Federal Judge Rules in Favor of Democrats in Emoluments Lawsuit Against Trump

A federal judge, on Tuesday, ruled in favor of congressional Democrats, allowing their lawsuit that accuses President Trump of violating the emoluments clauses of the Constitution to proceed. More than 200 Democrats in Congress filed suit against Trump last year alleging his ongoing business interests that have continued into his presidency amounts to receiving payments from foreign governments, which is expressly prohibited by the Constitution. Trump has technically stepped down from the day-to-day running of the Trump Organization, but still has ultimate authority over its operation and profits from its success.[SLATE]​

While this will go to trumps Supreme Court and likely decided by partisian reasonings, we have reached an interesting point in our democracy when a president can profit — by their position and from foreign funds — in opposition to the constitution. Keep in mind Republicans had an enormous issue when a prior president had a peanut farm but are mostly silent on this.

Seems to be a trend with the debt, ethics, transparency and norms — ignore them when your party has control and run on it when you aren’t. What type of precedent will this set?

 

All the judge rulled was that they could sue, not that there is evidence, or a verdict.

 

”There is a separate case currently working its way through the court system, brought by the attorneys general of D.C. and Maryland, that specifically deals with the potential emolument violations of Trump’s D.C. hotel. In that case, Justice Department lawyers have successfully blocked efforts to subpoena Trump’s financial records, but Tuesday’s ruling gives new hope to Democrats looking to ensure Trump’s opaque financial dealings aren’t above the law.” Would it matter to any trump supporters that he is directly or indirectly profiting off foreign nations renting out $10,000.00 a night suites they never intend to use in efforts to undermine our democracy?

 

Wait?!?! how is Trump profiting. You mean his businesses doing what they have always done in selling goods and services to other countries? You mean the loss of business due to a damaged brand and political protesting of anything that has his name on it?!?!? Or you mean taking money from foreign governments to give speeches and dumping that money in the Clinton foundation in order to better her image for campaign purposes?

 

Accepting payment for a hotel room, owned by one of the President's businesses and rented by a foreign dignitary, does not violate the constitution.

 

Guess they're insuring no one could ever be president and own a private business in the future. Great. We're stuck with LIFERS who can't hack the private sector, so they go into politics where "working" or succeeding is subjective. =)

 

Since this is the first time such a potential conflict has happened - it would be best if that was ruled on by the Supreme Court. It's what they're there for. Why would you be worried about that?

 

What makes you think I'm worried?
Oh - must have been the dismissive tone of my post, punctuated by the yawn.

 

Since this is the first time such conflicts have arisen, why are you worried that the Supreme Court make a ruling on this for the future? If there are no conflicts, then it's best to set a future precedent so candidates know if they need to place businesses in blind trust. That's what Republicans demanded of Jimmy Carter, because they thought his peanut farm might influence Carter's actions in regard to agricultural policy.

 

"interesting point in our democracy when a president can profit — by their position and from foreign funds "

This isn't anything new, and doesn't violate the US Constitution. I would assume most President have had investments while being in office...by your twisted logic, Obama violated the Constitution too, if his book the Audacity of Hope sold overseas...which we know it did, because it was translated in numerous langanges. We also know, that the largest bump in his wealth took place because of the book sales, and after he won election.

What's also key here, and I don't see a link to the opinion, the Court hasn't ruled on if this violated the Constitution...

 

According to you. According to any reasonable standard it is a conflict of interest.

Trump could have avoided all of this. He could have said, upon being elected, that the Trump organisation would not do business with any foreign governments or with the US Federal government during his presidency.

That would have been clean, transparent, and avoided conflicts of interest. But ethics has no meaning to Trump. As far as he is concerned, whatever he can get away with is "ethical".

 

No more than if the President owned an ice cream stand and the Queen bought a hot fudge sundae from it.

 

It is pretty mundane, but so are most court cases. It's just good to reinforce rules for future candidates. I could just see the Republican freak out if Jeff Bezos ran for President while he had control of Amazon and started making policy that would benefit his company over others.

 

^^^ This.

This act is the political class trying to slam the door on non-establishment private business owners ever gaining power.

 

If the President owned an ice cream stand stand and his chief of staff told the Queen that if she bought a hot fudge sundae he could guarantee a better trade meeting with the President ... that's the worry here.

 

So you agree: The simple act of buying a sundae - or renting a room - from a business owned by the President isn't, in and of itself, a constitutional issue.

 

It's also about protecting non-presidential owned businesses from unfair trade practices. Hotel A has had the contract with the Chinese government for 15 years - suddenly, they shift their contract to Trump DC even though Trump DC is charging them more. Is that fair competition? Is that taking advantage of the office?

 

Did that happen?

 

But if the Queen has the impression that buying that ice cream helps her negotiating position, then it is unfair business practice to other ice cream shops, isn't it? These laws are put in place to protect other businesses as well.

 

There is talk that it may have. Some of the lawsuits have been brought by competing businesses. Are you against investigations to see if it did?

 

So... you agree with my statement.
Thanks,

 

China dropped its contracts with Hotel 6 and moved to Trump-owned businesses?

 

Yep. Exactly. Both are conflicts of interest.

 

Dem lawsuit is partisan.

 

Um... no.
Thanks for playing.