Showing posts with label ethics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ethics. Show all posts

Oct 19, 2024

This Court Sucks


  • Lifetime appointment - can't be fired without 67 votes in US Senate
  • SCOTUS sits in judgement of itself
  • Another failure of honor



Only Congress has the authority to remove an Article III judge. This is done through a vote of impeachment by the House and a trial and conviction by the Senate. As of September 2017, only 15 federal judges have been impeached, and only eight have been convicted.

Dec 28, 2023

Still Not Both Sides

So, it's not always and only the Republicans - although it seems be about eleventy-zillion-to-1.

And here I am, a committed Blue Wave enthusiast, determined to vote against every dog-ass Republican every chance I get, and I'm saying I hope she's legitimately cleared, but if she's not - burn her down.

We have to drive the grifters and crooks out of the system.



House ethics panel launches investigation of Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick

A House Ethics panel announced Wednesday that it will investigate whether Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick (D-Fla.) violated campaign finance laws and failed to file required disclosure forms last year as she ran in a special election for her seat and sought reelection months later.

A statement from the top Republican and Democrat on the House Ethics Committee said that the panel had voted unanimously to create an investigative subcommittee to examine allegations that the congresswoman “may have violated campaign finance laws and regulations in connection with her 2022 special election and/or 2022 reelection campaigns; failed to properly disclose required information on statements required to be filed with the House; and/or accepted voluntary services for official work from an individual not employed in her congressional office.”

The statement provided no specifics on the allegations.

Cherfilus-McCormick’s press secretary, Jonathan Levin, emphasized in a statement that “the mere fact of establishing an investigative subcommittee does not itself indicate that any violation occurred.”

“Regardless, the Congresswoman takes these matters seriously and is working to resolve them,” he said.

Cherfilus-McCormick was elected to represent Florida’s 20th Congressional District, one of the most Democratic-leaning districts in the state, in early 2022 as part of a special election to replace the late Rep. Alcee L. Hastings (D-Fla.). She was reelected later that year.

Cherfilus-McCormick has faced scrutiny over how she financed her campaigns.

In 2022, the Sun Sentinel highlighted that she began self-funding her congressional campaign in 2021 just as the health-care company where she was chief executive started receiving roughly $8 million in contracts for providing coronavirus vaccines to underserved communities.

Cherfilus-McCormick loaned her campaign millions and also reported a major jump in her income — going from reporting $86,000 in 2020 to $6.4 million in 2021, according to the Sun Sentinel. Cherfilus-McCormick’s largest source of income in 2021 — $5.7 million — came from an LLC connected to her work as a health-care CEO.

The subcommittee investigating the issue is composed of four members: Reps. Andrew R. Garbarino (R-N.Y.), Chrissy Houlahan (D-Pa.), Cliff Bentz (R-Ore.) and Troy A. Carter (D-La.).

May 4, 2023

Today's Tweet


"... the personal invitation trick."

Apr 23, 2023

Moving Against Corruption


A long sad story of woe and intrigue.


Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse Calls For DOJ Investigation Of Clarence Thomas’ Hidden Gifts

“I’m urging the Judicial Conference to step in and refer Justice Thomas to the Attorney General for investigation,” the senator said.


Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), a senior member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, called on the body overseeing the federal judiciary to refer Justice Clarence Thomas to the Department of Justice for investigation into his failure to properly report gifts from a billionaire benefactor.

“It would be best for the Chief Justice to commence a proper investigation, but after a week of silence from the Court and this latest disturbing reporting, I’m urging the Judicial Conference to step in and refer Justice Thomas to the Attorney General for investigation,” Whitehouse said in a statement released Thursday night.

Whitehouse, joined by other Democrats, including Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), previously called on Chief Justice John Roberts to investigate Thomas’ failure to disclose hundreds of thousands of dollars in gifts from billionaire Harlan Crow. Those gifts, uncovered by ProPublica, included multiple expensive luxury vacations on Crow’s superyacht for Thomas and his wife, Ginni Thomas, and regular use of Crow’s private jet. Thomas did not disclose these gifts in his mandated annual personal financial reports.


In addition to the luxury vacations and private jet use, Crow purchased Thomas’ ancestral home in Georgia, where his mother still resides, from him for an inflated price, ProPublica reported on Thursday. While Thomas had listed his interest in the home on his financial reports in the past, he did not disclose the sale to Crow as required by law.

Whitehouse and Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) sent a letter to the Judicial Conference on Friday asking it to “refer Justice Thomas to the Attorney General for further action.”

The letter states: “Potential violations of disclosure laws by officers of the highest court merit serious investigation, and it is well past time for the Supreme Court to align with the rest of the government on ethics requirements.”

Supreme Court justices are required to disclose certain gifts and sales under federal ethics laws. In the past, some gifts of lodging and hospitality provided by friends were exempt from disclosure. Thomas claims that he believed that he was not required to disclose the travel, lodging and food provided by Crow.

In March, the Judicial Conference, the body that sets rules for the federal judiciary, updated its disclosure guidelines to clarify that justices must report gifts of lodging and hospitality not provided at a personal residence owned directly by the gift-giving individual and private travel to such locations.

The financial disclosure law that Thomas is alleged to have violated states that justices must “knowingly and willfully” fail to report gifts that should have been disclosed. Such a violation may result in fines up to $50,000, or, if the violator falsifies a report, not more than one year in prison.

The Judicial Conference is the body designated by ethics law to refer members of the judiciary to the Attorney General for investigation.

Whitehouse’s call for a referral for investigation into Thomas follows a similar letter to the Judicial Conference sent by the ethics watchdog group Campaign Legal Center. That letter noted that Thomas previously disclosed similar gifts of travel from Crow, but stopped disclosing them after the Los Angeles Times reported on his relationship with the billionaire in 2004. This sudden change in disclosure “demonstrated knowledge of the requirement” that he disclose such gifts, a precondition for guilt under the ethics law.

The CLC letter also notes that Thomas has a long history of failing to disclose gifts and income. In 2011, Thomas amended 20 years of his financial reports to account for his failure to disclose his wife’s income at various conservative political and educational institutions despite previously properly disclosing such income.

It has been 54 years since the Justice Department opened an investigation into a sitting Supreme Court justice.

In 1968, President Lyndon Johnson nominated Justice Abe Fortas to replace the retiring Earl Warren as Chief Justice. A bitter campaign to defeat the liberal justice’s nomination to lead the court, fueled in part by the antisemitism (Fortas was Jewish) of Southern segregationists like Republican Strom Thurmond and Democrat James Eastland, commenced.

Fortas’ nomination was ultimately blocked by a filibuster, but he remained on the bench as an associate justice. In the process, Thurmond attacked Fortas for receiving $15,000 paid by his former corporate clients and legal partners for nine speeches at American University.

In 1969, news reports revealed that Fortas received a $20,000 annual retainer from the family foundation of financier Louis Wolfson beginning in 1966. Wolfson had been convicted of illegal stock trading and appealed his conviction to the Supreme Court. The court didn’t take the case and Fortas didn’t take part in its consideration, but the payments created an appearance of corruption.

The Justice Department opened an investigation into Fortas after assistant attorney general and future Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist convinced President Richard Nixon that it would be legal to do so. Fortas ultimately resigned his seat after Attorney General John Mitchell threatened to indict him for tax fraud if he did not do so. The ethics law that Thomas is alleged to have broken was extended to cover judges following the revelations of payments to Fortas and other justices.

The campaign against Fortas was the beginning of the conservative push to take over the Supreme Court. It provided Nixon with two open court seats, first the Chief Justice seat being vacated by Warren and then Fortas’. Nixon appointed Warren Burger to replace Warren while attempting to fill Fortas’ seat with a Southern conservative segregationist in order to fulfill a campaign promise to Thurmond, but the Democratic Senate blocked him twice.

This episode launched the judicial wars that culminated in the conservative triumph after President Donald Trump replaced the late liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg with the conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett.

The shift in the court to the right elevated Thomas from the margins to the center of a court bloc aimed at rolling back the 20th century decisions pronounced by the likes of liberals like Fortas. But now he faces a similar controversy for breaking a law passed in Fortas’ wake.

Feb 2, 2023

Semi-Scummy SCOTUS


When the one place we thought was safe from outright fuckery shows itself to be not just vulnerable to fuckery, but possibly willing to engage in fuckery, we've got us a big fuckin' fuckery problem.


At the Supreme Court, Ethics Questions Over a Spouse’s Business Ties

The chief justice’s wife, Jane Sullivan Roberts, has made millions in her career recruiting lawyers to prominent law firms, some of which have business before the court. Now, a letter sent to Congress claims that may present a conflict of interest.

After Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. joined the Supreme Court, his wife, Jane Sullivan Roberts, gave up her career as a law firm partner to become a high-end legal recruiter in an effort to alleviate potential conflicts of interest. Mrs. Roberts later recalled in an interview that her husband’s job made it “awkward to be practicing law in the firm.”

Now, a former colleague of Mrs. Roberts has raised concerns that her recruiting work poses potential ethics issues for the chief justice. Seeking an inquiry, the ex-colleague has provided records to the Justice Department and Congress indicating Mrs. Roberts has been paid millions of dollars in commissions for placing lawyers at firms — some of which have business before the Supreme Court, according to a letter obtained by The New York Times.

In his letter last month, Kendal Price, a 66-year-old Boston lawyer, argued that the justices should be required to disclose more information about their spouses’ work. He did not cite specific Supreme Court decisions, but said he was worried that a financial relationship with law firms arguing before the court could affect justices’ impartiality or at least give the appearance of doing so.

“I do believe that litigants in U.S. courts, and especially the Supreme Court, deserve to know if their judges’ households are receiving six-figure payments from the law firms,” Mr. Price wrote.

In a statement, a spokeswoman for the Supreme Court, Patricia McCabe, said that all the justices were “attentive to ethical constraints” and complied with financial disclosure laws. The chief justice and his wife had also consulted the code of conduct for federal judges, Ms. McCabe said, including a 2009 advisory opinion that a judge “need not recuse merely because” his or her spouse had worked as a recruiter for a law firm with issues before the court.

Mrs. Roberts previously said that she handled conflicts on a case-by-case basis, avoiding matters with any connection to her husband’s job and refraining from working with lawyers who had active Supreme Court cases.

Senator Richard J. Durbin, Democrat of Illinois and chairman of the Judiciary Committee, did not address how the committee would respond to Mr. Price, but said in a statement that his letter raised “troubling issues that once again demonstrate the need” for ethics reforms to “begin the process of restoring faith in the Supreme Court.”

Public confidence in the court recently fell to a historic low, polls showed, and Democrats in Congress have called for greater transparency, including stronger disclosure and recusal standards. The Justice Department declined to comment.

Mr. Price and Mrs. Roberts both had worked as legal recruiters for Major, Lindsey & Africa, a global firm based in Maryland. According to the letter, Mr. Price was fired in 2013 and sued the firm, as well as Mrs. Roberts and another executive, over his dismissal.

He lost the case, but the litigation produced documents that he sent to Congress and the Justice Department, including spreadsheets showing commissions attributed to Mrs. Roberts early in her headhunting career, from 2007 to 2014. Mrs. Roberts, according to a 2015 deposition in the case, said that a significant portion of her practice was devoted to helping senior government lawyers land jobs at law firms and that the candidates’ names were almost never disclosed.

“I keep my placements confidential,” she said in the deposition.

Mrs. Roberts, now the managing partner of the Washington office of Macrae Inc., had spent two decades at the law firm Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, where she became a partner in the global technology group and also focused on talent development. In 2007, she changed careers and soon ascended the ranks of her new industry. Partners at leading law firms in Washington on average make well over $1 million a year, and at the high end, they can be paid over $7 million. Recruiting firms take a large cut from those placements, often equivalent to a quarter of the new hires’ first-year salaries.

The spreadsheets list six-figure fees credited to Mrs. Roberts for placing partners at law firms — including $690,000 in 2012 for one such match. The documents do not name clients, but Mr. Price recalled her recruitment of one prominent candidate, Ken Salazar, then interior secretary under President Barack Obama, to WilmerHale, a global firm that boasts of arguing more than 125 times before the Supreme Court.

Justices, who are largely self-policed, are required to make annual disclosures about their finances — including the source of spouses’ income, the type and the date but not the amount. In his annual disclosure, the chief justice, who has apparently never recused himself from a case because of his wife’s work, listed her employers but not the names of her clients or her earnings, usually offering a brief description: “attorney search consultants — salary.”

Mr. Price argued in his letter that the labeling was misleading, because salaries are “guaranteed and steady,” but commissions “depend on cultivating and capitalizing on relationships in order to consummate particular deals.”

Joshua L. Dratel, who is representing Mr. Price, said in an email that the 2009 advisory opinion cited by the court gave credence to the ethical concerns raised in the letter, because Mrs. Roberts’s placements were not necessarily “isolated activities” but rather a “pattern of continuing involvement.”

The opinion says that judges should recuse themselves in certain situations, including if a spouse performed “four high level executive recruitments” for the same company in a year and collected large fees. That would constitute a “substantial and ongoing relationship,” but if the work were spread over a considerably longer period, “recusal may not be required.”

An ethics opinion by Bennett L. Gershman, a Pace University law professor and former Manhattan prosecutor, accompanied the letter and said “it is plausible that the Chief Justice’s spouse may have leveraged the ‘prestige of the judicial office’” to “raise their household income.” He added that those concerns, coupled with what he described as the chief justice’s lack of disclosure of potential conflicts, “threaten the public’s trust in the federal judiciary, and the Supreme Court itself.”

But another ethics expert, Amanda Frost, a law professor at the University of Virginia, said in an interview that Chief Justice Roberts appeared to have met his disclosure obligations. Ms. Frost said that judicial spouses should be able to have their own careers and that the chief justice would not need to recuse himself based on the nature of his wife’s work.

“It feels hard to imagine how this would corrupt his vote,” she said.

During the past year, the Supreme Court has contended with the leak of the draft decision overturning Roe v. Wade, as well as reports about the activities of Virginia Thomas, who joined efforts to overthrow the results of the 2020 presidential election. Her husband, Justice Clarence Thomas, later participated in court matters involving the election and the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol.

Mr. Price, in an interview, cited a “wave of revelations about the court and questionable decision-making or questionable behavior” as his impetus for coming forward now.

Last September, Politico reported on Mrs. Roberts’s recruiting work and the confidentiality of her clients.

Only a half-dozen of the people she recruited have been publicly identified, according to news reports reviewed by The Times. They are:
  • Robert Bennett, former lawyer to President Bill Clinton, recruited to Hogan Lovells in 2009
  • Neil MacBride, former U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, to Davis Polk in 2013
  • Mr. Salazar, to WilmerHale in 2013
  • Brendan Johnson and Timothy Purdon, former U.S. attorneys for South Dakota and North Dakota, to Robins Kaplan in 2015
  • Michael Held, former lawyer for the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, to WilmerHale in 2022.
(Mr. Salazar is now U.S. ambassador to Mexico, and Mr. MacBride is general counsel at the Treasury.)

About two years ago, Mrs. Roberts discussed her Washington office’s work in one key sector, saying in an interview that of the nation’s 50 leading law firms, more than half had “asked us for help in growing their antitrust practices.”

Oct 11, 2022

Social Media

The era of Expecting Corporations To Behave Like Responsible Citizens is long dead.

It's possible I was naive enough - or immersed enough in it - to think there was a time when big business was something other than sharks and hyenas dressed up to look like good church-goin' community-minded folks, but if there was, it's been over-n-done-with for at least 40 years.


Ari Melber - The Beat

Jul 13, 2022

Get Thee Behind Me, Bitch

Father Ed - Nova Scotia

If I'd had a guy like this guy back when I was a smart-ass mouthy teenager, maybe I'd've known more than I knew, and maybe it takes not quite so fucking long for me to get a few things figured out.

Jun 18, 2022

Ukraine


War is stupid. We've started to understand that human society falls apart unless we adhere to good, sound business principles - not the least of which is:

There are 3 kinds of people - employees, clients and vendors. It's really stoopid to go around killing any of them, because it decreases the prospects for the success of the enterprise.


‘In public there are only jingoistic voices’
How Russia’s war against Ukraine continues to divide Putin’s elites

Nearly four months into Moscow’s all-out war against Ukraine, Russian troops are making relative gains in the Donbas. By all appearances, however, the Kremlin has failed to realize the invasion’s original goals. And peace talks with Kyiv have ground to a halt. Meanwhile, back in Moscow, Russian elites have splintered into three camps — a “peace party,” a “war party,” and a “silent party” that somehow includes heavyweights like Moscow’s mayor and the prime minister. Meduza’s special correspondent Andrey Pertsev reports.

There are still a fair number of people among the Russian elite who support ending the war against Ukraine. According to three sources close to the Putin administration and one source close to the Cabinet, this “peace party” is currently hoping for Moscow and Kyiv to return to the negotiating table — despite the fact that talks have been virtually frozen since early April.

Prominent members of the “peace party” include VTB Bank CEO Andrey Kostin, Rostec CEO Sergey Chemezov, and Sberbank CEO Herman Gref, Meduza’s sources said. Two sources also noted that this group’s position aligns with that of brothers Mikhail and Yury Kovalchuk, who are said to be members of Vladimir Putin’s inner circle.

These five members of the “peace party” have all come under a variety of international sanctions following Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. But their hope is that some sanctions would be lifted if peace talks resumed, allowing Russia to re-enter international finance and tech markets.

That said, the two sources close to the Putin administration stressed that the “peace party” is in no way a united front, and that its members aren’t making any joint efforts to lobby for diplomatic negotiations: “All they have is a common understanding that the ‘special operation’ needs to end as soon as possible and [that they need] to look for some common ground in the West.”

Sergey Chemezov, Andrey Kostin, Herman Gref, and the Kovalchuk brothers did not respond to Meduza’s inquiries prior to publication. However, some of them have made public statements in recent weeks cautiously criticizing certain steps taken by the Russian leadership. For example, in a recent column for RBC, Sergey Chemezov deemed Moscow’s policy of total import substitution ineffective:

“Replacing everything is senseless, economically impractical, and simply impossible. Not a single developed country in the world does this. Isolation, including technological isolation, and attempting to do everything on your own is a road to nowhere. Russia should remain part of the globalized world, where development is impossible without international partnerships. The West’s betrayal is no reason to close windows and doors.”

Andrey Kostin also penned a column for RBC. “The sanctions are permanent. Globalization in its previous form is over. The world is likely to once again rigidly divide between ‘us’ and ‘them.’ This is the Cold War 2.0,” he declared. At the same time, Kostin acknowledged that globalization brought Russia “significant economic benefits,” including “a modern financial sector, which was created in just a few years practically from scratch on the basis of American and European [...] technological platforms, tools, and business practices.”

According to one Meduza source, these op-eds were no coincidence. The members of the “peace party” have long understood that continuing the war would lead to a serious economic crisis, the source explained. However, many of them refrained from speaking out publicly until now, because “no one talks about the difficulties; in public there are only jingoistic voices.”

Indeed, until recently, the most outspoken voices have been from the “war party.” The National Security Council’s deputy chairman, ex-prime minister Dmitry Medvedev, publishes regular tirades against the West on his Telegram channel; Putin’s first deputy chief of staff Sergey Kiriyenko has taken to giving public speeches about the “fight against Nazism”; and Security Council Secretary Nikolai Petrushev recently declared that Russia isn’t “chasing deadlines” in its war against Ukraine.

According to Meduza’s sources, the “war party” also includes State Duma Speaker Vyacheslav Volodin, United Russia General Secretary Andrey Turchak, and the leadership of the security agencies, such as the FSB. (This is corroborated by public statements from these officials.)

At the same time, Meduza’s sources described the “war party” as an “amorphous structure without a single coordination center.” Not to mention the fact that some of its members are not on good terms. Vyacheslav Volodin and Andrey Turchak, for example, are critical of each other even in public. Two sources in the Putin administration also told Meduza that Volodin and Kiriyenko’s relationship also leaves a lot to be desired. In fact, this rift dates back to 2016, when Kiriyenko succeeded Volodin as Putin’s first deputy chief of staff.

At the end of the day, however, representatives of the different camps can only demonstrate their position by attempting to influence Putin’s stance on the war. “Kiriyenko brings [Putin] papers on the Donbas [and] on the country’s economy as a whole. The security officials [siloviki] discuss the front,” one Meduza source explained. In turn, members of the “peace party” have allegedly presented Putin with a proposal plan for Western countries on the partial lifting of sanctions.

Two of Meduza’s sources underscored that at the moment, Putin is more sympathetic to the “war party” than the “peace party” — since he himself is “enthusiastic about the war and the annexation of territories.” “Taking the Donbas is important to the president, even if it takes a few more months. Then you can negotiate to stop the advance of troops,” one source explained. “Especially since Putin understands that it would be very difficult or even impossible to go further. But a captured Donbas is a negotiating advantage.”

There’s also a third camp that might be able to influence Putin’s stance — the so-called “silent party.” This party is made up of officials and businessmen who prefer not to speak out about the war, if at all possible. According to Meduza’s sources, the most prominent members of the “silent party” are Primer Minister Mikhail Mishustin and Moscow Mayor Sergey Sobyanin. A Meduza source close to the Putin administration and a source close to Mishutin’s Cabinet said that ever since Russia began its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the prime minister, who was once known for carefully crafting his public image, has been trying to “stand out” less and to comment only on the government’s economic decisions. “The presidential administration offered him additional PR support, but he refused — he doesn’t need it now,” a source said.

In early June, Moscow Mayor Sergey Sobyanin visited Luhansk and held talks with Leonid Pasechnik, the head of the self-proclaimed “Luhansk People’s Republic” (Moscow announced its “patronage” over both Luhansk and Donetsk at the end of May). However, according to two sources close to the Putin administration, the Moscow mayor “didn’t have a burning desire” to visit the LNR: “Sobyanin doesn’t want to associate himself with this, he tries to act like ‘I handle Moscow — the rest is none of my business.’ He had to be forced [to go] to Luhansk. Putin advised him to go, after that Sobyanin gave in.” Sergey Sobyanin and Mikhail Mishustin did not respond to Meduza’s questions prior to publication.

For the time being, the president's support has the “war party” advocating for a push to seize as much Ukrainian territory as possible. While the “peace party” has faith in the “pragmatic attitude” of Western countries and the Ukrainian authorities, who, Kremlin officials believe, may sacrifice the Donbas for the sake of peace. Kyiv officially rejects the possibility of any such agreement with Russia.

Oct 26, 2021

On Stoopid

Sometimes it's just smart people behaving stupidly. But, as Carlo Cipolla points out, in some way or another, we almost always make the mistake of selling The Stoopid short.

5 universal laws of stupidity
  1. Always and inevitably, everyone underestimates the number of stupid individuals in circulation.
  2. The probability that a certain person (will) be stupid is independent of any other characteristic of that person.
  3. A stupid person is one who causes loss to another person or to a group of persons while himself deriving no gain and even possibly incurring loss himself.
  4. Non-stupid people always underestimate the damaging power of stupid individuals. In particular, non-stupid people constantly forget that at all times and in all places, and under every circumstance, to deal with - or even associate with - stupid people always turns out to be a costly mistake.
  5. A stupid person is the most dangerous type of person.

Even in a room filled with articulate,
accomplished,
highly educated people,
there are some who are destructively stupid.

Jul 8, 2018

Keepin' Him Honest

Invisibility is the ultimate super power. Anonymity is the next best thing.

Apr 10, 2018

Le Bomb

"...like dropping a bomb on Trump's front porch."


Aides said they viewed Trump’s late-afternoon comments to reporters as a necessary venting session. He had been grousing privately about Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein, a Trump appointee who oversees the Mueller investigation because of Sessions’s recusal.

He complained about Rosenstein again Monday in private, a White House adviser said, and stewed all afternoon about the warrant to seize Cohen’s records, at times raising his voice.
Trump said that Rosenstein approved the warrant, that he wished Rosenstein was not in the job and there was no one making the prosecutors follow the rules, the adviser said. Trump complained sharply about Sessions and Mueller and asked detailed questions about who was behind the move — and said that people would be more critical of such a warrant if it wasn’t intended to damage the president.

45* bitching about somebody not following the rules is like 45* bitching about somebody not following the rules. 

The guy depends on everybody else following the rules (legal, ethical, moral) because that's what makes it relatively easy for him to find the Smarm Space, where he can weasel through a loophole - one of his own imagination sometimes - and turn the whole thing to his advantage.

The US Presidency operates within a fairly loose framework; one that largely depends on the office holder's sense of honor; and duty; and public service. POTUS has to know there are things you do and things you don't do. And there's no need for rationale beyond the fact that it's either the right thing to do, or it's the wrong thing to do - kinda like what your mom tried to teach you.

Of course, all that Boy-Scout-y-sounding stuff can get a little sideways when political considerations are factored in, but if you have a relatively clear idea of where the lines have to be drawn, there's a better-than-even chance that we all don't end up dead just because the Prez got to feeling a little peckish.

Aug 5, 2017

Adult Supervision

It's particularly appalling and altogether galling to know this is where we are now.


It really should be a fairly simple concept:

We have to learn how to live our lives without needing a cop, or mommy, or Jesus looking over our shoulder the whole fucking time.

On the other side is the little red flag that's gone up in the back of my brain clutter that wants me to ask why Mad Dog Mattis feels the need to put this out now. In a system with built-in Checks-n-Balances, why does the boss at the most powerful government agency on the planet think it's necessary to remind people to behave appropriately? - as though the reins were being removed.

May 25, 2017

The Big Heist

45* is all about the loopholes. And his approach is pretty simple: "I don't do anything your lawyers can't force my lawyers to try to talk me into doing."

He's spent his entire career (building whatever fortune he has) by reneging on his commitments and stiffing people for what he owes them.

Now he's in an office that's not very well constrained by law or regulation. The limits on the behavior of POTUS are mostly dependent on a tradition of self-restraint, which puts the emphasis on the honorability of the office holder.

It can't possibly come as news to find that "Honorability" is not the word likely to pop into anybody's mind when they hear the word "Trump".



And now we have even more evidence that nothing has changed with 45*.

The Atlantic:

Days before taking office, Donald Trump said his company would donate all profits from foreign governments to the U.S. Treasury, part of an effort to avoid even the appearance of a conflict with the Constitution’s emoluments clause.

Now, however, the Trump Organization is telling Congress that determining exactly how much of its profits come from foreign governments is simply more trouble than it’s worth.

One more time, kids - this is not governance, this is a fucking robbery.

May 15, 2017

What We're Up Against

Politico:

White House chief of staff Reince Priebus issued a stern warning at a recent senior staff meeting: Quit trying to secretly slip stuff to President Trump.

Just days earlier, K.T. McFarland, the deputy national security adviser, had given Trump a printout of two Time magazine covers. One, supposedly from the 1970s, warned of a coming ice age; the other, from 2008, about surviving global warming, according to four White House officials familiar with the matter.

Trump quickly got lathered up about the media’s hypocrisy. But there was a problem. The 1970s cover was fake, part of an Internet hoax that’s circulated for years. Staff chased down the truth and intervened before Trump tweeted or talked publicly about it.

The episode illustrates the impossible mission of managing a White House led by an impetuous president who has resisted structure and strictures his entire adult life.

The guy has spent his whole life playing outside every parameter.  It's how he's made his way in the world forever.  In confusion there is opportunity, and he believes the greater the confusion, the greater the opportunity. So he creates confusion every chance he gets.

It's part of his basic approach of playing the SmarmSpace - that little bit of daylight between making a commitment to do something and then actually doing it.

His pattern has always been to Over-Promise and Under-Deliver, which I've attributed to his being an extraordinarily bad salesman. ie: it's not about doing what needs done. It's only about saying whatever gets the other guy to commit. 

45* knows this basic concept:

You will go to great lengths to keep your word.  

Because making a promise means something to you, he gains great advantage by being not just willing to go back on his word, but building it into the plan - which is why (I think) he never tells anybody what he's planning to do. And it's not just that he doesn't want you to know - he's so completely invested in his approach, he plays the SmarmSpace with everybody around him.  They do their best to spin it as 45* being some kind of strategy genius, but they don't have one fuckin' clue what the guy will do from one minute to the next. At best, they're just guessing and that's because he wants it that way.

One of the best examples of playing the SmarmSpace was 45*'s threatening tweet about how Comey better hope there's no tape of his conversations.

That is straight-up Daddy State Basics - 45* fears (ie: he prob'ly knows) there're tapes of him talking with or about the Russians, with some damning bits that'll blow him up, so he has to turn that around and point it at Comey or whoever else comes to mind in order to get it all directed away from him. Is any of it true? Doesn't matter. He may know absolutely there's no such tape, but he also knows you and I will have to stop and consider the possibility, because we have some scruples - and a respect for process, and for logic, and for critical thinking - and he doesn't.  He only has that animal instinct for preserving and benefitting himself.

So then along comes someone else who also cares about nothing but furthering their own agenda items, and we get a staffer willing to pimp the "Climate Hoax", knowing 45* will not think beyond "what's in it for me?".  Almost literally, all they think they have to do is meet him in that SmarmSpace and he'll do what they want him to do.  But he won't be changing his rules; he won't alter his approach; he'll be looking for the SmarmSpace within the SmarmSpace.

This really has degenerated into what Ayn Rand called The Politics Of Pull.  Getting power and wielding power and keeping power eventually reduces the system to trading in favors - not goods and services (another reason "Gov't Should Be Run Like A Business" is pure bumper sticker bullshit, but that's part of a different rant).

Anyway, it makes for the perfect environment for a SmarmSpace peddler like 45* because there's no way you can specify a value for those favors that everybody can agree on. I may think I'm doing you a solidly huge one, but when I come around to collect, all you have to do is downplay it - something 45* has made a long and very lucrative career of doing.

There is no soul and no honor in this.

Feb 20, 2017

Are You Ready?

If you're not ready, then you'd best be gettin' ready because I think we'll eventually be told to accept Mike Pence as the guy who rides in and saves us from the clutches of Donald Trump, Evil Super-Genius.

WaPo:
BRUSSELS — Vice President Pence said Monday that he “fully supported” Michael Flynn’s ouster last week as national security adviser, setting himself firmly against the former general, who told untruths about his contacts with Russian officials.
“I was disappointed to learn that the facts that have been conveyed to me by Gen. Flynn were inaccurate,” Pence told reporters during a visit to NATO headquarters in his first public comments about a scandal that has rocked the young Trump administration.
Pence pushed for Flynn’s ouster after learning from The Washington Post that the national security adviser had been captured on tape speaking to Russian Ambassador to the U.S. Sergei Kislyak on the topic of sanctions. The conversation happened the day the Obama administration announced measures against Russia to retaliate for what U.S. intelligence services say was the Kremlin’s efforts to influence November’s presidential election. Flynn told Pence that he had not spoken about sanctions with Kislyak, an assertion Pence went on to repeat on television.
That performance looked like standard Mike Pence - serenely confident (to the point of condescension) that he'll handle all our troubles if we can just have a little faith in the Jesus-ey goodness of The Lord's America (ie: Mike Pence).


At this point, almost anything beats 45*, and Pence will have to do because the process only requires a few more steps before we're looking at President Rex Tillerson, and then we really are just another oil company with nuclear weapons.

Don't get me wrong, I'm under no illusion that Pence isn't another Daddy State fuck wearing a slightly different uniform. But at least I get the impression the guy has a sense of decency and honor about him where 45* has none.

Also gotta remember there's no provision in the Constitution for a do-over so there's no chance at a President Hillary in store for us. We have rules, and it's usual-and-customary in our little experiment in self-government that we do things by the fucking rules - not just the letter, but the spirit as well.  And the spirit of the law? Aye, there's the rub.

We have a guy in office who figured out how to exploit all the loop holes. Everything that's not spelled out in the words of the documents requires people to behave in an honorable way; to act in good faith in accordance with the spirit of the law; to not take unfair advantage.

45*'s built his whole thing on two simple premises:
1) If it doesn't say I can't do it, then that's my opportunity, and that's what I'll do.
2) And if it says I have to do it, then my opportunity is in not doing it until or unless somebody can force me to do it.

It's not that 45* is immoral - he's amoral. There's no Good and there's no Bad - there's only what works for him.

The guy has no soul and no honor.

Jan 23, 2015

Billy Belichick

...rhymes (in a Slant Rhyme kinda way) with Lyin' Sack O' Shit.






hat tip = FB friend KH

Apr 1, 2014

A Difference Of Ethos

(not an April Fools thing)

There is no Chief Ethics Officer.
This is not a democracy.
The free market is morally neutral - as God intended.
You get along by going along.
Conform and be dull.
Embrace the Noble Lie.
Watch more TV.  Go out to a movie.
Stay safe - take the blue pill.



DecodeDC

Aug 16, 2012

My Friend, Ed

Ed Freeman is a professor at The Darden School of Business, UVa in Charlottesville.  He teaches Business Ethics (insert oxymoron joke here), and his expertise is quite probably needed more right now than at any other time in my memory.

I missed this when it came out, which I wonder about less than I wonder about why this is the kind of thing that shows up fairly prominently in the foreign press, but never makes the cut here in the US.  I do in deed wonder.

Forbes India:
Business has to be a good citizen in the community and society. The old way of business presupposes the purpose of business is to make profits. This is akin to believing that making red blood cells or breathing is the purpose of life. Yes, we must have red blood cells, just as businesses must make profits. But the purpose of business is usually determined by a passionate entrepreneur chasing a dream to change the world.