Now, to be fair, you may not have realized that Clinton made this unusually candid—for her—admission, because the statement was made in a phone interview with CNN, with a typically ignorant and incompetent interviewer (“THIS is CNN!”) who either doesn’t know the first thing about government ethics, or doesn’t care if Clinton complied with them. Moreover, virtually no mainstream media sources pointed out the significance of what Clinton said, because…well, read the last part of the last sentence.
Talking about the various news reports and new email content that indicated a disturbingly close relationship between Clinton’s Foundation interests—that is, raising money that assists the Clintons’ personal fortunes in various ways—and her State Department duties, which were supposed to occur completely free of such conflicts of interest, Hillary said, straight out…
“I know there’s a lot of smoke and there’s no fire.”
Bingo! Gotcha! DINGDINGDINGDINGDING!
And there we have it, Ladies and Gentlemen, a confession of official wrongdoing! For as an officer of the Executive Branch and a government employee, Clinton was subject to Executive Order 12731 of October 17, 1990, “PRINCIPLES OF ETHICAL CONDUCT FOR GOVERNMENT OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES,” as are all such officers and employees today. That order, which has the force of law, as well as the order it amended, states very clearly, in black and white, that..
“(n) Employees shall endeavor to avoid any actions creating the appearance that they are violating the law or the ethical standards promulgated pursuant to this order.”
Just to refresh Mrs. Clinton’s memory…or maybe not, because we now know she didn’t attend the mandatory State Department ethics training, required by law, in which this Order would have undoubtedly been explained and discussed…here are some of those ethical standards as articulated in the Order:
Part 1 — PRINCIPLES OF ETHICAL CONDUCT
Section 101. Principles of Ethical Conduct. To ensure that every citizen can have complete confidence in the integrity of the Federal Government, each Federal employee shall respect and adhere to the fundamental principles of ethical service as implemented in regulations promulgated under sections 201 and 301 of this order:
(a) Public service is a public trust, requiring employees to place loyalty to the Constitution, the laws, and ethical principles above private gain.
(b) Employees shall not hold financial interests that conflict with the conscientious performance of duty.
(c) Employees shall not engage in financial transactions using nonpublic Government information or allow the improper use of such
information to further any private interest.
(d) An employee shall not, except pursuant to such reasonable exceptions as are provided by regulation, solicit or accept any gift or other item of monetary value from any person or entity seeking official action from, doing business with, or conducting activities regulated by the employee’s agency, or whose interests may be
substantially affected by the performance or nonperformance of the”(e) Employees shall put forth honest effort in the performance of employee’s duties…
(f) Employees shall make no unauthorized commitments or promises of
any kind purporting to bind the Government.
(g) Employees shall not use public office for private gain.
(h) Employees shall act impartially and not give preferential
treatment to any private organization or individual.
(j) Employees shall not engage in outside employment or activities,
including seeking or negotiating for employment, that conflict with
official Government duties and responsibilities.
(k) Employees shall disclose waste, fraud, abuse, and corruption to
There, now. That’s enough to make the point. Is there evidence that Clinton and those reporting to her violated a, b, c, d, f, g, h, j or k, or even a, b, c, d, f, g, h, j and k? I would say so, and I teach this stuff, but never mind. Let’s accept Hillary’s Clintonesque defense that there’s no proof that she engaged in quid pro quo trade-offs between State and the Foundation, and also her admission that “there’s a lot of smoke.” The appearance of impropriety IS smoke (actual impropriety is the fire), and the law forbids an officer from creating smoke. Why? Because it makes the public believe there’s a fire, of course, and “to ensure that every citizen can have complete confidence in the integrity of the Federal Government, each Federal employee shall respect and adhere to the fundamental principles of ethical service as implemented in regulations promulgated under sections 201 and 301 of this order,” which includes, as expressed in item (n) above, a statement that translates as “Don’t make smoke.”
Now, if CNN reporters are too ill-educated on the matter they are supposed to be reporting on, is it too much to ask that they at least have a government ethics authority within reach—it doesn’t have to be me, any such expert will do, as long as he and she hasn’t been Clinton-corrupted or hasn’t sold his or her integrity to make sure Donald Trump isn’t elected—to explain to the audience why Clinton just admitted that she repeatedly ignored the law, and why that is bad?
Is it too much to expect that some mainstream media sources would have the journalistic integrity to flag this statement as the admission of unethical conduct that it is?