Category Archives: ethics

Impeachment

Posted on by
Reply

The House Progressive-Democrats have settled on two Articles of Impeachment.

The first article is on abuse of power. Democrats allege that Mr Trump took advantage of his position as president to pressure Kyiv to investigate a political rival. The second article is on obstruction of Congress, related to the president’s moves to block aides from participating in the impeachment investigation.

In conjunction with this, The Wall Street Journal asked a question:

Do you think President Trump will be impeached in the House under these two articles?

Of course he will. It’s long since become politically impossible for the Progressive-Democrats to step back from this. They’re wholly committed; even stepping back to a vote of Censure, as some have suggested, would be a confession that they’ve just been engaged in a smear campaign.

Never mind that they insist, with straight faces, that it’s an impeachable offense for a President to move to defend himself against Congressional accusations, including this Congress’ empty ones.

Never mind that the Progressive-Democrats’ hearings, even as one-sided as they’ve constructed them to be, completely failed to reveal a shred of evidence of anything—only 2nd- and 3rd-hand, even some 4th-hand, hearsay and suppositions and presumptions.

And Fiona Hill’s being “quite cross” that she was being bypassed in foreign policy development vis-à-vis Ukraine.

And the Progressive-Democrats putting more stock in an ad hoc “interagency coordination group”—which has no existence in law or Executive Order—than it does in the policies of the person Constitutionally in charge of foreign policy.

The trial in the Senate will be interesting, and not only for the trial itself. It’ll be interesting to see whether Congressman Adam Schiff (D, CA) will answer a summons to testify, or whether he’ll hide behind his (likely) role as prosecutor in that trial, just as he hid behind his role as House Intelligence Committee Chairman to refuse to testify before the House Judiciary Committee.

It’ll be interesting to see what the Senate does about Schiff’s likely refusal.

It’ll be interesting to see how the Senate handles its summons of the whistleblower and that one’s refusal to appear.

“Peace” in Donbas

Posted on by
Reply

Russia and Ukraine say they have agreed a ceasefire, to be effective by year’s end, in eastern Ukraine, currently occupied by Russia (along with Crimea) and Russia-instigated and -backed “rebels.”  It’s an unsatisfactory ceasefire.

There is no agreement on a timetable for free elections in the occupied eastern oblasts, even assuming the dubious need at all for elections there separate from the regular national elections. Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskiy wants Russian troops out of those oblasts before the elections; Russia’s President Vladimir Putin insists merely that Ukraine should give those oblasts autonomy before the elections. Zelenskiy is right: elections have no possibility of being free with Russian troops occupying the region.  It’s an unsatisfactory ceasefire.

Zelenskiy had hoped for more from these…discussions…among Ukraine, Russia, France, and Germany.

Many questions were tackled, and my counterparts have said it is a very good result for a first meeting. But I will be honest, it is very little; I wanted to resolve a larger number of problems[.]

Not only was Russian occupation of eastern Ukraine given short shrift, the subject of the Crimean Oblast didn’t even come up. I suspect that was one of the larger number of problems Zelenskiy wanted resolved. Unfortunately, Germany, though an actual signatory to the Budapest Memorandum, which guaranteed Ukrainian territorial integrity if it gave up its nuclear weapons after the dissolution of the USSR (which Ukraine did), long ago utterly betrayed Ukraine with its decision to walk away from that agreement. Merkel reinforced her government’s perfidy with her decision to ignore the fate of the Crimean Oblast in the just concluded talks.  Russia also is a signatory, but dishonesty and betrayal are the norm with that nation.  The Crimean Oblast will continue to be partitioned off and occupied by Russia.

It’s an unsatisfactory ceasefire.

It Doesn’t Matter

Posted on by
Reply

Vice President Mike Pence doesn’t think it’s a done deal that the Progressive-Democrats have the votes in the House to impeach President Donald Trump.

He’s operating from a misunderstanding of the Progressive-Democrats’ purpose. Their move has nothing to do with impeachment—they know they have no case based on what they’ve leaked from their secret hearings and what’s been exposed in both their committees’ public hearings—and everything to do with smearing Trump and poisoning the upcoming election.

As Al Green (D, TX) has made clear.

There is no limit on the number of the times the Senate can vote to convict or not [convict] a president. No limit to the number of times a House can vote to impeach, or not….

And

I’m concerned that if we don’t impeach the president, he will get re-elected.

The Progressive-Democrats will just keep the “impeachment” effort alive and ongoing through the campaign season.

Subpoenas

Posted on by
Reply

Congressman Jim Banks (R, IN) wants to subpoena Congressman Adam Schiff’s (D, CA) telephone records in retaliation for Schiff’s releasing the personal call records of a fellow Congressman, journalists, and President Donald Trump’s personal lawyers.

This is why I’ve called for a tit for tat.

Banks’ anger is understandable, but his proposed retaliatory move is misguided.  The Congressman whose call record was so dishonestly publicized by Schiff, Devin Nunes, has the better response: deal with Schiff’s dishonesty and his abuse of subpoenas in court, not with revenge.

Nor Republicans nor Conservatives are Progressive-Democrats; there’s no need to stoop to their level. There’s no need for honest men and women to weaponize the subpoena process or the subpoenas themselves as the Progressive-Democrats are so dishonestly trying to do. Subpoenas are legitimate only if there is legitimate probable cause.

Negotiated Penalties

Posted on by
Reply

I’m not going to pick on Boeing, but I am going to describe that company’s alleged wrong-doing in a particular case as a canonical example of a principle.

Boeing stands accused by the FAA of

install[ing] defective parts inside the wings of around 130 737NG aircraft and then knowingly vouch[ing that] they met all federal safety requirements.

In consequence, the FAA has proposed a $3.9 million penalty.  As if Boeing should have a say in the penalty it chooses to pay.  This is nonsense.

There should be no proposals, no entertainments of counterproposals from the accused, no time wasted on discussions.  If the FAA thinks it has a case it can make in court, it should make its case in court and apply the court’s penalty.  If the FAA doesn’t think it has a case it can make in court, it has no legitimate case at all, and it should walk away.

So it should be with SEC-“negotiated” penalties for alleged wrong-doings, for EPA “cases,” for any government agency with a beef to bring.

Some might argue that this is little different from a prosecutor offering a plea deal to an accused criminal. Those folks would be right—and it’s wrong there, too.

Others might argue that such affairs are efficient ways to correct bad corporate behavior, that matters can be settled faster this way than through court trials.  Not in the long run, though, and not broadly.  Such “settlements” are binding only on the agency and the company it has “penalized,” and the allegedly misbehaving company too often later repeats the assessed behavior or something similar.

Court outcomes, on the other hand, bind everyone in the court’s jurisdiction (nationally, in those cases that wind up at the Supreme Court).

Furthermore, too often in these business accusations and settlements, the settlement results in the company making no admission of wrong-doing.  In accepting such an outcome, the agency demonstrates that it had no case to bring in the first place; it merely browbeat some vig for the agency by using its vastly superior Government power and breadth of resources.

These “settlements” are conveniences to the government, to be sure, but Government’s convenience is no basis for obtaining justice.  All that’s obtained from such outcomes is…Government convenience.