Originally posted by @kazetnagorraThat's why he hired Devos as education secretary....BTW, I just found out she is also a billionaire and his cabinet is worth total 35 BILLION. American Oligarchy.
Nah... that's way too many syllables for Donnie Dotard.
Originally posted by @sonhouseThey used to just call it 'cronyism'.
That's why he hired Devos as education secretary....BTW, I just found out she is also a billionaire and his cabinet is worth total 35 BILLION. American Oligarchy.
Originally posted by @suzianneThe old Crony deal didn't start out adding billionaires to your cabinet, just say, Joe the plumber who is a good friend of the governor and just so co-incidentally gets a job as his secretary or some such.
They used to just call it 'cronyism'.
This case is kinda of a big deal; the Judge's ruling was the first comprehensive judicial opinion on the emoluments clause in history. And it was a direct refutation of the Donald's position:
The Justice Department had sought to dismiss the case, arguing that the constitutional restrictions do not apply to Mr. Trump’s interest in the hotel. But the judge said the department’s lawyers were defining an emolument far too narrowly.
“Sole or substantial ownership of a business that receives hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars a year in revenue from one of its hotel properties where foreign and domestic governments are known to stay (often with the express purpose of cultivating the president’s good graces) most definitely raises the potential for undue influence, and would be well within the contemplation of the clauses,” he wrote in a 52-page opinion.
He said the Justice Department was trying to equate an emolument with a bribe from foreign or state government officials. But the Constitution already defines bribery as an impeachable offense, and bribery is extremely difficult to prove, he wrote.
The weight of historical evidence shows that the framers meant the emoluments clauses to act as a broader check on influence-peddling that could influence a president’s decisions, the judge said.
“Where, for example, a president maintains a premier hotel property that generates millions of dollars a year in profits, how likely is it that he will not be swayed, whether consciously or subconsciously, in any or all of his dealings with foreign or domestic governments that might choose to spend large sums of money at that hotel property?” the judge asked in his opinion.
“How, indeed, could it ever be proven, in a given case, that he had actually been influenced by the payments?” he added. “The framers of the clauses made it simple. Ban the offerings altogether.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/25/us/politics/trump-emoluments-lawsuit.html
Even better unless a stay is granted and the ruling overturned on appeal, the Donald will have to disclose vast amounts of information regarding his businesses that he has successfully concealed until now.