The 4th Circuit panel’s decision may be right (I don’t think so), but its reasoning is specious. The suit fails because the Constitution specifies no remedy? That has not prevented the courts from coming up with remedies for violations of Bill of Rights provisions, so why should they not be able to come up with a remedy for an Emoluments Clause violation? A couple come to mind immediately: divest or leave office. Not so hard!
5
A warning?
The plaintiffs appeared to have acted in bad faith because, among other things, they were totally unable to state what they wanted the court to do, that is, they were completely “unable to specify the relief they seek.” If this apparent bad faith motivated frivolous, harassing litigation, then maybe seeking sanctions against litigants will be considered.
Plaintiff's “prosecution of this case readily provokes the question of whether this action against the President is an appropriate use of the courts, which were created to resolve real cases and controversies ...
[Plaintiffs were] repeatedly unable to articulate the terms of the injunction that the District and Maryland were seeking to redress the alleged violations. When plaintiffs before a court are unable to specify the relief they seek, one must wonder why they came to the court for relief in the first place.” – Fourth Circuit Opinion
It is appearing more and more likely that the only remedy is impeachment. Impeachment would grant the Congress the power to fully investigate, to enter the evidence gathering phase. Though the Senate will not vote to convict, the evidence gathered through investigation is still important to be known. He must NOT be re-elected, or the current farce will increase, as hard as it is to imagine.
5
“In a legal victory...” are words that simply serve to inflame. The same could be said if a piece started out “In a win for anti-Trump supporters...” Can we just stick to the facts ma’am?
1
A ruling based on 'standing' is an excuse to dismiss the case and render the emoluments clause null and void... for Republican Presidents. Of course, if a future Democratic President is sued, that would be different.
When you can predict a ruling based on party affiliation, the legal system has lost all credibility. The radical right have turned the judicial system into a farce.
46
I have not read the actual case. From the article, it does appear that the courts are trodding new ground in deciding who can complain against the behavior of a sitting president who benefits financially while in office. The report of this case suggests that states have no standing to sue, that is, complain about this issue.
The more interesting question is whether or not Congress in its pending case has that right. I look forward to that opinion, as it involves a branch of the federal government which likely might have some recourse through the federal courts.
2
Didn't these judges go to law school or at least learn how to read and interpret English? Seems they are Republicans first and judges only when that doesn't present a conflict of interest.
Any citizen of the United States should have standing in this case.
9
George Washington continued his farm related business while serving
Trump is no George Washington but this is a fabricated issue. There is no evidence that the founders intended to effectively bar owners of large businesses from holding the office.
Most of the outrage here is based on who this particular businessman is rather than an honest belief the Constitution has been violated
2
@Tim I am sure that no one intended for a president’s business to founder while he was in office. But, in modern times, that is why presidents set up “blind trusts.”
6
@Linda Aland
I understand your point but most of the critics demand the businesses be liquidated not just placed in the control of an independent trustee.
Very different situation than when the assets are stocks and other financial instruments
So the Trump family has a green light to enrich themselves personally from holding positions in government. That's what they wanted in the first place: "Make the Trump Family Rich Again!" ( have to recoup losses from business failures and lawsuits you know )
8
I sincerely doubt that someone who uses expressions like "let's get rid of the invisible lines" (as Trump did in the context of borders) values concepts like duty to a nation, national sovereignty, and the self-determination of a group and of a particular people. The framers did though, which is why they came up with ideas against emoluments.
Trump: "They have weak leaders. All talk, no action. Let's bomb their oil fields. Let's get rid of the invisible lines. Political correctness. 9/11."
But, I suppose it's his God-given right to pursue this course of action.
So, who has standing? We're all being negatively affected.
9
It seems the Constitution doesn't mean much when you're President.
26
So, every president (along with every senator, congressman, and official) own assets. Whether they are stocks, bonds, private investments, real estate, etc makes no difference.
Everyone of these people can and do make decisions that may affect their investments. The president is the one office that pretty much requires it. For congress, virtually no one does it.
So what makes Trump's hotels (all previously owned and operated before he won the election) different than all the wealth that every other president has? What makes it different than all of congress?
Any senate committee can put forth a bill, that has in it some noble goals and that knowingly will profit a senator - same for the house.
Everyone is ok with that, unless it's Trump's hotel?
Hmmm....
9
@John You have a point. And it may well be that the all the wealth that every other president has, could substantially have been 'earned' during or after the presidency. In Trump's case, at least, almost all his wealth came before the presidency, and all his profits are technically 'indirect benefits' of such huge investments in the first place.
1
@John, how many “billionaires” and how many hotels owned by representatives before Trump?
6
@John
You are serious?
Every President before Trump has carefully withdrawn from their private business interests where anything that they do as President may present a conflict of interest. Trump has chosen to conduct his private business while in office because the President is formally excluded from the conflict of interest laws in order to preserve the separation of powers. He's just playing fast and loose with the system in violation of the spirit of the laws.
15
This article overlooks a core part of the story: All three judges are highly partisan Republican appointees. In an era during which Mitch McConnell and the Federalist Society have so deeply politicized our courts, it is the partisanship of the judges that, in many reasonable people's mind, will be the most important issue raised by this ruling.
And this particular panel is notable not only for its partisanship but also for each of the judge adherence to movement conservatism. Shedd is a Strom Thurmond protege who barely was confirmed, and that was in the less partisan days of 2001! Niemeyer is best known for his anti-LBGT rulings. And Quattlebaum was confirmed last year after being nominated by Trump.
I don't see how you can leave this out. It may offend the conventions and sensibilities of court reporters to highlight judicial partisanship. Unfortunately though, McConnell, Trump and the Federalist Society have made that an unavoidable part of the story.
117
Thank you for pointing out this very important piece of information.
19
@Ken Edelstein
Ah, now everything is clear. Indirectly "bought" by a President who is also indirectly benefiting aka getting increased revenue from those seeking favor (also called emoluments in my book).
9
If we never see Trump's taxes, we will never know if anything he did was for the benefit of Americans citizens or because of huge loans from Russia, the Saudi royal family, etc. The fact that his new DC hotel is booked by foreign governments is just a coincidence, right? Sooner or later someone who knows the truth will come forward. Trump will go down in (at least until the earth burns up), as probably the worst president in history. But the truth will not be known for decades.
22
This has nothing to do with rich and powerful people. I didn't see how the states or even Congress has standing.
If there is ever again a rational majority in Congress, perhaps the emoluments clause is one of many Constitutional subjects that needs legislation to clarify things, such as standing, enforcement, and penalties other than impeachment. The way things have been since Eisenhower, we should probably provide for Congress to appoint a new Special Prosecutor to deal with the Executive Branch whenever necessary.
3
"Federal Appeals Court Rules for Trump in Emoluments Case"
It's not just a "win" for the phony president, it's another big LOSS for American jurisprudence and the American people. No such ruling from this or any court can change the fact that phony president Traitor Trump is an outright liar and certainly the most corrupt person ever to sit atop this nation.
Each day, in every way, the phony president diminishes our democracy, while enriching himself and his greedy, corrupt crime family.
4
Lots of pontificating about "standing" here. I don't think it matters, since the other lawsuit, brought by Congress, almost certainly will avoid any "standing" objection.
The Times author misstates the emoluments clause by suggesting that the government official involved (Trump, here) must make "profits" from the foreign gift. The Constitution doesn't require that at all -- not sure where the Times author came up with that.
That's not to say Trump is guilty -- just that it doesn't matter whether he earned a "profit." I have no idea whether he received a gift from some foreigner, and I note the earlier Times story that reported revenues are way down at the Trump hotel in Washington since Trump took office (contrary to popular belief). If Trump violated the "emoluments" prohibition, hang him by his thumbs, and let the lawsuit filed by Congress proceed so we can find out. Just don't pre-judge him. If some foreign government gave him a gift, that's a violation, but it remains to be seen whether that actually happened.
1
The idiocy of these emoluments cases are beyond belief.... The Washington swamp critters cannot stand it when a businessman is elected.... they believe only indolent lawyers who have spent their entire life sucking on the public purse are allowed in the hallowed halls of the capital.
3
Could this administration be more venal, self-serving, and vulgar? Vile, evil, live. Every day to go to bed with him still there...lord, my prayers.
4
It’ll go to the Supreme Court. And the Irish golf course. Hey, I paid for that expensive trip to his course and every weekend before to Florida and New Jersey to tee off.
3
Since Trump got to D.C., America has seen an unprecedented attack on presidential ethics. It seems that Trump will never be held accountable for all of the abuses that he puts upon this country. Mr. Trump says he has lost money, not enriched himself, since taking office.
The judges said it was "pure speculation that foreign or state officials stayed at the Trump hotel to please the president, rather than for other reasons." Every time someone stays at the Old Post Office in D.C., Trump gets paid.
Trump opened the Old Post Office hotel in D.C. late in 2016 despite the clear guideline that “No elected official of the Government of the United States…shall be admitted to any share or part of this Lease.” Since then, it has become the go-to hotel for any foreign visitor looking to win favors from the Trumps. It’s also become the headquarters of GOP activity in D.C.
11
Wouldn’t the DOJ have standing to bring this case to court? I understand that would not happen because Barr is not the nation’s advocate, but Trump’s lawyer. And I know that the DOJ has a rule that states a sitting president can not be sued, or accused of any crime while he/she is President. And I understand that Congress will not do anything about enforcing the emoluments clause, because Pelosi is frozen in time. If Ivanka has an interest in that hotel, could she be sued because she works for her father? If this was a chess game, I guess Trump would be the King, and all of his men (and woman) would protect him. Why is there an emoluments clause-anyway-if it can not or will not be enforced?
4
Why not just sell influence directly, over the counter? It's cleaner... You don't even need a hotel. Just a flat rate bribe would be the way to go here.
4
Bottom line...he is self serving and does not care about any of us...a true phony.
10
That was unAmerican and lawless. These Trump judges are nasty people—dishonest and criminal. Trump buys judges.
5
An easy and correct decision. Taken to its conclusion, President Carter was in violation of Emoluments based on the possibility that foreign governments may have bought his peanuts.
The reality is that Trump has proven adept at finding every stress point and dated rules and thumbed his nose at them. After he is votes out, we need to really re-examine our rules and institutions and make serious reforms. Perhaps a start would be requiring two-thirds of Congress to allow family members to serve in any government capacity, including official "first lady" duties. Another key area is what to do with the President's business interests, while in office. The old rules of blind trusts reflect an older world order. Likewise fix their ability to become ultra-wealthy from the serving as President once they leave office. Hello Mr Obama, Mr Clinton.
Dude, really? And green is really a shade of red, because people who are color blind cannot distinguish between the two? To use the vernacular if the day, smh.
1
The way that I read this is that, like many Constitutional clauses, Congress is free to use this Constitutional authority to enact procedures, limits and remedies that are not in the Clause itself. Like the Patent clause. It just hasn’t.
If not the law who will stop the corruption ?
4
So, a business owned by the President could sell bottled water to visiting heads of state, foreign businessmen and diplomats for $1,000 per bottle and the Court would have no trouble with it? Just put a business in the middle and all the corruption goes away?
7
Trump's properties are open for bribes ,his family is in govt cashing in as Trump's foreign policy is first reviewed for Trump's biz interests and amount of loans Kushner can get then if it's good for America;s national security,. Roy Cohn mentored Trump well in being a crime boss and Trump has taken those skills to the White House where America is just another Trump property and Ivanka is a royal princess/sec of state.
6
What a miserable cop out, We don't know how to fix this so we will drop the case. Isn't that the job of judges to design penalties and corrective actions?
Who has standing? We all have standing if the highest officer in the land is corrupt, we are all harmed as individuals, as groups and various social and political divisions.
The courts are constantly using the excuse they can't interfere in political questions. In one way the courts act as a balance when the political process becomes grossly unfair. It not just about the law but when laws are used unfairly or in a way that there is no fair political solution. This ideology of many judges about not interfering in politics is political in it's nature and is a common excuse of right wing conservatives who use it as an rationalization to promote their political ideology and maintain political power.
5
How many of these judges are Republicans appointed by Republican presidents? And especially, were any of them appointed by Trump and shepherded through by Mitch McConnell? You would think a thorough article would include answers to those questions.
4
@Steve Dumford
All three judges on this dismissal ruling were appointed by Republican presidents; George H. W. & George W. Bush and Mr. Trump himself. This is not just politically biased but improper; the judge appointed by Trump should have immediately recused himself from this case as soon as he discovered Trump was specifically named in the lawsuit. How can that judge's decision be considered fair and objective?
6
'Standing' has long been a judicial dodge to avoid having to decide hard cases. The conservative justices on the Federal Bench have transmogrified the Constitution.
6
As with all of the other “high crimes and misdemeanors” that our president has committed, there are only two ways to have him punished, The first is impeachment m, which will surely fall in the senate. The second is to have him removed from office in the 2020 election, which is far from a sure thing, given all the factors which tilt the election towards any republican and trump in particular. We have to VOTE next November to save what’s left of our democracy.
3
Just more proof that the loony left hasn't a leg to stand on.
1
Just more proof that republican appointed judges are partisan.
6
@Martin
me thinks you'd think differently if Trump were PM of Canada. Just sayin'
5
According to the Daily Kos, on Saturday the pretend-president of the United States' private, for-profit business is hosting a golf tournament in which the selling premise is golf with a stripper.
Now that is something for the US to be proud of.
8
Why are the Judges names not listed in your article? Did I miss something?
1
Republicans are as crooked and evil as their mendaciously vile leader!
3
As a retiring lawyer, I have long agreed with Dickens' character Mr. Bumble in Oliver Twist. As he said "the law is a ass — a idiot. If that's the eye of the law, the law is a bachelor; and the worst I wish the law is, that his eye may be opened by experience — by experience.” My sisters and brothers at the bar and the victims of thereof.
1
Can one of the smart yankees here please help me?
I want to know that if Nancy Pelosi receives a rosary from Pope Francis, the head of the Vatican City State, can I sue her and get all her financial records? I mean, after all, I should have standing. If I am the DA of the "State of Knuckle-Dragging Hick", I should be able to tie her up in litigation indefinitely, should I not?
After all, the Clause in question does not have a de minimus standard. I'm just interpreting the clause literally.
We all know that the Clause in question is meant to prevent rosary-giving by Popes and profits inuring to hotel-owning Presidents (but not profit seeking congressmen). We also know that the Clause does not prevent Corporations, many of whom are only tangentially connected to the U.S., and many of whom are governments unto themselves, much larger than many governments, and many of whom are organized overseas, from giving hundreds of millions to dollars in the form of "campaign contributions" to politicians.
I'd prefer an answer from a talmudic-minded hair-splitting lawyer. As a test of honesty, I would like the answer from a one that just knows in his heart-of-hearts that the 14th A was enacted for the fundamental right of gay marriage. That way I will know for sure I am not being lied to.
@Bubba
So far, Nancy Pelosi has not sold or rented her Rosary gift from the Pope; she accepted a personal gift, period. No lawyer I know would conflate that one time gift with the ongoing profiteering from a hotel owned by the President and managed by Ivanka. Foreign petitioners stay there to curry favor with the easily bribed Trump, always in need of ready cash. Check out The Emoluments Clause referencing profiting from high office. It is illegal. Ivanka operating as a stand in for her father doesn't wash. If I were in need of a first rate Defense Atty., you would not be my choice.
5
@Bubba Despite the regional, religious and gender stereotyping of your comment, I'll try and explain.
The previously accepted norm is that elected officials place their businesses in blind trusts during their terms of office and do not manage or have family members they are directing manage private interests while serving in an elected capacity. No unqualified relatives given "jobs" and security clearances. No children interacting with foreign agents to solicit campaign assistance. No public servants tout branded jewelry or clothing sold by family members as if a WH press conference is the HSN. They don't go golfing at their private club weekly and charge US taxpayers to house security details in properties they own and control.
All of these practices violate ethics laws, the Hatch Act or similar anti-corruption rules. Or create such a high level of doubt as to whether the public interest is being served to or the private to make honest or honorable officials avoid the appearance of feeding at the public trough. While in office.
Politics has been corrupted by money. That doesn't make all politicians equally corrupt. Most presidential candidates release their tax returns, don't assault women and brag about it and don't lie multiple times a day.
Emoluments aren't gifts of token value. Rosaries, baseball caps, coffee mugs, fine. If valuable, they are given to the country, not the official or his private businesses.
2
Perfect! Now any future president can own and operate a hotel in D.C. and collect income and profits. Right?
4
I felt nauseous until I got to this line, “The Fourth Circuit panel’s decision is unlikely to be the last word.”
Also, NYT, why didn’t you name the three judges on the 4th Circuit? We have a right to know their names. Of course we can also look them up. Thanks.
5
Whew that headline nearly killed me. However, no court has ruled that he is not violating the Emoluments Clause. Impeach?
5
So, how long until we get big, gold Trump letters on our White House?
I'm disgusted. This administration is the most lawless I've ever seen and horrible beyond anything I could have ever imagined. Yet, nothing constrains him. Our courts waffle, Mueller punted, and Pelosi couldn't fight her way out of a wet paper bag. Nice country we had, once.
6
Legal studies 101 — jurisdiction and standing.
The Federal Appeal Court has found that only Congress has standing in this matter:
'We now grant the President’s petition for a writ of mandamus and, exercising jurisdiction through operation of § 1292(b), reverse the district court’s orders, concluding that the District and Maryland lack standing under Article III.
And in the separate appeal, No. 18-2488, that we also decide today, we likewise reverse due to the District 6 and Maryland’s lack of standing.
Based on the decisions in this appeal and in appeal No. 18-2488, we remand with instructions to dismiss the complaint with prejudice.'
http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/182486.P.pdf
1
@Colenso
Doesn't 'with prejudice' mean that the legal issue is not dead?
Another ridiculous attempt to obstruct and nullify Trumps presidency. Granted, he is a fool and a terrible person, but dems ought to stick to something serious. To imagine that the 17 cents/day ( or whatever it might turn out to be) that he personally makes from each hotel stay, after expenses are taken out for maintenance, salaries, taxes, etc,etc is a significant sum is absurd.
This blatant cheating, like New York state's law on trump's tax return , which is a law directed at one unpopular person, just energizes the base.
If the dems do not stop with this foolishness and find a good combo. (harris and biden, perhaps), they will lose again.
2
@john palmer
well... when you consider the DC hotel turned a nearly 2 million dollar profit last year I'd say Trump makes about $5,999.83 more per night than you suggest.
5
Justice for all? I think not.
3
So, once again, agents of the Confederacy decide Trump can break laws with impunity. What a country.
9
The constant legal battles with Trump's private attorneys and now with the DOJ acting as his private legal firm all erode our belief in the rule of law. It keeps being hammered at us: If you have money and can hire enough lawyers, you will never pay taxes, be brought to court for rape, be made to follow laws about hiring illegals, be made to tell the truth on bank forms, etc. We have a rogue criminal in the White House, who is doing more to erode our civic culture than anyone in our history.
6
Let's just call Trump "Mr. Dictator". Seems he can do anything he wants without consequences. Nothing stick to Teflon Don. Nothing!
3
Overt CORRUPTION is our new normal...(!)
4
There will be another lawsuit.
Round 2 will commence soon.
1
Too funny
Another democrat dream bites the dust!
What really is outstanding however is that all of the extreme lefts resistance lawsuits, sanctuary cities, no cooperation with ice, house investigations etc. are now part of the normal political playbook.
Republicans will relish using the same tactics
3
@William Rodham I think GOP tactics are called gerrymandering, voter suppression, explode the deficit by rewarding your rich donors and make sure everyone has a gun, bears unwanted children (even if as a result of rape or incest) and let's the rest of us starve to death or die from lack of medical care.
I'm going with the Dem playbook.
3
Disgusting, is all I can say.
Someone please leak those tax returns, asap.
5
And the complete and utter corruption of the nation's laws under the Trump regime continues. You couldn't have a more obvious case of emoluments violations than what happens with Trump every single day. I'm sure these judges will go straight to Trump international and have dinner at a Trump fund-raiser, like Barr did after he disgraced the Mueller report. These people are truly disgusting and utterly without shame. Every day I wonder how we can possibly recover from this era of debauchery and disgrace.
6
The remedy for violating the Constitution is impeachment, which Pelosi won't allow. Hence the silly lawsuit by Dems, which will fail.
2
@Worried but hopeful
Nancy knows how to count votes in both Houses of Congress; Impeachment would die in the Senate under McConnell. She won't give Trump that gift. She can, however, continue to block a lot of what he wants.
The fraud in the WH has the best "justice" money can buy.
This "decision" reeks of bribery.
3
Money talks, and Trump walks!
3
Civil disobedience is warranted now.
Whistling, sharpening my pitchfork !
2
He's getting away with everything.
2
Judging by all that's gone down under trump. we're gonna have a revolution!
2
The gop love trump and will do anything to protect him because he's the "sparkly" that makes the media go crazy by reporting on his every infinitesimal thing he does and every boneheaded thing he says so that mcconnell and his gop goons can load the courts with right wing judges, eliminate regulations created to protect us and suppress the rights of women and minorities to name a few. What a disgusting bunch.
4
The fix is in, yes?
2
It's hardle a "victory" when the referees have been hand-picked by the "winning" side.
3
Just because a judge has no experience in Trump's violation of the emolument clause does not make it right...by a mile. Trump is a most corrupt politician who, while in office, continues to enrich himself, and his family, at our expense. Disgraceful, however shameless the current vulgar bully occupying the Oval Office remains. And an awful example to others, being able to get away with 'murder' with impunity.
2
Maryland taxpayers get the meatball again as Democratic AG Brian Frosh throws the taxpayers hard earned revenues away to pursue his own extremist agenda. The now-liberal Fourth Circuit Court trashed his legal argument and him with their decision. The man is unfit for office.
1
The criminals have taken control of the courts. Democracy is dead. Step aside Pelosi. You are of no help if you don't impeach.
2
Wow! Another lame partisan attempt to harass the President falls flat on its face when it reaches a level beyond that of a single liberal judge. Imagine that.
2
@William How bout that census decision, William?
1
You got the headline wrong NYT. It should read "Kangaroo US federal court with hand picked Republican pro corporate patsy judges rules in favor of Trump 3-0."
3
The mysterious “deep state”...where do we find it? Try the White House!
2
America has no effective department of Justice, after a string of substandard Attorney Generals, groveling for a madman's favor.
3
This vindictive harassment of the President by these seemingly rabid Democrats, federal & state. Democrats clearly intend on hounding this President for the four full yrs of his current term. If re-elected to the WH are we going to see another 4 yrs of this constant harassment by Democrats & Socialists?
It's also clear how Democrats are not interested in any investigation or any court action that doesn't produce the results they are desperate for. Trump being cleared by 4 investigations--FBI, Congress, Senate, SC Mueller, in regard to alleged Russian collusion means nothing to the likes of Nadler, Schiff, Swalwell, 4 radical freshmen,etc, etc, etc.
It is quite simply too much for some liberals, such as those mentioned previously) to look in the mirror & admit to themselves they failed with their 'collusion' frame-up. The likes of CNN can't see why they owe their viewers an apology, to apologise for the relentless rolling out of guests like "expert" Avenatti or the likes of Brennan & Clapper.
When one thinks of people like Brennan, who had the staggering gal to call Trump a traitor, I can understand & see why Trump calls these reprehensible people "the enemy of the people". They pushed a lie on a very divisive issue, what these people did for more than 2 yrs damaged America far more than any Russian ads on FB ever did.
3
Does this mean Jimmy Carter is off the hook for keeping his peanut farm going during the 1970s?
1
Keep suing Trump. It's one of his favorite tactics until someone gives up. Keeps his lawyers employed and less profit in his pants pocket.
This is a “we have to throw him a crumb every once in a while” situation. But they won’t be ruling on his side for most of the other many emolument cases he’s facing. Enjoy it now Donald, because the axes will surely fall.
2
Trump could start taking checks from foreign rulers and nothing would happen.
The feds won't criminally prosecute him no matter what; the Senate will block any attempt to remove him after impeachment that Pelosi is afraid to try; the large randy underemployed minority will lustily cheer Trump's misdeeds from the hinterlands near and far. And any rational republican who raises his voice in opposition will be primaried and driven from office.
I keep hearing discussion of an impending constitutional crisis. I think these people miss the point. The constitutional crisis has already passed. We are living under a structurally republican form of government but a functional totalitarian one, and we are living under this government because a sizable part of the American population would have it no other way.
4
No standing ... how about the Pritzker family (Hyatt Hotels) stepping up. Are there no metrics to indicate that revenues are down relative to Trump International (and not because of fabulous well-done steaks with ketchup served in the TI's dining room)?
1
New law is not easy to litigate. No other President has acted with such clear conflicts of interests with such pride, Trump challenges the whole system of justice. Eventually, the enforcement of the "emoluments clause" will become clearer and then Trump will be forced to divest or present the Congress with one more consideration for impeachment.
It may prove to be that Congress is the only party that could have proper standing. Who knows?
1
Proper standing for a violation of the Constitution would be the people of the U.S. Which probably means their closest representatives, the Congress.
3
Whether or not Trump is trying to profit from the Presidency, you'd have a hard time proving that he corruptly sought to attract more guests to his hotels. How much money is in that? And Trump claims to be worth billions.
Proving that a billionaire corruptly filled his hotels at a modest profit would be an uphill battle. You'd have to prove that he was a billionaire trying to get maybe $50,000 more in profits.
Trump is not a detail guy. When it came to the national budget, he was ok with everything except the wall. Now if he wants to build walls around competitor hotels, then you've got a case.
1
This was a no brainier. Owning a businesses and delivering good or services at market rates has NEVER been considered something as to be an emolument. If you go back to when this was adopted, many of the founders and early Presidents had commercial relationships with European states. An emolument was literally a straight out bribe or tithe.
2
Are Trump's tax returns going to be subpoenaed by Congress? Where are Chairpeople of the two Committees who said subpoenas were going to be issued for his returns in short order? Trump's returns will give a far clearer picture not only of his business dealings but to whom he is indebted. The emoluments clause issue can go to the Supreme Court, if necessary. But the tax returns are probably an easier "get." And considering Trump promised the American public and then lied about disclosing his tax returns once the "audit was complete," it is essential that they are subpoenaed.
4
Corruption gets to stand, mostly because of the GOP Congress. The third branch is not enrolling in the "checks and balances" aspect of their duty. So breaking the Constitution is the new norm. A banana republic we shall remain.
3
Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 of the US Constitution) 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."
Donald Trump while serving as president, is making money off of foreign governments, who are pouring money into his hotels and golf courses, to get into this corrupt President's favor. Now, he and his family cannot be sued by individual cities and states for these crimes. Cities and States do not have standing to stop this family of grifters.
Only Congress can stop Trump's emolument crimes. Unfortunately, our current crop of Congressmen and women have shown us, on an almost daily basis, that they are as corrupt as Trump and his family are.
Trump and his family are enriching themselves with the Consent of Mitch McConnell and the GOP.
It has become the new USA norm.
2
We have gone from a Republican oligarchy (rule by the wealthy: everybody should take a look at the net worth not only of Trump's billionaire cabinet but of members of the Senate, especially McConnell) to being a kleptocracy (members of the government should take as much as they can by means of their influence: look at Trump, his family, his cabinet, and, well, McConnell and his wife again).
It's disgusting and far, I believe, from what the founders and framers intended. Some common sense should prevail here: does Trump know that his country clubs and hotels are benefiting from his presidency? How could he not? He doesn't need a bookkeeper to explain all the entries for that.
4
If 3 Democratic judges ruled against trump they would be brave. Because they are republican appointees we must question their motives, right? Isn’t that how this game works?
1
I find it hilarious but saddening that a man so proficient at gaming the system is supported by people who will never even get near the system, in fact, who will likely be ground up and abandoned by the system. Trump would filch the pennies off a dead man’s eyes yet they support him.
4
The remedy seems simple to me. Divest the Trump family of their hotels and resorts. Simple but far from easy.
1
So now we see laid bare the willingness of conservative appointees in the judiciary to ignore their oath to protect the rule of law. The ruling is a nod to those in government with money and power, that they will be allowed to ignore the standards that provide a check on their motives. The emoluments clause is to assure that they can be trusted not to use their position to gain from it. We need to demand that these rules in our system that have been ignored become law. It is now at the point where we no longer can trust that we will have leadership with integrity and honor. We find ourselves wondering just who will use the tools given to them to by laws and Constitutional processes to check this slide into total corruption by our civil servants. DT will not "impeach himself". It is what we entrust those who have the power to do so to do. It is a terrible reflection on our country and it's great history of being served by leadership with honor. This level of corruption was beyond imagining. The Obama years were rife with power grabs and lack of civility not seen for years. We have always been critical of our leaders, but the R's egregiously acted with a breathtaking lack of regard and respect for the office. Obama made mistakes but his integrity was beyond the pail.
It is up to the people of this country while we still can, to assure that we vote for leaders who understand the need for the truth. a willingness to serve the needs of the nation and, ALL of it's people. VOTE
2
Democrats keep throwing pointless darts at Trump, thinking one of them will take him out. Meanwhile the Market keeps going up, wages are increasing, the trade war going after China doesn’t seem to be hurting the US, and Trump’s approval rating is increasing (it’s now at an identical rating as Obama at this point in his first term). Me thinks the democrat’s current plan is failing.
1
@DanielMarcMD
The Market is completely separate from the economy. If it crashes it has some effect, otherwise not. Wages are stagnant, no raises followed the corporate tax gift; lay- offs continued, bonuses were given to high level managers, investors received more dividends. Trump's approval ratings remain at below 50%. Trump inherited a working economy from Obama; he has proceeded to lie to workers, e.g. the shuttered Carrier factory in Indiana, now in Mexico. He is not admired in the world as Obama was, and is. He tells whoppers, ignored by all except for Fox viewers. What is happening on the Border is reaching criminality with new reports of sexual assaults by guards. His connection to Epstein via his Labor Secty. is going to be documented. Barr's connection to Epstein through his father at the Dalton School has now come out; Barr, Sr. had to leave his post; Epstein had to resign his teaching position, details not yet fully out. Acosta will have to resign, when, not if. Cabinet turnover unlike anything seen before. A dysfunctional WH whose leader is linked to Russian financiers via loans in Trump's hidden tax returns. A President with business interests in Russia and Saudi Arabia; the Saudis organized Kashoggi's brutal murder and dismemberment, per our own CIA. Trump remains "unconvinced".
OK, so you lost this round. There's still another 5-1/2 years of the Trump presidency to find something that might stick..
1
A“Even if government officials were patronizing the hotel to curry the president’s favor, there is no reason to conclude that they would cease doing so were the president enjoined from receiving income from the hotel,” the 36-page opinion said. “The hotel would still be publicly associated with the president, would still bear his name and would still financially benefit members of his family.”
B"The judges described the emoluments clauses as broad prohibitions intended to guarantee a president’s independence and restrict the president’s ability to accept financial benefits from foreign or state officials seeking influence."
To me the above paragraphs contradict one another or A) is why the emoluments clause exist according to B) the logic applied is mind boggling. It sounds to me like we can't stop them from bribing the President using another avenue so there is no reason to enforce the emoluments clause....really? So corruption is OK because we can't stop corruption.
2
Did they even bother to look at the books or the reservations made during Trump's inauguration? How many overbooked, overpriced empty rooms in his hotel did I end up paying for with my tax dollars.
These three judges should have recused themselves. They are obviously not impartial.
1
I am not a legal expert but I say that if Obama was in the place of Trump the outcome at this point would be, legally and politically, very different.
2
Somehow, Trump gets away with everything. I am hoping that when SDNY gets to indictments in the Epstein case, Trump doesn't get a pass on that. This latest Epstein thing drew my attention to the 2016 civil suit against Trump and Epstein for raping (by force, in addition to statutory) one of Epstein's young recruits. The complaint is extremely credible, and its sudden withdrawal difficult to understand except as done under intense duress. But it won't surprise me if he gets away with that too. Really, it is not that nothing sticks to him. It all sticks. But the Republican Senate and the McConnell Senate appointees are paying off for him big-time.
2
One law for the rich another for the poor .
" Supreme Court had repeatedly held that groups of individual legislators could not sue the executive branch "
A suit by the Speaker of the House, however, is a whole different matter. This is a Constitutional office, charged with the conduct of the business of the House. Emoluments are the business of the House, right?
But, judges are having mental blocks lately when interpreting plain letter law, so sure, why not. Congress is the weak sister, cause they're Democrats; currently...
2
It would be interesting to know what violates emoluments if this administration doesn't. The Republicans have politicized the court system. It is truly sad.
1
A major victory for American politics and the constitution.
A sad day for politicians and establishment.
This ruling clears the way for any successful business leader or corporate CxO to run for President. It doesn't limit the road to the White House to just career politicians.
“All three judges on the panel were appointed by Republican presidents.”
The GOP makes the jobs of journalists all too easy. No complicated entangled conspiracy here, just the anti-democratic forces of GOP judges displaying unadulterated partisanship, as usual.
2
Standing--now you have it, now you don't, depending on the disposition of the judges concerned. Was it DACA where Texas had standing because it might have to issue new drivers[ licenses.
Enough of this judge-made nonsense. A federal statute could state when and who has standing.
1
The District Court should have dismissed it and saved us all time and money. Anyway, have a little compassion for the guy and let him grab a little up front.I don't imagine Golldman Sachs or any Davos types hiring him once out of office to share his glittering bon mots for $300k a shot.
Look forward to the opening of the Biden B&B in DC in 2020.
Once again we see that the rules, the law, the Constitution, do not apply to Republicans or the extremely powerful. Only little people, like you and me.
1
Oh well. Democracy was fun while it lasted.
1
No standing? Ridiculous. Every official and every citizen has standing to bring such a case. Everyone is harmed when the President is bribed.
As to the substance of the matter: The Constitution prohibits emoluments. It does not condition that prohibition on whether the President makes a net profit on his interests. And what difference does it make how much business Trump's hotel might do if Trump were enjoined from profiting from it? Why even consider that question?
All you Trump haters make note: Your beloved 9th District Court has their decisions overturned by higher courts 80 percent of the time. You love their decisions on immigration and so forth but they rarely if ever stand.
The 4th District Court has, on the other hand, an overturn rate well below average. Meaning, their decisions tend to be upheld upon Appeal. These are the decisions you don’t like - today’s case in point.
Rather then spending your time writing comments about how this was a bad decision and the Country’s going down the toilet, perhaps you should spend it contemplating the fact that your views on matters such as this are way outside the norm.
1
This report should have pointed out that all three judges on this appellate panel were appointed by Republican presidents — and one of them by Trump. The question crying out for an answer: Does ANYONE have standing to sue for enforcement of the Emoluments Clause? If not, is the only remedy for this kind of corruption impeachment by Congress?
56
@chrishkh
The article does point out "All three judges on the panel were appointed by Republican presidents."
7
I cannot believe that the first remedy is that “ all the judges were republicans.”
Either he did or did not violate the Emoluments Clause which he obviously did. Is everyone just this corrupt, or just this stupid. Try again or try Cuba. I thought it was pretty great if you knew someone in government and were an artist or a cook. Let’s go.
1
The justice's are simply wrong to dismiss the case for lack of standing. Who would have standing? Trump's own corrupted justice department - the foxes guarding the chickens. The GOP has corrupted the executive, legislative and judicial branches of our government, has legitimized bald-faced lying, and are undoing all the institutional regulations designed to safeguard financial, environmental and personal freedoms, not to mention the now legalized practice of rigging elections.
If this is not reversed soon, American democracy will only exist in history books.
66
@joe
Nope, they'll revise history - not in the books? Didn't happen.
7
@William
Point taken.
6
@joe We've entered our "post constitutional" period.
8
Hope they fight this all the way to the Supreme Court. Trump is CLEARLY profiting from his presidency and in violation of the constitution. To endlessly suggest he cannot he bothered with lawsuits due to his position excuses the indefensible. Lock him up - or at least revoke his lease for the DC Post Office he converted into a hotel. He is absolutely in breach of that agreement.
54
@Dan -
One of the Appeals Court’s defenses of their ruling was lack of remedies. However, you suggested a remedy: revocation of Trump’s (and his family’s) license to operate a commercial business in the old DC Post Office building.
Also: the Court’s ruling of lack of “standing” is simply a legalistic dodge, an excuse for not ruling on the issue and shunting it aside.
9
Here’s what Trump stole: the brand equity of the office of the President of the United States. It doesn’t belong to him, it belongs to us, yet he’s using it to sell rooms at his hotel and all his family’s other junk and schemes. And he’s trashing its value in the process. He doesn’t own the logo, the name, the history, the ceremony—nothing. It’s probably the reason he ran in the first place; to steal the brand. The founding fathers couldn’t foresee branding and its value, but they could foresee crooks using the influence and image of the office for personal enrichment. Is there any doubt this is what trump is doing now?
61
Trump leases the property from the US Government. The contract has a clause in it, which his government did not enforce, which stated that is the owner of the hotel ran for public office and won, the contract would be terminated. Who pressured who not to enforce the contract?
4
@Patrick Really ? Great. Is it possible to be able to access the contract on the Net, and if so, where ?
1
While I was in favor of sentiment behind this case, the basic premise is extremely flawed. How could DC and MD ever prove that the Trump International Hotel Washington was siphoning business away from other local hotels?
I think DC and MD would have a stronger case if they could prove that government officials, executives, and/or lobbyists were paying to stay at the Trump hotel, or dine in its restaurants, and that the Trump family was thereby profiting from from the revenue generated by this class of customers.
A local DC restaurant filed a suit on similar grounds, and it was thrown out as well. It's just a flawed premise.
1
What headlines call "a victory" for Trump almost always, as here, involves his somehow managing to escape the law. The standards for what counts as a presidential "victory" sure have declined.
23
@Ed It's not escaping the law, as is not clear, it is called working within the law. If the Democrats are going to try & thwart & block the policies of this administration then expect the administration to fight back.
Anyway, I don't understand your premise, this article is reporting on how the court has said that Trump IS NOT doing anything outside of the law. It's quite clear what the court has said.
1
Unless a State can show that by staying at a Trump Hotel
leads to some sort of harm to that State, what standing
do they have ?
Is this issue not best left up to Congress ?
5
@John Brown, a foreign government lets Trump know that they are planning on visiting Washington DC with their delegation several times during a year. Their total budget is $2 million. They tell Trump that they are deciding which hotel to pick. They say that the US could be far more friendly to their country in a current trade negotiation, they’d pick Trump’s Hotel (the one he personally makes money from).
Get it?
Hence the emoluments law.
It doesn’t just hurt that State, it hurts you.
4
@Other
I get nothing.
How much money does Trump actually
make if the delegation stays at the Hotel ?
Are Trumps holdings in a "Blind Trust" ?
What if the deal turns out to be quite profitable
for the US of A ?
1
Thanks for this article. And thanks for noting "All of the judges on the panel were appointed by Republican presidents."
It would help readers as well as democracy if you also named the 3 Republican appointed judges.
13
@louis v. lombardo Help democracy? How on earth can it do that? It actually makes a nice change from the endless partisan Obama appointed judges making some extraordinary rulings against this administration.
1
It does seem strange that this case has been rejected based upon a lack of standing, though it seems almost equally strange that the governments of Maryland and D.C. apparently own hotels ("... unfairly siphoning off business from hotels owned by the local jurisdictions.") Possibly the reporter is mis-speaking.
I'd love to have a Democratic presidential candidate, whose plans I considered sensible, to vote for in 2020. However, if whoever the Democratic party selects as their nominee is in favor of plans to allow people to be dramatically-less careful in their consumption of highly-expensive resources (including healthcare and higher education), I will very likely vote for Trump, even though I voted for Hillary in 2016. Give the 42% of we Americans who are unaffiliated voters a chance to vote for someone who would return the U.S. to some condition of normalcy, rather than taking the risk that people will be desperate enough to vote for a candidate who offers only a radical shift from anything that has previously existed in the USA. Don't be too confident in your expectations about people's hesitance to vote for Donald Trump -- you saw what happened in 2016, and if you too offer only a radical shift, you will likely be surprised and disappointed again in 2020. Benefits of a moderate nominee would include increased probabilities of gaining balanced court appointments, preventing Trump from avoiding certain indictments due to statutes of limitations, and other benefits.
By the way, I consider the primary problems that are driving high and continuously-increasing healthcare costs as a lack of competition, and people's lack of foresight that although insurance may protect them from the immediate costs of their healthcare consumption, they and the rest of us will be impacted by it through next year's premium increases. (I believe that the lack of competition is mostly due to a lack of price transparency, and significantly due to consolidation of hospital ownership.)
Was it not germane for the Times to mention that all three judges in this case were appointed by Republican Presidents -- one of them by Trump himself?
If Virginia and the District of Columbia don't have standing to bring the case, how is it that a Trump appointee doesn't have a clear conflict of interest in even participating in the decision?
11
That’s why federal judges have life tenure. So they can render fair decisions as they did in this case.
1
As much as it pains me - the case here against person-of-interest #1 is flimsy. This is probably correct – "no legal standing to sue Mr. Trump." – in other words, you can't just complain about a situation, there has to be merit to the complaint and the complaint in-and-of-itself does not constitute merit.
And the emoluments & nobility clause - as posited in Federalist #22 - doesn't say anything about receiving gifts for services rendered (IE: getting a hotel room or banquet space for your money).
The truly bizarre thing about all this is that Trump doesn't require gifts from foreign governments to be influenced b them - he already willingly falls into the warm embrace and gazes adoringly at the likes of Putin, Kim Jong or pretty much any dictator - free of charge.
5
Having this case dismiss for lack of standing is not a ruling on whether or not Trump violates the Emoluments Clause. It merely holds that these plaintiffs are in no position to bring the case to court. While innovative, the legal theory (that the Emoluments Clause provided cover for commercial losses caused by Trump's ill-gotten gains) was a bit of a stretch. Trump's loud chest thumping victory lap is uncalled for, though. No court has ruled that he is not violating the Emoluments Clause. They're just having a hard time figuring out who stands to lose when he does.
4
@Some Dude The judges threw it out because they know full well what Democrat prosecutors are trying to do with all these nonsense cases. The judge commented on how the original judge had abused his power by allowing the case to proceed in the first place. The judge said it is purely speculation to say that foreign diplomats, etc, stay at that particular hotel simply to please Trump.
I find it absolutely moronic to think Trump only ran for office because he wanted to make more money, it's absurd.
If Trump was ONLY concerned with money then why would he voluntarily decline to take his presidential salary for 4, possibly 8, yrs?
1
Remember ‘The Look of Love’ by the great Dusty Springfield?
One look from Trump is all it takes
One look to right his mistakes
One look from Trump
They’re saying he did not do
Anything that’s wrong
And just what he is up to
Well...we have to get along
They found Maryland and DC
Had no legal standing
I don’t understand why
His hotel in DC...
Please explain it to me
I just don’t know
Dislike him so
He has to go...
3
As the Fourth Circuit has now demonstrated, any part of the Constitution that is not enforceable might as well not be in the Constitution at all.
11
@WTig3ner Can't enforce something just because YOU want it enforced, it has to be established & proven first. We call it 'justice' in America.
1
@kojak
Well, friend, you put your finger right on the problem. Of course it has to be proved. What the Fourth Circuit did prevented any case from going to trial in the first place.
I am confused, which is not a new experience but:
If I give the Boxing coach at Stanford $250,000 to get my daughter go to Stanford on a boxing scholarship I'm guilty of some provision of the law that says that I hurt the opportunity of more qualified students to attend Stanford.
If I am the President of the United States and happen to own a hotel where many people stay to curry favor from the President, the damage done to other higher quality hotels in terms of lost revenue is irrelevant.
The judges decision is confusing, now the Fourth Circuit has a reputation for being weird (they once had a judge who refused to use definitive articles in his opinions) but I think that the people helping their children to get into a fancy school so they could brag about how smart Sam/Sally is are a lot less of a danger to the country than a President who can be bought.
14
Yes, agreed. Or put another way: corruption in plain sight - for example a foundation connected by marriage to a US Secretary of State - is often not viewed as corruption because it is in plain sight.
4
@William Did you not read the judge's comments where he stated how "it is pure speculation that people stay at one of the President's hotel only in order to curry favor with the President. The judges are not going to form any opinions based on speculation, I thought this would've been obvious to people.
It would be more dangerous for a president to be bought as opposed to getting kids into a particular school. Thankfully Trump has no history or recorded incidents of any such thing, unlike HRC who received money from so many people & companies that people couldn't keep count of them.
1
The Clinton Foundation was not corrupt. The defunct Trump foundation was, and folded because it was just a money-laundering scheme for Trump. The blind ignorance in plain sight by conservatives is truly, even after all these years of lies and hypocrisy, breathtakingly appalling.
3
Trump said, during the campaign, referring to the emoluments clause: "The president can't have a conflict of interest. The law is totally on my side."
We have plunged precipitously into "L'etat 'est moi" under this president, who systematically muddles self-dealing with doing "the people's business." If courts go along with this, they deal a fatal blow to the rule of law and checks and balances as they abdicate their duty to uphold Constitutional principles.
Trump's "I'm above the law" stance on this and other matters moves us deeper into tyranny every day. Do our judges want this on their conscience?
22
@Anon
ooops. "'est," c'est "c'est"
"L'etat, c'est moi." "The state, that's me."
1
Curious to me that the article mentions that the district court judge was a Clinton appointee, but not that the judges on the appeals panel were all appointed by Republican presidents (Bush 41, Bush 43, and the current occupant).
9
Trump is only a symptom of a much deeper problem in America, going after Trump directly is a fools-quest.
The signs have been out there for some time, we just tend to ignore them. Americans are disgruntled with their government, they want positive change in their lives and in many ways they are desperate and will try anything that resonates with their anger and outrage.
The larger, deeper, and more intractable problem is that neither party speaks to the real problems in American life, they offer distractions - food fights, rallies, slogans, but never address the real problems.
Our nation can live up to the ideals of the constitution but it is just so much easier to focus on things that, in the long run, simply do not matter.
Yes, We-the-People are part of the problem because we want simple solutions to complex problems, we want to be taken care of and left along at the same time, we want to be part of something larger but only with our own kind,...
Can we address these problems? Sure, but the distractions are just so attractive and engaging that we focus on them instead of the real problems.
We need to focus on building a "more perfect" America. The rest will follow.
9
I heard many Dems. running for president during the televised debate pointing out plenty of real problems they want to tackle. If Dems. don’t win the presidential election AND take back the senate all bets are off and righting real problems will once again be only rhetoric.
2
@George N Wells, to be perfectly clear, not all of us, not by a long shot.
There are many of us who evaluate those who we vote for, the complex issues they face on our behalf, and the plans they advocate (along with how to pay for them and how to compromise in Congress to get the best possible outcome).
Many of us have been paying attention,have called for practical, incremental, constitutional solutions to complex, multifaceted problems and for intelligent, well-informed, experienced representatives (the easy-fixers want celebrities).
It is this group who all those easy-fixers call wonkish, too focused on detail, too liberal (ie let’s take multiple constituencies into account in our decisions, ya know ‘cause we’re a democracy), too socialist (ie wanting everyone to have social security when they get old and basic doctor care even if they lose their job).
We the ants refuse to be lumped in with the grasshoppers. If we could, we’d leave you with your easy non-fixes, empty bank accounts, dead end jobs, and no insurance - and your representatives who laugh at you for your gullibility.
But after mocking us ants who said democracy is not a corporation, democracy is messy, slow, frustratingly and still the best protection for us all, you are now dragging us down into your negligent authoritarian nightmare with you.
And worse, you’re taking our children’s future with you.
You should have been paying attention.
2
This makes me ill. These were not Trump or McConnell appointees. I can't imagine what they were thinking. Apparently the United States is up for sale. Did anyone who follows the Times follow the story on radio program Reveal (on NPR) that was on Malaysia corruption (Najib Razak virtually emptied the countries treasury for himself and bought a lot of Trump real-estate and his entourage stayed in Trump hotels on their US visit. -- That's called Money laundering--- Hint: now legal)
9
How did Trump get the deal for the Washington hotel in the 1st place? It has always seemed odd to me that a developer and/or hotelier not involved in Washington DC or on the national scene should get this plum. Anyone know why?
5
@Margaret Fraser There was drawn-out competitive process, and his proposal triumphed (well before he became president or even announced his intention to run).
2
The Russians funneled him enough money.
2
Outcomes such as this will only become more frequent as the current administration works feverishly to load the courts with political operatives friendly to their handlers desires.
Democracy is very broken and there’s no effective modality to police itself with all three branches of government hijacked and the empty rhetoric in the sworn duty of the military to protect us against enemies foreign and domestic.
Very many ugly days ahead as a result of the metastasis of graft and corruption. I see nothing short of violence that will reign this in.
9
your article should have begun with the statement of facts identifying the three judge panel by name, and as republicans. nothing else really matters.
i hope the plaintiffs come back with individual business plaintiffs to argue for "standing". or, i hope that the plaintiffs seek rehearing en banc.
today, unfortunately, there are "judges", and there are "republican judges". the latter are politicians. and there also are "trump judges". they are hacks.
11
This was trickier of the two cases for some of the legal arguments -- but a disappointment nonetheless. Hopefully they will appeal for an en band hearing -- and maybe the SC will take up the case, which could go so wrong on so many levels.
8
We are at a point where Trump will never be "caught" or fairly judged while in office. It is an astounding situation of someone insulating himself--from criminality, from ethical and moral transgressions--through propaganda tactics we've only witnessed in authoritarian governments, the power of the media (Fox), the craven disreguard by the GOP, and the 35 million citizens who cheer him on.
So...perhaps Nancy Pelosi is correct: the only solution is removal by election, and ideally a focus so complete on this goal that it generates a landslide bringing Senate control, as well. That's the game, Democrats. Accept it.
24
The courts having been stacked with conservative hacks by McConnell will protect trump. Impeachment is our last hope
11
@M Vitelli: Conservatives helping Trump? Au contraire.
As the NY Times noted over two years ago:
"Trump’s Losing Streak in Courts Is Traceable to Conservative Judges"
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/27/us/politics/trump-legal-defeats.html?_r=0
Facts speak louder than prejudicial notions ans suppositions.
https://emcphd.wordpress.com
1
Quite the legal system you folks have down there. About as sensible as the byzantine electoral system.
22
Agreed! Minority rule - go figure. I suppose it’s time to overthrow the rule of the few, as happened in South Africa.
@roman
We got no rules and when the time is right we will annex Canada.
It is so sad to see our great country being taken apart piece by piece by the Republican Party and their shills. I never thought this day would come in my lifetime. I guess even the Great Roman Empire fell in the end.
28
everyone is a loser when these frivolous politically inspired lack of substance lawsuits aimed at a political opponent have enough standing that they have to reach an appeal court, instead of being thrown out immediately at the level of the lower court.
8
"All three judges on the panel were appointed by Republican presidents."
A politicized judicial system in the United States?.....Nah!
Remember, "elections have consequences." And plenty of forewarning, Here's the most tragic:
"As of July 10, 2019, the United States Senate has confirmed 127 Article III judges nominated by President Trump, including 2 Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, 42 judges for the United States Courts of Appeals, 83 judges for the United States District Courts."
Sure, all presidents get a shot at this. But with a civically negligent Senate and a nationalist president, an extreme Right agenda assured for generations. Oh, the humanity...now only a fond memory.
13
Unfortunately many idealists, whether they're left or centrist will sit out the election or "vote their conscience" if they don't get their ideal candidate. I support voting for the person that someone thinks is best in many cases. Any election involving Trump should be an obvious exception. Both those on the left and in the center need to look past the promises and realize any Dem president will be tempered by Congress. We won't end up with a far left government no matter what the left hopes for or the centrists fear. Vote and get the Narcissist-In-Chief and good enablers out.
5
@Topher S
Agreed. The hidden damage is in the courts. Click on any US Appellate District and watch the number of Trump appointees grow. That damage will outlive almost every voter alive today. He's already at one third the number of appointments it took Obama to get in 8 years.
1
Trump can now sell his MAGA collectibles such as hats, ties, snow globes..etc with no recourse...or he has he been selling them already? and are they made in the US or China...
9
@TL
Made in China.
1
Details of these 3 "judges" will soon emerge and I won't be surprised to see what side of the political isle they stand in.
6
@Hal
All three are republicans boss.
1
The Richmond court is dependably conservative. What else did you expect? Of surprise, however, is their shutting down of evidence-gathering prematurely. That smells of politics.
19
Every day, we live in more and more of a dystopia. Unbelievable what this criminal in the White House is able to get away with, and all with the approval of the enablers around him. We no longer have a functioning democracy.
71
Once again we see the same flaw in the constitution rear its head. Courts and the Justice department are again demurring to a broken congress to correct a dangerous executive. One man, the Senate Leader McConnell, is blocking any and all efforts to bring this deranged man to justice because they are getting goodies like tax breaks for the rich, super conservative jurists and complete freedom to gerrymander. I'm afraid that if he is reelected there really will be people marching in the streets and we may wake up to marshal law "until security can be reestablished". Then our democracy will truly be dead.
100
Completely agree about McConnell. If you want ditch Mitch support Amy McGrath, who is running against him in 2020.
13
@Ted, agreed and watch next year. As the campaign moves along and his polls go down, some skirmish will occur (out of nowhere), and we will respond militarily, with increasing forces. A state of emergency will be called. Panic will drive a sitting president’s poll numbers up. He will be “elected” to his next term. Rinse, lather, repeat.
4
One word: impeachment.
184
@Robert K
Yes, Mueller said,
The Russians hacked our elections.
Trump obstructed the investigation into that attack
We could not clear Trump of crimes.
"The Constitution has a process other than the criminal justice system to accuse a sitting president." That process is impeachment.
When the President of the USA is violating the Constitution, doesn't every citizen have standing?
27
Unfortunately, the 'jury' in an impeachment trial would be McConnell's GOP Senate -- and after they let Trump off the hook, he'll claim 'they found me innocent!' -- just in time for the 2020 elections. Pelosi is correct on this one, keep up the investigations and public reports of the sleazy Prez & Administration. And get out the VOTE!!
1
It's time to replace the justices of the SCOTUS. Actually, we could turn the court building into a casino!
10
@FritzTOF
A casino with Trump in charge would be a disastrous failure, like his Taj Mahal.
3
@FritzTOF our chances of coming out ahead would be higher than with these sham judges.
1
So trump is happy that he can continue to make money and hide it all because we cannot see his tax returns.
Add this money-making greed to his collusion with Russia and their meddling in our elections. And add in his documented sexual predator history...I lost count but I believe there are over 20 women who state he has sexually assaulted them. And the attacks on our environment - over 80 clean air and water standards eliminated or weakened.
The list of his horrible presidency go on forever.
We simply MUST vote this unethical scoundrel out of office.
Mark you calendars and vote out trump as well as his spineless republican enablers in Congress.
Our democracy depends on voting!
109
@Jerry
And our voting depends on democracy which means counting the actual votes, allowing all registered voters access and time to vote, and having each vote count equally.
But none of that is currently happening.
20
@Person
You are absolutely right.
Years ago, the Republicans understood the value of local and state elections and poured millions of dollars (Koch, anyone?) into them.
As a result, Republican governors and legislatures have restricted voting rights, gerrymandered districts, packed the state supreme courts whenever possible, altered school district policies and teaching content, put their toadies in as secretary of state (responsible for voting rules and contests) etc.
No elected or appointed positions were above being bought.
So - the lesson to be learned is to show up for ALL elections and vote Republicans out at ALL levels of government. Pay attention to what is happening, and RESIST.
6
@Person And as long as traitor McConnell is barring legislative votes, NOTHING will change.
HE is the single biggest impediment and threat to United States "democracy", at least as defined by the Constitution, to which McConnell
violates his oath, on a daily basis.
GO AMY MCGRATH!!
3
I am confused by the court's legal reasoning. So if someone who got cancer sued a cigarette maker, even if he could prove he got cancer from the cigarettes, the court would be precluded from awarding damages because not everyone who got cancer is before the court? Or the court would be precluded from awarding damages because, indeed, some smokers may have even received health benefits?
This is what the judicial decision seems to amount to.
@Matt
I agree: You are confused.
1
Another fine sample of American Justice showing their two level approach to the rule of law.
One is for the very wealthy supported by an army of lawyers and the other one for the 99% of our population.
Guess who will always be better off?
3
This exactly why we need impeachment. Congress should do it’s constitutional duty.
1
@Corbin. And it wouldn't have hurt to have impeached him before all of these court decisions are rendered, and especially prior to the next election.
If Donald Trump gets reelected, there will be zero chance of impeachment once the voters have ratified their decision.
If the Fourth Circuit's reasoning is correct, no one has standing to enforce the Emoluments Clause by court action, and it is a dead letter. Could that have been the intent of the Framers ?
5
@Helmut Wallenfels
No, just 100% wrong. Try reading the article.
I understand this to be a subject for impeachment in the Congress rather than prosecution in the courtroom.
"All of the judges on the panel were appointed by Republican presidents."
Pray to God that Trump is defeated in 2020 but this mess will last a lot longer.
3
Years ago I read a novel - can’t remember name or author - but it described exactly how the republicans were going to take over the courts. Either by financing campaigns of judges who were elected or financing governors who appointed judges. This was done to enable judgments for corporations, the ultra rich, and neocons against the public good. I found the scenario of the future for our country frightening and now here it is taking place. All of us who were criticized for overreacting to Trump’s election were right except what is happening to our country is by far worse than even we imagined.
9
Doesn't this just effectively remove the emoluments clause from the Constitution? Apparently no one would have any standing to bring forth such a case.
5
Yep. Reminds me of the gerrymandering ruling.
No one has standing or can enforce the constitution!!
Nonsense.
They need to move this forward to a more partisan balanced full court... their reasoning here seems clearly flawed. It is immaterial if people trying to curry favor with Trump would still flock to the hotel... what is at issue is whether Trump should be allowed to profit from it.
3
After reading some of the comments my advice is to read the applicable law or ask a lawyer. Most of the people seem to have gotten their info about this case from Rachel Maddow. They are dead wrong about the law. The judges were correct. Liberal judges would have decided the same way.
7
Rachel Maddow's legal analysis are usually spot on and reinforced by actual lawyers. Unlike anything on Faux News.
1
@Doris Keyes An unbiased observation, to be sure.
“Even if government officials were patronizing the hotel to curry the President’s favor, there is no reason to conclude that they would cease doing so were the president enjoined from receiving income from the hotel,” the 36-page opinion said. “The hotel would still be publicly associated with the president, would still bear his name and would still financially benefit members of his family.”
The court has identified the problem in the above statement.
The issue is precisely that as POTUS, one should NOT be allowed to benefit by trading on an obvious connection to that POTUS.
The Constitution explicitly prevents a POTUS from being enriched based on expenditures by foreigners (see the Foreign Emoluments Cause) because the Founding Fathers wanted to eliminate the possibility that foreigners would corrupt the POTUS by putting money in his pocket. (This POTUS is already corrupt, so all those foreigners would be doing is buying influence.)
These three judges, one appointed by trump himself, one appointed by Bush 41 and one by Bush 43, just identified the issue and dismissed the case because of their deliberately obtuse reading of the problem.
An en banc review would be appropriate.
3
"“Even if government officials were patronizing the hotel to curry the President’s favor, there is no reason to conclude that they would cease doing so were the president enjoined from receiving income from the hotel,” the 36-page opinion said. “The hotel would still be publicly associated with the president, would still bear his name and would still financially benefit members of his family.”"
I had to read this twice. It's as if these judges just threw up their hands and gave up on the Constitution.
Jimmy Carter had to sell his Georgia peanut farm when he was president. This ruling is outrageous.
6
Jimmy Carter did not sell his peanut farm when he became President. He voluntarily put it in a trust managed by his sister, mother and brother. Foreign governments were perfectly free to buy tons of Planters Peanuts without Carter violating the constitution.
This is what Trump did also. His business interests are in a trust now managed by his sons. Nothing he has done is illegal, and using the courts as political weapons is unethical and destructive to our government, both judicial and executive branches.
1
If Trump and his Organization have lost business since he was elected it's because more people know now what kind of person he is and refuse to do business with him because of that.
Totally partisan decision that rivals Bush v. Gore. Foreign dignitaries and lobbyists spend lavishly at the Trump Hotel. The GAO is Trump's landlord. No issue there. And consider that this case reached the Appeals Court on the denial of a motion to dismiss. This is NOT generally an order that can be immediately appealed. The Appeals Court was extremely anxious to get this case immediately - before discovery could start and the public could get a look at Trump financial data. Disgraceful!
3
This court is telling us that the Constitution cannot be enforced. This is yet another slide down the slippery slope to a dictatorship by, as the British ambassador put it, a "clumsy and inept" administration.
4
Mr. Trump, if you are really losing money while serving as president, kindly prove it: release your tax returns so that the American people can see for themselves your generosity and sacrifice.
5
To the Trump haters, you should be glad this one is now dead. You are entirely failing to see the law of unintended consequences. Bogus claims against the President serve only to diminish all of those who are opposed to him. Hysterical claims are utterly ineffective and show more about the opponents than about the President. These comment sections are very much like the boy who cried wolf. No one - I repeat no one - fails to see the President's deficiencies. What is missing, though, is an acknowledgement by his opponents that the country is actually doing quite well on balance at this time. He deserves some credit for that. Such an acknowledgement would give credibility to the opposition.
3
@mbpman Interesting that you think a president enriching himself while in office by using his presidency is bogus. And if you think the economy is doing okay, you're not one of the millions of Americans paying tariffs because of Trump's ridiculous and damaging trade war.
2
The country was doing at least as well under Obama, without taking out a third mortgage on our future.
And the panel—not the whole court, a right-wing panel—ruled that the plaintiffs didn’t have standing to bring the case at all, not that Teump was innocent.
3
@mbpman Not a word about the case itself.
That is why the GOP is busy packing the courts at all levels. Three Republican judges help a nominally Republican president selected by President Putin of Russia to accept even more Russian and foreign money.
2
Three Republican activist judges are saying it is ok for Trump to violate The Constitution.
2
@Don
That's not what they said. Try reading the article, or the opinion, before making uninformed comments.
1
The principal of my kid’s school is going to hold the Junior and Senior Proms at a club he owns next year. I have no problem with that. He should be able to profit from his position as a public servant and direct some of the students’ money his way. It’s a nice yearly stipend for him. Said no one ever.
8
@Orange Nightmare
If he owns the club, then he's not profiting as principal, he is profiting as the owner of the club. The only issue would be whether,as principal, he made the decision to have the prom at his club.
What was the explanation for the court's description of plaintiffs' interests ( as "attenuated" and "abstract")? My memory is that hotels in the District and Maryland claimed they were unfairly deprived of business because customers were trying to curry favor with the administration.
So this court wouldn't even allow evidence to be presented? Talk about 'attenuated' and 'abstract.'
10
There must be some fine point of law here that I do not understand. If emoluments does not apply here then the law is moot.
9
@Buddesatva
Here is the fine point: These three judges are not impartial.
1
If a state doesnt have standing then we the people must. I am skeptical of this ruling as Trump is violating the clause in plain sight. If we have to sue then we will do so as a group.
2
Illegal acceptance of foreign emoluments harms the public at large, and the overall rule of law. Who else would bring a case against someone violating the public well-being, if not the state?
4
So, who exactly *would* have proper standing to sue the President for violating the emoluments clause? Enriching him/herself to the nation’s detriment presumably harms all citizens, no? Shouldn’t anyone be able to bring suit?
323
@Richard This should be an impeachable offense, since it violates the Constitution. Unfortunately it doesn't seem like Nancy Pelosi cares about the Constitution.
21
@Richard
I happen to agree with you (and published on the subject many years ago). Unfortunately, the courts do not agree with us. As Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote in a standing case in 1974, "The assumption that if respondents have no standing to sue, no one would have standing, is not a reason to find standing."
The Supreme Court's approach to cases like these effectively makes many constitutional provisions hortatory only. I think it's bad law since I don't think the Framers had in mind that the federal courts would effectively neuter parts of the Constitution.
But it is the law, and it is not going to change.
11
@Jeff I'm sure Pelosi cares plenty for the Constitution, you see there's this part of it that says while the House impeaches the President, the Senate tries the case. With this Senate, and this Majority Leader, I'd be surprised if the Senate even STARTED the trial.
Political calculations seem smarmy at times, but this makes sense - why alienate those who do not want to see impeachment when there is ZERO chance of a conviction and removal from office?
12
While the ruling mainly centered on standing, the three judges could not help themselves and had to throw in some contorted, ridiculous reasoning to attack the merits of the case. They said that while Trump may obtain extra revenue from the hotel due to his status as President, other hotels may also receive extra benefits by attracting people who dislike Trump. That argument displays a willingness to ignore the law and the Constitution to reach the conclusion the three Federalist Society judges wanted to reach.
The emoluments clause is not based on the popularity of the President. It is based on whether the President is accepting or soliciting things of value from foreign governments, states or federal workers. The determination of receiving any benefits from sources prohibited by the Constitution has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not other hotels benefit. Any qualified judge would know that.
47
@Ken
Right you are. By not limiting themselves to the technical standing issue, but throwing in some totally unnecessary and highly speculative dicta on the merits they gave the game away. Knowing when to quit is one of the marks of a good judge. More generally, " brevity is the soul of wit."
3
@Ken
Are these three judges Federalists? That seems rather a withering statement about the ruling case for I agree with most that the hotel, Mar-a-Lago, other Trump businesses should not rain money on Trump who unfortunately is the president. As one writer commented, the taxpayers foot the bill for the plane trips to Mar-a-Lago, the housing and expenses for Secret Service, etc., yet Trump has the nerve to say he's losing money as president. More evidence of that country somewhere between corruption and fraud.
4
@Katalina - Yes, I checked. Two appear prominently on the Federalist Society web page for their speaking gigs. The third was a member, While his current status is unclear, that's still his background.
2
Democracy is dead in this country. The constitution only means what right wing courts says it means. Voting is now officially meaningless in light of the Supreme Court decision on legitimizing gerrymandering. Obstruction of justice doesn't apply any longer because it doesn't apply to everyone. The powers of the executive branch overrule law itself. If America is to fail, this is the way it will fail.
19
@Tom It will not fail until it is hurled into the symbolic lake of fire at Armageddon. The US/UK world power is the final one this system will see, it will be fully functional at the time of judgment. I sleep well at night knowing this as it also means Trump will never be dictator as that would negate the political makeup of the world power and cause its demise.
Here is the link to the two opinions by the 4th Circuit dismissing for lack of standing: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/182486.P.pdf and https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/182488.P.pdf
My take from these opinions is that unless it can be shown that the President is being bribed or otherwise subject to undue influence; and that this activity causes harm, then the courts do not have the power to adjudicate.
Unfortunately, these opinions deprive both the State of Maryland and the District of Columbia of the ability to show such harm.
The court believed that the harm alleged, was speculative.
The court also didn't like the fact that the district court (1) allegedly ignored precedent in a similar claim coming out of the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals (NY) and (2) given the stakes involved, refused to consider allowing the 4th Circuit to weigh in whether this case should proceed.
By essentially dismissing these claims, this court precluded the parties from obtaining discovery from trump. These disclosures may well have supported these claims.
If an impeachment inquiry is held by the House, then this claim needs to be investigated to determine if trump violated the Emolument clause. I would continue with focusing on the lease trump received from the government to run his hotel out of the old post office.
21
@Phil Hurwitz
These 3 judges don't even seem to care that the Trump Hotel overbooked and charged taxpayers inflated rates for empty hotel rooms during Trump's inauguration.
Is there anything the inept felon CAN'T do when it comes to judges who lack impartiality.
2
It's rather amazing that this country is so polarized, and those on the left so freakish and prejudiced against this president (and republicans), that they have a complete inability to read the words right in front of them AS THEY ARE TYPING THEM.
Listen here. The Emoluments Clause is meant to avoid a GIFT from the officials of one country to that of this one. In other words, its meant to avoid BRIBES. It is not meant to avoid/prevent a FOR VALUE TRANSACTION. In other words, if I spend a night at "Trump Inn" for $100 I am getting $100 of value. I didn't make a $100 gift to the "Trump Inn".
Yet there are apparently fairly well-educated people here ascribing this appeals court decision to "three judges appointed by Republicans" failing to note that the opposition are DC and Maryland Democrats; whining and complaining like little girls when you don't get what you want and were not entitled to get it.
The constitution does not require an elected official to give up his business. Period.
Using the court system as a political hit tool is merely evidence of a failing federal system that is too polarized to salvage. It's a brittle and broken system, and for anyone that has eyes to see, it's in the early stages of dissolution.
Bring on the collapse and/or civil war and let's get this over with.
7
Name calling reduces the value of your argument.
The emoluments clause is not well understood because it has never really been tested.
And why would the President say he has lost money when he is not supposed to be involved in his businesses? He works for us, now, right?
Personally, I think any citizen should be able to bring this constitutional issue to court. It might be affecting us all. We don't know because this administration, not unlike many others, is not transparent in its workings. And this President, and his cabinet, are loaded with potential conflicts of interests that cannot be evaluated by the ordinary citizen. We actually need the courts to help. This is not helping.
14
Just how did you conclude that the emoluments clause applies only to a gift? Or that a president can operate a business while in office? Did Hamilton and Madison appear to you in a dream?
5
@JohnMark
I'm not writing a law school treatise, and so name calling - or calling a spade a spade - is entirely appropriate and actually strengthens my argument. It's obvious to anyone that this is a dishonest effort to use the courts as a political weapon.
The legal profession and law schools, unfortunately, have too much fostered the line of "making an argument" rather than "making an argument about what the law means". In other words, there is little if any attention given to "being honest." Making a [dishonest] argument is, well, dishonest.
The emoluments clause is not so untested or vague that it was meant to be used as a political weapon; to be used to look for issues where there are none.
Where does it provide in the Constitution or in an appeals court decision that an official elected at the federal level has to give up his business?
Please educate me.
You say: ". . .he is not supposed to be involved in his businesses. . ." How so? If I am not mistaken, the President voluntarily said he would not be involved in his business, but that was not because of any legal requirement that he give it up (or refuse involvement). It was to reasonably satisfy the citizenry that their President would be on the job full-time.
You say "[w]e need the courts to help." What you really mean is "we need the courts to help us in our witch hunt."
Trump had this hotel before he became President. He has the right for his family to run it after he is President.
2
All that was decided was that the plaintiffs had no standing to sue; that is, that they were not sufficiently involved with the issue. The court did not reach the merits of the case. I’m wondering who would have standing to Sue? Another Washington DC hotel chain? Meanwhile, the Emperor continues to enrich himself. Frustrating.
15
@Meryl g My concern is that court interceded before the evidence-gathering process. Perhaps, in the rarified atmosphere of a court room, the question of "standing" should be decided upfront, saving all but the letter of the Constitution a lot of time.
2
So does anyone have standing?
If not, it seems the courts are suggesting the only remedy is impeachment, a clumsy and highly political process on the best of days.
It is long past time that the Justice Department dispense with the opinion, and it is truly just agreed upon department procedure not the law, that a sitting president cannot be indicted. Particularly if we are left with Mueller standard by which a prosecutor will not even offer their professional judgement of whether an act by the president is unlawful (without reading between the lines at least).
The federal government is full of professional investigators that, at least in theory, are insulated from politics. Why do we tie their hands when it comes to potential misconduct by any president?
10
A victory for the president, such as he is, but a loss for the democracy.
17
Two questions, perhaps of the "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" category, come to mind.
Who do the appellate judges think DOES have standing to sue for enforcement of the Emoluments Clause?
Will there ever be the "Wait a second ..." moment when Trump supporters realize that if The Deep State were a real conspiracy, he would consistently lose cases like this? (Followed by the dawning realization that maybe The Deep State doesn't exist and that what they've been witnessing is what the rest of us call the ordinary administration of the rule of law.)
9
@G I think that hoping for complex insights from Trump supporters is a waste of time. They are pretty fixed in approving of whatever he says at the moment, regardless of what he has said before. Inconsistency is not an issue.
So Mr. Trump wins on a technicality here. But never the slave to subtlety, he once again has found redemption in a decision devoid of any.
7
Wait--if a State and D.C. do not have standing, then who does?
Wouldn't it be convenient if no one has standing to enforce Constitutional provisions that the President doesn't like.
17
The courts have no business of getting involved while dealing with the President. The only path is impeachment, but that process is waste of time without conviction in the senate. Democrats should campaign on winning the senate with a good majority. Ultimately, Trump will be judged by the people. If he gets re-elected, then we know the moral compass has shifted significantly favoring corruption and sex scandals. We may say this is not America but it is.
7
Would you say that impeachment is the sole avenue of redress if he shot someone in the middle of 5th Avenue? Or would you insist he be tried for murder? The title of POTUS cannot be allowed to insulate one from every consequence out in the real world.
And the courts further embolden the executive branch's lawlessness. Why even attenuate the corruption when no one, NO ONE seems willing or capable of holding you to account?
*cough* Pelosi *cough*
It doesn't get any more lawless than ignoring a Constitutionally mandates crime (emoluments). Going out on a limb here: when it's a Democratic President there will be an impeachment for far lesser emoluments violations in about 3.7 nanoseconds.
11
Is there a Democrat running against McConnell in Kentucky? I'm thinking we all should contribute to that campaign.
17
@PNRN
Yes, Amy McGrath. She raised $2.5 million in the first 24 hours of her campaign. She's in the NYT today: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/10/us/politics/amy-mcgrath-2020.
7
@PNRN
Amy McGrath is running against McConnel....she announced yesterday and brought in more money in that short period of time than any of the Presidential contenders.
She's a mom, wife, former fighter jet flying Marine.
AmyMcGrath.com
Typically, Trump is claiming victory, when the partisan panel didn't rule on the merits on the case, but rather on the legal standing of the plaintiffs. Trump's such a crook, that not even his partisan courts will dismiss the serious charges.
6
A dismissal over standing is not a victory, only a technical delay. Other cases will be heard by other, presumably less biased judges. But this case highlights the danger in the Republican long game of stacking the federal judiciary with right wing reactionaries, as well as the myopia and stupidity of the Democratic party for letting this happen.
6
Finally a common sense ruling from the Federal courts. Hatred of Donald Trump cannot be the basis of lawsuits against the President. The attorneys general of Maryland and DC should be embarrassed. He owned the hotel before he was elected and placed the property in a trust which he does not control. Enough of these phony charges. The election box is where you can vent your hatred. It will destroy you before it destroys him.
8
@Independent I would hardly argue that turning management of the Trump Organization over to his two sons in any way demonstrates lack of continuing control. Further, we have the actual admissions of lobbyists, foreign interests and alms-seekers that they use Trump D.C. to butter the ample behind of a corrupt administration. I will not gainsay the findings of the appeals court (as Trump would if the decision has been inconvenient for him), but I will say that "standing" should not be a barrier to serving the Constitution.
3
Lack of standing has not been a bar to partisan judges who have sought to block the President's constitutional and statutory authority. The courts should not be used as a political weapon, as was done here.
1
@Independent Trump never placed his businesses in a trust. That's easy to find out.
1
Day dreaming: so I’m an advisor to the president and suggest that he make the following statement: “Hey, I’m like, really good at making money.” (so far, so good). “But I can see where this hotel thing looks kinda bad to some folks, so even though they’re wrong, tell ya what I’m gonna do. While I’m in office, I’m donating all the profits from my Washington real estate properties to charity”.
Haaaaa!
5
Doesn't every citizen have standing for this case? Mr. Trump is personally receiving large sums from foreign governments and entities. Many of those governments and entities are notoriously corrupt. Who doesn't believe there is a quid pro quo here? Who doesn't believe Trump would therefore put the interests of those foreign entities ahead of fulfilling his oath of office? This looks extraordinarily bad. It does not pass the "appearance of impropriety" test. Three Republican nominated judges (one nominated by Trump) stopping the trial even before evidence has been presented looks pretty bad, too. May we assume "lack of standing" actually means the appellate court is simply refusing to weigh in on the merits? That doesn't make it look any better.
199
@Robert
When the Constitution is being violated by the President, every citizen has standing.
The Emoluments Clause does not require quid pro quo.
All government employees, especially the president, are prohibited from taking anything of value from foreign governments, "of any kind, what ever."
Trump is taking money from foreign governments.
"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.
ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, CLAUSE 8"
"Emoluments - 1 : the returns arising from office or employment usually in the form of compensation or perquisites
2 archaic : ADVANTAGE"
-Merriam-Webster Dictionary.
No Emoluments "of any kind whatever!"
38
@McGloin Why do you think Trump is packing the federal bench with his appointees. We are going to have to live with them for the rest of their lives. Any court cases involving Trump, his cronies and abetting Republican congressman and senators will be corruptly judged. Why do you think the Democrats are not impeaching, because Trump would take it to the SCOTUS where he will win 5-4.
12
@McGloin
Thank you for your reply. You are correct. The Emoluments Clause forbids this outright, and does not require any evidence at all of a quid pro quo.
16
Parts of the rationale don't seem to be reported here.
It's reported that their rationale is that "Trump hotels don't have a competitive advantage through Trump, because competing hotels can attract anti-Trump customers." This is like saying that, if Rockefeller forces everyone to use his railways, shippers can hire pony express, which means that pony express has gained from Rockefeller's train monopoly.
28
If Maryland and Virginia don't have standing in this case, it is difficult to imagine what kind of entity might have standing.
A constitutional prohibition in which no one has standing to stop a violation sounds like a constitutional provision that courts refuse to enforce.
53
Courts should be the last resort not the first. Not every disagreement needs to wind up in a court particularly when there is a political solution. Just because we don't like the person the other 50% elected does not mean that we get victim status here. Take the harder road and reach across the aisle. If we can't find common ground with 50% of the country, then do we have a country at all?
4
@Midwest You try to have common ground with Republicans on REASONABLE gun control measures, REASONABLE solutions to climate change, REASONABLE solutions to election security, REASONABLE expenditures for infrastructure improvement, REASONABLE regulation of money in politics, etc. Let me know about the progress you make. I'm not holding my breath
8
@Midwest Trump received 46.4% of the popular vote. 2.87 million fewer votes than his opponent. It may seem trivial but it is an important distinction that it is not "50% of the country" as you claim.
11
@Midwest, reaching "across the aisle" is exactly what Barack Obama thought he could do in the first two years of his presidency, and the R's bit off his arm. Yes, there is a political solution. Vote for Democrats and get control of the WH and Senate. Then pass tough laws against self-enriching pols. As for 50%, I think you meant to say 40%....or 30%. Let's not forget that DT lost the popular vote by 3 million, and that the majority of non-voters are Dems.
4
“Standing” has become an all-purpose constitution remover. There’s more and more cases where nobody can have standing to challenge even the most blatant violations (signals surveillance comes to mind, for a previous example).
15
What a bizarre decision. The emoluments clause itself says no person in US office shall "without the consent of Congress" accept anything from any foreign state. If Congress doesn't have standing to press this case, who does?
21
@Sherryl Up to now, there have been two emoluments clause cases pending, one brought by Congress and the other by Maryland/D.C. The Fourth Circuit's "no standing" ruling affects only the Maryland/D.C. case.
1
@Carl
True. My mistake.
@Sherryl
That is NOT what the Emoluments clause says.
Long-time friend of mine, a former U.S. Attorney, just emailed me:
"Per the Appeals Court ruling re Trump/Emoluments Clause relative to D.C. Hotel, kind of amazed at quick dismissal on basis of standing. If D.C. atty gen doesn't have standing, then who does? Congress alone? Really? Furthermore, nothing "extraordinary" about filing---Constitutional principles are clearly applicable (the president is a public official with no immunity here) and plaintiff is simply seeking remedy for injury. Note that such quick dismissal precludes further investigation---hear me? The idea of independent judiciary is approaching quaint and DOJ is being weaponized by Barr for Trump's personal use. Don't think I'm the only uneasy one."
91
@Rusty Inman
Based on what you you quote above, it seems that your friend has limited analytical skills. Wouldn't be surprised if he is a "former AUSA" because he was fired for his lack of legal skill.
@GMooG
He served as a U.S. Attorney for four years and left his position per a change in presidential administrations.
Knowing he would be as amused as I was, I called and read him your response. He was, indeed, amused, but thanks you for your eval.
I'm sure he will learn a great deal from your detailed, uh, "dissent."
2
Not to have the impeachment proceeding is not only demoralising but also risks being used by Trump as a proof that there are no grounds to start them. It is understood that the proceeding will be futile i.e. that the Senate will not impeach Trump but the process itself has a great value. It will shed light on many murky dealings and lay bare the corruption.
19
@Anna Your right and all those who vote against it in the Senate will have their names on the Nay list for all of history to see. Even the sell out Dems who vote with the Republicans, like Joe Manchin might pause. And it is the right thing to do. Nancy will never do it, she gets more in donations as long as trump is torturing the country.She is certainly derelict in her duty. These hearings coming up are to keep people thinking she is being moderate and careful and has a secret plan. I hate the idea of her getting away with it. I wonder how many people will wake up to her aiding and abetting trump and endangering out country?
1
"Federal Appeals Court Rules for Trump in Emoluments Case"
The Appeals Court ruled that: "“The District and Maryland’s interest in enforcing the Emoluments Clauses is so attenuated and abstract that their prosecution of this case readily provokes the question of whether this action against the President is an appropriate use of the courts, which were created to resolve real cases and controversies between the parties,” Niemeyer wrote in the 36-page opinion."
But I wonder if a group of businesses in the District and State of Marilyn would have a much better case for "Standing" where they could show their business losses due to Trump's hotel? Normally the foreign groups would be booking in their businesses rather than seeking favors from Trump by booking in his hotel.
10
Who does have standing? I'm not a lawyer, but doesn't standing require the plaintiff to have been or will be negatively affected by defendant's action? Are there any other constitutional clauses that can't be enforced because no-one could have standing in petitioning for enforcement of said clause?
One commenter mentioned the other hotel owners. That seems like a viable path if they can show their bookings have suffered from Trump's hotel since the election. It's still hard (even if long time repeat guests switched), bc wouldn't they have to prove that it wasn't other market forces (i.e. Trump's was just the new shinier place).
Also, would not the entire citizenry have standing? What could we claim as negative consequences on us from him making more money? Our reputation (he's trashed that already)? Our policies? Is there a negative policy that we can connect to those staying at his hotel? Or do we need to prove bribery to have the emoluments clause enforced?
Is being in default of his hotel lease (with us) enough standing? Maybe, i.e. theft of federal money like taxes?
Does Congress need to have standing to enforce constitutional clauses?
Please, smart lawyers, help us find standing! And all the other ways he is surely trying (and/or succeeding) to enrich himself.
3
@Former repub
Answer to your question: We *all* have standing. This is an issue of public corruption. We are all harmed by the blatant corruption of the Trump Junta. America is a failed state.
2
This motive for this lawsuit was always just partisan harassment. There's nothing new about that, from either side, of course, but this one serves as a useful reminder that the Democrats, who apparently see themselves and their politicians under a figurative halo nowadays, are as capable of "going low" as much as any other political group.
5
@David Godinez. You clearly do not understand emoluments. Also, doesn't hurt to have three republicans judges, one appointed by trump (recusal?)
6
Ruling before NIEMEYER and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.
The second one is a Trump choice while the the first one is a Reagan nominee. Shedd, an old Bush appointee.
3
The first one is an old Bush, not Reagan. Sorry for the mistake.
More than many if not most conservative judicial rulings this one illustrates how the constitution often relies on the good sense of our political leaders to carry out or reflect the values in it.
Under the rationale of the Fourth Circuit's emoluments clause it is virtually impossible who would have 'standing' to object to this president''s business ties. Or how any plaintiffs could make out a unique loss or form done to them and not done to all who swear allegiance to the Constitution.
My surmise is that the Founders intended the emoluments clause to be admonitory toward any would-be president. If there's no sense of the impropriety in dragging one's commercial activities along with you into the WH, then the admonition is purely 'honorary ' and of no specific legal effect. If there is no personal shame, in other words, at doing something thought by the Founders to be beyond the pale, there's little a mere panel of federal judges can be creative enough to imagine what to do about it.
The country is only gradually learning about the fragility of its structure. The 21st century promises more of the same, I'm afraid.
7
@Kp,
Hello,
When the President of the USA is blatantly violating clear instructions from the Constitution to NOT take anything of value from foreign governments, by taking money from foreign governments, it is a High Crime and the president needs to be impeached.
The Emoluments Clause clearly does not demand any evidence of getting something for something. It just says don't take anything, "of any kind whatever" from foreign governments.
Trump is an officer of his corporation, taking payments from foreign governments. This is undeniable.
"Emolument - 1 : the returns arising from office or employment usually in the form of compensation or perquisites
2 archaic : ADVANTAGE"
-Merriam-Webster
Emoluments Clause:
"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.
ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, CLAUSE 8"
-Heritage Foundation
There is no gray area here or need for honor or shame.
There is following the Constitution or Impeachment.
Remember when a Republican judge could not answer First Year Law Student Questions from Republican Senator John Neely Kennedy?
This is what happens when 90% of a political party puts ideology above the law and the Constitution.
3
@McGloin
" It just says don't take anything, "of any kind whatever" from foreign governments."
But that is NOT what it says. Look it up
When the President is clearly violating the Constitution every citizen has standing.
The Emoluments Clause does not require any evidence of a quid pro quo. It just prohibits taking anything of value from a foreign government.
"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.
ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, CLAUSE 8" -Heritage Foundation.
Emoluments - the returns arising from office or employment usually in the form of compensation or perquisites
Trump is an officer of the corporation that runs the hotel. He is getting payments from foreign governments through that office.
There is no gray area here.
22
I'm sure the hotels that are also suing him will be delighted to learn that there is a panel of Trump toadies, appointed by Republicans, waiting to slap their cases down as well even though they are legitimate cases - considering the preponderance of evidence.
Did they even notice how many rooms were booked, charged to the hotel, and left unoccupied for during Trump's inauguration?.
I'd say recuse these judges, they seem to be prejudicial.
8
The decision raises the whole question of what a blind trust is and how it is to be used by office holders. Trump refused to put his assets into a blind trust, so that major Trump holdings are easily seen by all parties. Trump claims that he has relinquished control of the assets to his family. but that clearly is not good enough. Assets in a blind trust are not viewable but the trust holder, nor by anyone in the public (except by asset managers pledged to keep the holding confidential.) Trump's assets are viewable so that outside parties who wish to benefit Trump or his family easily do so. This defeats a purpose of the blind trust. While the Appeals Court concludes that Maryland and DC do not have standing to sue, the Appeals Court action states that parties can "attempt to curry favor" by patronizing the Trump hotels even if Trump received no income from them. If follows that if the parties know that Trump receives income from the hotels, they could also attempt to "curry favor." And in so doing, this action would violate the emoluments clause. There are two consequences: (1) The assets should be in a blind trust, invisible to outside parties, and (2) the court recognized that the current situation could be a violation of the emoluments clause, if only the plaintiffs had standing to bring suit
4
"ridiculous Emoluments Case"? says the Twitter would-be tyrant.
Trump and his entire family are profiting by hundreds of millions of dollars in ways that compromise the security and integrity of the United States since Saudis or Chinese or other countries can simply bribe the family through staying at their hotels, awarding them trademarks, giving them sweetheart real estate loans for $400 million, or Trump can get enormous tax breaks through his own laws, etc.
The Trump administration is increasingly a lawless one. His appointees ignore legal subpoenas from Congress. His attorney general tries to get around and ignore a ruling from the Supreme Court.
When there is no longer a Constitutional checks and balance system on the executive,
when an administration attacks law enforcement and intelligence officers such as the FBI and intelligence agents as well as judges it dislikes,
when unqualified family members hold senior positions in violation of the nepotism law,
when monies are grabbed for personal bigotry by the executive from the functions they were appropriated for by Congress,
How does this differ from any other dictatorship in history?
11
Call me crazy but shouldn't any and every American citizen, elected official, business, and government institution have standing to sue the President on issues of his potential violation of the US Constitution? Does he or does he not serve at the pleasure of the people? How did all this get so complicated?
8
Just like the Mueller Rep[ort. It does not say Trump is innocent; only that we can not do anything.
11
So the market above 3,000, President Trump wins emolument lawsuit, and the British Ambassador moving on--bad morning for the Democrats who have done nothing for the past two years except whine.
2
TheEmoluments Clause is still a part of our Constitution, for a very good reason. Trump’s temporary victory today will undoubtedly be reversed by an Appeals Court since his ownership and profits persist. The “divestiture” to his equally crooked and ignorant sons is a sham, as is most of what Trump does.
We either have laws and obey them, or not. The consequences of the latter result in anarchy and eventual autocracy.
9
@RealTRUTH
"Trump’s temporary victory today will undoubtedly be reversed by an Appeals Court since his ownership and profits persist."
This ruling IS from the Appeals Court.
Let me think...how does the Constitution start? "We, the People of the United States of America, in order to form a more perfect Union..." Sounds to me like any group of people in the United States should have standing to enforce any part of the document. Lawyers and Constitutional scholars, please comment...
4
Not to mention that he could be gaming Wall Street day by day; impunity is on a roll.
3
So the court didn't decide whether Trump was guilty of violating the Emoluments clause just that the plaintiffs had no standing to bring the suit. If they don't who does?. I guess its business as usual in Trump land - just throw the Constitution in the dumpster now that you have control of the courts with your appointees.
3
Thankfully judges can no longer belong to the Federalist Society.
This case was brought based on the foreign emoluments clause. I could see form the beginning that it was going to be difficult to prove the intention of foreign powers booking his hotel to curry favor. It's probably true, but not easy to prove.
The real case would be based on the emolument clause that states that the president shall receive a fixed salary and not a penny more in compensation (emolument) from the government.
The money that has gone into Trumps pocket each and every time he has visited Mar-A Lago or one of the many golfs resorts is mind boggling. The Federal Government is paying to house and feed his staff, the secret service and all of the other people who routinely travel with a president. It has been a windfall of millions of dollars for the president and his family and it is us, the taxpayers who are paying for his excesses.
I could care less about where a foreign government wants to spend the night in DC. If that doesn't curry favor with the provident, they will figure out another way to goose his ego. But when the money is coming out of my pocket and going into his, then I care. I care a lot.
229
@Larry What are you saying??? This is the emoluments clause: 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.
And you wrote that you could care less about where a foreign government wants to spend the night in D.C.?? Even if it is Trump's hotels?? How can you not care??? This is a violation of the constitution if proven in a court of law and the judges just said "it's too complicated" for us to decide. That is OUTRAGEOUS!
21
@Larry
The Emoluments Clause does not even contemplate the intent of the government employee or the foreign government. Taking any payment "of any kind whatever," is prohibited by the Constitution, no matter the reason.
When the president blatantly does the opposite of what the Constitution clearly says, that is an attack on the Constitution by the President, a blatant High Crime.
Trump attacks the Constitution at every opportunity.
My litmus test for the next election? Did you vote to impeach a proudly corrupt president.
If you are not fulfilling your oath to protect the Constitution then I can't vote for you.
IMPEACH!
17
@Gordon
Jimmy Carter was a peanut farmer and had federal peanut quotas that gave him an economic advantage over anyone who wanted to farm peanuts who did not have an assigned peanut quota.
Is it your position that if Jimma had sold any peanuts to any foreign entity, even indirectly that it constituted a violation of the emoluments clause?
Keep in mind that the founding farmers were farmers, gentlemen farmers, mostly. So you think that they considered making market sales, when the American economy was based on exporting to Europe, was an emolument?
The emoluments clause was obviously intended to prevent Jefferson or Washington from taking cash or gems from the King of England or Spain to act in favor of foreign interests.
Similar to when Hillary solicited $1 million in speaking fees from Russian oligarchs who wanted her [and Obama] to approve the Uranium One deal. Or when she solicited two speeches from the Kenyan government for a total of $1.3 million while they were attempting the get Hillary to advance the Import export bank to finance a crude oil pipeline.
All you have to do is glance at Hillary's tax returns and you can see that she received money from foreign governments while she was in the senate and secretary of state. Obvious and documented violations of the emoluments clause. You don't even have to assume she gave anything of value in exchange for the cash because no quid pro quo needs be established for a violation of the emoluments clause.
"All three judges on the panel were nominated by Republican presidents: Paul Niemeyer, by George H.W. Bush; Dennis Shedd, by George W. Bush, and Judge A. Marvin Quattlebaum, by Trump." Associated Press
I am not a legal expert, but shouldn't a judge nominated by the defendant in the case have to recuse himself?
Further it is longstanding practice that Staes Attorneys General take action to protect to business and financial interest of their citizens and businesses.
This decision, including the extraordinary move to hear an appeal mid trial, before a judgment was reached by the lower court and before evidence and subpoenas had been gathered and answered, feels as though it is an abject failure of our justice system in favor of political alignment.
89
@SG "I am not a legal expert, but shouldn't a judge nominated by the defendant in the case have to recuse himself?" /?! One would think so... But we are in a new world where a president thinks its not reprehensibly-irresponsible to fuel conspiracy theories and otherwise lie as he breaths. He resorts to playground-level name calling of standing elected U.S. officials and then, with no never mind to the incredible hypocrisy, cries about a lack of respect for himself when anything is said negative about him. He acts reasonably, non-partisanly (and non - "look at me, me, me, I'm the greatest while jumping up and down) one time by not ruining the 4th of July and he is lauded as this great statesman. Sigh....
No, you would think a judge appointed by someone would recuse them self from a case about the person that appointed them. But that would be ethical, and these people can't spell the word anymore, often literally.
9
@SG I agree. With the judges being appointed by the Trump administration at record pace, we expect much of the same in the future. Again, people come to his aid. Never a day without help.
3
Emoluments : the returns arising from office or employment usually in the form of compensation or perquisites -Meriam-Webster.
"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.
ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, CLAUSE 8" -Heritage Foundation
The President is forbidden from taking payment for services from foreign governments, "OF ANY KIND WHATEVER!"
Proof of Quid Pro Quo Bribery is not required by the Emoluments Clause.
The Court doesn't need to decipher whether these payments are influencing Trump. It only needs to know that Trump is taking things of value from foreign governments.
This decision is an example of how the right-wing is deconstructing our Constitution line by line.They pick judges that rule against the plain meaning of the Constitution
Trump went on TV last month and said that he would take "information" from a foreign government to use in his presidential campaign. Information is a thing of value, especially in the Information Age.
Any money or thing of value that Trump takes from a foreign government is a violation of the Constitution. That is clear intent to violate the Emoluments Clause to affect elections.
The Right is taking us over an anti-Constitutional cliff and the establishment press tells us to be good lemmings.
52
@McGloin
Well said, and RIGHT on the "money."
4
@McGloin AND if tRump gets and completes a 2nd term the SCOTUS will be similarly stacked. RIP USA republic.
2
@McGloin The guy who has grabbed his whole life; what else is new except that the GOP is helping him to grab more. Lawyers helping to legitimize his actions though it breaks the law. Does not matter. It's about keeping power regardless of the absolute corruption.
5
I presume this Appeals Court decision will be appealed and the other case advanced by Democrats will be consolidated so the Supreme Court can make a decision on who has "standing."
This will take another year or so at least...so the matter may not be determined until well after the November 2020 election.
This is another example of White House stonewalling and its use of litigation (lessons Trump has learned over the years).
I think the Dems have made a big mistake to not include the 25th Amendment matter in a general impeachment inquiry, then the House could do an end run around the courts packed with Federalist Society judges.
29
Is there anyone in a position of authority who isn't under Trump's thumb, or too scared to speak out? Unbelievable ruling. I say all USA citizens have standing. Class action anyone?
57
@Character Counts
Apparently, NO one will stand up to phony president Trump, not the Congress, and not courts who side with long-gone previous Republican administrations. Even ambassadors on the other side of the globe are scared of this inestimably yuuuuuge bully. Not since Pearl Harbor and the 9/11 attacks has there been a worse catastrophe to America than Trump.
4
@Character Counts -- Yes, it is an "Unbelievable ruling" --again. Each day democracy slides down the drain, sometimes fast, other times slow, but it's a continuous process. --With the Russia manipulating the vote (again) and gerrymandering, and Trump's talent for whipping his base into another frenzy, and the courts stacked, etc etc--- Will there be anything left of a US that once-upon-a-time valued truth, justice, fairness, etc?
3
Attenuated and abstract is any idea that the people of the state of Maryland and the District of Columbia, American taxpayers all, have no legal standing to sue Mr. Trump for selling their interests out to the highest bidder.
29
@Leigh
Now I feel violated.
1
If a court says plaintiffs don’t have standing, it should be required to give examples of who DOES have standing. In this case, is it up to competing hotels in D.C. to bring suit to defend our Constitution? Would they be brave/foolhardy enough to do that? Who else might have standing?
43
Congress is the only one with standing to sue. The Emoluments clause in the constitution requires congress to approve any gift or emolument to an officer of the U.S.
14
@johnny Thanks. It looks like Blumenthal et al vs. Trump is ongoing.
This ruling is crazy - both the Constitution and public corruption affect every single citizen of the United States, and so under a Lujan type analysis every citizen should have standing. The only remedy cannot be impeachment; that leaves far too much room for violations of the Constitution that don't rise to "high crimes and misdemeanors". Nothing in the Constitution suggests it's ok to violate the Emoluments clause as long as it is not a high crime and misdemeanor to do so. The suggestion by the Fourth Circuit that there is no real case or controversy here is frankly embarrassing. Have they read Marbury v. Madison, which gives the federal courts the sole and exclusive power to interpret and enforce the Constitution? The politicization of the court system is near complete; a sad day for our democracy.
64
Exactly. As a citizen of the United States I have a personal interest in insuring that my President isn't unduly influenced by private financial interests.
23
@Michael
I wish the legal scholars out there would chime in from time to time in the comments to remind us that "high crimes and misdemeanors" does not mean "really bad crimes". It means crimes committed by people in high places. By definition there can't be really bad misdemeanors.
5
@Michael Decision provided by Republican appointed judges.
Whether or not Trump is in violation of the Emoluments Clause remains undecided, and some people or entities will eventually be able to establish standing to sue on that clause
11
When President Trump criticizes a judge that ruled against him the Trump haters accuse him of attacking our constitutional institutions. But when judges rule in his favor...well just look at all these posts. The plain fact is that the Trump haters will stop at nothing to undermine the President, even to the extent of undermining our constitutional institutions.
9
@johnlo
So is it OK to criticise a judge? Or judge's decision? Is it OK to appeal?
1
@johnlo What I am reading here are genuine concerns about the difficulty of holding a president accountable to laws and Constitutional provisions. The president takes an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. If holding this president to his oath undermines him, I am all for it.
3
@johnlo
How on God's green Earth is citing the clear language of the Constitution and subsequent relevant jurisprudence "undermining" anything other than the entitled impunity of this cabal of grifters? Gaslight much?
4
Why are the judges in the article not named? Who appointed them? Do they go on hunting trips with McConnell? Were they named by the Federalist (Charles Koch) for their appointments? This case is a clear violation of the Constitution but these judges see it as nothing to worry about. Who are these people?
53
@markd. My thoughts as well.
@markd
From the WAPO article: "The decision — from Judges Paul V. Niemeyer, Dennis W. Shedd and A. Marvin Quattlebaum Jr. — also stops dozens of subpoenas to federal government agencies and Trump’s private business entities for financial records related to the D.C. hotel." (https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/legal-issues/appeals-court-dismisses-emoluments-lawsuit-involving-president-trumps-dc-hotel/2019/07/10/4a4b6190-886e-11e9-98c1-e945ae5db8fb_story.html?utm_term=.e6a4c7cb44ee). One appointed by George HW Bush, one by George W Bush, one by Trump. Political ROI?
4
@markd Excellent question, and POOR reporting to have left these"jurists" unidentified.
2
This is a travesty, and should be further appealed. And yes, where is Nancy Pelosi? It is long past the right time to begin impeachment proceedings to allow for Congress to secure the information it needs to bring the Meuller report to a broader audience, and to bring this president to justice. The courts may not move fast enough.
20
With standing being the central (only?) issue the court ruled on in this particular case, is this other case more hopeful? There was already a ruling that the plaintiffs DID have standing: https://www.theusconstitution.org/litigation/trump-and-foreign-emoluments-clause/
9
@MIna. Thank you for this link! This helps with my question in my post on Congress having standing.
They need Trump's financial records to substantiate the claim and quantify it. Until then, Trump's violations of law and morality will continue to escalate. Without launching formal impeachment proceedings, the House is wasting time and humiliating themselves. And us.
21
@Gabrielle Rose. Maybe they only need Trump's hotel & resort logs to confirm the foreign guests, the office leases to foreign governments in Trump World Tower (NY), and the trademarks received (& timing of) since inauguration. Even if some of these arrangements (i.e. signed leases) were prior to election, he is still profiting from foreign governments, a violation of the emoluments clause, and denying Congress its constitutional right to prior approval of any emoluments. Trump has never requested this, and should have transferred all of it to a true blind trust as previous presidents did.
Another poster shared this excellent link: https://www.theusconstitution.org/litigation/trump-and-foreign-emoluments-clause/
Perhaps we need to be ready to move on all avenues, including impeachment, NY State prosecutions, etc.
PS: yay, Philly!
2
standing ... what a useful legal principle!
how do states not have standing against actions of the federal government and its agents?
like i said: standing. it is all kinds of handy!
13
Well lets hope this gets overturned and or the other lawsuit goes though.
13
“...their prosecution of this case readily provokes the question of whether this action against the President is an appropriate use of the courts,” the panel wrote in its decision."
But going to court to deny people in the custody of the US gov't (and not incarcerated prisoners) toothbrushes, soap, and blankets is???
17
@BG intentionally imprisoning people who have committed no crime and treating them the way Trump is directing that they be treated is a War Crime. As stated in the Third Geneva Convention and the Lieber Code. The International Committee of The Red Cross should be asked to intervene.
2
Aren’t all anti-Trump lawsuits supposed to go before Obama judges?
What went wrong here?
5
It sounds as if the Court intends to take the position that no one has standing to sue to enforce the Emoluments Clause. Not really a surprise; conservative jurists have shown a strong tendency recently to want to use the issue of standing to make it impossible to enforce a great many things.
31
@Stephen Merritt
It sounds more like the Court intends to take the position that no one has standing if it is against the president.
Be very careful you so-called court appointees as the flood-gates are now open.
So who exactly *does* have standing to sue for enforcement of the emoluments clause? Is impeachment the only remedy? I remember a constitutional law professor suggesting that in recent decades courts had been inventing all kinds of doctrines to preclude the courts from deciding controversies on the grounds that the person or entity bringing the lawsuit lacked standing—doctrines that had no earlier precedent in constitutional jurisprudence. Is this an example of a court raising the bar on plaintiffs merely to achieve a particular result?
39
There would be two different ways that this could be enforced. First, he could be impeached by the House and tried by the Senate. Second, he could be indicted by the Attorney General's office after he is out of office. I do not see a function for state governments to be involved in enforcing Federal laws; that was the basis behind many of the complaints against Sherrif Arpaio, that as a State official he could not enforce Federal laws.
4
The emolument clause in the Constitution defines a wrong: A president is forbidden to be influenced by an act that enriches him. The 4th Circuit judges who ruled today the plaintiffs lacked standing ignored something that is basic to law.
"There is no wrong without a remedy. "Whenever the common law gives a right or prohibits an injury, it also gives a remedy. "If a man has a right, he must, it has been observed, have a means to vindicate and maintain it, and a remedy if he is injured in the exercise and enjoyment of it, and, indeed, it is a vain thing to imagine a right without a remedy, for want of right and want of remedy are reciprocal."
32
@Robert M. Wanderman This issue involves constitutional law, not common law. Apples and oranges.
@David
Case law, which is commonly known as common law, is precedent, and is invariably cited by the US Supreme Court. Why then would not a basic principle of common law be applicable to determine standing since Congress has not nullified it?
@Robert M. Wanderman
Stop. Just stop. You aren't a lawyer, and don't understand the law at all.
It's a violation of the Constitution. Congress has standing and should include it as an article of impeachment. #Where'sNancy?
146
@Paul Wortman
https://www.theusconstitution.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Blumenthal-and-Nadler-v.-Trump-Plaintiffs.pdf
Pelosi regards an impeachment investigation as bad for the party, so appealing to the courts is the ploy. Maybe in the middle of Trump's second term the flaw in this approach will be seen. Then what - who knows?
@Paul Wortman
Nancy cannot remove Trump from office, even if he shoots someone in the middle of 5th Avenue.
You need the votes of Republican Senators to remove Trump from office. Where's Nancy? counting votes as always
Republican jurists have:
1. Gutted the Voters Rights Act;
2. Allowed unlimited amounts of monies into our elections;
3. Authorized uncontrolled Gerrymandering of our Congressional elections.
4. And now permitted the uncontrolled, unexamined self-enrichment of political officials
Is there any surprise that Mitch McConnell and his efforts to politicize the Courts have such support from Republican donors?
385
@Pat Choate
We need a Constitutional Amendment to make clear to the Justices that
Humans, Not Corporations, Are Citizens With Constitutional Rights, and Money is Not Speech.
That is the key to taking corporations our of our government.
It would not solve everything, but it would severely attack legalized bribery.
18
@Pat Choate It basically means the Grand Experiment is OVER!
8
@Pat Choate https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/03/28/how-maryland-democrats-pulled-off-their-aggressive-gerrymander/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.9c9547972cbf good enough for one but not the other huh? nice double standard
So the writing of the emoluments clause of the Constitution was a complete waste of time and paper? This makes no sense. I mean the first thing I do if I get elected president now is start buying up hotel properties in Washington DC.
102
They are saying that this court shouldn’t be the one to do this it seems. All of this is happening because republicans are derelict of duty and Nancy is assisting Trump instead of resisting him.
9
@Jenifer
Congress needs to hold him accountable. It's why Impeachment is necessary.
But you're right, any citizen should be able to sue, because I am harmed when the President is working for special interests, and himself, instead of for citizens. That should give me standing, and by extension, my state representative agencies.
21
@Lawrence
Sounds like the makings of a class action. The class being US citizens. I wonder how many millions of plaintiffs we could recruit and if there. Is a good legal team willing to pursue it. If this were a nation wide suit, what venue would arguments be heard in? Where would it be filed?
10
It's disappointing that we don't at least get to the evidence-gathering stage on this, but I do get that it would tricky to bring a lawsuit based on emoluments. I'm not sure who would have standing in this case...everyone and no one in particular? The country as a whole is hurt by having a president who is using the power and prestige of the office to make money.
I feel like I'm saying this in a lot of comments, but I'd be interested in hearing from lawyers/legal analysts, since in my layman's opinion, it looks like the enforcement of the Emoluments Clause might only be possible through impeachment.
207
@Hans
Good Point...and yet Speaker Pelosi is reticent to convene an impeachment inquiry on this issue of the 25th Amendment violation, or any issue.
I don't understand her hesitation...from a strategic or a tactical perspective, leaving any kind of an inquiry in the courts' hands seems ludicrous. The courts have been packed with Federalists; Trump is wagering his play will land on a court that will find in his favor, so there can be no real justice.
For the health of the republic, Madame Speaker, open an impeachment inquiry so the light of day may shine in dark places.
42
@Chuck
Yes, after Clinton was impeached, Gore lost the presidency, and Democrats lost the House 14 out of the next 20 years, and lost the Senate, 16 years out of 20 years.
The idea that impeachment would be good for Trump or Republicans is a-historical, and hysterical.
No president wants to be impeached, especially a president who obstructed an investigation into Russian attacks on our elections, while saying he would take things of value (Emoluments) from the Russian government.
Trump is committing High Crimes regularly, including calling for violence against U.S. Citizens without due process of law.
Start the Impeachment Inquiry to force the Press into actually analyzing the Mueller Report, instead of pretending that it is not an Impeachment Referral.
23
@Chuck
It is obvious and documented that Hillary violated the emoluments clause when her husband was paid consulting and speaking fees by foreign governments and agents. It is a clear violation of the emoluments clause.
In comparison, foreign officials stay in a hotel that Trump owns and is being managed by his family and business. They are accounting for profits earned by market charges paid by foreign governments and then giving those profits to the federal government.
If you put some super accountants to work analyzing the allocations being made to assign profit to transactions, each of ten accountants would come up with ten slightly different profit numbers. None of the variations would be sufficient to establish a violation of the emoluments clause.
Various House committees are investigating every action of Trump that can vaguely be described as an impeachable offense. If they come up with evidence, there is no "opening of an impeachment inquiry." There is a listing of impeachable offenses followed by a vote to impeach requiring a simple majority in the House, followed by a trial in the Senate.
If you want to void an election, it is not the equivalent of a private party filing a civil suit making allegations against a defendant and then spending years making discovery demands. If you want to unseat a president, you have to do it with the first bullet.
3
Okay: (1) who then would have legal standing to enforce the Constitutional prohibition against emoluments? and (2) what set of facts would meet that test?
67
@Richard
As was commented, the House needs to do open a 25th Amendment Impeachment inquiry.
10
So no one has standing to sue Trump for his blatant violations of the Constitution’s Emoluments clause? This seems like a court literally repealing a portion of the Constitution to protect Trump.
97
Foreign governments regularly book lots of rooms at Trump's Washington hotel to curry favor.
This is a clear violation of the Emoluments clause. This was a bad decision.
There is also a condition in the lease of the old post office building that now houses his hotel that no federal government official is allowed to lease it. Trump is also in violation of his lease.
82
I totally agree. Where are the republicans? Where is Nancy?
Blaming progressives to hold him accountable doesn’t change the violation and your oaths of office. Or was that buried in the basement with the single payer signs from 30 years ago too.
8
It would seem to me that any citizen of the U.S.A. would have standing. The judge seems to demand proof that the emoluments received by Trump amounted to a bribe that had policy consequences. It seems that the Constitution lays it out quite clearly. No Emoluments. Bribery is of course a different question.
I guess Republicans really think the Constitution isn't worth the sheep it was written on.
53
‘Lack of standing’ is an appellate court’s way of saying ‘you’re not gonna get us to weigh in on the merits of this, no way, uh uh.’
It is not, as Trump’s attorney proclaimed, ‘total victory,’ any more than the Mueller Report was ‘complete and total exoneration.’ All it says is if Trump and his entourage are violating the Constitution, you better get somebody else to do something about it, ‘cause we sure as heck won’t jump into this mess.
Hello, Congress? Voters? Anybody home?
547
Progressives are doing their part. Where are the moderates? Where are the republicans? Where are the democrats?
Justin Amash is doing his part. How can an extreme right wing republican stand up but not democrats and moderates?
64
@chambolle "Lack of standing" is an appellate court's way of saying that the party pressing charges is not properly affected or harmed by the alleged behavior of the defendant to bring a cause of action before a Court.
I don't like Trump as much as the next guy, but let's not be dishonest here. It's not some arbitrary decision to dismiss the case. There's plenty of rules and precedent related to standing and any responsible 1L will be able to tell you that.
8
@chambolle
The Congress has standing and their suit continues.
17
Please tell me there is more to the Judges' arguments, because in my layman's thinking trying a case against a broken law, no matter who it is, seems like an appropriate use of the courts. Especially when the individual has a lot of power. No checks, no balance.
45
No need for more explanation, if the plaintiffs don’t have standing - according to the court - a case ends. Court doesn’t want to touch this. So they found a legal reason.
4
Who does have legal standing?
105
@Wood Odysseus No one. Just like the gerrymandering decision. The Court rules as groomed to rule.
37
Is there no way to check the extreme corruption of this creep and his family?One more step towards cementing our newly obtained banana republic status, it would seem.
255
There is actually a way, but it is, shall we say, explosive, and requires feeding Jefferson's Tree of Liberty in a very specific,"targeted" fashion. Something similar happened to a couple of the Kennedys...
@Bud Jones
Yes, there is a way. Be sure to vote November 3, 2020 at your local polling place. Help others get registered to vote. Vote Democrat for all open Congressional positions, plus president. The country needs another blue wave like it had in 2018, and an even bigger one in 2020.
10
@Ronald Sprague That isn't an option. I know what your saying. Let us just hope that a power higher than man exacts justice. There would be a celebration so large and long around the world it would make Trumps little parade seem like a garden party.
1
Surely the other businesses in D.C. that compete have standing? Shall be interesting to see the outcome of that case!
42
Just another example of how our society is stacked in favor of the rich and powerful and against the lower classes despite what the constitution says.
Our courts are failing us.
Voters, don't fail our democracy in 2020. Vote the greedy lying republicans out of office and free our democracy from their tyranny.
237
Well so much for the courts protecting us.
81
@caroline
We have to stop letting corporations fill the courts with judges that think that corporations have rights, not people.
5
Absolutely!
@caroline
Courts? What courts?
OK, then who has standing? Also, if GSA leases have a provision that real estate cannot be leased to an employee of the US Government and the lease is being breached, why is there no enforcement?.
124
@jp Because soon after the election/inauguration, Trump obtained a statement from the GSA that they had reviewed the lease and decided there was no violation of that rule. Kinda like that dictated letter from his GI doctor that he was oh so healthy. If Atty General Barr is such a toady as he proves every week, who would enforce this lease-related rule?
7
@jp
Because Trump controls the GSA. Nice, eh?
@jp
because the lease is not being breached. The lessee is the LLC that owns the hotel, not Donald Trump
If the States have no standing to sue - who does? Is our Constitution really just a piece of worthless paper with no means of enforcement?
313
@rmm200
The Constitution is more what you’d call ‘guidelines’ than actual rules. (At least when it comes to conservatives and their self-interests)
Apologies to Hector Barbossa
6
@rmm200, when cowardly and corrupt jurists get to decide, yes.
7
No legal standing? Then why is there an Emoluments Clause? First of many decisions we can expect from the newly minted McConnell court system - for the next ... ohhh ... 50 years. Wait until 'murica loses what's left of it's healthcare system. But ... her emails!!!
122
@gdurt
When the President is violating the Constitution every citizen should have standing.
3
my god. what is it with this man and his family? when will our country return to an ethical and proud country?
138
@Pamela
It won't. Not when ~40% of the electorate no longer supports democracy.
18
@LEM
but..but.. if i do my math right, 40% isn't a majority...
2
@Pamela There will only be progress if Americans vote. And if all Americans who can are allowed to.
4
The court said that the states lack standing, not that the case lacked merit.
33
@Mike
So, then, who has standing?
1
According to NPR, all three judges on the panel were appointed by Republican presidents.
196
@Steven Sullivan
Yep, that was the first question that came to my mind: who appointed these guys, and where do they reside on the ideological spectrum?
The courts will be a key battleground for the future of this country, assuming Trump doesn’t manage to get us destroyed in some idiotic war, first.
30
@Steven Sullivan
So they're cynical plan is working.
15
@Steven Sullivan
Hmm... go figure.
5