Have to read the "fine print" here.
1. As you can see, this only refers to "foreign government" payments (which would be rare or non-existent) not private parties doing business with Trump Organization or its many affiliates, so that's a sleight of hand trick / diversion.
2. Even if (1) above is true (and it's tremendously difficult to track and/or enforce) it doesn't avoid the emolument clause.
3. Trump / TO are now both the lessor and lessee of this particular hotel and there is an iron-clad clause in the GAO contract about prohibiting any government official's ownership / stake in the hotel.
The only question at this point is one of "standing" / "injured party" but these would not be hard to find even if this particular suit is thrown out on this ground.
Are they paying excessive amounts for their patronage of Trump businesses and hotels? Or are they in line with the market value?
The market value / market rates is entirely irrelevant to the issues at hand.
Bill / Hillary / Chelsea Clintons Foundation was "creative" way of avoiding the legal problems while she was SoS, but created a different set of problems in and of itself.
Thanks for the analysis.
the emoluments clause refers specifically to gifts, payments etc. “...from any King, Prince or foreign state.”
Where is the sleight of hand?
“The market value / market rates is entirely irrelevant to the issues at hand.”
Trump’s attorney at his presser said that emoluments are gifts, not contractual transactions. If you are saying that this is not the case, do you have case or statutory authority you would care to cite? She was very definite, and high-powered lawyers generally don’t talk out of their a@#es.
I believe if you read the clause word for word it says presents or titles. It doesn’t say you can’t own a business.