On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 13:32:01 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
<cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, October 19, 2022 at 1:05:34 PM UTC-7, Catrike Rider wrote:
>> On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 12:51:13 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
>> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Wednesday, October 19, 2022 at 12:22:59 PM UTC-7, Catrike Rider wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 12:02:13 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
>> >> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Wednesday, October 19, 2022 at 11:34:05 AM UTC-7, Catrike Rider wrote:
>> >> >> On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 11:22:42 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
>> >> >> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >On Wednesday, October 19, 2022 at 11:13:57 AM UTC-7, Catrike Rider wrote:
>> >> >> >> On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 09:55:21 -0700, sms <scharf...@geemail.com>
>> >> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >On 10/19/2022 9:15 AM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> ><snip>
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/leaders-we-build-wall-online-fundraising-campaign-charged-defrauding-hundreds-thousands
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >It's morally wrong to allow a sucker to keep his money. W. C. Fields
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >You can't fix stupid. Look at all the televangelists that people sent
>> >> >> >> >money to (and in some cases are still sending money to) despite all the
>> >> >> >> >scandals they've been involved in.
>> >> >> >> +1
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Scharf uses past errors to accuse present players. This is the way he acts. It would have been perfectly easy to name these "televangelists" 9if he had the slightest idea who some crooked one was that had been charged and was being prosecuted on these grounds. He prefers to allege things rather than show any real crimes. Gee, am I surprised.
>> >> >> I used to volunteer at assisted living homes. I knew of people who had
>> >> >> almost nothing but insisted on sending money to religious scammers. It
>> >> >> wasn't their fault. They were raised in a time and system where crooks
>> >> >> and scammers weren't that dispicable.
>> >> >Or very common. Religion in general has been under violent attack and while there are certainly many problems that is not the fault of religion but those trying to use it. This didn't used to be the case. Especially here in California we have been having constant attack on religion because they do not believe in the cold blooded murder of children in the womb and EVEN AFTER BIRTH.
>> >> >
>> >> >Can you simply imagine a doctor saying that they deliver a child and put him in a very cold room and ask the mother if she really wants that child and at just the point when a woman is most vulnerable if she says no they let the child FREEZE TO DEATH? Do you find it odd that religious people don't like that? Or also the belief that you shouldn't kill old people if they can't afford to stay in an old folks home?
>> >> >
>> >> >Do you realize that every single day for the next 20 years that 10,000 people are turning 65 and neither the government nor the present Woke generation want to support them? If you can't pay your own way, expect for the government to call for your death. The only people that believe that death is a sin are religious people.
>> >> Whereas, I do not approve of abortion after three months or so, I'm
>> >> not opposed to leaving it up to the popular vote in each state. If I
>> >> have to vote on it within the state, (I don't) I would go for banning
>> >> it after the aforemantioned three months. It's not a hill I choose to
>> >> pitch a battle on.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I also very much doubt that we'd ever get to where mandate death at
>> >> any age.
>> >
>> >You are already there. California Prop 29 makes it illegal to run a diabetes dialysis center without an MD on the premises. There isn't nearly enough money in the treasury since diabetes is largely an old people condition if this passes all of the dialysis centers will be closed. If they are trying today they will get it tomorrow.
>> I though dialysis was for kidney problems. Yeah, I know diabetes can
>> lead to kidney problems, but I doubt it's common enough to cause the
>> problems you describe.
>
>Yes, I was wrong, this is for Kidney dialysis. This is the THIRD election they have attempted to close dialysis labs down. Think that they don't want to kill old people?

Some probably do, but they won't get to do it. Not even in Kalifornia

Am 19.10.2022 um 18:23 schrieb Catrike Rider:
> On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 08:50:34 -0700 (PDT), "funkma...@hotmail.com"
> <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday, October 19, 2022 at 11:07:47 AM UTC-4, Catrike Rider wrote:
>>> On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 07:36:10 -0700 (PDT), "funkma...@hotmail.com"
>>> <funkma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wednesday, October 19, 2022 at 7:49:19 AM UTC-4, Catrike Rider wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 13:20:15 +0200, Rolf Mantel
>>>>>> The next
>>>>>> obvious question would be why do the US people put up with crooked
>>>>>> politicians. In Germany, we caught some people selling Covid Face mask
>>>>>> to the country at massively inflated prices, none of them were
>>>>>> re-elected to the next Parliament.
>>>>>
>>>>> <eyeroll> More anecdotal nonsense...
>>>>
>>>> I think you need to look up the difference between an anecdote and a fact.
>>>> https://www.dw.com/en/germany-merkel-bloc-seeks-to-tidy-mask-scandal-mess/a-56849540
>>>>
>>>> Understadning such a distinction could go a long way to making you a better writer.
>>>>
>>>>>>> Their primary agenda is to convince us to vote for them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I would call this "their constitutional task", not their agenda. The
>>>>>> constitutional taks of a US president is to try and get re-elected.
>>>>> No, their "constitutional task" is to represent the people.
>>>>> It
>>>>>> is clearly not his constituional task to place security people into
>>>>>> hotels owned by the president at prices far removed from the stanrdard
>>>>>> room rate.
>>>>> The security people select their own hotels.
>>>>
>>>> oh dear gawd...no, they don't. The secret service stays in whatever location the president is staying at unless they can can convince him otherwise.
>>> The President, of course is free to pick whatever hotel he wants to
>>> stay in. Only his acting security detail stays near the President
>>> because they must. The rest of the security staff is free to do what
>>> they want as long as they are available as needed. You do understand
>>> the number of people we're talking about here, don't you?
>>
>> Which doesn't in any way validate the ludicrous assertion "The security people select their own hotels." They simply don't.
>
> The vast majority of them do... Only a few need to stay close to the
> president. Do you realise the massive structure behind the current
> President's security?
>
>>>> This is what Rolf is referring to:
>>>> https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielcassady/2020/09/17/trump-organization-reportedly-charged-us-government-over-11-million-for-luxury-hotel-stays/
>>>> https://www.forbes.com/sites/madelinehalpert/2022/10/17/trumps-company-charged-secret-service-1185-per-night-to-stay-at-his-hotel-documents-show/
>>> <chuckle> The cost of keep the security detail in hotels is dwarfed by
>>> the cost of flying Biden, the Beast, and the rest of the motorcade to
>>> the funeral in the UK.
>>>
>>> Total cost of the hotel rooms for Biden's London stay: $459,338.65.
>>> Mind you, that's just the cost of the hotel rooms for the president,
>>> his advance staff, security personnel, etc.,
>>>
>>> Biden was in London for one night.
>>
>> That's a good deal, consider trumps 3 day trip to the uk cost us 3.5 million
>> https://www.newsweek.com/trump-uk-visit-will-cost-us-taxpayer-35-million-includes-stays-hotel-linked-qatars-emir-1442077.
>
> Protecting the President costs big money.
>
>>> https://www.nationalreview.com/the-campaign-spot/joe-bidens-pricey-hotel-stay-london-jim-geraghty/
>>>> I guess fox news doesn't report such graft when trump does it.
>>> <Snicker> Graft? You say the President should not be allowed to stay
>>> at his own hotels?
>>
>> <snicker> You think it's ok for a president to charge 5 times to government allowed rate and keep the profit?
>
> There is/was no 'government allowed' rate, but yes, I think the
> President should stay wherever he wants and the govenment should pay
> whatever the place charges for his security detail.

So you think it would be fine for the president to stay in a private
palace (rooms available to security people only) and the government to
pay whatever the president wishes to earn?

Who is supposed to decide what the president's wage is? The president
single-handedly?

On Thu, 20 Oct 2022 12:58:06 +0200, Rolf Mantel
<news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:

>Am 19.10.2022 um 18:23 schrieb Catrike Rider:
>> On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 08:50:34 -0700 (PDT), "funkma...@hotmail.com"
>> <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wednesday, October 19, 2022 at 11:07:47 AM UTC-4, Catrike Rider wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 07:36:10 -0700 (PDT), "funkma...@hotmail.com"
>>>> <funkma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wednesday, October 19, 2022 at 7:49:19 AM UTC-4, Catrike Rider wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 13:20:15 +0200, Rolf Mantel
>>>>>>> The next
>>>>>>> obvious question would be why do the US people put up with crooked
>>>>>>> politicians. In Germany, we caught some people selling Covid Face mask
>>>>>>> to the country at massively inflated prices, none of them were
>>>>>>> re-elected to the next Parliament.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <eyeroll> More anecdotal nonsense...
>>>>>
>>>>> I think you need to look up the difference between an anecdote and a fact.
>>>>> https://www.dw.com/en/germany-merkel-bloc-seeks-to-tidy-mask-scandal-mess/a-56849540
>>>>>
>>>>> Understadning such a distinction could go a long way to making you a better writer.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Their primary agenda is to convince us to vote for them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I would call this "their constitutional task", not their agenda. The
>>>>>>> constitutional taks of a US president is to try and get re-elected.
>>>>>> No, their "constitutional task" is to represent the people.
>>>>>> It
>>>>>>> is clearly not his constituional task to place security people into
>>>>>>> hotels owned by the president at prices far removed from the stanrdard
>>>>>>> room rate.
>>>>>> The security people select their own hotels.
>>>>>
>>>>> oh dear gawd...no, they don't. The secret service stays in whatever location the president is staying at unless they can can convince him otherwise.
>>>> The President, of course is free to pick whatever hotel he wants to
>>>> stay in. Only his acting security detail stays near the President
>>>> because they must. The rest of the security staff is free to do what
>>>> they want as long as they are available as needed. You do understand
>>>> the number of people we're talking about here, don't you?
>>>
>>> Which doesn't in any way validate the ludicrous assertion "The security people select their own hotels." They simply don't.
>>
>> The vast majority of them do... Only a few need to stay close to the
>> president. Do you realise the massive structure behind the current
>> President's security?
>>
>>>>> This is what Rolf is referring to:
>>>>> https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielcassady/2020/09/17/trump-organization-reportedly-charged-us-government-over-11-million-for-luxury-hotel-stays/
>>>>> https://www.forbes.com/sites/madelinehalpert/2022/10/17/trumps-company-charged-secret-service-1185-per-night-to-stay-at-his-hotel-documents-show/
>>>> <chuckle> The cost of keep the security detail in hotels is dwarfed by
>>>> the cost of flying Biden, the Beast, and the rest of the motorcade to
>>>> the funeral in the UK.
>>>>
>>>> Total cost of the hotel rooms for Biden's London stay: $459,338.65.
>>>> Mind you, that's just the cost of the hotel rooms for the president,
>>>> his advance staff, security personnel, etc.,
>>>>
>>>> Biden was in London for one night.
>>>
>>> That's a good deal, consider trumps 3 day trip to the uk cost us 3.5 million
>>> https://www.newsweek.com/trump-uk-visit-will-cost-us-taxpayer-35-million-includes-stays-hotel-linked-qatars-emir-1442077.
>>
>> Protecting the President costs big money.
>>
>>>> https://www.nationalreview.com/the-campaign-spot/joe-bidens-pricey-hotel-stay-london-jim-geraghty/
>>>>> I guess fox news doesn't report such graft when trump does it.
>>>> <Snicker> Graft? You say the President should not be allowed to stay
>>>> at his own hotels?
>>>
>>> <snicker> You think it's ok for a president to charge 5 times to government allowed rate and keep the profit?
>>
>> There is/was no 'government allowed' rate, but yes, I think the
>> President should stay wherever he wants and the govenment should pay
>> whatever the place charges for his security detail.
>
>So you think it would be fine for the president to stay in a private
>palace (rooms available to security people only) and the government to
>pay whatever the president wishes to earn?

I think they should pay whatever the room's regular rate is.

>Who is supposed to decide what the president's wage is? The president
>single-handedly?

The President's salary is set by Congress and goes into effect for the
next Presidential term.

Am 20.10.2022 um 13:35 schrieb Catrike Rider:
> On Thu, 20 Oct 2022 12:58:06 +0200, Rolf Mantel
> <news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
>
>> Am 19.10.2022 um 18:23 schrieb Catrike Rider:
>>> On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 08:50:34 -0700 (PDT), "funkma...@hotmail.com"
>>> <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wednesday, October 19, 2022 at 11:07:47 AM UTC-4, Catrike Rider wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 07:36:10 -0700 (PDT), "funkma...@hotmail.com"
>>>>> <funkma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wednesday, October 19, 2022 at 7:49:19 AM UTC-4, Catrike Rider wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 13:20:15 +0200, Rolf Mantel
>>>>>>>> The next
>>>>>>>> obvious question would be why do the US people put up with crooked
>>>>>>>> politicians. In Germany, we caught some people selling Covid Face mask
>>>>>>>> to the country at massively inflated prices, none of them were
>>>>>>>> re-elected to the next Parliament.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <eyeroll> More anecdotal nonsense...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think you need to look up the difference between an anecdote and a fact.
>>>>>> https://www.dw.com/en/germany-merkel-bloc-seeks-to-tidy-mask-scandal-mess/a-56849540
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Understadning such a distinction could go a long way to making you a better writer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Their primary agenda is to convince us to vote for them.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I would call this "their constitutional task", not their agenda. The
>>>>>>>> constitutional taks of a US president is to try and get re-elected.
>>>>>>> No, their "constitutional task" is to represent the people.
>>>>>>> It
>>>>>>>> is clearly not his constituional task to place security people into
>>>>>>>> hotels owned by the president at prices far removed from the stanrdard
>>>>>>>> room rate.
>>>>>>> The security people select their own hotels.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> oh dear gawd...no, they don't. The secret service stays in whatever location the president is staying at unless they can can convince him otherwise.
>>>>> The President, of course is free to pick whatever hotel he wants to
>>>>> stay in. Only his acting security detail stays near the President
>>>>> because they must. The rest of the security staff is free to do what
>>>>> they want as long as they are available as needed. You do understand
>>>>> the number of people we're talking about here, don't you?
>>>>
>>>> Which doesn't in any way validate the ludicrous assertion "The security people select their own hotels." They simply don't.
>>>
>>> The vast majority of them do... Only a few need to stay close to the
>>> president. Do you realise the massive structure behind the current
>>> President's security?
>>>
>>>>>> This is what Rolf is referring to:
>>>>>> https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielcassady/2020/09/17/trump-organization-reportedly-charged-us-government-over-11-million-for-luxury-hotel-stays/
>>>>>> https://www.forbes.com/sites/madelinehalpert/2022/10/17/trumps-company-charged-secret-service-1185-per-night-to-stay-at-his-hotel-documents-show/
>>>>> <chuckle> The cost of keep the security detail in hotels is dwarfed by
>>>>> the cost of flying Biden, the Beast, and the rest of the motorcade to
>>>>> the funeral in the UK.
>>>>>
>>>>> Total cost of the hotel rooms for Biden's London stay: $459,338.65.
>>>>> Mind you, that's just the cost of the hotel rooms for the president,
>>>>> his advance staff, security personnel, etc.,
>>>>>
>>>>> Biden was in London for one night.
>>>>
>>>> That's a good deal, consider trumps 3 day trip to the uk cost us 3.5 million
>>>> https://www.newsweek.com/trump-uk-visit-will-cost-us-taxpayer-35-million-includes-stays-hotel-linked-qatars-emir-1442077.
>>>
>>> Protecting the President costs big money.
>>>
>>>>> https://www.nationalreview.com/the-campaign-spot/joe-bidens-pricey-hotel-stay-london-jim-geraghty/
>>>>>> I guess fox news doesn't report such graft when trump does it.
>>>>> <Snicker> Graft? You say the President should not be allowed to stay
>>>>> at his own hotels?
>>>>
>>>> <snicker> You think it's ok for a president to charge 5 times to government allowed rate and keep the profit?
>>>
>>> There is/was no 'government allowed' rate, but yes, I think the
>>> President should stay wherever he wants and the govenment should pay
>>> whatever the place charges for his security detail.
>>
>> So you think it would be fine for the president to stay in a private
>> palace (rooms available to security people only) and the government to
>> pay whatever the president wishes to earn?
>
> I think they should pay whatever the room's regular rate is.

So you agree that charging 5 times the regular rate would be inappropriate?

>> Who is supposed to decide what the president's wage is? The president
>> single-handedly?
>
> The President's salary is set by Congress and goes into effect for the
> next Presidential term.

Precisely. So we agree that any effort by the president to re-route
public money into his own pockets is inappropriate.

On Thu, 20 Oct 2022 14:12:54 +0200, Rolf Mantel
<news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:

>Am 20.10.2022 um 13:35 schrieb Catrike Rider:
>> On Thu, 20 Oct 2022 12:58:06 +0200, Rolf Mantel
>> <news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
>>
>>> Am 19.10.2022 um 18:23 schrieb Catrike Rider:
>>>> On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 08:50:34 -0700 (PDT), "funkma...@hotmail.com"
>>>> <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wednesday, October 19, 2022 at 11:07:47 AM UTC-4, Catrike Rider wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 07:36:10 -0700 (PDT), "funkma...@hotmail.com"
>>>>>> <funkma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wednesday, October 19, 2022 at 7:49:19 AM UTC-4, Catrike Rider wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 13:20:15 +0200, Rolf Mantel
>>>>>>>>> The next
>>>>>>>>> obvious question would be why do the US people put up with crooked
>>>>>>>>> politicians. In Germany, we caught some people selling Covid Face mask
>>>>>>>>> to the country at massively inflated prices, none of them were
>>>>>>>>> re-elected to the next Parliament.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <eyeroll> More anecdotal nonsense...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think you need to look up the difference between an anecdote and a fact.
>>>>>>> https://www.dw.com/en/germany-merkel-bloc-seeks-to-tidy-mask-scandal-mess/a-56849540
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Understadning such a distinction could go a long way to making you a better writer.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Their primary agenda is to convince us to vote for them.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I would call this "their constitutional task", not their agenda. The
>>>>>>>>> constitutional taks of a US president is to try and get re-elected.
>>>>>>>> No, their "constitutional task" is to represent the people.
>>>>>>>> It
>>>>>>>>> is clearly not his constituional task to place security people into
>>>>>>>>> hotels owned by the president at prices far removed from the stanrdard
>>>>>>>>> room rate.
>>>>>>>> The security people select their own hotels.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> oh dear gawd...no, they don't. The secret service stays in whatever location the president is staying at unless they can can convince him otherwise.
>>>>>> The President, of course is free to pick whatever hotel he wants to
>>>>>> stay in. Only his acting security detail stays near the President
>>>>>> because they must. The rest of the security staff is free to do what
>>>>>> they want as long as they are available as needed. You do understand
>>>>>> the number of people we're talking about here, don't you?
>>>>>
>>>>> Which doesn't in any way validate the ludicrous assertion "The security people select their own hotels." They simply don't.
>>>>
>>>> The vast majority of them do... Only a few need to stay close to the
>>>> president. Do you realise the massive structure behind the current
>>>> President's security?
>>>>
>>>>>>> This is what Rolf is referring to:
>>>>>>> https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielcassady/2020/09/17/trump-organization-reportedly-charged-us-government-over-11-million-for-luxury-hotel-stays/
>>>>>>> https://www.forbes.com/sites/madelinehalpert/2022/10/17/trumps-company-charged-secret-service-1185-per-night-to-stay-at-his-hotel-documents-show/
>>>>>> <chuckle> The cost of keep the security detail in hotels is dwarfed by
>>>>>> the cost of flying Biden, the Beast, and the rest of the motorcade to
>>>>>> the funeral in the UK.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Total cost of the hotel rooms for Biden's London stay: $459,338.65.
>>>>>> Mind you, that's just the cost of the hotel rooms for the president,
>>>>>> his advance staff, security personnel, etc.,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Biden was in London for one night.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's a good deal, consider trumps 3 day trip to the uk cost us 3.5 million
>>>>> https://www.newsweek.com/trump-uk-visit-will-cost-us-taxpayer-35-million-includes-stays-hotel-linked-qatars-emir-1442077.
>>>>
>>>> Protecting the President costs big money.
>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.nationalreview.com/the-campaign-spot/joe-bidens-pricey-hotel-stay-london-jim-geraghty/
>>>>>>> I guess fox news doesn't report such graft when trump does it.
>>>>>> <Snicker> Graft? You say the President should not be allowed to stay
>>>>>> at his own hotels?
>>>>>
>>>>> <snicker> You think it's ok for a president to charge 5 times to government allowed rate and keep the profit?
>>>>
>>>> There is/was no 'government allowed' rate, but yes, I think the
>>>> President should stay wherever he wants and the govenment should pay
>>>> whatever the place charges for his security detail.
>>>
>>> So you think it would be fine for the president to stay in a private
>>> palace (rooms available to security people only) and the government to
>>> pay whatever the president wishes to earn?
>>
>> I think they should pay whatever the room's regular rate is.
>
>So you agree that charging 5 times the regular rate would be inappropriate?

<CHUCKLE> 5 times the *room's* regularrate would be inappropriate

>>> Who is supposed to decide what the president's wage is? The president
>>> single-handedly?
>>
>> The President's salary is set by Congress and goes into effect for the
>> next Presidential term.
>
>Precisely. So we agree that any effort by the president to re-route
>public money into his own pockets is inappropriate.

<LOL> Not if it's simply a case of public expenditures for government
use of his property. I certainly wouldn't require his hotels to put
the secret service people up for free.

On 10/20/2022 5:58 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
> Am 19.10.2022 um 18:23 schrieb Catrike Rider:
>> On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 08:50:34 -0700 (PDT),
>> "funkma...@hotmail.com"
>> <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wednesday, October 19, 2022 at 11:07:47 AM UTC-4,
>>> Catrike Rider wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 07:36:10 -0700 (PDT),
>>>> "funkma...@hotmail.com"
>>>> <funkma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wednesday, October 19, 2022 at 7:49:19 AM UTC-4,
>>>>> Catrike Rider wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 13:20:15 +0200, Rolf Mantel
>>>>>>> The next
>>>>>>> obvious question would be why do the US people put up
>>>>>>> with crooked
>>>>>>> politicians. In Germany, we caught some people
>>>>>>> selling Covid Face mask
>>>>>>> to the country at massively inflated prices, none of
>>>>>>> them were
>>>>>>> re-elected to the next Parliament.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <eyeroll> More anecdotal nonsense...
>>>>>
>>>>> I think you need to look up the difference between an
>>>>> anecdote and a fact.
>>>>> https://www.dw.com/en/germany-merkel-bloc-seeks-to-tidy-mask-scandal-mess/a-56849540
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Understadning such a distinction could go a long way to
>>>>> making you a better writer.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Their primary agenda is to convince us to vote for
>>>>>>>> them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I would call this "their constitutional task", not
>>>>>>> their agenda. The
>>>>>>> constitutional taks of a US president is to try and
>>>>>>> get re-elected.
>>>>>> No, their "constitutional task" is to represent the
>>>>>> people.
>>>>>> It
>>>>>>> is clearly not his constituional task to place
>>>>>>> security people into
>>>>>>> hotels owned by the president at prices far removed
>>>>>>> from the stanrdard
>>>>>>> room rate.
>>>>>> The security people select their own hotels.
>>>>>
>>>>> oh dear gawd...no, they don't. The secret service stays
>>>>> in whatever location the president is staying at unless
>>>>> they can can convince him otherwise.
>>>> The President, of course is free to pick whatever hotel
>>>> he wants to
>>>> stay in. Only his acting security detail stays near the
>>>> President
>>>> because they must. The rest of the security staff is
>>>> free to do what
>>>> they want as long as they are available as needed. You
>>>> do understand
>>>> the number of people we're talking about here, don't you?
>>>
>>> Which doesn't in any way validate the ludicrous assertion
>>> "The security people select their own hotels." They
>>> simply don't.
>>
>> The vast majority of them do... Only a few need to stay
>> close to the
>> president. Do you realise the massive structure behind the
>> current
>> President's security?
>>
>>>>> This is what Rolf is referring to:
>>>>> https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielcassady/2020/09/17/trump-organization-reportedly-charged-us-government-over-11-million-for-luxury-hotel-stays/
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.forbes.com/sites/madelinehalpert/2022/10/17/trumps-company-charged-secret-service-1185-per-night-to-stay-at-his-hotel-documents-show/
>>>>>
>>>> <chuckle> The cost of keep the security detail in hotels
>>>> is dwarfed by
>>>> the cost of flying Biden, the Beast, and the rest of the
>>>> motorcade to
>>>> the funeral in the UK.
>>>>
>>>> Total cost of the hotel rooms for Biden's London stay:
>>>> $459,338.65.
>>>> Mind you, that's just the cost of the hotel rooms for
>>>> the president,
>>>> his advance staff, security personnel, etc.,
>>>>
>>>> Biden was in London for one night.
>>>
>>> That's a good deal, consider trumps 3 day trip to the uk
>>> cost us 3.5 million
>>> https://www.newsweek.com/trump-uk-visit-will-cost-us-taxpayer-35-million-includes-stays-hotel-linked-qatars-emir-1442077.
>>>
>>
>> Protecting the President costs big money.
>>
>>>> https://www.nationalreview.com/the-campaign-spot/joe-bidens-pricey-hotel-stay-london-jim-geraghty/
>>>>
>>>>> I guess fox news doesn't report such graft when trump
>>>>> does it.
>>>> <Snicker> Graft? You say the President should not be
>>>> allowed to stay
>>>> at his own hotels?
>>>
>>> <snicker> You think it's ok for a president to charge 5
>>> times to government allowed rate and keep the profit?
>>
>> There is/was no 'government allowed' rate, but yes, I
>> think the
>> President should stay wherever he wants and the govenment
>> should pay
>> whatever the place charges for his security detail.
>
> So you think it would be fine for the president to stay in a
> private palace (rooms available to security people only) and
> the government to pay whatever the president wishes to earn?
>
> Who is supposed to decide what the president's wage is? The
> president single-handedly?

In the case of our most recent President the sum is zero. He
did not accept the salary.

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> On 10/20/2022 5:58 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
>> Am 19.10.2022 um 18:23 schrieb Catrike Rider:
>>> On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 08:50:34 -0700 (PDT),
>>> "funkma...@hotmail.com"
>>> <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wednesday, October 19, 2022 at 11:07:47 AM UTC-4,
>>>> Catrike Rider wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 07:36:10 -0700 (PDT),
>>>>> "funkma...@hotmail.com"
>>>>> <funkma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wednesday, October 19, 2022 at 7:49:19 AM UTC-4,
>>>>>> Catrike Rider wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 13:20:15 +0200, Rolf Mantel
>>>>>>>> The next
>>>>>>>> obvious question would be why do the US people put up
>>>>>>>> with crooked
>>>>>>>> politicians. In Germany, we caught some people
>>>>>>>> selling Covid Face mask
>>>>>>>> to the country at massively inflated prices, none of
>>>>>>>> them were
>>>>>>>> re-elected to the next Parliament.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <eyeroll> More anecdotal nonsense...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think you need to look up the difference between an
>>>>>> anecdote and a fact.
>>>>>> https://www.dw.com/en/germany-merkel-bloc-seeks-to-tidy-mask-scandal-mess/a-56849540
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Understadning such a distinction could go a long way to
>>>>>> making you a better writer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Their primary agenda is to convince us to vote for
>>>>>>>>> them.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I would call this "their constitutional task", not
>>>>>>>> their agenda. The
>>>>>>>> constitutional taks of a US president is to try and
>>>>>>>> get re-elected.
>>>>>>> No, their "constitutional task" is to represent the
>>>>>>> people.
>>>>>>> It
>>>>>>>> is clearly not his constituional task to place
>>>>>>>> security people into
>>>>>>>> hotels owned by the president at prices far removed
>>>>>>>> from the stanrdard
>>>>>>>> room rate.
>>>>>>> The security people select their own hotels.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> oh dear gawd...no, they don't. The secret service stays
>>>>>> in whatever location the president is staying at unless
>>>>>> they can can convince him otherwise.
>>>>> The President, of course is free to pick whatever hotel
>>>>> he wants to
>>>>> stay in. Only his acting security detail stays near the
>>>>> President
>>>>> because they must. The rest of the security staff is
>>>>> free to do what
>>>>> they want as long as they are available as needed. You
>>>>> do understand
>>>>> the number of people we're talking about here, don't you?
>>>>
>>>> Which doesn't in any way validate the ludicrous assertion
>>>> "The security people select their own hotels." They
>>>> simply don't.
>>>
>>> The vast majority of them do... Only a few need to stay
>>> close to the
>>> president. Do you realise the massive structure behind the
>>> current
>>> President's security?
>>>
>>>>>> This is what Rolf is referring to:
>>>>>> https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielcassady/2020/09/17/trump-organization-reportedly-charged-us-government-over-11-million-for-luxury-hotel-stays/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.forbes.com/sites/madelinehalpert/2022/10/17/trumps-company-charged-secret-service-1185-per-night-to-stay-at-his-hotel-documents-show/
>>>>>>
>>>>> <chuckle> The cost of keep the security detail in hotels
>>>>> is dwarfed by
>>>>> the cost of flying Biden, the Beast, and the rest of the
>>>>> motorcade to
>>>>> the funeral in the UK.
>>>>>
>>>>> Total cost of the hotel rooms for Biden's London stay:
>>>>> $459,338.65.
>>>>> Mind you, that's just the cost of the hotel rooms for
>>>>> the president,
>>>>> his advance staff, security personnel, etc.,
>>>>>
>>>>> Biden was in London for one night.
>>>>
>>>> That's a good deal, consider trumps 3 day trip to the uk
>>>> cost us 3.5 million
>>>> https://www.newsweek.com/trump-uk-visit-will-cost-us-taxpayer-35-million-includes-stays-hotel-linked-qatars-emir-1442077.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Protecting the President costs big money.
>>>
>>>>> https://www.nationalreview.com/the-campaign-spot/joe-bidens-pricey-hotel-stay-london-jim-geraghty/
>>>>>
>>>>>> I guess fox news doesn't report such graft when trump
>>>>>> does it.
>>>>> <Snicker> Graft? You say the President should not be
>>>>> allowed to stay
>>>>> at his own hotels?
>>>>
>>>> <snicker> You think it's ok for a president to charge 5
>>>> times to government allowed rate and keep the profit?
>>>
>>> There is/was no 'government allowed' rate, but yes, I
>>> think the
>>> President should stay wherever he wants and the govenment
>>> should pay
>>> whatever the place charges for his security detail.
>>
>> So you think it would be fine for the president to stay in a
>> private palace (rooms available to security people only) and
>> the government to pay whatever the president wishes to earn?
>>
>> Who is supposed to decide what the president's wage is? The
>> president single-handedly?
>
> In the case of our most recent President the sum is zero. He
> did not accept the salary.
>

He didn’t accept the salary. I’m pretty certain the sum was not zero, and
he could probably make up the rejected salary by selling top secret papers
on eBay.

On 10/20/2022 9:21 AM, Ralph Barone wrote:
> AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>> On 10/20/2022 5:58 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
>>> Am 19.10.2022 um 18:23 schrieb Catrike Rider:
>>>> On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 08:50:34 -0700 (PDT),
>>>> "funkma...@hotmail.com"
>>>> <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wednesday, October 19, 2022 at 11:07:47 AM UTC-4,
>>>>> Catrike Rider wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 07:36:10 -0700 (PDT),
>>>>>> "funkma...@hotmail.com"
>>>>>> <funkma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wednesday, October 19, 2022 at 7:49:19 AM UTC-4,
>>>>>>> Catrike Rider wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 13:20:15 +0200, Rolf Mantel
>>>>>>>>> The next
>>>>>>>>> obvious question would be why do the US people put up
>>>>>>>>> with crooked
>>>>>>>>> politicians. In Germany, we caught some people
>>>>>>>>> selling Covid Face mask
>>>>>>>>> to the country at massively inflated prices, none of
>>>>>>>>> them were
>>>>>>>>> re-elected to the next Parliament.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <eyeroll> More anecdotal nonsense...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think you need to look up the difference between an
>>>>>>> anecdote and a fact.
>>>>>>> https://www.dw.com/en/germany-merkel-bloc-seeks-to-tidy-mask-scandal-mess/a-56849540
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Understadning such a distinction could go a long way to
>>>>>>> making you a better writer.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Their primary agenda is to convince us to vote for
>>>>>>>>>> them.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I would call this "their constitutional task", not
>>>>>>>>> their agenda. The
>>>>>>>>> constitutional taks of a US president is to try and
>>>>>>>>> get re-elected.
>>>>>>>> No, their "constitutional task" is to represent the
>>>>>>>> people.
>>>>>>>> It
>>>>>>>>> is clearly not his constituional task to place
>>>>>>>>> security people into
>>>>>>>>> hotels owned by the president at prices far removed
>>>>>>>>> from the stanrdard
>>>>>>>>> room rate.
>>>>>>>> The security people select their own hotels.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> oh dear gawd...no, they don't. The secret service stays
>>>>>>> in whatever location the president is staying at unless
>>>>>>> they can can convince him otherwise.
>>>>>> The President, of course is free to pick whatever hotel
>>>>>> he wants to
>>>>>> stay in. Only his acting security detail stays near the
>>>>>> President
>>>>>> because they must. The rest of the security staff is
>>>>>> free to do what
>>>>>> they want as long as they are available as needed. You
>>>>>> do understand
>>>>>> the number of people we're talking about here, don't you?
>>>>>
>>>>> Which doesn't in any way validate the ludicrous assertion
>>>>> "The security people select their own hotels." They
>>>>> simply don't.
>>>>
>>>> The vast majority of them do... Only a few need to stay
>>>> close to the
>>>> president. Do you realise the massive structure behind the
>>>> current
>>>> President's security?
>>>>
>>>>>>> This is what Rolf is referring to:
>>>>>>> https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielcassady/2020/09/17/trump-organization-reportedly-charged-us-government-over-11-million-for-luxury-hotel-stays/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.forbes.com/sites/madelinehalpert/2022/10/17/trumps-company-charged-secret-service-1185-per-night-to-stay-at-his-hotel-documents-show/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> <chuckle> The cost of keep the security detail in hotels
>>>>>> is dwarfed by
>>>>>> the cost of flying Biden, the Beast, and the rest of the
>>>>>> motorcade to
>>>>>> the funeral in the UK.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Total cost of the hotel rooms for Biden's London stay:
>>>>>> $459,338.65.
>>>>>> Mind you, that's just the cost of the hotel rooms for
>>>>>> the president,
>>>>>> his advance staff, security personnel, etc.,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Biden was in London for one night.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's a good deal, consider trumps 3 day trip to the uk
>>>>> cost us 3.5 million
>>>>> https://www.newsweek.com/trump-uk-visit-will-cost-us-taxpayer-35-million-includes-stays-hotel-linked-qatars-emir-1442077.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Protecting the President costs big money.
>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.nationalreview.com/the-campaign-spot/joe-bidens-pricey-hotel-stay-london-jim-geraghty/
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I guess fox news doesn't report such graft when trump
>>>>>>> does it.
>>>>>> <Snicker> Graft? You say the President should not be
>>>>>> allowed to stay
>>>>>> at his own hotels?
>>>>>
>>>>> <snicker> You think it's ok for a president to charge 5
>>>>> times to government allowed rate and keep the profit?
>>>>
>>>> There is/was no 'government allowed' rate, but yes, I
>>>> think the
>>>> President should stay wherever he wants and the govenment
>>>> should pay
>>>> whatever the place charges for his security detail.
>>>
>>> So you think it would be fine for the president to stay in a
>>> private palace (rooms available to security people only) and
>>> the government to pay whatever the president wishes to earn?
>>>
>>> Who is supposed to decide what the president's wage is? The
>>> president single-handedly?
>>
>> In the case of our most recent President the sum is zero. He
>> did not accept the salary.
>>
>
> He didn’t accept the salary. I’m pretty certain the sum was not zero, and
> he could probably make up the rejected salary by selling top secret papers
> on eBay.
>

The famous quotation, "Ten percent for the big guy" referred
to someone else.

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Thursday, October 20, 2022 at 7:21:10 AM UTC-7, Ralph Barone wrote:
> AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> > On 10/20/2022 5:58 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
> >> Am 19.10.2022 um 18:23 schrieb Catrike Rider:
> >>> On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 08:50:34 -0700 (PDT),
> >>> "funkma...@hotmail.com"
> >>> <funkma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On Wednesday, October 19, 2022 at 11:07:47 AM UTC-4,
> >>>> Catrike Rider wrote:
> >>>>> On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 07:36:10 -0700 (PDT),
> >>>>> "funkma...@hotmail.com"
> >>>>> <funkma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On Wednesday, October 19, 2022 at 7:49:19 AM UTC-4,
> >>>>>> Catrike Rider wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 13:20:15 +0200, Rolf Mantel
> >>>>>>>> The next
> >>>>>>>> obvious question would be why do the US people put up
> >>>>>>>> with crooked
> >>>>>>>> politicians. In Germany, we caught some people
> >>>>>>>> selling Covid Face mask
> >>>>>>>> to the country at massively inflated prices, none of
> >>>>>>>> them were
> >>>>>>>> re-elected to the next Parliament.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> <eyeroll> More anecdotal nonsense...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I think you need to look up the difference between an
> >>>>>> anecdote and a fact.
> >>>>>> https://www.dw.com/en/germany-merkel-bloc-seeks-to-tidy-mask-scandal-mess/a-56849540
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Understadning such a distinction could go a long way to
> >>>>>> making you a better writer.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Their primary agenda is to convince us to vote for
> >>>>>>>>> them.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I would call this "their constitutional task", not
> >>>>>>>> their agenda. The
> >>>>>>>> constitutional taks of a US president is to try and
> >>>>>>>> get re-elected.
> >>>>>>> No, their "constitutional task" is to represent the
> >>>>>>> people.
> >>>>>>> It
> >>>>>>>> is clearly not his constituional task to place
> >>>>>>>> security people into
> >>>>>>>> hotels owned by the president at prices far removed
> >>>>>>>> from the stanrdard
> >>>>>>>> room rate.
> >>>>>>> The security people select their own hotels.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> oh dear gawd...no, they don't. The secret service stays
> >>>>>> in whatever location the president is staying at unless
> >>>>>> they can can convince him otherwise.
> >>>>> The President, of course is free to pick whatever hotel
> >>>>> he wants to
> >>>>> stay in. Only his acting security detail stays near the
> >>>>> President
> >>>>> because they must. The rest of the security staff is
> >>>>> free to do what
> >>>>> they want as long as they are available as needed. You
> >>>>> do understand
> >>>>> the number of people we're talking about here, don't you?
> >>>>
> >>>> Which doesn't in any way validate the ludicrous assertion
> >>>> "The security people select their own hotels." They
> >>>> simply don't.
> >>>
> >>> The vast majority of them do... Only a few need to stay
> >>> close to the
> >>> president. Do you realise the massive structure behind the
> >>> current
> >>> President's security?
> >>>
> >>>>>> This is what Rolf is referring to:
> >>>>>> https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielcassady/2020/09/17/trump-organization-reportedly-charged-us-government-over-11-million-for-luxury-hotel-stays/
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> https://www.forbes.com/sites/madelinehalpert/2022/10/17/trumps-company-charged-secret-service-1185-per-night-to-stay-at-his-hotel-documents-show/
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> <chuckle> The cost of keep the security detail in hotels
> >>>>> is dwarfed by
> >>>>> the cost of flying Biden, the Beast, and the rest of the
> >>>>> motorcade to
> >>>>> the funeral in the UK.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Total cost of the hotel rooms for Biden's London stay:
> >>>>> $459,338.65.
> >>>>> Mind you, that's just the cost of the hotel rooms for
> >>>>> the president,
> >>>>> his advance staff, security personnel, etc.,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Biden was in London for one night.
> >>>>
> >>>> That's a good deal, consider trumps 3 day trip to the uk
> >>>> cost us 3.5 million
> >>>> https://www.newsweek.com/trump-uk-visit-will-cost-us-taxpayer-35-million-includes-stays-hotel-linked-qatars-emir-1442077.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Protecting the President costs big money.
> >>>
> >>>>> https://www.nationalreview.com/the-campaign-spot/joe-bidens-pricey-hotel-stay-london-jim-geraghty/
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> I guess fox news doesn't report such graft when trump
> >>>>>> does it.
> >>>>> <Snicker> Graft? You say the President should not be
> >>>>> allowed to stay
> >>>>> at his own hotels?
> >>>>
> >>>> <snicker> You think it's ok for a president to charge 5
> >>>> times to government allowed rate and keep the profit?
> >>>
> >>> There is/was no 'government allowed' rate, but yes, I
> >>> think the
> >>> President should stay wherever he wants and the govenment
> >>> should pay
> >>> whatever the place charges for his security detail.
> >>
> >> So you think it would be fine for the president to stay in a
> >> private palace (rooms available to security people only) and
> >> the government to pay whatever the president wishes to earn?
> >>
> >> Who is supposed to decide what the president's wage is? The
> >> president single-handedly?
> >
> > In the case of our most recent President the sum is zero. He
> > did not accept the salary.
> >
> He didn’t accept the salary. I’m pretty certain the sum was not zero, and
> he could probably make up the rejected salary by selling top secret papers
> on eBay.

Trump didn't exactly refuse the salary, he donated it to charity where it belongs for any President worth his salt

On Wednesday, October 19, 2022 at 12:23:21 PM UTC-4, Catrike Rider wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 08:50:34 -0700 (PDT), "funkma...@hotmail.com"
> <funkma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Wednesday, October 19, 2022 at 11:07:47 AM UTC-4, Catrike Rider wrote:
> >> On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 07:36:10 -0700 (PDT), "funkma...@hotmail.com"
> >> <funkma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Wednesday, October 19, 2022 at 7:49:19 AM UTC-4, Catrike Rider wrote:
> >> >> On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 13:20:15 +0200, Rolf Mantel
> >> >> >The next
> >> >> >obvious question would be why do the US people put up with crooked
> >> >> >politicians. In Germany, we caught some people selling Covid Face mask
> >> >> >to the country at massively inflated prices, none of them were
> >> >> >re-elected to the next Parliament.
> >> >>
> >> >> <eyeroll> More anecdotal nonsense...
> >> >
> >> >I think you need to look up the difference between an anecdote and a fact.
> >> >https://www.dw.com/en/germany-merkel-bloc-seeks-to-tidy-mask-scandal-mess/a-56849540
> >> >
> >> >Understadning such a distinction could go a long way to making you a better writer.
> >> >
> >> >> > > Their primary agenda is to convince us to vote for them.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >I would call this "their constitutional task", not their agenda. The
> >> >> >constitutional taks of a US president is to try and get re-elected.
> >> >> No, their "constitutional task" is to represent the people.
> >> >> It
> >> >> >is clearly not his constituional task to place security people into
> >> >> >hotels owned by the president at prices far removed from the stanrdard
> >> >> >room rate.
> >> >> The security people select their own hotels.
> >> >
> >> >oh dear gawd...no, they don't. The secret service stays in whatever location the president is staying at unless they can can convince him otherwise.
> >> The President, of course is free to pick whatever hotel he wants to
> >> stay in. Only his acting security detail stays near the President
> >> because they must. The rest of the security staff is free to do what
> >> they want as long as they are available as needed. You do understand
> >> the number of people we're talking about here, don't you?
> >
> >Which doesn't in any way validate the ludicrous assertion "The security people select their own hotels." They simply don't.
> The vast majority of them do... Only a few need to stay close to the
> president. Do you realise the massive structure behind the current
> President's security?
> >> > This is what Rolf is referring to:
> >> >https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielcassady/2020/09/17/trump-organization-reportedly-charged-us-government-over-11-million-for-luxury-hotel-stays/
> >> >https://www.forbes.com/sites/madelinehalpert/2022/10/17/trumps-company-charged-secret-service-1185-per-night-to-stay-at-his-hotel-documents-show/
> >> <chuckle> The cost of keep the security detail in hotels is dwarfed by
> >> the cost of flying Biden, the Beast, and the rest of the motorcade to
> >> the funeral in the UK.
> >>
> >> Total cost of the hotel rooms for Biden's London stay: $459,338.65.
> >> Mind you, that's just the cost of the hotel rooms for the president,
> >> his advance staff, security personnel, etc.,
> >>
> >> Biden was in London for one night.
> >
> >That's a good deal, consider trumps 3 day trip to the uk cost us 3.5 million
> >https://www.newsweek.com/trump-uk-visit-will-cost-us-taxpayer-35-million-includes-stays-hotel-linked-qatars-emir-1442077.
> Protecting the President costs big money.

It does, Why then do you complain about biden when the trump cost more than double?

> >> https://www.nationalreview.com/the-campaign-spot/joe-bidens-pricey-hotel-stay-london-jim-geraghty/
> >> >I guess fox news doesn't report such graft when trump does it.
> >> <Snicker> Graft? You say the President should not be allowed to stay
> >> at his own hotels?
> >
> ><snicker> You think it's ok for a president to charge 5 times to government allowed rate and keep the profit?
> There is/was no 'government allowed' rate, but yes, I think the
> President should stay wherever he wants and the govenment should pay
> whatever the place charges for his security detail.

Time to wake up, kitty - the GAO allows a specific per diem rate. that's exactly what the complaints are about - trump charged them 5 times the GAO allowable rate.

So you're ok then with trump insisting they stay at his hotels, then overcharging them in order to profit from it. Good to know.

On Wednesday, October 19, 2022 at 12:43:20 PM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote:
> On 10/19/2022 11:15 AM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On Wednesday, October 19, 2022 at 11:51:42 AM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >> On 10/18/2022 9:11 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Any taxpayer can make a gift to any other taxpayer of up to $16,000 per
> >>> year with no tax consequences to either. Unless there's a contract, the
> >>> receiver can do whatever he damned well pleases with that, or any other
> >>> unregulated money.
> >> That's an overly legalistic answer.
> >>
> >> Saying "I haven't eaten in three days. Please give me food money," then
> >> spending it on drugs is dishonest and immoral, even if no contract was
> >> signed.
> >>
> >> Saying "Please give money for my legal defense" then spending it on
> >> golf, mistresses, gold plated toilets or whatever is also dishonest and
> >> immoral, even if no contract was signed.
> >>
> >
> > Was this OK andrew?
> >
> > https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/leaders-we-build-wall-online-fundraising-campaign-charged-defrauding-hundreds-thousands
> >
> Until now that's an unsupported accusation. Appalling if
> true but I'll wait to decide.
> --
DEar gawd Andrew, it is _not_ unsupported. There was enough evidence to hand down an indictment, and trump issued a pardon on the federal charges. There is currently another indictment on the state level. They general don't indict people for felonies without the charges being substantiated.

On Fri, 21 Oct 2022 06:40:48 -0700 (PDT), "funkma...@hotmail.com"
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, October 19, 2022 at 12:23:21 PM UTC-4, Catrike Rider wrote:
>> On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 08:50:34 -0700 (PDT), "funkma...@hotmail.com"
>> <funkma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Wednesday, October 19, 2022 at 11:07:47 AM UTC-4, Catrike Rider wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 07:36:10 -0700 (PDT), "funkma...@hotmail.com"
>> >> <funkma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Wednesday, October 19, 2022 at 7:49:19 AM UTC-4, Catrike Rider wrote:
>> >> >> On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 13:20:15 +0200, Rolf Mantel
>> >> >> >The next
>> >> >> >obvious question would be why do the US people put up with crooked
>> >> >> >politicians. In Germany, we caught some people selling Covid Face mask
>> >> >> >to the country at massively inflated prices, none of them were
>> >> >> >re-elected to the next Parliament.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> <eyeroll> More anecdotal nonsense...
>> >> >
>> >> >I think you need to look up the difference between an anecdote and a fact.
>> >> >https://www.dw.com/en/germany-merkel-bloc-seeks-to-tidy-mask-scandal-mess/a-56849540
>> >> >
>> >> >Understadning such a distinction could go a long way to making you a better writer.
>> >> >
>> >> >> > > Their primary agenda is to convince us to vote for them.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >I would call this "their constitutional task", not their agenda. The
>> >> >> >constitutional taks of a US president is to try and get re-elected.
>> >> >> No, their "constitutional task" is to represent the people.
>> >> >> It
>> >> >> >is clearly not his constituional task to place security people into
>> >> >> >hotels owned by the president at prices far removed from the stanrdard
>> >> >> >room rate.
>> >> >> The security people select their own hotels.
>> >> >
>> >> >oh dear gawd...no, they don't. The secret service stays in whatever location the president is staying at unless they can can convince him otherwise.
>> >> The President, of course is free to pick whatever hotel he wants to
>> >> stay in. Only his acting security detail stays near the President
>> >> because they must. The rest of the security staff is free to do what
>> >> they want as long as they are available as needed. You do understand
>> >> the number of people we're talking about here, don't you?
>> >
>> >Which doesn't in any way validate the ludicrous assertion "The security people select their own hotels." They simply don't.
>> The vast majority of them do... Only a few need to stay close to the
>> president. Do you realise the massive structure behind the current
>> President's security?
>> >> > This is what Rolf is referring to:
>> >> >https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielcassady/2020/09/17/trump-organization-reportedly-charged-us-government-over-11-million-for-luxury-hotel-stays/
>> >> >https://www.forbes.com/sites/madelinehalpert/2022/10/17/trumps-company-charged-secret-service-1185-per-night-to-stay-at-his-hotel-documents-show/
>> >> <chuckle> The cost of keep the security detail in hotels is dwarfed by
>> >> the cost of flying Biden, the Beast, and the rest of the motorcade to
>> >> the funeral in the UK.
>> >>
>> >> Total cost of the hotel rooms for Biden's London stay: $459,338.65.
>> >> Mind you, that's just the cost of the hotel rooms for the president,
>> >> his advance staff, security personnel, etc.,
>> >>
>> >> Biden was in London for one night.
>> >
>> >That's a good deal, consider trumps 3 day trip to the uk cost us 3.5 million
>> >https://www.newsweek.com/trump-uk-visit-will-cost-us-taxpayer-35-million-includes-stays-hotel-linked-qatars-emir-1442077.
>> Protecting the President costs big money.
>
>It does, Why then do you complain about biden when the trump cost more than double?
>
>> >> https://www.nationalreview.com/the-campaign-spot/joe-bidens-pricey-hotel-stay-london-jim-geraghty/
>> >> >I guess fox news doesn't report such graft when trump does it.
>> >> <Snicker> Graft? You say the President should not be allowed to stay
>> >> at his own hotels?
>> >
>> ><snicker> You think it's ok for a president to charge 5 times to government allowed rate and keep the profit?
>> There is/was no 'government allowed' rate, but yes, I think the
>> President should stay wherever he wants and the govenment should pay
>> whatever the place charges for his security detail.
>
>Time to wake up, kitty - the GAO allows a specific per diem rate. that's exactly what the complaints are about - trump charged them 5 times the GAO allowable rate.

Actually, it's only a recommended rate.

>So you're ok then with trump insisting they stay at his hotels, then overcharging them in order to profit from it. Good to know.

I'm perfectly content with you being unhappy about it, if that's what
you mean.

On Fri, 21 Oct 2022 06:44:26 -0700 (PDT), "funkma...@hotmail.com"
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, October 19, 2022 at 12:43:20 PM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 10/19/2022 11:15 AM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> > On Wednesday, October 19, 2022 at 11:51:42 AM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> >> On 10/18/2022 9:11 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Any taxpayer can make a gift to any other taxpayer of up to $16,000 per
>> >>> year with no tax consequences to either. Unless there's a contract, the
>> >>> receiver can do whatever he damned well pleases with that, or any other
>> >>> unregulated money.
>> >> That's an overly legalistic answer.
>> >>
>> >> Saying "I haven't eaten in three days. Please give me food money," then
>> >> spending it on drugs is dishonest and immoral, even if no contract was
>> >> signed.
>> >>
>> >> Saying "Please give money for my legal defense" then spending it on
>> >> golf, mistresses, gold plated toilets or whatever is also dishonest and
>> >> immoral, even if no contract was signed.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Was this OK andrew?
>> >
>> > https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/leaders-we-build-wall-online-fundraising-campaign-charged-defrauding-hundreds-thousands
>> >
>> Until now that's an unsupported accusation. Appalling if
>> true but I'll wait to decide.
>> --
>DEar gawd Andrew, it is _not_ unsupported. There was enough evidence to hand down an indictment, and trump issued a pardon on the federal charges. There is currently another indictment on the state level. They general don't indict people for felonies without the charges being substantiated.

As New York Judge Sol Wachtler said in 1985, “If a district attorney
wanted, a grand jury would indict a ham sandwich.”

Grand juries are the prosecutor’s babies. They decide who gets picked,
what evidence gets presented, and what gets left out. There’s no
judge, no defense attorney, and generally a defendant only testifies
in rare circumstances — his story is so air tight that there’s no down
side in putting him in. There’s no necessity for unanimity among the
23 or so jurors, and the standard of proof is so low — that probable
cause exists to believe a crime has been committed — anyone, for the
merest hint of an offense, can get indicted.

On Friday, October 21, 2022 at 6:55:17 AM UTC-7, Catrike Rider wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Oct 2022 06:40:48 -0700 (PDT), "funkma...@hotmail.com"
> <funkma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Wednesday, October 19, 2022 at 12:23:21 PM UTC-4, Catrike Rider wrote:
> >> On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 08:50:34 -0700 (PDT), "funkma...@hotmail.com"
> >> <funkma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Wednesday, October 19, 2022 at 11:07:47 AM UTC-4, Catrike Rider wrote:
> >> >> On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 07:36:10 -0700 (PDT), "funkma...@hotmail.com"
> >> >> <funkma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >On Wednesday, October 19, 2022 at 7:49:19 AM UTC-4, Catrike Rider wrote:
> >> >> >> On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 13:20:15 +0200, Rolf Mantel
> >> >> >> >The next
> >> >> >> >obvious question would be why do the US people put up with crooked
> >> >> >> >politicians. In Germany, we caught some people selling Covid Face mask
> >> >> >> >to the country at massively inflated prices, none of them were
> >> >> >> >re-elected to the next Parliament.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> <eyeroll> More anecdotal nonsense...
> >> >> >
> >> >> >I think you need to look up the difference between an anecdote and a fact.
> >> >> >https://www.dw.com/en/germany-merkel-bloc-seeks-to-tidy-mask-scandal-mess/a-56849540
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Understadning such a distinction could go a long way to making you a better writer.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > > Their primary agenda is to convince us to vote for them.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >I would call this "their constitutional task", not their agenda. The
> >> >> >> >constitutional taks of a US president is to try and get re-elected.
> >> >> >> No, their "constitutional task" is to represent the people.
> >> >> >> It
> >> >> >> >is clearly not his constituional task to place security people into
> >> >> >> >hotels owned by the president at prices far removed from the stanrdard
> >> >> >> >room rate.
> >> >> >> The security people select their own hotels.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >oh dear gawd...no, they don't. The secret service stays in whatever location the president is staying at unless they can can convince him otherwise.
> >> >> The President, of course is free to pick whatever hotel he wants to
> >> >> stay in. Only his acting security detail stays near the President
> >> >> because they must. The rest of the security staff is free to do what
> >> >> they want as long as they are available as needed. You do understand
> >> >> the number of people we're talking about here, don't you?
> >> >
> >> >Which doesn't in any way validate the ludicrous assertion "The security people select their own hotels." They simply don't.
> >> The vast majority of them do... Only a few need to stay close to the
> >> president. Do you realise the massive structure behind the current
> >> President's security?
> >> >> > This is what Rolf is referring to:
> >> >> >https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielcassady/2020/09/17/trump-organization-reportedly-charged-us-government-over-11-million-for-luxury-hotel-stays/
> >> >> >https://www.forbes.com/sites/madelinehalpert/2022/10/17/trumps-company-charged-secret-service-1185-per-night-to-stay-at-his-hotel-documents-show/
> >> >> <chuckle> The cost of keep the security detail in hotels is dwarfed by
> >> >> the cost of flying Biden, the Beast, and the rest of the motorcade to
> >> >> the funeral in the UK.
> >> >>
> >> >> Total cost of the hotel rooms for Biden's London stay: $459,338.65.
> >> >> Mind you, that's just the cost of the hotel rooms for the president,
> >> >> his advance staff, security personnel, etc.,
> >> >>
> >> >> Biden was in London for one night.
> >> >
> >> >That's a good deal, consider trumps 3 day trip to the uk cost us 3.5 million
> >> >https://www.newsweek.com/trump-uk-visit-will-cost-us-taxpayer-35-million-includes-stays-hotel-linked-qatars-emir-1442077.
> >> Protecting the President costs big money.
> >
> >It does, Why then do you complain about biden when the trump cost more than double?
> >
> >> >> https://www.nationalreview.com/the-campaign-spot/joe-bidens-pricey-hotel-stay-london-jim-geraghty/
> >> >> >I guess fox news doesn't report such graft when trump does it.
> >> >> <Snicker> Graft? You say the President should not be allowed to stay
> >> >> at his own hotels?
> >> >
> >> ><snicker> You think it's ok for a president to charge 5 times to government allowed rate and keep the profit?
> >> There is/was no 'government allowed' rate, but yes, I think the
> >> President should stay wherever he wants and the govenment should pay
> >> whatever the place charges for his security detail.
> >
> >Time to wake up, kitty - the GAO allows a specific per diem rate. that's exactly what the complaints are about - trump charged them 5 times the GAO allowable rate.
> Actually, it's only a recommended rate.
> >So you're ok then with trump insisting they stay at his hotels, then overcharging them in order to profit from it. Good to know.
> I'm perfectly content with you being unhappy about it, if that's what
> you mean.
Flunky is nothing but a coward who depends upon anonymity and distance to make any lying outrageous claim he wishes. Hey, Flunky, how does it feel to have had a life of failure?

On Friday, October 21, 2022 at 6:59:43 AM UTC-7, Catrike Rider wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Oct 2022 06:44:26 -0700 (PDT), "funkma...@hotmail.com"
> <funkma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Wednesday, October 19, 2022 at 12:43:20 PM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote:
> >> On 10/19/2022 11:15 AM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >> > On Wednesday, October 19, 2022 at 11:51:42 AM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >> >> On 10/18/2022 9:11 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Any taxpayer can make a gift to any other taxpayer of up to $16,000 per
> >> >>> year with no tax consequences to either. Unless there's a contract, the
> >> >>> receiver can do whatever he damned well pleases with that, or any other
> >> >>> unregulated money.
> >> >> That's an overly legalistic answer.
> >> >>
> >> >> Saying "I haven't eaten in three days. Please give me food money," then
> >> >> spending it on drugs is dishonest and immoral, even if no contract was
> >> >> signed.
> >> >>
> >> >> Saying "Please give money for my legal defense" then spending it on
> >> >> golf, mistresses, gold plated toilets or whatever is also dishonest and
> >> >> immoral, even if no contract was signed.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > Was this OK andrew?
> >> >
> >> > https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/leaders-we-build-wall-online-fundraising-campaign-charged-defrauding-hundreds-thousands
> >> >
> >> Until now that's an unsupported accusation. Appalling if
> >> true but I'll wait to decide.
> >> --
> >DEar gawd Andrew, it is _not_ unsupported. There was enough evidence to hand down an indictment, and trump issued a pardon on the federal charges. There is currently another indictment on the state level. They general don't indict people for felonies without the charges being substantiated.
> As New York Judge Sol Wachtler said in 1985, “If a district attorney
> wanted, a grand jury would indict a ham sandwich.”
>
> Grand juries are the prosecutor’s babies. They decide who gets picked,
> what evidence gets presented, and what gets left out. There’s no
> judge, no defense attorney, and generally a defendant only testifies
> in rare circumstances — his story is so air tight that there’s no down
> side in putting him in. There’s no necessity for unanimity among the
> 23 or so jurors, and the standard of proof is so low — that probable
> cause exists to believe a crime has been committed — anyone, for the
> merest hint of an offense, can get indicted.

You aren't expecting Flunky to know anything about this are you? His entire interest is in being charged, not being guilty. In fact, if people charged are found guilty is all for hanging the jury.

On Fri, 21 Oct 2022 07:05:48 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
<cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, October 21, 2022 at 6:59:43 AM UTC-7, Catrike Rider wrote:
>> On Fri, 21 Oct 2022 06:44:26 -0700 (PDT), "funkma...@hotmail.com"
>> <funkma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Wednesday, October 19, 2022 at 12:43:20 PM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote:
>> >> On 10/19/2022 11:15 AM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> >> > On Wednesday, October 19, 2022 at 11:51:42 AM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> >> >> On 10/18/2022 9:11 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Any taxpayer can make a gift to any other taxpayer of up to $16,000 per
>> >> >>> year with no tax consequences to either. Unless there's a contract, the
>> >> >>> receiver can do whatever he damned well pleases with that, or any other
>> >> >>> unregulated money.
>> >> >> That's an overly legalistic answer.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Saying "I haven't eaten in three days. Please give me food money," then
>> >> >> spending it on drugs is dishonest and immoral, even if no contract was
>> >> >> signed.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Saying "Please give money for my legal defense" then spending it on
>> >> >> golf, mistresses, gold plated toilets or whatever is also dishonest and
>> >> >> immoral, even if no contract was signed.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > Was this OK andrew?
>> >> >
>> >> > https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/leaders-we-build-wall-online-fundraising-campaign-charged-defrauding-hundreds-thousands
>> >> >
>> >> Until now that's an unsupported accusation. Appalling if
>> >> true but I'll wait to decide.
>> >> --
>> >DEar gawd Andrew, it is _not_ unsupported. There was enough evidence to hand down an indictment, and trump issued a pardon on the federal charges. There is currently another indictment on the state level. They general don't indict people for felonies without the charges being substantiated.
>> As New York Judge Sol Wachtler said in 1985, “If a district attorney
>> wanted, a grand jury would indict a ham sandwich.”
>>
>> Grand juries are the prosecutor’s babies. They decide who gets picked,
>> what evidence gets presented, and what gets left out. There’s no
>> judge, no defense attorney, and generally a defendant only testifies
>> in rare circumstances — his story is so air tight that there’s no down
>> side in putting him in. There’s no necessity for unanimity among the
>> 23 or so jurors, and the standard of proof is so low — that probable
>> cause exists to believe a crime has been committed — anyone, for the
>> merest hint of an offense, can get indicted.
>
>You aren't expecting Flunky to know anything about this are you?

His rhetoric clearly indicates that he does not....

> His entire interest is in being charged, not being guilty. In fact, if people charged are found guilty is all for hanging the jury.

On Friday, October 21, 2022 at 10:02:23 AM UTC-4, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, October 21, 2022 at 6:55:17 AM UTC-7, Catrike Rider wrote:
> > On Fri, 21 Oct 2022 06:40:48 -0700 (PDT), "funkma...@hotmail.com"
> > <funkma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >On Wednesday, October 19, 2022 at 12:23:21 PM UTC-4, Catrike Rider wrote:
> > >> On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 08:50:34 -0700 (PDT), "funkma...@hotmail.com"
> > >> <funkma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >On Wednesday, October 19, 2022 at 11:07:47 AM UTC-4, Catrike Rider wrote:
> > >> >> On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 07:36:10 -0700 (PDT), "funkma...@hotmail.com"
> > >> >> <funkma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> >On Wednesday, October 19, 2022 at 7:49:19 AM UTC-4, Catrike Rider wrote:
> > >> >> >> On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 13:20:15 +0200, Rolf Mantel
> > >> >> >> >The next
> > >> >> >> >obvious question would be why do the US people put up with crooked
> > >> >> >> >politicians. In Germany, we caught some people selling Covid Face mask
> > >> >> >> >to the country at massively inflated prices, none of them were
> > >> >> >> >re-elected to the next Parliament.
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> <eyeroll> More anecdotal nonsense...
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >I think you need to look up the difference between an anecdote and a fact.
> > >> >> >https://www.dw.com/en/germany-merkel-bloc-seeks-to-tidy-mask-scandal-mess/a-56849540
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >Understadning such a distinction could go a long way to making you a better writer.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >> > > Their primary agenda is to convince us to vote for them.
> > >> >> >> >
> > >> >> >> >I would call this "their constitutional task", not their agenda. The
> > >> >> >> >constitutional taks of a US president is to try and get re-elected.
> > >> >> >> No, their "constitutional task" is to represent the people.
> > >> >> >> It
> > >> >> >> >is clearly not his constituional task to place security people into
> > >> >> >> >hotels owned by the president at prices far removed from the stanrdard
> > >> >> >> >room rate.
> > >> >> >> The security people select their own hotels.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >oh dear gawd...no, they don't. The secret service stays in whatever location the president is staying at unless they can can convince him otherwise.
> > >> >> The President, of course is free to pick whatever hotel he wants to
> > >> >> stay in. Only his acting security detail stays near the President
> > >> >> because they must. The rest of the security staff is free to do what
> > >> >> they want as long as they are available as needed. You do understand
> > >> >> the number of people we're talking about here, don't you?
> > >> >
> > >> >Which doesn't in any way validate the ludicrous assertion "The security people select their own hotels." They simply don't.
> > >> The vast majority of them do... Only a few need to stay close to the
> > >> president. Do you realise the massive structure behind the current
> > >> President's security?
> > >> >> > This is what Rolf is referring to:
> > >> >> >https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielcassady/2020/09/17/trump-organization-reportedly-charged-us-government-over-11-million-for-luxury-hotel-stays/
> > >> >> >https://www.forbes.com/sites/madelinehalpert/2022/10/17/trumps-company-charged-secret-service-1185-per-night-to-stay-at-his-hotel-documents-show/
> > >> >> <chuckle> The cost of keep the security detail in hotels is dwarfed by
> > >> >> the cost of flying Biden, the Beast, and the rest of the motorcade to
> > >> >> the funeral in the UK.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Total cost of the hotel rooms for Biden's London stay: $459,338.65.
> > >> >> Mind you, that's just the cost of the hotel rooms for the president,
> > >> >> his advance staff, security personnel, etc.,
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Biden was in London for one night.
> > >> >
> > >> >That's a good deal, consider trumps 3 day trip to the uk cost us 3.5 million
> > >> >https://www.newsweek.com/trump-uk-visit-will-cost-us-taxpayer-35-million-includes-stays-hotel-linked-qatars-emir-1442077.
> > >> Protecting the President costs big money.
> > >
> > >It does, Why then do you complain about biden when the trump cost more than double?
> > >
> > >> >> https://www.nationalreview.com/the-campaign-spot/joe-bidens-pricey-hotel-stay-london-jim-geraghty/
> > >> >> >I guess fox news doesn't report such graft when trump does it.
> > >> >> <Snicker> Graft? You say the President should not be allowed to stay
> > >> >> at his own hotels?
> > >> >
> > >> ><snicker> You think it's ok for a president to charge 5 times to government allowed rate and keep the profit?
> > >> There is/was no 'government allowed' rate, but yes, I think the
> > >> President should stay wherever he wants and the govenment should pay
> > >> whatever the place charges for his security detail.
> > >
> > >Time to wake up, kitty - the GAO allows a specific per diem rate. that's exactly what the complaints are about - trump charged them 5 times the GAO allowable rate.
> > Actually, it's only a recommended rate.
> > >So you're ok then with trump insisting they stay at his hotels, then overcharging them in order to profit from it. Good to know.
> > I'm perfectly content with you being unhappy about it, if that's what
> > you mean.
> Flunky is nothing but a coward who depends upon anonymity

Funny how that comment is a response to someone who states hi intent to remain anonymous, yet you have no problem with it.

> and distance to make any lying outrageous claim he wishes.

Says the biggest liar in this forum.

> Hey, Flunky, how does it feel to have had a life of failure?

I wouldn't know sparky. You're the one who could never hold a job for more that a couple of years, you tell us what it feels like to fail everyplace you've ever worked.

On Friday, October 21, 2022 at 10:12:07 AM UTC-4, Catrike Rider wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Oct 2022 07:05:48 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Friday, October 21, 2022 at 6:59:43 AM UTC-7, Catrike Rider wrote:
> >> On Fri, 21 Oct 2022 06:44:26 -0700 (PDT), "funkma...@hotmail.com"
> >> <funkma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Wednesday, October 19, 2022 at 12:43:20 PM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote:
> >> >> On 10/19/2022 11:15 AM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >> >> > On Wednesday, October 19, 2022 at 11:51:42 AM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >> >> >> On 10/18/2022 9:11 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> Any taxpayer can make a gift to any other taxpayer of up to $16,000 per
> >> >> >>> year with no tax consequences to either. Unless there's a contract, the
> >> >> >>> receiver can do whatever he damned well pleases with that, or any other
> >> >> >>> unregulated money.
> >> >> >> That's an overly legalistic answer.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Saying "I haven't eaten in three days. Please give me food money," then
> >> >> >> spending it on drugs is dishonest and immoral, even if no contract was
> >> >> >> signed.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Saying "Please give money for my legal defense" then spending it on
> >> >> >> golf, mistresses, gold plated toilets or whatever is also dishonest and
> >> >> >> immoral, even if no contract was signed.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Was this OK andrew?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/leaders-we-build-wall-online-fundraising-campaign-charged-defrauding-hundreds-thousands
> >> >> >
> >> >> Until now that's an unsupported accusation. Appalling if
> >> >> true but I'll wait to decide.
> >> >> --
> >> >DEar gawd Andrew, it is _not_ unsupported. There was enough evidence to hand down an indictment, and trump issued a pardon on the federal charges. There is currently another indictment on the state level. They general don't indict people for felonies without the charges being substantiated.
> >> As New York Judge Sol Wachtler said in 1985, “If a district attorney
> >> wanted, a grand jury would indict a ham sandwich.”
> >>
> >> Grand juries are the prosecutor’s babies. They decide who gets picked,
> >> what evidence gets presented, and what gets left out. There’s no
> >> judge, no defense attorney, and generally a defendant only testifies
> >> in rare circumstances — his story is so air tight that there’s no down
> >> side in putting him in. There’s no necessity for unanimity among the
> >> 23 or so jurors, and the standard of proof is so low — that probable
> >> cause exists to believe a crime has been committed — anyone, for the
> >> merest hint of an offense, can get indicted.
> >
> >You aren't expecting Flunky to know anything about this are you?
> His rhetoric clearly indicates that he does not....

Sure kitty, Ask Bannon's co-defendants in the federal case, Kolfage and Badolato, who have both already pleaded guilty, if the indictment was legit or not. They have the evidence of the money transfers from the "charity" into all three of their personal accounts along with expenses for boats, trips and entertainment charged to the accounts. Bannon is the only one of the three who claims he did nothing wrong, and rubes like you and kunich are too blinded by political ideology to think he might actually have committed a crime.

Are there plentiful examples of prosecutorial misconduct vis dubious indictments? sure. This isn't one of them.

On Friday, October 21, 2022 at 9:55:17 AM UTC-4, Catrike Rider wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Oct 2022 06:40:48 -0700 (PDT), "funkma...@hotmail.com"
> >> >
> >> ><snicker> You think it's ok for a president to charge 5 times to government allowed rate and keep the profit?
> >> There is/was no 'government allowed' rate, but yes, I think the
> >> President should stay wherever he wants and the govenment should pay
> >> whatever the place charges for his security detail.
> >
> >Time to wake up, kitty - the GAO allows a specific per diem rate. that's exactly what the complaints are about - trump charged them 5 times the GAO allowable rate.
> Actually, it's only a recommended rate.

Ah, so you go from 'there is no government allowed rate' to 'yes there's a rate, but it's just a recommendation', which is also not true. Charges over the allowed per diem are rejected unless specific application to allow an over-expense is made. That's the way the GAO works. I know this from submitting travel expenses when I traveled on a government contract many years ago - Charges over the allowable rates are rejected.

> >So you're ok then with trump insisting they stay at his hotels, then overcharging them in order to profit from it. Good to know.
> I'm perfectly content with you being unhappy about it, if that's what
> you mean.

I'm _sure_ you would be screaming from the rooftops if a democrat did it.

On Fri, 21 Oct 2022 07:25:34 -0700 (PDT), "funkma...@hotmail.com"
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, October 21, 2022 at 10:12:07 AM UTC-4, Catrike Rider wrote:
>> On Fri, 21 Oct 2022 07:05:48 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
>> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Friday, October 21, 2022 at 6:59:43 AM UTC-7, Catrike Rider wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 21 Oct 2022 06:44:26 -0700 (PDT), "funkma...@hotmail.com"
>> >> <funkma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Wednesday, October 19, 2022 at 12:43:20 PM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote:
>> >> >> On 10/19/2022 11:15 AM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> >> >> > On Wednesday, October 19, 2022 at 11:51:42 AM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> >> >> >> On 10/18/2022 9:11 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> Any taxpayer can make a gift to any other taxpayer of up to $16,000 per
>> >> >> >>> year with no tax consequences to either. Unless there's a contract, the
>> >> >> >>> receiver can do whatever he damned well pleases with that, or any other
>> >> >> >>> unregulated money.
>> >> >> >> That's an overly legalistic answer.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Saying "I haven't eaten in three days. Please give me food money," then
>> >> >> >> spending it on drugs is dishonest and immoral, even if no contract was
>> >> >> >> signed.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Saying "Please give money for my legal defense" then spending it on
>> >> >> >> golf, mistresses, gold plated toilets or whatever is also dishonest and
>> >> >> >> immoral, even if no contract was signed.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Was this OK andrew?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/leaders-we-build-wall-online-fundraising-campaign-charged-defrauding-hundreds-thousands
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> Until now that's an unsupported accusation. Appalling if
>> >> >> true but I'll wait to decide.
>> >> >> --
>> >> >DEar gawd Andrew, it is _not_ unsupported. There was enough evidence to hand down an indictment, and trump issued a pardon on the federal charges. There is currently another indictment on the state level. They general don't indict people for felonies without the charges being substantiated.
>> >> As New York Judge Sol Wachtler said in 1985, “If a district attorney
>> >> wanted, a grand jury would indict a ham sandwich.”
>> >>
>> >> Grand juries are the prosecutor’s babies. They decide who gets picked,
>> >> what evidence gets presented, and what gets left out. There’s no
>> >> judge, no defense attorney, and generally a defendant only testifies
>> >> in rare circumstances — his story is so air tight that there’s no down
>> >> side in putting him in. There’s no necessity for unanimity among the
>> >> 23 or so jurors, and the standard of proof is so low — that probable
>> >> cause exists to believe a crime has been committed — anyone, for the
>> >> merest hint of an offense, can get indicted.
>> >
>> >You aren't expecting Flunky to know anything about this are you?
>> His rhetoric clearly indicates that he does not....
>
>Sure kitty, Ask Bannon's co-defendants in the federal case, Kolfage and Badolato, who have both already pleaded guilty, if the indictment was legit or not. They have the evidence of the money transfers from the "charity" into all three of their personal accounts along with expenses for boats, trips and entertainment charged to the accounts. Bannon is the only one of the three who claims he did nothing wrong, and rubes like you and kunich are too blinded by political ideology to think he might actually have committed a crime.
>
>Are there plentiful examples of prosecutorial misconduct vis dubious indictments? sure. This isn't one of them.

As always, you opinion is insignificant.. Oh, yes, before you ask,
mine is insignificant, too. However, unlike you, I'll make no effort
to change your mind. As I often say, "you get to believe whatever you
want."

On Fri, 21 Oct 2022 07:32:53 -0700 (PDT), "funkma...@hotmail.com"
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, October 21, 2022 at 9:55:17 AM UTC-4, Catrike Rider wrote:
>> On Fri, 21 Oct 2022 06:40:48 -0700 (PDT), "funkma...@hotmail.com"
>> >> >
>> >> ><snicker> You think it's ok for a president to charge 5 times to government allowed rate and keep the profit?
>> >> There is/was no 'government allowed' rate, but yes, I think the
>> >> President should stay wherever he wants and the govenment should pay
>> >> whatever the place charges for his security detail.
>> >
>> >Time to wake up, kitty - the GAO allows a specific per diem rate. that's exactly what the complaints are about - trump charged them 5 times the GAO allowable rate.
>> Actually, it's only a recommended rate.
>
>Ah, so you go from 'there is no government allowed rate' to 'yes there's a rate, but it's just a recommendation', which is also not true. Charges over the allowed per diem are rejected unless specific application to allow an over-expense is made. That's the way the GAO works. I know this from submitting travel expenses when I traveled on a government contract many years ago - Charges over the allowable rates are rejected.

Your claim to prove...

>> >So you're ok then with trump insisting they stay at his hotels, then overcharging them in order to profit from it. Good to know.
>> I'm perfectly content with you being unhappy about it, if that's what
>> you mean.
>
>I'm _sure_ you would be screaming from the rooftops if a democrat did it.

I don't scream, I don't very often even raise my voice and I'm annoyed
at those who do. I don't go onto rooftops, either.

Fact is that many politicians of all persuasions do things that annoy
me, but I don't see any value in complaining about it. Unlike you, I
understand and am content with knowing that hardly anyone gives a rats
ass about what annoys me. Those few who do care, also don't do things
that annoy me.

On Friday, October 21, 2022 at 7:38:58 AM UTC-7, Catrike Rider wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Oct 2022 07:25:34 -0700 (PDT), "funkma...@hotmail.com"
> <funkma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Friday, October 21, 2022 at 10:12:07 AM UTC-4, Catrike Rider wrote:
> >> On Fri, 21 Oct 2022 07:05:48 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
> >> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Friday, October 21, 2022 at 6:59:43 AM UTC-7, Catrike Rider wrote:
> >> >> On Fri, 21 Oct 2022 06:44:26 -0700 (PDT), "funkma...@hotmail.com"
> >> >> <funkma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >On Wednesday, October 19, 2022 at 12:43:20 PM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote:
> >> >> >> On 10/19/2022 11:15 AM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >> >> >> > On Wednesday, October 19, 2022 at 11:51:42 AM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >> >> >> >> On 10/18/2022 9:11 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> >> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> >>> Any taxpayer can make a gift to any other taxpayer of up to $16,000 per
> >> >> >> >>> year with no tax consequences to either. Unless there's a contract, the
> >> >> >> >>> receiver can do whatever he damned well pleases with that, or any other
> >> >> >> >>> unregulated money.
> >> >> >> >> That's an overly legalistic answer.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Saying "I haven't eaten in three days. Please give me food money," then
> >> >> >> >> spending it on drugs is dishonest and immoral, even if no contract was
> >> >> >> >> signed.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Saying "Please give money for my legal defense" then spending it on
> >> >> >> >> golf, mistresses, gold plated toilets or whatever is also dishonest and
> >> >> >> >> immoral, even if no contract was signed.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Was this OK andrew?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/leaders-we-build-wall-online-fundraising-campaign-charged-defrauding-hundreds-thousands
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> Until now that's an unsupported accusation. Appalling if
> >> >> >> true but I'll wait to decide.
> >> >> >> --
> >> >> >DEar gawd Andrew, it is _not_ unsupported. There was enough evidence to hand down an indictment, and trump issued a pardon on the federal charges. There is currently another indictment on the state level. They general don't indict people for felonies without the charges being substantiated.
> >> >> As New York Judge Sol Wachtler said in 1985, “If a district attorney
> >> >> wanted, a grand jury would indict a ham sandwich.”
> >> >>
> >> >> Grand juries are the prosecutor’s babies. They decide who gets picked,
> >> >> what evidence gets presented, and what gets left out. There’s no
> >> >> judge, no defense attorney, and generally a defendant only testifies
> >> >> in rare circumstances — his story is so air tight that there’s no down
> >> >> side in putting him in. There’s no necessity for unanimity among the
> >> >> 23 or so jurors, and the standard of proof is so low — that probable
> >> >> cause exists to believe a crime has been committed — anyone, for the
> >> >> merest hint of an offense, can get indicted.
> >> >
> >> >You aren't expecting Flunky to know anything about this are you?
> >> His rhetoric clearly indicates that he does not....
> >
> >Sure kitty, Ask Bannon's co-defendants in the federal case, Kolfage and Badolato, who have both already pleaded guilty, if the indictment was legit or not. They have the evidence of the money transfers from the "charity" into all three of their personal accounts along with expenses for boats, trips and entertainment charged to the accounts. Bannon is the only one of the three who claims he did nothing wrong, and rubes like you and kunich are too blinded by political ideology to think he might actually have committed a crime.
> >
> >Are there plentiful examples of prosecutorial misconduct vis dubious indictments? sure. This isn't one of them.
> As always, you opinion is insignificant.. Oh, yes, before you ask,
> mine is insignificant, too. However, unlike you, I'll make no effort
> to change your mind. As I often say, "you get to believe whatever you
> want."
I believe in the decision of 12 men good and wise. Flunky does not. He believes that the only source of judgement is prejudgement.

On Fri, 21 Oct 2022 07:54:11 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
<cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, October 21, 2022 at 7:38:58 AM UTC-7, Catrike Rider wrote:
>> On Fri, 21 Oct 2022 07:25:34 -0700 (PDT), "funkma...@hotmail.com"
>> <funkma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Friday, October 21, 2022 at 10:12:07 AM UTC-4, Catrike Rider wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 21 Oct 2022 07:05:48 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
>> >> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Friday, October 21, 2022 at 6:59:43 AM UTC-7, Catrike Rider wrote:
>> >> >> On Fri, 21 Oct 2022 06:44:26 -0700 (PDT), "funkma...@hotmail.com"
>> >> >> <funkma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >On Wednesday, October 19, 2022 at 12:43:20 PM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote:
>> >> >> >> On 10/19/2022 11:15 AM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> >> >> >> > On Wednesday, October 19, 2022 at 11:51:42 AM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> On 10/18/2022 9:11 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>> >> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >> >>> Any taxpayer can make a gift to any other taxpayer of up to $16,000 per
>> >> >> >> >>> year with no tax consequences to either. Unless there's a contract, the
>> >> >> >> >>> receiver can do whatever he damned well pleases with that, or any other
>> >> >> >> >>> unregulated money.
>> >> >> >> >> That's an overly legalistic answer.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Saying "I haven't eaten in three days. Please give me food money," then
>> >> >> >> >> spending it on drugs is dishonest and immoral, even if no contract was
>> >> >> >> >> signed.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Saying "Please give money for my legal defense" then spending it on
>> >> >> >> >> golf, mistresses, gold plated toilets or whatever is also dishonest and
>> >> >> >> >> immoral, even if no contract was signed.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Was this OK andrew?
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/leaders-we-build-wall-online-fundraising-campaign-charged-defrauding-hundreds-thousands
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> Until now that's an unsupported accusation. Appalling if
>> >> >> >> true but I'll wait to decide.
>> >> >> >> --
>> >> >> >DEar gawd Andrew, it is _not_ unsupported. There was enough evidence to hand down an indictment, and trump issued a pardon on the federal charges. There is currently another indictment on the state level. They general don't indict people for felonies without the charges being substantiated.
>> >> >> As New York Judge Sol Wachtler said in 1985, “If a district attorney
>> >> >> wanted, a grand jury would indict a ham sandwich.”
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Grand juries are the prosecutor’s babies. They decide who gets picked,
>> >> >> what evidence gets presented, and what gets left out. There’s no
>> >> >> judge, no defense attorney, and generally a defendant only testifies
>> >> >> in rare circumstances — his story is so air tight that there’s no down
>> >> >> side in putting him in. There’s no necessity for unanimity among the
>> >> >> 23 or so jurors, and the standard of proof is so low — that probable
>> >> >> cause exists to believe a crime has been committed — anyone, for the
>> >> >> merest hint of an offense, can get indicted.
>> >> >
>> >> >You aren't expecting Flunky to know anything about this are you?
>> >> His rhetoric clearly indicates that he does not....
>> >
>> >Sure kitty, Ask Bannon's co-defendants in the federal case, Kolfage and Badolato, who have both already pleaded guilty, if the indictment was legit or not. They have the evidence of the money transfers from the "charity" into all three of their personal accounts along with expenses for boats, trips and entertainment charged to the accounts. Bannon is the only one of the three who claims he did nothing wrong, and rubes like you and kunich are too blinded by political ideology to think he might actually have committed a crime.
>> >
>> >Are there plentiful examples of prosecutorial misconduct vis dubious indictments? sure. This isn't one of them.
>> As always, you opinion is insignificant.. Oh, yes, before you ask,
>> mine is insignificant, too. However, unlike you, I'll make no effort
>> to change your mind. As I often say, "you get to believe whatever you
>> want."
> I believe in the decision of 12 men good and wise. Flunky does not. He believes that the only source of judgement is prejudgement.

Actually, I put no faith in the "wisdom" of juries, or the courts in
general. I am, however, content in that theirdecisions are, in lue of
divine intwevention, the best that's available to us.

On 10/21/2022 10:38 AM, Catrike Rider wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Oct 2022 07:25:34 -0700 (PDT), "funkma...@hotmail.com"
> <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Friday, October 21, 2022 at 10:12:07 AM UTC-4, Catrike Rider wrote:
>>> On Fri, 21 Oct 2022 07:05:48 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
>>> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Friday, October 21, 2022 at 6:59:43 AM UTC-7, Catrike Rider wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 21 Oct 2022 06:44:26 -0700 (PDT), "funkma...@hotmail.com"
>>>>> <funkma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wednesday, October 19, 2022 at 12:43:20 PM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/19/2022 11:15 AM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, October 19, 2022 at 11:51:42 AM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 10/18/2022 9:11 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Any taxpayer can make a gift to any other taxpayer of up to $16,000 per
>>>>>>>>>> year with no tax consequences to either. Unless there's a contract, the
>>>>>>>>>> receiver can do whatever he damned well pleases with that, or any other
>>>>>>>>>> unregulated money.
>>>>>>>>> That's an overly legalistic answer.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Saying "I haven't eaten in three days. Please give me food money," then
>>>>>>>>> spending it on drugs is dishonest and immoral, even if no contract was
>>>>>>>>> signed.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Saying "Please give money for my legal defense" then spending it on
>>>>>>>>> golf, mistresses, gold plated toilets or whatever is also dishonest and
>>>>>>>>> immoral, even if no contract was signed.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Was this OK andrew?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/leaders-we-build-wall-online-fundraising-campaign-charged-defrauding-hundreds-thousands
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Until now that's an unsupported accusation. Appalling if
>>>>>>> true but I'll wait to decide.
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>> DEar gawd Andrew, it is _not_ unsupported. There was enough evidence to hand down an indictment, and trump issued a pardon on the federal charges. There is currently another indictment on the state level. They general don't indict people for felonies without the charges being substantiated.
>>>>> As New York Judge Sol Wachtler said in 1985, “If a district attorney
>>>>> wanted, a grand jury would indict a ham sandwich.”
>>>>>
>>>>> Grand juries are the prosecutor’s babies. They decide who gets picked,
>>>>> what evidence gets presented, and what gets left out. There’s no
>>>>> judge, no defense attorney, and generally a defendant only testifies
>>>>> in rare circumstances — his story is so air tight that there’s no down
>>>>> side in putting him in. There’s no necessity for unanimity among the
>>>>> 23 or so jurors, and the standard of proof is so low — that probable
>>>>> cause exists to believe a crime has been committed — anyone, for the
>>>>> merest hint of an offense, can get indicted.
>>>>
>>>> You aren't expecting Flunky to know anything about this are you?
>>> His rhetoric clearly indicates that he does not....
>>
>> Sure kitty, Ask Bannon's co-defendants in the federal case, Kolfage and Badolato, who have both already pleaded guilty, if the indictment was legit or not. They have the evidence of the money transfers from the "charity" into all three of their personal accounts along with expenses for boats, trips and entertainment charged to the accounts. Bannon is the only one of the three who claims he did nothing wrong, and rubes like you and kunich are too blinded by political ideology to think he might actually have committed a crime.
>>
>> Are there plentiful examples of prosecutorial misconduct vis dubious indictments? sure. This isn't one of them.
>
> As always, you opinion is insignificant.. Oh, yes, before you ask,
> mine is insignificant, too.

I note the sudden switch from "It's not proven" to "OK, it's proven but
it doesn't matter (because I like their political party)."

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Friday, October 21, 2022 at 10:53:59 AM UTC-4, Catrike Rider wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Oct 2022 07:32:53 -0700 (PDT), "funkma...@hotmail.com"
> <funkma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Friday, October 21, 2022 at 9:55:17 AM UTC-4, Catrike Rider wrote:
> >> On Fri, 21 Oct 2022 06:40:48 -0700 (PDT), "funkma...@hotmail.com"
> >> >> >
> >> >> ><snicker> You think it's ok for a president to charge 5 times to government allowed rate and keep the profit?
> >> >> There is/was no 'government allowed' rate, but yes, I think the
> >> >> President should stay wherever he wants and the govenment should pay
> >> >> whatever the place charges for his security detail.
> >> >
> >> >Time to wake up, kitty - the GAO allows a specific per diem rate. that's exactly what the complaints are about - trump charged them 5 times the GAO allowable rate.
> >> Actually, it's only a recommended rate.
> >
> >Ah, so you go from 'there is no government allowed rate' to 'yes there's a rate, but it's just a recommendation', which is also not true. Charges over the allowed per diem are rejected unless specific application to allow an over-expense is made. That's the way the GAO works. I know this from submitting travel expenses when I traveled on a government contract many years ago - Charges over the allowable rates are rejected.
> Your claim to prove...

Wakey wakey kitty!
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-41/subtitle-F/chapter-301/subchapter-B/part-301-11/subpart-D

§ 301-11.302 When should I request authorization for reimbursement under actual expense?

Request for authorization for reimbursement under actual expense should be made in advance of travel. However, subject to your agency's policy, after the fact approvals may be granted when supported by an explanation acceptable to your agency.

§ 301-11.303 What is the maximum amount that I may be reimbursed under actual expense?

The maximum amount that you may be reimbursed under actual expense is limited to 300 percent (rounded to the next higher dollar) of the applicable maximum per diem rate.

And yes, that's the latest edition of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) ans noted at the top of the page "up to date as of 10/19/2022"

> >> >So you're ok then with trump insisting they stay at his hotels, then overcharging them in order to profit from it. Good to know.
> >> I'm perfectly content with you being unhappy about it, if that's what
> >> you mean.
> >
> >I'm _sure_ you would be screaming from the rooftops if a democrat did it..
> I don't scream, I don't very often even raise my voice and I'm annoyed
> at those who do. I don't go onto rooftops, either.
>
> Fact is that many politicians of all persuasions do things that annoy
> me, but I don't see any value in complaining about it.

And yet you still do.

> Unlike you, I
> understand and am content with knowing that hardly anyone gives a rats
> ass about what annoys me. Those few who do care, also don't do things
> that annoy me.

Funny thing to admit, that you have few people that care about you.