I think there’s a complicated kind of fig leaf which is very clearly unethical but it allows these people to retain some dignity.
I’m sure there’s a word for it but in criminal justice everyone needs a lawyer to defend them, even someone accused of awful crimes with very strong positive evidence of their crimes. I’ve heard defense lawyers say that even if they dislike their client, they need to do their very best to defend them or else their lack of defense might be the grounds for an appeal later. That does kinda make sense to me.
The extension of this concept is that everyone gets to make their best argument. Even in business / contractual disputes, both sides have an opportunity to make their best argument, their best version of the truth. “Best version” in this context means, emphasising your best actions and minimising your worst.
I guess this can kind of be corrupted in a way to be “well if I don’t spin this for <asshole> then someone else will”, which is where ethics goes out the window really. As in, someone accused of a crime might be entitled to appropriate defense, but someone who’s been abusing women their entire life is not entitled to have a government official cover up their behavior by obfuscating details or documents. In the same way, often in a professional role your only recourse if you object to something is to resign.
In summary, Bondi is an awful human but this is how I imagine she justifies that.
I will never understand how the women in this administration cover for the men who raped girls.
…because gender doesn’t dictate if someone is ethical or empathetic.
I know
I think there’s a complicated kind of fig leaf which is very clearly unethical but it allows these people to retain some dignity.
I’m sure there’s a word for it but in criminal justice everyone needs a lawyer to defend them, even someone accused of awful crimes with very strong positive evidence of their crimes. I’ve heard defense lawyers say that even if they dislike their client, they need to do their very best to defend them or else their lack of defense might be the grounds for an appeal later. That does kinda make sense to me.
The extension of this concept is that everyone gets to make their best argument. Even in business / contractual disputes, both sides have an opportunity to make their best argument, their best version of the truth. “Best version” in this context means, emphasising your best actions and minimising your worst.
I guess this can kind of be corrupted in a way to be “well if I don’t spin this for <asshole> then someone else will”, which is where ethics goes out the window really. As in, someone accused of a crime might be entitled to appropriate defense, but someone who’s been abusing women their entire life is not entitled to have a government official cover up their behavior by obfuscating details or documents. In the same way, often in a professional role your only recourse if you object to something is to resign.
In summary, Bondi is an awful human but this is how I imagine she justifies that.
Power hunger and greed come to mind as reasons.