— July 25th, 2018 | Washington Post
There was no author named in the morning newsfeed carrying this story or I’d name the author and thank them.
A federal judge on Wednesday rejected President Trump’s latest effort to stop a lawsuit that alleges Trump is violating the Constitution by continuing to do business with foreign governments.
The ruling, from U.S. District Judge Peter J. Messitte in Greenbelt, Md., will allow the plaintiffs in the case — the attorneys general of Maryland and the District of Columbia — to proceed with their case, which says Trump has violated the Constitution’s little-used emoluments clause
Not too long ago when this story was first making its way into news headlines Digby (Heather Digby Parton) went beyond the foreign violations of the emoluments clause that most of the reporting was covering, adding another but less covered aspect. The numerous conflicts of interest raised by Trump’s self-dealing in direct violation of the Domestic side of the emoluments clause to the US Constitution
I’d posted Digby’s report and a number of sources cited by Digby:
Digby: Another “emoluments clause” that should bar Donald Trump from office
One of Digby’s sources, Brianne J. Gorod, chief counsel at the Constitutional Accountability Center, addressed the lesser known but equally applicable domestic emoluments clause of Article II of the constitution in an article for The Huffington Post.
* * *
According to various reports at the time, one of the problems with bringing a case was the question; Who has standing ? Who can demonstrate injury by Trump’s violations ?
It looks a though that question has been cleared up:
The lawsuit, filed last year by D.C. Attorney General Karl A. Racine (D) and Maryland Attorney General Brian E. Frosh (D), cleared an initial hurdle in March.
Back then, Messitte settled one legal question, ruling that the plaintiffs had legal standing to sue the president in the first place.
Prior to Trump, and unlike most presidents, self-dealing violations of the emoluments clause both foreign and domestic was a rare thing according to the report’s portrayal on this:
The Constitution bars federal officials from taking emoluments from any “King, Prince, or Foreign State.” The Founding Fathers’ intent had been to stop U.S. ambassadors overseas — emissaries from a new, poor, fragile country — from being bought off by jewels or payments from wealthy European states.
But the modern meaning of the clause had not been settled because most presidents — acting on the advice of their attorneys — had steered clear of business entanglements while in office.
The plaintiffs are now seeking a ruling on whether Trump’s profiting off of the Trump International Hotel on Pennsylvania Avenue represents ongoing and numerous conflicts of interests:
[Trump rents out] large ballrooms to the embassies of Kuwait and the Philippines and hosted visiting leaders from Malaysia and Romania.
The plaintiff argument:
They said that emolument in this case should not just mean an outright gift but also any transaction that gave Trump
“profit, gain or advantage.”
That means it would apply to transactions in which a foreign government paid Trump’s company for a service or a hotel room.
The counter argument from the DOJ that is defending Trump:
But Justice Department attorneys, defending the president, said that this definition twisted the Constitution’s original meaning.
They said the president is not breaking the law when foreign officials book rooms or hold events at his Washington hotel because they are paying for something and not giving Trump a gift.
Trump promised that he’d donate all foreign profits:
Before Trump took office, his company said it would donate all “foreign profits” collected by the business to the federal treasury. At the end of last year, the Trump Organization said it donated $151,470 in February.
But it declined to explain the details behind that number — giving no information about which countries those profits came from or what the Trump Organization’s total revenue from foreign governments had been
The plaintiff’s want details and are seeking discovery:
If the plaintiffs are allowed to conduct “discovery” at Trump’s hotel — examining its books to identify its foreign customers — that could require the president to provide more detailed information about his personal finances.
Trump broke with presidential tradition when he refused to make public his tax returns.
If discovery is granted, it may provide answers to a whole range of questions far beyond those raised by Trumps business dealings at one Hotel.
Trump has been lying for over a year and a half about the reasons for keeping his Tax returns secret. If the judge rules in favor of the plaintiff’s, and discovery is allowed, there is no telling (right now) how far that money trail will lead, or exactly where.
We’ve all been witness to Trump’s submission and numerous concessions to Russian president Vladimir Putin on U.S. foreign policy matters, including Trump’s refusal to acknowledge (despite flip-flopping and back-tracking) Putin's orchestrated Hack & Attack on American elections.
Discovery if allowed, into Trump financial endeavors; where, and how those “adjustments” in U.S. foreign policy came about, might be right around the next corner — and by the looks of it, there may be republican politicians, especially those in “leadership" positions that could be facing many of the same questions about the source of money that “fell of the truck” into their own pockets and campaigns
one thing; please forgive my absence for the next couple of hours, got some gardening chores that need doing. But there is also a fun part. Yesterday was my fourth raspberry picking session, and wow what a crop this year. As they ripen I’ve been competing with this adorable tiny little baby chipmunk :)
* * *
with more from annieli here:
It's Orca Week, because Trump jumped the shark and he's violating the Emoluments Clause