THE FOLLOWING ARE MY DEFINITIONS, BUT I THINK THEY ARE REASONABLY CLOSE TO WHAT WOULD BE FOUND IN BOTH CIVIL OR CRIMINAL LAW.
A PUBLIC SERVANT OR ELECTED OFFICIAL HAS A DUTY TO WORK ON BEHALF OF THOSE WHO ARE AFFECTED BY THE ACTIONS AND DECISIONS THAT ARE PART OF THE RESPONSIBILITIES THAT ARE DEFINED BY THE POSITION OCCUPIED BY THE INDIVIDUAL.
TO USE SUCH A POSITION TO ENRICH YOURSELF, AND/OR A SELECTED GROUP, BY MAKING DECISIONS THAT WOULD NEGATIVELY AFFECT THOSE WHO ARE PART OF THE POPULATION THAT FALLS UNDER THE PUBLIC SERVANT OR ELECTED OFFICIALS DIRECT INFLUENCE, SET BY LAW, IS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
SIMPLY PUT: PUTTING SELF-INTEREST ABOVE THE PUBLIC INTEREST.
WITH THAT BEING SAID, HOW IS DONALD TRUMP STILL ALLOWED TO ENDORSE PRIVATE INSURANCE PRODUCTS? EVEN WORSE, HE USES THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT TO DO SO.
TO HAVE HIM USE HIS OFFICE TO END THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT, WHICH BENEFITS MILLIONS OF AMERICANS, WHILE AT THE SAME TIME ENDORSING PRIVATE INSURANCE PRODUCTS, IS AN OBSCENITY.
MY GOD, DOES HE JUST DO WHAT HE WANTS, WITH NO ONE IN LAW ENFORCEMENT, OR THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY, WILLING TO STAND UP AND SAY: "NO MORE,YOU CAN'T DO THIS."
(SORRY, BUT I DO NOT EXPECT THE REPUBLICAN PARTY TO OBJECT TO ANYTHING HE DOES. THAT WOULD TAKE INTEGRITY AND HONOR, TWO TRAITS THEY NO LONGER POSSESS.)
I HAVE NOT TOUCHED ON THE "YOU CAN'T ARREST A SITTING PRESIDENT" CONTROVERSY, BECAUSE I DIDN'T TAKE IT SERIOUSLY. SINCE, THERE IS NOWHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION, OR JUDICIAL PRECEDENT, THAT GUARANTEES ANY AMERICAN CITIZEN AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO BEHAVE AS THEY CHOOSE,WITH NO LEGAL CONSEQUENCES, I DID NOT BELIEVE THERE WAS ANY REASON TO ADDRESS THE SUBJECT. OH WELL, STAY TUNED.
