June 11, 2017

Attorneys general for the District of Columbia and the state of Maryland say they will sue President Trump on Monday, alleging that he has violated anticorruption clauses in the Constitution by accepting millions in payments and benefits from foreign governments since moving into the White House.

The lawsuit, the first of its kind brought by government entities, centers on the fact that Trump chose to retain ownership of his company when he became president. Trump said in January that he was shifting his business assets into a trust managed by his sons to eliminate potential conflicts of interests.

But D.C. Attorney General Karl A. Racine (D) and Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh (D) say Trump has broken many promises to keep separate his public duties and private business interests, including receiving regular updates about his company’s financial health.

If a federal judge allows the case to proceed, Racine and Frosh say, one of the first steps would be to demand through the discovery process copies of Trump’s personal tax returns to gauge the extent of his foreign business dealings. That fight would most likely end up before the Supreme Court, the two said, with Trump’s attorneys having to defend why the returns should remain private.

“This case is, at its core, about the right of Marylanders, residents of the District of Columbia and all Americans to have honest government,” Frosh said, referring to parts of the Constitution known as the “emoluments” clauses, which prohibit U.S. officials from taking gifts or other benefits from foreign governments. “The emoluments clauses command that . . . the president put the country first and not his own personal interest first.”

Racine said he felt obligated to file suit against Trump in part because the Republican-controlled Congress has not taken the president’s apparent conflicts seriously.

“We’re getting in here to be the check and balance that it appears Congress is unwilling to be,” he said. “We’re bringing suit because the president has not taken adequate steps to separate himself from his business interests.”

Click to expand...

Lights and Waves said:

I mean will this even do anything or is it more just for the principle

Click to expand...

jb1234 said:

That's an amusingly clever way to get his tax returns.

Click to expand...

"SJ0005 (JR0001)
2017 Regular Session

Entitled: Attorney General - Powers - Maryland Defense Act of 2017
Sponsored by: Senator Kasemeyer
Status: Signed by the President and the Speaker - Joint Resolution 1

Synopsis: Directing the Attorney General to take specified actions regarding civil and criminal suits and actions that are based on the federal government's action or inaction that threatens the public interest and welfare of the residents of the State; requiring the Attorney General, except under specified circumstances, to provide the Governor with specified notice and an opportunity to review and comment on specified suits and actions before commencing specified suits and actions; etc."

Click to expand...

Maryland’s General Assembly approved blanket authorization for state Attorney General Brian E. Frosh to sue the federal government, illustrating the eagerness of Democratic legislative leaders to challenge the Trump administration over undocumented immigrants, refugees, health care and other issues.

The proposal passed quickly through the legislature over the past two weeks on party-line votes that exposed an increasingly bitter partisan divide in Annapolis.

It will take effect without the signature of Gov. Larry Hogan (R), whose spokeswoman accused Democrats of engaging in “Washington-style party politics” and “philosophizing over what might or might not happen in Washington, D.C. — instead of focusing on Maryland.”

The joint resolution, which can’t be vetoed by the governor, is one in a series of Democratic measures in response to Trump administration policies, including a bill that would set aside $3 million in the state budget for Frosh to protect Marylanders from “harmful” federal efforts.

Under current law, the attorney general must seek a green light from the legislature or the governor to take action against the federal government. In most other states, attorneys general can take legal action to protect the public interest as they see fit, legislative analysts said.

Click to expand...

FZZ said:

Good

but what is actually gonna come of this for people that know how this works

Click to expand...

Cagey said:

Likely dismissed. Highly doubtful states or private citizens have standing to bring this lawsuit; the clause is silent but intent would suggest the power to enforce the clause lies with Congress investigating and pursuing impeachment.

Even if it reaches SCOTUS, the initial decision will be about standing, not the merits, and they'll likely uphold lower court ruling dismissing the suit.

Click to expand...

jb1234 said:

That's an amusingly clever way to get his tax returns.

Click to expand...

Most concerning for the White House may be Mueller's investigative freedom. He could for example subpoena the President's tax returns, which Trump has refused to release publicly, and which his critics say could contain evidence of exposure to Russian debt or investments that could pose a conflict of interest or cloud his judgment.

Click to expand...

KarneeKarnay said:

Look at it this way, regardless of whether or not Trumpf & Co is a sinking ship, the Republican Leadership need Trump to pass as much bullshit as possible (As they seem to be making an art form out of ineptness right now.). If Trump is covered in Political Scandals and worse, he can't make up that time. His administration looks weaker and weaker because of it.

The weaker Trumpf & Co. look the better it is for 2018 when all this can be stopped.

Click to expand...

KarneeKarnay said:

Look at it this way, regardless of whether or not Trumpf & Co is a sinking ship, the Republican Leadership need Trump to pass as much bullshit as possible (As they seem to be making an art form out of ineptness right now.). If Trump is covered in Political Scandals and worse, he can't make up that time. His administration looks weaker and weaker because of it.

The weaker Trumpf & Co. look the better it is for 2018 when all this can be stopped.

Click to expand...

ERotIC said:

8,000th time's the charm, I guess.

Click to expand...

BoogieWoogie said:

How many lawsuits does Trump have against him now? I seriously think it's over 200 at this point.

Click to expand...

Lord_Byron28 said:

Hopefully other states jump on this as well. New York, California, Oregon, Washington and Virginia are states that I could see jumping on this as well.

Click to expand...

D.C. and Maryland v. Trump

Attorneys general for the District of Columbia and the state of Maryland sued President Trump on Monday, June 12, 2017 alleging that he has violated anti-corruption clauses in the Constitution by accepting millions in payments and benefits from foreign governments since moving into the White House.

Click to expand...

The suit also alleges that Trump is violating domestic emoluments by creating a situation in which states feel compelled to compete for Trump’s favor, perhaps by offering zoning exemptions, waivers or other benefits to help his businesses.

After initially saying the Trump organization would not pursue new deals while he was in office, Trump’s sons announced last week that the company would begin building a network of new hotels in mostly red states that he won in last year’s election.

The suit by D.C. and Maryland says the two jurisdictions are faced with an “intolerable dilemma”: to either go along with the Trump Organization getting special treatment, including possible lost local revenue, or “deny such requests and be placed at a disadvantage vis-à-vis states and other government entities that have granted or will agree to such concessions.”

The District and Maryland file the suit at great peril, Racine and Frosh allege, because the two have a disproportionately large percentage of federal workers and could be acutely affected by federal budget cuts that Trump could seek as retribution.

But Maryland argues that it has special standing to sue. As one of the original states that approved the Constitution, Maryland gave up a clause in its own state declaration that had required its governors not to take any gifts from foreign governments or other states.

Click to expand...

Racine and Frosh say that unless Trump is reined in under the emoluments clause, Americans can never be certain that “underlying his travel ban, withdrawal from the Paris Accord climate deal or proposed tax cuts” that he is acting in the country’s best interest and not his own.

Strict adherence to the emoluments clauses, D.C. and Maryland argue, ensures “that Americans do not have to guess whether a President who orders their sons and daughters to die in foreign lands acts out of concern for his private business interests; they do not have to wonder if they lost their job due to trade negotiations in which the President has a personal stake; and they never have to question whether the President can sit across the bargaining table from foreign leaders and faithfully represent the world’s most powerful democracy, unencumbered by fear of harming his own companies.”

Click to expand...

KSweeley said:

Typically, any lawsuit that the Maryland AG wants to file, he need authorization from the Governor of Maryland who is Republican Larry Hogan or the legislature, this lawsuit is special because it's suing the federal government and the Maryland General Assembly in this year's session passed a joint resolution authorizing Frosh to sue the federal government without the need of the authorization of Governor Hogan or the legislature: http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/webmga/frmMain.aspx?pid=billpage&tab=subject3&id=sj0005&stab=01&ys=2017RS



Link to WaPo article about this: https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...d33dee-f303-11e6-a9b0-ecee7ce475fc_story.html


Maryland’s General Assembly approved blanket authorization for state Attorney General Brian E. Frosh to sue the federal government, illustrating the eagerness of Democratic legislative leaders to challenge the Trump administration over undocumented immigrants, refugees, health care and other issues.

Click to expand...

wildfire said:

*doubly cheers*

Click to expand...

Strict adherence to the emoluments clauses, D.C. and Maryland argue, ensures “that Americans do not have to guess whether a President who orders their sons and daughters to die in foreign lands acts out of concern for his private business interests; they do not have to wonder if they lost their job due to trade negotiations in which the President has a personal stake; and they never have to question whether the President can sit across the bargaining table from foreign leaders and faithfully represent the world’s most powerful democracy, unencumbered by fear of harming his own companies.”

Click to expand...