For those who have grown a bit cynical, the idea of ethics in government might appear self-contradictory. In other words, we might be able to have one or the other, but not both — at least not at the same time. This thinking is partly a by-product of the very public ethical lapses committed by those in government positions.
As easy as it would be at this point to launch into a diatribe against the Clintons, who have taken corruption to new levels, they are really just one part of the problem. And it distracts us from the fact that there are government officials who do exhibit a high level of ethical behavior in their spheres of responsibility.
The problem is compounded by the need to review the behavior of government officials when potential ethics violations are discovered. What this implies is that we have the government monitoring the government. The potential problems with that are obvious.
As Mr. Trump prepares to arrive in the Oval Office we see how this system can go awry. More on page two.
Sorry. Wrong. The CLINTONS do not contribute that much. Why do you think they’re under investigation? And how did they leave the WH “broke” now worth millions? Santa Claus?
You want to learn about conflicts of interest and operating on no ethics read Michelle malkins book culture of corruption. The obama administration was FULL of it!!
Tom Melendy
Tom Melendy
I guess they forgot NoBama was treated better than Trump…Someday they might win The White House..PAYBACK IS A BITCH
I’m curious as to how saying that Trump’s plan to deal with conflicts of interest is meaningless is unethical. He knows the plan and it certainly doesn’t do much to remove himself from his business ventures. I am all about ethics in government and it does seem like we need a bipartisan independent ethical review board.
Everyone is wrong according to Mr Tom Melendy……Hmmmmm
Foxes watching the hens house! Obama’s 8 horrendous were the most corrupt in our history!
Ok, using power to abuse would define cowardice.
They have inherit power yes, but they used it to try to get to the truth in a committee that was set up to answer questions the public had and needed to know. They weren’t just deciding to go on a which hunt.