>>But that is not the target of Muller investigation - and there I think Trump opened the doors himself at least in part by not disclosing his Tax records during campaign as was usual practice, then promising to do so if/when elected, and after winning scrapping that campaign promise.

Yes, I was a little surprised, though I have some sympathy. Some of the Founding Fathers had thriving businesses while they were representatives, but it's been quite a few years since a POTUS candidate had such widespread even international business. Somebody on a salary finds it easy to release their tax returns and (for example) could never be accused of emolument breaches unless they took extraordinary payments and didn't hide them in a charity or well enough, but it's easy to accuse Trump any time a Crown Prince stays in one of his hotels even if that's clearly not what the emolument rules are supposed to prevent. In addition, a salary earner has no need to copy Apple in trying to position wealth abroad to avoid high US taxes, but a businessperson may follow suit and now be embarrassed by that, so decide it''s easier just not to feed the ravening beast. I suppose his accounts also might contain Russian payments that will cause some to rear up in horror crying "see!" refusing to believe it might relate to a pageant or business as usual and instead could be a bribe from Putin or a payment to a peeing hooker who could be a KGB operative so we need to ramp up the investigation.

Meanwhile Bill Clinton is paid $500K to give a speech in Russia and the accusers seem to have no issue whatsoever with that.