berg80
Diamond Member
- Oct 28, 2017
- 34,963
- 28,479
- 2,820
Clash over Trump family businesses entangles Senate crypto bill
Democratic lawmakers have spent the past year blasting the Trump family’s growing footprint in the cryptocurrency industry. Now, just months ahead of the midterm elections, they’re digging in on a push to crack down on one of the first family’s most lucrative businesses.Republicans may have limited time to use their control of government to deliver on a Trump campaign promise to pass a sweeping crypto bill that would help the industry. But they need support from Senate Democrats, who are seeking to use the leverage to force the White House to agree to a provision restricting how executive branch officials use digital assets.
As is the case, in more ways than one can count, the country has found itself il-equipped to deal with the manner in which Don and the fam have enriched themselves. To some extent because lawmakers never contemplated a prez so focused on his personal wealth and that of his family.
Trump’s Profiteering Hits $4 Billion
In August, I reported that the President and his family had made $3.4 billion by leveraging his position. After his first year back in office, the number has ballooned.
I'm mean, who would have thought the son of the prez would ever be so audacious as to seek a government contract while his dad was running the country? The assumption was the mere appearance of impropriety would be enough to prevent such a thing from happening.
General Obligation to Avoid Even the Appearance of Preferential Treatment
The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) states that "[g]overnment business shall be conducted in a manner above reproach and, except as authorized by statute or regulation, with complete impartiality and with preferential treatment for none." FAR 3.101-1 (emphasis added). "The general rule is to avoid strictly any conflict of interest or even the appearance of a conflict of interest in Government-contractor relationships." Id. (emphasis added).
The federal government takes this obligation seriously. For example, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) has explained that a company "can be disqualified from a competition" for government work "based upon the appearance of impropriety . . . even if no actual impropriety can be shown, so long as the determination of an unfair competitive advantage is based on facts and not on mere innuendo or suspicion." International Res. Grp., B-409346.2 et al., Dec. 11, 2014, 2014 CPD ¶ 369 at 9 (emphasis added).
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=c48ef066-6087-4953-8734-859912fddb63
Not with this crew. They are doing some getting while the getting is good.
