Tag Archives: ethics

A Valid Beef, But….

Posted on by
Reply

It seems the FBI—in its ongoing rogue-ness as a Federal government institution—obtained individual bank records of individuals about whom they had some curiosity without the nicety of the legally required court orders.

Legal experts are criticizing the FBI for allegedly obtaining the financial records of US customers with Bank of America “without any legal process” following the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot.

And

The allegations about subpoena-less bank-records gathering were included in a staff report from the full, GOP-led House Judiciary Committee that was released about an hour ahead of Thursday’s hearing.

From that report:

Just like FBI whistleblowers…retired FBI Supervisory Intelligence Analyst George Hill provided the Committee with detailed allegations of FBI civil liberties abuses. Specifically, he testified that following the events at the Capitol on January 6, 2021, Bank of America (BoA) gave the FBI’s Washington Field Office a list of individuals who had made transactions in the DC, Maryland, Virginia area with a BoA credit or debit card between January 5 and January 7, 2021.
He also testified that individuals who had previously purchased a firearm with a BoA product were elevated to the top of the list provided by BoA.

All of that is entirely valid, but beyond that is Bank of America’s behavior. Where’s the hue and cry over that bank so willingly giving up its customers’ personal records? Why did that bank’s managers choose to not demand the subpoena that is so clearly required before any bank gives to Government—or to anyone or anything—those personal data?

Alan Dershowitz, Harvard University Professor Emeritus in law:

Banks should not be turning records, private records over, the next thing doctors will be turning over private records and priests and rabbis. You just can’t start violating people’s privacy without a court order.

You bet. And Bank of America needs to be held to account, suitably sanctioned, and required to make serious financial restitution to those of its customers its managers chose to victimize. And those managers should be fired for cause and required to misbehave on some other company’s payroll.

A Progressive-Democrat’s Proposal to Combat Shoplifting

Posted on by
Reply

At first glance, this looks like progress after California’s decision to completely condone decriminalize shoplifting if the amount stolen was less than around $1,000 on any single hit. But in reality, it’s just more progressivism.

New York City’s Progressive-Democrat mayor Eric Adams thinks it’s good to deal with shoplifters in the city whose mayoral mansion he occupies in this way, among others:

  • train the shoplifting victim’s employees to de-escalate
  • put kiosks in shoplifting victim stores so shoplifters, at the start of their spree, can call social service
  • allow shoplifters to avoid prosecution or incarceration by “meaningfully” engaging with those services

Unfortunately, this is just more Progressive-Democrat coddling of criminals; it’ll have no useful effect on shoplifting—or on any other NYC crime.

The Answers are Simple and Direct

Posted on by
Reply

The lawyer representing an IRS whistleblower who leads the IRS investigative team looking into Hunter Biden’s alleged tax-related peccadilloes has advised the relevant House and Senate oversight committees that the whistleblower and his entire team have been removed from the investigation into those Hunter tax affairs.

The removal came at the direct request of Attorney General Merrick Garland’s DoJ.

The response to this blatant obstruction of Congressional oversight is—or should be—short and sweet: bring the whistleblower in immediately—the person already has whistleblower protections explicitly from both Congress and DoJ (unless Garland chooses to extend his obstruction)—to testify under oath regarding what he has. In conjunction with that, and simultaneously with it, subpoena each member of the whistleblower’s team and bring them in to testify under oath. It’s a short walk from the IRS’ offices to Capital Hill; there’s no need for further delay.

Along these lines,

House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Michael McCaul (R, TX) is threatening to push forward with a vote next week to hold Secretary of State Antony Blinken in contempt of Congress if he does not hand over a classified cable sent from diplomats in the US Embassy in Kabul shortly before the Taliban seized power in Afghanistan.

No. Republicans need to stop yapping and start doing. Don’t threaten to vote to hold Blinken in contempt. He already is in contempt. He already has refused to hand over the demanded documents.

Hold the vote, don’t natter on about holding a vote. Put Garland, here, too, in the position of enforcing the contempt citation or on the record as obstructing yet another Congressional oversight action.

As long as Republicans in the House are, as it were, all hat and no cattle when it comes to confronting Executive Branch cabinets, they’ll continue to be the dude ranch tenderfoot pretenders so many of us consider them to be.

Journalism Revisionist History

Posted on by
Reply

The Irish Times ran a story claiming that using fake—spray—tans was somehow cultural appropriation, and the news outlet chastised white women who used it.

The story itself turned out to have been faked. OK, no big deal; embarrassing as the IT‘s error was, it really falls in the category of stuff happens. That’s not the problem.

On discovering that the paper had been victimized by “a deliberate and coordinated deception,” the editorial staff took “corrective” action. The error—the being duped—

…prompted us to remove [the fake article] from the site and to initiate a review….

This is cowardly and dishonest. Kudos to The Irish Times Editor Ruadhán Mac Cormaic for acknowledging the error (on Sunday after the fake article’s Thursday publication, a pretty prompt response given the research required to confirm the fakery); however, the honest response would have been to leave the article up with a disclaimer, one that summarizes Mac Cormaic’s editorial, posted at the head of the article.

Instead, those journalists have chosen to erase that bit of real history and, as the editorial response fades into memory on Monday or Tuesday, to pretend that that history never actually happened.

This is yet another example of why the press guild cannot be trusted.

Punishing a Legislator

Posted on by
Reply

Recall that, in response to scurrilous remarks made in opposition to a Montana legislature bill barring child mutilation gender-related “care” for children, Progressive-Democratic Party State Congresswoman Zooey Zephyr was censured and barred from the House floor for the remainder of the current legislative session.

Now she, along with four constituents, are suing the State and a variety of State officials over the matter. The ACLU, representing Zephyr in the suit, actually makes the claim that her censure and bar from the floor is unconstitutional.

Here’s what Montana’s State Constitution has to say on the matter [initial boldface in the original, emphasis at the end added]:

Section 10. Organization and procedure. (1) Each house shall judge the election and qualifications of its members. It may by law vest in the courts the power to try and determine contested elections. Each house shall choose its officers from among its members, keep a journal, and make rules for its proceedings. Each house may expel or punish a member for good cause shown with the concurrence of two-thirds of all its members.

The courts have no jurisdiction in this matter. The ACLU’s argument is silly, and even those lawyers should know better. Or, perhaps the ACLU prefers that Zephyr be expelled altogether, as Montana’s Constitution explicitly permits.