Judge orders the collection of evidence in the case of Trump's emoluments

WASHINGTON – A federal judge in Maryland on Friday ordered the gathering of evidence in a lawsuit accusing President Trump of violating the constitution by maintaining a financial interest in his company's Washington hotel. The plaintiffs are seeking documents that may highlight potential conflicts of interest involving Mr. Trump and representatives of foreign and state governments.

The Justice Ministry, which sought to delay the trial, did not provide a compelling reason to suspend the trial and allowed its lawyers to appeal the lower court's decisions to a higher court, said Judge Peter J. Messitte of the US District Court in the Greenbelt, Md.

The plaintiffs in the trial, the District of Columbia and the state of Maryland, accused Trump of violating the constitutional bans on trading in influence by accepting profits from the Trump International Hotel, a five-star hotel a few blocks from the White House. many foreign and state officials remain in the affair with the administration.

Messitte JA concluded previously that the courts had the right to sue the presiding judge and that the wording of the Constitution limiting the acceptance by the president of financial benefits, or emoluments, should be interpreted broadly. as a protection against corruption. The clauses relating to the emoluments had never been interpreted by a court.

Attorneys General of Maryland and the District of Columbia have argued that the Trump Hotel is unfairly competing with convention centers and hotels where their governments have financial issues.

Norman L. Eisen, co-counsel for the plaintiffs, stated: "Our intention is to conduct discovery in an efficient manner." Among the other documents, the plaintiffs are expected to look for information about the people who have stayed at the hotel his family took advantage.

The Department of Justice can always try other legal maneuvers that could lead to the intervention of a higher court. Under the Trump administration, the ministry has shown itself willing to act aggressively against adverse decisions of lower courts.