The judge's decision in the emoluments clause case means that Trump can not hide behind the Resolute office. It's a good thing

OOn Friday, President Trump was not the winner in the US District Court. Judge Peter Messitte rejected the president's request to appeal the July ruling authorizing the opening of a lawsuit against Trump for the benefit of foreign governments. The judge also rejected the request to put the discovery process on hold. This means that the plaintiffs are about to unravel the opaque relationships of Trump's DC hotel and its foreign customers. For the country, it's a good thing.

In July, Messitte ruled that the lawsuit brought against Trump by attorneys general of Maryland and Washington DC, alleging that the Trump Organization, taking payments that directly enriched the incumbent president of foreign governments via the Trump International Hotel in Washington , violated the clause of the Constitution on emoluments would be allowed to go ahead.

The clause on emoluments is worded as follows: "No person carrying out a for-profit office or fiduciary duty under it may, without the consent of the Congress, accept a gift, a fee, a charge, a title, of any nature whatsoever, from a king, a prince, or a foreign state. "

This prohibition on emoluments, defined as "any profit, gain or advantage" is clearly intended to prevent any US official from gaining personal gain from a foreign power, as this would compromise his ability to act in the best interests of the country. . In simple terms, the founding fathers did not want the officers of their new republic to be "bought" by foreign powers.

This fee design includes payments from foreign governments, such as the $ 150,000 declared by the Trump D.C. hotel as "foreign profits", as well as other commercial transactions with other Trump Organization companies.

Although Trump set up a trust meant to separate him from the finances of the hotels and other assets of the Trump Organization, this money always returns to the hands of the president, making his continued profits from foreign powers a direct violation of the constitution.

Given the unfavorable decision that may finally allow him to scrutinize the finances of his business empire, Trump has sought to appeal this decision and suspend the discovery process that would give plaintiffs access to the president's financial transactions. .

With the refusal of this request Friday and the continuation of the litigation in the American judicial system, Trump's finances, or at least some of them, are likely to be the subject of a scrutiny that he avoided until now refusing to file his tax returns.

For the public, this is definitely a good thing. People should know who their president is accountable to and how foreign governments and actors could buy the president's favors with purchases made at his properties.

After all, the president of the United States should serve the people, not his own financial interests. The White House is not a system that allows for quick enrichment and is protected by the Resolute Office Authority.