Even a president with assets in a blind trust would know that helping the economy would almost certainly help their portfolio.

Sure, but a president with assets in a blind trust wouldn't be in a position where he could direct an appointee to bail out his own personal business with public funds.

It’s a company owned by his family, bearing his family name that he ran personally for over half a century. How could a blind trust make him forget how to benefit it?

When his presidency is over, he knows exactly what company he will be going back to. It’s not like it’s a bucket of anonymous stocks, that he doesn’t care about except for it to gain in value. People with family businesses care more about the success of the business, than simply being rich.

Nobody is talking about conflict of interest not because it's an unworthy issue of governance, but because this question has already been tested and America has already answered -- it's okay.

This was never up for a public vote, but every other public office and judicial appointment has clear ethical guidelines for conflict of interest. The only reason it was never legislated for the president was because up until now, no president has been willing to brazenly violate ethical norms.

Things don't have to go up for a public vote to test whether a message has political potency in the hearts of Americans. It was tested in the media. Similarly, Coke's messaging doesn't have to go up for a vote to see whether it has the potency to win over the hearts of Americans.

The message of President Trump's conflicts of interests has already been tested and America shrugged. When there's only so much air in the room it's important to pick messaging that wins.

There hasn't been a test of public opinion when the president's personal business could be the recipient of public funds at his direction.

To further refute your point: the public didn't shrug, they voted against his election by millions of votes. Furthermore, the duration that his approval rating has been above 50% during the entirety of his presidency is unprecedented in its briefness.

I'm not sure why you're talking about the election, because back then the story was that Hillary Clinton had a big lead, and Donald Trump was going to be transparent about how his money and business worked.

Since then, we've heard a steady drumbeat of news about President Trump's nepotism and self-dealing. How would you rank the impact of such news vs. the Mueller report, or the treatment of immigrants at the border? There won't be a Emolument Report either.

Yes, just one more Trump is Selfish and Plays Golf article, or Where are Trump's Tax Returns, or Why are Trump's Kids in Office, or Why is the Navy Boozing it Up at Trump Estates, or Why is there link between Trump and Saudi money. Yes, there's blood in the water.

Maybe a second push for impeachment on these very issues.

So are you arguing that conflict of interest is okay, or that the political system is so horribly corrupt that this is just another line item in the list and not worth pursuing in light of the more egregious violations?

I'd say he is arguing that the public is okay with it as it has been blatantly obvious for his entire presidency, without people rioting

Plenty of people who care about corruption are members of the public and are not okay with it, so saying 'the public' is 'okay with it' is simply wrongheaded. A narrow group of partisans are okay with it, because they are partisans.

People who care about corruption being rooted out aren't really the types of people who are gearing up to riot in the streets.

I should also point out the small matter of the 2018 election, where the republican majority in the House of Representatives was neatly demolished.

If it's been tested, it's been tested with a less-than-majority of the populace.

It's worth remembering that President Trump was not elected with a majority of the voting populace, let alone the entire US populace.

I don't think any president has ever been elected by the majority of the voting populace. The highest voter turnout in the past 50 years, as a percentage of VAP, was in 2008 with 58.2% voting. Obama received 52.9% of the votes in that election. That means he actively received the support of only 30% of the voting populace (.582 * .529).