Maryland and DC sue Trump over Trump Tower

[starwater]

Ahh - a new lawsuit. I'm sure others will jump on this one, or start new ones.

Essentially Trump cannot take money from foreign governments - even though he claims it's in a trust - he can still reap the rewards after he is no longer president ( or in jail?)

http://money.cnn.com/2017/06/12/news/trump-foreign-payments-lawsuit/index.html

It sounds like through discovery on this lawsuit they will request his tax returns.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I don't think others can just jump on. You have to have legal standing for such a case I think.

The real trouble at the moment, based on what the Trump Admin has said, they really aren't even taking down notes about what stays are related to the White House verses what stays are not. We have to take their word for it. And we know how much their word is worth.

 

[starwater]

The US Congress now has a lawsuit.

The dems since they can do nothing with a republican controlled congress took the legal route.

 

[Malintent]

I don't think others can just jump on. You have to have legal standing for such a case I think.

The real trouble at the moment, based on what the Trump Admin has said, they really aren't even taking down notes about what stays are related to the White House verses what stays are not. We have to take their word for it. And we know how much their word is worth.

every American citizen has standing, as a party to the Constitution of the United States of America. Specifically, the Emoluments Clause.
Further, damages can be shown by any business owner that competes with any Trump holding, on the grounds that their business has an unfair disadvantage to Trumps, due to the illegal and/or unethical practices of abusing his elected position.

 

[Opoponax]

I don't think others can just jump on. You have to have legal standing for such a case I think.

The real trouble at the moment, based on what the Trump Admin has said, they really aren't even taking down notes about what stays are related to the White House verses what stays are not. We have to take their word for it. And we know how much their word is worth.

If you can show harm, that the harm was a result of the defendant's actions, and that the court can provide a remedy, you'll have standing. So it's going to depend on what harm they can show.

As for joinder, other plaintiffs can be joined, but it depends on stuff... Even though the Emoluments Clause is old, it hasn't to my knowledge ever been invoked against a POTUS. So congrats to Trump on that for being tremendous enough to set the wheels in motion for Constitutional precedent.

As to putting anything in a blind trust, he hasn't. His sons just took his place and one would have to be a complete fool to believe Uday and Qusay aren't keeping him abreast and getting directions from him on what to do with his businesses. And one would have to be just slightly less than a complete fool to believe they aren't fully taking advantage of Trump's position to gather in as much money as humanly possible in the shortest amount of time.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I don't think others can just jump on. You have to have legal standing for such a case I think.

The real trouble at the moment, based on what the Trump Admin has said, they really aren't even taking down notes about what stays are related to the White House verses what stays are not. We have to take their word for it. And we know how much their word is worth.

If you can show harm, that the harm was a result of the defendant's actions, and that the court can provide a remedy, you'll have standing. So it's going to depend on what harm they can show.

That is the trouble, the Trump Org is not keeping valid records, so showing harm on records that aren't even available seems to be impossible.

As for joinder, other plaintiffs can be joined, but it depends on stuff... Even though the Emoluments Clause is old, it hasn't to my knowledge ever been invoked against a POTUS. So congrats to Trump on that for being tremendous enough to set the wheels in motion for Constitutional precedent.

We haven't had a President like Trump before, so it will be interesting where this goes.

As to putting anything in a blind trust, he hasn't.

Blind trust? He hasn't even stepped down from his positions in his corporation(s).

 

[starwater]

Follow the money.

Cheetolini's tax returns will show Russian rubles everywhere.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Follow the money.

Cheetolini's tax returns will show Russian rubles everywhere.

That data is with the LLCs.

 

[braces_for_impact]

I don't think others can just jump on. You have to have legal standing for such a case I think.

The real trouble at the moment, based on what the Trump Admin has said, they really aren't even taking down notes about what stays are related to the White House verses what stays are not. We have to take their word for it. And we know how much their word is worth.

If you can show harm, that the harm was a result of the defendant's actions, and that the court can provide a remedy, you'll have standing. So it's going to depend on what harm they can show.

As for joinder, other plaintiffs can be joined, but it depends on stuff... Even though the Emoluments Clause is old, it hasn't to my knowledge ever been invoked against a POTUS. So congrats to Trump on that for being tremendous enough to set the wheels in motion for Constitutional precedent.

As to putting anything in a blind trust, he hasn't. His sons just took his place and one would have to be a complete fool to believe Uday and Qusay aren't keeping him abreast and getting directions from him on what to do with his businesses. And one would have to be just slightly less than a complete fool to believe they aren't fully taking advantage of Trump's position to gather in as much money as humanly possible in the shortest amount of time.

Of course. Trump has complete access to any cash he wishes to withdraw. Also, since becoming president, anonymous sales of his properties (those purchased through shell companies to keep the actual buyers a secret) has gone from 4% to FUCKING 70%! Now why would that be?

 

[Elixir]

... since becoming president, anonymous sales of his properties (those purchased through shell companies to keep the actual buyers a secret) has gone from 4% to FUCKING 70%! Now why would that be?

It's because emoluments clauses are for LOSERS.

 

[Shadowy Man]

If you can show harm, that the harm was a result of the defendant's actions, and that the court can provide a remedy, you'll have standing. So it's going to depend on what harm they can show.

As for joinder, other plaintiffs can be joined, but it depends on stuff... Even though the Emoluments Clause is old, it hasn't to my knowledge ever been invoked against a POTUS. So congrats to Trump on that for being tremendous enough to set the wheels in motion for Constitutional precedent.

As to putting anything in a blind trust, he hasn't. His sons just took his place and one would have to be a complete fool to believe Uday and Qusay aren't keeping him abreast and getting directions from him on what to do with his businesses. And one would have to be just slightly less than a complete fool to believe they aren't fully taking advantage of Trump's position to gather in as much money as humanly possible in the shortest amount of time.

Of course. Trump has complete access to any cash he wishes to withdraw. Also, since becoming president, anonymous sales of his properties (those purchased through shell companies to keep the actual buyers a secret) has gone from 4% to FUCKING 70%! Now why would that be?

Citation please.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Of course. Trump has complete access to any cash he wishes to withdraw. Also, since becoming president, anonymous sales of his properties (those purchased through shell companies to keep the actual buyers a secret) has gone from 4% to FUCKING 70%! Now why would that be?

Citation please.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...hind-llcs-buying-trump-real-estate/102382726/

Hope that works. I wasn't aware of this.

http://m.dailykos.com/story/2017/6/14/1671786/-Who-is-buying-Donald-Trump-s-properties-It-s-a-secret

More info.

 

[braces_for_impact]

Thanks Jimmy, you beat me to it. The USA Today article is the one I was referring to.

Over the last 12 months, about 70% of buyers of Trump properties were limited liability companies – corporate entities that allow people to purchase property without revealing all of the owners’ names. That compares with about 4% of buyers in the two years before.

Profits from sales of those properties flow through a trust run by Trump’s sons. The president is the sole beneficiary of the trust and can withdraw cash any time.

 

[Malintent]

Please help me understand... a president is supposed to liquidate their holdings to avoid violating that clause... Trump is liquidating his holdings (selling to LLCs). but the implication is that he is doing something wrong with how he is doing it? how so? Is it the timing (should have been complete before being sworn in?), or that he is taking profit from the sales?

 

[Opoponax]

Please help me understand... a president is supposed to liquidate their holdings to avoid violating that clause... Trump is liquidating his holdings (selling to LLCs). but the implication is that he is doing something wrong with how he is doing it? how so? Is it the timing (should have been complete before being sworn in?), or that he is taking profit from the sales?

The normal protocols are, at least to my understanding, that a President hands off all assets that could create even an appearance of a conflict of interest with the office to, for example, a trust company, which then goes about managing the assets according to prudent business practices. In the meantime, the President essentially has no contact with the trust until he leaves office. That's probably not 100% correct, but that's the general idea behind.

"Blind trust" means exactly that. One doesn't know what their assets are doing and has no say as to how those assets are invested by the trust. The trust can probably invest the assets how they see fit, even in a manner such that if the President were to do so it would create a conflict of interest. The President is protected from liability however, because he has made no decisions as to the investments. Generally, there is no contact between the President and the trust.

Again, that is likely an imperfect description, but that's the spirit of the thing.

And has been abundantly pointed out, Trump has done none of that. And I don't think it's a stretch to say that he's consulted daily by his sons regarding the businesses. It's not like he has the wherewithal to understand it could cause him the degree of trouble that it could. To Trump, directly and privately profiting from public office presents no ethical qualms. Making policy, promises to foreign nations and investors, and using inside information to profit while in office is completely legitimate. That it comes at the expense of the American people and the legitimacy of the Office is likely something that enters his mind only in some oblique, game-ish manner in which the only problem presented is getting caught. See, to him, what he's doing isn't wrong, it's those who would prevent him from doing it that are the problem. This is evidenced by the fact that he sees leakers as the real wrongdoers, rather than stepping back and asking how to do things in a proper legal manner.

 

[starwater]

I think Cheetolini shows strong psycopath tendencies

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Please help me understand... a president is supposed to liquidate their holdings to avoid violating that clause... Trump is liquidating his holdings (selling to LLCs). but the implication is that he is doing something wrong with how he is doing it? how so? Is it the timing (should have been complete before being sworn in?), or that he is taking profit from the sales?

There are couple of issues here.
1) He isn't liquidating shit. He is just selling properties. Well, he isn't selling them, his business is, the one he is still in charge of.
2) I think Trump has become such poison that no one wants to be seen doing business with him, so they create LLCs as cover... and apparently in many cases accounting simplicity.
3) The presence of the LLC can be problematic as it very well can lead to parties that want to curry favor with Trump for political gain.

It is a muddy mess, which is why there is supposed to be a blind trust (not run by your sons, with you still the paper head of the company). But Trump's legit holdings make a blind trust nearly impossible. And the shit record keeping by the Trump Organization just makes this look shady, even if on the up and up.

 

[Malintent]

Please help me understand... a president is supposed to liquidate their holdings to avoid violating that clause... Trump is liquidating his holdings (selling to LLCs). but the implication is that he is doing something wrong with how he is doing it? how so? Is it the timing (should have been complete before being sworn in?), or that he is taking profit from the sales?

The normal protocols are, at least to my understanding, that a President hands off all assets that could create even an appearance of a conflict of interest with the office to, for example, a trust company, which then goes about managing the assets according to prudent business practices. In the meantime, the President essentially has no contact with the trust until he leaves office. That's probably not 100% correct, but that's the general idea behind.

"Blind trust" means exactly that. One doesn't know what their assets are doing and has no say as to how those assets are invested by the trust. The trust can probably invest the assets how they see fit, even in a manner such that if the President were to do so it would create a conflict of interest. The President is protected from liability however, because he has made no decisions as to the investments. Generally, there is no contact between the President and the trust.

Again, that is likely an imperfect description, but that's the spirit of the thing.

And has been abundantly pointed out, Trump has done none of that. And I don't think it's a stretch to say that he's consulted daily by his sons regarding the businesses. It's not like he has the wherewithal to understand it could cause him the degree of trouble that it could. To Trump, directly and privately profiting from public office presents no ethical qualms. Making policy, promises to foreign nations and investors, and using inside information to profit while in office is completely legitimate. That it comes at the expense of the American people and the legitimacy of the Office is likely something that enters his mind only in some oblique, game-ish manner in which the only problem presented is getting caught. See, to him, what he's doing isn't wrong, it's those who would prevent him from doing it that are the problem. This is evidenced by the fact that he sees leakers as the real wrongdoers, rather than stepping back and asking how to do things in a proper legal manner.

I understand the legal purpose and intent.. I am unclear on the practical difference between selling a company to a LLC and handing operations over to a blind trust. Isn;t selling "better" in that there can be no future gain?

I am not exactly comfortable with the idea that he has waited until he is president to find the "highest bidders" for his holdings.. that opens lines of investigation on who is paying what for what. but ultimately, this sounds better than a "blind trust" that is either not blind at all, or represents future profit off of foreign investment in bloated deals and promises.

 

[Malintent]

Please help me understand... a president is supposed to liquidate their holdings to avoid violating that clause... Trump is liquidating his holdings (selling to LLCs). but the implication is that he is doing something wrong with how he is doing it? how so? Is it the timing (should have been complete before being sworn in?), or that he is taking profit from the sales?

There are couple of issues here.
1) He isn't liquidating shit. He is just selling properties. Well, he isn't selling them, his business is, the one he is still in charge of.
2) I think Trump has become such poison that no one wants to be seen doing business with him, so they create LLCs as cover... and apparently in many cases accounting simplicity.
3) The presence of the LLC can be problematic as it very well can lead to parties that want to curry favor with Trump for political gain.

It is a muddy mess, which is why there is supposed to be a blind trust (not run by your sons, with you still the paper head of the company). But Trump's legit holdings make a blind trust nearly impossible. And the shit record keeping by the Trump Organization just makes this look shady, even if on the up and up.

Another (the main) reason to create an LLC is to limit the liability one has (that is what it means... Limited Liability Company). If Trump is going down for money laundering (a distinct possibility) through his real estate dealings over the past 5 years, then any investor would want to protect themselves from him through that vehicle. no?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I understand the legal purpose and intent.. I am unclear on the practical difference between selling a company to a LLC and handing operations over to a blind trust. Isn;t selling "better" in that there can be no future gain?

Except with an LLC, it can be very complicated and the sale itself is the "future gain". A blind trust is supposed to take motive out of sales, other than good business.

I am not exactly comfortable with the idea that he has waited until he is president to find the "highest bidders" for his holdings..

Good news, a good deal of the sales were before the election.

...that opens lines of investigation on who is paying what for what. but ultimately, this sounds better than a "blind trust" that is either not blind at all, or represents future profit off of foreign investment in bloated deals and promises.

This pretty much shows us why a "billionaire" being President isn't a good idea.

- - - Updated - - -

There are couple of issues here.
1) He isn't liquidating shit. He is just selling properties. Well, he isn't selling them, his business is, the one he is still in charge of.
2) I think Trump has become such poison that no one wants to be seen doing business with him, so they create LLCs as cover... and apparently in many cases accounting simplicity.
3) The presence of the LLC can be problematic as it very well can lead to parties that want to curry favor with Trump for political gain.

It is a muddy mess, which is why there is supposed to be a blind trust (not run by your sons, with you still the paper head of the company). But Trump's legit holdings make a blind trust nearly impossible. And the shit record keeping by the Trump Organization just makes this look shady, even if on the up and up.

Another (the main) reason to create an LLC is to limit the liability one has (that is what it means... Limited Liability Company). If Trump is going down for money laundering (a distinct possibility) through his real estate dealings over the past 5 years, then any investor would want to protect themselves from him through that vehicle. no?

The point is there are legit and illegitimate reasons for an LLC to buy property from Trump. We almost need a new wing of the SEC to oversee it!