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 federal judge ruled that the District of Columbia and Maryland may proceed with an unprecedented lawsuit against President Trump alleging that Trump’s business dealings have violated the Constitution’s ban on receiving improper “emoluments,” or payments, from individual states and foreign governments.
The ruling, by U.S. District Judge Peter J. Messitte in Maryland, marks the first time that a lawsuit of this kind has cleared the initial legal hurdle — a finding that the plaintiffs have legal standing to sue the president in the first place.
In this case, Messitte found that D.C. Attorney General Karl A. Racine (D) and Maryland Attorney General Brian E. Frosh (D) have legal standing to sue Trump over the business of the Trump International Hotel in downtown Washington.
As part of that ruling, Messitte said he rejected an argument previously made by critics of the lawsuit — that, under the Constitution, only Congress may decide whether the president has violated the emoluments clauses.
That judge is a dope and it seems he never even read the clause. Either way this is just another attempt to cause a distraction that will go nowhere at all.
I can only assume that the judge has more legal experience and knowledge than the two prior posters
I agree there may have been some venue shopping which I believe Michael Cohen is trying to do for his client David Denison right now...but if the claim is spurious then there are measures to have it defeated...
But like Trump's attempt at his first two travel bans -- this effort by two states' attorney generals could prove to be a viable legal protest at a POTUS who persistently overreaches....
AS AMERICANS, not just Trump supporters, you should be grateful to have the issue explored and resolved to prevent FUTURE claims he is exploiting his presidency...
Cause like the Senators said--if your client ain't guilty, why is he acting like he is???
1--He/his company didn't "BUY" the hotel---he does not OWN the hotel
They bid for a contract to refurbish and run the government bldg as a hotel---
There was a clause in the contract that IF anyone went to work for the Federal Govt---
They had to give up the contract
Trump said that since he has "distanced" himself from running (but NOT owning) his corporation that clause doesn't apply to him...
2--this judge that the Trump supporters disparaged apparently did make some pro-Trump decisions when he heard these pleadings---he cut out any part of the suit that is tied to hotels outside Washington--
So this case won't include any issues with other real estate his company might own that could be considered to benefit POTUS when foreign governments or business or wealthy individuals hold events there or buy condos, etc...
So that decision was to Trump's benefit since there were charges in there about that very fact
I thought Trump bought the Washington hotel (post office) before becoming president?
Doesn't matter--if it is being made use of by foreign governments now to curry favor with Trump (who profits from it).
Trump seems too thick to get it, but this is why he should have divested from his businesses. He didn't. This is what you call a conflict of interest, of which Trump has many. Since the spineless GOP is letting him get away with murder, others will sue. The law is the law. The guy is an ethics disaster.
A lot of people are thick about what constitutes an emolument, which is defined in the Constitution.
If every elected official had to give up a business with customers had to divest himself of that business or be charged the Courts would never get through all the cases.
A lot of people are thick about what constitutes an emolument, which is defined in the Constitution.
If every elected official had to give up a business with customers had to divest himself of that business or be charged the Courts would never get through all the cases.
Not every elected official can deal directly with foreign governments on behalf of the american people. I certainly don't want our elected official in that capacity at a disadvantage because x% of their income comes from business generated by that foreign govt.
A lot of people are thick about what constitutes an emolument, which is defined in the Constitution.
If every elected official had to give up a business with customers had to divest himself of that business or be charged the Courts would never get through all the cases.
"Every elected official" is not subject to the Clause.
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.
