Dems claim Trump attempt to delay Emoluments Clause lawsuit for ‘de facto’ win

More than 200 Democratic members of Congress claimed Tuesday that President Trump is attempting to achieve a “de facto” win by asking an appeals court to review whether their lawsuit alleging Trump violated the Emoluments Clause can advance.

Department of Justice (DOJ) lawyers, who are representing the president in the case, had asked D.C.-based Judge Emmet Sullivan to allow an appeals court to consider Sullivan’s prior rulings allowing the lawsuit to advance – a request the Democrats opposed in a new court filing Tuesday. 

The lawmakers also argued against President Trump’s request that a judge temporarily halt the lawsuit, saying he has also not proved that he would “irreparably injured” by the case advancing without an appeals court reviewing whether it should or not.

“Already more than halfway through his term, Trump knows that pausing the litigation while he pursues an appeal will frustrate any chance of resolving this case before the end of his current term,” the document reads.

{mosads}“If the President succeeds in running out the clock, an entire presidential term will have gone by with the nation’s highest officeholder making countless foreign policy decisions under a cloud of potentially divided loyalty and compromised judgment caused by his enrichment from foreign states. That is precisely the nightmare scenario the Framers adopted the Foreign Emoluments Clause to avoid.”

The Democrats pushed back against the president’s assertion that discovery carried out as part of the lawsuit would impact his ability to do his job.

The lawmakers “intend to focus their discovery requests on third-party companies owned by the President—companies that he has repeatedly claimed he has no involvement in running,” the filing reads.

“To the extent that Plaintiffs may need access to some of President Trump’s personal financial records, he does not explain how this limited document discovery would ‘necessarily’ distract him from his duties.”

The Democrats had initially sued Trump in 2017, alleging that he was in violation of the Emoluments Clause by not seeking congressional approval before profiting from foreign governments. They point to Trump’s global businesses as evidence that he’s financially benefiting from serving as president.

Trump has denied the charges, claiming that the clause only requires for Congress to sign off on any direct gifts he receives from foreign officials, or profits he receives in exchange for direct actions he takes as president.

Sullivan, a Clinton appointee, ruled late last month against Trump’s request to dismiss the lawsuit, finding that Trump disregarded “the ordinary meaning” of the term “emolument” as intended in the Constitution in calling for the case to end.

Dems Opposition to Interlocatory Appeal by Jacqueline Thomsen on Scribd