"No member or delegate to Congress, or elected official of the Government of the United States or the Government of the District of Columbia, shall be admitted to any share or part of this Lease, or to any benefit that may arise therefrom; provided, however, that his provision shall not be construed as extending to any Person who may be a shareholder or other beneficial owner of any publicly held corporation or other entity, if this Lease is for the general benefit or such corporation or other entity."
The lease is between "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" and "TRUMP OLD POST OFFICE LLC".
I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me that being granted an exclusive right to use an historic government building to open a hotel near the White House is a benefit (even if you are paying rent for it).
I don't know what normally would happen if the terms of a GSA lease are violated. The GSA is part of the Executive Branch so Trump is going to be their boss.
Is living rent-free in the GSA-owned White House an illegal “benefit”?
Presidents do not sign a lease on the White House and obviously elected officials are not going to be banned from living there. Apparently the White House is owned by the National Park Service.
Thank you for providing the exact language from the lease of the old Post Office.
I have pruned that paragraph to reveal its essential elements:
“No...official...shall be admitted to any share...of this Lease...provided, however, that this provision shall not...extend... to any...beneficial owner of any entity, if this Lease is for the general benefit of such...entity.”
I concluded that, if Mr. Trump was just one of many owners of Trump Old Post Office, LLC, then the provision to prevent his “admitence” does not apply.
IMHO, this clause was designed to prevent “officials” from receiving bribes from lease-holders through being awarded “shares” of a lessee entity AFTER a Lease with the GSA was signed.
Besides, whatever Trump’s “share” may be, his “share” was fully vetted BEFORE the Lease was signed.