Democrats Band Together and Sue President Trump

In an interesting turn of events, around 200 democratic members of the House of Representatives and U.S. Senate have banned together to sue President Trump. NPR reports that the lawsuit was filed on Wednesday of last week in a U.S. District Court in our nation’s capital.

 

Democratic members from both houses contend that President Trump is unconstitutionally profiting from the presidency. There are certainly a number of pending business deals and current asset holdings in foreign countries that could be perceived as a conflict of interest when it comes to balances politics, business, economics, and law.

 

The issue in contention for nearly 200 democratic politicians is the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution, which Senator Blumenthal and others have asserted Trump has repeatedly and aggressively violated during his few months in office.

 

Granted the Emoluments Clause was written over two hundred years ago, the language is somewhat dated. The clause, though, reads that presidents “can’t accept benefits…from any king, prince, or foreign state” without the expressed consent of Congress. Trump’s vast business holdings around the globe and his lack of interest in getting the consent of Congress have created serious conflicts of interest in the estimation of many democrats and democratic supporters.

 

One practical case of where this might be a conflict is Trump’s hotels. If a foreign dignitary spends the night at a Trump hotel, and provides Trump with additional revenue revenue because of that stay, could that stay be perceived as currying favor with the sitting president.

 

Another area of concern is Trump’s refusal to release his tax returns, which might provide a fuller picture of Trump’s holdings and potential conflicts of interest. In the current situation, though, democrats are calling for Trump to divest himself from his holdings or fully disclose his financial and economic ties with foreign countries. Trump claims to have pulled back from the day-to-day affairs of the Trump Organization, but will that be enough for the District Court judge?

 

Trump’s Friend Says the President Might Fire Mueller from Special Counsel

A close friend of President Donald Trump reports that the President is currently considering firing Robert Mueller from his role in investigating the ties between the Trump campaign and the Russian government.

 

 

Christopher Ruddy, who has known Trump for years and currently serves as the head of Newsmax Media, visited the White House this Monday. On Tuesday, he indicated this possibility while speaking during the “News Hour” program on PBS. Ruddy said the recently elected President is “considering, perhaps, terminating the special counsel,” and that he thought the president was “weighing that option.”

 

 

The White House denied these allegations. The White House Press Secretary, Sean Spicer, stated that Ruddy “never spoke to the president regarding this issue.”

 

 

Mueller was appointed following the President’s firing of James Comey from his role as Director of the FBI. This move, according to Trump’s letter to Comey, was made because of Comey’s investigation into the administration’s possible ties to Russia. Comey recently spoke before the Senate regarding the matter.

 

 

When asked whether he thought the President had done anything illegal, Comey said that he could not answer this question during the portion of the hearing that was being broadcast to the public.

 

 

  1. Mueller was appointed by Rod Rosenstein, the current Deputy Attorney General, to sit at the head of the special counsel devoted to the Justice Department’s inquiry into any connections or collusions between Trump’s campaign and Russian intelligence operatives.

 

But can Trump legally fire the head of the special counsel? Justice Department regulations dictate that Trump would have to order the Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein to suspend these regulations. The regulations protect such special counsels from being fired without a justified reason.

 

 

Were Rosenstein to refuse the President’s request, Trump could feasibly threaten the Attorney General with termination. The New York Times drew a parallel to the so-called “Saturday Night Massacre” during the Watergate trial, where Nixon demanded that the Attorney General fire a special prosecutor, only to be handed the resignations of both Attorney Generals.

The U.S Supreme Court Exempts Church-Affiliated Organization from the ERISA Law

The U.S Supreme Court recently made a ruling that exempts hospitals that are affiliated with churches from abiding by the federal law that manages employee pensions. This overturned a court decision that would have made the hospitals to pay billions of dollars. The Supreme Court gave an 8-0 ruling on the matter. The church-affiliated organizations will now not have to comply with the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, which is a law that was passed in 1974 to force private employers to abide by the rules that protect participants of the pension plans.

 

The court’s ruling came as a victory to the hospital that had been sued for claiming that they had a religious exemption that was offered by ERISA. These organizations include California’s Dignity Health, Illinois’ Advocate Health Care Network, and New Jersey’s Saint Peter’s Healthcare System. According to the law interpretation of most federal agencies, church plans and institutions that are affiliated with churches are exempted from the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. The employees of the hospitals accused them of being highly profitable businesses that had posed as church-affiliated organizations to avoid ERISA’s requirements.

 

Dignity Health manages Catholic and non-Catholic Hospitals, Saint Peter’s Healthcare System is linked to the Roman Catholic Church, and the Advocate Health Care Network is an affiliate of the Evangelical Lutheran Church and the United Church of Christ. Justice Elena Kagan ruled that the exemption that had been offered by the law covers institutions that were founded by churches and those that are linked to them. Justice Sonia Sotomayor supported her but said that some of the church-affiliated organizations run for-profit subsidiaries that make them billions of dollars. Such branches need to comply with the ERISA rules. According to Sotomayor, the U.S Congress needs to revise the laws. Hundreds of church-related hospitals across the United States had claimed that they are exempted from the ERISA law since 1980 when it was amended by the Congress to exclude all religious entities. The organizations could have been penalized hundreds of millions of dollars if the plaintiffs had won.

 

The U.S Supreme Court Eliminates Gender Equality in the Citizenship Laws

The U.S Supreme Court recently abolished the gender discrimination that is in the U.S immigration law that tends to offer different treatment to parents when determining the citizenship of a child. The court referred to the law as “stunningly anachronistic.” The high court that was led by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg gave an 8-0 ruling in the case that the equal protection guarantee of the U.S Constitutions was violated the by the law that determines how individuals who are born overseas can be eligible for U.S Citizenship. The New York resident who filed the case, Luis Morales-Santana, may fail to benefit from the ruling. The individual was arrested for several offenses and was trying to avoid being deported to the Dominican Republic.

 

According to the law, an unmarried father who holds American citizenship was required to live in the U.S for at least five years before he can secure citizenship for his child who was born abroad to a mother who is a non-U.S Citizen. An amendment was made in 2012 and increase the period to 10 years. Unmarried mothers who are in the same situation need to live in the country for one year. The Supreme Court stated that the Congress should change the law and both men and women should meet the five years requirement.

 

Ginsburg, who is respected for her involvement in gender equality issues before being appointed as a jurist, stated that the duration of residence for the mothers and fathers who are not married and have accepted parental roles is incredibly anachronistic. She further argued that the U.S Constitution demands that the government should ensure that its male and female citizens are offered equal dignity. Morales-Santana was born abroad to a non-citizen mother while his father was a U.S citizen, but he did not meet the required years by 20 days. The years that had been set for the fathers were burdening, and various U.S courts stood with Morales-Santana on the issue.

 

Financial Expert Glen Wakeman

Glen Wakeman is the Co-Founder and CEO of a Software as a service company called LaunchPad Holdings LLC. The company started in 2015 and has been fairly successful thanks to Wakeman’s two decades of experience in the management field, not to mention everything he has learned from being a Public Company CEO, Investor, Financial Service Executive, Small Business Owner, Board Member and Executive Mentor. He started earning his experience from the University of Scranton, where he attained his Bachelors in Finance and Economics in 1981. Wakeman continued his education at the University of Chicago and in 1993 he earned his MBA in Finance. Not long after graduating from the University of Chicago he began working for GE Capital. Wakeman held a handful of positions dealing with business development before moving to work for the Doral Financial Corporation. Here he climbed the latter to become the President and CEO of the Company.

Glen Wakeman has been recognized time and again because of his numerous successes in the financial field. At GE Capital and Nova Four he was given the title Growth Leadership Role Model, due to the amount he expanded both the companies, by their prospective Board of Directors. In total, Wakeman has been able to increase the assets and staff members where he has worked by $15 billion and 17 thousand respectively. He did this by being a guiding hand in the company’s plans for new market entries, start-ups, divestitures and M&As, making exponential growth a priority. For each one of these factors Wakeman uses a five-point plan which includes risk management, execution, human capital, governance and most importantly leadership.

When he is not working, Glen Wakeman spends his time investing his own money and writing. Being a writer has opened many doors for him and he finds in enjoyable to share the knowledge he has obtained through the media of blog posts. Wakeman focuses on helping others with his writing, sticking to the topics of finance, emerging markets, administration, financial strategies, management and international fiscal matters. Occasionally, he will meet groups of people and give a speech about one of these topics. He currently mentors for Sitter Bees and Dreamfunded who both deal with C-level executives.

More here:  Http://www.glenwakeman.com/

Twitter | LinkedIn

 

President Trump reveals his Nominees for the United States Attorney Positions

Presidents Donald J. Trump has announced his first list of the United States Attorney candidates. The function of a United States Attorney is to act as the lead federal law enforcer in the federal judicial district that he or she is in charge. All the nominees that the president submitted share his vision of “Making America Safe Again,” and he has announced his intent to make them United States Attorneys.

 

  1. Michael Dunavant has been nominated to act as the United States Attorney for Tennessee’s Western District. Since 2006, Dunavant has been serving the 25th Judicial District in Tennessee as its District Attorney General. The position enabled him to handle significant prosecutions and several criminal offenses in five counties.

 

The candidate for the Middle District of Alabama’s United States Attorney is Louis V. Franklin, Sr. He spent 27 years serving the office and also acted as a criminal chief for about 16 years. Franklin has also held the Assistant United States Attorney position. He once served as a partner at Sirote and Permutt.

 

President Trump also nominated John W. Huber to take the District of Utah’s United States Attorney position. He once acted as a presidential appointee at the district for two years and was also offered the United States Attorney job by the Attorney General Jefferson B. Sessions.

 

The president’s nominee for the Northern District of Ohio’s office is Justin E. Herdman. He currently serves as an associate at a Jones Day-based firm that is called Investigations & White Collar Defense. Herdman once acted as Cleveland’s Assistant United States Attorney and was involved in a couple of terrorism cases.

 

Another United States Attorney candidate is Brian J. Kuester, and he has been proposed to serve the Eastern District of Oklahoma. He has been serving District 27 in Oklahoma as a District Attorney since 2011. Other nominees that were presented by President Trump for approval include Richard W. Moore for Southern District of Alabama, Jay E. Town for District of Alabama, and Jessie K. Liu for District of Columbia.

 

Achievements Of Livio Bisterzo In The Health And Nutrition Sector

Livio Bisterzo is an Italian born entrepreneur currently living in Los Angeles. He is the founder and Chief Executive Officer of Green Park Brands, a food producing company within the health and nutrition industry. The firm was founded in 2015 and it specializes in production of multi-purpose food brands.

Under the leadership of Livio Bisterzo, Green Park Holdings’ objective is to develop a strong portfolio focusing on brands with positive social impact as well as cultural and behavioral change. The firm’s vision is to advance its agenda of bringing the desired change in the nutritional sector.

In April 2016, Green Park Brands launched its first brand, HIPPEAS, which was expected to shake the global market after it hit the market. HIPPEAS is considered as one of the most preferred snacks by consumers, especially those who demand taking tasty snacks with highest quality of ingredients. According to Livio Bisterzo, they expect HIPPEAS to be the most loved snack brand all over the world.

Livio Bisterzo’s Education and Career Profiles

In 1999, Livio moved to London, United Kingdom, where he studied marketing at the University of Arts. In 2003, the young Bisterzo’s entrepreneurial skills were exposed when he an events company. Later, the entrepreneur created other ventures ranging from retail and hospitality brands to lifestyle companies. Due to Bisterzo’s achievements, his brands have featured severally in The Times, Sunday Style, Vanity Fair, The FT, Harpers and others since 2006. In 2009, the entrepreneur was nominated by the Evening Standard one of the most influential individuals in London. In 2008, Livio Bisterzo and a Chicago based fashion outfit, RNA Corporation partnered to produce skincare products for men that were supplied in 26 nations. The entrepreneur exited the business in 2010.

In 2011, Livio acquired a Danish based startup, Little Miracles. It is a beverage business specializing in organic blend of Juice and Tea. The brand won several awards in 2013, and was also recognized for its outstanding growth and performance. Today, the brand is sold in 18 countries. In 2016, Livio Bisterzo relocated to Los Angeles. One of his philanthropic initiatives is helping Eastern African farmers out of poverty through HIPPEAS brand.

Follow Livio Bisterzo on Instagram.

Another Appeals Court Rules Against President Trumps’ Travel Ban

The efforts of President Donald Trump to bar the traveling of people from six Muslim countries to the United States suffered legal setbacks when another ruling by the federal appeals court indicated that it discriminated people based on their nationality. The court also ruled that it did not have any effect on national security. The 9th Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals made its judgment by referring to the federal immigration laws hence giving the Supreme Court several reasons to stick down President Trump’s law. Most courts in the U.S have ruled that Muslims are significantly discriminated by the ban.

 

The panel of the 9th Circuit gave a 78-page decision. Hawaii and Maryland also released their arguments to the Supreme Court, which may either decide to let the ban continue or listen to the petitions. The challengers responded to the Justice Department request to the justices to implement the ban immediately. The case indicated the negative impact of the travel ban to people from Libya, Somalia, Yemen, Sudan, Iran, and Syria. The legal papers cited the statements of President Trump during campaigns and his tweets that called for extreme vetting. California’s 9th Circuit Court avoided the argument of whether the ban does not abide by the U.S Constitution’s law that protects people against religious discrimination. The judges ruled that the Trump administration was discriminating individuals based on their nationality yet it was not improving national security.

 

The panel argued that the being a citizen of any of the six countries does not link an individual to any of the terrorist organizations that operate in their countries. The ban also fails to prove citizen as being active contributors to a conflict that could lead to national insecurity. Being a native of any of the six countries does not make one have a motive for committing terrorist activities. Attorney General Jeff Sessions has however criticized the decision. He said that President Trump understood that he had been elected as a leader of a nation that is constantly under terrorist threats.

 

A Plurality of Voters Think Trump Should be Impeached

According to a recent poll conducted by Public Policy Polling, 49 percent of voters think that President Donald Trump is guilty of obstruction of justice, while only 41 percent of voters think that he did not. There is also a plurality of support for impeachment, with 47 percent of voters in favor and only 43 percent opposed. The poll further said that 53 percent of Americans believe the current president to be dishonest, with only 37 percent believing the president to be honest.

 

 

The President is accused of firing James Comey to prevent investigation into Russian involvement in his 2016 campaign for the presidency.

 

 

Comey recently testified before the Senate regarding three meetings with the President where Trump asked him three times for personal loyalty. Tuesday, Attorney General Jeff Sessions is scheduled to appear before the Senate as well.

 

 

The President officially stated that the reasoning behind his firing of the former FBI Director was the recommendation of the Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.

 

 

The President later remarked in an interview with Lester Holt that he was “going to fire [Comey] regardless of recommendation” and that he had made the decision to fire Comey before asking the Deputy Attorney General for a recommendation.

 

 

Further, he continued to say that, when he fired Comey: “I said to myself — I said, you know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story. It’s an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should’ve won.”

 

In ancient Athens, public court cases were tried in front of all voting members of the populace. One stood and defended oneself before the “assembly” (called an “ecclesia”). Citizens would take a vote, and the person’s fate would be decided.

If Trump were president of Ancient Athens, he’d be in serious trouble.

 

 

Regardless of what polls say about the opinions of Americans, the power to impeach Trump will ultimately rest on what the Department of Justice’s special counsel reveals.

 

Depending on these findings, it will be up to Congress to decide whether to impeach the President. If successful, the trial will be decided by the Senate, and will require a two-thirds majority to succeed.

Trump’s Travel Ban Fails in 9th Circuit Court

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco rejected President Donald Trump’s temporary travel ban, making their decision this Monday. This is the second time that Trump’s travel ban has been rejected by a U.S. Court of Appeals.

 

 

The 90-day travel ban, proposed by the U.S. President, would prevent people from Iran, Somalia, Libya, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen from entering into the United States.

 

 

The panel, composed of three judges, ruled that Trump’s order issued on March 6 fails to conform to existing immigration law. What were the reasons behind the panel’s ruling?

 

 

The court ruled that the President lacked sufficient reasons for his claim that people from these nations were “detrimental to the interests of the United States.” Moreover, the court ruled that the Immigration and Nationality Act disallows discrimination on the basis of Nationality alone.

 

 

In the published opinion, the court pointed out that of the named countries, only one citizen had been formally charged with attempted terrorism. In 2014, a Somalian-born naturalized citizen was captured for attempting to use explosives to commit a terrorist attack at a Christmas celebration in Portland, Oregon. Two other examples of Iraqi nationals were mentioned, but Iraq is no longer among the listed countries, as Trump has withdrawn their name from the list given the presently positive state of the relations between the United States and Iraq.

 

 

The court opined that the Executive Order fails to provide examples of any terrorist activities committed by people coming from Iran, Libya, Sudan, Syria, or Yemen.

 

 

The court said nothing about whether the ruling was unconstitutional on the basis of religious discrimination, but merely claimed that the Executive Order lacked sufficient grounds for evoking the travel ban.

 

 

The court further cited Trumps June 5 tweet as part of their reasoning for the claim. Trump wrote: “That’s right, we need a TRAVEL BAN for certain DANGEROUS countries, not some politically correct term that won’t help us protect our people!” The court, in turn, responded that the Executive Order “does not provide any link between an individual’s nationality and their propensity to commit terrorism or their inherent dangerousness.”

 

 

The decision was unanimous.