I have to agree with Alex here - I see no evidence of wrong doing and no evidence of making sure there is no evidence.
I mean she asked, she said no. Regulators are there primarily to prevent abuse, not to replace either vicious competition or political oversight. So it's going to be cozy.
I agree that there's no actual wrongdoing present, looking only at the content of the e-mails.
However, the tone of the e-mail suggests that this is one event in a pattern, and that the size and unusual nature of the particular gift (how many times are you going to get to go to the Olympics?) is what prompted a discussion with "the rules folks".
Wouldn't you expect a good regulator with a "cozy" relationship to already know what's in and out of bounds? That seems like it would be part of their job, without needing to consult the rules people.
But perhaps I'm being too uncharitable, and both sides should get the benefit of the doubt. I'm willing to concede I might be reading in between the lines too much.
I mean she asked, she said no. Regulators are there primarily to prevent abuse, not to replace either vicious competition or political oversight. So it's going to be cozy.