Winning! Take that Democrats! The left-wingers haven't had much luck lately. No one has the right to other people's financial records just because they hate them.
This is a no-brainer. Government cant just dig through someones life looking for a crime because their bigotry has them convinced that some crime, somewhere, at some time, was committed.
Temporarily = Not for a very long time... The level of corruption with this president are at all time highs so the courts need to proceed carefully.. But I'm so happy you feel the President of the United States has the right to accept payments from foreign governments.... Folks will remember that when voting in 2020 even if it's not resolved legally in time....
The D.C. Circuit said the lower court had probably “abused its discretion” by not allowing the immediate appeal the president requested. Given the separation-of-powers issues in play, the appeals court said Sullivan had not adequately addressed whether “resolving the legal questions and/or postponing discovery would be preferable” before proceeding to discovery. All three appeals-court judges were nominated to the bench by President Barack Obama https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...f383cc-991d-11e9-916d-9c61607d8190_story.html
Thanks... I read the article... and I tend to agree that you cannot unring the bell.... best to resolve all the legal issues before proceeding to discovery...
Trump's appeal is purely academic at this point. Trump's team is trying to get a "brightline" decision on congressional subpoena abuse -vs- constitutional authority. Deutsche complied with Maxine Waters subpoena when Trump's 1st attempt at obtaining a federal injunction failed. Deutsche also provided Trump's records to NY AG Letitia James. The emoluments hoax is disintegrating too. Trump hands over all payments from foreign guests who stay at his DC hotel to the US Treasury, so naturally that case was tossed.
Hotels are legally required to keep guest registries. It isn't much of a challenge comparing those registries to disclosures and receipts. This is clearly a nuisance lawsuit going nowhere.
re: Emoluments 1. The Clause is vague, and at the time of founding it applied to appointees & not elected officials. The Clause has never been litigated re: presidents. 2. The 1966 law defines "emoluments" and does not apply to arms length transactions nor to assets owned prior to election / appointment. 3. The with 200 co-signers has attempted to pass this off to the courts rather than using the proper venue in handling it themselves which should be interpreted as there being no there there. 4. There's an issue with finding some person or group with standing to file a suit in a court. 5. The 1966 law implies there must be a quid pro quo. The 1966 Foreign Gifts and Decorations Act will govern any civil litigation. It appears only Congress can address the Emoluments Clause. Lotsa luck to you TDS sufferers after your crash & burn on collusion. Please stay away from sharp & pointy objects for the rest of the year.
I appreciate the honesty in that, but the dysfunction that the plain 'ol vindictiveness causes isn't good for either party's constituents.
Using this same line of reasoning you would agree that Omar should be charged with treason for giving aid to ISIS right? Since theres no proof that she didnt do it.