D.C., Maryland begin seeking Trump financial documents in case related to his D.C. hotel

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,642
50,876
136
Remember all those people that voted for Trump because they wanted to burn it all down? This is what the fire looks like.

I don’t see how the country recovers from it either given the spinelessness shown by Democrats in the face of a national emergency.

We now know the only thing preventing the total corruption of the executive branch is the good will of the president. After Congress failed to act people hoped the courts would step in to enforce the law but they have been corrupted as well. Just look at the census and gerrymandering cases - SCOTUS endorsed the idea of rigging elections so your political opposition can never gain power and the only thing that stopped the census rigging was the Chief Justice saying Trump needed to come up with a more credible lie. (The other 4 conservatives thought transparent lies were just fine) Even given that Trump looks to simply ignore SCOTUS anyway and if he does, who will stop him?

The system of checks and balances is dead.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
The system of checks and balances is supposed to exist independent of the election of any one office.

It's functioning at the speed of the Judiciary. Up next is an en banc appeal & perhaps on to the SCOTUS.
 

Greenman

Lifer
Oct 15, 1999
20,942
5,564
136
The reason the case was weak is that any profits that were made from foreign entities were turned over to the US Treasury, negating any gains that would be considered a cause for action under the emoluments clause. No matter how much Trump is hated, he did not gain, and handled the profits the way he needed to so as to stay out of hot water. Oh well, onto the next thing to nail him on. lol
That underlined part seems like the crux of the situation to me. It may not meet the letter of the law, but it certainly seems to encompass the intent.
 

Bitek

Lifer
Aug 2, 2001
10,676
5,238
136
I don’t see how the country recovers from it either given the spinelessness shown by Democrats in the face of a national emergency.

We now know the only thing preventing the total corruption of the executive branch is the good will of the president. After Congress failed to act people hoped the courts would step in to enforce the law but they have been corrupted as well. Just look at the census and gerrymandering cases - SCOTUS endorsed the idea of rigging elections so your political opposition can never gain power and the only thing that stopped the census rigging was the Chief Justice saying Trump needed to come up with a more credible lie. (The other 4 conservatives thought transparent lies were just fine) Even given that Trump looks to simply ignore SCOTUS anyway and if he does, who will stop him?

The system of checks and balances is dead.

Blue staters/Dems/true patriots to the Constitution should learn to love the 2A, they may be needing it
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
This is a complicated legal issue. First, the hotel, legally called The Old Post Office and Bell Tower, was leased in 2012 by the Trump foundation for 60 yrears as a legal developer. Right before his inauguration, Trump said he would dissolve the foundation, but the NYAG said it cant dissolve until pending litigation has ended. In 2018, the foundation dissolved, with assets split up to "approved charities", per the court. I couldnt find any info on the WADC hotel. But it appears Trump doesnt own it now. It appears there are several emoluments clause lawsuits pending against Trump: CREW v. Trump, District of Columbia and Maryland v. Trump, and Blumenthal et. al. v. Trump.

We'll see where it ends up.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,642
50,876
136
This is a complicated legal issue. First, the hotel, legally called The Old Post Office and Bell Tower, was leased in 2012 by the Trump foundation for 60 yrears as a legal developer. Right before his inauguration, Trump said he would dissolve the foundation, but the NYAG said it cant dissolve until pending litigation has ended. In 2018, the foundation dissolved, with assets split up to "approved charities", per the court. I couldnt find any info on the WADC hotel. But it appears Trump doesnt own it now. It appears there are several emoluments clause lawsuits pending against Trump: CREW v. Trump, District of Columbia and Maryland v. Trump, and Blumenthal et. al. v. Trump.

We'll see where it ends up.

Trump owns 100% of the hotel.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,642
50,876
136
That underlined part seems like the crux of the situation to me. It may not meet the letter of the law, but it certainly seems to encompass the intent.

How do you know that profits from foreign entities have been turned over to the treasury except that the guy who lies about literally everything said so?
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,136
30,086
146
Trying to figure out the reason for this ruling from these judges and best I can tell, it is basically: "Because this law has not yet been challenged, it therefore can't be."

....is that what they are saying?
 

Greenman

Lifer
Oct 15, 1999
20,942
5,564
136
How do you know that profits from foreign entities have been turned over to the treasury except that the guy who lies about literally everything said so?
How do you know they weren't?
I'll wait for the entire story to come out before I start talking about sentencing, and the one thing that's certain is that there is more to the story.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,642
50,876
136
How do you know they weren't?
I'll wait for the entire story to come out before I start talking about sentencing, and the one thing that's certain is that there is more to the story.

There’s no way to know if they were or not because Trump has furiously fought all attempts to make the finances of his business public. Your stance is ‘the guy who lies about literally everything says he turns all the profits over but also says we can’t verify if that’s true or not but that’s good enough for me’. I’m sure you agree that Trump’s word is worth less than dog shit so what he says is meaningless.

If you want the whole story then surely you agree with me that Trump should be compelled to disclose all of his finances, including those from this hotel. Then we will know if he’s telling the truth or not. Is this correct? After all it’s a vital public concern to know if the president is being bribed.
 

Greenman

Lifer
Oct 15, 1999
20,942
5,564
136
There’s no way to know if they were or not because Trump has furiously fought all attempts to make the finances of his business public. Your stance is ‘the guy who lies about literally everything says he turns all the profits over but also says we can’t verify if that’s true or not but that’s good enough for me’. I’m sure you agree that Trump’s word is worth less than dog shit so what he says is meaningless.

If you want the whole story then surely you agree with me that Trump should be compelled to disclose all of his finances, including those from this hotel. Then we will know if he’s telling the truth or not. Is this correct? After all it’s a vital public concern to know if the president is being bribed.
I'd be willing to bet that along with the money turned over to the treasury there is a piece of paper that enumerates where it came from. Start there.
The entire story is based on the assumption of wrong doing, not on any evidence of it, and also on the mistaken belief that Trump is required to prove innocence.
Since he is the president, he should be held to a higher standard of disclosure, and those standards need to be law. With this particular case, the information will end up being reviewed by a judge, and possibly audited. That's when I'll decide if he's guilty or not.
 

SMOGZINN

Lifer
Jun 17, 2005
14,221
4,452
136
How do you know they weren't?
I'll wait for the entire story to come out before I start talking about sentencing, and the one thing that's certain is that there is more to the story.

This was not about sentencing this was about discovery. We are not wanting to find anyone guilty, only investigate if he was. There can be no more story if there can be no investigation.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,642
50,876
136
I'd be willing to bet that along with the money turned over to the treasury there is a piece of paper that enumerates where it came from. Start there.

What would that possibly tell us? If Trump were attempting to conceal bribes he was taking he would just as easily lie on a piece of paper as he would in person.

What you’re suggesting is utterly worthless. The only solution. The ONLY solution is a complete disclosure of all of Trump’s finances.

The entire story is based on the assumption of wrong doing, not on any evidence of it, and also on the mistaken belief that Trump is required to prove innocence.
Since he is the president, he should be held to a higher standard of disclosure, and those standards need to be law. With this particular case, the information will end up being reviewed by a judge, and possibly audited. That's when I'll decide if he's guilty or not.

False. The story is about finding out if Trump has engaged in wrongdoing, something he has fought tooth and nail at every opportunity. Because the case was dismissed discovery is blocked so we will never know if Trump is engaged in wrongdoing or not.

This is why the insanity of conservatives is so destructive to our democracy and why you guys will be so roundly condemned by history. You aren’t defending Trump against evidence of wrongdoing, you’re defending his efforts to prevent anyone from even finding out if he’s doing something wrong.

Today, you and every other conservative need to demand that Trump turn every scrap of financial information about himself over to congress for investigation. Everything. If you don’t, you’re complicit. If Hillary Clinton were president and we’re running a private business next to the White House where foreign countries paid her money directly you would demand nothing less and you know it.

Please for once put your country before your party.
 

SMOGZINN

Lifer
Jun 17, 2005
14,221
4,452
136
I'd be willing to bet that along with the money turned over to the treasury there is a piece of paper that enumerates where it came from.

That is the thing, there is not. That is why the lawsuit.

The entire story is based on the assumption of wrong doing, not on any evidence of it, and also on the mistaken belief that Trump is required to prove innocence.

No, we have proof of wrong doing. We have foreign governments openly saying that they are using Trump properties because they are afraid if they don't they will get lesser treatment by our government. That is precisely what the emolument clause is supposed to prevent. It is why every other President puts his businesses in a blind trust when they take office.

With this particular case, the information will end up being reviewed by a judge, and possibly audited. That's when I'll decide if he's guilty or not.

No it won't. That is what this ruling was. The courts just said that neither Congress, nor the States, nor the City's have standing to sue. That literally means no one has standing to sue and the emolument clause can not be enforced because no one has the ability to do so.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,642
50,876
136
This was not about sentencing this was about discovery. We are not wanting to find anyone guilty, only investigate if he was. There can be no more story if there can be no investigation.

Yes I have no clue where he got the idea that Trump’s finances here would be reviewed by a judge for legality as any review of the legality of Trump’s conduct here is explicitly what is being blocked. They don’t even know what they’re defending but they defend it anyway. Can you imagine a planet where Hillary Clinton is president and conservatives would be saying ‘we should not find out if the president is personally being paid by foreign governments’? Me either.

It’s the end game of tribalism - the law no longer matters so long as the people breaking it are on the team. We can never let the country forget what conservatives did from 2016-2020.
 

outriding

Diamond Member
Feb 20, 2002
3,407
2,567
136
I'd be willing to bet that along with the money turned over to the treasury there is a piece of paper that enumerates where it came from. Start there.
The entire story is based on the assumption of wrong doing, not on any evidence of it, and also on the mistaken belief that Trump is required to prove innocence.
Since he is the president, he should be held to a higher standard of disclosure, and those standards need to be law. With this particular case, the information will end up being reviewed by a judge, and possibly audited. That's when I'll decide if he's guilty or not.


Jesus you are so naive..

To sit there and constanly give trump the benefit of doubt..

This is the guy to took money from kids with cancer..
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,642
50,876
136
Jesus you are so naive..

To sit there and constanly give trump the benefit of doubt..

This is the guy to took money from kids with cancer..

It's kind of amazing that after at least five years of watching him lie about literally everything it's possible to lie about Greenman's tribalism is still so strong that he's willing to take Trump's word for it here.

I don't know how we as a country can survive when a good third of the country is just... well... gone from a mental perspective.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,136
30,086
146
I'd be willing to bet that along with the money turned over to the treasury there is a piece of paper that enumerates where it came from. Start there.
The entire story is based on the assumption of wrong doing, not on any evidence of it, and also on the mistaken belief that Trump is required to prove innocence.
Since he is the president, he should be held to a higher standard of disclosure, and those standards need to be law. With this particular case, the information will end up being reviewed by a judge, and possibly audited. That's when I'll decide if he's guilty or not.

The evidence is based on the entire history of how Trump has always run his business. These things are known. The court here decided that "nothing should be known because we don't believe it should based on the fact that this clause in the constitution has never before been challenged." Let that sink in.

But yes, you still seem to agree that the information needs to be reviewed--but that is the problem. Trump refuses to let this information be known and he has built a wall of lawyers to block that disclosure.

So, do you agree that we should have access to all of Trump's private dealings as POTUS? Recall that he did not separate himself from his business, he did not create a blind trust, and that Jr is simply a meaningless figure head. This district court blocked the discovery of exactly what you claim needs to be discovered to make an actual judgement on the evidence. So, do you agree with their decision or not?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,642
50,876
136
The evidence is based on the entire history of how Trump has always run his business. These things are known.

But yes, you still seem to agree that the information needs to be reviewed--but that is the problem. Trump refuses to let this information be known and he has built a wall of lawyers to block that disclosure.

As mentioned before it's also known to be a problem because foreign governments are on the record talking about how they put money in Trump's pocket to influence his decisions. The people on the other end of the transaction are just saying it!

So, do you agree that we should have access to all of Trump's private dealings as POTUS? Recall that he did not separate himself from his business, he did not create a blind trust, and that Jr is simply a meaningless figure head

It's funny how conservatives consistently pretend not to know that Trump could have avoided this issue entirely by placing his holdings in a blind Trust but instead deliberately chose not to.
 

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,816
1,126
126
I don’t see how the country recovers from it either given the spinelessness shown by Democrats in the face of a national emergency.

We now know the only thing preventing the total corruption of the executive branch is the good will of the president. After Congress failed to act people hoped the courts would step in to enforce the law but they have been corrupted as well. Just look at the census and gerrymandering cases - SCOTUS endorsed the idea of rigging elections so your political opposition can never gain power and the only thing that stopped the census rigging was the Chief Justice saying Trump needed to come up with a more credible lie. (The other 4 conservatives thought transparent lies were just fine) Even given that Trump looks to simply ignore SCOTUS anyway and if he does, who will stop him?

The system of checks and balances is dead.

Our Democracy is officially dead. Wonders when our militias will rise up and do their fucking jobs and storm the Capital and remove this Russian from power... Ah yes, Militia memberships only go up in years when a Democrat is in power... Nothing to see here great Americans... The POTUS, Congress, the AG, and now the SCOTUS have been delegitimized... As long as it's our team... A OK...
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,642
50,876
136
Our Democracy is officially dead. Wonders when our militias will rise up and do their fucking jobs and storm the Capital and remove this Russian from power... Ah yes, Militia memberships only go up in years when a Democrat is in power... Nothing to see here great Americans... The POTUS, Congress, the AG, and now the SCOTUS have been delegitimized... As long as it's our team... A OK...

I agree. Trump has laid bare that as long as the opposition party doesn't have a House majority and 67 senators the president can commit crimes with impunity.

I mean the guy who just recently had a report about how he committed a rash of felonies to hobble the investigation into his and his associates' collusion with a hostile foreign power is also running a business down the street from the White House where foreign governments can directly pay him cash bribes. He runs a club in Florida where members also directly pay him cash bribes and he allows them to set policy for federal agencies once they do so. What do conservatives do about this? Nothing.

If conduct this brazenly criminal goes unpunished then the next president will surely take notice and just do whatever they want. Even if we have a good one after this who tries to restore the old order it won't work because anyone who follows them will still remember the lesson of Trump in that it's totally fine to commit crimes so long as they don't have 67 senators. (and no party will ever have 67 senators in the forseeable future)