That's a bedrock principle of US court proceedings, and US law. So we now know he's had to pay the other side's lawyers, almost half a million dollars -- for using a form contract of adhesion (one he likely used for decades at his stupid "Organization") while at 1600 Penn., to prevent disclosure of his unsavory ways -- even matters that federal law requires tax-paid underlings to report, if they see them -- under our shared post-Watergate / post-Nixon reforms:
. . .the Campaign will pay class counsel an aggregate total of $450,000, which includes any and all attorneys’ fees and costs (including notice-related costs) and an incentive fee of $25,000 to Ms. Denson [the lead plaintiff]. . . .
Now you know. Grinning. . . couldn't happen. . . to a nicer guy.
नमस्ते
6 comments:
For those of us who are not lawyers what are those "matters that federal law requires tax-paid underlings to report," and how to they relate to Watergate?
Great question! A comprehensive answer would take a semester of law school class lectures. Beyond my bandwidth here… late on a Sat. night / Sun. morning. But this link offers some highlights — people working in federal government higher management have reporting obligations due to annual certificate of compliance programs. Even charities receiving some (early childhood education) federal funds… must report malfeasance they see.
Here’s at least one fairly good discussion:
https://www.ftc.gov/office-inspector-general/whistleblower-protection
And to be clear, long after Watergate — even with changes in the law — many loopholes remain:
https://www.pogo.org/analysis/2013/03/lessons-of-watergate-scandal-still-resonate
But a president cannot lawfully try to tape his underlings’ mouths shut — that was Tangerine’s MO, and now it’s vost him — and vost Melania.
Great question! G’night….
I'm still don't see a basis for government employees/officials having a duty to report. The statutes cited in the links provide a basis for protection if a government employee/official makes a protected disclosure. (But they still don't indicate that there's a duty to report.) The links also cite statutes and executive orders involving exceptions to this protection in cases involving national security and diplomatic affairs.
The only duty to report that I see (including with certificates of compliance) involve federal contractors, who I suppose could be considered "tax-paid". However, I still don't see any duty for those I tend to think of as "tax paid" i.e., government employees and officials.
Thanks Anon. -- and as I said, this is a whole semester in law school.
And a full run down is well beyond the scope of this blog. Consider (as just one example) that military officers (US government employees, all!) have these affirmative duties (at page K-3):
". . .RC SMs have an affirmative obligation to disclose material facts in this regard. However, receiving commands cannot assume compliance and must independently screen incoming personnel to avoid conflicts of interest. . . ."
Citation:
https://dodsoco.ogc.osd.mil/Portals/102/reserve_ethics.pdf
I want to be of assistance, truly. If you'd like to name a specific agency or position of federal employment -- I likely can find the related rule or statute that requires at least annually, a disclosure of any material violations of law, that the employee may have witnessed, especially as to spending matters. This occurs by requiring a clean certificate of compliance to be signed, as we said.
As we will learn in the coming years (perhaps from DC area AUSAs), there were members of Tangerine's family (among others) who held this duty, but ignored it -- all while at 1600 Penn.
That's the crux of it.
Great questions, and. . . namaste. . . .
Here's one that has to do with HHS and sub-agencies.
45 CFR § 73.735-1301 - Responsibility for reporting possible criminal violations
Thanks, Anon. -- yes, HHS requires:
". . .§ 73.735-1301 Responsibility for reporting possible criminal violations.
An employee who has information which he or she reasonably believes indicates a possible offense against the United States by an employee of the Department [HHS], or any other individual working on behalf of the Department, shall immediately report such information to his or her supervisor, any management official, or directly to the Office of the Inspector General. . . .
Offenses covered by the preceding sentence include, but are not limited to, bribery, fraud, perjury, conflict of interest, misuse of funds, equipment, or facilities, and other conduct by a government officer or employee, grantee, contractor or other person which is prohibited by title 18 of the United States Code. Employees and supervisors should refer to chapter 5-10 of the Department's General Administration Manual for procedures regarding the reporting and handling of such information. . . ."
And similar provisions exist at many federal agencies.
Namaste. . . .
Post a Comment