PDA

View Full Version : Judge dismisses lawsuit alleging Trump violated emoluments clause



hanger4
12-21-2017, 07:02 PM
A federal judge dismissed a lawsuit Thursday alleging that President Donald Trump violated the Constitution's emoluments clause because his hotels and restaurants do business with foreign governments while he is in office. ............ Judge George Daniels of the Southern District of New York ruled that the plaintiffs, led by the government watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), lacked standing to bring such a case, saying it was up to Congress to prevent the president from accepting emoluments. ............. https://www.google.com/amp/www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-trump-emoluments-clause-lawsuit-20171221-story,amp.html .............. Reckon the Dem minority have the cajones to attempt anything ??

resister
12-21-2017, 07:20 PM
Trump is like the Teflon Don, they keep throwing darts, but they bounce off!

Common
12-21-2017, 08:00 PM
The liberals keep losing one right after another, they know theres nothing, they know they GOT nothing, so they keep trying to distract and act like they are doing something and trump keeps sticking it in their ass, classic

stjames1_53
12-21-2017, 08:04 PM
A federal judge dismissed a lawsuit Thursday alleging that President Donald Trump violated the Constitution's emoluments clause because his hotels and restaurants do business with foreign governments while he is in office. ............ Judge George Daniels of the Southern District of New York ruled that the plaintiffs, led by the government watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), lacked standing to bring such a case, saying it was up to Congress to prevent the president from accepting emoluments. ............. https://www.google.com/amp/www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-trump-emoluments-clause-lawsuit-20171221-story,amp.html .............. Reckon the Dem minority have the cajones to attempt anything ??

Where's Bob the Slob? he needs to read this....

ripmeister
12-21-2017, 11:01 PM
So the judge ruled on standing not the merits of the case?

Ethereal
12-22-2017, 12:08 AM
So the judge ruled on standing not the merits of the case?

In this case, standing is a merit.


No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.

Bethere
12-22-2017, 12:11 AM
So the judge ruled on standing not the merits of the case?

Correct. He believes it is an impeachable offense.

stjames1_53
12-22-2017, 06:34 AM
Correct. He believes it is an impeachable offense.

to the alt-left, a sneeze is reason to impeach. Get over it, you're gonna wear yourself down to bone attacking Trump. At the end of every day, you still have nothing.......Another swing and miss here.
GOOD TIMES!!!!!!!

Kacper
12-22-2017, 09:03 AM
My guess is that more Americans would think the "emoluments" has something more to do with Preparation-H than the Constitution

ripmeister
12-22-2017, 09:56 AM
In this case, standing is a merit.
Im not a lawyer so I don't know the lingo but it seems that the judge simply said they didn't have the right to bring the case, without getting into any of the actual merits of the case and whether or not POTUS was in violation of the rules.

Ravens Fan
12-22-2017, 10:20 AM
Im not a lawyer so I don't know the lingo but it seems that the judge simply said they didn't have the right to bring the case, without getting into any of the actual merits of the case and whether or not POTUS was in violation of the rules.
That is how I took it too.

Captdon
12-22-2017, 01:08 PM
So the judge ruled on standing not the merits of the case?
He said it was up to Congress to set the rules for that clause. There was no merit to the case. Read the whole thing.

Captdon
12-22-2017, 01:10 PM
Im not a lawyer so I don't know the lingo but it seems that the judge simply said they didn't have the right to bring the case, without getting into any of the actual merits of the case and whether or not POTUS was in violation of the rules.

He said it was up to Congress to set the rules.