January 22, 2017

An elite group of lawyers and lawprofs is suing President Trump for violating the Emoluments Clause.

The lawsuit will be filed on Monday, the NYT reports.
“No one would have thought when the Constitution was written that paying your hotel bill was an emolument,” Sheri A. Dillon, a partner at Morgan Lewis, said at a news conference this month...

“If you think other countries are not going to try to leverage relationships with Trump’s companies to influence trade or military policy, that is naïve,” [said  Zephyr Teachout, a Fordham University law professor and former congressional candidate who has been studying and writing about the Emoluments Clause for nearly a decade].
Quite apart from the substantive merits of the claim, it's hard to see how there are plaintiffs with standing to sue. How does the money paid in rent and hotel bills to the Trump organization cause concrete and particularized injury to anyone? You could say we are all injured by the possibility that commercial activities could influence the President's decisions, but that's the sort of generalized grievance that isn't enough.

But the filing of the lawsuit brings attention to the legal argument, which bolsters the political argument that the risk of influence is bad and should be eliminated. And in the end, almost certainly, the matter will be resolved in the political sphere and not the courts.

255 comments:

1 – 200 of 255   Newer›   Newest»
Michael K said...

Only law professors should be president.

That way there can be no conflict of interest as everyone knows that law professors, even adjunct lecturers on racial law, are completely honest and worthy.

America's Politico said...

The two reporters Adam and Eric are going after DJT for another reason: Pulitzer! They are obsessed with hotel since last year.

Trump could do something: Nominate a woman of color (African American, for example) to SCOTUS.

If he has to win 100-days, he needs to do something fast. Not having a Hispanic Cabinet Official was super bad. He is not getting good advice. Perdue from GA is fat and ugly. No win for DJT. He should have used the Hispanic LT gov from CA. Trump is digging is own funeral.

The legal case will take up so much steam; this is like Clinton Travel Office leading to other things.

tcrosse said...

Nice try, but it still won't put Hillary in the White House.

Rocketeer said...

It will be solved in the political sphere: Right after it's thrown out on standing, LIVs will say "eh, guess that whole emoluments thing is no big deal" and Teflon Don will roll forward even more smoothly.

Earnest Prole said...

On standing and on substance, the suit is a joke. On the other hand, the risks of interest conflict are huge -- but as you note, that's a political, not a legal, matter.

n.n said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Owen said...

Interesting. I guess we'll be learning a lot of Con Law on the back of DJT and his family. Isn't it curious how these complications never seemed to come up before? I guess all previous Presidents were financially as pure as the driven snow, with balance sheets neat as a pin. Blind trusts and T-bills, vows of poverty, and not a whiff of scandal.

Gahrie said...

How much do you want to bet that Trump comes out of his four or eight years in office poorer than when he went in? Which will be nice for a change.

n.n said...

emolument

mid-15c., from Old French émolument "advantage, gain, benefit; income, revenue" (13c.) and directly from Latin emolumentum "profit, gain, advantage, benefit," perhaps originally "payment to a miller for grinding corn," from emolere "grind out," from assimilated form of ex "out" (see ex-) + molere "to grind" (see mallet).

-- etymonline.com

After seeing first light following an extended period of twilight, the elite lawyers and lawprofs rub their eyes, pat their billfolds, and peering out actually intend to open Pandora's box, twice. Throw another baby on the barby, they're done.

Quayle said...

It is very simple. You can't receive any emoluments while in office.

That's why the Clintons elected to sell mere words for millions, before they took office. That way there would be no question of undue outside influence or corruption or crassly benefitting from office, once HRC became president.

The Clintons love and respect the constitution that much!

Finatic said...

Anyone who thinks that booking a room in the Trump Hotel for $800 per night will buy influence from Donald Trump is delusional. The real risk of influence peddling is in their suggested solution, complete divestiture. This is where the risk is as someone can offer him $100,000,000 for a building worth $50,000,000!

Jack Wayne said...

Odd that the first couple dozen of Presidents were never hit with this. They all had commercial interests while they were President.

Curious George said...

Where were the guys when the Hildabeats was Sec State and foreign governments were pouring millions into the CGI?

eric said...

Yeah, the matter will be resolved in the political sphere and not the courts.

Just like abortion.
Just like gay marriage.

Just like pretty much everything the left loses on and continues to lose on in the sphere on public opinion.

HT said...

[entering, rubbing hands together] "oooh, an elite group."

HT said...

"Anyone who thinks that booking a room in the Trump Hotel for $800 per night will buy influence from Donald Trump is delusional."

So let's all do it! -government employees

The Cracker Emcee said...

Gracious. An elite group of lawyers. More Teflon!

HT said...

Deutsche Bank; Bank of China; GSA lease.

Go.

buwaya said...

Good question, whether any capitalist can pass such a filter.

I think this attack could just as easily been directed against anyone with large assets, even if these are put in trust and managed by third parties, if the officeholder plans to recover them afterwards. Of course they will be placed in some investment vehicles that will be affected by political decisions. Even if the whole thing is turned into T-bills.

It may be impossible to even hold on to personal real estate, such as a house or flat or farm, as these too could have their value affected. George Washington could not have satisfied this rule.

rcocean said...

Anyone who thinks that booking a room in the Trump Hotel for $800 per night will buy influence from Donald Trump is delusional.

Trump is worth billions $$$. Do you realize how much that is? $5 Billion is $5,000 million. Someone could give Trump $50 million and that would increase his net worth by 1 percent. Its the equivalent to giving someone with $1 million, $10,000 dollars. Its chicken feed to Trump. If Trump wanted to make money, he wouldn't have spent millions getting elected or settling a lawsuit for $25 million.

buwaya said...

I wonder how Romney could have met this rule also.
He had @$150-250 million in a long list of investments, which doubtless would have generated all sorts of conflicts of interest. Even if these were independently managed by some other person.

HT said...

So, he's so rich, the rules don't need to apply.

buwaya said...

Romney and George Bush and GHW Bush had the same problems really, its just a matter of scale. All were rich men with much property.

buwaya said...

No, the rules if interpreted this way are simply absurd.

HT said...

https://theintercept.com/2016/11/10/trump-presidency-could-be-worth-14-billion-to-his-troubled-lender/

Trump Presidency Could Be Worth $14 Billion to His Troubled Lender

n.n said...

rcocean:

This actually speaks well of electing financially independent individuals to office, since they are provably less susceptible to domestic and foreign influence. His wealth may actually inoculate him from the corruption that plagued his predecessor. Suddenly, people are anti-vaccination, as they were pro-war, pro-extra-judicial trials, pro-violent coups, pro-[class] diversity, pro-refugee crises, pro-exclusion, pro-mysticism, and pro-abortion. Only in the twilight zone.

rcocean said...

There's a huge amount of corruption in DC, and there's not a lot we can do about it. It just isn't campaign "donations" its promises of jobs/investments/speech money AFTER they leave office.

A Wall street firm can go to Senator A or Congressman B and say "Vote with us, and you can get a cushy well-paying hedgefund job after you leave". Or, "Vote for us, and we'll give a lobbyist job".

Hollywood used to buy off Congressman by giving them lobbyist jobs or making them head of the MPAA. Glickman is a perfect example.

QueenWili said...

"Anthony D. Romero, the executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, said it was separately looking for plaintiffs to file a lawsuit alleging that Mr. Trump is violating the Emoluments Clause. It hopes to find a hotel or bed-and-breakfast that might compete against a Trump hotel as a party that might have standing to sue.

The A.C.L.U. filed an extensive Freedom of Information Act request on Thursday asking the Justice Department, the General Services Administration and the Office of Government Ethics for all legal opinions and memos they have prepared addressing potential financial or ethical conflicts that Mr. Trump might face. It could perhaps use those documents in litigation against the Trump administration."

Jon Ericson said...

Talking point boys and girls in 3. 2. 1.

HT said...

If Trump cared about making money, he would not use a blind trust.

Chuck said...

I could not find a link for all of you; I have a recollection of hearing lefty legal activist Jeffrey Toobin saying that he thinks that there isn't a good case on the Emoluments Clause.

I really hate to judge a Complaint that I haven't read yet. But I haven't heard anything that would make me think that there's a legal case against Trump.

But, the claim might not be for any relief prayed for in the Complaint. It may be a means to civil discovery that could present a collateral problem for Trump.

Big Mike said...

How can it be an "elite group of lawyers and lawprofs" if Ann Althouse and Glenn Reynolds are not party to the suit? Answer me that!!!

More seriously, if the suit gets thrown out because of lack of standing, would that not take some of the luster from their alleged "elite" status? Probably not, if it never was seen as anything other than a publicity stunt.

buwaya said...

And for that matter John Kerry, through his wife, who was worth @ $1 Billion in 2008 as per Wiki. Probably much more now. With diverse assets in many corporations, it seems her portion of Heinz was part of the purchase/merger by Berkshire Hathaway and a group of foreign investors just a few days after Kerry was named Secretary of State.
That would have certainly had regulatory implications at least.

David said...

Expect Conway to make a quick transition to Press Secretary. Either that or out of the White House entirely. That would be very bad for Trump, so I bet on the former.

Michael McClain said...

ProgCong lawfare.

Gojuplye said...

Trump should punch back twice as hard - to coin a phrase. Cut off all federal funds to the law schools these "elite" professors are from. And do it before they even start typing the first draft. Let the SOBs know actions will have consequences.

mccullough said...

Besides standing, two other problems. First, the emoluments clause doesn't apply to the president or Vice President. Second, the hotel is owned by a company, not Trump.

Most law professors are terrible lawyers. Tribe and Chemerinsky are the worst

Unknown said...

Elite my ass. Hopefully their elite asses get an audit and a warrant issued against them. Any judge considering this should be disbarred along with these "elite" whiners.

Hagar said...

Basing it on the Constitution seems doubtful.
George Washington ran an industrial agricultural enterprise, including the largest whiskey distillery in the country, and the first three Democrat (though labeled "Republican" at that time) all owned extensive southern plantations dependent on slave ownership.
Those guys - and their contemporaries - all were involved in writing and ratifying the Constitution and presumably were better qualified than anyone as to what it required.

Nor does later legislation seem applicable. I just don't think Congress can up and tell the President there are new rules in such matters.

Perhaps they can find something in many-splendoured 14th Amendment.

clint said...

"Gahrie said...
How much do you want to bet that Trump comes out of his four or eight years in office poorer than when he went in? Which will be nice for a change."

I'll take that bet.

The problem is that the single biggest component in his net worth is the intangible value of his name. His name will likely be worth more, especially internationally, no matter what happens.

Perhaps someone should sue under the Emoluments Clause to require him to be a terrible President so he won't benefit financially.

Unknown said...

You want to see some enoulements...

"Barack Obama's Net Worth Has Risen 438% Since Running for President. According to financial disclosure reports, President Obama has an estimated net worth of $7 million dollars. Since he was worth $1.3 million in 2007, that makes the millionaire 438% more wealthy than when he first ran for office."

Michael K said...

"Cut off all federal funds to the law schools these "elite" professors are from. "

I don't think he has to. Law schools are a declining industry, like toilet bowl contents.

Doing something about student loans should be enough. How about making law schools write off 50% if the graduates aren't making $100K in 5 years ?

Steve Uhr said...

Conflicts and Greed are going to bring him down. Money is more important to him than being a good President. A few billion just isn't enough.

Drago said...

Steve Uhr: "Conflicts and Greed are going to bring him down. Money is more important to him than being a good President. A few billion just isn't enough"

Sounds like a fabulous and detailed assessment 2.5 days into the Presidency.

You don't mind if we stack this prediction up with the others do you? It makes for easier disposal later.

Drago said...

McCullough: "Besides standing, two other problems. First, the emoluments clause doesn't apply to the president or Vice President. Second, the hotel is owned by a company, not Trump."

It's pointless to note these easy to establish facts.

The left BELIEVES, and that's all it takes for them to go all in. Again. And Again. And again.

I am sorry this lawsuit wasn't filed last Friday but you can't have everything.

For some reason the lefties think they are dealing with a Lawfare potential as existed in Alaska with Sarah Palin.

LOL

They really, really believe that. Really.

Gk1 said...

The emolument clause scam is just another part of the retreating ambush of the left after they lost the election. I heard it right after the "unfaithful electors" scam began to take on water after they ran with that. They are casting a wide net when they are even saying Trump's stock portfolio needs to be sold off before he even took office or it was proof that he was manipulating the stock market for his own benefit. Its just a tactic until they can find another stick to hit Trump with.

QueenWili said...

John Henry,
How the hell am I supposed to know why Wikileaks is threatening to leak Trump's taxes? Here read for yourself.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/wikileaks-trump-tax-return-234000

"WikiLeaks on Sunday took President Donald Trump to task for refusing to release his tax returns and offered to post them online, after a senior adviser said definitively that Trump would not be publicly disclosing the documents.

“Trump's breach of promise over the release of his tax returns is even more gratuitous than Clinton concealing her Goldman Sachs transcripts,” WikiLeaks wrote on Twitter."

Jack Wayne said...

Gratuitous or egregious?

Gojuplye said...

Michael K; then cut off the colleges they teach at.

Birkel said...

So the Leftist Collectivists have Top Men working on this? Top. Men?

How many law professors does it take to screw in a light bulb?
Answer: 50 Top Men

traditionalguy said...

The Trump Hotels need a two tier price. One half price rate for Americans with a photo ID. And another at full for all foreign Kings, Catholics and EU Nazis, that donates the extra money they pay to Israel's Red Star of David.

That has no reason except that it will piss off the Damnocrats by directing Emolluments from them to wounded IDF Soldiers.

Michael The Magnificent said...

Where were the guys when the Hildabeats was Sec State and foreign governments were pouring millions into the CGI?

Exactly. If it weren't for double standards, leftists wouldn't have any standards at all.

Solution: Every dollar of profit gained by a stay/visit at Trump property X by a head of state gets donated to the Boy Scouts of America. Such profits by Trump property Y get donated to the NRA. Such profits to Trump property Z get donated to Project Veritas. And so on and so forth.

David Begley said...

It is not an "elite" group if Althouse is not in it.

A bunch of crybaby losers.

Fabi said...

Does the left remember who becomes President if Trump is removed from office?

Michael The Magnificent said...

I'd like to add that one of my co-workers is a very outspoken leftist who loves to hate on Trump during work hours.

I take great pleasure in telling her, don't be a hater! Have an open mind. Be tolerant of others. Learn to co-exist. (Rules for Radicals #4: Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.)

Rick said...

So according to the left receiving tens of millions in donations used to pay cronies and family isn't a conflict of interest, but renting a few hotel rooms for a week is.

The absurdity never ceases.

campy said...

These lawyers need to open their hearts to patriotism.

mikesixes said...

The best way to minimize the potential for graft is to minimize the power of government. The higher the stakes, the greater the incentive to cheat.

HT said...

What dumb suggestions. Just enforce the fucking law.

Michael K said...

Money is more important to him than being a good President. A few billion just isn't enough.

Steve, how did I miss your looney left ideas before now ?

Bill and Hillary set the world record for corruption and you are sure a guy who is giving up billions more to be president is money hungry ?

Christ sake ! Hillary fired the 30 year employees at the White House travel office to install some cronies from Arkansas. You can't get more money hungry than that.

Man. You are a piece of work.

n.n said...

The progressive wars from Tripoli to Damascus to Kiev were in search of natural resources, as were the social justice adventures before them. Spilled blood, in abortion rites, for causes of wealth, pleasure, leisure, and Democratic leverage, may be considered an emolument. Not to mention foreign and domestic privilege pedaling, smear campaigns (e.g. projections of [class] diversity, female chauvinism) to influence American and foreign elections. A real Pandora's box opened by an elite groups of lawyers and lawprofs from the twilight zone.

Seeing Red said...

An ELITE group.

This will go over well.

TAX THEM.

n.n said...

Excising Posterity as party to the constitution was also effected by an elite group of lawyers and lawprofs from the twilight zone. So, that's where they sequestered the beating hearts. Never again.

Seeing Red said...

Time for Congress to pay. Trickle down.

James Pawlak said...

Teacher Teachout lost the November, 2016 congressional election to one of the very many Republicans who, by popular vote majorities, won more congressional seats and vastly more State Houses and State legislative seat by the democratically cast votes of the same People who (Outside of California) gave the popular vote to Mr. Trump.

Is her part in the noted suit a matter of principle or SOUR GRAPES?

bgates said...

Are these the same elite law profs who sued when Obama had his campaign software reconfigured in 2008 to enable his campaign to accept donations from outside the United States?

Commander Crankshaft said...

Sherri Dillon, very good.

Is she the one who laid out all those fake documents purporting to be the product of efforts to severe Trump's conflicts of interest?

No one believes this president any more.

n.n said...

emolument

mid-15c., from Old French émolument "advantage, gain, benefit; income, revenue" (13c.) and directly from Latin emolumentum "profit, gain, advantage, benefit," perhaps originally "payment to a miller for grinding corn," from emolere "grind out," from assimilated form of ex "out" (see ex-) + molere "to grind" (see mallet).

-- etymonline.com

Advantage, gain, benefit, income, and revenue. Is there anyone who did or can withstand strict scrutiny?

Seeing Red said...

And whoever released his tax returns go to prison.

Raise your hand here is you ever actually looked they any pres candidate's tax returns.

Don't care, not mine.

Commander Crankshaft said...

The left BELIEVES...

The left?

No one takes this guy at his word any longer. The number of blatant lies he's told, not to mention while in the service of pettily getting his minions to intimidate and harass the media for reporting facts (like how poorly attended his inauguration was), shows what his priorities are, and truth ain't one of them. Hell, even the credibility of his spin or alibis doesn't seem to matter to him.

Seeing Red said...

I actually hope wiki releases them.

It's about time some heads rolled at the IRS.

Captain Drano said...

"The lawsuit is among a barrage of legal actions against the Trump administration that have been initiated or are being planned by major liberal advocacy organizations."

Probably old news, but this is likely among the groups that are "being planned by major liberal advocacy organizations"
https://www.scribd.com/document/337235212/Confidential-David-Brock-American-Bridge-Memo

Seeing Red said...

Professor Reynold's revolving door surtax sounds good right about now.

Michael K said...

"Hell, even the credibility of his spin or alibis doesn't seem to matter to him."

Says the wholly credible commenter on his tenth identity

Lyle said...

The gall to do this under our new Hitlerian dictatorhsip.

Commander Crankshaft said...

Why does an emolument violation need a victim? Is this purely tort law? Do "high crimes and misdemeanors" need victims?

You're stretching. I'll bet the "elite" lawyers are on to something. The amount of stuff in plain view that this guy covers up is telling. Like a dog kicking dirt over the mess. It's all there. And he hits back over the stupidest things.

What a shame, too. It's not like the potential for good isn't there. But that's not his priority.

The Russians have a saying: "When in the middle of a fight, now is not the time to part one's hair."

For Trump, every moment is hair-parting time. And then yelling at people who claim his hair wasn't parted in the right way.

I see no way this presidency can succeed. We've just never had another president in living memory whose personal priorities were so skewed.

Seeing Red said...

It seems to be all-out war then.

So be it.

Bob Ellison said...

"Standing" is a silly legal concept.

exhelodrvr1 said...

This is probably being done to eat into the time/energy/focus of the administration, rather than because it is a valid legal issue. Stand by for more of this type of BS

n.n said...

No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time

The President shall... shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them

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.

There are three citations regulating the reception of emoluments. The first is not applicable to the President. The second is only concerned with the United States and States individually. The third is concerned with "King, Prince or foreign State". The path is narrow, and does not impinge on a penumbra, so there is a limited frame for ethical disputes adjudicated by Congress.

That said, how did a band of elite lawyers and lawprofs manage to excise Posterity (and humanity) as a party to the Constitution from the black letter language? Only in the twilight zone.

Seeing Red said...

Ya know, W wanted to tighten the rules for NFPs.

And audits.

Revamp Corp Taxes

Revamp Civilian taxes

Revamp NFPs

Me likely!

Commander Crankshaft said...

"Hell, even the credibility of his spin or alibis doesn't seem to matter to him."

Says the wholly credible commenter on his tenth identity


Maybe your vision's as bad as your critical thinking skills. Did you miss the same avatar?

Yep. I'm the only one who says this.

Listen, Geezer. Not everyone uses a "First Name, Last Initial" on Blogger. In fact, most people don't.

You should use the internet for what it's good for. Your "First Name, Last Initial" doesn't come with some sort of imprimatur. Trust me, no one is seeking out the penetrating opinions online that emanate from "Michael K's" server. No one. You're just another faceless pseudonym like the rest of us, here. Only in your case you use an obscurely shadowed, stubbled, sunglass-wearing side profile. You're still just as forgettable to the web. Did you edit your own Wikipedia page, lately?

The equally shadowy "Michael" says you're an interesting guy, though. And it's not like he doesn't have fame greeting him everywhere he goes. He's so famous that his first name alone precedes him. Even the Beatles needed to let you know that there was a John and a Paul, first. But "Michael K" and "Michael" are so famous that that their first names (and possibly last initials) are all you need. You guys should go on tour with "Milo." "Milo and Michael." I can see it now.

David Begley said...

For the NYT, the word "elite" means liberal Ivy Leaguers.

narciso said...

Actually bwaya, Michael k and a few others have proven their original insights, but as with their last cunning cunning plan, the Michigan recount there was no standing.

Anglelyne said...

QueenWili said:

Wow, tired of your "WL" sockpuppet already, Louisa/Will/LW?

Wonder if maniacal sock-puppet production has a listing in the DSM these days. Probably ought to.

damikesc said...

I love that these same people felt Hillary had no conflicts.

Seeing Red said...

So if Michelle runs, their new foundation has to go bye-bye?

Commander Crankshaft said...

I love that these same people felt Hillary had no conflicts.

You have no evidence of that. They might not have brought suit, but neither would the right wing. The right wing feels that conflicts of interest are mere political issues, if that - and want to remove any potential for recourse through the justice system or courts. So there you have it. It probably won't be long until they repeal all laws, even reverting to lynch mobs as a replacement for murder trials. Law and legislation is just not dramatic enough a recourse for the right-wing, you see.

Drago said...

Seeing Red: "So if Michelle runs, their new foundation has to go bye-bye?"

No, because alt-right and other REASONS.

Bob Ellison said...

Commander Crankshaft, a little attention to writing style and attitude tends to betray the source. A little time and dedication to same helps, as well as interest and knowledge in specialized fields.

Michael K is one of those that is not difficult to figure out. Neither are you.

Drago said...

CC: "The right wing feels that conflicts of interest are mere political issues, if that - and want to remove any potential for recourse through the justice system or courts."

The Right Wing doesn't "feel" anything about this. We think the emoluments clause does not apply to the President and Vice-President BECAUSE the emoluments clause explicitly does not apply to the President and Vice-President.

You know, stuff like that.

Steve Uhr said...

Michael K -- How will Trump lose billions by becoming President? His brand should increase in value (assuming he does a great job as you believe he will), and his businesses are in the good hands of his two sons whom he personally trained in the art of the deal.

As for Hillary, I have never had a good word to say about her. Does the fact that she is corrupt somehow excuse Donald's conduct?

Believe it or not, not everyone who disagrees with you is a member of the far left.

Unknown said...

Fire them all. Working the late shift at Dollar General will change their viewpoint pretty quickly.

Commander Crankshaft said...

Well, you might not, Drago. But of course damikesc was the one with the brilliant comment I had to respond to.

Seriously. How much evidence that he was doing another nation's bidding would it take before you'd use it against him politically to the same degree that it was expected to use that stuff against Hillary? So you're not a big fan of legal recourse for this stuff - or feel it doesn't apply, or whatever. But I'd just like to know what the breaking point would be before the right-wing in general would create a groundswell of criticism for doing another nation's bidding to the degree that it was brought against Hillary.

Or is it just a matter of IOKIYAR?

Jon Ericson said...

I think our replacement moby just self-identified. Whoops!

Commander Crankshaft said...

Of course, Trump could just release his tax returns and put all this stuff to rest. But he ain't going to do that.

The opposition has no choice but to hit the ground running with this guy. He clearly has no intention to apply any workable standards of transparency to himself whatsoever - all claims to putting "America first" be damned.

They're just words. With these things, with his first amendment abuses, litigation will be the venue. There is no give-and-take or attempt to be transparent with him and the nation seethes while he demands one-way first amendment privileges and conflicts of interest that he would use against any opponent for doing the same. So that's how it's going to go.

Gretchen said...

Were any of these clowns concerned when the CF and CGI were pulling in millions from foreign governments?

QueenWili said...

I must ask, why is it that Michael K and the green ugly woman continuously harass other commenters about their monikers and or identity? I know Althouse and Meade have now numerous times chastised and or deleted comments that do so, yet these two persist in doing it. Does stalking Althouse commenters somehow give you a sense of purpose? IF I or any other commenter chooses to use sockpuppets or change their moniker or identity, it not your damn business, you weirdos.

Jon Ericson said...

eleven, eleven, easy to remember.

chuck said...

If the outcome is to be decided by politics, then perhaps the elite lawyers should ask themselves if this suit will serve to decrease support for Trump. Myself, I suspect that it is an autoerotic act and will not increase the sex appeal of Democrats much, if at all.

QueenWili said...

When their side is having a bad day, this stalking behavior increases and their side has been having some very very bad days these last few days, with many more to come I suspect. No other commenters here seem to do this as obsessively has Michael K and the green ugly woman. If you want to play games here, I'll play, but you might be the ones who end up looking stupid.

Michael K said...

I must ask, why is it that Michael K and the green ugly woman continuously harass other commenters about their monikers and or identity?

Says the commenter with the blank profile.

"Crankshaft" obviously has a fake profile. I don't mind anonymous idiots but I do sometimes mention it.

Bob Ellison said...

Forget it; he's rolling.

Seeing Red said...

Stalking? Bwaaaaaaaaaa

Here comes the whining, they're being mean, I need a safe space.

Geez, it's like some of us old-timers have already had this convo before with Inga.

Seeing Red said...

Oh, for fresh material.

Michael K said...

If you want to play games here, I'll play, but you might be the ones who end up looking stupid.

I'll take that chance dopey.

If you would post something that contributed to a discussion, say with links to support your point, I would be more tolerant.

Most lefty commenters are just trolls regurgitating DNC talking points.

Jon Ericson said...

That piss-poor excuse of a rant sucked.
Once more, eleven.

QueenWili said...

OCD Michael K, have you noticed that there are other commenters who have private profiles, like April Apple and Louis Wetzel? Why don't you run along and harass them about their lack of a profile?

LYNNDH said...

Pure harassment, that's all it is.

Commander Crankshaft said...

OCD Michael K, have you noticed that there are other commenters who have private profiles, like April Apple and Louis Wetzel? Why don't you run along and harass them about their lack of a profile?

Or whether anyone on Blogger really cares about IRL identities. The percentage of IRL identities to pseudonyms on Blogger is about 9 to 1. But stalker OCD Kennedy has to go on about this irrelevance because, you know, whatever ad hominem helps him distract from the actual substantive issues of the post being discussed. He knows he loses on substance. He really doesn't even care about the substance.

His whole life is one big appeal to authority. Don't stop him now, he's on a roll.

But his lack of any substance is apparent to all.

Commander Crankshaft said...

Sorry - 1 to 9, make that.

Bay Area Guy said...

Since the upset election, here's the Left's response:

1. Silly recount by Jill Stein (#fail)
2. Lobby to abolish Electoral College (#fail)
3. Lobby/threaten electoral college voters to vote against Trump (#fail)
4. Blame Russians for hacking Podesta DNC emails
5. Blame Comey
6. Various riots/protests throughout the country
7. 60 Dem Representatives boycott Inauguration
8. Liberal women's march in DC with Pussy Hats
9. Lawsuit by liberal law professors on Emolument Clause

At what point, do these clowns lose all credibility?

Hillary lost Wisc & Michigan by less than 1 point, because she chose not to campaign there, and instead tried to win Arizona (#strategy fail). End of story.

QueenWili said...

Exactly, OCD MK gets so upset when he can't see a profile, as if that tells him anything about the commenter. Many of the commenters here have absolutely nothing written on their profile page. What fucking old nosey ass women this MK and the green ugly lady are. You two distract from the subject matter of the blog post and make yourselves look fucking weird. My last word on it, for now.

Jon Ericson said...

Praise Allah.

Commander Crankshaft said...

OCD MK attempts to murder messengers because obviously flubbing his attacks on the message is something that even he gets embarrassed about after a while.

Comanche Voter said...

I dunno; only the New York Times think that Larry Tribe and Erwin Chermerinsky are "elite" lawyers. Famous yes--notorious for being lefty loudmouths--but "elite" not so much. They are likely to wind up with egg on their faces.

CWJ said...

Ritmo,

Grow a thicker skin. Seriously. You "lose it" far too easily.

QueenWili said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jon Ericson said...

Damn you Allah!

QueenWili said...

And what has the Trump administration been focused on since the inauguration? How many people there were at the inauguration. So much so that Kellyann started a new meme Alternative Facts, which is trending BTW, #AlternativeFacts. Pathetic start, but really what did you expect? This is only the beginning of the troubles the Trump administration will be facing.

Drago said...

CC: "Seriously. How much evidence that he was doing another nation's bidding would it take before you'd use it against him politically to the same degree that it was expected to use that stuff against Hillary?"


Seriously, how is one supposed to answer this question? How about evidence that he is doing another nations bidding?

But here again, anytime Trump does anything that aligns with how he and his staff view Americas interests in the world its highly likely that the national interest of at least one other entity will align with that decision.

If there is a Trump property in that nation then I can see the lefties go "Whammo!", conflict of interest.

Sorry, it's going to take some pretty darn significant direct evidence of actual quid pro quo to remove a sitting President.

CC: "So you're not a big fan of legal recourse for this stuff - or feel it doesn't apply, or whatever."

Again, "feelings" have nothing to do with it. The law is quite explicit. We should all stop pretending it is not.

CC: "But I'd just like to know what the breaking point would be before the right-wing in general would create a groundswell of criticism for doing another nation's bidding to the degree that it was brought against Hillary."

Are you stipulating that Hillary was doing the bidding of other nations?

CWJ said...

QueenWili,

Ditto.

Drago said...

QueenWili: "And what has the Trump administration been focused on since the inauguration? How many people there were at the inauguration."

It's nice to see that you have the inside track on EVERYTHINH happening within the administration based on 3 admin spokespersons activities on a Sunday.

Note to self: Lefties believe there are about 5 people in the Trump Administration.

Drago said...

QueenWili: "This is only the beginning of the troubles the Trump administration will be facing"

LOL

Keep telling yourself that.

As if any republican doesn't have dem and media "troubles".

Once again, all the media and the lefties are talking about some things that no Trump voters are talking about. And last time I checked, the dems will have to flip those states back in order to win.

You'd better get on that. So far you guys are having nothing but troubles.

Jon Ericson said...

Eleven is the most unhinged of the 3 sisters; 11, 51 and ol' '55.

Birkel said...

You must NOT discuss the PURPLE ELEPHANT.

The Trump Administration is starting in earnest tomorrow. We will see how the confirmation hearings progress. We will see how EOs are delivered to restrict regulatory overreach. We will see how judges are nominated. We will see what Congress does. We will see how foreign governments respond to the new Administration.

And Leftists will talk about whatever PURPLE ELEPHANT is designated by Trump for discussion.

Commander Crankshaft said...

Note to self: Lefties believe there are about 5 people in the Trump Administration.

Well, to be fair, Trump's ego is enough for about 12 people. So there's that.

And there's the fact that he had only appointed about 20 some-odd of the 660 positions he needed to have by inauguration.

His appointments are more about political favors than about anything else. So I can see why it takes him a while. He's going to need an awful lot of favors.

It's nice to see that you have the inside track on EVERYTHINH happening within the administration based on 3 admin spokespersons activities on a Sunday.

What's funny is even those three did such a horrible job. When they can't even bother to tell the truth and start out swinging with a lie on crowd size, just as a way to attack the press, the rest of the nation looks on in horror and can see how little they have to expect of this administration. That much pettiness, that much dishonesty, that much ego and vindictiveness, that soon. Welcome to the Dissembling Administration.

Michael K said...

"Why don't you run along and harass them about their lack of a profile?"

Hilarious that the DNC trolls are concerned about others questioning who they are.

Ritmo has had at least a dozen "profiles" and is recognizable by his lame arguments.

I have no problem with you being a lefty if you make sense.

Commander Crankshaft said...

Are you stipulating that Hillary was doing the bidding of other nations?

Are you stipulating that Trump has no interests in other nations that benefit him? Or just that they don't benefit him to a greater extent than the country as a whole? Man, what a crappy businessman.

Sorry, it's going to take some pretty darn significant direct evidence of actual quid pro quo to remove a sitting President.

You must be pretty glad that he's doing everything he can to hide it. Certainly more than any other president in this century or the last ever did.

In searching for a precedent to Trump all I'm coming up with is Andy Johnson.

BJM said...

I see no way this presidency can succeed. We've just never had another president in living memory whose personal priorities were so skewed.

Seriously? Bill Clinton had some seriously skewed personal priorities.

QueenWili said...

And if was very good of the Obama administration's staffers to agree to stay on until Trump administration can get their act together.

Jon Ericson said...

Then what?

Commander Crankshaft said...

Ritmo has had at least a dozen "profiles"...

Where are the others?

Find me those profile numbers, douchebag.

Find me the different:

1. Avatars,
2. Profile descriptions, and
3. Profile views and date on Blogger since -

contained on those pages.

You would make a shitty detective. Declaring the obvious as if an attempt was made to deceive you. Nope, you're just that bad at seeing what's in front of your own befuddled face.

You are pathetic. Go get a hobby. Get off the internet, gramps. Time to complain about your kids again.

QueenWili said...

"I have no problem with you being a lefty if you make sense"

Oh bullshit. You harass every liberal commenter who shows up here. Now STFU and try to discuss the subject matter of the blog post.

QueenWili said...

This is pretty good.

A much needed primer on the Emoluments Clause

Jon Ericson said...

I think this is the one on box wine. Two box a day habit.

Birkel said...

Sure, we can talk about the substance of the post. The professors cannot overcome the Standing requirement. That was easy.

The rest is politics and optics and bull shit.

What else you want, QueenWili?

QueenWili said...

You don't know that for sure Birkel, you're whistling past the graveyard.

Jon Ericson said...

Dark!

Seeing Red said...

Harrass.

Stalk.


Responding to posts are neither.

Seeing Red said...

Lolol ego.

The Donald said he'd be better at Reince's job than Reince will?

Oh, wait, that was the last president.

QueenWili said...

The Donald said he knows more than the Generals, there that.

Seeing Red said...

He's already called it like he and others see it. There's that.

Jon Ericson said...

lol

Birkel said...

I do know. Althouse knows. The professors filing suit know.

What now?

QueenWili said...

Really? I think he doesn't have a clue as to what's coming up to bite him in the ass. Things are going to be moving faster now, wait for it. These lawsuits are only the beginning.

QueenWili said...

No Althouse didn't say she knew for sure either, you didn't read her post very thourghly, did you?

Birkel said...

I would hope meritless lawsuits are not the best Leftist Collectivists can do.

Maybe the generals President Trump hired know some things.

Why are you so bad at this?

Birkel said...

You do not understand lawyerly hedging.

I will add that to the list of things.

Commander Crankshaft said...

I would hope meritless lawsuits are not the best Leftist Collectivists can do.

Oh, Trump's cabinet is certainly collectivizing.

They're collectivizing all oil policy into the coffers of Rex Tillerson.

All environmental destruction and the profits thereof into the coffers of Scott Pruitt.

All energy policy and the nukes into the coffers of Rick Perry.

And all glory be to Trump.

They're collectivizing the people's thing (res publica) into as few a set of private hands as they can find.

Trump's cabinet has as much wealth as the lowest 1/3rd of America.

Graft Inc. All hail the selling off of America.

Drago said...

QueenWili: "Oh bullshit. You harass every liberal commenter who shows up here. Now STFU and try to discuss the subject matter of the blog post"

Blog monitors ought to be issued armbands. Something stylish that goes with formal and informal attire and leaves no doubt who the boss of the applesauce happens to be.

Quick aside to the previous aside: What would you happen to think the correlation is for self-appointed blog monitors and authoritarians in general?

Seeing Red said...

Yippee!

Birkel said...

PRO TIP:
Capital-C Chuck has not entered this discussion to berate Donald Trump. Capital-C Chuck would use any opportunity to bash Trump. This is not such an opportunity.

Capital-C Chuck understands the law (if not politics) and his personal ethic will stop him from purposefully misunderstanding the legal issues that prevent this case from proceeding.

Todd Roberson said...

It's clear why politicians are required to release their tax returns; when you make your living off the government teat there's a compelling public interest in verifying that you are not engaging in corruption. (Although nearly all professional politicians do indeed become rich in a way that can't b explained by their government salaries; they just get good at hiding it.)

The trouble for Commander Crankshaft and others calling for Trump to release his taxes is that Trump - up to this point - hasn't been a politician. He's essentially been a private citizen engaged in private enterprise. Thus, I don't see any reason why his taxes are anyone's business any more than mine or yours. His wealth up to this point hasn't been generated by any legislation or caveat that he has had any direct control over.

Now, let's say he runs again 4 years after 4 years of being president ... different story. In that case w have every right to demand a look at his taxes.

KAC kinda screwed up the whole shtick this AM on the talking head shows. But I do give her credit for simply saying that Trump will not make his taxes public rather than some delaying tactic.

Drago said...

QueenWili: "The Donald said he knows more than the Generals, there that."

Just following in Obama's footsteps one supposes: "“I think that I’m a better speechwriter than my speechwriters. I know more about policies on any particular issue than my policy directors. And I’ll tell you right now that I’m gonna think I’m a better political director than my political director.”

Ouch.

http://www.politico.com/story/2012/10/10-quotes-that-haunt-obama-081895?o=1

Commander Crankshaft said...

The trouble for Commander Crankshaft and others calling for Trump to release his taxes is that Trump - up to this point - hasn't been a politician. He's essentially been a private citizen engaged in private enterprise. Thus, I don't see any reason why his taxes are anyone's business any more than mine or yours. His wealth up to this point hasn't been generated by any legislation or caveat that he has had any direct control over.

Now, let's say he runs again 4 years after 4 years of being president ... different story. In that case w have every right to demand a look at his taxes.


Translation: "Let's give him at least a good four years to use his office to enrich himself! What's the harm!"

What a canard. No wonder the government's so damn corrupt. You people give it every chance to become that way.

No four-year "grace period." What a crock. Accountability on Day #1. None of this "impeachable offenses are ok for four years" shit. Fuck that. This is why he comes into office with the lowest approval ratings known.

MountainMan said...

Stephen Bainbridge at UCLA Law has discussed the ethics wall that has been built between Trump and his company. I don't see this lawsuit going anywhere.

http://www.professorbainbridge.com/professorbainbridgecom/2017/01/trump-approach-to-business-interests-looks-like-what-i-recommended.html

Todd Roberson said...

Commander Crankshaft.

He's already rich, dude. If money was the main objective I think he'd seek another way to acquire it that was subject to much less scrutiny.

I agree: if he has impeachable offenses he should be held accountable for those. I doubt - however - those will appear on this tax returns which are a legally compliant record of PAST events, and - for private citizens engaged in private enterprise - confidential documents subject to the same legal protection as medical records, a will, etc.

Seeing Red said...

OH, boy, is this great?

Insty linked.

Birkel said...

Last week he was conspiring with the Russians.
Then he was sending Rachel Maddow to a camp.
Now he is letting rooms at hotels while rich.

Will the perfidy of this man never end?

Commander Crankshaft said...

He's already rich, dude. If money was the main objective I think he'd seek another way to acquire it that was subject to much less scrutiny.

Poor people's error #1: The rich don't want more money. Or if they do, they don't care for more power to change the rules regarding how much more easily they should be allowed to acquire it.

Error #2: What counts as "rich?" Trump lies about his wealth - as he does everything else.

Error #3: Trump already found a way to ensure that he has more power than anyone else combined and keep whatever he's doing under the radar of every scanner that every president before him could never avoid.

He just decided, "Fuck it. My interests will stay concealed. I have no interest whatsoever in being transparent simply for the sake of doing the people's business properly."

Birkel said...

Have you been drinking again, Commander Crankshaft?
Or should that be still?

Mark said...

Not only do they not have standing, even if they did, it is an entirely non-justiciable question. It is not an issue for the judicial branch. If the president is in violation of the clause, it is for the legislative branch and only the legislative branch to do something about it.

The same principle applied with a lot of Obama's unconstitutional actions. Instead of whining and crying to the courts to do something, it was up to Congress to exercise its constitutional duties.

Commander Crankshaft said...

Address the substance, distractor and dissembler.

Birkel said...

Substance: This lawsuit is dismissed for lack of standing before discovery.

Now what?

QueenWili said...

CREW is saying that they are the injured party and that gives them standing to sue. Other groups are looking at injury to other hotels in general vicinity. The ACLU is contemplating such a suit. If his presidency lasts it's going to be fraught with one lawsuit after another.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-crew-to-sue-trump-20170122-story.html

"CREW has been forced to divert essential and limited resources - including time and money - from other important matters that it ordinarily would have been handling to the Foreign Emoluments Clause issues involving Defendant, which have consumed the attention of the public and the media," the planned lawsuit complaint says.

Other legal scholars have said that may not be enough of an injury to let CREW's case continue. Another theory is that the best-positioned party to sue Trump may be a rival D.C. hotel, if one of them lost out on embassy business because the embassies used the Trump hotel instead. But that would require finding a large D.C. hotel with a willingness to sue the president of the United States at the outset of his term".

Birkel said...

And you are drunk, right?

Birkel said...

QueenWili:

All such lawsuits will be dismissed. And then what?

Drago said...

QueenWili: "If his presidency lasts it's going to be fraught with one lawsuit after another."

LOL

QueenWili said...

Birkel, stop whistling. It won't scare away the boogeymen.

Drago said...

Commander Crankshaft: "Address the substance, distractor and dissembler"

Hmmm, need one more "d" word for a proper alliteration.

Drago said...

QueenWili: "Birkel, stop whistling. It won't scare away the boogeymen."

True. Trump will still be right there in your dreams.

Anglelyne said...

QueenWili aka Will aka Louisa aka WL aka LW aka some other name tomorrow:

...have you noticed that there are other commenters who have private profiles, like April Apple and Louis Wetzel? Why don't you run along and harass them about their lack of a profile?

Lol. Nobody gives a shit about private profiles or pseudonyms. AprilApple and Louis Wetzel aren't Little DNC Red Book-waving DNC Red Guard retards who think that posting under ten different names will trick everybody into thinking they're ten different people.

QueenWili said...

One fool whistles will the other one is wracked with nervous laughter. Pull yourselves together! Face it like men. Stop engaging in denial. It's going to happen, the man is going to be sued into oblivion. Lots and lots and lots of stuff to sue him over and you dummies voted for him.

Birkel said...

QueenWili:
These thin reeds are the best hope you have? You will change names and never admit you were wrong. Partisanship does weird things to people.

Good luck.

Drago said...

QueenWili: "Tne fool whistles will the other one is wracked with nervous laughter. Pull yourselves together! Face it like men. Stop engaging in denial. It's going to happen, the man is going to be sued into oblivion. Lots and lots and lots of stuff to sue him over and you dummies voted for him."

LOL

Sure he will. Sure.

Now, about those tax cuts, Obamacare destruction, moving our embassy to Jerusalem, infrastructure spending, The Wall, etc.

You know, the stuff that will drive the key votes in the key states in 2012. I guess you simply can't wait for another shellacking.

QueenWili said...

Oh shut up you ugly green hag. Can't you address the subject matter of the blog post either? Feeling defeated by your loser President who made a monumental fool of himself the last three days and all the fools who voted for him? Weirdo.

Todd Roberson said...

Blogger QueenWili -

"Lots and lots of stuff to sue him over" ....

Such as ...? I'm genuinely interested.

Lewis Wetzel said...

". . . your loser President . . ."
He won. Took out two political dynasties. Sanders couldn't have done that.

Drago said...

The only lefty here with a leg to stand on rhetorically and intellectually is R&B/CC because he was right all along and held the other side (Hillary) to the same standard (with as much vehemence I might add) as he goes after Trump.

And if the dems hadn't hacked their own primary Sanders would have been the nominee and we would have had the election we were supposed to have: 2 outsider type populist candidates reflecting non-establishment perspectives and policies. Because that's where the country is.

Duh.

Hillary should have gone the way of Jeb and good riddance to them both.

But no, once again, the lefty sheeple fell into line as they always do and there were simply too few R&B/CC voters out there to get the DNC/dems to wake the hell up.

QueenWili said...

Todd,
Start with one conflict of interest lawsuit after another. Trump hasn't divested himself of his businesses, nor has he created a blind trust.

Drago said...

QueenWili: "...loser President..."

Better I suppose than your "winner President", Hillary.

Birkel said...

Subject matter:
These lawsuits will be dismissed. This is a long shot dreamed up by people who have creative imaginations. And when I say long shot, I mean zero chance.

Now what?

Drago said...

QueenWili: "Trump hasn't divested himself of his businesses, nor has he created a blind trust."

Your stellar financial analysis no doubt matches your trenchant electoral analytics.

One can scarcely wait until your next breathless prediction!!

Bruce Hayden said...

Interesting that the leftist trolls are out in force today. Haven't seen nearly as many since all the ones paid by the Crooked Hillary campaign found better paying jobs. Maybe the frst of Sept or so. Crank seems at least willing to do some work. Queeni is just a nasty piece of work. Wonder if Soros and the DNC are funding more of this stuff again. How else to explain their sudden interest in this blog?

Todd Roberson said...

That's one thing to sue him over.

(Although we'll see if that goes anywhere ...)

What else?

Drago said...

I personally am still waiting for enough electors to come storming into Washington demanding a recount.

Why oh why did the Hollywood brain trust give up so easily on that ploy?

Lewis Wetzel said...

When you are a Democrat, and the people fail you, head for your deep bench of the ABA. Kind of makes it ironic calling yourself a Democrat, though.
I always get a kick out Minnesota's Democrat-Farmer-Labor party. It's all lawyers, government unions, and activists. Not a farmer or laborer in the group running that freak show.
And I do mean "freak show." Check out the Wikipedia entry on Minnesota DFL governor Mark "Crazy Eyes" Dayton sometime.

Birkel said...

QueenWili:
Do you believe Donald Trump will be bankrupted by SLAPP suits like Sarah Palin nearly was? Do you know why that won't happen?

Drago:
Am I setting the bar too high for this drooling lunatic?

QueenWili said...

Todd, lots of business, lots of lawsuits, get it? There are any number of competing business owners that can claim injury and that would give them standing to sue.

Lewis Wetzel said...

If the standing issue is ruled against Trump, here comes the poor, neglected Tenth Amendment into the spotlight. You could restore federalism and get rid of half the administrative state with a single pro-Tenth ruling from the SC. It would probably throw out Roe V Wade as collateral damage.

Drago said...

Bruce Hayden: "Interesting that the leftist trolls are out in force today. Haven't seen nearly as many since all the ones paid by the Crooked Hillary campaign found better paying jobs. Maybe the frst of Sept or so. Crank seems at least willing to do some work. Queeni is just a nasty piece of work. Wonder if Soros and the DNC are funding more of this stuff again. How else to explain their sudden interest in this blog?"

There is some debate as to how many real, distinct individuals are involved from the left.

R&B/CC is not "copy-cat-able" but the others are kind of dime a dozen.

We do know that Soros has gone all in after the election and is directly responsible for partial funding at least of up to 50 of the protest group participants.

One can imagine how much more money Soros the currency manipulator and lefty hero would have made with Hillary at the levers.

But not to worry, #HillaryWillNeverBePresident.

Anglelyne said...

QueenWili aka Will aka Louisa aka WL aka LW aka some other name tomorrow:

Oh shut up you ugly green hag. Can't you address the subject matter of the blog post either?

I think the issue of the appearance and proliferation of mentally unstable DNC sock-puppeteers on blogs is actually quite pertinent to the blog post subject matter.

Drago said...

QueenWili: "Todd, lots of business, lots of lawsuits, get it?"

Sounds complicated.

Perhaps you could elaborate a bit more.

QueenWili said...

https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-freely/first-many-aclu-foia-request-seeks-information-about-new-presidents-conflicts

"Well, we just couldn’t wait: on Thursday, we filed our first Freedom of Information Act request of the Trump Era, seeking documents relating President Trump’s actual or potential conflicts of interest relating to his business and family connections.

Since the election, it has become clear that during the Trump administration the public’s relentless focus on government transparency will be critical to documenting and pushing back against government violations of civil liberties. While Trump has, both during the election campaign and since his Electoral College victory, threatened to violate the Constitution in numerous ways, the presidential transition brought to the fore a host of potential ethical and financial conflicts of interest that undermine the Constitution in a pervasive way: by casting doubt on the longstanding American value of the impartiality in government decisionmaking.

As ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero said:

"Trump took the oath, but he didn't take the steps necessary to ensure that he and his family’s business interests comply with the Constitution and other federal statutes. Freedom of information requests are our democracy’s X-ray and they will be vitally important to expose and curb the abuses of a president who believes the rules don’t apply to him and his family."
The sheer number of potential ethical issues facing our new president is sobering. Bipartisan ethics experts have raised alarm bells about Trump’s many business interests across the globe. He’s reportedly in millions of dollars in debt to foreign countries or entities, including China. He faces mounds of civil lawsuits, with more on the way. His son-in-law will have a White House office, in potential violation of the nepotism laws."

Achilles said...

Commander Crankshaft said...

Oh, Trump's cabinet is certainly collectivizing.

They're collectivizing all oil policy into the coffers of Rex Tillerson.

All environmental destruction and the profits thereof into the coffers of Scott Pruitt.

All energy policy and the nukes into the coffers of Rick Perry.


What are you talking about? These are cabinet positions. Unless we eliminate them completely as I think we should someone has to run those departments.

You are coming off as totally unhinged on this one.

Drago said...

It's important to the left that when any of their views are challenged to quickly cut and paste more links and comments from additional lefties that mirror all the other lefties comments.

In that way, the lefty bathes themselves in the calm, reassuring and deep waters of group conformity.

Bliss.

exiledonmainstreet said...

"Feeling defeated by your loser President?"

Why, no, we're not. We're feeling quite pleased that your loser candidate had to sit there and watch Trump get sworn in.

We're not the ones shrieking and sobbing in the streets. I hope our "loser" president gives you plenty to howl and curse about over the next 4 years.

And anybody who voted for 2 time Loser Hillary, she of the oven mitt pantsuits, can hardly call anybody else a "hag."

Carry on, loser. I shouldn't enjoy watching you hysterical loons go round the bend as much as I do, but I confess, you have been quite entertaining since Nov. 9.

Bruce Hayden said...

The absurdity here is that there is no way that the judicial branch is about to remove a legally elected and sworn in President. This is, to them, a political question, and the sole solution available is the one we learned about in civics - impeachment. Which isn't about to happen, with a Republican Congress. Their only hope is to get a low level win, if they are lucky at forum shopping, which would be quickly reversed on appeal. And, thus, hope to delegitimize Trump and his Administration. My hope though is that some Court along the way levies Rule 11 sanctions against these yoyos. Heck, we may end up with a British loser-pays type system if the left continues their lawfare against Trump, in the name of "tort reform". Normally, contingency fee tort attys would have enough suck to keep this from happening, but they put all their marbles in the wrong basket last election, overwhelmingly backing Crooked Hillary's doomed campaign.

Todd Roberson said...

Sure - I get it. However, let's say a business owner or a group of business owners in class suit attempted to sue and lost and incurred the cost of the suit wouldn't that sorta:

1. Discourage others from filing similar suits
2. Set a precedent in similar cases?

That's why - to me - the whole "conflict of interest" or "undue influence" concept is one "thing" in the "lots of things" meme.

I guess I interpreted your "lots of things" blurb to mean different types of suits.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 255   Newer› Newest»