Executive branch employees must not use their public office for their own or another's private gain.
Employees are not to use their position, title or any authority associated with their office to coerce or induce a benefit for themselves or others.
Employees also are not to use or allow the improper use of nonpublic information to further a private interest, either their own or another's.
Employees may not use Government property for other than authorized purposes. Government property includes office supplies, telephones, computers, copiers and any other property purchased with Government funds.
Employees may not misuse official time. This includes the employee's own time as well as the time of a subordinate.
Reference: 5 C.F.R. § § 2635.701-705.
Ooops! I see while I was surfing, two others posted the same stuff! [/b]
posted on July 6, 2002 08:32:54 AM new
The fact that they don't think they can keep the chief executive safe without tens of millions of dollars in security would be a disgrace in itself to me.
Does anyone remember that there was a time not so long ago that the president could walk down the street to buy himself a cigar and it was not a front page story?
posted on July 6, 2002 02:23:20 PM new
Imperial?
I do not recall any revolutionary War figures connected to royalty named BUsh
there was a knob named General Clinton.
if you mean in the terms that a presidency is handed down yeah,
both major parties seem to have a problem with that though.
posted on July 6, 2002 10:34:41 PM newThat would make us all progressives.....no not all. Not I.
Bunnicula and krs - Thanks for sharing the standards, for the executive branch employees that you did. Neither speak to the President of the US and his travels around the country. Neither show any law he has broken. If you believe he has broken a law...then get your representatives to do something about it. If you think it's an ethical issue, write to the Ethic Committee.
As president he has an obligation to keep in contact with those he represents...and one way of doing that is by traveling or vacationing where ever he chooses.
posted on July 6, 2002 10:40:10 PM new
kraftdinner - Almost forgot to say thank you. I appreciate you answering. I thought that was the case, but wasn't sure.
Since you have voting rights in American I was wondering if you can vote by absentee ballot or if you just don't choose to. And yes, American politics can be interesting....to say the least.
posted on July 6, 2002 11:32:14 PM new"Bunnicula and krs - Thanks for sharing the standards, for the executive branch employees that you did. Neither speak to the President of the US and his travels around the country. Neither show any law he has broken. If you believe he has broken a law...then get your representatives to do something about it. If you think it's an ethical issue, write to the Ethic Committee."
Arrrrgh! I can't STAND it any longer! Linda - exactly what branch of the government do you think that the President falls under? Do you even know what the names of the branches of government are? Also, it is NOT the Business of Congress or your representatives to keep the President in line or to act as a policing agency for the President. In fact, I don't think that the Ethics Committee can even address the President, since the Ethics Committee is for the Legislative Branch and the President does not belong to the Legislative Branch. At the VERY WORST, Congress can only cry "Shame! Shame on you!" through an Impeachment Trial. Congress cannot arrest the President or throw him out of office! They just do not have the Constitutional Authority to do so. If they could, they would have done it to Clinton.
posted on July 6, 2002 11:34:52 PM new"Thanks for sharing the standards, for the executive branch employees that you did. Neither speak to the President of the US and his travels around the country.
Duh, that is a law that can be broken and not simply a guideline and one that carries the charge of misapropriation of government funds. It applies to all federal employees, and unless the president is no longer salaried then it applies to him as well. It's one of those neat laws that can be applied in a wide variety of situations and is each year, bringing down quite lofty jerks usually much to their suprise.
But charging of a president is done by the process of impeachment, as I'm sure even you, lindak, can recall, and that is a difficult thing which I'm sure from your unsuccessful effort previously you can also recall. Nevertheless it does go to the ethical conduct of a person in office if he uses the travel priviledge for any political purpose, now doesn't it? Of course it does as you have said that it would so apply to one other president than your simple favorite. Politickin' is not in the interest of the people served, only in the interest of politician's personal attainment.
posted on July 7, 2002 12:24:18 AM new
Linda, The code that I and others posted directly relates to the Executive Branch of our government, of which the President is the premier member. The code relates *directly* to what you yourself were talking about.
Do you really think that the President of our country operates without checks and balances? Without restriction? That he is answerable and responsible to no greater power? Our government was set up expressly to avoid that type of power in our leaders. It disgusts me that so many people seem willing--eager, in fact--to allow Bush to operate in this manner.
posted on July 7, 2002 01:39:33 AM new
No Bunnicula - I know which branch of government the president belongs to. I'm saying that what you and krs posted doesn't apply to the presidents travel. If you read some of those 'rules/quidelines' many will speak of presidential appointees, etc....I'm saying that the president (any president) is the CEO of the Executive branch...therefore different rules apply. Am I saying any president doesn't have to abide by those rules you posted? No...I'm saying it's a judgement call....as to whether or not he's doing it for his own benefit or as an act of his job/office.
You know what cracks me up the most? Read the list you posted....most things on that list were violated by clinton and his administration. And not one of you hear brought up ethics.
I'm not going to continue...this is going no where. This is my opinion. There were about 8,000 American's that came to hear a speech from the President of the United States on the 4th of July....a national day of celebration. If our president's supposed to stay home so he doesn't offend the democrats....phewy.
posted on July 7, 2002 02:16:33 AM new
You really don't get it. No one is saying that he's to stay home.
What he is not correct in doing and where he violates the law is travelling off to some place where a republican election is taking place in order to lend support and enhance that candidate's chance of success by his presence. That success is personal gain. It's not the president's gain directly, but there is also a clause which prohibits the use of office for the gain of others.
You keep yapping that no one complained when clinton did "the same thing". In fact I don't recall that he did do that thing, but I did voice, in here, an objection to the practice of rewarding contributors with a night in the white house. At the time I said that it amounted to misappropriation of government funds by the fact of using the services in the white house like the maid or whatever they have which is paid through taxpayer funds.
posted on July 7, 2002 11:06:43 AM new
Oh, Linda's not the only one and its not her fault either. The Republicans really screwed up Americans with that Impeachment Trial of Clinton. All throughout the process, people kept going on and on about the duty of Congress was to oversee the Executive branch and to punish the President whenever he got out of line! What nonsense! At the time, I was debating Clinton's "offenses" to the likes of Ronald Reagan's Felonious behavior (which he later admitted that he had committed a federal felony, BTW) and G. Bush's Dad and what he had done that was so morally repugnant. And the usual response was? "If they had done anything wrong, why didn't Congress punish them?" Arrrrgh! STUPID AMERICANS! Ignorant! Like as if Congress is some sort of Police Force! And there was MORE of them! You stop anyone on the street under the age of 30 and ask them if its the job of Congress to oversee and pubinsh the President when he's wrong and they'll say the same thing - YES! Sheese!