Yes, of course you are right. The emoluments suit, and I think there were originally three, and one was withdrawn or thrown out, and I believe there are two now (maybe?). The one in the news had to do with a challenge from the DOJ with regard to whether bribery had to be involved. The court said no. What is interesting in these first ever emolument suits , so far as I can tell, is that we are getting a better , or at least a court approved definition of "emolument" out of it. The suit in question has passed the first hurdle and I think has legs. Mr. Trump is vulnerable on his Washington, D.C. Hotel which belongs to the government (is that right?), so of course the lease agreement would include the standard clause that the leasee my not work for the Government. We know, of course that Trump doesn't work for the government. He works for himself and golfs for the government. But I'm not sure the court will see it that way. "Emolument" is a fine word. Maybe we should use it more. "But Dad, how do you expect me to get by on an emolument of only five bucks a week! I'll be in the sixth grade next year! I need at least ten a week." https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-ruling/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.605e1548c284
Honestly, I had a brain fart. I had read/heard such rumors of them leaking it, but I don't see how they'd have gotten a hold of it unless already in some "discovery" phase where the prosecution hands evidence to the defense. I think all they did was waive privilege. If Giuliani had access to the tape (and I don't see how they would've), then editing out more incriminating audio would make sense. I suppose it makes more sense that those w/access to it (Cohen, etc....) would edit out audio that "exonerates" Trump.