Archives for category: Ethics

The Associated Press reports that the lawyer who was chosen as general counsel of the U.S. Department of Education was involved in defending Florida’s decision not to prosecute Trump University for fraud.

As a top aide to Florida’s attorney general, Carlos G. Muniz helped defend the office’s decision to sit out legal action against Trump University. Now the president is naming him to be the top lawyer in the U.S. Education Department.

President Donald Trump has announced his intent to nominate Muniz to serve as general counsel to Education Secretary Betsy DeVos. The Senate would then consider the nomination of the Republican lawyer.

Emails reviewed by The Associated Press show that in 2013 Muniz, who served as Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi’s chief of staff for three years, was included in discussions about student complaints alleging fraud with Trump’s namesake real-estate seminars.

Muniz, now in private practice, has also been the lead attorney defending Florida State University in a lawsuit by a former student who said the school failed to investigate after she said she was sexually assaulted by the star quarterback of the Seminoles’ 2013 national championship football team. The player was never charged with a crime by police in Tallahassee, and the state attorney’s office declined to pursue a criminal case against him.

An investigation by the Education Department’s Office of Civil Rights is still underway, presenting a potential conflict of interest if Muniz is confirmed.

Both Muniz and the White House declined to comment Tuesday, referring all questions to the Education Department.
That department did not respond to phone calls and emails seeking comment about the Trump University review or whether Muniz would recuse himself from involvement in the Florida State probe.

Muniz’s boss Pamela Bondi solicited a contribution of $25,000 from Donald Trump when she was running for re-election and while his case was on her desk.

I wonder who will be in charge of ethics at the U.S. Department of Education?

This is an extraordinary exchange of documents, which I learned about by reading Bill Moyers’ website.

Walter Shaub, director of the Office of Governmental Ethics, wrote a letter to the White House saying that Kellyanne Conway should be disciplined for using her official position to encourage people to buy Ivanka Trump’s merchandise. The White House responded by saying that officials who work for the White House are not subject to the same ethics rules that apply to other government officials.

Never before, at least in modern history, has the White House claimed to be exempt from federal ethics rules.

These are not normal times. This is not a normal administration. Ignoring ethics rules is not normal. The Republicans who run the Congress should not tolerate this flouting of laws and long-respected rules of behavior. It is a very bad precedent.

Trump has embraced terminology that has long been stigmatized.

In his Inaugural Address, he boomed out his endorsement of “America First!” Did he know the historical use of that phrase? Did he know that it was used by isolationists in the late 1930s who wanted America to stay out of the war beginning in Europe? Did he know of its association with isolationism and anti-Semitism? Did Steve Bannon and Stephen Miller, who allegedly wrote the speech, know?

Now he refers to the free press as “an enemy of the people.” Journalists who criticize him are vendors of “fake news” and thus “enemies of the people.” The New York Times says the phrase was frequently used by Stalin to demonized opponents as “enemies of the people.”

“The phrase was too toxic even for Nikita Khrushchev, a war-hardened veteran communist not known for squeamishness. As leader of the Soviet Union, he demanded an end to the use of the term “enemy of the people” because “it eliminated the possibility of any kind of ideological fight.”

“The formula ‘enemy of the people,’” Mr. Khrushchev told the Soviet Communist Party in a 1956 speech denouncing Stalin’s cult of personality, “was specifically introduced for the purpose of physically annihilating such individuals” who disagreed with the supreme leader.

“It is difficult to know if President Trump is aware of the historic resonance of the term, a label generally associated with despotic communist governments rather than democracies. But his decision to unleash the terminology has left some historians scratching their heads. Why would the elected leader of a democratic nation embrace a label that, after the death of Stalin, even the Soviet Union found to be too freighted with sinister connotations?”

Does Trump know that he is echoing the terminology of Stalin? Has anyone told him?

It is important to bear in mind that in one respect Trump is a true genius: Branding.

He created the TRUMP brand. He puts the brand on buildings that he doesn’t own; he outsources the brand and monetizes it. There are apartment buildings that he didn’t build, doesn’t manage, and doesn’t own branded TRUMP. As he showed during the primaries, he has TRUMP wine, TRUMP steaks, TRUMP everything.

He branded his opponents in the Republican primaries to ridicule them: “Little Marco,” “Low Energy” Jeb, “Lyin’ Ted.” Anyone who was within reach of him got branded and demeaned.

Then in the general, it was “Crooked Hillary.” How many times did he say that phrase? Hundreds of times? Thousands of times? He said that within the first week of his presidency, he would direct his Attorney General to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate her many crimes. What was the chant at his rallies and the National Republican Convention: “Lock her up!”

Now he is in the process of demonizing the mainstream media: the New York Times, the Washington Post, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS: they are all liars, the reporters are the most dishonest people in the world, they spew “fake news.” They lie. All of this from an administration that lies every day and calls its lies “alternative facts.”

Now we see a presidency that has a curious connection to the rest of the world. Trump demeans our allies but says nary a critical word about Putin. Strange.

During the campaign, James Comey announced that the FBI was investigating Hillary’s emails because she used a private server and might have compromised national security. In June of 2016, he announced that the investigation was over and that no prosecutor would prosecute her based on the evidence at hand. Then, as we all know, Comey announced 10 days before the election that the investigation was being reopened because of the discovery of emails on the computer of Anthony Wiener, husband of Huma Abedin, Hillary’s close associate. Three days before the election–after millions of early votes had been cast–Comey once again cleared Hillary. His intervention in the election was unprecedented for any FBI director.

He said he had to intervene because he promised to keep Congress informed.

What he never told Congress was that the FBI was simultaneously investigating links between the Trump campaign and Russian government operatives.

Why did he report on one investigation, but not the other?

What were the contacts that the FBI was investigating?

Why were campaign staff communicating with Russian officials?

Will the FBI investigation be controlled by Attorney General Jeff Sessions, one of Trump’s closest allies?

Why was Hillary smeared as “Crooked Hillary” every day of the general election, but there is no special prosecutor?

Is it true that the President uses an Android cellphone that is not secured?

Is it true that Trump discusses matters of high national security in the restaurant of his private club?

Is it true that the top officials in the Trump administration use private email servers?

Is it true that this administration is “running like a finely-tuned machine”?

We will have to leave these questions for historians to figure out.

Since Trump filed for the 2020 campaign on Inauguration Day, the nation will be in campaign mode nonstop for the next four years.

Richard Painter and Norman Eisen were ethics lawyers for George W. Bush and Barack Obama.

In this article, they call attention to serious ethical lapses and violations in Betsy DeVos’ case.

The ethics case against Betsy DeVos

“As former ethics counsels to Presidents Obama and George W. Bush, we’ve reviewed more than our share of ethics filings for cabinet nominees. Seldom have we seen a worse cabinet-level ethics mess than that presented by Betsy DeVos, President Trump’s choice for education secretary.

“Her extensive financial holdings present significant—and unresolved—conflict of interest issues. She also failed to provide the Senate with accurate information about her involvement with outside organizations. We have regretfully come to the conclusion that these concerns disqualify DeVos for that cabinet position.

“This is not a claim that we make reflexively. We supported the nomination of Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, who took extensive steps to avoid conflicts with his former employer, ExxonMobil. Likewise, we have welcomed the plan that Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, has announced to address his ethics issues, although we await final details and implementation. By contrast, DeVos’ failure to meet even minimum standards leaves us with no choice but to speak out.

“For example, DeVos intends to maintain the $5 million to $25 million she and her husband have invested in Neurocore, a biotech company that claims to have “helped thousands of children” with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Neurocore is listed with its logo and a link to its website along with several other investments on a website operated by Windquest Group, an investment company owned by DeVos and her husband.

“DeVos retaining her interest in Windquest Group raises significant concerns about how her and her spouse’s investments in the company, and her affiliation with it, will be managed so as to avoid potential conflicts of interest now and in the future. Having the Secretary of Education continue to hold an investment in “a science and research brain-based program” that produces “life-changing results” targeted towards children is a departure from precedent and common sense.

“As owners of the Windquest Group, Betsy and Dick DeVos are the primary backers of Neurocare. The fact that Neurocare will continue to be held and promoted by her and her spouse’s investment management company on its website is startling, since doing so effectively acts as an endorsement by the Secretary of Education once she takes office. Nor does recusal solve the problem. After all, much of what she does as Secretary will target “life-changing results” for children. Both of us would have advised such a nominee (and the president) that this tie had to be severed.

“DeVos reportedly has not provided the detailed supplemental information requested in the Senate questionnaire for some of her holdings, including holdings associated with two of the three trusts for which she will continue to serve as a co-trustee and co-beneficiary with her spouse. If true, her failure to do so is a significant break from past practice and means she has not been fully vetted—a disqualifier in itself.

“In her hearing, DeVos also made claims than strain credulity. For example, she was asked under oath about tax filings that listed her as vice president of the Edgar and Elsa Prince Foundation. The Prince Foundation, established by her parents in 1989, reportedly made significant contributions to anti-LGBT groups over the years, including at least $5 million to conservative religious groups that support conversion therapy.

“DeVos denied that she had that role at the Prince Foundation, and when confronted in her hearing by Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.) with actual forms indicating she was an officer, DeVos attributed it to a “clerical error”—one that persisted for 17 years.

While this foundation position does not present a legally disqualifying conflict, it appears the Senate was not given the truthful information it needs to perform its advise and consent function under the Constitution. This failure raises questions about the accuracy of information she provided across the board.”

DeVos’ refusal to divest and remove any financial conflict of interest and her inability to explain her relationship to her mother’s foundation present serious ethical issues. These actions show a disrespect for the Senate and for federal ethics laws.

“We oppose her nomination on ethics grounds.”

“Norman Eisen is chairman and co-founder of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) and a visiting fellow at the Brookings Institution. He served as chief ethics lawyer for President Obama and later as U.S. ambassador to the Czech Republic. Richard Painter is vice chairman of CREW and a professor at the University of Minnesota Law School. He served as chief ethics lawyer for President George W. Bush.”

Eliot Cohen is a conservative foreign policy expert. He worked on Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice’s staff. During the campaign, he signed a statement opposing Trump, which was co-signed by some 200 others who had worked on foreign policy issues for Republican administrations.

In this post, Cohen says that Trump is even worse than he anticipated and warns his fellow Americans to prepare the worst.

He writes:

“We were right. And friends who urged us to tone it down, to make our peace with him, to stop saying as loudly as we could “this is abnormal,” to accommodate him, to show loyalty to the Republican Party, to think that he and his advisers could be tamed, were wrong. In an epic week beginning with a dark and divisive inaugural speech, extraordinary attacks on a free press, a visit to the CIA that dishonored a monument to anonymous heroes who paid the ultimate price, and now an attempt to ban selected groups of Muslims (including interpreters who served with our forces in Iraq and those with green cards, though not those from countries with Trump hotels, or from really indispensable states like Saudi Arabia), he has lived down to expectations.

“Precisely because the problem is one of temperament and character, it will not get better. It will get worse, as power intoxicates Trump and those around him. It will probably end in calamity—substantial domestic protest and violence, a breakdown of international economic relationships, the collapse of major alliances, or perhaps one or more new wars (even with China) on top of the ones we already have. It will not be surprising in the slightest if his term ends not in four or in eight years, but sooner, with impeachment or removal under the 25th Amendment. The sooner Americans get used to these likelihoods, the better….

“This is one of those clarifying moments in American history, and like most such, it came upon us unawares, although historians in later years will be able to trace the deep and the contingent causes that brought us to this day. There is nothing to fear in this fact; rather, patriots should embrace it. The story of the United States is, as Lincoln put it, a perpetual story of “a rebirth of freedom” and not just its inheritance from the founding generation.

“Some Americans can fight abuses of power and disastrous policies directly—in courts, in congressional offices, in the press. But all can dedicate themselves to restoring the qualities upon which this republic, like all republics depends: on reverence for the truth; on a sober patriotism grounded in duty, moderation, respect for law, commitment to tradition, knowledge of our history, and open-mindedness. These are all the opposites of the qualities exhibited by this president and his advisers. Trump, in one spectacular week, has already shown himself one of the worst of our presidents, who has no regard for the truth (indeed a contempt for it), whose patriotism is a belligerent nationalism, whose prior public service lay in avoiding both the draft and taxes, who does not know the Constitution, does not read and therefore does not understand our history, and who, at his moment of greatest success, obsesses about approval ratings, how many people listened to him on the Mall, and enemies.

“He will do much more damage before he departs the scene, to become a subject of horrified wonder in our grandchildren’s history books. To repair the damage he will have done Americans must give particular care to how they educate their children, not only in love of country but in fair-mindedness; not only in democratic processes but democratic values. Americans, in their own communities, can find common ground with those whom they have been accustomed to think of as political opponents. They can attempt to renew a political culture damaged by their decayed systems of civic education, and by the cynicism of their popular culture.

“There is in this week’s events the foretaste of things to come. We have yet to see what happens when Trump tries to use the Internal Revenue Service or the Federal Bureau of Investigation to destroy his opponents. He thinks he has succeeded in bullying companies, and he has no compunction about bullying individuals, including those with infinitely less power than himself. His advisers are already calling for journalists critical of the administration to be fired: Expect more efforts at personal retribution. He has demonstrated that he intends to govern by executive orders that will replace the laws passed by the people’s representatives.

“In the end, however, he will fail. He will fail because however shrewd his tactics are, his strategy is terrible—The New York Times, the CIA, Mexican Americans, and all the others he has attacked are not going away. With every act he makes new enemies for himself and strengthens their commitment; he has his followers, but he gains no new friends. He will fail because he cannot corrupt the courts, and because even the most timid senator sooner or later will say “enough.” He will fail most of all because at the end of the day most Americans, including most of those who voted for him, are decent people who have no desire to live in an American version of Tayyip Erdogan’s Turkey, or Viktor Orban’s Hungary, or Vladimir Putin’s Russia.

“There was nothing unanticipated in this first disturbing week of the Trump administration. It will not get better. Americans should therefore steel themselves, and hold their representatives to account. Those in a position to take a stand should do so, and those who are not should lay the groundwork for a better day. There is nothing great about the America that Trump thinks he is going to make; but in the end, it is the greatness of America that will stop him.”

This article appeared in The Onion, but it is so close to truth that it might as well have appeared in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, or the Washington Post.

 

The only fiction in it is the pretense that it was written by Jimmy Carter. It was not.

 

The essence is the question, why was I forced to sell the family peanut farm when I became president when Donald Trump is allowed to maintain control of his far-flung business empire and not even to disclose what businesses he is invested in?

 

Seriously, it was just a few fields and a warehouse, and you idiots still appointed a special prosecutor and spent six months investigating it.

 

Not a day goes by when I don’t think about what life would be like if I still had my peanut farm. I miss it so much. I miss feeling the sun on my face. I miss the earth in my hands. Sometimes, I’d go out to the fields before dawn. I’d watch the sun come up, watch it cast golden light on my plants, row by row. It was so calm; so quiet. Those were some of the best days of my life. It sure would’ve been nice to live out the rest of my years there, but I had to do what was right. I suppose only some of us have to.

 

God, I loved that peanut farm!

 

And where were my conflicts of interest, exactly? Seriously, do enlighten me, America, because I honestly have no idea. Did you worry I might be cutting deals in back rooms with the peanut butter lobby? Or that I might be too busy at harvest time to focus on the economy or the Middle East? Apparently, you did, and almost obsessively. Meanwhile, your new president holds a lease from the federal government to operate a $200 million hotel six blocks from the White House. I mean, come on!

 

Maybe I’m just a sucker. Apparently, all I needed to do was hand off control of the farm to my family. If I’d staged an elaborate song and dance about distancing myself—whatever that means—from all the day-to-day planting, picking, and salting, maybe I could have kept my peanut farm with the full blessing of you, the American people.

 

The New York Times reports that billionaire Betsy DeVos refuses to sell her interest in Neurocore, a company that uses biofeedback to enhance brain functioning. She has a direct conflict of interest. Will that stop her nomination? I wouldn’t bet on it. It didn’t faze Republicans that she knows nothing about federal law regarding children with disabilities. Why should they care that she will use her position to enrich herself? When is enough enough?

 

The committee vote on DeVos will take place on January 31. Call your Senators’ offices. Speak to his or her aides. Urge them to vote NO on this unqualified, uninformed party debutante. She is not entitled to be Secretary of Education as payback for hundreds of millions of donations to the Republican Party.

 

 

“Betsy DeVos, the billionaire school choice advocate selected by President Donald J. Trump to serve as education secretary, is a strong supporter of using biofeedback technology to help children and teenagers enhance their performance in school.

 
“Ms. DeVos and her husband, Richard DeVos Jr., are major financial backers of Neurocore, a Michigan company that operates drug-free “brain performance centers” that claim to have worked with 10,000 children and adults to overcome problems with attention deficit disorder, autism, sleeplessness and stress.

 
“In an agreement with the Office of Government Ethics made public Friday, Ms. DeVos said that she had stepped down from the Neurocore board but that she would retain her financial interest in the company. She valued that stake at $5 million to $25 million in her financial disclosure statement.

 
“On Friday evening, Senator Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, the Republican chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, said he would delay the initial vote on Ms. DeVos’s nomination by a week, until Jan. 31, as Democrats argued that the process had been rushed through, without enough time to answer remaining questions about her financial disclosures.

 
“Ms. DeVos and her husband promote Neurocore heavily on the website for Windquest Group, a family office the couple use to manage some of their many investments. The website, for instance, includes a link to a Washington Post article about Kirk Cousins, a Washington Redskins quarterback who describes how he “retrained” his brain to better perform on the field by going to a Neurocore center.

 
“But the claims that Neurocore’s methods can help children improve their performance in school could present a conflict for Ms. DeVos if she is confirmed as education secretary — especially given that the company is moving to expand its national reach.

 
“Neurocore, founded about a decade ago, operates seven of the brain performance centers in Michigan and recently opened two in Florida. It has said it has plans to open as many as seven other centers across the country this year. Ms. DeVos’s financial disclosure shows that she and her husband have an indirect interest in the company through a family partnership.

 
“Richard W. Painter, a White House ethics adviser under President George W. Bush, said he was familiar with Neurocore and applauded the business and education concepts behind it — but he said the DeVoses would be better off selling their interests in the company.”

 

California teacher Jack Covey sent the following comment on this news story:

 

“I am very sensitive to the needs of students
with disabilities.”
— Betsy Devos, at her confirmation hearing,
in response to a question from Senator Murray.

 

I think we now may have a little clarity as to what
she meant by that remark … as in when such needs
benefit her investment portfolio.

 

QUICK BACKGROUND:

 

Neurocore — a totally unscientific, quack medical
“bio-feedback” company that claims to cure autism, ADHD, etc.
where it operates nine “brain performance centers,” where
the controversial “drug free” cures offered there are not recognized by
any entity or anyone in the mainstream medical establishment.
Despite its grandiose claims of success, Neurocore has never consented
to have these practices tested or investigated in peer-reviewed
studies.

 

… “snake oil” is how Jennifer “Edushyster” Berkshire
referred to it in a recent tweet:
https://twitter.com/EduShyster/status/822793877614710788

 

 

Indeed, the Michigan Dept. of Insurance has upheld
insurance company denials of coverage for any Neurocore
“cures” on the grounds that there is zero evidence supporting
the efficacy of any of their treatments. These repeated
denials and upholding of these denials contradict
Neurocore’s website, which claims that their treatments
are covered by insurance carriers.

 

Betsy and her husband are two of Neurocore’s main investors
via their umbrella company Windcrest, which also is the
main backer of that Boxed Water being peddled to
the struggling citizens of Flint, Michigan. (a photo
of Betsy at a school site, included a product placement
for this “Boxed Water.”)

 

Her stock ownership and membership on Neurocore board of directors
was discovered two days ago — alas, after her confirmation
hearings.”

 

Richard Painter was the ethics lawyer for the George W. Bush administration; Norman Eisen was the ethics lawyer for the Barack Obama administration. They co-authored an opinion piece decrying the Republican war on ethics.

 

“For two weeks now, the majority leadership in the new Congress and the incoming Trump administration have been conducting a war on ethics. This has ranged from the effort to cripple the Office of Congressional Ethics to the Senate’s rush to confirm President-elect Donald Trump’s nominees before their financial conflicts disclosures were complete to Trump’s own inadequate plan to address his ethical problems.

 

“The latest front involves the Office of Government Ethics and its director, Walter Shaub Jr., who has had the temerity to speak up against Trump’s plan to deal with his conflicts of interest as “meaningless.”

 

“Both of us, former ethics counsels for Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama, respectively, have worked with Shaub, a career public servant who, in our experience, provided nonpartisan and wise advice. Now, Shaub is being pilloried — and may be at risk of losing his job — for doing just that, and asserting correctly that Trump’s approach “doesn’t meet the standards . . . that every president in the last four decades has met.”
“How does the Trump plan fall short? The president-elect asserted that the conflicts laws don’t apply to him but ignored the most fundamental one of all: the constitutional rule that presidents may not accept cash and other benefits — “emoluments” — from foreign governments.

 

“Trump’s lawyer then offered a porous and insufficient plan to address this problem: The Trump Organization will donate profits from foreign governments’ use of his hotels. But why only hotels? What about foreign sovereign payments to buy his condos or apartments, for use of his office buildings or his golf courses, not to mention his massive foreign government bank loans, and other benefits? And why only profits, when the Justice Department has long held that the emoluments clause covers any revenue from foreign governments — not simply profits?

 

“For speaking up about the shortcomings of this plan, Shaub found himself in the Republican crosshairs. Rep. Jason Chaffetz (Utah), chair of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee that has jurisdiction over the White House, demanded Shaub appear for a Star Chamber-style recorded inquisition and implicitly threatened to shut down the Office of Government Ethics if Shaub did not submit. Chaffetz ought to have been doing the exact opposite, supporting OGE and demanding documents from Trump about any financial ties to Russia or other foreign governments.

 

“Then, just when we thought it couldn’t get worse, it did. The incoming White House chief of staff, Reince Priebus, went on national television to threaten Shaub. In a scene like something out of a gangster B-movie, Priebus warned the director that “he ought to be careful ” and gave his blessing to Chaffetz’s interrogation. Priebus’s glare of menace was unmistakable. The only thing he left out was cracking his knuckles.

 

“Priebus went on to make assertions about Shaub that were false. For example, he claimed Shaub was “political” because he “may have . . . publicly supported Hillary Clinton,” which is simply untrue. Shaub has done no such thing. (Before becoming director, Shaub made modest political donations, as did his Republican predecessor.Indeed, both of us have also exercised this same First Amendment right.)

 

“Priebus also attacked Shaub’s competence, and so his livelihood, questioning “what this person at Government Ethics, what sort of standing he has any more in giving these opinions.” In fact, the director is a dedicated and talented ethicist who has served Democratic and Republican presidents alike with distinction and without controversy for many years. He has already approved 54 percent of the Trump nominees who have submitted their paperwork to OGE, compared with just 29 percent at this point in the Obama transition eight years ago. If the White House chief of staff had made these kinds of threats against the head of OGE when we were serving in the White House, we would have resigned immediately.”

 

 

Here are Betsy DeVos’s responses to questions from the Office of Government Ethics about potential and real conflicts of interest.

 

http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2017/01/see_how_betsy_devos_responded.html

 

She is an artful dodger.

 

Instead of admitting that she pours millions of dollars into advancing the cause of school privatization, she simply says that if any questions should come up, she will refer them to the appropriate ethics official.

 

These answers were written by a lawyer and intended to deceive.