William R. Wilson: Trump is enriching himself at the expense of Americans

MEPD, the actual verbiage of the clause is right in the letter, you can't just make up your own interpretation. It's quite clear that foreign nations paying Trump for hotel rooms, conference rooms, golf fees, etc. is a violation every single time they do it. There does not have to be proof of quid pro quo, there is no such requirement in the clause, the payments are forbidden, period, full stop. Stop trying to twist things into pretzels to excuse the corruption of your dear leader.

Despite the fact that it's not required as proof of a violation of the clause, you'd have to be a complete idiot not to see that Trump is completely swayed by people who pay him money, give him money, invest in his companies, or fawn over him. The pattern is crystal clear, wake up and smell the coffee.

All other presidents divested themselves of their businesses prior to taking office, but Trump has not because his corruption is so thoroughly embedded due to his malignant narcissism. He doesn't care what the rules are, they've never applied to him. He's gotten away with virtually everything, and even that's not enough, he's out to get anyone that's ever actually tried to hold him accountable.

When courts dismiss cases for standing, they're not ruling on the merits of the case, they're simply saying the group or individual that brought the suit doesn't have the standing to proceed with the suit.

Hosting G20 events at Trump properties is a prime example of a violation of the clause. Only an idiot would think other countries aren't trying to buy influence with a leader by staying at his expensive properties. Another example is Trump Tower, whose biggest renter is the Chinese government. That's why presidents divest themselves of their businesses. No one with a working brain cell believes his idiot sons are running the businesses, and even if they were it wouldn't matter as long as Trump still owns it.

No one is politicizing anything, the clause explicitly forbids these types of arrangements for the very reason I just mentioned.

I suppose you don't think the investors in his crypto business or his failure of a social media platform are buying influence either. Not only is it disgusting to watch him peddle influence so obviously, but watching him do infomercials hawking everything from Bible he's never read to hideous sneakers to watches just shows his narcissism and greed have no bounds. Other than escaping all the well-earned charges he was facing, enriching himself was the most important motivation for Trump to run for office again.

Yes, insider trading in Congress is horrible, but isn't it funny that you mention Nancy Pelosi, who doesn't trade stocks (though her husband does, which I feel they have to find an answer for that's legal and doesn't violate a spouses rights) instead of MTG, who clearly DID commit insider trading as tariffs were announced, and will, I believe, be charged with it (which I'm sure Trump will then pardon her for). Hmmm, wonder why that is? Could it be that your insane right-wing sources haven't mentioned that?

The claim that “emoluments” only covers direct gifts or pay for official duties is incorrect. The term also includes any profit or benefit from foreign governments without congressional consent. Payments from foreign governments to Trump’s hotels and properties during his presidency were documented and raised clear conflict concerns. It is true that no court ruled on the substance of these cases because they were dismissed on procedural grounds such as standing or mootness. But the absence of a final judgment does not mean the conduct was legal. The Constitution’s Emoluments Clauses exist to prevent divided loyalty and self-enrichment while in office, not just to punish explicit quid pro quo deals. The issue remains ethical and constitutional, not merely political.