Posted on 12/14/2016 9:50:32 AM PST by blam
Tyler Durden
December 14-2016
President-elect Trump has until inauguration day to divest himself of all ownership interest (not just management) of the Trump International Hotel in Washington D.C. or he will be in violation of his lease, according to the agency in charge of government buildings. The lease, according to a letter from four Democrats, forbids elected officials from being party to the deal or receiving any of its benefits, makng the hotel the most visible potential conflicts of interest for Trump.
As Bloomberg reports, an official of the General Services Administration, which leases government buildings, told the staffs of the four lawmakers that Trump will be in violation of the lease unless he divests, according to a letter written by the Democrats.
"Mr. Trump will be in breach of the lease agreement the moment he takes office on January 20, 2017, unless he fully divests himself of all financial interests in the lease for the Washington D.C. hotel," according to the letter from Representatives Elijah Cummings, Peter DeFazio, Gerald Connolly, and André Carson, who had requested details of the deal.
The 60-year lease for the Old Post Office Pavilion, a U.S. government-owned building on Pennsylvania Avenue just blocks from the White House, forbids elected officials from being party to the deal or receiving any of its benefits. It has become one of the most visible potential conflicts of interest for Trump, whose international real estate and branding business presents unprecedented circumstances in which a president may remain involved in the private sector.
On Dec. 8, the deputy commissioner of GSA, from which Trump Old Post Office LLC leases the historic Old Post Office Pavilion, told the lawmakers’ representatives "that Mr. Trump must divest himself not only of managerial control, but of all ownership interest as well
(snip)
(Excerpt) Read more at zerohedge.com ...
What was funny about this “story”, is that while it makes some claim to being about something the GSA said — the entire claim is based on a LETTER written by 4 democrats.
Nobody really bothered to research the situation and, you know, actually REPORT, or be a JOURNALIST.
They simply read a letter from democrats and repeated what the democrats said.
No surprise to find that the democrats had no idea what they were talking about, or that they lied about what they were told — and I wouldn’t even be surprised if some GSA employee overstepped their bounds because they are a democrat and wanted to help out.
When Trump is sworn in, I presume all sorts of possible conflicts could arise, and they will be examined by the appropriate agencies, the lawyers will do their thing, and what needs to be done will be done.
In this case, sounds like nothing — but frankly, this case was really about sore losers wanting to find some way to punish Trump for winning the election.
*
Trump is smarter than you, he incorporates everything including himself. He has hundreds of corps set up in Delaware - it would be stupid to not protect his personal liability by not shielding himself via a corporation if it went bad and nobody is calling Trump Stupid.
“’Was Jimmy carter forced to sell his peanut farm?’
Did he lease it from the government?”
I assume Carter received federal payments for his peanut crop that was put in storage to keep prices high.
Perhaps, but what would that have to do with this lease?
I was trying to make the more general point that Carter was a direct beneficiary of a contractual relationship with the federal government while he (Carter) was President, similar to what some people are objecting to with the Trump Organization’s lease on the Old Post Office building.
I understand, but this isn't a general question about benefiting from a relationship with the government. The issue here is very specific to this lease.
” ... this isn’t a general question about benefiting from a relationship with the government.”
The specific example of the lease is but one manifestation of the general clamor for Trump to divest himself from any and all asset holdings which might benefit from policies, programs, and executive orders emanating from hiss Presidency.
Not really. This is a case about the terms of a lease. Whether or not there was a general clamor about the other things, this lease would say whatever it says. It’s really two different things going on at the same time.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.