Tag Archives: ethics

A Navy Veteran

Posted on by
Reply

…refused an “award” from a dishonorable organization.

The New Orleans Saints was going to present Commander John Wells, Military Veterans Advocacy Executive Director, with the Peoples Health Champion award during the Saints’ game against the Chicago Bears last weekend.  What Wells said in his refusal:

Although I am touched and honored to be selected for such an award, the ongoing controversy with NFL players’ disrespect for the national flag forces me to decline to participate in the presentation.  I am unable, in good conscience, to enter an NFL stadium while this discourtesy prevails. Since this award is tainted with the dishonorable actions of the NFL and its players, I cannot accept it.

The Saints’ response, in its attitude, vindicated Wells’ decision.

We will not allow Mr Wells’ decision and subsequent media appearances to distract our players and organization from continuing to honor and support our military and veterans. We, as an organization, have decided to move on from this sad and divisive discourse and focus our attention on supporting our military and veterans.

The Saints’ statement also claimed

[W]e…contend we are leaders when it comes to financial support as well as the thousands of service hours our organization and players gladly contribute….

No, the divisiveness distraction here are in the players’ decision to attack our flag and national anthem and to insult our veterans and their families while masquerading their “protest” as commentary on social injustice and in Saints management’s decision to condone such miscreancy.  This misbehavior has rendered all the claimed support for our veterans into so much self-serving eyewash.  The financial support and service hours turn out to be nothing but indulgences, whether paid in advance or after the fact.

Good on the Commander.

The Democratic National Committee

Posted on by
Reply

On a different matter, this time, from information in Donna Brazile’s piece in Politico.  Brazile’s article is centered on the control Hillary Clinton and her 2016 campaign organization exercised over the DNC and how they got that control, and the article is worth reading in that light.

But there’s another matter that Brazile only mentions in support of her description of Clinton’s seizure but that wants a bit more emphasis.  First, the allegation:

Debbie [Wasserman Schultz] was not a good manager. She hadn’t been very interested in controlling the party—she let Clinton’s headquarters in Brooklyn do as it desired so she didn’t have to inform the party officers how bad the situation was.

Then an event, typical of the DNC’s financial machinations and illustrative of DNC leadership:

On the phone Gary [Gensler, Chief Financial Officer of Hillary’s campaign] told me the DNC had needed a $2 million loan, which the campaign had arranged.

“No! That can’t be true!” I [Brazile] said. “The party cannot take out a loan without the unanimous agreement of all of the officers.”

“Gary, how did they do this without me knowing?” I asked.

And

She [Wasserman Schultz] seemed to make decisions on her own and let us know at the last minute what she had decided….

And

I kept asking the party lawyers and the DNC staff to show me the agreements that the party had made for sharing the money they raised, but there was a lot of shuffling of feet and looking the other way.

The outcome:

…in exchange for raising money and investing in the DNC, Hillary would control the party’s finances, strategy, and all the money raised. Her campaign had the right of refusal of who would be the party communications director, and it would make final decisions on all the other staff. The DNC also was required to consult with the campaign about all other staffing, budgeting, data, analytics, and mailings.

This arrangement was agreed a year before Clinton had “won” the Progressive-Democratic Party nomination.  In other words, the DNC remade itself into a satrap of the Clinton machine, and done so well in advance of serious campaigning.

The Party chair not being overly involved?  The management team quietly letting the chair make decisions in a vacuum, including those that required team input?  Her replacement being stonewalled by the Party’s—her—management team?  It boggles the credulity to think these grown, highly experienced and talented men and women atop the Party didn’t understand what they were doing, or were in any way forced into doing it.  No, they all knew what they were doing.  All along, the Party’s leadership was in the tank for Clinton and did not want an honest, balanced primary contest.

It’s rich, too, that all of this is decried by the woman who herself was so far into the tank for Clinton that she fed Clinton debate questions before primary debates.

This is the level of integrity we can expect out of the Progressive-Democratic Party and so of any of its nominees unless and until there is a complete turnover of all of the Party’s leadership on down into the middle management ranks.  Every single one of them.

YGTBSM

Posted on by
Reply

Another in the annals of.

The Louisiana court system, all the way up to the State’s Supreme Court, has upheld police denial of a (black) defendant’s demand for a lawyer during a police interrogation.  At one point during the interrogation, the suspect said, quite clearly IMNSHO,

If y’all, this is how I feel, if y’all think I did it, I know that I didn’t do it so why don’t you just give me a lawyer dog ’cause this is not what’s up.

The Supreme Court said the suspect’s statement was too ambiguous to constitute a demand for a lawyer.  Justice Scott Chrichton, in concurring, actually wrote in all seriousness,

In my view, the defendant’s ambiguous and equivocal reference to a “lawyer dog” does not constitute an invocation of counsel that warrants termination of the interview….

Elie Mystal, in his article at the link, generously attributed the ruling to an inaccurate transcript—”lawyer dog” vice the defendant’s clearly stated “lawyer, dawg,” even as he, rightly, decried the blatant racism in denying the suspect his lawyer.  Over that “ambiguity.”

I’m not so inclined.  Even without the comma, “lawyer dog” is a pretty clear slang phrase identifying the object of the suspect’s call.

Dawg.

“Continuing to Cooperate”

Posted on by
1

Special Counsel Robert Mueller revealed some indictments and charges, and he “accepted” a guilty plea deal from George Papadopoulos, a volunteer associate of the Trump campaign.

I’ll leave aside the indictments (which charges are wholly unrelated to the Trump campaign or the Trump administration or anything related to them, anyway); what’s interesting is Mueller’s plea deal with Papadopoulos.

Mr Papadopoulos is continuing to cooperate in the investigation, according to his plea agreement.

And that’s what’s key:

Papadopoulos’ cooperation is central to his plea. The plea agreement provides that the government will bring his cooperation to the Court’s attention at sentencing and that sentencing will be delayed until his cooperation is complete.

The prosecution—Mueller—is holding Papadopoulos’ sentence over his head in order to get “evidence” convenient to Mueller’s case.  This is legalized extortion.

I have to ask: what honest prosecutor would find value in what a man in Papadopoulos’ position might say about others whom Mueller is targeting?  What jury could take seriously testimony that the prosecutor—Mueller—has bought and paid for, or pressured out of on threat of heavy sentencing?

This sort of thing isn’t unique to Mueller, for all that Mueller’s pressuring of a witness is very high profile.  It’s a standard prosecutorial tactic.  “Tell me what I want to hear, and repeat it in open court, or go to jail for a very long time.”

EPA Settlements

Posted on by
Reply

EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt has issued new instructions that

requires the agency to seek the participation of affected industries and states in settlement negotiations.

Environmental groups are having major hissy fits over this, complaining among other things that the instructions will complicate settlements and drag out what used to be easy settlement negotiations.

Of course they’re in an uproar: they’re not going to get cushy deals anymore.

Regarding their other beef, about complexified settlements, here’s an obvious solution: don’t do settlements.  Force all suits through to a court ruling/jury verdict while refusing an environmental group’s efforts to withdraw a suit when it becomes apparent to the group that they’re not going to get the deal they thought they could force with its lawfare-originated suit.

There are legitimate environmental problems, and some of them want a court’s solution.  It’s well past time that those cases weren’t delegitimized by frivolous suits or lawfare uproars.