[ad_1]
WASHINGTON – A federal court of appeal temporarily suspended Thursday a lawsuit accusing President Trump of unlawfully benefiting from his family's business activities, a temporary victory of the Justice Department in his efforts to block more three dozens of subpoenas for documents from the Trump organization. , the confidence of the president and other entities.
A lower court judge allowed the Columbia District Court and the state of Maryland to proceed to the evidence-gathering stage. The Attorneys General of both local jurisdictions alleged that Mr. Trump violated the anti-corruption provisions of the Constitution by accepting payments, or emoluments, of foreign, federal and state officials who had sponsored the Trump International Hotel. , located a few blocks from the White House. [19659002] They say the president's hotel is siphoning off the business of hotels and convention centers generating revenue for their governments. In a series of rulings, the federal judge in charge of the case, Peter J. Messitte, of the US District Court in Greenbelt, Maryland, ruled against the president.
This month, the Justice Department asked the US Court of Appeals for the fourth circuit to intervene, arguing that Justice Messitte had wrongly dealt with the case, which could have important constitutional implications, like a "mundane commercial dispute".
The department argued: "The complaint rests on a host of new and fundamentally flawed constitutional premises, and pleading claims would imply an intrusive discovery in the president's personal financial affairs and the official actions of his administration. "
In a two-paragraph order on Thursday, the Court of Appeal allowed the Ministry's request for suspension and the convening of a hearing in March
The judges stated in particular that they wanted to know the law. Opinion of both parties on the question of whether local jurisdiction
Attorneys General, Brian E. Frosh, of Maryland, and Karl A. Racine, of the District of Columbia, stated that the court of
"We firmly believe that the Federal District Court was right to do what it allowed us to do with this action." this discovery, "they said in a statement.
Source link
