4 ms·

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

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.
        Faark 8y ago
        Nice straw man. He got 500k during 9 month in 2017, as you probably know if you've read the WaPo article... and I'd kind of expect that considering how active you comment on that topic. And yes, if you want a significant public office, you should disclose mayor conflicts of interests. That definitively includes large share of recent income.
        ngcc_hk 8y ago
        Not absurd. “Whitaker previously served as Chief of Staff to Sessions from September 2017 to November 2018”.
        sonnyblarney 8y ago
        Yes - any money he takes while in public office should be disclosed, full stop. Of course. But this 'charity' operation has been in operation for a long time. 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.
- 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?

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.
      - Faark 8y ago
        Nice straw man. He got 500k during 9 month in 2017, as you probably know if you've read the WaPo article... and I'd kind of expect that considering how active you comment on that topic. And yes, if you want a significant public office, you should disclose mayor conflicts of interests. That definitively includes large share of recent income.
      - ngcc_hk 8y ago
        Not absurd. “Whitaker previously served as Chief of Staff to Sessions from September 2017 to November 2018”.
        sonnyblarney 8y ago
        Yes - any money he takes while in public office should be disclosed, full stop. Of course. But this 'charity' operation has been in operation for a long time. 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.
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?