I agree with Napolitano here. It's pretty much the most blatant breach of this clause of the constitution the President could do.
The White House is arguing that holding the event at the president’s property is not a violation of the emoluments clause, largely because (as Mulvaney argues a little oddly) that there is no profit. Napolitano clarifies that doesn't matter.
“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.”
Explaining that this wouldn’t be an issue if this were a meeting of US government officials or US governors - because they're not foreign - Napolitano again repeats that the emoluments clause is to prevent the president from receiving gifts or cash from foreign entities.
“He has bought himself an enormous headache now with the choice of this,” Napolitano continues. “This is about as direct and profound a violation of the emoluments clause as one could create.”
