Matt Gaetz Withdraws from Attorney General Consideration amid Ethics Scandal; National Review, November 21, 2024

JAMES LYNCH , National Review; Matt Gaetz Withdraws from Attorney General Consideration amid Ethics Scandal

"Former Representative Matt Gaetz (R., Fla.) is withdrawing his name from consideration to be President-elect Donald Trump’s attorney general, he announced Thursday.

Gaetz said that the Ethics Committee investigation into allegations he paid underage women for sex had become too much of a distraction as President-elect Trump works to staff his incoming administration."

How the recent SCOTUS session renewed questions about the Court's legitimacy; Fresh Air, NPR, July 6, 2023

Terry Gross, Fresh Air, NPR; How the recent SCOTUS session renewed questions about the Court's legitimacy

"NY Times legal reporter Adam Liptak says the Court's liberal members have accused the conservative supermajority of engaging in politics and not applying established law to the questions before them...

GROSS: Why is there no code of ethics for the Supreme Court justices when there are codes of ethics for judges?

LIPTAK: There are federal statutes that apply to the justices on disclosure and recusal. So it's not as though they're completely unbounded. But the general code of ethics that applies to all federal judges does not apply to the justices. Moreover, the justices make their own decisions about whether to recuse or not, not subject to second-guessing from anyone else. And that is, you know, at odds with the old adage that no one should be a judge in his or her own case. The largest problem - well, there are many problems. A large problem is that it is a little hard to figure out what the enforcement mechanism ought to be.

If it's the Supreme Court, it's hard to know how you're going to put another body above the Supreme Court and decide when the justices have violated ethics provisions. And it's also probably problematic to let the other justices decide, for instance, who should recuse because that could give rise to strategic behavior to try to get people off a case for reasons unrelated to ethics and related to the outcome of the case. So the whole thing is a tangle, and what you would hope for is that the justices would feel shame and just try to act responsibly.

GROSS: They're the highest court in the land. Like, they are the Supreme Court. And if they don't abide by ethics, then what does it say about the ethics of the decisions and of the court itself? I mean, they're supposed to be monitoring everybody else's ethics.

LIPTAK: The Supreme Court should be a role model. The Supreme Court should be above reproach. The Supreme Court should be the last place we should look for ethics scandals, and yet they seem to arise almost weekly.

GROSS: You know, at the same time, some members of the court might be ethically challenged. Many legal experts think the court is expanding its own power. So if that's true, if there are people on the court who are ethically challenged and, at the same time, the court is expanding its power, that seems like a very questionable combination.

LIPTAK: Yeah, that's not a great combination. And maybe the two things move together because if you have the self-confidence to think you can decide your own ethics principles, you probably also have the self-confidence to think you can decide every other question imaginable."

Why It's Been A Dismal Year For Ethics In Washington; NPR, December 25, 2018

Peter Overby, NPR; Why It's Been A Dismal Year For Ethics In Washington

"Even setting aside the investigations by special counsel Robert Mueller and other federal prosecutors, Washington had more than its usual list of scandals in 2018."

The Trump administration is in an unethical league of its own; Washington Post, March 1, 2018

Max Boot, Washington Post; The Trump administration is in an unethical league of its own

"One of the great non-mysteries of the Trump administration is why Cabinet members think they can behave like aristocrats at the court of the Sun King. The Department of Housing and Urban Development spent $31,000 for a dining set for Secretary Ben Carson’s office while programs for the poor were being slashed. The Environmental Protection Agency has been paying for Administrator Scott Pruitt to fly first class and be protected by a squadron of bodyguards so he doesn’t have to mix with the great unwashed in economy class. The Department of Veterans Affairs spent $122,334 for Secretary David Shulkin and his wife to take what looks like a pleasure trip to Europe last summer; Shulkin’s chief of staff is accused of doctoring emails and lying about what happened. The Department of Health and Human Services paid more than $400,000 for then-Secretary Tom Price to charter private aircraft — a scandal that forced his resignation. 

Why would Cabinet members act any differently when they are serving in the least ethical administration in our history? The “our” is important, because there have been more crooked regimes — but only in banana republics. The corruption and malfeasance of the Trump administration is unprecedented in U.S. history. The only points of comparison are the Gilded Age scandals of the Grant administration, Teapot Dome under the Harding administration, and Watergate and the bribe-taking of Vice President Spiro Agnew during the Nixon administration. But this administration is already in an unethical league of its own. The misconduct revealed during just one day this week — Wednesday — was worse than what presidents normally experience during an entire term...

Given the ethical direction set by this president, it’s a wonder that his Cabinet officers aren’t stealing spoons from their official dining rooms. Come to think of it, maybe someone should look into that."