The corruption back then was staggering. LBJ had attorneys flying money in briefcases back to Texas. Plus the fig leaf if his wife’s radio station purchase, which attracted all sorts of advertising from folks looking for favors.
It's all part of the plan, man. Keep 'em distracted with too much info. It's like a law firm burying you with boxes and boxes and boxes of discovery, which has little or nothing to actually do with the case at hand. It's effective, and tiresome.
I believe the jury is (literally) still out on the legality of his interim appointment.
He was part of a non-profit advocacy group that advocated for a specific cause. Some people contributed to that. Seems he ran around doing radio interviews, not making profits.
In a free society, I don't see anything wrong with that.
I'm not even sure if non-profits should be obliged to publicize their donors if the donors don't want to be identified.
Of course, if the work is specifically political, it should be transparent. Also, given that he's going to take a government position, we want to know who he's been taking from ...
While it does maybe look a little suspicious at face value there's no there there.
If a bunch of people want to run around advocating some kind of principle and raise money for themselves to do that then so be it, they can do that.
Most of us aren't able to accept any money where it might impact our decisions on the job.
“Part of” doesn't really capture his status as the sole paid employee.
> Seems he ran around doing radio interviews, not making profits.
The $1.2 million isn't the contribution to the entity that paid expenses and his salary, it's his salary from the entity. So it very much seems like he was running around doing radio interviews and making (rather large) profits.
That he was the sole member is not relevant.
And you're misunderstanding the issue of 'non profit': he was not operating a profitable entity. His comp. doesn't count as profit for the org.
Again - there's nothing here. He was part of a private firm that did advocacy, among other things. 1/2 of the people that go into government go in from private firms, and we know nothing about their relationships otherwise.
This guy worked for this odd non-profit long before anyone could have conceived that he would be the US chief attorney, so there's no smoke here really.
That he was the sole paid employee is relevant to the minimizing deflection you keep making that he was merely “part of” the entity.
> And you're misunderstanding the issue of 'non profit'
No, I'm not (but you are).
> he was not operating a profitable entity.
Not that that is germane to anything, but non-profit doesn't mean that an organization isn't profitable, it means that there are no equity claims on any profits (that is, it doesn't return profits to it's owners.)
> His comp. doesn't count as profit for the org.
Which would be relevant if he issue was whether the org was making profits, but not when it is whether he was making profits.
> This guy worked for this odd non-profit long before anyone could have conceived that he would be the US chief attorney, so there's no smoke here really.
The former might be relevant to the latter if the accusation was that he was being bribed in anticipation of becoming AG, rather than the opacity of the background of a non-Senate-confirmed and otherwise non-publicly-vetted appointee as Acting Attorney General outside the normal line of succession.
> "So it very much seems like he was running around doing radio interviews and making (rather large) profits."
This statement implies a lack of understanding of what a 'non profit' is, because there is no indication of profit here.
But it doesn't matter - by all accounts, this was just a regular non-profit. There's nothing curious about it.
> "The former might be relevant to the latter if the accusation was that he was being bribed in anticipation of becoming AG"
He was employed there since 2014 - you're implication would be that somehow, years before Trump was elected, years before his nomination, that someone could have bribed him - which is totally far fetched.
Also - again - hypocritical if you don't apply the same logic to other members of such offices, all of whom have 'opaque' financial backgrounds were they in private office. Who paid Loretta Lynch's millions for 10 years before she became AG? And where was the uproar then?
There are no loaded dice here.
Just regular DC inanity.
(1) you keep explicitly demonstrating (not merely implying) complete ignorance of what a nonprofit is, because you keep saying that making profits is relevant to that status (it's not, returning them to investors is.)
(2) moreover, you keep demonstrating failure at reading comprehension at the same time, by stubbornly (now even after the error was pointed out) confusing a statement about Whittaker personally profiting with a statement about the nonprofit from which he was profiting doing so.
> He was employed there since 2014 - you're implication would be that somehow, years before Trump was elected, years before his nomination, that someone could have bribed him
No, my explicit claim was that your continuing to point to the fact that he was employed there before anyone could have predicted he would become AG would only be relevant if someone had made the outlandish claim you suggest, but that you are beating a strawman because literally no one anywhere has made that claim.
It was a non-profit. He got paid. That's it. There's nothing to bring up. So why would you otherwise?
----
" but that you are beating a strawman because literally no one anywhere has made that claim."
Really?
"This is intellectually lazy its a clear case of corruption" ... is what someone wrote just above - and is the general implication of those commenting here.
The entire thread is devoted to insinuating that this guy has some kind of major conflict of interest due to his shady involvement with this non-profit.
So, no, it's not a 'straw man' - I'm responding directly to the assertion.
There is nothing here.
A curious but otherwise normal non-profit, in operation long before anything relevant.
There's probably no fire, there's not even any smoke.
It is, however, the sort of public humiliation one might be willing to accept as an employee of Completely Ordinary People for the Advancement of Motivated Reasoning and Large Paychecks.
Which is irrelevant, as it's still revenue AND profit for him.
And that is also irrelevant.
>>> He had a job and got paid for it <<<
Is this now the threshold for sinister activity?
Are you people reading your own words?
The implication of the OP regarding 'profit' was that there was something remiss re: 'non profit'.
There isn't.
There is no smoke here.
A guy had a job in the private sector, very much like most others before they go into public office.
That's it.
So, hopefully, they'll have a chance for vetting.
But we'll find out about as much about his non-profits backers as we did about Loretta Lynch clients while she was in private practice before become AG - which is not much.
Money he receives during holding public office is another story altogether.
Thy hypocrisy on this thread is byzantine, people have lost their marbles.
I'm so glad I don't have a stake in this game, and thankful everyday I'm not caught up in American political delusions which so few seem to actually be able to escape.
Never wrote the above, never said that is the threshold, so not ever sure what you're going on about.
The threshold of "sinister activity" is getting money from unknown sources. That would be problematic whether you're DA or a private citizen (e.g. for money laundering etc). Doubly so if you're supposedly in an organization for "Accountability and Civic Trust", where you're making statements with political impact against policies, politicians and parties, as an "non profit" "ngo", while getting paid millions from unknown donors (with whatever agendas). Doubly so if it's 2017 and you continue getting paid from them while getting to the post of chief of staff of Sessions.
>Are you people reading your own words?
Well, what you quoted above are not "my own words", so there's that.
- What did you do before? - I did [stuff] - For who? - Not telling.
Yeah, that sounds legit.
Also, non-profit just refers to the structure of the corporation for tax purposes. It’s also not a synonym for charity.
A guy worked for a private entity for years.
That's it.
There's no story here.
Nobody working for the Gov. not even AG is going to be required to list all of those who paid into such entities over the past - and it only demonstrates the sad level of partisanship here that everyone should try to consider as much for this guy.
If there are some nefarious dealings then, fine, hopefully they will come to light.
Other than that, there is nothing here, not even smoke
People get paid a lot in high powered situations.
Fundraisers for charities make a fortune.
Members of Boards get paid a fortune for seemingly not doing a lot.
Tons of people in 'think tanks' are paid a fortune for their roles.
There's really not much out of line here.
If he was receiving money while on the public dole - that's another story.
If he 'all of a sudden' got a pile of cash whilst we knew he was going to be AG - different story.
But his involvement in the non-profit predates any of the Trumpian shenanigans, so this is really a non story.
If you apply the same degree of scrutiny to non-Trump officials from other eras, you run into the same problems.
Most massively: the Clinton Global Wealth Initiative. Basically a super-massive kitty-fund for the Clinton family, that actors - many of them nefarious - from all sorts of shady places in the world have paid into while Clinton was Secretary of State ! Her fund was literally receiving millions of dollars from state actors she was doing public business with. There was an example of a man in Chicago who made a $200K donation, and then was appointed to a board (after a scandal he was withdrawn) ... but there's basically no way to detangle Clinton from that fund, no matter how above board she is. Nobody in government should be managing a several hundred million dollar fund that their peers are contributing to. I'm not hinting that she was corrupt, rather, the conflict of interest is as big as you can get and there wasn't much fuss over it.
Apart for the blatant conflict of interest and the excellent scheme to funnel unknown origin money to an attorney general, there isn't...
Your comment amounts to "wet streets cause rain!"
Most people work for private entities and we have no idea what goes on.
I'm not sure if I like this guy at all, but that he worked for some non-profit is not a smoking gun of any kind really.
Do we know how she was comped? By whom? How much? For what? What were her conflicts of interests with her very powerful clients?
She was paid by 'hidden people' via her firm. No doubt - and we have no idea who.
Everyone who's possibly going to be the US Att. General is going to have web of conflicts of interests in their history, a lot of it private.
1 year ago I don't think anyone could have predicted who would be the Att. General so I'm not sure this is smoke.
This guy seems to have some more obvious, more public conflicts of interests, those that don't like him should probably focus on that. I don't really like this guy, but then I don't know that much about him and I'm not American so I'm not going to say anything specifically other than there's nothing wrong with anyone working for a non-profit.
Which is inevitable, but we should still check whether that's the case, whether that influenced their decisions, etc.
But it's even more important for them to not have CURRENTLY ACTIVE conflicts of interest.
A man who works for a private advocacy firm for years before going into public office, wherein nobody on earth would have had a clue that this guy was going to be the US chief attorney is - does not even hint corruption.
This guy was working this advocacy group in 2014. Are you really indicating that some people knew, in 2014 that Donald Trump would be pres 2 years later, and that 2 years after that, that Drump would put 'their boy' in as Att. General? Because that's what you'd have to insinuate if you think this guy is guilty of something (at least from this non-profit)
You have offered no rebuttal to my position, or remotely any evidence of corruption ... just ad-hominem.
In order to hint at 'corruption' you'd have to indicate that somehow, some time ago - before Trump was even President - that this guy was collecting millions from some vague source so that 'one day' he'd act on it.
It's absurd.
This new Att. General has enough glaring problem that are probably lower hanging fruit. This non-profit is probably not one of them, at least superficially.
“Whitaker previously served as Chief of Staff to Sessions from September 2017 to November 2018”.
The commenters here are creating the controversy, it's not a straw-man I'm making.
This guy's background is shady enough, but not enough to imply that money received before working in government is somehow an implication of corruption.
And yes, if you want a significant public office, you should disclose mayor conflicts of interests. That definitively includes large share of recent income.
The indication is that because he was part of a private non-profit - is that there is some kind of inherent shadiness - which is wrong.
The radical partisanship here has thrown all of the otherwise great debaters on here into a hissy fit.
There is no story.
He was part of an advocacy group from years ago - it likely has nothing to do with anything.
He could have been a private lawyer, or worked at any other private firm and it would indicate the same degree of ostensible corruption.
Lorette Lynch was being paid market rate to do skilled work by a transparent business, not a shadowy millionaire to do .. what exactly did Whittaker do to justify his pay?
Are you kidding? They are almost exactly analogue.
How do you prescribe this non-profit as 'shady'?
How do you arrive at the conclusion that he was not paid some kind of market rate?
How do you arrive at the conclusion that expensive DC law firms are 'reputable'?
How do you conclude that Loretta Lynch's dealings were not at least with nefarious corporations or individuals?
Have you ever worked with a high profile law firm? You do realize that they are expensive because they help powerful people and groups bend the law, right?
He was the head of a non-profit advocacy group - and there are tons of them - and he runs around advocating for whatever cause. I'm of the inclination to believe that it was just a shade less than lobbying, ergo non-profit instead of having to register as a lobbyist.
$500K is not that much in many circles - probably a lot less than Loretta Lynch will have earned for working for who? Exactly? (I mean her client list, which is likely private)
Was she involved in defending nefarious activity by private individuals or corporations? (You do realize what lawyers do, right?) I don't know, I don't think any of us do.
The situations are actually very similar.
Hopefully, we'll get more of a chance to vet him ... but I'm doubtful there'll be much transparency on the source of his funds.
Most people can do whatever they like. It's when you are a public official and people can pay you for favors that this matters.
Except he wasn't in public office while working for some non-profit.
So what is your point?
Does this look bad? Yes, very hypocritical. But people are allowed to work for private entities doing such things.
Really?
See my note above about Loretta Lynch and her 10 years at a high powered DC Law Firm. She was likely paid millions by very powerful interests.
Were you up in arms to see her client lists, how much she was paid before she was Att. Gen.?
Again - I don't like this new guy - but the double standard on this is very hypocritical.
People are allowed to work in private and have private transaction and none of it really matters unless there is some kind of predicate knowledge.
Again - during his time at this fund, nobody on planet earth could have known this guy was going to be Attn. General so the suggestion that he was being paid to alter the law is a little bit out there.
a) We are talking about a specific guy
b) The commenters are clearly holding him to a totally different standard
c) Unfortunately - there'd be no public servants if everything had to be disclosed. It'd be impossible. There'd be conflicts of interest. For Attorney General ... these folks are lawyers! How much information can they give about previous clients! Probably not much! :)
So yes, transparency. Tax returns, donations, relationships with foreign nationals, public officials from other countries, persons of interest ... but there's only so much that someone can reasonably give up.
You, 4 posts up. Please stop moving the goalposts.
Everyone else's comments were about 'this specific guy' - which I was responding to.
A specific guy that got a lot of money anonymously and is an acting AG
But all your posts are arguing against people who are talking about “this guy specifically”.
At best, you are missing the point badly.
Having life joys that can be disrupted by this rage is a luxury, and not nearly common enough. I do feel that's a political truism, though: change only happens when problems are serious enough to upset the well-off who have disposable income and time, and who can afford (both materially and existentially) to maintain this sort of boiling rage and do something about it.
Even societies in which most people are barely living at a pure subsistence level have historically had revolutions, and in fact subsistence commoners becoming angry to the point of revolution has repeatedly been one way that nature corrects concentrations of power.
I’d go even further and say that your argument is not just wrong, but dangerously wrong because it offers an excuse for why a person might not cultivate their indignant rage at the corruption. You invite them to self-pity and woe their poverty as an excuse to not direct that rage at social progress, which is unacceptable even if you’re all the way at true subsistence level poverty (most aren’t, even by world standards).
And you also create an excuse for not being upset with other people who fail to act on their indignant rage over this issue too. You can just write it off as someone not “privileged enough” to sacrifice for the sake of acting to stop corruption.
My co-workers don't follow politics (except what gets shovelled at them by the red tops) and largely don't care as long as they get to go on holiday a couple of times a year and upgrade their car every few.
By and large they are comfortable and so they are happy with things as they are.
Steps can't be too small, and in practice that could mean they have to be pretty large. Here the opposite approach - attacking root causes - can become more productive.
If it is better, it would be because:
(1) people are 'better' now - probably not true
(2) the preventative measures in place now are better - but we know the lengths that these people will go to perpetuate corruption, so I just assume they've probably found other roundabout ways.
The same goes for elections. LBJ bringing thousands of Mexicans over the border to vote in Texas elections and eventually stealing the his seat in the Senate. Why should we believe that there isn't similar violations happening now? I personally doubt the extent of corruption has changed at all, only that it is more sophisticated. I have no confidence in public elections or the sanctity of government as a result. I'm completely disillusioned and I have no intention of participating at all.
FWIW, I'm not from the USA, but I believe the same principle holds across the world
It's really hard to deny that there are difference. Over time: see J Edgar Hoover, or Nixon. Or 70 years without a World War (and generally with drastically fewer wars than before).
And geographically: Canada is better than the US is better than Portugal is better than Greece is better than Iran is better than Sudan is better than North Korea...
Unless you literally believe the vote in your country has as little power as one in North Korea (i.e. zero), there is no moral justification for just cynically throwing up your arms and declaring everyone corrupt/it's all just the globalists/Bilderberg/elite/whatever. Because if enough people do that it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Regarding voting, I completely understand that my stance is not helping the situation at all and is untenable if too many people adopt it, but I truly believe that the perceived value of a vote is so out of whack with its actual value, that I (selfishly, I admit) decide to give it up entirely. Sure, some places are better than others, but I think in all countries that I'm aware of, it's still too bad for me to care about participating.
Reading political biographies will show you the gulf that exists between how politics actually works, and how the general public perceive it and use as their metric for choosing candidates.
btw, 23's an interesting number. I'm sure you've noticed too.. maybe similar to this page http://www.crystalinks.com/23enigma.html