This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/25/us/politics/trump-emoluments-lawsuit.html

The article has changed 5 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Emoluments Lawsuit, Accusing Trump of Violating Constitution, Clears a Hurdle Emoluments Lawsuit, Accusing Trump of Violating Constitution, Clears a Hurdle
(35 minutes later)
WASHINGTON — A lawsuit accusing President Trump of violating the Constitution by maintaining a financial interest in his company’s Washington hotel cleared a critical hurdle on Wednesday when a federal judge allowed the case to move forward.WASHINGTON — A lawsuit accusing President Trump of violating the Constitution by maintaining a financial interest in his company’s Washington hotel cleared a critical hurdle on Wednesday when a federal judge allowed the case to move forward.
The plaintiffs in the lawsuit, the District of Columbia and the State of Maryland, say that Mr. Trump’s profits from the Trump International Hotel, just blocks from the White House, violate anti-corruption clauses in the Constitution and take business from local convention centers and hotels. The Justice Department argued on behalf of Mr. Trump that the clauses, which restrict government-bestowed financial benefits or “emoluments” to the president other than salary, do not apply to his interest in his hotel.The plaintiffs in the lawsuit, the District of Columbia and the State of Maryland, say that Mr. Trump’s profits from the Trump International Hotel, just blocks from the White House, violate anti-corruption clauses in the Constitution and take business from local convention centers and hotels. The Justice Department argued on behalf of Mr. Trump that the clauses, which restrict government-bestowed financial benefits or “emoluments” to the president other than salary, do not apply to his interest in his hotel.
Judge Peter J. Messitte rejected the Justice Department’s request to dismiss the case, writing in a 52-page opinion that the president’s attorneys were essentially arguing that absent evidence he had accepted a bribe, Mr. Trump was free to accept financial benefits stemming from foreign or state officials who patronize his hotel.Judge Peter J. Messitte rejected the Justice Department’s request to dismiss the case, writing in a 52-page opinion that the president’s attorneys were essentially arguing that absent evidence he had accepted a bribe, Mr. Trump was free to accept financial benefits stemming from foreign or state officials who patronize his hotel.
That definition of an emolument is overly narrow and does not fit with what the Constitution’s framers intended in trying to limit influence-peddling that could affect a president’s decisions, he wrote.That definition of an emolument is overly narrow and does not fit with what the Constitution’s framers intended in trying to limit influence-peddling that could affect a president’s decisions, he wrote.
“Where, for example, a president maintains a premier hotel property that generates millions of dollars a year in profits, how likely is that he will not be swayed, whether consciously or subconsciously, in any or all of his dealings with foreign or domestic governments that might choose to spend large sums of money at that hotel property?” the judge asked in his opinion. “Where, for example, a president maintains a premier hotel property that generates millions of dollars a year in profits, how likely is it that he will not be swayed, whether consciously or subconsciously, in any or all of his dealings with foreign or domestic governments that might choose to spend large sums of money at that hotel property?” the judge asked in his opinion.
“How, indeed, could it ever be proven, in a given case, that he had actually been influenced by the payments?” he added. “The framers of the clauses made it simple. Ban the offerings altogether.”“How, indeed, could it ever be proven, in a given case, that he had actually been influenced by the payments?” he added. “The framers of the clauses made it simple. Ban the offerings altogether.”
The case is still in its early stages. Rather than allow the plaintiffs to proceed to the next step of evidence-gathering, which could expose some of Mr. Trump’s financial records to public scrutiny, the Justice Department is widely expected to seek an emergency stay and appeal to a higher court.The case is still in its early stages. Rather than allow the plaintiffs to proceed to the next step of evidence-gathering, which could expose some of Mr. Trump’s financial records to public scrutiny, the Justice Department is widely expected to seek an emergency stay and appeal to a higher court.