3 ms·
>>> The best case for not disclosing Crow’s tuition payments would be to argue the gifts were to Martin, not Thomas, experts said. But that argument was far-fe
by injb 3y ago
>>> The best case for not disclosing Crow’s tuition payments would be to argue the gifts were to Martin, not Thomas, experts said. But that argument was far-fetched, experts said, because minor children rarely pay their own tuition. Typically, the legal guardian is responsible for the child’s education.
Well those experts should consider another profession because this is nonsense. Typically legal guardians are responsible for all a child's expenses. Therefore by this logic it's impossible to give a child a gift.
- vlovich123 3y agoIt also wouldn’t matter. Financial “gifts” to family members can only be seen as an attempt at corruption/influence. Is that a common loophole allowed in corporate/government employee/ federal judge anti-corruption regs?
- salawat 3y agoIn the Federal government, things like gifts to children/family members are soecifically called out in anti-corruption/bribery training within executive branch agencies. It would fall under quid pro quo. No idea what the judiciary gets up to.
- fasthands9 3y agoYeah it would be/should be impossible. What's the point of having a law/ethics code that says "you can't give a gift to government employee X" but also a standard that "you can give unlimited gifts to their children, spouses, cousins, friends, etc"?