Shall be subject to the penalties set forth in section 216 of this title.
Saturday, October 19, 2019
Hmmm....
You know what is interesting, in light of the Trump Administration's choice of the Trump Doral for the 2020 G-7 summit? 18 USC 208 (which is part of the federal penal code). You know, if you are into that kind of thing.
18 USC 208
18 USC 208
(a)
Except as permitted by subsection (b) hereof, whoever, being an officer or employee of the executive branch of the United States Government, or of any independent agency of the United States, a Federal Reserve bank director, officer, or employee, or an officer or employee of the District of Columbia, including a special Government employee, participates personally and substantially as a Government officer or employee, through decision, approval, disapproval, recommendation, the rendering of advice, investigation, or otherwise, in a judicial or other proceeding, application, request for a ruling or other determination, contract, claim, controversy, charge, accusation, arrest, or other particular matter in which, to his knowledge, he, his spouse, minor child, general partner, organization in which he is serving as officer, director, trustee, general partner or employee, or any person or organization with whom he is negotiating or has any arrangement concerning prospective employment, has a financial interest—
(b)Subsection (a) shall not apply—
(1)
if the officer or employee first advises the Government official responsible for appointment to his or her position of the nature and circumstances of the judicial or other proceeding, application, request for a ruling or other determination, contract, claim, controversy, charge, accusation, arrest, or other particular matter and makes full disclosure of the financial interest and receives in advance a written determination made by such official that the interest is not so substantial as to be deemed likely to affect the integrity of the services which the Government may expect from such officer or employee;
(2)
if, by regulation issued by the Director of the Office of Government Ethics, applicable to all or a portion of all officers and employees covered by this section, and published in the Federal Register, the financial interest has been exempted from the requirements of subsection (a) as being too remote or too inconsequential to affect the integrity of the services of the Government officers or employees to which such regulation applies;
(3)
in the case of a special Government employee serving on an advisory committee within the meaning of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (including an individual being considered for an appointment to such a position), the official responsible for the employee’s appointment, after review of the financial disclosure report filed by the individual pursuant to the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, certifies in writing that the need for the individual’s services outweighs the potential for a conflict of interest created by the financial interest involved; or
(4)if the financial interest that would be affected by the particular matter involved is that resulting solely from the interest of the officer or employee, or his or her spouse or minor child, in birthrights—
(A)
in an Indian tribe, band, nation, or other organized group or community, including any Alaska Native village corporation as defined in or established pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, which is recognized as eligible for the special programs and services provided by the United States to Indians because of their status as Indians,
(B)
in an Indian allotment the title to which is held in trust by the United States or which is inalienable by the allottee without the consent of the United States, or
if the particular matter does not involve the Indian allotment or claims fund or the Indian tribe, band, nation, organized group or community, or Alaska Native village corporation as a specific party or parties.
(c)
(d)
(1)
Upon request, a copy of any determination granting an exemption under subsection (b)(1) or (b)(3) shall be made available to the public by the agency granting the exemption pursuant to the procedures set forth in section 105 of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978. In making such determination available, the agency may withhold from disclosure any information contained in the determination that would be exempt from disclosure under section 552 of title 5. For purposes of determinations under subsection (b)(3), the information describing each financial interest shall be no more extensive than that required of the individual in his or her financial disclosure report under the Ethics in Government Act of 1978.
(2)The Office of Government Ethics, after consultation with the Attorney General, shall issue uniform regulations for the issuance of waivers and exemptions under subsection (b) which shall—
(B)
provide guidance with respect to the types of interests that are not so substantial as to be deemed likely to affect the integrity of the services the Government may expect from the employee.
(Added Pub. L. 87–849, § 1(a), Oct. 23, 1962, 76 Stat. 1124; amended Pub. L. 95–188, title II, § 205, Nov. 16, 1977, 91 Stat. 1388; Pub. L. 101–194, title IV, § 405, Nov. 30, 1989, 103 Stat. 1751; Pub. L. 101–280, § 5(e), May 4, 1990, 104 Stat. 159; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, §§ 330002(b), 330008(6), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2140, 2143.)
Comments:
<< Home
So he has reversed course this morning on the G7 location. I am fairly sure Nick Mulvaney was unable to produce the list of the other 7 or 8 locations that were considered in addition to Doral. Doral is his premiere location and business is down almost 50% since he became President.
We listened to someone talk about a typical G7 meeting. Did you know they serve over 48,000 meals during one of these meetings. At an average of $40/meal (my number as nothing any of these people do is cheap) that comes to almost $2,000,000 just for food. Then there is the problem that Doral only has two Presidential suites. Will they draw straws to see who gets the big rooms and who gets the rooms with bedbugs? Sorry, I am feeling a bit snarky this morning.
Post a Comment
We listened to someone talk about a typical G7 meeting. Did you know they serve over 48,000 meals during one of these meetings. At an average of $40/meal (my number as nothing any of these people do is cheap) that comes to almost $2,000,000 just for food. Then there is the problem that Doral only has two Presidential suites. Will they draw straws to see who gets the big rooms and who gets the rooms with bedbugs? Sorry, I am feeling a bit snarky this morning.
<< Home
