# Trump cleared of Conflict of Interest with the Washington D.C. hotel **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 24, 2017, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-cleared-of-conflict-of-interest-with-the-washington-d-c-hotel/782918 "2017-03-24T15:49:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![WordMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e8c25b/32.png) [@WordMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WordMan)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2017, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-cleared-of-conflict-of-interest-with-the-washington-d-c-hotel/782918/1 "2017-03-24T15:49:37Z")
Article here: [http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-usa-trump-hotel-idUKKBN16U2S7](http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-usa-trump-hotel-idUKKBN16U2S7) > [@](#): > > The Trump International Hotel in Washington is not in violation of federal conflict-of-interest rules that bar elected officials from taking part in a lease of federal property, the U.S. General Services Administration said on Thursday. > > Critics argued that the luxury hotel housed in the historic Old Post Office a few blocks from the White House was a conflict of interest for Republican President Donald Trump because he is both landlord and tenant of the building. Lawyers for the hotel said the claim had no merit. :smack: It is good to be POTUS. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2017, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-cleared-of-conflict-of-interest-with-the-washington-d-c-hotel/782918/2 "2017-03-24T16:55:11Z")
Correct decision. ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2017, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-cleared-of-conflict-of-interest-with-the-washington-d-c-hotel/782918/3 "2017-03-24T17:00:01Z")
There’s not a lot of detail in that article. Could you explain why the decision is correct? (Not for the purposes of me disagreeing) ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2017, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-cleared-of-conflict-of-interest-with-the-washington-d-c-hotel/782918/4 "2017-03-24T17:03:37Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Correct decision. Can you explain? There’s one aspect of this that has me scratching my head. Trump said that any profits he gets from the hotel that comes from foreign governments (e.g., if a dignitary stays in the hotel) would be donated to the Government. (I may be slightly off in how that’s phrased, I’m going from memory.) But this article seems to imply that it is not possible for Trump to profit from the hotel until he is no longer President, thereby satisfying the contract. However, it seems from the article that after his Presidency, he would benefit from such profits, which seems to me to be undercutting the agency’s determination. If I have any of this right, it seems like Trump has set it up so that the benefits of his LLC, which he still owns but has his son running, will simply be deferred until after his presidency is over. How that squares with the contract – forget anyone’s basic sense of propriety – completely baffles me. ---
**Author:** ![gnoitall](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/bb73d2/32.png) [@gnoitall](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gnoitall)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2017, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-cleared-of-conflict-of-interest-with-the-washington-d-c-hotel/782918/5 "2017-03-24T17:24:53Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Can you explain? > > There’s one aspect of this that has me scratching my head. Trump said that any profits he gets from the hotel that comes from foreign governments (e.g., if a dignitary stays in the hotel) would be donated to the Government. (I may be slightly off in how that’s phrased, I’m going from memory.) > > But this article seems to imply that it is not possible for Trump to profit from the hotel until he is no longer President, thereby satisfying the contract. However, it seems from the article that after his Presidency, he would benefit from such profits, which seems to me to be undercutting the agency’s determination. > > If I have any of this right, it seems like Trump has set it up so that the benefits of his LLC, which he still owns but has his son running, will simply be deferred until after his presidency is over. How that squares with the contract – forget anyone’s basic sense of propriety – completely baffles me. My sense is that the only argument is “The President doesn’t own the trust. Therefore he couldn’t possibly derive any benefit from its profitability. Also, because STFU.” Not even a decent whitewash. Just a pre-determined and unsupported decision. ---
**Author:** ![Falchion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a88e57/32.png) [@Falchion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Falchion)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2017, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-cleared-of-conflict-of-interest-with-the-washington-d-c-hotel/782918/6 "2017-03-24T17:40:40Z")
You can read the decision and exhibits here: [https://www.gsa.gov/portal/getMediaData?mediaId=157798](https://www.gsa.gov/portal/getMediaData?mediaId=157798) ---
**Author:** ![Evan\_Drake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/b487fb/32.png) [@Evan\_Drake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evan_Drake)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2017, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-cleared-of-conflict-of-interest-with-the-washington-d-c-hotel/782918/7 "2017-03-24T18:14:32Z")
I would be more sour a fine Government **[building](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Post_Office_Pavilion)**, in the grand manner, was sold to wretched commercial interests. To be fair, when he won the auction in 2011 ( thanks to Obama’s haste in pushing along the sale ) I doubt if El Trumpo seriously expected to be president 6 years later — and except for an extraordinary concatenation of opportunities: a blank slate of GOP bumpkins; facing Hillary for the final countdown; a hysterical hostile media ( which garnered sympathy ); and a confused moronate, he wouldn’t have had the tiniest chance — so can be cleared of pre-planning this coup, which is just serendipity for his pocket. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2017, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-cleared-of-conflict-of-interest-with-the-washington-d-c-hotel/782918/8 "2017-03-24T18:38:59Z")
A sad commentary on this administration that “President didn’t do something illegal” is now newsworthy. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2017, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-cleared-of-conflict-of-interest-with-the-washington-d-c-hotel/782918/9 "2017-03-24T19:54:27Z")
Don’t worry - he’s still guilty of something. Dig harder. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2017, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-cleared-of-conflict-of-interest-with-the-washington-d-c-hotel/782918/10 "2017-03-24T23:42:04Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > There’s not a lot of detail in that article. Could you explain why the decision is correct? (Not for the purposes of me disagreeing) Yes. The provision at issue in the lease says: > [@](#): > > 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 this 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 of such corporation or other entity. The President is a shareholder in an entity called DJT Holdings Managing Menber LLC, which holds the lease for the general benefit of the LLC. His son is the official in control of that LLC. While that LLC is held in turn by other interests, the President is not an officer, director, manager, or employee of any of them. Therefore, he does not violate the lease. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Finn](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dewey_finn/32/4222_2.png) [@Dewey\_Finn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Finn)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2017, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-cleared-of-conflict-of-interest-with-the-washington-d-c-hotel/782918/11 "2017-03-24T23:46:04Z")
But that however clause says “may be a shareholder or other beneficial owner of any publicly held corporation or other entity”. That LLC isn’t a publicly held corporation. (it is an “other entity” but that’s a rather broad out.) Edited to add, the clause seemed to say that if I’m the new Secretary of [Whatever] and I have shares in the Marriott/Hilton/whatever company and that company had the contract to lease the building, I would not be in violation of the lease. But an LLC is a much more closely held corporation. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2017, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-cleared-of-conflict-of-interest-with-the-washington-d-c-hotel/782918/12 "2017-03-25T00:02:09Z")
> [@Dewey\_Finn](#): > > But that however clause says “may be a shareholder or other beneficial owner of any publicly held corporation or other entity”. That LLC isn’t a publicly held corporation. (it is an “other entity” but that’s a rather broad out.) > > Edited to add, the clause seemed to say that if I’m the new Secretary of [Whatever] and I have shares in the Marriott/Hilton/whatever company and that company had the contract to lease the building, I would not be in violation of the lease. But an LLC is a much more closely held corporation. So what? It’s an “other entity.” The clause does not say, “or other broadly-held entity.” What exactly is your objection to the “broad out?” ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Finn](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dewey_finn/32/4222_2.png) [@Dewey\_Finn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Finn)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2017, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-cleared-of-conflict-of-interest-with-the-washington-d-c-hotel/782918/13 "2017-03-25T00:24:01Z")
The lease says that if I’m the senior senator from [whatever state], I can’t benefit from the lease. But it’s cool if I’m a shareholder of an “other entity”, presumably even if I’m the sole shareholder of an LLC or other corporation. What’s the difference? ---
**Author:** ![Falchion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a88e57/32.png) [@Falchion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Falchion)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2017, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-cleared-of-conflict-of-interest-with-the-washington-d-c-hotel/782918/14 "2017-03-25T00:31:39Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > So what? > > It’s an “other entity.” The clause does not say, “or other broadly-held entity.” > > What exactly is your objection to the “broad out?” My objection would be: why specify a publicly held corporation if it is completely subsumed in the “other entity”? Under your reading, the clause exempts a shareholder of a publicly held corporation or any owners of _any_ juridicial person. It’s too late on a Friday (and therefore I’m too drunk) to conjure up the correct canon of interpretation (is this rule against surplusage?), but you’re reading the statute to say: “a shareholder [etc.] of any entity.” Which makes “publicly held corporation” meaningless. The only way to give “publicly held corporation” meaning (maybe this is ejusdem generis?) is to read it as “publicly held corporation or other [publicly held] entity.” I don’t think you can have a publicly held non-corporation, but to read it otherwise renders the specific provision meaningless. Doesn’t it? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2017, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-cleared-of-conflict-of-interest-with-the-washington-d-c-hotel/782918/15 "2017-03-25T00:52:08Z")
> [@Falchion](#): > > My objection would be: why specify a publicly held corporation if it is completely subsumed in the “other entity”? > > Under your reading, the clause exempts a shareholder of a publicly held corporation or any owners of _any_ juridicial person. It’s too late on a Friday (and therefore I’m too drunk) to conjure up the correct canon of interpretation (is this rule against surplusage?), but you’re reading the statute to say: “a shareholder [etc.] of any entity.” Which makes “publicly held corporation” meaningless. The only way to give “publicly held corporation” meaning (maybe this is ejusdem generis?) is to read it as “publicly held corporation or other [publicly held] entity.” I don’t think you can have a publicly held non-corporation, but to read it otherwise renders the specific provision meaningless. Doesn’t it? This is admittedly not my area of expertise, but no. It seems to me that the straightforward provision is unambiguous: a shareholder of an entity that’s not an officer, director, manager, or employee. ---
**Author:** ![Falchion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a88e57/32.png) [@Falchion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Falchion)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2017, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-cleared-of-conflict-of-interest-with-the-washington-d-c-hotel/782918/16 "2017-03-25T01:02:29Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > This is admittedly not my area of expertise, but no. It seems to me that the straightforward provision is unambiguous: a shareholder of an entity that’s not an officer, director, manager, or employee. It’s certainly not my areas of expertise either. But, if your interpretation of the statute is correct, then the specific enumeration of a publicly held corporation is surplusage. Because the statute could read, as you put it, “a shareholder of an entity.” We assume (I think) that the specification of “publicly held corporation” has some purpose. It would be odd, for example, if we had a sign that said: “No parking, except for Harley Davidson Sportsters or other model motorcycles.” You’d read the sign to say: “No parking, except motorcycles.” But, I’d wonder why we’d specified a single model. Your interpretation makes that specification meaningless. Maybe it means Harley parking only. (I’m not a motorcycle person, I don’t actually know if the hypothetical works). It’s, at least, ambiguous to me. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2017, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-cleared-of-conflict-of-interest-with-the-washington-d-c-hotel/782918/17 "2017-03-25T01:08:10Z")
> [@Falchion](#): > > It’s, at least, ambiguous to me. Then it’s lucky that the agency reached a conclusion, so we can assign due deference to its interpretation of an ambiguous provision. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Leaper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/4bbf92/32.png) [@Leaper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaper)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2017, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-cleared-of-conflict-of-interest-with-the-washington-d-c-hotel/782918/18 "2017-03-25T01:08:26Z")
So does it matter if, say, Eric Trump regularly visited his father with business details? If so, to what extent COULD they interact on with such topics? Or is there any limit at all, as long as paperwork says Trump is not employed by the LLC? ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2017, 1:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-cleared-of-conflict-of-interest-with-the-washington-d-c-hotel/782918/19 "2017-03-25T01:29:31Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Yes. > The President is a shareholder in an entity called DJT Holdings Managing Menber LLC, which holds the lease for the general benefit of the LLC. His son is the official in control of that LLC. > > While that LLC is held in turn by other interests, the President is not an officer, director, manager, or employee of any of them. > > Therefore, he does not violate the lease. Thanks for the information. I actually read the ruling in between the time I posted that and you answered. And is seems like a big part of the ruling was the definition of “admit” and the fact that he was already a part of the ownership and didn’t become part of it after he became elected was a big part of it. Again, not disagreeing, since from my reading it seems like it’s okay with regard to the current state of the lease and the law. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2017, 3:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-cleared-of-conflict-of-interest-with-the-washington-d-c-hotel/782918/20 "2017-03-25T03:08:57Z")
> [@Leaper](#): > > So does it matter if, say, Eric Trump regularly visited his father with business details? If so, to what extent COULD they interact on with such topics? Or is there any limit at all, as long as paperwork says Trump is not employed by the LLC? In my opinion, the lease is violated if President Trump acts constructively as a director, manager, or officer, no matter what his official title is. So if young Trump visits Dad and says, “Hey, things are going great with third quarter revenue,” and Dad nods pleasantly, there’s no violation. But if he says “Third quarter revenue is slumping,” and Dad says, “Write off that swimming pool refurbish cost to boost your numbers,” then the lease is violated. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-cleared-of-conflict-of-interest-with-the-washington-d-c-hotel/782918.md?page=2)