Yesterday and today have seen a cascade of unethical actions by high-ranking members of the Obama Administration going right up to the White House itself. First, Attorney General Loretta Lynch had a private meeting with Bill Clinton:
WASHINGTON — Attorney General Loretta Lynch faced continuing questions Thursday related to an awkward encounter with former president Bill Clinton after the two crossed paths Monday at Phoenix’s Sky Harbor International Airport.
Lynch, who will ultimately determine the outcome of an ongoing investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of private email server while secretary of state, was arriving in the city in advance of a community policing event as Clinton was departing when the former president relayed through a security detail that he would like to say hello.
It doesn’t matter whether the conversation was limited to personal matters or not. It was unethical of Gen. Lynch to meet privately with the husband of someone of whom her subordinates are conducting a criminal investigation. And now the White House has stepped in to defend Gen Lynch:
The White House on Thursday defended Attorney General Loretta Lynch from criticism over her private meeting with former President Clinton.
The meeting took place in the midst of a federal investigation into his wife, Hillary Clinton, and her private email server during her tenure as secretary of State, but White House press secretary Josh Earnest said both Lynch and President Obama are committed to conducting a fair investigation.
“I think the bottom line is simply that both the president and the attorney general understand how important it is for the Department of Justice to conduct investigations that are free of political interference,†he told reporters.
Earnest declined to say whether it was appropriate for Lynch to take the meeting, and acknowledged that questions about it “are entirely legitimate.â€
That, too, is unethical. It is executive influence. The proper course of action is reflected in the remarks of former White House advisor David Axelrod:
Former Obama adviser David Axelrod said it was “foolish†for the attorney general to create the appearance of a conflict of interest, even though he does not believe such a conflict exists.
and leave it at that.
Behaving correctly is frequently difficult. You can’t always do everything you’d like to do.
This entire sequence of events shouldn’t be a political football but that’s exactly what’s being allowed to happen. Supporters of the Obama Administration, eager to change the subject, are pointing to how awful the Republicans are and noting that the investigation is the outcome of a partisan campaign. That should be a badge of shame rather than a talking point. You shouldn’t need the opposing party to force you to do the right thing.
Behaving ethically means doing things even when they might benefit your political adversaries.
Have you seen the stuff about Hillary, Inc. passing along confidential information about the potential Greek bailouts to her son-in-law, who happened to be
gamblinginvesting in Greek bonds?In a small stroke of justice, he appears to have lost lots and lots of other people’s money doing so. The good news is that Chelsea stands to inherit a fortune, and that the people that lost their money were probably all banking on his having insider info. (I believe CalPers was also one of the investors. I also assume the people running that fund thought they would profit by cheating, so I’ve got no sympathy for them, either.) All in all, the failure of those funds is both a source of both schadenfreude and a feeling that occasionally, purely by chance, justice occurs in this world.
I have to say, though, that ethical behavior at this point in time really ought to be frowned upon. Seriously, when everyone is a crook, why be honest?
And forget guilt. Not only do the people doing the cheating not feel guilt, they also can’t be shamed, and usually demand that you congratulate them for their morality of screwing every one else in the ass. Or else.
I’m struggling with this with my daughter. I’m trying hard to teach her that she needs to be honest, have integrity, etc., but I just don’t believe it any more. I still don’t cheat at games, or anything else, but that’s pretty much a habit at this point that I can’t break, and goddamn but I feel like a chump every time I pass up an opportunity to get ahead at anyone else’s expense.
…
I forgot to add that I don’t see any difference between Hillary’s son-in-law, or Hillary, and Lenny Dykstra or Mark Stanford. The difference is that Dykstra was no one and could easily be sacrificed, and Stanford pissed off the wrong people.
Ellipsis:
I think you’ve just expressed one of the recurring themes of The Walking Dead and a key reason for the show’s popularity.
I tried watching The Walking Dead when it first aired and just couldn’t get into it. It was too grim even by my standards. But then practically everything but a Justin Timberlake single is grim these days.
Its funny that you guys mention the Walking Dead because my teenaged son is a big fan and generally I think of TV, movies, and books as opportunities to bridge discussions on the moral dilemmas presented, but with TWD (and the general moral cultural dilemma that ellipsis references) I just don’t know what to say anymore.
Okay, I’ll elaborate. One of the recurring themes of TWD is the problems of rearing children in a world in which ordinary standards have collapsed. Is the child’s ultra-violent behavior criminal, psychotic, or a survival adaptation?
Yes that elaboration gets exactly to the point- we aren’t living n post zombie apocalyptic times but the collapse of societal standards is real.
Back to the topic of the post- I understand why it’s important not to make unfounded allegations, so that this is being presented only as an “appearance of impropriety” but in reality what possible legitimate reason could there have been for this meeting? It beggars belief that this was a social call.
Okay, I’ll elaborate. One of the recurring themes of TWD is the problems of rearing children in a world in which ordinary standards have collapsed.
yes, I understood that. I still found the show to be too grim. Too realistic, in a sense.
Incidentally, some other friends of mine are going through the same thing with their children. We just don’t know what’s going on anymore, and can’t even explain the news any more. Their children are several years older, and somehow that seems to be making it harder for the parents.