[Stingray51]

1. Private individuals and groups likely have no standing to bring this lawsuit. The plaintiff group’s interest in the outcome is no greater than that of any other American group or individual. So I would expect the case to be tossed for that reason.

2. The clause has no enforcement provision. I think it is highly likely that the courts will find that the impeachment process is the sole means of enforcing it.

3. There is nothing in or about the clause that indicates it is to apply to legitimate business transactions.

4. There are many things to take seriously. This is not one of them.

[Steve_Seattle]

"3. There is nothing in or about the clause that indicates it is to apply to legitimate business transactions."

I think that's the key. I think the clause is intended to prevent a president from USING HIS OFFICE to obtain personal financial gain from foreign governments, and to prevent him from rewarding those governments with favorable policies. That sounds much more like the Clinton Foundation than anything Trump has done.

That freak on the Carlson show last night went on and on about Trump's DC hotel, as if the fact that foreign diplomats might stay there is some sort of conflict of interest. Did that guy really think that Trump is going to tell some sheik, "Hey, stay at my hotel and we can do business; I'll make it worthwhile." The idea is ludicrous.