Washington Ethics (?) – Washington ethics, it could be said, is to ethics what military music is to music, legislative history is to history, and legal fiction is to fiction. I refer, of course, to Sen. Torricelli escaping from the Senate Ethics (?) Committee with being only “severely admonished.”
Escape? What do you mean escape? According to the Washington Post, the three page rebuke of the sleazeball Senator (I can say that now with a clear conscience, because it’s official) was “one of the sternest condemnations of a member in recent years.” And it may well be, but what does that say? At least the Ethics (?) Committee thought it had done some heavy duty sanctioning because, according to the Post, their “use of the word ‘severely’ appeared to signal that committee members did not regard the offenses as trivial.”
But others did. Senate Majority Leader Daschle (no doubt unrelated to his desire to aid Torricelli’s re-election so that he can remain Majority Leader) even issued a written statement all but proclaiming Torricelli’s vindication:
It is now clear from the committee’s extensive review and findings that the sensational allegations made against Sen. Torricelli by Mr. Chang have been proven false and without foundation.
And why shouldn’t he? As Torricelli’s lawyer told the press, “the committee went out of its way to say, in most instances, that Torricelli didn’t knowingly break Senate rules.”
No reason to censure or expel him if all he did was lie, take illegal gifts from someone he then helped (they all do that, right?), and knowingly broke Senate rules only some of the time.
Who said defending Clinton would lower ethical standards?
