Posted on 01/18/2004 10:14:32 PM PST by Pikamax
Edited on 05/26/2004 5:19:09 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
THE anti-fur folk at PETA may have a new target: Sen. Hillary Clinton.
On Dec. 24, the Times' Boldfaced Names column reported that Manhattan furrier Peter Duffy "told us he had just finished a mink coat for Hillary Rodham Clinton."
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
A dead Mink can get elected in Hawaii, that's some consolation.
Ok, so Hillary's got a $5,000.00 coat, and she didn't pay for it. That would make it a gift.
I believe the limit on gifts to congresscritters is $500.00. Hillary accepted, and is apparently using, an item worth 10 times that amount.
I would be great fun if Page Six called the Ethics Committee to ask the exact wording of the gift ban act. If they really wanted to get the right story, they'd find out who paid for the coat, and whose closet its hanging in.
The temperature is single digits. I'd wear a mink as a bathrobe if I had one.
Because everything they do is self-serving, dishonest, and they are always looking at the political angle, not wanting to alienate any potential constituents.
Rules of behavior and of law are for peasants like you and me, not for the "Elites" like Hillary.
She needs that fur to keep warm so that she can plan our future and establish rules for us to live by.
I keep believing that come a day, the false face will drop and we will be confronted by Madame Mao.
Regards,
Pictures I saw showed that it was lined with White House silver ware!
It was a hideous coat....looked like it was a cast off from some S.S. Sturmbahnfuhrer....
Regards,
Regards,
More hereTHE GIFTS RULE A limit on the amount and/or source of acceptable gifts for Senators and their staffs has been in effect since 1977, when the Special Committee on Official Conduct, 95th Congress, proposed the first Code of Official Conduct for Members, officers, and employees of the United States Senate. The report issued by that committee provides a useful source of legislative history on the original intent of the Gifts Rule, which has been amended on several occasions since 1977. 41 The original Rule limited gifts from those with a ‘‘direct interest’’ in legislation to $100. Later, a $300 limit on gifts from all other sources was added. Thereafter, a uniform $250 annual limit was placed on all sources of gifts. Most recently, the Senate Gifts Rule was revised by Senate Resolution 158, 104th Congress, effective January 1, 1996. A 1994 Report of the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs (S. Rpt. No. 103–255, 103d Cong., 2d Sess.) offers insight into the purposes behind changes to the Rule effectuated by Senate Resolution 158. The current Rule places significant new restrictions on the ability of Senate Members, officers, and employees to accept gifts. Senate Rule 35.1(a) sets forth the basic rule on accepting gifts. It states: (1) No Member, officer, or employee of the Senate shall knowingly accept a gift except as provided in this rule. (2) A Member, officer, or employee may accept a gift (other than cash or cash equivalent) which the Member, officer, or employee reasonably and in good faith believes to have a value of less than $50, and a cumulative value from one source during a calendar year of less than $100. No gift with a value below $10 shall count toward the $100 annual limit. No formal recordkeeping is required by this paragraph, but a Member, officer, or employee shall make a good faith effort to comply with this paragraph. The figure of $50 (which is actually a dollar limit of $49.99) applies to each gift received, unless the gift falls under an exception. The figure of $100 (which is actually a dollar limit of $99.99) applies to the aggregate value of all non-exempt gifts received from a single source during a calendar year. Thus, the value of all non-exempt gifts from a single source in a calendar year must be tallied. Any gift worth less than $10 is excluded under Rule 35.1(a)(2) and does not count towards the $99.99 total. Once the tally reaches $99.99, all further non-exempt gifts from that source in that year must be declined.
I told her I'd set out some traps...
I think it's only $50.00.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.