I award footnote 23 no points, and I’d like to see whoever thought they could get away with it in my office. nytimes.com/interactive/20… 
Under this logic, the president could open a booth on Pennsylvania Ave to accept bribes, people under federal investigation could stop by with a briefcase full of cash, and he could order their investigations closed—all without incurring any criminal liability for himself.
He could call it the Trump Hotel.
Not a fan of footnote 48.
Footnote 53 is a howler even before you see the offhand answer that purportedly supports its premise. And did anyone proofread this?
hahahaha
