Occasionally, someone at Fox other than Sean Hannity gets to put forth an opinion. And even though Shep Smith’s recent departure has knocked the average IQ at Bizarro World down at least 20 points, you still have a few people over there willing to call out egregious hijinks.
Like, say, when the actual president of the United States declares by holy writ that the sprawling G7 conference will be held next year at his own distressed property in Florida.
Fox Business host Neil Cavuto and Fox legal analyst Andrew Napolitano (who, to their credit, have criticized Trump in the past) discussed this on Cavuto’s show yesterday, and — miracle of miracles — they were more than willing to state the obvious:
CAVUTO: Again, they are arguing that this is not a violation of the emoluments clause where someone is profiting off of something. I believe Judge Andrew Napolitano has a different notion of that. What do you think?
NAPOLITANO: Well, Neil, it’s my notion it’s the Constitution’s notion. The Constitution does not address profits. It addresses any present, as in a gift, any emolument, as in cash, of any kind whatever — I’m quoting the emoluments clause — from any king, prince, or foreign state. So if this were a meeting of the governors of the United States there would be no emoluments clause problem. The purpose of the emoluments clause is to keep the president of the United States of America from profiting off of foreign money, here we go again, not in the campaign, but in some event or entity that he controls or is running. He has brought himself an enormous headache now with the choice of this. This is about as direct and profound a violation of the emoluments clause as one could create.
But even if there were no emoluments clause in our Constitution, this would clearly be a corrupt attempt on Trump’s part to profit off his presidency. And that sets a terrible precedent while opening him up to all sorts of undue influence.
In short, it’s bribery. And last I checked, bribery is bad.
But Trump is a moral idiot — or, perhaps more accurately, he’s a moral agnostic. Morals simply don’t matter to him unless by some wild coincidence they happen to align with his own self-interest.
And how often does that happen, really?