Go ahead with that lawsuit
A federal judge on Friday gave the go-ahead to a lawsuit filed by 200 congressional Democrats against President Trump alleging he has violated the Constitution by doing business with foreign governments while in office.
The lawsuit is based on the Constitution’s emoluments clause, which bars presidents from taking payments from foreign states. Trump’s business, which he still owns, has hosted foreign embassy events and visiting foreign officials at its downtown D.C. hotel.
The decision opens up yet another legal front for the president, who is now facing an array of inquiries into his business, his campaign and his charity.
Trump is already facing a separate emoluments suit filed by the attorneys general of Washington, D.C. and Maryland that is moving forward. In addition, he is contending with the ongoing special counsel investigation into Russian interference, a lawsuit from the New York Attorney General that alleged “persistently illegal conduct” at his charitable foundation, and a defamation lawsuit brought by former “Apprentice” contestant Summer Zervos.
All perfectly normal for a president.
The congressional plaintiffs, led by Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) and Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), asked the court to force Trump to stop accepting payments they consider improper — or to force him to seek Congress’s consent first.
Justice Department attorneys, who are representing Trump, asked the court to dismiss the case. They said Congress does not need to wait for Trump to ask permission — it could act first and pass a bill to ban the president from accepting such compensation.
This is the latest case in which the president and his company may now be exposed to a lengthy legal process and possible discovery by plaintiffs who oppose him politically, a process that could include depositions of witnesses and the disclosure of Trump Organization financial documents.
We did warn him.
It could, but it hasn’t, and asking for the lawsuit to be dismissed on grounds that Congress could rather than will act is pathetic.
Also, you don’t generally need to pass a law to enforce a provision of the Constitution. Unless I miss my mark.
That’s a good point, Seth. Trump’s lawyers appeared to be arguing that what is set out in the Constitution is either merely advisory or can be changed at will by an act of Congress.
Funny how they never try that one after school shootings, but instead insist that the Constitution is the bedrock of America and set in stone.