Top Pentagon Official Contracted Personal Lawyer to Handle Minerals Deal

125 pointsposted 5 hours ago
by h2si

55 Comments

mandeepj

2 hours ago

They are all in this with one and only one purpose - to enrich themselves and weaken America.

josefritzishere

5 hours ago

This is a strange and probably illegal use of the military.

Cthulhu_

4 hours ago

It's only illegal if you get caught. If this administration ever ends, the next one will be focused on the fallout of this one. (as is usually the case)

0xWTF

2 hours ago

That has only been the case since 2008. Obama had no choice but manage the fallout of the Bush admin's record-setting-for-the-time fuck-ups.

Reagan followed a fairly positively stated agenda. Clinton pursued a fairly positive agenda. George the 2nd followed a fairly positive, if misguided, agenda. And then it became a reactive shitshow.

mmooss

2 minutes ago

Wasn't it reactive from the start? From (mostly journalistic) history I've read, GBII started their administration by refusing to do all sorts of things because the adminstration associated them with Clinton, including listening to Richard Clarke's, a carryover advisor's, warnings about terrorist threats.

felixgallo

2 hours ago

Reagan did what exactly? Are you thinking of the secret deal he struck with Iran for them to not release the hostages, in exchange for him giving them weapons illicitly, or are you referring to the disastrous trickle-down Reaganomics system that hollowed out the middle class to enrich the wealthy, or his handling of the AIDS crisis, or his crushing of the air traffic controllers, or the war on drugs, or something else?

mmooss

5 minutes ago

The GP said "stated agenda", which is true and important. Reagan openly talked about 'Morning in America', freedom around the world ('Mr. Gorbechev, tear down this wall.'), etc.

You're right that Reagan did a lot that was negative, but it's a significant difference from current leaders who openly disdain positive things and encourage people to embrace hatred, violence, warfare, corruption, oppression, etc.

JKCalhoun

20 minutes ago

You forgot turning the mentally ill out into the streets (literally).

chews

43 minutes ago

careful, boomers have selective memory... the 80's was some sort of fever dream

lenerdenator

3 hours ago

It needs to be far more focused than the last one.

We can come back from this, but some people need to spend a significant amount of their lives in prison.

ezst

2 hours ago

As a non American, I don't think you can get back from this unless you get rid of the 2-parties system. Identity politics is a big component to what compelled individuals to operate against their own interests and those of their country. Good luck, though.

nickff

2 hours ago

I am not an American either, but there is a great deal of work on this subject, and the two-party system is actually one of the most resistant to single-individual or single-party takeover. The reason is that multi-party systems are vulnerable to having a party in power 'promoting diversity' (or something similar), in order to disempower all their opponents, while making it look like they're allowing for more views. Examples of this include quotas for minority representation, and (strategically designed) multi-member voting districts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Logic_of_Political_Surviva...

mandeepj

42 minutes ago

In multi-party systems, the parties focus more on weakening their opponents and horse trading, as voters are divided and winning elections is dependent on an already razor-thin voting share. Look what's going on in India, for instance.

anigbrowl

an hour ago

I have that book and am a big fan of it, but I think it needs some expansion in the light of the last few decades - not just in the US, but considering Brexit and both major parties subsequently burning through strings of short-lived leaders, coalition politics in places like Europe and Japan etc.

vincnetas

2 hours ago

well this book was written in 2003 and current day events in USA clearly contradict this statement : "two-party system is actually one of the most resistant to single-individual or single-party takeover."

With lots of examples of contrary , where multi party system has not devolved in one man shit show.

nickff

2 hours ago

North Korea, China, Russia, Uganda, etc. are examples of one party taking over; the USA is just a country that has one party (you don't seem to like) with most (but not all) of the political power at the moment.

anigbrowl

an hour ago

Japan occupied Korea from 1910 until 1945, at which point administration of the country was split between the USA in the South and the USSR in the north. Following an indecisive war lasted from 1950-53, the Korean peninsula ended up witht he situation we see today. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_North_Korea

China's history is more complicated, but is also the product of military conflict following colonial imposition by Japan. To suggest that either country's political system is the outcome of inherent structural weaknesses in multi-party democracy is absurd.

JKCalhoun

18 minutes ago

Two-parties system naturally evolve.

Get rid of money, punish lying, decrease the power of the Executive branch…

Lots to do, but getting rid of the two party system is a pipe dream.

krapp

3 hours ago

>but some people need to spend a significant amount of their lives in prison.

Short of rewriting the constitution, that just isn't going to happen. The president is immune to prosecution for any crime committed in office and has unlimited power to pardon anyone else of any federal crimes.

And if the Democrats even attempt to do anything of the sort, people will just consider it a partisan witchhunt. It will be litigated all the way to a SCOTUS that's stacked with Trumpist ideologues.

pasquinelli

2 hours ago

> Short of rewriting the constitution, that just isn't going to happen

then a new constitution it is!

anigbrowl

an hour ago

Realistically this is what the Constitutional convention mechanism is for, but for the last several decades the Democrats have viewed any suggestion of employing it as a Republican plot and have opted instead for not having a plan and trying to prop up a creaky status quo.

badc0ffee

3 hours ago

> a SCOTUS that's stacked with Trumpist ideologues.

It's majority conservative, but that's not the same thing as what you're claiming here.

It has 3 members appointed by Trump, but even that doesn't make them Trumpist ideologues.

hiddencost

2 hours ago

I really can't find any other possible interpretation of their wall to wall decisions on anything election related. They are a knowing and enthusiastic participant in the coup.

estearum

2 hours ago

Thomas is a born and bred loser, but otherwise they're afraid of being assassinated. Judges are under massive, massive amounts of threat whenever they think to hold Trump to literally any scrutiny whatsoever.

Not a conspiracy theory, this is an open discussion topic among federal judges within their own conferences.

krapp

3 hours ago

I don't believe for a second that Trump, being the narcissist that he is, would appoint anyone but ideologues.

edmundsauto

2 hours ago

Probably more loyalists than ideologues. It’s the Project 2025 influence that has the ideologues. And the Thiel/Vance sector has the traditional influence-focused corruption, while the Trump family is more low-trust-society personal enrichment grift.

Quite a perfect storm.

mistrial9

3 hours ago

no this is false and a superficial search confirms it. No need to make extensive citations because this level of talk does not warrant it.

krapp

3 hours ago

provide one citation, then.

Jtsummers

3 hours ago

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf

> The president is immune to prosecution for any crime committed in office

That's a misreading of the SC decision. If he walks down the street and murders someone, unless he can make a case that it was an official act, then he wouldn't have immunity. He'd need to demonstrate that he has the Constitutional authority to murder people on the street, and he doesn't, so it wouldn't be an official act and he wouldn't have any immunity.

muddi900

30 minutes ago

But the state can manufacture any excuse to formulate an "official act"

LadyCailin

2 hours ago

How about not on the street, but in a boat in international waters? Or, how about on the street, but they were believed to be carrying drugs?

convolvatron

2 hours ago

ok, so we managed to get a decision that the president wan't immune from having to pay out in a civil suit related to the molestation of a woman from before he even became a politician. but part of the problem here is the blurring of the personal and the official. should the president be liable for overtly violating the constitution 'while performing official acts'. Is interfering in the state's right to hold their own elections an official act? is instructing the military to order someone in cold blood an official act? does pursuing a series of novel legal interpretations imply that he was violating the law or not? is accepting money in exchange for a presidential pardon an official act?

whether or not you believe this is a pass from the Supreme Court, it opens up a whole new unexplored space of lack of culpability.

mistrial9

3 hours ago

“Aye, scallywag, yer SCOTUS rulings reading ain’t fit for kindergarten; read the chart again: official acts may be immune, but private crimes still face prosecution.”

RRWagner

26 minutes ago

For a king, and one that presumes themselves king, every act is official. The theory is that Congress can always impeach but we have seen and still see that they have no interest in doing so for any reason, no matter how egregious.

jst1fthsdys

3 hours ago

No we can’t. This is what collapse looks like.

mrtesthah

3 hours ago

What are you personally doing to prepare for "collapse" then?

2OEH8eoCRo0

3 hours ago

Thanks 6 month old doom-and-gloom account!

azinman2

3 hours ago

And doing so risks societal fractions against the idea of lawfare. It’s a lose lose situation.

dam_jackalopes

3 hours ago

That may be, but the consequences for not taking these bad actors to task would have worse and longer lasting consequences. The portion of society that will fracture the most loudly has already attempted to storm the seat of government after a national election. We've seen what they're capable of and I'm much less afraid of that than permanently mafiatizing basically every level of the Federal government.

Phemist

3 hours ago

Yes, but expect those prison sentences will be more popular than you might expect. The current admin expends an insane amount of energy pumping the size of their supposed fanbase.

hardbass

3 hours ago

Forgiving the south after the civil war led to Jim Crow. Forgiving most of the nazis after WW2 seems to be the reason nazis are rising again so quickly. Forgiveness has been given enough chances already. I think we should try giving the full punishment a try.

defen

2 hours ago

The British attempted “full punishment” against the American colonies and look where that got them. There are no easy solutions.

hardbass

an hour ago

The British lacking the military strength and will is different from how the tactic would have been had it been executed fully. Ignoring one's views about the founding of America, suppose Britain had executed this war with complete merciless brutality and fielded its entire Imperial might and militarily crushed the rebels thoroughly. Do you think America would have existed then?

shimman

2 hours ago

Illegal? This is like the number one purpose of the US military, it's always to help the elite interests in resource extraction and forcing weaker countries into US trade policy.

paxys

2 hours ago

Why are people surprised? Trump promoted his personal lawyer to Attorney General. This is how the administration works.

sgnelson

4 hours ago

"Asked about the potential for conflicts of interest to arise due to his simultaneous role as attorney for Cerberus, Feinberg, and the DOD, he said “you’ve got to be kidding me” and insisted that the interests of the three clients have been kept separate."

Oof. This guy is a top lawyer, and this is how he responds to a journalist asking about conflict of interests?

Obviously a very smart man and very trustworthy. /s

We are truly living in a kleptocracy.

Edited: Two seconds of google: https://www.cerberus.com/media/cerberus-acquires-controlling... Yep, no possibility of conflicts of interest here.

I don't know what bothers me more, the corruption, or the fact that they're both so stupid and open about it.

totetsu

3 hours ago

Immediately and coarsely calling into question the intelligence of any-one who questions the corruption, seems to be par-for-the-course for these anti-socialites.

Cipater

3 hours ago

The fact that there will be no consequences for any of this.

OrvalWintermute

an hour ago

There is nothing illegal about using a contractor lawyer for both commercial work and your own business provided you get it reviewed by Ethics & Govt General Counsel. As this was done then I see no issue in it.

There is a potential COI mentioned below, for which Feinberg agreed to donate the profits to charity, if such a settlement happens. The guy is from a Whiteshoe law firm anyways, the allocated funds are tiny, and this seems pretty above board.

Much ado about nothing!

> In a statement to the Prospect, the Department of Defense wrote that the arrangement was aboveboard. “OSC [DOD’s Office of Strategic Capital, which leads the Pentagon’s rare earths investments] maintains a rigorous, multi-layered ethics framework that includes a detailed screening process and operates in full compliance with all federal ethics laws and regulations,” the statement said. The DOD did not comment on whether Waldenberg is involved in other Pentagon activities, or specify its ethics protocols. Waldenberg’s firm, according to the federal government’s public contracting database, has a contract with the DOD worth $1.5 million that runs through August 31, 2026.

> The DOD has said that “any profit [Feinberg] may receive from a potential Ligado settlement will go to a charity to support America’s veterans,” though a spokesperson declined to say which charity would receive the prospective donation. The Capitol Forum recently reported that Ligado is hoping to receive $5 billion from the feds, citing sources familiar with the case. That would surpass the federal government’s 2010 $3.4 billion settlement with Native American tribes, compensating them for the centuries-old confiscation of tribal lands.

fra

an hour ago

I agree that from the perspective of a business owner this would seem very normal. "I need legal services for X, and I happen to know and trust a very good outside counsel for this" is very normal. Additionally, law firms have super robust conflict of interest policies so you can expect this would have been reviewed in details.

However, I think this story brings up two important topics:

1. It is important that high level government officials avoid not just actual conflicts of interest but also the APPEARANCE of a conflict of interest.

2. The Trump administration has taken a much more liberal approach to conflicts of interest than most admins, and this has undermined trust in government. The fact that this story got people so riled up is a great illustration of it. This is not good for the country!

thataccount

2 hours ago

There are a couple of ways of seeing this. One is that there is a conflict of interest. The other is that there has been a conflict of interest in the military for years, and this guy has proven himself to be useful in fighting it such that he has been given an unusual amount of power. Obviously, number 1 would be bad. Number 2, though, would be laudable. I'd be careful about jumping to a conclusion until more evidence comes to light in either direction.

hiddencost

2 hours ago

Are you saying that senior military leadership has earned the right to a little light graft?

thataccount

an hour ago

>Are you saying that senior military leadership has earned the right to a little light graft?

I'm saying graft isn't the only explanation at this point.