Federal court tosses out Democrats' emoluments lawsuit against Trump

A federal court rejected a lawsuit filed by congressional Democrats alleging President Trump violated the Constitution by profiting off the presidency. On Friday, a three-judge panel on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals tossed out the suit filed in 2017 by Democrats who cited the Constitution's emoluments clause, which is intended to shield American presidents from "corrupting foreign influences." Democrats could appeal to the Supreme Court or seek a review by the full bench of the appeals court but are more likely to focus their attention on similar suits against Trump in other districts. Other federal court districts considering similar lawsuits include the Richmond-based 4th Circuit and New York-based 2nd Circuit, according to Politico.

In making their case against Trump, Democrats pointed to high-profile guests staying at his luxury hotel just blocks from the White House and other business properties. "Only an institution can assert an institutional injury," the court said in its opinion to dismiss the case, claiming that individual members of Congress cannot represent the legislative body as a whole. Trump has downplayed the emoluments clause of the Constitution, calling it "phony" and suggesting former President Barack Obama profited of the presidency.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/federal-court-tosses-out-democrats-emoluments-lawsuit-against-trump

Donald Trump’s Suite of Power

https://time.com/donald-trumps-suite-of-power/

The DOJ's antitrust probe into Google is honing in on its third-party advertising business

The Department of Justice's (DOJ) antitrust probe into Google is honing in on the company's third-party advertising business and its impact on and influence over publishers and advertisers, according to The Wall Street Journal. Investigators are reportedly looking into two potentially anticompetitive decisions: Google's integration of its ad server, a tool for publishers selling ad space, and its ad exchange, the industry's largest ad marketplace; and second, Google's decision to require advertisers to use its tools to buy ad space on YouTube following its acquisition. The news follows a recent evidence-sharing meeting between the DOJ and state attorneys general, who issued a subpoena questioning Google's ad products last fall. The development could signal that investigators are closing in on a particular topic (Google's third-party advertising) to build an antitrust case around. 'In line with such a decision, the DOJ's chief antitrust investigator recused himself from the investigation last week due to his involvement with the FTC's approval of Google's acquisition of the DoubleClick ad server in 2007'.

The news also follows multiple rounds of interviews between investigators and publishers like New York Times Co., Gannett, Condé Nast, and News Corp., likely looking to understand whether Google has abused its position as the industry middleman to the detriment of these publishers. The search giant appears to be preparing for the worst on this front: The Journal reports that Google execs have had informal conversations about preemptively divesting their third-party ad tech business. With greater clarity into the plans of antitrust regulators, we can speculate about the likelihood of a few (not mutually exclusive) outcomes for Google.

High confidence: Google will invest more heavily in AdWords and Search advertising — its first-party ad business — relative to its third-party operations. And even if the investigation does not force divestment from or other significant changes to its third-party business, we expect Google will still prioritize its search product due to industry trends — like the dissolution of third-party cookies.

Moderate confidence: Google will offer more favorable terms to publishers and digital advertisers, reducing its influence as the middleman between the two. And based on the Journal's report, investigators are likely making a case for some kind of structural change to how ads are bought and sold through Google's ad platform.

Low confidence: Regulators will force Google to divest entirely from business segments like YouTube, Maps, or other G-suite products. These business segments have not received the same attention from regulators as its other ad products, likely because it's hard to prove that their development or acquisition has had an anti-competitive effect. In other words, making a legal argument that YouTube was a direct rival to Google Search at the time of acquisition is a tall order, and investigators likely haven't discovered anything in the ballpark of Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg's emails directly characterizing WhatsApp as a Facebook competitor at the time of purchase.

https://www.businessinsider.com/doj-antitrust-probe-google-third-party-advertising-business-2020-2

>>8063280

>>8063288

Agreed, thinking this statement right here opens the door..to Obama and Company:

Trump has downplayed the emoluments clause of the Constitution, calling it "phony" and suggesting former President Barack Obama profited of the presidency.

Christopher Wray: FBI working to 'claw back' intelligence gleaned from warrants against Carter Page

FBI Director Christopher Wray told Congress the bureau has started to “claw back” information gathered through Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrants against Trump campaign associate Carter Page. Wray made the comments earlier this week when appearing before the Democrat-led House Judiciary Committee during his first congressional testimony in the wake of Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s damning investigation.

Horowitz concluded that the FBI’s Trump-Russia investigation was flawed, and he criticized the DOJ and the FBI for 17 " significant errors and omissions" related to secret surveillance court filings targeting Page. The filings relied on salacious and unverified allegations contained within British ex-spy Christopher Steele’s dossier. “The failures highlighted in that report are unacceptable — period. They don’t reflect who the FBI is as an institution, and they cannot be repeated,” Wray testified. “The FBI has embraced every last one of the inspector general’s recommendations, but we’re also making a number of improvements above and beyond.”

Republican lawmakers pushed the FBI director for specifics about what the FBI was doing to figure out how so many things were allowed to go wrong in the Page FISA process, how it would discipline those involved, and how it would ensure that such mistakes didn’t happen again. Rep. Doug Collins, a Georgia Republican, asked Wray if he’d looked into whether the FBI followed the so-called “Woods procedures,” named for FBI lawyer Michael Woods, who developed the guidelines. According to those guidelines, the DOJ and FBI are supposed to verify the factual accuracy of each assertion in FISA applications. “Did the FBI conduct a Woods review on the Carter Page FISA applications?” Collins said. “I’m not asking for the Horowitz report — I’m asking about this specific issue.” Wray responded: “We have done specific reviews of the materials underlying the Carter Page FISA applications, including a number of steps that we’ve taken lately to, in effect, claw back the information that was collected under those applications."

The FBI declined to elaborate on what the bureau director meant by “clawing back” the FISA information, but the FISA Court revealed in rare public filings that in the wake of Horowitz’s report, the DOJ told the FISA Court they believed the final two Page FISA warrants were "invalid" and were still reviewing the first two. The FBI told the court it was working to "sequester" all the information obtained through the Page FISA requests.

“The government further reports that the FBI has agreed ‘to sequester all collection the FBI acquired pursuant to the Court's authorizations in the above-listed four docket numbers targeting [Carter] Page,” the FISA Court’s presiding judge, James Boasberg, wrote. In a rare public order, the FISA Court criticized the FBI's handling of the Page applications as "antithetical to the heightened duty of candor" and demanded an evaluation from the bureau. The FISA Court also ordered a review of all FISA filings handled by Kevin Clinesmith, the FBI lawyer who deceptively altered a key document about Page in the third renewal process. Clinesmith now is under criminal investigation by U.S. Attorney John Durham, a prosecutor from Connecticut who was tasked by Attorney General William Barr with investigating the origins of the Trump-Russia inquiry.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/christopher-wray-fbi-working-to-claw-back-intelligence-gleaned-from-warrants-against-carter-page

>>8063775

>>8063775

He probably is..have we ever really looked into him?