Trump responds to Maryland lawsuit questioning foreign 'gifts'

Disclaimer: I am not an internet lawyer.

I do not think the emoluments clause was intended to cover normal business transactions. If the President owns a hotel, and charges a specific rate, I do not think it automatically qualifies if a foreigner or foreign government rents the room for the night, at the same rate anyone else would be charged. It might possibly qualify as an emolument, if suddenly the rate was far above fair market value, or if the occupancy rate was far outside the norm for an extended period and the rental by foreigners was the sole difference. It would also probably be a violation of the law if the Trump Hotels and Golf courses posted signs that said "No Foreigners."

If President Trump is violating the emoluments clause, then any President that has written a book, subsequently purchased by a foreigner, while the President is in office has also violated the emoluments clause. And we can probably find dozens of other examples.

I doubt it was the intent of the founding fathers that the President be required to divest himself or herself of any business dealings while in office.

President Washington had a grist mill on the grounds at Mt Vernon that produced cornmeal and flour for export and had a small fishing fleet that exported the majority of the catch to European markets. Neither ceased operations during Washington's presidency

President Jefferson had a section of his plantation at Monticello called Mulberry Row that produced textiles, primarily for export. In addition the quarter farms Shadwell, Tufton, and Lego that were part of Monticello produced crops that were exported. None ceased operation during Jefferson's Presidency.

President Madison's plantation MontPelier operated a grist Mill, forge, and wheel wright's shop that exported to several foreign holdings in the Caribbean. None ceased operation during Madison's Presidency.

This is a great example what people are talking about for a need to reform civil law about how and why a person is sued. It is a waste of time and money.

It’ll be an uphill legal battle, because there are a lot of ways for the suit to fail. Here are the big three:

1) Courts may reject this far-reaching interpretation of the emoluments clause. Not all legal scholars find it convincing, noting that it would have really perverse consequence — like opening former president Obama to impeachment for royalties he got on books purchased by Canadian government employees.

Trump’s lawyers have laid out a very different interpretation of what constitutes an emolument, in which fair-market transactions simply don’t count. So, for example, if the chancellor of Germany pays the market rate to stay in a Trump hotel, that’s not an emolument, just run-of-the-mill economi