No Standing: How The Russian Usurper ‘Won’ The Emoluments Case

Tiger Beat tells us

“A federal appeals court panel has unanimously thrown out a lawsuit accusing President Donald Trump of violating the Constitution by continuing to do business with foreign and state governments while serving as president.

“The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the State of Maryland and the District of Columbia — who joined together to file the suit against Trump in 2017 — lacked legal standing to object to his alleged violations of the Constitution’s clauses prohibiting receipt of so-called “emoluments” while in office.”

And let’s notice the crowing:

“…the decision states that there was no legal standing to bring this lawsuit in the first place” and that “This latest effort at Presidential harassment has been dismissed with prejudice.” — Comrade Trump’s Attorney Jay Sekulow

and of course, this:

Notice how HE won the suit, and also that he proclaims that HE is doing such a great job as prznint. Narcissists gotta, um, narcissist? (is too a vurb!)  Sure, why not!

No Standing does not mean innocence, it means that the people who raised the law suit (the State of Maryland and the District of Columbia) are not the ones directly damaged by the case, and therefore they have no standing to bring about the case. It does NOT mean that the Russian Usurper did not violate the Emoluments Clause.

What is not so clear to me is who does have standing. But that is not addressed in the ruling, oddly:

“The District and Maryland’s theory of proprietary harm hinges on the conclusion that government customers are patronizing the Hotel because the Hotel distributes profits or dividends to the President, rather than due to any of the Hotel’s other characteristics,” Niemeyer wrote.

“Such a conclusion, however, requires speculation into the subjective motives of independent actors who are not before the court, undermining a finding of causation.”

Uh-huh (emphasis mine):

Lobbyists representing the Saudi government reserved blocks of rooms at President Donald Trump’s D.C. hotel within a month of Trump’s election in 2016 – paying for an estimated 500 nights at the luxury hotel in just three months, according to organizers of the trips and documents obtained by The Washington Post.”

I cannot imagine why the Saudis would do that and I cannot imagine why the Republican Judges did not cite that…

Anyway, I suspect the remedy for this Emoluments situation is probably the same one that Mr. Mueller hinted at, and is in the hands of Congress. My guess is that they have standing.

This entry was posted in Comrade Preznint Stupid, The Russian Usurper, ITMFA. Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to No Standing: How The Russian Usurper ‘Won’ The Emoluments Case

  1. Czippee l'Shimp says:

    Sure, “standing”, fetal position, cowering under their desks – you can write a sternly worded letter from any of those positions.

    …and if things get worse, by golly, they will.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. FELINE MAMA says:

    I’m curious to his statement “receiving ZERO salary” as presidoesn’t. He WILL offer proof, RIGHT!!
    That’s funny, this is the first time since stealing office he made this statement. Maybe some other mouthpiece mentioned it to him, to mention this. Or, maybe, some other govn’t entity pays his salary?!? Curiousor, Curiousor…


    • bowtiejack says:

      Well he wouldn’t lie about something like that, would he? Oh, waibt . . .

      Liked by 1 person

    • Dennis Cole says:

      He makes that claim because he “donates” his salary to various gov’t. Dept’s., which he says is bc he’s a loyal, patriotic American Preznit, and the Dept’s. he donates to are “underfunded.” But the reason they’re underfunded is bc of his budget cutbacks, and the portion of his salary that goes to them is barely a drop in the bucket, compared to the drastic cuts he’s enforced.

      Liked by 1 person

  3. robginchicago says:

    Congress does have standing and also has a similar suit pending. It has thus far survived Trump’s legal assaults, and has been green-lighted to proceed to the discovery phase.


  4. roket says:

    “Such a conclusion, however, requires speculation into the subjective motives of independent actors who are not before the court, undermining a finding of causation.”

    That statement has Bill ‘Low’ Barr’s fingerprints all over it.

    Liked by 2 people

    • MDavis says:

      If a cop accepts a bribe to not write a traffic ticket, would a judge in that case toss it out because you cannot prove the motives of the driver offering the copper that Benjamin?
      Trick question! If a cop accepts a bribe to not write a ticket and it made it into court, the driver would do time for attempting to bribe an officer. The fact that the driver accepted said bribe would disappear.


Comments are closed.