How was Hillary Clinton not seen as violating the ‘Emolument Clause’?

A group associated to Democrats is bringing suit against President Trump, alleging he violates the constitutional Emoluments Clause (Art.1, Sec 9).

One could argue that business agreements in place before achieving office may not be seen as an emolument if its perpetuation falls within standard rates and terms, therefore not seen as a benefit of the office, just a simple business transaction.

Gifts, on the other hand, are very definitely an emolument, begging the question.

While the debate ensues, one wonders how Hillary, as Secretary of State, failed to be held to the standard, while foreign money flowed into the Clinton Foundation?

(Knowing Pres. Trump, it may not take long for this one to get hit out of the park.)

The Clintonista bringing the suit may yet regret opening up this can of worms.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *