Figures Eric would be commenting on a whine bar…
Next step: make Trump DC Hotel revenue a nothingburger.
I don’t understand why this isn’t clearly against the emoluments clause.
This feels like an air raid siren should be going off on how egregiously Trump has violated the emoluments clause for his own profit. How government large gatherings never held on Trump properties have been moved there. How other businesses are losing business because of this.
And yet cases against him on using his presidency to profit while others suffer keep getting dismissed.
Every time I see Leon’s name I groan. Leon is a conservative douchenozzle and went to my law school. Unless these two plaintiffs failed to make the right arguments, then it seems to me he’s being deliberately obtuse here. Violation of the Emoluments Clause to attract foreign customers should be considered per se unfair competition. Other celebrities and such are in no way analogous to that. They cannot offer personally profitable foreign policy to people. They can offer them their face and endorsements, etc., but they are private citizens and free to do so. Trump is not a private citizen, not even in relation to his hotel business anymore, and he is constrained by the Constitution.
Now, perhaps I’m being unfair to Leon since the article is vaguely written, superficial and perhaps there’s some nuance to the particular “unfair competition” standard he’s applying that I’m unaware of, but the broken analogy of POTUS to “other celebrities” pisses me off royally.
Jimmy Carter had to sell his peanut farm.
There was also a scandal - well, perhaps more an embarrassment - over "Billy Beer". The president’s drunken, crude, attention-whore little brother cashed in on his name by licensing it to a failing regional brewery, which was bankrupt within a year anyway. Then he moved on to accepting large bribes from Gaddafi’s Libya.
Sort of a proto-Trump.
Leon is both muddled and corrupt, an incoherent, petulant servant of the rich, and one of the worst of the judges George W ever placed on the federal bench, but it was to pack the appellate courts with men like this that the Republicans stole the presidency in 2000 in the first place, so there you are: another day, another reminder that elections have consequences, and the one in 2000 may, in hindsight, prove to have been the one that effectively killed our democracy for once and for all, with everything that’s happened since then mere punctuation and embellishment.
Helps when you appoint judges yourself. Maybe Leon wants to be a SCOTUS sellout. But is he douche-y enough?
Why would a foreign lobbyist care if a business is owned by a pop star? This judge can see no difference between Britney Spears and the President of the United States of America, they’re all just “celebrities” and we cannot do anything to upset celebrities because that would be wrong.
Good to see you back, @sniffit. I’ve been missing your cogent explanations lately.
It was always a long shot, aimed at the fringes of tRump’s corruption.
Eric Trump said, “This case was nothing more than a politically motivated attack"…
…before continuing, “Lock her up! Lock her up! Lock her up!”
A “celebrity” is all that Donald J. Trump is, but for technical legal purposes, one would think His Honor could distinguish between a Kardashian and the Leader of the Formerly Free World.
The issue isn’t competition with a celebrity-if Robert DeNiro opens a restaurant next to mine, that’s just my tough luck. But Trump is using his official government position to persuade those who have business before the government to stay at his hotel and eat at his restaurants. Very different.
This reasoning seems … interesting. It sounds as if interested parties can channel as much money as they want to a well-known public official, just as long as they do it through an enterprise the official owns.
Maybe there’s something in the particular law around unfair competition. The unfair competition part of it is that the hotel is offering preferential notice from the president as one of the perks of holding events there, and the judge is saying that the plaintiff could just buy a member of congress to have a similar perk?
No, it would mean that federally elected officials couldn’t use their office to promote venues that become virtual emolument delivery systems.
Who is this judge anyway?
Leon was nominated to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia by George W. Bush on September 10, 2001 … Confirmed by the Senate on February 14, 2002 … He assumed senior status on December 31, 2016.
On November 7, 2011, Leon issued a preliminary injunction against the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for ordering graphic images on cigarette packs. On February 29, 2012, Leon’s final ruling held that the graphic images and statements violated the commercial right to free speech.
On January 4, 2018, Leon denied a request by Fusion GPS to block the House Intelligence Committee from demanding bank records of 70 of the private investigative firm’s transactions with law firms, journalists and contractors, ruling that the request “did not violate the company’s First Amendment rights” to political speech and association.
On September 1, 2011, Leon approved Assistant Attorney General Christine A. Varney’s agreement allowing the acquisition of NBC Universal by Comcast.
On June 12, 2018, Leon rejected all of Assistant Attorney General Makan Delrahim’s claims and refused to block the $85.4 billion merger of AT&T and Time Warner.
On May 17, 2016, Judge Leon ruled the Washington, DC handgun carry unconstitutional. He struck down the District requirement that an applicant show “good reason” before a concealed carry permit would be issued.
Oh. So that’s who he is.
The judge would clearly see the difference if he were trying to distinguish a case against Trump from what would otherwise be controlling precedence. The law sometimes works in mysterious ways.
Shorter judge leon: Yeah, it’s likely a violation of the emoluments clause, but you didn’t quite prove it was also illegal competition while violating the emoluments clause, and if I granted you relief it would have a chilling effect on other celebrities ability to violate the emoluments clause while monetizing their celebrity.
The judge decided this on the unfair competition claim that Trump used the desire to curry favor with the president to unfairly attract business away from the plaintiff. I haven’t read the order, but he apparently held that the conduct did not meet the legal definition of unfair competition, and found that accepting the plaintiff’s argument would mean that it would be “unfair” for any famous or powerful person to open a competing business. (Not saying I agree with that conclusion.)
The Emoluments Clause case brought on behalf of members of Congress is proceeding separately. Here’s a summary of that case and its status:
The Blumenthal case is pending before Judge Sullivan:
https://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/content/district-judge-emmet-g-sullivan
Would love to see legal blows rained down upon DT from wherever possible, but I’m not so sure about this. He should be pursued for violating the emoluments clause and investigated (as if we didn’t know) for possibly trading policy for profit, but his “celebrity” cuts both ways because he’s lost some business since becoming prez. I think the real issue is actual bona fide corruption as a business owner with a conflict of interest.
ETA: Never mind. It’s clearly both. I hope the couple is able to appeal.