Group That Tried to Sue Trump Over "Emoluments" Clause Just Got Booted Out of Court
Judge George Daniels of the Southern District of New York authored the opinion, filed Dec. 21, giving a win to Trump. But more generally, the opinion defends the principle that people cannot sue politicians in order to settle political debates in court, instead of in the legislature or at the ballot box.
The watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington sued Trump last January, claiming that his extensive business interests constitute ongoing violations of the Constitution’s foreign and domestic emoluments clauses .
http://www.heritage.org/crime-and-justice/commentary/group-tried-sue-trump-over-emoluments-clause-just-got-booted-out-court?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=thf-fb
Tags
Who is online
642 visitors
Eventually libs will come around and admit that President Trump is the best thing for America since President Reagan.
Anyone else with more than 3 functioning brain cells won't.
How many liberals would you have to get together to meet that prerequisite? 10? 20?
Paula and I together can contribute at least triple that amount
At a minimum.
Trumpism ?
You are 100% correct. Anyone with an IQ above room temperature 🤒 as Rush would say, knows that.
That would be NANCY Reagan, right?
Even Sen. Graham has changed his views on Pres. Trump.
He's not fit to be President. He's a loony."
"I never said that."
Lindsay is just another cockholster for Donald Rump
Exactly. Well put.
I wonder how long this will last.
before trump was sworn in I said it will be 2 yrs of bs from the left (exactly like Reagan )
but just for fun, in the mean time if you want to appear psychic?
start with a leftwing prediction, take the exact opposite view, and you will be right more often than not.
a better contrarian indicator you can not find
Cheers
Awesome 😎 response. Cheers 🥂
If y'all think that CREW or Richard Painter is going to walk away because of this ruling, you're sadly mistaken.
I hope they don't. Feel free to give them money, or just burn it. It will have the same effect.
All they need do is find someone with standing. Perhaps one of the hotels in D.C. will join the case.
There is no case to be had on that matter. It’s over.
No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States:
And no Person holding any Offi ce of Profi t or Trust under
them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept
of any present, Emolument, Offi ce, or Title, of any kind
whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.
The question is this. Does a representative of a foreign government spending the night at a Trump hotel constitute an emolument? Would a foreign government buying Carter's peanuts be an emolument? Would a foreign government buying a copy of Obama's book be an emolument? All are examples of presidential involvement in normal business activities. None are examples of foreign governments trying to buy influence for their governments.
So let the sore losers continue to spend their money on bogus litigation. It's better than spending it on better candidates.
False. A case thrown out for lack of standing can be refiled when someone WITH standing joins the case.
Depending on WHY they did so, YES.
It's ironic you should cite two Presidents, who put their holdings IN TRUST. Since their holding WERE in TRUST, the answer is NO. Get it yet?
Really? You know this how? The FACT is that hotels in the same area can PROVE that they have lost business because of foreign governments pandering to Trump. Right after the election, a foreign government [can't remember which one] moved their accommodations to Trump's hotel.
That's exactly how I fell about the plethora of crap the Liberty Counsel and the AFA has thrown at the court over the decades.
So a night in a hotel room buys influence in DC? That will get laughed out of SCOTUS if it ever makes it there. It won't! Talk about grasping at straws from the sore losers!
BTW Blind trusts are not really blind.
So what would spending money to sleep in the Lincoln Bedroom during Billy Boy's time as President be considered? But I guess because it was a Clinton that did it, all's good.
How can the Clinton's go away when y'all keep bringing them up?
Well, ya know they have to have a boogey man for the past 30 years it's been the Clintons, even Trump can't admit that he won the election, he still refers to Hillary as his "opponent".
The left would love to have the public forget about the Clinton's corruption. It makes taking the moral high ground in an argument so difficult.
Pointing out liberal hypocrisy is so much fun! Watching liberals grasp at straws because their candidate lost is fun as well.
"The Kuwaiti embassy canceled a "save the date" reservation with the Four Seasons and booked instead with the Trump hotel, a few blocks from the White House, for 600 guests . The event was held, Wednesday, Feb. 22."
Oh but discovery for the case will be a riot!
It's a hell of a lot more blind than nothing. Trump KNOWS where his money is coming from, he knows which foreign delegation is staying at his hotel and which foreign businessmen are buying the condos in Manila. Carter had NO CLUE who bought his companies peanuts and Obama had NO CLUE who bought his books.
Please stop with the false equivalencies.
You never want to forget the example of what NOT to do.
You think they are false because your candidate lost! This is only an issue because Hillary LOST! Keep grasping!
As someone from the left, I could not care less whether y'all forget anything or not. If you want to beat a dead horse, please proceed.
Really? How so? If Trump supporter's morality aren't linked to Trump, why should Clinton's supporters be linked to Clinton?
What hypocrisy are you speaking of?
Watching Trump supporters defend Trump at any cost is disgusting.
You need only review the Bush Administration.
Or the one I mentioned.
Nope, it's a false because it's a false equivalency.
Finally, a factual statement. There sure as hell WOULDN'T be a question of an emoluments violation if Hillary had won.
Keep obfuscating.
There now is it a correct statement. Espevially the first half.
Right, because it's so hard to decide with would be something a POTUS shouldn't do, have a WH sleep over or lying the US into a war causing thousands of deaths.
I'm sure you think that truncating my comment to misrepresent what I said is 'witty'. It isn't, it's bad form.
Please proceed with your bad faith posts.
How cute. You think Billy Boy didn't send Soldiers off to battle.
Thanks for the entertainment!
How cute. You again make a false equivalency and deflect.
Did 'Billy Boy' LIE about why he was sending them?
I wish I could say the same.
Watching the secular progressive lefty response to our passionate defense of our great American President is quite entertaining. God Bless our exceptional America and our national leaders.
Nobody wants the Clintons to go away except for their own people (including their left wing lapdogs in the MSM). The Clintons are finally being exposed as the corrupt liars that millions of people have always known they are. The Clinton/Obama Show won't be going away.
Seriously? There have been half a dozen seeds and innumerable conservative commenters on NT alone that demand that Clinton STFU.
If they're 'being exposed as corrupt' pray tell why aren't they 'going away'. After all, your representatives and their supporters have spent millions in taxpayer funds to make that happen. They're STILL doing it to this day.
Perhaps it would help if you recognized that Bill Clinton wasn't PAID for speeches when he was in office NOR did he have a foundation to donate to.
Perhaps it would help if you recognized that the Emoluments Clause includes more officials than only the US president. Hillary Clinton was SoS (paid) when Bill raked in millions of dollars in speech fees from foreign countries, and we now know that they funneled the money through their foundations .
It's amazing what a few minutes of research will find.
Perhaps it would help if you'd recognize that Hillary Clinton is NOT Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton received money, NOT Hillary Clinton.
Now if you insist that spouses income be included, Majority Leader McConnell violated the emoluments Clause since his wife, Elaine Chao was paid for speeches by foreign organizations, including the People's Mujahedin of Iran.
Actually, what we know that Bill Clinton DONATED much of the moneys he earned in speeches to his foundation which has a 4 star charity rating.
And if you bother to read the IRS 990 you will find that the foundation paid millions for the Clinton's jet setting travels. The foundation was their slush fund!
If you'd spend half as much energy requiring transparency and equal standards for republicans it would be one thing. But you lot just can't quit the Clintons whether they are public or private! Have you ever taken a long hard look at that? The Clinton Foundation has open books and high ratings. Trump has nothing but fraud and lies, yet you don't even care he didn't release a tax return! Not one! He lies every day, yet you act as if you believe even the most moronic lies! Do any of you have the balls to actually face the truth instead of immediate deflection and obfuscation?
If YOU bothered to read the 990 THOROUGHLY, you will find that in 2013 [the last year HRC was SoS] the foundation paid a TOTAL of 288,970 'management and general expenses' travel. So ASSUMING that was ALL the Clinton's travel, that is less than 4% of the foundations total travel expenses.
Now, you COULD argue that the travel for 'fundraising' should be counted as 'Clinton's jet setting' but you'd have to PROVE that was all 'Clinton's jet setting' travel.
Now, question. How the hell do the Clintons PROFIT by the Foundation paying for Bill's travel while acting as a representative of said foundation? Are you claiming that Bill Clinton DIDN'T travel and instead pocketed the funds?
Let's compare apples and apples:
Charity Navigation:
It was lower because she was flying on the taxpayers dime then. Nice cherry picking. I am sure you have enough for a pie now!
Here is 2015. 20+ million for travel and meetings.
20+ million for travel and meetings.
By SHE, I presume you mean Hillary Clinton and YES, just like Tillerson, her travel as SoS is paid for by the US government.
I chose 2013 because it was the last year that Clinton was SoS. BTFW, I note that you aren't even trying to refute the FACTS in my comment.
What year were YOU talking about, we'll review that one...
Then YOU proceed in your 'cherry picking' and pick foundation data from the years AFTER Hillary Clinton was NO LONGER the freaking SoS and therefore NOT covered by the emoluments clause.
Or did you forget that is the topic of the seed?
From YOUR 2014 link:
20,786,529 in TOTAL travel
951,325 in Management and General travel.
2015 #s
18,837,489 TOTAL travel
946,322 in Management and General travel
Your posts are misrepresentations of the data and therefore a failed lie.
It's unfortunate that you continue to prove incapable of debating in good faith.
at any cost? Lol! I defend Trump for free.
So any contribution to the foundation by foreign governments during her tenure as SOS would not constitute an emolument but a hotel owner who doesn't have day to day control over the hotel would be taking an emolument if a foreigner stays.
FINALLY, you're getting it!
And he get's what he pays for.
I do get your partisan hypocrisy! The foundation, that provides travel benefit to her family while SOS, takes lots of money from foreign governments and to you that isn't an emolument but Trump's hotel being paid for their services that benefit his family, is.
In order for there to be hypocrisy, one must be on two different sides of the SAME issue. I have consistently tried to explain to you that YOU are trying to compare apples and artichokes. You refused to answer the questions I posed and IMHO that is because you don't want to acknowledge that those answers would eviscerate your posit. So instead you attack my motives. Bad form but to be expected.
You are still incapable of recognizing that Hillary Clinton is NOT Bill Clinton or that the Clintons DO NOT MAKE A PROFIT from the Clinton Foundation. In FACT, unlike Trump, they actually DONATE millions to their foundation. It has been proven that Trump profited from his own 'charity', purchased paintings and paid legal fines with OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY. Yet not a peep from you and yours.
Trump is profiting DIRECTLY from any and every transaction made by HIS company. Every time the Secret Service PAYS for rooms and golf carts @ Mar A Lago, HE makes money. Hell the minute Trump was elected he doubled the member fees so he could profit from sycophants desire to glad hand with him.
That fact is true for every foreign national that buys a condo in any of his 'TOWERS' or rents a room of holds an event at ANY of his hotels or golf courses. Hell, they need only make reservations for a table @ Mar A Lago so they can shake his hand and whisper in his ear. It's done with a wink and a nod and Trump KNOWS who does and who does NOT pay the 'fee' to get his attention.
Any defense of even the perception of Trump selling access while decrying donations to the Clinton foundation is partisan hypocrisy.
The Clinton's use the foundation to pay for travel. They travel by private charter and not public transportation. That is listed on the 990 near the end of the form. Their accommodations are picked up by the foundation.
Say Bill wants to go golfing in AZ so he lines up a meeting with possible donors and lets the foundation pick up the tab as fundraising. Hill wants to line up support for her presidential run so she meets with "foundation donors" and the trip and an expenses are on the foundation dime. funded in part by foreign governments and donors.
They don't get a salary from the foundation but have a lot of fringe benefits from the foundation.
YOU just said that Hillary Clinton's travel was paid for by the tax payers while she was SoS. Did you forget your own statement?
In short, they are traveling as representatives of the Foundation and it is lawfully documented on IRS forms. THE HORROR!
I breathlessly await your posting of one iota of empirical evidence for your fantasy scenario.
Again, in your fantasy scenario. Would you like to talk about the ACTUAL benefits that the people who receive assistance from the Clinton Foundation?
Now, if you've finally rug every drop of deflection out of this that you can, perhaps you'd like to address the FACT that Trump is violating the emoluments clause of the US Constitution.
Can't keep up? She wasn't always SOS.
Trump is not violating any emoluments clause.
Can't keep up? ANY travel Clinton did AFTER she was SoS isn't covered by the emoluments clause. Your comments are getting more and more irrelevant.
Been through this already. By definition, he IS violating the emoluments clause. You've failed to post one iota of evidence to the contrary. Your proclamations doesn't qualify.
My comments about Clinton during her SOS tenure and Trump's hotel was to point out that neither were personally gaining because of money from foreign governments. Their family would since neither had control over the source of income. Trump doesn't control the operation of the hotel and while SOS she didn't control the foundation. Neither violated the emoluments clause.
The emoluments clause is there to prevent foreign governments from buying a president. The price of a hotel room won't buy influence of a president. If this president were motivated by money he wouldn't be donating his salary which is much more than hotel room rates. That is pretty convincing evidence.
It isn't JUST about CONTROL. It's about knowing WHO is putting money in your pocket. Trump KNOWS and PERSONALLY profits.
Clinton didn't, Trump is.
As my dad used to say, 'No shit Sherlock'.
Trump is a cheep date, a little stroking goes a long way with him.
By 'donating' his salary, he can claim it as a tax write off. DUH!
Only to gullible sycophants.
And only ignored by those with TDS!
He could find the cure for cancer and you would claim he did it for the money.
I didn't ignore it, I refuted it successfully.
TDS and delusional. They do go together.
Now we can add non-responsive to irrelevant.
I wonder who is their big ticket donor(s)? Be nice to see who is behind their curtain pulling the strings.
I'd rather know the donors to the AFA and Judicial Watch.
There are plenty of people in front of the curtains for you to scrutinize. Go to their website, they're all listed.