Is Trump entitled to a liquor license?

[Ravenman]

@Shodan

Kind of moving those goalposts, aren’t you? I would certainly agree that people convicted of bank robbery and illegal possession and animal abuse should be denied liquor licenses. Is that the definition of “good character” you think should apply?

The liquor board assesses conviction of crimes as a separate element of their application. So aside from the fact that you are probably just throwing up chaff to avoid a discussion of the heart of the matter, you have fundamentally misread what I wrote to expose your weak, strawman argument.

We aren’t talking about what sheds a favorable light on him. We are talking about whether or not he should have his liquor license renewed. What definition of “good character” do you think should be applied to Trump, and should that definition be applied to everyone who holds a liquor license in DC? Please be specific.

I’ve said at least three times why I think Trump fails any test of good character. Would you like me to repeat them? I don’t know how much more specific I can be if what I wrote before isn’t clear enough.

And again, what do you want this group to achieve? Are you trying to revise the liquor licensing laws in DC, or is this just petty partisanship and trolling on the part of the petitioners?

I have no illusion that the petitioners have a political axe to grind, but in this particular case, this political axe is correct. Trump is of poor character for the reasons I’ve listed several times before.

And ultimately, it comes down to a matter of whether the rules written on paper are to be adhered to. Applicants are supposed to be of good character. Do those words mean something? They must, because otherwise the words would not be there. And as I’ve invited others to do – but they have steadfastly refused – I fail to see any test of moral character that Trump could pass. So once again, I ask any of his supporters in this thread on this particular issue to explain to me why you find Trump to be of good character for the purposes of this license.

@CarnalK

Could you explain why anyone would give a shit that you’re willing to let Mike Isabella go down? You’ve brought it up a couple of times now.

You have specifically said several times that if Trump were to have his liquor license pulled, then others would too. I’m agreeing with you, and pointing out one in particular who should be subject to the same terms and conditions of the license. If you don’t want me to agree to this point you keep making, then why don’t you stop repeating it?

@Bone

I’m opposed to any law that makes reference to “good character”. It’s a stupid standard that should be struck down at every instance.

I can understand this point of view. But if it is to be struck down, let the legislature do it, as opposed to having an adjudicative body render the term meaningless. To use an analogy that may be close to your heart, let’s say that you seek to renew your CCW permit, but that the relevant authorities have arbitrarily decided that a requirement for “good character” actually means that applicants must prove themselves to be of “perfect character.” If the rules require simply “good character,” it would be a mistake for a board to substitute its judgment that the term means either “perfect character” or “terrible character” or even “there shall be no evaluation of character whatsoever.”

Alternatively, if a court stepped in and found that the term “good character” was illegal in some way, I’d be satisfied that striking down that part of the rules was being handled in a fair way. But at present, to have a board embrace an application of the term that is so far from its plain meaning is unacceptable.

[Shodan]

@Little_Nemo

No, it’s not the best we can come up with. I’ve already said that. Trump should be facing Congressional hearings. But the Republicans in Congress refuse to act on the evidence before them.

That sounds to me very like a liquor license hearing is the best you can come up with.

It’s about having a public hearing where the evidence can be presented and put on record. If Trump can defend himself, he’ll have an opportunity to do so.

As I asked before, do you expect this to have any effect, and suddenly the public will be enrapt by a liquor license hearing and repudiate Trump, when they hear all the things Democrats have been howling since the 2016 primary season?

Special prosecutors didn’t work. The Steele dossier didn’t work. A billion dollar Hillary campaign didn’t work. FBI investigations didn’t work. But by golly, a liquor license hearing on the hotel that his son and daughter own will be the last straw!

Regards,
Shodan

[BeepKillBeep]

In my mind, the problem with doing this is that it is plays right into Trump’s tiny little hands. It is being done to spite Trump, to poke him in the nose. But even if they deny him the license, which they won’t, there will be a trivial means to work around it. So when this fails, Trump will be able to say “See, I’m of good character”. Additionally, win or lose, he’ll be able to point to this as petty BS being done by the left to attack him, and in this case, he’ll be right. It does nothing but give him ammo.

[Ravenman]

@Shodan

That sounds to me very like a liquor license hearing is the best you can come up with.
As I asked before, do you expect this to have any effect, and suddenly the public will be enrapt by a liquor license hearing and repudiate Trump, when they hear all the things Democrats have been howling since the 2016 primary season?

Special prosecutors didn’t work. The Steele dossier didn’t work. A billion dollar Hillary campaign didn’t work. FBI investigations didn’t work. But by golly, a liquor license hearing on the hotel that his son and daughter own will be the last straw!

Sounds like you are asserting that people should have a narrow, partisan interest in seeing the law be properly implemented and obeyed. In reality, my point is the opposite.

[CarnalK]

@Ravenman

I’ve said at least three times why I think Trump fails any test of good character. Would you like me to repeat them? I don’t know how much more specific I can be if what I wrote before isn’t clear enough.

It’s just such a local story, nobody gives a crap about that one guy. And the accusations against Isabella is sexual harassment in his restaurants which is not the same as cheating on your wife. Seriously, it’s dumb. Just say “I don’t care who loses their license”.

[Ravenman]

@CarnalK

It’s just such a local story, nobody gives a crap about that one guy. And the accusations against Isabella is sexual harassment in his restaurants which is not the same as cheating on your wife. Seriously, it’s dumb. Just say “I don’t care who loses their license”.

God, for someone who doesn’t want to talk about this anymore, you sure keep talking about it a lot.

[CarnalK]

At least Little Nemo is being honest. He admits that this is just a way to air dirty laundry rather than pretend it’s valid challenge. You should try it. It’ll make you feel better.

[Ravenman]

@CarnalK

At least Little Nemo is being honest. He admits that this is just a way to air dirty laundry rather than pretend it’s valid challenge. You should try it. It’ll make you feel better.

Nice crack about my honesty.

I actually believe this is the right thing to do. As I mentioned before – which you conveniently ignored – I have no illusions that the petitioners have a political agenda. It just so happens that I believe they are correct on the merits of what they are seeking.

Meanwhile, I’ve yet to hear anyone offer an explanation of how Trump fits the definition of having a “good character” for whatever value of those terms they wish to apply.

[CarnalK]

That’s because you haven’t given the definition as it applies to DC liquor licensing. Give us a few examples of people who were denied a liquor license for failing to have good character.

[Ravenman]

God, why do I have to repeat myself time and time again?

I’ve listed why I believe Trump to be of poor character, and added that I’m not aware of any redeeming qualities. And I’ve said that I cannot think of any definition of “good character” that would reflect favorably on judgment of Trump because of his multitude of failings.

Once again, because people like for me to repeat things so much: I see no reasonable definition of “good character” which Trump could come out favorably.

As for other examples of those failing the character test, I’ve said that it is entirely possible that this board has applied a meaning to “good character” that is violently at odds with what should be allowed under the term. The board should not be allowed to do that; no more than if the rules were to say that felons could not hold liquor licenses, but the board decided to interpret the word “felons” to exclude rapists.

If, under those circumstances, the board decided to issue licenses to rapists, I would not be claiming that the board’s rulings are just because they applied this grossly incorrect interpretation to so many cases in the past. The redefinition itself is inexcusable. That applies equally to any meaningless definition the board might apply to the term “good character.”

I very much await your explanation of why Trump is of good character – but “if I’m honest,” I think you’ll avoid that question for as long as this thread goes on.

[CarnalK]

As I said originally, good character probably just means “can be trusted to follow the rules”. But you need me to cite that, whereas you apparently don’t have to cite your interpretation. Since I don’t think the government investigating your bedroom activities is generally considered proper, I’ll stick with my definition until the decision is actually made.

[BeepKillBeep]

@CarnalK

As I said originally, good character probably just means “can be trusted to follow the rules”. But you need me to cite that, whereas you apparently don’t have to cite your interpretation. Since I don’t think the government investigating your bedroom activities is generally considered proper, I’ll stick with my definition until the decision is actually made.

I think you’re correct, and I would suspect the ruling will say something to effect that there’s no indication that Trump has or will violate the rules for selling alcohol.

Oh and for record, as if I’ve not said it enough, Trump has terrible character.

[Ravenman]

The law says that the board shall determine that “the applicant is of good character and generally fit for the responsibilities of licensure.”

If the law merely meant following the rules, perhaps it would read: “The applicant is generally fit for the responsibilities of licensure and generally fit for the responsibilities of licensure.”

[CarnalK]

WaPo article

Tinpe says ANC 2C stands by its original decision. “We do not take into consideration politics,” Tinpe says. “It would be overreaching to comment on the character of somebody.” He says it’s a slippery slope should an ANC decide to take the measure of a licensee’s character. Such action could lead to a rush of similar protests about other owners.

“Now, if there is criminal activity, that is different,” Tinpe adds. “But the subject of character is something different.” The Washington Post’s Colbert I. King made a similar point in a recent column, quoting from a 1981 liquor license case, Haight v. ABC Board, in which the D.C. Court of Appeals seemed to argue that good character merely prohibits “illegal conduct and no more.”

But in a supplement to his original complaint, Levy argues that both Tinpe and King misunderstand what the Appeal Court was saying in Haight v. ABC Board. The court specifically wrote, “We do not necessarily suggest that the [ABC] Board could never require more of its license applicants than mere compliance with the law. But in order to do so the Board must put applicants on fair notice by making public its criteria.”

(my underlining)
There is no way this complaint is going anywhere.

[Bricker]

@Ravenman

Like I said before, I’d be perfectly fine with Mike Isabella falling afoul of this rule.

I’d like to hear someone describe how they believe Donald Trump meets the bar of being of good character, under whatever definition they care to use. I’ve described how I believe he does not a few times so far already.

So far as I am aware, you first need to clear the barrier that Donald Trump is not the lucensee — Ivanka Trump is.

It’s true that the law applies to the actual licensee, of course, but there’s no showing that Ivanka is not the actual licensee. How can you clear that … er… bar?

[Larry_Borgia]

The relevant law:

(a) Before issuing, transferring to a new owner, or renewing a license, the Board shall determine
that the applicant meets all of the following criteria:
(1) The applicant is of good character and generally fit for the responsibilities of licensure.
(2) The applicant is at least 21 years of age.
(3) The applicant has not been convicted of any felony in the 10 years before filing the
application.
(4) The applicant has not been convicted of any misdemeanor bearing on fitness for licensure in
the 5 years before filing the application.
(5) Except in the case of an application for a solicitor’s or manager’s license, the applicant is the
true and actual owner of the establishment for which the license is sought, and he or she intends
to carry on the business for himself or herself and not as the agent of any other individual,
partnership, association, limited liability company, or corporation not identified in the
application.
(6) The licensed establishment will be managed by the applicant in person or by a Boardlicensed
manager.
(7) The applicant has complied with all the requirements of this title and regulations issued
under this title.
(a-1) To determine whether an applicant for a new license meets the criteria of subsection (a)(1) of
this section, the Board shall examine records, covering the last 10 years from the date of
application, maintained by ABRA regarding prior violations of the District’s alcohol laws and
regulations by the applicant or establishments owned or controlled by the applicant.

Based on the last paragraph, good character appears to only involve violations of DC Alcohol laws. So if you ran an illegal after hours club, you would be denied, but if you cheat on your wife you’re golden. But IANAL so I’m not sure my interpretation is correct.

[Ravenman]

@CarnalK

WaPo article

(my underlining)
There is no way this complaint is going anywhere.

Holy cow!! You’ve finally contributed something of substance!! Thank you, thank you!!

I think the liquor board should publish notice of what it judges in terms of “good character,” consistent with a fair reading of the term. There’s plenty of time to do that before renewal.

Or, as I’ve mentioned before, Trump and his supporters can take their case to the city council and urge them to eliminate the term from the law.

@Bricker

So far as I am aware, you first need to clear the barrier that Donald Trump is not the lucensee — Ivanka Trump is.

It’s true that the law applies to the actual licensee, of course, but there’s no showing that Ivanka is not the actual licensee. How can you clear that … er… bar?

If Ivanka is the true and actual owner and the named licensee, then that would make it much easier for us all to decide that Donald Trump should not hold a liquor license. After all, I’ve been very precise in my argument that Donald Trump is not of good character – I never argued that the Trump Hotel is a degenerate. (Though I do have my questions about how any BLT Prime chef could abuse a perfectly nice steak in the manner they do for a certain customer.)

Further, I note that I have already said that if someone else wants to take over the bar and restaurant, I have zero problem with that.

[Larry_Borgia]

Link to the code (PDF) where I got the quote in my earlier post, if anyone wants to plow through it.

https://abra.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/abra/publication/attachments/DCCodeTitle25DCMR23May2017.pdf

[CarnalK]

@Ravenman

Holy cow!! You’ve finally contributed something of substance!! Thank you, thank you!!

You’re welcome. When are you going to start? I know you’re not a crank, but you sure are coming off as one in this thread. One line of legal text and a copy of Merriam Webster’s does not a argument make.

[Bricker]

@Ravenman

If Ivanka is the true and actual owner and the named licensee, then that would make it much easier for us all to decide that Donald Trump should not hold a liquor license. After all, I’ve been very precise in my argument that Donald Trump is not of good character – I never argued that the Trump Hotel is a degenerate. (Though I do have my questions about how any BLT Prime chef could abuse a perfectly nice steak in the manner they do for a certain customer.)

Further, I note that I have already said that if someone else wants to take over the bar and restaurant, I have zero problem with that.

OK. Then my only comment is concerning the necessity to establish a standard that is applied to all licensees.

In the sixties, a DC restaurant owner was arrested for permitting, in his establishment, men to dance with men and women to dance with women. This was said to evidence a lack of good moral character, among other crimes.

Any thoughts on applying that kind of standard?