Category Archives: ethics

A Mueller Interrogation

Posted on by
Reply

It’s well enough known that Special Counselor Robert Mueller is anxious to interrogate President Donald Trump as part of Mueller’s “investigation” of Russian interference in our 2016 election and of the Trump campaign’s alleged role in colluding with the Russians in that interference.  Trump’s counselor, Rudy Giuliani, says that Trump should not agree to the interrogation unless and until Mueller details the degree of DoJ spying on the Trump campaign, including what the FBI’s planted “informant,” Cambridge Professor Stefan Halper (who may be only one of two or three such plants), was doing and what he passed on to his FBI handlers.

Giuliani is right about that.  Trump can take a number of direct actions on the matter himself, though, that would speed things along.  After much stonewalling by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, a Federal judge presiding over a related-only-by-Mueller-claim case got fed up with Mueller’s own stonewalling in that case and ordered Mueller to deliver up the DoJ letter and amendment specifying the scope of Mueller’s investigation.  On DoJ’s claim that the documents are classified, they were delivered under seal to the judge.

House and Senate committees that also have requested those documents have been refused: Rosenstein objects to petty Congressmen overseeing his august activities.  Trump should order Rosenstein to deliver the documents to the House and Senate committees under a short deadline, say by noon Eastern Time this Friday.  If Rosenstein really is concerned about classification, they can be delivered to the subset of committee members who have the requisite clearance—and, yes, the committees have members of both parties with the clearances (their need to know already is plain).  If those documents are not delivered on time, Trump should, at 1201 Eastern, declassify the documents (Presidents are the ultimate arbiters of what’s classified and not classified) and order them hand-carried to the committees by COB Friday.

Trump should handle documentation related to the FBI’s spy(s) in his campaign similarly.  He should order Rosenstein to deliver all documentation, including correspondence with and about Halper (et al.), related to the plants and what they passed back to their handlers, delivered to those same committees and to the White House (perhaps to Giuliani in particular).  In view of the probable extensive amount of such documentation, Rosenstein should be given until, say, noon on Monday to produce.  If that deadline goes unmet, Trump should, at 1201 on Monday, declassify those documents and order their hand-carried delivery to the committees and the White House by COB Monday.

It’s time to put an end to the stonewalling and get things moving again.  Then a Mueller interrogation can have a chance to be an honest one.

More Mindsets

Posted on by
Reply

Iran says that not only are Germany, France, and Great Britain not doing enough to satisfy the demands it’s made as a quid pro quo for staying in the nuclear weapons deal.  All of the EU must pay some vig.  Here’s Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif:

With the exit of the United States from the nuclear deal, the expectations of the Iranian public towards the European Union have increased….

That’s one mindset; unfortunately, it’s not unique to Iran: we exist, therefore, you owe.

Here’s another Iranian mindset:

The cascade of decisions by EU companies to end their activities in Iran makes things much more complicated[.]

The EU must take concrete supplementary steps to increase its investments in Iran. The commitments of the EU to apply the nuclear deal are not compatible with the announcement of probable withdrawal by major European companies[.]

Iranian businesses are completely under the control of the Iranian government.  Therefore, the companies of other nations must be controlled by those nations’ governments.  Those nations’ companies, therefore, must be required by their respective government masters to do business with Iran (through companies in Iran).

And this mindset from Germany’s Foreign Minister, Heiko Maas:

Giving it up means entering a completely uncertain future as far as the question of nuclear weapons in Iran is concerned.

It’s not really about Iran; it’s about our own original security interests, German as well as European.

Because not paying the vig would make Iran angry.  The EU wouldn’t like Iran when it’s angry.

Oh yeah, there’s one more mindset in play here.  Iran knows the mindset of the European signatories to the Iran nuclear weapons deal and how desperate those nations are to keep on Iran’s good side.  Iran is playing on that desperation to extort more goodies in return for Iranian pretty words of compliance.

A Tenth Circuit Speculator

Posted on by
Reply

The Institute for Justice summarized a 10th Circuit case regarding a car involved in an immediately prior weapons case, its driver, and a weapon thusly:

Aurora, CO, police run tags on car with broken tail light, discover the car was seized three weeks earlier in weapons-possession case and a man (a known gang member) associated with the car was arrested. They pull it over; the man is in it; they frisk him and find a gun. He’s charged with being a felon in possession. Suppress the evidence? No need, says the 10th Circuit. Though he was calm and compliant, officers were justified in patting him down to ensure their safety.
Dissent: The gov’t is going to use this decision to justify frisks in a much broader variety of circumstances than the ones here.

The dissenting judge may well be right, but he’s speculating only.  Treat those speculatedly future cases one by each, as the unique cases they will be, and rule in accordance with the facts of those cases, not the facts of this case.

Mindset

Posted on by
Reply

Here’s the new US offer regarding the Iran nuclear weapons deal; we’ll soon see pretty clearly the mindsets of Germany, France, and the UK.  And of Iran.

Iran must

  • end nuclear weapons development in perpetuity
  • stop all uranium enrichment
  • never preprocess plutonium
  • allow nuclear unqualified access to all sites throughout the country
  • withdraw all forces from Syria
  • end support for militant groups like Hezbollah in Lebanon, youths militia and Taliban in Afghanistan, and the IRGC Quds Forces
  • stop sending arms to the Houthi militia in Yemen
  • release all US citizens
  • cease threats to destroy Israel
  • stop missile launches
  • stop development of nuclear-capable missiles
  • respecting Iraqi government sovereignty

In return, the US would

  • be willing to lift all economic sanctions
  • restore full diplomatic and commercial ties with Iran
  • allow it to access advanced technology
  • support modernization of Iranian economy
  • help it reintegrate into the global financial system

Big gains for Iran in recompense for serious Iranian behavior.

So: do the European parties to the existing nuclear weapons deal want stability and prosperity in the Middle East, or do they prefer appeasing Iran?  Do they care about Israel’s prosperity and safety in a nuclear weapons free Middle East, or do they prefer appeasing Iran?

Do they accept the terms on offer or have concrete, viable counteroffers (vis., include a demand for release of all British citizens), or…?

Journalistic Integrity

Posted on by
1

I got an online newspaper survey (requested by a highly respected paper), and one of the questions opened a text box into which I was asked to enter my thoughts on subjects to be addressed by the paper’s contributors.  This is my list of topics.

  1. ID of “anonymous” sources
  2. Explanation of why [the paper] has walked away from journalistic standard of corroborating “anonymous” sources with at least two on the record sources [Note: this paper is not unique; the standard has been ignored by all news media]
  3. Explanation of why we readers should believe “anonymous” sources actually exist
  4. On the premise that at least some of the “anonymous” sources actually exist, explanation of why we should believe what the source is claiming, given his fundamental dishonesty as demonstrated by his leak, which came at least in violation of his terms of employment if not his oath of office
  5. On claims that the leaker is actually a whistle-blower, explanation of why proof was withheld from readers that he exhausted all of his whistle-blower channels before he leaked
  6. Regarding 5 above, provision of that proof
  7. Identification of the whistle blower, since he needs no anonymity; whistle-blower laws protect him