[ad_1]
Maryland federal judge dismissed Friday President Trump
Donald John TrumpTrump worried Zinke broke the rules during referral to the Department of Justice: a report signed by 1,600 scientists opposes Trump's plan to refine the definition of genderThe latest court claim to suspend a lawsuit alleging that he had violated the Constitution by doing business with foreign governments while he was in office.
Judge Peter Messitte, of the US District Court of Maryland, dismissed the Administration's request to suspend discovery, which allowed the plaintiffs to seek information in the course of the investigation. lawsuit.
He also refused to allow the administration to appeal his previous orders authorizing the prosecution of the case.
In March, Messitte ruled that the Attorneys General of Maryland and the District of Columbia had the right to sue the president for alleged violation of the Constitution's emoluments clause, which prohibits the president-in-office from accepting gifts. or payments from foreign and national governments.
The plaintiffs argue that Trump violated the clause by accepting payments from foreign governments, directly or indirectly, through his eponymous hotel in Washington, DC.
In July, the judge, who is appointed by former President Clinton, further stated that the plaintiffs had made an application under the emoluments clause.
He added that the term "emolument" comprehensively covered any profit, advantage or advantage that the President does not draw de minimis, through the Trump International Hotel, under the sponsorship of the hotel by government clients, according to court documents.
Trump's lawyers argued in their application to dismiss the lawsuit that "reasonable jurists could differ as to the proper interpretation of the emolument clauses".
In his opinion Friday, Messitte said that Trump had not done enough to justify the referral of his case to a court of appeal for review.
According to the experts, it was rare for Trump to seek leave from the court to appeal his preliminary rulings.
David Super, a professor at Georgetown Law, said the parties usually had to wait for the final judgment in a case before they could appeal.
"In legal terms, it is not very important, because any problem that the president would like to raise is free to raise on appeal when a final judgment has been rendered," he said.
But Super noted that the ruling authorizes the trial to proceed to the discovery phase during which parties will seek information on payments that Trump has received through his hotel and from where they are coming.
"If this information would be embarrassing for the president, then, politically, he suffered a loss," Super said.
D. Racine Attorney General Karl Racine called the court's decision another major victory.
"Our next step is to make a discovery," he said in a statement. "We will soon provide the court with a new timetable to begin the process of informing how President Trump is benefiting from the presidency."
Updated: 15:50
[ad_2]
Source link
