This story is unavailable.

First of all, as you tried to wave off, there is no conflict of interest with Presidents. So the term is being misused. There has never been a requirement for presidents to sell off all their assets and businesses. Never. All of our first Presidents were business owners and land owners, all of them were “rich” and serving their country as a duty, not a way to make money as our new modern professional politicians do today.

Second, the emoluments clause has never considered normal commerce as a violation, never. This new radical interpretation is clearly done to attack trump, not because anyone actually believes exchange of merchandise or services is covered in the emoluments clause. It is about preventing bribery, not commerce.

Lastly, as was pointed out in the meeting, Vice President Nelson Rockefeller had way more money than Trump did and a huge number of businesses, he was not forced to sell off his businesses. He did say he would address anything Congress asked him to address but Congress never even dreamed of asking him to sell everything as a huge loss just to be the Vice President.

Everyone knew Trump was a large businessman when they voted for him, nobody expected Trump to destroy 75% of his wealth to become the President. No honest person would expect him to do such a thing.

Trump has gone far and above all laws of this land and even said he will give any profits from Government at his hotels to the treasury. What more can he do?

It is very clear the radical left just wants to punish Trump for winning if they can.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.