Thanks to Eric Felten, I turned to p. 461 of the OIG Report on the FBI/Justice investigation of the Clinton e-mail issues and found one Peter Kadzik. Mr. Kadzik did not recuse himself from the investigation despite several issues outlined in the report:
Mr. Kadzik served as Marc Rich’s attorney in the successful effort to get Mr. Rich pardoned from his federal crimes. President Clinton pardoned Mr. Rich.
In March 2015, Mr. Kadzik tried to get his son a job with the Clinton campaign.
Mr. Kadzik’s son did not et a job, so Mr. Kadzik then ent nonpublic Department of Justice information about then-candidate Clinton’s-mail to John Podesta, Mrs. Clinton’s campaign honcho, John Podesta.
There are a great many quids and quos in this actions. Imagine not being required to recuse yourself if you were close friends with a Hillary Clinton staffer (well, 2 actually). Imagine not being required to recuse yourself for passing along OR (opposition research) to the Clinton campaign. Imagine not recusing yourself for passing along non-coverage exemption.
The OIG report concludes:
Kadzik did not self-identify a potential appearance of a conflict under the “other circumstances” provision based on his, his wife’s, and his son’s efforts to get his son a job with the Clinton campaign.
We believe that these circumstances would cause a reasonable person to question Kadzik’s impartiality in Clinton-related matters during the time RS was seeking employment with the Clinton campaign. We therefore concluded that under the “other circumstances” provision of Section 502(a)(2), Kadzik should have either recused himself from Clinton-related matters beginning in April 2015, when he initiated employment solicitations to the Clinton campaign, until RS [Kadzik’s son] was no longer seeking employment with the campaign, or disclosed these circumstances to the appropriate Department ethics officer so that the Department could have considered whether Kadzik should be recused.
Although Kadzik did not commit an ethics violation by failing to recuse himself under Section 502(a)(2), we found that his failure to recognize the appearance of a conflict by participating in Clinton-related matters when he, his wife, and his son were trying to get his son a job with the Clinton campaign demonstrated poor judgment.
Lessons? Most people fail to see their conflicts as conflicts. That is because they are conflicted. That’s why we should ask — if you are asking the people whose lives you could affect adversely (in this case with criminal charges) for something that will benefit you or a family member, you might want to run it by a soul here or there.