Showing posts with label federal ethics laws. Show all posts
Showing posts with label federal ethics laws. Show all posts

Saturday, November 12, 2016

How Federal Ethics Laws Will Apply to a Trump Presidency; New York Times, 11/11/16

Steve Eder, New York Times; How Federal Ethics Laws Will Apply to a Trump Presidency:
"A theme of Mr. Trump’s presidency is likely to be the clash of his duties running the country with the remnants of his decades as a hard-charging businessman. But federal rules and precedent make a couple of things clear.
Mr. Trump will have no immunity from lawsuits involving his corporate ventures, thanks to a Supreme Court ruling involving Paula Jones, one of President Bill Clinton’s accusers. And nothing will stop Mr. Trump’s family from continuing to run its vast international web of businesses. Federal ethics laws and conflict-of-interest statutes that apply to other federal employees and cabinet members do not apply to the president."

Wednesday, August 31, 2016

Former Bush ethics lawyer backs Clinton, warns on foundation; Politico, 8/31/16

Nick Gass, Politico; Former Bush ethics lawyer backs Clinton, warns on foundation:
"Hillary Clinton is the "only qualified candidate in the race and she should become president," President George W. Bush's former chief White House ethics lawyer wrote in a New York Times op-ed published Wednesday, while calling on the Democratic nominee to do more to assuage the fears and suspicions about the looming presence of the Clinton Foundation as an influence on policy.
"There is little if any evidence that federal ethics laws were broken by Mrs. Clinton or anyone working for her at the State Department in their dealings with the foundation," wrote Richard W. Painter, currently a law professor at the University of Minnesota. "Unfortunately, the foundation is still fuel for Mrs. Clinton’s persistent critics."
Pointing out that Clinton's critics have yet to find proof of any violations of statutes or ethics regulations, Painter acknowledged that there was likely favoritism but concluded that no laws had been broken."