- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Looks like another ethics violation for chuck schumer...
Posted on 2/13/17 at 3:30 pm to CptBengal
Posted on 2/13/17 at 3:30 pm to CptBengal
quote:In addition, wouldn't just frequenting a friend's or family member's establishment, or visibly using a product, itself be considered an endorsement by this logic?
yes it is, selfi-boy
Here is an example of an impermissible executive endorsement Cornell Law
quote:Notice that the endorsements are explicit. It doesn't say the AG couldn't honestly answer "this is my favorite book" or "he's my favorite author."
An Assistant Attorney General may not use his official title or refer to his Government position in a book jacket endorsement of a novel about organized crime written by an author whose work he admires. Nor may he do so in a book review published in a newspaper.
3
Posted on 2/13/17 at 3:32 pm to roadGator
I will keep that in mind 
Posted on 2/13/17 at 3:32 pm to buckeye_vol
quote:
Notice that the endorsements are explicit. It doesn't say the AG couldn't honestly answer "this is my favorite book" or "he's my favorite author."
Chucky Schumer, that worthless piece of shite, didn't say it was his favorite....
He said it was the best.. try again
Posted on 2/13/17 at 3:33 pm to buckeye_vol
quote:
In addition, wouldn't just frequenting a friend's or family member's establishment, or visibly using a product, itself be considered an endorsement by this logic?
Not if you don't tweet about it or appear on the friend's company's webpage with a quote about how great it is. That's how I would view it logically.
You can't expect people not to eat a friend's restaurant. They just shouldn't endorse eating their. Yes, yes, their patronage is an endorsement per se but I see that as passable.
I have no idea how the Soros funded folks see it. I'm sure there will be suits filed if they haven't filed already. They will try to use the legal system to create troulble for Trump every chance they get.
Posted on 2/13/17 at 3:38 pm to roadGator
quote:Well by that logic, just frequenting a friend's establishment is an endorsement. What if a government employee is friends with Tim Cook? If a governemnt employee says, "my new IPhone is awesome," wouldn't that be an ethical violation in your mind.
You are the one assigning value to the rule.
Shall
NOT
What if a physician saved someone's life. Wouldn't saying "Dr. So and So is an amazing physician be an endorsement of that physician's practice?"
And Chris Christie better watch out: all those shots of him at the Cowboys games sure looked like an endorsement of the Cowboys.
Posted on 2/13/17 at 3:40 pm to buckeye_vol
quote:
In addition, wouldn't just frequenting a friend's or family member's establishment, or visibly using a product, itself be considered an endorsement by this logic?
Maybe. We could argue that the law's language is imprecise or imperfect, but that wasn't really what the thread was about.
The definition of endorsement is closer to publicly and directly supporting a product, person, etc. Simply driving a BMW wouldn't meet that threshold unless there was some aspect of "Hey, I'm driving this car because it's the best."
Schumer certainly endorsed the restaurant by any measure or subjective interpretation of the word. So did KAC with Ivanka's clothing. The law doesn't weight certain types of endorsements like you are trying to do, so they are in fact identical according to the law.
Such a small deal that is exacerbated by some people's unwillingness to just admit what is so obvious and move on.
Posted on 2/13/17 at 3:46 pm to buckeye_vol
I addressed some of that above.
You are creating a strawman that you don't even believe though. You don't expect public officials to only eat in their own homes and shop via amazon.
The rule isn't that complicated.
endorsement: approval or sanction
Looks like Schumer gave his approval of the restauant and sanctioned patronizing it. He even gave us a head start on where to find it by providing the name and burrough.
Here's a passable tweet in my mind.
Tweet: Enjoying the best veal parm in NY.
Possible violation is what he did.
Now, before you get more in detail, I don't give a shite if he did or didn't. I don't give a shite if KAC did or didn't.
Neither action affects me. I don't go to LI and I don't shop at Nordstrom and don't own their stock.
Frick both of them and leave this shite for the press to complain about. I do enjoy that.
You are creating a strawman that you don't even believe though. You don't expect public officials to only eat in their own homes and shop via amazon.
The rule isn't that complicated.
endorsement: approval or sanction
Looks like Schumer gave his approval of the restauant and sanctioned patronizing it. He even gave us a head start on where to find it by providing the name and burrough.
Here's a passable tweet in my mind.
Tweet: Enjoying the best veal parm in NY.
Possible violation is what he did.
Now, before you get more in detail, I don't give a shite if he did or didn't. I don't give a shite if KAC did or didn't.
Neither action affects me. I don't go to LI and I don't shop at Nordstrom and don't own their stock.
Frick both of them and leave this shite for the press to complain about. I do enjoy that.
Posted on 2/13/17 at 3:47 pm to buckeye_vol
is it an endorsement though?
tweet reads to me like his parents used to take him there as a child/younger man, he was having dinner there and that personal story gave the photo a little context.
is that his father to his right?
tweet reads to me like his parents used to take him there as a child/younger man, he was having dinner there and that personal story gave the photo a little context.
is that his father to his right?
This post was edited on 2/13/17 at 3:48 pm
Posted on 2/13/17 at 3:48 pm to roadGator
quote:I guess I just feel like there is a difference between stating something positively about a product or service and explicitly endorsing it. For example, although exempt from the ethical dilemma, Trump said:
Not if you don't tweet about it or appear on the friend's company's webpage with a quote about how great it is. That's how I would view it logically.
quote:But if he left off the "Buy L.L. Bean." I think the ethical implications would be complete different (if he wasn't exempt).
"Thank you to Linda Bean of L.L. Bean for your great support and courage," the Republican president-elect tweeted. "People will support you even more now. Buy L.L. Bean."
Posted on 2/13/17 at 3:51 pm to buckeye_vol
quote:
I guess I just fee
When will you snowflakes realize nobody cares about your fee fees.
Facts don't care.
Posted on 2/13/17 at 4:31 pm to CptBengal
quote:Well the facts say that the governmental ethics in discussion are specific to the Executive Branch. United States Office of Governmental Ethics
Facts don't care.
quote:5 CFR Under Official Definitions of Employees
Preventing Conflicts of Interest in the Executive Branch
quote:Congress is under a different ethics guide: House Ethics Manual
Employee means any officer or employee of an agency, including a special Government employee. It includes officers but not enlisted members of the uniformed services. It includes employees of a State or local government or other organization who are serving on detail to an agency, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 3371, et seq. For purposes other than subparts B and C of this part, it does not include the President or Vice President.
quote:
a Member should not undertake any outside employment that would involve the Member personally in the selling or endorsement of any goods or services.
quote:These were the most appropriate examples I could find, but I see nothing in the ethics manual that would imply a violation.
In assisting a private enterprise, a Member should be mindful that congressional allowances, including those for staff, are available only for conducting official business. Assistance should not extend so far that the congressional office is actually doing the work of the private business
In other words, maybe you should also figure out the facts before spouting off things with such confidence.
Posted on 2/13/17 at 4:59 pm to AggieDub14
quote:
Conway endorsing Ivanka. It isn't the same.
You're so fricking right, because Conway isn't a politician with high power. She's just a citizens on advisory councel.
Schumers situation is much worse.
Posted on 2/13/17 at 5:39 pm to the LSUSaint
quote:Who works for the government, specifically.
You're so fricking right, because Conway isn't a politician with high power. She's just a citizens on advisory councel.
quote:Except as despicable as Schumer is, he did not appear to do anything that falls under an ethical violation in this case.
Schumers situation is much worse.
But regardless of the governmental ethics, neither was bad by any means, but saying some establishment has the best dish in a photo, is not bad at all. People are allowed to have opinions about cuisine.
Posted on 2/13/17 at 5:49 pm to AggieDub14
Doesn't matter. Advertising. That's what y'all went after KAC for.
Posted on 2/13/17 at 7:19 pm to the LSUSaint
quote:
because Conway isn't a politician with high power. She's just a citizens on advisory councel.
She is Lead Counsel to the President.
Posted on 2/13/17 at 8:21 pm to mmcgrath
quote:
She is Lead Counsel to the President.
No, but....how the hello is her talking clothing different from Schumer talking veal?
Posted on 2/13/17 at 8:24 pm to buckeye_vol
quote:
Who works for the government, specifically.
Pretty sure Schumers lifetime benefits will come via a government check...wanna check that
Page 4 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News