If it’s true that Trump asked the head of the Post Office to raise prices on certain companies, especially those that he has an open rivalry with, like Amazon, could that be considered abuse of his office?
What I read is that the USPS current deal with Amazon is below cost and they are required by law to charge at least their. Sounds kosher to me.
Sure, absolutely, but, if the reports are to be believed, Trump has called the Postmaster General into his office multiple times (meetings that, ironically, don’t appear on the Whitehouse schedule), and demanded that costs be raised on these particular companies right now. The Postmaster explained that she cannot simply raise prices as Amazon and other companies have legal contracts. If she followed is alleged demands that would be a violation of the contract and potentially the law.
If what you say is true, then there is no reason for Trump to be involved AT ALL unless he’s making the argument that there is corruption within the Post Office and Amazon and other companies are being given a below-market rate in exchange for favors of some kind. But if that were the case, where is the evidence? Heck, where is the accusation?
If it’s true that Trump specifically ordered the PMG several times to raise prices on Amazon and others, I’m not sure how this isn’t an attempt to order a public official to carry out acts against a President’s political enemies.
Having said that, I’m not familiar with all the companies that Trump has called out for higher rates, but if that list comes out and we learn that other companies are companies that Trump is rivals with, that will only make the case more damning. From what I’ve read, the Post Office claims it make money on its deal with Amazon.
IF the ordered action is in compliance with the law, what’s the big deal? I doubt if there has been any president who hasn’t done this.
Yeah, Nixon did it when he handed the head of the IRS a list of his political enemies and ordered that the IRS use its powers to harass his enemies. That was the foundation of one of the articles of impeachment against him. We know this because John Dean testified that he wrote the list that Nixon gave him.
And before you point out a democratic President that might have done this, let me make it crystal clear that if the circumstances are that a President, in the past or in the future, used or uses branches of the federal government strictly to persecute his rivals as a way to punish them, I would support impeachment.
I am aware of this story (From the Washington Post)"
The Internal Revenue Service on Friday apologized for targeting groups with “tea party” or “patriot” in their names, confirming long-standing accusations by some conservatives that their applications for tax-exempt status were being improperly delayed and scrutinized.
Lois G. Lerner, the IRS official who oversees tax-exempt groups, said the “absolutely inappropriate” actions by “front-line people” were not driven by partisan motives.
Rather, Lerner said, they were a misguided effort to come up with an efficient means of dealing with a flood of applications from organizations seeking tax-exempt status between 2010 and 2012.
During that period, about 75 groups were selected for extra inquiry — including burdensome questionnaires and, in some cases, improper requests for the names of their donors — simply because of the words in their names, she said in a conference call with reporters.
They constituted about one-quarter of the 300 groups who were flagged for additional analysis by employees of the IRS tax-exempt unit’s main office in Cincinnati.
It was not clear whether the IRS had anticipated the firestorm that it would ignite with its disclosure. Indeed, it appeared to have happened by chance when Lerner, appearing Friday at a conference held by the American Bar Association, responded to a question about the allegations by conservative groups.
What is the difference? In so far as I know, there was no order from the President to scrutinize these groups as a way to segregate some for reprisals and punishment, but if you know something I don’t and you have evidence to the contrary, then I will consider those action in no uncertain terms.
Having said that, I fully understand why those groups felt that was exactly what was happening.
That’s a mighty big ‘if’, i’n’it? IF_those reports (which heretofore i hadn’t even heard of) are ‘to be believed’ (evidence, please, of both the behavior and motivation), then that would seem to me to be abuse of the power of the office.
I really think this is different from what Nixon or Obama did. IF Amazon is getting a price lower than what they are entitled to why can’t the CEO order this practice to be halted? I would think that he would do the same thing even if he didn’t dislike Amazon. Should a corporation get a free pass being charged the lawful price for a service because, coincidentally, the President doesn’t like them? This honestly makes no sense to me.
Not sure I follow. Far as I know Amazon is paying rates they contracted with the government.
I’ll let you pick your own source…
Apparently the rates were set a number of years ago and don’t cover current USPS costs.
Ok, but don’t you think, if you are capable of being objective, that, if anything, Trump should call for a general review of postal rates, not single out a company whose owner also owns a newspaper that tends to be critical of him?
Futhermore, even if your right, the fact that Amazon gets a particular rate is how negotiation works, right? That’s what contracts are for. You can’t break a contract just because you feel like it. Lastly, where’s the evidence that the Post Office is losing money on any of the companies that Trump has singled out? It’s been reported that “Postal officials” (whoever they are) say they are making money on their deal with Amazon. If that’s the case, it’s just another indicator that Trump is abusing his power.
BS. The post office runs billion-dollar deficits every year. Do you think that’s because they are charging customers too much?
While that may be true, that does not necessarily mean they aren’t charging Amazon enough. All we have is the President singling out certain companies. WE have no evidence that those particular companies aren’t being charged enough.
I should also point out, that even if it’s the case, when companies pay less on shipping there is an opportunity to pass that savings on. Of course you could make the argument that unfairly favors companies that ship, but it’s not like, in the aggregate it’s costing money.
Just WHO do you think makes up the post office’s annual deficits? Hint: It AIN’T Amazon.
Facts, where are the facts? Without them we’re all just blowing hot air.
That’s all this unsubstantiated allegation is, thus far, too. Until I see compelling evidence to the contrary I’m just going to assume it’s more smear tactics.
That’s why I was careful in how I phrased the OP. I didn’t say I knew, I asked it in the form of a question in a sort of “what if” this is true… When we lean the facts (if we learn the facts) I’ll have (some) unvarnished opinions…That’s all I was asking.