Peter Keisler

various lawyers and officials who go over it and then give you guidance as to what you can and can't do. With Musk, what he said is, oh, if I see anything that's a conflict, I just won't do that. So it's completely self-policing. That's not how it works. It's at least not how it's ever worked, and it's not how it should work.

various lawyers and officials who go over it and then give you guidance as to what you can and can't do. With Musk, what he said is, oh, if I see anything that's a conflict, I just won't do that. So it's completely self-policing. That's not how it works. It's at least not how it's ever worked, and it's not how it should work.

various lawyers and officials who go over it and then give you guidance as to what you can and can't do. With Musk, what he said is, oh, if I see anything that's a conflict, I just won't do that. So it's completely self-policing. That's not how it works. It's at least not how it's ever worked, and it's not how it should work.

Well, I have two answers to that. One is a technical one and one is a philosophical one. The technical answer is there is in the conflict of interest laws and regulations procedures for someone to get waivers from various agency officials. And usually the waiver requires you to show that your interest is just not so substantial that would affect the integrity of the proceedings.

Well, I have two answers to that. One is a technical one and one is a philosophical one. The technical answer is there is in the conflict of interest laws and regulations procedures for someone to get waivers from various agency officials. And usually the waiver requires you to show that your interest is just not so substantial that would affect the integrity of the proceedings.

Well, I have two answers to that. One is a technical one and one is a philosophical one. The technical answer is there is in the conflict of interest laws and regulations procedures for someone to get waivers from various agency officials. And usually the waiver requires you to show that your interest is just not so substantial that would affect the integrity of the proceedings.

Now, that almost certainly could not be sensibly granted here. But nonetheless, there could be a piece of paper where some agency official says, I grant you a waiver. I suspect they haven't even bothered to do that. But I don't know, because that's where we get to the philosophical question here. And not to take this into consideration. too high into the stratosphere.

Now, that almost certainly could not be sensibly granted here. But nonetheless, there could be a piece of paper where some agency official says, I grant you a waiver. I suspect they haven't even bothered to do that. But I don't know, because that's where we get to the philosophical question here. And not to take this into consideration. too high into the stratosphere.

Now, that almost certainly could not be sensibly granted here. But nonetheless, there could be a piece of paper where some agency official says, I grant you a waiver. I suspect they haven't even bothered to do that. But I don't know, because that's where we get to the philosophical question here. And not to take this into consideration. too high into the stratosphere.

But the question is, what is law? Like to me, law is a set of binding requirements that you find in statutes and court decisions and regulations in the Constitution. And they exist and they bind whomever they bind by their own terms. But, you know, there was a school of thought in the early 20th century, the legal realists, very influential thinkers who said, no, no, no, that's silly.

But the question is, what is law? Like to me, law is a set of binding requirements that you find in statutes and court decisions and regulations in the Constitution. And they exist and they bind whomever they bind by their own terms. But, you know, there was a school of thought in the early 20th century, the legal realists, very influential thinkers who said, no, no, no, that's silly.

But the question is, what is law? Like to me, law is a set of binding requirements that you find in statutes and court decisions and regulations in the Constitution. And they exist and they bind whomever they bind by their own terms. But, you know, there was a school of thought in the early 20th century, the legal realists, very influential thinkers who said, no, no, no, that's silly.

Law is not an abstraction. Law is a prediction about what courts and people who enforce the law are actually going to do, because that's the only place where law has meaning. So who enforces the conflict of interest requirement? It's agency general counsels, it's inspectors general counsels. For high-level appointees like Musk, it's the White House Counsel's Office.

Law is not an abstraction. Law is a prediction about what courts and people who enforce the law are actually going to do, because that's the only place where law has meaning. So who enforces the conflict of interest requirement? It's agency general counsels, it's inspectors general counsels. For high-level appointees like Musk, it's the White House Counsel's Office.

Law is not an abstraction. Law is a prediction about what courts and people who enforce the law are actually going to do, because that's the only place where law has meaning. So who enforces the conflict of interest requirement? It's agency general counsels, it's inspectors general counsels. For high-level appointees like Musk, it's the White House Counsel's Office.

And in extreme cases where there's a criminal violation, it's the Department of Justice. If all of those institutions have been sufficiently compromised that there's nobody who's going to say this is a conflict, is it really law? Well, we could debate that philosophically.

And in extreme cases where there's a criminal violation, it's the Department of Justice. If all of those institutions have been sufficiently compromised that there's nobody who's going to say this is a conflict, is it really law? Well, we could debate that philosophically.

And in extreme cases where there's a criminal violation, it's the Department of Justice. If all of those institutions have been sufficiently compromised that there's nobody who's going to say this is a conflict, is it really law? Well, we could debate that philosophically.

As a practical matter, I don't think anyone's going to be applying the conflict of interest requirements to Elon Musk any more than Elon Musk wants them to.

As a practical matter, I don't think anyone's going to be applying the conflict of interest requirements to Elon Musk any more than Elon Musk wants them to.