Anyone watch that trump Alabama speech last night?

[TheRealCAJ]

trump, really needs to lay off the cocaine.

 

[Bormio]

No, but he decided to not invite the Golden State Warriors to the WH.  That, and calling out the NFL protests, is excellent politics.

[Horsefly]

2 hours ago, Bormio said:

No, but he decided to not invite the Golden State Warriors to the WH.  That, and calling out the NFL protests, is excellent politics.

18 U.S. Code § 227 - Wrongfully influencing a private entity’s employment decisions by a Member of Congress or an officer or employee of the legislative or executive branch

• US Code
• Notes

prev | next

(a)Whoever, being a covered government person, with the intent to influence, solely on the basis of partisan political affiliation, an employment decision or employment practice of any private entity—

(1)

takes or withholds, or offers or threatens to take or withhold, an official act, or

(2)

influences, or offers or threatens to influence, the official act of another,

shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than 15 years, or both, and may be disqualified from holding any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.

(b)In this section, the term “covered government person” means—

(1)

a Senator or Representative in, or a Delegate or Resident Commissioner to, the Congress;

(2)

an employee of either House of Congress; or

(3)

the President, Vice President, an employee of the United States Postal Service or the Postal Regulatory Commission, or any other executive branch employee (as such term is defined under section 2105 of title 5, United States Code).

 

[concha]

1 hour ago, Horsefly said:

18 U.S. Code § 227 - Wrongfully influencing a private entity’s employment decisions by a Member of Congress or an officer or employee of the legislative or executive branch

• US Code
• Notes

prev | next

(a)Whoever, being a covered government person, with the intent to influence, solely on the basis of partisan political affiliation, an employment decision or employment practice of any private entity—

(1)

takes or withholds, or offers or threatens to take or withhold, an official act, or

(2)

influences, or offers or threatens to influence, the official act of another,

shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than 15 years, or both, and may be disqualified from holding any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.

(b)In this section, the term “covered government person” means—

(1)

a Senator or Representative in, or a Delegate or Resident Commissioner to, the Congress;

(2)

an employee of either House of Congress; or

(3)

the President, Vice President, an employee of the United States Postal Service or the Postal Regulatory Commission, or any other executive branch employee (as such term is defined under section 2105 of title 5, United States Code).

 

 

And what Trump said qualifies exactly how?

Under (1)? No.

Under (2)? No.

 

Trump Derangement Syndrome

[Horsefly]

45 minutes ago, concha said:

 

And what Trump said qualifies exactly how?

Under (1)? No.

Under (2)? No.

 

Trump Derangement Syndrome

Under 2?  Yes.  He influences by his public suggestion of players being fired for a specific behavior.

your POTUS is also a out of line for speaking out on folks peacefully exercising their 1st amendment rights.  He's a public official when he speaks not a private citizen.

[concha]

36 minutes ago, Horsefly said:

Under 2?  Yes.  He influences by his public suggestion of players being fired for a specific behavior.

your POTUS is also a out of line for speaking out on folks peacefully exercising their 1st amendment rights.  He's a public official when he speaks not a private citizen.

"influences, or offers or threatens to influence, the official act of another,"

What official act by another public official did he influence? Not to mention it was a question posed to the crowd.

The overreaction of you people to everything Trump is laughable and beyond absurd. 

.

 

 

[Horsefly]

6 minutes ago, concha said:

"influences, or offers or threatens to influence, the official act of another,"

What official act by another public official did he influence? Not to mention it was a question posed to the crowd.

The overreaction of you people to everything Trump is laughable and beyond absurd. 

.

 

 

It didn't say the official act of another "public" official, it's the owners he's influencing. (This code is dealing with influencing employment of private entities)  He clearly said that they should be fired, doesn't matter if it was a question or not.

he is also out of line for suggesting citizens be fired for peacefully protesting and exercising their rights,

 

[concha]

Just now, Horsefly said:

It didn't say the official act of another "public" official, it's the owners he's influencing.  He clearly said that they should be fired, doesn't matter if it was a question or not.

 

"Another"? Another what? Another public official, as in  "(a)Whoever, being a covered government person" - which is what the frigging code is talking about.

SMDH

.

 

 

[concha]

4 minutes ago, Horsefly said:

It didn't say the official act of another "public" official, it's the owners he's influencing.  He clearly said that they should be fired, doesn't matter if it was a question or not.

 

Learn the difference between a question and a declarative statement.

And you didn't read the code properly to begin with.

.

[Horsefly]

2 minutes ago, concha said:

"Another"? Another what? Another public official, as in  "(a)Whoever, being a covered government person" - which is what the frigging code is talking about.

SMDH

.

 

 

This is code for private entities as the code titles states.  The "others" would be those in private positions to execute decisions, like NFL owners.

 

smh

[concha]

Just now, Horsefly said:

This is code for private entities as the code titles states.  The "others" would be those in private positions to execute decisions, like NFL owners.

 

smh

 

The code refer to actions by public officials.  Have you been spending time with Chip or something?

The is basically saying under (1) that a public official can't try to influence employment decisions by private entities by threatening action or inaction on their part, nor by (2) trying to threatening  to influence another public official to achieve said influence.

Trump's speech doesn't remotely qualify.

 

[Horsefly]

7 minutes ago, concha said:

Learn the difference between a question and a declarative statement.

And you didn't read the code properly to begin with.

.

Him making a suggestion based on a declarative statement or posed as a question makes no difference.  The criteria is that it's influential.

[concha]

14 minutes ago, Horsefly said:

Him making a suggestion based on a declarative statement or posed as a question makes no difference.  The criteria is that it's influential.

Please share the official acts threatened and/or the influence exerted on other public officials in terms of official acts on their part. What officials? What official acts?

This should be funny.

He really drives you people around the bend.   

[Horsefly]

41 minutes ago, concha said:

Please share the official acts threatened and/or the influence exerted on other public officials in terms of official acts on their part. What officials? What official acts?

This should be funny.

He really drives you people around the bend.   

That's the problem, it's not just the act of a public official but also directly influencing a private sector official with the authority to act.  Who else makes private sector employment decisions?  

Trump has no problem stating folks be fired for exercising their rights and the right thinks it's all ok

Smh

 

you can believe whatever you like, I'm out ... 

[Bormio]

2 hours ago, Horsefly said:

Under 2?  Yes.  He influences by his public suggestion of players being fired for a specific behavior.

your POTUS is also a out of line for speaking out on folks peacefully exercising their 1st amendment rights.  He's a public official when he speaks not a private citizen.

How about all the public officials speaking out on alt-right members peacefully exercising THEIR 1st amendment rights?  No problem with that, huh?  The point is public officials are not under the restraints you suggest - commenting is not the same as restricting.

[Horsefly]

10 minutes ago, Bormio said:

How about all the public officials speaking out on alt-right members peacefully exercising THEIR 1st amendment rights?  No problem with that, huh?  The point is public officials are not under the restraints you suggest - commenting is not the same as restricting.

Regardless of which side they are on, people have a right to exercise their 1st amendment rights.  

Violence is one thing at a protest, but a politician calling for folks to be fired for peacefully protesting is wrong!

so is standing for the national anthem now compulsory for all citizens?

[Bormio]

2 minutes ago, Horsefly said:

Regardless of which side they are on, people have a right to exercise their 1st amendment rights.  

Violence is one thing at a protest, but a politician calling for folks to be fired for peacefully protesting is wrong!

No it is not.  Our politicians have freedom of speech too.  Taking action to encouraging firing is covered by the statute, but expressing his opinion is perfectly legal.

[Bormio]

7 minutes ago, Horsefly said:

Regardless of which side they are on, people have a right to exercise their 1st amendment rights.  

Violence is one thing at a protest, but a politician calling for folks to be fired for peacefully protesting is wrong!

so is standing for the national anthem now compulsory for all citizens?

No, but the Chiefs owner has said he would fire anyone who sat - suspect the KC players better listen.  Because it is the owner's right to do so.

[Bormio]

You really do not want to get in a game of what political views can get you fired.  NFL players protesting - not okay to fire.  Right wingers protesting - okay to fire.

[Horsefly]

4 minutes ago, Bormio said:

No, but the Chiefs owner has said he would fire anyone who sat - suspect the KC players better listen.  Because it is the owner's right to do so.

Of course it is he's a private citizen.

[Horsefly]

1 minute ago, Bormio said:

You really do not want to get in a game of what political views can get you fired.  NFL players protesting - not okay to fire.  Right wingers protesting - okay to fire.

I didn't say that.  free speech is  protection of federal government reprisal, has nothing to do with consequences from a private entity.  The NFL can have a policy, the President stating they should be fired is unethical.

[Horsefly]

The President took an oath to defend the very constitution he's stating folks should be fired for.

Federal/mil employees can't just rattle off whatever they want based on FoS.  There are ethical litmus tests applied especially if they are "on duty"

here's the presidents oath:

:—"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

[Bormio]

Freedom of speech is a constitutional right - it cannot be restricted by statute or ethical regulation.  Such a law or regulation would be unconstitutional.  The President is free to express any and all opinions.  He cannot undertake action such as a threat or bribe, but he can use the bully pulpit.  Some expressions of opinion may be unwise or open to justified criticism, but are not unethical or illegal.

[NorCalRuss]

Agree with him 100%. Fck everyone of them! 

[Horsefly]

5 minutes ago, Bormio said:

Freedom of speech is a constitutional right - it cannot be restricted by statute or ethical regulation.  Such a law or regulation would be unconstitutional.  The President is free to express any and all opinions.  He cannot undertake action such as a threat or bribe, but he can use the bully pulpit.  Some expressions of opinion may be unwise or open to justified criticism, but are not unethical or illegal.

There most definitely are ethical laws for federal employees.  Neither you nor Trump can justify him calling for folks be fired exercising their rights, the very constitutional rights he Is bound to uphold.  I'm not going to research it for you.  But the ethical laws are based in part on the constitution and the oath he took.  Its not a secret it's the same for all federal employees and the military.