Politics: Onward from New Hampshire

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Argument: Teresa is not culpable because she doesn't control her investments (private manager)

Argument: Cheney is not culpable because he doesn't control his investments (blind trust)

Counter: Teresa is culpable because she should be more careful that she doesn't invest in companies she attacks publicly. She's culpable of carelessness. If she doesn't dump the stock now, that would be worse.

Counter: It's fucking Halliburton, for fuck's sake. Cheney wouldn't be disinterested even if he didn't own a dime of equity in the co.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sgtclub
It's blind in that he has no investment control.

Then it's not blind so far as Halliburton stock. Since we've had this debate before , I went to dig up a cite. 5 CFR 2634.401(a)(2), the most relevant portion of which provides:

A trust is considered to be ‘‘blind’’ only with regard to those trust assets about which no interested party has knowledge. When an interested party originally places assets in trust, that party still possesses knowledge about those assets. Those original assets remain financial interests of the Government official for purposes of 18 U.S.C. 208 or for any other Federal conflict of interest statutes or regulations, until the trustee notifies the official either that a particular original asset has been disposed of or that the asset’s value is less than $1000.

So, until Cheney is entirely divested of Halliburton, it still counts for conflict statutes and is not "blind", regardless of the fact that he can't control its disposition.

edited to fix tags -- T.S.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
I'm not so sure. Occasionally even judges find themselves making the "I didn't know I had that stock/LP/REIT etc." mea culpa.

When she comes out with the mea culpa, she'll be at the same point.

Sure, it's possible not to know what's in your portfolio. But rarely does it happen so grievously. How many times a year to we see an "oops" with a federal judge of this type? I don't really know, but I would guess the conflicts are almost always short-circuited at the assignment point or early in teh case. What's more, my recollection of the ones I've seen have been far less straightforward--involving wholly owned subs with different names, or partially owned ones.

I just don't think its too much to ask for a public figure to check their portfolio occasionally to see what's in it before speaking out about it.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Then it's not blind so far as Halliburton stock. Since we've had this debate before , I went to dig up a cite. 5 CFR 2634.401(a)(2), the most relevant portion of which provides:



So, until Cheney is entirely divested of Halliburton, it still counts for conflict statutes and is not "blind", regardless of the fact that he can't control its disposition.

edited to fix tags -- T.S.

Interesting. You win. It is treated differently under the securities laws.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Then it's not blind so far as Halliburton stock. Since we've had this debate before , I went to dig up a cite. 5 CFR 2634.401(a)(2), the most relevant portion of which provides:

So, until Cheney is entirely divested of Halliburton, it still counts for conflict statutes and is not "blind", regardless of the fact that he can't control its disposition.

Are Senators required to have blind trusts? Their families? I.e., is Theresa's trust managed and blind or just managed?

[Not Me]

Chaos in the streets of Port-au-Prince, looting, fires, murders.

I wonder what will happen.

On a more pleasant note, the judge dismissed the securities fraud charge against Martha.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by sgtclub
That is not what is happening in SF and you know it. Look, I hate slippery slope arguments as much as the next guy, but I can't help but worry that the next time a mayor does not agree with a state law, we now have precedent for a civil disobedience rational for the mayor not to enforce it, which leads to the possibility of (1) system breakdown and (2) tyranical rule by those in power.

I find it amusing that people who freak out over the 10 comandments being posted outside a courthouse love the idea of a mayor overruling the will of the people. Remember that voters in the state of California passed proposition 22 in the year 2000. That limited marriage to one man and one woman.

I don't know how someone can say that Newsome is acting on behalf of the will of the people. Maybe the people of SF, but not the people in the whole of CA.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Are Senators required to have blind trusts? Their families? I.e., is Theresa's trust managed and blind or just managed?

Hi Furingey, I'm almost certain that is not the case. There was a study that came out this week that said Senators outperformed all but the best fund managers by 12% in a studied period of 8 recent years. I don't remember if it was 12% total or 12% per year or if 12% is me misremembering the outperformance number. But the implication of acting on market-moving knowledge was clearly the implication.

Hello

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Not Me
I find it amusing that people who freak out over the 10 comandments being posted outside a courthouse love the idea of a mayor overruling the will of the people.

When Newsom violates a specific court order to cease and desist, we can start talking about it, and then drawing distinctions between whether direct violation of a court order by an elected official is materially different from a violation by the state's chief justice. Until then, let's talk about butt love.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Not Me
I don't know how someone can say that Newsome is acting on behalf of the will of the people. Maybe the people of SF, but not the people in the whole of CA.

The "people of California" didn't elect him. The people of SF did. He represents them, only.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by bilmore
The "people of California" didn't elect him. The people of SF did. He represents them, only.

I didn't say otherwise. But that doesn't mean that he has no obligation to obey the laws of the state of CA. Part of his responsibility to the people of SF is to behave in a lawful manner and in accordance with the CA constitution and state laws, too, not just municipal ordinances.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Not Me
I didn't say otherwise. But that doesn't mean that he has no obligation to obey the laws of the state of CA. Part of his responsibility to the people of SF is to behave in a lawful manner and in accordance with the CA constitution and state laws, too, not just municipal ordinances.

He also has an obligation to obey the state's constitution, which is what he claims, I believe legitimately, to be doing.

He has also made it abundantly clear that he would not defy a court order that says, in effect, that his reading of the constitution is wrong.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Not Me
not just municipal ordinances.

p.s. -- there is no municipal ordinance involved here. Newsom was in position to do his, as mayor of SF, because of two peculiarities: That SF is both a city and a county (therefore making our mayor the senior county official), and that in Cal counties are responsible for issuing marriage licenses.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
p.s. -- there is no municipal ordinance involved here.

Who said there was one? Bilmore's post said that Newsome is accountable to the residents of SF only and not the people of California as a whole. My point was so what? That doesn't relieve him of obeying state laws.

What about proposition 22? Where does this fit into Newsome's obligations to behave lawfully?

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Not Me
Who said there was one? Bilmore's post said that Newsome is accountable to the residents of SF only and not the people of California as a whole. My point was so what? That doesn't relieve him of obeying state laws.

And my point was that the criticism here was that he was an elected official violating some trust. If you are saying that he owes fealty to California law, over and above the wishes of his own electorate, you are taking him out of the "official acting in an official capacity" role for this argument and merely saying that everyone has a duty to obey the state's laws, thus effectively mooting concepts of civil disobedience.