You don’t think there would be an expectation of getting something in return? That’s pretty naive.
I didn’t say that. However, that’s not how it works legally. Unless there is a law specifically restricting deposits in that account, whatever ulterior motives might be involved are irrelevant. Proving bribery is also nearly impossible in our current system, without solid evidence that the transfer of funds was explicitly tied to the abuse of power.
And the separation of powers is literally one of the foundations of US law.
I didn’t question it’s existence, only it’s applicability in this circumstance. We’re talking about a private citizen making a donation to a public fund. The president isn’t even involved except that they happen to be a “friend”. The separation of powers is irrelevant.
However, that’s not how it works legally. Unless there is a law specifically restricting deposits in that account, whatever ulterior motives might be involved are irrelevant.
No. That’s exactly how it works, legally. It would be a violation of the Antideficiency Act. And to be clear, it isn’t about who can make a deposit…it’s about who has the authority to spend the money. That’s Congress, and only Congress. That’s why the separation of powers matters here. Without their approval, the president has no authority to use that money for any purpose, regardless of where it came from.
And by law, it has to be spent from that fund, which is under the explicit control of Congress. Using any other fund, is also illegal. There is no legal way for him to pay the troops without Congress. Period. That is the law.
So, all the way up and down, this is simply illegal.
I didn’t say that. However, that’s not how it works legally. Unless there is a law specifically restricting deposits in that account, whatever ulterior motives might be involved are irrelevant. Proving bribery is also nearly impossible in our current system, without solid evidence that the transfer of funds was explicitly tied to the abuse of power.
I didn’t question it’s existence, only it’s applicability in this circumstance. We’re talking about a private citizen making a donation to a public fund. The president isn’t even involved except that they happen to be a “friend”. The separation of powers is irrelevant.
No. That’s exactly how it works, legally. It would be a violation of the Antideficiency Act. And to be clear, it isn’t about who can make a deposit…it’s about who has the authority to spend the money. That’s Congress, and only Congress. That’s why the separation of powers matters here. Without their approval, the president has no authority to use that money for any purpose, regardless of where it came from.
And by law, it has to be spent from that fund, which is under the explicit control of Congress. Using any other fund, is also illegal. There is no legal way for him to pay the troops without Congress. Period. That is the law.
So, all the way up and down, this is simply illegal.