Joe Manchin threatens reporter asking about conflicts of interest

[Buffalo Mayor Young Kim]

https://twitter.com/frankthorp/status/1443304382322384898


With all the Sinema attention, this seems to have slipped though the cracks. Just thought I’d remind everyone that Joe Manchin is cartoonishly corrupt.

[Buffalo Mayor Young Kim]

While Manchin's family does not generally have a good look when it comes to their business dealings (see: his daughter hiking up drug prices), I don't think this is much of a problem. By this logic, he'd have a conflict of interest with stake in just about any company imaginable owned by a close family member

For the rest of you, I don’t know how you read ‘Hey doesn’t this obvious conflict of interest pose a problem’ being responded to with ‘You got a problem? I wouldn’t ask that if I were you’ can be read as anything but a public threat.

For context, imagine this exchange
‘Doesn’t Trump Inc. create a conflict of interest’
‘No it’s a blind trust’
‘It’s run by your kids’
‘You’ll shut up if you know what’s good for you’

[Buffalo Mayor Young Kim]

Lol at the fact that a reporter felt this was newsworthy.
Stay mad.

Do you not find it newsworthy that a Senator that is personally road blocking major legislation stands to significant money both personally and for his immediate family member from the results of it?

Seems like a big deal to me

[Buffalo Mayor Young Kim]

Lol at the fact that a reporter felt this was newsworthy.
Stay mad.

Do you not find it newsworthy that a Senator that is personally road blocking major legislation stands to significant money both personally and for his immediate family member from the results of it?

Seems like a big deal to me

It's curious to me that the belief is that he's doing this because some kind of monetary gain or whatever, as if it's impossible that his political beliefs, independent of any nebulous commercial interest he has, could be actually driving how he votes.
If Manchin has a reason for doing something it can't be because he has actual ideology. No, no. You see, it's because he's [something relating to money].

Are you familiar with the term appearance of impropriety?

It comes up allot in various codes of ethics

[Buffalo Mayor Young Kim]

Lol at the fact that a reporter felt this was newsworthy.
Stay mad.

Do you not find it newsworthy that a Senator that is personally road blocking major legislation stands to significant money both personally and for his immediate family member from the results of it?

Seems like a big deal to me

It's curious to me that the belief is that he's doing this because some kind of monetary gain or whatever, as if it's impossible that his political beliefs, independent of any nebulous commercial interest he has, could be actually driving how he votes.
If Manchin has a reason for doing something it can't be because he has actual ideology. No, no. You see, it's because he's [something relating to money].

Are you familiar with the term appearance of impropriety?

It comes up allot in various codes of ethics

Well, if you lower the threshold enough, anything can have the appearance of impropriety.

Making money off an energy company founded by you and owned by your son while chairing the energy committee doesn’t seem like a particularly low threshold.

[Buffalo Mayor Young Kim]

Lol at the fact that a reporter felt this was newsworthy.
Stay mad.

Do you not find it newsworthy that a Senator that is personally road blocking major legislation stands to significant money both personally and for his immediate family member from the results of it?

Seems like a big deal to me

It's curious to me that the belief is that he's doing this because some kind of monetary gain or whatever, as if it's impossible that his political beliefs, independent of any nebulous commercial interest he has, could be actually driving how he votes.
If Manchin has a reason for doing something it can't be because he has actual ideology. No, no. You see, it's because he's [something relating to money].

Are you familiar with the term appearance of impropriety?

It comes up allot in various codes of ethics

Well, if you lower the threshold enough, anything can have the appearance of impropriety.

Making money off an energy company founded by you and owned by your son while chairing the energy committee doesn’t seem like a particularly low threshold.

Is there any actual evidence of Manchin basing his vote, and views on the GND and other bills more generally, purely on basis of this energy company? Or even very significantly because of it?
Or could it be because...
a) he's a moderate Democrat
b) someone extremely interested in managing optics (Manchin Cycle...)
c) not necessarily in personal agreement with 3.5 trillion
d) could be taking cover and representing many more Senate Democrats who don't agree with such high a figure
e) be interested in using his status as a key swing vote to shape the bill to his liking
there could be any number of reasons guiding Manchin, and it's silly to hold up "his energy company!" up as if it's some all-relevant totem of importance.
If there is a rider in the new bill that directly privileges his energy company in some sort of exclusive way, then you might have a point. But this is just more mudslidging from those who don't like Manchin and want to frame him the worst way possible. At least, it looks that way.

Yes, motives can be hard to untangle as long as the party in question isn’t dumb enough to leave big bags of money around saying bribe.

That is why appearance of impropriety is that standard to which government employees, court officers, and members of various professional organizations are held.
Might a reasonable person come to the conclusion that his and his immediate family’s financial stake will influence his decision making? I think it’s hard to argue that one couldn’t.

It doesn’t help that if you dig any deeper, we find the legislator in question has a very long history of abusing his various offices for personal gain, from his first term in the WV state leg when he held a hospital rates bill hostage to add a rider allowing physical therapists (like his uncle) to treat people without physician referrals, to the sorted Heather Bresch affair, to mysteriously holding the COVID until the very last second earlier this year and wouldn’t you know it, Gail Manchin got a sinecure in the federal government right after.

[Buffalo Mayor Young Kim]

Lol at the fact that a reporter felt this was newsworthy.
Stay mad.

Do you not find it newsworthy that a Senator that is personally road blocking major legislation stands to significant money both personally and for his immediate family member from the results of it?

Seems like a big deal to me

It's curious to me that the belief is that he's doing this because some kind of monetary gain or whatever, as if it's impossible that his political beliefs, independent of any nebulous commercial interest he has, could be actually driving how he votes.
If Manchin has a reason for doing something it can't be because he has actual ideology. No, no. You see, it's because he's [something relating to money].

Are you familiar with the term appearance of impropriety?

It comes up allot in various codes of ethics

Well, if you lower the threshold enough, anything can have the appearance of impropriety.

Making money off an energy company founded by you and owned by your son while chairing the energy committee doesn’t seem like a particularly low threshold.

Is there any actual evidence of Manchin basing his vote, and views on the GND and other bills more generally, purely on basis of this energy company? Or even very significantly because of it?
Or could it be because...
a) he's a moderate Democrat
b) someone extremely interested in managing optics (Manchin Cycle...)
c) not necessarily in personal agreement with 3.5 trillion
d) could be taking cover and representing many more Senate Democrats who don't agree with such high a figure
e) be interested in using his status as a key swing vote to shape the bill to his liking
there could be any number of reasons guiding Manchin, and it's silly to hold up "his energy company!" up as if it's some all-relevant totem of importance.
If there is a rider in the new bill that directly privileges his energy company in some sort of exclusive way, then you might have a point. But this is just more mudslidging from those who don't like Manchin and want to frame him the worst way possible. At least, it looks that way.

Yes, motives can be hard to untangle as long as the party in question isn’t dumb enough to leave big bags of money around saying bribe.

That is why appearance of impropriety is that standard to which government employees, court officers, and members of various professional organizations are held.
Might a reasonable person come to the conclusion that his and his immediate family’s financial stake will influence his decision making? I think it’s hard to argue that one couldn’t.

It doesn’t help that if you dig any deeper, we find the legislator in question has a very long history of abusing his various offices for personal gain, from his first term in the WV state leg when he held a hospital rates bill hostage to add a rider allowing physical therapists (like his uncle) to treat people without physician referrals, to the sorted Heather Bresch affair, to mysteriously holding the COVID until the very last second earlier this year and wouldn’t you know it, Gail Manchin got a sinecure in the federal government right after.

Even if all you said was true, that does not at all prove anything about his motivations in this specific case, and there is still not one iota of evidence for the "it's the coal company!" school of thought of explaining his rationale for taking this tack on the stimulus bill. Yes, a reasonable person can believe that Joe Manchin is somewhat influenced by what helps his family financially.
And how does Joe Manchin or his family personally profit from if the bill is 2.1 trillion or something as opposed to 3.5 trillion? It's not like the size of the stimulus is inversely proportional to his family's net worth.
As I said - if there is a rider in the new bill that directly privileges his energy company in some sort of exclusive way, then you might have a point.

Well first, if a reasonable person could assume his personal financial interests are an influence in his thinking, his actual motivations aren’t at issue. It fundamentally undermines the credibly of Mr. Manchin himself and by extension Congress.
Second, while we are narrowing the scope of this discussion to the current situation and this particular bit of Joe Manchin’s financial interests, it is a under current running through his career and touching on virtually everything he does in his office.

Mr. Manchin’s memo also stipulated a number of demands to help the fossil fuel industry. It said that, in his role as chairman of the Senate Energy Committee, he must have full control over crafting the central climate change provisions of the legislation — all but ensuring that those provisions will be far less ambitious and more fossil-fuel friendly than Mr. Biden had hoped.

In addition, the memo demands that if the legislation were to include extensions of tax credits for wind and solar power, it would not undo tax breaks for fossil fuel producers.”

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/09/30/us/government-shutdown-infrastructure

Now maybe you draw some moral line between ‘let’s help the industry I’m invested in against others in the sector’ and ‘let’s help my specific company’, but I don’t see where it is. Yes, there are clearly other motives, but it is impossible to disentangle the extent to which Mr. Manchin is working for the benefit of the public good and his own fortunes. Which is why conflicts of interests are bad in the first place, they undermine the legitimacy of government.

[Buffalo Mayor Young Kim]

snip

Well, if it's impossible to disentangle the extent to which Mr. Manchin is working for the benefit of the public good and his own fortunes, then it is because governance is complicated, and also because the platonic ideal of the type you've repeatedly made reference to, is in reality a hard-to-attain dream at best (especially in state like West Virginia).
Those with business interests are always disproportionately involved in government because they always have a lot of political capital. The political class has always been richer than the average American as well. I'm not going to pretend Manchin is anywhere near the typical West Virginian in terms of wealth. But I do think there is plenty of ground to claim that that fact doesn't really matter in regards to his job performance.
The tendency to elect the better-off to political office is probably even stronger in poor states like West Virginia than elsewhere. In 2016 they even elected their only billionaire as Governor.
Is it really a scandal then that West Virginia's US Senator has a stake in a family-owned coal company, while also chairing the Energy Committee, if that means that at least a West Virginian is in charge of that committee? It's not like West Virginia seems to have loads of politicians in federal high office who don't have personal stakes in coal business or involvement in the business someway or another...

So now we’ve got government is fundamentally about the interests of the rich and at a minimum appearance of personal corruption is necessary.

I don’t know where we can go from there.
So K
Bye