Why Don’t Supreme Court Justices Have an Ethics Code?; NBC News, April 11, 2017

Rich Gardella, NBC News; 

Why Don’t Supreme Court Justices Have an Ethics Code?

""When we do a Supreme Court justice, we want to know about their background in the law and everything that they know," said U.S. Representative Louise Slaughter of New York, an 87-year-old Democrat. "Nobody ever asks them, 'Are you an honest person?'"

Slaughter has been waging a long battle to pass a bill that she says would make the justices more transparent about and accountable for conduct outside the Court.

"The one thing that we take for granted, and give them the benefit of the doubt," said Slaughter, "is that they're not going to do anything that they would not have done as a federal judge."

Slaughter has been sponsoring legislation since 2013 that would require the nation's highest Court to create and follow a code of ethics.

Her bill is called "The Supreme Court Ethics Act." Last Wednesday, she reintroduced it for the third time.

All other federal judges are subject to a published official "Code of Conduct for United States Judges," which applies to all employees of the Judicial Branch's Administrative Office of the United States Courts. The code includes specific rules about ethics, integrity and even appearances of impropriety relating to outside business and political activities and the acceptance of gifts."

Cutting Ties to the Clinton Foundation; New York Times, 8/30/16

Editorial Board, New York Times; Cutting Ties to the Clinton Foundation:

"The Clinton Foundation has become a symbol of the Clintons’ laudable ambitions, but also of their tangled alliances and operational opacity. If Mrs. Clinton wins, it could prove a target for her political adversaries. Achieving true distance from the foundation is not only necessary to ensure its effectiveness, it is an ethical imperative for Mrs. Clinton."

The latest Clinton emails show what an ethics agreement shouldn’t look like; Washington Post, 8/23/16

Editorial Board, Washington Post; The latest Clinton emails show what an ethics agreement shouldn’t look like:

"“SECRETARY CLINTON’S ethics agreement at the time did not preclude other State Department officials from engaging with, or having contact with, the Clinton Foundation,” State Department spokesman Mark Toner told Fox News, following the release of new information on interactions between staff at Hillary Clinton’s State Department and her family’s foundation. That does not mean that everything Ms. Clinton’s senior advisers did was pristine. Rather, it suggests the ethics agreement was not strong enough.

As with the last data release, the new information, provided by the conservative activist group Judicial Watch and Fox News, does not show or imply corruption stemming from the relationship between Ms. Clinton and the Clinton Foundation...

The foundation undoubtedly does worthwhile work. Should Ms. Clinton win, all of that work and all of the foundation’s assets should be spun off to an organization with no ties to the first family."

Hillary Clinton’s Ethics Problems Are Worse Than She Understands; New York Magazine, 8/19/16

Jonathan Chait, New York Magazine; Hillary Clinton’s Ethics Problems Are Worse Than She Understands:

"“Give a man a reputation as an early riser,” said Mark Twain, “and he can sleep ‘til noon.” Hillary Clinton finds herself in the opposite situation: She has a reputation for venality — the merits of which we can set aside momentarily — that forces her to a higher ethical standard. Her inadequate response to the conflicts of interest inherent in the Clinton Foundation show that she is not meeting that standard, and has not fully grasped the severity of her reputational problem."

Think Tank Scholar or Corporate Consultant? It Depends on the Day; New York Times, 8/8/16

Eric Lipton, Nicholas Confessore, and Brooke Williams, New York Times; Think Tank Scholar or Corporate Consultant? It Depends on the Day:

"Intense advocacy by a think tank scholar is not notable in itself, but Mr. Eisenach, 58, a former aide at the Federal Trade Commission, has held another job: as a paid consultant for Verizon and its trade association.

And he has plenty of company.

An examination of 75 think tanks found an array of researchers who had simultaneously worked as registered lobbyists, members of corporate boards or outside consultants in litigation and regulatory disputes, with only intermittent disclosure of their dual roles.

With their expertise and authority, think tank scholars offer themselves as independent arbiters, playing a vital role in Washington’s political economy. Their imprimatur helps shape government decisions that can be lucrative to corporations.

But the examination identified dozens of examples of scholars conducting research at think tanks while corporations were paying them to help shape government policy. Many think tanks also readily confer “nonresident scholar” status on lobbyists, former government officials and others who earn their primary living working for private clients, with few restrictions on such outside work."

UC Davis chancellor resigns following probe on ethical violations; Los Angeles Times, 8/9/16

Teresa Watanabe, Los Angeles Times; UC Davis chancellor resigns following probe on ethical violations:

"“Janet Napolitano is a serious administrator who sees Katehi’s actions as character flaws that harm the university and they have to stop," said William G. Tierney, an education professor and co-director of the Pullias Center for Higher Education at USC. “She is very clear about how she sees the world. The appearance of impropriety is almost as big of a problem as an actual impropriety.”

“You don't want to wake up and find out that one of your campus leaders is in the news for alleged wrongdoings,” Tierney added. “At a time when UC is really having major financial issues and the Legislature and governor are asking for reforms, this gets in the way.”"

As Pick for No. 2, Tim Kaine Sees Gifts Come Under Scrutiny; New York Times, 7/24/16

Eric Lipton and Steve Eder, New York Times; As Pick for No. 2, Tim Kaine Sees Gifts Come Under Scrutiny:

"Under Virginia’s lax ethics rules at the time, the gifts, which had a total value of more than $160,000, were all legal as long as they were disclosed.

But with Mr. Kaine’s selection on Friday as Hillary Clinton’s vice-presidential running mate, the gifts he received in the four years he served as Virginia’s chief executive and his time as lieutenant governor before that are certain to be cited by his Republican critics as a sign that Mr. Kaine, who is now a United States senator, is not as squeaky clean as he portrays himself...

After he was elected to the Senate, Mr. Kaine publicly urged the Virginia legislature to tighten state ethics laws, saying he had concluded that the more stringent rules in Congress were appropriate.

“The new year presents a superb opportunity to fix a major Virginia weakness: our lax ethical laws,” he wrote in an op-ed article published on Dec. 31, 2013, in The Washington Post. “Gifts to elected officials can create a subconscious sense of gratitude in even the most upright public servants.”"

How everyone looks bad because Bill Clinton met with Loretta Lynch; Washington Post, 7/2/16

Dan Balz, Washington Post; How everyone looks bad because Bill Clinton met with Loretta Lynch:

"Bill Clinton has made a mess. It was either out of foolish indifference or plain foolishness, but it has created a terrible moment for his wife and the Democrats, and for President Obama and perceptions of the integrity of his administration...

Hillary Clinton wants and needs a clean resolution of the long investigation. Bill Clinton and the attorney general managed to muddy all this with their private chat in Phoenix, no doubt to the consternation of both Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the Justice Department officials trying to bring this to a resolution soon. No one looks good in this transaction."

Bill Clinton’s Surprise Loretta Lynch Visit Isn’t a Scandal. But It Is a Problem.; Slate, 7/1/16

Josh Voorhees, Slate; Bill Clinton’s Surprise Loretta Lynch Visit Isn’t a Scandal. But It Is a Problem. :

"Bill Clinton either couldn’t stop himself or didn’t want to. On Monday, the former president stepped off his private plane in Phoenix and walked across the tarmac to pay a visit to Attorney General Loretta Lynch, who was aboard a government plane parked at the same airport. The unplanned drop-in, according to Lynch, was nothing more than a harmless social call during which Clinton mostly talked about his grandkids. Republicans, of course, saw something else entirely. “The system is totally rigged,” Donald Trump tweeted Friday. “Does anybody really believe that meeting was just a coincidence?”

Trump and his conservative allies are—surprise, surprise—overplaying this. There’s absolutely no evidence that this was a planned meeting, and if Clinton wants to flex his political muscle or try to call in a favor to help his wife, all he would need to do is pick up the phone. Likewise, there’s also nothing to suggest that Lynch would bow to such pressure even if it were there...

But you don’t have to be partial to tweeting Benghazi acrostics to get worked up over this Lynch mess. Yes, the possibility of favor trading and conflicts of interest hangs over almost every decision in and out of Washington. And, no, Bill and Hillary Clinton didn’t create the imperfect system we have. But it’s also clear that they’ve come as close as anyone has to perfecting how to use it to their own advantage. The fact that they refuse to acknowledge the power of their, well, power and act accordingly is either willfully naïve or intentionally dishonest. Neither of which should make anyone feel any better about the idea of them returning to the White House."

Bipartisan Disapproval Follows Bill Clinton's Meeting With Loretta Lynch; NPR, 6/30/16

Carrie Johnson, NPR; Bipartisan Disapproval Follows Bill Clinton's Meeting With Loretta Lynch:

"From the standpoint of legal ethics, Lynch did nothing wrong, said New York University law school professor Stephen Gillers. Gillers said he didn't think the attorney general needed to recuse herself from overseeing the email probe. But Gillers took a sterner tone with Bill Clinton.

"It was the height of insensitivity for the former president to approach the attorney general," Gillers said. "He put her in a very difficult position. She wasn't really free to say she wouldn't talk to a former president," after Clinton boarded her plane in Arizona.

"He jeopardized her independence and did create an appearance of impropriety going on to her plane," Gillers added."