No White Russians To Be Served At Trump Hotel? D.C. Advisory Group Petitions To Pull Trump Liquor License

160px-Official_Portrait_of_President_Donald_Trump_(cropped)There is a difference between resistance and ridiculousness.  That line was crossed, again, by Trump critics in Washington after a D.C. Advisory Neighborhood Commission (ANC 4C) announced a petition to pull the Trump International Hotel’s liquor license. The grounds?  D.C. law only allows individuals of “good character” qualify for a liquor license.  The petition pushed by Zach Teutsch, ANC Commissioner 4C is an example of how leaders are misrepresenting frivolous, meaningless efforts as valid legal arguments. 

Fox 5 has reported on petition by the D.C. Advisory Neighborhood Commission (ANC 4C) based on the “good character” condition for a liquor license. That provisions states:

§ 25–301. General qualifications for all applicants.

(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.

The focus of the law is on criminal violations but perceived questions of veracity or honesty.  Moreover, the liquor license is technically not in the name of Donald Trump. Moreover, ANC 4C does not even cover this geographic area.  That is covered by ANC 2C, which has not called for such a review.

Nevertheless, the petition states that “Donald Trump, the true and actual owner of the Trump International Hotel, is not a person of good character.” The petition references a “long history of telling lies” and a “failure to abide by the law and to repudiate associations with known criminals.”  That is it.  Incredibly, two former judges signed this utter nonsense.  It may be cathartic and popular but it is entirely meritless.

It is difficult to protect a president in disregarding laws or precedent when you are filing frivolous filings that misuse laws like those governing liquor licenses.

174 thoughts on “No White Russians To Be Served At Trump Hotel? D.C. Advisory Group Petitions To Pull Trump Liquor License”

  1. Recently former President Obama gave a speech where he chastised wealthy people and their big houses. After he gave the speech he went home to his $8 million mansion. Liberal hypocrisy.

    1. Seems more like an Al Gore maneuver.

      What’s distressing about Gore, Obama, and Rahm Emmanuel is that they’ve grown very wealthy based on political connections and public profile. There’s little or no indication that they’ve ever had what it takes to build and run a business which creates value. Compare that trio with Harry Truman. Congress created presidential pensions in 1958 because they were aware that Truman was fairly impecunious.

  2. This is misuse of the law for harassment. I’m not an attorney, so I’m asking what’s probably a dumb question:

    Are petitions such as this whose purpose seems more to defame President Trump than to address actual issues in the granting of liquor licenses (note that the petition came from the wrong neighborhood committee) privileged speech, or can he respond to the allegations as gratuitously defamatory utterances?

    The concept of “false opinion” in Virginia law comes to mind.

  3. Several things come to mind:

    The petition alleges basically three grounds for Trump’s failure to meet the “good character” requirement: he tells lies, he has engaged in dishonest business dealings, and he associates with known criminals. Keep in mind that the petitioners have the burden of proof here.

    In support of its allegation that Trump lies, the petition cites media sources that say Trump said A and A was not true. The media reports themselves will not be admissible in evidence or, at the very least, cannot be given much weight because they are hearsay. They report what others have told the reporter. The reporter has no firsthand information as to what was said. To revoke the license, petitioners will need witnesses (who are within whatever subpoena power the liquor board has) who will say (1) Trump said A, (2) A is not true because (at least one other witness will probably be needed here), and (3) Trump knew A was untrue when he said A. Many of the media reports cite anonymous sources which the reporters will not be willing to reveal. Thus, the petitioners will not be able to prove what they need to prove. Even where the source is known, the source will say Trump told me A. There will need to be some other evidence that A is untrue, and there will need to be evidence that Trump knew A was untrue. Otherwise, it will be Trump’s word against the source. Telling a few lies over the years does not establish lack of “good character”. If that were true, D.C. would be a dry town. Petitioners will not be able to prove enough lies to prove what they need to prove. Petitioners should, and probably do, know that.

    In support of its allegation that Trump engaged in dishonest business practices, petitioners allege various lawsuits which were either settled or are pending. Without any decision in these lawsuits, they prove nothing except that someone who Trump did business with had a disagreement with Trump or, in one case, that the Attorney General of NY thought Trump did something wrong. Unproven allegations in a lawsuit prove nothing. Anyone who has engaged in business knows that disputes arise and need to be resolved in the courts. That the matter was settled does not prove that either side was right or wrong. That the matter is still pending proves even less.

    The allegation that Trump associates with know criminals is perhaps the most silly of the allegations. One allegation is that a leader of a Teamsters Union Local, John Cody, was convicted of racketeering and tax evasion and that members of the Teamsters Union transported materials to the construction site of Trump Tower as well as other building sites, presumably sites owned by other developers. Think about that for a moment. The Teamsters carry food to supermarkets. We all purchase food from supermarkets. Does that mean we all associate with known criminals? Does that mean we even know who John Cody is? Another allegation is that Trump purchased limos from a man who was convicted of extortion 12 years before Trump purchased the limos. Still another allegation is that Trump purchased helicopter service from a known criminal. So, when we take a helicopter ride (or bus or train ride or rent a vehicle or buy a used car) we are associating with known criminals because the guy who runs the helicopter service or who sold us the car had been convicted of something. How about the guy who comes to fix our A/C unit or unplug our toilet? Or the guy who cuts our grass?

    Another matter that comes to mind is the number of people who will be thrown out of work if Trump’s liquor license is revoked. No high-class hotel in D.C. can survive without liquor license. If the license is revoked, the hotel will close and hundreds of people (mostly blue collar folks) will be unemployed. Have petitioners thought about the consequences of their actions?

    Finally, I acknowledge that the hotel is in a trust, but I thought Presidents needed to put all of their investment assets in a blind trust where they have no control over the management of the assets. Someone correct me if I am wrong.

  4. DC needs a “DC Bund”. Do you folks on the blog get what I am referring to. Here are some letters to suggest a precedent organization. G.A.B. From the 1930’s.

  5. Man, are people going to feel silly when they look back at their behavior at this time. Snowflake derangement at its apex. Soon to be flushed by history.

    1. They’re not. Liberals do not engage in critiques which might implicate them. Those who do tend to leave the fold. Those who do not leave the fold tend to append slams at the opposition to their critiques. Liberals of generation x might chuckle at the foolishness of generation x-1 (I have in mind The New Republic writer who referred to Henry Wallace as a purveyor of ‘outright buffoonery’). What we call ‘liberal’ is in essence a discourse of self-congratulation. When you stop congratulating yourself, you leave.

  6. When you make a White Russian Cocktail, fresh real ingredients are needed. That’s the way folks on left like it.

  7. Self-sabotaging lefty loons at it again. Don’t they realize that when they get petty and frivolous they push moderates to Trump/Republican party?

  8. The gift that just keeps on giving, Wacky Leftist showing their true colors. Good Job!

  9. During the October etc revolutions the Communist Party were known as the Reds and the supporters of the status quo Tzarists as the Whites. Had nothing to do with anything else.

    Bolsheviks has no political meaning other than winners or majority. Mensheviks means losers or minority. It is also not sexist.

    Therefore all you mensheviks can Yesh’te der’mo i koru Na lune

    Although Men She Vickettes does have a nice insulting ring to it.

      1. Jewish, not Great Russian or White Russian. Her family owned a pharmacy seized by the Bolsheviks.

  10. I was a resident of DC in the early ’70’s, sharing those days with Watergate, death of J. Edgar Hoover, shooting of George Wallace etc.
    Dissent, in those days, was usually in the form of Mark Russell’s hilarious, sometimes scathing, act at the Shoreham.
    It is incredibly sad to me that honest dissent is no longer honest, and has gone far beyond the true spirit and heritage of what it once was.
    I would rather live in a pile of nuclear waste, than spend one minute with the toxic hate-mongers on the Left.
    I miss America.

    1. Ha, ha. I guess those swastika wearing marchers make you more comfortable? Whenever I see phrases like “hate mongers on the Left” I think of Charlottesville. I miss America too!

    2. “I would rather live in a pile of nuclear waste, than spend one minute with the toxic hate-mongers on the Left.
      I miss America.”

      Cindy – You apparently need to be introduced to the right. HAte-mongering is in no short supply. There was no plan to reunite the children torn from their parents. Top that!

      1. Avoid her point, deflect to something not being discussed. Wash, rinse and repeat. Btw, we separate kids from their criminal parents all the time. Any other emotional heart strings you want to pluck? When it’s all you got, it’s all you got.

        1. The “point” that got my interest was the “hatemongering on the left.” It was quite in context to point out an example on the other side. I have many more examples but I was trying to vary from the skinheads, Neo-Nazi’s et. al. that help populate the right.

          1. “… an example on the other side.”
            The other side of what? Among professional debaters, that’s called irrelevant to the topic at hand. It’s resorted to when you can’t rebut the assertion. It’s how a debate is lost.

            1. You replied to a question of mine once by saying something similar to, “my answer was my answer,” when it wasn’t in the form I requested. I couldn’t find fault with that.

              In the original lengthy statement I responded to, only one thing interested me which was the claim of all the hatred on the left. Getting biblical, I wonder about the plank in the eyes of the right while they complain about the mote in the lefts. The “topic at hand” that I chose to respond to was purely within my discretion, you can’t dictate to me what the topic was (and the topic I responded to was in the post) any more than I could dictate the form of your answer to my question.

      2. Enigmainblackcom.
        I left the Democrat Plantation in 2008….You can leave it, too. It does take courage, but you can do it.

        1. Cindy – I could easily list the current faults of the Democrat Party which could stand much improvement. Unfortunately, the party that would suppress votes is not an option. Go ahead, deny that voter suppression is a thing. I’ll believe you! Well, maybe not.

          1. Enigma……”Voter suppression”?! Good grief! Not to be rude, but that is so laughable! Have you been out of your house since the 1960’s??

            1. Cindy – No point arguing with you, it’s why the Republican Party can’t be an option. Out of curiosity, if you believe that voter suppression ever was a thing (practiced even more viciously by Democrats in their day), when did it stop?

              1. Enigma,
                To be completely honest, I have not understood a single argument made by a Liberal since 2008. There has been such an absence of critical thinking from the Left, and that has simply astounded me.
                I’m sure you’re a nice person and mean well, but sparring with a Liberal is like boxing with cotton candy.

                1. Completely understandable. “Facts” are so complicated; that’s why it’s such a relief when hannity breaks it down into smaller pieces. Pro tip: change the channel; and don’t buy the commemorative “silver” coins that Pravda Faux News hustles to the oldsters either.

                  this is to “do I really need ‘facts’ to spar?” cindy

                  1. Marky Mark Mark – Super Pro Tip: You can pick those coins up at estate sales for 1/4 of the original price, sometimes less. I have tripled my art collection because of estate sales.

                  2. Mark,
                    Were you the one at Ellis Island who renamed some of my family members?
                    You must watch a lot of vintage Bob Hope shows.

                2. Cindy – If you start with the premise that nothing they say has any merit, you cannot hope to understand. The existence of Voter Suppression has been supported by Federal Judges in Multiple states in recent years. Literally the day after SCOTUS removed the enforcement provisions from the Voting Rights Act, States including Texas, North Carolina and Alabama went to work instituting provisions with just that intent. North Carolina was singled out for its “surgical provisions.” Your “critical thinking” and finely honed argument consists of saying it doesn’t exist.

                  1. Enigma…….ok, now I see what you’re upset about. Sec 4 was removed by the Shelby decision….so the South is no longer being Federally controlled as much as you would like. The white folks are not being punished nearly enough, right?
                    I see each person as my equal, and so don’t accept the false narrative that blacks are still victims in this country. No citizen by law is being denied the right to vote in this country.
                    I would encourage you to rise above the impotent, toxic, empty promises of self-imposed victimhood, and adopt the truly uplifting and colorblind philosophy of Dr. King’s. If the liberal black leaders today would use the word “forgiveness” as often as they use the word “racist”,, there might be hope for true change.

                    1. Technically, several states, mostly in the South, had to seek preclearance before instituting their Voter Suppression policies. Because there was no way their unconstitutional programs would be cleared (as found by multiple Federal Judges in Texas, North Carolina, Alabama, Louisiana and Florida). I do think it unfair to impose preclearance only on those states which was part of the reason the Act was gutted. Why not cover all the states across the board to demonstrate major changes don’t discriminate. Voter Suppression these days is just as likely in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania as in Mississippi.

      3. “There was no plan to reunite the children torn from their parents.” Strange, since they have been, save for those whose adult companions either turned out not to be related, or abused them, or were criminals. In addition, a surprising number of supposed family members simply disappeared and could not be found when called to reunite with their children. Strange. One would think if their kids were important to them, that they would be around and reachable rather than taking off. In fact, tracking down missing parents is delaying the process.

        At least they didn’t do as Obama did, separate the adult males, drive them over 1,000 miles, and dump them across the border without telling their family where they were. A judge also acknowledged that the Administration was doing all it could.

        “In a late Thursday court filing, officials said 1,606 of those children— about 60 percent— were eligible to be reunited with their parents.
        Those who are not eligible include children whose parents have criminal records, who have waived their right to be unified with their children or who should not be reconnected for other reasons.”

        1. Karen – They have been coming up with a plan since having been ordered by a Judge to reunite them. Those “ineligible” for return include those children whose parents have already been deported. Think about that. Also, because the program started before it was uncovered and made public, some of the kidnapped children have already been adopted by American families, against the wishes of their parents.

          1. You can prove there was no plan for reuniting the families until the judge forced them to?
            How many kidnapped (sic) children have been adopted already? I believe adoption is a fairly long process. Amazing that they could get it done so quickly.

            1. Here is an example of an immigrant child adopted against the will of the mother. This case started before the recent influx of immigrants. While the Federal government cannot terminate parental rights, States can and in some cases have. Even the most optimistic people believe that some of these children will never see their parents again.


              The proof of no plan is found in all the excuses they’ve made to the court. I’m limited to one link per post but if you google “no plan for reuniting immigrant children” you’ll find a lot of information, some from sources you might consider worthy.

              1. Hey, here’s a plan: Don’t bring your innocent precious children to a foreign country that has laws that will hold you accountable if you choose to be cruelly irresponsible enough to break the law…….knowing that you might lose your children!!
                These people do not care about their children or they wouldn’t purposefully put them in a dangerous, illegal situation!
                What parent does that?!! It’s sick and immoral!! Period!

                1. Cindy – The alternative for some of those “cruelly irresponsible” parents is to stay where they are and watch those children die at the hands of the gangs and cartels that this country trained and armed. Many are literally fleeing death threats, staying would be the irresponsible choice.

                  1. Enigma…….Well, that’s the party line.
                    We raised our daughter in an Hispanic neighborhood of legal immigrants, and they impressed us Anglos with the value they placed on respecting American laws. Such patriots were they!
                    I simply cannot be moved emotionally by your pleas about illegal babies and
                    children, knowing that Democrats have no problem with the ripping-out of a million babies from their mothers’ wombs each year. Of those million, 75-80% of those babies are aborted because they have Down Syndrome.
                    What would happen if Democrats thought of illegal immigrants as fetuses? I shudder to think.

                    1. Correction: 75-80% of babies conceived who have Down Syndrome are aborted.

                    2. Cindy Bragg — The CDC statistics show less than 650,000 induced abortions per year and dropping every year. The ratio is now below 200 per 1,000 live births.

                    3. David Benson …ONLY 650,000 …well, gosh, I feel better already.
                      Actually the number is closer to 800,000. But to put it in perspective, the next time there is, God forbid! a mass shooting, check to see how many abortions, statistically happened that day in that state. I can tell you, more than likely, the number of deaths of the unborn that day will equal or exceed the deaths due to the shooting.

                    4. Cindy – How do you know all of those law respecting patriots were legal immigrants? Did you ask for their papers? Maybe you know the legal ones when you see them?

  11. Trump International should file a frivolous prosecution claim against this organization.

  12. The racialism of your headline is troubling. What about Black Russians (a superior drink to my taste)?

  13. In the unlikely event that this happens, the owners of the hotel could send a major F-U to the neighborhood commission by giving drinks away to any registered guest. Meanwhile, a few blocks away there’s a statue honoring the former crack-head mayor. Priceless.

  14. When you feel your democracy is being taken, you do anything you can to slow the process and stop those responsible. Frivolous maybe, but it’s not sitting on your ass.

    1. Isn’t the License for Trump International? Not an individual? He would have Licenses around the world. If someone has time to do something so stupid DC is run by loonies!

      1. Sandra Hemming – they erected a statue to Marion Berry so yes the voters in DC are dumb as rocks.

        1. DC’s political class is largely staffed with incompetents who have no authentic moral sense. (Mayor Anthony Williams a grand and successful exception). The problem with DC’s voters is that they put up with this.

          1. Debbie Barnhart – what can I say, rocks have taken a beating from time to time. 😉

        2. Does the statue feature an eternal flame fashioned as a lighter and crack pipe?

          1. Darren Smith – I was amazed at the chutzpah, but I have not seen pictures of the statue. 😉 Hell, he could be snorting coking off a naked hooker for all I know.

    2. Couple of small problems Denise.

      1. There is no democracy for anyone to take. This is a Republic. The system known as a Democracy was rejected by the founders and the words are nowhere included in the Constitution.

      2 Trump turned all of that over to a blind trust. The complaint would have to go to that group. Nothing Trump does or is claimed to have done is germane nor is it admissable. Come to think of it blind or not it iot under is control at present. So no evidence to support the charge.

      3. The complainants are now liable for all court costs and legal fees.

      4. The left ….. as usual has gerphlucked themselves again.

      5. I like it when the left self immolates out of stupidity. Great Show. Do it more often.


      1. Awesome, as usual. Semantics? That’s all you got? Where’s today’s conspiracy prattle, or your usual misogynistic dribble-drabble? You’ve let those who are entertained by your ridiculous nonsense down. You can do better. I’m sure you have some cut-and-paste tomfoolery that you’ve been itching to post. Let’s see it. Pro tip: manufacturing a farce about any “blind trust” is still called a “lie” even if you heard it from hannity.

        this is to “damn, I can’t believe I got sauced and made up sh*t again” mikey

        1. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum

          1. Great post. You’ve raised the bar from the usual bedlam stream-of-consciousness freestyling.

            this is to darren

      2. Michael – “Trump turned all of that over to a blind trust. ”

        As ridiculous a statement as you have ever made. You don’t even bother with facts.

        1. Mr. Enigma: Are you and your ilk jealous of Mr. Trump for developing/owning such a nice asset? Power to the people?

      3. ‘The Federalist №10 (James Madison), 57 (“A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place”);
        The Federalist №14 (James Madison), 77 (“The true distinction between these forms was also adverted to on a former occasion. It is, that in a democracy, the people meet and exercise the government in person; in a republic, they assemble and administer it by their representatives and agents”);
        The Federalist №39 (James Madison), 233–34 (“[W]e may define a republic to be, or at least may bestow that name on, a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people, and is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure, for a limited period, or during good behavior.


        It is essential to such a government that it be derived from the great body of the society, not from an inconsiderable proportion, or a favored class of it; otherwise a handful of tyrannical nobles, exercising their oppressions by a delegation of their powers, might aspire to the rank of republicans, and claim for their government the honorable title of republic. It is sufficient for such a government that the persons administering it be appointed, either directly or indirectly, by the people; and that they hold their appointments by either of the tenures just specified”).’

        So, Michael, you can read a little, but you understand next to nothing. The essence of either a Direct Democracy or a Republic is representation. The government of the United States was designed upon the ‘scheme of representation’ in the form of a Republic, which is based upon Democracy, not Direct Democracy but Democracy nevertheless less.

        Unfortunately, for America, things changed over time. Today, the United States is only called a Republic based on Democratic Representation. In reality the United States is an Oligarchy. The Representatives are funded by select special interests, corporations, and those of massive wealth. The Representation of the people no longer exists in its intended form. The people are given, by the special interests, corporations, and massive wealth, the candidates from which to choose. The primary concerns of those chosen by the people are and remain the best interests of the special interests, corporations, and massive wealth. This is clearly evident in how the health care insurance industry, the pharmaceutical industry, the fossil fuel industry, and other industries are protected at the expense of the expense of the people. The people pay three times as much for health care for the 24th place, coal is supported at the expense of clean renewable energy, and the government itself has outlawed its rights to negotiate with the pharmaceutical industry for lower prices-a right it affords foreign governments.

        Somehow pointing out that the US is a Republic instead of a Democracy, while incorrect-the US is not a Direct Democracy, something the framers did not want, but it is supposed to be a Democracy sourced Republic, with their representatives elected by the people, keeps showing up as your argument. You have nothing.

  15. When all you have to fight with is symbolism, then you use it. Trump is, without a doubt, not of good character. It’s this and T shirts that keep the faith. Take a pill Turley.

    1. Wow how the mighty have falllen your whole case is based on a symbolic T Shirt? Get real. Che was a joke.

    2. You might be right about the character, but he’s a damned good president.

Comments are closed.