D.C. and Maryland AGs: Trump ‘flagrantly violating’ emoluments clause (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


WickedsDesire -> D.C. and Maryland AGs: Trump ‘flagrantly violating’ emoluments clause (6/13/2017 4:35:52 AM)

D.C. and Maryland AGs: Trump �flagrantly violating� emoluments clause

Democratic state attorneys general, a chief roadblock to some of President Trump’s most controversial policies, escalated their campaign against him Monday, alleging in a lawsuit that payments by foreign governments to Trump’s businesses violate anti-corruption clauses in the Constitution.

The lawsuit, the first of its kind brought by government entities, marks a turning point for Democratic attorneys general and showcases their increasingly influential role in Washington at a time when their party is largely shut out of power.

D.C. Attorney General Karl A. Racine and Maryland Attorney General Brian E. Frosh say in the lawsuit that Trump’s decision to retain ownership of his business empire, and from inside the White House, “calls into question the rule of law and the integrity of the country’s political system.”

At a news conference, Racine and Frosh accused Trump of “flagrantly violating” the Constitution’s emoluments clause, which prohibits U.S. officeholders from taking anything of value from foreign leaders.

The conflicts created are so vast, Frosh said, that Americans cannot say with certainty whether Trump’s actions on a given day are taken in the best interest of the country or that of his companies.

The new lawsuit argues that D.C. and Maryland, specifically, are being harmed because the Trump International Hotel near the White House may be drawing business away from the taxpayer-owned Walter E. Washington Convention Center in the District and a facility in Maryland subsidized by taxpayers.

The Kuwaiti Embassy held an event at the Trump hotel, the lawsuit notes, switching its initial booking from the Four Seasons. A public-relations firm hired by Saudi Arabia, which Trump visited on his first trip abroad as president, also has spent over $270,000 on rooms, meals and parking at the president’s D.C. hotel in recent months as the kingdom shuttled U.S. veterans to D.C. to lobby against a measure in Congress that could expose the Saudi government to lawsuits. Turkey held a state-sponsored event there last month. And in April, the ambassador of Georgia stayed at the hotel and tweeted his compliments. Trump has appeared at the hotel and greeted guests repeatedly since becoming president.

In all, the lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland names 10 countries it says Trump has profited from as president.

At the White House, press secretary Sean Spicer dismissed the lawsuit, saying it’s “not hard to conclude that partisan politics may be one of the motivations.”

Facing a bank of 20 television cameras, Racine and Frosh left little doubt that they were embracing their role in pushing back against Trump.

“The Republican-controlled Congress has wholly failed to fulfill its responsibility of serving as a check and balance on the president and has thus given the president a total pass on his business entanglements,” Racine said.

Lawsuits brought under the emoluments clause are exceedingly rare, and the lack of precedent left legal experts divided on how the case might end. But many agreed that the suit is more likely than several similar cases brought recently to survive early challenges.

If it does proceed, Racine and Frosh say they will demand that Trump turn over his personal tax returns to gauge the extent of his foreign business dealings. That fight would most likely end up before the Supreme Court, the two said, with Trump’s attorneys having to defend why the returns should remain private.

Andy Grewal, a law professor at the University of Iowa, has been openly skeptical that any emolument lawsuit will succeed. But Grewal said he thinks having the District and Maryland as plaintiffs will make federal courts reluctant to halt the suit before it reaches the phase of discovery that could lead to Trump’s tax returns. guffaws

Did I read the other day one of Trumps sons siphoned off $1.2 million from Golf charity events into the Trump business - where the trail ends - and never to be seen again? Or was that more left wing fake news




Musicmystery -> RE: D.C. and Maryland AGs: Trump ‘flagrantly violating’ emoluments clause (6/13/2017 4:37:39 AM)

A day late.

http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=5042568




WickedsDesire -> RE: D.C. and Maryland AGs: Trump ‘flagrantly violating’ emoluments clause (6/13/2017 4:49:34 AM)

Ah ive skipped to logging on every other day for the now ;) thanks :) let me go read.




Termyn8or -> RE: D.C. and Maryland AGs: Trump ‘flagrantly violating’ emoluments clause (6/13/2017 5:29:26 PM)

You have noi knoledge of the emolments clause. Actually a quite stricter amendment to the Constituion was propsed but not proprely rafified

The current emoluments clause only applies to things done IN THE OFFICIAL POSITION of someone in this goverernment, and that has not been violated.

You liberals have nothing and are still grasping at straws.

Use up your energy on hate and die, because quite frankly we can live much better without you.

T^T




MrRodgers -> RE: D.C. and Maryland AGs: Trump ‘flagrantly violating’ emoluments clause (6/13/2017 6:38:57 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

You have noi knoledge of the emolments clause. Actually a quite stricter amendment to the Constituion was propsed but not proprely rafified

The current emoluments clause only applies to things done IN THE OFFICIAL POSITION of someone in this goverernment, and that has not been violated.

You liberals have nothing and are still grasping at straws.

Use up your energy on hate and die, because quite frankly we can live much better without you.

T^T

What part of this do you not understand ?

no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, (office of trust ?) shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present,

Trump's businesses and therefore Trump himself is accepting 'presents'[ (enrichment) from the various govt.'s listed in the lawsuit. This is also made clear by the changes in venue to Trump properties that otherwise would not have benefited Trump himself.

BTW, and typically, liberals have nothing whatever to do with such suits or legal judgment. In fact, making a profit and in anyway one can irrespective of law, is straight out of the repub (right's) political playbook.




Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125