To Speed Up Case, AGs Drop Trump Personally From Emoluments Case

[turbinetree]

Source: Talking Points Memo

By Josh Kovensky
December 20, 2018 10:08 am

State attorneys general suing Trump for allegedly violating the Constitution’s emoluments clause dismissed claims against the president in his personal capacity in an effort to speed up the case.


Writing that they are dismissing the portion of the suit that targeted Trump’s personal liability over alleged emoluments violations, attorneys general for Maryland and DC wrote that the intent was “to allow the claims against President Trump in his official capacity to move forward expeditiously.”

Other claims focus on Trump in his official capacity. As a government official, the official capacity claim is treated as a lawsuit against the government that Trump represents, compelling the Justice Department to defend against the suit.

That claim is currently being litigated in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, as the Justice Department tries to put a stop to discovery at the district court level before the state attorneys general receive responses to their first round of subpoenas by the Jan. 3 deadline.



Read more: https://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/to-speed-up-case-ags-drop-trump-personally-from-emoluments-case

[GusBob]

1. I feel stupid as hell

I don't understand a word of that

[backtoblue]

2. I'm feeling it too...

My brain just won't compute today....

[turbinetree]

3. They are going after his business interests and not him "personally"

so that he will not have to pay any money back in the suit. They still are going after him on the emolument side and that his business side is being sued.

"Other claims focus on Trump in his official capacity. As a government official, the official capacity claim is treated as a lawsuit against the government that Trump represents, compelling the Justice Department to defend against the suit."


"To Speed Up Case, AGs Drop Trump Personally From Emoluments ... UNITED STATES - JUNE 12: Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh, left, and D.C. ... suit that targeted Trump's personal liability over alleged emoluments ..."

[ChiTownDenny]

9. As I read this

it's the government being sued, not the president.

[angrychair]

10. Yea and no

They are going after him as POTUS that directly benefited from the hotel, not as trump the person, who’s business benefited from the hotel.

For simplicity sake, it should have been that way in the first place because the personal responsibility part was a weak part of the case who’s focus is on Constitutional violations.

[Bayard]

4. That doesn't make any sense

Isn't the emoluments clause all about the prez himself accepting bribes/gifts?

[turbinetree]

5. It looks like they are trying to do an end run around the suit in court

It reads like they are targeting his business name....................I personally think they are wrong and should go after both.

[Demonaut]

14. this is a small when you consider the other issues that may have far greater weight and

would destroy his presidency and any legacy...I say speed it up.

[watoos]

6. I think they are trying to speed up the case because there is a deadline.

I sounds to me like they are letting Trump off from any liability and they are just charging the office that Trump represents. It looks like the AG's are more interested in discovery than in making Trump liable for any monetary or other crime.

Short story; The AG's want the American people to know what Trump is doing, making money off of his position as president even if they have to give up charging him which is being challenged anyway whether a sitting president can be indicted.

[Chrysanthemum]

8. Is it a criminal case?

If it's a criminal case, then the question of indicting 45 would run into challenges, but if the case is a civil suit, I thought the courts decided back in the day that presidents have to undergo civil litigation while still in office (cf. Bill Clinton).

[onenote]

12. No. Its a civil suit seeking a declaratory ruling and injunctive relief.

[LakeSuperiorView]

7. Does dropping Trump the person now mean he can't be sued later?

I'm assuming that it is easier to sue "the office of the President" than Trump himself. I'm hoping that the discovery in suing the office can be later used to bankrupt Trump the (I hesitate to say it) person.

[dixiegrrrrl]

13. Don't think so.

He as the businessman is got something like 17 state and federal charges for money laundering, etc. He's not only gonna be sued, but the 2nd he leaves office, he gets arrested for so many crimes.
Doesn't bother me that Trump the businessman goes to prison, and trump the fake president does not.

[onenote]

11. For anyone who wants to know more about this lawsuit, here is a good source

The DC Office of Attorney General has established a webpage with links to all of the pleadings as well as a FAQs page and other documents.

It's a much better source of information than much of the speculative stuff on this thread.

Among other things that the information posted by the DC AG makes clear (and that have been raised in this thread):

No, this is not a criminal case. It is a civil suit seeking a declaratory judgment that the president is violating the emoluments clause and an injunction against his continuing to do so. While the complaint contains a boilerplate request for such other forms of relief the court may grant, it does not expressly seek any amount in damages or restitution.

No, the voluntary dismissal of Trump as a defendant in his individual capacity does not limit whether he could be named in a future action (although other legal doctrines such as collateral estoppel might depending on the outcome). The dismissal was "without prejudice".

The original complaint in this case only named Trump in his official capacity. It was later amended (earlier this year) after a hearing in which the judge raised some questions about whether Trump could be sued in his official capacity. Naming Trump in his individual capacity was basically a belts and suspenders move to keep the case going in case things went badly on the issue of Trump being sued in his official capacity. It has nothing to do with suing his businesses or getting damages from them.

The decision to reverse course an dismiss Trump as a defendant in his individual capacity was made after Trump had filed an appeal regarding his being included in the suit in his individual capacity and had sought a stay of proceedings until that appeal was resolved. By dismissing Trump as an individual defendant, the plaintiffs sought to render moot not only that appeal moot but also the stay request.

https://oag.dc.gov/about-oag/emoluments-lawsuit