Mark Paoletta is a political lawyer. By that I mean he’s a lawyer in politics; in his case, on the Republican side.
During the Trump administration, Paoletta was Vice President Pence’s chief counsel, then OMB general counsel. Now in a Washington D.C. private practice, Wikipedia says (here) he “specializes in representing clients in congressional investigations,” including Ginni Thomas, wife of Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas.
Ginni Thomas, also a lawyer, is a rightwing activist who was involved in efforts to overthrow the 2020 election.
Given that background, it’s not surprising that Paoletta wrote a piece for National Review, a conservative magazine, defending Clarence Thomas against criticism that he accepted lavish trips from billionaire real estate mogul Harlan Crow, which Thomas didn’t report on his disclosure forms (read details here). It also turned out that Crow had a case before the Supreme Court from which Thomas didn’t recuse himself, raising additional questions about his ethics.
But in his National Review article, Paoletta argued that Thomas “acted properly and wasn’t required to disclose” the trips. Fair enough; he can express his opinion. As part of his own disclosure, Paoletta wrote he’s friends with the Thomases, had worked on Justice Thomas’s Senate confirmation, and had represented Ginni before the House Jan. 6 investigating committee.
What Paoletta didn’t disclose is that he went on those trips, too (see story here). That obviously compromises the the article; if Paoletta was a reporter, working for a media organization, it would be considered a serious breach of journalistic ethics and probably get him fired.
But Paoletta isn’t a reporter, he’s an advocate; and National Review isn’t a journalistic publication, it’s a conservative advocacy magazine. So strictly speaking, journalism ethics don’t apply to Paoletta or National Review any more than to, say, press releases from GOP Speaker McCarthy’s office or the Republican National Committee.
Just so we’re clear about that, what Paoletta wrote and National Review published isn’t arms-length, honest opinion, but a friend sticking up for a friend, both licking their fingers after sticking them in a billionaire’s pie. So weigh Paoletta’s defense of Thomas’s ethics with that in mind.
And I wonder if anybody at National Review is red-faced about this? They ought to be. Even an advocacy magazine should have some slight semblance journalistic ethics.
Photo below: Mark Paoletta and his wife (left) with Ginni and Clarence Thomas (right)
