FIRST AIRED: June 10, 2017

Nice work! Enjoy the show!


You’re busy. We get it.

Stay on top of the news with our Editor’s Picks newsletter.

US Edition
Intl. Edition
Unsubscribe at any time. One click, it’s gone.

Thanks for signing up!

We've got more news

Get our editor’s daily email summary of what’s going on in the world.

US Edition
Intl. Edition
Replay Program
More Info

COMING UP:Share Opener Variant 1



>> The US Department of Justice calling for the dismissal of a lawsuit alleging President Donald Trump violated the Constitution by accepting foreign payments at his hotels. The lawsuit filed in January said Trump violates the Emoluments Clause which bars him from accepting gifts from foreign governments without congressional approval by maintaining ownership of his business empire despite ceding day-to-day control to his sons.
Ethics experts say this has created unprecedented conflicts of interest.>> Reaction to the lawsuit today?>> That's it.>> Sorry, without merit.>> The lawsuit alleges Trump's unfair advantage as President hurts local businesses competing with his properties. In a filing in Manhattan federal court Friday, the Justice Department argued that the plaintiffs in the case, an ethics non-profit, restauraunt group, and hotel events booker, do not have legal standing to sue.
The complaint list in many ways in which the Trump organization may compromise the Presidents ability to govern independent of self-interest or profit. Including property's purchased at Trump World Tower by Saudi Arabia and other countries or how Trump International Hotel, which is down the street from the White House, often hosts foreign dignitaries staying there reportedly to curry favor with the President.
The complaint also mentions how China granted the Trump brand highly valuable trademark rights days after he pledged to honor the one China policy of his White House predecessors. The DOJ saying payments to Trump Hotels do not qualify as a violation of the Emoluments Clause. And they're filing points to historical precedents like Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe, arguing that they too had highly lucrative side businesses.
An appointee of former President Obama will rule over the case.