Category Archives: ethics

Stop Wasting Time Arguing the Matter

Posted on by
Reply

Hillary and Bill Clinton have ignored Congressional subpoenas to testify under oath at deposition(s) before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform regarding the Epstein Files matter, and they are currently being considered for Contempt of Congress and referral to DoJ for prosecution.

Now the Clintons’ lawyers are dickering over mechanisms for getting some of their testimony, and Committee Chairman James Comer (R, KY) has rejected the lawyers’ latest stall effort offer.

It’s long past time, I say, to stop wasting time arguing this inarguable matter. The Clintons are bound by law—those subpoenas—to appear and sit for the depositions.

The Committee, through its Chairman, should invoke the precedent set by Jurney v MacCracken and send the Capital Police to arrest the Clintons and hold them in House custody until they agree to be deposed as subpoenaed and do, in fact, sit for those depositions.

Stop wasting time arguing with obstinate intransigents.

Update: since I wrote this and scheduled it for posting.

Attorneys for the Clintons said their clients would “appear for depositions on mutually agreeable dates” and requested the lower chamber not to move forward with its contempt vote on Wednesday.
“They negotiated in good faith. You did not,” spokesmen for the Clintons said in a statement. “They told under oath what they know, but you did not care. But the former president and former secretary of state will be there.”

That’s an improvement, but there’s no need for “mutually agreeable dates.” There’s no need for anything beyond setting a date and haling the Clintons, via Jurney if needs be, in should they choose to ignore the new date. The House should proceed with its contempt vote this morning, just in case. The House can easily rescind its contempt finding should the Clintons actually appear for the depositions.

And: there being nothing to negotiate, there can have been no bad faith negotiation by anyone.

One last thing: the Clintons should testify separately, not at the same time.

Update update: Success. The Clintons have agreed to sit for their depositions on 26 and 27 Feb, they will be closed door (which supports a no holds barred and no time limits imposed) transcribed, filmed, and last as long as the House deems necessary for each of them. Even more important, the reason for the two days is that they’ll be deposed separately: Hillary on 26 Feb and Bill on 27 Feb,.

Free Speech in Illinois

Posted on by
Reply

Particularly, free speech in Progressive-Democratic Party reigned-over Illinois. A charitable organization, Democrats for an Informed Approach to Gender, wants to register as a charitable organization in Illinois, but it’s being blocked by the State’s Secretary of State, Alexi Giannoulias.

Giannoulias’ rationalization is that a State law, the General Not for Profit Corporation Act, bars the use of terms like “regular democrat,” “regular democratic,” “regular republican,” “democrat,” “democratic” or “republican”  in any organization’s name without the party’s prior permission. It doesn’t matter that these terms are entirely generic and not—nor being generic, can they be—trademarked or copyrighted in any way.

DIAG is being blocked from registering in Illinois because it opposes Party’s support for puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgical interventions so they more closely resemble the opposite sex over those procedures’ permanent effects, especially in children. The use of “Democrats” in the organization’s name is just an excuse, and DIAG, along with Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, have sued the State and Giannoulis over the legitimacy of that part of the law.

This is the level of free speech that Party allows in Illinois: what is freely spoken is what Party says its subjects are free to speak.

An Alternative Choice

Posted on by
Reply

President Donald Trump (R) is considering settling his $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS over that agency’s illegal (and politically motivated, I say) leak of his tax data to the New York Times. His thought is to send the proceeds to charity.

I have an alternative thought. Require, under the terms of the settlement, the IRS to send the settlement funds to the 401(c)(3) NGOs that it had blocked from certification or whose certifications it had slow-walked. Or, require the IRS to agree to allow Trump to spread the settlement funds across those entities in the IRS’ name.

Sometimes poetic justice also is legitimate justice.

Wrong Distinction

Posted on by
Reply

There’s a new challenge, allegedly, for grocers and their junk food sales; although their problem is whether, and if so how much and where, they should stock junk food on their shelves. This is suggested by the headline:

Is a Cookie a Type of Candy? Supermarkets Have a New Food-Stamp Conundrum

This is a trivial question, though, one that awaits only a government definition of what foods are eligible for food stamps. The larger, and the far more serious problem is posed by this claim, buried in the middle of the article:

Critics said that limiting grocery options ignores the real causes of poor diets, such as low incomes, high food prices and access to healthy food. Studies, they said, show little difference between what SNAP recipients buy and the purchases of non-SNAP households.

Say the critics are correct, and food stamp food eligibilities don’t address those root causes. Say, further, that those studies are accurate in their conclusions.

Those criticisms are wholly irrelevant. The fact remains, and it remains unaddressed, as well, that there is no reason for the rest of us to pay with our tax dollars for the poor diet choices those eating on our dime—those food stamp programs—make. If they want those junk foods, let them pay for them on their own dime, just as the purchasers in non-SNAP households do.

How dare we presume so, some might bleat. It’s a simple dare. We’re the ones paying and with our money. We’re the ones who should be determining how our tax dollars are spent.

It’s that straightforward, and it should be that simple.

Hardly Defiance

Posted on by
Reply

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has reduced its vaccines for children recommendation from a schedule of 18 diseases to a recommendation of 11. The American Academy of Pediatrics still recommends children be vaccinated against 18 diseases. The Wall Street Journal calls the AAP defiant.

No.

HHS Secretary Robert Kennedy, Jr, and HHS’ CDC have all along recommended patients and parents of child patients consult with their physicians on ailments, treatments, and vaccines. Kennedy has emphasized that recommendation while he has had CDC scale back the recommendations.

Parents are heeding that CDC recommendation and are consulting. Pediatricians and their medical association are acting like physicians and treating their child patients rather than parroting those ancillary CDC recommendations.