[ad_1]
WASHINGTON – A lawsuit accusing President Trump of violating the Constitution by maintaining a financial interest in his company's Washington hotel has crossed a critical hurdle Wednesday when a federal judge cleared the law. Case to go from before
. Judge Peter J. Messitte of the Greenbelt District Court, Md., Said that the language of the drafters should be broadly interpreted as a protection effort against the traffic of influence.
He ruled that the trial should go to the evidence gathering stage, which could pave the way for a review of the financial records that the president has consistently refused to disclose. The Department of Justice should prevent this by asking for a stay and appealing the decision.
The two constitutional clauses in question limit the president's ability to accept financial benefits or "emoluments" from national or foreign governments other than his official salary.
The plaintiffs in the lawsuit, the District of Columbia and the state of Maryland, say that Mr. Trump violates these prohibitions by accepting the profits of the Trump International Hotel, a five-star hotel a few blocks away. White House homes are frequented by foreign and state officials. The judge had already ruled that the local courts had standing to sue because the Trump hotel was probably siphoning off business from their convention centers or hotels
. Trump resisted efforts to force him to provide more details about his personal finances, and in particular declined to disclose his tax returns. Questions about Mr. Trump's possible affairs in Russia or with Russians were raised as part of the investigation by the special advocate, Robert S. Mueller III.
Before taking the oath, Mr. Trump resigned from his position at the Trump Organization, but retained his property and gave direction to his two eldest sons, Eric and Donald Jr.
The Department of Justice had tried to dismiss the case, arguing that the constitutional restrictions did not apply to Mr. Trump's interest in the hotel. But the judge said the ministry's lawyers set a fee too narrowly.
"Single or substantial owner of a business that receives hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars in revenue from one of its hotels where foreign and domestic governments are known to stay (often for the purpose expressly to cultivate the good graces of the president) certainly increases the potential for undue influence, and would be well in the contemplation of clauses, "he wrote in a 52-page notice.
He said that the Department of Justice was trying to equate a fee with a bribe on the part of foreign government officials or the state. But the Constitution already defines corruption as an offense likely to be extirpated, and corruption is extremely difficult to prove, he writes.
The weight of historical evidence shows that the drafters meant that the emolument clauses served as a broader control of the traffic of influence. "When, for example, a president maintains a top-notch hotel property that generates millions of dollars in profits a year, it is likely that he will not be influenced, whether consciously or unconsciously. In all his transactions with foreign or national governments that might choose to spend large sums of money on the property of this hotel, did the judge ask in his opinion
"How, indeed, could one prove a given case, that he had actually been influenced by the payments? ", he added. "The authors of the clauses have simplified it." "Ban the bids completely."
Andy Reuss, a spokesman for the Justice Department, said the lawyers "continue to argue that this case should be dismissed." "
He said that a federal judge had rejected a similar complaint by different applicants. "The ministry is reviewing the order and determining the next steps to continue to vigorously defend the president," he said.
Plaintiffs' lawyers applauded the decision
"The decision is extremely important," said Norman L. Eisen, "the chair of the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington and acts as co-counsel for the plaintiffs." This represents a big step forward in understanding how Trump is taking advantage of the presidency. "
Justice Messitte seemed particularly struck by an example cited by the plaintiffs, who noted that when Paul LePage, the Republican governor of Maine, s & ## 39, traveled to Washington to meet Mr. Trump on official mission in February 2017, he and his staff stayed at the Trump International Hotel.
At a subsequent press conference with the Governor, the president announced that he was reviewing the decisions on monuments and national parks that had been pbaded the previous year by the Obama administration and opposed by the The governor's spokesman said that Mr. LePage had not chosen the Trump hotel to try to please the president.
In a footnote, the judge also noted that the Trump International Hotel was one of the most performing properties. Trump Organization, which raised more than $ 40 million in revenue in 2017.
Previously ordered the retention of a wide range of relevant documents, including documents that would reveal the identity of clients from the Trump Hotel. they were paying for rooms and space for the event, and profits for the Trump Organization, as well as hotel marketing campaigns aimed at foreign diplomats.
Source link
