5 ms·

Here is why it is straw grabbing: 1. WH did not ignore the question. The press secretary declined to speak POTUS or Yellen's mind for them, and instead implied

Here is why it is straw grabbing: 1. WH did not ignore the question. The press secretary declined to speak POTUS or Yellen's mind for them, and instead implied that it would not be a problem if Yellen did recuse because there was a full economics team. Ergo - the headline is bunk. 2. CoI declarations and recusals are for when someone stands to gain, where someone has previously gained and feels beholden, or where the impression of a CoI might arise. Yellen spoke to many, many firms but, due to the fact she was only paid to speak, likely does not feel beholden to these firms now or in the future. Ergo - the lede is bunk. 3. People who are hired by governments to offer advice do so within the domain of their expertise. Now, perhaps there are a few eager amateurs out there who have never drawn a paycheck in their area of expertise, but to state that Yellen should not advise the President on the biggest stock market scandal of the year because she once drew a paycheck for talking to them at one time is a damn long bow to draw. Where else is the POTUS going to get advisors except from the firms who pay the most money to get the best employees / speakers? The local CPA? Ergo - the wider implication is bunk. So the headline, lede and implication of the article are bunk. Given that this article is from a pro-Trump news aggregator / commentator site, and given that politics has become so polarised, this appears to be the conflating of a molehill with a mountain for the sake of political gain. Ergo - straw grabbing.

byecomputer 6y ago
> Where else is the POTUS going to get advisors except from the firms who pay the most money to get the best employees / speakers? The local CPA? Ergo - the wider implication is bunk. I'm not convinced that everyone who's knowledgeable enough to preside over this hearing has been paid by this specific firm. Nobody's saying that the advisor on this issue needs to have never given a paid speech or worked for one of the big players. They're saying that the advisor should not have been paid $800,000 by Citadel over the course of multiple speaking arrangements because that's an obvious sign of a preexisting relationship and therefore a conflict of interest.
- monkeydreams 6y ago
  > I'm not convinced that everyone who's knowledgeable enough to preside over this hearing has been paid by this specific firm. Literally every economic decision Yellen has to advise upon will affect some firm or organisation to which she has provided services. > Nobody's saying that the advisor on this issue needs to have never given a paid speech or worked for one of the big players. But this is exactly what you are saying by implication. Whatever regulatory outcome occurs here will affect all trading firms, which means that all advisors will have been paid by someone at some stage in the past affected by any outcome. > They're saying that the advisor should not have been paid $800,000 by Citadel over the course of multiple speaking arrangements because that's an obvious sign of a preexisting relationship and therefore a conflict of interest. That is not how conflict of interest works. If there is no current relationship, and no indication of a future relationship (e.g. quid pro quo or a promise of employment), and no obvious link to the firm (e.g. an unpaid board seat, etc), then I am finding it hard to see how a conflict of interest might occur.
  - byecomputer 6y ago
    > Whatever regulatory outcome occurs here will affect all trading firms, which means that all advisors will have been paid by someone at some stage in the past affected by any outcome. That's unavoidable, but it doesn't change the absolutely controllable and simple request that the investigator not have a direct relationship with the firm in question. > That is not how conflict of interest works. If there is no current relationship, and no indication of a future relationship (e.g. quid pro quo or a promise of employment), and no obvious link to the firm (e.g. an unpaid board seat, etc), then I am finding it hard to see how a conflict of interest might occur. Conflicts of interest do not have to be concurrent in order to be disqualifying. Recusal as an administrative official is generally warranted when one's impartiality could be reasonably questioned due to some significant past-or-present relationship with the parties involved that reaches beyond their role as a public servant.
kodah 6y ago
> WH did not ignore the question. The press secretary declined to speak POTUS or Yellen's mind for them, and instead implied that it would not be a problem if Yellen did recuse because there was a full economics team. Ergo - the headline is bunk. The Press Secretary chose to reason about her accomplishments to explain the large sum of money (I don't think any Americans are surprised that former bureaucrats profit off of the system after participation.) I think some would call that "dodging" because she's not really directly answering the question. How to not be dodging => "We take conflicts of interest, undue influence, and affiliation seriously. You will have an answer as soon as POTUS is properly briefed as to your readers concerns." > CoI declarations and recusals are for when someone stands to gain, where someone has previously gained and feels beholden, or where the impression of a CoI might arise. Yellen spoke to many, many firms but, due to the fact she was only paid to speak, likely does not feel beholden to these firms now or in the future. Ergo - the lede is bunk. This ignores that any person can be motivated to benefit people who have benefitted them prior. Maybe she's made enough money to sustain herself in the event that she upsets enough former clients in the process of making decisions that benefit the American people, maybe not though. That question is worth answering when someone makes close to a million dollars by just speaking. This is precisely what recusal is for, and since she was forthright about it before I think it makes sense to at the very least entertain the request (which this wasn't even a request, this was more like, "Did you know and what do you plan to do?") > People who are hired by governments to offer advice do so within the domain of their expertise. Now, perhaps there are a few eager amateurs out there who have never drawn a paycheck in their area of expertise, but to state that Yellen should not advise the President on the biggest stock market scandal of the year because she once drew a paycheck for talking to them at one time is a damn long bow to draw. Again, Yellen has benefitted from one of the key players. If there are outcomes that could potentially benefit them then it makes sense to identify conflicts of interest early. I don't know why that wouldn't be a priority to this administration given the last four years of administration we've had. > Where else is the POTUS going to get advisors except from the firms who pay the most money to get the best employees / speakers? The local CPA? Ergo - the wider implication is bunk. From advisors who haven't spent time or benefited directly from firms involved. As you and the Press Secretary stated, there's a wider economics team that is useful here, I'm sure a non-zero amount of them are both qualified and do not have some first order conflict of interest. That said, asking the question of whether she has a conflict of interest, and even her association, I don't think outright means she needs to recuse herself. If she were leaning in the direction of giving something of a beneficial outcome to Citadel, then maybe recusal would make sense. That is a decision she and the Biden administration will have to live with, but as I said before, not an unfair question to ask. > So the headline, lede and implication of the article are bunk. Given that this article is from a pro-Trump news aggregator / commentator site, and given that politics has become so polarised, this appears to be the conflating of a molehill with a mountain for the sake of political gain. When I googled the headline only conservative websites came up. That doesn't mean much though. > Since the end of 2017, Real Clear Politics has had a rightward, pro-Trump turn in its content. According to a 2020 Knight Foundation study, RealClearPolitics is generally read by a moderate audience, leaning slightly toward the right Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RealClearPolitics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RealClearPolitics This same concern was presented by the Guardian prior to any GameStop drama and before Biden was President: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/jan/01/janet-yellen-speaking-fees-us-treasury-secretary https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/jan/01/janet-yelle... So, does the question deserve to be asked: I think yes, it sounds fair to ask. Does she need to recuse herself? Well, that's a question that ultimately only administrations and she can answer.

byecomputer 6y ago

> Where else is the POTUS going to get advisors except from the firms who pay the most money to get the best employees / speakers? The local CPA? Ergo - the wider implication is bunk. I'm not convinced that everyone who's knowledgeable enough to preside over this hearing has been paid by this specific firm. Nobody's saying that the advisor on this issue needs to have never given a paid speech or worked for one of the big players. They're saying that the advisor should not have been paid $800,000 by Citadel over the course of multiple speaking arrangements because that's an obvious sign of a preexisting relationship and therefore a conflict of interest.

monkeydreams 6y ago
> I'm not convinced that everyone who's knowledgeable enough to preside over this hearing has been paid by this specific firm. Literally every economic decision Yellen has to advise upon will affect some firm or organisation to which she has provided services. > Nobody's saying that the advisor on this issue needs to have never given a paid speech or worked for one of the big players. But this is exactly what you are saying by implication. Whatever regulatory outcome occurs here will affect all trading firms, which means that all advisors will have been paid by someone at some stage in the past affected by any outcome. > They're saying that the advisor should not have been paid $800,000 by Citadel over the course of multiple speaking arrangements because that's an obvious sign of a preexisting relationship and therefore a conflict of interest. That is not how conflict of interest works. If there is no current relationship, and no indication of a future relationship (e.g. quid pro quo or a promise of employment), and no obvious link to the firm (e.g. an unpaid board seat, etc), then I am finding it hard to see how a conflict of interest might occur.
- byecomputer 6y ago
  > Whatever regulatory outcome occurs here will affect all trading firms, which means that all advisors will have been paid by someone at some stage in the past affected by any outcome. That's unavoidable, but it doesn't change the absolutely controllable and simple request that the investigator not have a direct relationship with the firm in question. > That is not how conflict of interest works. If there is no current relationship, and no indication of a future relationship (e.g. quid pro quo or a promise of employment), and no obvious link to the firm (e.g. an unpaid board seat, etc), then I am finding it hard to see how a conflict of interest might occur. Conflicts of interest do not have to be concurrent in order to be disqualifying. Recusal as an administrative official is generally warranted when one's impartiality could be reasonably questioned due to some significant past-or-present relationship with the parties involved that reaches beyond their role as a public servant.

kodah 6y ago

> WH did not ignore the question. The press secretary declined to speak POTUS or Yellen's mind for them, and instead implied that it would not be a problem if Yellen did recuse because there was a full economics team. Ergo - the headline is bunk. The Press Secretary chose to reason about her accomplishments to explain the large sum of money (I don't think any Americans are surprised that former bureaucrats profit off of the system after participation.) I think some would call that "dodging" because she's not really directly answering the question. How to not be dodging => "We take conflicts of interest, undue influence, and affiliation seriously. You will have an answer as soon as POTUS is properly briefed as to your readers concerns." > CoI declarations and recusals are for when someone stands to gain, where someone has previously gained and feels beholden, or where the impression of a CoI might arise. Yellen spoke to many, many firms but, due to the fact she was only paid to speak, likely does not feel beholden to these firms now or in the future. Ergo - the lede is bunk. This ignores that any person can be motivated to benefit people who have benefitted them prior. Maybe she's made enough money to sustain herself in the event that she upsets enough former clients in the process of making decisions that benefit the American people, maybe not though. That question is worth answering when someone makes close to a million dollars by just speaking. This is precisely what recusal is for, and since she was forthright about it before I think it makes sense to at the very least entertain the request (which this wasn't even a request, this was more like, "Did you know and what do you plan to do?") > People who are hired by governments to offer advice do so within the domain of their expertise. Now, perhaps there are a few eager amateurs out there who have never drawn a paycheck in their area of expertise, but to state that Yellen should not advise the President on the biggest stock market scandal of the year because she once drew a paycheck for talking to them at one time is a damn long bow to draw. Again, Yellen has benefitted from one of the key players. If there are outcomes that could potentially benefit them then it makes sense to identify conflicts of interest early. I don't know why that wouldn't be a priority to this administration given the last four years of administration we've had. > Where else is the POTUS going to get advisors except from the firms who pay the most money to get the best employees / speakers? The local CPA? Ergo - the wider implication is bunk. From advisors who haven't spent time or benefited directly from firms involved. As you and the Press Secretary stated, there's a wider economics team that is useful here, I'm sure a non-zero amount of them are both qualified and do not have some first order conflict of interest. That said, asking the question of whether she has a conflict of interest, and even her association, I don't think outright means she needs to recuse herself. If she were leaning in the direction of giving something of a beneficial outcome to Citadel, then maybe recusal would make sense. That is a decision she and the Biden administration will have to live with, but as I said before, not an unfair question to ask. > So the headline, lede and implication of the article are bunk. Given that this article is from a pro-Trump news aggregator / commentator site, and given that politics has become so polarised, this appears to be the conflating of a molehill with a mountain for the sake of political gain. When I googled the headline only conservative websites came up. That doesn't mean much though. > Since the end of 2017, Real Clear Politics has had a rightward, pro-Trump turn in its content. According to a 2020 Knight Foundation study, RealClearPolitics is generally read by a moderate audience, leaning slightly toward the right Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RealClearPolitics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RealClearPolitics This same concern was presented by the Guardian prior to any GameStop drama and before Biden was President: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/jan/01/janet-yellen-speaking-fees-us-treasury-secretary https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/jan/01/janet-yelle... So, does the question deserve to be asked: I think yes, it sounds fair to ask. Does she need to recuse herself? Well, that's a question that ultimately only administrations and she can answer.