Category Archives: ethics

Turley is Right

Posted on by
Reply

He’s also wrong. Jonathan Turley, Shapiro Chair for Public Interest Law at George Washington University, in his op-ed regarding AG Merrick Garland’s dishonest (my term) leaks about the DoJ/FBI raid on Mar-a-Lago wrote, in part,

Someone is clearly lying. The Trump Team said that it was cooperating and would have given access to the government if it raised further objections. The Justice Department has clearly indicated that time was of the essence to justify this unprecedented raid on the home of a former president. Yet, Attorney General Merrick Garland reportedly waited for weeks to sign off on the application for a warrant and the FBI then waited a weekend to execute that warrant. It is difficult to understand why such communications could not be released in a redacted affidavit while protecting more sensitive sections.

Someone clearly is lying. One of the someones is empirically demonstrated to be Merrick Garland. Time plainly was not of the essence with those blatant, carefully considered delays in getting the warrant and then in actually executing it.

Whether Trump is also lying—both could be; press pontifications notwithstanding, this is not an either/or situation—could be just as empirically demonstrated: release the affidavit, wholly unredacted. Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart surely has a copy in the court records that he could release should Garland continue to be intractable. That Trump is calling for the affidavit’s unredacted release is indicative of whether he’s lying. That Garland is resisting the affidavit’s release, even in redacted form, also is indicative of whether Trump is lying.

But Turley also is wrong.  [R]elease[]…a redacted affidavit while protecting more sensitive sections.

There are no “more sensitive” sections in the affidavit. There are no serious investigations that could be compromised by release of the unredacted affidavit. None in progress by an FBI that routinely lied to the FISA courts to get secret warrants. None by an FBI that falsifies evidence in pursuit of warrants. None by an FBI that colluded in the manufacture of a Russia collusion hoax by trading on a fake dossier. None by an FBI that attempted entrapment by faking a kidnap-the-Governor case.

Trust in the FBI

Posted on by
Reply

It’s rapidly eroding in the aftermath of the FBI’s pre-dawn raid on Mar-a-Lago, a raid that those same agents explicitly barred Trump lawyers from observing.

In response to that eroding trust, FBI Director Christopher Wray had this:

Unfounded attacks on the integrity of the FBI erode respect for the rule of law and are a grave disservice to the men and women who sacrifice so much to protect others….

Unfounded attacks on the FBI’s integrity are, assuredly, wrong.

However, what Wray is carefully ignoring is that this is the same FBI whose agents lied to FISA courts—repeatedly—in order to get search and surveillance warrants.

This is the same FBI whose agents have repeatedly fabricated “evidence” in order to get warrants from Article III judges.

This is the same FBI whose agents routinely lie in other venues.

This is the same FBI that deliberately avoided going to an Article III judge for their Mar-a-Lago raid warrant, choosing, instead to go to a magistrate judge.

The current attacks on FBI integrity are sadly, dangerously, entirely founded.

This FBI needs to be completely disbanded, its line agents reallocated to the US Marshals Service and to the Secret Service, its forensics capability converted to a small independent agency responsible to State and local police departments (and relocated to our nation’s heartland—say Wichita, KS), and everyone else in the FBI reallocated to the private sector.

Late Update: Corrected an erroneous reference to the CDC to be a reference to the FBI.

Again, I Ask

Posted on by
Reply

A canonical example of the journalism guild’s view of what constitutes honest reporting is this from CBS anchor Norah O’Donnell and CBS News‘ response to the outcry over her…error. She emitted a tweet regarding the FBI raid on Mar-a-Lago, claiming

NEW: According to a DOJ official, the FBI is NOT in possession of former President Trump’s passports. Trump had accused the FBI of stealing his three passports during the search of his Mar-a-Lago home.

This was shown later to be obviously wrong; the FBI returned three of Trump’s passports, which of course they could not have done had they not “been in position” of them in the first place.

Notice: O’Donnell claimed to be citing a DOJ official (emphasis mine).

Regarding that,

CBS News protocol is to confirm news with at least two people before reporting it as fact.

Two people.

It used to be the case that journalists were required to cite two on-the-record sources to corroborate an anonymous source’s claim. The journalism guild has long since walked away from that requirement.

And so I ask again.

Why have journalists chosen to walk away from that standard of integrity?

What concrete, measurable standard of integrity do journalists use today in lieu of that one?

Bitter is…

Posted on by
Reply

…as bitter does.  There’s much to be made of former President Donald Trump’s (R) keeping on about whether the 2020 Presidential election was stolen. (He thinks so, and there was a potful of sloppiness, error, fraud, and illegal changes to the mechanics of voting, but in this not so humble blogger’s view, not enough to aggregate to a “stolen” election.)

Let’s look, though, at soon-to-be former Wyoming Representative Liz Cheney and her behavior following her decisive loss in the just concluded Wyoming primary (so desperate was she in the runup to actual voting that she was…asking…members of the Progressive-Democratic Party to cross over and vote for her in the primary).

The Wall Street Journal claims

Ms Cheney is a conservative by any measure and she has the courage of her convictions.

The first part of this is plainly not true. Were she truly conservative, she would have adhered to her implied commitment to the citizens of Wyoming to represent them, a commitment made by the fact of her campaigning for and election to Congress in prior cycles.

The second part of that is either plainly not true, as well, or she has badly misplaced convictions. Had she the courage of her convictions, she would have represented her bosses, those Wyoming citizens. In the alternative, her convictions centered on putting her personal positions ahead of—in place of—those of her bosses. If those two sets of convictions truly were that incompatible, a person of truly conservative principles would have resigned her Congressional seat and pursued her convictions as a private person, where it would be legitimate to represent herself instead of her fellow Wyomingians.

Instead, she abused her position, participating in a by design one-sided House J6 Committee until the very last day, and only then pursuing her convictions as a private person.

And what is that personal conviction? It’s nothing that benefits people generally, or Wyomingians in particular. Her conviction—her single goal in life—is to be in the way of a politician whom she hates so viscerally.

Ms Cheney’s concession speech suggests her mission in politics now is to prevent Mr Trump from becoming President again.

In fact, no suggestion at all:

Immediately following her loss to Harriet Hageman in Wyoming’s Republican primary, Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., unveiled her next move, launching a new organization with the primary goal of keeping former President Donald Trump from regaining the presidency.

In fine, Cheney has spent years letting her bitterness vis-à-vis Trump govern her Congressional behavior and her behavior while campaigning.