He said the complaint from members of Congress was “the weirdest one” because a court ruling that would for the first time in 230 years define what constituted an emolument would also cover them. “They could be really shooting themselves in the foot,” he said.

Yet each new set of plaintiffs makes it harder for the Justice Department to defend the president on the grounds that his opponents have no legal standing to sue him, Mr. Trump’s critics said. “It puts the government in the position of saying that nobody can address this — not hotel competitors, not states, not members of Congress,” said Norman Eisen, the chairman of CREW, which started the legal efforts. “And you cannot get away with that in a rule-of-law system.”

Mr. Blumenthal, a former Connecticut attorney general, said the president’s companies did business in about 20 countries but were shrouded in secrecy, making it impossible for Congress to carry out its constitutional duty of determining whether he was receiving illegal benefits or emoluments. “The truth is we have no clue about the president’s investors,” he said in an interview with reporters Tuesday. “How much is Russian money?”

“What we are seeking first and foremost is disclosure,” he said. “We cannot consent to what we don’t know.”

In a response to the initial lawsuit, Justice Department lawyers argued that the framers of the Constitution never intended to prevent a president from owning a business or to ban ordinary, arms-length commercial transactions. They also contended that even if the president had violated the Constitution as his opponents allege, it is up to Congress to take action, not a federal court.

Mr. Trump’s defenders have said he has gone well beyond what is legally or ethically required to distance himself from his companies, which are now being run by his two adult sons.</s>WASHINGTON (AP) — The attorneys general of Maryland and the District of Columbia plan to sue President Donald Trump.

District of Columbia Attorney General Karl Racine and Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh plan to announce what they call a “major lawsuit” Monday against the president. A statement released to the press Monday says they’ll announce the suit at a news conference in Washington.

According to The Washington Post , the suit alleges that Trump violated constitutional anti-corruption clauses by taking payments from foreign governments while in office. The Post says the lawsuit centers on Trump retaining ownership of his company when he became president.

Trump said he was shifting assets into a trust managed by his sons to eliminate potential conflicts of interest.</s>President Donald Trump is facing yet another lawsuit over the profits his far-flung business empire brings in from dealings with foreign governments.

The latest legal salvo came from nearly 200 Democratic members of the House and Senate, who joined in a suit filed early Wednesday in federal court in Washington.

It's at least the fourth pending lawsuit alleging that Trump is violating the foreign emoluments clause in the Constitution, a provision that prohibits federal officeholders from accepting financial benefits or other things of value from foreign governments without the permission of Congress.

Plans for the new suit were first reported by POLITICO last week. The lead plaintiffs in the case are Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut along with Rep, John Conyers of Michigan, long the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee.

The 54-page complaint targets a wide array of Trump's business ventures, from Trump Tower spaces rented to foreign governments, to "The Apprentice" re-runs aired by state-owned foreign broadcasters, to trademarks the Chinese government has granted Trump to use his brand in China for construction services, catering and clothing.

"Because Defendant is not coming to Congress and identifying the emoluments he wishes to accept, the American people will have no way of knowing whether his actions as President reflect only his beliefs about what is best for the country, or whether they are partly motivated by personal financial considerations," the suit says.

The new suit was filed just two days after the attorneys general of the District of Columbia and Maryland filed a joint suit in federal court in Greenbelt, Maryland, making similar arguments on behalf of the people of those jurisdictions. In addition, a pair of lawsuit were filed in New York last year challenging the legality of Trump's business dealings with foreign entities.

The Justice Department moved to toss out one of the New York cases last week, arguing that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring such a suit and that routine business transactions with foreign governments are not covered by the foreign emoluments language in the Constitution.

At a press conference early this year, a private lawyer for Trump publicly made a similar argument. However, Trump also pledged to set up a process to donate to the U.S. Treasury profits his hotels and other businesses earn from foreign governments.

The Trump Organization, which oversees Trump's business holdings, has released a flyer indicating that it plans to flag some business with foreign governments and track the profits from that activity. However, the Trump businesses do not plan to try to figure out if foreign individuals who do business at Trump properties are actually representatives of foreign governments, the flyer said.

The lawmakers are represented in the new suit by a liberal legal non-profit, the Constitutional Accountability Center.</s>Can states force President Trump to sell off his businesses?

That question is being raised by a new legal challenge to Trump's continued ownership of far-flung businesses.

On Monday, the attorneys general for Maryland and the District of Columbia filed a lawsuit in a Maryland federal court, saying that Trump's failure to sell off his interests in hotels, golf courses, office buildings and other properties is undermining public trust and violating the U.S. Constitution's Emoluments Clause.

"President Trump's continued ownership interest in a global business empire, which renders him deeply enmeshed with a legion of foreign and domestic government actors, violates the Constitution and calls into question the rule of law and the integrity of the country's political system," the lawsuit charges.

A similar suit was filed in a New York federal court in January by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, or CREW, a public-interest group. On Friday, the Trump administration's Justice Department responded, saying the case should be dismissed because the plaintiffs lack the legal standing to sue. The court will have to decide that in coming months.

On Monday, White House press secretary Sean Spicer was asked about the new state-backed lawsuit. He replied that Trump's business interests "do not violate the Emoluments Clause," for reasons spelled out by the Justice Department's filing on Friday.

This new suit was brought by attorneys general who are both Democrats, Spicer noted. "It's not hard to conclude that partisan politics may be one of the motivations" for filing suit, Spicer said. "We'll continue to move to dismiss this case in the normal course of business," he added.

But the latest suit may make a stronger case than CREW's because the plaintiffs are D.C. Attorney General Karl Racine and Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh.

Racine and Frosh said in a news conference that the Trump hotel, just blocks from the White House, creates unfair competition for other businesses in the District and Maryland. For example, the Trump property competes against Washington's convention center; a government-owned conference center in Bethesda, Md.; and the National Harbor resort in Prince George's County, Md.

Lobbyists, foreign diplomats and others who might wish to curry favor with Trump have been frequenting the Trump hotel, which is unfair, the argument goes.

"It's unprecedented that the American people must question day after day whether decisions are made or actions are taken to benefit the United States or to benefit President Trump," Frosh said.

Lawrence Noble, senior director and general counsel of the Campaign Legal Center, told NPR the two attorneys general are "saying that they're being adversely affected by the president's violation of the Emoluments Clause, and they make a very strong argument that financially, they're being affected."

The attorneys general accused the president of violating the Constitution's clause that blocks federal officials from accepting gifts, or emoluments, from foreign governments. The Constitution also bars a president from accepting economic benefits from federal or state governments, other than a basic salary.

Since Trump continues to own and profit from the Trump Organization, the lawsuit claims citizens cannot know whether their president is making decisions in the best interests of the nation or rather out of "self-interested motivations grounded in the international and domestic business dealings in which President Trump's personal fortune is at stake."

Trump has stepped back from daily management of his businesses, which have been placed into a trust run by his sons and another close associate. But he remains the sole beneficiary of the trust. His son Eric has said the president will continue to get updates on profits.</s>President Trump found himself, once again, at the receiving end of a high-profile lawsuit involving his business dealings on Monday. The Attorneys General of both the state of Maryland and the District of Columbia filed a suit claiming the Present was in violation of the Constitution's Emoluments Clause, which states that an office holder cannot receive payments or gifts from a foreign power.

Start the conversation, or Read more at NewsBusters.org.</s>WASHINGTON -- Nearly 200 Democratic members of Congress agreed to file a lawsuit Wednesday against President Donald Trump alleging that by retaining interests in a global business empire, he has violated constitutional restrictions on taking gifts and benefits from foreign leaders.

The lead senator filing the complaint in federal district court, Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., said Tuesday that the lawsuit has already drawn more congressional plaintiffs -- 196 -- than any legal action previously taken against a president.

No Republicans have yet joined in the lawsuit, although they will be invited to do so, Blumenthal said.

An advance copy of the legal complaint argues that those in Congress have special standing because the Constitution's "foreign emoluments clause" requires the president to obtain "the consent of Congress" before accepting any gifts.

[PRESIDENT TRUMP: Timeline, appointments, executive orders + guide to actions in first 100 days]

The legal effort is led in the House by Rep. John Conyers Jr., D-Mich. At least five congressional committees are investigating various issues related to the Trump administration.

News of the lawsuit emerged less than 24 hours after attorneys general in the District and Maryland, both Democrats, filed suit alleging that payments to Trump violated the Constitution's anti-corruption clauses. In another lawsuit filed against Trump by business competitors, the Justice Department recently defended Trump's actions, arguing that he violated no restrictions by accepting fair-market payments for services.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment Tuesday night, but on Monday, spokesman Sean Spicer criticized the lawsuit filed by the two state attorneys general, saying it's "not hard to conclude that partisan politics may be one of the motivations."

The 37-page congressional complaint contends that the nation's founders were concerned that foreign powers could interfere with American affairs. The suit says the founders were particularly worried that "foreign states would give benefits and rewards to the nation's chief executive to subvert his loyalty."

As a result, they wrote the emoluments clause of the Constitution with language "both sweeping and unqualified," the lawmakers' lawsuit says.

In a response to the initial lawsuit, Justice Department lawyers argued that the framers of the Constitution never intended to prevent a president from owning a business or to ban ordinary, arms-length commercial transactions. They also contended that even if the president had violated the Constitution as his opponents allege, it is up to Congress to take action.

The obscure clause in Article I of the Constitution says that "no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under [the United States], 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." The language is interpreted as prohibiting any officeholder -- including the president -- from accepting a gift, payment or other benefit from a foreign state without the consent of Congress.

A memo prepared by the Senate plaintiff states that "these benefits include any compensation for services rendered in a private capacity such as when a foreign government throws a party at a hotel owned by a federal official."

Blumenthal, a former Connecticut attorney general, said the president's companies did business in about 20 countries but were shrouded in secrecy.

The lawsuit asks the court to enjoin the president from "accepting any benefits from foreign states without first obtaining Congressional consent."

Information for this article was contributed by Tom Hamburger and Karen Tumulty of The Washington Post and by Sharon LaFraniere of The New York Times.</s>Md. And D.C. Attorneys General Sue Trump Over His Businesses

In a lawsuit, Maryland and the District of Columbia accuse President Trump of violating anti-corruption clauses in the Constitution. Steve Inskeep talks to Karl Racine, the attorney general for D.C.

President Trump's business ties are the subject of another lawsuit. This time, Maryland and the District of Columbia have filed the case. Their attorneys general - both Democrats, we should mention - allege that President Trump violated the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution. White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer downplayed the significance of those allegations yesterday.

SEAN SPICER: This lawsuit today is just another iteration of the case that was filed by that group CREW, so it's not hard to conclude that partisan politics may be one of the motivations behind the scene.

INSKEEP: That group, CREW, he's referring to, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a bipartisan group that filed the lawsuit earlier this year. Let's talk about this with District of Columbia Attorney General Karl Racine, one of the parties in the lawsuit. Attorney General, welcome to the program.

KARL RACINE: It's great to be here.

INSKEEP: And to our studios here in the District of Columbia. What gives you standing? And we should explain by standing, I mean the right to sue, that you have a dog in this fight. Where - how does the - how does D.C. have standing?

RACINE: Sure. First, let me be clear that the lawsuit is based on a violation of the Constitution's anti-corruption law. That's called the Emoluments Clause.

RACINE: The Emoluments Clause essentially says that any federal officer, including the president of the United States, cannot receive monies from foreign countries. And that's what's going on, as we know, with the Trump Hotel right in our backyard in Washington, D.C. The attorney general of Maryland and the attorney general of D.C. believe we have strong standing to bring the suit for two reasons.

First, as attorney general, we have an obligation to defend our residents, the residents of our states. And when the residents of our states are being harmed by a constitutional violation as fundamental as the president's receipt of money from foreign governments, that in and of itself gives us sovereign standing.

Secondly, as state attorney generals who have a piece of, if you will, business in the District of Columbia and certainly have an interest in having a level playing field for our businesses, it's important for us to take a stand when one business - the president's business - clearly has an outsized advantage over others.

INSKEEP: Let's follow up on what you said there because you said the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution prohibits the president or others from receiving money from foreign governments.

INSKEEP: We should specify this is about gifts. This is about some kind of bribe going to the president of the United States. And his lawyers have argued - in fact, the Justice Department has now argued - you got to define that a little bit better. It's true the president, for example, owns a hotel in Washington, D.C., that foreign diplomats and others have been buying rooms at the hotel.

But they've said that's just a normal business payment. It's a normal business transaction. The president's company is providing a service, and the company gets paid for it. That's not a bribe, they say.

RACINE: Well, the Constitution is clear. And the Constitution doesn't provide exceptions unless Congress grants such an exception. And what the United States Constitution says is that when a federal officer, like the president of the United States, is receiving monies from foreign governments, that is a violation, again, unless Congress has provided an exception.

INSKEEP: What do you make of the Department of Justice argument that presidents going back to George Washington have had a variety of business interests?

RACINE: I would urge the readers and the listeners to take a careful look at the government's motion. It's quite remarkable. Taken to its common-sense logical extension, what the Department of Justice is saying is that any and all of Trump's businesses are open for business, and any foreign government should feel free to plow as much money as they want into the Trump businesses for the purpose of trying to curry favor with the president.

Now, look. I read the briefs. And the briefs do cite to George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. And the briefs candidly feebly try to make a comparison between Donald Trump and George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. The reality is when you look at the brief, the brief does not allege that George Washington nor Thomas Jefferson sold any farming materials or products to foreign governments. They were not being paid by England or any other government.

INSKEEP: I'm just thinking of the example of the Trump International Hotel in Washington. Are you prepared to show that anybody in the District of Columbia has been harmed because a foreign diplomat rents a room there as opposed to any place else? Do you have a specific person or people in Washington who've been harmed in some specific way by the president's activities?

RACINE: Let me make clear again on the basis of sovereign standing, we have standing, we argue, because of the constitutional violation and the fact that a president who is receiving monies from foreign governments in violation thereof hurts democracy, one.

Second, with respect to actual harm, there is public information - and thank God for the media for uncovering it - that foreign countries, knowing that this president likes flattery, likes people to do business in his hotels, are actually moving their business away from other hotels in the District of Columbia to curry favor with the president and going to the Trump Hotel.

RACINE: That's exactly right.

INSKEEP: Attorney General, thanks for coming by, really appreciate it.

INSKEEP: Karl Racine is the attorney general of the District of Columbia.</s>D.C. Attorney General Karl Racine, right, and Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh conduct a news conference on a lawsuit they filed Monday against President Donald Trump, alleging he violated the U.S. Constitution by accepting foreign payments through his businesses. (Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call)

District of Columbia Attorney General Karl Racine can see the top of the Trump International Hotel from his Penn Quarter office. Whenever he looks at it, he sees the U.S. Constitution being trampled by President Donald Trump.

Racine and Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh announced Monday they have filed a lawsuit against Trump claiming his business ties violate the U.S. Constitution’s “Emoluments Clause.” By doing so, they fired the latest salvo in an ongoing battle between the Trump White House and the city and region it calls home.

The White House was eager to fire right back at the Democratic AGs, vowing to see that the suit is thrown out of court.

“The president’s interests … do not violate the Emoluments Clause,” White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer said Monday, referring to part of the Constitution designed to ensure presidents and other government officials are not swayed by gifts, including from foreign governments.

“It’s not hard to conclude that partisan politics may be one of the motivations behind the suit,” Spicer said, pointing to the party affiliation of both attorneys general and the “partisan ties” of watchdog groups and lawyers involved in the suit. “We’ll continue to move to dismiss this case in the normal course of business.”

The Republican National Committee reacted quickly, accusing the Mid-Atlantic attorneys general of doing little more than playing politics.

“This lawsuit brought against our president is absurd,” said Lindsay Jancek, an RNC spokeswoman. “From day one, President Trump has been committed to complete transparency and compliance with the law.

“The actions of the attorneys general represent the kind of partisan grandstanding voters across the country have come to despise,” Janeck said. “The American people elected President Trump to lead this country, and it is time Democrats end their efforts to delegitimize his presidency.”

But the AGs painted a much different picture during a press conference in a packed basement courtroom just a few blocks from Trump’s Pennsylvania Avenue hotel.

“As I look out the window and see the tower of the Trump International Hotel, we know exactly what’s going on every single day,” Racine told reporters.

“We know that foreign governments are spending money there in order to curry favor with the president of the United States,” Racine said. “Just one example: the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, whose government has important business and policy before the president of the United States, has already spent hundreds of thousands of dollars” at the hotel.

“We are a nation of laws. And no one, including the president of the United States is above the law,” the D.C. attorney general said. “No one, not even the president, can be allowed to endanger our democracy and erode our faith in our institutions.”

Racine and Frosh criticized Congress for failing to provide a sufficient check on some of Trump’s early moves since taking office. The “Republican-controlled Congress has wholly failed to fulfill its responsibility to serve as a check and balance,” Racine said, adding GOP lawmakers have given the president a “total pass on his business entanglements.”

That’s a major reason, the duo said, they “jointly” decided to file the suit.

“Elected leaders must serve the people, and not their personal financial interests. That is the indispensable foundation of a democracy,” Frosh said. “We cannot treat a president’s ongoing violations of the Constitution and disregard for the rights of the American people as the new and acceptable status quo.

“The president, above all other elected officials must have only the interests of Americans at the heart of every decision.”

The room in which they spoke was full of journalists on Monday, which is standard practice for events focused on the chief executive. But lawsuits by state attorneys general against presidents of the opposite political party are nothing new.

EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt is a prime example. He previously was oil-rich Oklahoma’s AG, and he used the position to go after President Barack Obama environmental policies. Most notably, he targeted the Obama administration’s high-profile Clean Power Plan.

By filing the suit, Racine and Frosh further escalated a battle between the White House and the metropolitan area that buzzes around the executive compound’s 18 acres.

The District and Maryland decided to sue Trump over the Emoluments Clause, in part, “to protect our residents,” Racine said. Frosh told reporters he is confident Marylanders have been harmed financially by Trump’s various business holdings in the Washington region.

But, like on other issues, the AGs were arguing a larger point on Monday: “The president’s conflicts of interest threaten our democracy,” Frosh said.

The president’s executive order banning federal funds from flowing to so-called sanctuary cities that opt against complying with federal officials’ orders on enforcing immigration laws is another.

In late January, D.C. Mayor Muriel E. Bowser, also a Democrat, announced she would be “doubling down” on the District’s “sanctuary city” status. And that came after local law enforcement was ordered to not cooperate with federal entities who want to deport immigrants.

“We must ensure that all District residents can take advantage of their federal and constitutional rights,” Bowser said in January. “If immigration enforcement changes and problems arise, D.C.’s immigrant population will have our support and the support of D.C.’s legal community.”

Bowser and the D.C. city government have also gone on record as saying they will comply with the Paris climate accord, which Trump said he would pull the United States out of.

The clashes show how the 45th president is living in tension with Washington and much of the Mid-Atlantic region. That’s largely because Frosh and other area officials, as the Maryland AG put it Monday, see a Republican president who “doesn’t seem to understand or care” about the law.</s>WASHINGTON >> The attorneys general of Maryland and the District of Columbia filed a federal lawsuit Monday against President Donald Trump, alleging he violated the Constitution by improperly retaining ties to his sprawling global business empire and by accepting foreign payments while in office.

Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh joined District counterpart Karl Racine at a news conference in the nation’s capital, saying the lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court in neighboring Maryland. Much of the case is focused on allegations that Trump’s real estate and business holdings violate a little-known emoluments clause of the Constitution. The provision bars the president and other government employees from accepting foreign gifts and payments without congressional approval.

“The president’s conflicts of interest threaten our democracy,” Frosh told journalists. “We cannot treat the president’s ongoing violations of the Constitution and his disregard of the rights of the American people as the new acceptable status quo.”

Frosh called the Trump empire a series of “business entanglements.” He added it was unprecedented the American people “must question day after day whether actions are being taken to benefit the United States or to benefit Donald Trump.”

The Trump Hotel in the nation’s capital affects business in the Washington area and is part of the reason the lawsuit was filed, the two Democratic officials explained. They also said their action was non-partisan, and other state attorneys general, including Republicans, were welcome to join the suit. It seeks an injunction to stop what the two alleged are the president’s constitutional violations.

“We have economic interests that are impacted, but the most salient factor is that when the president is subject to foreign influence, we have to be concerned about whether the actions he’s taking — both at home and abroad — are the result of payments that he is receiving at the Trump Hotel, payments that he is receiving at Mar-a-Lago, payments that he is receiving at Trump Tower, payments that he is receiving in all of his other far-flung enterprises, and he brags about it,” Frosh told The Associated Press in an earlier interview.

Frosh said at the news conference that Trump regularly welcomes foreign diplomats to his hotel and appears frequently at Trump establishments, “using his role as president to raise their public profile.” He added that the president continues to take money from foreign governments while in office.

The lawsuit also focuses on the fact that Trump chose to retain ownership of his company when he became president. Trump said he was shifting assets into a trust managed by his sons to eliminate potential conflicts of interests.

The White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment Monday. The president called an earlier, similar lawsuit about the emoluments issue “without merit, totally without merit.”

Lindsay Jancek, a spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee, on Monday described the lawsuit as “absurd.”

“The actions of the attorneys general represent the kind of partisan grandstanding voters across the country have come to despise,” Jancek said. “The American people elected President Trump to lead this country, and it is time Democrats end their efforts to delegitimize his presidency.”

If a federal judge allows the case to proceed, Racine and Frosh say they will demand copies of Trump’s personal tax returns and other financial information in court to gauge the extent of his foreign business dealings.

Trump’s unique status as both president and the financial beneficiary of his global business empire raised questions about the emoluments clause of the Constitution even before he took office. Trump and his attorneys argue the clause does not cover fair-value transactions, such as hotel room payments and real estate sales.

The attorneys general aren’t the first to sue Trump over emoluments. Just days after Trump’s inauguration in January, the government watchdog Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington filed a federal lawsuit in the Southern District of New York. Since then, a restaurant group and two individuals in the hotel industry have joined as plaintiffs.

The Justice Department said Friday that those plaintiffs did not suffer in any way and had no standing to sue, and that it is unconstitutional to sue the president in his official capacity.</s>Attorneys general from Maryland and the District of Columbia detailed their new lawsuit against President Trump on Monday, claiming government payments to Mr. Trump's hotels and other businesses violate the U.S. Constitution. Photo: AP

A lawsuit filed Monday by attorneys general in Maryland and the District of Columbia alleges U.S. and foreign government payments to President Donald Trump’s hotels and other businesses violate the Constitution.

The lawsuit, similar to one filed in New York by a government watchdog group in January, pivots on Mr. Trump’s decision to place his business assets into a trust, rather than divest upon taking office. Mr. Trump tapped his...
Nearly 200 members of the Democratic Party in the United States Congress file a lawsuit in the federal court, claiming that U.S. President Trump profits from business dealings with foreign governments, in violation of the United States Constitution’s emolument clauses. This is the third such suit of its kind, following on the heels of the most recent suit by the Attorneys General of Maryland and the District of Columbia.