Monthly Archives: May 2016

Hillary Clinton Said, “No”

Posted on by
Reply

Hillary Clinton is ducking her final debate with Senator Bernard Sanders, brushing off a commitment she made earlier this year to participate in a forum in California ahead of the state’s June 7 primary….

This raises two questions in my pea brain.  One is, of what is she so afraid?  She’s shown herself an effective debater, and this would have been a golden opportunity to put her opponent away and enhance the strength of her supporters at the Democratic Convention regarding such things as the Party Platform, which Sanders wants to drag even farther to the left.

The other question is a larger one: if Clinton won’t keep this commitment, how can we trust her to keep any commitment were she to be elected?  What is the value of her word, exactly?

Maybe It’s Time

Posted on by
Reply

…to start locking banks out of SWIFT (no, I don’t mean as a matter of National Policy).

A little-noticed lawsuit details a hacking attack similar to one that stole $81 million from Bangladesh’s central bank, saying cybercriminals stole about $9 million last year from a bank in Ecuador.  The case suggests global bankers haven’t been sharing critical information to prevent such heists.

And

A third attack, from December 2015 at a commercial bank in Vietnam, was detailed last week….

The banks aren’t telling SWIFT about these attacks, either.

A spokeswoman for Swift said Thursday that the network was never told of the earlier hack.  “We need to be informed by customers of such frauds if they relate to our products and services, so that we can inform and support the wider community,” said spokeswoman Natasha de Teran.

Bad security and victim banks didn’t tell SWIFT, despite SWIFT warnings:

We specifically remind all users to respect their obligations to immediately inform Swift of any suspected fraudulent use of their institution’s Swift connectivity or related to Swift products and services….  The security of our global financial community can only be ensured through a collaborative approach.  To this end, it is essential that you share critical security information related to Swift with us.

The Obama/Lynch Justice Department

Posted on by
1

A federal judge in Texas has ordered hundreds of US Department of Justice lawyers to undergo ethics training, accusing the agency of a “calculated plan of unethical conduct.”

The extraordinary order by US District Judge Andrew S Hanen says Justice Department lawyers intentionally misled him in the course of a lawsuit filed by Texas and 25 other mostly conservative states challenging the Obama administration’s immigration policy.

Hanen wrote in his order

What remains before this Court is the question of whether the Government’s lawyers must play by the rules.
…
The United States Department of Justice (“DOJ” or “Justice Department”) has now admitted making statements that clearly did not match the facts.  It has admitted that the lawyers who made these statements had knowledge of the truth when they made these misstatements.

And this:

The decision of the lawyers who apparently determined that these three-year renewals…were not covered by the Plaintiff States’ pleadings was clearly unreasonable.  The conduct of the lawyers who then covered up this decision was even worse.

Such conduct is certainly not worthy of any department whose name includes the word “Justice.”

In fact, it is hard to imagine a more serious, more calculated plan of unethical conduct.  There were over 100,000 instances of conduct contrary to counsel’s representations.

Nor has this been simply a “first offense.”

This Court in at least one prior order has detailed the multiple times attorneys for the Government misrepresented the actions being taken (or, according to their representations, not being taken) by their clients.

Hanen’s reference to 100,000 was to 100,000 deferrals under the Obama edict that had already been granted, contrary to the DoJ lawyers’ representations at trial.

Unfortunately, Hanen has no authority to disbar these despicable liars.  It’s interesting to note, however, that while Hansen assures us that he’s satisfied these misbehaviors did not occur after Attorney General Loretta Lynch ascended to her AG-ship, Lynch herself has chosen to remain silent on the matter—and by clear implication, to do absolutely nothing concerning these…lawyers…who now work for her.  In particular, these persons are still on the Government’s payroll.

Is there any way at all this DoJ can be trusted with any case before it or potentially before it?

Elections have consequences.

Are We Taking Orders

Posted on by
Reply

…from the PRC, now?

China on Thursday ordered the US to end its surveillance patrols around the contested South China Sea region after the Pentagon said Chinese fighter jets “buzzed” a US military reconnaissance plane in an “unsafe manner” earlier this week.

The correct answer to the PRC’s order is to step up our close approaches, and move them in to low overflight, sailings as close as navigable water allows, and escorting those aircraft with combat aircraft.

And order the PRC to take its military occupation forces out of these international waters.

Not Only a Correct Ruling

Posted on by
Reply

…but a correct rationale, also.

US District Judge Henry Hudson upheld Virginia’s voter ID law that requires prospective voters to show a State-approved photo ID before they vote.  In response to the Democratic Party’s (it was the plaintiff, of course) claim that the law was politically motivated, Hudson held in part

The court’s mission is to judge not the wisdom of the Virginia voter ID law, but rather its constitutionality[.]

Hear, hear.  Hudson went on:

While the merits of this voter identification law, and indeed all aspects of Virginia’s voting regime, can be reasonably debated, it remains true that Virginia has created a scheme of laws to accommodate all people in their right to vote[.]

Indeed.  Such a debate is important to be held, in all of our States.  But the debate is a political one, to be held among the citizens of each State and their elected representatives in their legislatures and governor’s mansions.  It is outside the realm of our courts to conduct political debates.

Still, the cynicism persists.

Lawyers representing the state Democratic Party said in a filing that the Republican-dominated state legislature passed the photo ID law “to stall, if not reverse, the growing success of the Democratic Party in Virginia.”

Not at all.  The suit is nothing other than a disingenuous effort by the Democratic Party to wage lawfare in an attempt to stall, if not reverse, the growing success of protections for the sanctity of each citizen’s vote in Virginia, a sanctity at risk from voter fraud.