The Justice Department And Trump's Lawyers Argue No One Should Be Able To Sue Him For Profiting From His Hotel

  • 📰 BuzzFeed
  • ⏱ Reading Time:
  • 84 sec. here
  • 3 min. at publisher
  • 📊 Quality Score:
  • News: 37%
  • Publisher: 51%

Law Law Headlines News

Law Law Latest News,Law Law Headlines

An appeals court heard arguments Tuesday in a case over whether Trump is violating the Foreign and Domestic Emoluments Clauses of the US Constitution by refusing to divest in his businesses.

RICHMOND, Virginia – President Donald Trump's personal lawyers and attorneys from the Justice Department argued Tuesday that no one should be able to sue Trump for profiting from his businesses while he's in office — and for the first time in more than a year, things went well for the president in the case.

The attorney general offices in DC and Maryland sued Trump in June 2017, arguing that when foreign, state, or local officials patronize Trump’s businesses, the president profits and receives a prohibited “emolument.” The word “emolument” is generally defined as a financial benefit, but the definition is one of the major issues in dispute.

If no one could sue the president for accepting prohibited emoluments, Judge Dennis Shedd asked:"Where's the check on the president?" Mooppan replied that any sort of action against the president at least had to be authorized by Congress, and that had not happened. Mooppan also argued that the president presented a special situation, and left open the question of whether someone could file this type of lawsuit against a lower-ranking public official.

Shedd and Niemeyer asked if having Trump put his assets in a blind trust would be appropriate, and when AliKhan replied that it could be, the two judges pushed back, questioning how it could satisfy DC and Maryland if Trump were still getting any profit from his businesses.AliKhan said DC and Maryland would also be satisfied with a declaration from a judge saying that the president was in violation of the clauses, leaving it open how exactly he could come into compliance.

Shedd asked if a court could order that no person associated with a foreign government could stay at a Trump property. AliKhan said it would depend on the wording. Shedd then wondered if that scenario was similar to Trump's executive actions banning people from certain countries — predominantly majority-Muslim nations — from coming to the United States.

 

Thank you for your comment. Your comment will be published after being reviewed.
Please try again later.

Well, then, they're idiots. Emoluments are very real.

We have summarized this news so that you can read it quickly. If you are interested in the news, you can read the full text here. Read more:

 /  🏆 730. in LAW

Law Law Latest News, Law Law Headlines

Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.

Justice Department reportedly probing if $100K from Malaysian fugitive was funneled to Trump PACThe Justice Department reportedly is probing whether a $100,000 donation to a PAC linked to President Donald Trump's re-election campaign came from Jho Low — who is accused of helping steal billions from Malaysia's 1MDB investment fund. Make professional Portrait Vector from your images CollegeCheatingScandal WednesdayWisdom WednesdayMotivation 313Day wednesdaythoughts Jay Leno Sashi Nothing Too Low or Corrupt to be Shocking with this Trump Admin.! American Politics has Reached New Depths of Disgust & Destruction; “Greed & Bluster” has Tainted what was Supposed to be “The Land of the Free & Home of the Brave.” Democracy-Autocracy/Capitalism-Caste System sandratxpeach OMG! Does it ever end? Something new each day!😩
Source: CNBC - 🏆 12. / 72 Read more »