You want action

Right? Left? Centre?
Political news and debate.
Put your views and articles up for debate and destruction!
User avatar
Guinevere
Posts: 8990
Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2010 3:01 pm

You want action

Post by Guinevere »

Lets start with this lawsuit, being filed in about an hour, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of NY:


https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/22/us/p ... .html?_r=0
WASHINGTON — A team of prominent constitutional scholars, Supreme Court litigators and former White House ethics lawyers intends to file a lawsuit Monday morning alleging that President Trump is violating the Constitution by allowing his hotels and other business operations to accept payments from foreign governments.

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. Such suits are among the few outlets they have to challenge the administration now that Republicans are in control of the government.

In the new case, the lawyers argue that a provision in the Constitution known as the Emoluments Clause bans payments from foreign powers like the ones to Mr. Trump’s companies. They cite fears among the framers of the Constitution that United States officials could be corrupted by gifts or payments.

The suit, which will not seek any monetary damages, will ask a federal court in New York to order Mr. Trump to stop taking payments from foreign government entities. Such payments, it says, include those from patrons at Trump hotels and golf courses; loans for his office buildings from certain banks controlled by foreign governments; and leases with tenants like the Abu Dhabi tourism office, a government enterprise.

“The framers of the Constitution were students of history,” said Deepak Gupta, one of the lawyers behind the suit. “And they understood that one way a republic could fail is if foreign powers could corrupt our elected leaders.”

The president’s son Eric Trump, who is an executive vice president of the Trump Organization, said the company had taken more steps than required by law to avoid legal exposure, such as agreeing to donate any profits collected at Trump-owned hotels that come from foreign government guests to the United States Treasury.

“This is purely harassment for political gain, and, frankly, I find it very, very sad,” he said in an interview on Sunday.

The president’s lawyers have argued that the constitutional provision does not apply to fair-market payments, such as a standard hotel room bill, and is intended only to prevent federal officials from accepting a special consideration or gift from a foreign power.

“No one would have thought when the Constitution was written that paying your hotel bill was an emolument,” one of the lawyers, Sheri A. Dillon, a partner at Morgan Lewis, said at a news conference this month.

The legal team filing the lawsuit includes Laurence H. Tribe, a Harvard constitutional scholar; Norman L. Eisen, an Obama administration ethics lawyer; and Erwin Chemerinsky, the dean of the law school at the University of California, Irvine. Among the others are Richard W. Painter, an ethics counsel in the administration of George W. Bush; Mr. Gupta, a Supreme Court litigator who has three cases pending before the court; and 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.

Ms. Teachout said the one place of potential concern was a nation like China, which rents space at Trump Tower in New York and is a major lender to an office building in New York that Mr. Trump controls in part.

Foreign governments, Ms. Teachout and other ethics experts warn, could rent out rooms in Trump hotels as a way to send a message to the Trump family. “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,” she said.


But Andy Grewal, a University of Iowa law school professor, argued in an academic paper published last week that a payment to a hotel owned by the Trump family, like the Trump International Hotel in Washington, would not violate the Emoluments Clause because the money is paid to a corporate entity and not to Mr. Trump directly.
“There is no connection between the payment and performance of services by the president personally,” Mr. Grewal said.

“It would be a lot of fun to watch,” he said of the lawsuit, “but I imagine it will be kicked out.”

Mr. Eisen said the legal team intended to use the lawsuit to try to get a copy of Mr. Trump’s federal tax returns, which are needed to properly assess what income or other payments or loans Mr. Trump has received from foreign governments.

The plaintiff in the lawsuit is a liberal group known as Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, which until recently was controlled by David Brock, a Democratic Party operative and fervent supporter of Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

Mr. Eisen now serves as chairman of the organization’s board, and Mr. Painter is vice chairman.

The lawsuit may run into trouble, other legal experts said, given that CREW, as the organization is known, must demonstrate that it would suffer direct and concrete injury to give it standing to sue.

The group says it has suffered harm by having to divert resources from other work to monitor and respond to Mr. Trump’s activities. For example, the group said, it has answered hundreds of questions from news organizations.

In a 1982 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that a civil rights organization had standing to sue because its use of black “testers” to see whether landlords and home sellers were abiding by federal law had hurt its ability to conduct other activities. But in recent decades, and outside the context of civil rights violations, the court has often been skeptical of broad assertions of standing.

Regardless of the lawsuit’s fate, it is just the first hint of the legal assault that the Trump administration will face.

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 with 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 financial or ethical conflicts that Mr. Trump might face. It could potentially use those documents in litigation against the Trump administration.

CREW filed a separate complaint with the General Services Administration on Friday over a provision that appears to prohibit the leasing of the Old Post Office building on Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington to an elected federal official. The building is the site of Mr. Trump’s hotel.

Perhaps more important, the legal groups said they might challenge executive actions Mr. Trump is expected to take on topics like international trade deals, illegal immigration and climate change.
I'll be back later with a copy of the complaint.
“I ask no favor for my sex. All I ask of our brethren is that they take their feet off our necks.” ~ Ruth Bader Ginsburg, paraphrasing Sarah Moore Grimké

User avatar
Guinevere
Posts: 8990
Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2010 3:01 pm

Re: You want action

Post by Guinevere »

And the FOIA request filed by he ACLU on Thursday:

https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-freely/ ... -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.

DEMAND TRANSPARENCY FROM TRUMP

DEMAND TRANSPARENCY Indeed, some have even argued that upon taking the oath of office, the new president is already violating the Constitution — in particular, the now-famous Emoluments Clause. As a bipartisan quartet of ethics experts and lawyers wrote this week:

"The emoluments clause forbids any 'Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under [the United States]' from accepting any 'any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State' (unless Congress explicitly consents).

By 'emolument,' this provision means any benefit derived from dealing with a foreign government. It is well-settled that receipt of such emoluments is strictly prohibited for persons holding positions of trust with the U.S. government. A U.S. official need not also have an 'office' with a foreign government in order to receive an emolument from it.

The Framers included this provision in the Constitution to guarantee that private entanglements with foreign states would not blur the loyalties of federal officials, above all the president. Yet that lesson seems lost on Trump, whose continued significant ownership stake in the Trump Organization forges an unbreakable bond between Trump and a global empire that will benefit or suffer in innumerable ways from its dealings with foreign governments. Trump’s actions in office will thus be haunted by the specter (and perhaps reality) of divided interests."
That’s why we’re stepping in now, using FOIA — one of America’s most critical guarantors of government transparency and the central mechanism by which ordinary Americans can provide ongoing public checks and balances on elected officials in the political branches. We want to know how the Trump transition team and the government offices tasked with supervising ethics-related issues for the incoming administration have been thinking about and confronting these potential conflicts. In pursuit of that information, we’ve asked for a gamut of documents — legal opinions, policy advisories, communications, and more — that address them. And we aim to publish the responses so that the American public can do its job conducting broad-based democratic oversight of the new administration.

The many conflict-of-interest issues presented by Donald Trump’s assumption of the presidency threaten to undermine the public’s confidence in government, the global community’s trust in our nation’s chief executive, and even potentially our national security. With this FOIA — surely the first of many to come during the next four years — we hope to facilitate the public’s indispensable role in checking the power of our public officials.

Because remember: While the president may ordinarily play the boss on television, now that he’s taken the oath of office, he works for us.
“I ask no favor for my sex. All I ask of our brethren is that they take their feet off our necks.” ~ Ruth Bader Ginsburg, paraphrasing Sarah Moore Grimké

User avatar
BoSoxGal
Posts: 20056
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 10:36 pm
Location: The Heart of Red Sox Nation

Re: You want action

Post by BoSoxGal »

:ok

We can always count on the lawyers to enforce the laws even when the head of state attempts to circumvent them - that's the beauty of our system.

A certain Shakespeare quote comes to mind - Donald is Dick the Butcher, let's hope he doesn't get his way!
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
~ Carl Sagan

User avatar
Guinevere
Posts: 8990
Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2010 3:01 pm

Re: You want action

Post by Guinevere »

We can!

Standing is going to be a challenge, and I have to read the Complaint to analyze -- and also expect a Motion to Dismiss -- but we cannot shy away from taking the difficult cases and making the difficult arguments.
“I ask no favor for my sex. All I ask of our brethren is that they take their feet off our necks.” ~ Ruth Bader Ginsburg, paraphrasing Sarah Moore Grimké

User avatar
Lord Jim
Posts: 29716
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 12:44 pm
Location: TCTUTKHBDTMDITSAF

Re: You want action

Post by Lord Jim »

Standing is going to be a challenge
That's what I was wondering about...
ImageImageImage

User avatar
Guinevere
Posts: 8990
Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2010 3:01 pm

Re: You want action

Post by Guinevere »

Also, there may be a chance to get discovery and that could be one of the most significant things coming out of this case. But we shall have to see.
“I ask no favor for my sex. All I ask of our brethren is that they take their feet off our necks.” ~ Ruth Bader Ginsburg, paraphrasing Sarah Moore Grimké

Big RR
Posts: 14911
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 9:47 pm

Re: You want action

Post by Big RR »

guin--is that complaint available online?

User avatar
Guinevere
Posts: 8990
Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2010 3:01 pm

Re: You want action

Post by Guinevere »

I haven't seen it yet. Will post when I do. I was just getting filed at 9AM today.
“I ask no favor for my sex. All I ask of our brethren is that they take their feet off our necks.” ~ Ruth Bader Ginsburg, paraphrasing Sarah Moore Grimké

Big RR
Posts: 14911
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 9:47 pm

Re: You want action

Post by Big RR »

Thanks; I agree there are a lot of interesting issues. I also wonder what relief they are seeking that the court would have the power to impose.

User avatar
Guinevere
Posts: 8990
Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2010 3:01 pm

Re: You want action

Post by Guinevere »

Big RR wrote:Thanks; I agree there are a lot of interesting issues. I also wonder what relief they are seeking that the court would have the power to impose.
Yes, another good question. Since this is an unmitigated area of the law, federal courts have broad discretionary power, who knows. It won't be removal, since there is a specific Constitutional provision for that. I'd love to see some equitable order requiring full divestiture, to be monitored and approved by the Ethics Office. Again, we shall see.
“I ask no favor for my sex. All I ask of our brethren is that they take their feet off our necks.” ~ Ruth Bader Ginsburg, paraphrasing Sarah Moore Grimké

User avatar
Sue U
Posts: 9102
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:59 pm
Location: Eastern Megalopolis, North America (Midtown)

Re: You want action

Post by Sue U »

Apparently they will seek injunctive relief only, ordering Trump to cease accepting any payments from foreign governmental entities.

I'm just waiting to see which judge the case gets assigned to. The SDNY bench is pretty big and extremely varied in judicial philosophy.
GAH!

Big RR
Posts: 14911
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 9:47 pm

Re: You want action

Post by Big RR »

I agree Sue, but assuming they give this relief and Trump ignores it, what can they do? It would be a Constitutional crisis, but unless congress responded with impeachment, the courts could do little. And because of that, the courts might just choose to sidestep rendering an opinion on this whatever way they can.

User avatar
Guinevere
Posts: 8990
Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2010 3:01 pm

Re: You want action

Post by Guinevere »

On PACER now:
1:17-cv-00458
“I ask no favor for my sex. All I ask of our brethren is that they take their feet off our necks.” ~ Ruth Bader Ginsburg, paraphrasing Sarah Moore Grimké

User avatar
Guinevere
Posts: 8990
Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2010 3:01 pm

Re: You want action

Post by Guinevere »

Here's the prayer -- they are seeking both declaratory and injunctive relief:
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, CREW respectfully requests that this Court enter a judgment in CREW’s favor and against Defendant, consisting of:
(a) A declaratory judgment, stating that:
(1) Defendant is a “Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust” under the
Foreign Emoluments Clause;
(2) together, the phrases “present” and “Emolument . . . of any kind
whatever” under the Foreign Emoluments Clause cover anything of value, including money, permits, approvals, tax benefits, any other benefits, and anything else monetary or nonmonetary, regardless of whether it is given in exchange for goods or services, and regardless of whether it is part of a transaction at, above, or below market rates;
(3) the phrase “any King, Prince, or foreign State” under the Foreign Emoluments Clause includes any foreign government and any agent or instrumentality thereof;
(4) Defendant’s acceptance of a “present” or “Emolument” from “any King, Prince, or foreign State,” without “the Consent of the Congress,” constitutes a violation of the Foreign Emoluments Clause;
(5) Defendant’s conduct, as described more fully in paragraphs 25-49 herein, is violating or will violate the Foreign Emoluments Clause; and
(6) no proposed plan announced by Defendant or his attorneys can make this conduct constitutional or otherwise remedy these constitutional violations.
(b) Injunctive relief, enjoining Defendant from violating the Foreign Emoluments Clause, as construed by this Court;
(c) Such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper, including reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs under 28 U.S.C. § 2412(a) and (d) or as otherwise appropriate.
Lots in the complaint on the alleged injury.
“I ask no favor for my sex. All I ask of our brethren is that they take their feet off our necks.” ~ Ruth Bader Ginsburg, paraphrasing Sarah Moore Grimké

Burning Petard
Posts: 4596
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2016 5:35 pm
Location: Near Bear, Delaware

Re: You want action

Post by Burning Petard »

I have serious doubts about the impact of the legal action described at the top of this thread.

These hotels in foreign lands with foreign potentates paying for their presence--THEY ARE NOT TRUMP'S ! ! !

The Donald pays lots of lawyers. They write contracts and sign deeds. The make sure ownership is in some ficticious
person (a corporation) which owned by a fictitious person. . . which is owned by. . . . The Donald benefits, very indirectly, but is not the owner. That is how the Donald skips town with his pockets full of money when these entities go broke and the lenders are standing around with their hands out.

snailgate

User avatar
Lord Jim
Posts: 29716
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 12:44 pm
Location: TCTUTKHBDTMDITSAF

Re: You want action

Post by Lord Jim »

assuming they give this relief and Trump ignores it, what can they do
Well, if the case isn't thrown out, and if the plaintiffs are successful in the trial court, and if the decision is ultimately upheld by the Supreme Court, (a whole lot of ifs) ...

And then Trump were to defy the ruling of the SC, then he would be doing something that not even Richard Nixon was willing to do...
ImageImageImage

User avatar
Guinevere
Posts: 8990
Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2010 3:01 pm

Re: You want action

Post by Guinevere »

SG -- From the summary:
Specifically, Defendant has committed and will commit Foreign Emoluments Clause violations involving at least: (a) leases held by foreign-government-owned entities in New York’s Trump Tower; (b) room reservations and the use of venues and other services and goods by foreign governments and diplomats at Defendant’s Washington, D.C. hotel; (c) hotel stays, property leases, and other business transactions tied to foreign governments at other domestic and international establishments owned, operated, or licensed by Defendant; (d) payments from foreign-government-owned broadcasters related to rebroadcasts and foreign versions of the television program “The Apprentice” and its spinoffs; and (e) property interests or other business dealings tied to foreign governments in numerous other countries.
“I ask no favor for my sex. All I ask of our brethren is that they take their feet off our necks.” ~ Ruth Bader Ginsburg, paraphrasing Sarah Moore Grimké

User avatar
BoSoxGal
Posts: 20056
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 10:36 pm
Location: The Heart of Red Sox Nation

Re: You want action

Post by BoSoxGal »

This is a bit of an aside but related to the core concept of the importance of lawyers - I read online last night that one of Trump's policy goals is to eradicate the Legal Services Corporation! :evil:
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
~ Carl Sagan

User avatar
Bicycle Bill
Posts: 9796
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2015 1:10 pm
Location: Living in a suburb of Berkeley on the Prairie along with my Yellow Rose of Texas

Re: You want action

Post by Bicycle Bill »

The only problem I see is this:
"The emoluments clause forbids any 'Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under [the United States]' from accepting any 'any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State' (unless Congress explicitly consents)."
(from "a bipartisan quartet of ethics experts and lawyers" as cited in Guin's second post)
So Trump signs another executive order; or gets his tame Congress to pass a bill that "explicitly consents" to allowing him to continue to accept these payments or whatever, and it's business as usual.  It's the Golden Rule — "The guy with the gold makes the rules" — in action, and the rest of us can just BOHICA.
Image
-"BB"-
Yes, I suppose I could agree with you ... but then we'd both be wrong, wouldn't we?

User avatar
Guinevere
Posts: 8990
Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2010 3:01 pm

Re: You want action

Post by Guinevere »

“I ask no favor for my sex. All I ask of our brethren is that they take their feet off our necks.” ~ Ruth Bader Ginsburg, paraphrasing Sarah Moore Grimké

Post Reply