A federal judge on Wednesday rejected President Trump’s latest effort to stop a lawsuit that alleges Trump is violating the Constitution by continuing to do business with foreign governments.
The ruling, from U.S. District Judge Peter J. Messitte in Greenbelt, Md., will allow the plaintiffs in the case — the attorneys general of Maryland and the District of Columbia — to proceed with their case, which says Trump has violated the Constitution’s little-used emoluments clause.
The plaintiffs now want to interview Trump Organization employees and search company records to determine which foreign countries have spent money at Trump’s hotel in downtown Washington.
The Justice Department and Trump’s attorneys did not immediately respond to requests for comment. They could try to appeal the decision to a higher court and ask Messitte not to allow the attorneys general access to Trump Organization employees and books until the appeal is decided.
The lawsuit, filed last year by D.C. Attorney General Karl A. Racine (D) and Maryland Attorney General Brian E. Frosh (D), cleared an initial hurdle in March. Back then, Messitte settled one legal question, ruling that the plaintiffs had legal standing to sue the president in the first place.
He also limited the scope of the case to Trump’s Washington hotel; previously, the plaintiffs had also wanted to search for foreign-government spending at other Trump properties as well.
The next unsettled questions: What, exactly is an emolument?
That was a question that remained unanswered for more than 200 years.
The Constitution bars federal officials from taking emoluments from any “King, Prince, or Foreign State.” The Founding Fathers’ intent had been to stop U.S. ambassadors overseas — emissaries from a new, poor, fragile country — from being bought off by jewels or payments from wealthy European states.
In an attempt to attract employees to local restaurants and businesses, Supervisors Ahsha Safaí and Aaron Peskin are co-sponsoring an ordinance that would ban “employee cafeterias” from new office buildings in the city. This comes as local retailers, particularly those downtown, complain of a drop in business as more companies offer their workers meals in private corporate cafeterias, Safaí said.
THE BRONX, NY—Up and coming democratic socialist candidate Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has been criticized after not clearly labeling the platform on which she is running for Congress as satire.
While the rising political star’s support for far-left socialist policies is obviously satirical and not meant to be taken seriously by anyone, many have apparently been deceived by her crazed interviews and political speeches and assumed she was actually running for a congressional seat.
“Millions of people have viewed her interviews and read her statements, but she failed to clearly label them as satire,” New York Times correspondent Shane Goldmacher wrote on his Twitter account. “This is dangerous and irresponsible.”
Goldmacher and other fact-checkers pointed out that no one in 2018 could seriously support an economically impossible socialist platform, especially after the death and destruction caused by far-left regimes throughout the 20th century. “Her platform is satire, of course, but many people don’t go beyond a cursory viewing of her deranged diatribes to fact-check whether or not this woman is for real.”
In response to the criticism of spreading her fake campaign platform, Ocasio-Cortez reportedly edited her social media posts to indicate her statements, speeches, and policy positions are satire and not meant to be taken as fact.
12 comments:
The same questions should have been asked of candidate Trump.
The same questions should have been asked of candidate Trump.
____________________
TIPPY TOP.
RUN HER.
PLEASE.
the left is going batshit over this video. it's almost as if they think that only they can create a satirical parody.
Lol, IF only THIS question would have been asked, Hillary would have won.
A federal judge on Wednesday rejected President Trump’s latest effort to stop a lawsuit that alleges Trump is violating the Constitution by continuing to do business with foreign governments.
The ruling, from U.S. District Judge Peter J. Messitte in Greenbelt, Md., will allow the plaintiffs in the case — the attorneys general of Maryland and the District of Columbia — to proceed with their case, which says Trump has violated the Constitution’s little-used emoluments clause.
The plaintiffs now want to interview Trump Organization employees and search company records to determine which foreign countries have spent money at Trump’s hotel in downtown Washington.
The Justice Department and Trump’s attorneys did not immediately respond to requests for comment. They could try to appeal the decision to a higher court and ask Messitte not to allow the attorneys general access to Trump Organization employees and books until the appeal is decided.
The lawsuit, filed last year by D.C. Attorney General Karl A. Racine (D) and Maryland Attorney General Brian E. Frosh (D), cleared an initial hurdle in March. Back then, Messitte settled one legal question, ruling that the plaintiffs had legal standing to sue the president in the first place.
He also limited the scope of the case to Trump’s Washington hotel; previously, the plaintiffs had also wanted to search for foreign-government spending at other Trump properties as well.
The next unsettled questions: What, exactly is an emolument?
That was a question that remained unanswered for more than 200 years.
The Constitution bars federal officials from taking emoluments from any “King, Prince, or Foreign State.” The Founding Fathers’ intent had been to stop U.S. ambassadors overseas — emissaries from a new, poor, fragile country — from being bought off by jewels or payments from wealthy European states.
In an attempt to attract employees to local restaurants and businesses, Supervisors Ahsha Safaí and Aaron Peskin are co-sponsoring an ordinance that would ban “employee cafeterias” from new office buildings in the city. This comes as local retailers, particularly those downtown, complain of a drop in business as more companies offer their workers meals in private corporate cafeterias, Safaí said.
https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/Tech-industry-s-coveted-office-cafeterias-could-13101014.php
these are the people who are telling me that TRUMP is the tyrannical dictator.
Lol
THE BRONX, NY—Up and coming democratic socialist candidate Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has been criticized after not clearly labeling the platform on which she is running for Congress as satire.
While the rising political star’s support for far-left socialist policies is obviously satirical and not meant to be taken seriously by anyone, many have apparently been deceived by her crazed interviews and political speeches and assumed she was actually running for a congressional seat.
“Millions of people have viewed her interviews and read her statements, but she failed to clearly label them as satire,” New York Times correspondent Shane Goldmacher wrote on his Twitter account. “This is dangerous and irresponsible.”
Goldmacher and other fact-checkers pointed out that no one in 2018 could seriously support an economically impossible socialist platform, especially after the death and destruction caused by far-left regimes throughout the 20th century. “Her platform is satire, of course, but many people don’t go beyond a cursory viewing of her deranged diatribes to fact-check whether or not this woman is for real.”
In response to the criticism of spreading her fake campaign platform, Ocasio-Cortez reportedly edited her social media posts to indicate her statements, speeches, and policy positions are satire and not meant to be taken as fact.
https://babylonbee.com/news/ocasio-cortez-criticized-for-not-clearly-labeling-political-platform-as-satire/
Woe, funny
"it's almost as if they think that only they can create a satirical parody."
It's a satirical parody, but she really IS that stupid.
I was going to say how the hell did she get nominated but then I remembered that this was the city that elected De Blasio.
Post a Comment