Tag Archives: ethics

A Judicial Miss

Posted on by
Reply

Recall the Marquette University case wherein a graduate-student instructor, Cheryl Abbate, shut down debate on the subject of gay marriage, arguing that views that didn’t accept such things were “homophobic and unwelcome in her classroom.”  Tenured Political Science Professor John McAdams objected, in blunt terms, to the evident bigotry demonstrated by Abbate in a personal post on his personal blog.  Marquette disciplined him for disagreeing—that’s a violation of Marquette “speech” policy.  McAdams demurred and took Marquette to court.

Milwaukee County Circuit judge sided with the university. The judge, David Hansher, wrote that academic freedom “does not mean that a faculty member can harass, threaten, intimidate, ridicule, or impose his or her views on students.”

And yet, that’s exactly what the graduate-student instructor was doing. Hansher needed to pay actual attention to the facts of the matter.

Independent Monitor

Posted on by
Reply

Recall Special Counselor Robert Mueller’s raid on President Donald Trump’s personal lawyer Michael Cohen’s offices and seizure of Cohen’s records, especially targeting communications between Cohen, the lawyer, and Trump, the client.

Cohen went in to Federal court Friday to try to get the subpoena under which the raid was conducted revoked and the confiscated materials returned.  Some discussion surrounding the events centers on the alleged ability of special monitors—a “taint team”—doing the sorting so as to isolate the privileged communications from the rest of the material sought under the warrant.  Furthermore, this team would, supposedly, conduct its sort before Mueller’s team has gone into the material they seized.

I’ll elide the blatant conflict of interest here centered on the taint team’s members being, at bottom, colleagues of the those who ran the raid and of Mueller: they’re FBI agents and DoJ lawyers.

I’m interested in a larger question that’s not being addressed.  Say Cohen wins his case and the subpoena is quashed and the seized materials returned to him in toto.  On what basis do we conclude that Mueller’s team hasn’t already copied all of those seized materials and separated the copies from the originals?  That by itself, incidentally, would be a good practice with legitimately confiscated materials; reviewing the copies would ensure against accidentally damaging the originals and thereby destroying their legal provenance (as well as their utility for their rightful owners).  On what basis do we conclude that, on Cohen’s victory, those copies would be returned, also?  On what basis do we conclude that Mueller’s team isn’t already reading and evaluating those copies of the seized materials?

Leaks

Posted on by
Reply

Recall Special Counselor Robert Mueller’s unconscionable raid on the offices of President Donald Trump’s personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, a raid that confiscated, among other things, communications between Trump and his lawyer that, heretofore, were privileged communications that no prosecutor or court could access.

The press is reporting that Mr Cohen is being investigated for possible bank fraud and campaign-finance violations in connection to his $130,000 payment to Stormy Daniels (née Stephanie Clifford)….

To the extent the press is reporting accurately, the leaked purpose of this investigation can only have come from Mueller’s “investigation” (Cohen himself has said only that the raid was done with courtesy and professionalism by the FBI soldiers on the ground), and these reports are just further examples of Mueller’s careful leaks of the most salacious details of his claimed investigation.

The leaks also are a further illustration of the dishonesty of Mueller’s doings.  These leaks demonstrate how far Mueller has strayed from—if, indeed, he’s even still pursuing—Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein’s claimed purpose for his special counsel, which was to investigate possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian interests. At this point, too, Mueller’s only purpose in leaking things about an alleged relationship with an aging pornographic movie starlet can only be to keep the smear alive in the NLMSM during the midterm election campaign season.

It’s not politically useful for Trump to fire or to cause the firing of Mueller, but he does need to push the pace of Mueller’s “investigation,” and so do honest Republicans in Congress, in order to bring this sorry charade to a close.  Mueller has indicated he wants to write a report.  Let him, push him to do so, and let a candid American citizenry see what an empty puddle of nothing on which he’s wasted so much of their tax money.

We Don’t Get Silicon Valley

Posted on by
Reply

That’s what Facebook MFWCI Mark Zuckerberg said in Tuesday’s hearing in front of the Senate.  On the other hand,

Senator Gary Peters (D, MI) asked whether Facebook is using the microphones of users’ phones to listen in to what they are doing and saying—a charge the company has denied repeatedly in recent months.

And given the level of integrity Facebook managers have shown over the years, of course we should believe their denials. Right.  Never mind that that’s an easily done exploit that hackers have done on and off (pardon the pun) for years.  Right along with playing untoward games with the video cameras on our laptops.

Here’s the kicker, though, from that Senate hearing:

Mark Zuckerberg, Silicon Valley had one for Congress: Why don’t you get us?

The Senators’ questions often were ignorant, but that’s all they were: borne of an ignorance that’s easily corrected. Zuckerberg’s question, to the extent it’s accurately paraphrased and attributed, is a deeply cynical one that carefully misdirects the emphasis, borne as the question is from Silicon Valley’s deeply Leftist ideology—a slant Zuckerberg freely acknowledged a couple of times.

The more accurate question, the more serious question, is why doesn’t Silicon Valley get Americans?

A Gordian Knot Solution

Posted on by
Reply

Sometimes blunt instruments are the appropriate ones.

DoJ, while the ink was still drying on its promise of transparency and cooperation with Congress regarding the House’s Intelligence Committee investigations, welched on that promise.  Regarding the electronic communication—memo—that launched the counterintelligence investigation into alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia,

Chairman Devin Nunes (R, CA) received an official response from Assistant Attorney General Stephen Boyd.
…
Upon inspection, however, [the response] looks more like an effort to distract attention from Mr Boyd’s refusal even to mention Mr Nunes’ main request of FBI Director Christopher Wray and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.

That main request was for a clean, unredacted copy of the document.  Instead, the key data in the doc, the data central to the Intel Committee’s investigation, were carefully redacted.  The excuse?  The data would give up the name of the nation whose intel service is cooperating with us.  Never mind that the New York Times already has published Australia as the source for the Papadopoulos claims and that ex-CIA Director John Brennan already has bragged about Great Britain’s relationship with the FBI.

Enough stonewalling.  President Donald Trump needs formally and explicitly to declassify the memo and order the FBI to release it.

Sure, he’ll take heat from the Progressive-Democrats and the Left generally. What else is new?