Remember the quaint phrase "appearance of improprity"? Back in the scandal days of Ed Meese and John Tower and the Keating Five and Newt Gingrich, it was the media's favorite hanging offense. Whenever the editorial need arose to condemn officials whose wrongdoing hadn't been proved, "appearance of impropriety" was the charge. It is in fact a term of art from the code governing judicial ethics and thus represents the highest possible standard of public conduct -- one we have been assured repeatedly that Americans have every right to expect from their elected officials.
And guess what? It is a phrase that has all but disappeared from use in the last month, for obvious reasons. Instead, the president's apologists import the language of the criminal law to defend him -- "reasonable doubt," mere " allegations," "burden of proof," etc. But the phrase has not entirely disappeared. A Nexis search shows that Rep. John Conyers has invoked the appearance of impropriety. And CNN's Greta Van Susteren has referred to it twice. Not as pertains to the president, though. This is the high standard that they think Ken Starr fails to meet.
The wheels of justice grind slow. But five years into "the most ethical administration in the history of the republic," it is surely not premature to point out that the most boastful presidential candidate in the history of the republic no longer meets the exacting ethical standards of John Conyers and Greta Van Susteren.