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

[webfact]

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

By Jonathan Stempel

 

U.S. President Donald Trump walks from Marine One as he returns from Kansas City, Missouri, to the White House in Washington, U.S., July 24, 2018. REUTERS/Joshua Roberts

 

(Reuters) - A federal judge on Wednesday rejected President Donald Trump's bid to dismiss a lawsuit accusing him of unconstitutionally accepting gifts from foreign and state governments through his Washington hotel while occupying the White House.

 

U.S. District Judge Peter Messitte's decision clears the way for the attorneys general of Maryland and the District of Columbia, who brought the case, to pursue interviews with Trump Organization employees and review financial records to learn if the president broke the law.

 

The lawsuit accused Trump of violating the Constitution's "emoluments" clauses, which bar federal officials from accepting gifts from foreign governments without congressional approval, and the president from receiving gifts from states. They are designed to thwart corruption and improper influence.

 

"It's an historic decision," Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh said in an interview. "There has never been another president who has tested the emoluments clause. This is the first time we have had a president who has walked up to and, in our view, walked way over the line."

 

Messitte had in March narrowed the lawsuit to focus on profits stemming from Trump's ownership, through the Trump Organization, of the Trump International Hotel, a popular spot for foreign officials near the White House.

 

But in Wednesday's 52-page decision, the Greenbelt, Maryland-based judge rejected Trump's "cramped" view that emoluments were limited essentially to bribes.

 

Messitte said the plaintiffs had "convincingly argued" that emoluments had a broader meaning, consistent with how even George Washington used the term in a 1776 proclamation.

 

"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."

 

The U.S. Department of Justice, which defended Trump, is determining its next steps "to continue vigorously defending the President," spokesman Andy Reuss said in an email. "We continue to maintain that this case should be dismissed."

 

Karl Racine, the D.C. attorney general, countered in a statement: "325 million Americans shouldn't have to wonder if the president is putting his personal financial interests ahead of the national interest."

 

A Manhattan federal judge had in December dismissed a similar lawsuit by plaintiffs including the watchdog Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, saying they lacked standing to sue.

 

Roughly 200 House and Senate Democrats filed their own lawsuit in June 2017, demanding that Trump obtain Congressional approval before accepting emoluments. That case is pending.

 

The case is District of Columbia et al v Trump, U.S. District Court, District of Maryland, No. 17-01596.

 

(Reporting by Jonathan Stempel in New York; editing by James Dalgleish, Steve Orlofsky and Susan Thomas)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2018-07-26

[Chomper Higgot]

Oooops!

[pokerface1]

Lawyers profiteering again on Trumps slip ups. This case will go down the drain eventually like all the rest.

If the items were of any significance like a Yacht or perhaps a flash car then I sure this report would mention it.???

[JCauto]

3 hours ago, pokerface1 said:

Lawyers profiteering again on Trumps slip ups. This case will go down the drain eventually like all the rest.

If the items were of any significance like a Yacht or perhaps a flash car then I sure this report would mention it.???

Is that the same as "Trump breaking the law and not following the rules set by the Constitution and the Justice System allowing the Case to proceed"? 

Remember Trumpeters, you were the ones saying that you wanted everything to be Constitutional and prosecuted strictly according to the Law. You will be interested to know that we anti-Trumpers believe the same thing. The Law doesn't have anything in the Emoluments Clause that says it has to be above a certain value, the basic idea is that you aren't allowed to take anything from foreign agents or governments when you're the President and you have to report it. When gifts are given, even tacky ones that are the equivalent of those carved wooden fish you see everywhere, they become the property of the US Government and the President has to buy them at fair market value when they leave if they want to keep them. So Trump has failed to report these Emoluments as is clearly required, and has kept the proceeds within his own business which is clearly against the Law. Doesn't matter if it's an Aston Martin or a wooden fish.

Lock him up!

[mamypoko]

blind trust, dumb ass

[Jeffrey346]

4 hours ago, pokerface1 said:

Lawyers profiteering again on Trumps slip ups. This case will go down the drain eventually like all the rest.

If the items were of any significance like a Yacht or perhaps a flash car then I sure this report would mention it.???

Trump is being prosecuted by the DC Attorney General and defended by the US Justice Department. Exactly which lawyers are profiteering?

[mtls2005]

Tax returns, both personal and corporate, would be gathered in discovery.

[lockyv7]

It’s going to be so funny when whoever is next elected is subjected to exactly the same scrutiny and judicial system wanting to sue everyone and everything that moves. Gives the rest of the world something to laugh about i guess. 

[mtls2005]

2 minutes ago, lockyv7 said:

It’s going to be so funny when whoever is next elected is subjected to exactly the same scrutiny and judicial system wanting to sue everyone and everything that moves.

 

You mean "ethics", right?

 

https://www.oge.gov/

 

On the plus side, the DoJ will defend him in this case, and a/the SCOTUS might ultimately rule on this case, favorably one assumes.

 

 

[quandow]

14 minutes ago, lockyv7 said:

It’s going to be so funny when whoever is next elected is subjected to exactly the same scrutiny and judicial system wanting to sue everyone and everything that moves. Gives the rest of the world something to laugh about i guess. 

Yet if we KEEP DOING THIS, year after year, and don't blow up the planet, eventually we might actually wind up with honest politicians!

[Berkshire]

Of course Trump is guilty.  But this line just kills me...."The U.S. Department of Justice, which defended Trump, is determining its next steps...."

 

So my tax dollars are going towards defending this corrupt, lying scumbag, crook, sorry-excuse-for-a-human-being?  Lordy. 

[Thailand]

Didn't Putin also give him a football?

Another red card!

[mtls2005]

27 minutes ago, Berkshire said:

So my tax dollars are going towards defending this corrupt, lying scumbag, crook, sorry-excuse-for-a-human-being?  Lordy. 

 

The DoJ is defending the Office of the President, rather than the current occupant: Benedict Donald.

[GroveHillWanderer]

20 minutes ago, lockyv7 said:

It’s going to be so funny when whoever is next elected is subjected to exactly the same scrutiny and judicial system wanting to sue everyone and everything that moves. Gives the rest of the world something to laugh about i guess. 

I would hope and assume that any future president who tries to enrich themselves and/or their businesses at the expense of the US taxpayer would receive exactly the same treatment as this.

 

As the article points out, no previous president has ever violated the emoluments clause as Trump has done. Previous presidents have put their business interests into blind trusts or divested themselves of them. Any future president who (unlike Trump) has even the slightest sense of morality, ethics or respect for the US constitution will almost certainly not try to ignore the emoluments clause in the same way Trump has.

 

As for this being somehow not as significant as a yacht or a flash car, the value of Trump's various unconstitutional emoluments already runs into the hundreds of millions of dollars - see link below:

 

How Trump is profiting from the presidency

 

[joecoolfrog]

1 hour ago, lockyv7 said:

It’s going to be so funny when whoever is next elected is subjected to exactly the same scrutiny and judicial system wanting to sue everyone and everything that moves. Gives the rest of the world something to laugh about i guess. 

The current president acts in a bombastic manner and is treated accordingly. One hopes the next one is rather more diplomatic and humble and is treated in kind.

[JCauto]

1 hour ago, lockyv7 said:

It’s going to be so funny when whoever is next elected is subjected to exactly the same scrutiny and judicial system wanting to sue everyone and everything that moves. Gives the rest of the world something to laugh about i guess. 

Why would it be funny? The previous 43 Presidents were subjected to exactly this scrutiny and judicial system, nothing has changed about that whatsoever. The difference is that they were easily able to avoid these problems (except for Clinton, because, you know, a BJ in the Oval Office is appalling and a moral travesty and a dishonor to the office of the President) because they, you know, didn't break the law or act contrary to the Constitution. They also all submitted their tax returns and other information so that it could be easily checked and the DOJ and FBI could examine them. They found nothing major wrong, so no prosecution. 

Now ask yourself why did Dishonest Don not submit his tax returns, and why has he been proven to be lying so much? And is it a coincidence that this guy is under siege whereas the others weren't?

[Dap]

52 minutes ago, mtls2005 said:

 

The DoJ is defending the Office of the President, rather than the current occupant: Benedict Donald.

Oh, ya; think?

Edited July 26, 2018 by Dap

[RPCVguy]

If you access the public court ruling as provided, pages 44 & 45 are pretty clear as to starting points on emoluments. The PDF is at: https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/106-trump-emoluments-court-ruling/ce36be6a3fdd873142fa/optimized/full.pdf#page=1

This has been the contention/ constitutional problem since day one of this administration. The delay in getting through the court system is only now getting to this level of ruling.

Quote

"The Emoluments Clauses are intended to protect against any type of potentially improper influence by foreign, the federal, and state governments upon the President.

 

... Because the amount the Conference member would receive from the partnership’s profits would be a function of the amount paid to the firm by the foreign government, the partnership would in effect be a conduit for that government. Thus, some portion of the member’s income could fairly be attributed to a foreign government. We believe that acceptance of that portion of the member’s partnership share would constitute a prohibited emolument.
Id. "This language directly contradicts the President’s suggestion that there can be no violation of the Foreign Clause if the federal official is receiving benefits in a private capacity.41 One of the OCE’s more recent opinions leaves little doubt that official action is not required before there can be an Emoluments Clause violation. In a June 2, 2017, opinion, the OCE directly addressed the question of whether a federal official’s acceptance of profit derived from the rental of rooms to a foreign government runs afoul of the Foreign Emoluments Clause. The OCE concluded that “the term ‘emoluments’ is not limited to payments from a foreign government that result from an individual’s official duties” but that “the receipt of profit from a foreign government for rental property may implicate the constitutional prohibition against receipt of ‘any emolument’ of ‘any kind whatever’ from a foreign state.”

[ramrod711]

Lock him up, lock him up, lock him up! On second thought, making him listen to his own bullsh-t would be enough punishment, I know it has made me sick.

[Tug]

That’s our Donald unencubered by ethics morality thought or much of anything else except greed they have a room waiting for you in Leavenworth 

[Rhys]

Going to take more than that to nail denture donnie boy..

[Trouble]

Seems a total waste of taxpayers money.   Basically the AG of Maryland and DC using Taxpayer money for their own political interests. What would be a real hoot is if they get this case going and find the hotel is loosing money.  What are they going to say then? 

[farcanell]

11 hours ago, Jeffrey346 said:

Trump is being prosecuted by the DC Attorney General and defended by the US Justice Department. Exactly which lawyers are profiteering?

He has gubment lawyers for gubment issues.... and personal lawyers, for personal issues... Rudi for example... and Cohen before that.

 

Apparently one of his big problems is in not telling the same story to both sets of lawyers ???

[RPCVguy]

Just from people who must tag along when he stays at his properties as well as other known US governmental agencies there are over $16Million in revenue. "Since Donald Trump declared his candidacy for president in late 2015, at least $16.1 million has poured into Trump Organization-managed and branded hotels, golf courses and restaurants from his campaign, Republican organizations, and government agencies. Because Trump’s business empire is overseen by a trust of which he is the sole beneficiary, he profits from these hotel stays, banquet hall rentals and meals. "
https://www.propublica.org/article/political-and-taxpayer-spending-at-trump-properties-16-1-million

On the aspect of foreign influence? That is what will be uncovered when the case gets into records beyond what government agencies have paid out.

[mtls2005]

5 hours ago, Trouble said:

Seems a total waste of taxpayers money.   Basically the AG of Maryland and DC using Taxpayer money for their own political interests. What would be a real hoot is if they get this case going and find the hotel is loosing money.  What are they going to say then? 

 

A lot to unpack here.

 

AG's ignoring illegal activities may not be a good place to go?

 

If the hotel is losing money then that may not come as a shock, given Trump is involved? 

[TPI]

'merican politicos 5555555 How can 350 million keep getting it sooooo wrong? Your shenanigans have made the US a laughing stock...on both sides!

 

The whole process is so blatantly corrupt, so closed to only the rich and corrupt it's a wonder that the whole system has not totally collapsed under its own weight? 

 

Every management level of the  system seems to be corrupt! The people seem to be firmly planted in the system as drones, who, while they grumble sometimes, put up with status quo with barely a quiver?

 

Did they put something in the water?  

[GroveHillWanderer]

12 hours ago, Trouble said:

Seems a total waste of taxpayers money.   Basically the AG of Maryland and DC using Taxpayer money for their own political interests. What would be a real hoot is if they get this case going and find the hotel is loosing money.  What are they going to say then? 

Trying to stop a president from a) trampling all over the US Constitution and b) siphoning off millions of dollars from the US taxpayer into his own pockets is a waste of taxpayers' money? How do you figure that?

 

Whether the hotel is losing money is irrelevant - the issue is that Trump is getting the US government to pay money directly towards his private businesses. 

[bristolboy]

15 hours ago, Trouble said:

Seems a total waste of taxpayers money.   Basically the AG of Maryland and DC using Taxpayer money for their own political interests. What would be a real hoot is if they get this case going and find the hotel is loosing money.  What are they going to say then? 

They would say that it would be losing even more money without the government payments. What do you think they would say?

[mamypoko]

On 7/26/2018 at 2:47 PM, lockyv7 said:

It’s going to be so funny when whoever is next elected is subjected to exactly the same scrutiny and judicial system wanting to sue everyone and everything that moves. Gives the rest of the world something to laugh about i guess. 

Yeah, like scrutiny is a new thing...