Category Archives: ethics

Agency Regulation

Posted on by
Reply

On Thursday, the House Committee on Natural Resources released a damning report on the EPA and its handling of the Gold King Mine disaster last August. The report detailed how the EPA and the Department of the Interior were inaccurate and misleading in their conflicting accounts of the wastewater spill, which the EPA said last week released 880,000 pounds of toxic metals.

These are the Federal entities that think they know how to regulate our public lands and our pollutants and pseudo-pollutants.

Chairman Rob Bishop (R, UT):

This report peels back one more layer in what many increasingly view as a pattern of deception on the part of EPA and DOI.

Hmm….

State Department Foundation

Posted on by
Reply

Investigators with the State Department issued a subpoena to the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation last fall seeking documents about the charity’s projects that may have required approval from the federal government during Hillary Clinton’s term as secretary of state, according to people familiar with the subpoena and written correspondence about it.

No word, yet, on whether or to what extent the subpoena was satisfied.

But contributions from Wall Street entities—no influence there. Mm, mm.

Overbearing, or Justice-Seeking?

Posted on by
Reply

The Federal Department of Justice thinks Ferguson, MO, should make changes in the way it polices itself, and in the main, Ferguson agreed. That’s where the rub is, that “in the main” part.

An agreement was tentatively negotiated between Ferguson and DoJ on what those changes should be, but when it got to the City Council, the Council wanted some changes before they’d sign off. Vanita Gupta, Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division, said that DoJ would take

necessary legal actions to ensure that Ferguson’s policing and court practices comply with the Constitution and relevant federal laws.

The Ferguson City Council has attempted to unilaterally amend the negotiated agreement.

Of course, Gupta knows better. Nothing was agreed until the city actually agreed—which is what the City Council was discussing when, on its review of the offered settlement, it decided some changes were desirable. The Council, for instance, is concerned about whether it can afford the settlement. Among other things:

The council also wants Justice to cap federal monitoring fees the city must pay at $1 million….

Another concern is how this settlement would affect adjacent government entities. One change requested by the Council was an explicit statement that

the agreement will not apply to any other governmental entity that might take over duties currently provided by Ferguson. That means, for example, that St Louis County would not be beholden to the agreement if it takes over policing in Ferguson.

Because, for instance,

St Louis County police spokesman Brian Schellman said if the county were ever asked to take over policing in Ferguson, “we would consider the implications of the consent decree before entering into such an agreement.”

DoJ’s response? Since you didn’t sit down, shut up, and do what you were told to do, we’re suing you to implement our agreement diktat. The suit was filed the day after the Council voted to ask for these few amendments. No negotiation. Suit.

Attorney General Loretta Lynch said Ferguson’s decision to reject the deal left the Justice Department no choice except to file a civil-rights lawsuit.

Of course, Lynch knows better, too. The Council’s request for changes is not at all a rejection of the deal. In the first place, no deal can exist until it’s agreed by both parties, not dictated by one to the other. In the second place, a request for changes is an implicit agreement to the basic offer, else there’d be nothing to change.

Then Lynch made this entirely disingenuous statement:

The residents of Ferguson have waited nearly a year for the city to adopt an agreement that would protect their rights and keep them safe. … They have waited decades for justice. They should not be forced to wait any longer.

And yet, rather than negotiating these few changes to a reasonably quick resolution, Lynch now seeks years more delay while her DoJ sues to impose her will. This reaction is nothing more than an egotistical, self-aggrandizing move by Lynch and Gupta. Worse, it represents, regardless of the merits of the tentative agreement or of the requested changes, nothing but an overbearing power grab by the Federal government.

Hillary Clinton’s Wall Street Speeches

Posted on by
1

She was for releasing the transcripts before she was against it. The fact is, there could well be contractual requirements for not releasing them. However, I discount that because if such contract clauses existed, she’d cite them. Her latest weasel-worded excuse for not releasing is this, instead, in response to a George Stephanopoulos question about why she’d not yet:

Yeah, you know, here’s another thing I want to say. Let everybody who’s ever given a speech to any private group under any circumstances release them. We’ll all release them at the same time. You know, I don’t mind being the subject in Republican debates, the subject in the Democratic primary. That kind of goes with the territory.…

Couple things about this. One is the typical Clintonian (and others’) tactic of releasing the bad news within a deluge of good news, other bad news, and utterly irrelevant news. Everyone releasing at the same time would bury whatever embarrassing or outright bad stuff might be in the Clintons’ Wall Street speeches.

The other thing is this: why not show the way and be the first to release the transcripts? Because that would be taking the high road.

Gross Incompetence?

Posted on by
Reply

As if we didn’t need another reason to disband the Department of Education (see its Dear Colleague letter for an example of its gross dishonesty), here’s another, of utter failure to perform. DoE isn’t taking care of its digital data.

The Education Department doesn’t hold nuclear launch codes. But its vast data trove on student-loan borrowers and their parents—and the nearly $100 billion it disburses in new loans every year—are reason enough to want the bureaucrats to prevent digital intrusions. ….
The stakes go well beyond personal privacy. Federal student loans outstanding exceed $1 trillion, and Team Obama is trying to forgive those debts. It would add injury to injury if cyber-fraudsters were able to pile on for a taxpayer plundering.

It isn’t a matter of an isolated error, even a serious one, which can happen in any large enterprise, either.

Department of Education Inspector General Kathleen Tighe reported in November that her team has been “finding the same deficiencies over and over again” regarding information security. Since 2009 independent auditors “have found persistent IT control deficiencies in key financial systems,” she said.

For six years, auditors have found persistent DoE IT failure. This is not an inability to achieve perfection in personal digital data handling; this is a conscious and deliberate refusal to bother.

We don’t need a Federal government Department of this sort. Not at all.