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.
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.
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.
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.
“Whitaker previously served as Chief of Staff to Sessions from September 2017 to November 2018”.
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.
And yes, if you want a significant public office, you should disclose mayor conflicts of interests. That definitively includes large share of recent income.
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.
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?
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 can do whatever they like. 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?