1. emolument is not a "technicality", it's actually outlined expressly in the Cx.
2.Geithner knew he owed back taxes and chose not to pay them.
3.Daschle was absolutely booted out.
4.Most Americans (and most of the Senate) thinks the stimulus package as presented by Congress to the Senate blows.
5.Richardson. A lot like Cheney and Bush. Nothing proved yet right? Just had to withdraw....
1. Perhaps the clause itself is not a technicality (it's there for a good purpose), but the particular way it was violated (minor cost of living increase) really was a technicality. The clause was put there to avoid a conflict of interest. No reasonable person would see a serious conflict of interest here. In any event, there is no way the lawsuit about this is going anywhere.
2. No way of proving what he did or did not know. Can't enter into another's consciousness. My guess is there was probably some willful ignorance on his part.
3. He dropped out. His tax issues were not any more serious than Geithner's.
4. So what? That wasn't what I was disputing.
5. As far as I'm concerned, neither Bush nor Cheney are guilty of any criminal wrongdoing unless it has been proved so in a court of law. Bad governance is a different story.
Frankly, I don't think it's possible to view anything objectively. Everyone has their biases and pre-conceptions. Ranting and raving about how Obama has let us down when he is less than a month into his presidency does not sound too objective either.
But right now, the only evidence I'm seing is that Obama had a spate of bad luck with his appointments. None of these people (Geithner, Daschle, Rihchardson) were controversial figures before their appointment. There was no reason to think any of them were involved in any wrongdoing. Granted, there should always be a duty of due dillegence, but I'm not convinced Obama would have had reason to think the three appointments would be problematic.