Following the testimonies of both former FBI Director James Comey and Attorney General Jeff Sessions, the Left’s ‘Russian Collusion’ narrative has completely unraveled. Comey’s admission under oath that Trump was never under investigation and that he never attempted to influence the Russia investigation was a startling realization for disaffected democrats and the mainstream media who have been flailing around ever since anxiously attempting to craft a new damaging narrative to perpetuate their witch hunt.
Now, we learn this morning via the Washington Post that the new narrative of choice for disaffected democrats will be that Trump is violating the “emoluments clause” of the constitution every time a foreigner decides to stay at one of his hotels. According to Wapo, nearly 200 Democrat members of Congress have signed onto the lawsuit led by Senator Richard Blumenthal.
Nearly 200 Democratic members of Congress agreed to file a lawsuit Wednesday against President Trump alleging that by retaining interests in a global business empire he has violated constitutional restrictions on taking gifts and benefits from foreign leaders.
The lead senator filing the complaint in federal district court, Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), said Tuesday that the lawsuit has already drawn more congressional plaintiffs — 196 — than any legal action previously taken against a president. No Republicans had joined in the lawsuit so far, although they will be invited to do so, Blumenthal said.
An advance copy of the legal complaint reviewed by The Washington Post argues that those in Congress have special standing because the Constitution’s “foreign emoluments clause” requires the president to obtain “the consent of Congress” before accepting any gifts.
The dems even found a completely ‘unbiased’ lawyer from Berkeley to support their cause.
“The Framers of our Constitution gave members of Congress the responsibility to protect our democracy from foreign corruption by determining which benefits the president can and cannot receive from a foreign state,” said Erwin Chemerinsky, the incoming dean of the law school at the University of California at Berkeley.
“When the president refuses to reveal which benefits he is receiving — much less obtain congressional consent before accepting them — he robs these members of their ability to perform their constitutional role,” Chemerinsky said. “Congressional lawmakers . . . have a duty to preserve the constitutional order in the only way they can: by asking the courts to make the President obey the law.”
Unfortunately, the maintenance of some level of journalistic integrity required Wapo to speak with a lawyer who was willing to the review the facts of the case rather than simply spew partisan rhetoric…
Other legal scholars were skeptical, particularly since the lawsuit was filed only by Democrats, the minority party in both houses of Congress.
“Just because they can’t convince their peers doesn’t mean you can go to court to get what you want,” said Andy Grewal, a law professor at the University of Iowa.
Generally, a lawmaker can sue if he or she has suffered individual injury, Grewal said. In addition, Congress can sue as a body, as has happened in the past, such as with the lawsuit challenging President Barack Obama’s health-care overhaul.
But a case like this is problematic, he said.
“Because this is individual legislators who don’t have any individual injuries, it will be hard for them to get standing,” he said.
Of course, Trump addressed this exact issue back in January when his personal lawyer said that even though she disagreed with suggestions that foreign dignitaries staying at Trump hotels in the U.S. is a violation of the emoluments clause of the Constitution, that, out of an abundance of caution, Trump would donate all profits from foreign payments at his hotels to the U.S. Treasury.
His lawyers similarly believe that the emoluments clause of the Constitution, which prohibits gifts from foreign governments and heads of state, doesn’t apply to fair value exchanges between businesses.
Several legal experts have disagreed, arguing that the clause applies to the president and to Trump’s foreign holdings, which include a partnership with the U.S. envoy in the Philippines, tenancy in Trump Tower of the state-owned Industrial & Commercial Bank of China, and overseas development projects requiring government approvals. Former top ethics officials to Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama have said Trump will be in violation of the clause as soon as he takes the oath of office.
Trump attorney Sheri Dillon says Trump will donate profits from foreign payments at his hotels to the US Treasury https://t.co/iq1MY3K99f
— CNN (@CNN) January 11, 2017
Not surprisingly, the White House has simply said they’ll review the complaint but expect it to be dismissed by the courts.
Official says WH will review Dems complaint but expects DOJ to move to dismiss the case through ordinary court procedures.
— Mark Knoller (@markknoller) June 14, 2017
This post originally appeared on Zero Hedge