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

How so? This is a pretty basic breach of the emoluments clause. Would you have been ok with Obama owning a hotel across the street from the White House and entire floors being rented out by the Saudi’s — that they didn’t even stay in — right before legislation was passed to benifit them? Be honest.

 

If you dig long enough, a crime will eventually surface. The same goes for every politician. The question is if this is in the interest of Americans. Its about power and they don't care how much damage they do to get it back.

 

It's called business and there is no law against a President owning businesses.

 

So it’s ok because “crooked Hillary” did it.

Wonderful line of reasoning

 

If it could be PROVEN that the legislation was passed because of some quid-pro-quo then a case could be made. However, if it could not be PROVEN that it influenced the passage of the legislation, then it is not a violation of the Emolument Clause. Just because there are business dealing on a global setting ,then does not mean it is a violation of the Emolument Clause.

 

Many legal scholars disagree, as did republicans during the day of Carter. I’m not surprised by your thoughts though.

So basically every president from now on can open an LLC and sell <insert whatever product> at an extremely inflated price to individuals wanting to sway executive discourse and it’s perfectly fine. Such an interesting path y’all see for the country.

 

Sort of like if a Republican murdered somebody (in broad daylight in front of witnesses) and charges were brought by a Democratic DA it would be "partisan"?

Got it.

What a great stream of "logic" that you have.

 

That's an actual charitable entity.

Unlike the Trump Foundation.

If you think that the Clintons were making money from the Clinton Foundation while Bill was president, surely you have the facts to back it up.

Or not.

 

Strange, the constitution doesn’t say that a quid-pro-quo must be established, it says “And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall ... accept of any present, Emolument ... of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.”

e·mol·u·ment
/əˈmälyəmənt/
noun
FORMAL

1. • a salary, fee, or profit from employment or office.

 

The Clinton foundation bolsters their political image.

 

Err, huh?

So, it's a crime now to bolster an image while not taking any money from the charitable entity?

Take a look at the criminal enterprise called The Trump Foundation if you're looking for actual crimes.

 

And the Republicans were proven wrong.

You might want to read what Hamilton wrote in the Federalist Papers in 1788. Hamilton wrote that the clause was meant to ensure that the president could not be persuaded by monetary payments to “renounce or desert” the independence of his office. In other words, it has nothing to do with private business transactions. It has only to do with the president receiving payments for doing something as president. There is plenty of precedence that indicates that it does not pertain to private business. Washington owned flour mills that did business globally. Thomas Jefferson exported tobacco to foreign countries during his Presidency.

The Emolument Clause pertains to benefiting from their position....it does not pertain to benefiting from normal business practices.

 

I told them to google it; I tried.

 

Let's dig him up and try him!

 

This. The key would be if the Office of the Presidency is used as leverage in any such deal. And IMO, short of actually proving that(which is honestly unrealistic), this suit won't amount to much. Allowing it to go through will enable discovery, but if the discovery phase turns up nothing then the Justice Department will swiftly and rightly argue for dismissal of the suit.

The emolument Clause does not prohibit business or financial ownership, or continuing to do business. It prohibits use of the office for financial gain, it's a very specific charter.

 

I wouldn't vote for Clinton because she was corrupt and toxic.

But comparing your Mr. Trump to crooked Hillary and declaring all things good because Trump is doing things just like Hillary got away with is one really screwed up excuse.

 

What does the president have to with congess passing legislation?

I had no problem with Obama getting rich off his book sales, including overseas, when he became president.

 

Just remember, every single power or exception that you hand to Trump goes with the office - not the man. So when Bloomberg or Bezos or some other multinational business owner who is a Democrat lands in office, you loose one more protection against a power grab.

 

But it's not a 'power grab', it's the law. Just like with the tax return thing, presidents may have put their businesses in a blind trust for confidence issues, but that's a really big sacrifice that most wouldn't make, we wouldn't make it. And it's not a constitutional obligation to make it.

Thank god, because as we can see with costly government programs, the government in general sucks hard at business(Solyndra) I wouldn't want to put it into a trust either, if I could help it.

 

What a twisting of left wing hypocrisy.

 

Why surprised. It has always been legal. Washington sold beer.

 

Logical fallacy. To be expected.

 

Yeah, a great way to launder money.