It seems a stretch to suppose that the president might be imperiled by a case that turns partly on definitions of the word “emolument” gleaned from 18th century dictionaries. Or maybe not much of a stretch for anyone who has spent time in the lobby of the Trump International Hotel, a few blocks from the White House. As Mr. Messitte wrote, persuasively: “How, indeed, could it ever be proven, in a given case, that [a president] had actually been influenced by the payments? In cutting through the definitional underbrush, it’s fair to think of the emoluments clauses as the means by which the framers intended to impede corruption and ensure officials would be beholden to the public interest, not private interests. Mr. Trump has seemed heedless of such distinctions.

Source: Washington Post July 27, 2018 22:41 UTC