Looking for any way to impeach 72-year-old President Donald Trump, Maryland –based U.S. District Court Judge Peter J. Messitte allowed a lawsuit to go forward under the Constitution’s arcane “Emoluments Clause,” banning government officials from making profits from states and foreign governments. Democrats filed suit in District Court looking for any way to argue Trump’s engaged in unconstitutional activity running his Trump Hotel in D.C.’s old post office building. Judge Messitte ruled today that receiving payments from Trump’s D.C. hotel violated the Constitution’s Emolument’s Clause,” strictly prohibiting government officials from profiting from foreign governments. Before Trump was sworn in Jan. 20. 2017, concerns were raised about Trump collecting money from his hotel properties, often soliciting guests from foreign travelers, regular-and-frequent visitors to D.C.
Trump’s hotel properties and golf courses were a well-known fact prior to him winning the White House. Democrats looked for any objections possible to complain about the legality of Trump’s business activities. Messitte was the first federal judge to interpret the Emoluments Clause to include regular payments for room rates at Trump hotels. Messitte said the State of Marlyand and D.C. “convincingly argued” that Trump’s hotel payments did indeed cross the line with the Emolument’s Clause. Messitte concluded that any “profit,” “gain,” or “advantage” was strictly regulated under the Constitution’s Emoluments Clause. “The Court finds the President is subject to both Emoluments Clauses of the Constitution and that the term ‘emolument’ in both clauses extends to any profit, gain or advantage,” Messittee said. Messitte ordered both sides to engage in reciprocal discovery.
Maryland and D.C.’s Constitutional challenge defines the meaning of a “frivolous lawsuit.” Even the most narrow, twisted, distorted interpretation of the Emolument’s Clause can’t possibly conclude, without extreme political bias, that Trump’s hotel business violates the intent of the Emolument’s Clause. If Messitte lets the lawsuit go forward, whatever the ruling, it will wind up in the Appellate or the Supreme Court if it gets that far. It’s highly doubtful if Messitte finds constitutional violation that a higher court would uphold his ruling. “The Court finds the President is subject to both Emolument Clauses of the Constitution and that the term ‘emolument’ is both clauses extends any profit, or advantage,” Messitte wrote in a 52-page ruling. Justice Department spokesman Andy Reuss said the White House continues “to maintain that this case should be dismissed.”
Maryland Atty. Gen. Brian Frosh expects the Trump administration to produce an array of financial documents, including Trump’s elusive tax returns. When you really look at the farfetched nature of the suit, it could be a pretext to get to Trump’s tax returns, something he didn’t produce during the campaign. Showing how politics enters into legal cases, Frosh, a Democrat, looks to get Trump’s financial disclosures anyway possible. “I think we’re entitled to financial information that underpins our case,” said Frosh, confusing his lawsuit about the Emolument’s Clause about seeking an open-ended fishing expedition into Trump’s finances. Frosh wants Trump tax returns going back six years from the Trump Organization and Trump hotels, having nothing to do with lawsuit over the Emolument’s clause. Frosh’s lawsuit hopes to gain access into the financial inner workings of the Trump Organization.
Democrats accuse Trump of profiting from the presidency, violating the Constitution’s Emolument’s Clause by selling hotel rooms to foreign officials. “The president can’t accept money or other benefits from foreign governments,” said D.C. District Atty. Karl Racine, agreeing with Judge Messitte. With all the Democrats Atty. Generals and DAs prosecuting Trump, it’s hard not to see through the legal intent behind the lawsuit. Another partisan, former Obama-era ethics counsel Norman Eisen, believes Trump the lawsuit should expose how Trump profits from the presidency. If Trump opened his business with connections while president, then maybe Eisen has a point. But Trump’s real estate businesses preceded the Oval Office, stretching the Emolument’s argument to the breaking point. Getting paid of green fees or hotel rooms doesn’t violate the Constitution’s Emolument Clause.
Partisan hacks like Maryland Atty. Gen. Frosh or former Obama ethics counsel Eisen have a lot of nerve using their current of past positions for political purposes. “It’s a major crack in the dam that so far has been holding back accountability,” said Eisen, chairman of for Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. Before the Midterm elections in November, Democrats are throwing as much mud as possible at Trump, hoping to take control of the House and Senate. As Obama’s ethic’s counsel, Eisen didn’t think twice about Obama backing the Saudi proxy war in Syria for six years, causing over 400,000 Syrian deaths, displacing 12 millions more to Europe and neighboring countries and driving the U.K. out of the European Union. Eisen has no problem with Obama collecting mega-millions from the Saudis to help build his multi-billion dollar presidential library.
