Tag Archives: ethics

Early Stage Alzheimer’s?

Posted on by
1

From the latest FBI document release last Friday, we learned or received a measure of clarification on a few things.

Democratic Party Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton told the FBI during the interviews that were the subject of the document release that

Clinton could not recall when she received her security clearance or whether it was carried over from her time in the Senate. She also could not recall any briefing or training by the State Department “related to the retention of federal records or the handling of classified information.”

And further,

Clinton recalled being briefed on Specific Access Program information (for classified material). But [she] could not recall any specific briefings on how to handle information associated with the SAPs[.]

And

she requested a secured BlackBerry while at State but could not recall why they were unable to provide one[.]

And

Clinton repeatedly claimed to have little training or understanding about the classification process—despite leading the department that handled such information on a regular basis and having a security clearance[.]

And this:

FBI agents also asked Clinton about three emails marked classified. They contained a “C” or portion marking, indicating the intelligence was at the lowest level, or confidential. Clinton said she thought the “C” was part of series like bullet points or a listing, like A, B, C.”

More than 30 times in the FBI’s Friday release, Clinton told the FBI agents interviewing her that she couldn’t remember this or that major briefing or training or similar event.

Recall that Clinton signed off on documents certifying that she had had security briefing when she became Secretary of State.  Recall that then-Senator Clinton served on the Senate Armed Services Committee, in which capacity she also was briefed and periodically trained in handling classified data and documents, and in which capacity she routinely handled classified data and documents.

Couple these memory lapses and instances of confusion with her deflections when reporters ask her questions that she doesn’t understand (back when she was interacting with them)—”You mean like with a cloth?”, her efforts to change the subject when told things she doesn’t understand, and her current months-long (more than 270 days) hiding from interactive meetings with the public (the TV interviews her campaign touts aren’t live; they’re “edited to fit the time slot”).

Assume she’s telling the truth about all of this, about her confusion concerning really quite routine classification protocols, about her not remembering.  Assume she’s not being evasive in response to simple questions when she deflects or changes the subject.

All of this may be why she’s hiding from interactive public meetings like press conferences.

All of this begins to look like Clinton is in the throes of early-stage Alzheimer’s.

Disingenuosity

Posted on by
Reply

This from Democratic Party Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and her campaign.

A new batch of emails released Thursday allegedly shows a top Clinton Foundation official asking Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin for help obtaining diplomatic passports—though Clinton officials say the request was related to the effort to secure the release of two American journalists held in North Korea.

Never mind that Federal law is quite clear on this: diplomatic passports can be issued only to diplomats and Foreign Service officers, no matter the purpose of the trip.  Even so, Clinton is arguing through her campaign spokesman Josh Schwerin that

Judicial Watch is now attacking State Department officials and the 42nd President of the United States for rescuing two American journalists from North Korea.  This is a new low even for this right-wing organization that has been going after the Clintons since the 1990s.

No, Judicial Watch is concerned about the Hillary Clinton State Department willfully and willingly agreeing to flout Federal law for her Clinton Foundation leadership’s benefit.  The excuse that her State Department used—that it was for the children journalists—is cynically disingenuous.  The low is Clinton’s distortion of that concern, and no, it’s not a new low; it’s all too typical of Clinton’s and Clinton’s staff’s behavior.

Obamatalk

Posted on by
Reply

Here’s an example, through President Barack Obama’s (D) former advisor, Dan Pfeiffer, from a podcast he does with Jon Favreau, Obama’s former speech writer, via The Wall Street Journal‘s Notable & Quotable.

Pfeiffer: The press gets bored of writing the same story over and over again, and they almost start to feel guilty about writing s—ty stories about the same person all the time, and they want to do something different. So it’s a classic move to do two things: One, fire someone. Press doesn’t even care who, right?  …  “Huge problem in the VA, oh, someone got fired? OK, that’s fine then, we don’t worry about that anymore.”

Or, stand in the middle of Pennsylvania Avenue, wave your arms in the air and say “we’re pivoting.” It’s a total bulls—t thing. You and I have been a part of many bulls—t pivots.

Remind you of anything?

The Courts’ Role in Law

Posted on by
Reply

The New York Court of Appeals, the State’s Supreme Court, has inserted itself into the political debate concerning who is a parent.  It’s entered the moral debate, too, but its ruling is a legal and political one:

New York’s highest court Tuesday upended how the state legally defines parenthood, reversing course on a 25-year-old ruling that had blocked many same-sex couples from seeking the court’s help in custody disputes.

Until now, New York only recognized as parents those with a clear adoptive or biological tie to a child, shutting out those who otherwise may have played a key role in a child’s upbringing.
…
The court ruled that going forward, a partner can seek visitation and custody if it is shown “by clear and convincing evidence that the parties agreed to conceive a child and to raise the child together.” The court recognized that some people could even deserve custody if they came into a child’s life after the birth, but said now isn’t the time to set a rule for such situations.

The Court justified its ruling in this way:

Tuesday’s decision by the New York Court of Appeals said society has changed in recent decades and that families formed by gay couples need to be protected.

And there’s this by Susan Sommer, an attorney at Lambda Legal:

Finally, New York is bringing its law in line with the reality of thousands of children who need protection for their relationships[.]

No, even if society has changed, this is a political decision that legitimately can be made only by that society—the citizens of New York, themselves or through their elected representatives.  The courts have no proper role to play in the political arena; they have only in a judicial one—which is to apply the law as it’s written (or strike it altogether if they can make the case that the law in question is unconstitutional).  The courts’ role does not include making law from the bench.

Pay to Play Variant

Posted on by
Reply

Democratic Party Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and her husband aren’t the only Democrats engaged in this.  Here’s a variant being employed by Democrat Attorneys General, as described in The Wall Street Journal, by Andy Koenig, a senior policy adviser at Freedom Partners Chamber of Commerce.

The administration’s multiyear campaign against the banking industry has quietly steered money to organizations and politicians who are working to ensure liberal policy and political victories at every level of government. The conduit for this funding is the Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities Working Group, a coalition of federal and state regulators and prosecutors created in 2012 to “identify, investigate, and prosecute instances of wrongdoing” in the residential mortgage-backed securities market. In conjunction with the Justice Department, the RMBS Working Group has reached multibillion-dollar settlements with essentially every major bank in America.

Three guesses where those billions of dollars are going.  The first two guesses don’t count.

Yup.

[A] substantial portion is allocated to private, nonprofit organizations drawn from a federally approved list.

These government-favored organizations include Catholic Charities, La Raza, the National Urban League, the National Community Reinvestment Coalition, and so on.  Catholic Charities is completely apolitical and entirely decent, but they’re on the list solely to give cover to the presence of the others, which are blatantly political—and have entirely pro-Liberal agendas.

[T]hese groups engage in voter registration, community organizing, and lobbying on liberal policy priorities at every level of government. They also provide grants to other liberal groups not eligible for payouts under the settlements. Thanks to the Obama administration, and the fungibility of money, the settlements’ beneficiaries can now devote hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars to these activities.

RTWT, there’s much more.  To emphasize: those settlements are little more than vig extracted for Obama administration causes as a price of being allowed to do business.