| Comment | But neither case is corruption, in that nobody has been bribed or coerced for personal gain, and in both cases the actions were actually completely legal - just misjudged.
Also, notably, neither has actually been covered up - the fact this cheap rental was given to her husband is completely open knowledge - if they wanted to hide it, they'd have had a third party front to the company. And in the Provost's case of shoes and underwear, it was in her publically declared expenses - again, not a case of actively seeking to do bad and hide it, just dim politicos not even considering that their actions might not look good.
So, in both cases, the actions may have been morally dubious, but neither is actually corrupt. So, frankly, if this is the total of what our investigative journalists are turning up from the new administration, I think we're doing ok. |
|---|