Read on Twitter
I am SO glad you asked that question. It's a good one. I would have answered it earlier had I seen it then. https://twitter.com/mea_gressu/status/1358486255332425728
First of all, just for reference, this is the tweet @mea_gressu is referencing. https://twitter.com/TheCheekyGinger/status/1358272573050662912
First, Walter Shaub is not only a known ethics expert, he is presenting himself on Twitter as such. That is to say, he's not engaging #onhere as his private self, at least not on the @waltshaub account. You can easily see that by how he describes himself on his profile:
Walter Shaub is on Twitter in his professional capacity as an ethics expert. Ergo, in any tweet that has anything to do with ethics, he is expressing his professional opinion.
Shaub has more than 652,000 followers. Combine that with his reputation, his known profession, and his self-representation, and it's clear that he has a responsibility to conduct himself with great care.
As Spidey's Uncle Ben said, with great power comes great responsibility.
As Spidey's Uncle Ben said, with great power comes great responsibility.
Imagine you were a woman at a cocktail party, and you started having pressure in your chest, your arm and back started hurting, you were nauseated and lightheaded. And you were discussing your symptoms, and one of the guests said it was nothing to worry about.
Well, everybody has their opinions, of course, because opinions are like assholes.
But suppose that person was a cardiologist, and you knew that, and because of that you trusted their opinion and just decided to go home early and go to bed.
But suppose that person was a cardiologist, and you knew that, and because of that you trusted their opinion and just decided to go home early and go to bed.
But you weren't okay, you were having a heart attack.
Now, could that cardiologist have been expected to diagnose you at the party? No. They wouldn't have had the equipment necessary. So strictly speaking, they weren't working in their professional capacity.
Now, could that cardiologist have been expected to diagnose you at the party? No. They wouldn't have had the equipment necessary. So strictly speaking, they weren't working in their professional capacity.
However, they were speaking as a known cardiologist, and used their authority to influence you to go home. When what they should have done was recognize the symptoms you were having and called 911.
In this case, Shaub, as a noted expert, knowing that his opinion on ethical issues carries much more weight than that of the average person, and having represented himself as that expert, he should have been careful to thoroughly think it through before accusing anyone ...
of unethical behavior. And he didn't just accuse anyone of unethical behavior, initially he accused President Biden of unethical behavior, saying that he promoted Hunter Biden's book.
That is a HUGE stretch. HUGE. Biden mentioned the book in response to a question in an interview that hadn't been published at the time, simply saying when he read the book he felt Hunter was "back." And Press Secretary Psaki read prepared remarks in response to a reporter's
question at the regular press release about whether the book needed to have any clearances. The prepared remarks simply said (summary) "it's a personal book and as his parents we are proud of him."
Shaub also said the book wouldn't have been published if Hunter weren't the president's son. Besides that being inaccurate (the deal was made during the primaries), there's nothing about a president's adult child writing and publishing a book that is unethical. Nothing.
Also, it's not strictly accurate that S&S made the deal because Hunter Biden was the son of a politician (who by the way has been a politician for decades and at that point wasn't holding any office). They made the deal because they thought they would make a profit on it.
When that was pointed out to him, did he retract? No. He moved the goalposts, saying the real issue was that Hunter Biden was profiting off the book.
We replied, saying that being an author is a job, and being a president's son would certainly impact any job he might get.
We replied, saying that being an author is a job, and being a president's son would certainly impact any job he might get.
And that therefore he was saying that a president's adult children cannot ethically earn money, which of course is patently ridiculous. The alternative is that we would support any president's adult children while they were in office, as if they were royalty.
Shaub then moved the goalposts *yet again*, saying that the issue was that Hunter Biden didn't need to make money, that he already was rich.
So I (and I am sure others) said, essentially, "so it's a means test, then. Who decides on the parameters of that test?"
So I (and I am sure others) said, essentially, "so it's a means test, then. Who decides on the parameters of that test?"
Somewhere around this point, Shaub started blocking people who questioned himâand deleting his earlier tweets. But he made no attempt to undo the damage that he has done.
What damage, you may ask?
What damage, you may ask?
When a noted ethicist, ostensibly disturbed by the countless ethics violations of the previous GOP administration, doubles down his accusations that Hunter and/or Joe Biden have themselves committed ethics violations, he is handing the GOP ammunition. AND HE KNOWS IT.
And instead of handling it like someone responsible who realizes they have made a mistake, he just starts mass blocking his critics, comparing them to MAGAs, and deleting his incorrect tweets.
But the internet is forever. And I am sure the screen caps of those tweets will show up again in 2022 and 2024 in the hands of the GOP. On Fox. I can hear it now.
"Even noted ethicist Walter Shaub called Biden's actions unethical."
"Even noted ethicist Walter Shaub called Biden's actions unethical."
Ethics is about harm. Ethics is often about nuance. Ethics is about a history of what we have determined is ethical behavior. Shaub knows this, but for whatever reason, not only did he make the wrong call in the first place, he doubled down and handled the whole thing very badly.
In doing so, acting in his capacity as an ethicist, he caused harm not only to the Bidens but to the American people who have lived for the past four years under the most unethical administration this country has ever seen.
We cannot afford to lose the House or Senate in 2022. We cannot afford to lose the House, the Senate, or the presidency in 2024.
Walter Shaub knows this. Better than probably anyone. But because of his ego, he apparently does not care.
So yes. That's an ethics violation.
Walter Shaub knows this. Better than probably anyone. But because of his ego, he apparently does not care.
So yes. That's an ethics violation.
