Tag Archives: responsibilities

Evidence Tampering

Posted on by
Reply

It seems that the House January 6 Committee videos of witness depositions have…disappeared. Congressman Barry Loudermilk (R, GA), House Administration Oversight Subcommittee Chairman:

All of the videotapes of all depositions are gone[.]

This is a problem because such videos, being the products of official House proceedings, are records that are required to be preserved, stored, and available. These videotapes in particular, having been created by the last Congress’ House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack in its pursuit of its investigation into the events of January 6, 2021, constitute Congressional evidence and especially are required to be preserved. Yet that committee’s Chairman, Mississippi Progressive-Democratic Party Congressman Bennie Thompson (D, MS), now claims (in his best Johnny Carson impression), “I did not know that.”

Imagine that.

The tampering spreads to Committee documents, also.

[T]he Democrat-led House committee sent certain evidence such as transcripts to the Biden White House and Homeland Security Department and now the transcripts have been returned to Loudermilk’s GOP-led subcommittee nearly fully redacted so their contents can’t be read.

This is Thompson evidence-tampering by destroying the videotapes and Progressive-Democrat President Joe Biden aiding and abetting in the crime by allowing his staff to tamper with those documents. Party will protect their members, though, so it’s up to us ordinary Americans to rid ourselves of them next November.

They’re Confessing Their Crimes

Posted on by
Reply

They’re really quite blatant about it, too.

A ransomware gang claimed this past week that it broke into the systems of the fintech platform MeridianLink. The breach has been reported to regulators.
The company didn’t report it, as new rules will require them to do. The hackers did.

AlphV (or Black Cat, depending on who’s speaking for the gang) aren’t the only criminal hackers to do this sort of thing. Other hackers are joining in on telling the cops of their deeds, as a means of pressuring the victims to pay up. Or their security failures will be made public.

Aside from only cowards meekly surrender and functionally if not legally aiding and abetting the criminals by paying, and the situation is straightforwardly enough greatly mitigated by those companies getting serious about their IT security, a separate question exists.

These criminals have all confessed their crimes. Where are the regulators? Where is DoJ? Certainly, it’s hard to identify the members of these criminal organizations, but hard means possible. In the meantime, these crime syndicates can themselves be traced back and their accesses to the Internet hindered severely, if not outright blocked. And their identities publicly disclosed.

What’s He Doing with this Responsibility He’s Taking?

Posted on by
Reply

In a video to staff, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Chairman Martin Gruenberg piously asserted that he “took responsibility” for the toxic workplace he has fostered and for his own toxic behavior.

As chairman, I am ultimately responsible for the actions of our agency, both good and bad. I bear responsibility for setting the tone for our culture. … I want to assure you that I’m committed to addressing these issues, including my own shortcomings[.]

Be still, my heart.

But what is Gruenberg actually doing with this responsibility he’s claimed to take? What measurable, concrete actions is he taking to correct those organizational and personal issues?

Gruenberg told lawmakers this week that the investigation and disciplinary process for complaints is typically handled by the legal division, and that the board is “generally kept out of that.”

He’s continuing to not do anything concrete about his toxicity; he’s only yapping. He’s deflecting concrete actions to the FDIC’s “legal division,” washing his hands of the matter. And he’s continuing to refuse to resign over his failures, which seem to me to be irretrievable.

Martin Gruenberg is doing exactly nothing with the responsibility he claims to be taking.

“Backlash”

Posted on by
Reply

The Wall Street Journal opened one of its Friday editorials with this immoral bit of misapprehension:

President Biden has been stalwart in backing Israel’s right to destroy Hamas after the October 7 massacre. But a political backlash is growing, in the Democratic Party and abroad, to rein in Israel before it can achieve its military objectives.

No, it’s not a political backlash that’s growing in the Progressive-Democratic Party and “abroad.” It’s overt political support for Hamas and the terrorist mayhem this terrorist gang is, and has been for decades, committing.

Progressive-Democrat President Joe Biden’s hand-picked Secretary of State, Antony Blinken, is shamefully uncertain about the terrorism of Hamas. As paraphrased by WSJ:

Mr Blinken presented “humanitarian pauses” as critical to protecting Gazans, getting them aid, and freeing Israeli and US hostages.

On the contrary, Gazans are best protected by Hamas stopping their use of Gazans as shields in the fighting and their use of Gazans’ residences, schools, and hospitals as weapons storage caches and as rocket launching facilities.

When the Hamas terrorists (excuse the redundancy, but the emphasis is too badly needed) stop stealing the aid that is coming in, then Gazans will start getting it.

Israel already has offered to discuss a ceasefire—for which Blinken’s humanitarian pauses are just a disingenuous euphemism—after the Hamas terrorists release all of those hostages. Hamas has refused the offer.

On the flip side, all any ceasefire—regardless of duration or geographic scope or label—will do is give Hamas time to regroup and refit along with space to relocate and re-hide the hostages. It’s disgusting that anyone in the Biden administration supports such succor for the terrorists, much less that our President and SecState so overtly do.

Massie is Disappointing

Posted on by
Reply

The House of Representatives passed a resolution condemning antisemitism on college campuses by a vote of 396-23.

A single Republican—Congressman Thomas Massie (R, KY)—was one of the 23 voting against the resolution. He posted his rationalization on X:

Free speech means protecting speech you don’t like, not just speech you do like.
Also, who defines antisemitism?

This is a mindless quibble. The resolution did not ban any speech, or much less antisemitic speech, however antisemitism might be defined or by whom; it only decried it. Which is itself an exercise in free speech.

Worse, quibbles of this nature—and Massie knows better; as a talented and successful politician, words are his stock in trade—are dangerous, diluting as they do the serious nature of free speech, including the free speech right to speak against others’ speech, and including applying consequences to others that don’t prevent them from continuing to speak. Even if those others don’t like it.