Posted on 07/10/2019 8:20:22 AM PDT by Erik Latranyi
President Donald Trump on Wednesday won the dismissal of a lawsuit against him by Maryland and the District of Columbia that challenged payments made to his Washington hotel by foreigners while he has been in the White House.
A three-judge panel in the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in a decision said that Maryland and D.C. do not have legal standing “to pursue their claims against the president” that he violated the emoluments clause of the U.S. Constitution.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnbc.com ...
Please Democrats, file an appeal immediately, tying up more legislative attorneys, millions of dollars, and vital resources otherwise used to advance your liberty stripping nonsense legislation.
Next they’ll sue him because he bought Diet Coke made in Canada
CNBC with their sore loser editorial comment.
Crybabies don't crow. They cry
Coming from the 4th Circuit this is particularly good because Obola packed it with his appointees. Not much chance for a successful SCOTUS appeal.
Frankly anyone with common sense knew this which of course means the lawsuit was purely political and in that case those suing should be fined for wasting the courts time!
Count on it.
This is what the Legal System in America has become. Another arm of the Democrat Party. Lawyers run the courts totally and every decision rest totally on lawyers. Lawyers on an average contribute to the Democrat Party buy about 85% Plus. America had better be careful. Donald Trump is not a lawyer and this spells the hatred for him by the powerful in America. It is tough to get a good honest lawyer anymore and that is again why they hate Trump he tries to pick honest ones and that is a danger to the Democrats and legal profession.
Obama could have been subject to the same clause with the Nobel Prize payment.
What about a president who gets foreign money by winning a Nobel Peace Prize?
Easy enough to avoid. Just rename his hotels as “Foundations”!
President Trump was lucky. The three-judge panel consisted of Judge Niemeyer appointed by President G.H.W. Bush, Judge Quattlebaum appointed by President Trump, and Senior Judge Shedd appointed by President G.W. Bush. If the panel had consisted of Clinton/Obama-appointed judges, the decision might have been different.
Is there a danger of an en-banc rehearing? There are six Republican-appointed judges, eight Democrat-appointed judges, and one judge who was originally appointed by President Clinton and consequently appointed by President George W. Bush.
I heard that dipstick Maxine Waters spouting off one time, stuttering and sputtering about how they were going to get Trump for sure with the “emoluments” clause, and I remember thinking “She has no idea what that even is. One of her barking moonbat comrades probably told her that.
We’re lucky this witch hunt failed.
Which is exactly why Brian Frosh, Maryland Attorney General filed the lawsuit. He’s a kneejerk liberal, emphasis on jerk who has filed numerous cases against Trump and will lose every one.
Obama donated his 1.4 million to charity but technically, in order to do that, he had to receive the cash then distribute it. There is a list out of who got what.
Hey did anyone audit those transactions? Mueller? Mueller?
... and will lose every one.
At what point does he become a vexatious litigant subject to court penalty?
The difference, of course, was that TR and Wilson had done something worthy of being recognized by the Peace Prize.
The MD AG will appeal and and ask for en-banc hearing, where it will to the other way (all political, law be dammed). It will go to the supreme court, who will refuse to hear it as Roberts will avoid the controversy. In the end, Trump will lose this one.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.