My sense is that John Barton was right when he said in The State this morning that John Rainey’s charge that Nikki Haley has violated ethics law by taking 40 grand from Wilbur Smith is without legal merit.
Barton knows about such things, and if he says that payment didn’t cross the line, he’s almost certainly right.
Which of course is beside the point.
That story, which fretted mightily over whether the law was violated or not by that deal, is yet another example of something I’ve bemoaned in the MSM for many years. “Objective” news folks, who fear exercizing judgments, obsess over whether something is legal or not to such a degree that the conversation becomes about THAT, and if in the end it’s determined it’s NOT against the law, then everyone goes “all right, then” and moves on. As though being legal made it OK.
But legal or not, it’s not OK. The issue is that the way Nikki Haley handled this shows her lack of fitness for high office.
And the ultimate issue isn’t her, but us. It’s about the decision we make.
And we have to decide whether we want someone to be our governor who, in this instance:
- Took more than $40,000 from a business that can’t tell what she did for them, just that they wanted to retain her because she’s “very connected.”
- Avoided disclosing that.
- Insists that she should be elected because she champions transparency.
So I doubt that Rainey’s letter will lead to legal action against her. I doubt that she’ll have the pay a penalty the way she keeps having to do because of not paying taxes on time.
But it does serve the useful purpose of making sure voters don’t forget something they should remember.