[3niner]

He didn't write any bad checks--they were all covered by the House Bank.

A better way of saying it is that he wrote over $100,000 in overdrafts, which did not result in bounced checks or overdraft charges. I know how the House Bank worked.

The scandal was that Americans found out what was being done for Congresscritters, that would never be done for ordinary Americans.

By the way, I used the term "bad checks" (which you copied) not bounced checks. A check written for money that is not in the account is still bad, even if it doesn't bounce.

[sitetest]

Dear 3niner,

"A check written for money that is not in the account is still bad, even if it doesn't bounce."

Not if the bank has informed you that you have overdraft protection. In that case, writing the check doesn't make it bad, but rather accesses a line of credit in place for your use.

That these overdraft lines of credit were cost-free, and apparently available to any member of the House without any sort of credit check was indeed a scandal. But the scandal lay more with the folks who set up the rules (the ruling Democrats), not with folks who used the service within prudent parameters.


sitetest

[Antoninus]

The scandal was that Americans found out what was being done for Congresscritters, that would never be done for ordinary Americans.

You're right. And it went on for decades under Democrat rule before Newt and the crew arrived and set it right. If anything, Hunter is guilty of not seeing that this common Congressional practice was a bad idea and would reflect badly on him. As far as I know, he did nothing illegal though and never left anyone holding the bag for a bad check. Is there evidence to the contrary?