I don't really care what happens to Senator Robert Torricelli but sitting here, watching news coverage of the ethics investigation of the man, I keep hearing a phrase that always struck me as odd. The phrase is…
"…the appearance of impropriety."
Now, obviously, if one is in a position of trust, one should do whatever one can to avoid the appearance of impropriety. But once someone has decided you might have done something improper and started investigating, shouldn't the question of "appearance" be considered moot? Either you did something improper or you didn't. If you did, then that's the crime. I mean, if someone is found guilty of killing someone, we don't also accuse them of creating "the appearance of murder." If you didn't do something improper, then permitting the appearance may have been foolish on your part…but it's also possible that the error was in the eye of the beholder.
The Senate's Ethics Committee has just, as I write this, admonished Torricelli for a number of actions, including "the appearance of impropriety." This seems to me like a one-sided, don't-argue-with-us admonition: "We think you looked like you were doing something wrong and, even though you weren't, you're to blame for the fact that we thought that."
Like I said, I don't care much about Torricelli and, even leaving this charge aside, there are plenty of others against him, some involving more than appearance. But when I hear someone being chastized for "the appearance of impropriety," I always suspect that the accuser may be blaming the accused for a false accusation, and doing so in a manner that does not permit them to defend themselves.