Are you saying they don’t? Can you back that up?
He doesn’t need a license. He just starts licking them. It’s like a magnet. Just lick. And when you’re a star they let you do it. Grab them by the pussy. He can do anything.
It’s funny that you offer those as the only two possible outcomes. Just as likely, perhaps more so, it will be seen as partisan operatives going after Trump for purely partisan reasons, and will make Tump appear sympathetic to many folks who aren’t already predisposed to dislike him.
I’m pretty sure that’s just your imagination.
Anyone who’s able to see Donald J. Fucking Trump as someone who needs or deserves sympathy is lost to me. This guy, born with more money than 99.99% of all people on the planet ever see in their lifetime, has used his wealth and privilege to fuck over more people than anyone can count. He’s fucked over his wives and girlfriends, his children, his business partners, his customers… pretty much everyone he’s ever had contact with. Anyone who can feel sympathy for that person is likely already someone I won’t have much in common with.
Sure. But the analysis is so much easier in this case because the applicant has an extensive public record of deceit, sexual assault, etc.
ETA: to add some details here, I’m perfectly fine if Mike Isabella is no longer eligible for liquor licenses.
Are you implying I’m biased towards Trump? Sorry, I’m disagreeing with you because this whole thing is idiotic. John Mace linked to a couple of cases where licenses were lost for permitting illegal activities in their establishments. How about you provide a cite for a case where someone lost their license over adultery or being a big fat liar. I won’t hold my breath.
I can’t say that I have made an extensive study of the matter, but Trump’s liquor license has been renewed several times already, which suggests to me that those standards have not been applied heretofore.
Look, you made a specific claim. I asked for a cite. Then you furiously backpedal and say I need to disprove the thing that you claimed.
I’m too lazy to seek to refute your unsubstantiated claims.
Are you proposing a sort of stare decisis for judging moral turpitude?
Of course it’s people going after Trump for partisan reasons. This is politics.
This is holding a politician up to public scrutiny. If Trump’s able to make a case that he’s a person of good character, the effort will backfire against the people who made it. But if the people who started this are able to make a case that Trump isn’t a person of good character and Trump can’t plausibly defend his character then voters should hear this.
I’m not talking about routine renewals. I’m talking about cases where the review board has received petitions like this. Do you feel the review board should address petitions like this or do you feel they should ignore them? And do you feel that the review board has a history of ignoring petitions like this?
Why do people try to pull this? You made the initial claim. You are saying that being a philandering liar is grounds to refuse or revoke a liquor license. Point to some precedent instead of thinking your “face value” interpretation means anything. Whatever, I am perfectly happy to see how it plays out in real life rather than try to convince you.
Good thing Bill Clinton never applied for a DC liquor license then.
Wow. You thought that up, and then you went right ahead and posted it. Yes you did.
So you think that Trump and Bill Clinton do not exhibit the good character required?
Well, case closed then, eh?
This is a legal matter, not a political matter.
I don’t know. I don’t have a way to review the review board’s decisions. I have looked at the judicial reviews of board refusals, but that doesn’t show me a history of board acceptances and the circumstances which were brought to their attention. (There was a case that made it to the courts in which the board apparently relied upon a “confidential file,” on an applicant in denying a license, and the courts found that this procedure was violation of due process; the applicant needed to be able to respond to specific allegations against him in order for the board’s refusal to comport with the requirements of due process).
But given human nature and my personal acquaintance with several holders of DC liquor licenses, I am at least somewhat confident that moral transgressions of the type identified here do not routinely trigger denials. I am almost equally sanguine that human nature and competitive spirit being what they are, this is not the first time someone has petitioned the board to deny a license or a renewal on spurious grounds.
But these are inferences, not historical cites.
You ask how I feel things should be done. I feel that the board should adopt a uniform standard of review, as opposed to entertaining a special pleading when the prospective licensee is a disliked political figure’s daughter. I’m somewhat agnostic as to what that uniform standard should be, but I’m confident that any fairly-applied standard that rejects Ivanka as not of good moral character would also wreck havoc with a substantial percentage of non-political licensees.
Simply put, “convicted felon” has a specific, binary legal definition that can be applied with absolute consistency. The phrases “good character” and “true and actual owner” have no such specific legal definition and are open to interpretation and dispute. For instance, who is the “true and actual owner” of a bar that is, or is part of, a multinational corporation? Not asking for opinion, but a legal definition. I know people who would say that simply wanting to own a bar is prima facie evidence of poor character, so they must all be denied. Should that interpretation carry the force of law?
The courts love to shoot down phrases like those as being too broad or too vague, and rightly so. All DC would accomplish by perusing your idea would be to accrue huge legal fees.