monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

The New York attorney general filed a lawsuit against President Trump ..., charging that he misused his charitable foundation for personal and political gains over more than a decade.

In the scathing complaint filed in New York State Supreme Court, the attorney general used adjectives such as “illegal,’’ “persistent” and “willful” to characterize the violations of the Donald J. Trump Foundation.

The president “used charitable assets to pay off the legal obligations of entities he controlled to promote Trump hotels, to purchase personal items and to support his presidential election campaign,’’ the lawsuit charged.

The attorney general, Barbara D. Underwood, is seeking $2.8 million in restitution from the Trump Foundation and to bar Trump for 10 years from serving as a director, trustee or officer of a nonprofit. The suit says that $1 million in remaining funds should be distributed to other charities.

Headquartered out of Trump Tower, the foundation was set up in 1987 as a nonprofit to raise money for charity. Trump himself has donated very little to the foundation since 2008, although he reimbursed some of the foundation’s donations after the attorney general began investigating.

The 41-page lawsuit hinted at the possibility of criminal charges in the future.

4. So why couldn’t Trump pardon these probes away?
Because state and local prosecutors, particularly those in New York, may be able to bring state charges against some of the same people Mueller is probing, and the president’s pardon power doesn’t extend to state crimes. Trump associates seen as most vulnerable to state charges include Manafort, who was reportedly a subject of investigation by the New York attorney general, and Cohen, who lives in New York and is the subject of a criminal probe by Manhattan federal prosecutors. (He hasn’t been charged with wrongdoing.) Trump’s campaign, which Manafort led, was headquartered at Trump Tower in New York, and Manafort owned New York real estate. Cohen faces almost $300,000 in state and city tax warrants on taxicab medallions he owns and had a business associate, "Taxi King" Evgeny Freidman, who’s pleaded guilty to failing to pay taxes. Even if federal charges are dropped, the prospect of state charges could provide an incentive to cooperate.

5. What determines if state charges are allowed?
The Constitution’s Fifth Amendment provides that no one will “be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.” That means a person who’s accused of a federal crime can’t be charged again for the same misconduct -- at least not by federal authorities. Double jeopardy generally doesn’t apply between states, or between state and federal governments, which are considered “separate sovereigns" with independent interests in pursuing violations of their own laws. But about half of U.S. states -- including New York -- provide enhanced double-jeopardy protections under their laws.

6. What makes them enhanced?
New York prosecutors can’t bring a case against someone who’s been charged elsewhere if the new charges are “based upon the same act or criminal transaction." But there are about a dozen exceptions. One allows for state prosecutions for evading New York income tax. New York also has strong anti-fraud laws. Although certain types of misconduct are exclusively federal, the state has authority to go after fraud and other crimes.

Baltimore Sun Editorial Board
In the grand scheme of President Donald Trump’s legal problems, the ruling this week by U.S. District Judge Peter J. Messitte of Maryland that a lawsuit based on the Constitution’s emoluments clause may continue hardly registers.

But there’s something fundamentally important at the heart of the case brought by Maryland Attorney General Brian E. Frosh and D.C. Attorney General Karl A. Racine: the idea that President Trump should be held to the same basic standards we’ve observed for his 44 predecessors. That concept is already out the window in terms of decorum, honesty and consistency. If this suit succeeds, perhaps we could at least hold to it where the Constitution is concerned.

Now that the suit moves to the phase of gathering and presenting evidence, it provides the hope that the public will, finally, get to see President Trump’s tax returns and possibly other documentation of his business interests. That, in and of itself, would make the exercise worthwhile. But this suit is about much more than that, or even whether President Trump should divest from one particular hotel. It’s about whether he is subject to the rule of law, and given his efforts to squirm out of his myriad other legal entanglements, that’s an important principle indeed.

The 41-page lawsuit hinted at the possibility of criminal charges in the future.

EU Cries Uncle On Trade Tariffs

When President Donald Trump announced that he was raising tariffs in an attempt to force other countries to lower trade barriers to American goods, All The Best People scoffed. That simply wasn’t the way the trade game was played, old bean. Other countries wouldn’t lower tariffs, they’d raise them on American goods and start a trade war, plunging the world into recession.

There’s no doubt that if President Trump’s trade strategy does work, those decrying it now will still sniff at Trump “winning the wrong way” by “alienating allies…”

It is well known that the European Commission doesn't buy any soybeans

You better tell your drunken EU president, not me.

Juncker is the President of the European Commission.

This is why we agreed today, first of all, to work together toward zero tariffs, zero non-tariff barriers, and zero subsidies on non-auto industrial goods. We will also work to reduce barriers and increase trade in services, chemicals, pharmaceuticals, medical products, as well as soybeans.

You mean, he doesn't know how the EU works?

the point here is Europe caved just like Trump said they would.

So the joint statement is null and void, pinky?

You attempts to insult me might work for you, I would treasure that thought if I were you.

Says the one who constantly insults me with misspelling my given name.

Well, I am glad you did not have to pay for your name.

coldjoint wrote:

You attempts to insult me might work for you, I would treasure that thought if I were you.

You can't possibly think your cranky nonsense has any effect on the other members