Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Wednesday, July 10, 2019

A federal appeals court on Wednesday dismissed a lawsuit that challenged the legality of payments to President Donald Trump's hotels by foreigners during his tenure in the White House.

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

While I agree with the Court's reasoning, this was a mild surprise to me in that the 4th Circuit has not been kind to the Administration. The other lawsuit pending in the DC Circuit has similar problems in that the Democratic Members of Congress who filed it have even more attenuated damage claims, but the DC Circuit hates the Trump Administration even more than the 4th does.

If there is a split in the rulings, this will immediately go to the Supreme Court.

#1 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-07-10 11:57 AM | Reply

"Maryland and the District of Columbia do not have legal standing"

Does the ruling state, or is it otherwise well established, who does have standing to bring this case before the court?

#2 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2019-07-10 12:01 PM | Reply

Yet another attempt to take down Trump bites the dust. Guess Democrats are going to have to do it the old-fashioned way: win an election.

#3 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-07-10 12:02 PM | Reply


@#2 ... who does have standing to bring this case before the court? ...

That's what I'm wondering.

#4 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-07-10 12:06 PM | Reply

#2

Not to my knowledge, but the Court does note that there has never been a case brought under this Clause so the law is not settled:

"The three-judge panel noted the extraordinary nature of the case and the "difficult constitutional questions, for which there is no precedent."

In response to the claims about the president receiving an unfair economic advantage, the judges said that Washington and Maryland "have manifested substantial difficulty articulating how they are harmed by the President's alleged receipts of emoluments and the nature of the relief that could redress any harm so conceived."

#5 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-07-10 12:15 PM | Reply

I don't care what your politics are but the expectation that the President would put their business in a blind trust and not profit from his/her Presidency. Previous Presidents have all done so so how do Republicans support what Trump is doing today? If it were Obama you would all be going crazy right now.

#6 | Posted by danni at 2019-07-10 12:35 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

If it were Obama you would all be going crazy right now.

#6 | Posted by danni at 2019-07-10 12:35 PMFlag: ReceivedFunnyNewsworthy

But it's Trump, and squeezing public office for money is a common feature of dictatorship.

#7 | Posted by Zed at 2019-07-10 12:39 PM | Reply

--you would all be going crazy right now.

You and CraZED have been crazy for almost 3 years.

#8 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-07-10 12:46 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

The Trump presidency is proving in spades that numerous financial, procedural and ethical laws either need to be rewritten or new laws need to be codified to account for the realities and complexities of today which did not exist in the past. Our laws are based on the often unwritten belief that their intent is to create outcomes of fairness and justice, protecting the weaker parties from predation by the strong and powerful. Today this isn't the case. Too often laws are used to bludgeon and exploit the weak - imo because the written language doesn't explicitly prohibit the actions of the powerful and the powerful then justify their actions by saying anything they do that doesn't rise to criminal indictments or charges means that what they're doing is a-okay.

#9 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-07-10 12:48 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

Yet another attempt to take down Trump bites the dust. Guess Democrats are going to have to do it the old-fashioned way: win an election.
#3 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-07-10 12:02 PM

To be fair, they still have the option of attempting impeachment. All they need is a spine.
Instead, I'm sure we'll see some sarcastic clapping or a mean tweet any time now.
So win an election, you say?

#10 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-07-10 12:52 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Advertisement

Advertisement


Another news article on this:

Trump Wins Dismissal of Emoluments Case by Maryland and D.C.
www.bloomberg.com

...The ruling by a Richmond, Virginia-based appeals court hands a victory to the president, who can now avoid having the Democratic attorneys general in the District of Columbia and Maryland take a deep dive into his financial affairs.

"The District and Maryland's interest in enforcing the Emoluments Clauses is so attenuated and abstract that their prosecution of this case readily provokes the question of whether this action against the president is an appropriate use of the courts, which were created to resolve real cases and controversies between the parties," the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said in its decision.

The ruling by a panel of three Republican-appointed judges leaves one surviving challenge to the president's receipt of financial benefits from his business holdings. In that case in another court, more than 200 congressional Democrats, led by Connecticut Senator Richard Blumenthal, are seeking an order compelling Trump to come to them for permission before accepting any foreign-government-derived benefits, as they contend the Constitution requires him to do....

A federal appeals court in New York is also weighing whether to reinstate an emoluments case that a trial court judge dismissed.

"Unanimous decision in my favor from The United States Court of Appeals For The Fourth Circuit on the ridiculous Emoluments Case. I don't make money, but lose a fortune for the honor of serving and doing a great job as your President (including accepting Zero salary!)," Trump tweeted after the ruling....


#11 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-07-10 12:54 PM | Reply

You and CraZED have been crazy for almost 3 years.

#8 | Posted by nullifidian

Dictators make money off of public office.

Like Trump does.

Racism has done terrible things to your mind and character.

#12 | Posted by Zed at 2019-07-10 12:58 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

I don't care what your politics are but the expectation that the President would put their business in a blind trust and not profit from his/her Presidency. Previous Presidents have all done so so how do Republicans support what Trump is doing today? If it were Obama you would all be going crazy right now.
#6 | Posted by danni at 2019-07-10 12:35 PM

This is a lie.
Previous presidents have continued to operate their personally owned business, even selling goods to foreign countries.


The DOJ also cites examples of previous presidents who had private business interests while in office. George Washington was one of the nation's largest landowners while president and even owned a flour mill. His nephew ran his businesses during his presidency.
Thomas Jefferson himself owned a farm and nail factory, and he exported tobacco to Great Britain during his presidency.

www.crf-usa.org

#13 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-07-10 12:58 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"Previous presidents have continued to operate their personally owned business, even selling goods to foreign countries"

I'll bite. Which?

Jimmy Carter had to give up his business.

#14 | Posted by Zed at 2019-07-10 01:05 PM | Reply

George Washington was one of the nation's largest landowners while president and even owned a flour mill. His nephew ran his businesses during his presidency.
Thomas Jefferson himself owned a farm and nail factory, and he exported tobacco to Great Britain during his presidency.

#13 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-07-10 12:58 PMFlag: (Choose)FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusive

Oh, I see.

Want me to explain why this is your usual venal propaganda?

#15 | Posted by Zed at 2019-07-10 01:06 PM | Reply

I knew you would.

You see, AVIGDORE, the issue is conflict of interest and pay to play.

Not that Washington had a farm.

You and yours are corrupt mofos.

#16 | Posted by Zed at 2019-07-10 01:08 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Want me to explain what a mofo is?

#15 | Posted by Zed at 2019-07-10 01:06

#17 | Posted by Zed at 2019-07-10 01:08 PM | Reply

Dictators see public office as a money-making opportunity.

Like Trump does.

#18 | Posted by Zed at 2019-07-10 01:10 PM | Reply

Want me to explain why this is your usual venal propaganda? - #15 | Posted by Zed at 2019-07-10 01:06 PM
Somehow my showing that Danni was either ignorant of reality or chose to lie about it is propaganda?
And you wonder why nobody takes you seriously.

#19 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-07-10 01:16 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 2


Interesting to read.

What Is the Emoluments Clause?
www.britannica.com

#20 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-07-10 01:20 PM | Reply

Trump. Exonerated. Again.

#21 | Posted by visitor_ at 2019-07-10 01:37 PM | Reply | Funny: 5

Trump. Exonerated. Again.

#21 | Posted by visitor_ at

He wasn't exonerated. He has yet to be brought to answer for his behavior.

#22 | Posted by Zed at 2019-07-10 01:44 PM | Reply

And you wonder why nobody takes you seriously.

#19 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-07-10

To paraphrase EB, you must take me seriously because you interact with me. In fact, I'm pretty sure I live in your head.

#23 | Posted by Zed at 2019-07-10 01:45 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1


#19 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-07-10 01:16 PMFlag: (Choose)FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusive | Newsworthy 1

As RCADE said recently, Trump supporters have no values.

You are corrupt personalities supporting a corrupt personality.

#24 | Posted by Zed at 2019-07-10 01:46 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Yet another attempt to take down Trump bites the dust. Guess Democrats are going to have to do it the old-fashioned way: win an election.

#3 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN

Trump brazenly profits off of his position and is likely influenced by people paying him money and turd lickers like Nullischittian cheer.

#25 | Posted by jpw at 2019-07-10 02:20 PM | Reply

You and CraZED have been crazy for almost 3 years.

#8 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN

No, they're just not pathetic Schitt heaps.

#26 | Posted by jpw at 2019-07-10 02:21 PM | Reply

You cant rent a room to foreigner if you own a hotel? Okay.

Now come after Hillary and her foundation. That was billions.

Oh wait, she's not Trump.

#27 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2019-07-10 02:38 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

From #20:

The emoluments clause, also called the foreign emoluments clause, is a provision of the U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 9, Paragraph 8) that generally prohibits federal officeholders from receiving any gift, payment, or other thing of value from a foreign state or its rulers, officers, or representatives.

Thing is. You can't prove (it's very difficult to prove) people buying out entire floors of Trump hotels and buying lifetime memberships to maralago are doing so as a gift/payment to Trump.

It's a business. It makes money. As it's written, there nothing in the emoluments clause prohibiting the ownership of private businesses. It just prohibits receiving of gifts. Which, I assume, must be directly given to the President.

However, it does go on to say:

The plain purpose of the foreign emoluments clause was to ensure that the country's leaders would not be improperly influenced, even unconsciously, through gift giving, then a common and generally corrupt practice among European rulers and diplomats. An early version of the clause, modeled on a rule adopted by the Dutch Republic in 1651 that forbade its foreign ministers from receiving "any presents, directly or indirectly, in any manner or way whatever," was incorporated into the Articles of Confederation (1781)

So. Apparently if you can show payments were intended to indirectly bribe Trump. Then perhaps there's a case to be made.

Personally. I'd say it's obvious people are buying favor with Trump.

But I can't prove it. Apparently neither can the people trying to sue Trump.

#28 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-07-10 02:48 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Thing is. You can't prove (it's very difficult to prove) people buying out entire floors of Trump hotels and buying lifetime memberships to maralago are doing so as a gift/payment to Trump."

Seems like it should be easy enough to simply ask one of them.

#29 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-07-10 02:49 PM | Reply

Now come after Hillary and her foundation.

I can't believe Hillary made it through two terms as President without anyone catching onto her schemes.

Thanks HeliumRat. Your contributions to discussion are as pointless as ever.

#30 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-07-10 02:50 PM | Reply | Funny: 2 | Newsworthy 2

Seems like it should be easy enough to simply ask one of them.

And... they're going to confess to attempted bribery?

You'd have better luck getting Trump to admit he loves golden showers.

#31 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-07-10 02:52 PM | Reply

"And... they're going to confess to attempted bribery?"

They probably don't know it's bribery... or don't mind admitting it to the right wiretap.

#32 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-07-10 03:01 PM | Reply

You cant rent a room to foreigner if you own a hotel? Okay.

www.google.com

Funny how your guys continue to slide down the ladder of standards.

First I thought you hit bottom with "well it's not illegal".

But nope. You crashed right through that floor and have moved on to "well it's not cartoonishly criminal".

Jesus you guys are pathetic.

#33 | Posted by jpw at 2019-07-10 04:27 PM | Reply

you guys are pathetic.
#33 | POSTED BY JPW

I get your point and I agree. It's obvious Trump is being bribed.

But. Can you prove it in court? That's the challenge.

#34 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-07-10 04:36 PM | Reply

But. Can you prove it in court? That's the challenge.

#34 | Posted by ClownShack

Likely not.

Additionally, we're in new legal territory it seems so it's even more cloudy as to what the courts should do.

Finally, my ultimate point is we should hold somebody as powerful as POTUS to higher standards than "is this criminal".

People should have enough of a reaction to him profiting off of his office as much as he does that something is done about it no matter what.

But the right are pathetic sycophants who would claim a blood covered Trump didn't murder that dead hooker under his bed because he's not holding her head.

#35 | Posted by jpw at 2019-07-10 04:53 PM | Reply

#8 | Posted by nullifidian

You, Sheeple, Andrea, and ROC should just get a house together. Y'all spend half your days flagging each other's posts Newsworthy or Funny. Cheers!

The Drudge Retort Flag Team

#36 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-07-10 05:17 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

But the right are pathetic sycophants who would claim a blood covered Trump didn't murder that dead hooker under his bed because he's not holding her head.
#35 | POSTED BY JPW

Couldn't agree more.

#37 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-07-10 05:24 PM | Reply

#36

Nothing is more desperate than someone who plays Who Flagged Who.

#38 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-07-10 05:31 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

- Who Flagged Who

That's exclusively Foam Helmet Hans' territory.

#39 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2019-07-10 05:32 PM | Reply

Hey Elvis, I just gave a NW flag to Roc. Suck on it.

#40 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-07-10 05:39 PM | Reply

I just gave a NW flag to Roc.

To no one's surprise...

#41 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-07-10 05:41 PM | Reply | Funny: 5

And I just gave Clown a FF!

#42 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-07-10 05:43 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

I just gave Clown a FF!

Well that's to be expected.

I'm a clown!

😏😉😜

#43 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-07-10 05:45 PM | Reply

You cant rent a room to foreigner if you own a hotel? Okay.

Now come after Hillary and her foundation. That was billions.

Oh wait, she's not Trump.

#27 | Posted by HeliumRat

She is also not President, you big dummy, so the emoluments clause does not apply to her. And she obviously gets rent free lodging in your head.

What is it with you guys and Hillary? I have never seen such blind hatred of someone who is not an elected official and who is not even trying to be one.

That is like you guys still going after Al Gore and he lost in the year 2000 and hasn't run for any elected office since.

Oh wait... you numbnuts still go after Al Gore and that was 19 years ago.

Nevermind.

#44 | Posted by donnerboy at 2019-07-10 08:06 PM | Reply

"While I agree with the Court's reasoning, this was a mild surprise to me in that the 4th Circuit has not been kind to the Administration."

Of course you would say this kind of junk. You're a Trump parrot.

#45 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2019-07-10 09:39 PM | Reply

"While I agree with the Court's reasoning, this was a mild surprise to me in that the 4th Circuit has not been kind to the Administration."

Of course you would say this kind of junk. You're a Trump parrot.

#45 | POSTED BY BRUCEBANNER

I don't know of too many Trump parrots who repeatedly call for his impeachment.

#46 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-07-10 09:47 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"I don't know of too many Trump parrots who repeatedly call for his impeachment."

^
This is what JeffJ calls calling for his impeachment:
"Please, Speaker Pelosi, don't fling me in dat brier-patch!"

#47 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-07-11 12:37 AM | Reply

They didn't have standing. Others do. It's not over till it's over.

Humpy will be defending himself and his actions in court for the rest of his life.

#48 | Posted by donnerboy at 2019-07-11 11:14 AM | Reply

Has anyone even looked at Congress? The clause applies to all of them.

How many from Congress are invited to go to other countries to be influenced by all the whining and dining.

#49 | Posted by Petrous at 2019-07-11 12:07 PM | Reply

Trump. Exonerated. Again.

#21 | POSTED BY VISITOR_

Dismissed because they don't have standing. No ruling made on whether he violated the emoulments clause or not.

But sure... it probably looks like exoneration to you. You probably don't even know what "standing" means, do you? It is a VERY BASIC legal concept.

We should make a list. We all know that conservatives have zero understanding of basic economics. Add a zero understanding of basic law to the list as well.

#50 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-07-11 02:24 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Of course you would say this kind of junk. You're a Trump parrot.

LOL, yet again, Bruce, I invite you to post links to all that "parroting" that I have done for Trump.

As Jeff correctly points out, I have been one of the loudest voices on the DR calling for impeachment proceedings to commence.

#51 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-07-11 02:33 PM | Reply

See #47

#52 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-07-11 02:34 PM | Reply

^

Nope.

#53 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-07-11 02:35 PM | Reply

I've never professed more than a layman's knowledge of the law. If it's such a basic concept then the Democrats, their supporters and lawyers must be very stupid because it was thrown out.

#54 | Posted by visitor_ at 2019-07-11 02:37 PM | Reply

Visitor,

See #50.

#55 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-07-11 02:40 PM | Reply

#54

These suits were cobbled together to garner headlines and to give the Dems mouthbreathing base something to hyperventilate over. They knew from the start that they likelihood of success was di minimus, but this keeps the issue in the news cycle.

#56 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-07-11 02:42 PM | Reply

- Trump Wins Dismissal of One Emoluments Court Case

Great headline change; One. hahaha

Which means there are thousands more flying monkeys to release!

"Fly my pretties! Bring me the Orange Julius, and her little dog too!"

#57 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2019-07-11 02:55 PM | Reply

- Dismissed because they don't have standing.

Standing? We'll find standing somewhere; out in a cornfield, in a corner, on laurels, on the promises of Christ my King!

Women, children, trannies, and *junkies* will testify to the great harm brought them and the tears they've shed.

This weeks *secret* word brought to you by Snoofy

#58 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2019-07-11 03:01 PM | Reply

RE: #13 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE AT 2019-07-10 12:58 PM

Thanx for the interesting historical info, but how does it relate to this thread?
This dismaissal was given for lack of legal standing.

Maybe Et Al would like to explain the difference between a dismissal due to lack of standing v. exoneration.

#59 | Posted by TrueBlue at 2019-07-12 03:59 AM | Reply

"These suits were cobbled together to garner headlines and to give the Dems mouthbreathing base something to hyperventilate over."

Or, more correctly, we expect the President to obey the Constitution. BTW, I've never known an attorney with so much time to waste on a site like this. Two attorneys in my family, trust me, they wouldn't waste five minutes of billable time here. You must have a miniscule practice.

#60 | Posted by danni at 2019-07-12 10:19 AM | Reply

While I agree with the Court's reasoning, this was a mild surprise to me in that the 4th Circuit has not been kind to the Administration.

#1 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER

The 4th Circuit has not done anything other than rule accordiing to the law. It is not kindness that generates decisions in court. Trump loses a lot in 4th circuit because he is on the wrong side of the law in many cases that end up there.

#61 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2019-07-12 11:41 AM | Reply

#60

Ask your two family attorneys about the terms "rainmaker" and "leverage."

#61

Glad to see that someone still thinks Justice is blind, but the reality is that certain Districts can be and are more favorable to different sides of the political spectrum. In this instance, Trump lucked out and three GOP appointees got the case, if it had been a bench appointed by Carter, Clinton and Obama my guess is that they would have figured out a way to allow the case to proceed.

#62 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-07-12 03:47 PM | Reply

" In this instance, Trump lucked out and three GOP appointees got the case, if it had been a bench appointed by Carter, Clinton and Obama my guess is that they would have figured out a way to allow the case to proceed."

Statistics pretty much guarantees the latter couldn't happen, but the former is very likely.
The GOP has been stacking the Federal judiciary, including the Supreme Court, for the past thirty years.
Luck has nothing to do with it.

Your narrative seems to be intended to trick people into thinking the luck of the draw is drawing from a fair deck.
You shouldn't lie like that.

#63 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-07-12 03:51 PM | Reply

The GOP has been stacking the Federal judiciary, including the Supreme Court, for the past thirty years.

Luck has nothing to do with it.

Wrong:

From your go-to source:

Total Federal judges by President since 1988:

George H W Bush: 193

Bill Clinton: 378

George W Bush: 327

Barack Obama: 329

Donald Trump: 127

Your narrative seems to be intended to trick people into thinking the luck of the draw is drawing from a unfair deck.

You shouldn't lie like that.

#64 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-07-12 04:22 PM | Reply

Moreover if you look at the currently active judges, there are 406 active Federal Judges appointed by Democrats and 324 appointed by Republicans. The numbers of active Circuit Judges are relatively similar (82 D, 84 R), so it truly is the luck of the draw at the Circuit level.

You shouldn't lie like that.

#65 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-07-12 04:28 PM | Reply

There were 100 Obama nominees for the federal bench whose confirmations McConnell held up.

So instead of qualified candidates, Trump is appointing one unqualified candidate after another from the Federalist Society's list.

McConnell's a POS. If Harry Reid had done that you'd be screaming from the rafters ... instead of your Maytag Law Offices desk.

#66 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-07-12 04:58 PM | Reply

AU,

Harry Reid did do that. It's why the GOP was on the brink of nuking the filibuster for judicial appointments long before Reid nuked the filibuster for judicial appointments.

#67 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-07-12 05:14 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

##66-67

Reid held up 10 through filibusters as minority leader from 04-06 and held up 84 confirmations as majority leader between 06-08.

#68 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-07-12 05:26 PM | Reply

- Trump Wins Dismissal of One Emoluments Court Case

Great headline change; One. hahaha

Which means there are thousands more flying monkeys to release!

"Fly my pretties! Bring me the Orange Julius, and her little dog too!"

#57 | Posted by SheepleSchism

Can someone decipher what this pathetic russian is trying to gloat about?

#69 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-07-12 06:37 PM | Reply

#64 Thanks for letting me know, and I apologize for calling you a liar.
Turns out my talking point is old enough for Trump to walk in on in the dressing room.
Is this why Harry Reid nuked the filibuster, to let Obama un-stack the courts?

#70 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-07-12 06:42 PM | Reply

No worries, apology accepted. And sorry for throwing it back at you.

That talking point completely ignores what Harry Reid did to the Senate. You might find this article from 2013 in the Atlantic interesting:

Who Broke Washington? Blame Harry Reid

#71 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-07-12 06:57 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort