(03-19-2018 11:02 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-19-2018 07:24 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I guess my issue is that it isn’t clear where a conflict of interest is no longer present when there’s an n-th degree of separation. It’s very clear that if n=0, that there would be a conflict of interest. But as you start expanding n, so many variables go into the equation that I don’t think it’s crystal clear, for a number

Great comment lad. But I think the comment suffers at two levels.
First, while I understand the connotation of N=1, this is a part of real life that defies the ability to root it in the concept of mathematical constructs. Not a slam, as being a STEM product at root at times I default to this mode, but having another non STEM background I recognize my penchant for doing so as well.
The issue isnt n=1, since in real life n=1can mean anything from my wife, to my ex-roommate who is my financial adviser, co-investor in some items, best man at my wedding, to someone who I met once at a planning committee for a Rice alumni group. Each is of the mathematical construct n=1, yet each is of a fundamentally different relationship.
But going back to my original description I used the example of a PAC run by James Baker being the equivalent relationship of the action being undertaken by the Bush family. And thiscis the second point, withvdue respect. I have been very cognizant of the political world since 1980. Thus the deep relationship between McAuliffe and the Clintons is very old hat to me; it has been that way for close to 30 years. Again, with due respect Lad, I think the last time this board discussed Bill Clinton's terms you responded that you cared as much as a something teen aged person would care about the issue. But the advantage of the lack of hair and grey of the rest that I endure is the ability to draw on a somewhat long memory. And in this case it is the depth of the political and personal alliance between McAuliffe and the Clintons that stretches back to my mid 20's.
As a more current example, think of personal relationship between Jarret and the Obamas, and add in a deeper context of political alliance that is more bilateral.
In that context your characterization of n=1, while mathematically correct, just simply misses the mark contextually.
edited to add: apologies but replyiny for the time being on cellphone so responses may have rafts of typos and be choppy. had a very close family member pass, had the memorial two days ago, and wifey is enforcing a 'walkabout' road trip with me with no devices present but cellphone. might explain a gruffness for near term as well....

I think the measure is not so much quantitative (what is the value of n?) as qualitative (how serious are the relationships?). Given the close relationship of McAuliffe and the Clintons over an extended period of time, I think it is not unreasonable to think of them as essentially one and the same.

But the water gets very muddy far before we have to get to anything like that. And my legal training took the approach that muddy water=slam dunk conflict.

I realize that some of the concepts involved are difficult for a layman not schooled in law to accept, just as some of the concepts involved in Hillary's security breaches proved difficult for those who had never gone through the process of obtaining a security clearance to understand.