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)
Trying to establish ties with decent people in my community, physically staying in shape, training and learning. Ultimately, you have very little control over things when something large like government/societal collapse happens. All you can do is put yourself in a position where you can try to adapt to whatever may come.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Parliamentary systems of other countries usually have the advantages of lessons learned since the American revolution. The necessary feature of the American system is countervailing powers, but as a uniparty for corporations or one weakened, it ceases to function and cannot be easily reformed or competed against with a new party. These are flaws addressed to some degree by parliamentary systems where new party(ies) can challenge incumbents more easily.
It's not nature, it's the strategic actions of members of those parties to create and protect that system. For example, look at laws in states that make it very difficult for 3rd parties to get on ballots, participate in debates, and then the expensive lawfare against them if they show any signs of life.
> getting rid of the two party system is a pipe dream
It certainly won't happen tomorrow, but the best time to start such things is today.
The U.S. has a Green Party, a Libertarian Party. If they ever had a chance to take any serious votes from the other two, one of the two major parties would co-opt enough of their platform to make the threat go away.
As we seem to be seeing, the Democratic Party in the U.S. is in fact, internally, two parties. As populations age out, we'll likely see the party itself evolve.
They naturally evolve because we put them in an enviroment where they thrive. Changing voting systems to proportional representation instead of winner-takes-all would be a huge start.
Secondary to the extreme corruption. Corruption is the issue that must be resolved before everything else. The fashions of political parties or their structures are superficial by comparison.
Sure, and all it took was a systematic dismantling and building anew the whole government and a bunch of institutions, not exactly a "oh, the other party will figure something out over the course of the next term"
You have Jared Kushner pulling a lot of strings on one side, and you have his brother, Josh Kushner, giving enormous amounts of money to the other side.
They’re both incredibly evil. And it’s obvious that both sides completely disdain their civilian constituents, because their real constituents are corporations and oligarchs.
It’s not just the two party system. You have to get the money out out of politics before anything else can positively move back toward democracy.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
"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
If there are consequences they will be naturally arising, as there is no violation (that I'm aware of) here. It's _stupid_, and it _looks bad_, and it's _not a good idea_, and it _ended badly for Nixon_, but it's not illegal.
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.
The thing that bothers me most is the tens of millions of Americans who are doing everything they can to ignore the most blatant and corrosive corruption our country has seen in at least a century.
After spending the past 20 years screaming as loud as they can about how corrupt everything supposedly was. Seems their only actual complaint was which rich person was getting richer.
The truth of matter is that there’s very little screaming.
Americans were conditioned decades ago to be a quite docile. they work in their cubicles and have their families and their little house in the suburbs… America has been a beige, thoughtless landscape for the majority of people for decades.
The only thing needed was to consolidate the media to create enough fear and control to drive enough people to give away their rights, which I’m sure the rich and powerful will point out that the people aren’t even using!
Obama himself has repeatedly come out and said that if people want change then they need to go out and vote. Vote? It’s crickets instead.
If you actually go out and meet enough people, you begin to realize that the real reality of America is far different than this Internet supposition. People have wanted a strong man authoritarian for a very long time. They are exhausted. They don’t care about their country , their community, their culture… capitalism has worn them down so much that all they really care about is getting to each weekend and having enough to pay for housing and some food.
Subtle propaganda helps take care of the rest.
America hasn’t been able to think for itself in decades. The people at the top know this, and they have a lot of disdain for the fact that the majority of people just go home and watch sportsball on Sundays. So they finally decided to see how much they could get away with, and it looks like it’s going to be the entire pie!
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.
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.
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!
This is just third world level of open corruption. If nothing is done against it, things will just get worse and not better.
First it will signal to all the lower level officials that corruption is ok. The next step isn't just corruption is ok, but it is expected. No corruption means you won't get far in your career.
50 comments
[ 0.27 ms ] story [ 9.0 ms ] threadWe can come back from this, but some people need to spend a significant amount of their lives in prison.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Logic_of_Political_Surviva...
With lots of examples of contrary , where multi party system has not devolved in one man shit show.
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.
It's not nature, it's the strategic actions of members of those parties to create and protect that system. For example, look at laws in states that make it very difficult for 3rd parties to get on ballots, participate in debates, and then the expensive lawfare against them if they show any signs of life.
> getting rid of the two party system is a pipe dream
It certainly won't happen tomorrow, but the best time to start such things is today.
As we seem to be seeing, the Democratic Party in the U.S. is in fact, internally, two parties. As populations age out, we'll likely see the party itself evolve.
It’s not just the two party system. You have to get the money out out of politics before anything else can positively move back toward democracy.
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.
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.
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.
After spending the past 20 years screaming as loud as they can about how corrupt everything supposedly was. Seems their only actual complaint was which rich person was getting richer.
Americans were conditioned decades ago to be a quite docile. they work in their cubicles and have their families and their little house in the suburbs… America has been a beige, thoughtless landscape for the majority of people for decades.
The only thing needed was to consolidate the media to create enough fear and control to drive enough people to give away their rights, which I’m sure the rich and powerful will point out that the people aren’t even using!
Obama himself has repeatedly come out and said that if people want change then they need to go out and vote. Vote? It’s crickets instead.
If you actually go out and meet enough people, you begin to realize that the real reality of America is far different than this Internet supposition. People have wanted a strong man authoritarian for a very long time. They are exhausted. They don’t care about their country , their community, their culture… capitalism has worn them down so much that all they really care about is getting to each weekend and having enough to pay for housing and some food. Subtle propaganda helps take care of the rest.
America hasn’t been able to think for itself in decades. The people at the top know this, and they have a lot of disdain for the fact that the majority of people just go home and watch sportsball on Sundays. So they finally decided to see how much they could get away with, and it looks like it’s going to be the entire pie!
I think the first one is the whole story anyway.
I'm saying graft isn't the only explanation at this point.
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.
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!
First it will signal to all the lower level officials that corruption is ok. The next step isn't just corruption is ok, but it is expected. No corruption means you won't get far in your career.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/8/29/whats-behind-the-us...