On The Daily Kos, RoyalScribe has a lot of fun discussing statistics and Administration ethics, starting with the Nixon Administration:
Source: RoyalScribe on The Daily Kos
Overall, Richard Nixon’s administration had the most criminal indictments and convictions. Wikipedia’s list enumerates 13 specific individuals who were convicted and imprisoned over Watergate alone, but notes that a total of 69 officials were indicted for the scandal and 48 were either convicted or pleaded guilty. (Nixon himself is not included; after his resignation, President Gerald Ford gave him a blanket pardon, sparing him from any potential indictments. However, his first vice president, Spiro Agnew, is included for indictments unrelated to Watergate.)
The Reagan Administration is next with 26 indictments and 16 convictions (including guilty pleas), followed by the George W. Bush Administration with 16 indictments, all ending in convictions or guilty pleas. The Nixon Administration had at least 15 people serve at least some time in prison for their crimes, while Bush 43’s administration had at least 9 and the Reagan Administration had at least 8. (Scooter Libby’s sentence is included here even though Bush pardoned him in 2007 before he was sent to jail, since the pardon did not expunge the crime and the pardon itself is a political act, not a judicial determination. But others whose convictions were later overturned—like Oliver North’s and John Poindexter’s—are included under indictments but not convictions since it wouldn’t be appropriate for us to second-guess the courts’ reasoning for overturning those convictions.)
All those Clinton White House “scandals”? Despite hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on hearings on Whitewater, Travelgate, the use of the White House Christmas card list, and other oddities, almost all resulted in absolutely nothing. Clinton himself isn’t included. As with Nixon, the impeachment proceedings themselves should count as an indictment, and in the end his only citation was for contempt of court, which I didn’t interpret as the same as an indictment. (I will update this if folks show me this was incorrect.) The only indictments for his administration were of his Secretary of Agriculture Mike Espy (who was acquitted of all 30 charges) and of Espy’s Chief of Staff Ronald Blackely, who was convicted of making a false statement and sentenced to 27 months in prison.
There’s some lovely charts as well. RoyalScribe has some advice for the current set of nominees, who appear to be attempting to avoid ethics office overview:
But as I mentioned before, his nominees are at great personal risk if their nominations are rushed through before FBI or Office of Government Ethics review. A conflict that is revealed after they take office could result in criminal indictments. And while President Trump could pardon them for criminal violations (but not civil acts), that only applies to federal charges, not those filed under other state laws, should there be any. And how many pardons can he issue before his own support erodes? Yes, some of his most rabid supporters won’t care (but still want to seek criminal charges against Democrats who didn’t even commit any crimes). But his winning edge in the states that pushed him over the Electoral College top came from a lot of undecided voters who broke for him in the final week (or eleven days, specifically) but won’t stay loyal if scandals grow. (Already, “voted for you Trump“ on Twitter reveals a lot of his disgruntled voters telling him they voted for him but want him to stop tweeting, vet his nominees with proper ethics review, address the Russian hacking issue, and other expressions of disappointment.)
If they were wise, Trump’s nominees and appointees should insist on an Office of Government Ethics review before taking office for their own legal protection.
And if they don’t, it’s just another instance of amateur hour in full swing.
But here’s my concern, I think. If you look at his charts, it’s clear that the GOP doesn’t really have a clue as to how to run clean government, compared to the Democrats. It’s not even close. As RoyalScribe notes, if you push your relevant history marker back to Nixon’s predecessor, it gets even worse for the GOP.
Now, a rational Party – or, for that matter, a competent corporation – would take a look at the cited numbers (go take a look, I don’t want to steal his thunder), realize that there is some sort of problem going on, and institute reform. Perhaps even request support from Obama’s Administration – zero indictments, convictions, and sentences, so Obama sets the standard – because improving how the government is run is a shared concern of all Americans.
But the current edition of the GOP? It sure feels like there’s not a single serious person in the GOP. Now, this is a disservice to many members, I’m sure, but those in positions of power & influence appear to be … power-mongers. Certainly, that’s Trump, someone who’s mostly picked inappropriate people for his nominees (exception: VA nominee, and Mattis for DoD appears to get a lot of respect as well). He’s not at all likely to try to reform the general GOP inclination to appoint ethically vulnerable individuals.
And that hurts America.
