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.