Soooo ... the press is spilling more ink writing about the son of a non-candidate and the hair of a candidate (still?!?) than stories like this? That's all too predictable. I think Hilzoy's got it right.
Posted by armand at July 5, 2007 03:19 PM | TrackBack | Posted to Corruption | PoliticsThink about this for a minute. A committee conducting an investigation into serious charges learns that there is crucial evidence concerning the crimes they are investigating. A lawyer on that committee then takes it upon himself to inform the lawyer of the person being investigated of this discovery. That's crazy, and it's just plain wrong. It gives the person being investigated a chance to destroy or alter the evidence -- for instance, by erasing 18 1/2 minutes of one of the tapes.
The very best possible spin that you can put on it is that the lawyer who did this was very, very trusting, very, very dumb, and wholly unprofessional. In this case, we'd probably have to add: very ambitious, and willing to but ambition ahead of principle and professionalism. The worst interpretation, of course, is that he was participating in the obstruction of justice. In neither case, however, should he be President. Especially not now, when we need someone who will at least try to restore people's trust in the rule of law and the basic fairness of our institutions.
I wonder what misdeeds all the other candidates were committing 34 years ago. I mean, if that's the new standard, let's look at everyone, y'know?
Posted by: jacflash at July 5, 2007 08:37 PM | PERMALINKSo you want to know the bad things Sen. Obama was doing in 5th or 6th grade? Or you don't think long-past actions are relevant?
I'm sympathetic to the latter idea. But much less so when it deals with behavior taken by an actor who was working for the government, and particularly when said individual was helping other government actors who were acting in completely inappropriate (and possibly illegal) ways. And especially given the actions of the current White House, it seems to me relevant if a major contender for the presidency took action aimed at benefiting the (corrupt) executive and constraining the Congress's oversight powers during one of the biggest scandals in the nation's history.
Posted by: Armand at July 9, 2007 03:21 PM | PERMALINKcontrast that with the to-do over clinton's pot use and sexual peccadilloes. i'd say the stronger case is for examination of intentional and systematic subversion of fundamental principles of good government and the rule of law. consider the time, energy, money, and government and media resources poured into whitewater.
Posted by: moon at July 10, 2007 01:03 PM | PERMALINK