Dems talk and talk about the Emolument Clasue of the Constitution as if it has ever had an effect on the U.S. Presidency. It has not.

NPR:    The Inspector General for the General Services Administration, the agency that leased the building to Trump in 2013, said in a report published Wednesday that agency lawyers decided to ignore the constitutional issues when they reviewed the lease after Trump won the 2016 election."The GSA Office of General Counsel recognized that the President's business interest in the lease raised issues under the U.S. Constitution that might cause a breach of the lease, yet chose not to address those issues," said Inspector General Carol F. Ochoa. "As a result, GSA foreclosed an opportunity for an early resolution of these issues and instead certified compliance with a lease that is under a constitutional cloud."
Neither the White House nor the Trump Organization has responded to interview requests.
"Today, the GSA OIG confirmed what we all knew: The Trump Administration is in violation of the Emoluments clauses of the United States Constitution," said Rep. Gerry Connolly, D-Va., in a statement. "GSA's decision to not consider whether the President's business interest in the Old Post Office lease might be unconstitutional has enabled the President to line his pockets."

Editor:  with all this talk about the lttle known and NEVER litigated "emolument clause" to our Constitution,  did you know that such was virtually unknown before the Dems dug it up at the beginning of the Trump Presidency,  that it has not been used in a prosecution of a sitting president,  and has never even been litagated (tested) in our courts?   "They"  talk as if this issue is criticial to the Constitutional view of the presidency,  when,  in point of fact,  the emolument clause has never been used to define the business practices of a sitting president   . . . . .   never    . . . .   not a single time.

Related legal opinion:

By Jessica Levinson, professor at Loyola Law School

As 2018 gets underway, many are continuing to look for ways to remove President Donald Trump from office. Recently, some Trump critics had staked their hopes on an arcane, little-known and virtually impossible-to-pronounce Constitutional provision known at the emoluments clause. But thanks in part to a recent federal court decision, we may never know what the clause means. While the court battles will continue, it now seems likely that the emoluments clause will not be the legal vehicle that ushers Trump out of the Oval Office.