Posted on 07/26/2018 8:04:39 AM PDT by gattaca
Edited on 07/26/2018 9:40:30 AM PDT by Sidebar Moderator. [history]
A federal judge is allowing Maryland and the District of Columbia to proceed with their lawsuit accusing President Donald Trump of unconstitutionally accepting gifts from foreign and state interests through his Washington hotel. The decision Wednesday clears the way for the plaintiffs to seek financial records from the president's company.
(Excerpt) Read more at cbsnews.com ...
...of morality...
...is a comfort...
Time to start ignoring federal judges trying to destroy America.
I have no idea how the plaintiffs even have standing.
Trump probably should have just stuck with cattle futures.
A simple test: If Donald Trump had not run for and won the presidency, would the same people still be using citizen Trump's luxury hotels? Were they doing so before he announced? End of discussion.
If somehow, this case is successful, then NO BUSINESSMAN OR WOMAN could become the President. I see this as politicians assuring that professional politicians/lawyers can be the only ones who don’t ‘violate’ their twisted interpretation of this clause.
IIRC, all of President Trump’s businesses are in blind trusts for the duration of his service. Or am I mistaken?
Mendacity? “Big Daddy” gives his take on it in “Cat on a Hot Tin Roof.”
“Mendacity. What do you know about mendacity? I could write a book on it...Mendacity. Look at all the lies that I got to put up with. Pretenses. Hypocrisy. Pretendin’ like I care for Big Mama, I haven’t been able to stand that woman in forty years. Church! It bores me. But I go. And all those swindlin’ lodges and social clubs and money-grabbin’ auxiliaries. It’s-it’s got me on the number one sucker list. Boy, I’ve lived with mendacity. Now why can’t you live with it? You’ve got to live with it. There’s nothin’ to live with but mendacity. Is there?”
“NO BUSINESS OWNER could ever run for President unless he sells everything he owns.”
Read that again....Of course, the only businessmen that are accepted to the ranks are LAWYERS. They are in the DIRTY business and don’t want it to be diluted by real businessmen.
On July 15, 2014, in a procedural order for a lawsuit against the Washington, D.C., football team, Judge Messitte banned the use of the word “Redskins” in his courtroom and in court documents.[1] The judge did not explain the reason for his order, but it was assumed to be due to the Washington Redskins name controversy.
Part of it predates the inauguration, and I suppose they have a rationale for saying the “emolument” is regardless of his managerial presence or lack thereof.
Appointed by Bill Clinton.
What the Left wants to do, is take all of Trump’s assets away.
This judge is allowing himself to be played as a stooge.
Lately they have had to dig pretty deep into their bag of tricks. None of them are working against this President.
MAGA!
The “judge” is a corrupt Clinton hack.
Give them redacted records ...
Trump should invest in the plastic straw business.
This would pretty much ban any businessman who does business overseas from running for President. The only people who would be left with the wherewithal to run would be lawyers, career politicians or career government administrators, i.e. the Deep State.
” … 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.”
The controversy is “emolument.” Under a definition by Lawrence Tribe, any President who is owner or part owner of a business (shareholder), or who receives royalty payments from the sale of books, or in any other way receives money from a foreign power, even in a non-discriminatory, fair, competitive and open transaction has violated the emolument clause. Professor Tribe only invented this AFTER Trump was elected president, probably because he suffers Trump derangement syndrome.
To investigate the meaning of the emoluments clause from opinions expressed PRIOR to Trump, see the following:
https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/R40124.html
In particular:
“Much of the above discussion may ultimately prove to be ‘academic,’ as it is unlikely that, should an appointment and/or confirmation in violation of the Emoluments Clause occur, anyone would have the requisite constitutional standing to bring a lawsuit challenging the action as unconstitutional.”
The frame of the Constitution envisions the Congress to act, not any Tom, Dick or Harry that imagines it has been offended. The Congress has plenty of power with which to restrain the Executive, including impeachment. There is precedent from the Supreme Court on this as discussed in the source, notwithstanding the ruling of the District Court judge.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.