One’s a Liar

..but the other is not?

Attorney General Jeff Sessions is being accused of having lied to the Senate during his confirmation hearing about whether he’d had any campaign-related conversations with Russian government officials during the campaign.  Sessions said no, nothing related to the campaign, and then it came out that he had had a couple of conversations with the Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak in Sessions’ capacity as Senator from Alabama.  Must be a lie.  Never mind that he answered truthfully.

Then we get Senator Claire McCaskill (D, MO) tweeting out

Then other McCaskill tweets surfaced.

But she didn’t lie in her denial of ever—not ever—meeting with a Russian ambassador.  It was a Twitter character limit misunderstanding.  Sure.

Oh, wait—one’s a Progressive-Democrat, the other is a Republican.

Misguided

In light of whose DoJ it’s been doing this most recently, it’s easy to say it was nefarious.  But the whole thing could be eliminated with either of a couple of steps and a change in underlying procedure.

What is “it?”  It’s a secret (or merely secretive) slush fund fed by settlement proceeds from DoJ civil suits against large banks.

When big banks are sued by the government for discrimination or mortgage abuse, they can settle the cases by donating to third-party non-victims. The settlements do not specify how these third-party groups could use the windfall.

So far, investigators have accounted for $3 billion paid to “non-victim entities.”

Those third-party non-victims, under the Obama administration, were grassroots activist organizations favored by the Obama crowd.  These organizations consisted of the National Council of La Raza, the National Community Reinvestment Coalition, the National Urban League, and the like.

That arouses suspicion.  As Ted Frank, Competitive Enterprise Institute’s Director of the Center for Class Action Fairness, put it,

The underlying problem with the slush funds is we don’t know exactly where the money is going. Using enforcement authority to go after corporate defendants, DoJ bureaucrats are taking billions away from taxpayers to fund their pet projects overriding congressional preferences.

It’s bad enough that the money is going to those favored groups—directly to them and not going through DoJ or Treasury enroute—but as Frank noted, it’s taxpayer monies once the banks have paid the settlements, whether these were legitimate settlements or coerced ones.

It also turns out that much of the funding of the slush funds are “voluntary” extra payments, “encouraged” by DoJ.  Except that when DoJ is holding a lawsuit over the banks’ heads, there’s very little voluntary about acceding to “encouragement.”

The better solution is one of two: pay the money exclusively to the Treasury Department for the use of the Federal government.  That, though, leaves in place incentives for DoJ to browbeat the banks rather than seek justice for those the banks have been alleged to be cheating.  The better alternative, then, is for the banks to pay the money directly to the alleged victims.

The change in underlying procedure—the best solution—is for DoJ to stop being spring-loaded to settling.  If they have a case, bring it to court, and push the pace on it (the banks should do this, too; neither side should be allowed to stall the other).  If DoJ isn’t ready to bring the case, it should drop it altogether.  The settlements, even well-intended ones, just look like lawfare extortion.

Of Course They Did

The US, France, and Great Britain presented to the UN Security Council earlier in the week a resolution to apply economic sanctions against all of 11 Syrian military commanders and officials, as well as on 10 government and related entities” for their roles in the Bashar al-Assad government of Syria’s use of chemical weapons against Syrians.  The sanctions also would have barred the sale or supply of helicopters to the regime.

Naturally, Russia and the People’s Republic of China vetoed the sanctions.  Both did it to oppose the US.  Russia did it for the additional reason that it would interfere with getting peace in Syria—by which Russian President Vladimir Putin meant, in issuing his instruction to Russia’s UN Ambassador, peace on Russian terms.

Nikki Haley, the US’ UN Ambassador, had a different, and in my opinion more accurate, more accurate take.

For my friends in Russia, this resolution is very appropriate.

It is a sad day on the Security Council when members start making excuses for other member states killing their own people. The world is definitely a more dangerous place[.]

Who Should Control American Foreign Policy?

One answer is indicated by the Trump administration’s de-emphasis of the World Trade Organization as the primary arbiter of our international trade policy.  A draft policy document, if the leak of it is a legitimate one, and if it’s being accurately described in the NLMSM might represent a promising start.

The Trump administration is developing a national trade policy that would seek to diminish the influence of the World Trade Organization in the US and champion American law as a way to take on trading partners it blames for unfair practices, according to a draft document reviewed by The Wall Street Journal.

The policy…represents a dramatic departure from the Obama administration, which emphasized international economic rules and the authority of the WTO, a body that regulates trade and resolves disputes among its members.

A welcome departure it is, too.  The WTO, and other international organizations, have important roles in our foreign policy, but those roles have been badly overemphasized over the last too many years.  American foreign policy, American national policy, must be our national policy and no one else’s.

The Trump administration just has to be careful not to go too far in the other direction.

Equal or Not?

Are Americans equal under law, or are we to be divided and categorized even further in order to apply even more special treatments to Government-favored special groups?  The Census Bureau is opting for the latter.

In a report suggesting changes to 2020 Census forms, the bureau called for adding a new “Middle Eastern or North African” category designed to count those in the US who identify as one of about 19 nationalities, including Iranian, Syrian, Lebanese, Egyptian, and Israeli. Currently such people declare themselves as “white” on the surveys.

And

The Census Bureau also called for creating a new scheme that counts Hispanics as a broad category in line with races like white and black. The agency noted that research showed nearly half of Hispanic respondents hadn’t identified within any of the current federal race categories.

Which only points up the foolishness of the divisions.  But here’s the nub of the Census Bureau’s move:

Such changes are significant because they shape how the US tracks demographic change and can influence federal funding.

Can’t treat special groups specially until Government creates the groups, don’t you know.