Sessions puts an end to this Obama scandal

[Vlad]

The Justice Department announced Wednesday it will no longer allow prosecutors to strike settlement agreements with big companies directing them to make payouts to outside groups, ending an Obama-era practice that Republicans decried as a “slush fund” that padded the accounts of liberal interest groups.

That such a policy was ever in place is extraordinary. To recap: Under Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch, the Justice Department regularly designed legal settlements in which well-heeled defendants were encouraged (read: forced) to donate money to third parties with no legal connection to the case being adjudicated. So, for example, the DOJ used mortgage-lending settlements with JP Morgan, Citi, and Bank of America to funnel millions of dollars to community redevelopment organizations, housing groups, and non-profit legal-aid organizations. Naturally, the beneficiaries were selected by the DOJ.



CEO was a bad boy, Obama says he won't put CEO in jail if CEO agrees to give money to the liberal group of Obamas choice.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/448376/trump-justice-department-settlement-slush-fund

Was this reported on BET? I was unable to watch it last night.

[Belsnickel]

A quick search found headlines about this on HuffPo, WaPo, NYT, Chicago Tribune, and LAT.

Anyway, it depends on your politics whether this was a slush fund or if it was something helpful for people. Lots of slant on either side with the reporting on this practice in general.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(06-08-2017, 11:44 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: A quick search found headlines about this on HuffPo, WaPo, NYT, Chicago Tribune, and LAT.

Anyway, it depends on your politics whether this was a slush fund or if it was something helpful for people. Lots of slant on either side with the reporting on this practice in general.

This is exactly the type of "fair and balanced" reply I would expect from a . . .

(06-07-2017, 08:25 PM)Vlad Wrote: disciple of the MSM

[*michaelsean*]

(06-08-2017, 11:44 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: A quick search found headlines about this on HuffPo, WaPo, NYT, Chicago Tribune, and LAT.

Anyway, it depends on your politics whether this was a slush fund or if it was something helpful for people. Lots of slant on either side with the reporting on this practice in general.

Really shouldn't go anywhere but the treasury  because that is wide open for abuse.  

[Belsnickel]

(06-08-2017, 12:46 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Really shouldn't go anywhere but the treasury  because that is wide open for abuse.  

Yeah, your ideological bent will guide what you think of this, but if you're sensible enough to recognize this, it is an issue.

Personally, to achieve the same stated goals of the program, there should be a fund with Treasury, managed by the DoJ, that is used for grants that can be applied for by organizations looking to perpetuate the same sort of goals the DoJ had in mind. Direct payments are never a good idea like that, and having a list at hand of organizations screams of accountability issues. But setting up as a grant programs allows any organization to apply for the funds if they are doing the type of work the DoJ was looking to further.

But that's just my two cents.

[JustWinBaby]

(06-08-2017, 12:59 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: But setting up as a grant programs allows any organization to apply for the funds if they are doing the type of work the DoJ was looking to further.

Well punitive damages should arguably go directly to victims, or at least organizations designed to help and prevent victims of the type of injustice done.  In most cases, that seems to be what happened.

But Congress, not the POTUS or DOJ, has the power of the purse.  So this should have gone to a general fund that Congress oversees to distribute grants.

[Belsnickel]

(06-08-2017, 05:14 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Well punitive damages should arguably go directly to victims, or at least organizations designed to help and prevent victims of the type of injustice done.  In most cases, that seems to be what happened.

But Congress, not the POTUS or DOJ, has the power of the purse.  So this should have gone to a general fund that Congress oversees to distribute grants.

Well, it should have been a fund established by Congress, but the administration of the grant program would likely be taken care of by the executive branch. Leave it in the hands of Congress and they will outsource that work to lobbyists like they do everything else.

[Dill]

(06-08-2017, 12:46 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Really shouldn't go anywhere but the treasury  because that is wide open for abuse.  

Isn't this requirement to donate money to service groups rather like the requirement to do community service as part of one's punishment? The only difference I see here is that in community service you get to choose whom you serve--though there are criteria for what sort of organizations you can work for--e.g., a public library, but not McDonalds.

Seems like this was a good idea in principle. If there are "slush fund" problems that could be tweaked in the right direction.

[*michaelsean*]

(06-09-2017, 10:49 AM)Dill Wrote: Isn't this requirement to donate money to service groups rather like the requirement to do community service as part of one's punishment? The only difference I see here is that in community service you get to choose whom you serve--though there are criteria for what sort of organizations you can work for--e.g., a public library, but not McDonalds.

Seems like this was a good idea in principle. If there are "slush fund" problems that could be tweaked in the right direction.

I think community service is usually in government areas like cleaning up highways and such.  Not positive though.

[Belsnickel]

(06-09-2017, 10:57 AM)michaelsean Wrote: I think community service is usually in government areas like cleaning up highways and such.  Not positive though.

Depends on the place, most likely, but it can be done with non-profits. I deal what we term as "student accountability" here and when students get in trouble for alcohol/drugs they are often advised to volunteer with a non-profit prior to their day in court and their hearing with the university as a gesture of goodwill, and the courts often count it as "time served," for lack of a better term.

[Dill]

(06-09-2017, 10:57 AM)michaelsean Wrote: I think community service is usually in government areas like cleaning up highways and such.  Not positive though.

It might be that too, but my son was busted for bringing a joint to school and did his community service by working for a public library. He had a choice amongst a number of non-profit community services, including religion-sponsored ones. I know others who have done things like paint buildings for a boys club. Helping build a public school playground also counted in case, which I guess would be a "government area."

I don't have a problem with bad corporations paying for their misdeeds by helping the community. Looks like the Trump Justice Department has taken a positive option for corporate accountability off the board.

[*michaelsean*]

(06-09-2017, 11:04 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Depends on the place, most likely, but it can be done with non-profits. I deal what we term as "student accountability" here and when students get in trouble for alcohol/drugs they are often advised to volunteer with a non-profit prior to their day in court and their hearing with the university as a gesture of goodwill, and the courts often count it as "time served," for lack of a better term.

I don't have a   problem with community service.  I have a hard time believing you could use that as a labor slush fund.

[Belsnickel]

(06-09-2017, 11:25 AM)michaelsean Wrote: I don't have a   problem with community service.  I have a hard time believing you could use that as a labor slush fund.

The term slush fund is being thrown around with this, but it is inaccurate. I'm not saying what was done wasn't questionable from an ethics standpoint, but it wasn't a slush fund situation.

[*michaelsean*]

(06-09-2017, 11:52 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: The term slush fund is being thrown around with this, but it is inaccurate. I'm not saying what was done wasn't questionable from an ethics standpoint, but it wasn't a slush fund situation.

I didn't know what else to call it.  Bribe doesn't sound quite right.  Kickback?  And I'm only talking of it in that was if it in fact is ever abused.