Connect with us

News

Musk and Ramaswamy Heading New ‘DOGE’ Prompts Legal and Ethical Concerns: Experts

Published

on

President-elect Donald Trump announced Tuesday evening that he will create the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), and named billionaire tech mogul Elon Musk and biotech and financial entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy as its co-directors. Experts are raising legal and ethical concerns across various issues.

One ethics expert says both Musk and Ramaswamy will have to divest from their extensive financial assets to avoid a federal conflict of interest law.

Professor of Law Richard Painter, who served as the chief White House ethics lawyer under Republican President George W. Bush, issued a warning just hours after Trump’s announcement.

“This is a federal office subject to the financial conflict of interest statute, 18 U.S.C. Section 208. They will both have to divest conflicting financial interests or risk violating a criminal statute,” Painter wrote.

READ MORE: Trump Victory Was ‘Slim’ and Not the ‘Historic Mandate’ Republicans Claim, Analysis Shows

He offered some examples: “Elon Musk must divest X or recuse from government matters affecting social media platforms; he must divest Tesla or recuse from government matters affecting the auto industry, electric batteries, etc.”

Attorney Tristan Snell, the former New York prosecutor who helped secure a $25 million settlement against Trump University, agreed:

“Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy will have to divest their business holdings if they want to join the Trump administration, to avoid violating conflict-of-interest laws. So if Elon takes a job, could he be forced to sell his stock in Tesla? Or could he be forced to sell Twitter?”

Professor Painter also pointed to a CNN report highlighting potential conflicts.

“The announcement of Ramaswamy and particularly Musk, who leads companies with existing, lucrative government contracts, raises immediate questions about potential conflicts of interest,” CNN reported. “It is not immediately clear how the department – which Trump said would ‘provide advice and guidance from outside of Government’ – would operate, and whether a Congress even fully controlled by Republicans would have the appetite to approve such a massive overhaul of government spending and operations.”

CNN also noted that last year Ramaswamy, “who had promised on the campaign trail to eliminate the FBI, the Department of Education and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which would lay off thousands of federal workers in the process – released a white paper outlining a legal framework he said would allow the president to eliminate federal agencies of his choice.”

The Daily Beast suggested there could be ways to circumvent the requirements of federal law.

“Trump could … appoint the duo under the Federal Advisory Committees Act, which allows the government to set up groups to provide ‘expert advice, ideas, and diverse opinions to the Federal Government.'”

“This would potentially allow Musk and Ramaswamy to remain advisers instead of federal employees—meaning they would not necessarily be legally required to disclose conflicts of interest like employees of agencies such as the Department of Justice or the Defense Department.”

Other critics are raising additional concerns.

READ MORE: ‘No Excuse’: Dems Have Just Weeks to Get Dozens of Biden’s Judicial Nominees Confirmed

Some have suggested that in general, only Congress, not the President, can create new federal agencies.

The Daily Beast reports, “government agencies can only be created by an act of Congress.”

It appears Trump’s new agency, based on his announcement, may operate out of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). It is unclear how funding would work.

And while DOGE would suggest where to cut or eliminate funding, generally only Congress can determine how and how much federal funds are spent. It is generally unlawful for the President to decide to not spend funds Congress allocates.

Others are mocking the choice of the new agency’s name.

Attorney and creator of the SHERO political and legal newsletter, Amee Vanderpool, points out that DOGE is “an acronym that is frat boy shout out to cryptocurrency,” and notes that “an official agency cannot be created without Congress.”

NOTUS political investigations reporter Jose Pagliery adds, “Wait, the Elon/Vivek department will be called DOGE? They’re memefying the government. The actual government.”

Those concerns are accurate, as CNBC explains:

Dogecoin “shot higher on Tuesday night, extending its postelection surge after President-elect Donald Trump formally announced the creation of the Department of Government Efficiency, which he referred to as ‘DOGE’ in his statement.

The Daily Beast added that “DOGE” is “a reference to a decade-old meme that was later turned into a cryptocurrency beloved by Musk.”

Musk himself appears to have come up with the idea of a Department of Government Efficiency, in August:

And reinforced it again in September:

He appears to already be thinking about marketing ideas:

Musk also highlighted what he says he sees as “a leaderboard for most insanely dumb spending of your tax dollars. This will be both extremely tragic and extremely entertaining.” He also told a social media user that the “entertainment value will be epic.”

Professor of Law, political commentator, and former U.S. Attorney and Deputy Assistant Attorney General Harry Litman offered this summation: “Oh man, talk about strange bedfellows.”

See the social media posts above or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘What Illegal Corruption Looks Like’: Trump Blasted for ‘Already Breaking the Law’

Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

CRIME

DOJ Sues Washington State Over Law Requiring Catholic Priests to Report Child Abuse

Published

on

The Department of Justice has filed suit against Washington state over a new law requiring Catholic priests to report child abuse even if knowledge of the abuse was obtained during confession.

The law, Senate Bill 5375, was signed by Democratic Gov. Bob Ferguson on May 2, and would go into effect on July 27. The bill makes clergy mandatory reporters of child abuse and neglect, much like doctors and teachers. Catholic bishops in Washington have condemned the law because it does not address the sacred rite of confession.

Under the law, if abuse is revealed during confession, the priest must report it to police or the state’s Department of Children, Youth and Families. However, in the Catholic faith, the Seal of Confession directs priests to keep anything they learn during confession secret—even under the threat of imprisonment or death. Should a priest fail to do so, they would be excommunicated.

“I want to assure you that your shepherds, bishop and priests, are committed to keeping the seal of confession – even to the point of going to jail. The Sacrament of Penance is sacred,” Bishop Thomas A. Daly of the Spokane, Washington diocese wrote in a statement.

READ MORE: Pedophile Priest Sex Abuse: Catholic Churches Settle For $102 Million

A previous version of the bill did include a provision protecting priests from revealing anything learned during confession. Catholic bishops and Republicans in the state senate argued for the provision, but it was ultimately removed. All Republicans voted against the final version of the bill, along with two Democrats; it passed 28-20. Though the law requires priests to report abuse, it does not compel them to testify in court.

In response, a number of bishops filed a lawsuit, Etienne v. Ferguson, to stop the law. On June 16, a group of Orthodox churches in Washington state filed a similar lawsuit.

Gov. Ferguson, a Catholic, said he was dismayed by the suit.

“I’m disappointed my Church is filing a federal lawsuit to protect individuals who abuse kids,” Ferguson said.

The Department of Justice joined the fray on Monday. The DOJ called the law “anti-Catholic,” saying it violates the First Amendment. Monday’s suit is a motion to intervene in Etienne v. Ferguson.

“Senate Bill 5375 unconstitutionally forces Catholic priests in Washington to choose between their obligations to the Catholic Church and their penitents or face criminal consequences, while treating the priest-penitent privilege differently than other well-settled privileges. The Justice Department will not sit idly by when States mount attacks on the free exercise of religion,” Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon said in a statement.

Senate Bill 5375 is the third time the Washington senate was asked to make clergy mandatory reporters. The bill’s prime sponsor was Sen. Noel Frame (D-Seattle), who told KING-TV she brought the newest version before the Senate after hearing that three different Catholic archdioceses in the state were under investigation over allegations of covering up abuse.

“Quite frankly, that made it hard for me to stomach any argument about religious freedom being more important than preventing the abuse, including the sexual abuse of children,” Frame said in January. “I really wonder about all the children who have been abused and neglected and have gone unprotected by the adults in their lives because we didn’t have a mandated reporter law and that we continue to try to protect this in the name of religious freedom.”

Image via Shutterstock

Continue Reading

'VERY COOL VERY NORMAL'

FTC Blocks Advertising Company From Boycotting Media Outlets Based on Political Views

Published

on

The Federal Trade Commission announced a strange condition of the merger between two giant advertising companies. The FTC allowed the merger, but blocked the new company from being able to boycott media outlets based on political viewpoints.

The FTC announced Monday that Omnicom Group would be able to go ahead with its $13.5 billion purchase of The Interpublic Group of Companies. The merger faced antitrust concerns as the two companies are major players in the advertising industry. Currently, Omnicom is the third-largest ad agency in the United States, and IPG is fourth-largest.

Assuming the acquisition continues as planned, the enlarged Omnicom would be blocked from “engaging in collusion or coordination to direct advertising away from media publishers based on the publishers’ political or ideological viewpoints,” the FTC said.

READ MORE: Right Wing Lobbying Organization Pushing States to Shield Companies From Political Boycotts

“Websites and other publications that rely on advertising are critical to the flow of our nation’s commerce and communication,” Daniel Guarnera, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Competition, said. “Coordination among advertising agencies to suppress advertising spending on publications with disfavored political or ideological viewpoints threatens to distort not only competition between ad agencies, but also public discussion and debate. The FTC’s action today prevents unlawful coordination that targets specific political or ideological viewpoints while preserving individual advertisers’ ability to choose where their ads are placed.”

The new rule comes after Elon Musk, the owner of the social media platform X, formerly Twitter, complained that advertisers were boycotting the platform. Last August, X filed an antitrust lawsuit against the Global Alliance for Responsible Media, a coalition of advertisers, for boycotting X following Musk’s purchase of the company. Founding members of GARM include both Omnicom and IPG.

GARM was originally formed in response to the mass shooting in a Christchurch, New Zealand mosque by a white supremacist. The shooting was livestreamed on Facebook, and as such, advertisements appeared on the platform alongside the livestream. GARM aimed to block members’ advertisements from appearing on platforms that didn’t have safeguards prohibiting what the organization called “illegal or harmful content, such as promoting terrorism or child pornography.”

Days after the X lawsuit, GARM disbanded.

“GARM has disbanded under a cloud of litigation and congressional investigation. The Commission has not been a party to those actions, and I take no position on any possible violation of the antitrust laws by GARM. The factual allegations, however, if true, paint a troubling picture of a history of coordination—that the group sought to marshal its members into collective boycotts to destroy publishers of content of which they disapproved,” FTC Chairman Andrew N. Ferguson said Monday.

“GARM was neither the beginning nor the end of harmful and potentially unlawful collusion in this industry. Numerous other industry groups and private organizations have publicly sought to use the chokepoint of the advertising industry to effect political or ideological goals. Clandestine pressure campaigns and private dealings among these parties are less well documented but pose the serious risk of harm and illegality,” he added.

The proviso to the Omnicom merger is not the FTC’s only foray into this issue. This May, the FTC opened an investigation to determine whether or not advertisers coming together in agreement to not buy ads on certain websites due to political content constituted an illegal boycott, according to the New York Times.

Continue Reading

NCRM

MTG Slams Trump for Breaking Campaign Promises on ‘Foreign Wars’ and ‘Regime Change’

Published

on

In a lengthy post to X, formerly Twitter, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) slammed President Donald Trump for breaking his campaign promises of “No more foreign wars. No more regime change. World Peace.”

Greene’s Monday morning post criticized the Trump administration for not just bombing three Iranian sites, but for changing its claims about the success of the strikes.

READ MORE: Marjorie Taylor Greene Tops List of Ultra MAGA Hardliners Pursuing Promotions — and Power

“I spent millions of my own money and TRAVELED THE ENTIRE COUNTRY campaigning for President Trump and his MAGA agenda and his promises. And Trump’s MAGA agenda included these key promises: NO MORE FOREIGN WARS. NO MORE REGIME CHANGE. WORLD PEACE. And THIS is what the people voted for,” Greene wrote. “Only 6 months in and we are back into foreign wars, regime change, and world war 3.”

“After the bombs were dropped, we were told ‘complete success’ and Iran’s nuclear capabilities were totally wiped out. Then it quickly turned to Iran’s nuclear facilities ‘partially damaged’ and now it’s ‘we don’t know where their enriched uranium is,'” she continued.

Greene’s comment about Iran’s enriched uranium refers to conflicting statements by members of the Trump administration. On Sunday, Vice President J.D. Vance said Iran still has its uranium stockpile. However, the following day, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said that the strikes had “completely and totally obliterated” Iran’s nuclear sites, including its uranium stockpiles.

Though a longtime supporter of Trump, this weekend’s attack on Iran has led Greene to criticize the president for the first time. On Sunday, Greene shared a long post to X stating that she’d never known any American who was “the victim of a crime or killed by Iran,” saying the effort against Iran would be better used in the War on Drugs.

“I’m 51 years old. I’m GenX. I’ve watched our country go to war in foreign lands for foreign causes on behalf of foreign interests for as long as I can remember. I was in 10th grade when Desert Storm started and my father before me was sent to Vietnam, another senseless foreign war. America is $37 TRILLION in debt and all of these foreign wars have cost Americans TRILLIONS AND TRILLIONS of dollars that never benefited any American,” she wrote. “I’m sick of it.”

“I can easily say I support nuclear armed Israel’s right to defend themselves and also say at the same time I don’t want to fight or fund nuclear armed Israel’s wars,” she added.

Greene is not the only MAGA figure to criticize Trump’s moves against Iran. Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) said Sunday “there was no imminent threat” from Iran. In response, Trump posted to his social platform Truth Social saying that Massie “is not MAGA, even though he likes to say he is.” Trump then promised to campaign against Massie in the upcoming Republican primary. On Monday, he doubled down, re-sharing his original Truth Social post, adding “GET THIS ‘BUM’ OUT OF OFFICE, ASAP!!!”

As of this writing, Trump has not responded to Greene’s comments.

Image via Shutterstock

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.