Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Federal judge: Congressional Democrats can sue Trump in emoluments case

Federal judge: Congressional Democrats can sue Trump in emoluments case

“The case argues that the president has received foreign government favors . . . . “

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3B-2-zUYeic

The anti-Trump #Resistance and #NeverTrumpers are determined to undermine our president and “undo” the 2016 election by any means necessary.  So single-minded and focused on the moment are they, that they are willing to sacrifice our electoral process, our Republic, and our Constitution for the sake of their Trump derangement.

This emoluments argument has been batted around since before Trump even took office. 

A federal judge has now ruled that Congressional Democrats can sue President Trump in an emoluments case.

USAToday reports:

A federal judge has ruled that 200 Democratic members of Congress have legal standing to sue President Donald Trump for allegedly violating the emoluments clause of the Constitution by doing business with foreign governments while in office.

The emoluments clause bars presidents from accepting gifts from foreign and domestic interests without consent from Congress.

The case argues that the president has received foreign government favors, such as Chinese government trademarks for his companies, payments for hotel rooms and event-space rentals by representatives of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, and proceeds from Chinese or Emirati-linked government purchases of office space in Trump Tower.

U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan on Friday found that lawmakers have adequately shown that they have suffered harm from the president’s alleged violation of the clause.

“This is a bombshell victory enabling us to move forward to hold the president accountable for violating the chief corruption prohibition in the United States’ Constitution,” Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Connecticut, told the Associated Press. “President Trump has been violating it repeatedly with impunity and now we as members need to hold him accountable.”

Elizabeth Wydra, attorney for the Democratic lawmakers and president of the nonprofit Constitutional Accountability Center who argued the case in court, said that “by recognizing that members of Congress have standing to sue, the court proved to all in America today that no one is above the law, not even the president.”

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Tags:

Comments

“No one is above the law”…except for the dem candidate in 2016.

bring it on… itd be great to get the demo-rats in court & whoop their butts right where they are trying to stack the deck & make law when they can’t get the deplorables to do their bidding.. itll come back to haunt them..

The emoluments clause bars presidents from accepting gifts from foreign and domestic interests without consent from Congress.

No, it doesn’t. This is just one of the fatal flaws in their case, but it’s a doozie. The presidency is not an office under the United States, so the emoluments clause does not apply, which is why nobody in Congress objected to George Washington accepting gifts from foreign governments.

Wait for this finding to be overturned in 3…2…1…

    If the courts can rule that a mandated purchase of health insurance – enforced by the IRS and with fines and penalties for failing to purchase same – is not a tax – I think they could come up with a Dem friendly ruling on this as well.

    My problem with this particular attack on Trump is that he’s not getting “gifts” – he’s getting business, in which one party purchases goods (or services) at an arguably fair market price.

    The reading the Dems want to apply to this law would ensure that no one holding high office could own a company, or have his/her family own a company.

    I would have more (not much, but more) sympathy for their position if they had been equally outraged over all the foreign entities donating to the Clinton Foundation, paying Bill extravagant speaking fees, and paying Hillary book advancements (way too high to ever be made back in sales) during HRH’s reign as SoS.

    At least trump provides a place to sleep for the people who stay at his hotels, or other real return for a purchase. If Harry Truman had kept his haberdashery going during his time in office, I would not have been bothered if an ambassador or two had bought hats. What the law was intended to curtail was outright bribery, not the purchase of a nights stay at a hotel.

      randian in reply to BobM. | October 1, 2018 at 5:10 am

      Since the people who want the emoluments clause interpreted this way never had real private sector jobs I doubt it would bother them if company ownership was taken off the table. It’s a way of keeping wrong-thinking people out of politics.

      As for Hillary’s book advances, they look a lot like bribes, but it’s unclear what favor the book companies were paying for. A book company has no obvious need for the kind of access Hillary was selling. Perhaps the book company was a means to launder a bribe from someone else, so they weren’t really losing money.

        PersonofInterests in reply to randian. | October 1, 2018 at 5:19 pm

        BINGO ! Those book deals aren’t of the kind most fantacize them to be where an author gets and advance; writes a book; and the advance subtracted from the profits derived from the publication. IN THE WORLD OF HILLARY CLINTON, BARACK OBAMA, AND OTHERS, THESE BOOK DEALS ARE ABOUT GETTING HUGE SUMS OF MONEY TO “VIRTUALLY PENNILESS” AND BROKE DEMTARDS WHO DO THE BIDDING OF THE SOCIALISTS/COMMUNIST BILLIONAIRES HOLDING THEIR STRINGS FROM BEHIND THE CURTAIN.

        Take the $65 Million Book Deal of Baracl “Obola”: There is no way that ANY book is going to be sold that well to recover that amount of money. They could pring 65 Million copies and give them away to every Doctor’s Office, Library, and other possible public outlet and they still wouldn’t turn a profit. What seems obvious is that a billionaire like George Soros may deposit $65 Million with the publisher who then sends a check to Obola and whether a book is ever written much less published, the money is made public so as to not draw the attention of an investigation or charges of corruption.

        By her own admission, The Clintons were supposedly penniless when the left the White House, which may explain why they stole everything that wasn’t nailed down before leaving.

          BINGO ! Those book deals aren’t of the kind most fantacize them to be where an author gets and advance; writes a book; and the advance subtracted from the profits derived from the publication.

          Almost no book deals work that way. Very few books earn back their advance and start paying royalties. The normal case is that the advance is the only money the writer ever sees.

        BobM in reply to randian. | October 1, 2018 at 8:45 pm

        Yeah, they look a lot like bribes, except there’s no clear cut quid pro quo, The books publishing industry and those who work in it (with the exception of a few publishers like Baen Books) is overwhelming (D) and (L). So they know that money spent supporting HRC’s politics is money spent supporting their own politics.

        So it looks like a thinly disguised illegal campaign contribution.

        Can’t remember the name of the House Speaker (D) who pioneered book-relayed work-arounds following the reforms post-Nixon, but as I recall he has his aides collate his statements on the Floor into book format (on the govt dime, natch) and paid a vanity press to publish it. Then Dem-supporting groups (like the unions) would buy the books in bulk, to pass out to their members for free (or just throw away) and it wouldn’t count against the maximum campaign donations limits. Brilliant. Crooked as heck, but still brilliant.

      Milhouse in reply to BobM. | October 3, 2018 at 1:18 am

      If the courts can rule that a mandated purchase of health insurance – enforced by the IRS and with fines and penalties for failing to purchase same – is not a tax

      You got that backwards. When the court looked at the facts rather than the rhetoric it found that there was no mandate and no fine or penalty, just a tax like any other tax. It specifically said an actual mandate would be unconstitutional even if Congress decided to call it a tax, because it makes no difference what Congress calls something, only what it is.

The judge is just saying the D’rats have standing, not that they have a decent case. I doubt anyone intends it to be serious. Rather, it’s just another way to keep up the nonstop hysteria and fuel the D’rats primary weapon, the madness of crowds.

More left-wing, false and anti-American crap from the Federal bench.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend