8 Supreme Court cases the justices have yet to rule on

Don't forget... the negotiations between Cohen and Davidson really started heavily the day after the Billy Bush tapes...

SNIP

ENDSNIP

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6206073-Cohen-Docs-Combined.html

 

Perjury, subornation of perjury, obstruction of justice, witness tampering ALL FELONIES. They were presented to the Congress as criminal charges. When he wasn't removed from office the indictment were held until he left office and he plea bargained them.

 

What plea, the DOJ dropped it well over a year ago. Since when is hush money illegal?

 

When it happens 11 days before an election for president..

 

What makes it illegal? Would he have paid for it anyway? Yes................no campaign violation as has already been determined.

 

No ****ing chance he pays this if he's not running for President...

 

Ohhh... speaking of SCOTUS, here's an interesting story from yesterday...

SNIP
Democratic lawmakers are appealing their emoluments case against President Trump to the Supreme Court after a federal appeals court ruled that they lacked standing to sue over alleged constitutional violations.

The 215 members of Congress are accusing Trump of violating the Constitution's Foreign Emoluments Clause, which prohibits federal officials from receiving gifts or money from foreign governments without congressional approval, by continuing to operate and profit from his hotel chain while in office.

In their petition to the Supreme Court on Monday, lawmakers argued that they have standing to sue in this case because the president disregarded their constitutional right to vote on whether to approve his acceptance of foreign emoluments.
ENDSNIP

https://thehill.com/homenews/admini...m=widgets&utm_campaign=es_recommended_content

 

Even Cohen admitted it was about keeping it from Melania. For it to be a campaign finance violation it would have had to be ENTIRELY for the benefit of the campaign. This was dropped over a year ago.

"President Donald Trump‘s former personal lawyer and longtime fixer has many regrets — and one of the biggest is lying to First Lady Melania Trump about her husband’s alleged 2006 affair with adult film star Stormy Daniels.

“He [Trump] asked me to pay off an adult film star with whom he had an affair, and to lie to his wife about it, which I did,” Michael Cohen said Wednesday during testimony before the House Oversight and Reform Committee.

“Lying to the First Lady is one of my biggest regrets,” Cohen continued. “She is a kind, good person. I respect her greatly — and she did not deserve that.”
https://people.com/politics/melania-trump-lied-to-about-stormy-daniels-affair/

 

Oh geez not that canard again...................

 

Well, their first problem is actually proving said foreign emoluments exist, that they are tied to the presidency and/or to a foreign ranking official or to their benefit.

So actually, a lot of problems. This will be dismissed outright. It's a good thing that infrastructure bill never got through though!

 

Here is the appeals court decision

SNIP
“Here, regardless of rigor, our conclusion is straightforward because the members—29 Senators and 186 members of the House of Representatives—do not constitute a majority of either body and are, therefore, powerless to approve or deny the President’s acceptance of foreign emoluments,” the opinion reads.
ENDSNIP

When the case was filed in 2017, that was true.... that's no longer the case...

 

Yes, the Democrats now have a majority to "approve or deny" the President's acceptance of foreign emoluments. Only problem is, they'd have to actually FIND some. And no, you won't be able to point to Trump foreign properties since they existed long before he became president.

There's simply no evidence, anywhere that Trump either accepted a foreign gift or used his properties to gain impropriety while President.

 

As with most evidence against Trump, you only have to listen to the jackass himself

https://archive.thinkprogress.org/t...onomic-new-york-times-interview-868b6f320272/

I don't approve of Trump making money off of the presidency... afterwards, sure.... but not during...

That's why he donates his chump-change salary, so you guys will be distracted by that.... and you are...

 

Except he's not making it off of the presidency, per se. Trump the entrepreneur, and Trump the President are two entirely separate entites.(We've never had an entrepreneur as President, but if we follow logic, non-hating logic that is, we can see where these rulings are going to go.) The emoluments clause was specifically designed to prevent someone using the Presidency to enrich themselves and thereby entangle the country into a conflict of interest.

In simpler terms, there's a difference between staying at and paying rental money for Trump hotels, and someone saying "I will give you a sweet deal abroad if you stay at my hotels." One of these things actually violates the clause, the other doesn't.

Basically, it's a "for cause" effect. If the President advocates for a financial gain in exchange for policy favoritism, then that would be a violation. Foreign leaders simply using Trump's properties, like the proposed G-8 meeting in Florida to me is not a violation.

That would be like saying George Washington violated the clause by having meetings at his estate, where as we know they had slaves at the time(and these slaves of course would benefit him and those he entertained at his estate.) In my view, so long as the personal doesn't combine with the political it's not a violation of the law.

 

I would actually agree a G-7 meeting at Doral would probably skate under the Emoluments rule... It's the massive use of Trump hotels when there are not formal proceedings that's a much bigger and ongoing problem.

However the G-7 will still be at Camp David, if it even comes together in 2020....

 

Looks like the SCOTUS has scheduled more opinions tomorrow (Wed) at 10am.... We'll try again...

 

I hate the outsized reality that the SCOTUS has now occupied in our BODY politic. It was meant to oversee the legality of the laws, no more or less. It wasn't meant to actually decide what the country could or could not do, or how state laws should be ran, etc.

Thomas Jefferson saw the potential disaster of the court and now it's here. In all of its gruesome glory. Either they rule the way you want and you'd be happy(and I'd be pissed) or vice versa. That's not how a system of government survives.

 

Wednesday decisions are imminent... here is the remaining list

Trump's financial documents (2)
Obamacare contraceptive mandate
Religious employment disputes
Limits of tribal sovereignty

 

Glad I saw this post in time. Watching the Scotusblog livepost right now.

 

OUR LADY OF GUADALUPE SCHOOL v. MORRISSEYBERRU

Assuming Religious employment disputes

LOVE that blog.... me too

 

The bloggers note that it is unlikely we will hear all five case decisions today because the court has not announced that today is the last day.

 

I'm not sure I'm understanding that issue fully.... The court liberals are divided here, so I don't know what to make of it...

 

#2 - LITTLE SISTERS OF THE POOR SAINTS PETER AND PAUL HOME v. PENNSYLVANIA ET AL.

Obamacare mandate... written by Thomas... that cannot be good...

Another 7-2 decision...

As I understand this one, employers don't have to cover contraception based on their religious beliefs... so they would prefer their employees get pregnant and miss time etc etc??

OK, whatever...

 

a win for liberty and the Constittution over the oppressive dems and obamacare!

 

Tomorrow will be the last day of decisions.