Brazile case - media, political double standards

By Greg Manco

In an article published last week in Time Magazine, Donna Brazile finally confessed regarding her leaks of primary debate questions to Hillary Clinton.

How serious is this? In one of his ranting "anti-press" conferences last month, President Trump claimed that if he had been the recipient of such information he'd have been "sent to the electric chair."

Is this just over-the-top partisan whining, or are some people truly held to different standards of conduct? Let's consider another recent example.

In what has been dubbed the "Wakeyleaks" scandal: Tommy Elrod, a Wake Forest University football radio analyst, provided game-plan information to opponents over a three-year period. An internal investigation revealed that coaches from three schools - Army, Virginia Tech, and Louisville - accepted the information.

It should come as no surprise that Elrod was fired. It's the other collateral penalties that are noteworthy:

Last month, Army's defensive coordinator, Jay Bateman, was suspended and fined $25,000 by the U.S. Military Academy for simply being on the receiving end. Lt. General Robert L. Caslen Jr., West Point superintendent, stated poignantly:

"Our commitment is to foster a culture of excellence and winning in everything we do. . . . It does not mean that we win at all costs. Rather, it means winning in accordance with our values and who we are as an institution and a nation. When we win, we will do so honorably, remaining true to the values and standards that define us."

Shane Beamer, then an assistant at Virginia Tech and now at Georgia, was fined the same amount by his current employer for the same reason. Additionally, Louisville suspended its co-offensive coordinator from this year's Citrus Bowl, and the Atlantic Coast Conference fined both his school and Virginia Tech $25,000, the maximum allowable, for not reporting the information.

These educational institutions all recognize a moral obligation to compete fairly and honestly. Even the failure to report is considered a wrongdoing. A similar infraction by a test-taking student would unquestionably be considered an act of academic dishonesty. A West Point cadet could face court-martial for violating the school's honor code.

Which brings us back to the better-known scandal.

Wikileaks emails revealed last October that Brazile, then-vice-chair of the Democratic National Committee and a CNN analyst, had leaked questions to the Hillary Clinton camp during her primary campaign against Bernie Sanders. A Washington Post investigation confirmed that two such questions - one on the death penalty and the other on the Flint water crisis - were relayed in writing to high-level aides before CNN forums with Sanders. One was emailed directly to John Podesta, Clinton's campaign chairman.

This revelation led Brazile to resign from her job at CNN, and some to scream about a "rigged" primary. But that was it. There were zero dismissals among the Clinton campaign staff. Any remorse?

"My conscience - as an activist, a strategist - is very clear," Brazile said in a Sirius XM interview. She added, "If I had to do it all over again, I would know a hell of a lot more about cybersecurity."

In other words: she's merely sorry it was all discovered. The sympathetic host, Joe Madison, proceeded to defend her:

"When you hire folk . . . their responsibility is to their candidate and their party. . . . They're going to do whatever they can to win. That's just . . . the nature of the beast."

Has there been any nonpartisan outrage directed toward the candidate for using, instead of reporting, the information? Negative.

Seemingly everyone tied to Clinton turned a blind eye, including those who routinely claim the moral high ground on behalf of their interests. Consider that the National Education Association denounced Clinton's general election opponent for his campaign trail rhetoric, stating in a well-publicized press-release that "Donald Trump sets an example that teaches the wrong lesson."

There was no such rebuke, however, from the NEA regarding Clinton's inactions over Brazile's information sharing. Instead, the teachers' union is going to do whatever it can to protect its own interests - safeguarding the government's monopoly on education.

Given that there were at least two separate occasions where questions were leaked, Clinton was clearly a willing beneficiary to Brazile's activities. Yet no one seems to care. The education community should be at the forefront of condemning such actions but, for obvious reasons, it remains silent. This is the real travesty.

Things might have turned out very different if enough of us cared to hold a would-be commander-in-chief to the same ethical standards that West Point insists on for a defensive coordinator.

Greg Manco is a mathematics professor at St. Joseph's University. gmanco@sju.edu