Same tricks, different politicians. The left has not updated its playbook now that an actual successful businessman is at the helm of the government. One of the tricks the progressives use to drive those who are “outsiders” away from the public arena is to sue them into oblivion. And there is a case in the U.S. District Court in Maryland that is making an attempt at driving a stake into President Trump via “gifts and business” from foreign governments and other entities going to his hotel in Washington, D.C.
Maryland and DC have argued that the Trump International Hotel’s operations put other nearby hotel and entertainment properties at a competitive disadvantage, and that the Trump hotel got special tax concessions.
Was this before or after he ran for president?
The argument before the judge was really all about the entire kit and kaboodle of Trump properties and businesses – including Mar-A-Lago – however, the judge cut the case down to size.
But the ruling from Judge Peter Messitte of the US District Court of Maryland says the Maryland and District of Columbia attorneys general who brought the case will have to focus it on the Trump Organization’s operations in Washington. That means the case going forward will challenge payments made by foreign officials for services at the Trump International Hotel, but will not include visits to Mar-a-Lago in Florida or other Trump properties.
The argument, of course, is that by being president, Trump’s business is picking up business. Whether this is because of effective sales techniques, superior services, or motivations known only to the customers of the hotel, is not really all that clear. The judge, though, has already indicated which way he leans.
“[A] large number of Maryland and District of Columbia residents are being affected and will continue to be affected when foreign and state governments choose to stay, host events, or dine at the Hotel rather than at comparable Maryland or District of Columbia establishments, in whole or in substantial part simply because of the President’s association with it,” Messitte writes.
Can’t wait to see the motivations proven in a court of law. This should be interesting.