Hacker News Reader

Indeed. It is a calibrated, lawyer-defined behavior called executing their fiduciary duties.

In other words, they are behaving as necessary (and as advised) to avoid later being exposed to a lawsuit.

The cray part is they're doing it by openly doing stuff that's clearly and unambiguously classified as illegal (eg the gifts in exchange for benefits)

This is routine; businesses don’t follow laws because they are laws, they follow laws to the extent that the perceived cost of violations exceed the perceived benefits. The whole reason the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act exist is to impose a domestic cost on foreign bribery by US entities to dissuade them from engaging in corruption abroad where enforcement is weak. But this President, who is explicit against that, is also very obviously, if less explicitly, also against enforcement of the laws against domestic corruption when it is him or his friends benefiting. So, there is literally no cost to weigh against the benefits.

As always, in business, if the penalty for breaking the law is less than the benefit you get out of the violation, then you have to go for it.

Or your competitors will. It’s the cost of doing business.

"I avoided a possible lawsuit, and all I had to do was help plunge my country in to fascism!"

Reply on news.ycombinator.com