If no one profits, is it an emolument?

The emolument clause:

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

I get the intent of this part of the Constitution.  The last thing you’d want is for, say a vice president of the United States, to get his no-talent doper son a sweet gig sitting on the board of a foreign country’s gas company for $50,000 plus a month.  That just might stink to high heaven of corruption and should not be allowed to happen.

What I don’t get is how offering someone an accommodation at below market value where no profit is made counts as an emolument?  Even if the accommodation was offered at fair market price, how is it an emolument?  If PDJT is losing money or breaking even, how can that be counted as a “present”?  Technically, if I offer a Coke to foreign leader for $1.50 and the leader accepts the offer the $1.50 that isn’t a “present.”  Who collects market value for the “presents” they give at Christmas?  Seems to me it’s nothing more than a fair exchange of goods.   

My guess is that the entire Doral thing was PDJT trolling the Dopes and their army of lemmings in the MSM.  PDJT has offered to save the US government money by hosting the G-7 at Doral at no profit to himself.  Because they oppose everything Trump does, PDJT forced Democrats and the MSM into opposing saving the US government money. Brilliant!  He’ll be beating the “Dopes oppose saving the US government money” for the next ten Trump rallies.  He can also juxtapose his idea to offer up Doral at no cost to the Biden’s idea of getting rich off Slow Joe’s government position.

Today’s JG rant
Regarding Patricia G. Stahlhut’s letter “Too soon for Trump to invoke rights” of Oct 20, 2019, I must wonder whether Stahlhut has any sense of American history and fair play.  Apparently she doesn’t, so I suggest, instead of looking to fictitious TV shows to get her information on civics, she try picking up a book.

The current Trump matter is an “inquiry” being run by a lying partisan, Democratic Congressman Adam (AKA bug eyes, AKA pencil neck, AKA shifty) Schiff.  Some synonyms for “partisan” include “biased” and “one-sided.”  When police investigate a crime, they are expected not to have colluded with key witnesses.  The police are expected not lie and make up evidence then leak the lies to willing accomplices in the fraud - the MSM - in order to sway public opinion. 

The police are expected to be more interested in truth and in gathering all the evidence in an even-handed manner than partisan politics.  In previous impeachment inquiries (Nixon and Clinton), congress relied in the work of an outside professional and independent special prosecutor (Archibald Cox – Nixon) and professional independent council (Ken Starr – Clinton) to gather impeachment evidence rather than lying partisan hacks like Schiff.

I realize that the better America does under PDJT, the more it infuriates Democrats who backed the most corrupt, lying, thieving, unlikable and unelectable candidate in American history. My hope is that Democrats continue down the road they’ve started on, because one thing Americans have a sixth sense for is fair play.  Holding impeachment proceedings in secret proves it is nothing more than a partisan political exercise headed up by incompetent liars.   The impeachment process under Schiff and Pelosi Democrats is unbearably tacky and a stain on the Constitution.         

 Too soon for Trump to invoke his rights

Regarding Mark Simmons' letter about Donald Trump and the Sixth Amendment (Oct. 10), I must wonder whether Simmons has any knowledge of police procedure. Apparently, he doesn't, so I suggest he watch “Blue Bloods” or some “Law & Order” reruns.

The current Trump matter is an impeachment inquiry. Some synonyms for “inquiry” include “investigation” and “questioning.” When the police investigate a crime, they don't tell the suspect what they're doing and whom they're talking to until there is enough evidence to proceed with charging that person.

To alert the suspect beforehand could allow for evidence tampering, lying and the inability to try the case.

Since no prosecution has yet been ordered, the Sixth Amendment does not apply. If, and when, impeachment charges are filed against Trump, then his Sixth Amendment rights will kick in. At that time, he will be able to face his accusers, cross-examine them and review all documentation. Until that time, the inquiry should go forward unimpeded.

I realize Trump devotees will grasp at any straw to protect him, but having a constitutional reprobate hiding behind the Constitution is unbearably tacky.

Patricia G. Stahlhut

Fort Wayne