Flapping in the Breeze

For John, BLUF:  Do you ever feel your elected officials will sell you out if they find what seems like a larger patch of voters?  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

The Other Kind of Marxism

Here is the sub-headline:

If you don’t like a politician’s principles, there’s a good chance he has others.

From The Wall Street Journal, by Columnist Andy Kessler, 28 April 2024 at 11:51 am ET.

Here is the lede plus four:

Today’s politicians are steeped in Marxism.  Not Karl, but Groucho, who is supposed to have said:  “Those are my principles, and if you don’t like them . . . well, I have others.”

On Jan. 22, 2021, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said of Donald Trump’s second impeachment:  “Make no mistake, a trial will be held in the United States Senate and there will be a vote whether to convict the president.”  Fast forward to a week ago, when articles of impeachment were delivered to the Senate against Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas.  Mr. Schumer said:  “Impeachment Article 1 does not allege conduct that rises to the level of high crime or misdemeanor . . . and is therefore unconstitutional.”  No trial.  No vote.

This tossing of principles can be found everywhere.  In 2020 President Trump tried to ban social-media app TikTok over national-security concerns.  Now Mr. Trump is against a ban, writing last month on Truth Social:  “If you get rid of TikTok, Facebook and Zuckerschmuck will double their business.  I don’t want Facebook, who cheated in the last Election, doing better.”

In August 2020, Joe Biden told ABC’s David Muir, referring to Covid:  “I would shut it down.  I would listen to the scientists.”  By October 2020, Mr. Biden insisted, “I’m not going to shut down the country, I’m going to shut down the virus.”  Lockdowns continued.

Science!  Sadly, some scientists have prancing principles.  Anthony Fauci, then director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said in March 2020, “There’s no reason to be walking around with a mask.”  In October 2020, when CNBC’s Shepard Smith asked if we need a national mask mandate, Dr. Fauci quickly answered, “Yes, we do.”  The Washington Post and BuzzFeed, via a Freedom of Information Act request, found this February 2020 Dr. Fauci email:  “The typical mask you buy in the drug store is not really effective in keeping out virus, which is small enough to pass through material.”  In January 2023, the respected Cochrane Review agreed:  “Wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference.”

And on it goes.

I don't mind politicians "growing" in their understanding and ethics.  I dislike their way of being a windsocket and going with the breeze.

Hat tip to a Friend in Texas.

Regards  —  Cliff

Mr Trump's Path

For John, BLUF:  Is Mr Donald Trump's presence in the 2024 Presidential race going to distort the outcome?  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

If Donald Trump Were An Ethical, Responsible Public Servant And Wanted To Do What Was In The Best Interests Of His Nation…

From Ethics Alarms, by John Marshall, 28 July 2023.

Here is the lede plus two:

…he would announce that he was withdrawing from the Presidential race immediately, because the prosecutions he faces, just or unjust, will be a destructive distraction from the election as well as an impediment to him serving as President if he were nominated and elected.

And if I were an aardvark, I could save money on groceries by eating ants and termites.

Trump won’t do this, of course (that is, drop out, not eat ants and termites), but it is the only ethical alternative. A lawyer facing a single serious indictment would step away from his or her law firm. An ethical judge would resign. A doctor facing indictments would take a leave of absence. A general facing such legal jeopardy would retire. The United States cannot have a Presidential candidate laboring under the shadow of multiple criminal prosecutions any more than it can afford to have a mentally declining President who serves as a puppet for aspiring totalitarians. Trump continuing his candidacy increases the likelihood of both.

Mr Marshall makes a good point.  But, Mr Trump is unlikely to step away.

As Mr Marshall points out:  "His entire career has been built on a foundation of stubbornness, resilience and a refusal to admit defeat:  quitting his quest for redemption goes against his core."  This persistence is who Mr Donald J Trump is.

All of that said, I do not believe Mr Trump is acting, in his own mind, in an unpatriotic manner.  His line, "They aren't after me.  They are after you, and I am just in the way."  He sees himself doing his duty, and is being opposed by the Deep State.

Regards  —  Cliff

More Thoughts on the SCOTUS Leak

For John, BLUF:  The leak of a DRAFT SCOTUS Opinion provides a broad range of issues for discussion.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Midday Ethics Heat-Up, 5/3/22: The Great Dobbs Leak Freakout Continues!

From Ethics Alarms, by Mr Jack Marshall, 3 May 2022.

Mr Marshall has several good points on the subject, besides the tweet previously covered in this blog.  For example, the last big SCOTUS leak was, ironically, with Roe v Wade  Then there is "The law school rot connection."  That is a winner for me.  There is a look at what Reporter Glenn Greenwald had to say on the issue.

Worth the time.

Regards  —  Cliff

The SCOTUS Decision Leaks

For John, BLUF:  The deliberate leaking of a DRAFT SCOTUS decision on an abortion issue is an ethical blot on the Staff of the Supreme Court.  It would also be a point to examine larger social issues.  Not going to happen.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

WHEN THE MOBIUS LOOP COLLAPSES:

Posted at InstaPundet, by Mr Ed Driscoll, 3 May 2022, 2:22 pm.

Here is the tweet:

Dave Smith
@ComicDaveSmith
Progressives have given away their two favorite go to responses on abortion.

“My body my choice” rings pretty hollow after Vax mandates.

“It’s a women’s issue” is tough if there’s no definition of woman.

8:46 AM · May 3, 2022·Twitter for iPhone

The mobius loop is a connected strip of paper with no inside or outside.

At the end of the day, this is scoring points, but misses the key point, as long as women get pregnant there will be abortions and as long as there are abortions there will be the taking of human life.

My own position is that abortion is wrong, but, given our pluralistic society, abortions should be legal through the first trimester, perhaps the first five months.  After that there should be no taking of life.  Those who perform partial birth or post partium abortions (infanticide) are guilty of manslaughter.  I would allow no late term abortions for rape.  There is no incest exception, as incest is rape.  The life of the Mother should always be a consideration for the mother.  Delayed decisions should not be rewarded.

Not often discussed is the sociology of this issue.  For example, there is that fact that since the time of Ms Margaret Sanger abortions have been focused on Black Women.  Does this have anything to do with the eugenics and racist views of Ms Sanger?  The next question is why abortions need to be available for the full nine months of a pregnancy?  It would seem responsible women would quickly know they are pregnant.  Some realize almost immediately.  Others take a month or so to realize.  The "I'm just getting fat" line seems pretty weak.  Further, are parents, schools and girlfriends not helping young women to form an understanding of the responsibilities involed in having sex.  Responsibilities to one's partner and in the event of conception.  While I am not advocating use of anti-pregnancy actions, they are inherently better than abortion, after life has begun. Abortion should not be the ultimate birth control method.  Planning on that is irresponsible.  Responsible adults want to have fun, but they should be prepared to be responsible for the results of their actions. Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Solicitor General Gets An Ethics Waiver

For John, BLUF:  Ethics is a tricty area.  You might think it is unethical, but someone else might say it is necessary for a larger justice requirement.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Biden’s top Supreme Court lawyer granted ethics waiver to argue for race-based college admissions

From The College Fix, by Ms Margaret Peppiatt, of Franciscan University of Stuebenville, 14 JANUARY 2022.

Here is the lede plus two:

The Department of Justice has granted U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar an ethics waiver, permitting the former Harvard professor to support race-based admissions in a Supreme Court case involving Harvard University.

Prelogar, who taught at Harvard Law School in the fall of 2020, was nominated for Solicitor General in August 2021 and confirmed by the Senate that October.  Under the Biden Ethics Pledge, Prelogar was prohibited from working on a court case relating to her former employer until two years after her appointment.

But the ethics waiver releases her to argue the case before the Supreme Court.

This is a two-for.  First is the ethics waiver.  Since the law suit is against the President and Fellows of Harvard College the waiver seems a little iffy.

Then there is the nature of the case, racial discrimination in college admissions.

In Students for Fair Admissions, Asian-American students argues Harvard discriminated against them in admissions policies based on race, violating Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

I am of the opinion that Harvard switched from discriminating against Jews to discriminating against Asians.  In my mind, tainted by my belief in meritochracy, this kind of discrimination is unfair and un-American.  A period of quotas to reverse racial discrimination seems not unreasonable, but as a long term policy it seems wrong.  And, it seems counter-productive.  We should wish our best minds trained in our best institutions.

All that said, since the Biden Administaration has decided to fight on the side of Discrimination, they need a good Lawyer.  Perhaps Ms Elizabeth Prelogar represents the best available.  After all, she did teach this sort of thing (Ms Prelogar taught the Supreme Court and Appellate Advocacy Workshop) at Harvard Law School.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Removing a President

For John, BLUF:  There is, to me, little doubt that Speaker Pelosi loathed President Trump and thought the Republic would be better off with him gone.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Presidential Impeachment/Removal Plans, 2016 to 2020

From Ehtics Alarms, by Mr Jack Marshall, 2021.

Here is the lede plus one:

There have been 20 Plans to abuse various processes, laws and theories, all put forward and promoted by members of the Democratic Party / ”resistance” / mainstream news media alliance since President Trump’s election in November of 2016.  This page has been added to the references on the Ethics Alarms home page for easy reference, and also because I view this conduct by that group to be the most irresponsible, undemocratic and dangerous attack on our national values and institutions at least since the 19th century.

The desired effect of this barrage, apart from serving the goal of removing an elected President without the bother (and risk) of an election, has been to make it impossible for the President to govern, and to destroy his support among the public.  So far, neither of these goals have been achieved.

There is much too much passion in politics these days.  Passion expressed openly.  We would all be better off holding some of our hotter opinions to ourselves.  We become angry and then we are more like The Hulk than like Saint Francis.  That is not good.

Regards  —  Cliff

Pitchers Cheating

For John, BLUF:  The question right now is if Professional Baseball has its eye on one pitcher in particular.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

The Trevor Bauer Affair:  “What’s Going On Here?”  Unclear So Far, But It’s About Ethics

From Ethics Alarms, by Mr Jack Marshall, 10 April 2021.

Here is the lede plus three:

This developing ethics story comes out of baseball, and if you skip the baseball ethics stories, this one shows why that is a mistake.  The erstwhile National Pastime is certainly off to a flying start this season in ethics controversies, what with the game’s bone-headed decision to get involved in race-baiting politics seeded by Joe Biden and Stacey Abrams.  This new controversy has the advantage of actually being about the game on the field.  It also has a marvelous jumble of factors, real and hinted:  history, tradition, real rules, unwritten ruled, rationalizations, hypocrisy, persecution, tarnished heroes, and maybe revenge.

Trevor Bauer is a pitcher for the Los Angeles Dodgers whose fame, reputation and salary ($34 million a year for three years) are out of proportion to his record, which stood at 75-64 as this season dawns.  At 30, this is roughly the equivalent of the success achieved by such immortals as Chris Young, Ben McDonald, and Chuck Dobson, mediocrities all.  But Bauer is 1) unusually articulate 2) a social media master, and 3) had his best two seasons, including winning a Cy Young Award in last year’s shortened, pseudo-season, just as he was nearing free agency.  Many players and his primary team in his career, the Cleveland Indians, don’t like Bauer, and not just because opinionated players are never popular with management.  He once knocked himself out a crucial post-season start by cutting a pitching hand finger playing with a drone (he loves drones).  In 2019, after allowing seven runs, Bauer threw a baseball over the centerfield wall, after seeing his manager Terry Francona come out of the dugout to remove him from the game.  Bauer apologized profusely, but it was the final straw, and the Indians traded him.

Bauer, among other opinions, has been among the most vocal critics (and one of the few player critics) of the Houston Astros in particular (see here), and cheating in baseball generally.

After the 1919 Black Sox Scandal, baseball cracked down on pitchers doctoring the ball with foreign substances or by marring the surface to make it do tricks.  Nonetheless, that many pitchers continued to try to slip spit, or Vaseline, or slippery elm, or pine tar onto the ball has been assumed, indeed known, ever since.  This year, as part of the game trying to cut down on strike-outs which have reached boring levels (baseball is more entertaining the more the ball is put in play), MLB announced that umpires would be checking the balls more carefully and regularly to ensure that the rule against doctoring the ball wasn’t being violated.  Lo and Behold, the first pitcher to have his thrown baseballs collected for inspection based on suspicion of doctoring was…Trevor Bauer!

While I have liked watching Baseball and cherished it as being as American as Apple Pie and Motherhood, it has seemed to be getting a little too big for its britches, but nowhere near the NBA or American Football.  Then came the hypocrisy and boot licking surrounding the All Star game.  If only the Commissioner had resigned from Agusta.  Alas, no.

A pitching scandal would just be icing on the cake.  It would not divert attention, but focus it.  And it would be sad.

Regards  —  Cliff

Triage in a Time of Pandemic

For John, BLUF:  When medical capabilities run short, some will get support and some won't.  The question is the rules to be followed.  For example, Italy saying no medical support to those 60 and over, seems to be arbitrary and wrong.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Ethicists, lawyers see dangers in rationing of scarce health resources

From The Boston Pilot, by Ms Nancy Frazier O'Brien, 25 March 2020.

Here is the lede plus four:

Catholic ethicists and legal experts are sounding the alarm that the scarcity of resources such as ventilators and hospital beds during the current coronavirus pandemic could prompt health care decisions based only on age and disability -- and in some cases already is.

Decisions on life-saving care based solely on those criteria are unjust, discriminatory and a violation of federal civil rights law, they say.

One of the strongest and most persistent voices has been that of Charles Camosy, an associate professor of theological and social ethics at Fordham University in New York, one of the hardest-hit U.S. cities.

"It should not be up to physicians to decide whose subjective quality of life deserves to be prolonged," he wrote in a March 19 opinion piece in the New York Post.  "If rationing arrives, we must stand up unambiguously for the marginalized and vulnerable."

He was especially critical of the Italian government for reportedly recommending that health care resources be rationed by age and limited to those who "could enjoy the largest number of life-years saved."  Italy has had nearly 70,000 confirmed cases of COVID-19 and more than 6,800 deaths as of March 25.

A short article with a lot of food for thought.

Regards  —  Cliff

Ethics in Government

For John, BLUF:  The convolutions in DC can be read at several levels.  Charlie Dunlap gives us a couple most commentators don't expose.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

A question for America:  should a CIA official ever be obliged to face the public?

From The Lawfire Blog, by Prof Charlie Dunlap, JD, 1 October 2019.

Here is the lede plus one:

The recent events that have produced the impeachment inquiry have generated some questions to ponder:  should those who classify themselves as whistleblowers always be entitled to have their identity kept from the American people?  Do the principles of transparency, accountability, and fundamental fairness in cases of enormous import to a democracy mean that sometimes the public must be allowed to assess the credibility of an accuser?

A devil’s advocate might provocatively put the key question this way:  should Americans permit an officer of a secret intelligence agency to exploit his or her access to sensitive, non-public matters to collect information against a U.S. citizen without seeking the normal approvals for doing so, and thereafter be able to remain in the shadows even when the product of his probe is used in an effort to unseat an elected American who has sharply criticized the intelligence agency that employs the accuser?

In unpacking these issues let’s also ask ourselves: are there unique considerations when the informer is an official of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) (an organization which says its “mission is to collect information related to foreign intelligence and foreign counterintelligence,” and whose charter generally prohibits the domestic collection of information against American citizens) and is someone who did not witness the events in question but instead collected information from others about them and his U.S.-person target?

Does an “investigative mission” which collects information on a US citizen and was “carried out in stealth” and “behind the scenes” effectively constitute spying?

Officially, the CIA insists that “Myth 1” about the agency is that it “spies on US citizens.”

Yet the Washington Post, says the CIA officer who in this instance “has almost single-handedly set in motion the gears of impeachment,” initiated what the Post characterized as his “investigative mission” with information, he says, he was able to collect in the “conduct of…[his] official duties.”  Notably, the Post says that the officer’s investigation was “carried out in stealth.”

That “stealth” operation, the officer’s own report indicates, lasted a period of at least four months and involved collecting and analyzing reports from what he says are “multiple U.S. Government officials.”  The Post claims the CIA official “moved swiftly behind the scenes to assemble material from at least a half-dozen highly placed — and equally dismayed — U.S. officials,” and then “wove their accounts with other painstakingly gathered material” to create his allegations.

Clearly, the CIA operative – employing “stealth” and operating “behind the scenes” – conducted an extensive collection of materials in his investigation of a U.S. citizen, so decide for yourself if that is effectively “spying.”

And there is more at the link.

A lot to think about.

Regards  —  Cliff

Women in the Workplace

For John, BLUF:  The history of the relations of the sexes has been fraught and has includes solutions that have included separations and restrictions.  We need better ways forward or we will end up with very rigid rules for interactions.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Women facing ‘massive increase in hostility’ in workplace, #MeToo-era study says

From The Boston Globe, by Ms Katie Johnston, 3 September 2019,.

Here is the lede plus one:

In the two years since the #MeToo movement took off, igniting a firestorm over sexual harassment in the workplace, another form of less incendiary but more insidious gender-based harassment has been building quietly.

Women say they are being subjected to sexism far more than they used to be, according to a new study out of the University of Colorado Boulder Leeds School of Business — even as they report less overt harassment, such as sexual coercion (“sleep with me and you’ll get a promotion”) and unwanted sexual attention (ogling or fondling).

Women are facing a “massive increase in hostility,” said Stefanie K. Johnson, the business professor who coauthored the study.&nsp; Research shows that people in power feel threatened when other groups rise up, as women have during the #MeToo era, and that men believe their status declines when women’s rises, which could cause some men to lash out.

“It’s not that the need to subjugate women goes away, I just think it takes a different form,” Johnson said.  “Rather than make sexual comments about women, men who are prone to sexually harass will just accuse women of being incompetent.”

The key is understanding what is happening.  Are men, on average, just hostile to women in the workplace, do they perceive that women are inferior or are mores just different, misunderstood or incompatible?  For sure, our current laws and culture call for men to give women an even break, and visa-versa.  At the same time, concern about women using the tools for fighting sexual harassment to achieve other ends causes men to act defensively.  We know, from history and our own experience, that change engenders hostility.  Mutual respect and trust should mitigate the hostility.

We need a truce, but that requires good faith on all sides.

Should we all be frank about our concerns or should we just muddle through, showing our distrust in other ways?

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Suing to Get Job Back

For John, BLUF:  Maybe Mr Peter Strzok has a case, but I think he is more likely to be caught up in exposure of criminal activity within the FBI, or at least an unethical streak amongst certain high level members of the FBI.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

I SAY HE NEEDS HANGING, CUT DOWN WHILE STILL LIVING, AND HIS ENTRAILS BURNED BEFORE HIS EYES.  IF THAT’S CRUEL AND UNUSUAL, IT JUST BETRAYS TIMIDITY OF THE PUBLIC TO ENDURE THIS NONSENSE WITH NO RETALIATION

From The InstaPundit, by Author Sarah Hoyt, 7 August 2019.

Here is the lede plus one:

Peter Strzok Sues FBI, Cites Privacy And Freedom Of Speech Were Violated

Look, he betrayed the will of his sovereign, we the people, and plotted against us, and our lawfully constituted Republic.  And then he wants redress from our courts…  I might be a little angry.

I get that he betrayed our nation, and his wife, in public, but Ms Hoyt seems to have reverted to a harsher time, but then she is originally from Europe.  However, the court slapping him down might be good for the FBI and the nation.  And, he apparently was found to be less than candid in his discussions with DOJ Investigators.

And he was pretty disrespectful of Walmart shoppers.

On the other hand, I would not like to see him and his family homeless, and a charge on the public's treasury.

On the other other hand, if he were to win his job back, and I was at the Resolute Desk, I would have him detailed to the White House and put him in an office with no phone or Internet, as a protection for the American People.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Prosecutors Untethered

For John, BLUF:  Prosecutors are very powerful people within our system of Government, and thus they need the highest ethics and a big chunk of humility.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

While Democrats get crazier, Gabbard hits Harris criticism right on the nose

Here is the sub-headline:

While most 2020 Dems are getting lost in the collective sprint to the left, Rep. Gabbard is making waves with her serious criticisms of Rep. Harris.

From USA Today, by Law Professor Glenn Harlan Reynolds, 5 August 2019.

Here is the lede:

But the really serious point to come out is this:  If you’re shocked and appalled by Harris’s conduct, don’t try to comfort yourself by thinking it’s unusual (or by blaming Russia.)  As Clark Neily writes, “The real significance of Gabbard’s critique, however, lies not in the proposition that Harris was a particularly unprofessional or malign prosecutor, but rather in the fact that she seems to have been a rather ordinary prosecutor who simply did her job the way most prosecutors do.  And if that makes a former-prosecutor-turned-presidential-candidate look like a monster, then perhaps that says more about prosecutors in general than it does about Kamala Harris in particular.”

There appears to be a certain lawlessness in the field of prosecutors.  However, cleanup is going to have to come from the inside of the law profession. 

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Trump as Youth Received Tax Advantages

For John, BLUF:  Remember, the motto is "All the news that's fit to print."  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Trump gained millions from questionable tax strategies: New York Times

From The Hill, by Mr Brett Samuels, 2 October 2018.

Here is the interesting paragraph:

The Times interviewed former employees and advisers to Trump’s father, and reviewed more than 100,000 pages of documents related to the Trump family business, including bank statements, financial audits and invoices.

I see two problems here:

1. That one sentence paragraph looks like it is over 30 words.  Sentences should be limited to about 20 words.  I am not sure the Reporter is good enough to write this long a sentence.  The original story treats this with a 30 word sentence.
2. That The New York Times has access to over 100,000 pages of documents that are the private papers of Mr Trump.  That seems like an improper

The Newspaper of Record claims some of the pages are open records.  Great.  So, did they purloin only 90,000 pages?

For sure, this confirms the social theory that even things you do as a youth will be used against you half a century later.

Hat tip to the Drudge Report.

Regards  —  Cliff

Something May Have Happened, or Not

For John, BLUF:  Mr Rod Rosenstein in still on my good guy list, but the future is still unexplored territory.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Exclusive:  Rod Rosenstein offered to resign

From Axios, by Jonathan Swan, early 23 September 2018.

Or something else.  Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein did meet with President Trump's Chief of Staff, General Kelly, this morning.  For all we know they exchanged fishing flies.

That said, if Mr Rosenstein offered to resign, that would be an ethical thing to do, if it was something like "If the President would like my resignation I would offer it."  That would be in stark contrast to Ms Sally Yates.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Our Government Helping Us

For John, BLUF:  Maybe these folks think that Government is about taking taxpayer resources to allow them to conduct their own brand of political propaganda.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

O'Keefe Video:  DOJ Resources Used by Socialist DOJ Employee to Target GOP

From PJ Media, by Reporter J. Christian Adams, 19 September 2018.

Here is the lede plus one:

The latest video from James O'Keefe's Project Veritas captures a Department of Justice employee admitting that she does research on the home addresses and license plates of private individuals who are then targeted for loud protests at their homes by socialist demonstrators.  Other socialist protesters familiar with the process for discovering home addresses of targets strongly infer that Justice Department LexisNexis accounts are used by a socialist Justice Department employee to identify home address of targets.

The Justice Department employee, Allison Hrabar, organized a loud heckling protest of Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen while she ate a private dinner at a D.C. restaurant.  Hrabar was able to locate Nielsen on a Tuesday evening last June.

The question, after the first question♠, is if Socialists are abusing their positions in the US Government, why would we believe the Democrats aren't also?

When asked directly by one of O'Keefe's undercover journalists whether she uses her DOJ LexisNexis account, another comrade of Hrabar's, Natarajan Subramanian, who appears familiar with her activities and works for the Government Accountability Office, says:  "I mean she has used it, she uses it probably on her work computer ... we are all walking a line in a lot of ways."

The Government Accountability Office (GAO)?♥  These are the folks who are supposed to be Congressional Watchdog.  These are the folks who go out and investigate the activities of other Government Employees and Contractors, to ensure there is no fraud and a minimum of incompetence in the execution of federal operations.

If I wasn't me, this would make me very cynical.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  The first question is why these folks can't be fired for the abuse of their position in the Civil Service?
♥  Back in the old days this was the Government Accounting Office, after their function of doing accounting.  The US Congress is supposed to be the Government Accountability Office.  That is why they have the power to hold hearings and call witnesses.

Deep State

For John, BLUF:  As a Registered Republican I am embarrassed that this was written by a presumed fellow GOPer.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Glenn Greenwald:  White House ‘Coward’ Behind Anonymous Op-ed Part of ‘Unelected Cabal’

From Breitbart, by Mr Joshua Caplin, 5 September 2018.

Here is the lede plus three:

The Intercept co-founder and Pulitzer Prize winner Glenn Greenwald on Wednesday evening lambasted the senior White House official – who admitted in an anonymously written opinion-editorial to subverting President Donald Trump’s America First agenda – as an un-self-aware “coward,” part of an “unelected cabal.”

In a striking act of betrayal, a senior Trump administration official wrote an opinion piece in the New York Times claiming to be part of a group of people “working diligently from within” to impede President Trump’s “worst inclinations” and ill-conceived parts of his agenda.

The alleged White House official, claiming to be part of the “resistance” to President Trump, wrote, “Many Trump appointees have vowed to do what we can to preserve our democratic institutions while thwarting Mr. Trump’s more misguided impulses until he is out of office.”

Reacting to the op-ed, Greenwald tweeted that it focused largely on decrying President Trump’s deviation from establishment Republican orthodoxy, pointing out that it’s an “ideology he didn’t campaign on & that voters didn’t ratify.”

Later the article has this:

White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders called on the author to “do the right thing and resign” from his or her post.  “The individual behind this piece has chosen to deceive, rather than support, the duly elected President of the United States. He is not putting country first, but putting himself and his ego ahead of the will of the American people.

The idea of doing the right thing and resigning seems foreign to creatures of the District of Columbia.  I give you the Acting Attorney General Sally Yates.

We do owe The Old Gray Lady a vote of thanks for exposing the Deep State to public view.  However, NYT Editor Banquet forgot the "First Rule of Deep State:  You do not talk about Deep State."

UPDATE:  Added the tag "Character" for this post.

Hat tip to the Drudge Report.

Regards  —  Cliff

Are There Ethics Out There?

For John, BLUF:  If this information might be protected by attorney client privilege, why is it in the newspapers?  I would hope that someone is asking why this is out there.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Lawyer’s secret tape reveals Trump talking of payments to model

From The Boston Globe, but really from The Old Gray Lady, by Reporters Matt Apuzzo and Maggie Haberman, 21 JULY 2018.

Here is the lede plus one:

President Trump’s longtime lawyer, Michael Cohen, secretly recorded a conversation with Trump two months before the presidential election in which they discussed payments to a former Playboy model who said she had an affair with Trump, according to lawyers and others familiar with the recording.

The FBI seized the recording this year during a raid on Cohen’s office.  The Justice Department is investigating Cohen’s involvement in paying women to tamp down embarrassing news stories about Trump before the 2016 election.  Prosecutors want to know whether that violated federal campaign finance laws, and any conversation with Trump about those payments would be of keen interest to them.

An article 22 paragraphs long and only at the fourth to the bottom paragraph do we get to the issue of if the contents of the recording is "protected by attorney-client privilege".  Nowhere is there a discussion of if the taping was even legal.  Wasn't there a case determined by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court turned, in part, on a law that said it was illegal to record a conversation if one side was unaware?

So, here is the question.  If it is illegal for me to record you, why is it ethical for the Press to then disclose the gist of the conversation to the public?  Or the Government to leak the information.

I get freedom of the Press, but this seems to creat a perverse incentive for folks to rope in (leak to) the Press in order to get out there information they see as damaging to someone they are working against.  It seems unethical at several levels.

Regards  —  Cliff

VEEP Gore on the President

For John, BLUF:  End Global Warming, end Donald Trump.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Al Gore uses eliminationist rhetoric in address to U. Maryland graduates

From The College Fix, by Assistant Editor Dave Huber, 24 May 2018.

Here are the key paragraphs:

Speaking to University of Maryland graduates, The Baltimore Sun reports Gore used eliminationist terminology when discussing President Trump (emphasis mine):

[Gore] urged the graduates to vote in large numbers in the coming years, suggesting that America’s “experiment” with the Trump administration should, like some scientific ventures, “be terminated early for ethical reasons.”

“Your generation has a mission ahead of it,” Gore said.  “I hope that you will find the will to succeed.  In America, the will to succeed is, in fact, a renewable resource.”

I am hoping he means via the vote in 2020.  He was just a little less than clear on that point.

And "Ethics"?  That seems an interesting approach, given the current activities by Democrats and their camp followers.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

CNN, Keeper of Secrets

For John, BLUF:  Standards?  I don't think they have any standards.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

CNN Fights to Keep Editorial Guidelines Secret amid Lawsuit over Ethical Breach

From Pajama Media, by Mr Chris Queen, 8 May 2018.

Here are the first three paragraphs:

Our modern news media thrives on transparency.  The freedom and openness of information helps the media do their job. That's a fact that I can vouch for as a writer.

It stands to reason that media outlets would have the same transparency standards as the entities they cover, wouldn't it? Print and web outlets generally make their editorial guidelines public.  When it comes to broadcast media, that's another story.

CNN is at the center of a lawsuit involving their ethics and standards.  In 2015, the network aired a report investigating the mortality rate of babies at St. Mary's Medical Center in Florida.  The piece eviscerated the pediatric cardiac surgery program at the hospital, which terminated the program shortly afterward.

With all the leaking we see in the Sieve one would think the news agencies themselves would follow suit.  Apparently not.

Regards  —  Cliff

Doing One's Duty

For John, BLUF:  How do we restore ethical credibility at DOJ?  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

The Elitists’ Trump Excuse

Here is the sub-headline:

His critics may be more corrupting to democracy and decency than he is.

From The Wall Street Journal, an Opinion Piece by Mr William McGurn, 23 April 2018.

Here is a bullet point from Mr McGrun which I find pointing to an especially unethical approach:

• When Sally Yates was acting attorney general and President Trump issued an executive order on immigration she objected to, Ms. Yates ordered the entire Justice Department not to obey, despite a finding from the department’s Office of Legal Counsel that the order was lawful.  She was applauded in her insubordination by Andrew Weissmann, then a Justice attorney, who now serves on Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team.  But it’s all for a good cause, right?

I don't dispute Ms Yates' right to find something to be illegal, although the finding of the DOJ Office of Legal Counsel should have given her pause.  And, if she felt something was unethical or immoral she would have been within her rights.  And, every employee owes the boss a "But, Sir".  It is a duty one owes to one's supervisor.

It seems that this is not what we got from Acting Attorney General Yates.  It appears she decided that she should just say no to the President.  Not the kind of thing one should expect from Executive Branch Civil Servants, let alone those filling appointed positions.  This was just wrong.  She should have just submitted her resignation.

What is equally disturbing is that DOJ Attorney Andrew Weissmann applauded the activities of Ms Yates in circumvention of a lawful Presidential Order.  Having thus demonstrated an animus toward President Trump, he then failed to recuse himself from the work of the Special Counsel.  Mr Weissmann's actions may not violate the ethical rules of DOJ, but I find it to be unethical in a larger sense.  Why would I place any faith in Mr Weissmann's work for the Special Counsel?

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff