Mueller could have reasonably found nothing that links Jared to anything he is investigating under his purview.
And Jared could have still have his clearance revoked.
Because they’re two completely separate things. It’s so blatantly obvious.
No actually I am not. If you read the actual statute instead of quickly googling nonsense you’d actually understand
“After shipment of a textile fiber product in commerce it shall be unlawful, except as provided in this subchapter, to remove or mutilate, or cause or participate in the removal or mutilation of, prior to the time any textile fiber product is sold and delivered to the ultimate consumer, any stamp, tag, label, or other identification required by this subchapter to be affixed to such textile fiber product, any person violating this section shall be guilty of an unfair method of competition, and an unfair or deceptive act or practice, under the Federal Trade Commission Act. “
The problem with your “logic” is that a consumer cannot be accused of unfair or deceptive act or practice under the FTCA. Because he or she is the consumer. Now let’s try agian.
When the laws were first passed and for the first couple of decades they were on the books. They did not at that time specify manufacturers and retailers.
No, he’s not wrong. You are, and I can’t for the life of me figure out why you insist on continuing to dig yourself deeper.
From your article - it’s the same part you’ve been quoting (without, apparently, reading):
The government countered with a new regulation. Tags now had to have the do-not-remove warning, and federal regulations made it unlawful to “remove or mutilate, or cause or participate in the removal or mutilation of, prior to the time any textile fiber product is sold and delivered to the ultimate consumer, any stamp, tag, label, or other identification required” on them. “Any person violating this section,” the regulation continues, “shall be guilty of an unfair method of competition, and an unfair or deceptive act or practice, under the Federal Trade Commission Act.”
Do you understand what “prior to the time . . . [it is] delivered to the consumer” means?
It means it’s illegal to for anyone to take the tag off before it’s sold to the consumer. It has never been illegal for a consumer who has purchased a mattress to remove the tag.
Now that we’re done with that pedantic waste of time, would you like to return to the topic of the thread - and perhaps address this post:
1 Like
This thread needs a subtitle.
“Trump to Pardon Dinesh D’Souza: The Great Mattress Tag Gish Gallop of 2018”
We’ll be talking about it for years.
10 Likes
And hes one of those guys that says” where do you get your morality from atheists!”
And once again those were added later after the problem with consumers. The original legislation did not exclude consumers.
Any word on where these numbers came from?
If you’re referring to me I’ve never made such a statement.
I am quoting, from your link, the “original” law. It was not changed.
The only thing that was changed was the wording on the label.
1 Like
Im bookmarking this!
Is that a problem for you? I can’t edit to add any other way.
No WR it was funny that the board gave me that warning. That i am talking to you too much 
Then it should be easy to link to this I suppose. Let’s see what you’ve got. Because what you posted, again, says nothing about illegality after a consumer has purchased said mattress. It only, I repeat, ONLY discusses illegality prior to purchase by a consumer. As a matter of fair trade practices. Of which a consumer has no role.
the boards first wavy lays thread maybe? we can only hope
1 Like
Marc Rich? Not paying $48 million in taxes and getting a free pass because he supported Bill and Hillary’s causes?
That precedent has already been set.
Millions of tags lost! Never forget!
1 Like
radical liberal insurgent tearing the first tag: 1932 colorized
2 Likes
I’ll never forget where I was standing when I first learned of the great mattress tag debacle of 20-aught-18.
Will somebody PLEASE think of the victims!!!???
1 Like
