President Trump displayed his trust in Yates’ professionalism and loyalty to the United States when he offered her the job of acting as the  Attorney General  until his designated choice for the job, Senator Jeff Sessions, was confirmed by the Senate. Yates  had a disqualifying conflict under 1.7 b 4 above, a personal conflict caused by her pre-existing loyalties and personal interests in furthering the agenda of the Democratic party and her own partisan goals.

She was bound by the ethics of her profession to inform Trump of that conflict, a serious and disqualifying one, so he could knowingly waive it (or choose another acting AG). If he did knowingly waive her conflicts, counting on her professionalism and ethics, Yates still could not ethically accept the representation without sincerely believing that her personal interests and loyalty to third parties—like the Democratic Party and the declared foes of the Trump Administration—would not affect her judgment to the detriment of her client. She could not have sincerely believed that, as demonstrated by the fact that the very first time she was called upon to act in her client’s interest, she defaulted to her loyalty to those third parties and personal biases.

This is as blatant an example of a lawyer intentionally ignoring a conflict of interest and deceiving a client about her ability to fulfill a representation zealously and loyally as I have ever seen or heard about.

Any news report on the Yates episode that does not emphasize her intentional breach of her ethical duties is biased, incompetent, or intentionally misinforming the public.

And yet here is Cornell choosing her, with this record of unethical bias, to be an “independent investigator” in the politically charged episode being weaponized by Yates’ party as a sop to its feminist base. Insultingly, here is how Anne Meinig Smalling, who chairs the Cornell University Special Committee of Board of Trustees, described Yates:

“Cornell’s Sally Yates brings extraordinary experience, independence and judgment to this work… The questions raised by the Jane Doe matter warrant a rigorous examination of Cornell’s response to that case, but our responsibility is broader. We have asked Ms. Yates and her team to examine Cornell’s overall approach to preventing and responding to sexual misconduct, identify where we are doing things well and where we can do better, and recommend changes that will help make our community safer.”

“Safer.” Well, safer for the drunk, drugged, sex-seeking female students who go to frat parties, but not safer for the drunk, drugged, sex-seeking male students who encounter them.

Andrew Miltenberg, an attorney for one of the seven fraternity members accused in Jane Doe’s opportunistic civil lawsuit, said his firm welcomes Cornell’s outside review citing Yates’ “tremendous experience as a prosecutor and investigator.” That accused frat member should fire Miltenberg and his firm.

Somebody tell him to read Ethics Alarms.