Tag Archives: ethics

Another Leak

Posted on by
Reply

The Wall Street Journal reported another leak concerning Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s pseudo-investigation of all things related to supposed collusion by President Donald Trump’s campaign team and Russia [emphasis added].

A meeting in the Seychelles weeks before Donald Trump’s inauguration between a Russian executive and a top Republican donor close to the Trump transition team has drawn the scrutiny of special counsel Robert Mueller, who has heard testimony that appears to conflict with an account of the same meeting given earlier to House investigators, according to people familiar with the matter.

Specifically,

Mr Mueller’s investigators have heard testimony from a witness that the donor, Erik Prince, wasn’t introduced to the Russian by intermediaries from the United Arab Emirates, as he had told the House panel….

And

Mr [George] Nader told Mr Mueller’s investigators that he attended Mr Prince’s meeting with the Emirati delegation and that the Emiratis didn’t make the introduction between Mr Prince and Mr Dmitriev….

How—and why—are these leaks being made?  Can we even believe them, given the leaker’s dishonesty made manifest by the fact of his leaks?

…a spokesman for the special counsel declined to comment.

Not even to decry the leak.  But, then, of course not.  He’ll let the leak stand unaddressed.

“People familiar with the matter” include Mueller and his team.  Certainly, “people familiar” include folks other than Mueller or his team, but Mueller’s continued studied refusal to decry not only this leak but all of them is strongly indicative.

Mueller seems to be getting desperate to show something—anything—that would justify his having spent the millions of dollars he’s spent on his…investigation.

Or So He Says

Posted on by
Reply

Delta Air Lines CEO Ed Bastian claims his company’s decision to cut ties with the National Rifle Association to the extent it will no longer offer discounts for NRA members was apolitical.

While Delta’s intent was to remain neutral, some elected officials in Georgia tied our decision to a pending jet fuel tax exemption, threatening to eliminate it unless we reversed course. Our decision was not made for economic gain and our values are not for sale[.]

Of course.

Bastian maintains that in cutting its affiliation with the pro-gun rights group, Delta tried to remove itself from the gun control debate.

Never mind that Delta was never in the gun control debate until it chose to enter it with this move.

Bastian also claims that the company is “reevaluating the group discounts” it offers to members of other organizations that are “politically divisive.”

Sure.  Two things about that, though.  Delta actually has stopped the discounts for NRA members; it’s only “evaluating” that move for other groups.  And: Bastian has chosen, so far at least, to decline to offer his criteria that define “politically divisive.”

I won’t be flying Delta anytime soon.  Or United Airlines, which is perpetrating a similar boycott.  I will be using FedEx, which says that while it disagrees with the NRA on some questions, it won’t discriminate against any of its customers over political beliefs.

The Progressive-Democrats’ Memo

Posted on by
Reply

Recall that the House Permanent Subcommittee on Intelligence majority party, the Republicans, released a four-page memo, unclassified (the DoJ and the FBI didn’t want the thing released, but White House security personnel vetted it), that outlined the Republicans’ view of the handling by the FBI, DoJ, and the FISA court of the Steele Dossier and the FISA warrant obtained for spying by the American government on an American.  Recall further the hoo-raw the Progressive-Democrats raised over the release and their demand to release their own.

The Progressive-Democrats’ memo, ten pages long, was approved for release by the House as soon as the Progressive-Democrats got around to producing it, and it was sent over to the White House for vetting and release.  The memo was rejected and the minority party advised to run it by the FBI for vetting before the White House could consider it for release.  That was done, the doc vetted—and heavily redacted—and the White House released the thing over the weekend.

The opening paragraph is as instructive as it is illustrative.

The HPSCI Majority’s move to release to the House of Representatives its allegations against the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) is a transparent effort to undermine those agencies, the Special Counsel, and Congress’ investigations.  It also risks public exposure of sensitive sources and methods for no legitimate purpose.

This on a document originally marked TOP SECRET/NOFORN, yet expected to be released forthwith.

My irony meter is pegged.  My hypocrisy warning horn is sounding.

Quid Pro Quo?

Posted on by
Reply

Recall that the Veterans Administration’s Inspector General had written a damning report of its investigation into the fraudulent behavior of the VA Secretary and of the Secretary’s Chief of Staff.  The IG even had referred the matter to the Justice Department for criminal prosecution.  DoJ then declined to prosecute.

Now that chief of staff, Vivieca Wright Simpson, has announced her retirement, and the VA has opened its own investigation into her actions, an investigation that might lead to civil action, but it’s not a criminal investigation.  I have to ask, then: was this a quid pro quo?  Did DoJ agree not to prosecute if Simpson agreed to leave?

 

Veteranos Administratio delende est.

The Veterans Administration Is Not Getting Better

Posted on by
1

VA Secretary David Shulkin, according to an IG report, has been misappropriating VA funds for his and his family’s personal benefit, and he’s been abusing his authority to require a subordinate to act as his “personal travel concierge.”  He

improperly accepted a gift of Wimbledon tennis tickets….

And his Chief of Staff, Vivieca Wright Simpson, apparently tampered with evidence:

made false claims to a VA ethics official by altering an email to get official approval for Dr Shulkin’s wife to take part in the trip as an “invitational traveler,” a status that meant the VA would cover her expenses. Her airfare cost taxpayers $4,312.

Shulkin and his fellow travelers (not only his wife) spent an exhausting 3 and a half days in business-related meetings out of their 10-day trip.  That’s some jet lag.

Of course, Shulkin and his staff denied all of this and complained that the week the IG gave him to respond was, somehow, not enough time.  Must have been still jet lagged.

He’s paid the money back?  He should have known better in the first place.  If the leadership cannot be counted on to perform, how can anyone else be?  Reallocate the VA budget—every single dollar of it—to vouchers for our veterans.

 

Veteranos Administratio delende est.