DC law requires that for an establishment to serve alcohol, it must hold a liquor license. One of the requirements for the liquor license is that the applicant (more on that in a second) must be of "good character. Per DC law, the applicant is the “true and actual owner” of the establishment, and cannot be an “agent” of any other ownership interest. So I think it is reasonably clear (though perhaps not absolutely conclusive) that ultimately, Donald Trump is the applicant for the liquor license at the Trump Hotel in DC.
A group of Washingtonians, including retired judges and several members of the clergy, petitioned the DC licensing board to rule that Trump was not of “good character” and should not hold a license.
The board ruled yesterday that these claims need to be considered at the time a license is issued, punting the matter for about another six months or so.
The evidence is overwhelming that Donald Trump is not of good character. He is a serial liar. He cheats on his wives. He berates his employees and staff. He is probably perpetrating fraud with his charities. I actually can’t think of a redeeming personal quality at the moment.
Therefore be it resolved: that when the Trump Hotel’s liquor license is up for renewal, it shall not be issued to the owner of the Trump Hotel. Further, if anyone seeks to dispute this ruling as unfair, in the true style of textualism and (quasi) judicial conservatism, such people ought to convince the legislature to change the law to exclude “good character” from the criteria for a liquor license, and not seek to have a panel invent its own law out of thin air.