‘It Profits A Law Firm Nothing To Give Its Soul For The Whole World … But For Hillary, Thornton?’

Once again, a memorable line from the best ethics film of them all, “A Man For All Seasons,” came rushing back to me as I observed another example of professionals abandoning their ethical principles to assist the most demonstrably corrupt Presidential candidate in U.S. history, Hillary Clinton.

Not just her, however, to be fair. The Thornton Law Firm in Boston has used an illegal and unethical maneuver to circumvent election laws and give millions of dollars to the Democratic Party and Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Sen. Harry Reid, President Obama and, of course, Hillary, among others.  The scheme was revealed by the Center for Responsive Politics and the Spotlight investigative team at the Boston Globe.

The firm has just ten partners, but is one of the nation’s biggest political donors. A whistle-blower sent firm documents showing that firm members have been making large donations to Democrats, only to be reimbursed by the firm days or even hours later with bonuses matching the amounts donated exactly.

Federal law limits partnerships–law firms are almost all partnerships—to maximum donations of $2,700 per candidate. This was what is called a “straw donor” plot. “Straw donor reimbursement systems are something both the FEC and the Department of Justice take very seriously, and people have gone to jail for this,” Center for Responsive Politics editorial director Viveca Novak told CBS.

Naturally, the firm is denying wrongdoing for now, and says,

“We would like to make it clear that the Thornton law firm has complied with all applicable laws and regulations regarding campaign contributions. Ten years ago, it hired an outside law firm to review how it wanted to handle donations to politicians. It was given a legal opinion on how it should structure its program and then it hired an outside accountant to review and implement the program. It was a voluntary program which only involved equity partners and their own personal after-tax money to make donations.”

Right. I see a plea deal coming, as clear as the I can see the pained look of Sir Thomas More (Paul Scofield) in my mind.

This was cheating. A lot of Democrats apparently think cheating in elections is cool.

Hillary Clinton’s campaign, however, is giving back the firm’s donations. It’s not as cool when you get caught.


Filed under Ethics Alarms Award Nominee, Ethics Train Wrecks, Government & Politics, Journalism & Media, Law & Law Enforcement, Professions

10 responses to “‘It Profits A Law Firm Nothing To Give Its Soul For The Whole World … But For Hillary, Thornton?’

  1. luckyesteeyoreman

    Jack: unrelated to the post (sorry!), but a question, about the Hatch Act: Is the President exempted from its provisions? If not, how are Barack’s travel, appearances and speech-making in various cities to endorse the Cntons (Hlary and Bl) not a violation of the Hatch Act? Senator Reid? Bueller?

    • luckyesteeyoreman

      Never mind – first sentence of Wiki article clarified. Barack is safe. But, how inclusively, for which and how many underlings, does the exception for the POTUS apply?

      • luckyesteeyoreman

        Jack, what is really weird is, your comment was visible to me only after I saw my own follow-up, “never mind” comment posted here. And yet, the time stamp on your comment is clearly 8 minutes earlier than mine.

        So, I thought I answered my own question before you did, but I didn’t – but I didn’t know that I didn’t answer before you did, until much later.

  2. Fred Davison

    “It was given a legal opinion on how it should structure its program”…
    Was John Yoo a member of that outside firm? For a second there, I thought they were talking “enhanced donation techniques”.

  3. Al Veerhoff

    I thought Yoo said the technique was okay if the President approved it.
    (Oh, God, think about that principle being applied in
    a Trump or Clinton administration.)

  4. Chris Marschner

    Will the partners at Thornton get the same sentence for each count as Dinesh D’Souza? Same crime, should get at least the same time for each count. Or, do conservatives rate more time?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.