“Specifically, the minute Trump was sworn in, he violated Article I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution, known as the emoluments clause.”

In order to make this allegation fact, there has to be a firm, legal definition of what an “emolument” is. Such a definition does not yet exist.

Trump’s lawyer already laid out what their defence to this “an emolument is any transaction that benefits the President” assumption; that being that a transaction which provides value for value received is *not* an emolument. And scholars are starting to chime in on both sides of the dispute.

I look forward to the court challenge and the debate, because it will obviously involve a close reading of the Constitution and the Framer’s writings in order to determine original intent.