What is this controversial emoluments clause of the Constitution? Here is the verbatim text:
"No Tittle of Nobility shall be granted by the United States. And no person holding office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the consent of Congress, accept any present, Emolument, Office or Title of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State"
And what is an emolument? The best definition I can find is "a payment for work provided" or, let's be frank ... a payoff in excess of value provided. Now Trump is not doing any work for foreign governments, but some of his hotels, run by his sons, might be so doing. (If the Trump holdings were forced to sell its properties, it would lose billions of dollars.) And Trump has pledged that any profits gained by foreign dignitaries staying at his DC hotel will be turned over to our treasury. I believe that these safeguards are enough to pass Constitutional muster.
However, the Attorneys General of Maryland and DC are now suing President Trump for violating this emoluments clause of the Constitution ... see:
Washington Post Article. This seems a waste of taxpayer monies by these partisan pols.
And does anyone believe that all the past donations to the Clinton Foundation ... for which they received nothing in return ... in anticipation of her being elected president were not only emoluments, but were freely-accepted bribes?
One last analogy -- if George Washington, during his term as president, had sold some wheat from his Mount Vernon estate to France, would he have violated this Constitutional stricture? I think not!
