Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh
But that’s a circular argument - if he wasn’t going to his golf courses, the expenses wouldn’t be incurred, and all the expenses paid when he goes to his golf courses go to his companies.
So he’s profiting every time he visits his golf courses (and that’s over 160 times since his inauguration).
|
So you are denying a 72 ish old man a right to recreational activities, days off etc ?
It really does not matter, unless he directly profiting from foreign governments, heavily investing in his businesses in that it directly influences U.S policy, then that's when it matters. I believe that's covered by the Emoluments Clause. But there is nothing in the Constitution that says a Businessman-come President, has to cease his business, might be the ethical thing to do but it's not required by law and it's law that matters. Up to Congress to act on it.
Democrats may try to change something or set up a new bill or start an investigation, though they are severely limited if they try to aim for impeachment, given they do not control the Senate and that it's not a crime as it currently stands.
I really don't care one way or the other - when president Clinton and Obama can makes hundreds of thousands of dollars in one single speech, then whether in office or not, the office of presidency is a profitable one any way.