Supreme Court dismisses cases questioning Trump profits from private businesses

[oeb11]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...IvV?li=BBnb7Kz





Supreme Court dismisses cases questioning Trump profits from private businesses









WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court batted aside a pair of cases Monday that raised questions about former President Donald Trump’s business ties, finding the concerns over whether he violated the Constitution's anti-corruption clauses moot.





Current Time 0:20
/

Duration 1:45
0
Supreme Court rejects GOP attack on Biden victory












The cases involved questions about whether Trump violated the emoluments clauses of the Constitution by benefiting from his properties – notably, a hotel in downtown Washington, D.C. – where foreign and other entities with business before the federal government often stayed.
© Eric Bardat/AFP via Getty Images U.S. Supreme Court Building on Dec. 24, 2018, in Washington, D.C. Trump’s critics argued that receiving revenue from those properties violated that prohibition.

Start the day smarter. Get all the news you need in your inbox each morning.
The justices on Monday sent the cases back to lower courts and ordered that they be dismissed. Trump left office on Jan. 20, the day President Joe Biden was inaugurated.
More: Trump's profits from private businesses to get hard look from appeals courts
"This important litigation made the American people aware for four years of the pervasive corruption that came from a president maintaining a global business and taking benefits and payments from foreign and domestic governments," said Noah Bookbinder with Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a watchdog group that brought one of the cases. "Only Trump losing the presidency and leaving office ended these corrupt constitutional violations stopped these groundbreaking lawsuits."
The Justice Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Aiming to limit the potential for outside influence on the president, the Constitution’s Framers included language asserting that “no person holding any office of profit or trust under [the United States], shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.” A second constitutional provision specifically prohibits the president from receiving domestic emoluments.
The challenge with the cases – one brought by competitors to Trump properties and the other by the state of Maryland and Washington, D.C. – focused largely on who had standing to sue the president over the alleged violation of the clauses.
Democratic lawmakers and government watchdogs argued the most flagrant violations happened when government officials – including some from foreign governments – spend lavishly at the Trump International Hotel a few blocks from the White House.
Justice Department attorneys had countered that a violation of the clauses only happens if Trump profits directly from his employment as president, not from "the proceeds of ordinary commercial transactions between foreign governments and businesses."
The dismissals drew criticism from some who noted Trump continues to flirt with running again for president in 2024.
“If ever there were cases that fit the mootness exception these are they,” tweeted Sherrilyn Ifill, president of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund. “The fact they arrived at the SCOTUS at the end of Trump’s term demonstrate precisely why these actions can easily ‘evade review.’”
Contributing: Rich Wolf



Awww- poor fiden DPST/ccp cabal - just gonna have to pack teh SC with radicals to get teh decision they want.

or, find new ways to persecute Trump - the departed POTUS - who departed the Oval office in favor of a senile marxist puppet.



or, do Both.

[oeb11]

Supreme Court Orders Dismissal of Suits Over Trump Finances

Bloomie short network!
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/mark...s9r?li=BBnb7Kz
he U.S. Supreme Court ordered the formal dismissal of two lawsuits that accused Donald Trump of unconstitutionally profiting from his presidency. © Bloomberg The U.S. Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C., U.S., on Wednesday, Oct. 14, 2020. Senate Democrats enter a second day of questioning Amy Coney Barrett having made few inroads in their fight to keep her off the Supreme Court and elicited few clues about how she would rule on key cases. The cases no longer had any practical consequences after Trump’s term in office ended Jan. 20, and both sides agreed the disputes had become legally moot.

Those suing Trump included hotels, restaurants and the attorneys general of Maryland and the District of Columbia. They said Trump as president benefited from a stream of foreign and state government officials who patronized his properties, including the Trump International Hotel in Washington, a few blocks from the White House.
The lawsuits accused Trump of violating the Constitution’s two emoluments clauses. One clause bars a president from accepting benefits from foreign governments without congressional consent, while the other bars receipt of any benefit other than a salary from the U.S. government or a state.
“This important litigation made the American people aware for four years of the pervasive corruption that came from a president maintaining a global business and taking benefits and payments from foreign and domestic governments,” said Noah Bookbinder, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a watchdog group involved in one of the suits.
QuickTake archive: Trump’s Business Ties and the Problem With Emoluments
A key question was who, if anyone, could sue to enforce the emoluments clauses. Lower courts in both cases said the plaintiffs had legal standing. The Supreme Court set aside those rulings as part of its order Monday, taking a step urged by Trump’s Justice Department.
Had the suits gone forward while Trump was president, the plaintiffs might have been able to force him to turn over some of his business records.
The cases are Trump v. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, 20-330, and Trump v. District of Columbia, 20-331.
(Updates with reaction from watchdog group in fifth paragraph.)
For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com
©2021 Bloomberg L.P.



haters gonna /gotta hate - and the DPST/ccp will look under evry rock under which they live to find more ways to persecute their 'enemy' - the departed POTUS and champion against marxist Lies and foolishness!