First they demanded that he divest himself of all management duties when he became President, then they want to hold him responsible for the management after he divested.
From the article: “President Trump — who’s technically still the chief executive of the restaurant since he never completely divested from his namesake company when he moved into the Oval Office —…”
Right. Notice…“who’s technically still the chief executive of the restaurant”. You don’t say that if someone is defacto running the restaurant, do you? You say that only if you know they are only technically still the chief executive.
And what does “never completely divested” mean? To what degree did he divest and to what degree did he not divest? Kind of looks like they’re avoiding an explanation.