Sorry, long post.
I don’t understand how the degree of separation thing doesn’t work for you. If an independent contractor misbehaves, then what’s the rationale for attributing their misbehavior to the campaign, assuming that the campaign didn’t direct them to misbehave and didn’t know of their misbehavior? Seems like a stretch. What if a PAC misbehaves? What if a PAC hired a firm who hires a lawyer who talks to the Russians...? What if I call the Russians without being hired and then pass it on, unsolicited, to the campaign? There has to be a line somewhere.
I would be in favor of punishing campaigns that knowingly use oppo research from foreign governments or use info of unknown origin. This would remove some incentive to launder info through intermediaries. It could still be gotten around, though, which is why there needs to be a line.
Re: President Clinton.
The privilege of being president comes with the highest fiduciary responsibility to the public; the public interest should be above your personal interest.
It also comes with near immunity from prosecution; the electorate is the apparatus that ultimately holds the president responsible.
As a result, there must be a tremendous duty of accountability to the public.
While I respect that the individual retains the same basic rights vis-a-vis a criminal prosecution, a president’s decision to exercise those rights should have to be weighed against their duty to the public. If, in the president’s judgment, their personal, political, or penal interests outweigh their duty to the public, then that is a disqualifying conflict of interest.
Clinton lied to a congressional inquest. He didn’t lie because getting hummers from an intern was a matter of national security. He didn’t even lie because he might go to jail. He lied because he was either afraid of losing his marriage or his job. Had he cooperated and told the truth, it would have been a non-issue. But hiding things from the public for personal benefit is incompatible with the responsibility of the office. IMO.
