Tag Archives: ethics

Working for the Opposition?

Posted on by
Reply

Rick Moran had a piece over at PJMedia, in which he described some folks on Mike Bloomberg’s erstwhile paid campaign staff who bragged about taking Bloomberg’s paycheck and going out and campaigning for Senator Bernie Sanders (I, VT).  Citing the Daily Caller, Moran wrote

“I would actively canvass for Bernie when I was supposed to be canvassing for Mike. I know of at least one team of ‘volunteers’ that was entirely fabricated by the organizers who had to hit their goals,” one staffer said, according to [Ken] Klippenstein’s report.
The person added: “It was easy enough to fudge the data to make it look like real people put in real volunteer work, when in reality Mike was getting nothing out of it.”

Then Moran closed his piece with this:

Whatever those staffers did to Bloomberg, he deserves it.

Because if we don’t like the guy, it’s perfectly OK to cheat him, to defraud him, to break laws doing him down.

Right. That’s certainly what liberals think and do. Maybe those Bloomberg staffers aren’t the only ones secretly working for the opposition.

A Progressive-Democratic Party Debate in Arizona

Posted on by
Reply

With the latest Progressive-Democratic Party realignment of who’s running for President, we’re down to two folks who are going to participate in the next primary debate, this one in Phoenix: Joe Biden and Senator Bernie Sanders (I, VT).

There is, though, one other candidate still active in Party’s contest for its nomination, and she is, to use Biden’s own phrasing,

[A] mainstream [American Samoan-Hawaiian] who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking [woman]. I mean, that’s a storybook, man.

You’d think with Party willing to make a late alteration of its rules to bring Michael Bloomberg onto its debate stage, it would be willing and able to make similar late accommodations to bring Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard (D, HI) onto that Phoenix stage.

But wait—Gabbard doesn’t have the money to buy her way onto the stage. Besides that, she’s already shown herself fully capable of incisive, reasoned argument, and that’s anathema to Party.

On top of that, in a further illustration of Party’s level of integrity, it has made a different late alteration of its debate eligibility rules. A Phoenix participant now must have at least 20% of pledged delegates–a requirement that carefully excludes Gabbard.

Hmm….

(Double) Standards of Protection for Government Officials

Posted on by
Reply

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D, NY) threatened two Supreme Court Justices if they didn’t rule his way on a Louisiana law requiring doctors to have hospital admission privileges as a prerequisite to doing abortions. (The case actually has little to do with abortions; it concerns whether third parties—doctors here—can sue on behalf of others, especially when those others have suffered no harm from the matter.)

Schumer stood on the steps the Supreme Court building in front of a noisy protest crowd and, pointing back at the Supreme Court building, said [the quote below starts at about 0:45],

I want to tell you, Gorsuch. I want to tell you, Kavanaugh. You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.

The lack of “Justice” honorific might seem merely rude on Schumer’s part, but he omitted it to emphasize the directness and seriousness of his threat. The smirk on his face as he took in the crowd’s noisy approval illustrates the matter, too.

Schumer, of course, denied through his spokesman (apparently he didn’t have the courage to speak directly), that he was threatening the Justices, insisting that he was talking political retribution for Republican politicians. The video at the link demonstrates the lie of that. Schumer, in one paragraph of his speech was clearly addressing—facing, pointing at, calling by name—two Justices. It wasn’t until the next paragraph that he addressed—facing his crowd, no pointing, no Republican addressed by name (not even his chiefest opponent, the Senate Majority Leader so instrumental in getting those Justices confirmed)—Republican politicians.

On the floor of the Senate Thursday, Schumer doubled down on his threat. First, he lied about making a threat; his words weren’t intended that way, he claimed. He’s from Brooklyn and Brooklynites speak in strong language, he said—as if being his habit makes it all right. Then he tried to downplay his words by insisting that Republicans are creating the situation with their politics and with their “manufactured outrage” over Schumer’s remarks.

Then Schumer, still on the floor of the Senate at the end of his doubling down, refused even to apologize to the Justices. He just yielded back his time.

The Wall Street Journal, in its op-ed on the matter, mentioned President Donald Trump’s call for Justice recusal in emphasis of the seriousness of Schumer’s escalation of the Left’s political rhetoric:

Mr Trump recently tweeted that liberal Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor should recuse themselves on cases involving his Administration.

It’s much more than this, though.  Trump didn’t threaten Ginsburg and Sotomayor, individually or together, if they didn’t comply. Not tacitly, especially not as nakedly as Schumer threatened Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.

The Secret Service gets after folks who threaten Presidents. Don’t Justices—on the same government hierarchical level as Presidents—deserve the same protection? Apparently not, when it’s a Progressive-Democrat who makes the threat.

Close

Posted on by
Reply

…but no cigar.  Senator Mike Lee (R, UT) has some thoughts on fixing the  Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and its secret FISA Court.  He’s on the right track, but his ideas fall short.

Lee wants to fix the FISA Court and tighten the parameters under which it operates. This Star Chamber cannot be fixed; it must be disbanded and the sections creating and empowering it must be rescinded from the FISA altogether.

There remains a need to guard against and to respond to espionage and interference efforts, and there remains a need for that response to involve investigations of American citizens who might be involved in those foreign assaults.  There remains a need to keep many of our responses and investigations secret—for a time—so as not to tip off the targets of our investigations, whether they’re foreign or American.

Counterbalancing that is the even more crucial need to protect Americans’ individual liberties, including those being investigated.  Especially the latter need protection; they’ve not been shown to have done anything wrong, but public suspicions would ruin the reputations of those actually innocent.

Our present Article III courts already are well-versed in handling secret warrants where necessary for domestic criminal investigations and for sealing records until it’s useful to release them or after sufficient time has passed that their release will not harm an ongoing investigation.  FISA warrants can be handled here.

Many of Lee’s other ideas, with some adjustments, will work just fine in a sealed Article III court.

He wants to expand the role of an amicus in FISA warrant applications beyond warrants involving a novel or significant interpretation of law.

amicus should advocate for the privacy and civil liberties of the person targeted.

The role needs to be expanded further. This new amicus should overtly act as Devil’s advocate and seek to expose weaknesses in the warrant application with a view to getting the application denied. The target legitimately cannot be present, yet in most domestic criminal cases, the target has opportunities to contest the warrant, even if only after the fact.  Such a contest needs to be present with FISA warrants, as well.

Lee wants relevant agencies to be required to provide all information in their possession as part of the application, including any exculpatory evidence. The FBI Director and the Attorney General should be required to certify that this has been done, and there needs to be heavy sanctions applied to the agents, the Director and the AG if this requirement has been found, after the warrant’s submittal, to have gone unsatisfied. It’s almost never enough merely to punish the workers directly responsible; too often they acted improperly because they were actively allowed to or because they were permitted to by too lax supervision.

It’s critical that we take these kinds of measures in response to the failures of and abuses from the present FISA setup so that this sort of violation of United States citizens never happen again.

Privacy

Posted on by
Reply

Here is why more needs to be done to protect our privacy—primarily by us, but with Government’s assistance. Below is an example, quoted from a bulletin board I follow. The author is talking about an investment during a time of coronavirus disruption of supply chains, but the subtext should be obvious.

re: GOOG
They don’t build physical widgets in Wuhan that might get hard to obtain…the ad biz will probably keep on rolling.
We just bought 2 new Android smartphones and 1 new Android tablet. Coming from a dumb-phone flip phone and a Kindle.
Google [Alphabet, which owns Google] OWNS that market. You cannot even download/install an app without having a google account. And every time you do something, Google prompts you to set up a payment method. No way to say “Hell no, never.” The choices are: google play card, credit card, debit card, and “skip for now, maybe later”.
So, clever me, I created a dummy google/gmail account. And logged in so I could install some free apps from Google Play. Fine.
But within 2 days it somehow associated my wife’s gmail account with the Android tablet. And she has NEVER touched that tablet. Now every time I go to use it, it asks me which account I want to log into—the dummy account or her account.
Google OWNS that market.
—————
Near as I can figure out, her name is on our Amazon Prime account. And our Sony Bluray player and our Roku smart TV are both registered to Amazon Prime Video—so obviously in her name.
Now, we do not get cell phone coverage at our house, so all our external internet network access goes through our internet ISP. And the way that works is that, to the internet, every device in our house has the same IP address.
So something managed to figure out that her gmail account was associated with our external IP address, and also that same IP address was associated with the Amazon Prime Video account, and that her gmail account is accociated with that Amazon account. Therefore every device in our house that contacts the external internet has some sort of connection to her gmail address.
At home, the Android smartphones and the tablet can only access the internet via our internal network, on WIFI, since we get no cell coverage. So if somebody puts all these pieces together it is easy to figure out the connections.
Google managed to figure it all out. Took them 2 days.

Heads up.