Tweet
Thanks for the link Jeff. I think the $ 39.5 billion number was the gross take of Haliburton for its "services" during the Iraq war. And a lot of that was under contracts signed during the Clinton Administration. I have spent some time reading about Cheney before today, trying to get a handle on this level of hatred. When two posters here are arguing who was the first to call for killing Cheney, I consider that actual hatred.
As nearly as I can tell, the upper limit of money that Cheney received Haliburton was $ 34 Million, not $ 39.5 Billion. That is according to Chris Matthews. A lot of this comes from a thoroughly debunked Kerry ad in the 2004 election.
But the bigger point is that staffing an administration will always come down to a choice between hiring private-sector folks or public-sector folks. It is a choice between guys like Cheney or Tillerson and folks like Kerry or Donna Shalala. (Military leaders are a separate category since they are actually public sector employees who choose to do their job out of patriotism, and not for money).
In light of the 3 lawsuits against Trump that have been filed for violation of the Emoluments Clause, I think a reasonable person has to ask "did these contractual relations exist prior to the executive in question entering the political sphere?" From what I read, Comey would have been entitled to the $ 34 million whether or not he was elected the VP in 2000. Similarly, Trump Hotel in Washington would have spun off money to the Trump Organization if Donald had lost the election. I understand this "but for..." reasoning has logical flaws, but was Cheney's election and his alleged position on the Iraq War the reason for him getting the $ 34 m (and I'm sure you understand that number is in dispute)? I'd say, in large part, it was not. BTW, most of Cheney's income was from selling his stock options, and not from actual stock in Halliburton.
As nearly as I can tell, the upper limit of money that Cheney received Haliburton was $ 34 Million, not $ 39.5 Billion. That is according to Chris Matthews. A lot of this comes from a thoroughly debunked Kerry ad in the 2004 election.
But the bigger point is that staffing an administration will always come down to a choice between hiring private-sector folks or public-sector folks. It is a choice between guys like Cheney or Tillerson and folks like Kerry or Donna Shalala. (Military leaders are a separate category since they are actually public sector employees who choose to do their job out of patriotism, and not for money).
In light of the 3 lawsuits against Trump that have been filed for violation of the Emoluments Clause, I think a reasonable person has to ask "did these contractual relations exist prior to the executive in question entering the political sphere?" From what I read, Comey would have been entitled to the $ 34 million whether or not he was elected the VP in 2000. Similarly, Trump Hotel in Washington would have spun off money to the Trump Organization if Donald had lost the election. I understand this "but for..." reasoning has logical flaws, but was Cheney's election and his alleged position on the Iraq War the reason for him getting the $ 34 m (and I'm sure you understand that number is in dispute)? I'd say, in large part, it was not. BTW, most of Cheney's income was from selling his stock options, and not from actual stock in Halliburton.
Comment