Federal Judge Rules in Favor of Democrats in Emoluments Lawsuit Against Trump

DoJ running interference for Dirty Donny's conflicts of interest is partisan.

 

The possibility of graft like that is always going to exist....and there is little that can be done to prove it as being corrupt and little to be done to stop it. The President does not even need to own the ice cream stand. It could be a friend/acquaintance of his that owns the stand....or even someone he does not know. The owner of the ice cream stand could pass on some benefit to the hot dog vender....that passes on the benefit to the restaurant owner....that passes it on to the President.

The concept that a sitting President owning companies/corporations that do business all over the world as being a violation of the Emolument Clause is a pretty huge stretch. While I agree with what you said earlier, that this matter really needs to be presented to the SCOTUS and resolve it once and for all, I doubt if many courts will see just owning, or having interest in a global company, as a violation.

 

The Dem lawsuit is a desperate ploy get their hands on Trumps financial records, and nothing more.

 

Um ... yes.
It is a conflict of interest for the president or his business to receive money from foreign governments.

 

Poor snowflake dems.

 

Keep trying!
Good luck!

 

--and the Constitution prohibits it.

But the law, and the Constitution are punchlines to the trumpublicans.

 

Poor snowflake Trump.

 

No it isn’t since it is a Corporation doing business.

 

Read the Mueller Report and go back to civics class. Not that it'll help with that kind of "reasoning".

 

It's not just the Dems - other local hotels and restaurants have filed suit as well for unfair trade advantage. The Supreme Court needs to make a ruling on this - one way or the other.

 

Says the wailing and whining dems.

 

Did. Still nothing other than whiny dems that see crimes where they do not exist.

 

He owns the business. The conflict doesn't disappear if the individual inserts a corporation in the middle. He is the ultimate beneficiary. There is a conflict.

And you don't care. You sure would care if a Dem president was doing a fraction of this, but you don't care about Dirty Donny.

 

You obviously haven't. Stop the BS.

Or maybe you thought that Porky Pig's 4 page summary was all that you needed.

 

No law against it.

 

Another whiny dem?

 

We see Conservatives cry about this every day - business owners of MSM companies giving unfair advantage to liberal candidates. Imagine the wailing if one of the board members of Facebook ran for office and suddenly started giving unfair advertising rates to companies that supported the candidate.

 

Only because he is President. He would not be able to do what he is doing if he were any other federal employee.

 

That's what the Supreme Court needs to decide.

 

You would put Washington in jail.

 

No. A straight talking one.

Learn before posting.

 

There is.

Please google "emoluments". Learn before posting.

 

Sorry, I do not see the correlation of either examples.

MSM companies are private companies. The "crying" is more over bias treatment from an institute that is ethically suppose to be unbias.

A member of a board is only one person on that board.

The Emolument Clause has been debated by Constitutional experts for centuries. Some even believe that it does not apply to Presidents or members of Congress as they are elected officials and are not "Officers". Even George Washington accepted and kept a gift from France during his Presidency that was determined to not be a violation of the Emolument Clause.

Heck, even Jack Ryan was knighted by Queen Elizabeth II in Patriot Games while he was an Officer of the US.

As the world be come more global, it is going to become even more difficult to separate the business dealings of our elected officials from their duties and responsibilities to the Country.

 

Gifts? Nope, business. No one on the left ever complained about all the foreign money going to the Clinton Foundation.