D.C., Md. attorneys general to sue Trump, saying foreign payments to his businesses violate Consti

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

Source: Washington Post

he lawsuit by the two Democratic attorneys general, the first of its kind brought by a government entity, could open a new front for Trump as he navigates dueling investigations by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III and congressional committees into possible collusion between his associates and the Russian government during the 2016 presidential election.
This is a developing story. It will be updated.



Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/06/11/d-c-md-attorneys-general-to-sue-trump-saying-foreign-payments-to-his-businesses-violate-constitutions-anti-corruption-clause/?utm_term=.5fac47d62d25

[sandensea]

1. My guess is that if this makes it to the Supreme Court, they'll reject it on some pretext or other.

It's nevertheless important to try - especially given these circumstances.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

3. It would be a case of first impression, I think. We shall see.

[sandensea]

4. Fingers crossed.

We could be looking at a very interesting October indeed.

[Igel]

16. Perhaps not pretext.

But standing.

Say that SCOTUS finds that MD's right. So what?

It's up to Congress to impeach and remove for office. Their call.

In other words, SCOTUS' decision would be moot. Waste of time. The best they could do is to find that "emoluments" means any business done by a foreign person with a business owned by a sitting president.

President retains part ownership in a diner, the way to have him removed from office is to ask a foreign diplomat to have coffee there. Doesn't even have to know who owns the place. An ally would force impeachment and removal for a cup of coffee. President would never have to know the diplomat dined there until he was accused and asked his manager if he had a list of names of diners.

Yes, it's a silly slippery-slope argument. On the other hand, legal precedent tends to be a slippery slope. If an emolument is any payment, even for services rendered or fair-market value of goods provided, there's no end to it. A high-rise condominium building or cup of coffee. Known or unknown. If the founders had wanted presidents to never own businesses open to the public, they'd have said so. Hard to know what they'd say about presidents trading overseas or with overseas possessions--legal framework's far, far too different from 1792 to the present.

Plus I still don't see the difference between knowing and not knowing where income comes from; or why a blind trust that might house overseas stocks and bonds for companies that trade with other governments are somehow categorically different just because the money is called a "dividend" and not "net profits."

Gut feeling is that emoluments aren't reasonable commercial transactions. Gut feeling is that a number of gold ingots delivered as part of a photo op, but which don't immediately pass to the federal treasury, are. But that's just me.

[sandensea]

21. Thank you for that thorough explanation, Igel.

Good to have someone with expertise give you the skinny on these things.

Cheeto knows full well that intelligence could leak footage of him being pissed on by five Russian - and underage - hookers, on a bed of rubles and gold ingots, and this Congress STILL wouldn't impeach.

It's long been feared that our system of checks and balances could one day cease to function, and that some larcenous (and probably fascist) despot could step in.

We're here folks.

[customerserviceguy]

22. Exactly

I'm sure that few people here actually had heard of the word emoluments until after the election. When I first heard it, it sounded like some chemical ingredient in hand cream.

There's so much more to go on than some ancient 18th Century word and what it meant to people 250 years ago versus what it should mean today. Trump has done more to screw this nation than any technical violation of a document that also refers to letters of marque and reprisal, that technically transformed piracy into something legal.

Let's stick with the stuff that even an addle-brained deplorable actually can understand.

[NYC Liberal]

24. It's way, way simpler than all of that.

The Emoluments Clause says recieving presents or payments from a foreign state is only not allowed "without the Consent of the Congress".

Congress will simply pass a bill giving their consent to whatever Trump wants to do. And there's no reason it can't be retroactive to include what he's already received since January.

Will it look bad? Of course. They don't give a shit.

[sharedvalues]

2. "Lawsuit by two law-abiding attorneys general"

Fixed that for the Post author.

[elleng]

5. 'But D.C. Attorney General Karl A. Racine (D) and Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh (D) say

Trump has broken many promises to keep separate his public duties and private business interests, including receiving regular updates about his company’s financial health.

The lawsuit, which Racine and Frosh described to The Washington Post on Sunday night, could open a new front for Trump as he navigates dueling investigations by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III and congressional committees of possible collusion between his associates and the Russian government during the 2016 presidential campaign.

If a federal judge allows the case to proceed, Racine and Frosh say, one of the first steps would be to demand through the discovery process copies of Trump’s 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.

“This case is, at its core, about the right of Marylanders, residents of the District of Columbia and all Americans to have honest government,” Frosh said, referring to parts of the Constitution known as the “emoluments” clauses, which prohibit U.S. officials from taking gifts or other benefits from foreign governments. “The emoluments clauses command that .?.?. the president put the country first and not his own personal interest first.”'>>>

[JoeOtterbein]

18. Thanks elleng for the explanation! A big help for me.

[pnwmom]

6. This article from January explains why DC might be the best venue for the challenge.

Also, it explains that -- no matter what the outcome -- the lawsuit could force DT to cough up financial information that he hasn't provided.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/what-is-the-emoluments-clause-does-it-apply-to-president-trump/2017/01/23/12aa7808-e185-11e6-a547-5fb9411d332c_story.html?utm_term=.17cfb83ee6fe

In that case, there may be no Democrats better positioned to take aim at Trump over the Constitution than the District of Columbia’s mayor, Muriel E. Bowser (D), or its attorney general, Karl A. Racine.

SNIP

But Bowser and Racine have a particular entree should they choose to pursue it: The D.C. government owns the land beneath the Marriott Marquis hotel and lent $383 million in taxpayer funds to the project.

The District also owns the land under the Conrad Hotel, a luxury 360-room property that is under construction downtown and will compete directly with the Trump hotel when it opens in the first quarter of 2019.

“If D.C. can allege that it has lost economically because of the benefits derived from the Trump violation of that Emoluments Clause, then D.C. could sue,” argued Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California at Irvine School of Law and an American Constitution Society board member . “And the way to do that would be to show that foreign governments are sending business to the Trump hotel that would otherwise go to D.C.’s hotels.”

[still_one]

7. From my understanding anything he did before he was sworn in, he can be held accountable for

After, he will just claim executive privilege, and the courts will uphold it

He would need to be impeached and by the House, and voted to be removed from office by the Senate before anything can be done

[pnwmom]

11. I think Executive Privilege is something else.

It's the idea that certain communications are considered privileged -- so that his staff can feel free to give him advice, knowing that no one else can subpoena it.

[still_one]

14. I believe that was what Bill Clinton invoked in the Paula Jones lawsuit, and the SC

denied his request.

There was an out of court settlement between Clinton and Jones in that case. The reason the lawsuit was allowed to proceed was it occurred before Bill Clinton was President.

The courts are not going to allow a sitting President to be sued for actions he did when he was President. He has to be removed by impeachment in that case before he can face any lawsuit, or be charged with any crimes

[pnwmom]

15. Action under the Emoluments Clause might be the exception.

It was written into the Constitution to prevent a sitting President from doing what DT has been doing.

https://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/donald-trump-and-the-emoluments-clause

Thus, citizens will not have standing to sue President Trump for violating the emoluments clause. But those who can show economic harm by Trump’s actions, perhaps business competitors, would have standing to sue. It is unclear what remedy would be available. In Nixon v. Fitzgerald, in 1982, the Court held that a president cannot be sued for money damages for actions taken while in office in carrying out the presidency. But it is uncertain whether this would apply to business deals by the president and his family. Also, no case has limited the ability to sue a sitting president for injunctive or declaratory relief.

A second possibility will be criminal prosecutions if Trump’s actions violate federal criminal statutes concerning conflicts of interest. An unresolved question, though, is whether a sitting president can be criminally prosecuted or whether impeachment is the only remedy. For instance, in 1974, the Watergate grand jury named President Richard Nixon an unindicted co-conspirator because it was uncertain as to whether it could indict a sitting president.

[still_one]

17. Nothing will happen unless he is impeached first.

[pnwmom]

19. What about this, from the piece I just posted?

"Also, no case has limited the ability to sue a sitting president for injunctive or declaratory relief. "

They could sue for injunctive relief, and as a part of discovery, get his tax returns -- which would be useful whether or not they won the case in the end.

[still_one]

20. Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't mind it at all, even if it is just to get his tax returns

I think it is going to get tied up in courts

I think Mueller stands a better chance to get those tax returns

[Tatiana]

8. This is a very clever way to get the tax returns.

I hope this lawsuit is successful, or at least, proceeds through the discovery process.

[flibbitygiblets]

9. Agreed!

You just know there's all kinds of heinous f**kery in there.

[MedusaX]

10. Violations of The Emoluments Clause can be litigated while still in office...

It is one of the loopholes in presidential immunity...

While it is the "discovery" process that is of utmost importance ....
the outcome could include
injunctions,
fines,
divestment,
and/or limited dissolutions of LLCs....

[pnwmom]

13. The developing story has been updated! Thanks for posting! n/t

[SunSeeker]

23. K & R

[AntiFascist]

25. Latest story from the NY Times...

Maryland and D.C. Sue Trump Over His Private Businesses

In a new legal challenge to President Trump, Maryland and the District of Columbia filed a lawsuit Monday alleging that his failure to shed his private businesses has undermined public trust and violated constitutional bans against self-dealing.

The lawsuit, filed in a Maryland federal court, makes many of the same arguments in a lawsuit filed earlier this year by a Washington watchdog organization in a New York federal court. But some legal experts said it rested on stronger legal ground because the plaintiffs were governmental entities, which could have stronger standing to sue the president.

The complaint opens uncharted legal territory. No state has accused a president of violating the emoluments clauses of the Constitution. One of those clauses bans federal officials from accepting gifts from foreign governments. A second prohibits the president from accepting economic benefits from the federal or state governments, other than his salary.

Because Mr. Trump continues to own and profit from his business empire, the lawsuit claims, it is unclear whether he is making decisions in the country’s best interest or out of “self-interested motivations grounded in the international and domestic business dealings in which President Trump’s personal fortune is at stake.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/12/us/trump-lawsuit-private-businesses.html

[50 Shades Of Blue]

26. GO DC & MD!!!!

Proud to have been born in you, and to live in you!