I will let unnamed NPR experts speak for themselves. The notion that the Clause extends to restraining economic policy decisions under which Trump’s “interests will benefit along with everyone else’s” sounds like an eccentric one indeed, so if that NPR expert argued that position, he or she will find little company here.

The more usual hypothetical under discussion is what to do should the government of Corruptistan decide to cut a million-dollar check to the Trump org under circumstances that seem to depart from ordinary business practice (say, it plunks a million-dollar deposit down on some land for sale and then walks away the next day). As all who read my article know, the Emoluments Clause prohibits not just emoluments from foreign state entities but also “presents” from them, no matter how innocently intended on the part of the recipient. The more complex the set of business relations with foreign entities, the more situations will come up in which it will not be clear at a glance whether a high-ball payment is or is not a “present.”

Here is a new article shedding light on how the Department of Justice has construed the obligations of the Emoluments Clause over many decades and under many presidential administrations:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2016/11/a-foreign-emoluments-clause-library-232027

The definition of “emolument” is salary or fee. Trump will not receive any salary, fee, present or title from a foreign king, prince or nation, unless you can pierce the corporate veil. Otherwise, the argument boils down to: Based upon an undefined and legally novel indirect benefits theory, I am uncomfortable with having experienced, successful business persons holding important positions in the federal government, and using their knowledge, expertise and contacts, to make important decisions and formulate policy. In short, only professional politicians, and amateurs may hold federal offices.

That may seem harsh, but, I listed to a discussion involving an “expert in government ethics” on NPR, and, that was the takeaway. The objection (other than the unstated one that “Trump is Bad”) was that because Trump (and his team) know how international commerce actually works, they will make decisions that benefit US businesses, including Trump’s, and that is therefore bad, because his interests will benefit along with everyone else’s. Further, the press will be skeptical of Trump’s decisions and policies because of that. (Actually, given the lack of investigations as to the current administration and the Clinton Foundation, seeing actual investigative journalism would be a refreshing change. However, I have doubts that there are many actual investigative journalists in the MSM).

I see possible problems or questions with laws forbidding quid pro quo deals, and bribery, and influence peddling, etc., but, those are fact specific, and can be addressed if they arise. Accordingly, I still fail to see an Emoluments Clause issue.

Professor Bainbridge is on to something with the structure he proposes, but it remains unclear whether the President-elect has any actual interest in avoiding conflicts of interest or if he’s merely looking to appear that he’s dealt with the matter.

The same is true with Trump. He clearly telegraphed to the American people that he was going to address conflict issues in a superficial way. Is there a single person who is surprised that he is not taking the conflicts seriously? Has anyone said, “Wait, this is not what we bargained for?”

It is exactly what we bargained for which is why I am at peace with all of these conflicts. He is going to make a fortune off being president. There is little anyone can do about it and I’m just accepting the fact that he will find ways to profit like crazy from his position.

Of course, Congress has been literally running and hiding from these questions, so they don’t seem to have much interest in creating a framework to address these conflicts.

In contrast to this, former President Clinton received large speaking fees from foreign governments. I do not pretend to be an expert in NY property law, but, I’d guess that Mrs. Clinton, then known as Secretary of State Clinton, owned a beneficial interest in 1/2 of the amounts her husband received. So, without even examining whatever her other interests, executive powers, and actions were concerning the Clinton Foundation, there appears to be much more plausible Emoluments Clause issues there, which were not the subject of discussion. However, if the fact that the check was made payable to him, and not jointly to them, satisfies the Emoluments Clause, then, Mr. Trump’s ownership and executive powers as to his various corporations and partnerships are much further removed.

If I’m incorrect on this, a fuller explanation than the one linked to, is warranted.

Thank you.

And of course, his children would not be involved in his businesses, but would instead receive million-dollar honorariums for 30 minute speeches around the world. With multi-million dollar travel expenses funded by the trust.