The fact that Drumpf has not already been sued and/or impeached for his massive conflicts with the Constitution is more sickening proof that we are not a country of laws, weâre a country of ad hoc committees that decide what laws should apply to our political elites (on a case by case basis). James Clapper lies his ass off to CongressâŚcrickets. Jeff Sessions lies his puny white ass off to CongressâŚcrickets, but then a cushy job as AG!.
Drumpf is so outrageously conflicted, so brazenly in violation of the Emoluments Clause, and not one frigginâ thing is being done about it. Our political leaders protect their own and they have no intention of following the US Constitution if doing it would mean putting constraints on the levers of power. The days of Nixon going down are long gone.
âThatâs a big deal for the court to order the president to sell something," he added. "I canât think of any precedent where a court goes to the president and tells him how to structure his financial transactions.â
Waddaya mean! Chiselinâ Trump is already very familiar with this kind of court. Itâs called bankruptcy court.
It is a novel claim that cannot be sustained by reference to decided casesâagreed. But I would think that the novelty of the wrong that is complained of arises from the novelty of the facts: defendant who insists on running and/or benefiting from a commercial enterprise concurrently with his occupation of the presidential office. Existing jurisprudence is simply inapplicable to this case, and the public importance of the matter would seem to require some judicial ruling, either negative or positive. Prediction: case is allowed to proceed to trial, Trump Organization settles it before complying with its discovery obligations.
Iâm not an attorney and I know that what can hold up in court is not necessarily logical or fair, but to me this is an amusing but ultimately misguided suit.
Never mind that Trumpâs lawyers can probably show that his hotel contributed to an uptick in business for the local businesses, could this suit have prevailed if we alter 1 âfactââŚWhy wouldnât they have sued for unfair competition because Trump had a highly rated (I understand) TV Show? Isnât that âfree advertisingâ an unfair advantage? Would anyone think to sue under those circumstances?
The simple fact that Trump was elected is certainly advantageous, but is it an âunfrair advantageâ???
*&^%$# I really HATE âdefendingâ Trump on anything
It sounds like the unfair advantage of president is that his hotel & restaurant biz carries the extraordinary benefit of bribing the president of the US.
Right, which means that people will favor his businesses over others in the hopes of being or getting on his good side, assuming that he has one.
Thereâs also the unprecedented access hedge fund friends will have to trumpee at the the Sea By The Lake this weekend at something called the Palm Beach Hedge Fund Assn. But anyone with $200,000. to spare can join the private club he runs at the place. This on top of the unlimited access to him at the golf courses he runs everywhere, the most popular of which seems to be the one in Bedminster NJ. Also, the Senior PGA Championship will be at his course in DC in May.
Look for a quick bill in Congress to eliminate unfair competition laws that applies retroactively to the day our so-called President signed the lease.
Anyway you look at this, we are in a big, fucking mess because a large segment of the American public have lost their moral and ethical compass and simply. dont. care.
It is just so disgusting and corrupt.
I donât disagree this is all a YUGE advantage to Trump. And this is what, I understand, the emoluments clause was meant to prevent. But an advantage to/for Trump is not necessarily an âunfair advantageâ as it relates to competing businesses. I mean, theoretically, anyone with a business could run for and win the Presidency.
âThis is something of a novel question because this is such an unusual and unprecedented situation," she told TPM.
Bullshit.
âThatâs a big deal for the court to order the president to sell something," he added. "I canât think of any precedent where a court goes to the president and tells him how to structure his financial transactions.â
Bullshit.
âYou could just imagine a court sort of being a little reluctant to put its foot in the political water here given these other things that are going on,â McKenna told TPM.
Chicken shit.
Iâm with you on this one, given the blatant conflicts of interest. If he wanted to hold public office, he should have placed his assets in a blind trust or completely divested. Instead of doing that, his evil spawn goes on TV and brags how the money is just flying in. Itâs just so unethical and corrupt that it makes my head spin.
Good gawd. Where the hell is the GSA?
The contract language in the lease says that âNo ⌠elected official of the Government of the United States ⌠shall be admitted to any share or part of this Lease, or to any benefit that may arise therefrom.â
How much clearer of a violation does there need to be?
I find it hard to accept that standing to sue over this should be an issue for a competitor, particularly since most âexpertsâ thought that would be the best chance for someone to gain standing due to particularized injury. Establishing the cause and effect might be difficult; a court might decide that the plaintiff has to prove he lost business he would have had if not for Trumpâs advantage. And a private party doesnât want to sue and get nothing.
In my opinion as a non-lawyer, it would be better to find a plaintiff that didnât need to prove particularized harm for this set of facts in order to argue standing and seek remedy. I would argue (and I think I could beat any lawyer) that a state has standing by virtue of being a party to the Constitution, which Donald Trump has violated via the emoluments clause, and also on the principle of federalism to enforce the prohibition in the lease that a federal office holder cannot gain a benefit from it. Since DC is not a state in itself, every person in any state (or DC) that wanted to gain benefits from leasing the property could do so, and if Trump can violate that lease, people in a suing state are deprived of that opportunity.
A state suing Trump also brings a bigger stick and is harder to dismiss than a private competing concern. And the state is not suing the âpresidentâ in his official capacity, but personally. Especially the standing claim on Constitutional violation is very strong.
If this (fill in fav shade) wonât divest then the best WE can do is make all his properties, holdings, Chinese-made ties worthless.
Boycott everything Trump. No cash flow, no easy loans for fabulous new golf resorts.
Become a Precinct Committee Officer, sometimes itâs a Ward office. Youâll meet with neighborhood Dems and get out the vote. Find good citizens willing to run for office.
Register people to vote. If you need to help people overcome the GOP-led Voter run-around help them do that.
Run for School Board. Make sure Civics is being properly taught. Think a majority of America knows how government works? Todayâs 12-year olds will be voting for President in 8 years.
Run for City Council, County Commissioner, Bureau Assembly.
Get appointed to your Planning Commission. Know everything going on in your community.
Run for State Legislature or Congress. The next census is in 2020, then weâll redraw Congressional Districts. Get rid of GERRYMANDERING! Safe GOP seats gave us such intellectual giants as Louie Gohmert and Steve King. In most cases itâs the state Legislature that draws Congressional boundaries. Make it FAIR, OPEN and HONEST!
Get rid of every stinking voter ID law in the land. The DEFAULT should be the ease of casting your legal vote.
We can finally put paid to the GOPâs fantasy of ârunning government like a businessâ, so letâs get people in there intersted in helping Americans in general, helping govern the country, not just handing out generous tax breaks to the chosen few.
Overturn Citizens United. Money is NOT speech and Corporations are NOT people- at least not until Texas executes one.
Why trump and his administration are not on trial for corruption and treason is complete and utter bullshit.
It will more likely hinge on whether they can show damages. Whether they have a sales drop the corresponds with the opening of the hotel or his presidency.
One bit of good news from the courts. But this ruling only applies to a specific family
http://bigstory.ap.org/c284abad824b4839bfaff0bff7c3e32b
MADISON, Wis. (AP) â A federal judge on Friday blocked President Donald Trumpâs administration from enforcing his new travel ban against a Syrian family looking to escape fighting in their native land by fleeing to Wisconsin