Post #14955 by WatchingTheHerd on the US Policy board

Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy ❤

Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (21)

Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!

No. of Recommendations: 8

But it's also the type of decision that can have a significant impact on a lot of criminal and financial matters, and it's not hard to imagine a scenario (albeit an uncommon one) where someone might suggest that the President's decision to pull the U.S. out of such agreement was to help someone obtain financial gain or avoid potential criminal enforcement.

------------------

I understand the scenario and the gray area it entails but that's why I have no qualms about providing zero immunity. If someone wants to make that charge and they can get not only a prosecutor to investigate but a grand jury to indict, then so be it. I'd prefer a rule that errs on the side of being a bit onerous to an honest President than one that gives a corrupt President a larger patch of gray in which to operate corruptly and get away with something.

WTH

Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!

Print the post

Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (21)

Prev | Next

Announcements

US Policy FAQ

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.

A community forum supporting civilized, and highly helpful, self-educating investors that come together for Shrewdness and merry spirits. These message boards closely follow the look and feel of the old message boards at boards.fool.com prior to the boards redirected to discussion.fool.com. Shrewd'm is not affiliated with the comprehensive and excellent investment website, The Motley Fool (TMF), in any way. The Shrewd commmunity here has owed, and continues to owe, gratitude to The Motley Fool for nurturing a culture of jovial irreverence towards Wall St, and that tradition will continue here.