the ones who should enforce this. But I think you simply dismiss the legit oversight functions of a House that is dem and thus politically motivated. To an extent that is supposed to be how it works. The Emoluments Clause is a real thing, and Congress has a real duty to uphold it. That isn't altered by the fact that they may also benefit politically from it. I mean, if your point is the repubs should have done this when they could've to be above political reproach, I'd applaud that.

Let's not go too far in shielding Trump from oversight because he was elected. He never claimed to be withholding his returns forever. He used the excuse of an audit - but of course every president is automatically subject to an audit when they are elected, so that's nonsense. And he was at best vague about his plans for divesting business interests during the campaign.

More transparency is better than less. If the precedent that comes out of this is "presidents, release your tax returns or expect pushback from Congress", I can live with that, although my preference would be that the voters enforce this.