Tag: Corruption

  • They’re all dirty

    On the other hand – it would be better if Joe Biden’s kid had never gone near any Ukrainian natural gas company (or any other kind of company).

    It would, in fact, be better if this whole business of leveraging a political career into big cash flows from private companies and corporations had never been embraced. It would be nice if US politicians had always seen that as a profoundly wrong and bad and indefensible move, and stayed away. Instead we have the opposite – everybody does it, it’s normal, shrug shrug. That’s all Trump and Giuliani need. The fact that Trump is doing the same thing but more so is neither here nor there.

    The BBC traces the path:

    Mr Trump and his allies have been suggesting that Mr Biden, as Barack Obama’s vice-president, encouraged the firing of Ukraine’s top prosecutor because he had been investigating a company that employed Mr Biden’s son.

    Hunter Biden became a director at Ukrainian natural gas company Burisma in 2014 while his father also held a key role in US policy towards Ukraine.

    There. That’s your problem right there. Don’t do that. Biden senior should have seen it was dirty, Biden junior should have seen it was dirty, Obama should have told them both to back the fuck off.

    Hunter Biden is well embedded in the DC politics-lobbying loop:

    Hunter Biden was appointed by Bill Clinton to serve in the United States Department of Commerce[8] under Secretaries Norman Mineta and William M. Daley. He was director of E-commerce policy issues in the Department of Commerce,[8] a position he held from 1998 to 2001.[9]

    From 2001 to 2008, Biden was a founding partner of Oldaker, Biden, and Belair, LLP, a Washington DC-based lobbyist firm [10] and law firm.[11]

    Boom, done, he’s made for life – he gets a Clinton job at age 28, puts in three years, and then whizzes off to cash in at a lobbying firm. It’s totally routine and normal and it’s sleazy as fuck.

    What Trump did and is doing is much worse but by god the Bidens handed him plenty of ammunition.

  • In case there was any doubt

    Acolyte of Sagan has already quoted it but I want to go to the source.

    “I’m a tax cheat, plus also the Times story reporting that I’m a tax cheat is fake news.”

    This is the president of the United States.

    Siva Vaidhyanathan comments:

    The fact that Donald Trump stayed in business for more than 40 years despite spectacular graft and incompetence shows how badly America’s institutions eroded over that same time. No federal prosecutor indicted him? No IRS charges? Banks continued to lend to him?

    Then he follows up:

    I want some reporter to ask Preet Bharara why the US Attorney for SDNY never seriously investigated Trump’s foundation, business dealings, money laundering, bank fraud, or tax fraud. Why should federal prosecutors skate as well? They let us down.

    Big time.

    This is why Jesse Eisinger wrote The Chickenshit Club.

    James Comey has become a household name over the past few months, and for good reason. Following his controversial handling of the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails while she was Secretary of State, the former director of the FBI has become a key witness in the probe into the Trump campaign. Comey’s dismissal from the FBI in May of this year — along with his subsequent Senate testimony — has placed him in a position to help uncover a scandal that threatens to eclipse Watergate. The Chickenshit Club, the latest book from Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Jesse Eisinger, unravels a culture of cowardice, incompetence and corruption — one that has allowed the FBI, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and above all the Department of Justice to flounder in their efforts to hold not only the government, but America’s financial institutions, accountable for their crimes.

    …[T]he book focuses its lens on the corporate bungling and greed of the past few years, most notably the 2008 financial crisis and its roots in Wall Street’s web of risky investments and banking malfeasance — all enabled by loose regulatory enforcement, cozy Washington connections, and the implicit promise of government bailouts…

    …Lanny Breuer, a former assistant attorney general for the Criminal Division of the DOJ, is portrayed as a showboater who, along with his boss Eric Holder, backed down from major fights against financial institutions out of a fear of political and popular fallout should they fail. As Eisinger notes, “Those who fought hard against the large corporations incurred costs, not rewards” — a frightening assessment that, while not surprising, reinforces the widely held perception that America’s corporate elite have maneuvered themselves into a position of relative untouchability.

    And now here we are.

  • What are you hiding, Justice Department?

    Here’s an issue to keep an eye on – Whitaker’s financial disclosure should have been made public long ago, and it hasn’t been.

    https://twitter.com/waltshaub/status/1064202075544932352

    Megan Keller at The Hill has more:

    Watchdog group American Oversight is calling for Acting Attorney General Whitaker’s financial disclosures to be made public.

    “Transparency is a critical component of the government ethics program,” wrote the group’s executive director, Austin Evers, in a letter on Friday to Emory Rounds in the U.S. Office of Government Ethics (OGE).

    Evers pointed to the financial disclosure provisions of the Ethics in Government Act, which he said “facilitate transparency regarding potential financial conflicts of interest” by requiring the public financial disclosure of senior government officials within 30 days of them assuming office, in most cases.

    120 days at the outside. Whitaker was appointed chief of staff to Sessions on October 4, 2017. More than 120 days have elapsed since then.

    “In light of his recent appointment as Acting Attorney General, American Oversight requested that the Department of Justice provide access to the two public financial disclosure reports that Mr. Whitaker was required to file as a new entrant and incumbent in a covered position.”

    He wrote that the Department of Justice  “has not yet permitted inspection or furnished a copy of these public financial disclosure reports.”

    Evers added that it is “quite troubling” that Whitaker’s records have not been made public sooner.

    That seems like an understatement. It’s mandatory for Whitaker to file and it’s mandatory to make his info public – so what the hell is the Justice Department doing? Is Trump holding them hostage?

  • Patently

    It’s entirely completely and utterly coincidental that Scott Pruitt got a sweet deal on a condo from a lobbyist and it just so happened that at the very same time the lobbyists client got a sweet deal from the EPA. There is NO CONNECTION WHATEVER and it’s very rude to say otherwise. People have such awful corrupt minds, you know? Seeing a connection where there is none.

    The Environmental Protection Agency signed off last March on a Canadian energy company’s pipeline-expansion plan at the same time that the E.P.A. chief, Scott Pruitt, was renting a condominium linked to the energy company’s powerful Washington lobbying firm.

    Both the E.P.A. and the lobbying firm dispute that there was any connection between the agency’s action and the condo rental, for which Mr. Pruitt was paying $50 a night.

    “Any attempt to draw that link is patently false,” Liz Bowman, a spokeswoman for Mr. Pruitt, said in a written statement.

    Patently, PATENTLY. It’s crystal clear and totally obvious that there is no link. How? It just is, god damn it!

    The March 2017 action by the E.P.A. on the pipeline project — in the form of a letter telling the State Department that the E.P.A. had no serious environmental objections — meant that the project, an expansion of the Alberta Clipper line, had cleared a significant hurdle. The expansion, a project of Enbridge Inc., a Calgary-based energy company, would allow hundreds of thousands more barrels of oil a day to flow through this pipeline to the United States from Canadian tar sands.

    The signoff by the E.P.A. came even though the agency, at the end of the Obama administration, had moved to fine Enbridge $61 million in connection with a 2010 pipeline episode that sent hundreds of thousands of gallons of crude oil into the Kalamazoo River in Michigan and other waterways. The fine was the second-largest in the history of the Clean Water Act, behind the penalty imposed after the Deepwater Horizon spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

    Now to be fair, it is true, and even patently true, that it’s wholly consistent with Trumpist ideology that the Trump EPA would say “sure go right ahead with your expanded pipeline!” even though the company had already sent hundreds of thousands of gallons of crude oil into Michigan rivers and waterways. It is true that Trump and his gang make a point of not giving a flying fuck about things like polluted rivers when there’s a buck to be made. It is true that Pruitt’s EPA probably would have approved that project even if Pruitt had spent his DC nights on a bench in Lafayette Park. But the fact remains that there are rules against accepting favors from people who are in a position to need and request a favor in return.

  • Republicans say: never mind

    For now, that is.

    The news broke 15 minutes ago that

    House Republican leaders have pulled a proposal that would gut its independent ethics panel, amid widespread criticism of the plan, multiple lawmakers tell CNN.

    Even Trump objected – except what he objected to was the timing, the prioritization, not the substance.

    Trump called out his fellow Republicans Tuesday for proposing to curb the powers of the independent ethics panel as their first move of the year, although the President-elect suggested the ethics panel was “unfair.”

    “With all that Congress has to work on, do they really have to make the weakening of the Independent Ethics Watchdog, as unfair as it … may be, their number one act and priority. Focus on tax reform, healthcare and so many other things of far greater importance! #DTS,” Trump said over two consecutive tweets.

    And then, once that’s all done, they can go ahead and get rid of independent ethics oversight.

    House Republicans voted 119-74 during a closed-door meeting in favor of Virginia Rep. Bob Goodlatte’s proposal, which would place the independent Office of Congressional Ethics under the control of those very lawmakers, a move that outraged Democrats and outside ethics organizations. The full House of Representatives is expected to vote on it as part of a larger rules package up for consideration Tuesday.

    Ryan defended the proposed changes, marking the first high-profile break with Trump of the new year.

    “After eight years of operation, many members believe the Office of Congressional Ethics is in need of reform to protect due process and ensure it is operating according to its stated mission,” Ryan said in a statement after Trump’s tweets. “I want to make clear that this House will hold its members to the highest ethical standards and the Office will continue to operate independently to provide public accountability to Congress.”

    He can “make it clear” all he wants, but that’s not the same as making it true. This House has not always held its members to the highest ethical standards, to put it mildly, and there’s no reason to think it’s going to start now – on the contrary, there’s a lot of reason to think the opposite, given the jaw-dropping level of blithe corruption in the form of conflicts of interest in the new administration. In short no, Paul Ryan, we’re not going to trust you.

    Outside ethics group point to the ethics panel as the only real entity policing members and argue its independent status and bipartisan board are an appropriate way to oversee investigations.

    “Gutting the independent ethics office is exactly the wrong way to start a new Congress,” said Chris Carson, spokesperson for League of Women Voters, in a statement. “This opens the door for special interest corruption just as the new Congress considers taxes and major infrastructure spending.”

    Norman Eisen and Richard Painter, of the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a nonprofit watchdog group, said the ethics office “has played a critical role in seeing that the congressional ethics process is no longer viewed as merely a means to sweep problems under the rug.”

    “If the 115th Congress begins with rules amendments undermining (the ethics office), it is setting itself up to be dogged by scandals and ethics issues for years and is returning the House to dark days when ethics violations were rampant and far too often tolerated,” they said in a Monday night statement.

    Stay tuned.

  • Self-cleaning swamp

    It’s a useful symbol, if nothing else – the surprise vote by House Republicans to kill the independent ethics office that oversees…Congress. No stinkin’ ethics for them! It’s helpful of them to make it so very clear.

    The surprising vote came on the eve of the start of a new session of Congress, where emboldened Republicans are ready to push an ambitious agenda on everything from health care to infrastructure, issues that will be the subject of intense lobbying from corporate interests. The House Republicans’ move would take away both power and independence from an investigative body, and give lawmakers more control over internal inquiries.

    It also came on the eve of a historic shift in power in Washington, where Republicans control both houses of Congress and where a wealthy businessman with myriad potential conflicts of interest is preparing to move into the White House.

    We have an openly pro-corruption government. Cool.

    In place of the office, Republicans would create a new Office of Congressional Complaint Review that would report to the House Ethics Committee, which has been accused of ignoring credible allegations of wrongdoing by lawmakers.

    See, the thing about the Office of Congressional Ethics is that it was independent – it wasn’t an insider office. The House Ethics Committee is an insider office. Congress wants to go back to policing its own self, with all the obvious conflicts of interest that entails. The fox voted to restore supervision of the chicken house to the fox.

    “Poor way to begin draining the swamp,” Tom Fitton, president of the conservative group Judicial Watch, said on Twitter. He added, “Swamp wins with help of @SpeakerRyan, @RepGoodlatte.”

    Mr. Goodlatte defended the action in a statement on Monday evening, saying it would strengthen ethics oversight in the House while also giving lawmakers better protections against what some of them have called overzealous efforts by the Office of Congressional Ethics.

    Well yes, naturally, letting Congress oversee its own ethics would naturally give members of Congress “better protections” – with the result that they could get away with more corruption.

    Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the House minority leader, joined others who had worked to create the office in expressing outrage at the move and the secretive way it was orchestrated.

    “Republicans claim they want to ‘drain the swamp,’ but the night before the new Congress gets sworn in, the House G.O.P. has eliminated the only independent ethics oversight of their actions,” Ms. Pelosi said in a statement on Monday night. “Evidently, ethics are the first casualty of the new Republican Congress.”

    Let’s have more and better corruption.

    The body was created after a string of serious ethical issues starting a decade ago, including bribery allegations against Representatives Duke Cunningham, Republican of California; William J. Jefferson, Democrat of Louisiana; and Bob Ney, Republican of Ohio. All three were ultimately convicted and served time in jail.

    The Office of Congressional Ethics, which is overseen by a six-member outside board, does not have subpoena power. But it has its own staff of investigators who spend weeks conducting confidential interviews and collecting documents based on complaints they receive from the public, or news media reports, before issuing findings that detail any possible violation of federal rules or laws. The board then votes on whether to refer the matter to the full House Ethics Committee, which conducts its own review.

    But the House Ethics Committee, even if it dismisses the potential ethics violation as unfounded, is required to release the Office of Congressional Ethics report detailing the alleged wrongdoing, creating a deterrent to such questionable behavior by lawmakers.

    Under the new arrangement, the Office of Congressional Complaint Review could not take anonymous complaints, and all of its investigations would be overseen by the House Ethics Committee itself, which is made up of lawmakers who answer to their own party.

    The Office of Congressional Complaint Review would also have special rules to “better safeguard the exercise of due process rights of both subject and witness,” Mr. Goodlatte said. The provision most likely reflects complaints by certain lawmakers that the ethics office’s staff investigations were at times too aggressive, an allegation that watchdog groups dismissed as evidence that lawmakers were just trying to protect themselves.

    The whole system is already notoriously corrupt, because bribery in the form of campaign donations is entrenched. Investigations should be aggressive.

    By moving all of the authority to the House Ethics Committee, several ethics lawyers said, the House risks becoming far too protective of members accused of wrongdoing.

    Bryson Morgan, who worked as an investigative lawyer at the Office of Congressional Ethics from 2013 until 2015, said that under his interpretation of the new rules, members of the House committee could move to stop an inquiry even before it was completed.

    “This is huge,” said Mr. Morgan, who now defends lawmakers targeted in ethics investigations. “It effectively allows the committee to shut down any independent investigation into member misconduct. Historically, the ethics committee has failed to investigate member misconduct.”

  • Guest post: Not just the COI, but the appearance of COI

    Originally a comment by Samantha Vimes on 153 million.

    I’m studying accounting ethics this semester.

    Every time the possibility of conflict of interest comes up in the accounting code, it states that a person must avoid not only a conflict, but the appearance of conflict. For example, an accountant shouldn’t take a job auditing a company if they have a relative who works for the company, if they’ve gotten gifts from the company, if they have a significant investment in the company, or if they provide other services for the company– anything that might make them biased. Even if the accountant is as honest as can be: part of the responsibility of an accountant is to maintain the reputation of their profession, which can’t be done if people suspect you had reason to forget your duty to the public.

    The same is true for politicians and judges— the public is losing faith in the system because the people with power think nothing of being in bed with special interests. And we really don’t care whether the politician is a true believer in corporatism or whether they’ve been bought. Either way, the politician is pursuing the interests of themselves and their friends and allies, and not thinking about justice or compassion or democracy.

  • Does money make any difference?

    Naomi Klein also wrote about Clinton and corporate bribes, in the Nation the other day. I don’t read Naomi Klein much, because I think she tends to be simplistic, but she said some good things there.

    The very suggestion that taking this money could impact Clinton’s actions is “baseless and should stop,” according to California Senator Barbara Boxer. It’s “flat-out false,” “inappropriate,” and doesn’t “hold water,” declared New York Mayor Bill de Blasio. New York Times columnist Paul Krugman went so far as to issue “guidelines for good and bad behavior” for the Sanders camp. The first guideline? Cut out the “innuendo suggesting, without evidence, that Clinton is corrupt.”

    That’s one of the many harmful side-effects of the way US politics is flat-out based on bribery, dishonestly called “campaign financing” – it motivates people who should know better to bullshit in that way. Why otherwise would Paul Krugman pretend that bribes can’t possibly influence the recipients?

    Did the donations to the Clinton Foundation have anything to do with the State Department’s pipeline decision? Did they make Hillary Clinton more disposed to seeing tar-sands pipelines as environmentally benign, as early State Department reviews of Keystone XL seemed to conclude, despite the many scientific warnings? There is no proof—no “smoking gun,” as Clinton defenders like to say. Just as there is no proof that the money her campaign took from gas lobbyists and fracking financiers has shaped Clinton’s current (and dangerous) view that fracking can be made safe.

    It’s important to recognize that Clinton’s campaign platform includes some very good climate policies that surely do not please these donors—which is why the fossil-fuel sector gives so much more to climate change–denying Republicans.

    Still, the whole funding mess stinks, and it seems to get worse by the day. So it’s very good that the Sanders camp isn’t abiding by Krugman’s “guidelines for good behavior” and shutting up about the money in a year when climate change has contributed to the hottest temperatures since records began.

    It’s just not reasonable to tell anyone to shut up about the money.

    While Clinton is great at warring with Republicans, taking on powerful corporations goes against her entire worldview, against everything she’s built, and everything she stands for. The real issue, in other words, isn’t Clinton’s corporate cash, it’s her deeply pro-corporate ideology: one that makes taking money from lobbyists and accepting exorbitant speech fees from banks seem so natural that the candidate is openly struggling to see why any of this has blown up at all.

    That I think nails it on the head – although of course it’s also possible that she’s not genuinely struggling at all but knows perfectly well why it’s blown up, and is just dissembling, because she has to, because she’s already accepted the money.

    To understand this worldview, one need look no further than the foundation at which Hillary Clinton works and which bears her family name. The mission of the Clinton Foundation can be distilled as follows: There is so much private wealth sloshing around our planet (thanks in very large part to the deregulation and privatization frenzy that Bill Clinton unleashed on the world while president), that every single problem on earth, no matter how large, can be solved by convincing the ultra-rich to do the right things with their loose change. Naturally, the people to convince them to do these fine things are the Clintons, the ultimate relationship brokers and dealmakers, with the help of an entourage of A-list celebrities.

    Sadly I think that’s about right too.

    So let’s forget the smoking guns for the moment. The problem with Clinton World is structural. It’s the way in which these profoundly enmeshed relationships—lubricated by the exchange of money, favors, status, and media attention—shape what gets proposed as policy in the first place.

    For instance, under the Clintons’ guidance, drug companies work with the foundation to knock down their prices in Africa (conveniently avoiding the real solution: changing the system of patenting that allows them to charge such grotesque prices to the poor in the first place). The Dow Chemical Company finances water projects in India (just don’t mention their connection to the ongoing human health disaster in Bhopal, for which the company still refuses to take responsibility). And it was at the Clinton Global Initiative that airline mogul Richard Branson made his flashy pledge to spend billions solving climate change (almost a decade later, we’re still waiting, while Virgin Airlines keeps expanding).

    In Clinton World it’s always win-win-win: The governments look effective, the corporations look righteous, and the celebrities look serious. Oh, and another win too: The Clintons grow ever more powerful.

    And richer. $153 million.

  • 153 million

    I heard someone say on NPR the other day that the two Clintons have collected $150 million in speaking fees since he left office. My jaw dropped. I knew they’d both been pocketing huge fees, of course, but I didn’t know it added up to 150 MILLION.

    CNN did the accounting a couple of months ago.

    Hillary Clinton and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, combined to earn more than $153 million in paid speeches from 2001 until Hillary Clinton launched her presidential campaign last spring, a CNN analysis shows.

    In total, the two gave 729 speeches from February 2001 until May, receiving an average payday of $210,795 for each address. The two also reported at least $7.7 million for at least 39 speeches to big banks, including Goldman Sachs and UBS, with Hillary Clinton, the Democratic 2016 front-runner, collecting at least $1.8 million for at least eight speeches to big banks.

    I knew the bank part. I didn’t know the 150 MILLION part. Or maybe I did, but just didn’t register the scope of the exploitation.

    The analysis was made at a time when Hillary Clinton has been under scrutiny for her ties to Wall Street, which has been a major focus of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders on the campaign trail.

    “What being part of the establishment is, is in the last quarter, having a super PAC that raised $15 million from Wall Street, that throughout one’s life raised a whole lot of money from the drug companies and other special interests,” Sanders said at Thursday’s Democratic debate hosted by MSNBC.

    The former secretary of state testily responded to Sanders’ charges.

    “Time and time again, by innuendo, by insinuation, there is this attack that he is putting forth which really comes down to, you know, anybody who ever took donations or speaking fees from any interest group has to be bought. And I just absolutely reject that, senator, and I really don’t think these kinds of attacks by insinuation are worthy of you. And enough is enough,” Clinton said.

    She then challenged him: “If you’ve got something to say, say it directly, but you will not find that I ever changed a view or a vote because of any donation I ever received.”

    You know, she really should stop making that argument. She should stop personalizing the issue and be honest about the real issue, the not-personal issue – that money in politics is corrupting, and that’s why bribery is a bad thing and should not be allowed, no matter how nice and upstanding any particular politician may be. It doesn’t matter that she’s convinced she never changed a view or a vote because of any donation (if she really is convinced of that, as opposed to just performing conviction). She doesn’t get to exempt herself from general laws because she knows how wonderful she is. She doesn’t get to make it about her character. For that matter she doesn’t get to act as if she has no clue that people can be wrong about their own motives, and lie to themselves about how good they are, and the like. She should be acting as if she is subject to the same errors and biases and self-interested motivations as other human beings are, as opposed to assuming and telling us she is saintly and incorruptible to an extent beyond the reach of ordinary people.

    Also, she doesn’t get to be that fatuous about influence and agency. How could it be the case that donations and inflated speaking fees had no influence on her views and votes whatsoever? That would be supernatural. Why should her views and votes be supernatural when no one else’s are? How exactly did she manage to make herself wholly immune to the influence of huge sums of money?

    By saying that kind of shit she just does more to entrench the whole disgusting corrupt process. It pisses me off.