Do presidents have less fiduciary responsibility than CEOs?
Yes. Presidents and CEO's are entirely different roles and have entirely different legal obligations. CEO's and CFO's have significantly more fiduciary responsibilities to investors, shareholders and board members. The president of the USA has responsibilities to uphold the constitution, act as the commander and chief to the military, faithfully execute the laws among a myriad of other executive tasks.
So they can intentionally bankrupt the country without consequence?
Not a lawyer but if you mean legal consequence while acting as a sitting president that depends on if they are successfully impeached after which point legal actions can be taken. or after their term expires ... An example would be President Clinton was successfully impeached before action could be taken for his lying under oath and obstruction of justice.
In terms of a CEO or CFO one would expect or hope board members would remove them long before the criminal justice system has to step in otherwise the board members could also be indicted if it could be shown they had knowledge of malfeasance, ineptitude or corruption.
My understanding is also that impeachment for "Treason, Bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors" does not preclude the state or the states from criminally prosecuting for the same offense. There is double jeopardy for impeachable offenses that are also criminal offenses.
Where is our moral outrage at Trump with Miss Daniels while his wife was at home with the baby? Where is our moral outrage at them employing a tabloid to keep that in our faces?
Recently I learned that Mr Epstein was well acquainted with Ken Starr, prosecutor of Clinton for lying about non-duty-related infidelity.
Isn't there an interview with one of them about how Epstein and Trump have this need to "cuck", shame, and otherwise sexually humiliate others?
(While infidelity is technically still a crime per UCMJ for persons who have signed a UCMJ contract, my understanding is that infidelity is very rarely prosecuted.)
Clinton was impeached for perjury about infidelity, but not for perjury about not inhaling.
Trump hasn't yet been impeached for lying to the public about when he ended his relationship with Mr Epstein, but he was not under oath at that time?
Aren't there a number of available prosecutors for congressional impeachment given the turnover and resignations at DOJ of late? Congress should hire former prosecutors in order to become adequate at impeachment.
Apparently it's practically impossible to prove quid pro quo. But then why would they have specifically cited Bribery as an impeachable offense in the Constitution?
People sell burgundy "Make Lying Wrong Again" hats that contrast with political "Make America Pray Again" hats and executive seal bibles.
> The Bible translation was intended to be the New International Version,[13] but Zondervan, the division of HarperCollins which owns the rights to the New International Version, withheld them after multiple public complaints, and the King James Version was used instead, as it is in the public domain in the United States
While infidelity is technically still a crime per UCMJ for persons who have signed a UCMJ contract, my understanding is that infidelity is very rarely prosecuted
AFAIK the president is not subject to the UCMJ despite being the command and chief otherwise there are many actions by many presidents I am certain would have them in front of a military tribunal. A sitting president can not be court-martialed. As a side note I knew a few people that were caught cheating when I was in the military and their lives were turned upside down by the Chief Master Sergeant.
Clinton was impeached for perjury about infidelity, but not for perjury about not inhaling.
One of those is really hard to prove unless tested immediately afterwords. On the other hand ejaculate on a dress allows for genetic testing. All recent presidents DNA are on file.
It turns out that orders are nullifiable in cases of usurpation, but what about fraudulent use of likeness by one's own kids on bibles and beer pong sets, for example.
>So they can intentionally bankrupt the country without consequence?
Yes. Presidents can commit sedition and attempt to overturn elections without consequence. They can interfere with the prosecution of international pedophile rings without consequence. They can commit tax fraud by the billions without consequence. They can commit war crimes without consequence. Of course they can bankrupt the country without consequence. Americans don't hold their Presidents to account, and the Supreme Court made it illegal to prosecute a President for anything they do in office. Nixon was right when he said nothing a President does is illegal, and Trump was right when he said he could shoot someone in broad daylight and get away with it.
CEO fiduciary duties are enforceable by shareholder litigation, while presidential duties are mostly checked by elections, impeachment, and courts, so accountability is weaker and slower.
Do presidents have less fiduciary responsibility than CEOs?
Yes. Presidents and CEO's are entirely different roles and have entirely different legal obligations. CEO's and CFO's have significantly more fiduciary responsibilities to investors, shareholders and board members. The president of the USA has responsibilities to uphold the constitution, act as the commander and chief to the military, faithfully execute the laws among a myriad of other executive tasks.
So they can intentionally bankrupt the country without consequence?
But a CEO that intentionally starves the beast (their own company) would be criminally liable to the state and civilly liable to shareholders.
> But a CEO that intentionally starves the beast (their own company) would be criminally liable to the state and civilly liable to shareholders.
The "beast" in this context is the government, not the country, on the argument that the former is slowing down the latter.
Therefore, I'd compare it to things like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asset_stripping and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulture_capitalist
I don't like them, but I don't think they're illegal?
If another country were to force us into debt intentionally by sabotage, wouldn't that be a hostile act?
So they can intentionally bankrupt the country without consequence?
Not a lawyer but if you mean legal consequence while acting as a sitting president that depends on if they are successfully impeached after which point legal actions can be taken. or after their term expires ... An example would be President Clinton was successfully impeached before action could be taken for his lying under oath and obstruction of justice.
In terms of a CEO or CFO one would expect or hope board members would remove them long before the criminal justice system has to step in otherwise the board members could also be indicted if it could be shown they had knowledge of malfeasance, ineptitude or corruption.
My understanding is also that impeachment for "Treason, Bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors" does not preclude the state or the states from criminally prosecuting for the same offense. There is double jeopardy for impeachable offenses that are also criminal offenses.
Where is our moral outrage at Trump with Miss Daniels while his wife was at home with the baby? Where is our moral outrage at them employing a tabloid to keep that in our faces?
Recently I learned that Mr Epstein was well acquainted with Ken Starr, prosecutor of Clinton for lying about non-duty-related infidelity.
Isn't there an interview with one of them about how Epstein and Trump have this need to "cuck", shame, and otherwise sexually humiliate others?
(While infidelity is technically still a crime per UCMJ for persons who have signed a UCMJ contract, my understanding is that infidelity is very rarely prosecuted.)
Clinton was impeached for perjury about infidelity, but not for perjury about not inhaling.
Trump hasn't yet been impeached for lying to the public about when he ended his relationship with Mr Epstein, but he was not under oath at that time?
Aren't there a number of available prosecutors for congressional impeachment given the turnover and resignations at DOJ of late? Congress should hire former prosecutors in order to become adequate at impeachment.
Apparently it's practically impossible to prove quid pro quo. But then why would they have specifically cited Bribery as an impeachable offense in the Constitution?
People sell burgundy "Make Lying Wrong Again" hats that contrast with political "Make America Pray Again" hats and executive seal bibles.
God Bless the U.S.A. Bible https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_Bless_the_U.S.A._Bible :
> The Bible translation was intended to be the New International Version,[13] but Zondervan, the division of HarperCollins which owns the rights to the New International Version, withheld them after multiple public complaints, and the King James Version was used instead, as it is in the public domain in the United States
While infidelity is technically still a crime per UCMJ for persons who have signed a UCMJ contract, my understanding is that infidelity is very rarely prosecuted
AFAIK the president is not subject to the UCMJ despite being the command and chief otherwise there are many actions by many presidents I am certain would have them in front of a military tribunal. A sitting president can not be court-martialed. As a side note I knew a few people that were caught cheating when I was in the military and their lives were turned upside down by the Chief Master Sergeant.
Clinton was impeached for perjury about infidelity, but not for perjury about not inhaling.
One of those is really hard to prove unless tested immediately afterwords. On the other hand ejaculate on a dress allows for genetic testing. All recent presidents DNA are on file.
The President is not prohibited from pardoning themself for UCMJ offenses.
Infidelity that requires people at work to lie for you is the military's problem.
Apparently exoneration by one's partner for example in an open marriage does not change whether infidelity is an offense per UCMJ.
On a standard DNA paternity test, one's parents will test positive.
Wouldn't keeping DNA on file (and other biosignatures like heartbeat at a distance) make it easy to identify actual.
That person didn't remember their wife in a deposition. And, "I thought he was pretty good at what he did."
Deposition video featuring Trump not remembering his ex wife: https://youtu.be/lonTBp9h7Fo?t=1028
It turns out that orders are nullifiable in cases of usurpation, but what about fraudulent use of likeness by one's own kids on bibles and beer pong sets, for example.
>So they can intentionally bankrupt the country without consequence?
Yes. Presidents can commit sedition and attempt to overturn elections without consequence. They can interfere with the prosecution of international pedophile rings without consequence. They can commit tax fraud by the billions without consequence. They can commit war crimes without consequence. Of course they can bankrupt the country without consequence. Americans don't hold their Presidents to account, and the Supreme Court made it illegal to prosecute a President for anything they do in office. Nixon was right when he said nothing a President does is illegal, and Trump was right when he said he could shoot someone in broad daylight and get away with it.
Just as the founding fathers intended.
No kings!
If a CEO were to "starve the beast" by intentionally increasing expenses and reducing income, wouldn't that be criminally prosecutable?
Starve the beast https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve_the_beast
CEO fiduciary duties are enforceable by shareholder litigation, while presidential duties are mostly checked by elections, impeachment, and courts, so accountability is weaker and slower.
Why don't the US Senate ethics rules like "QBT (Qualified Blind Trust) or specific approval" apply to the Executive and the Executive Cabinet?
Ancient Chinese wisdom:
刑不上大夫
High-ranking officials are exempt from criminal punishment.
And if they do, it is because they have crossed some red lines.