Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A second emoluments lawsuit has been allowed to move forward against Trump as the court has found that Democrats have standing to sue him. I have said for long time that Trump needed to get out of his businesses. These lawsuits reflect that. Alternatively he should have simply asked Congress for permission as the law allows. And if he doesn't ask now, he may not be able too later. This is a self inflicted error.
Importantly is that Trump makes decisions with this unconscious bias in his head. During the last hurricane he asked about one of his properties. I don't want the president taking time to do that. And linking his income to his hotels encourages a atmosphere of corruption.
On the plus side (as I am not a President Trump fan) this may open him up to a nasty amount of investigation. But its not too late for him to do the right thing. Divest from these things, or get the consent of Congress. But if he wants that from congress he needs to do so before the GOP loses its majority.
Nothing but the latest partisan witchhunt from the Desperate Dems.
Emolulents means gifts or payments for official acts, not patronage of a business which benefits the Executive. That is what was intended and that is what has always been applied as scrutiny.
Regardless of which candidate won in 2016, he/ she would enter office with unprecedented conflicts of interest.
Thanks for the better link for folks!
And...doubtful. Clinton had little in the way of assets comparably. Trump is one of the first in my lifetime that had such massive and complex business dealings.
I just want him to follow the constitution and get permission from Congress. Im even fine with him doing it under a GOP led friendly congress.
Nothing but the latest partisan witchhunt from the Desperate Dems.
Emolulents means gifts or payments for official acts, not patronage of a business which benefits the Executive. That is what was intended and that is what has always been applied as scrutiny.
No it has not. In fact Jimmy Carter gave up his family farm, and Nixon sold most of his assets to avoid this. Yes, even Nixon was less corrupt then Trump.
No it has not. In fact Jimmy Carter gave up his family farm, and Nixon sold most of his assets to avoid this. Yes, even Nixon was less corrupt then Trump.
And Bush and Obama had blind trusts. And Trump has removed himself from the management of his company. What more do you expect him to do? He's not in control of the business. How is he corrupt when he's not in control of it?
Nothing but the latest partisan witchhunt from the Desperate Dems.
Emolulents means gifts or payments for official acts, not patronage of a business which benefits the Executive. That is what was intended and that is what has always been applied as scrutiny.
So how do you convince a judge to participate in a partisan lawsuit? "U.S. district judge Messitte ruled the case can proceed because the plaintiffs made a plausible case that Trump could get an improper financial benefit from his affiliation with Trump hotel." The article explains that Trump said that he would turn over all profits earned from foreign governments from Trump hotel to the U.S. Treasury but that never happened. Source: Politico. Judge lets emoluments lawsuit against Trump move ahead.
I think maybe you should read more outside of right wing rhetoric because you are clearly wrong. So says the District of Columbia. Nobody is above the law, and accepting any hint of corruption from our president is despicable.
According to the legal theory presented in the lawsuit, any dual-national citizen member of Congress is also violating the same law. So when will they sue Chuck Schumer?
“A federal officeholder who receives something of value from a foreign power can be imperceptibly induced to compromise what the Constitution insists be his or her exclusive loyalty: the best interest of the United States of America,” the group wrote in its legal filing.
Surely the foreign citizenship, the "right of return" , and the passport document itself, are all examples of "something of value".
So how do you convince a judge to participate in a partisan lawsuit? "U.S. district judge Messitte ruled the case can proceed because the plaintiffs made a plausible case that Trump could get an improper financial benefit from his affiliation with Trump hotel." The article explains that Trump said that he would turn over all profits earned from foreign governments from Trump hotel to the U.S. Treasury but that never happened. Source: Politico. Judge lets emoluments lawsuit against Trump move ahead.
I think maybe you should read more outside of right wing rhetoric because you are clearly wrong. So says the District of Columbia. Nobody is above the law, and accepting any hint of corruption from our president is despicable.
It is not explained how Trump could derive an improper benefit. What makes it improper?
Since when is making a profit improper?
And maybe he never turned anything over because no profits were received. To have a profit you must have something "above the line". Perhaps there were no profits for those services or time periods in question...that's a possibility.
Would it be improper to "break even" on business conducted with a foreign government?
Interesting article about this particular situation in the New York Post. I know, I know, it's the Post. But I believe this article hits closer to the truth as far as the real reasons why Democrats are trying to push forward with this lawsuit. Either way, I hope, as the OP suggested, that he simply takes the right action to correct the situation, so we can avoid yet another 24/7 news cycle surrounding yet another "scandal" in the White House. Oh, and just as a side note, over the course of our former president's tenure he was sued by the GOP 46 times. We just didn't hear much about that. It must be nice having most of the media's unwavering support. But anyway, President Trump, just fix this so we don't have to chat about it for the next year on City-Data!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So how do you convince a judge to participate in a partisan lawsuit? "U.S. district judge Messitte ruled the case can proceed because the plaintiffs made a plausible case that Trump could get an improper financial benefit from his affiliation with Trump hotel." The article explains that Trump said that he would turn over all profits earned from foreign governments from Trump hotel to the U.S. Treasury but that never happened. Source: Politico. Judge lets emoluments lawsuit against Trump move ahead. 
