General Politics Discussion [ARCHIVED] • Page 339

In regards to the Clinton Foundation stuff. The mere fact that the Foundation has received money from foreign governments while she is running for/serving in government positions where she will deal with said foreign governments is in itself unethical because it creates a clear conflict of interest. The fact that she oversaw and approved of arms deals to some of these same foreign governments doesn't just create an appearance of impropriety, but is entirely improper and unethical. This kind of violation, even absent evidence of intent and cause-effect, would result in suspension or even revocation of a license in pretty much any professional occupation regardless of the intent of either party. This largely extends to personal favors to individuals as well. Maybe some in here think there should be a lower, and to make this kind of conduct ethical then significantly lower, ethical standard for high-ranking politicians/government officials than say legal practitioners, but I would vehemently disagree. It's so very strange to see this stuff get dismissed so readily. And the fact that the Clinton Foundation does some good does not change this, it's just a straw man intended to obfuscate. Literally no one is saying that the Clinton Foundation shouldn't raise money for purely charitable pursuits.

 

Yes they are. Over and over again.

 

No it wouldn't. It would absolutely require evidence. This is silly.

 

You're wrong, knowingly operating with this conflict of interest would be enough.

 

Nope. Not even at the top of the AMA would it be "enough." Let alone someone's actual medical license. You can look at almost every state's policy, and no, it's very, very clear that having an outside foundation would not be grounds for revoking. Many, MANY, doctors do have foundations in fact and many take donations from those they know within the industry ... evidence of impropriety is defined as needed.

American Medical Association Conflict of Interest Policy - Board of Trustees, Officers and Senior Managers

 

And the american bar position is pretty clear as well:

The extent to which lawyers will confront potential conflicts of interest is influenced by the size, type, and location of practice. For example, lawyers in specialized practice areas, or serving tight-knit ethnic communities, or practicing in small towns are more susceptible to conflicts owing to the interrelationships among their constituencies. But key strategies can help all lawyers avoid conflicts that can damage their reputations and lead to liability or discipline.

Lawyers must take conflicts seriously. They must be aware of interests that could impair their current or future independent professional judgment and should regularly use thorough conflict-checking systems before taking on all representations. In most cases, even where potential conflicts are identified, attorneys have a range of choices to resolve those conflicts; the ultimate course of action will often depend on the lawyer’s degree of risk adversity, the nature of the community, and law firm economics.

Managing conflicts requires staying on top of the situation, gathering and using relevant information, and not letting personal relationships or the desire for income cloud your better judgment. A lawyer cannot have a practice completely free of conflicts; they are inherent in the practice of law. But, using appropriate procedures, a lawyer can prevent those conflicts from interfering with a successful practice.

Conflicts of Interest

 

You're missing the point, it's how the Clinton Foundation operates, it's not just having an "outside foundation." And this would certainly warrant sanctions for a lawyer. I'll look further into medicine, but I've certainly heard that kickbacks that cause a conflict of interest can result in sanctions. lol you do not know what the ABA is saying.

 

Per your post: "without evidence"? Absolutely not.

 

For reasons I shall discuss later, I suspect that my position is not unique. It is not possible for any lawyer in practice today to avoid the conflict-of-interest question. To get a conflict-of-interest question wrong may, from the perspective of the lawyer, be worse than losing a case for a client. Moreover, such errors could well expose the errant lawyer to a wide range of sanctions, including disqualification, forfeiture of fees, disciplinary proceedings, and perhaps in extreme cases even criminal sanctions.

Mhm

 

So, as your own article agrees: not only is it impossible to avoid COI questions as a lawyer, the mere speculation of them is not remotely close to enough to lose your license. As I said.

 

Without evidence of the intent of the perceived kickbacks being directly motivated by the financial stake, yes. That would be nearly impossible to prove.

 

You have no idea what you're talking about. It's absolutely something that can, and is, proved. That's the entire point of a giant portion of the judicial system. That's when actual punishment happens. Not just whispers.

 

This isn't speculation, there is a conflict of interest.

 

Have you passed the MPRE? Taken Professional Responsibility?

 

The part when you know you've lost an argument ... right here.

 

Lol evidence of "intent" is not required in numerous areas of law, Antitrust being a prime example.

 

*We're not talking about antitrust.*

If you want to disbar someone, or take away their medical license ... yes, evidence is gonna be needed. Sorry.

 

Rarely talked about: Trump's Foundation actually donated to the Clinton Foundation. Somewhere over 100k.

 

Trump has donated to the Clintons numerous times. He even donated to Hilary's last presidential campaign.

 

Crooked Donald.

 

Even Rupert Murdoch has courted Clinton

 

Charity Ratings | America's Most Independent, Assertive Charity Watchdog | CharityWatch

That's one of the higher ratings I've seen.

 

A good tweet storm.

 

Holy shit, check this out. Apparently Facebook has been collecting data on what political articles you read and rhetoric you use in your comments/statuses and, not only recommending similarly slanted articles which we all know, but assigning a nominal label to you that is apparently obtainable by third parties. It's crazy obtrusive and kind of scary, but it's also neat in an Orwelian type of way. I got the (apparently somewhat elusive?) "Very Liberal" classification. I don't care for the nomenclature, but it classified me as such and assigned pages such as anti-capitalism, socialism, Minnesota Democratic-Farm-Labor Party, and the like (with also, subscriptions to the Dems, GOP, etc.). Regardless, I can't disagree with their accuracy, although I will be attempting to remove those associations, as I already fairly vigilantly delete dip shit law school friends' insinuations that I'm a communist or, worse, a Stalinist.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/24/us/politics/facebook-ads-politics.html?smid=fb-share


Also, this link let's you see the "Conservative feed" versus the "Liberal feed" for Facebook classifications, broken down by issues.

Blue Feed, Red Feed



Sorry if this is old news (the NYT article is from the past few minutes), but I thought it fascinating.

 

I got "very liberal" with boxes for "Socialism," "African National Congress," and the "South African Communist Party" on the page. I don't like those pages, so I don't know why they're there...?