Here We Go Again: Another Subversive Lib Assault on Trump's Legitimacy

As part of the Liberals' orchestrated assault upon the legitimacy of Trump's presidency, and on the basis of their shoddy understanding of the Constitution's "emoluments clause", two Liberal Attorney Generals (Maryland & DC) have recently sued Trump for earning income from his properties while he is President. Unsurprisingly, their contention is utterly without foundation. To counter idiotic leftist arguments in this regard, it is important you arm yourself with facts. Don't permit lawyerly spinmeistering to dictate your viewpoint. When in doubt, ALWAYS consult the Constitution. Here are the facts:

An “emolument” is a perk attached to an office. See Webster’s 1828 dictionary which is more contemporaneous to our founding period http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/Emolument.
See also the 12 Federalist Papers which mention the term “emoluments” http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/

"Emoluments” are mentioned at Art. I, Sec. 9, last clause, and at Art. II, Sec. 1, next to last clause.

Art. I, Sec. 9, last clause, prohibits any federal officer from accepting (without the consent of Congress), any present, Emolument, Office, or Title from any foreign State.

Art. II, Sec. 1, next to last clause, prohibits the President from receiving additional Emoluments from the United States or from any State.

The Emoluments now attached to the office of Presidency include living in the White House, with a full staff, Air Force One, security protection, and similarly relevant perks. Those perks can’t be increased or decreased by the United States or any of the 50 States. And Trump can’t get a job lobbying for any foreign State while he is President.

But this has nothing to do with Trump’s private businesses!

George Washington’s Mount Vernon was a large business enterprise selling whiskey, flour, among other produce. When Washington’s farm sold its produce, the proceeds weren’t “emoluments” within the meaning of the Constitution – they were the income from his farm.

It has been so long since we had a President who did something besides live off the taxpayers while in public office, that we have forgotten that real men can have successful businesses BEFORE they run for office. In fact, it was the purpose of the founders to send "citizen representatives" to Washington for short periods of time who would, after performing their civic responsibilities as stewards of their country, return to their regular vocations/businesses. The founders did not intend that income earned from their private enterprises automatically be denied these citizen representatives while they were fulfilling their civic responsibilities in Washington. Today, of course, most representatives to Washington become careerists and blood-suckers who haven't a clue as to the original meaning and intent of a Constitution most of whom have never even read - NOT what our founders anticipated or intended.

Why do these AGs do this? Recall the Democrat Goal: RULE OR RUIN