Judge: Democrats In Congress Can Sue Trump Over Emoluments

WASHINGTON, DC  - JULY 26: The main entrance drive way for the Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C., July 26, 2018. (Astrid Riecken For The Washington Post)
WASHINGTON, DC - JULY 26: The main entrance drive way for the Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C., July 26, 2018. (Astrid Riecken For The Washington Post via Getty Images)
Start your day with TPM.
Sign up for the Morning Memo newsletter

WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal district judge in Washington has ruled that a group of nearly 200 Democratic senators and representatives have legal standing to sue President Donald Trump to prove he violated the U.S. Constitution’s emoluments provision banning the acceptance of gifts from foreign and domestic interests.

The U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan on Friday found that lawmakers have adequately shown that they’ve suffered harm from the president’s alleged violation of the emoluments clause, which prohibit government officials from accepting benefits from foreign governments unless a majority of both houses of Congress consent.

The ruling was the second time a federal court judge has decided to advance such unprecedented constitutional lawsuits against the president.

Latest News

Notable Replies

  1. Avatar for pshah pshah says:

    The lawsuit is against Trump in terms of his duties and obligations as President but not directly resulting from any such action or obligation. For example, he’s not being sued because he approved a drone attack that went awry. His alleged violation of the Clause is a personal act, not an act committed in terms of his actual duties. So what I’m trying to ask is does he need a personal lawyer or will the Government (DoJ) have to defend him?As it appears the DoJ is defending him, I’m not sure that they should be. Obviously I’m not a lawyer.

  2. Well, of course he’s using DOJ to defend his grifting ass. This, after all, is the President who thinks the AG is supposed to be his very own consigliere.

    Since we’re dealing with his personal acts, my assumption is that it’s not proper or legal for DOJ to defend him against conduct that violates constitutional prohibitions regarding such business. But I don’t think there’s precedent: No one before him has so nakedly sought to profit from the Presidency.

    His Hotel in the Old Federal Post Office Building really pisses me off. He violated the plain language of the federal lease and regularly encourages foreign diplomats to stay there. Mothrfcker.

  3. God, it seems so long ago that the IG report saying he wasn’t in violation came out and my head nearly exploded.

    How have I managed to put my head back together so many times since?

  4. Right. The GOP Congress did shit about it. Mustn’t let the Law and Constitution get in the way of the 1%'s agenda.

  5. If this fucker doesn’t leave the White House broke and in an orange jumpsuit this nation doesn’t deserve to survive until 2021.

Continue the discussion at forums.talkingpointsmemo.com

9 more replies

Participants

Avatar for system1 Avatar for daled Avatar for borisjimbo Avatar for ignoreland Avatar for pshah Avatar for tiowally Avatar for khyber900 Avatar for pauldownard Avatar for redhand Avatar for eisenst Avatar for rascal_crone Avatar for thomaspaine

Continue Discussion
Masthead Masthead
Founder & Editor-in-Chief:
Executive Editor:
Managing Editor:
Associate Editor:
Editor at Large:
General Counsel:
Publisher:
Head of Product:
Director of Technology:
Associate Publisher:
Front End Developer:
Senior Designer: