>>I'll also be fighting to see to it that when Trump violates the law (as things now stand, he'll be in violation of the emoluments clause of the Constitution the moment he's inaugurated), that he's held accountable.

Unless you have prior knowledge of bribery, corruption or payments from foreign states that Trump will receive on that day, you're not competent to make that sort of declaration. I see it as just the latest round of MSM claptrap.

Trump is not the first wealthy person to lead a government. Traditionally, business interests are deposited into blind trusts meaning the politician has no influence over and usually no knowledge of the disposition of assets, meaning there's no point paying bribes or other payments from foreign government in exchange for favors. The multi-millionaire PMs of Australia and New Zealand both moved their assets into blind trusts which thwarted the desire for detractors to keep shouting "Wolf."

So again, unless you have prior knowledge of the final disposition of Trump's business assets, you're not competent to say whether a credible separation will be enacted. Passing everything to the kids with certain legal cut-offs in place, may be sufficient to prevent people shouting "Wolf" in the US as well. If he has any sense at all, this is already well-advanced.

FWIW, when similar concerns arose re HRC, she promised that her charity would be at arm's length from her role as SoS and Bill said she'd disengage completely from her charity once elected POTUS. Did you accept those undertakings? Well, Trump has made undertakings as well and rather than always looking for fault, why not give him a chance? If he lets you down, I'll be on your side because the need to separate favor from personal benefit isn't about each nation's particular federal law, it's about the integrity of democracy,