General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsTrump's emoluments headache is poised to get a whole lot worse
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/trumps-emoluments-headache-poised-get-whole-lot-worse?cid=sm_fb_maddow&fbclid=IwAR0-vPYmRC_VUGQQlPKiM9NUjDAvD3x9L0tE8xt-fdJMwD5Li3EKVU4VDSwTrumps emoluments headache is poised to get a whole lot worse
12/04/18 08:40 AM
By Steve Benen
The U.S. Constitution includes a once-obscure provision known as the Emoluments Clause. As regular readers know, the law is pretty straightforward: U.S. officials are prohibited from receiving payments from foreign governments. Traditionally, this hasnt been much of a problem for sitting American presidents but with Donald Trump things are a little different.
After all, this president has refused to divest from his private-sector enterprises, which means he continues to personally profit from businesses that receive payments from foreign governments.
The problem isnt theoretical: Saudi Arabia, for example, spent roughly $270,000 at Trumps Washington hotel during one of the countrys lobbying campaigns last year. Some of that money directly benefited the president.
This legally dubious dynamic has been the target of multiple lawsuits, one of which is poised to become even more interesting. The Associated Press reported late yesterday:
U.S. District Court Judge Peter J. Messitte approved the legal discovery schedule in an order Monday. Such information would likely provide the first clear picture of the finances of Trumps Washington, D.C., hotel.
When the attorneys general of Maryland and D.C. filed suit, they had to clear some hurdles that couldve scuttled their case. For example, a judge had to agree they had the necessary standing to even file the case, and they cleared that hurdle in March.
The plaintiffs then had to prove that the Emoluments Clause applied to this kind of presidential private-sector venture. The judge sided in their favor on this, too.
And now, as part of the discovery process, the plaintiffs want to interview Trump Organization employees and search company records to determine which foreign countries have spent money at Trumps hotel in downtown Washington.
Whether thatll happen, however, is still the subject of some controversy.
In theory, the discovery phase should begin soon and last for months, but the Trump administration is scrambling to block the process from continuing. The Associated Press report added:
Watch this space.
malaise
(269,157 posts)Get thee to the greatest page
cbdo2007
(9,213 posts)it is if:
1. they spent more money there than they would have spent at similar properties nearby, like if they are paying 500% what other hotels in the area are charging, or there are other strange payments.
2. if the Trump administration told them to stay there as their only option
So hopefully them seeing the hotel records will answer question 1 but they will probably need to subpoena white house records/emails for question 2
Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)FakeNoose
(32,713 posts)However that case was heard in a local court, and I think this might have gone federal now.
aggiesal
(8,922 posts)involved in a private matter?
IQ45 should be paying his defense out of his pocket, not ours!
TwistOneUp
(1,020 posts)Has Cheetolini ever paid for anything?
He stiffs everyone. Even in legal settlements, he has his attorneys do his bag work.
He's a deadbeat. He had a big gambling client nicknamed The Whale. The Whale wanted to leave. Cheetolini gave him a check for $5000 and told him to go into Atlantic City and spend it and have fun. No one in town would cash the check.
erronis
(15,326 posts)paying out of his own pocket.
I suppose the Turnip Organization could throw in some of their charitable donations. And the Putinesquas, Kochs, Mercers could do a GoFund.me.
ancianita
(36,130 posts)LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)in regards to profiting from office.
ancianita
(36,130 posts)Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)that have been brought against a president?
Hermit-The-Prog
(33,397 posts)ancianita
(36,130 posts)http://www.crf-usa.org/images/pdf/TheEmolumentsClause.pdf
Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)Which implied some were brought to trial
ancianita
(36,130 posts)Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)DallasNE
(7,403 posts)Defending a Trump enterprise? Should it not be corporate lawyers? It just seems like another emolument for government lawyers to be representing Trump assets.
erronis
(15,326 posts)spanone
(135,858 posts)Hermit-The-Prog
(33,397 posts)calimary
(81,421 posts)Dave Starsky
(5,914 posts)It's spelled out in black and white in the fucking document, for crying out loud!
Our Constitution is not that long. It's one of the shortest constitutions of any country in the world.