I'll mention one thing.
The governmental ethics laws in this country generally do not apply to the President, rather to congress and agency officers/members.
The one exception is the Emoluments Clause.
But the thing that people don't anticipate is that many/most provisions of the Constitution are not "self enforcing." Which means that an individual or entity can't sue the government or a governmental officer and say "you are violating the Constitution." Usually, there needs to be a law made pursuant to the Constitution, that defines who can sue and how. None has been made respecting the President, which is why the Emoluments cases haven't gone anywhere,yet. They present tons of novel issues and because Emoluments isn't the subject of an "enabling act" or similar, viewed with some skepticism by the courts.
Because the preceding paragraph will freak a lot of people out, let me give you an example. As a general rule, you can't sue the government for making a law that abridges your speech (1st Amendment), or infringes your right to bear arms (2nd Amendment), or subjects you to unreasonable search and seizure (4th Amendment), or deprives you of your right to trial by jury (7th Amendment), despite the fact that that is exactly what those amendments say the government can't do.
Without enabling legislation, what those provisions provide is a DEFENSE against the government attempting to take those actions against you. If you look at the many cases on those amendments, Congress or someone made a law, accused someone of violating it by criminal or civil action, and the case presents the constitutional issue as a matter of defense: you cant do this to me because your law violates the Constitution.
In other cases, Congress has created a law that permits individuals to sue for violations of their civil rights, usually pursuant to the 14th Amendment. Until Congress passed those laws, people couldn't sue the government for doing exactly what the 14th proscribes.
By its nature, action violating the Emoluments Clause hasn't been taken against a citizen, providing the citizen with the opportunity to raise the constitutional defense. So it hasn't come up that way.
Of course in 200 plus years and 45 presidencies, we've never had much of a need for ethics laws applied to the President, or an explicit application of the Emoluments Clause: the dignity of the office and respect for it by Presidents created substantial compliance. Until this fucking guy.