Politics & Stuff

[Fernando 6,522]

6 hours ago, Vesper said:

and it has only gotten worse since this article from a month ago..............................

 

Elon Musk’s conflicts of interest ‘should scare every American’, experts say

Doge’s work allows Musk to keep control of companies with billions in federal contracts as he guts government agencies

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/feb/27/elon-musk-conflicts-of-interest

Thu 27 Feb 2025

As Donald Trump and tech billionaire Elon Musk work zealously to slash tens of billions in federal spending by axing thousands of jobs and gutting some government agencies, Musk faces mounting claims he has conflicts of interest and no oversight, legal and ethics experts say.

Trump’s largest campaign donor and the world’s wealthiest man, Musk was tapped by the president to lead the so-called “department of government efficiency” (Doge) in a radical and opaque cost-cutting drive that allows him to keep control of SpaceX, Tesla and other huge companies with billions of dollars in federal contracts.

Critics note that Doge, which Musk touted broadly to Trump in August as he was writing seven figure checks to help him win, is gutting agencies like the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), which has investigated complaints about the car company’s debt collection and loan policies.

Meanwhile, Tesla, SpaceX and other Musk businesses have been investigated or fined by about a dozen regulatory agencies including the CFPB, the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Federal Aviation Administration, which suggest how Doge’s work at these agencies and others could benefit Musk financially, say critics.

Both Trump and Musk have downplayed critics’ concerns about conflict of interest issues for the Doge leader, with Musk simply asserting if there’s a conflict: “I’ll recuse myself.”

For his part, Trump has moved broadly to rein in independent oversight by firing key ethics and corruption watchdogs, including the head of the office of government ethics (OGE), and at least 18 agency watchdogs known as inspectors general who have long monitored waste, fraud and abuse in spending.

Legal experts express alarm about Musk’s conflicts and lack of oversight.

“The Office of Government Ethics is needed to enforce compliance, but Trump abruptly fired the office’s director,” said Kedric Payne, the senior director of ethics at the nonpartisan Campaign legal Center. “The OGE needs a director committed to the agency’s mission to help restore public confidence that Doge is not involved in corrupt activities to benefit Musk.”

“Ethics compliance for government employees like Musk usually requires ethics lawyers providing advice and pre-approval of any actions taken that involve the employee’s financial interests,” Payne added. “It is a red flag that the White House has not said that any ethics professionals are involved in reviewing Musk’s actions.

“More transparency and accountability are needed. Voters have a right to know that government employees are serving the public interest and not their own personal interest.”

Payne’s points are underscored by the potential financial gains for Musk’s businesses as he leads Doge. SpaceX, Tesla and other Musk companies, for instance, have won at least $18bn in federal contracts from Nasa, the defense department and other agencies during the last decade. Overall, six Musk companies have been investigated or fined 32 times by 11 agencies, according to the New York Times, raising more red flags about potential conflicts involving Musk’s businesses and Doge.

“Musk is now a federal officer subject to the criminal conflict of interest statute, 18 USC 208,” said Richard Painter, George W Bush’s ethics counsel who now teaches law at the University of Minnesota. “He cannot own stock in Tesla which offers car loans and at the same time participate in dismantling the CFPB. Also he cannot have X [formerly Twitter] go into consumer finance and at the same time participate in dismantling the CFPB.”

Likewise, given Musk’s artificial intelligence business xAI, Painter stressed: “AI will have a big role in making the government more efficient, However, federal officers working for Doge cannot legally have an equity stake in an xAI company that will very likely make money from the government shifting toward AI.”

Meanwhile, Democratic state attorneys general have mounted legal challenges to Doge’s extensive agency operations and its efforts to obtain vast amounts of sensitive private data.

A lawsuit by 19 Democratic attorneys general to block Doge from accessing US treasury systems with millions of private documents about social security and tax payments won a victory on 20 February, when a New York judge upheld another court’s temporary restraining order.

Last weekend, Musk ignited a political firestorm that brought opposition from key cabinet officials at state and the FBI, when he sent an email to some two million federal employees demanding they explain what they had accomplished in the previous week by late Monday.

Musk warned darkly on his social media platform X: “failure to respond would be taken as a resignation”, which sparked more chaos and criticism. Later, the office of personnel management indicated that employees didn’t have to comply with Musk’s dictum, but with Trump’s backing, he reiterated his demands.

Other concerns about Musk’s work have been prompted by Doge claims of identifying $55bn in wasteful federal spending, a large chunk of which has been wildly exaggerated. Exhibit A: one Doge document boasted of cutting an $8bn program that turned out to be closer to $8m, according to multiple news reports.

Musk’s cost cutting modus operandi seems to be generating public dismay, according to new polls. One Washington Post-Ipsos poll showed that Americans disapprove (52 to 26) of Musk “shutting down federal government programs that he decides are unnecessary”.

Perhaps in response, Musk and the Trump administration have recently offered conflicting statements about Musk’s exact role with Doge that seem aimed at masking his unprecedented clout. One White House official in a sworn statement this month responding to a lawsuit against Doge, referred to Musk as just another “employee” with no decision-making authority.

But Musk’s enormous sway with Trump was palpable when the mogul attended and spoke at length at the first cabinet meeting on Wednesday where both he and Trump talked up their far reaching cost cutting mission; Wearing a modest “tech support” tee shirt, Musk said deferentially that “I do what the president asks.”

Earlier in a bizarre joint interview with Sean Hannity, of Fox News, on 17 February, Trump and Musk offered mutual admiration, while belittling concerns of conflicts of interest or the need for independent ethics oversight.

When Hannity asked Trump how he would react if he saw a conflict for Musk, Trump said simply: “He wouldn’t be involved.” In turn, Musk blithely claimed if there are conflicts: “I’ll recuse myself. I mean, I haven’t asked the president for anything, ever.”

At another well-choreographed event on 11 February, Musk popped up in the Oval Office with Trump nearby to boast with scant details that Doge is doing what “the people want”, with broad brush claims of cutting wasteful spending; Musk has also faced fire for making unproven and glib allegations that he’s cutting “corruption”.

Despite their cavalier attitude about the need for transparency, experts say Musk’s myriad business ties while leading Doge merit strong oversight.

“The power and influence Musk is exercising over government agencies and operations while his companies have billions of dollars in government contracts and have been subject to government regulation, financial penalties and oversight presents wide-ranging and dangerous conflicts of interest,” said former Federal Election Commission general counsel, Larry Noble, who now teaches law at American University.

Noble stressed Musk has only indicated “that he would recuse himself if he saw a conflict and Trump said he doesn’t want Musk involved in conflicts of interest.

“Given that Trump, who recently suggested he’s a king, has decimated the ethics oversight function of the government by firing inspectors general as well as the director of the office of government ethics, and Musk has been less than transparent about what he’s doing, no one who truly cares about waste, fraud and abuse should be comforted by these hollow assurances.”

Similarly, Craig Holman, an ethics expert and lobbyist with Public Citizen, stressed that six Musk companies “have been under 32 investigations by 11 governmental agencies”.

“These are the same agencies, and the same investigators, that Musk is in the process of terminating. The Federal Aviation Administration, which has fined SpaceX on numerous occasions for safety violations, is facing severe cutbacks championed by Musk,” he said.

Holman added that “the SEC is seeking $150m from Musk companies for securities violations, and is now being neutered by Musk. The National Labor Relations Board is investigating labor conditions at Musk companies, and it is now being dismantled under Musk. The CFPB has been investigating safety violations with Tesla cars and that agency is now on the chopping block.”

Payne voiced other concerns about Musk’s freewheeling Doge operation given his official role as a “special government employee”.

“Criminal law prohibits special government employees from making government decisions where they have financial conflicts of interest,” Payne said.

“Musk’s decisions may violate criminal law when they involve agencies that regulate or contract with his companies, [including] agencies such as the FAA, CFPB, EPA and defense department.”

Payne noted too that “Musk’s conflicts of interest include the potential use of his AI company to support Doge’s review of sensitive government data. The problem is that he may personally benefit if he uses government information unavailable to competitors to train his AI system. He can also become the federal government’s primary AI service provider, leading to lucrative government contracts.”

Likewise, Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and a few other senators plus Representative Jamie Raskin of Maryland wrote to Musk on 13 February calling for public disclosure of a confidential disclosure form that Musk was required to submit as a special government employee.

The letter charged Musk was exploiting a loophole in ethics law to avoid disclosing his financial interests. The White House has said Musk will file a confidential financial disclosure report given that he is serving as an unpaid special government employee (SGE).

But the letter stressed that “Given the scale of your power to carry out sweeping administrative policies and your vast personal financial interests, the American people deserve to know how you stand to profit from your role in the Trump Administration.”

On Tuesday, the White House indicated that a former US digital service official named Amy Gleason was Doge’s acting administrator, but just last week, Trump at a Miami financial conference declared that he had “put a man named Elon Musk in charge” of Doge.

Notably, Doge’s genesis seems to have come in a two-hour streamed interview that Trump did with Musk on X last August where Musk suggested a similar notion to Doge. Trump quickly voiced strong interest in the tech mogul’s idea as he was starting to donate a record $288m to boost Trump’s campaign.

“I need an Elon Musk – I need somebody that has a lot of strength and courage and smarts,” Trump said during their talk on X.

The next month, Trump spoke about the need for a new efficiency commission in a speech to the Economic Club of New York, prompting Musk to write on X: “I look forward to serving America if the opportunity arises. No pay, no title, no recognition is needed.”

But the recognition Musk is now receiving has become much more critical, with calls mounting for tough oversight of his conflicts and serious questions about Doge’s operations.

Matt Platkin, New Jersey’s Democratic attorney general, who has joined a few of the state AG lawsuits targeting Musk and Doge actions, said that he thinks Musk’s “conflicts are astounding and deeply concerning, and the disregard for the rule of law should scare every American”.

This theory falls flat on its face with Trump tariff on Autos. 

Musk is Tesla owner an auto industry leader. If it was to favor tesla then Trump shouldn't have put that tariff on Autos. 

Which like I said in the past I don't like at all. All these tariffs from Trump are ridicules.  

Edited Saturday at 22:17 by Fernando

[kolovrat 20]

26 minutes ago, Fernando said:

The only way of knowing that is when you die, your finally free from these 5 senses. The only problem that no one has any data of consciousness after death other then a man name Jesus that rose from the dead.

But other then that we can just theorize, speculate, because no one really knows. 

Now if the whole experience of Jesus is real (Which I believe is true), then it does shows that after we die we experience a consciousness that goes beyond the 5 senses we have. As right now we are limited to our human body to know anything else. After we die consciousness goes somewhere else (What we call soul and go to heave or hell in the Christian world).

You already being dead before you were incepted and were born - please share your experience when you were "finally free from these 5 senses".  I thought this was existential discussion, no?

You can believe in anything you want: Jesus, Superman, spaghetti flying monster, etc. But at the end, it's nothing but belief/dogma/axiome. 

I am not sure you comprehended my post, but it's OK.  

I appreciate your responses and please don't take my sarcasm as an insult.

Edited Saturday at 22:39 by kolovrat

[Fernando 6,522]

7 minutes ago, kolovrat said:

You already being dead before you were incepted and were born - please share your experience when you were "finally free from these 5 senses".  I thought this was existential discussion, no?

You can believe in anything you want: Jesus, Superman, spaghetti flying monster, etc. But at the end, it's nothing but belief/dogma/axiome. 

I am not sure you comprehended my post, but it's OK.  

I appreciate your responses and please don't take my sarcasm as an insult.

Well it was a good talk. Thanks for the information. 

My belief in Jesus is because he was a historical person and because of the prophecy he fulfilled that was written 700 years before him. 

A good preaching about that from the church I go to here in Buffalo. From 27:20 and on. Since the first part is songs and what not. 

 

 

[Vesper 29,384]

EU Secretly Shields Banks from Accountability—Here’s How

Powerful lobbying has quietly exempted finance from an EU sustainability law, risking Europe’s environmental and human rights commitments.

https://www.socialeurope.eu/eu-secretly-shields-banks-from-accountability-heres-how

Omnibuses appear to be the European Commission’s preferred vehicles of choice this year. These are not modes of passenger transport, but legislative packages capable of amending multiple EU laws in a single process. Five such omnibuses have been announced for 2025, with the first released at the end of February. The first votes in the European Parliament will happen on the 1st of April. The first omnibus package targets significant cutbacks to sustainability regulation, specifically affecting the Taxonomy for sustainable investments, rules around sustainability reporting (CSRD), and supply chain due diligence legislation (CSDDD). Although presented by the Commission as simplification, the proposals represent substantial deregulation that risks undermining Europe’s socio-ecological transition.

The most radical cuts proposed affect the CSDDD, notably trimming the definition of supply chains to include only direct suppliers. This change could fundamentally undermine the concept of corporate responsibility throughout supply chains. Additionally, the liability provisions are significantly weakened, and the Commission has proposed entirely removing a review clause designed to reassess the controversial exemption of the financial sector two years after the directive’s implementation. In essence, this omnibus aims at permanently shielding financial institutions from accountability for the environmental and human rights impacts of their investments.

The exemption for financial institutions is a striking illustration of lobbying influence at the EU level, highlighting how powerful special interests can sway policymakers. Given the Commission’s heavy reliance on lobby group input for the omnibus package and preferential consultation access granted to corporate representatives, scrutinising the CSDDD lobbying success is vital to avoiding similar mistakes today.

The CSDDD was originally conceived to hold large companies accountable for human rights abuses and environmental harm throughout their supply chains. The initial proposal from February 2022 explicitly included the financial sector, recognising finance’s significant leverage over corporate behaviour. This measure aimed to prevent banks and investors from financing harmful business practices by requiring them to undertake due diligence on companies they support.

However, finance industry lobby groups were divided. While the Dutch Banking Association strongly supported inclusion, the European Banking Federation (EBF), representing banks across the EU, accepted due diligence obligations only for corporate lending, excluding household loans. Other groups opposed including financial institutions altogether. Despite this, the European Parliament maintained finance-sector inclusion, albeit limited to corporate clients.

A significant opponent at the time was the US asset management giant Blackrock, which pushed for the asset management industry’s exclusion, arguing that investment firms lack direct relationships with investee companies and thus should not be held accountable. France reportedly backed this stance, leading to a Council compromise excluding asset managers—dubbed the “Blackrock exemption”—though banks and insurers initially remained included.

Subsequently, France, supported by several other member states, succeeded in nearly excluding the financial sector entirely, despite opposition from Germany and the Netherlands. The crucial manoeuvre was shifting the directive’s scope from downstream activities (such as investments and lending) to upstream activities (like suppliers and raw materials). For financial institutions, “upstream” largely translates to office supplies, thus effectively exempting their core business activities. This was only the Council’s position, as the European Parliament retained finance within its scope.

The 2023 trilogue negotiations between the Commission, Parliament, and Council shaped the final text of the EU supply chain law. Major lobby groups, such as the Association for Financial Markets in Europe (AFME) and the German Insurance Association (GDV), campaigned vigorously during this phase to essentially uphold the Council’s exclusion of the financial sector. They succeeded: the final agreement excludes core financial activities, such as lending, from CSDDD requirements. A review clause allowing reassessment after two years remained the only concession.

The exclusion of financial institutions from the CSDDD is a glaring example of how special interests can override elected representatives and member states. The current omnibus proposal reopening the CSDDD offers a chance to reverse this unjustified carve-out. Yet, likely swayed by influential lobbyists and its drive to achieve bureaucratic simplification targets, the Commission instead proposes deleting the review clause altogether, thereby cementing past lobbying victories.

It is now up to EU legislators to resist this wave of deregulation, which threatens Europe’s sustainability transition. Lawmakers have considerable support from numerous companies—including from both the real economy and the financial sector—who oppose the Commission’s drastic proposals. Rather than streamlining and harmonising sustainability rules, these plans risk discarding valuable regulations prematurely, precisely when parts of the existing framework have scarcely been implemented.

During earlier negotiations, the European Parliament was overridden by the Council’s lobby-driven stance excluding finance. Now, Members of the European Parliament must stand firm against deregulation and seize this opportunity to restore fairness by ending this exemption. Financial institutions should be held to the same standards as other businesses regarding their responsibility for human rights violations and environmental harm.

[Vesper 29,384]

Group Chat

[Fulham Broadway 17,077]

Imagine if Russia or China gave 100m dollars for a US election campaign. 

Out of all the hundreds of countries why is Israel the only one allowed to bribe US politicians ? All foreign aid has been cancelled -except 3.9bn annually from US Taxpayers to Israel

Kennedy before he was 'assassinated' was going to make Israeli influence illegal  and make them liable like every other country fall under FARA -Foreign Agents Registration Act

 

[Fernando 6,522]

20 minutes ago, Fulham Broadway said:

Imagine if Russia or China gave 100m dollars for a US election campaign. 

Out of all the hundreds of countries why is Israel the only one allowed to bribe US politicians ? All foreign aid has been cancelled -except 3.9bn annually from US Taxpayers to Israel

Kennedy before he was 'assassinated' was going to make Israeli influence illegal  and make them liable like every other country fall under FARA -Foreign Agents Registration Act

 

Cared to share not just Israel but what other countries give?
Like Saudi Arabia and stuff like that? 

[Fulham Broadway 17,077]

 

[Vesper 29,384]

1 hour ago, Fulham Broadway said:

Imagine if Russia or China gave 100m dollars for a US election campaign. 

Out of all the hundreds of countries why is Israel the only one allowed to bribe US politicians ? All foreign aid has been cancelled -except 3.9bn annually from US Taxpayers to Israel

Kennedy before he was 'assassinated' was going to make Israeli influence illegal  and make them liable like every other country fall under FARA -Foreign Agents Registration Act

 

I feel dirty because I, for probably the first time in years (since she went hardcore RW MAGA) agree with Candace Owens

eeeek!!

[Fulham Broadway 17,077]

1 hour ago, Vesper said:

I feel dirty because I, for probably the first time in years (since she went hardcore RW MAGA) agree with Candace Owens

eeeek!!

😅 Same 

[Fulham Broadway 17,077]

Ambulances and fire truck bombed in Gaza. The ambulances were buried by israeli bulldozers.

The bodies of the paramedics when dug up had been handcuffed and shot in the head. But its ok. they were just brown people

 

[Fulham Broadway 17,077]

Share portfolios and stockmarkets freefalling as Trump puts 20% tariffs on everything entering US.

(Last time this happened there was the 1930s depression)

The rest of the World should unite and put 50% tariffs on everything American - 

[Fernando 6,522]

31 minutes ago, Fulham Broadway said:

Share portfolios and stockmarkets freefalling as Trump puts 20% tariffs on everything entering US.

(Last time this happened there was the 1930s depression)

The rest of the World should unite and put 50% tariffs on everything American - 

I don't think we are heading like that. 

Market is just barely down from all time high. 

We have had massive insane gains for the past few years. Its good to pull back a bit here and there. 

But in term of percentage in the 30's it went down like 90%. 

That amount of move today would take us to financial crisis low (which was 666.79) we are right now at in the SPX 5,589. 

[Fulham Broadway 17,077]

1 minute ago, Fernando said:

I don't think we are heading like that. 

Market is just barely down from all time high. 

We have had massive insane gains for the past few years. Its good to pull back a bit here and there. 

But in term of percentage in the 30's it went down like 90%. 

That amount of move today would take us to financial crisis low (which was 666.79) we are right now at in the SPX 5,589. 

Jesus would overturn the tables of the usurers and moneylenders

[Fulham Broadway 17,077]

He would though - he would say fuck all this greed and killing the poor 

[Fulham Broadway 17,077]

31 minutes ago, Fernando said:

I don't think we are heading like that. 

Market is just barely down from all time high. 

We have had massive insane gains for the past few years. Its good to pull back a bit here and there. 

But in term of percentage in the 30's it went down like 90%. 

That amount of move today would take us to financial crisis low (which was 666.79) we are right now at in the SPX 5,589. 

666.

The number of the Beast. The antichrist arrives. ''When the Jews return to Zion / and a comet rips the sky / and the Holy Roman Empire rises / Then you and I must die / from the eternal sea he rises / Creating armies on either shore / Turning man against his brother / Til man exists no more.''

[Fulham Broadway 17,077]

Tariffs, and World trade war will lead to recession, and real war. (but dont worry, the billionaires have their huge underground Armageddon shelters.)

Trump thinks he playing a massive global episode of The Apprentice. 

[Fernando 6,522]

2 hours ago, Fulham Broadway said:

Tariffs, and World trade war will lead to recession, and real war. (but dont worry, the billionaires have their huge underground Armageddon shelters.)

Trump thinks he playing a massive global episode of The Apprentice. 

That is my fear a recession with all this shenanigans that Trump is doing. 

I think the immigration was a necessary thing to bring some balance. 

But tariffs I just don't get it.