Reference: https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/conservative-n...

Thanks for posting this. Might've missed it otherwise... So much going on.

> So much going on

It's all part of the plan, man. Keep 'em distracted with too much info. It's like a law firm burying you with boxes and boxes and boxes of discovery, which has little or nothing to actually do with the case at hand. It's effective, and tiresome.

And that's why everybody sorta knows all this stuff is still going on, but we'll only get told the truth two or three generations later when the guilty are either dead or to old to matter for people to go after. But everybody knows politicians haven't become less corrupt all of a sudden.

People knowing is not enough. They should also care enough to vote/protest/etc differently

Voting and protesting have been attempted for decades, at least. They also are not enough. Those who wish to save the Union should look more closely at "etc".

Depends on the protests. E.g. the French beheading their king was also a protest.

Eh, not really. If he had been killed by a random brick thrown by a random protester, we could credit that to "protest". Louis XVI was arrested by the national army while attempting to flee the nation. After months of imprisonment by civil authorities, he was sentenced by a national assembly to be executed in the normal fashion for the time. That's really stretching the definition of "protest".

current acting*

I believe the jury is (literally) still out on the legality of his interim appointment.

He's acting Attorney General but may not be Acting Attorney General.

Increase transparency in one direction.

Is there a scandal here though?

He was part of a non-profit advocacy group that advocated for a specific cause. Some people contributed to that. Seems he ran around doing radio interviews, not making profits.

In a free society, I don't see anything wrong with that.

I'm not even sure if non-profits should be obliged to publicize their donors if the donors don't want to be identified.

Of course, if the work is specifically political, it should be transparent. Also, given that he's going to take a government position, we want to know who he's been taking from ...

While it does maybe look a little suspicious at face value there's no there there.

If a bunch of people want to run around advocating some kind of principle and raise money for themselves to do that then so be it, they can do that.

When people pay you 1.2 million for influence essentially its a problem if you are also the nation's top lawyer.

Most of us aren't able to accept any money where it might impact our decisions on the job.

> He was part of a non-profit advocacy group

“Part of” doesn't really capture his status as the sole paid employee.

> Seems he ran around doing radio interviews, not making profits.

The $1.2 million isn't the contribution to the entity that paid expenses and his salary, it's his salary from the entity. So it very much seems like he was running around doing radio interviews and making (rather large) profits.

No.

That he was the sole member is not relevant.

And you're misunderstanding the issue of 'non profit': he was not operating a profitable entity. His comp. doesn't count as profit for the org.

Again - there's nothing here. He was part of a private firm that did advocacy, among other things. 1/2 of the people that go into government go in from private firms, and we know nothing about their relationships otherwise.

This guy worked for this odd non-profit long before anyone could have conceived that he would be the US chief attorney, so there's no smoke here really.

> That he was the sole member is not relevant.

That he was the sole paid employee is relevant to the minimizing deflection you keep making that he was merely “part of” the entity.

> And you're misunderstanding the issue of 'non profit'

No, I'm not (but you are).

> he was not operating a profitable entity.

Not that that is germane to anything, but non-profit doesn't mean that an organization isn't profitable, it means that there are no equity claims on any profits (that is, it doesn't return profits to it's owners.)

> His comp. doesn't count as profit for the org.

Which would be relevant if he issue was whether the org was making profits, but not when it is whether he was making profits.

> This guy worked for this odd non-profit long before anyone could have conceived that he would be the US chief attorney, so there's no smoke here really.

The former might be relevant to the latter if the accusation was that he was being bribed in anticipation of becoming AG, rather than the opacity of the background of a non-Senate-confirmed and otherwise non-publicly-vetted appointee as Acting Attorney General outside the normal line of succession.

> That there was 1 or more people is irrelevant, and I'm not deflecting anything.

> "So it very much seems like he was running around doing radio interviews and making (rather large) profits."

This statement implies a lack of understanding of what a 'non profit' is, because there is no indication of profit here.

But it doesn't matter - by all accounts, this was just a regular non-profit. There's nothing curious about it.

> "The former might be relevant to the latter if the accusation was that he was being bribed in anticipation of becoming AG"

He was employed there since 2014 - you're implication would be that somehow, years before Trump was elected, years before his nomination, that someone could have bribed him - which is totally far fetched.

Also - again - hypocritical if you don't apply the same logic to other members of such offices, all of whom have 'opaque' financial backgrounds were they in private office. Who paid Loretta Lynch's millions for 10 years before she became AG? And where was the uproar then?

There are no loaded dice here.

Just regular DC inanity.

> This statement implies a lack of understanding of what a 'non profit' is, because there is no indication of profit here.

(1) you keep explicitly demonstrating (not merely implying) complete ignorance of what a nonprofit is, because you keep saying that making profits is relevant to that status (it's not, returning them to investors is.)

(2) moreover, you keep demonstrating failure at reading comprehension at the same time, by stubbornly (now even after the error was pointed out) confusing a statement about Whittaker personally profiting with a statement about the nonprofit from which he was profiting doing so.

> He was employed there since 2014 - you're implication would be that somehow, years before Trump was elected, years before his nomination, that someone could have bribed him

No, my explicit claim was that your continuing to point to the fact that he was employed there before anyone could have predicted he would become AG would only be relevant if someone had made the outlandish claim you suggest, but that you are beating a strawman because literally no one anywhere has made that claim.

I know exactly what a 'non-profit' is - your statement about 'making profits' clearly indicates you're something amiss with it - and there clearly is not.

It was a non-profit. He got paid. That's it. There's nothing to bring up. So why would you otherwise?

----

" but that you are beating a strawman because literally no one anywhere has made that claim."

Really?

"This is intellectually lazy its a clear case of corruption" ... is what someone wrote just above - and is the general implication of those commenting here.

The entire thread is devoted to insinuating that this guy has some kind of major conflict of interest due to his shady involvement with this non-profit.

So, no, it's not a 'straw man' - I'm responding directly to the assertion.

There is nothing here.

A curious but otherwise normal non-profit, in operation long before anything relevant.

There's probably no fire, there's not even any smoke.

Dude... stop digging you (metaphorical) grave. You lost this argument five levels up. Pretending not to understand why someone could be compromised by a cool million and change for a few interviews makes it terribly difficult not to assume bad faith on your part.

It is, however, the sort of public humiliation one might be willing to accept as an employee of Completely Ordinary People for the Advancement of Motivated Reasoning and Large Paychecks.

>That he was the sole member is not relevant. And you're misunderstanding the issue of 'non profit': he was not operating a profitable entity. His comp. doesn't count as profit for the org.

Which is irrelevant, as it's still revenue AND profit for him.

"Which is irrelevant, as it's still revenue AND profit for him"

And that is also irrelevant.

>>> He had a job and got paid for it <<<

Is this now the threshold for sinister activity?

Are you people reading your own words?

The implication of the OP regarding 'profit' was that there was something remiss re: 'non profit'.

There isn't.

There is no smoke here.

A guy had a job in the private sector, very much like most others before they go into public office.

That's it.

So, hopefully, they'll have a chance for vetting.

But we'll find out about as much about his non-profits backers as we did about Loretta Lynch clients while she was in private practice before become AG - which is not much.

Money he receives during holding public office is another story altogether.

Thy hypocrisy on this thread is byzantine, people have lost their marbles.

I'm so glad I don't have a stake in this game, and thankful everyday I'm not caught up in American political delusions which so few seem to actually be able to escape.

>>> He had a job and got paid for it <<< >Is this now the threshold for sinister activity?

Never wrote the above, never said that is the threshold, so not ever sure what you're going on about.

The threshold of "sinister activity" is getting money from unknown sources. That would be problematic whether you're DA or a private citizen (e.g. for money laundering etc). Doubly so if you're supposedly in an organization for "Accountability and Civic Trust", where you're making statements with political impact against policies, politicians and parties, as an "non profit" "ngo", while getting paid millions from unknown donors (with whatever agendas). Doubly so if it's 2017 and you continue getting paid from them while getting to the post of chief of staff of Sessions.

>Are you people reading your own words?

Well, what you quoted above are not "my own words", so there's that.

A guy had a job in the private sector, very much like most others before they go into public office.

- What did you do before? - I did [stuff] - For who? - Not telling.

Yeah, that sounds legit.

That’s the thing some people don’t get about non-profits - the employees and owners can certainly profit. An individual is in question here, not whatever entity he formed or was working for.

Also, non-profit just refers to the structure of the corporation for tax purposes. It’s also not a synonym for charity.

The notion of "personal profit" raised by the OP in relation to this is problematic - people just get paid by one group or another, it's just income. Why even bother with the 'personal profit' point?

A guy worked for a private entity for years.

That's it.

There's no story here.

Nobody working for the Gov. not even AG is going to be required to list all of those who paid into such entities over the past - and it only demonstrates the sad level of partisanship here that everyone should try to consider as much for this guy.

If there are some nefarious dealings then, fine, hopefully they will come to light.

Other than that, there is nothing here, not even smoke

That’s not quite accurate as far as how employment or compensation can be used to influence public figures. The amount seems rather high, and they would have to be demonstrate that he performed work for which that is something near fair market compensation. Did he have other jobs at the time, for instance? Did they hire any relatives of his? Plenty of questions to investigate as sometimes people are given entirely fake jobs as a method of bribery.

Your questions are reasonable, but in reality, there's nothing remotely suspicious about this.

People get paid a lot in high powered situations.

Fundraisers for charities make a fortune.

Members of Boards get paid a fortune for seemingly not doing a lot.

Tons of people in 'think tanks' are paid a fortune for their roles.

There's really not much out of line here.

If he was receiving money while on the public dole - that's another story.

If he 'all of a sudden' got a pile of cash whilst we knew he was going to be AG - different story.

But his involvement in the non-profit predates any of the Trumpian shenanigans, so this is really a non story.

If you apply the same degree of scrutiny to non-Trump officials from other eras, you run into the same problems.

Most massively: the Clinton Global Wealth Initiative. Basically a super-massive kitty-fund for the Clinton family, that actors - many of them nefarious - from all sorts of shady places in the world have paid into while Clinton was Secretary of State ! Her fund was literally receiving millions of dollars from state actors she was doing public business with. There was an example of a man in Chicago who made a $200K donation, and then was appointed to a board (after a scandal he was withdrawn) ... but there's basically no way to detangle Clinton from that fund, no matter how above board she is. Nobody in government should be managing a several hundred million dollar fund that their peers are contributing to. I'm not hinting that she was corrupt, rather, the conflict of interest is as big as you can get and there wasn't much fuss over it.

Now that you’ve mentioned Hillary Clinton, I refuse to participate in this conversation.

>In a free society, I don't see anything wrong with that.

Apart for the blatant conflict of interest and the excellent scheme to funnel unknown origin money to an attorney general, there isn't...

He wasn't attorney general, isn't attorney general, and 3 years ago no one had any inkling he might become acting AG.

Your comment amounts to "wet streets cause rain!"

Are you arguing that he became Acting Attorney General* because he he got money in a weird scheme for a "conservative advocacy group?"

No. I'm arguing that no one bribed him with the intent of having an AG in their pocket because no one had a clue 3 years ago he'd be (possibly illegally) made acting AG.

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).

" 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.

However, most people do not hold the power of the US Attorney General, so we care less with them.

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.

>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.

Which is inevitable, but we should still check whether that's the case, whether that influenced their decisions, etc.

But it's even more important for them to not have CURRENTLY ACTIVE conflicts of interest.

This is intellectually lazy its a clear case of corruption.

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.

Not absurd.

“Whitaker previously served as Chief of Staff to Sessions from September 2017 to November 2018”.

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.

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.

That's just straight up what-about-ism. Any corruption in the past or from opposing political parties has zero to do with current corruption. The law doesn't take two people and pit them against each other for who violated a law the most. Any corruption is unacceptable.

I'm not pitting two people against one another - I'm indicating the sad hypocrisy on the part of all of you arguing corruption here.

The indication is that because he was part of a private non-profit - is that there is some kind of inherent shadiness - which is wrong.

The radical partisanship here has thrown all of the otherwise great debaters on here into a hissy fit.

There is no story.

He was part of an advocacy group from years ago - it likely has nothing to do with anything.

He could have been a private lawyer, or worked at any other private firm and it would indicate the same degree of ostensible corruption.

How are the situations remotely analogous?

Lorette Lynch was being paid market rate to do skilled work by a transparent business, not a shadowy millionaire to do .. what exactly did Whittaker do to justify his pay?

"How are the situations remotely analogous?"

Are you kidding? They are almost exactly analogue.

How do you prescribe this non-profit as 'shady'?

How do you arrive at the conclusion that he was not paid some kind of market rate?

How do you arrive at the conclusion that expensive DC law firms are 'reputable'?

How do you conclude that Loretta Lynch's dealings were not at least with nefarious corporations or individuals?

Have you ever worked with a high profile law firm? You do realize that they are expensive because they help powerful people and groups bend the law, right?

He was the head of a non-profit advocacy group - and there are tons of them - and he runs around advocating for whatever cause. I'm of the inclination to believe that it was just a shade less than lobbying, ergo non-profit instead of having to register as a lobbyist.

$500K is not that much in many circles - probably a lot less than Loretta Lynch will have earned for working for who? Exactly? (I mean her client list, which is likely private)

Was she involved in defending nefarious activity by private individuals or corporations? (You do realize what lawyers do, right?) I don't know, I don't think any of us do.

The situations are actually very similar.

Hopefully, we'll get more of a chance to vet him ... but I'm doubtful there'll be much transparency on the source of his funds.

>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.

" 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?

Another data point: His relationship with World Patent Marketing. I'm starting to have enough data points to draw a trend line...

I'm not referring to this guy specifically. I'm not sure I like him but there's nothing wrong with working for some arbitrary non-profit and taking whatever salary.

The issue is that it's completely opaque. If you want to promote transparency, you should "start with your own garden".

It doesn't matter at all what is privately funded group's objectives were as long as it's above bar.

Does this look bad? Yes, very hypocritical. But people are allowed to work for private entities doing such things.

It absolutely matter where the money came from. If you server the public money flow must be completely transparent if you want to prevent corruption, no matter if you do legislature, executive, or judiciary work. That is part of serving the public, and if one does not like that, they're free to not work in the government.

"It absolutely matter where the money came from. "

Really?

See my note above about Loretta Lynch and her 10 years at a high powered DC Law Firm. She was likely paid millions by very powerful interests.

Were you up in arms to see her client lists, how much she was paid before she was Att. Gen.?

Again - I don't like this new guy - but the double standard on this is very hypocritical.

People are allowed to work in private and have private transaction and none of it really matters unless there is some kind of predicate knowledge.

Again - during his time at this fund, nobody on planet earth could have known this guy was going to be Attn. General so the suggestion that he was being paid to alter the law is a little bit out there.

Loretta Lynch faced extensive questioning in the Senate and long, contentious hearings about her background and clientele during a nearly six month nomination process. She was heavily vetted by both parties and eventually gained enough votes to move forward, including by McConnell and Graham. Yes, she was vetted publicly. No, this acting AG has not been. Not for a moment, which is why the free press is so important in an appointment like this.

I'm not saying anything about this particular case or others, I'm saying that transparency is key to avoiding corruption. If you don't want the public to know about your large financial transactions, you're free to not work for the government. You don't have to agree, but time and time again have we seen how money flows to those who will make decisions that benefit the the source of the money.

Yes, I agree with you - but:

a) We are talking about a specific guy

b) The commenters are clearly holding him to a totally different standard

c) Unfortunately - there'd be no public servants if everything had to be disclosed. It'd be impossible. There'd be conflicts of interest. For Attorney General ... these folks are lawyers! How much information can they give about previous clients! Probably not much! :)

So yes, transparency. Tax returns, donations, relationships with foreign nationals, public officials from other countries, persons of interest ... but there's only so much that someone can reasonably give up.

> I'm not referring to this guy specifically.

You, 4 posts up. Please stop moving the goalposts.

My original comment was about the right for people to have private groups and do as they please.

Everyone else's comments were about 'this specific guy' - which I was responding to.

>We are talking about a specific guy

A specific guy that got a lot of money anonymously and is an acting AG

I agree that it wouldn't be reasonable to include everything in the past, but anything for a period up to, during, and for a grace period after, should be disclosed.

> I'm not referring to this guy specifically.

But all your posts are arguing against people who are talking about “this guy specifically”.

At best, you are missing the point badly.

You know HN, I'd sincerely like to read arguments without having to highlight them due to your pseudo-censorship font.