Judge dismisses suits claiming Trump violated emoluments clause

[echo4747]

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/12/21/judge-dismisses-suits-emoluments-312610

-by Clinton appointed judge

 

[interchange]

Sounds appropriate. If there's no damages, there's no grounds for a court case. If the president is otherwise guilty of a crime, it is up to Congress to find this and act. I don't like it, but it's how things are structured and I'm glad even a liberal judge won't overreach.

 

[fskimospy]

Sounds appropriate. If there's no damages, there's no grounds for a court case. If the president is otherwise guilty of a crime, it is up to Congress to find this and act. I don't like it, but it's how things are structured and I'm glad even a liberal judge won't overreach.

While personal lawsuits on this always seemed like a stretch this is just another reminder that congress isn’t doing its job and is enabling corruption on a scale that’s never been seen before in US history. I was glad to see the news story yesterday how Democrats are already preparing for an impeachment fight if they win one or both houses.

 

[interchange]

While personal lawsuits on this always seemed like a stretch this is just another reminder that congress isn’t doing its job and is enabling corruption on a scale that’s never been seen before in US history. I was glad to see the news story yesterday how Democrats are already preparing for an impeachment fight if they win one or both houses.

Agreed. An objective and responsible congress would have removed Trump already even if it were 100% Republicans.

 

[bshole]

While personal lawsuits on this always seemed like a stretch this is just another reminder that congress isn’t doing its job and is enabling corruption on a scale that’s never been seen before in US history. I was glad to see the news story yesterday how Democrats are already preparing for an impeachment fight if they win one or both houses.

Kind of like locking up the henhouse after the fox has already slaughtered all of the chickens...

 

[fskimospy]

Agreed. An objective and responsible congress would have removed Trump already even if it were 100% Republicans.

It's a fundamental flaw in the constitution that the people who wrote it envisioned branches competing with each other and holding each other in check. Partisanship has become so bad at this point that Congress can no longer serve that function.

 

[Sunburn74]

There are 3 other federal cases on this from people with claims of damages. Will see if the precedent holds up.

 

[Starbuck1975]

It's a fundamental flaw in the constitution that the people who wrote it envisioned branches competing with each other and holding each other in check. Partisanship has become so bad at this point that Congress can no longer serve that function.

If only we had a mechanism in place to change the balance of Congress so that it acts in the interests of the people it serves.

 

[Maxima1]

Congress should have to be on record of approving/disproving instead of just playing dumb.

 

[FIVR]

Sounds appropriate. If there's no damages, there's no grounds for a court case. If the president is otherwise guilty of a crime, it is up to Congress to find this and act. I don't like it, but it's how things are structured and I'm glad even a liberal judge won't overreach.

It's appropriate for the president to be totally unaccountable to US laws? You are an idiot.

 

[fskimospy]

If only we had a mechanism in place to change the balance of Congress so that it acts in the interests of the people it serves.

Not an effective long term answer as whenever the parties align you will once again see the same problem.

 

[woolfe9998]

If only we had a mechanism in place to change the balance of Congress so that it acts in the interests of the people it serves.

In theory, yes. In practice? How many times has either political party had 67 seats in the Senate, which is what is needed to actually remove a POTUS from office? He's right. The FF assumed that if a POTUS was acting unlawfully, that members of his own political party would vote to remove him. They didn't anticipate the level of partisanship that we have today.

 

[shortylickens]

I'm not a judge and even I know better.

You cant sue someone unless YOU PERSONALLY suffered. And criminal charges are up to the prosecutor, if at all.

 

[interchange]

It's appropriate for the president to be totally unaccountable to US laws? You are an idiot.

I do not share that belief in any way whatsoever. My posting here clearly demonstrates that. Trump is accountable to US law via Congress. Congress is failing in its duty.

 

[fskimospy]

In theory, yes. In practice? How many times has either political party had 67 seats in the Senate, which is what is needed to actually remove a POTUS from office? He's right. The FF assumed that if a POTUS was acting unlawfully, that members of his own political party would vote to remove him. They didn't anticipate the level of partisanship that we have today.

Exactly. If Congress can't get its shit together to impeach and convict Trump, and I feel like they probably will not, it's hard to imagine any president being successfully impeached. I mean the guy is openly, nakedly corrupt. While in office he had to pay out $25 million for defrauding thousands of people. He frequently talks about abusing his power. He effectively admitted to a felony on national television. If this guy isn't impeachable, who is?

 

[Maxima1]

I'm not a judge and even I know better.

You cant sue someone unless YOU PERSONALLY suffered. And criminal charges are up to the prosecutor, if at all.

There are several angles they are trying to get at. As I said prior, they should have to approve/disapprove instead of just playing dumb.

"Because the Foreign Emoluments Clause requires the President to obtain “the Consent of the Congress” before accepting otherwise prohibited “Emolument
Plaintiffs, as members of Congress, must have the opportunity to cast a binding vote that gives or withholds their “Consent” before the President accepts any such “Emolument.”

 

[FIVR]

I do not share that belief in any way whatsoever. My posting here clearly demonstrates that. Trump is accountable to US law via Congress. Congress is failing in its duty.

You just said it was appropriate that this case was dismissed and then expressed dismay that "congress failed". That is effectively deeming Trump appropriately unaccountable to US law. According to you only congress can hold him accountable. This is, in fact, wrong. The Judiciary is supposed to be a separate branch and is supposed to be able to hold ALL US citizens accountable.

 

[interchange]

You just said it was appropriate that this case was dismissed and then expressed dismay that "congress failed". That is effectively deeming Trump appropriately unaccountable to US law. According to you only congress can hold him accountable. This is, in fact, wrong. The Judiciary is supposed to be a separate branch and is supposed to be able to hold ALL US citizens accountable.

The judiciary is able to hear a suit involving the emoluments clause wherein damages have occurred. They haven't in this case, so the only recourse here is Congress. If there are other cases where damages are found, the judiciary can take action. For example, this is what allowed federal judges to block Trump's EO.

 

[Maxima1]

Sounds appropriate. If there's no damages, there's no grounds for a court case. If the president is otherwise guilty of a crime, it is up to Congress to find this and act. I don't like it, but it's how things are structured and I'm glad even a liberal judge won't overreach.

How "liberal" is the judge?

Here's an article back in the day. Notice something?

http://articles.latimes.com/1993-06-15/news/mn-3237_1_judge-ginsburg

Laurence Tribe recently tweeted something that absolutely NAILED it.

"We’ve played nice far too long on this. What counts as centrist has itself become what once would’ve been seen as far right. The pendulum needs to swing — not “left” but toward law as a guarantor of equal dignity and genuine liberty." -- Tribe

 

[interchange]

How "liberal" is the judge?

Here's an article back in the day. Notice something?

http://articles.latimes.com/1993-06-15/news/mn-3237_1_judge-ginsburg

Laurence Tribe recently tweeted something that absolutely NAILED it.

"We’ve played nice far too long on this. What counts as centrist has itself become what once would’ve been seen as far right. The pendulum needs to swing — not “left” but toward law as a guarantor of equal dignity and genuine liberty." -- Tribe

What does this have to do with Daniels, who heard this case? Regardless, I don't mind walking back my comment about "liberal" judge. The only thing I was going on was the Clinton appointee information.

 

[Starbuck1975]

In theory, yes. In practice? How many times has either political party had 67 seats in the Senate, which is what is needed to actually remove a POTUS from office? He's right. The FF assumed that if a POTUS was acting unlawfully, that members of his own political party would vote to remove him. They didn't anticipate the level of partisanship that we have today.

Impeachment should be the absolute exception. I would rather focus on the larger issue, which is how someone so ethically compromised not only earned a nomination but also the Presidency.

Both parties literally nominated candidates that were either under or went under FBI investigation. Maybe the blind partisans are the problem.

 

[WHAMPOM]

All I see is this century repeating the last.

 

[theeedude]

Impeachment is the right procedure for that while Trump is in office. Once he is removed or leaves, then he can be prosecuted for any crimes.

 

[theeedude]

Impeachment should be the absolute exception. I would rather focus on the larger issue, which is how someone so ethically compromised not only earned a nomination but also the Presidency.

Both parties literally nominated candidates that were either under or went under FBI investigation. Maybe the blind partisans are the problem.

Except FBI decided American people only had "right to know" that one of them was under investigation, and not the other. The one that was under investigation for improper email storage, not the one under investigation for colluding with an adversarial foreign power. Which is why we have Trump.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Except FBI decided American people only had "right to know" that one of them was under investigation, and not the other. The one that was under investigation for improper email storage, not the one under investigation for colluding with an adversarial foreign power. Which is why we have Trump.

There were many factors and dynamics at play, as we now know there was at least one FBI agent at critical times of the email investigation who was clearly a team Clinton partisan. When you have people trying to control a political narrative around criminal investigations, there will be inevitable leaks.

Those leaks crippled Clinton and they've crippled Trump, causing the Republicans to frantically push short term gains that will cripple and perhaps destroy the GOP as we know it in the long run.

I don't see these things as bad outcomes.