Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWalter Shaub: he's covered by 18 U.S.C. 201, the anti-bribery statute. I say this for no reason in
Walter is a sly little fox!
The President isn't covered by many ethics laws, but he's covered by 18 U.S.C. § 201, the anti-bribery statute. I say this for no reason in particular.
Link to tweet
?s=20
Replying to
@waltshaub
Shouldn't the leader of our nation be subject to more ethics laws than anyone else?
🤔
Terri D
🌊
@TerriDNW
·
12h
Yes.
But as @tribelaw
said tonite on @TheLastWord
, typically we don't choose criminals as president. So people haven't really understood how crucial such laws were.
Enacting a blizzard of such laws must be the FIRST priority of Congress as soon as we get control of the Senate.
Link to tweet
?s=20
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
6 replies, 1583 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (28)
ReplyReply to this post
6 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Walter Shaub: he's covered by 18 U.S.C. 201, the anti-bribery statute. I say this for no reason in (Original Post)
riversedge
Sep 2019
OP
Mike 03
(16,616 posts)1. He's covered by it, and he's gonna get buried by it.
ScratchCat
(2,002 posts)3. I agree as this seems different
He's flailing all over the place and the usual suspect GOP congress critters haven't begun a full-scale defense yet. FNC and such are just throwing out "false equivalency" arguments so far too. I just don't see any possible way to defend bribery like this.
spanone
(135,874 posts)2. K&R...
MFGsunny
(2,356 posts)4. K & R for visibility .... n/t
ffr
(22,671 posts)5. Today does feel different, like there's energy to act patriotic and nail the Kremlin puppets
LOCK THEM UP!
ffr
(22,671 posts)6. but wait, there's more!!! LMAO
Link to tweet
This makes me think we may also not have looked at the (b)(3) provision enough in other contexts