Judges sets Oct. 18 arguments in Trump foreign emoluments suit

[pnwmom]

Source: Politico

A lawsuit contending that President Donald Trump's business dealings with and in foreign countries violate the Constitution is set to get a public airing in October in a New York federal courtroom.

U.S. District Court Judge George Daniels issued an order Wednesday setting oral arguments for Oct. 18 on a suit the liberal watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington filed in January. The suit argues that Trump's business ties run afoul of the Constitution's foreign emoluments clause, which bars federal officials from receiving benefits from foreign governments.

The Justice Department's final response brief in the case is due Sept. 22.

Daniels took over the case last month after Judge Ronnie Abrams recused herself, apparently because her husband accepted a job as a prosecutor on the staff of Robert Mueller, the special counsel probing alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. Abrams is an Obama appointee. Daniels is a Clinton appointee.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2017/08/09/trump-emoluments-lawsuit-schedule-241443

---

Link to tweet

So an Obama appointee got replaced . . . by a Clinton appointee.

Good luck, Prof. Tribe!

[Gothmog]

1. I am looking forward to these arguments

[lark]

2. My dream

The court says he has to sell his hotels and golf courses and has to return all "trade marks" for himself, any company in which he's part of full owner granted by foreign countries since he stole the office. OK, they won't say stole but we know they should, lol. Failure to liquidate these within 120 days will cause the court to take over the assets and sell them.

OK, I did say this was my dream. However, I do have a legitimate question. Court says don the con can't do what he's doing and demands the assets be sold to a 3rd uninvolved party. Can they enforce this? He'll just rant but do nothing if there's no big stick to make him do the right and legal thing. I am hoping there's some way to enforce this as that way he'd just quit.

[pnwmom]

3. I don't know. But the first thing that might happen is the court demanding his tax returns.

Then things will get interesting.

[wryter2000]

4. Don't know the answer to your question

But I agree he'd quit.

[eggplant]

5. But would quitting make this moot? He still enriched himself.

[wryter2000]

6. Good question

I don't know the answer to that one, either.

[Chrysanthemum]

8. Sorry I didn't notice your post!

I sort of asked the same thing, but you did so more eloquently!

[Chrysanthemum]

7. This is a civil suit?

If this is a civil suit, even if 45 were to resign to continue collecting his foreign-sourced profits, he could still be stuck with a judgment against him because of what's already happened, right?

IA-most definitely-NAL.

Also, I did not know that CREW identifies itself as a "liberal" watchdog group. I just thought they were for responsibility and ethics in Washington. Does this article tacitly assume that caring about responsibility and ethics is a liberal characteristic?

[eggplant]

10. From Wikipedia:

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington was co-founded in 2003 by Norman L. Eisen and Melanie Sloan in part as a counter-weight to conservative watchdog groups such as Judicial Watch.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_for_Responsibility_and_Ethics_in_Washington

[eggplant]

11. Oh, and welcome to DU!

[TryLogic]

9. So, CREW is a "liberal watchdog group". The E stands for ethics. I agree that ethics

is a liberal phenomenon! It sure as hell is not a right wing phenomenon.