Cannoli, the actual quote is available. Sadly, it is unspinnable:

"Letting you do it" because you're a powerful person is not consent. And he explicitly states he doesn't wait to ask. Then...

He was continuing the conversation about what he does, not talking about a hypothetical. Nice try, though. I'd have been surprised, in sometimes past, about you supporting this kind of sophistry to get someone off the hook. Guess times, and attitudes, have changed.

So called, eh? So the Swastikas and other Nazi symbols were what... accidental? They dropped from the sky and landed on them? The antisemetic slogans were not actually uttered, but pasted on?

They do, in fact, have no right to express their positions. And they were not attacked. The first violence broke out around the statue of Thomas Jefferson, where the counterprotestors where present. They were surrounded by the Unite the Right crowd, and that's where the scuffle broke out. The only people holding the tiki torches that were flung were the white nationalists.

So no, they were not attacked. Nor do they, of course, have any right to express the positions they hold or enforce them with violence.

Precisely what are you talking about? Multiple verified accounts speak of the anarchists and anti-fascists defending clergymen and other unarmed counter-protesters from the White Nationalists. Whatever we think of their organizations, these guys didn't start the violence here. There was no equal blame to go around.

Post this point, you had members on both sides armed and ready to fight, but the violence very clearly was started by one side. The same side that was calling for violence against Jews, African Americans and people of color.

I do not know what his previous finances were, since he's too afraid to release his tax returns. Nor do we know exactly how much he's making now. But "pocket change" implies a knowledge of both. Can your share the sources of your information?

But since when is the amount someone makes from corrupt use of their political position relevant? The point is, the President must hold himself to a higher standard, but here he doesn't even hold to the lowest ones.

But he is. He routinely stays in Trump properties, for which the government must not only pay for his own stay, but that of the Secret Service and all the other members of the President's retinue. How is this not "supplying the government", and how is this not "preferential treatment"? Trump has spent 171 days of his first 543 in Trump properties:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/how-much-time-trump-spends-trump-properties-mar-lago-n753366

Of this, 72 were at Mar-a Lago alone, including hosting Xi Jinping there. How is this not self-dealing, and profiting by preferentially giving out government contracts to his businesses?

You do not have to show that the foreign emoluments are affecting Trump's behavior. The law does not stipulate that the foreign emoluments must serve a specific function, or earn the foreign government any particular favor. It simply bars members of the government, including the President, from receiving any foreign emolument (among other things) unless he has Congressional approval. He has never sought Congressional approval, he has not fully divested himself of his stake in these places, but has, in fact, encouraged diplomats to stay in the Trump International Hotel in DC. This is a clear violation of the law, in letter and spirit.

The other issue is his own frequent stays at his hotels, which are not free, and which the Trump organization profits from massively, since he cannot, of course, stay in these places alone. This is clearly self-dealing.

He has spent several hundreds of thousands of his campaign funds <>on his own hotels. How does this not violate the letter and spirit of the law?

That he may spend less than other candidates is immaterial. They do not own hotels to which they can funnel the funds they collect to get elected.