The main gist of the first paragraph of the passage you reference concerns the idea that Congress cannot restrict the President's pay during his term in office.
There is nothing about this section of the passage which changes the plain meaning of the term emolument.
This isn't an argument anyone is making. Nobody has criticized Trump for receiving gifts of nominal value. You are using a strawman in this instance.
The funds Trump has received are significant:
Reps of 22 foreign governments have spent money at Trump properties
This isn't a thing. This isn't a defense. There is no defense in the Constitution or in the case law or anywhere, even in the passage you cited, that says that the emoluments clause doesn't apply if the payment comes about because the President happens to own a business which provides some product or service. The bottom line is that if the President's business dealings result in a situation where he is at risk of being bribed or influenced by foreign governments then the emoluments clause would still apply.
You are assuming, and take as fact, that all the crooked stuff Trump and his family have been doing, and with regard to foreign loans, and the fact that foreign officials stay at Trump hotels are no big deal, and do not influence the decisions Trump makes. In fact, there is already a great deal of evidence to the contrary.
This is a ridiculous notion. He can just sell his assets and then buy them back when he is voted out of office in 2021. He can sell those properties must at risk.
With regard to the loans people like Kushner get, it's quite simple. Don't take gigantic loans from foreign countries or organizations closely affiliated with foreign countries. And if you can't refrain from doing stuff like that you can't work in the White House.
