The Tinfoil Club has come up with scheme # 47 for the removal of the President. And it took 200 of them to come up with this idea. Good grief.

Introductory question:  I know this will sound like the beginning of a joke,  but "why does it take 200 lawyers to file a single suit against the President?'  Anyway,  the following commentary details the complexities of this ridiculous lawsuit,  starting with the fact that 200 officials filed.   

Update: So how come it takes 200 Dems to file a single lawsuit?  They gave up on screwing a light bulb into a socket.  
 ________________________________

The lawsuit

Some 200 Democrats have filed a single lawsuit suing the President for violations of the Emolument Clause (Article 2) of the Constitution.  They claim this violation to be grounds for removal from office.  Understand that no such lawsuit,  using this particular clause in the Constitution,  has ever been filed previous to the current case.  As it turns out, the President is being sued because he is a wildly successful,  world class (literally) businessman.  He owns 534 companies and does business with virtually every significant nation in the world.     

The issue of "standing."

Before getting their case accepted in a court of law,  there is the problematic issue of "standing."  Typically,  one cannot sue another without "standing,"  without proving that harm as been done to the complainant.  Those filing the lawsuit,  claim that they do not need "standing" to file and prosecute this particular lawsuit.  But others disagree.  If "standing " is required,  and it is in 99.99% of all lawsuits,  these folks,  all 200 of them,  each of them,   need to prove that they are being harmed,  individually, and in measurable degree.  "Standing" cannot be established via a general or theoretical claim of harm.  

But those filing,  argue that "standing" is not a requirement,  in this case. Here is their statement: 

“The Framers of our Constitution gave members of Congress the responsibility to protect our democracy from foreign corruption by determining which benefits the president can and cannot receive from a foreign state.   When the president refuses to reveal which benefits he is receiving — much less obtain congressional consent before accepting them — he robs these members of their ability to perform their constitutional role.”

Of course, if you read their statement carefully,  you will see that,  in fact, they are claiming "harm done to them."  In other words,  they are claiming (admitting ?) that they do have standing.  If this statement is admission of  "needed standing,"  as appears to be the case,  the court will first determine if this perceived "harm" is enough to move the case forward. 

Remaining complexities

Anyway,  the legalese are overwhelming.  Just know that this case,  if allowed to proceed,  will not be settled until President Trump is long gone.  Any student of history,  knows full well,  that the complexities of such a lawsuit and use of a law that is over 100 years old,  is not going to be an easy matter to litigate.   

Standing will need to litigated.  The particulars of the lawsuit,  whatever they are, will need to be litigated, as well,  in an effort to determine the legal application of the various elements of this case.   Certainly,  they will need to litigate the notion of "corruption as a result of Trump's business dealings."  Are "corruption" and "profit taking" synonymous terms?  I would say,  "Probably not."  There will be a question as to which businesses are problematic and which are not, in a legal sense.  And,  in the end,  it will need to be decided as to whether these business dealings constitute an impeachable offense.  All of these issues and more,  will need individual hearings and legal decisions. 

The general definition for impeachment and removal from office is stated in this wise:   High crimes and misdemeanors is a phrase from Section 4 of Article Two of the United States Constitution: "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

Since there is no stated offense for "profit making,"  these 200 clowns  (and why the hell does it take 200 to file this lawsuit?),    there will need to be a determination as to whether that profit making was the result of the crime of "bribery."  If it can be shown that a given country was shown special treatment because of its relationship(s) with one or more of Trump's businesses,  then and only then,  can it be argued that he is not in compliance with the Constitution.   

Conclusion

In other words,  it ain't going to happen,  at least,  not in the lifetime of your grandchildren.