> "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.
(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.
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.
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 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.