• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Trump Presidency 13: The (James) Baker's Dozen

Status
Not open for further replies.
It's illegal to spend any federal resources, including staff time, on campaigning. With previous presidents, it was hard to know where to draw the line, but not so with Trump: Taxpayers paid for a campaign rally, and it should be on the list of impeachable offenses.
 
WilliamSeger said:
It's illegal to spend any federal resources, including staff time, on campaigning.
Click to expand...

That's not quite true. The Hatch Act prohibits most federal employees from doing partisan political activities. But employees of the Executive Office of the President are allowed to.

With previous presidents, it was hard to know where to draw the line, but not so with Trump: Taxpayers paid for a campaign rally, and it should be on the list of impeachable offenses.
Click to expand...

Yeah, no.
 
Yet another lawsuit the president may have to deal with...

From: https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/11/politics/cliff-sims-trump-silencing-nda-white-house-aide/index.html
Cliff Sims, a former White House staffer who wrote a tell-all book, is suing President Donald Trump to stop him from "silencing" Sims as he promotes his book (Team of vipers)....The lawsuit requests a court ruling that Trump "may not enforce, whether directly or through non-U.S. Government cutouts, any nondisclosure agreements that seek to unconstitutionally infringe upon his First Amendment rights."

Granted, this lawsuit won't hurt the president in a financial sense, but if the lawsuit is successful then it could mean more damaging information gets released in the future, since the threat from non-disclosure agreements would be voided.
 
WilliamSeger said:
It's illegal to spend any federal resources, including staff time, on campaigning. With previous presidents, it was hard to know where to draw the line, but not so with Trump: Taxpayers paid for a campaign rally, and it should be on the list of impeachable offenses.
Click to expand...

What makes you think that the rally was paid for by taxpayers? Have you a citation to that effect?

The media called it a campaign rally. Absent explicit evidence, I reckon that the bulk of the spending (excepting things like security, which I think the government pays for and always has, though I welcome corrections) comes from the campaign.

So, do let me know if you have read that this was primarily a taxpayer-funded rally or to what extent it was taxpayer-funded and how that differs from previous incumbents' campaign events. Until then, I don't share your concerns.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
It's being reported that the White House is planning to use money for flood control projects in California, and disaster relief for Puerto Rico and California to fund building the wall
Click to expand...
That makes sense... a flood of water, a flood of immigrants. Same thing really.

:boxedin:

The article also mentions the possibility of using money that had been earmarked for military infrastructure as well.

I hope Trump tries... the legal hassles will keep the project tied up for years.
 
Ziggurat said:
It's illegal to spend any federal resources, including staff time, on campaigning.
Click to expand...
That's not quite true. The Hatch Act prohibits most federal employees from doing partisan political activities. But employees of the Executive Office of the President are allowed to.
Click to expand...
The president and employees of the executive are allowed to engage in political activities, but they are required to reimburse the government for some of the costs.

From: https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/...y-when-presidents-attend-rallies/65-584456401
If the president travels to endorse Congressional Candidates, either the campaign or a political action committee must reimburse the government for some of the expenses. Things like food, lodging and whatever the president would have paid on a commercial ticket. When travel involves both official and political functions, the White House uses a formula to determine how much airfare is to be paid by the traveler, and how any per diem and other travel related costs are to be paid by the government. Also the Federal Election Commission said for travel on behalf of a campaign, "The reimbursement for that travel is the responsibility of the committee on whose behalf the travel occurs."

So, the big question is whether Trump actually followed protocol and paid for his food/lodging/cost of a commercial flight, or whether he avoided those costs by either: 1) totally ignoring the issue (which would be illegal, but falls in line with how Trump normally operates), or 2) claiming that the trip was an 'official' function (i.e. part of his official job as president, which most people recognize that it was not.)
 
Ziggurat said:
That's not quite true. The Hatch Act prohibits most federal employees from doing partisan political activities. But employees of the Executive Office of the President are allowed to.
Click to expand...

It is quite true that they are not allowed to expend any federal resources for campaigning purposes or devote any time to fund raising. The Hatch Act excludes Executive Office employees from the requirement to refrain from any active political campaigning, but does not exempt them from those laws. Just two months ago, the Office of Special Council found that six White House employees violated the Hatch Act just by tweeting.

Yeah, no.
Click to expand...

As frequently mentioned, that's for Congress to decide.
 
Last edited:
WilliamSeger said:
It is quite true that they are not allowed to expend any federal resources for campaigning purposes or devote any time to fund raising.
Click to expand...

phiwum already asked you why you thought federal funds were spent on this rally. Do you have a response to that?
 
Ziggurat said:
phiwum already asked you why you thought federal funds were spent on this rally. Do you have a response to that?
Click to expand...

Since there was no "official" purpose, all of the time and money spent on it except for the security, which taxpayers are required to pay wherever the president goes.
 
Since Trump is so keen in building a wall, I thought it would be a good idea to remind people of some of the secondary costs:

The wall is expected to impact the following:

- The National Butterfly Center (which, in addition to its environmental benefits, also brings in tourists to the area.)

- Ranches that have existed near the border that have been run by the same family for over 2 centuries

- The SpaceX launch facility in Texas, which brings in millions of dollars to the local economy. Building a wall will probably mean the facility will need to be moved, removing dozens of jobs from the local area

https://www.vox.com/2018/3/28/17152644/trump-border-wall-texas-environment-refuge-butterflies

https://www.texastribune.org/2018/0...ns-end-texas-families-250-years-ranching-rio/

https://www.techspot.com/news/78677-current-plans-border-wall-split-spacex-texas-launchpad.html
 
I really don't think "But think of the butterflies!" is going to sway anybody already on board with the wall.
 
JoeMorgue said:
I really don't think "But think of the butterflies!" is going to sway anybody already on board with the wall.
Click to expand...
That's why I also mentioned the fact that the National Butterfly Center is a tourist destination, and has a positive benefit for the local economy.

Building a wall will eliminate jobs, both at the Center itself, and at local businesses any tourists may frequent.
 
Segnosaur said:
That's why I also mentioned the fact that the National Butterfly Center is a tourist destination, and has a positive benefit for the local economy.

Building a wall will eliminate jobs, both at the Center itself, and at local businesses any tourists may frequent.
Click to expand...

Anybody who works at or visits a butterfly center is a pansy limp-wristed liberal. Acceptable collateral damage.
 
WilliamSeger said:
Since there was no "official" purpose, all of the time and money spent on it except for the security, which taxpayers are required to pay wherever the president goes.
Click to expand...

And other presidents have similarly had campaign events. There is a difference insofar as Trump has more campaign events, and that may be an issue, but it seemed to me that you were up in arms over something more than just a difference in the number of events.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Building a wall will eliminate jobs, both at the Center itself, and at local businesses any tourists may frequent.
Click to expand...
Anybody who works at or visits a butterfly center is a pansy limp-wristed liberal. Acceptable collateral damage.
Click to expand...
I know you were (probably) kidding about that... But, I'm sure there are plenty of (for example) restaurant owners, gas station attendants, and hotel workers who are god-fearing republicans who would be harmed if all those limp-wristed liberals decided who stopped at their establishments on their way to look at the the butterflies suddenly had nothing left to see.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom