This resurfaced video of the Senate Majority Leader gleefully tripping the light fantastic with the New York Democratic Attorney General, one of the party’s several prosecutors engaged in an effort to use the criminal justice system to hamstring Donald Trump before the 2024 election, raises several ethics questions, but I’ll focus on just one.
Your Ethics Alarms Ethics Quiz of the Day is…
Is participating in this public spectacle ethical conduct for a prosecutor?
Before I comment, let me just say…Ick.
But I digress. New York’s Rule of Professional Conduct 3.8, “SPECIAL RESPONSIBILITIES OF PROSECUTORS AND OTHER GOVERNMENT LAWYERS,” includes no language or standards that would apply to Letitia James’ unprofessional display of affection for a leader of her political party. The American Bar Association’s prosecution standards, however, state,
- “A prosecutor should not use other improper considerations, such as partisan or political or personal considerations, in exercising prosecutorial discretion.”
- “A prosecutor should strive to eliminate implicit biases, and act to mitigate any improper bias or prejudice when credibly informed that it exists within the scope of the prosecutor’s authority.”
- “The prosecutor generally serves the public and not any particular government agency, law enforcement officer or unit, witness or victim.”
- “The prosecutor should know and abide by the ethical rules regarding conflicts of interest that apply in the jurisdiction, and be sensitive to facts that may raise conflict issues.”
- “The prosecutor should not permit the prosecutor’s professional judgment or obligations to be affected by the prosecutor’s personal, political, financial, professional, business, property, or other interests or relationships. A prosecutor should not allow interests in personal advancement or aggrandizement to affect judgments regarding what is in the best interests of justice in any case.”
- “The prosecutor should not allow prosecutorial judgment to be influenced by a personal interest in potential media contacts or attention.”
- “The prosecutor should avoid an appearance of impropriety in performing the prosecution function.”
These are all relevant to the James-Schumer video. To me, it appears to be another example of public officials parading their bias and corruption in plain sight, counting on partisans and the news media to mask the stench.
Ethics Alarms 
If politicians were classed like warships, Schumer would be a Clinton class politician: despicable.
There are so many saucy rejoinders that could come from that video. For instance, my first thought was the jingle from the Car-X commercials (“rattle rattle, thunder clatter, boom boom boom”). But I’m above that, so I won’t mention it.
Anyways, Ms. James probably shouldn’t be cavorting with Sen. Schumer in any capacity. You’re right in that the media doesn’t care about hiding its bias any more, and the media certainly doesn’t concern itself with what any conservative would have to say, but that still doesn’t make this ok.
With that in mind…
I know this is a rationalization, and I’m going to get in some trouble for writing this… but does the content of this video rise to the “Clarence Thomas” level of appearance of impropriety?
The big problem is that Chuck Schumer led an investigation trying to implicate Trump in ‘Russian collusion’. This investigation and the ‘evidence’ it publicized were found to be fabricated or nonexistent and the whole thing was worse than a political witch hunt. Enter Letitia James who promised while campaigning to convict Trump of whatever she could find to convict him. She promised to investigate all his business dealings as a campaign promise. Now, using the power of the Attorney General’s office to investigate a political enemy when there is no evidence of wrongdoing is unethical. It is an obvious abuse of power. Such blatant abuses of power might lead to a fraud case that somehow has no victims. Such things might raise questions. Cavorting with a fellow party-member who used taxpayer resources to investigate the exact same enemy of your party would definitely add to the suspicion that the entire case against Trump is ‘trumped up’.
Remember the Senator from Wall Street telling Trump, “The CIA and the FBI can get you six ways to Sunday.”? Nice, Chuck. You’re a swamp creature.
I’m going with Ick because I do not know what the event was about. It looked like an SEIU union event which might have nothing to do with Trump’s trial.
Trump’s trial could have much farther-reaching implications if it turns out that the state can unilaterally assert fraud without a victim, take your assets and bar you from doing business there. I for one knowing this fact would never invest in New York based business.
I am more concerned about laws that can be used against political enemies with prosecutors and judges asserting opinions as facts before the trial begins.
Remember, they also can arbitrarily order your business closed until you are bankrupt.
I have always wondered why no one ever asserted a Constitutional challenge for an uncompensated taking of property. I know that the government never actually took ownership but the fact that the government assumed control over the use of the assets should be sufficient.