 This Historic Lawsuit May Finally Expose Trump’s Tax ReturnsA first-of-its-kind lawsuit was announced on Monday. The lawsuit will be filed jointly by Maryland s Attorney General, Brian Frosh and the District of Columbia s Attorney General, Karl Racine. The lawsuit claims that Trump is in violation of the emolument clause in the Constitution. The emolument clause prevents the POTUS from receiving gifts from foreign governments. It s essentially a charge of corruption. Because of Trump s refusal to disown his company, the Attorney General s believe that they have the grounds to file an injunction against Trump for violating the Constitution. The president is bound by oath to  faithfully execute  his office and  preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States,  the lawsuit says. The lawsuit also alleges that Trump is, deeply enmeshed with a legion of foreign and domestic government actors. In order for the lawsuit to be successful, the accuser must prove that Trump s business has done harm to Maryland and D.C. A hurdle that the attorney s lawyer will be easy to accomplish.Those who are anxious to take a look at Trump s personal tax returns should follow this case as it develops. Racine and Frosh have stated that the first step in their legal challenge will be to examine Trump s tax returns in order to understand the full extent of his financial holdings. However, the court may impose privacy protections that prevent Trump s tax documents from being released to the public, at least legally. Never in the history of this country have we had a president with these kinds of extensive business entanglements or a president who refused to adequately distance themselves from their holdings,  Racine during said during a press conference in Washington D.C. Racine also said that  We re getting in here to be the check and balance that it appears Congress is unwilling to be. We re bringing [this] suit because the president has not taken adequate steps to separate himself from his business interests. It is unprecedented that the American people must question day after day whether decisions are made and actions are taken to benefit the United States or to benefit Donald Trump,  Frosh said during the press conference.White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer dismissed the lawsuit as nothing more than a political attack aimed at Trump. It s not hard to conclude that partisan politics may be one of the motivations,  behind the legal case, Spicer said in response to the lawsuit.  The suit was filed by two Democratic attorney generals. The lawyers driving the suit are an advocacy group with partisan ties. It actually started with a press conference as opposed to filing it, which is interesting. It should be pointed out that the fact that the suit was announced at a press conference isn t actually very interesting at all. Spicer was blatantly trying to delegitimize the lawsuit by saying that. As per his track record, Spicer actually only continued to be a national embarrassment.What truly is interesting about the case, is that it is being filed by two government officials. Trump s crony corporate administration would absolutely love for the public not recognize that this may prove to be one of the most important lawsuits in this nation s history, given that it will provide likely provide a more concrete legal definition as to what is considered an emolument. Never before has a president been charged successfully as being in violation of the emolument clause. The case could potentially lead to a whole new set of legal restrictions on the president s office.Featured Image: Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty ImagesNews
this historic lawsuit may finally expose trump tax returns lawsuit announced monday the lawsuit filed jointly maryland attorney general brian fresh district columbia attorney general karl racing the lawsuit claims trump violation monument clause constitution the monument clause prevents pots receiving gifts foreign governments it essentially charge corruption because trump refusal down company attorney general believe grounds file injunction trump violating constitution the president bound oath faithfully execute office preserve protect defend constitution united states lawsuit says the lawsuit also alleges trump deeply enmeshed legion foreign domestic government actors in order lawsuit successful accuser must prove trump business done harm maryland a hurdle attorney lawyer easy anxious take look trump personal tax returns follow case develops racing fresh stated first step legal challenge examine trump tax returns order understand full extent financial holdings however court may impose privacy protections prevent trump tax documents released public least legally never history country president kinds extensive business entanglement president refused adequately distance holdings racing said press conference washington racing also said we getting check balance appears congress unwilling we bringing suit president taken adequate steps separate business interests it unprecedented american people must question day day whether decisions made actions taken benefit united states benefit donald trump fresh said press house press secretary sean spider dismissed lawsuit nothing political attack aimed trump it hard conclude partisan politics may one motivations behind legal case spider said response lawsuit the suit filed two democratic attorney generals the lawyers driving suit advocacy group partisan ties it actually started press conference opposed filing interesting it pointed fact suit announced press conference actually interesting spider blatantly trying legitimize lawsuit saying as per track record spider actually continued national truly interesting case filed two government officials trump irony corporate administration would absolutely love public recognize may prove one important lawsuits nation history given provide likely provide concrete legal definition considered monument never president charged successfully violation monument clause the case could potentially lead whole new set legal restrictions president image photo mark imagenes
Your task is to classify the provided input as real or fake news. Label 0 is meant for fake news, Label 1 is for real news. TEXT:  This Historic Lawsuit May Finally Expose Trump’s Tax ReturnsA first-of-its-kind lawsuit was announced on Monday. The lawsuit will be filed jointly by Maryland s Attorney General, Brian Frosh and the District of Columbia s Attorney General, Karl Racine. The lawsuit claims that Trump is in violation of the emolument clause in the Constitution. The emolument clause prevents the POTUS from receiving gifts from foreign governments. It s essentially a charge of corruption. Because of Trump s refusal to disown his company, the Attorney General s believe that they have the grounds to file an injunction against Trump for violating the Constitution. The president is bound by oath to  faithfully execute  his office and  preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States,  the lawsuit says. The lawsuit also alleges that Trump is, deeply enmeshed with a legion of foreign and domestic government actors. In order for the lawsuit to be successful, the accuser must prove that Trump s business has done harm to Maryland and D.C. A hurdle that the attorney s lawyer will be easy to accomplish.Those who are anxious to take a look at Trump s personal tax returns should follow this case as it develops. Racine and Frosh have stated that the first step in their legal challenge will be to examine Trump s tax returns in order to understand the full extent of his financial holdings. However, the court may impose privacy protections that prevent Trump s tax documents from being released to the public, at least legally. Never in the history of this country have we had a president with these kinds of extensive business entanglements or a president who refused to adequately distance themselves from their holdings,  Racine during said during a press conference in Washington D.C. Racine also said that  We re getting in here to be the check and balance that it appears Congress is unwilling to be. We re bringing [this] suit because the president has not taken adequate steps to separate himself from his business interests. It is unprecedented that the American people must question day after day whether decisions are made and actions are taken to benefit the United States or to benefit Donald Trump,  Frosh said during the press conference.White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer dismissed the lawsuit as nothing more than a political attack aimed at Trump. It s not hard to conclude that partisan politics may be one of the motivations,  behind the legal case, Spicer said in response to the lawsuit.  The suit was filed by two Democratic attorney generals. The lawyers driving the suit are an advocacy group with partisan ties. It actually started with a press conference as opposed to filing it, which is interesting. It should be pointed out that the fact that the suit was announced at a press conference isn t actually very interesting at all. Spicer was blatantly trying to delegitimize the lawsuit by saying that. As per his track record, Spicer actually only continued to be a national embarrassment.What truly is interesting about the case, is that it is being filed by two government officials. Trump s crony corporate administration would absolutely love for the public not recognize that this may prove to be one of the most important lawsuits in this nation s history, given that it will provide likely provide a more concrete legal definition as to what is considered an emolument. Never before has a president been charged successfully as being in violation of the emolument clause. The case could potentially lead to a whole new set of legal restrictions on the president s office.Featured Image: Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty ImagesNews
Your task is to classify the provided input as real or fake news. Label 0 is meant for fake news, Label 1 is for real news. TEXT: this historic lawsuit may finally expose trump tax returns lawsuit announced monday the lawsuit filed jointly maryland attorney general brian fresh district columbia attorney general karl racing the lawsuit claims trump violation monument clause constitution the monument clause prevents pots receiving gifts foreign governments it essentially charge corruption because trump refusal down company attorney general believe grounds file injunction trump violating constitution the president bound oath faithfully execute office preserve protect defend constitution united states lawsuit says the lawsuit also alleges trump deeply enmeshed legion foreign domestic government actors in order lawsuit successful accuser must prove trump business done harm maryland a hurdle attorney lawyer easy anxious take look trump personal tax returns follow case develops racing fresh stated first step legal challenge examine trump tax returns order understand full extent financial holdings however court may impose privacy protections prevent trump tax documents released public least legally never history country president kinds extensive business entanglement president refused adequately distance holdings racing said press conference washington racing also said we getting check balance appears congress unwilling we bringing suit president taken adequate steps separate business interests it unprecedented american people must question day day whether decisions made actions taken benefit united states benefit donald trump fresh said press house press secretary sean spider dismissed lawsuit nothing political attack aimed trump it hard conclude partisan politics may one motivations behind legal case spider said response lawsuit the suit filed two democratic attorney generals the lawyers driving suit advocacy group partisan ties it actually started press conference opposed filing interesting it pointed fact suit announced press conference actually interesting spider blatantly trying legitimize lawsuit saying as per track record spider actually continued national truly interesting case filed two government officials trump irony corporate administration would absolutely love public recognize may prove one important lawsuits nation history given provide likely provide concrete legal definition considered monument never president charged successfully violation monument clause the case could potentially lead whole new set legal restrictions president image photo mark imagenes