old salt wrote: ↑Tue Sep 10, 2019 3:01 pm
a fan wrote: ↑Tue Sep 10, 2019 2:57 pm
There's nothing to legally sort out. It's totally legal. All of it.
Again, that's not the problem.
Conflict of interest.
You've heard of SCOTUS Justices recusing themselves from cases? You know there's no law forcing them to do that, right?
So we should give up the operational advantage of using Prestwick, because of a
perceived conflict of interest, even if it's been vetted & established that there was no wrong doing ?
You have no sense of ethics.
The problem here is twofold:
(1) As a matter of ethics, any property owned by the president or his family should automatically be excluded from any U.S. government use or expenditure. PERIOD.
(2) Even if you somehow get around (1), U.S. utilization of the president’s property should not be increasing, as it has in 2017, 2018, and 2019.
Is there a reason why all of the most corrupt presidential administrations of the past century have been Republican administrations? The complete lack of ethical sense displayed in this thread may explain why.
DocBarrister