Thanks Irasdad. First time I saw ‘emollient’ I thought of Oil of Olay but couldn’t get past that. Guy’s a trip isn’t he? I hate it when someone’s funny and scary at the same time. It works in the movies. Can’t get around to calling this entertainment yet. When and if we do we’ll be living in the ‘Welcome to Mad Max America’ landscape.
6 Likes
In a sense, when there is such a clear infraction of the constitution, part of which purpose is to “promote the general welfare”, then perhaps any person can claim harm because the general welfare is thus diminished
9 Likes
If the court will just let the case go through discovery - tax returns, business associates, all assets owned, income and sources for past 5 years, info on all loans owed and to whom - that would be sweet. But, an immediate appeal if the District Court denies the motion to dismiss may shut it down - not due to lack of merit, but due to who is on the court panel that hears the case.
7 Likes
'Spose that’s up for the court’s to decide lyin donnie silver spoons
5 Likes
It is a high bar, but not insurmountable. The argument will be; having to pursue these actions takes the group away from doing their other duties thus are damaged. This has worked for civil right groups we shall see if works here. ( Long odds)
3 Likes
What’s he gonna do now that he’s signed a hiring freeze ? …
F’er is gonna run out of lawyers —
3 Likes
Anytime Trump claims something to be without merit one should just assume it is a slam dunk he’s screwed 
(Yes this is a bit hyperbolic)
6 Likes
“Without merit. Totally without merit.”
Well, I guess that settles it. I suppose we’ll just move along.
4 Likes
Interesting ABA Journal article about the emoluments clause:
A number of the ‘legal scholars’ cited seem to think it will not apply to a sitting US President. One went so far as to give this cheery bottom line:
““In other words,” Adler writes, “if there are concerns about how President Trump handles his various investments, the only remedies will be political.””
2 Likes
Totally Without Merit
Pence: Hm… Is it?
Ryan: I think we need to look into it.
Kochs: Do it NOW.
1 Like
Then what was the fucking point of the Clause?
9 Likes
Who is this reporter? He says “thank you appreciate it, thank you,”
They completely shit all over you, laugh in your face with their alternative facts and propaganda news network, and you say thanks appreciate it.
That’s why we’re in this fucking mess people. Get a grip or go home.
6 Likes
Trump Dismisses Emoluments Clause Lawsuit
And, hopefully, vice versa.
2 Likes
At a news conference last week, now-President Donald Trump said he and his daughter, Ivanka, had signed paperwork relinquishing control of all Trump-branded companies. Next to him were stacks of papers in manila envelopes — documents he said transferred “complete and total control” of his businesses to his two sons and another longtime employee.
Sheri Dillon, the Trump attorney who presented the plan, said that Trump “has relinquished leadership and management of the Trump Organization.” Everything would be placed in a family trust by Jan. 20, she said.
That hasn’t happened.
8 Likes
i would think that competitor hotels in D.C. would have a legitimate argument that he was unfairly gaining business from them because he was president and his hotel was getting customers through his influence.
8 Likes
Excellent point, even if it does get dismissed it’s not because it’s without merit, it might be just because the people bringing the suit are not allowed to. Another entity, one with standing, would have a slam dunk case against the president.
[quote=“badabingo, post:12, topic:50073, full:true”]
I think Trump is under the impression that an Emolument is like some kind of herbal enema. He will probably ask some Russian hooker to give him one.
[/quote]They may not have morals, but emoluments … you would not believe the emoluments on these broads, you have to get out here.
4 Likes
He has an upcoming tax case against the DC government.
6 Likes
I’ve actually been intrigued by the argument that the Committee lacks standing. How the hell does Judicial Watch get standing to challenge Hillary’s emails but whether Trump is violating the Constitution is not a judiciable question.
6 Likes
works for me
The injury might seem weak but 2nd Circuit has pretty lax Havens standing requirements so I think they are >50% for winning on standing. Source: Am a public interest litigator who has been using Havens standing for six years.
9 Likes