emolument crimes committed while in office need not apply rules SCOTUS

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Cuddles, Jan 25, 2021.

  1. 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

    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.
     
  2. userque

    userque

    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.
     
  3. 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.
     
    piezoe and Cuddles like this.
  4. smallfil

    smallfil

    WeToddDid2, jem and Buy1Sell2 like this.
  5. Buy1Sell2

    Buy1Sell2

    I think that this may portend what a SCOTUS decision would look like with regard to this second impeachment trial.
     
    UsualName and smallfil like this.
  6. smallfil

    smallfil

    Someone has to sue the Democrats to stop them from continually, wasting US tax dollars needlessly. Probably, unconstitutional on top of that.
     
    WeToddDid2 and Buy1Sell2 like this.
  7. Ricter

    Ricter

    '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.'
     
  8. Cuddles

    Cuddles

    Well, cons voted and cheered for a corrupt SCOTUS and they got it.
     
    Ricter likes this.
  9. Buy1Sell2

    Buy1Sell2

    Certainly were corrupt with regard to the 2020 election------inaction.
     
  10. piezoe

    piezoe

    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.]
     
    #10     Jan 25, 2021
    userque likes this.