emolument crimes committed while in office need not apply rules SCOTUS

Cuddles

Cuddles

https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/25/politics/emoluments-supreme-court-donald-trump-case/index.html
Supreme Court dismisses emolument cases against Trump
https://www.cnn.com/profiles/ariane-de-vogue-profile
The court instructed the lower courts to wipe away a previous lower court opinion that went against Trump because he is no longer in office. It leaves unresolved a novel question raised in the case because Trump, unlike other presidents, did not use a blind trust when he assumed the presidency, but instead continued to retain an interest in his businesses and let those businesses to take money from foreign and domestic governments.
 
Here4money said:
https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/25/politics/emoluments-supreme-court-donald-trump-case/index.html
Supreme Court dismisses emolument cases against Trump
The court instructed the lower courts to wipe away a previous lower court opinion that went against Trump because he is no longer in office. It leaves unresolved a novel question raised in the case because Trump, unlike other presidents, did not use a blind trust when he assumed the presidency, but instead continued to retain an interest in his businesses and let those businesses to take money from foreign and domestic governments.
More...
Didn't read it yet, but I guess the DOJ would have to press charges, and let Trump's defense lawyers raise that same defense...and the case maybe making it's way back to the Supreme Court.
 
Thing is if a case takes time and the person leaves office, it opens the door tio simply stall a case and make it disappear while the actual violations were still committed though.

I dont think you can escape ethics violations simply by leaving office if they carry significant penalties. If the penalty ONLY is removal from office then the clause has no teeth if someone can simply drag the case on while they get rich and simply have their term end.
 
smallfil said:
Extreme liberal ET trolls got embarassed yet, once more. US Supreme Court threw all the bogus lawsuits brought by extreme liberal AGs who have no concern about wasting tens of millions of tax dollars. After all, they are not paying for it. Another victory for President Donald Trump.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/supreme-court-ends-trump-emoluments-145628882.html
More...
I think that this may portend what a SCOTUS decision would look like with regard to this second impeachment trial.
 
'Former Office of Government Ethics chief Walter Shaub blasted the court's decision as "insane" in a tweet, arguing the emolument cases were not moot, as the court said.
"(Trump) still has the money. When any other federal employee violates the emoluments clause they have to forfeit the money," Shaub wrote.'
 
Ricter said:
'Former Office of Government Ethics chief Walter Shaub blasted the court's decision as "insane" in a tweet, arguing the emolument cases were not moot, as the court said.
"(Trump) still has the money. When any other federal employee violates the emoluments clause they have to forfeit the money," Shaub wrote.'
More...

Well, cons voted and cheered for a corrupt SCOTUS and they got it.
 
El OchoCinco said:
Thing is if a case takes time and the person leaves office, it opens the door tio simply stall a case and make it disappear while the actual violations were still committed though.

I don't think you can escape ethics violations simply by leaving office if they carry significant penalties. If the penalty ONLY is removal from office then the clause has no teeth if someone can simply drag the case on while they get rich and simply have their term end.
More...
The cases brought in this regard were not brought on charges of "ethics" violation or violation of statutory law, but on violation of Constitutional law, the highest law of the land, assuming you don't consider laws handed down by the almighty, such as 'thou shalt not covet thy neighbors wife.' So far as I know, there are no statutes of limitation affecting Constitutional law, but we should ask our resident ET Lawyer, jem, for an opinion. [Sadly he is a good person, but a very bad lawyer.]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top