Welcome Notice

Register Log in

OT: SL0W MAN wondered recently what laws Sleepy Joe broke...

F

Flyguy

Guest
Well, it turns out there is a BIG ONE that Sleepy Joe violated with the influence-peddling he clearly was involved with his corrupt son, Hunter BooBoo:

§ 2635.702 Use of public office for private gain.
An employee shall not use his public office for his own private gain, for the endorsement of any product, service or enterprise, or for the private gain of friends, relatives, or persons with whom the employee is affiliated in a nongovernmental capacity, including nonprofit organizations of which the employee is an officer or member, and persons with whom the employee has or seeks employment or business relations. The specific prohibitions set forth in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section apply this general standard, but are not intended to be exclusive or to limit the application of this section.

(a) Inducement or coercion of benefits. An employee shall not use or permit the use of his Government position or title or any authority associated with his public office in a manner that is intended to coerce or induce another person, including a subordinate, to provide any benefit, financial or otherwise, to himself or to friends, relatives, or persons with whom the employee is affiliated in a nongovernmental capacity.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/5/2635.702

(b) Appearance of governmental sanction. Except as otherwise provided in this part, an employee shall not use or permit the use of his Government position or title or any authority associated with his public office in a manner that could reasonably be construed to imply that his agency or the Government sanctions or endorses his personal activities or those of another. When teaching, speaking, or writing in a personal capacity, he may refer to his official title or position only as permitted by § 2635.807(b). He may sign a letter of recommendation using his official title only in response to a request for an employment recommendation or character reference based upon personal knowledge of the ability or character of an individual with whom he has dealt in the course of Federal employment or whom he is recommending for Federal employment.

(c) Endorsements. An employee shall not use or permit the use of his Government position or title or any authority associated with his public office to endorse any product, service or enterprise except:

(1) In furtherance of statutory authority to promote products, services or enterprises; or

(2) As a result of documentation of compliance with agency requirements or standards or as the result of recognition for achievement given under an agency program of recognition for accomplishment in support of the agency\'s mission.

(d) Performance of official duties affecting a private interest. To ensure that the performance of his official duties does not give rise to an appearance of use of public office for private gain or of giving preferential treatment, an employee whose duties would affect the financial interests of a friend, relative or person with whom he is affiliated in a nongovernmental capacity shall comply with any applicable requirements of § 2635.502.

(e) Use of terms of address and ranks. Nothing in this section prohibits an employee who is ordinarily addressed using a general term of address, such as “The Honorable”, or a rank, such as a military or ambassadorial rank, from using that term of address or rank in connection with a personal activity.

It is clear that Sleepy Joe violated multiple sections of this law and DID NOT comply with:

§ 2635.502 Personal and business relationships.
(a) Consideration of appearances by the employee. Where an employee knows that a particular matter involving specific parties is likely to have a direct and predictable effect on the financial interest of a member of his household, or knows that a person with whom he has a covered relationship is or represents a party to such matter, and where the employee determines that the circumstances would cause a reasonable person with knowledge of the relevant facts to question his impartiality in the matter, the employee should not participate in the matter unless he has informed the agency designee of the appearance problem and received authorization from the agency designee in accordance with paragraph (d) of this section.

(1) In considering whether a relationship would cause a reasonable person to question his impartiality, an employee may seek the assistance of his supervisor, an agency ethics official or the agency designee.

(2) An employee who is concerned that circumstances other than those specifically described in this section would raise a question regarding his impartiality should use the process described in this section to determine whether he should or should not participate in a particular matter.

(b) Definitions. For purposes of this section:

(1) An employee has a covered relationship with:

(i) A person, other than a prospective employer described in § 2635.603(c), with whom the employee has or seeks a business, contractual or other financial relationship that involves other than a routine consumer transaction;
 
B

Bill Sloman

Guest
On Friday, October 16, 2020 at 3:09:19 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
> Well, it turns out there is a BIG ONE that Sleepy Joe violated with the influence-peddling he clearly was involved with his corrupt son, Hunter BooBoo:

<snipped irrelevant text that Flyguy clearly doesn\'t understand>

> It is clear that Sleepy Joe violated multiple sections of this law and DID NOT comply with:

<snipped more evidence that Flyguy doesn\'t know what he is talking about>

If you want to make that kind of claim you do have to spell out what Joe Biden did that might have broken the law in involved, and how what he did violated it.

No objective observer has been able to come up with any such action, and the fact that Flyguy thinks that he can claim that there is any evidence of any such action when he hasn\'t bother posting any suggestion of what it might have been merely confirms Flyguy\'s status as a mindless idiot.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
 
F

Flyguy

Guest
On Friday, October 16, 2020 at 12:04:40 AM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Friday, October 16, 2020 at 3:09:19 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
Well, it turns out there is a BIG ONE that Sleepy Joe violated with the influence-peddling he clearly was involved with his corrupt son, Hunter BooBoo:

snipped irrelevant text that Flyguy clearly doesn\'t understand

It is clear that Sleepy Joe violated multiple sections of this law and DID NOT comply with:

snipped more evidence that Flyguy doesn\'t know what he is talking about

If you want to make that kind of claim you do have to spell out what Joe Biden did that might have broken the law in involved, and how what he did violated it.

No objective observer has been able to come up with any such action, and the fact that Flyguy thinks that he can claim that there is any evidence of any such action when he hasn\'t bother posting any suggestion of what it might have been merely confirms Flyguy\'s status as a mindless idiot.

--
SL0W MAN, Sydney
Hey SL0W MAN,

What part of \"An employee shall not use his public office for his own private gain, for the endorsement of any product, service or enterprise, or for the private gain of friends, relatives\" don\'t you understand? My bad - you don\'t understand ANYTHING!
 
B

Bill Sloman

Guest
On Saturday, October 17, 2020 at 9:54:28 AM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
On Friday, October 16, 2020 at 12:04:40 AM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Friday, October 16, 2020 at 3:09:19 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
Well, it turns out there is a BIG ONE that Sleepy Joe violated with the influence-peddling he clearly was involved with his corrupt son, Hunter BooBoo:

snipped irrelevant text that Flyguy clearly doesn\'t understand

It is clear that Sleepy Joe violated multiple sections of this law and DID NOT comply with:

snipped more evidence that Flyguy doesn\'t know what he is talking about

If you want to make that kind of claim you do have to spell out what Joe Biden did that might have broken the law in involved, and how what he did violated it.

No objective observer has been able to come up with any such action, and the fact that Flyguy thinks that he can claim that there is any evidence of any such action when he hasn\'t bother posting any suggestion of what it might have been merely confirms Flyguy\'s status as a mindless idiot.

What part of \"An employee shall not use his public office for his own private gain, for the endorsement of any product, service or enterprise, or for the private gain of friends, relatives\" don\'t you understand? My bad - you don\'t understand ANYTHING!
The fact that Joe Biden was vice-president may have got Hunter Biden his gig with Burisma Holdings, but Joe Biden doesn\'t seem to have done anything to encourage them to give him the job. Joe Biden would have to have done something explicitly aimed at getting Hunter into that job to let anybody claim that he\'d \"used his position\" and it\'s the absence of any evidence of such an action that torpedos your libellous (and idiotic) claim.

Grow up. It\'s hard to imagine that you are peddling such idiotic nonsense because you actually believe it, so one has to suppose that you are getting paid for it. Since you are posting anonymously you will be able to walk away from the damage to your reputation after the election.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
 
F

Flyguy

Guest
On Friday, October 16, 2020 at 6:36:57 PM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, October 17, 2020 at 9:54:28 AM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
On Friday, October 16, 2020 at 12:04:40 AM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Friday, October 16, 2020 at 3:09:19 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
Well, it turns out there is a BIG ONE that Sleepy Joe violated with the influence-peddling he clearly was involved with his corrupt son, Hunter BooBoo:

snipped irrelevant text that Flyguy clearly doesn\'t understand

It is clear that Sleepy Joe violated multiple sections of this law and DID NOT comply with:

snipped more evidence that Flyguy doesn\'t know what he is talking about

If you want to make that kind of claim you do have to spell out what Joe Biden did that might have broken the law in involved, and how what he did violated it.

No objective observer has been able to come up with any such action, and the fact that Flyguy thinks that he can claim that there is any evidence of any such action when he hasn\'t bother posting any suggestion of what it might have been merely confirms Flyguy\'s status as a mindless idiot.

What part of \"An employee shall not use his public office for his own private gain, for the endorsement of any product, service or enterprise, or for the private gain of friends, relatives\" don\'t you understand? My bad - you don\'t understand ANYTHING!

The fact that Joe Biden was vice-president may have got Hunter Biden his gig with Burisma Holdings, but Joe Biden doesn\'t seem to have done anything to encourage them to give him the job. Joe Biden would have to have done something explicitly aimed at getting Hunter into that job to let anybody claim that he\'d \"used his position\" and it\'s the absence of any evidence of such an action that torpedos your libellous (and idiotic) claim.

Grow up. It\'s hard to imagine that you are peddling such idiotic nonsense because you actually believe it, so one has to suppose that you are getting paid for it. Since you are posting anonymously you will be able to walk away from the damage to your reputation after the election.

--
SL0W MAN, Sydney
Hey SL0W MAN, it\'s hard to believe (not really) that you can\'t recognize CORRUPTION when it is slapped right in YOUR FACE! And there\'s TENS OF THOUSANDS of more emails from this cabal to come.
 
W

whit3rd

Guest
On Thursday, October 15, 2020 at 9:09:19 PM UTC-7, Flyguy wrote:
Well, it turns out there is a BIG ONE that Sleepy Joe violated with the influence-peddling he clearly was involved with his corrupt son, Hunter BooBoo:

§ 2635.702 Use of public office for private gain.
An employee shall not use his public office for his own private gain, for ...
But, the \"investigation\" is in Ukraine; the applicable laws for that court aren\'t written in American
English. You\'ve confused the countries (and continents) badly. You also haven\'t
made a case for quid-pro-quo connection, just repeated one of the usual pre-election
lie-that-is-hard-to-disprove-quickly stunts. Boring.
 
J

John Doe

Guest
Biden\'s claim he knew nothing about the matter, in light of what we know
now, is evidence he is guilty as sin...

--
whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote:

X-Received: by 2002:a37:6fc5:: with SMTP id k188mr7608982qkc.317.1602917767991; Fri, 16 Oct 2020 23:56:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:ad4:4ba8:: with SMTP id i8mr7718323qvw.59.1602917767813; Fri, 16 Oct 2020 23:56:07 -0700 (PDT)
Path: eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.gegeweb.eu!gegeweb.org!usenet-fr.net!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!209.85.160.216.MISMATCH!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2020 23:56:07 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <a625baf6-7fe2-463a-8374-c855980c8708o@googlegroups.com
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=209.221.140.126; posting-account=vKQm_QoAAADOaDCYsqOFDAW8NJ8sFHoE
NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.221.140.126
References: <a625baf6-7fe2-463a-8374-c855980c8708o@googlegroups.com
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <d3f33858-bbac-4fbf-879a-e6f0e0804ac9n@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: OT: SL0W MAN wondered recently what laws Sleepy Joe broke
From: whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com
Injection-Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2020 06:56:07 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=\"UTF-8\"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org sci.electronics.design:610712

On Thursday, October 15, 2020 at 9:09:19 PM UTC-7, Flyguy wrote:
Well, it turns out there is a BIG ONE that Sleepy Joe violated with the i
nfluence-peddling he clearly was involved with his corrupt son, Hunter BooBoo:

¶õ 2635.702 Use of public office for private gain.
An employee shall not use his public office for his own private gain, for
...

But, the \"investigation\" is in Ukraine; the applicable laws for that court aren\'t written in American
English. You\'ve confused the countries (and continents) badly. You also haven\'t
made a case for quid-pro-quo connection, just repeated one of the usual pre-election
lie-that-is-hard-to-disprove-quickly stunts. Boring.
 
W

whit3rd

Guest
What, pray tell, is \"the matter\"?
What, pray tell, do we know now?

There\'s lies on the internet, I know that. And an election is happening.

On Saturday, October 17, 2020 at 12:34:41 AM UTC-7, John Doe wrote:
Biden\'s claim he knew nothing about the matter, in light of what we know
now, is evidence he is guilty as sin...
No, because guilt doesn\'t apply with an accusation, only an act. And there\'s
no evidence of an improper act. One can never answer a nonspecific
question about \"the matter\", we all know that\'s a cheap shot.
 
J

John Robertson

Guest
On 2020/10/15 9:09 p.m., Flyguy wrote:
Well, it turns out there is a BIG ONE that the POTUS violated with the influence-peddling he clearly was involved with his corrupt son-in-law:

§ 2635.702 Use of public office for private gain.
An employee shall not use his public office for his own private gain, for the endorsement of any product, service or enterprise, or for the private gain of friends, relatives, or persons with whom the employee is affiliated in a nongovernmental capacity, including nonprofit organizations of which the employee is an officer or member, and persons with whom the employee has or seeks employment or business relations. The specific prohibitions set forth in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section apply this general standard, but are not intended to be exclusive or to limit the application of this section.

(a) Inducement or coercion of benefits. An employee shall not use or permit the use of his Government position or title or any authority associated with his public office in a manner that is intended to coerce or induce another person, including a subordinate, to provide any benefit, financial or otherwise, to himself or to friends, relatives, or persons with whom the employee is affiliated in a nongovernmental capacity.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/5/2635.702

(b) Appearance of governmental sanction. Except as otherwise provided in this part, an employee shall not use or permit the use of his Government position or title or any authority associated with his public office in a manner that could reasonably be construed to imply that his agency or the Government sanctions or endorses his personal activities or those of another. When teaching, speaking, or writing in a personal capacity, he may refer to his official title or position only as permitted by § 2635.807(b). He may sign a letter of recommendation using his official title only in response to a request for an employment recommendation or character reference based upon personal knowledge of the ability or character of an individual with whom he has dealt in the course of Federal employment or whom he is recommending for Federal employment.

(c) Endorsements. An employee shall not use or permit the use of his Government position or title or any authority associated with his public office to endorse any product, service or enterprise except:

(1) In furtherance of statutory authority to promote products, services or enterprises; or

(2) As a result of documentation of compliance with agency requirements or standards or as the result of recognition for achievement given under an agency program of recognition for accomplishment in support of the agency\'s mission.

(d) Performance of official duties affecting a private interest. To ensure that the performance of his official duties does not give rise to an appearance of use of public office for private gain or of giving preferential treatment, an employee whose duties would affect the financial interests of a friend, relative or person with whom he is affiliated in a nongovernmental capacity shall comply with any applicable requirements of § 2635.502.

(e) Use of terms of address and ranks. Nothing in this section prohibits an employee who is ordinarily addressed using a general term of address, such as “The Honorable”, or a rank, such as a military or ambassadorial rank, from using that term of address or rank in connection with a personal activity.

It is clear that the POTUS violated multiple sections of this law and DID NOT comply with:

§ 2635.502 Personal and business relationships.
(a) Consideration of appearances by the employee. Where an employee knows that a particular matter involving specific parties is likely to have a direct and predictable effect on the financial interest of a member of his household, or knows that a person with whom he has a covered relationship is or represents a party to such matter, and where the employee determines that the circumstances would cause a reasonable person with knowledge of the relevant facts to question his impartiality in the matter, the employee should not participate in the matter unless he has informed the agency designee of the appearance problem and received authorization from the agency designee in accordance with paragraph (d) of this section.

(1) In considering whether a relationship would cause a reasonable person to question his impartiality, an employee may seek the assistance of his supervisor, an agency ethics official or the agency designee.

(2) An employee who is concerned that circumstances other than those specifically described in this section would raise a question regarding his impartiality should use the process described in this section to determine whether he should or should not participate in a particular matter.

(b) Definitions. For purposes of this section:

(1) An employee has a covered relationship with:

(i) A person, other than a prospective employer described in § 2635.603(c), with whom the employee has or seeks a business, contractual or other financial relationship that involves other than a routine consumer transaction;
I have taken the liberty to correct Flyguy\'s (is he actually Biden?)
accusations to refer to the person he actually meant - Mr. D. Trump. The
President is an employee and as such is paid by the Government of the
USA - even if he declines to accept the money.
 
B

Bill Sloman

Guest
On Sunday, October 18, 2020 at 2:56:23 AM UTC+11, John Robertson wrote:
On 2020/10/15 9:09 p.m., Flyguy wrote:
Well, it turns out there is a BIG ONE that the POTUS violated with the influence-peddling he clearly was involved with his corrupt son-in-law:
<snip>

I have taken the liberty to correct Flyguy\'s (is he actually Biden?)
accusations to refer to the person he actually meant - Mr. D. Trump. The
President is an employee and as such is paid by the Government of the
USA - even if he declines to accept the money.
I\'ve suggested that Flyguy is actually a troll-robot set up by the Biden camp to parrot Trump\'s anti-Biden propaganda in a way that emphasises it\'s essential absurdity.

It\'s difficult to imagine that a real human being could be as abysmally stupid as Flyguy appears to be.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
 
B

Bill Sloman

Guest
On Friday, October 16, 2020 at 3:09:19 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:

> Well, it turns out there is a BIG ONE that Sleepy Joe violated with the influence-peddling he clearly was involved with his corrupt son, Hunter BooBoo:

Except that Hunter Biden doesn\'t seem to have done anything corrupt, and Joe Biden\'s doesn\'t seem to have done anything to encourage his involvement with Burisma Holdings Limited (a Ukrainian company).

> § 2635.702 Use of public office for private gain.

<sniped irrelevant legislation>

> It is clear that Sleepy Joe violated multiple sections of this law

Flyguy would have had to specify what Joe Biden actually did to legitimately make this claim. It may be \"clear\" to Flyguy, who has all sorts of bizarre delusions, but the ramblings of an idiot aren\'t evidence.

and DID NOT comply with:

§ 2635.502 Personal and business relationships.
<snipped more irrelevant legislation>

Joe Biden would had to have engaged in some specific and identifiable activity to help his son get the gig with Burisma for this legislation to be relevant. Flyguy hasn\'t specified what the activity was (or when it happened) and - granting Flyguy\'s remarkable stupidity - he won\'t have bothered to do this, and won\'t go to trouble of come up with anything specific or identifiable.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
 
Toggle Sidebar

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Top