Trump ethics watchdog moves to allow anonymous gifts to legal defense funds In a reversal of internal policy, the Office of Government Ethics says funds benefiting aides caught up in Russia probes may accept anonymous gifts from lobbyists. The U.S. Office of Government Ethics has quietly reversed its own internal policy prohibiting anonymous donations from lobbyists to White House staffers who have legal defense funds. http://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/13/trump-ethics-watchdog-legal-defense-242690
Wonder how long it will be before we find out about the Russian contributions to the legal defense funds. barfo
In a slightly-related note (because it's about Russia in general and not the election) , I've just gone through two books about "modern-day" Russia and am convinced that we as Americans are looking at the Russia situation completely incorrectly. First, we're applying Western principles and logic to a people who have never subscribed to one. Second, the rules over there are not what we think of as "logical". Putinism - Laqueur Nothing is True and Everything is Possible - Pomerantsev For this case, I think we can agree that either taking gifts is something that is unethical and can be done by no one in government service (how it "currently is"), or that it's no big deal, which means I don't have to worry about going to prison if a contractor buys me a $10 meal at Subway. I don't think it's cool that White House Staffers have a different set of ethical rules to do their job by than the guy handling millions' worth of military procurement than the girl working with tech development resources than the hiring and firing supervisors.
From your article: "The trustees also released the names of people who have contributed to the Clinton defense."
Wow, reading the OP article it goes on to contradict itself. At issue for the Trump staffers is a 1993 OGE guidance document that gave a green light to organizers of legal defense funds for government employees to solicit anonymous donations from otherwise prohibited sources — like lobbyists or others with business before the government. That Clinton-era opinion reasoned that if such donors were anonymous, such donations could be legal because the employee “does not know who the paymasters are.” So the rule has been in effect since 1993 As Shaub prepared to leave OGE in July, his longtime general counsel, David Apol, told him that he’d been having private discussions with Trump White House attorneys about ways to revise the 1993 guidance to prohibit anonymous gifts, Shaub said. And the administration looked to revise the guidelines. Apol was subsequently named head of OGE. The guidance document has since been updated to replace Shaub’s note with a longer disclaimer signaling the August 1993 document allowing anonymous donations to legal funds remains in force — and “HAS NOT CHANGED.” The guidance also notes that “BECAUSE EACH ANALYSIS IS VERY FACT SPECIFIC” government ethics officials should do a deeper dive before advising individual employees on the rules. The government with infinite money is going after people with limited bank accounts: The legal bills can add up quick for White House aides working on government salaries, especially if they are pulled in for multiple rounds of questioning or get in trouble of their own for perjury, making misleading statements or obstructing justice. There is no requirement to accept anonymous donations: Several sources interviewed for this story urged anyone planning to set up a legal defense fund on behalf of the current Trump White House aides to stick with past practice and not accept anonymous donations for the government employees. “Politically, it just would not be viable,” said Richard Lucas, who served as the lead counsel to the Clintons’ second legal defense fund, which raised nearly $9 million for the president and first lady to help cover their attorney expenses. “Not knowing the source is a recipe for disaster.” If the donations are of dubious source: The OGE guidance is not binding. In fact, Justice Department lawyers and Mueller’s team have full authority to examine who’s footing the bill for potential witnesses in the Trump administration if they have reason to believe other federal laws are being violated from the donations. Click bait thread.
So you don't believe the article that you posted because you thought it added what exactly? Don't answer, we know, "Hey guys, Trump good, Hillary bad."
Even the president of the united states used defense funds. It's not out of the ordinary. I don't think Trump would need one. I didn't say it's a good or bad thing, but it is probably good to allow the "accused" to have as vigorous defense as possible. If you can bust anyone for quid pro quo, throw the book at 'em.
The media has also created an environment where there is substantial blow back for anyone who supports Trump, no? That would discourage people from donating to a defense fund.
Follow the money. The check is in someone's checkbook register. Mueller has a great team of investigators who can dig up the truth, if need be.
