
Messages
29,412
Reaction score
3,610
Points
290
Appeals court tosses Democrats' emoluments lawsuit against Trump - CNNPolitics

Washington (CNN)A federal appeals court on Friday dismissed a lawsuit by congressional Democrats alleging President Donald Trump violated the emoluments clause of the Constitution by refusing to allow lawmakers to review and approve his financial interests.

(Sounds like Trump scored a major victory.........until you dig a little deeper)

"Our conclusion is straightforward because the Members -- 29 Senators and 186 Members of the House of Representatives -- do not constitute a majority of either body and are, therefore, powerless to approve or deny the President's acceptance of foreign emoluments."

(They are saying that there weren't enough Democrats signed on to the suit)

The Democrats originally filed the lawsuit in 2017, before the party held power in the House of Representatives.
"The Members can, and likely will, continue to use their weighty voices to make their case to the American people, their colleagues in the Congress and the President himself, all of whom are free to engage that argument as they see fit," the ruling states. "But we will not -- indeed we cannot -- participate in this debate.

(Well, it's a new day. There are two other Emolument Suits moving forward and Democrats control the house so this isn't as big a victory as being reported.)
 
OP
deanrd

deanrd

Gold Member
Joined
May 8, 2017
Messages
29,412
Reaction score
3,610
Points
290
Oh, and the lie?

Trump said this was ruled on by the entire Supreme Count and they were in unanimous agreement.

Wrong or lie?

It was ruled on by the three judge court of appeals. And the Court of Appeals judges gave instruction on how to win.
 

depotoo

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2012
Messages
40,605
Reaction score
13,256
Points
2,280
Appeals court tosses Democrats' emoluments lawsuit against Trump - CNNPolitics

Washington (CNN)A federal appeals court on Friday dismissed a lawsuit by congressional Democrats alleging President Donald Trump violated the emoluments clause of the Constitution by refusing to allow lawmakers to review and approve his financial interests.

(Sounds like Trump scored a major victory.........until you dig a little deeper)

"Our conclusion is straightforward because the Members -- 29 Senators and 186 Members of the House of Representatives -- do not constitute a majority of either body and are, therefore, powerless to approve or deny the President's acceptance of foreign emoluments."

(They are saying that there weren't enough Democrats signed on to the suit)

The Democrats originally filed the lawsuit in 2017, before the party held power in the House of Representatives.
"The Members can, and likely will, continue to use their weighty voices to make their case to the American people, their colleagues in the Congress and the President himself, all of whom are free to engage that argument as they see fit," the ruling states. "But we will not -- indeed we cannot -- participate in this debate.

(Well, it's a new day. There are two other Emolument Suits moving forward and Democrats control the house so this isn't as big a victory as being reported.)
Someone needs to get new sources.


The District and Maryland’s theory of proprietary harm hinges on the conclusion that government customers are patronizing the Hotel because the Hotel distributes profits or dividends to the President, rather than due to any of the Hotel’s other characteristics,” Niemeyer wrote.

“Such a conclusion, however, requires speculation into the subjective motives of independent actors who are not before the court, undermining a finding of causation.”

Niemeyer indicated that the Trump name may be more of a liability for the luxury hotel at this point, than a benefit.
“Indeed, there is a distinct possibility — which was completely ignored by the District and Maryland, as well as by the district court — that certain government officials might avoid patronizing the Hotel because of the President’s association with it,” the judge wrote.

“The District and Maryland’s theory of proprietary harm hinges on the conclusion that government customers are patronizing the Hotel because the Hotel distributes profits or dividends to the President, rather than due to any of the Hotel’s other characteristics,” Niemeyer wrote.

“Such a conclusion, however, requires speculation into the subjective motives of independent actors who are not before the court, undermining a finding of causation.”

Niemeyer indicated that the Trump name may be more of a liability for the luxury hotel at this point, than a benefit.
Appeals court tosses emoluments suit against Trump
 

Jitss617

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2019
Messages
39,091
Reaction score
9,283
Points
1,340
I love how the world leaders want to stay at his resorts! Hell I would to! They are beautiful!
 

depotoo

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2012
Messages
40,605
Reaction score
13,256
Points
2,280
And he said the DC Circuit, not the SC.
 

tyroneweaver

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2012
Messages
20,009
Reaction score
4,300
Points
280
Location
Burley, Idaho
Appeals court tosses Democrats' emoluments lawsuit against Trump - CNNPolitics

Washington (CNN)A federal appeals court on Friday dismissed a lawsuit by congressional Democrats alleging President Donald Trump violated the emoluments clause of the Constitution by refusing to allow lawmakers to review and approve his financial interests.

(Sounds like Trump scored a major victory.........until you dig a little deeper)

"Our conclusion is straightforward because the Members -- 29 Senators and 186 Members of the House of Representatives -- do not constitute a majority of either body and are, therefore, powerless to approve or deny the President's acceptance of foreign emoluments."

(They are saying that there weren't enough Democrats signed on to the suit)

The Democrats originally filed the lawsuit in 2017, before the party held power in the House of Representatives.
"The Members can, and likely will, continue to use their weighty voices to make their case to the American people, their colleagues in the Congress and the President himself, all of whom are free to engage that argument as they see fit," the ruling states. "But we will not -- indeed we cannot -- participate in this debate.

(Well, it's a new day. There are two other Emolument Suits moving forward and Democrats control the house so this isn't as big a victory as being reported.)
This sorta stuff is pretty far down the food chain compared to a Behghazi or nation toppling or selling m16s to mexican gangs.
 
OP
deanrd

deanrd

Gold Member
Joined
May 8, 2017
Messages
29,412
Reaction score
3,610
Points
290
Appeals court tosses Democrats' emoluments lawsuit against Trump - CNNPolitics

Washington (CNN)A federal appeals court on Friday dismissed a lawsuit by congressional Democrats alleging President Donald Trump violated the emoluments clause of the Constitution by refusing to allow lawmakers to review and approve his financial interests.

(Sounds like Trump scored a major victory.........until you dig a little deeper)

"Our conclusion is straightforward because the Members -- 29 Senators and 186 Members of the House of Representatives -- do not constitute a majority of either body and are, therefore, powerless to approve or deny the President's acceptance of foreign emoluments."

(They are saying that there weren't enough Democrats signed on to the suit)

The Democrats originally filed the lawsuit in 2017, before the party held power in the House of Representatives.
"The Members can, and likely will, continue to use their weighty voices to make their case to the American people, their colleagues in the Congress and the President himself, all of whom are free to engage that argument as they see fit," the ruling states. "But we will not -- indeed we cannot -- participate in this debate.

(Well, it's a new day. There are two other Emolument Suits moving forward and Democrats control the house so this isn't as big a victory as being reported.)
Someone needs to get new sources.


The District and Maryland’s theory of proprietary harm hinges on the conclusion that government customers are patronizing the Hotel because the Hotel distributes profits or dividends to the President, rather than due to any of the Hotel’s other characteristics,” Niemeyer wrote.

“Such a conclusion, however, requires speculation into the subjective motives of independent actors who are not before the court, undermining a finding of causation.”

Niemeyer indicated that the Trump name may be more of a liability for the luxury hotel at this point, than a benefit.
“Indeed, there is a distinct possibility — which was completely ignored by the District and Maryland, as well as by the district court — that certain government officials might avoid patronizing the Hotel because of the President’s association with it,” the judge wrote.

“The District and Maryland’s theory of proprietary harm hinges on the conclusion that government customers are patronizing the Hotel because the Hotel distributes profits or dividends to the President, rather than due to any of the Hotel’s other characteristics,” Niemeyer wrote.

“Such a conclusion, however, requires speculation into the subjective motives of independent actors who are not before the court, undermining a finding of causation.”

Niemeyer indicated that the Trump name may be more of a liability for the luxury hotel at this point, than a benefit.
Appeals court tosses emoluments suit against Trump
You are pointing to a suit from last year.

By JOSH GERSTEIN


07/10/2019 11:53 AM EDT


Updated 07/10/2019 01:24 PM EDT
 

bigrebnc1775

][][][% NC Sheepdog
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
78,929
Reaction score
9,840
Points
2,070
Location
Kannapolis, N.C.
Appeals court tosses Democrats' emoluments lawsuit against Trump - CNNPolitics

Washington (CNN)A federal appeals court on Friday dismissed a lawsuit by congressional Democrats alleging President Donald Trump violated the emoluments clause of the Constitution by refusing to allow lawmakers to review and approve his financial interests.

(Sounds like Trump scored a major victory.........until you dig a little deeper)

"Our conclusion is straightforward because the Members -- 29 Senators and 186 Members of the House of Representatives -- do not constitute a majority of either body and are, therefore, powerless to approve or deny the President's acceptance of foreign emoluments."

(They are saying that there weren't enough Democrats signed on to the suit)

The Democrats originally filed the lawsuit in 2017, before the party held power in the House of Representatives.
"The Members can, and likely will, continue to use their weighty voices to make their case to the American people, their colleagues in the Congress and the President himself, all of whom are free to engage that argument as they see fit," the ruling states. "But we will not -- indeed we cannot -- participate in this debate.

(Well, it's a new day. There are two other Emolument Suits moving forward and Democrats control the house so this isn't as big a victory as being reported.)
George Washington paid a man to rent Mount Vernon Home to British dignitaries while he was President
The emoluments clause does not apply to pre-existing business or property.
 
OP
deanrd

deanrd

Gold Member
Joined
May 8, 2017
Messages
29,412
Reaction score
3,610
Points
290
Appeals court tosses Democrats' emoluments lawsuit against Trump - CNNPolitics

Washington (CNN)A federal appeals court on Friday dismissed a lawsuit by congressional Democrats alleging President Donald Trump violated the emoluments clause of the Constitution by refusing to allow lawmakers to review and approve his financial interests.

(Sounds like Trump scored a major victory.........until you dig a little deeper)

"Our conclusion is straightforward because the Members -- 29 Senators and 186 Members of the House of Representatives -- do not constitute a majority of either body and are, therefore, powerless to approve or deny the President's acceptance of foreign emoluments."

(They are saying that there weren't enough Democrats signed on to the suit)

The Democrats originally filed the lawsuit in 2017, before the party held power in the House of Representatives.
"The Members can, and likely will, continue to use their weighty voices to make their case to the American people, their colleagues in the Congress and the President himself, all of whom are free to engage that argument as they see fit," the ruling states. "But we will not -- indeed we cannot -- participate in this debate.

(Well, it's a new day. There are two other Emolument Suits moving forward and Democrats control the house so this isn't as big a victory as being reported.)
This sorta stuff is pretty far down the food chain compared to a Behghazi or nation toppling or selling m16s to mexican gangs.
Since Benghazi had ten separate investigations over many years, Democrats have a way to go.

But look at what happened so far:



Remember, Obama had zero when Republicans controlled both the House and the Senate throughout most of his two terms. And just Benghazi alone had ten separate investigations. How do you guys explain that? :popcorn:
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
62,225
Reaction score
11,219
Points
2,030
Location
Chicago
Appeals court tosses Democrats' emoluments lawsuit against Trump - CNNPolitics

Washington (CNN)A federal appeals court on Friday dismissed a lawsuit by congressional Democrats alleging President Donald Trump violated the emoluments clause of the Constitution by refusing to allow lawmakers to review and approve his financial interests.

(Sounds like Trump scored a major victory.........until you dig a little deeper)

"Our conclusion is straightforward because the Members -- 29 Senators and 186 Members of the House of Representatives -- do not constitute a majority of either body and are, therefore, powerless to approve or deny the President's acceptance of foreign emoluments."

(They are saying that there weren't enough Democrats signed on to the suit)

The Democrats originally filed the lawsuit in 2017, before the party held power in the House of Representatives.
"The Members can, and likely will, continue to use their weighty voices to make their case to the American people, their colleagues in the Congress and the President himself, all of whom are free to engage that argument as they see fit," the ruling states. "But we will not -- indeed we cannot -- participate in this debate.

(Well, it's a new day. There are two other Emolument Suits moving forward and Democrats control the house so this isn't as big a victory as being reported.)
This sorta stuff is pretty far down the food chain compared to a Behghazi or nation toppling or selling m16s to mexican gangs.
Since Benghazi had ten separate investigations over many years, Democrats have a way to go.

But look at what happened so far:



Remember, Obama had zero when Republicans controlled both the House and the Senate throughout most of his two terms. And just Benghazi alone had ten separate investigations. How do you guys explain that? :popcorn:
How many convicted of collusion with Russia?
 

depotoo

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2012
Messages
40,605
Reaction score
13,256
Points
2,280
Appeals court tosses Democrats' emoluments lawsuit against Trump - CNNPolitics

Washington (CNN)A federal appeals court on Friday dismissed a lawsuit by congressional Democrats alleging President Donald Trump violated the emoluments clause of the Constitution by refusing to allow lawmakers to review and approve his financial interests.

(Sounds like Trump scored a major victory.........until you dig a little deeper)

"Our conclusion is straightforward because the Members -- 29 Senators and 186 Members of the House of Representatives -- do not constitute a majority of either body and are, therefore, powerless to approve or deny the President's acceptance of foreign emoluments."

(They are saying that there weren't enough Democrats signed on to the suit)

The Democrats originally filed the lawsuit in 2017, before the party held power in the House of Representatives.
"The Members can, and likely will, continue to use their weighty voices to make their case to the American people, their colleagues in the Congress and the President himself, all of whom are free to engage that argument as they see fit," the ruling states. "But we will not -- indeed we cannot -- participate in this debate.

(Well, it's a new day. There are two other Emolument Suits moving forward and Democrats control the house so this isn't as big a victory as being reported.)
Someone needs to get new sources.


The District and Maryland’s theory of proprietary harm hinges on the conclusion that government customers are patronizing the Hotel because the Hotel distributes profits or dividends to the President, rather than due to any of the Hotel’s other characteristics,” Niemeyer wrote.

“Such a conclusion, however, requires speculation into the subjective motives of independent actors who are not before the court, undermining a finding of causation.”

Niemeyer indicated that the Trump name may be more of a liability for the luxury hotel at this point, than a benefit.
“Indeed, there is a distinct possibility — which was completely ignored by the District and Maryland, as well as by the district court — that certain government officials might avoid patronizing the Hotel because of the President’s association with it,” the judge wrote.

“The District and Maryland’s theory of proprietary harm hinges on the conclusion that government customers are patronizing the Hotel because the Hotel distributes profits or dividends to the President, rather than due to any of the Hotel’s other characteristics,” Niemeyer wrote.

“Such a conclusion, however, requires speculation into the subjective motives of independent actors who are not before the court, undermining a finding of causation.”

Niemeyer indicated that the Trump name may be more of a liability for the luxury hotel at this point, than a benefit.
Appeals court tosses emoluments suit against Trump
You are pointing to a suit from last year.

By JOSH GERSTEIN


07/10/2019 11:53 AM EDT


Updated 07/10/2019 01:24 PM EDT
Ooops. You are right, as much as that pains me. It just goes to show how they keep making up lawsuits against him and they keep getting tossed BUT you lied he said the Supreme Court. I watched it, and rewound to listen again. He said DC Circuit.

Now to what the appeals court stated on this frivolous case-

But the D.C. Circuit said that members do not represent either the House or Senate as a whole. And they “do not constitute a majority of either body and are, therefore, powerless to approve or deny the President’s acceptance of foreign emoluments,” the D.C. Circuit ruling states.

And the court pointed out that in a 2019 case about Virginia statehouse, the Supreme Court restated an older precedent that individual members of Congress lack the right to assert the institutional interests of a legislature.

“The Members can, and likely will, continue to use their weighty voices to make their cause to the American people, their colleagues in the Congress and the President himself, all of whom are free to engage as they see fit,” the D.C. Circuit wrote. “But we will not — indeed we cannot — participate in this debate.
Court tosses lawmaker lawsuit against Trump over emoluments - Roll Call

The Members can, and likely will, continue to use their weighty voices to make their case to the American people, their colleagues in the Congress and the President himself, all of whom are free to engage that argument as they see fit. But we will not

indeed we
cannot

participate in this debate. The Constitution permits the Judiciary to speak only in the context of an Article III case or controversy and this lawsuit presents neither. Because the district court bifurcated the motion to dismiss proceedings, two of its judgments are before us on appeal. With regard to the first, in which the district court held that the Members have standing,
Blumenthal
, 335 F. Supp. 3d 45, wereverse and remand with instructions to dismiss the complaint.
Emoluments Decision
...........
This case was brought before the court by 186 House Democratic members of which there are a total of 232 Democratic members and 26 Dem Senate members of which there are 45 Democratic members, thus not even all of the Dems agreed with bringing suit. So your statement it needed an additional 57 is incorrect. That figure does not equal over half of both bodies, which would be required and required by voting on it rather than present it through the courts. There are 100 seats in the Senate and 435 members of the House.
More than half in the Senate equals 51 or more.
More than half in the House equals more that 217.
 
Last edited:

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top