4 ms·

There’s a bit more context in this article: https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/bondi-takes-revenge-family-man-180841002.html https://www.yahoo.com/news/article

There’s a bit more context in this article: https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/bondi-takes-revenge-family-man-180841002.html https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/bondi-takes-revenge-fami... According to this article, she self-reported to the DOJ ("Feinstein says that she took it upon herself to inform the DOJ of her relationship with Aaron after the backlash first kicked off more than three weeks ago.”). The people from the DOJ who contacted her initially were looking into ethical issues ("Within a week, she said that she was then contacted by the Office of the U.S. Trustee, which said it was reaching out on behalf of an ethics committee.”). She told the investigators that she didn’t have anything much to do with the app ("They asked me about my relationship to the ICEBlock App,” she said. “And I informed them in so many words that I really didn’t have any relationship or involvement in the app, I was married to the creator.”) However, she also admits to the journalist that she is a ‘minority shareholder’ in the app development company. The Newsweek article on HN seems to have a lot less info than this one, though both have pretty inflammatory headlines.

Aurornis 1y ago
> However, she also admits to the journalist that she is a ‘minority shareholder’ in the app development company. That’s a lot more than a footnote. If the app development company owned the app and she had ownership in the app development company, there’s no way to argue she didn’t have an interest in the app. Nobody can expect to have a side interest in an app that works against their employer and continue to keep their job. You have to be divested from one or the other. Due to the marriage, there likely any way to divest from the app unless her husband also divested from it. Even then, the damage was done.
- dboreham 1y ago
  > Nobody can expect to have a side interest in an app that works against their employer Really? So if my wife works for Google and I work for Facebook, she has to get me to quit Facebook? Or if my wife works for Google and I found a start up making a search app, then she has to get me to wind up my start up?
  - 1234letshaveatw 1y ago
    More like - if your wife works for Facebook and also owns a slice of twitter. You are really reaching here
    - FireBeyond 1y ago
      Guess I better divest my tech stocks then! Because I work for a tech company, and some of the stocks I own could, tangentially or otherwise, be competitors to my employer.
      - 1234letshaveatw 1y ago
        What a gotcha! You nailed it this time, that's exactly the same
  - Spooky23 1y ago
    If you work for the government you have to disclose outside activity. This administration sucks, but being a shareholder isn’t the same as your spouse just working on a project. She should have resigned a long time ago.
    - BobaFloutist 1y ago
      So anyone with S&P 500 index funds in their retirement account can never work for any company you could consider a competitor to any of the 500?
      - Spooky23 1y ago
        Some employees may have contracts that have ethical clauses for outside activity. The person in this case worked for the US Government, and is subject to ethics laws and agency policy. In most cases, a mutual fund isn’t an ethical issue for most roles - although in a more normal time some elected officials would put investments in blind trusts to ensure there wasn’t an appearance of corruption. Owning a portion of a private company run by your spouse whose principal activity is directly opposed to those to whom you serve at the pleasure of is going to be a problem. If you fail to report it, you’re going to get fired.
golergka 1y ago
> she is a ‘minority shareholder’ in the app development company Let's suppose this means she is directly linked to this anti-ICE app, profits from it (if it even has any revenue?) and is interested in the apps success. Does it mean that she has ethical conflict with her DOJ position?
- singleshot_ 1y ago
  MPRE 1.11(a)(2) would suggest “no” if she worked on matters related to the US Trustee at DOJ and not immigration related matters.
jalapeno_b 1y ago
[flagged]

Aurornis 1y ago

> However, she also admits to the journalist that she is a ‘minority shareholder’ in the app development company. That’s a lot more than a footnote. If the app development company owned the app and she had ownership in the app development company, there’s no way to argue she didn’t have an interest in the app. Nobody can expect to have a side interest in an app that works against their employer and continue to keep their job. You have to be divested from one or the other. Due to the marriage, there likely any way to divest from the app unless her husband also divested from it. Even then, the damage was done.

dboreham 1y ago
> Nobody can expect to have a side interest in an app that works against their employer Really? So if my wife works for Google and I work for Facebook, she has to get me to quit Facebook? Or if my wife works for Google and I found a start up making a search app, then she has to get me to wind up my start up?
- 1234letshaveatw 1y ago
  More like - if your wife works for Facebook and also owns a slice of twitter. You are really reaching here
  - FireBeyond 1y ago
    Guess I better divest my tech stocks then! Because I work for a tech company, and some of the stocks I own could, tangentially or otherwise, be competitors to my employer.
    - 1234letshaveatw 1y ago
      What a gotcha! You nailed it this time, that's exactly the same
- Spooky23 1y ago
  If you work for the government you have to disclose outside activity. This administration sucks, but being a shareholder isn’t the same as your spouse just working on a project. She should have resigned a long time ago.
  - BobaFloutist 1y ago
    So anyone with S&P 500 index funds in their retirement account can never work for any company you could consider a competitor to any of the 500?
    - Spooky23 1y ago
      Some employees may have contracts that have ethical clauses for outside activity. The person in this case worked for the US Government, and is subject to ethics laws and agency policy. In most cases, a mutual fund isn’t an ethical issue for most roles - although in a more normal time some elected officials would put investments in blind trusts to ensure there wasn’t an appearance of corruption. Owning a portion of a private company run by your spouse whose principal activity is directly opposed to those to whom you serve at the pleasure of is going to be a problem. If you fail to report it, you’re going to get fired.

golergka 1y ago

> she is a ‘minority shareholder’ in the app development company Let's suppose this means she is directly linked to this anti-ICE app, profits from it (if it even has any revenue?) and is interested in the apps success. Does it mean that she has ethical conflict with her DOJ position?

singleshot_ 1y ago
MPRE 1.11(a)(2) would suggest “no” if she worked on matters related to the US Trustee at DOJ and not immigration related matters.

jalapeno_b 1y ago

[flagged]