Emoluments case alleging Trump violated Constitution can proceed: U.S. judge

Big news for a couple of days... heck for a couple of weeks now. I usually don't post more than once a day but this is big news, and I haven't seen anyone bring it up yet. It's a landmark decision although it does not mean there has been impropriety, only that the case can continue.

The Attorney Generals of the State of Maryland and the District of Columbia have brought lawsuits against the President, accusing him of violating the Constitution and the emoluments clause by accepting gifts from foreign and state governments by accepting payments and gifts through his business while in the White House.

The president and his lawyers wanted the lawsuit to be dismissed and the federal judge Peter Messitte just rejected that motion and allowed the case to continue. This is crazy that it has even gone this far, but now those AGs have the right to ask for all kinds of documents, balance sheets, P&Ls, possibly tax returns as well, interview employees in the Trump organization and so on.

“It’s an historic decision,” Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh said in an interview. “There has never been another president who has tested the emoluments clause. This is the first time we have had a president who has walked up to and, in our view, walked way over the line.”

Messitte had in March narrowed the lawsuit to focus on profits stemming from Trump’s ownership, through the Trump Organization, of the Trump International Hotel, a popular spot for foreign officials near the White House.

“The clear weight of the evidence shows that an ‘emolument’ was commonly understood by the founding generation to encompass any ‘profit,’ ‘gain,’ or ‘advantage,’” Messitte wrote.

He also said emoluments include “profits from private transactions, even those involving services given at fair market value.”

This opens up a whole another thing to keep an eye on, on top of the SC investigation, as both could have dramatic results. As is quoted above, there has never been another President being investigated under the emoluments clause of the Constitution, it will definitely be the case for the books.

The U.S. Department of Justice, which defended Trump, is determining its next steps “to continue vigorously defending the President,” spokesman Andy Reuss said in an email. “We continue to maintain that this case should be dismissed.”

Karl Racine, the D.C. attorney general, countered in a statement: “325 million Americans shouldn’t have to wonder if the president is putting his personal financial interests ahead of the national interest.”

Reuters

finally, this is going to bring Trump down!!

YEESSSSS!!

then we can get back to open borders, socialism and suiciding America

So the suit is because Trump is rich and did/does rich people things?

Neat.

This ought to go somewhere.

a reply to: Kharron

These idiots are pushing too much, keep going and we'll face martial law and auto -
coup d'é·tat.

originally posted by: projectvxn
So the suit is because Trump is rich and did/does rich people things?

Neat.

This ought to go somewhere.

Does rich people things that are possibly counter to the constitution, which is why the case is proceeding.

originally posted by: toysforadults
finally, this is going to bring Trump down!!

YEESSSSS!!

then we can get back to open borders, socialism and suiciding America

Don't get your hopes up, it's just a lawsuit. But you can vote Democrat or Republican soon if you want to suicide America that bad.

a reply to: Kharron

For someone who claims to dislike both sides, you sure do focus ALOT of attention on Trump.

originally posted by: rollanotherone
a reply to: Kharron

For someone who claims to dislike both sides, you sure do focus ALOT of attention on Trump.

And? Who is in charge of every part of the government and is making the news for corruption pretty much daily?

originally posted by: projectvxn
So the suit is because Trump is rich and did/does rich people things?

Neat.

This ought to go somewhere.

No, not about being rich; every president is rich, by most of our standards.

This is about profiting from the office you hold. In violation of the Constitution. It's never gotten to this point with any other president. It does not mean it won't get dismissed in a month or two, but for now it gives much more power to those investigating, because the judge thought there was cause.

Court Docs
Go to page 2, all the way down to July 25th at the end.


Edit:

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 21) is DENIED insofar as it seeks to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims against the President in his official capacity that the President and the Trump International Hotel and all its appurtenances in Washington, D.C. and any and all operations of the Trump Organization with respect to the same have violated the Foreign and Domestic Emoluments Clauses of the U.S. Constitution. Plaintiffs have stated viable causes of action as to those claims.

a reply to: Kharron

CNN? CNBC? Maybe the WaPo?

originally posted by: Kharron

originally posted by: rollanotherone
a reply to: Kharron

For someone who claims to dislike both sides, you sure do focus ALOT of attention on Trump.

And? Who is in charge of every part of the government and is making the news for corruption pretty much daily?

Except Trump is NOT in charge. If he were, the wall would be done, N Korea would be blown off the map, and CNN would be jailed.

a reply to: Kharron

If I was in a town with a Trump property like the Hotel and could afford it I would stay there. They beat other motel 6ish hotels they are complaining about. Class will always win out. This whole thing is like that silly San Francisco lunch nonsense.

You can bet that a few minutes after they get their hands on Trumps and his organizations financial documents they will br mysteriously leaked to the media.

originally posted by: Kharron

originally posted by: rollanotherone
a reply to: Kharron

For someone who claims to dislike both sides, you sure do focus ALOT of attention on Trump.

And? Who is in charge of every part of the government and is making the news for corruption pretty much daily?

Do you honestly believe the media?

originally posted by: rollanotherone

originally posted by: Kharron

originally posted by: rollanotherone
a reply to: Kharron

For someone who claims to dislike both sides, you sure do focus ALOT of attention on Trump.

And? Who is in charge of every part of the government and is making the news for corruption pretty much daily?

Except Trump is NOT in charge. If he were, the wall would be done, N Korea would be blown off the map, and CNN would be jailed.

So if you were his attorney, your defense would be - "It wasn't him?"

I don't think it would work.

Do you think these federal attorneys are making up lawsuits and all these federal judges are playing ball, and the Constitution is only there to make things difficult for Trump?

Wake up man, all these lawsuits are real, and they are all moving on, step by step, decision by decision.

originally posted by: Bramble Iceshimmer
a reply to: Kharron

If I was in a town with a Trump property like the Hotel and could afford it I would stay there. They beat other motel 6ish hotels they are complaining about. Class will always win out. This whole thing is like that silly San Francisco lunch nonsense.

You can bet that a few minutes after they get their hands on Trumps and his organizations financial documents they will br mysteriously leaked to the media.

I agree. I would bet everything I have that a Trump hotel is better than a Motel 6.

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: Kharron

CNN? CNBC? Maybe the WaPo?

Does this mean you didn't click on the Reuters link in the OP?

Some folk are reading WAY TOO MUCH into this.
Pathetic.
So , foreigners are sending gifts to Trump Tower ?
Tipping the cleaning crew ?
Who has been running Trump Tower ?
Who did the Don transfer all his business to ?

a reply to: Gothmog

No, it means that any earnings through leases or profit on his buildings or hotels, if the money comes from other governments, for example, is seen as profit, even if it is at base value. Any earnings are considered gifts. So, I haven't read about this enough to know how this applies to guests staying in hotels or if it's just the Bank of China that leases floors in his buildings, or Germany and so on. It could be just countries or could be down to individuals. I can update you once I find out.

The way to avoid this situation would have been to divest all his interests and ownership into a blind trust, as an example.

a reply to: Kharron

Civil case.

Good luck with that.