D.C. and Maryland to sue President Trump, alleging breach of constitutional oath

a reply to: matafuchs

Again, this is just something a member of Congress(probably the Black Caucus) will grab once again and try to use as an impeachable offense.

What does the black caucus have to do with this?

Also, this has nothing to do with impeachment.

a reply to: Sillyolme

Yeah. I think they have a pretty solid case, and the fact they took 6 months to prepare and compile their case suggests that they are ready for this fight. I don't want to predict the outcome because court cases can always go either way no matter how compelling the arguments are or aren't, but blindly writing this off because you don't want to believe there is anything here is only being willfully ignorant.

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Ambulance-chasers looking for the big one.

Yeah the attorneys general from Maryland and D.C. are ambulance chasers.
Sure they are.

a reply to: Sconnie77

States are not party affiliated. They know they represent and protect everybody in their state not just one party or another.

a reply to: Sillyolme

Funny that!
Brian Frosh


Same alma mater as Comey's leak surrogate friend.

a reply to: Sillyolme

There is no point in debating this topic nothing is going to come of this. You guys really think they are going to find text messages or voicemail recordings of Trump and the Saudi's or Chinese talking specifics for some kind of deal?

Emolument Clause

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

Emolument definition:

a salary, fee, or profit from employment or office.

As far as I can tell there is no other direct definition or statute that truly defines what an emolument is. This case will go nowhere and once again the Democratic narrative will fall apart and will look foolish.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Maybe you should understand that the only way anything can happen regarding these issues is with impeachment. This is grandstanding at its best.

a reply to: matafuchs

It's not even grandstanding it's obtuse and ridiculous. The only way you could even remotely see this happening is if you have NEVER been involved in a court case or you are blinded by sheer hatred for Trump. Oh and you have done little to no legal research to see what the statutes are and how they apply.

these STATE/DISTRICT ag's have nothing better to spend their state/district money on?

nice
purely political lawsuit at the expense of md and dc taxpayers
good luck with your next elections state ag's

originally posted by: shooterbrody
these STATE/DISTRICT ag's have nothing better to spend their state/district money on?

nice
purely political lawsuit at the expense of md and dc taxpayers
good luck with your next elections state ag's

They don't care it's not their money. You will pay higher taxes next year I'm sure of it. Meanwhile they will get 4% raises year after year after year.

a reply to: introvert

Because the Black Caucus is so up in arms about wanting to impeach him. Sorry, I should have said the DNC and half to GOP.

Never in the history of this country have we had a president with these kinds of extensive business entanglements, or a president who refused to adequately distance themselves from their holdings," said D.C. Attorney General Karl A. Racine in a news conference on Monday. "President Trump's business and his dealings violate the constitution's anti-corruption provisions."

This is BS. There have been many POTUS and VPOTUS who had many many dealings in the business world and were very rich.

They are basing this on his hotels....

In particular, the attorneys general declared that Mr. Trump's international hotel chain, among other international business interests, is a violation of the emoluments clause. "Foreign governments are spending money there (at the hotel in Washington) in order to curry favor with the president," Racine said.

A person can stay anywhere and he was building this before he was in office. A beautiful property. Look, I understand people do not like Trump but this is grandstanding.

The lawsuit also says...

The lawsuit was filed Monday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, the report said. "The president, above all other elected officials must have only the interest of Americans at the heart of every decision," said Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh.

Sorry, that is all I see him doing. Not sitting back raising hotel rates to make some money.

He is also the first president in modern times to not take a paycheck. Why? He does not need it....

To prove Trump is crowding out competition in DC, the have to show that in a parallel universe where Trump lost the election they would do better than they are now. Tough luck with that.

But of course, considering there are countless parallel universes where Trump lost the election and does better than he is doing in this universe at the DC hotel, good luck with that argument.

originally posted by: ManFromEurope
Annddd this thread will be shot down by trmpbots, like so many where the topic isn't trump-friendly.
It will be gone in 2hrs, 4hrs tops, drained in "SOME (unknown beyond US-borders) DEMOCRAT DID SOMETHING!" threads, as usual.

Trmpbots, we know your spiel.

I think you should know that.

Actually, who needs Trumpbots when reality is doing just fine on it's own?

originally posted by: angeldoll

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Ambulance-chasers looking for the big one.

Nope not ambulance chasers. Truth-seekers.

Let's see those tax returns, Big Shot!

Fascinating article from Fortune.com regarding these matters back in November 2016. Obviously, those filing lawsuits had came to the same conclusions. Though, I wonder why congress has not stepped up to the plate to pass law to close this unforseen loophole? It seems by doing so, it would allow oversight, even for his Tax returns.

Why Aren’t Donald Trump’s Epic Conflicts of Interest Illegal? 
To find out answers to that and related inquiries, I did some research and also spoke to Richard Painter and Norman Eisen, the former top White House ethics counsels for George W. Bush (2005-2007) and Barack Obama (2009-2011). Here are the answers...

...Is there anything the public can do to protect itself right now?
Painter recommends that Congress pass a law right now that would require that when a President or his businesses have specific matters pending before a federal agency—like, say, an Internal Revenue Service audit, or a case before the National Labor Relations Board or the Securities and Exchange Commission, or a licensing issue before the Federal Communications Commission—that the matter must be decided by a career civil servant, rather than by a political appointee. (Trump has said that his taxes are currently under audit, and his hotels are also known to have active disputes with unions pending before the NLRB.) In the event that a White House official tried to intervene in any such matter, Painter continues, the bill he envisions would require the agency to notify the House and Senate oversight committees.Eisen would go further still. He believes that the Congress has the constitutional power to extend the existing conflicts of interest law to cover the President, and he thinks Congress should try to do so. "If the drafters of the conflicts law had foreseen something on this scale," he says, "they never would have exempted the President and Vice President."

Fortune.com Source link

Edit add:

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: allsee4eye

How about where you point out where Congress has approved these deals?

Still catching up on the thread postings...but I believe my linked article will explain allsee4eye's point.

and to think that I wouldn't vote for hillary because I thought that she'd be bogged down in investigations and not be able to get crap done!!
trump is a nightmare!!

a reply to: introvert

So you pretty much admit to using hyperbole and yet call me naive if I disagree. 

Do you see the problem yet?

ATS has become one big hyperbole broad brush stroke. I think the person reading should be able to discern what I mean when I say EVERYTHING, or did I overestimate you? did you really believe I meant literally everything?

It was right there in the post you responded to. Look again.

My point was, your point was irrelevant to my point. I was merely commenting on your comment about the "whiny Dems" comment.

You didn't bring a message. You brought a deflection.

I guess if the shoe fits...

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Incredible, the vicious fight against Trump is undeniable, never in history is been so much vitriol and hate like the one we are witnessing right now.

Democrats have become the crap of the crap.

a reply to: CynConcepts

Well that's the thing. I'm not claiming to know the ultimate answer to these legal debates. There is no real SCOTUS precedent set for matters like this, so all legal opinions are currently legal theory. Each side is building a case of arguments and counter arguments to set precedent here. This could be a defining legal case regardless of the outcome just for that matter alone.

a reply to: marg6043

Being mad and bitter that Trump is being sued isn't going to make the lawsuits go away.

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Maybe you should understand that the only way anything can happen regarding these issues is with impeachment. This is grandstanding at its best.

Um... No... The courts can easily legally compel him to obey a certain way. They do it all the time for any other citizen. If you disobey you get held in contempt of court and go to jail.