Again follow the money. Wonder how many of the Saudi Royal family have rented out rooms permanently in Donald's Washington hotel since his rise to the Presidency?
2
The office of President of the United States should be one of very high honor, and of great service to this Nation. Trump sees it the other way around; that this Nation, AND its Taxpayers, should be serving HIM.
Trump's arrogance, and lack of ANY ethics is beyond disgusting. No other President would even think of promoting their family's business from the Oval Office. This IS very plainly a violation of the U.S. Constitution.
May Judge Messitte's ruling stand strong, and may we hasten the day that Trump and his entire Cabinet are thrown out, and fired, for treason.
15
It should be noted that Zephyr Teachout has been a central figure in resurrecting the emoluments clauses, long buried in obscurity in our Constitution. As a legal scholar and progressive activists she has long spoken and written about corruption in government by self- serving officials who betray the public trust. She has entered the race for New York State Attorney General with a pledge to help root out corruption in Albany as well as in Washington, home of the Trump International Hotel. It behooves residents of New York State to hire her as our AG and keep her on retainer for the fierce anti-corruption court battles that lie head. Kitty Williston
18
Trump clearly promotes himself and his holdings before country. He is morally and ethically bankrupt. Judge Messite's ruling begins the process of reigning in Trump from profiting from his Presidency. It is just astounding that we have a mafia boss as President.
The question is how much damage will be done before he is removed from or voted out of office.
12
How ironic that a few days ago, Crooked Donny was considering stripping security clearances for top former intelligence officials for “monetizing” their status...
18
I felt Trump’s building that hotel on the right flank of then-Obama's White House was crass and ugly to begin with...Menacing. Impatient. Yay for the judge who found it problematic! Wahoo.
5
Things are improving: these obvious and unarguable charges are a mere 18 months late. At this rate we'll have a nice satisfying impeachment trial 10-15 years after Mr. Trump's natural demise.
7
For the last year Trump has consistently attacked the Justice Department, the FBI, the CIA, and other assorted Federal agencies for being incompetently run, inherently crooked, always insulting their integrity, claiming they are being partisan against him.
And now we have the Justice Department--which Trump has vilified publicly again and again-- DEFENDING him against charges of financial corruption via the Emoluments Clause. And we, the taxpayers, are paying for this lawsuit. This is outrageous.
Why isn't Trump forced to hire his own lawyer to defend him in this case?
And his daughter Ivanka, a shareholder in the Trump Hotel, received over $ 2M in profits going directly to her, while she
"works" in the White house, seemingly more as a social hostess mingling with everyone who has meetings there, especially when she makes "connections" with foreign dignitaries....who, of course, are staying at the Trump Intl. Hotel.
25
The request for an emergency stay will be interesting. John Roberts oversees the Maryland Circuit and I don't know that he wants his legacy tarnished by being a Trump apologist and defender.
I suspect he will deny the stay on his own instead of asking other justices to review the request. I suspect he will not issue a reason for the denial.
I could be wrong but I don't believe I am.
4
Trump also violates all standards of fairness and decency. No wonder respect for America has plummeted worldwide.
9
What concerns me more than this argument over the emoluments clause is Trump's direct violation of the lease for this Washington DC hotel entered into with the federal government. It has a clause that states no " elected official of the Government of the United States ... shall be admitted to any share or part of this Lease, or to any benefit that may arise therefrom". Nonetheless shortly after Trump took office the GSA ruled this clause was not violated since his investment in the Trump organizations were moved to a revocable trust managed by his children where he is the sole beneficiary. This is a silly interpretation of the clause which was to ban politicians from profiting from the use of government owned property that would lead to many forms of corruption. Trump still owns and controls the Trump investments as a related party through his children. The law is settled as direct relatives they share common interests. Also since he is the sole beneficiary he receives the profits from the hotel. Finally as a revocable trust he at anytime can take back ownership and control if he no longer agrees with his children's management of the hotel. That the GSA under Trump would render such a silly interpretation of this clause shows the ultimate corruption directed by Trump to invoke loopholes that by a clear examination of the facts don't even exist.
11
FINALLY!! We, the taxpayers, have been paying the Trump organization with its use of Mar El Lago (the expenses for the Secret Service) and visits to golf clubs owned by the Trump organization, etc. The President should not be allowed to profit from his office. When voters thought that a businessman would be a good change from politicians holding that office, they did not mean that the businessman should profit from his office. This administration has brought so much of the swamp into the White House that it is changing color before our eyes!
14
Leave it to the Trump administration to throw every imaginable roadblock into the process in order to protect this criminal president...at the taxpayers’ expense.
10
I'm not sure how the Justice Department can argue for an emergency stay. They can appeal the case certainly. However, what harm is possibly caused to their client, POTUS, by allowing the case to proceed to evidence gathering? That's going to be a tough argument to make in 20 pages or less. Trump's tax returns and hotel guest lists are not afforded some special presidential immunity. The Nixon tapes already decided this matter conclusively.
I feel bad for the poor lawyer at the DOJ who has to put ink to paper for this next absurdity. Just pray the court has the great wisdom to deny the stay and allow the case to proceed uninhibited. Rejecting a stay would make an appeal that much harder to win too. One can only hope.
5
This isn't just about the president's corruption. This is also about him and the Republican Party using the Justice Department - a taxpayer funded entity charged with protecting the interests of the American people - to weaken the Constitution's protections of the American people against the practices of predatory corruption.
They are trying to smooth the way for all politicians to be enabled to take profits from businesses that they are also in the position of legislating for. That is why businessmen are so eager to be elected to office. They want to be able to legislate so that it will be easier for them to cash in on their offices.
And it is precisely why we need to stop falling for their salesmen's pitches (e.g. "the business of America is business," "government is the enemy," "run the government like a business", etc.) and stop electing wealthy businessmen to office. It is obvious that they aren't interested in serving the American people. They are interested in serving themselves, and they keep trying to convince us that their interests are the same as the interests of ordinary Americans, when it is as clear as day that they don't give a fig about you or me. They don't care what happens to us. They want to control government so that they can alter the legal landscape of the country and make it easier for themselves to get richer at our expense.
24
If you want to bribe or influence someone there are more effective (and profitable for the receiver) than staying in his family hotel. I suppose one example might be the "gift" given on 1 January 1942, to Douglas MacArthur of $500,000 from President Quezon of the Philippines. Ike was offered $60,000 but turned it down knowing what it was for what it was.
1
Not for this president. He loves being fawned over—remember his trip to Saudi Arabia? Very telling that Paul LePage got what he wanted after staying in Trump's hotel. Even if there was not a direct quid pro quo, any sitting president needs to avoid the appearance of influence. Trump should have divested himself of all business holdings and put them in a blind trust. But money and power is way more important to this man who vowed to drain the swamp. He is the swamp!
5
So taxpayers are supposed to pick up the tab to defend a president accused of profiting personally from his office, and for members of Congress for payoffs for “unwelcome harassment,” and bribes to farmers to bail them out of disastrous trade policies. Is this a great country or what?
6
The lawsuit against Trump may not make it to court, although it should, since it’s clear that the president is illegally benefiting from this property.
However, even if it does not survive, at the very least, we can hope that Trump’s financial dealings and his tax returns will at last see the light of day, as they would have had this man lived up to his campaign promise, or had he not had something to hide.
Instead of defending this huckster, the Justice Department should be defending the Constitution. What are they thinking?
11
No doubt the Republicans will prepare to impeach this judge. Or something dire will happen to him. Maybe he should be talking with Bill Browder on what safety measures to take to avoid being poisoned. Trump will pull out all stops to derail this lawsuit. And what seemed fantasy a few short months ago is reality staring us in the face - a dictator enabled by the Republican congress.
9
It's about time the shameless profiteering of the Trump family was called to account.
19
Is the Department of Justice relieved of its responsibility to uphold the constitution in order to defend the president's trampling of it?
Do we need anymore proof that Jeff Sessions is Trump's Roy Cohn?
15
"Yeah, but what about... " No need to split hairs here. A president is supposed to avoid any appearance of impropriety. I don't care who did what when or even will in the future. Trump doesn't even pretend to care enough to recognize impropriety. He embraces it, His properties are making $$$ off of all his golf trips, and the Washington hotel is pretty much an entrance fee for access. This is wrong.
13
The article says, "The Justice Department is expected to forestall that by seeking an emergency stay and appealing the ruling."
It should say, the International Mafia operatives who have taken over OUR justice department are expected to fight this tooth and nail.
"And Justice For All" - all mafia members right now.
WE THE PEOPLE and Socially Conscious people like Judge Peter J. Messitte of the United States District Court in Greenbelt, Md., state attorney generals and organizations like the ACLU are the only ones who can/will stop them.
Thank you Judge Messitte. This case must not reach OUR U.S. Supreme Court until WE elect/hire Socially Conscious lawmakers who will expand the U.S. Supreme Court by two or three justices and pack it with progressive/liberal people who love and want to preserve democracy in OUR United States of America.
12
Might the judge who is allowing the Maryland and DC suit against Trump to proceed actually be forcing a definition of ‘emoluments’ in the constitution, knowing that with Kavahaugh on the court by the time it appeals to SCOTUS, it will resolve for all time in Trump’s favor? Like in the “Poseidon Adventure”, the truth may need to be observed from an upside down perspective.
1
During the 2016 presidential campaign, then-candidate Donald Trump had his followers chant at his campaign rallies "drain the swamp!" and (referring to Hillary Clinton) "lock her up!"
Well, there are many indications that President Trump IS the swamp and, yes, once the multiple the investigations come to their conclusion, Trump may well be "locked-out" of the White House!
13
If there had been a Federal law on the books prohibiting anyone elected as President or Vice President of the United States to engage in businesses prior to holding office with everything held in a blind trust and persons other than immediate family overseeing such transfer this would not have happened. In addition, a Federal law prohibiting children from occupying government offices or given honorary titles such as "advisor to the President." And finally, a federal law requiring disclosure of all tax returns - personal and business - we would not be in the appalling mess we find ourselves in with the Ultimate Grifter occupying the Oval Office and his family. There are valuable lessons to be learned here and citizens of this country ought to demand the enactment of federal laws to prevent a scenario like this one ever happening again.
We await the findings of Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller's investigation.
16
If it’s Trump’s hotel and the business prospers as a result of his position, he and all the hotel’s employees and vendors should immediately forfeit all I’ll gotten gain, without question. How dare those housekeepers and bell hops think that the American public could stand for such a flagrant abuse of the law.
2
If the Emoluments clause referred to is Art II, Sec 1 (7) it applies only to the President and says that while he's in office he "shall not receive...any other Emolument from the United States Government or any of the states." Doesn't say he cannot operate a private business, but it likely means that the USG cannot do business with the Trump Organization or any of its holdings. Does the Trump Hotel's lease of the Old Post Office Building violate this clause? Do flights chartered from Trump-owned airlines do that?
4
Most comment writers should the “The penalty of Leadership by McManus. The jealous long knives of the anti Trump crowds have no bottom. In this case everyone staying at the hotel is a co-conspirator to influence peddling. Such nonsense should be dismissed out of hand by the judge. He is imagining non existing possibilities. “Emoluments “ are now akin to “penumbras” and “emanations” from anything “Trump” in the judges mind. He should be above such discredited thinking and ruling.
1
Why is the Justice Dept stepping in to defend Trump? I thought it was supposed to be the people's Justice Dept.
18
Ironic that Trump is demanding that former intelligence officials lose their clearances because “no one should profit from government service” after the fact.
Apparently you’re supposed to pillage while you’re IN office. Who knew?
22
Trump is freaking out. Disclosure would reveal tons of crimes. Trump Co will be revealed for what it is; Trump co Crime inc. Ray Sipe
7
I’m glad that this lawsuit is finally going forward, but we need to re-evaluate the concept of “standing” to be able to file a lawsuit against corrupt public officials.
One shouldn’t need to have direct monetary loss to have standing. Public officials have a special duty to be faithful to the people they represent. When a public official acts in a corrupt manner, he is benefiting himself and another party or parties to the detriment of every other citizen in his district.
In particular, the president, the person who has direct impact on all our lives – matters of economic importance, life and death – should be held accountable to all of us. When the president is corrupt and acting in a corrupt manner, every single citizen of the United States should have the power to file a lawsuit against him/her, because he affects all of us directly or indirectly.
We shouldn’t have to wait for a party with certain narrow criteria and hope that they come forth to sue for their their own narrow self-interests in order to rid ourselves of corrupt public officials. It makes absolutely no sense.
11
Why the Justice Department is defending Trump is THE question. But it isn't just a matter of who pays the attorneys' fees.
The Justice Department's legal positions have always carried more weight with the courts, especially the US Supreme Court, than arguments or briefs submitted by private lawyers, no matter how famous or accomplished.
Trump should be represented by lawyers who are seen as defending Trump, not seen as defending the US Constitution.
Imagine how differently the request for a stay of Judge Messitte's order would be treated by the appellate courts if it came from Trump's personal lawyer rather than the Justice Department.
And imagine how differently the case itself would be viewed by the press and the public if it were seen as what it is--a question of whether President Trump is being manipulated and bribed by special interests.
10
Unrestrained capitalism, the belief in the doctrine of laissez-faire economics, is the Achilles Heel of our political system. It is the cause of the gross imbalance between the incomes of the 1% and the rest of our society. This Trump Tower fiasco is only one example of our corruptness. It is time now to correct this situation by shifting into a socialist-capitalist system as in the Scandinavian model. When the time comes, vote accordingly.
8
It's about time someone stood up to Trump and held him accountable for profiting while in office. The entire clan is feeding off the offices they hold.
Another poster made a good point. Why is the DOJ working as Trump's personal attorney? Why are taxpayers paying the DOJ to defend a corrupt President? That practice should end today. Trump needs to pay for his own legal council and reimburse the taxpayers for the time and effort spent by the DOJ defending his corrupt business practices.
Trump seems to think he's Putin and can run the US like Putin runs Russia. Trump desires (needs for his fragile ego) to be a dictator and have the citizens of his country kneel and kiss his feet.
Impeach Trump. He's NOT My President. This is a very sad and dark time for the United States.
14
No surprise there are radical liberal judges also.
If the people filing this lawsuit were to win no Republican or Democratic business owners could become president without selling their businesses.
What about the exorbitant speaking fees Mr. Obama and Clinton are receiving after leaving office? Do presidents just have to wait until they leave office to be paid off?
The two constitutional clauses at issue restrict a president’s ability to accept financial benefits or “emoluments” from domestic or foreign governments, other than his official salary. No federal judge before has ever interpreted what those bans mean for the president.
1
Thank you Judge Peter J. Messitte for allowing this case to move forward. Also a big thanks to Sharon LaFraniere for keeping the public informed with details that matter to us!
9
Should Trump lose this lawsuit (and oh, how I hope that he does, though I suspect that he will manage to wiggle free at the last minute and leave a flunky dangling on the hook in his stead) here is what I would like to see...
I would like to see every penny of profit from all of the Trump enterprises, starting from when Trump took office be seized. Every. Single. Penny.
And what should be done with that pile of cash? Why, everything that Trump promised he would do, of course! Improve our crumbling infrastructure, bring affordable healthcare to everyone, help out our struggling veterans...
... but not build a wall. Because, remember, Mexico will pay for that...
8
Mr. Trump was involved in his DC hotel several years before he ran for elected office. I've been in this particular hotel and it's absolutely beautiful. If it's siphoning business away from competing hotels in DC, it is because the property is a jewel. No one is being forced to stay in this particular hotel.
2
@MarathonRunner
Whether it's beautiful or not, or whether or not anyone was forced to stay there has absolutely nothing to do with the legal matter in question: whether or not, Donald Trump is profiting off of this hotel as a direct result of his position as president.
10
The blades on that shredder in Don Jr's office are white hot by now.
"Lubricant, I need more lubricant packs!!"
4
Courageous judge. Now we must wait to see what the corporate enablers on the Supreme Court have to say. I have not much faith that the plaintiffs will survive this one, unless it gets up to the Court long before Kavanaugh's confirmation. Otherwise, the phony "originalists" on the Court will dismiss the case on the ground that the Emoluments Clause refers to direct payments to a President's pocket in ways that the Framers would have contemplated, not indirect payments to a family corporation, just what the Justice Department is arguing. Mr. Teflon may win again. What did he do in his former life for Karma to be playing such horrible tricks on us all?
4
Conflict of interest, improprieties, lying, and cheating never bothered Trump the businessman.
Why should it bother Trump the POTUS?
10
Expose the graft and account for the robbery of the US treasury. We deserve to know how much Trump and his family are profitting from the office.
12
With Gorsuch and soon to be Justice Kavanaugh on the SCOTUS it is only a matter of weeks before Trump gets let off the hook by his appointees to the Supreme Court. Welcome to the Soviet Socialist Republic of Amerikanskaya. Oligarchy forever.
8
The mill of God grinds slow, but it grinds exceeding fine...
7
The trump taxpayer-paid government legal team will file appeals all the way to the supreme trump justice cabal, which will rule in his favor. Once again, trump will not face consequences for his sleazy, avaricious conduct.
6
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.”
This is the clause in the constitution the case is based on. 49 words. If the president owned stock in McDonalds and Putin had a Big Mac would that violate this too? And I guess that the judge considers the governor of Maine to be from a foreign state. This is just a lefty judge doing what lefty judges do. Seeing the law they way they want it to read. Not the way it reads.
1
@Jim: "Seeing the law they way they want it to read. Not the way it reads."
Just like the second amendment to the US Constitution too, huh? How convenient.
3
Why is the Governor of Maine (and his staff) staying at any five star hotel? Aren't there policies in place requiring most public officials to seek out less expensive options to save taxpayers money? I find it hard to believe that the Trump Hotel was the best option for the taxpayers of Maine, unless staying there helped Gov. LePage achieve the policy goal of his visit, as suggested in the article. Federal agency heads have already lost their jobs for extravagant travel, should the Governor of Maine have such expensive requirements for his travel?
16
Hallelujah! I hope that others who have legal grounds to present against this administration and the president file their suits posthaste, before the rash of new federal judges appointed by the president are in place. Wrong is wrong, and Trump is taking the presidency to the wrong side of law and proper political and government mores and morals.
4
Judge Peter J. Messitte is a Democrat appointed to the court by President Clinton. He was a Delegate to the Democratic National Convention in 1980. It was important noting this bit of information as it appears that the judges bringing cases against President Trump have been from the Democratic Party.
There is no proof that those staying at the Trump hotel benefited in any way in their dealings with Mr. Trump. President Clinton was known for having entertainment and influential types spending overnight trips at the White House. There was some discussions about this but very little protests to the extent we are seeing with our current president. This too will die down just as Mr. Clinton's did.
As mentioned, it is very difficult to prove that these guests were given preferential treatment from President Trump. His hotels are very nice properties and these people wanted to stay at quality and lovely hotels. This is just another attempt to smear and discredit a president who was not supposed to win the election. Like past accusations, this too will fall by the wayside and President Trump will be vindicated. He will continue to make America a better place for its citizens. He has been doing a splendid job despite his critics.
1
No matter which way this case is decided, it will ultimately end up in the Supreme Court, which will find for Trump. Republicans have arranged the court for just such an eventuality.
4
Will it surprise anyone if it is discovered that one of the suites is essentially operating as a Russian intelligence controlled honey trap?
Or that said trap was visited by powerful Americans?
If it is not the case, the agent in charge of Washington D.C. areas should be sent to the Lubyanka, and if mercy is exercised, after gentile interrogation, to the uranium mines in the Arctic circle.
4
I thought we had seen the most litigated presidency when Clinton was in the White House.
This POTUS is going to break that record by a wide margin.
I am no student of Constitution and don't understand all legal nuanxe of this emolument clause.
But folks, when he was running - everyone knew that he had many fingers in the real estate pie.
And it would seem that for the government to expect that he be completely removed from commerce - seems at best foolish.
And let's face it, size of money being talked about is so inconsequential.
If no one wins here - lawyers will definitely win big time.
Brings to mind what Honest Abe said about lawyers:"one lawyer in a town will be one poor lawyer, two lawyers in a town - both will be rich."
And it sure helps if this POTUS is a reason for all lawsuits where one party, the government lawyers have unlimited funding.
Go for it, I say.
Favoritism and brand loyalty is what fuels this presidency and its policies. The Trump administration has made that crystal clear, from Kellyanne Conway's public promotion of Ivanka Trump's clothing line to the mandatory tuning of Air Force One TVs to the Fox channel. The trick is to prove in court what is so obvious to us casual observers.
7
Great! Legitimate legal proceedings and the ballot box are the way to oust the current Republican regime. Even "FOX" is becoming less friendly in response to the efforts of Trump and friends to shut up reporters who ask pertinent questions and the cozy relationship between DJT and VP (not MP, I mean Vladimir Putin).
3
But, but, but, do the plaintiffs in this case not understand that the Justice Department is according to #45 "my department"?
Law and Order belongs solely to him, with the exception of our Intelligence Agencies who contradict his tweet storms on a 24/7 basis.
But then, intelligence in the same sentence with the name Trump is an oxymoron par excellence.
9
Trump International Hotel in D.C. is a renovated historic post office that Trump leases from the government -- and the paperwork explicitly forbids any elected government official from holding the lease or benefiting from it.
Trump inked a 60 yr lease at $3 million a year. Trump has a history of inking sweetheart deals with government entities.
And this property is netting him $40 million a year. While he is violating the lease contract. Seems pretty simple, even to an average person, that Trump is in violation of the contract he signed.
Where is Jeff Sessions and his zero tolerance policy of enforcing the law? Hmm?
14
What a waste of the court's time. People can stay at one of the dozens of hotels in the the Washington DC area. The only winners are the lawyers and the court stenographers.
A personal note.
Many years ago I attended a school in D.C. and each day walked to the old post office building to catch the AB&W bus to take me to my home in Arlington to deliver papers in one of the RiverHouse Apartments buildings.
When I learned that the building had been converted to a hotel that carried Trump's name I was disheartened. Besides disgust at who it was, I felt much sharp sadness that some of my fondest memories from long ago had been wiped away.
But now, to learn that from this old building might somehow arise help to remove this so-called president and his thuggish clan/administration from power - PRICELESS!!!!!
10
For Trump, running for president was a business decision.
5
May this court case demand, if necessary through subpoena - then finally receiving Trump's Tax Returns.
Numbers are clear and do not lie -- this is why Trump refuses to reveal his Tax Returns - he is the Master of Lies.
6
I ask the same question as others. Why is the Justice Department acting on Trump's behalf?
Please keep up informed on this matter. Thank you.
8
I wonder who the Judge voted.for in 2016. Another blatantly political action by a left wing judge. Another uniquely judicial ruling just for President Trump.
2
America will either continue as a democratic republic, or it will have a king named Donald.
It is mainly in the hands of the Republican Party and good Americans will hold them accountable.
6
Rod Rosenstein needs our protection more than ever.
17
Not only is Trump profiting from foreign dignitaries staying in his D.C. hotel, he is profiting off taxpayer dollars that pay for him and his entouraged on weekend jaunts to Trump-owned golf resorts. Absolutely disgraceful.
35
Why, oh why, is DOJ involved in this case at all? Trump should be represented in this case by his personal counsel, period. What a waste of taxpayer resources and further evidence of the Administration's abuse of power. When will it end?
22
There was a time when we had a President who would do what's best for the country rather himself and his deep pocket donors, like Trump told the gathering of his most wealthy donors after the Republican's passed his tax cuts, "I just made you a lot of money"
We had President's who are remembered for their quotes like FDR during the midst of the Great Depression: "We have nothing to fear but fear itself...….", with Donald Trump trying to cover up his philandering and incompetent foreign policy capitulating to Vladimir Putin, one of his recent statements will live on as standard for pathological liar and Flim-Flam Man: ""Just remember . . . what you are seeing and what you are hearing . . . is not what’s happening."
21
Donald Trump profiting off of his position as the leader of the free world? Well, "Duh!" The man is devoid of ethics.
19
Cheesy grifting Trump crime family may finally receive a consequence to their organized crime tactics.
18
This and any other Federal case against Trump are probably DOA, because the Supreme Court with five hard-right conservatives (including two of his appointees) will eventually vote 5-4 in his favor no matter the merits.
Trump's GOP enablers have already turned the Congress into a rubber stamp rather than a true check on Presidential power. This SCOTUS is also unlikely to be an fair and honest arbiter. The absence of any barrier to the power of this minority-elected megalomaniac is a dangerous and frightening situation.
13
I'd like to know more about "that similar case in NY by different plaintiffs that was dismissed by a different judge." This one will go to the Supreme Court.
9
@Andrea: The Times reported on that a while ago. The case was dismissed because the judge ruled that the plaintiffs had no standing to file the suit, because they were not being directly harmed by Truml's activities.
1
The Justice Department should not be acting as Trump’s goons - protecting him from lawsuits and scrutiny. And yet here we are. The whole entire administration is corrupt and a bastardization of what good government ought to be.
22
This is a man who is incapable of surrendering control over anything. He puts his sons in control of his businesses, give us a break! He is their puppeteer, they have no mind of their own. They are just an extension of himself. Immediate family members shouldn't be considered a valid substitute for a blind trust.Unless they have independent trustees by their sides.
Given his past history of untrustworthiness and his refusal to disclose his taxes his actions and his words are meaningless. His kids In their own words publicly uttered, saying "money is pouring in", is cause for alarm. The judge made the right decision to proceed with the lawsuit. It is a mild reassurance that somebody is still looking for the American people' best interest.
14
"We have nothing to Fear but Fear Itself...………"
Franklin Roosevelt
"Just remember . . . what you are seeing and what you are hearing . . . is not what’s happening."
Donald Trump
17
It seems the judge, like the framers, understood Ecclesiastes 1:9, to-wit: when it comes to human behavior, there are no new ideas.
8
Why should you be against Trump?
It’s the corruption, stupid
It is the daily grift and assault on our institutions that gnaws at me daily
Be a patriot, Vote for America
27
Neat! At long last, he gets to use "his" United States Department of Justice to defeat the responsibilities of "his" Office. Madison is leaping from his grave, to haul this Nation to the polls, come November.
22
Some writers express hope Trump's Supreme Court will save him from having to comply with the emoluments clause of the US Constitution. My first question is: Why would any citizen of the US want a president, any president, to be beholding to foreign governments or states? My second question is: If the conservative justices Trump is appointing are such strict constructionists, why would they want to ignore the framers intent to ban presidents from accepting emoluments?
21
If we are able to keep our republic, the difficult task laid forth by Ben Franklin centuries ago when he was asked by a citizen what form of government was being framed, it will be mostly the judiciary that stands up to the task. I have to believe that people who dedicated their lives to the practice of law will take both the national interest and their own self preservation to heart. Trump has eliminated the legislative branch as a check and balance and we know which branch is next. Even Jeff Sessions has stood firm at times when pushed to move too far beyond the boundaries of the law, as when he refused to establish a special counsel to investigate the imaginary enemies and scapegoats of the far right. It takes decades to become an attorney and rise through the ranks to become a judge, a prosecutor, a well known and respected legal mind. Trump wants these people to trade all that for legal and political slavery. I hope that’s too onerous for much of the judiciary, regardless of where they may be in the political and ideological spectrum. If they don’t stand tall we’re finished.
17
The president's profiteering and his justice department's opposition to this action belies the prevailing Republican fiction of judicial originalist thinking, that mythical device whereby sitting jurists are expected to channel the Founding Fathers and determine what they meant when they drafted the Constitution. It is as reliable as using mojo bags and reading tea leaves.
The plain language cited in this opinion is that Team Trump cannot fatten up their bank accounts by using directly or indirectly presidential advantages. Now, let's take a peek at those elusive tax returns.
18
This case is clearly an Emoluments Clause violation. What is equally as troubling is the fact that our Justice Department leadership is spending tax dollars to try to defend Don the Con.
The members of the Justice Department took an oath to uphold and defend our Constitution. Rather than speak truth to power, JC leadership is using our tax resources and its attorneys try to defend Trump's unconstitutional behavior in the courts.
Trump should use his own money to pay for this defense that only works to benefit Trump and no-one else.
18
The President's tax returns need to be seen. Each day of his suspect leadership makes it more imperative. His fear and refusal speak volumes.
29
No doubt about it - Custer is getting closer and closer to the Little Big Horn.
11
Representation without taxation.
How sweet it is!
6
Isn't the Justice Department supposed to be representing the best interests of the American people; not protecting the grifting of the President?
36
The GOP Supreme Court will back Trump, no worries.
7
To a narcissist such as President Trump, power is an aphrodisiac. The danger is that the longer he remains in power the greater the chances he will exploit the law, disparaging morality to augment his power.
9
He doesn't dare disclose his finances. He could end up with a death sentence for treason.
I'm surprised every single policy he ever adopted isn't subject to challenge on the basis of his conflict of interest.
12
It appears that the emoluments clause in our Constitution is not worth the parchment upon which it is written.
Sad.
12
Now, we can talk in a language that Trump can understand. Money, who has it , where it came from and how it has influenced his decisions.
Maybe this will reign in 'Trumpspeak' and his rash decision making.
6
Good news! Just like in watergate - follow the money!!! This is the best route to find who his financial backers are...
11
Why is trump entitled to representation by the Dep't of Justice in the matter of D.C. & Maryland v. trump, re the alleged violation of the Constitution's emoluments clause resulting ("allegedly") from trump's, and the trump Organization's, D.C. hotel profiteering?
Seems to me, as a matter of common sense (i.e., w/o reference to, or knowledge of, any precedent -- or any research on my part 'into' any legislative history or constitutional conference 'equivalent') that trump (and the trump "Organization") should have to retain (and pay for) personal (and "Organization") counsel -- from their own, emoluments-filled pockets.
P.S. Were I a judge 'sitting on' a case alleging that the trump-D.C. hotel lease is held in violation of law [citation omitted … but ya can look it up, as Casey Stengel might have said], the emoluments clause case would be made "moot" -- the word 'forever' but incorrectly employed as if it meant "beyond unnecessary" -- as the emoluments matter would be (as of the date of my judicial lease termination), leaving only (i) a 'follow-on' proceeding for an accounting of the lessee-defendant's profits (once and whenever received) 'earned' during the period commencing January 20, 2017 -- if not November 6, 2016 -- and ending on the date of lease termination, (ii) my subsequent order and judgment requiring that the sum of accounted profits be 're-paid' to the U.S. Treasury, and (iii) satisfaction of that order and judgment.
5
Why does the Justice Department “vigorously defend” Trump over we the people?
14
"The Justice Department is expected to forestall that by seeking an emergency stay and appealing the ruling."
Why are lawyers from our taxpayer-funded Department of Justice allowed to defend Trump's profiteering in violation of the Emoluments Clause?
Shouldn't Trump's company be paying the legal bills?
20
Trump is a business man. Business's make profits. Democrats hate capitalism and success. The economy is booming and so is Trump's portfolio. This is a good thing.
1
To put it in factory floor parlance as an employee of the US government, Trump is "fishing off the company's dock". The rules were out there for anyone with the capability to read.
16
The economy is high on a sugar rush of free money that has all gone into buybacks that only benefit the upper crust. The coming market retraction is a matter of when, not if
4
Right now Trump is not supposed to be a business man, but the president of the United States. The only way the two would seem to be connected is that he is doing for the US what he did for his business, heading it into bankruptcy.
4
I think DOJ is out of bounds in its actions here.
The department was established in 1870 as a complex agency to fulfill the responsibilities of the Attorney General, among others. The AG role was created by the Judiciary Act of 1789: “[The attorney-general’s] duty...shall be to prosecute and conduct all suits in the Supreme Court in which the United States shall be concerned, and to give his advice and opinion upon questions of law when required by the President of the United States….”
So DOJ is supposed to represent the country’s interests in the legal arena, and only to provide advice and opinion to the president. The present suit alleges that the president's actions violate the Constitution, which puts the president's interests in conflict with the country's. So DOJ's duty to the Constitution is compromised when it submits arguments to the court on behalf of the president in this case. Further, providing that service to the president goes far beyond “advice and opinion.”
21
@Jonathan: Precisely. I've been thinking the same thing. The framers of the Constitution clearly did not imagine that the interests of a President of the United States would ever conflict with the best interests of the people he is elected to serve. They did not imagine that Americans would be so stupid as to elect someone who did not have their best interests in mind, someone who has no notion of what the word "service" means, unless it's something that other people are doing for him. But they did it, and now we are stuck with a president whose corruption puts him in direct conflict with the people's interests -- and, to add insult to injury, he uses a taxpayer-funded entity charged with protecting the interests of the American people to defend his corruption and the fraud that he perpetrates upon us, the very same American people.
1
Hooray! Welcome back to "facts."
The Court denied Trump’s motion to dismiss the suit: "The basic facts are not in dispute."
What's positively delicious is this begins the discovery process, and obtaining financial information from both the Trump Organization and Trump. Including tax returns!
"Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged that the President has been receiving or is potentially able to receive 'emoluments' from foreign, the federal and state governments in violation of the Constitution," wrote the judge in a 52-page opinion!
22
Trump should be forced to hand back the 20 million he has garnered from the hotel in the past 18 months.
21
Why should the President return profit distributions from an investment he does not control?
Read the "emoluments clause" in the Constitution. It is not limited to the President.
Should every federal employee - elected, appointed, or hired - have to "give back" any income from investments that are owned partially or in full by foreign entities or that do business with them?
That's just about everything and everybody in our global economy.
1
@Parkbench: What an incredibly cynical perspective. No wonder you are willing to put up with a criminal in office, if you think everyone is corrupt and self-dealing.
3
He should have to live by the same rules as all past presidents. This should have been done from the outset.
21
If Trump can't be beat with Democrat votes, get him with Democrat judges. Wonder what the the next step will be? Probably Democrats further forsaking democracy.
1
You should be outraged by the corruption and complicity. No one is out to get Trump we just want him to show his financials the way every other president has
Why do you think Trump should operate under a different set of opaque rules than any other American leader?
7
As a child, I remember listening to FDR's fireside chats. Couldn't see him, but somehow it was comforting. This guy Donald John Trump is known for lying. Every time I hear him say: "I am the first president to ever...." I feel like I am listening to a used car salesman telling me that this car was driven by a little old lady and only on Sundays. In this case, I can't expect to have him say one truthful thing about the Trump Organization. Doubt he has ever read the Constitution.
18
Congress should have shut this down from the day Trump was sworn in. Naturally, the Republicans wouldn't have dreamed of doing so.
The Emoluments Clause has no meaning if what Trump and his family have been doing to foster their businesses during his term in the WH isn't violation of the Emoluments Clause. Sadly, the "originalists" on SCOTUS -- you know, those right-wing justices who always claim to strictly construe the words of the Constitution to help Republican positions -- will magically find no constitutional bar to Trump benefiting from foreign dignitaries staying at his hotel properties and using his golf courses.
Meanwhile, the evidence that the Emoluments Clause is indeed being violated -- like the fact that the Trump hotel in DC is one of Trump's best performing properties, and the fact that after Maine Republican governor Paul "I'll go to jail before giving any medical benefits to poor, sick people" LePage stayed at the D.C. Trump hotel, Trump threw out a bone to one of the LePage's pet projects -- continues to grow with each passing day.
28
There remains the question, how much money does Trump make every time (weekend) he goes to his resorts. The staff that go to support him, the secret service who go to protect him all stay at these resorts. The secret service is charged to ride the golf carts that follow Donald around the golf course as he is "working" Are our tax dollars paying the Trump organization for his weekend getaways?
22
What you call "resorts," are legally considered his residences by the government, just as Obama's home in Chicago is.
WH staff and Secret Service do not stay at Trump's properties, something the media has failed to make clear. They pay government rates at nearby hotels and receive per diem for meals. They cannot eat at Trump properties as they are not members of the clubs providing food service.
Secret Service is required by law to pay fair market value for golf cart rentals. Mr. Trump can not legally provide them gratis. It's the law that has been in force for decades regardless of the vendor renting the carts.
1
There are two problems with this decision:
1) A lawsuit of this kind clearly cannot be brought against a sitting President. It interferes with the performance of his Constitutional duties, and should never be allowed to proceed. It materially harms our national security and will be thrown out. The only Constitutionally proper remedy would be impeachment, if that were warranted (which it clearly is not).
2) The judicial decision distorts the plain meaning of "emolument" far beyond it's Constitutional meaning. If the President owns stock in Boeing and a foreign government buys many Boeing planes, is that an "emolument"? Of course not. The President is a billionaire. Foreign governments are not paying him bribes by spending a few thousand dollars to stay at a convenient Washington Hotel. This whole case is ridiculous.
2
Yet another outrageous decision from a lower federal court judge.
This is why these judges need to be censured or impeached. They get away with anti-constitutional decisions, forcing we the ya payer to appeal until ultimately the SC reverses their insanity.
2
You should be outraged by the corruption and complicity. No one is out to get Trump we just want him to show his financials the way every other president has
Why do you think Trump should operate under a different set of opaque rules than any other American leader?
3
Every time Trump or his extended family travel to one of his properties, Trump puts thousands of dollars in his own pocket because the Secret Service must pay top rates for food, lodging, golf carts, etc. The Trump Organization is solely owned by Trump, all profits go to him and his children.
Trump ran for office to put money in his own pocket. His campaign uses Trump properties and is paid every time Trump holds a rally or gives a speech. Melania Trump is paid royalties every time her photograph is used - over $100,000 so far.
Lets hope the lawsuit moves forward.
The GOP used to support upholding our laws and the Constitution.
But that was before Trump, wasn't it?
29
Tax returns and Russia have framed the Trump administration since the beginning giving it a corrupt atmosphere. It is refreshing that we are not in square one anymore.
Even if JD appeals successfully, it is breaking ground that judge Messitte opened the door to justice and decency. Maybe many will start to see a naked Emperor.
17
One could say that becoming president has been Trump’s most successful endeavor. As we know it appears every single attempt to expand his so called empire failed. Although as President his personal coffers will overflow with billions, thanks to be seating at the Oval Office. What a petulant crook.
20
It’s called grift!
5
No surprise that president Trump is profiting (i.e. 'monetizng' from his presidency). Hosannas to Judge Peter Messitte (US Dist Ct, Greenbelt, MD) for lowering the boom on Trump's "influence peddling" -- maintaining a business interest in his Washington DC Trump International Hotel as his emoluments accrue up the ying-yang. The Constitution says bribery is an impeachable offense. Now how to connect bribery to Trump's kingdom of hotels, golf-courses, branded venues from sea to shining sea, and abroad? Who could ever have imagined that the president of the United States is benefiting hand over fist from his businesses? The Justice Department is blocking Judge Messitte's ruling. And we heard Jeff Sessions himself chuickling as he chanted "lock her up!" (viz. Hillary Clinton) the other day. Lock who up? We'll see what happens.
16
This might shake free Trump's tax returns.
10
Mr. Trump feels he has to obey no laws.
He just does what he wants---then cheats, lies and accuses.
It it's very sad to have him represent our country.
Thank you judge Messitte!
Perhaps our legal system can set things right.
14
It irks me that my tax dollars and Justice Department man hours are being used to protect Donald Trump's money stream.
21
And some more of your tax money is going to buy votes from farmers hurt by Trump Tariffs.
2
All the news about trump is exactly what I expect to hear about corrupt African dictators. Astonishing that Americans don't protest more.
37
Right on!
At least the Article III judicial branch of our divided limited power constitutional republic of united states is performing it's duties and obligations. While the Article I legislative branch remains comatose prostrate and prone to do the bidding of Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin.
16
Trump is corrupt, and the spineless Republicans in the House and Senate are complicit. Trump has been a con man and grifter his entire working life, and he's continued to grab what he can grab for himself while in the White House. What does Trump have to hide? Everything.
15
“Justice Department is expected to forestall that by seeking an emergency stay and appealing the ruling.”
Clear and concise statement that any Fox viewer or Rush listener can understand.
The Justice Dept serves only this corrupt president and not the rule of law nor the defense of the American people.......disgusting
17
I disagree. The audience who listens to Rush and watches Fox don’t understand such highfalutin words like “forestall”.
6
I read the opinion and it is a difficult question. The central substantive question is whether his hotel, from which he arguably profits (a question of fact), is the source of an emolument? There is evidence on both sides from contemporaneous dictionaries. Emolument is an archaic word. Like with the 2d Amendment and other clauses of the Constitution the meaning to the founders is sometimes hidden to us, and any suggestion that modern judges "know" the answer would be nonsense. Still, they are charged with coming to a decision. This judge found the plaintiff's interpretation more "persuasive." That's hardly conclusive. Obviously, a higher court or the S. Ct. will decide.
Standing also presents a difficult issue. Standing is very hard to determine in political cases. Arguably, judge's just find standing when they want to. Here, the facts surrounding Maine's governor might give pause to coming to that conclusion.
Eventually, I imagine we will have a decision. I don't like Trump much and the resistance even more, but, I think this is a legitimate question and should be resolved one way or the other.
1
@David Eisenberg: Congress needs to step up and start legislating against graft and corruption. But they won't, because most of them are complicit. As long as we continue to make running for office prohibitively expensive, we will continue to have corruption and graft, because few honest people who are truly interested in public service have the kind of money now required to get elected. Campaign reform laws and the overturning of Citizens' United is more important then ever.
3
Walks like duck. Quacks like a duck... it's bald-faced CORRUPTION by the President.
Impeach. Remove.Now.
20
The best way to refer to all this damning evidence is real simple. It is simply fake news from fake news media. Just in case you doubt that, just do not accept that anything you hear and see is real. Nothing is as it appears; Your president will tell it like it is. Trust him (because if you agree at this point, then you already do). Just remember the story "the emperor's clothes". Oh and just for good measure, it is all Obama's fault and Crooked H is still not locked up. How's that for a diversion or two or three?
13
While this is rare good news, trump's failure to divest his properties at the beginning should have been addressed by Congress. Their complicity in trump's refusal to follow accept government protocols has allowed him to amass ill-gained profits and given access to foreign powers wanting to butter him up.
Keep us posted on this good news.
18
Bravo! Let's hope the checks and balances continues in at least one branch of the government. The other 2 seem lost.
11
Flimsy lawsuit that will be dismissed by Trump's Supreme Court, even without his new pick. Soon the frail old Ginsberg will be retired to Boca Raton and shuffle board and then Trump's Court will be solid for multiple generations. Stay tuned.
3
And that is the point at which America will justifiably revolt and overthrow a corrupt government elected by a minority of citizens.
10
Good to read this it seemed like the US was being run as a company with a chief who hired and fired at will anyone who disagreed with him. Not to mention the alleged business which allegedly helped the family businesses.
6
Our profiteering, lying, cowardly bully-in-chief is using every power he has to serve himself.
When I see that mouth open, I see - metaphorically - the jaws of hell open. This is evil in action.
22
Is it really true that no judge has yet had to define the implications of the emoluments clause during the entire time our constitution has existed?
That only now, 250 years later, has a person in the office of the presidency acted unscrupulous enough to bring this moment to fruition?
When will our national nightmare end?
46
The Supreme court will likely overturn this. The interpretation seems too broad and will be easy to pick apart even for Supreme Court soon to be stacked in Trump's favour.
2
I'm glad that there is judge out there that allows for this legal shining of the light of day on the appearance of actual wrongdoing in relation to this emoluments clause and I look forward to its clarification and definitive elaboration. I really hope there is some chance of silencing his enablers by the rule of law and curtailing the presidents uncanny ability to circumvent it at every turn.
7
It is about time all the money that is filling his hotel coffers via his stays there on government business should be challenged. I hope there is a ruling that the Secret Service decides this in future. So that he had to stay where it is convenient for them and the taxpayer.
16
Although Trump gave up control of the Trump Organisation, his business empire is till run by his sons. And he is really milking his office for personal profits.
The Trump International Hotel in Washington is the goose that lays the golden eggs.
When he performs presidential duties and invites foreign leaders and dignitaries to Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida, American taxpayers have to foot the bill. The property is owned by a company from wihich Trump benefits financially.
The State Department spent more than $15,000 to book 19 rooms at the new Trump hotel in Vancouver when members of his family attended the grand opening of the tower in February 2017. When US diplomats use the Trump hotels abroad, the embassies pay their bills.
It's disgusting that Congressional Republicans simply turn a blind eye to Trump’s greed and profligacy. His private trips and the necessary security measures have so far cost tens of millions.
42
Corrupt as the day is long
The cash register plays his song
Also Myanmar
Diplomats there are par
Trump wallows in peddling. Not wrong?
10
It seems incredible, but until the ruling by a Federal District Court in Maryland, no judge had taken the time to consider carefully what the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution actually means.
Judge Peter Messitte has done a common-sense analysis of the language which should satisfy even the strict constructionists who worship at the altar of the late Justice Antonin Scalia and his notion of original intent.
There is an enormous ripple effect of a determination that a president is subject to the anti-corruption provisions, which the framers of the Constitution intended to discourage the peddling of influence.
The Trump Hotel in Washington has become a symbol of how Donald Trump flaunts a supposed immunity from having to account for running the presidency like a secretive, for-profit business.
We will learn much about the Trump companies and their founder in the weeks ahead.
39
Given the greed driven Trump's insatiable desire to use public office and position for private and family good, it is not too late to seek judicial guidance on the conflict of interest issue against the President. For, Trump is an exceptional president in American history who views the White House and the presidency as the extension of his private properties and the persona, while rest of the US as his fiefdom to be ruled by his whims.
46
Having lived in Trump's hometown my whole life, I am very familiar with his overgrown ego! What I find so surprising is the failure of our much vaunted system of Checks and Balances. As long as Trump holds the absolute loyalty of his base, no member of the Republican Party has the courage to fulfill their Constitutional duty to limit him in his quest for personal power. For so long the GOP has demonized the Democratic Party that now there is no chance of forming coalitions within Congress. But, they are unable or unwilling to choose between standing up to a corrupt and tyrannical Executive and losing the next election. Clearly, both Senators and Congressmen now consider their elected offices to be a lifetime career rather than a citizen's duty to discharge. Perhaps term limits would make it easier for them to talk truth to power, and thereby lead the people who elected them, rather than be leashed like a dog to them.
13
This is a very encouraging decision, but how long will it stand before being overruled? With the President and the Republican Party filling the higher courts with increasing numbers of judges friendly to them, the likelihood of this suit prevailing seems less and less possible. If the Justice Department continues to appeal, it will eventually reach the Supreme Court, which has already shown itself as unwilling to check executive power as the Republican led Congress.
19
Could someone please explain why the Justice Department is defending a President accused of violating the Constitution by continuing to receive profits from his hotel?
Shouldn't it be Trump's personal lawyer defending him, at Trump's expense?
After all, this was one of the businesses Trump said during his campaign he would divest himself of if he became president. Why are we all paying for the Justice Department to defend him for not doing that?
95
A slow learner, but I am beginning to wonder just when Trump knew the fix was in and he was going to be President.
Too many little pieces, at the time nondescript, are now falling into place.
Sure feel like I'm becoming part of the growing crowd of conspiracy theorists.
Perhaps showing early signs of Wisenheimer's Disease as well, but things are just a little too neatly packaged.
A trillion dollar cake with a twelve billion dollar icing smells an awful lot like it was baked and trimmed in the Fulton Fish Market
21
A comeback for the USA!
The judge, employing a concise, common-sense reading of the emoluments clause of the Constitution has already gone a long way to right the wrong that has been enforce:
The Government Service Agency's bizarre, obsequious "ruling" - penned by Contracting Officer Kevin Terry - that approved the current relationship between the hotel and the current occupant of the White House.
Today's ruling demonstrated a healthy facet of our country. To experience the banana republic facet, read the 2017 GSA document here (166 agonizing pages, including all the exhibits):
https://www.gsa.gov/cdnstatic/Contracting_Officer_Letter_March_23__2017_...
22
About time that the question of conflicts of interest and making money from your businesses that “do business” with the government get some kind of over view.
15
Trump is not just a traitor but a crook as well.
48
Isn't this why he got into politics? Payment, perks, favors, more casinos. And let's not forget his ego.
27
@Elly
Don't forget a mess of important business contacts he can groom with the power of the presidency!
5
And Trump is the one who claimed (with little to no factual basis) that former officials were ‘monetizing’ their security clearance. Was his real concern that he saw them as competition?
25
I hope when this case actually goes to trial, the plaintiffs, the District of Columbia and the State of Maryland, subpoena the tax records of one Donald John Trump as relevant evidence of how much money he made operating the hotel in the Old Post Office Building that he leased from the US Government.
Section 37.19 of the Old Post Office Lease states:
“No . . . elected official of the Government of the United States . . shall be admitted to any share or part of this Lease, or to any benefit that may arise therefrom.”
This case could get very interesting very fast.
34
LePage is the governor who, despite the people of Maine voting overwhelming for Medicaid, has refused to implement the program. He is currently being sued. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/07/us/maine-medicaid-healthcare.html
Birds of a feather do - indeed - flock together
24
Kudos to this Article III judge. This the very reason our Founding Fathers made them appointed for life--so they would actually use their authority as an efficacious check-and-balance on the executive branch. The larger significance of this, Cohen's nefarious actions, Mueller quietly working away, and Trump's persistent pathological lying is that the writing is on the wall. Trump's free-for-all in the White House may be nearer to the end than many people thought.
16
Thank you, Judge Messitte. Now there is a precedent that is in close accord with decency and ethics and public service and common sense.
"... the framers’ language should be broadly construed as an effort to protect against influence-peddling by state and foreign governments ... The two constitutional clauses at issue restrict a president’s ability to accept financial benefits or 'emoluments' from domestic or foreign governments ... The framers of the clauses made it simple. Ban the offerings altogether ..."
35
About time. This has been apparent since the beginning of the Trump presidency.
31
Al Capone was finally convicted of income tax fraud - so getting Trump out, before he does even more damage to our democracy, for the crime of profiting from his previously failing DC hotel, is just fine. We'll take it.
35
@common sense advocate Allegedly US tax payers also paid a figure of 56,000 (not sure if $'s or £'s) to Trumps golf club in Scotland for him to stay there this summer. This must a 'conflicted interest' misuse of public funds.
22
@Geraldine Mitchell
Not to mention the cost to taxpayers for the Secret Service to rent golf carts at Trump properties. One would think the President would allow his own security detail to use the golf carts for free. But no. Trump’s fans make much of him donating his salary but he’s made $100,000 per year just in taxpayer-funded golf cart rentals alone.
4
@Geraldine Mitchell As I recall, when the Secret Service began protecting the building where Mr. Trump lives here in New York - at taxpayers' expense, as is standard - they used temporary office space in the building... and he charged them rent.
Someone please correct me if I'm wrong about that.
5
In violation of the emoluments clause from day one, we suspected that already.
Combine this Trump court event with Paul Manafort’s trial and Maria Butina hearing. It ends up a perfect storm of Russian conspiracies, Money laundering with Putin’s oligarchs and throw in a sex scandal or 2,3,4,5...
Battin’ a 1000 there President Trump!
25
The Republican president is obviously enriching himself through influence peddling and kleptocracy. Against the spirit of the Constitution and the oath of office of our Republican leaders. He is defrauding the American people and certainly the other hotel owners in Washington. But the courts are rigged, and are getting more rigged every day, and law suits will not bring down the presidency. Instead, we must vote all Republicans out in 2018, because they have betrayed our nation, our democracy, and the American people.
33
Trump Tower in Chicago has many tens of thousands SQFT of vacant prime retail space. It is in a great location and a beautiful building but nobody will touch it with the name Trump on the building. Even if the Trump name only reduces sales by 15%-20% it is still a dealbreaker.
15
@Illinois ModerateThe sad thing is that many American companies have lost billions (or more) in sales to foreigners who don't want to buy America. Make American Great Again? Make America a pariah again.
3
We often hear objections that Mueller is out of bounds, way beyond his original scope. Supposed to be about Russian collusion and now it's about obstruction of justice and maybe campaign violations, and maybe even money laundering. But I don't understand. What would you say if his investigation produced compelling evidence that Trump committed crimes, bad ones, maybe corruption, maybe murder. Would you STILL be more outraged by what Mueller did than Trump? I think a lot of people here posting comments would , for some reason I do not understand.
19
@npomea
It is the job of the investigators is to follow where the trail of evidence of wrong doing takes them.
4
"The governor’s spokeswoman has said that Mr. LePage did not choose the Trump hotel in an attempt to please the president."
How financially irresponsible for the Governor to waste taxpayers' money on a 5-star hotel.
47
Other than Ulysses Grant and Harry Truman, both failed businessmen at very small businesses, I cant' think of any president besides Trump who came to the Oval Office from a business background. His critics apparently want him to liquidate the business organization he spent a lifetime creating, realizing, if he is lucky, a dime on the dollar, and throwing thousands of Trump organization employees out of work. To what purpose, exactly?
4
@Paul McBride Warren Harding?
He cannot be apart of these businesses while he runs the country.
10
@Paul McBride nobody has suggested any such thing. The law is clear in that he cannot profit from his presidency; arguing that 'well, he owns it, that shouldn't be a problem' is nonsense. He certainly doesn't need to 'throw thousands of Trump organisation employees out of work', for heaven's sake, he just needs to hand over the business, to someone else, and stop earning anything from it. Full stop. It's not rocket science.
16
I really don't see how the Justice Department will not be refused the right to represent in the case.
According to the complaint, the President has profited because those in Washington for his support stay at his hotel, to bribe the President through a Trump Corporation, earning a profit for the patriarch of a family firm.
Donald Trump is accused of violating the Emoluments Clauses, NOT the government, in either allowing/charging those come to lobby the President (and I believe charged with possibly directing his visitors 'to my place next door' - I have not read the original complaint) knowing he would make money, and that they stay there because he both hotelier and President, depriving other businesses, Maryland's nearby hoteliers a fair shot at business, and that state of tax revenue. I would have claimed Trump built the hotel so, if he won, he could encourage people to stay there believing their business an advantage negotiating with the President.
The Justice Department is charged with enforcing the law, including the nation's most basic standard of decency - that the President not profit from his business affairs as President. He could have treated guests as he treats Atlantic City high-rollers, comping their rooms, placed state reps in the Vice Presidential residence, asked foreign leaders stay at their embassies.
Have you no sense of decency Mr. President? The hotel's existence answers that question quite well.
17
The man is a fraud and conman from Day One. Amazing gall to pretend he is otherwise. Only in America can this be perpetrated.
18
Is it DOJ’s job to defend the president? I’m not a lawyer, but that seems to be what they’re doing. How is that not a conflict?
38
I've been a monthly supporter of CREW since their launch. They're a smart and hard-working team with great leadership.
Their case against this administration is just so obvious. It's right there in the Constitution: Article 1, Section 9, Clause 8. The Emolument Clause is one of the red lines not to be crossed in our nation's operating contract; it expressly requires no self-dealing and calls to secure our government from corrupting foreign influences.
It's right there, always has been, and everybody else has always understood it. It is one of the pillars of our remarkable democratic republic!
And 2 + 2 = 4, but I guess they'd say ... Who knows these days!
Republicans, stop your madness.
34
Hopefully justice will prevail in this case. It’s grotesque to see the President and his family using their positions for financial gain. This hotel is just one drop in the bucket of our President’s totally ignoring the law for his financial gain.
26
As a former fed employee, I was not allowed to keep any gift or accept anything from any interest foreign or domestic that exceeded $25. To do so could result in reprimand or even termination. Even the appearance of a conflict of interest was grounds for reprimand. Trump is the chief executive of the federal government. Why should he be allowed to flagrantly defy government protocols? What kind of example does he establish for the military officers, civil and foreign service employees he oversees?
60
I am so glad that CREW pursued this case. Trump's blatant corruption flies in the face of all previous American presidents' respect for our Constitution. This illegitimate president needs to be held accountable for all of his despicable actions.
25
"The Justice Department is expected to forestall that by seeking an emergency stay and appealing the ruling." Why is the Justice Department serving as Mr. Trump's personal lawyer - with the taxpayers footing the bill - in a case to determine whether he is violating the Constitution? If anything, shouldn't that agency be defending the Constitution?
45
Consider this scenario: an aspiring customer service representative applies for a federal government job. He/she is then subjected to a rigorous credit check as a condition of being hired. Submission of past tax returns may be required. Once hired, the employee may then be terminated for such grievous offenses as incurring debt or making an error on his/her personal tax return.
Odd, isn't it, that the President of the United States can just say he doesn't want to show anyone his financial records and yet remains employed?
28
The most interesting issue is "Why is the Department of Justice defending Trump in these cases?" When Paula Jones sued Bill Clinton for sexual harassment, he got private counsel even though his lawyers attempted to assert a presidential partial immunity. Were Trump being prosecuted for campaign financing violations, he would like every other politician hire his own lawyers. Here, he is being sued for his private conduct for profiting from foreign governmental use of his hotel, not his official conduct. So why is the DOJ representing him. People are asking. Just saying.
48
The only person who would not have a conflict of interest would be a pauper with no property. Using the argument of the Judge, owning Apple stock and then buying iphones for staff would be construed a conflict of interest. The Supreme court will throw this out in no time. The federal Judge is trying to legislate from the bench with no reference to the constitution.
1
@Ben That analogy just doesn't fly. Trump made $40 million from his hotel since taking office -- exactly how many iPhones would one have to buy to see a capital gains of $40 million in their personal Apple stocks?! And your analogy doesn't address the 'influence aspect' -- those who stay at Trump's DC hotel with the purpose of swaying the president or receiving favors, which is what the 'Anticorruption Clause' is for.
11
@Ben My understanding is that elected officials are to put their holdings into a blind trust to avoid blatant conflicts of interest.
12
You are correct about owning Apple stock and buying iPhones for the stuff - that would be a conflict of interests. That is why high government officials usually put their investments in blind trusts with so that they would not know which stocks or or other securities they currently own.
20
“The decision is extremely important, said Norman L. Eisen, who is the chairman of the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington and acts as co-counsel for the plaintiffs. “It represents a major leap forward in being able to understand how Trump is profiting off the presidency.”
I try to donate to CREW as much as I can. Please do so if you're able. We have to hold this president and his corrupt administration accountable.
24
Even if the Plaintiffs prevail, what is the remedy?
6
no longer owning that hotel
12
@Oliver HullShut down all his businesses and just be president. He's 71 anyways. Why does he need to do two jobs... one for making tons of money and the other for his ego?
2
Thanks for the plaintiffs and the Judge for addressing this problem of defining and hopefully defeating this most egregious case of corruption in American history.
16
This president and his administration keep pushing the specious idea that the president is above the law; why, he could even pardon himself. Every day, I feel a bit more like Gregor Samsa. An excellent 52-page opinion!
My tax dollars going to a Justice Department defense of the indefensible? Not so excellent.
33
The Trump Justice Department is trying to stop corruption lawsuits against our corrupt president. What a surprise.
23
If 18 US Code 208 somehow doesn't apply to the President, it still applies to Jr. and Ivanka. So does 5 US Code 3110.
20
Here's what will happen: the Justice Department will appeal this case to the Supreme Court. The conservative Justices (including the newly appointed Judge Kavanaugh) will find that the emoluments clause is indeed narrow, and thus only applies to things like bribes by foreign powers. And so President Trump can continue to foster indirect "pay-for-play" in his business dealings, something for which he so pointedly criticized Hillary Clinton.
It's amazing how the originalists on the Court so often seem to rule in favor of corporate interests, especially considering corporations didn't really exist at the time the Constitution was written.
98
@jrinsc
Corporations did exist, though in what form I cannot say: Adam Smith referenced them in "Wealth of Nations", published in 1776. Perhaps another bit of the founder's wisdom, that they gave them no heed and no rights in the Constitution?
5
@jrinscTheir corruption will eventually be their undoing. The pendulum will swing.
3
Wasn't this the General Service Administration (GSA) building that had a stipulation that it NOT be leased by any employees of the federal government?
The lease was signed when Trump was not a government employee.
There is nothing in the lease about cancelling it if the lessee becomes a government employee.
10
@True Observer Two different issues-one is the lease of the building, the other, emoluments.
6
True Observer,
That argument does not hold.
The purpose of the law is to prevent a government official from having control over the building, regardless of when the lease was signed.
So, yes, the only proper and legal course would be to cancel the lease.
10
Hey Federalist Society members, do you actually give a damn about the Constitution? If you do, you should be pleased by this decision handed down by Judge Messitte. Or are all of you Federalist Society people just spending your days closely monitoring the health of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, knowing full well that the emoluments clause-violating Donald Trump has given you free rein over judicial appointments in exchange for your turning a blind eye to his Mobutu-like corruption and kleptocratic behavior?
148
@AR. The Federalist Society is too busy salivating at the thought of forcing a poor mother to give birth to a terminally ill baby she can’t afford so they can deny it Medicaid, and stick some struggling rural hospital with the bills. To what end?
6
Wasn't this the General Service Administration (GSA) building that had a stipulation that it NOT be leased by any employees of the federal government? The one that GSA legal staff decided Trump keeping it did not violate that clause. I'd like to see an investigation into how that was handled.
84
@Steve
Yes--it's that building.
"No federal judge before has ever interpreted what those bans mean for the president."
That's because we've never before had a president as crooked as Con Man Don.
398
"Judicial activism" is a simply a pejorative meaning the speaker doesn't like a judicial ruling. Same as "states' rights issue" is for a federal action.
Wasn't at least one case previously dismissed claiming the plaintiff wasn't injured and had no grounds to sue? Does this decision remove that obstacle? (I'm neither a lawyer nor a scholar of the law.)
11
@John
Yes and yes. One case was dismissed because the plaintiffs didn't have standing and the plaintiffs in this case do have standing, so the suit can move forward — unless the Justice Department manages to get the Corporate (corrupt?) Supreme Court to reverse the ruling.
49
I hope there's an attorneys fees clause in the constitution. One that requires the president to reimburse the government for the costs of its attorneys fees and expenses in the event the president is judged not to have upheld the constitution to the best of his/her ability by flouting the constitution for personal gain. This is only fair, since the government is required to defend the president. If there isn't such a clause, then Trump may be making history by single handedly creating the basis for the 28th Amendment.
125
In NJ the taxpayers had to pick up the tab when Christie defend himself against the Bridgegate charges.
I'd love it if we could sue Christie to get our money back!
10
@ClydeS
Unfortunately, there is no such clause in the Constitution.
The Founding Fathers would be rolling in their graves if they heard about this ignoramus.
10
First, thank you District of Columbia and Maryland for prosecuting this case. And special thanks to CREW for your effort in this monumental case.
This case is exactly why we must fight, with every tool we have, the steamroller appointment of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, where this case is headed.
Right now, as it sits, with a 4-4 Supreme Court, the matter will rest with the last federal appeal court to hear the case. If that court renders a decision in favor of Trump, all bets are off with regard to any constraint on Trump and the presidency. America and the rule of law will lose.
If the federal appeals court renders a decision against Trump, then the Justice Dept will appeal the case to the Supreme Court. If Kavanaugh is appointed, the Supreme Court (which will then be more like a Kangaroo Court) will likely re-interrupt the Constitution in a manner that reflects the corrupt intentions and motives of the majority's sponsors - Trump and the Republicans.
The People must stop the Kavanaugh appointment.
354
Kangaroo Court of the US
KCOTUS - love it
1
"...the Justice Department is widely expected to seek an emergency stay and appeal to a higher court." And yet another reason Kavanaugh must not be confirmed while the illegitimate president is under multiple investigations. Kavanaugh essentially believes the president is above the law and tRump is counting on his opinion as a SCOTUS member for his get-out-of-jail-free card.
While I'm slightly buoyed to see this critical case move forward, I'm livid that my tax dollars are funding the defendant!
303
I like the decision and the sound reasoning used. But does it take 52 pages to explain why this would be inappropriate for a president to continue doing business as usual? Wouldn't common sense tell you that?
77
@vpb521 - Yes, as in Democratic House Judiciary member Barbara Jordan's response to I think it was Jim Grover, R-NY 2nd, who complained that the proposed impeachnment charges against Nixon "lacked specificity".
Jordan, left reclining by the ALS/similar disease disease that would lead to her death, looked at her opponent a flicker of a glance, it seemed, through thick-set black-framed glasses, and maybe it was just me, but as if he were a bowl of rather suspect picnic potato salad, and began reading the charges, after each one, reading a long list, each sentance beginning "Spe-Cif-iC-cally, that on (time date place) the President (whatevered) by ...
and Spe-Cif-iC-cally, that on (a different time date place) the President (whatevered) by ..."
(my memory may be tainted at having been a 16-year-old McGovern for President campaign volunteer) but, in an unusual situation allowing a suit to go forward against a sitting President, accusing him of abuse of power and conflicts of financial interest, a judge who does not wish to be shot straight down had better well be specific in reasoning.
This could be a case that makes good law.
18
It would have been nice if the article specified what actual Constitutional clauses were violated!
2
U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 9:"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."
Presumably, one way out would be for someone to introduce a bill into congress permitting Trump to profit from his hotel no matter who is doing the paying. Mr. Nunes and Mr. McConnell might get together to work on this.
10
@Counter Measures - Second 'graph of the decision:
"Plaintiffs have alleged that the violations consist of the President’s actual or potential
receipt, directly or indirectly, of payments by foreign, the federal, and state governments (or any of their instrumentalities) [Opening line: ...Foreign and Domestic Emoluments Clauses of the U.S.Constitution...]
They seek declaratory relief establishing their rights vis-à-vis the President’s actions as well as injunctive relief prohibiting him from further violating the Clauses."
Simply put, the President can't accept or make money from, those there to plead their cases before him in his role as President.
8
@Counter Measures, google it. Article I Section 9 last paragraph and Article II, next to last paragraph.
2
Someone offered a piece of wisdom once.
In Britain (it was said) a scandal STARTS out with money It ENDS with sex.
In the USA, the pattern is reversed. SEX--with all the lubricious details--goes careening into MONEY. With, I presume, more titillating details.
Well--maybe. Sounds kind of pat.
Our President (it seems) is an equal-opportunity employer. There are SEXUAL scandals swirling around that scowling face. Lots of 'em. You know what I mean.
There are POLITICAL scandals. Do the Russians have anything on him? Was the election FIXED? Why this baffling reluctance to do or say ANYTHING AT ALL to counter all-but-proven charges of Russian interference in the 2016 election?
And now (in a small way)--FINANCIAL scandals.
Well--not really. Not yet. Nothing proven. I was recently chidden for using the word, malfeasance. Malfeasance really does mean--you were convicted or SHOULD be convicted in a court of law.
But impropriety. Maybe even gross impropriety. Apparent conflict of interest.
One of the above, maybe. Maybe ALL of the above.
But it goes a little deeper, I think.
There are people who are TONE DEAF. They really and truly cannot distinguish one musical tone from another. Music for them is "an arbitrary succession of irritating sounds." (Nabokov)
Mr. Trump--morally speaking--is TONE DEAF.
He is not about right or wrong.
He is about winning or losing.
AND--winners and losers.
God grant he LOSE this case.
Soon.
74
@Susan Fitzwater, hope your prayers are answered soon, very soon.
6
In President Trump's mind the Justice Department is his personal law firm and he appointed Sessions to make sure he would be defended right from the top. When Sessions recused himself Trump was furious. Trump is the most corrupt President we've ever had and his appointees are corporatist looters appointed to lead the agencies that regulate the financial sector, the environment and you name it. Trump will be the most expensive President in history because of the cost of defending him, the cost of his stays at his private for profit clubs and resorts, the cost of the economic damage due to his playing International Chicken (billions in handouts for the farmers Trump screwed are a drop in the bucket). Then there's his treachery. MAGA HA! HA! Russia, saved his butt financially and meddled in the US Election and will continue to do that because Trump is a more effective weapon against America and the EU than nukes.
86
I recently heard a story from someone I would consider a knowledgeable source that some folks who work as consultants to at least one federal agency no longer stay in the hotels they used to when in D.C. for their work. These consultants have been redirected by their agency to new hotels under this administration. Though these new hotels do not bear the Trump name, according to this person, the Trump organization has a significant investment in the properties. The rates for the new rooms are also more expensive than the old hotels. I have no direct knowledge of any of this, but I also have no reason to believe it's not true.
94
Wait for it- this will go to the Supreme Court, which will rule 5-4 in favor of the conman, and the further debasement and degradation of our American democracy will be assured.
34
Speaking as a tax payer, why am I kicking in for Trump's legal fees in support of an argument that, to paraphrase Judge Messitte, goes against the common-sense wisdom of the founding fathers?
236
Great! Now can we please get one going over Trump making all of us pay his legal fees? The DOJ is not his own private law firm. Someone needs to tell it that.
52
This entire fraud by the Trump organization including getting the US citizens to pay for the legal defense and the advertising of this and all Trump projects is outrageous. Add in the fact that US citizens actually own the building and the fact that the President is correct when he said he could run the government and the Trump business at the same time is actually what is taking place.
25
Justice Department defending trump? That should be Giuliani, trumps - maybe - private attorney. That would, as always with those two, be good for a laugh.
50
It’s a step in the right direction, but the big bucks Trump is putting in his back pocket comes from Saudi Arabia and of course, RUSSIA. Billions, I suspect.
47
I'm betting that Trump has control of who gets to stay in the Presidential Suite.
10
A great decision. However, even if it goes all the way, Trump's puppet Supreme Court will say it's OK.
11
Trump is all about money when USA needs a potus that is all about Americans, all Americans, not just white ones.
The fact that trump violated the constitution’s emoluments clause may be small potatoes compared to his other egregious acts that are hurting USA, but it’s a very big thing to Americans who believe in the constitution and expect an honest leader in the White House.
The big question is this: Will Congress accept trump’s constitutional violation as grounds for impeachment by drafting the impeachment articles?
58
Finally, someone with institutional authority is showing some spine in addressing these very cavalier Republican Presidential actions. Of course, the Republican President's defense is being funded by taxpayers, not unlike his trips to his personal golf resorts. It's ironic, the Republicans like to refer to themselves as fiscal and moral conservatives, and yet they're lead by an immoral big spender.
52
Al Capone was felled by tax charges, not murder (et-al). Maybe this emolument business will fell tRump.
51
And the government thinks that my acceptance of a pen with a drug name on it is enough to corrupt me.
58
@C.A.
We are not talking about random internet pundit, we are talking about the president of the United States!
He is subjected to the requirements of the emoluments clause - you are not.
1
Trump is the single most self serving corrupt President in our nations history
72
Donnie the con is unbelievable.
Lock him up
Lock him up
Lock him up now.
43
This should be a slam dunk now. However I am happy this is unravelling slowly. Be very careful. Get everything in order. Slowly turn up heat causing more political difficulties. We dont need to have the Pence right now who, however unelectable on his own terms, would be less incompetent and so get more disgraceful GOP policies through. Slow stew Trump.
42
Just like Al Capone; taxes will take Trump down. Ray Sipe
81
Actually, I believe that trump's financial records SHOULD and MUST be open to public scrutiny.
More? I absolutely believe that no person should ever again be sworn in as the President without putting all records out into the public. You hear me, Pence? Paul Ryan (who wants to be VP)?
Now we know the price that must be paid when there is a crooked candidate and a too-polite journalist profession.
Now we understand just how costly that bill is on trotting his family, friends and security detail back and forth to his Florida hotel, and then back up to his other hotel in DC.
trump has made much over forcing the poor to pay for any food, medical or housing assistance they receive, and yet he has racked up hundreds of millions trotting his folk around or putting them on the tab like Pruitt.
But has he demanded a pay-back from all the millions that Pruitt siphoned out of the 'budget'?
Yes. I want to know down to the smallest fraction of a cent just how much this bunch has cost us so far.
And then I want every cent paid back - or trump can just get that orange suit on, you know, the one that comes with heavy gloves and that pokey-stick for picking up used diapers!
Never again is any president to take office until they have shown their tax returns on every cent ever earned!
There outta be a law -!!!
192
@rosa
Would require a constitutional amendment to impose additional conditions to become president. Good luck with that.
2
@rosa I would like the parties to commit to not putting forward as a candidate anyone who is shown to be unqualified for the appropriate level security clearance. With his financial ties to Russia (confirmed by his son Eric's statement on that point several years ago), I would be surprised if our current President would get a top level clearance if he were applying for a regular Federal job, yet he has access to all our most sensitive secrets. The parties are private entities and can choose who they will sponsor and support. If someone qualifies as a candidate under the Constitution but can't qualify for the clearance, they can use their own money to run, but at least we'll know there's something to be concerned about.
3
He will never pay for anything with his own money. He always uses someone's "gifts". Even his charitable gifts are grifted from other charities. The scope of cheapness and pettiness is rank..gross and probably illegal. All the money he supposedly gave the Veterans of Foreign Wars was either never given or scammed from other charities. Wake up! He is a criminal hiding in our White House using our government to try and scam our country. Vote him and his cronies out.
60
@Sam Pringle
No, no, no. Generosity like that of President Trump has rarely existed in the White House.
His golf courses all provide free parking to clergy between midnight and sunrise.
When he was running his casinos, all of them generously cashed the SSI checks of mentally disabled adults so they could gamble.
Even now, his properties allow "working girls" on the premises as long as they kick back a little something for Mr. Trump.
1
The Bayrock outfit is a good place to start. Donald Trump is still selling apartments to Russian crooks.
29
Just yesterday, Sessions and Rand Paul addressed students at the "Trump Hotel"......talk about sickening! (And I am not talking about what they said).
This is emoluments on steroids.
184
Wait for tonight's Tweetstorm:
ANOTHER WITCH HUNT! VERY UNFAIR!
It's MY Constitution, and MY justice department wants one of MY judges to take over and dismiss!
46
For a start, no more weekly jaunts to Trump hotels and clubs - all at the expense of those of us who do pay taxes.
Let him go to Canp David.
146
@Bigsister Is there a golf course at Camp David? I don't think so. How is our president supposed to remain in top shape if he can't indulge in his favorite exercise? And, if he can't charge the agents who have to protect him room and board, how is he supposed to earn a living? Mr. T. has some hefty legal issues coming up, how do you suppose he'll pay for all the attorneys he'll be needing? Actually, never mind, he'll probably find a way for us to have to foot that bill too.
1
The pendency of this important case is yet another reason why Kavanaugh cannot be confirmed, to run legal interference for this corrupt Fake President.
49
Smart Judge, stupid president.
65
It's about time....
13
Why is the Justice Department, at taxpayers' expense, arguing on behalf of the President? If Mr. Trump wants to assert that he should be able to maintain financial interests in these business ventures while serving as President, shouldn't he be the one to foot those legal bills?
841
@Concerned Citizen: Trump runs the administration the same way that he ran his phony business on TV. Meet his criteria or you are fired. As for the federal judiciary, if a case moves to the Supreme Court and becomes a partisan issue -- GOPS vs. DEM -- the GOPS win. Welcome to Washington in 2018!
This lawsuit is funded by CREW which is a nonprofit and not part of the govt, it fundraises. I would know as I donate to them monthly!
Why is the justice department - funded with taxpayer money - defending this? Makes this twice as bad. Trump wants to cash in on the presidency and have taxpayers pay for the defense when someone calls him on it.
570
@Rick Ficcorelli. Because Putin just won’t spring for this additional expense.
1
"Laugh a while you can a monkey boy" Dr Emil Lizardo
"Lock him Up! Lock Him Up! Lock him Up!
Rinse and repeat as necessary.
(But be sure to rinse well)
27
The Department of Justice is not President Trump's personal law firm.
If the President violates the constitution, he needs to foot the legal bill.
813
Hopefully those suing will ask for "the Donald" to repay the government for all expenses run up by the Justice Department in this suites well as their own expenses. But I won’t be holding my breath while I wait.
@Steven of the Rockies: And who is going to call him to task -- the GOP Congress, the GOP Supreme Court or the GOP Administration? He walked over their heads to take their nomination and they lick his boots.
2
If there was ever a reason for Trump's tax returns to be subpoenaed, this is it.
655
Yes! Yes! Yes!
14
@Mary AnnThe question in my mind is, should the subpoena be issued, would Trump comply? We have the model of Nixon to suggest he should, but I can easily see him refusing. Yes, the contest would once again make its way to the Supreme Court but suppose they decide differently than the earlier court did. Or suppose they assert stare decisis and he still says no. Then what? I'm reminded of the story (probably apocryphal) of Andrew Jackson saying of Chief Justice John Marshall, "He has made his decision, now let him enforce it."
6
Thank you Judge Messitte, “The framers of the clauses made it simple. Ban the offerings altogether.” This trampling of the Constitution cannot remain unfettered.
419
I am waiting for the day that this nightmare administration is out of business. Mueller, Stormy or this case...I don't care how.
270
I’m doing my happy dance.
86
I like the sound of the word emoluments.
It would be sweet justice if Trump could be brought down by lobbyists and foreign governments staging conventions or renting
rooms in his hotels or buying memberships in his golf clubs.
One cheap crook brought down by a lot of other cheap crooks.
There's a touch of poetic justice there.
298
Ivanka liquidates. This is the shell game they play. Trey Gowdy wonders why the investigations take so long.
Duh.
It is the way the Trump family and their Russian counterparts shovel money in and out of shells. They've got a labyrinth of 3 dimensional hiding holes. A maze of collusion and corruption.
The IRS has seen all the Trump paperwork, filings and the Trump's friends laundering.
Russia, if you are listening, Trey Gowdy is not looking.
151
This may be a formally valid case, but money-wise it's just peanuts. With all the corruption happening in full daylight every day, where are all the other suits that really matter?
40
@Andre
Let's hope it's only the first crack in the dam.
Apres trump hotels, le deluge!!!
27
@Andre I agree that money-wise the case is just peanuts, but remember Al Capone wasn't brought down as a result of a conviction for any of his many criminal enterprises or acts, but because of tax evasion. It certainly wasn't sexy, but it was enough.
Think about it, if Maryland and D.C. are successful on the emoluments claim it could be enough for Trump to resign, versus having to separate himself from or liquidate his many business interests.
20
@Andre
It’s important for all patriots to do their part, however small, at bringing down this corrupt, dishonest, incompetent disgrace of a president. Until critical mass is reached. Chip away at him.
2
Oh, no. This is so unfair! Hillary was so much worse. I am not a crook. I pay my taxes. I am a very stable genius. That judge must be an Hispanic with a strange surname. I would...I mean I wouldn't. There was no collusion (not me anyway, maybe some of my people). It's a disgrace. We'll see what happens. Make America Great Again. I am more sinned against than sinning (no, that was Shakespeare). Ad infinitum.
263
Doesn't one have to wonder - WHEN if Pumpkin Pie Face Trump going to STOP with his 'run against' Hillary for President. It just NEVER ends!!
21
@C.L.S.This is FAKE NEWS. Sad.
3
And ad nauseam.
This should be interesting. Trump's approach to the presidency, his violating every norm of how to handle the office and how to avoid the appearance of financial improprieties has been to claim they simply do not apply to him; and that he is above the law.
Let us see if that is indeed the case. Hopefully Kavanaugh will not be confirmed since Kavanaugh believes Trump is above the law, or rather than any GOP president is above the law; Democratic ones like Bill Clinton are not.
113
And now, our Justice Department provides free legal services and support for possible violations of the Constitution for the brightest, the wealthiest, the most honest and most popular President in America History!
Hip Hip Hooray for citizens of the United States.
197
I hope this case goes forward and discovery commences, showing what a den of thieves the Trump clan is. Anything that gives us transparency into their finances is good for America.
At the end of the day, though, the real story on emoluments won't come through hotels limping along under the burden of the Trump brand, or in failing clothing lines run by the feckless offspring of Donald Trump. That piece of the empire has not benefited from the reign of Trump.
The real emoluments will be the funding, money laundering, and other "investments" various Russians and their proxies make in the real estate and licensing side of the Trump/Kushner empire. The money made and influence purchased there is substantial.
499
The money trail is what Robert Mueller is tracking. That is what scares King Donald the most. Preet Bharara was fired because he was getting too close. The Manaford trail is just the start. John Grisham would love this plot.
36
The funny thing is that the Trump brand has lost considerable luster since he became POTUS. The DC hotel may be doing well, but elsewhere, times are tough. Ivanka's line of products isn't being shutdown because she's busy doing important work in Washington. She does nothing in Washington. Her products are not selling well because her Daddy is tarnishing the family name. Last fall, the SoHo NYC hotel that Trump trumpeted from the mountain tops when it opened, was forced to buyout the Trump management contract because nobody would stay there with the Trump name on the building. Guess what, Trump supporters aren't the target market of Trump enterprises. Ooops.
415
@Aurora This was bound to happen and I for one am thrilled. I hope their whole 'brand' goes under. Money is the only thing they care about
2
@Aurora The Trump Hotel in Las Vegas is not doing that great. It is a favorite place for many of the working girls in town.
3
@Aurora
I contend that the brand never had any luster. It has always been tacky, over-the-top and excessively tasteless.
Why is the Justice Department using our tax money to defend the President's theoretical right to profit from his private businesses during his tenure as president?
541
@Kristin Ames Because he is being sued in his capacity as President-not as an individual. It also reprints a serious federal question as to the interpretation of the Constitution.
3
My thought exactly. Trump should foot the bill for the lawsuits.
I'd like to know too?
Judge Messitte was nominated by President Clinton, which probably means he's a liberal or a moderate. This decision could be overturned by a higher court if the judges were nominated by a Republican. This is a perfect example of why judges are so important. If this case goes forward, it could open up a pandora's box of Trump financial information. Let's hope it goes forward.
310
@JTBence And this is a prime example of how far our trust in our institutions has fallen. Judges are supposed to apply the law irrespective of the party affiliation of the person who appointed them (and often do, as when Ruth Bader Ginsburg joined the rest of the SCOTUS in its unanimous ruling that Paula Jones's suit against Bill Clinton could proceed while he was in office, or the many times David Souter ruled in ways Republicans didn't like despite being appointed by one). The politicization of the court system, top to bottom, is deeply corrosive to its effectiveness as an institution that supports our democratic system.
1
@JTBence That is precisely the endgame. If it doesn't go through the cloud of suspicion will get even bigger.
It's about time! Trump, his family, and his cabinet have milked their positions of power for financial gain in a way never seen in our history (not even in the administration of Warren Harding). Trump's dealings have undermined all of our foreign and domestic policy: any "deal" he reaches will fall under the suspicion that he hopes to profit personally.
269
A rare bit of good news from the courts! Thanks to Judge Messitte. Trump is profiting mightily from the presidency. It is illegal according to the Constitution. Like other presidents he needed to place his assets in a blind trust for the duration of his term in office.
But foreign powers are clearly using Trump's properties as a way to curry influence with the administration. It is corruption pure and simple. I hope this will move forward to conviction.
381
@William O. Beeman C'mon Bill you know the man is worth some 10 Billion and Forbes says he went from the 10th richest to the 250th since taking this crazy job. What's really corrupt is how Hillary financed the DNC thereby rigging the nomination to her (like Liz Warren said) - that doesn't bother you?.
@William O. Beeman Don't celebrate yet. The justice system is slower than molasses. By the time this case is appealed, and re-appealed, etc we'll all be dead of old age.
2
...and it is hard to believe that when he's out of office, that current and future properties won't benefit. Failing Scottish Golf Resort, Bedminster, and Mar a Lago all get lots of free publicity at taxpayer expense. Just the doubling of memberships is evidence of profiting from the presidency.
Never before in the history of the United States has such a definition been necessary. For the past 242 years, NO president has abused the privilege to serve like Donald Trump. In and of itself, this underscores the gravity of the situation at hand, but it gets even worse when Trump and his lawyers claim that he can pardon himself placing Trump beyond the reach of the courts. The obvious solution is impeachment but our derelict congress has also abrogated their responsibility and loyalty to the nation.
We are in a dark place in history. Salvation is in the hands of Mueller and/or an upcoming election but that election may be Gerrymandered beyond all recognition. If the election is rigged and fails to correct the morally bankrupt congress, civil disobedience will surely follow and in our moment of internal strife, our adversaries are sure to pounce.
My duty and yours is to make sure anyone eligible to vote in Nov, does so. Our numbers must overcome the combined forces of pure evil, domestic and foreign, that seek to end this democracy.
340
Of course I will vote. But my pitchfork is sharpened just in case.
6
@Henry J. We’ll apparently need a turnout of over 60% of eligible voters to overcome gerrymandering and voter suppression laws.
4
Being a federal civil servant (although many clients can take that meaning too literally), we swear our oath to the Constitution. We are supposed to be inoculated from politics so to raise the level of professionalism and expertise, and insure a continuity of these as well through different administrations. The executive branch leadership is supposed to tap into that.
So why would the Justice Department be acting as the president's personal lawyers? Sadly for the same reason a judge's political affiliation matters. Where once the Founders (and later the Progressives) once sought expertise based on shared principles and norms, there seems to be no branch of the federal government immune to politics and installing hacks and political patrons. This is winning at any cost. But the price paid is the erosion of shared beliefs and values that wall off the worst of human behavior. We don't seem any longer to rise to the level of standards and norms, but sink to abuse these to gain advantages. We appoint or elect hacks, ideologues and donors to subvert every standard the Founders hoped would prevent the erosion of checks and balances and so democracy. While humans appointed serve at the president's pleasure, the system of government does not. That is what the president swore to serve instead. It is high time he learned that lesson.
209
Ridiculous ruling on a ridiculous law suit based on a ridiculous premise.
If this interpretation of the emolument clause were to be upheld, few could qualify for public service other than career civil servants with no investments. The Constitution does NOT limit this to the President.
In the last administration, no one complained that multi-millionaire Commerce Secretary Penny Pritzger was abusing her office to benefit her family's Hyatt Hotels.
Clearly another silly attack aimed at "getting Trump."
As a DC resident, I can assure you that AG Karl Racine has far better things to do than this. I will NOT be voting for his reelection in November. Waste of oxygen.
6
@Parkbench - Dozens of other Presidents have managed it just fine.
4
@Parkbench Trump is a proven liar; Money; Power and hate are his golden gods. Bringing his crimes to light is every citizens duty
3
My spouse and I both worked in public office. There was absolutely no difficulty in preventing our financial interests from getting confused with our professional obligations. As an official policy, we were banned from accepting any gift or benefit with a cash value over $25 dollars. That would include profits generated from patronage to outside business interests. You were not allowed to solicit any type of revenue or service where you stand to benefit personally.
Sometimes this made diplomatic relations awkward. You don't want to refuse a gift from a foreign ambassador. Our solution was to conduct monthly raffles with any item or service an employee couldn't accept personally. As a result, there was no possibility for influence peddling as no employee stood to gain directly.
The judge's ruling is correct. Trump would be terminated from my public office without the need for a court proceeding. There's really no excuse.
9
The problem is clearly the immoral, unethical and deeply troubling behavior of Donald Trump.
Trump never, NEVER, asks himself the question "Is this the right thing to do?" He's not capable of discerning between right and wrong. He's incapable of understanding why he must ask himself whether or not his actions and behaviors will bear scrutiny. In other words he's immune, impervious and imperialistic. His majesty, the king, is above the law. Remember Richard Nixon's infamous interview with David Frost when Nixon asserted, egregiously, that "if the President does it, it is not wrong." Nixon's arrogance cost him the presidency and the nation years of regret.
Donald Trump is not king. He may believe he is but America is still a democracy. The ruling against Trump clearly defines anticorruption. Trump has been stripped naked before the public. He is amoral, without a conscience, has no empathy for others (immigrant children separated from parents) and he also believes that no one should ever challenge him without fearing reprisal.
Donald Trump resists American constitutional law every day. He cultivates his own interest above all others.
Trump should not profit from his office. He should not be contemplating relations with foreign nations based upon the occupancy of his hotels or his ability to acquire large loans. He should not be able to make his children or his businesses gain profit or receive any benefits from his office. Even the shadow of benefit is too much.
110
"He should not be contemplating relations with foreign nations based upon the occupancy of his hotels or his ability to acquire large loans."
Whether or not he is so contemplate may be hard to prove; but what is not difficult to prove is that, human nature being what is usually is, people wanting to influence Trump will naturally think of using his properties as a way at least of demonstrating their desire to work with him. Now, IF he hadn't proved himself t be a devotee of intimidation and/or flattery and/or both, they would not be so tempted. So, O Faustian Trump, Sir, were you so smart as you once thought you were when you refused to do what all other modern presidents have done to eliminate the possibility of such whispers.
2
@Jay
Too much tizzy for a nothing issue. This is just 9th Circuit redux. Will end up in the same place, with the same result.
1
@Alice's Restaurant - it is not just the 9th Circuit Court redux...It is universal recognition of Trump's unabashed, unashamed, unrepentant, and ill conceived immoral and unethical behavior.
Trump is a child caught with his hands in the cookie jar...except this cookie jar is a multi-billion dollar business with tentacles like an octopus.
1
In the decision, U.S. Judge Peter J. Messitte says, " President Trump’s appeal to historical practice does not aid his argument. As noted previously, he has provided no evidence—none—that any trading partners of the early Presidents actually were either foreign or domestic governments."
And Trump has many foreign visitors to his businesses to curry favor with him. There are comments from the judge that Trump may have had business from some U.S. State Governments like one identified as Maine GOP Governor Paul LePage.
Now, Trump's Lawyers are scrambling to place an emergency order so no discovery can take place. It would put a hot and bright light into the business dealings of Donald John Trump. What evidence will the plaintiffs find? What documents, minutes, and other material does Trump want to keep out of public view? I wonder if enough to place his Presidency in jeopardy?
It's known that Trump overestimates his wealth in his BRANDING company. Many don't know Trump is brander and doesn't build anything. And some of his dealings have questionable and Jared Kushner's own large loan. The fish rots from the head and it's Trump!
43