Category Archives: ethics

Stonewalling

Posted on by
Reply

We’re seeing it already in the witnesses that House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D, CA) will permit the minority Republicans on his committee to call during the public hearings the Progressive-Democrats are holding, beginning tomorrow, pursuant to their partisan effort to impeach President Donald Trump.

The Republican list—required to be submitted before Schiff identified the scope and subject matter of his hearings in sufficient detail to allow a proper list to be assembled—is this:

  • Devon Archer—knowledge of Burisma’s alleged role in Ukrainian corruption in general, central to Trump’s desire to be sure of the degree to which the new Ukrainian government is getting corruption under control
  • Hunter Biden—knowledge of Burisma’s alleged role in that corruption: “Mr Biden’s firsthand experiences with Burisma can assist the American public in understanding the nature and extent of Ukraine’s pervasive corruption….”
  • Alexandra Chalupa, former Democratic National Committee staffer—alleged to have worked with Ukrainian embassy to the US to “gather political dirt” on Trump’s then-campaign for office. Also admitting to providing such dirt to the DNC and to Hillary Clinton’s then-campaign for the same office. “…Ms Chalupa is a prime fact witness…understanding facts and circumstances surrounding Ukrainian involvement in the 2016 election.”
  • David Hale, Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs—”firsthand knowledge of events preceding and surrounding Ambassador Yovanovitch’s recall from Ukraine…[and] Hale’s communications with Ambassador Taylor regarding Ukrainian matters….”
  • Tim Morrison, former Senior Director for European and Russian Affairs on the NSC—three House Progressive-Democrat-run committees have questioned Morrison; those transcripts are not yet released. Morrison was present on the telecon in question and worked with the NSC immediately afterward. If LtCol [Alexander] Vindman is called to testify, Morrison must be as well.
  • Nellie Ohr, former contractor for Fusion GPS—she “is a prime fact witness…understanding facts and circumstances surrounding Ukrainian involvement in the 2016 election.”
  • Ambassador Kurt Volker, former US Representative for Ukraine Negotiations—”primary interlocutor and trusted confidant of the Ukrainian government” and firsthand knowledge of discussions, including those with Rudy Giuliani, Ambassador Gordon Sondland, Ambassador William Taylor
  • The anonymous whistleblower
  • All witnesses used by the whistleblower “in drafting his or her second hand complaint”

This is a much too short list, driven by Schiff’s withholding the scope of his “inquisition.”  I would have liked to have heard directly from Yovanovitch, Fiona Hill, and Vindman, also, all of whom seem to have lied to one degree or another during Schiff’s secretive Star Chamber questionings.

Withal, though, Schiff already has barred Biden, the whistleblower, and presumably by extension the whistleblower’s “sources.”  It’s plain that the Progressive-Democrats only want those “facts” convenient to their predetermined outcome to be heard by us average Americans.  All the facts seem to be anathema to the Inquisitors.

Who’s He Attacking?

Posted on by
Reply

The lawyer for the anonymous whistleblower behind the Trump Impeachment business, Andrew Bakaj, is upset with President Donald Trump.  You remember the lawyer: he’s the one who called for a coup, rebellion, and impeachment so early on in Trump’s administration.

A lawyer for the anonymous whistleblower who filed a complaint with the Inspector General over President Trump’s July phone call with Ukraine’s president sent a cease and desist lawyer to the White House Thursday, demanding Trump stop attacking his client….

Attacking whom, exactly? The whistleblower is an anonymous person….

How precious.

Free Speech vs No Free Speech

Posted on by
Reply

The Progressive-Democratic Party vs the Republican Party.

Progressive-Democratic Party icon—and proud progressive—Hillary Clinton wants to ban free speech, and the first step is Twitter’s Jack Dorsey’s ban on the free speech of political advertising, done with her wholehearted and full throated support.

Twitter made the right decision to say, “Look, we don’t want to get into the judging game.” I think that should be the decision that Facebook makes as well.

Never mind that banning political ads—a form of the speech explicitly protected under the 1st Amendment—is a most fundamental bit of judging speech.  Note that Clinton desire to extend the ban to Facebook:

If you were to say to your expert engineers, our algorithms really favor the explosive, the inflammatory, the blatantly false, and we love to hook people into them and they seek more of it and then they get absolutely barraged by all of this information, we need to tweak the algorithms[.]

Never mind whose judgment—not that of us average Americans, whose judgment plainly is inadequate, we being merely a gang of deplorables—would be used to make those definitions of falseness; never mind whose judgment—certainly not our own—would be used to determine the badness of “inflammatory” or “explosive.” This is a move to protect the established, the elite, the Know Betters.

On the other hand, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R, KY) objected to such limits on free speech.  He objected, as paraphrased by Fox News,

the new Twitter policy as an effort to undermine the First Amendment right to free speech.

He went on: the ban on political advertising—on a form of political speech—would

just amplify the already privileged speakers who already possess multimillion-dollar platforms. It would just help clear the field for those elites by denying the same tools to fledgling speakers who are not already famous.
[It does] not bolster our democracy. It would degrade democracy. It would amplify the advantage of media companies, celebrities, and certain other established elites while denying an important tool to the Americans who disagree with them[.]

There’s that judgment bit again, and how it would work were the Progressive-Democrats’ attack on our speech successful.  Of course Dorsey, Clinton, and Party leadership know this full well—they’re just after protecting their narrative and their positions atop the political pantheon.

And, with Dorsey’s established practice of censoring Conservative speech in general, a more insidiously subtle effort to expand that censorship.

Remember this next fall.

Boeing and Foolish Questions

Posted on by
Reply

In a Wall Street Journal article on the tortuous path to criminal prosecution that prosecutors would have in bringing Boeing to criminal trial over its 737 MAX crashes, Andrew Tangel, Jacob Gershman, and Andy Pasztor asked what seems to me to be a very narrow, short-sighted question.

Should prosecutors weigh Boeing’s importance to the economy and national security when deciding how to proceed with a criminal case over the 737 MAX crashes?

Of course prosecutors should—must—not. What’s truly important is the concept of weighing the risks to liberty and to national security of criminals being too big to be punished. We can never allow such a thing to enter even the run-up to criminal prosecutions.

If criminal actions can be seriously alleged against Boeing—based on the company’s behaviors—the company must come to trial. Only if found guilty, so there’d be a criminal sanction phase, could Boeing’s importance to our economy and our national security legitimately be considered—and then, not on the magnitude of the penalty(s), which absolutely must fit the crime(s), but only on the penalty(s)’s schedules of application, with interest accruing on any fiscal penalties not paid “promptly.”

The question of criminal trials for various individuals of Boeing’s management (and its aircraft testing function?) is an entirely separate matter.  The company’s importance to anything is wholly irrelevant here; the company can easily survive any number of its managers being locked up in a Federal hoosegow.

Separating Blue and Red America

Posted on by
Reply

A growing number of local television stations across the country are reviving an older practice of broadcasting our national anthem once a day, pairing it with all-American imagery that further celebrates our nation.

Gray and Nexstar executives [two of the companies whose stations have revived broadcasting our anthem] said the reason to bring back the anthem was simple: encouraging national unity at a time of deep division in the country[.]

The stations broadcast our anthem in the wee hours of the morning, reminiscent of how our stations used to sign off for the night around midnight, broadcasting our anthem and showing imagery as part of the sign-off.

The New York Times disagrees; it says this is a divisive thing to do; it divides Blue America from Red America.  That’s the message of their Julia Jacobs in her column last week.

The decision to revive the anthem tradition comes at a time when overt allegiance to “The Star-Spangled Banner” has become one of the lines that separate blue and red America[.]

The NYT isn’t alone.  Here’s a University of Michigan music professor, Mark Clague:

It is somewhat provocative to bring the anthem to the fore in a new way at a moment of tension in this country[.]

Divisive, provocative to play our national anthem, to celebrate our great nation.  Wow.

This piece was published a week ago, and still not a single Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential or Congressional candidate has objected to the NYT‘s, or to Jacobs’ (or Clague’s), claim that playing our national anthem is bad.

That’s highly instructive, and it should inform our voting decisions in a year.