8 ms·

Is there a scandal here though? He was part of a non-profit advocacy group that advocated for a specific cause. Some people contributed to that. Seems he ran a

Is there a scandal here though? 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.

Latteland 8y ago
the attorney general had a very high salary that was paid for by hidden people. he's been promoted out of nowhere to be the acting attorney general and appears to have a lack of adequate experience. If you wanted to bribe someone this is how you'd do it. Spiro Agnew and his bags of money could have been hidden by this practice (person was paid by a hidden third party).
- sonnyblarney 8y ago
  " XXXX had a very high salary that was paid for by hidden people. " 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.
  - HHest 8y ago
    However, most people do not hold the power of the US Attorney General, so we care less with them.
    - sonnyblarney 8y ago
      Obama's most recent Att. General, Loretta Lynch worked for almost 10 years at a super high-powered legal firm in DC and London just before Att. General. 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.
      - michaelmrose 8y ago
        This is intellectually lazy its a clear case of corruption.
        sonnyblarney 8y ago
        No. Completely false. 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.
  - coldtea 8y ago
    >Most people work for private entities and we have no idea what goes on. 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.
    - sonnyblarney 8y ago
      " 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?
55555 8y ago
Another data point: His relationship with World Patent Marketing. I'm starting to have enough data points to draw a trend line...
- sonnyblarney 8y ago
  I'm not referring to this guy specifically. I'm not sure I like him but there's nothing wrong with working for some arbitrary non-profit and taking whatever salary.
  - hvidgaard 8y ago
    The issue is that it's completely opaque. If you want to promote transparency, you should "start with your own garden".
    - sonnyblarney 8y ago
      It doesn't matter at all what is privately funded group's objectives were as long as it's above bar. Does this look bad? Yes, very hypocritical. But people are allowed to work for private entities doing such things.
      - hvidgaard 8y ago
        It absolutely matter where the money came from. If you server the public money flow must be completely transparent if you want to prevent corruption, no matter if you do legislature, executive, or judiciary work. That is part of serving the public, and if one does not like that, they're free to not work in the government.
      - sonnyblarney 8y ago
        "It absolutely matter where the money came from. " 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.
michaelmrose 8y ago
When people pay you 1.2 million for influence essentially its a problem if you are also the nation's top lawyer. Most of us aren't able to accept any money where it might impact our decisions on the job.
dragonwriter 8y ago
> He was part of a non-profit advocacy group “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.
- sonnyblarney 8y ago
  No. 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.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > That he was the sole member is not relevant. 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.
coldtea 8y ago
>In a free society, I don't see anything wrong with that. Apart for the blatant conflict of interest and the excellent scheme to funnel unknown origin money to an attorney general, there isn't...
- idontpost 8y ago
  He wasn't attorney general, isn't attorney general, and 3 years ago no one had any inkling he might become acting AG. Your comment amounts to "wet streets cause rain!"
  - mcguire 8y ago
    Are you arguing that he became Acting Attorney General* because he he got money in a weird scheme for a "conservative advocacy group?"
    - idontpost 8y ago
      No. I'm arguing that no one bribed him with the intent of having an AG in their pocket because no one had a clue 3 years ago he'd be (possibly illegally) made acting AG.
YinglingLight 8y ago
You know HN, I'd sincerely like to read arguments without having to highlight them due to your pseudo-censorship font.

Latteland 8y ago

the attorney general had a very high salary that was paid for by hidden people. he's been promoted out of nowhere to be the acting attorney general and appears to have a lack of adequate experience. If you wanted to bribe someone this is how you'd do it. Spiro Agnew and his bags of money could have been hidden by this practice (person was paid by a hidden third party).

sonnyblarney 8y ago
" XXXX had a very high salary that was paid for by hidden people. " 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.
- HHest 8y ago
  However, most people do not hold the power of the US Attorney General, so we care less with them.
  - sonnyblarney 8y ago
    Obama's most recent Att. General, Loretta Lynch worked for almost 10 years at a super high-powered legal firm in DC and London just before Att. General. 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.
    - michaelmrose 8y ago
      This is intellectually lazy its a clear case of corruption.
      - sonnyblarney 8y ago
        No. Completely false. 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.
- coldtea 8y ago
  >Most people work for private entities and we have no idea what goes on. 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.
  - sonnyblarney 8y ago
    " 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?

55555 8y ago

Another data point: His relationship with World Patent Marketing. I'm starting to have enough data points to draw a trend line...

sonnyblarney 8y ago
I'm not referring to this guy specifically. I'm not sure I like him but there's nothing wrong with working for some arbitrary non-profit and taking whatever salary.
- hvidgaard 8y ago
  The issue is that it's completely opaque. If you want to promote transparency, you should "start with your own garden".
  - sonnyblarney 8y ago
    It doesn't matter at all what is privately funded group's objectives were as long as it's above bar. Does this look bad? Yes, very hypocritical. But people are allowed to work for private entities doing such things.
    - hvidgaard 8y ago
      It absolutely matter where the money came from. If you server the public money flow must be completely transparent if you want to prevent corruption, no matter if you do legislature, executive, or judiciary work. That is part of serving the public, and if one does not like that, they're free to not work in the government.
    - sonnyblarney 8y ago
      "It absolutely matter where the money came from. " 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.

michaelmrose 8y ago

When people pay you 1.2 million for influence essentially its a problem if you are also the nation's top lawyer. Most of us aren't able to accept any money where it might impact our decisions on the job.

dragonwriter 8y ago

> He was part of a non-profit advocacy group “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.

sonnyblarney 8y ago
No. 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.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > That he was the sole member is not relevant. 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.

coldtea 8y ago

>In a free society, I don't see anything wrong with that. Apart for the blatant conflict of interest and the excellent scheme to funnel unknown origin money to an attorney general, there isn't...

idontpost 8y ago
He wasn't attorney general, isn't attorney general, and 3 years ago no one had any inkling he might become acting AG. Your comment amounts to "wet streets cause rain!"
- mcguire 8y ago
  Are you arguing that he became Acting Attorney General* because he he got money in a weird scheme for a "conservative advocacy group?"
  - idontpost 8y ago
    No. I'm arguing that no one bribed him with the intent of having an AG in their pocket because no one had a clue 3 years ago he'd be (possibly illegally) made acting AG.

YinglingLight 8y ago

You know HN, I'd sincerely like to read arguments without having to highlight them due to your pseudo-censorship font.