It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
A U.S. appeals court on Tuesday said it would reconsider an earlier ruling that handed victory to U.S. President Donald Trump in a Democratic-backed lawsuit that accuses him of violating anti-corruption provisions of the U.S. Constitution with his Washington hotel.
A three-judge panel of the court ruled on July 10 that the attorneys general lacked legal standing to bring the lawsuit, which alleged violations of constitutional provisions known as the Emoluments Clauses that bans the president from accepting gifts or payments from foreign governments without congressional consent.
Trump opened the Trump International Hotel, just blocks from the White House, shortly before he was elected in November 2016. Unlike past presidents, he has retained ownership of numerous business interests, including the hotel, while serving as president.
Since his election, the hotel has become a favored lodging and event space for some foreign and state officials visiting the U.S. capital.
The lawsuit alleges that, in failing to disengage from the hotel, Trump has made himself vulnerable to inducements by foreign governments seeking to curry favor, violating the Constitution.
originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Oraculi
so they are admitting they were wrong?
interesting
wonder if there will be other "dismissed lawsuits" that will be resurrected soon?
Those 180 Trump-appointed Federal Judges are starting to yield good results.
originally posted by: Oraculi
originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Oraculi
so they are admitting they were wrong?
interesting
wonder if there will be other "dismissed lawsuits" that will be resurrected soon?
Well, the president and his staff are now implicated in currying favors from another government and are actively being investigated for it.
This creates solid legal ground for that lawsuit to be re-opened and gives those attorneys general a clear path to proceed.
originally posted by: PurpleFox
a reply to: Oraculi
By any means necessary, am I right?
originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: carewemust
Those 180 Trump-appointed Federal Judges are starting to yield good results.
So you think the Judicial system should be partisan, then?
originally posted by: EartOccupant
I've never could have imagined such sore loosers in my life.
I don't even care anymore of this or any other allegation is true.
I care less about the content.
I do know that after this continues unprecedented assault on a sitting president.
The Next President after Trump will be, can be, only a saint or a lunatic!
originally posted by: carewemust
originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: carewemust
Those 180 Trump-appointed Federal Judges are starting to yield good results.
So you think the Judicial system should be partisan, then?
Ideally, it shouldn't be. But it has been for decades. Since it's now primarily conservative at the top levels, and I'm conservative, ALL IS GOOD.
originally posted by: Liquesence
originally posted by: carewemust
originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: carewemust
Those 180 Trump-appointed Federal Judges are starting to yield good results.
So you think the Judicial system should be partisan, then?
Ideally, it shouldn't be. But it has been for decades. Since it's now primarily conservative at the top levels, and I'm conservative, ALL IS GOOD.
So you're all right with it as long as it's partisanship in your favor?
Figures.