Hearings in Emoluments Clause cases go well for the plaintiffs

So many scandals, so little time … it’s hard to keep up with all of the scandals of the most corrupt administration in American history. Judge in Emoluments Case Questions Defense of Trump’s Hotel Profits:

A federal judge on Monday sharply criticized the Justice Department’s argument that President Trump’s financial interest in his company’s hotel in downtown Washington is constitutional, a fresh sign that the judge may soon rule against the president in a historic case that could head to the Supreme Court.

As one pundit recently quipped, “The Trump Hotel should be renamed the Hotel Emoluments Clause.”

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit, the District of Columbia and the state of Maryland, charge that Mr. Trump’s profits from the hotel violate anti-corruption clauses of the Constitution that restrict government-bestowed financial benefits, or emoluments, to presidents beyond their official salary. They say the hotel is siphoning business from local convention centers and hotels.

The judge, Peter J. Messitte of the United States District Court in Maryland, promised to decide by the end of July whether to allow the plaintiffs to proceed to the next stage, in which they could demand financial records from the hotel or other evidence from the president. The case takes aim at whether Mr. Trump violated the Constitution’s emoluments clauses, which prevent a president from accepting government-bestowed benefits either at home or abroad. Until now, the issue of what constitutes an illegal emolument has never been litigated.

Read more

New York sues Trump Foundation for self dealing

The Washington Post’s David Fahrenthold, who won a Pulitzer Prize for his dogged reporting of Trump’s philanthropy over the years, and found that it had been exaggerated and often was not truly charitable activities at all, reports that New York files suit against President Trump, alleging his charity engaged in ‘illegal conduct’:

The New York attorney general filed suit against President Trump and his three eldest children Thursday, alleging “persistently illegal conduct” at the president’s personal charity, saying Trump repeatedly misused the nonprofit organization — to pay off his businesses’ creditors, to decorate one of his golf clubs and to stage a multimillion-dollar giveaway at his 2016 campaign events.

The full 41-page court filing is online here (pdf).

In the suit, filed Thursday morning, Attorney General Barbara Underwood asked a state judge to dissolve the Donald J. Trump Foundation. She asked that its remaining $1 million in assets be distributed to other charities and that Trump be forced to pay at least $2.8 million in restitution and penalties.

Underwood said that oversight of spending at Trump’s foundation was so loose that its board of directors hadn’t met in 19 years, and its official treasurer wasn’t even aware that he was on the board.

Instead, she said, the foundation came to serve the spending needs of Trump — and then, in 2016, the needs of his presidential campaign. She cited emails from Trump campaign staff members, directing which charities should receive gifts from the Trump Foundation, and in what amounts.

Underwood also asked that Trump be banned from leading any other New York nonprofit organization for 10 years — seeking to apply a penalty usually reserved for the operators of small-time charity frauds to the president of the United States.

Read more

DOJ Inspector General finds fault, but no political bias in FBI investigations

The long-anticipated Department of Justice Inspector General Report, “A Review of Various Actions by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Department of Justice in Advance of the 2016 Election,” was released today. DOJ OIG Press Release (.pdf), and Full Report (download).

The New York Times reports, Comey Cited as ‘Insubordinate,’ but Report Finds No Bias in F.B.I. Decision to Clear Clinton:

The former F.B.I. director James B. Comey was “insubordinate” in his handling of the investigation of Hillary Clinton during the 2016 presidential election, a critical Justice Department report concluded on Thursday.

But the report, by the department’s inspector general, Michael E. Horowitz, does not challenge the decision not to prosecute Mrs. Clinton. Nor does it conclude that political bias at the F.B.I. influenced that decision, the officials said.

“We found no evidence that the conclusions by department prosecutors were affected by bias or other improper considerations,” the report said. “Rather, we concluded that they were based on the prosecutor’s assessment of facts, the law, and past department practice.”

The report has been highly anticipated in Washington, not least by President Trump, who has argued that a secret coterie of F.B.I. agents rigged the investigation to help Mrs. Clinton win the presidency. The findings cite no evidence to support that [conspiracy] theory.

Read more

The Outlaw Dirty Money initiative needs your petition signatures now!

There is slightly less than two weeks for the Outlaw Dirty Money initiative to collect enough signature to qualify for the ballot in November. If any of you slackers have not yet signed the petition, you need to do it now! Turn in your petitions.

Terry Goddard and Vernon Parker write at the Arizona Daily Sun, Guest Column: We can’t get rid of dirty money unless it makes the ballot:

We are in the crucial final days of an effort to give voters the opportunity to clean house when it comes to dirty political spending. The people of Arizona should have the right to know the real source of all money spent to influence our vote.

Right now petitions are being circulated to get the “Stop Political Dirty Money Amendment” on the November ballot. If voters approve, the measure would amend the Arizona constitution to require public disclosure of any contributor who spends $2,500 or more to influence an election during a two-year cycle, even if that contribution was passed through a third-party organization.

For a state with so much sunshine, we seem to be in the dark when it comes to transparency in political spending. Anonymous political spending has tainted politics in Arizona and allowed deep pocket donors to influence our elections while hiding their involvement. No matter who is doing it, on the right or on the left, it’s wrong.

Whether you call it Dark Money or Dirty Money, most Arizonans agree it needs to go away. But, our measure to make election spending more transparent won’t make it to the ballot box without the signatures of 225,000 Arizona voters by July 5th. We are on track to meet that number if lots of work gets done in these final weeks. We are just asking for the opportunity to put this before the voters in November. There’s information available about the initiative and where to sign petitions at www.OutlawDirtyMoney.com.

Read more