Tag Archives: ethics

Insulting?

Posted on by
Reply

Army Colonel Jeffery Nance, the presiding judge in the Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl desertion case has some concerns, officially because Bergdahl’s lawyers has them; unfortunately, Nance has his own, and they’re misplaced.

The judge…called video of [President Donald] Trump repeatedly calling Bergdahl a traitor during campaign speeches “disturbing” at a pre-trial hearing Monday.

He went further:

He also asked prosecutors pointed questions about whether Trump’s criticism has already created a public perception that Bergdahl won’t be treated fairly.

Nance exposed his own prejudgment with his characterization of a politician’s—a businessman as political tyro’s—campaign rhetoric as disturbing as though such blather might prejudice Bergdahl’s case.  Nance then deepened his failure with his implication that the trial participants—judge, lawyers, jury—might be influenced by doings from outside the courtroom.

It got worse.  Nance asked the prosecution lawyers,

You’re not at all concerned about the statement he made, “If I get in we will review his case”…after ranting and raving about no jail time?

Ranting?  More importantly, though, is Nance’s slur here against officers and NCOs in the United States Army—that they’re such cowards they’ll be swayed from their duty as jurors by campaign commentary.

The trial needs to go forward.  The Army and Bergdahl’s fellow soldiers deserve justice.  Bergdahl deserves justice: if the charges are dropped by this judge, Bergdahl can never be viewed as anything other than a deserter, even if he were not.  A fair trial—juried by officers and NCOs who aren’t the timid Milquetoasts Nance thinks they are—will determine Bergdahl’s guilt or innocence; ducking away from the trial cannot.

Mexican Terror Threat

Posted on by
1

Mexico is upset with President Donald Trump’s efforts to tighten border security and especially with his efforts to deal more thoroughly with illegal aliens present in the US, many of whom are Mexican.  A coalition has formed—a group of Mexican officials, legislators, governors and public figures planning to meet [in the US] with migrant groups—to plot ways in which to interfere with our enforcement of our immigration laws.

One of those ways was described by Mexican ex-Foreign Minister Jorge Castañeda:

The backlog in the immigration system is tremendous [the idea is to double or triple the backlog]….

Notice that: the idea isn’t to protect and enforce such rights as illegal aliens have in the United States, but simply to overburden our court system.  That’s nakedly cynical, but that’s mild.  This coalition is plotting worse.

Here’s Senator (Party of the Democratic Revolution) Armando Ríos Piter and an attendee of the coalition’s meetings in Phoenix over the weekend:

Mexico is helping on the fight on terror and that collaboration should be put under review given the attitude of Trump.  It’s important to make clear to them the possible consequences if Trump keeps a hostile and aggressive stance.

American government plans and methods for dealing with illegal aliens are certainly legitimate subjects for discussion and debate.  Threats to increase our vulnerability to terrorism unless we surrender our law enforcement to Mexican demands are unacceptable in those discussions and debates and anywhere else.

We should—at the least—accelerate our enforcement against illegal aliens who are Mexican citizens or who entered the US illegally via Mexican routes until the Mexican government publicly and explicitly repudiates Piter’s threat and any others like it.  With regard to Piter, we have laws against making terrorist threats, and they should be enforced against everyone in the United States.  Including Mexican government officials.

Silencing Warren

Posted on by
1

A couple days ago, Senator Elizabeth Warren (D, MA) was disparaging a fellow Senator, Jeff Sessions (R, AL) who was being advised-and-consented regarding his nomination for Attorney General.  Senators objected, and then the Senate voted to require her to be silent for the remainder of that debate when she persisted in the disparagement.  Understand, too, that whatever we might think about the Senate’s rules against disparaging a colleague, the rules are quite clear and quite well known to all Senators and their staffs.

There are two things about the way the NLMSM is “reporting” on this as most of it lionizes Warren over her having been sent from the Senate podium for a few hours.  One is that the NLMSM is reporting only on the fact of the silencing, which occurred during her attempt to read portions of a 30-year-old letter from Coretta Scott King urging the Senate to deny Sessions’ nomination to a Federal judgeship. The NLMSM is choosing not to report on the behavior that preceded Warren’s attempt to read those excerpts that also included disparagement, behavior that included Warren’s calling Session “disgraceful” and “racist” and accusing him of pushing a “campaign of bigotry”—not even her citing someone else as possessing that opinion; those were her words.

The other is the NLMSM’s decision to not report another King family member‘s current view of Warren’s behavior.

Dr Alveda King, niece of Dr Martin Luther King Jr…said Senator Warren is using the King named to play the race card and stir up emotions.

“In that letter [Coretta Scott King] would be referring to some of [Senator Jeff Sessions’] comments,” King told the FOX Business Network’s Neil Cavuto. “However, she would agree today that he of course ended some [school segregation and] he worked to prosecute members of the KKK.”

King added: “It’s almost like a bait and switch, stir up the emotions, in the name of King—and my name is Alveda King…[and] play the race card, which she was attempting to do.”

Hmm….

Fake News?

Posted on by
Reply

Here’s the lede from The Washington Post in a Thursday article accusing National Security Advisor Michael Flynn (USA Lt Gen, Ret) of discussing sanctions with the Russian ambassador before President Donald Trump’s inauguration (and before Flynn’s installation as Advisor):

National security adviser Michael Flynn privately discussed US sanctions against Russia with that country’s ambassador to the United States during the month before President Trump took office, contrary to public assertions by Trump officials, current and former US officials said.

Notice that.  Current and former US officials—carefully unidentified by the Post persons.  There’s more [emphasis added, as it is in the subsequent quotes]:

Flynn’s communications with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak were interpreted by some senior US officials as an inappropriate and potentially illegal….

And

Officials said this week that the FBI is continuing to examine Flynn’s communications with Kislyak. Several officials emphasized that while sanctions were discussed….

And

the fuller account of Flynn’s contacts with Kislyak provided by officials who had access to reports from US intelligence and law enforcement agencies….

And

Nine current and former officials, who were in senior positions at multiple agencies at the time of the calls, spoke on the condition of anonymity….

And

All of those officials said Flynn’s references to the election-related sanctions were explicit. Two of those officials went further, saying that Flynn urged Russia not to overreact…making clear that the two sides would be in position to review the matter after Trump was sworn in as president.

Shades of ex-President Barack Obama’s (D) assurances to “Vladimir” of greater flexibility.  There’s still more from the Post:

“Kislyak was left with the impression that the sanctions would be revisited at a later time,” said a former official.

A third official put it more bluntly, saying that either Flynn had misled Pence or that Pence misspoke.

And

The nature of Flynn’s pre-inauguration message to Kislyak triggered debate…according to officials familiar with that debate.

And

Current and former US officials said that assertion [of no sanctions discussion] was not true.

Then there’s this bit of misdirection by the Post:

The spokesman [Flynn’s spokesman] said Flynn “indicated that while he had no recollection of discussing sanctions, he couldn’t be certain that the topic never came up.”

The subject coming up isn’t the same as the subject being discussed.  The Post knows this.

Did Flynn overstep his bounds?  It’s impossible to tell from this article; there are no verifiable sources cited; although there are a dozen carefully anonymous—and so unverifiable—sources claimed.  As you read through the piece, though, you’ll notice that in the discussion of whether Flynn’s alleged-by-the-Post actions would be prosecutable, the newspaper did explicitly identify sources; it clearly had no problem naming names where that was convenient to it.

Common Ground

Posted on by
Reply

The Democratic Party—the party being run by Progressives, hence the Progressive-Democratic Party—met earlier in the week in a Party retreat to plot its way forward as the minority party in the Federal, and a majority of State, governments.  The agenda consisted of how to block White House and House Republican proposals.

Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer (D, MD) [at the retreat] pointed to the tally from the popular vote in the 2016 election to say that Democrats represent the “majority view” in America….

Never mind that that “majority” came solely from California and New York, two States that don’t come close to being representative of mainstream America.  Never mind, either, that majority of States whose voters have demonstrated—repeatedly—that the majority view, the mainstream view, is not close to the Progressive-Democratic Party view.

And

Actions like that [President Donald Trump’s EO imposing a moratorium on entry into the US from some Middle East countries], Ms Pelosi said, diminish hope of common ground with Democrats.

This is typical of the Progressive-Democrats’ arrogance.  The US must revolve around them. They have no need to seek out common ground with others, least of all those who disagree with them.

And this closer from House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi:

As long as the president continues down this path, there is nothing Democrats can work with him in[.]

No, the Progressive-Democrats need to cooperate and work with the Republican majority.  That was, after all, the majority Progressive-Democrats’ mantra during six of the last eight years when they held the majority of one or both houses of Congress.

But working with, cooperating, only goes one way, apparently.  The mountain must come to Mohamed.

Common ground, indeed.