But he isn't, is he?
Much like tater tot pimping his ass on the speaking tour at $30k per visit while he was supposed to be in Parliament, you know, getting paid to represent his constituents
I never said he paid it. I was just making the hypothetical point that had he been honest about the fact that it was a leisure trip first and foremost and offered to pay the leisure portion of the trip (which in this case ought to have been most of it seeing how in practical terms, it was primarily a leisure trip), then I would not have seen anything particularly unethical about it.
My problem is with the fact that he's presented it as if it was primarily a business trip and, correct me if I'm wrong, he didn't even offer to pay for the leisure portion of it. And worse yet, when we analyse what he appears to have accomplished there, he could have accomplished the same at a fraction of the cost through Gmail, WhatsApp, and Skype on a lower-end Samsung smartphone over Wi-Fi.
As for his speaking tours, I totally agree with you that he should not be collecting money whenever Parliament is in session at the very least. And even when it's not in session, he shouldn't be accepting payment when he's hired in his capacity as PM (though I agree that it's a grey area if they're hiring him to speak about his father, his life outside of his position as PM, or as the son of Pierre. We could give him the benefit of the doubt there. But as far as I can tell, those speaking tours were hiring him in his capacity as an MP and they were sometimes while Parliament was in session, and that eliminates all moral ambiguity.
