I would like to hear someone

[Dan]

Ask Trump directly - ‘Would you explain to the American people, how as President, you have made 3 billion dollars - while not violating the Emoluments Clause’?

During some event where there is a national audience.

[usonian]

1. Law without prosecution is merely a suggestion.

[mdbl]

7. "Law without prosecution is merely a suggestion

That is so true. The increase in the administration's lawlessness is only eclipsed by the completely complicit or incompetence of the GOP Congress. The laws exist and they don't care if they are followed, unless it's a poor person they can put in jail.

[CousinIT]

2. No media have the spine to ask him that. n/t

[Captain Zero]

3. Neither does ANYONE else. IMHO.

Not even the Dems in Congress. Not in either of the two first term impeachments.

Why not? Seems easily provable to me.
But you won't hear the word.
I think we would hear evidence about Trump ordering Epstein's murder before we heard evidence/charges of emoluments.

#Emoluments

[Chemical Bill]

22. I always thought they should have impeached for everything...

but they didn't ask me, oddly enough.

[Wounded Bear]

4. Sadly, the USSC kind of said emoluments are not a problem...nt

[KPN]

11. Covering their own ass on this gravy train ride.

[LoisB]

5. That won't happen with this crop of "journalists".

[PatSeg]

6. Well, there wouldn't be a satisfying answer

and he would probably insult the journalist as well.

[Marie Marie]

8. His answer: I don't know anything about it - my sons are running things. Look, SQUIRREL!

[PatSeg]

9. Ha, ha, sounds about right

Then of course, he'd have to call the person a bad journalist who represents a fake news outlet. A very strange man getting stranger each day.

[MadameButterfly]

16. Frontotemporal dementnia

on top of malignant narcissicism

[PatSeg]

20. Yep, which confirms

that truly shitty people only get shittier with age. In his case, at a record pace.

[electric_blue68]

13. But it still should be asked because....

1) because it's important.
2) At least it's on record that he'll either lie, evade, or deny it.

[PatSeg]

14. Yes, absolutely

Any interactions with the man will be part of history. It is important that everything is documented in detail as a warning for future generations.

[KPN]

10. Perfect!

[leftieNanner]

12. He would say

"You are a nasty reporter."

He doesn't answer those questions.

[Seinan Sensei]

29. He'd first ask "Who are you with?"

Say disparaging things about the news outlet
THEN disparage the reporter

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

15. "Emoluments" is a Democrat hoax, a scam.

I don't make much money. My sons, however, who are not overly involved in government, run some businesses. I think maybe they brought me some diet Coke, I don't remember. They might have made some money.

And Kushner, I think I met him, he runs some funds that are maybe doing ok.

[JMCKUSICK]

17. I'm sorry to disagree Dan,

I feel like all of our wires have been crossed by trump. We have this part of us that is honest and innocent to the core, and that part keeps believing that he will accidentally wake up one day and I don't know what.

He is a pathological liar, a narcissist and a psychopath. Any of those diagnosed would eliminate believing anything he says, but all three? Even in his mental health issues we are overwhelmed by how staggering it is.

He has no shame, no conscience, no soul.

[Dan]

23. You know I have thought about that in reference to the Red States Farmers

Rural people (for the most part) are fundamentally honest IMO. So, they tend to believe what they hear on the radio and TV, not being aware of the cynical nature of the electronic age. So, they believe what they hear and therefore they listen to TRUMP and believe that fundamentally he is a honest man. That is their core in their communities - people are honest with few exceptions.

That is why it is so hard for them to accept the nature of someone like TRUMP.

[travelingthrulife]

28. Nope. They know he is lying but they want immigrants gone and liberals punished for something or other.

and the baby Jesus to come back and whisk them away...

[ABC123Easy]

18. He wouldn't

Have any idea what it is. Might as well ask a cow about it.

[ProudProgressiveNow]

19. They all know they will be banned! nt

[flvegan]

21. He's dumb enough to reply "$3 billion? Terrible reporter, I made $6 billion. $3 billion is fake news.

I made so much more because I'm making America great again. Everybody is making more, and I made $6 billion."

[Jack Valentino]

24. Trump can't even pronounce " Emoluments Clause"..... much less understand it

LOL Yeah, I'd like to see that happen also...

[vapor2]

25. Reporters should surely ask the question

but enforcement is the key

[Martin Eden]

26. He is a pathological liar, and would flatly deny it.

Then he would verbally attack the reporter, especially if he or she followed up with stating the facts.

[OldBaldy1701E]

27. I think I would add...

"And, can you try answering this one question without all the insults and deflection? Thank you in advance."

That way, once he starts, you can just roll your eyes and point. Let him dig his own grave on the matter.

[Martin68]

30. Waste of time. His answer would be,"because I'm a great businessman."

I'd rather see him investigated, indicted and imprisoned for corruption.

[gfarber]

31. Emoluments Clause

At a Trump broadcast coast to coast,
A reporter stepped up to the bloke:
“Please tell us on air,
With receipts if you dare,
How billions were earned—no clause broke?”

With the cameras all glowing quite bright,
And the audience tuned in that night,
Came a query direct:
“Can you help us connect
Your profits with law done just right?”

The Emoluments Clause took the stage,
Not a whisper, but a front-page engage.
“Three billion, you say?
While in office—okay…
Could you walk us through that to quell the rage?”

No sidebars, no spin, no delay,
Just a question in plain USA:
“As President sworn,
How were fortunes still grown
Without crossing constitutional gray?”

The crowd held its breath, live and still,
As the mic hovered close to the grill:
“Explain, if you would,
For the public’s own good—
How the math works and follows the will.”

On a stage with a bald eagle seal,
Came a question both simple and surreal:
“Three billion, sir—how?
As President, wow.
Was the Clause on vacation in Peel?”

With confetti and cannons galore,
And a crowd yelling “Encore! Encore!”
Someone asked through a kazoo,
“Is that income from you,
Or from hotels that bill foreign decor?”

The Emoluments Clause wore a hat,
Said, “I thought we agreed I’d watch that.”
But it blinked twice, confused,
As the profits accrued,
And fell asleep on a velvet doormat.

A moderator, nervous but brave,
At a nationally televised wave,
Asked, “Explain to us all,
With a pie chart or scrawl,
How billions obeyed what you gave.”

Was it pennies? Was it gold? Was it air?
Was it branding? Was it hair?
Asked the crowd in a hush,
As accountants went shush,
And the Clause did a shrug from its chair.

A jumbotron flickered and froze,
Showing numbers in clownish repose:
“Three billion earned clean?
While running the scene?
Please show us the math, if you chose.”

Then a trombone went wah-wah on cue,
As the question just hovered and grew:
“How does one make a stack,
While the law says ‘step back’—
Is it magic? Or hotels? Or glue?”