White House Grants Jarrett Ethics Waiver to Lead Efforts to Bring 2016 Olympics to Chicago

Most lobbyists are really good at what they do because they are well versed in their issue(s). And the exceptions and waver to the ethics rule just proves that not all lobbyists are bad. In fact, the vast majority are really great advocates for their issue(s).

Who says any lobbyists are “bad?” This clown’s whole lobbyist-ban edict, honored principally in the breach, was silly to begin with.

ABC News has been requesting copies of these letters of recusal since February, to no avail.
===========
I did not realize you still had not gotten those letters. Interesting.

Pardon me for going off-topic, but I am importing from the invaluable Beldar a discussion of the basics of corporate finance and the bankruptcy laws:
“Obama is counting on the fact that many, probably most, Americans don’t know or care about basic principles of corporate finance. But the fact is that all investments — stocks, bonds, notes, commercial paper, CDs, demand deposits, mutual fund shares, whatever — are legal contracts whose very nature is defined by the way they structure and allocate risk of default and prospect for profit.
“On the simplest level, for example, in general, people who buy equity in a business, typically by purchasing shares of its common stock, have the greatest potential upside if the business is profitable because they’re buying a percentage interest in it, and if the pie keeps getting larger, so too will their slice of the pie. Someone who instead merely loans money to that business — by buying, for example, notes or bonds or debentures that are, at bottom, fancy IOUs — generally forgoes that upside potential, and instead takes only a promise for repayment plus some specified and limited amount of interest. But in general, those who invest by loaning money to businesses also have less risk, because in bankruptcy proceedings — again, speaking on the broadest of terms, and as a general rule — creditors who are owed money by the bankrupt company’s estate are ranked, and then paid or otherwise accommodated, before any equity owners (shareholders) get anything. And as a consequence, it’s very typical for creditors to get pennies on the dollar, perhaps plus some shares of equity in a reorganized ‘new’ post-bankruptcy company, while the shareholders have been wiped out completely.
“And among creditors, there are also rankings. Those who’ve insisted upon and gotten collateral for their loans — making them ‘secured creditors’ — generally forewent higher interest rates in exchange for the pledge of that collateral. Those who have no collateral, but merely a general, unsecured claim for repayment, are ‘unsecured creditors.’ They relied only on the company’s general credit-worthiness and, to a lesser extent, the better treatment that even general unsecured creditors get in bankruptcy as compared to equity holders.
“I repeat, this is all basic to the entire system of business investments. If these core principles are disturbed, there will be no more capital markets — no ability to buy shares of stock or corporate bonds, no way for growing companies to expand by selling equity or taking on debt.
“What the Obama Administration has been trying to do, however, has been to cajole or — it’s now becoming more clear — threaten people who carefully bargained for less risk, and who thereby had to settle for lower rewards all along, into voluntarily forfeiting the protections they bought and paid for in the event of the underlying business’ insolvency. Primarily through Chrysler’s pension and retiree health-care obligations, the UAW is a creditor of Chrysler, but one whose position is less favored by the bankruptcy laws than the investors (debt holders) represented by companies like Oppenheimer Funds or Perella Weinburg. Unlike the UAW, their clients negotiated, bought, and paid for the rights not to have to have to make the same ‘sacrifices’ that equity holders or general unsecured creditors would be compelled to make under the bankruptcy laws. But Obama insists — on pain of presidential demonization and worse — that these so-called ‘renegades’ and ‘speculators’ (who’ve actually been guilty of nothing other than greater prudence) make those sacrifices anyway, and that they do so specifically in order to benefit the UAW.”

Why should any Obamaite..be forced to play by the rules.. particularly when Chicago could benefit from such bending.. get someone else.. I hope that Blago finishes the Val story someday.. it should be a good one.
And why should an arrogant bunch of U.S. Americans play host to the event?

Raytheon is a major weapons maker. So it’s really not too cool by some peoples’ standards whether theyre left, right or center that a defense department guy like Lyn lobbied with them.

Why do politicians even put themselves into these boxes? Palin did something similar in Alaska, she called for a state hiring freeze then issues a special disposition of the rules every week when they need to hire someone.
Was saying he wasn’t going to hire lobbyists really going to make or break the election? Of course not. I’m sure most people weren’t even aware of it. The stupidity of politicians never fails to amaze me.

Fascist- Dude, that was a suggestion about conflict of interest!!

“The Raytheon remark was about conflict of interest.”
Amber dear, why don’t you tell us what you understand the term “conflict of interest” to mean. And then tell us why
Mr. Lynn has a conflict. And then tell us whether any or all of the other eighty-odd lobbyists in the administration have conflicts.

This is a great way for Obama to pay off all his crooks/cronies in Chicago! Excellent!

Amber–There is no conflict whatsoever. Lynn’s undivided duty is to his current employer, DoD, and he is forbidden to accept any compensation or benefits from his former employer. He has no incentive of any kind to favor them over any other company.
Mr. Obama’s “ban” on lobbyists was simply transparent pandering and an example of his trashy populism. He knows that the yokels–yes, that would be you and many others–believe that there is something wrong, even evil, abbout lobbyists, although such yokels have not a clue what they are talking about. Purely a phantom bogeyman to trash to the public, but good people to employ when you need the expertise they have gained when in the business of lobbying.

“Then I take it, Facist Hyena, that you would have no problem with a former ACLU lobbyist working in the Justice Department. or a former labor union one in the Department of Labor.”
You are absolutely correct, Kim. I might be unhappy that someone with an ACLU bent was in DoJ, or someone affiliated with a labor union was in the Labor department, but the fact that they had been lobbyists would not affect my views a single iota. My problem with those two people would be the political differences I have with them, but an ACLU lobbyist is no more likely to have kooky left-wing views than a founder of the ACLU women’s rights project, viz. Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Had Ms. Ginsburg been a lobbyist instead of the founder of that project, she would be not one bit more or less trustworty.
In short, I deplore the views of the people in your example (assuming that they share the views of the people for whom they lobby), but what on earth does lobbying have to do with it?
Thank you for your kind remarks about my refreshing objectivity and idealism.
May I inquire why you would be inclined to distrust the loyalties of former lobbyists, assuming that in compliance with the law they have divested themselves of all beneficial interest in the fortunes of their former firms?

Rev. Wright is cleaner than Jerrett. Revolution we can believe in!

This is a great way for Obama to pay off all his crooks/cronies in Chicago! Excellent!
Posted by: tin can
—————————————-
And watch the racketeers use all types of Chicago-land fraud tactics to line their pockets. ACORN will probably provide “security.”

ABC News has been requesting copies of these letters of recusal since February, to no avail.
———————————–
How about a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit to get these documents? This White House promised “Transparentcy” didn’t they?

President Obama’s biggest potential downfall is his connections to the corruption in Chicago. Mayor Daley’s aides surround Obama (Jarrett, Axelrod, Emanuel) and Obama is making a huge mistake allowing any waiver for Valerie Jarrett.
Instead, he needs to distance himself from anyone with connections to Mayor Daley. Only someone independent who has not been employed by Daley, worked for Daley, appointed by Daley or anything related to Daley, should be in this role. Obama has to put the interests of America and himself ahead of Daley. This is an invitation for disaster.
Plus, Chicago’s bid has gone from the original independent effort of the 90′s into a very crony-full mayoral political operation. The face of the bid shouldn’t be a couple old white guys who play politics in Chicago (Daley and Pat Ryan). That’s a big mistake, too.

The media and anyone interested in integrity and ethics should not let Obama get away with this unnecessary waiver.
Obama should revoke the waiver and keep Valerie Jarriet, David Axelrod and Rahm Emanuel completely out of the Olympic bid process since they all have conflict-of-interests.
I also think Obama would be making a big mistake getting too involved with this bid since Chicago’s corruption problems are very deep and can take him down.

so why does Obama and crew get a pass on lobbyists,and transparency,wars,prisons,Bahgram, and appointing, with no obvious shame, the kind of people with backgrounds embedded in Chicago corrupt politics,even moving his campaign there for starters? Why are the people objecting not being given coverage? I know most of the msm has been part of the problem but WHY? The wall street corruption that donated most to Obama and now getting the major money in bailouts? Are we going to have to wait eight years to question this thoroughly?I guess Rayethon will have access to the war money just like bush.Even more wars than bush.I am a dem and not happy!

It’s not bad enough that the legal profession is such that ‘ethics’ is taught in law schools. Hmmm, I thought that was something we were taught at home and in Sunday schools, back in the days when we were taught the difference between right and wrong. Now we seem to have lost the understanding of the term “illegal alien,” and have things like “ethics WAIVERS.” I’m curious, have more ethics waivers been issued in this administration than previous administrations? I never even heard the term before this evening. It also sounds illegal and UNETHICAL. And why is Valerie Jarrett going to Denmark too? Is it true she is going on a separate jet? Hmmmm.