True. However everyone else in the White House including family members of the president and Vice President can. And did. Multiple times. With no consequences.

The problem with the Hatch Act is that it's a joke, since charges largely stem from if the President agrees with the persons violation or not. And as long as the violation is in line with the views of what the President wants, they'll never see it that way.

It's a good idea in theory, but as written it's borderline unenforceable, and has next to no consequences when enforced.

Isn’t the DOJ doing an active investigation on Trump right now?

That’s not true - there have definitely been investigations of Republicans too.

That said: I strongly suspect that the DOJ gets flooded with plausible reports/tips of improper activities by Dems - petty bullshit like this being a prime example.

They can’t just NOT investigate reliable reports because that would be politically biased, and then the GOP PR machine gets to leak the story.

It’s a cheap political attack, and fucks w the DOJ’s ability to focus on other, serious investigations, but doesn’t necessarily point to thinks being screwed up within the DOJ itself.

Amazing how that works right?

It’s been two years. How many Republican politicians of any consequence have been indicted for their very public roles in trying to overthrow democracy?

Yes I voted today...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism#Defense

>Some commentators have defended the usage of whataboutism and tu quoque in certain contexts. Whataboutism can provide necessary context into whether or not a particular line of critique is relevant or fair. In international relations, behavior that may be imperfect by international standards may be quite good for a given geopolitical neighborhood, and deserves to be recognized as such.

>Christian Christensen, Professor of Journalism in Stockholm, argues that the accusation of whataboutism is itself a form of the tu quoque fallacy, as it dismisses criticisms of one's own behavior to focus instead on the actions of another, thus creating a double standard. Those who use whataboutism are not necessarily engaging in an empty or cynical deflection of responsibility: whataboutism can be a useful tool to expose contradictions, double standards, and hypocrisy.

[deleted]

Taking financial rewards? The article says she attended a fundraiser related to Jill Biden and she claims she was given permission to do so.

It stands out this is being probed by people unfamiliar with the topic because we have a Supreme Court Justice whose wife literally tried to have an election overturned, a Court all tied to the Federalist Society, and so on, but this woman attended a fundraiser and it’s potentially improper.

I believe it should be looked into if it meets the threshold for impropriety, but it’s still sort of weird that more powerful people can do it all day and night and nothing happens. It’s kind of like saying there’s a speed limit for anyone making under $100,000 a year only. Sure there are different mechanisms in place to hold others accountable, but they’re obviously broken.