US prosecutors last year ordered the company that owns President Donald Trump's golf courses in Scotland to show its financial filings in an attempt to reveal its ownership, The Times of London reported on Monday.
Prosecutors in Maryland in December subpoenaed documents related to properties controlled by DJT Holdings LLC, a company that owns Trump's hotel in Washington, DC, and resorts in places like Turnberry, Scotland, according to Trump's financial disclosure form. You can read the full filing at the bottom of this article.
The documents are part of an investigation into whether Trump still profits from his businesses. It focuses on Trump International Washington, an old post office building in the US capital that Trump converted into a luxury hotel in 2016.
Trump has attempted to have this case dismissed multiple times.
Fake news, deep state or something..Brian Frosh, the Maryland attorney general, said he was "seeking information proving that hotel revenues were flowing to the president through his affiliated entities," according to The Times.
Frosh added: "We are confident that at the end of discovery we will be able to prove our case that President Trump is violating the Constitution's emoluments clauses, America's first anti-corruption laws."
https://amp.businessinsider.com/us-...jt-holdings-trump-scotland-golf-course-2019-2 Fake news, deep state or something..
I suppose it may be an issue because the US Constitution's emoluments clause prohibits public officials from receiving gifts or cash from foreign or state governments without congressional approval.
Just when you think the witch hunt can't get any more rediculous.
Russians invest in golf course in Scotland. How is that illegal, under USC? :lamo
You mean like the Clinton Foundation?
No, we are talking about businesses owned by the present president and not a charitable foundation run by a past president. The one charitable foundation connected to tRump was shut down owing to multiple failures to comply with state and federal regulations.
Quite apart from the possibility of money laundering, there's the emoluments clause if he's striking such deals since his presidency, the possibility of being indebted to the Russians causing split loyalties or the possibility of favours changing hands or even some form of kompromat.
Of course if they investigate and find it's nothing more than good-old fashioned investment, there's nothing to worry about.
The Clinton Foundation was owned by a serving secretary of state.
With zero probable cause for an investigation.
Wrong once again.
No, we are talking about businesses owned by the present president and not a charitable foundation run by a past president. The one charitable foundation connected to tRump was shut down owing to multiple failures to comply with state and federal regulations.
for the edification of those who haven't bothered to find out what "emoluments clause" means
Article I, Section 9, Clause 8
No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.
Just when you think the witch hunt can't get any more rediculous.
Russians invest in golf course in Scotland. How is that illegal, under USC? :lamo
Funny when people play attorney here at DP. Yes please tell us all about the "emoluments clause". You do under stand that there are attorneys who say that the emoluments clause is not being violated by the president?
Prove it.
Funny when people play attorney here at DP. Yes please tell us all about the "emoluments clause". You do under stand that there are attorneys who say that the emoluments clause is not being violated by the president?
Nope, YOU wrote that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was the "owner" of the foundation - YOU prove it.
You said I'm wrong. Support your claim.
I suppose it may be an issue because the US Constitution's emoluments clause prohibits public officials from receiving gifts or cash from foreign or state governments without congressional approval.
You made a positive statement about a person you despise. This bias places a greater burden upon you to prove that statement is true. Without proof on your part, it is a semi-libellous claim which you are unable to support and instead are asking an opponent to prove your words are false - Nope, ain't gonna do it. I checked the Clinton Foundation website for confirmation of my statement.
You mean like the Clinton Foundation?
Does Hillary know this?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?