Michelle's placement on the hospital BOD is of far more concern, IMO.<quoted text>
My points in all this are simple with respect to the Obamas’ licenses to practice law:(1) Michelle Obama went inactive in 1994, despite a Harvard Law School degree, which is very strange, unless she was doing so to avoid a hearing on something; (2) her husband “retired” in January 2008. I am not saying that they were ever formally charged with misconduct. I am saying that the most plausible reason for their having abandoned their licenses was to avoid disciplinary action and the threat of public disbarment. That was what Nixon and Clinton fully understood. My critics do not, or, being lawyers, pretend not to.
It was voluntary on their part in the same was that it was voluntary on Nixon’s part and Clinton’s part. If you want to avoid being disbarred, you can retire or else go inactive.
If you want to avoid a hearing on whatever issue a critic has raised with the Bar, the matter will not be raised publicly if you go inactive or retire. It is all informal. You are allowed to depart gracefully. No hard feelings. There is still hope. And there surely has been change.
Obama’s supporters – several of them lawyers – have sent me emails crying “foul.” I don’t much care. This is not a court of law. This is a court of public opinion.
The Snopes entry does not deal with the problem, namely, providing a plausible explanation for two people walking away from the lifetime income and prestige to be gained by certification by Harvard Law School. Michelle Obama was 29 when she quit (went inactive). The Bar granted her this request when she turned 30.
No Republican contender's wife would have been allowed to get away with that.