Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Sunday, December 01, 2019

In 1994, as a slew of scandals were popping up around President Bill Clinton, an attorney who worked with his defense team visited the Office of Government Ethics (OGE) in Washington to ask a simple question in person: Could the president of the United States accept free legal services from his personal lawyers? An unambiguous answer came back from the OGE, the executive branch's in-house experts at preventing conflicts of interest: No.

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Don't expect righties to have any negative opinions on this.

Ethics were long ago discarded when they hitched their wagon to the Orange Schitstain.

#1 | Posted by jpw at 2019-12-01 09:31 AM | Reply

Guiliani proudly claimed his services were "pro bono", but the correct complete legal term is "pro bono publico" " i.e., "for the good of the public".

Why does a self-proclaimed "billionaire" need any "pro bono publico" services? What's the quid-pro-quo in this freebie relationship?

Is all of bankrupt Rudolph Guiliani's time and travel expense being freely donated By a cash-strapped, post-divorce Guiliani to the his egomaniac billionaire client without a dime of tax payer money in reimbursement? Smells awfully fishy.

#2 | Posted by Augustine at 2019-12-01 10:33 AM | Reply

Jay Sekulow's primary employment is through an evangelical not-for-profit (NFP) that lobbies for increased political rights for evangelical groups and that seeks to make their narrow religious perspective the basis for all laws and political appointments.

If Seculow's NFP employer is paying Trump's legal bill, is it violating laws prohibiting tax-deductible contributions from being used for partisan political causes? Potentially worse, is any part of Sekulow's income derived from foreign sources?

A good Attorney General would work with the White House's Ethics Office to counsel Tchump to carefully avoid any appearance of impropriety as Clinton's ethics advised him during his impeachment journey. Is AG Barr complicit in allowing this fishy business to go on uninvestigated?

#3 | Posted by Augustine at 2019-12-01 10:46 AM | Reply

Typo correction to above: "... to avoid any appearance of impropriety as Clinton's ethics OFFICIALS advised him during his ..." inadvertently omitted "officials" in post #3. Didn't want to open a door to a distraction. Let's stay focused on the here and now. Don Tchump's murky personal legal team's compensation details.

#4 | Posted by Augustine at 2019-12-01 10:52 AM | Reply

Conservative ethics: If it's not illegal, it's not a problem. And if it is illegal, it's not necessarily a problem.

#5 | Posted by Angrydad at 2019-12-01 10:52 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"Is AG Barr complicit in allowing this fishy business to go on uninvestigated?"

He's either responsible, or irresponsible.

#6 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-01 11:11 AM | Reply

Providing there's a second term, let's save this scandal for when Trump gets impeached a second time.

I've never heard about that being done before but as far as I know, there's no law against it.

#7 | Posted by Twinpac at 2019-12-01 02:29 PM | Reply

That should bring him to heal.

Yea right!

#8 | Posted by fresno500 at 2019-12-01 05:17 PM | Reply

Just another notch on Trump's belt.

He is proof that laws don't apply to the rich.

If democrats can't win America's flyover states with actual ideas, and only bank on people voting against Trump. We will repeat 2016.

It's why I like Bernie. Love him or hate him. He's a man with plans and his ideas draw a crowd.

#9 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-12-01 05:41 PM | Reply

Clownshack. Didn't Will Rogers, the famed Depression era social cimic admit that he "didn't belong to any organized political party"? He said,, "That't because I'm a Democrat!" Even as the party's changed over time, his claim still holds true. When the Dem's tried to be "well-organized" in 2016, they forgot to campaign hard in Important places like Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan and other flyover states; and, while winning the popular vote, they lost the election. This time all seems less organized than ever, and the once-promising alternate candidates of 2016 seem less competitive than they were 4 years ago. Maybe being disorganized this time will yield more popular results?

#10 | Posted by Augustine at 2019-12-02 12:20 AM | Reply

Clownshack. Didn't Will Rogers, a famed Depression-era social comic admit that he "didn't belong to any organized political party"? He said, "That't because I'm a Democrat!" Even as the party's changed over time, his claim still holds true. When the Dem's tried to be "well-organized" in 2016, they forgot to campaign hard in Important places like Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan and other flyover states; and, while winning the popular vote, they lost the election. This time all seems less organized than ever, and the once-promising alternate candidates of 2016 seem less competitive than they were 4 years ago. Maybe being disorganized this time will yield more popular results?

#11 | Posted by Augustine at 2019-12-02 12:22 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort