03-29-2018, 11:24 AM
(03-29-2018, 11:16 AM)michaelsean Wrote: So I'm guessing the onus would be proving that dignitaries and such are staying at this hotel because Trump is President?
Yes. Essentially, the crux of the case works on proving that Trump is benefiting financially in his commercial interests because of his position as POTUS. But, it will end up at SCOTUS because the question of whether this actually qualifies as an emolument has not been answered. That is going to be a constitutional question that will have to be answered, but this was the first major hurdle. Honestly, proving at the level of preponderance that Trump is benefiting is a piece of cake, that is a fairly foregone conclusion, it's just a matter of whether or not it's unconstitutional, and for that we need someone with standing to file suit.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
