Watchdog group to file lawsuit against Trump over foreign payments

A suit with or without merits?

I suppose we shall see. Apparently, one watch dog group is filing suit agaisnt the president, claiming that due to him not divesting himself from his business, any foreign governments doing business at his hotels constitutes them giving gifts to the president, or I woudl think at least being perceived as such.

I certainly do not expect this to be the final suit on the topic. To date, it appears Trump has done nothing to divest himself form his businesses, nor do we knwo the full extent of his business dealing and what governments they may involve.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...suit-against-trump-over-foreign-payments.html

A liberal-funded watchdog group said Sunday it plans to file a lawsuit against President Donald Trump alleging that he is violating the Constitution by allowing his business to accept payments from foreign governments.

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics said they planned to file the lawsuit in the Southern District of New York on Monday.

The group claims Trump is violating a clause in the Constitution that prohibits his businesses from receiving anything of value from foreign governments and because he didn’t divest his businesses, the group claims he’s now receiving gifts from foreign governments via guests and events at his hotels, leases in his buildings and real estate deals abroad.

"When Trump the president sits down to negotiate trade deals with these countries, the American people will have no way of knowing whether he will also be thinking about the profits of Trump the businessman," the Washington-based organization said in a statement.

 

it appears without merit because they would have to prove that staying at the Presidents hotel caused him to give them a special favor, without any benefit to the American people as well.

President Trump says he will use his authority to benefit the poorer half of Americans who voted for him, so if a foreign government invests in America and creates high wage jobs for them, and also makes the President richer staying at his hotels, it is not a conflict of interest.

when there is quid pro quo where President Trump gets richer with Americans it is not illegal, before now quid pro quo in government only made the rich richer at the expense of Americans.

 

The reason Liberals believe Trump would sell out his nation (and his credibility) for the price of a hotel room is because they would readily do so themselves.

 

That is hilarious! Please show me where in the Constitution the president can take gifts if he creates jobs for poor people.

- - - Updated - - -

Or it could be because Trump is a dirtbag with a long history of doing anything to enrich himself, no matter how marginal the gains may be. This includes using his "charity" to pay fines, renting to other "charities" at full market rate, and extensively using his own businesses for campaign work at full price. Just an alternative theory to yours.

 

Hahahahahahaha. You do have to give it to the neoMarxists for their tenacity.

 

a fake lawsuit from the butthurt society

 

Is it? That is a gutting rebuke. What exactly lacks merits in their charge?

 

Unless they can show that he is receiving more from them than he does from other people, this case goes nowhere. Since it is being filed as soon as he is sworn in is pretty good indication it will go nowhere anyway.

 

Really? What is the legal standing for that? More from foreign governments than "other people"? I have never heard of a such thing, nor can I find it in the Constitution.

 

You won't find renting hotel rooms in the Constitution either. If it costs me and China the same price for the hotel room, there is no gift.

 

You are not a foreign govenrment, are you? Your comparison seeks to equate to inherently unequal things.

 

I assume that China is a foreign government and if they are paying comparable fees or less than I am for renting a hotel room or round of golf, there is no gift.

 

That totally does not make any sense. The Constitution is very clear.

No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.

As far as I am aware, you are not a king, prince, or foreign state. Your comparison is nonsensical.

 

...dems would do it for a free lunch.

 

I hope they loose in court. The regular cost of a hotel room isn't a foreign gift. This will set a precedent.

 

Perhaps because you are being willfully dense. If China spends money on a hotel room it is not a gift, it is renting a hotel room. The only way for it to even be considered a gift would be if they paid some enormous fee beyond what other people pay. If China pays $750 a night and I pay $750 a night then there is not gift from China because China paid what everybody else does.

 

No, disgruntled liberals didn't get their way. Time for an executive order. Or just pass a law, . What would Barack Hussain Obama do? Why do Democrats care about the rule of law now?

 

Willingly dense?

Your argument is nonsense. Your comparison demonstrated to be inherently inaccurate. It is simply making excuses for Trump's potential and real failures.

- - - Updated - - -

You can not override the Constitution by executive order or passing a law. Basic civics teaches that.

 

" Citizens for responsibility and ethics " a liberal group ! Think about that for a moment . Wow! There ain't nobody that believes that !

- - - Updated - - -

Since when do Democrats care about the law ? Sanctuary cities come to mind !

 

So now you have to divert because you have been shown to be hacky sacking.

 

Um, okay.

 

How will you know what China paid for the room? How will you know that a renegotiated deal with China was only made in the interest of the United States and not because Trump wants to build a hotel in China? What verification will we have? You may be willing to trust that Trump is doing the right thing. Others are not so trusting. Even Reagan said, "Trust, but verify." What means do we have to even know what business interests Trump actually has in foreign countries? We have one- his tax returns, which he is not releasing.

 

I don't see a point to this lawsuit, personally. Trump signed legally binding contracts that all foreign payments to his company holdings would be directly deposited into the US Treasury. That goes right back into the tax payer's pocket. I think any money we can throw at the debt is a boon. Why cause an issue?

 

Pres. Donald Trump is allowed by law to continue running his business but has ceased to be involved, and has handed his business holdings over to his sons. This is nothing but a harassment suit, no doubt by a Soros supported group, so people should pay it no heed.

They are simply trying to cover up Hillary Clinton's self serving interests by relating it to Donald Trump's business holdings in some way. It's nothing but a harassment suit. It has no teeth legally..

Eric Trump told The New York Times that the Trump Organization had taken more than the steps required by law to avoid litigation. He dismissed the lawsuit as, “purely harassment for political gain.”

The group’s lawsuit is one of many expected lawsuits to be filed against Trump.​

​

 

The Dems have contested Trump at every juncture - recounts, electoral college revolt, legal challenges, voodoo dolls, sacred chants.

A lawsuit on day one shouldn't surprise anyone. And neither should the blatantly dubious cause of action.

Think about this - Trump is a successful businessman. Hillary got millions from speeches and foreign donations. If Trump were to sell out, I suspect he'd be going for millions instead of pocket change. Libs seldom stop to think if what they say makes any sense or not.