2

In cfr §2635.502, paragraph (a) states:

(a) Consideration of appearances by the employee. Where an employee knows that a particular matter involving specific parties is likely to have a direct and predictable effect on the financial interest of a member of his household, or knows that a person with whom he has a covered relationship is or represents a party to such matter, and where the employee determines that the circumstances would cause a reasonable person with knowledge of the relevant facts to question his impartiality in the matter, the employee should not participate in the matter unless he has informed the agency designee of the appearance problem and received authorization from the agency designee in accordance with paragraph (d) of this section.

And in (b)(1)(ii):

(1) An employee has a covered relationship with:

...

(ii) A person who is a member of the employee's household, or who is a relative with whom the employee has a close personal relationship;

Now it may be that these laws do not apply to elected officials (IANAL and this may lead to another interesting question), but it seems that the VP should have recused himself from all dealings with Ukraine (or sought an exemption) as I believe any reasonable person would with knowledge that Hunter was receiving a substantial remuneration by a company that the Ukrainian government has regulatory control over, would arguably question the VP's impartiality in his ability to drive policy in that government and hence potentially benefit Burisma.

As a thought-experiment, imagine I was an elected US Federal Government official who was responsible for setting policy that could directly influence a company who was providing a new BMW to my adult daughter every month, for a task which she has no past experience, and which she does not seem to provide any valuable direct work product.

Am I wrong to believe that the GAO would rule that I should not be involved in forming that legislation while my daughter remained a recipient of these benefits specifically to avoid the appearance of a conflict?

Even if there is no known evidence of a conflict that is directly covered by the criminal code 18 U.S.C. § 209, the whole thing seems to wreak of the appearance of a conflict where the VP's close relative was receiving significant "remuneration" (scare-quotes because it's incredibly murky what work product Hunter was providing, beyond influence peddling) through a very short chain of high-level influence.

the gods from engineering
  • 158,594
  • 27
  • 390
  • 806
joshperry
  • 368
  • 2
  • 7
  • 4
    This might be more appropriately asked in https://law.stackexchange.com/ as this seems to be a question about a legal issue rather than a political issue. There is obviously a political aspect to it, but your question seems very focused on the legal side of things, and they would probably be better suited to give an appropriate answer over there. – Nelson O Nov 26 '19 at 20:36
  • 4
    You haven't established that Vice President Biden fits the definition of "employee" for the purposes of your cited law(s). – Just Me Nov 26 '19 at 20:45
  • 4
    @JustMe: indeed, Trump and his children have business interests in more than one country. It would be silly if Trump couldn't deal in his official capacity with any country where there's a hotel named after him or where he has a golf course. – the gods from engineering Nov 26 '19 at 21:02
  • 1
    I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because, as others have indicated, this seems more of a legal question. It should be moved to Law.SE. – JJJ Nov 26 '19 at 21:32
  • 2
    It would have been an interesting discussion to consider if elected officials are covered by GOA policy and conflict of interest laws and would have been instructive in understanding why so many are able to skirt them on both sides of the aisle. I have no loyalty to trump and find his business interests reprehensible, but that topic is not what this question is about. Indeed there are a number of questions targeting Trump on this topic on this very site which have not been closed. I didn't realize I needed to qualify my political leanings on pointed questions. – joshperry Nov 26 '19 at 22:34
  • I'd love any input on how I could reformulate the question to make it pertinent here as there is a dearth of information on the vagaries of conflict of interest laws and regulations applied to elected officials. Using an example from political discourse that is happening contemporaneously seemed apropos. – joshperry Nov 26 '19 at 22:36
  • 2
    @Fizz "member of his household, or knows that a person with whom he has a covered relationship". (b)(1)(ii) defines "covered relationship" which covers his non-estranged son. – joshperry Nov 26 '19 at 22:39
  • 3
    Unclosed questions targeting Trump on this very topic: https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/16240/how-can-president-trump-avoid-any-issue-with-conflict-of-interests-when-foreign https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/13353/can-the-president-put-his-assets-in-a-blind-trust-managed-by-his-family-members – joshperry Nov 26 '19 at 22:41
  • 3
    This was meant to be a follow-on question in response to my edit being reverted on my question about the MSM and the VP's party apparently considering this issue being "debunked" with little in-depth discussion while I honestly don't feel that it has been satisfactorily debunked from a perspective of accountability: https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/48070/why-is-hunter-biden-s-position-in-burisma-not-considered-a-problem/48125#48125 – joshperry Nov 26 '19 at 22:48
  • 2
    @joshperry - As Nelson said, if you want to know about specifics of laws and how they're applied, [Law.SE] is a much better fit. If you want to ask a more general question about conflict of interest (such as "how can I avoid it"), that'd fit here. But if you want to know how a specific law applies, ask over there. There is some overlap in the userbase and skill sets, but they're much more versed in that type of information. – Bobson Nov 26 '19 at 23:25
  • 1
    Annoyingly this question is still closed despite the 4 reopen votes (including mine), so here's my answer: the VP is not a an employee for the purpose of that CFR. Note that the corresponding law 18 U.S.C. § 209 addresses both officers and employees. Biden is most likely just the former (i.e. officer) according to the usual interpretation. Drawing a parallel with judges, the CFR establishes more stringent norms for the lower-level (i.e. employees) because these are more easily replaceable (just like non-supreme justices are) in recusal. – the gods from engineering Nov 28 '19 at 00:02
  • @Fizz Thank you. I feel like I can formulate another question on the ethics controls of elected officials which may be helpful for me. Honestly I'm also a bit frustrated that there is almost no discussion on this topic, it seems that the VP is being handed a prima facie pass and that the rules are applied arbitrarily as needed by those in control. I care little about players themselves and am finding it difficult to reason about how the system should work without being able to understand how it does work. – joshperry Nov 28 '19 at 00:13
  • 3
    I'm asking on law: https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/46945/is-the-vice-president-an-employee-for-the-purpose-of-cfr-2635-502 – the gods from engineering Nov 28 '19 at 00:24

0 Answers0