Constitutional concerns over Trump’s D.C. hotel lease were ignored, watchdog says

HayJenn

Moderator
Jul 2014
66,662
55,336
CA
#1
And it just keeps piling up

The General Services Administration “ignored” concerns that President Trump’s lease on a government-owned building — the one that houses his Trump International Hotel in Washington — might violate the Constitution when it allowed Trump to keep the lease after he took office, according to a new report from the agency’s inspector general. Trump’s company won the lease several years before he became president. After Trump was elected, the agency had to decide whether his company would be allowed to keep its lease.

At that time, the inspector general found, the agency should have determined whether the lease violates the Constitution’s emoluments clauses, which bar presidents from taking payments from foreign governments or individual U.S. states. But it did not, according to the report issued Wednesday.

“We . . . found that [the agency] improperly ignored these Emoluments Clauses, even though the lease itself requires compliance with the laws of the United States, including the Constitution,” the report said.

Since that time, Trump’s company has hosted events for several foreign embassies and hosted at least one state governor, Maine’s then-governor Paul LePage (R). Trump has since been sued by Democratic members of Congress and the attorneys general of Maryland and Washington, D.C., who allege, in separate lawsuits, that those transactions put Trump in violation of the Constitution. The report does not recommend that Trump’s lease be canceled. Instead, the inspector general recommends a new legal review of the deal.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...5fed1b7a081_story.html?utm_term=.e94d2099871c

And this is what happens when Trump installed one of his cronies to oversee US Office of Govt. Ethics.

The former director, Walter Shaub, had been ringing the alarm bells about this.
 
Likes: Friday13
Dec 2014
15,917
5,535
The Milky Way
#2
Another nothing burger. It says "new legal review of the deal" so no big deal at all.

And the emoluments stuff is going nowhere. I believe that even before the Fourth Circuit hears oral arguments from the two AG dummies from MD and D.C. that they will likely toss the matter for lack of standing.
 
Last edited:

HayJenn

Moderator
Jul 2014
66,662
55,336
CA
#3
Another nothing burger. It says "new legal review of the deal" so no big deal at all.

And the emoluments stuff is going nowhere. I believe that even before the Fourth Circuit hears oral arguments from the two AG dummies from MD and D.C. that they will likely toss the matter for lack of standing.

Ok, Mr. Legal Scholar.