I think Eskie is being sarcastic again
Even Team Duncan is not claiming those were legit charges, so i don't believe Eskie is implying this is a possibility.
Deeming Regulations have been released!!!!
- Thread starter Oliver
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
Even Team Duncan is not claiming those were legit charges, so i don't believe Eskie is implying this is a possibility.
But if he Wasn't, why would an Out Of State Company have given him $18,000 to sell their Boat for them?
My heart is pure and I am sure that it was because he had so much extra time on his hands he could devote his full effort. Congress does take a lot time off.
I think Eskie is being sarcastic again
Even Team Duncan is not claiming those were legit charges, so i don't believe Eskie is implying this is a possibility.
You are probably right given his preceding posts. I made a mistake.
I have Always thought that there should be an Unwritten Rule that if you post in Green that it was Sarcasm.
EXM:
"I see No Conflict of Interest or Abuse of Power if you take $18,000 from an Out of State Company and then try to use your Political Influence to sell a Boat for them. As long as if it is a Nice Boat."
That was sarcasm? I thought it did look like a nice boat. Besides, the guy only oversees Coast Guard Boats. It's not like he's out buying nuclear powered aircraft carriers.
(should I have used green for that, or is it sufficiently apparent?)
That was sarcasm? I thought it did look like a nice boat. Besides, the guy only oversees Coast Guard Boats. It's not like he's out buying nuclear powered aircraft carriers.
(should I have used green for that, or is it sufficiently apparent?)
It was sufficiently apparent; even I, a somewhat dense old guy, got it.
I wonder if hair/makeup/nails before a television appearance could be considered a campaign expense.
Depending on the circumstance I could make an argument for either. Many wives hit the campaign trail with and for their husbands and are expected to look good.
Yeah... When you get on that Slope, just about Anything could be Possible.
[A] bona fide campaign purpose is not established merely because the use of campaign money might result in a campaign benefit as an incident to benefits personally realized by the recipient of such funds . . . .68
Proper Use of Campaign Funds and Resources | House Committee on Ethics
Confirmed that the nail salon charges were for her and not him ?
Kidding aside, this is a non-issue in this case. No one ( Hunter included ) claims these may have been legit charges. They claim the personal expenses were mistakenly charged to the campaign credit card ( because they were both blue !? ). The question is whether the FBI or the jury will believe him.
He would have a better chance if he provides evidence that dozens of campaign expenses were erroneously charged to his personal credit card as well. If indeed, they had difficulty telling the cards apart, it stands to reason mistakes should have gone both ways.
Confirmed that the nail salon charges were for her and not him ?
...
Yep. I was just trying to Keep it Lite.
It was sufficiently apparent; even I, a somewhat dense old guy, got it.
Confirmed that the nail salon charges were for her and not him ?
Kidding aside, this is a non-issue in this case. No one ( Hunter included ) claims these may have been legit charges. They claim the personal expenses were mistakenly charged to the campaign credit card ( because they were both blue !? ). The question is whether the FBI or the jury will believe him.
He would have a better chance if he provides evidence that dozens of campaign expenses were erroneously charged to his personal credit card as well. If indeed, they had difficulty telling the cards apart, it stands to reason mistakes should have gone both ways.
Eh, honest mistake, repaid, be open and honest with the US attorney's office. What I would be sweating is the IRS. They hate unreported income expensed out like this.
Nothing wrong with going off topic. I do it. Just got to know when the horse is dead is all.
Carry on.
This is not a comment on the situation in any way, but just something I wanted add...
My wife has her own checking and savings accounts.
We handle yearly payments like insurance or property taxes from her savings account.
That's basically what it's for.
Her checking account is her business.
Other than that we use my (our) checking for paying all the bills and general daily living.
She has a card for my (our) checking account too.
And we handle my father's finances as well.
My wife and sister both have a card for his account for purchases in his name.
My wife has a card with my name on it, and my sister's card has my father's name on it.
(The account is joint between myself and my father)
The point being that they use these cards all the time and it never matters whose name is on them.
The real point, though, is that my wife makes a LOT of mistakes.
And as the main keeper of the finances, I can tell you that it leaves a mark.
LOL
Similar threads
- Locked
