> We are talking about the general practice and not specifically Yellen. > Are they all forms of bribery? Reagan and Clinton didn't become cabinet officials

> We are talking about the general practice and not specifically Yellen. > Are they all forms of bribery? Reagan and Clinton didn't become cabinet officials after cashing in on speeches, and both the article and this thread center on Yellen. Don't attempt to move the goal posts. > If you are going to accuse people of corruption, you need to have > evidence that is stronger than the existence of a motive, which is > basically all you have currently. This is not how it works. Read (b)(1) here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/208 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/208 Then, read (d) here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/5/2635.502 https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/5/2635.502 Yellen disclosed the sources of her honoraria and acknowledged a financial interest (here: https://extapps2.oge.gov/201/Presiden.nsf/PAS+Index/18A4D129DD5675888525864F0081071C/$FILE/Yellen,%20Janet%20L.%20final%20EA.pdf https://extapps2.oge.gov/201/Presiden.nsf/PAS+Index/18A4D129...). She received written permission based on the determination "that the interest is not so substantial as to be deemed likely to affect the integrity" of her work. The question isn't whether she has committed a crime (she has not), nor whether she has motive to unfairly benefit Citadel (she does). Rather, the question is whether that financial interest is substantial enough to likely affect her work (a discretionary call already made by a government official), and whether the process itself is fair to other market participants (I contend that it is not).