Why was TFG never held accountable for Emoluments violations?

[Marius25]

https://www.citizensforethics.org/reports-investigations/crew-investigations/trump-made-up-to-160-million-from-foreign-countries-as-president/

Trump made up to $160 million from foreign countries as president

US Constitution, Article I, Section 9, Clause 8: 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.

[edhopper]

1. It was up to Congress

not the DOJ. They decided to look the other way.

[Silent3]

2. Because "that would be complicated"

Or, "We'd rather look forward, not back".

Or, "There are more important charges to consider".

Or, "We might not win the case, and then we'd look bad".

Or, "The country isn't interested in that sort of thing".

Or, "It could be under investigation right now. Do you have insider info? No! So you must believe the DoJ is doing its utmost until we definitively know otherwise, and it will take as long as it takes, it's not on your 'episode of Law and Order' timescale."

Or...

[Mariana]

3. He had the consent of Congress.

US Constitution, Article I, Section 9, Clause 8: 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.

[DET]

7. Best Answer (n/t)

[Fiendish Thingy]

4. Is there a statute that was violated?

If you can’t find a section of the US Code around emoluments, then that is your answer.

Regardless of whether it’s in the constitution or not, if there is no criminal statute, there is no enforcement mechanism; impeachment would be the only remedy.

[NullTuples]

5. The Constitution is rendered moot for some people due to gerrymandering & voter suppression.

A bit of a flaw in our system of government, if you ask me.

[Fiendish Thingy]

11. If it's not part of the criminal code, there's no way to prosecute someone

You can’t just say “you’re under arrest for violating the constitution!”; it doesn’t work that way.

Congress could pass a law regarding emoluments, but they haven’t; the closest are laws on bribery, but those are still significantly different in nature than the emoluments clause in the constitution, requiring intent and other elements to convict.

[FoxNewsSucks]

6. Because he's not a Democrat.

[CanonRay]

8. Because one law for thee, and another for me.

[choie]

9. So far, he's not being held accountable

for anything, especially the Jan 6th insurrection

[Bludogdem]

10. Offices of Profit or Trust are not elected offices.

At the time of the writing of the constitution there was already a 400 year history and laws concerning offices of profit or trust. Offices of profit or trust were royal appointments. Ambassadors, Consuls, Legates, tax collectors, etc. in English law a member of Parliament could not hold an office of profit or trust. And Vice versa. The framers didn’t consider the president, vice presidents, members of the house or senate to be offices of profit or trust. And evidence is in the constitution in the electors clause where, in identifying who is excluded from being electors, it specifically distinguishes the House or the senate or offices of profit or trust.

[UTUSN]

12. K&R