The Appearance of Impropriety

Attorneys admitted to the bar in any state of the union know that one of the bedrock ethical principles to which we must adhere is to avoid the appearance of impropriety.  It's not a defined term, but the thrust of the admonition is clear:  Don't do something that would call into question the profession, your place in the profession or your handling of a case.

This past week the Attorney General of the United States had a meeting in Phoenix with Slick Willy, husband of the Democratic candidate for president, Cankles, and also the focus of an ongoing investigation.  Slick Willy himself is designated as a person of interest. 

Any attorney worth his salt will tell you that this smacks of impropriety, not just its appearance.  For the Attorney General, of all people, to do so, is confounding. 

What did she and Slick Willy discuss?  Did Slick Willy promise Ms. Lynch anything for going easy on Cankles?  Did he offer her a job at CGI after President Obama leaves the White House in exchange for not pressing charges?  Did he ask her to limit her public comments about Cankles, or slow down the investigation?

All of these -- and many more, believe me -- are plausible inquiries of that private meeting.  In fact, if Cankles and Slick Willy aren't indicted, the outcry will not just be loud, it will be justified.

Do these people not understand that this undermines the public's confidence in the justice system?  If power and privilege are allowed to break through and influence decisions, how is Lady Justice supposed to be blind?  Do we expect some poor kid in the ghetto to have similar treatment with a  prosecuting attorney?  With the recent Stanford rape case decision, people were outraged at the light sentence meted out.  Likewise, the affluenza case called into question the guidelines for sentencing.  Is this behavior by the top attorney in the country any better?

To be fair, it's almost necessary that an indictment be filed, election be damned.  If nothing else, an indictment will allow an impartial jury to decide whether Cankles broke any laws.  But having an unelected official appointed by a president from the same party as the Democratic nominee meeting that person's spouse in private a mere five months before the election smacks of impropriety on a massive scale.  Having a trial is the safest way to make sure that no funny business was conducted between Slick Willy and Ms. Lynch that will have any influence whatsoever over the filing of an indictment.

It's amazing that neither the administration, Ms. Lynch or Slick Willy and Cankles has any trouble with this.  My cynicism tells me Slick Willy and Cankles both knew that by his meeting with Ms. Lynch, they were poisoning the well.  I'm sure they were confident that Ms. Lynch would do their bidding.  I'm not sure they thought there would be such a hue and cry and that Ms. Lynch would pull back, publicly.  What President Obama does remains to be seen; publicly, through his mouthpiece and sycophant Josh Earnest, he mouths the law and order line.

The approach to legal matters under this administration has been deplorable.  I'd say it bordered on the lawless, but there are laws in place that it's interpreting like the Delphic Oracle.  How much damage has been done can't yet be calculated.  My only hope is that whatever administration follows this one returns to a more proper approach to the law.

(c) 2016 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles