Second, this so-called Law Professor doesn't know how to read (note the text starting "provided, however,...")
Posted on 11/29/2016 1:50:29 PM PST by Theoria
After Donald Trump is sworn in as president on Jan. 20, he will follow a time-honored tradition and make his way from the U.S. Capitol down Pennsylvania Avenue.
Along the way, just a few blocks before he reaches the White House, he'll pass the Trump International Hotel. The 263-room luxury hotel is becoming the focus of a debate over conflict of interest between Trump and his business dealings.
Trump doesn't actually own the landmark building, which was once the headquarters of the U.S. Post Office. In 2013, he signed a 60-year lease for the building with the General Services Administration, which helps manage and support federal agencies. The Trump Organization spent upwards of $200 million on renovations and reopened it as a hotel about a month before the Nov. 8 presidential election.
But there's a hitch, according to Steven Schooner, a government procurement expert who is also a law professor at the George Washington University School of Law. Schooner has studied the 100-plus-page contract and says there's a clause that clearly states elected officials should have no role in the lease.
"The contract between GSA and the Trump Organization specifically says that no elected official of the United States government shall be party to, share in, or benefit from the contract," he says, citing clause 37.19 of the contract.
Schooner says the GSA should terminate the lease before Trump becomes president.
(Excerpt) Read more at npr.org ...
NPR = SS, DD
the man is right which is why Donald is not the Lessee. The corporation established to be the Trump Hotel in the former Post Office is the lessee
This is a big nothingburger
After ignoring all of Clinton’s pay for play schemes that actually took place and she profited from, no contlict of interest case can ever be seriously prosecuted ever again.
Similarly, if Trump appoints one of his kids to a cabinet position there will be cries of nepotism, but they will go nowhere. JFK appointed RFK attorney general and that was not considered nepotism, so that is that. It will be impossible to charge nepotism after that precedent. Live by the sword, die by the sword.
Besides, the founders wanted to encourage private citizens to enter into public service and then return to their private lives. The constitution reflects that desire, and does not require that a private citizen give up wealth and private ownership in order to hold office.
What is prohibited is profiting from and selling access to political office - in other words, what Hillary Clinton did.
Hey Schooner! “Stroke of the pen, law of the land. Kinda cool.” - Paul Begala
Or Barry 0bama, take your pick.
5.56mm
find two lawyers who say that say he can.
I hate the media
Find 2 lawyers,givem both 1 way tickets
I hate lawyers..??
No. I believe that the Corporation involved will not have any elected official within its corporate structure.
Trump does not personally own or in this case is a personal party to the lease. He owns shares in something that does.
But it’s such a big deal? Nope.
*
I guess they can buy the lease out for 1 billion.
I thought it was Quonset huts that lady bird was into.
It’s been decades since I last heard of anything about the lbj business dealings.
Wanna bet?
Define “role”, professor.
We’ll wait.
Go back to Washington and his canal deal.
Yeah I know, it is one of those well known secrets the RULING CLASS don’t like to talk about.
Unfortunately I remember EVERYTHING!! In a scary way too.
“The President is not a member of Congress. The VP is, of course, a member of the Senate, so this section would have applied to Pence, but the section as written does not apply to Trump.”
I agree with your assessment. It looks to me like Trump as President is exempt.
The only twit in recent history who had a completely blind trust was Jimmah Carter. His trustees, a bunch of bank lawyers, ran the peanut farm into the ground. He left the presidency significantly poorer than when he entered it.
Second, this so-called Law Professor doesn't know how to read (note the text starting "provided, however,...")
I don’t know whether the professor is right or wrong. If he is right, I am sure that there are legal options that will protect Trump’s investment and still comply with the law.
I trust that Trump will do the right thing, whether it’s turn it over to the kids, step down from Trump enterprises, sell the lease, or something else.
He has given up a LOT already to fix this country. If he has to give this up, I hope he does in order to prevent the distraction of wrangling about it for the next 4 (or 8) years.
I’m pretty confident he will be well placed and well rewarded after he is out of office, regardless of what happens to this property.
remember law professors are refugees from the real world. They are clueless when it comes to how the real world works or the actual application of law beyond mere theory.
They could not defend a speeding ticket.
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.