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

a reply to: Kharron

“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.”

That's a complete lie and Reuters is making that up.

The founding generation meant for an 'emolument" to be any kind of gift from a foreign government that could be taken as a bribe that would/could effect government decisions.

Where's the proof that Trump's doing any foreign government favors in exchange for money based on his policies? Hillary Clinton's another story, she needs the money, Trump doesn't. Trump's only using the presidency to perform a public service until he can get back to running his businesses. The Clintons are the ones who have turned their government service into a self profiting enterprise.

a reply to: Chadwickus

I fail to see hypocrisy here. There are mountains of evidence that the Clintons were/are involved in criminal activities... even James Comey admitted such openly, a couple breaths before declaring that Hillary would not be prosecuted like others would be. This lawsuit against Trump has no legal basis whatsoever, judge or no judge.

• There is a YUGE difference between accepting a gift and selling a product or service at established rates. According to this, if anyone ever sells anything to someone from Russia, they can never hold public office. That is insane. Literally.
  
  
• Trump Enterprises gives all profits from sales to foreign governments directly to the Treasury, as a part of Trump's divestment from his business enterprises.
  
  
• As President, long-standing legal precedent states that he cannot be subpoenaed, and therefore cannot be sued in civil court until he is out of office. that precedent is there for the same reason the President cannot order legal action against Congress... to prevent outside, un-elected forces from threatening our government.
  
  
• It is self-evident that judges can and do make decisions outside the law. If they did not, there would be no overturning of decisions by higher courts.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Deetermined
a reply to: Kharron

“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.”

That's a complete lie and Reuters is making that up.

The founding generation meant for an 'emolument" to be any kind of gift from a foreign government that could be taken as a bribe that would/could effect government decisions.

Where's the proof that Trump's doing any foreign government favors in exchange for money based on his policies? Hillary Clinton's another story, she needs the money, Trump doesn't. Trump's only using the presidency to perform a public service until he can get back to running his businesses. The Clintons are the ones who have turned their government service into a self profiting enterprise.

Do you realize you just called the newspaper a liar AFTER you supposedly read the text; you leave me wondering if you did in fact read it, because the text you are calling lies is a quote from the federal judge... that is his decision and his words.

I don't know how to reply to you and keep this going as you refuse to even read and process the information in the OP.

And you're not the only one, I'm just replying to you. How does one reply to questions that clearly indicate the reader didn't even read, or to name calling or personal attacks (like the classy post above)?

This is NOT the Mud Pit!!!

All rules for polite political debate will be enforced.
Reaffirming Our Desire For Productive Political Debate (REVISED)

Community Announcement re: Decorum
Go After the Ball, Not the Player!

You are responsible for your own posts.....those who ignore that responsibility will face mod actions.


and, as always:

Do NOT reply to this post!!

Isn't it handy when the anti-American leftist can apparently try and understand parts of the C.O.T.U.S. when they feel it suites them, but can't understand what "keep", "bear" and "shall not be infringed" means?

Or how they think there's a separation of church (moral belief) and state. When the COTUS doesn't say that at all?

Or how they fret over "children being killed in schools" but not unborn children being slaughtered by their mothers for convenience sake?

The left needs to nF themselves before they start pointing fingers. Then stop using the courts to spread their idiotic nonsense. No sane person shares their world views or progressive program for this country. This judge's boss needs to have a sit down with o'l Peter.

These clowns will do anything to keep Trying to find something. Spitting on the sidwalk, not washing his hands, eating ice cream with a fork... These folks are going to give themselves an aneurysm if they don't find a way to relax.

One can feel their joy when they think they "got e'm"! Like the downfall of an American President would just make their day. What pathetic worms.

originally posted by: Bramble Iceshimmer
a reply to: Kharron

I
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.

nless coveUred by an effective protective order, documents resulting from the discovery process and to be used as evidence in court are public documents. They don't need to be it is not a leakeaked, and when they are made public, as the llaw requires, it is not a leak. I understand, though, why 45 would want to lie and call it one.

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?

Not the President when the last guy was at the top.

I didn't know the rules changed depending on who is President.

a reply to: Kharron

Heres the hang up.

1st: its a civil lawsuit. Not a federal one.

2nd: The emoulments clause only applies if its NEW WEALTH not payments that were already going on before he was elected.

3rd: Ownership was given to someone else so HE is not liable for it. SImiliar to papa johns firing papa john. He is no longer responsible for what the company does.

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: Kharron

Heres the hang up.

1st: its a civil lawsuit. Not a federal one.

2nd: The emoulments clause only applies if its NEW WEALTH not payments that were already going on before he was elected.

3rd: Ownership was given to someone else so HE is not liable for it. SImiliar to papa johns firing papa john. He is no longer responsible for what the company does.

It most certainly is a federal case. It is District of Columbia et al v Trump, U.S. District Court, District of Maryland, No. 17-01596. A U.S. District Court is a federal court established by Article III of the Constitution.
The emoluments clause makes no distinction about payments "that were already going on."
Finally, he most certainly did not transfer the ownership of the company. He gave up management, but not ownership.The money made by the business still goes in his pocket.

Yes. This is why he is taking one dollar for his pay as president. It's all about the money for this president. My God is he going to be charged with blasphemy by each and every church in the US next? The left being grade school playground bullies they always are and getting that ignored is really getting them desperate for vengeance.

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

Apparently we have to play nice...so never mind.

www.cnbc.com...

A federal appeals court on Wednesday dismissed a lawsuit that challenged the legality of payments to President Donald Trump’s hotels by foreigners during his tenure in the White House. A three-judge panel in the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled that Maryland and the District of Columbia do not have legal standing to claim that Trump violated the so-called emoluments clause of the U.S. Constitution.

so much winning......

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?

Did you know there are three branches of Government ?

originally posted by: F4guy

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: Kharron

Heres the hang up.

1st: its a civil lawsuit. Not a federal one.

2nd: The emoulments clause only applies if its NEW WEALTH not payments that were already going on before he was elected.

3rd: Ownership was given to someone else so HE is not liable for it. SImiliar to papa johns firing papa john. He is no longer responsible for what the company does.

It most certainly is a federal case. It is District of Columbia et al v Trump, U.S. District Court, District of Maryland, No. 17-01596. A U.S. District Court is a federal court established by Article III of the Constitution.
The emoluments clause makes no distinction about payments "that were already going on."
Finally, he most certainly did not transfer the ownership of the company. He gave up management, but not ownership.The money made by the business still goes in his pocket.

Can you cite where in the constitution it states a president must divest himself of all properties and businesses ?

originally posted by: Pyle

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.

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

originally posted by: CrawlingChaos

originally posted by: F4guy

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: Kharron

Heres the hang up.

1st: its a civil lawsuit. Not a federal one.

2nd: The emoulments clause only applies if its NEW WEALTH not payments that were already going on before he was elected.

3rd: Ownership was given to someone else so HE is not liable for it. SImiliar to papa johns firing papa john. He is no longer responsible for what the company does.

It most certainly is a federal case. It is District of Columbia et al v Trump, U.S. District Court, District of Maryland, No. 17-01596. A U.S. District Court is a federal court established by Article III of the Constitution.
The emoluments clause makes no distinction about payments "that were already going on."
Finally, he most certainly did not transfer the ownership of the company. He gave up management, but not ownership.The money made by the business still goes in his pocket.

Can you cite where in the constitution it states a president must divest himself of all properties and businesses ?

There is no Federal law requiring it and Democrats are misinterpreting the emolument clause. The first President to divest was L.B. Johnson.

Article 1, Section 9, clause 8 - Emoluments

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.

Trump properties that have had foreign government officials stay at them have turned over al monies to the US treasury.
* - Profits from foreign government patrons donated to US Treasury: Trump Organization
* - Trump Org says it donated $151,470 in profits to U.S. Treasury

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Pyle

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.

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The judge says they have no standing and are abusing the courts. Democrats keep shooting themselves in the foot.

a reply to: Xcathdra

I know.... That's why I asked if he/she could cite it...