state of maryland already sued, charging that the president broke the law, essentially, when he put whitaker in place. now, part of the difference here, of course, is the question of standing. maryland is going to have to prove that they, as a state, were somehow or somehow had a right violated due to whitaker s appointment. that s going to be a challenge for them. the standing argument would be comparatively easy, although, still pretty tricky for members of the senate to make, since they actually do have the constitutional right, as specifically laid out in the constitution, the right and responsibility to provide advice and consent to the president on these cabinet-level positions. so among democrats in the senate, there s a high level of distress. among republicans, of course, there s just, generally speaking, more confidence in president trump and the trump administration and the folks that he s installed. so, yamiche, clearly robert mueller is eating at the president. and the
long standing argument that unverified information formed an essential part of the fisa applications on carter page. it proves that the fbi used outright political propaganda to spy on an american citizen during the election. here is what devin nunes claimed into the original memo. while the fisa application relied on steele s past record of credible reporting on unrelated matters, it ignored or concealed his anti-trump financial and ideological motivations. here is what law fair, david chris of law fair, writes today. now we can see that the footnote disclosing steele s possible bias takes up more than a full page in the application, so there is literally no way the fisa court could have missed it. the fbi gave the court enough information to evaluate steele s credibility. frank, talk about that. when you are drafting a fisa application, what sort of stuff
let s talk about emoluments which to many people sounds like the active ingredient in a moisturizer. this assumes if you re coming from the uae or senegal or fiji, common sense would tell you, hey, if we get our rooms at the trump hotel and then maybe during that conference in washington, let it be known we brought him our business, he s subject to flattery, it may mean good things for us. this, these suits as i understand it, are people, cities, hotels who are saying, we re losing out on business. they are trying to prove harm to their livelihood. and that s how they re getting hurt in court. is that close to correct? well, yes, that s the standing argument. as to why they get to go into court and ask the judge for injunctive relief. what the president is doing is violating the emoluments clause of the constitution, and it s really a very simple concept, because the founders were aware of this problem. emolument means profit or benefit.
well, yes, that s the standing argument. as to why they get to go into court and ask the judge for injunctive relief. what the president is doing is violating the emoluments clause of the constitution, and it s really a very simple concept, because the founders were aware of this problem. emolument means profit or benefit. and the founders did not want, they specifically prohibited any person who holds a position of trust in the united states government from receiving profits or benefits from foreign governments. so that s what s going on when foreign governments patronize these hotels. it s unconstitutional, it s a form of influence over the united states government official by the foreign government. the founders didn t want it. they put it in the constitution. and that s exactly what that language means. and we re going to expect the judge to rule on that and interpret the emoluments clause, explain it to the president what the law is. not just with respect to that hotel, but the
presidency in ways you might not imagine on the front end. you can see why president trump s attorney will regret the effort to quash this lawsuit and at the very least avoid any kind of deposition. let s talk about emoluments which to many people sounds like the active ingredient in a moisturizer. this assumes if you re coming from the uae or senegal or fiji, common sense would tell you, hey, if we get our rooms at the trump hotel and then maybe during that conference in washington, let it be known we brought him our business, he s subject to flattery, it may mean good things for us. this, these suits as i understand it, are people, cities, hotels who are saying, we re losing out on business. they are trying to prove harm to their livelihood. and that s how they re getting hurt in court. is that close to correct? well, yes, that s the standing argument. as to why they get to go into