Jeb Bush—remember him?—managed to reclaim his lost significance briefly with the tweet above, which was batted around the Sunday morning TV shows, on podcasts and in various blogs.
Observations:
- He wouldn’t mention Trump’s name, because the former POTUS is the equivalent of Voldemort to the Bush family. How juvenile. But Jeb was and is a weenie, and that’s one of the reasons he never got to run for President.
- Why should anyone care what Jeb Bush thinks about the indictment? He isn’t a lawyer. He isn’t a New York politician. Using the tweet as an appeal to authority is pathetic: “But Jeb Bush says…” on this topic is exactly as persuasive as “But Joy Behar says…”
- It’s too late, by about seven years, for the Bush family to emulate fairness and objectivity regarding Donald Trump. The previous two Republican Presidents could have helped unify the GOP, helped Trump accomplish policy objectives they agreed with, bring NeverTrumpers back into the fold and avoided (maybe) the current Democratic Party assault on democracy by not acting like the Corleones and sending out their Luca Brasis to seek revenge on Trump for saying mean things about George and Jeb. They made it clear that they placed family pride above national interests and the institution of the Presidency. Jeb, like George W. is ethically estopped from urging fair treatment of Trump now.
- The tweet makes no sense, when it isn’t stating the obvious. The fact that Justice et al. didn’t take up the case doesn’t prove anything by itself. Maybe those decisions were political and Bragg’s was not. Of course “this” is very political: any time a prominent political figure is investigated or charged it is political by definition, because the actions have political consequences. “No shit, Sherlock”—indicting a former President is very political, but that doesn’t automatically mean it also isn’t a matter of justice. James Comey decided in part that Hillary Clinton should be let off the hook for conduct that lower level officials have been prosecuted for because he felt that charging a Presidential candidate mid-campaign would unjustly influence the election, which is a valid act of prosecutorial discretion. Was that “justice”? Would charging her have been less political and more about justice?
- “Let the voters decide”? Ugh. When would Jeb want that principle to apply? Where would he draw the line, or would there be any line at all? Never indict a candidate or potential candidate regardless of evidence of a crime? Any crime? A felony? A crime involving “moral turpitude,” which disqualifies citizens from being lawyers? The public loves the King’s Pass,” #11 on the rationalizations list, which holds that special people—you know, the famous, the beautiful, the rich, the accomplished—should be held to lower standards of conduct than the schmuck next door. We don’t want people who think like that on juries, do we?
- Asked to comment on Jeb’s tweet, former Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance, as political a DA as one could find, answered,
“Well, I think the indictment of the president’s – former president himself is an extraordinary event. There’s no getting around that. And it’s an important event, legally and culturally. So that’s – my first reaction is we – is that everybody has reason to be very focused on the sort of severity of where we are right now and the divisions within our country. That said, I also agree with you, Scott, that we need to all hold our fire. The only person who really knows why he made the decision is Alvin Bragg, and the facts that will support or not support his decision will be laid out when the indictment is dismissed. Until then, I think we all can have our political viewpoints, but we need to let the process play out.”
…which doesn’t respond to what Jeb was saying.
- In summary: “Shut up, Jeb.”
A slightly related note: I finally decided to get back on Twitter. The account is Ethics Alarms @EthicsAlarmist, replacing the old Captain Compliance handle.I’ll be linking EA posts there eventually, and also being more active than I was under the previous censorious regime: I think Elon deserves support. If you’re on Twitter, please follow me, and I’ll reciprocate.
Ethics Alarms 
I’m lost. What, beyond not kissing his ass, did the Bushes do to Trump that you go as far as saying they damaged the national interest and the office of the presidency?
Trump tried to overturn an election (his words); was that damaging to the national interest and the office of the presidency?
You say you’re not a Trump supporter but you always seem more angry at his detractors than you do at him. And any time he’s accused of doing anything wrong, you place the blame on his accusers.
“ James Comey decided in part that Hillary Clinton should be let off the hook for conduct that lower level officials have been prosecuted for because he felt that charging a Presidential candidate mid-campaign would unjustly influence the election, which is a valid act of prosecutorial discretion”
That is not accurate. He dropped the charges because he did not find evidence that she “intentionally transmitted or willfully mishandled classified information.”
“I think Elon deserves support.”
Honestly, why? The guy says he bought Twitter to open up more “free speech” on the platform, and that was clearly a lie; here’s just one of many stories demonstrating his hypocrisy on that issue:
https://theintercept.com/2023/01/24/twitter-elon-musk-modi-india-bbc/
That plus his constant promotion of harassers/fake news purveyors like Catturd make his judgment questionable at best. Why does he deserve support?
Seriously? wrote, “Trump tried to overturn an election (his words)”
You just made a claim, now it’s time to support your claim. Please provide the actual quote and a link to the source for that quote, an actual video of Trump saying that he’s trying to overturn the election would be nice to verify your claim.
This statement was widely reported, and Pence directly rebutted it. Not sure how you missed it.
“If the Vice President (Mike Pence) had ‘absolutely no right’ to change the Presidential Election results in the Senate, despite fraud and many other irregularities, how come the Democrats and RINO Republicans, like Wacky Susan Collins, are desperately trying to pass legislation that will not allow the Vice President to change the results of the election?
Actually, what they are saying, is that Mike Pence did have the right to change the outcome, and they now want to take that right away. Unfortunately, he didn’t exercise that power, he could have overturned the Election!”
Seriously? you previously wrote, that “Trump tried to overturn an election (his words)” but you couldn’t provide any quotes where he actually said that, those were not his words, you lied and now you’re trying to drag the goal post around the field. Either he said exactly what you that (his words) or he didn’t.
Last sentence should read, “Either he said exactly what you quoted (his words) or he didn’t.”
Wow, everyone is having trouble reading today.
The last sentence of the “statement by Donald J. Trump” I linked to clearly says “Unfortunately, he didn’t exercise that power, he could have overturned the election!”
I accept your apology in advance.
Ah, yes. The old “You can’t read.” Chris? Is that you?
I assume he can read, he just chose not to. He claims that Donald Trump didn’t say exactly what he clearly said.
You know this, right? That’s why you’re ignoring the point and trying to deflect to some other person?
Seriously wrote, “Wow, everyone is having trouble reading today.”
Really? That’s an interesting claim coming from you.
Seriously wrote, “The last sentence of the “statement by Donald J. Trump” I linked to clearly says “Unfortunately, he didn’t exercise that power, he could have overturned the election!””
Seriously? You’re reading between the lines on a statement that was made a year after January 6, 2021 and trying to retroactively apply that statement to President Trumps actions on or prior to January 6, 2021?
Either Trump said that he was trying/tried to overturn the election or he didn’t and you have not properly supported your claim.
For The Record
Point 1; I think Vice President Pence made the right choice on January 6, 2021 to validate the election in the joint session of Congress.
Point 2; You cannot overturn a Presidential election before it’s been validated by a joint session of Congress. What you do before it’s been validated is to challenge the results, which is the right of absolutely every Presidential candidate participating in the election and that’s exactly what President Trump did. At no point in time after Congress validated the election did President Trump try to overturn the election.
You’re splitting hairs because you have nothing.
The election had happened. It was over. Biden won. Trump tried to overturn it. Then, a year later, he admitted to trying to overturn it. I’m not “reading between the lines” anymore than Mike Pence was when he said Trump was wrong to try and overturn the election. Certifying the election is purely ceremonial, which is why Pence had no power to overturn it. You are trying to overcomplicate this in order to find some defense of Trump, even though you admit that what he did was wrong. Because the libs just can’t be right about him!
Seriously wrote, “You are trying to overcomplicate this in order to find some defense of Trump, even though you admit that what he did was wrong.”
Wrong and wrong.
With that I’ll say Ta Ta For Now (TTFN).
Didn’t HRC push for electors to defy the voters in 2016? The answer is yes. Please do not say that she herself never said it because she was running the DNC at the time and called all shots. The other point you stated was that the lack of evidence precluded Comey from charging HRC with using a private server to avoid FOIA requests or being held by the national archives is patently false. For anyone to claim she isn’t above the law must be unwilling to see prima facie evidence.
“Didn’t HRC push for electors to defy the voters in 2016?”
No.
“The answer is yes.”
No, the answer is no.
“Please do not say that she herself never said it”
I will, because she never said it.
“because she was running the DNC at the time and called all shots.”
No, she was not running the DNC at the time. Donna Brazille was. And you haven’t even shown that the DNC said it.
I was unable to find evidence of the DNC pushing for this. There were groups pushing for faithless electors, but of the groups I was able to find info on, one was made up of mostly former Bernie Sanders supporters, and one was made up of mostly Republicans. And in the end, more faithless electors broke for Trump than for Hillary.
https://abc11.com/politics/clinton-not-trump-has-the-most-faithless-electors/1664571/
Not that it would matter if what you were saying was true. There is no national law against electors voting differently than their states, although there are some state laws against it. Even if Hillary had pushed for this–which she didn’t–it wouldn’t be anything remotely like Trump falsely claiming that he won the majority of the votes, then trying to get Pence to violate the law and Constitution (among many other well-documented extralegal schemes) in order to remain in power, going as far as to whip up a violent mob that ended up storming the Capitol.
But I will give points for the creativity: this was a very unique argument for the position that Hillary conceding an election she lost is the same as Donald Trump refusing to do so.
“The other point you stated was that the lack of evidence precluded Comey from charging HRC with using a private server to avoid FOIA requests or being held by the national archives is patently false. For anyone to claim she isn’t above the law must be unwilling to see prima facie evidence.”
No, I did not state that. Jack misstated why Comey did not prosecute Hillary, and I showed him what Comey actually said about why he did not prosecute Hillary.
Source for the Hillary claim?
The Clinton campaign actually called for an intelligence briefing for ther electors- something that was completely unprecedented.
The level of foreign interference in the 2016 election was also unprecedented, as the Mueller Report and the bipartisan Senate committe report determined.
Define interference.
He just gave you a Trump statement where he said he wanted Pence to overturn the election.
Are you really claiming Trump didn’t say he won the election and wanted it overturned in his favor?
What do you think Trump wanted to happen?
What someone “wants” is not an ethical issue. Stop talking about that. What matters in ethics is what one does.
We can infer what he wanted based on what he did, and continues to do. His actions and statements make it clear: he wants violence now and he wanted it then.
https://nypost.com/2023/03/24/trump-shares-pic-holding-baseball-bat-near-das-head/
So Trump being unsuccessful at trying to overturn the election means….
No one claimed Trump did overturn the election, but he tried.
He had every right to challenge the results in court, just as Al Gore did. He was assured by his lawyers that there was a basis. If there was, it wasn’t enough.
“He had every right to challenge the results in court, just as Al Gore did.”
No one claimed he didn’t have the legal right to do this. It was just that all of his arguments were frivolous.
“He was assured by his lawyers that there was a basis.”
Yes, because he intentionally surrounded himself with lawyers who would tell him what he wanted to hear, rather than what was factually true about the law. That’s an ethical failure and he deserves judgement for that.
But no one is arguing that he should be charged for filing frivolous lawsuits or having bad lawyers.
You don’t know what “frivolous” means in a legal ethics context, and it’s not my job to educate you. Stop making sweeping statements based on selective confirmation bias. You are sounding like you just want to make assertions, not examine the facts. “Yes, because he intentionally surrounded himself with lawyers who would tell him what he wanted to hear” is an example. One of the lawyers he surrounded himself with was Bill Barr, who definitely did not tell Trump what he wanted to hear. Rudy Giuliani is no patsy either. Are you going to be just a partisan hack here, or engage in thoughtful discourse?
I’m specifically talking about the lawyers he surrounded himself with who “assured him there was a basis” to overturn the election, of which Bill Barr was not one. Not sure what you mean by Rudy Giuliani not being a “patsy” but he’s obviously a terrible and discredited lawyer at this point, whose legal arguments in this matter were absurd.
“Patsy,” as in “pushover.” You say he’s a discredited lawyer “at this point” meaning after his handling of the Trump case. Can’t do that—the issue is whether he was a competent and trustworthy leagl counsel when Trump relied on him, and he was.He was one of the most successful and wily prosecutors in US history, and Trump had every reason to rely on his legal judgment. I would have.
Yes. Trump had the right to challenge the election results in court in an attempt to overturn the election with no concrete evidence.
I’m just glad we finally agree he tried/wanted/intended to overturn the election results.
Yes.
He would not have had the right to commission the creation of a fake intelligence dossier to lend credence to his claims.
“What do you think Trump wanted to happen?”
That’s the question everyone defending him wants to ignore. Trump obviously didn’t care if people got hurt. He’s now saying he’ll pardon every single January 6th rioter. He’s arguing that there will be more violence due to his most recent indictment, knowing his supporters will see that, and saying nothing to try and calm them down or prevent them from rioting again. He recorded a frigging song with a bunch of the J6 prisoners. He clearly likes people who riot on behalf of him and thinks they are good. And we are supposed to believe that he wanted them to be peaceful.
Stay on topic, please. What Trump wanted is speculation, and not an ethics issue, though reading Trump’s mind was a staple of fake news throughout his administration. It’s not unethical to wish someone would drop dead, even if they drop dead.
Move on.
Change the word “want” to “intent” if it helps you understand the relevance.
First and last warning: don’t patronize me. You’re smart and can contribute here, but if you keep on like that, you won’t last the week. Intent is not the same as ‘want.’ Intent to overturn the election by legal means is not illegal, unethical or impeachable. Doing so by knowingly illegal means is all three, but that requires action and intent.
A more valid analogy would be if I said I wanted someone to die and then went out of my way to find a hitman, pay them, but then it turned out the hitman was an undercover police officer.
Are you really claiming Trump only “thought” about overturning the election and made no actual efforts to do so?
Because that’s not based in actual reality.
Make up your mind what you want to argue about. I don’t care what he wanted. Was mounting a court challenge to the voting in various states a crime or wrongful? The Democrats started that tradition in 2000. I am already on record that it was irresponsible and wrong to make the public statements he did. They still weren’t crimes. His appeal to Pence was based on terrible legal advice, but it didn’t happen. Asking someone to do something they don’t have the power to do is a non-act.
Your analogy is terrible. Do better.
Whether someone wants violence is relevant to the crime of incitement once violence occurs. It’s the “intended” part of the “intended and likely to cause imminent lawless violence” standard–a very tough standard indeed. You can evaluate a person’s statements before and after an act of violence occurs in their name to determine intent. (Before is of course more helpful, but after can provide clues as well.)
Yup. And the evidence—words and actions—just aren’t there, which is why no “insurrection” or “incitement” charges can or will be filed.
Not the point. I know Trump-Deranged obsessives think the man is a maniac, but he had nothing whatsoever to gain, and much to lose, with a futile attack on the Capitol by largely unarmed crazies after he had told them to protest. He wanted a big, noisy protest, which was entirely legal and constitutional. His words undoubtedly incited them to attack the Capitol, but neither his words nor his evident intent support a claim of “incitement.”
Drop it.
Hutchinson’s testimony that Trump said to “take the mags away” could absolutely be used in an incitement trial. They’re probably waiting on a second witness to corroborate that.
I agree that an incitement trial based on what we have now would be an uphill battle, but declaring it can never happen seems like going out on a limb for Trump, and we all know how he likes to saw those off.
Hutchinson’s testimony was completely tainted. You can’t incite based on what you say in private. He was urging a demonstration and a protest. That was irresponsible, stupid and presidential, but it is not incitement. This was covered in the Chicago 7 trial.
What do you think makes Hutchinson’s testimony tainted?
I didn’t say you can incite based on private statements. The private statements, if true, reveal he knew the crowd was armed and didn’t want normal protocols followed by disarming them. That makes it more likely he intended to incite them with his public statements.
If your private statement is “Boy I really hope these guys commit violence when I tell them to march to the Capitol and be tough to save our Republic from the Marxists who stole their votes,” that would of course be valid evidence in an incitement trial.
Her statements are evidence of what Trump said, not evidence of what he thought. Her evidence is tainted because she admitted that she lied in it, and was caught in at least one part of the story stating what was factually impossible.
Seriously? wrote, “any time he’s accused of doing anything wrong, you place the blame on his accusers.”
Personally I don’t think I’ve ever read Jack doing something like that, but I’d like to see you try to prove that claim.
1.If you really think the Bushes “kissed Trump’s ass”, you’re delusional.To begin with, they refused to endorse him in the 2016 election, The Bush orbit, which includes Liz Cheney, Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson, biased legal ethicist Richard Painter (Bush’s White House ethics guru), and many others, spent all four years doing everything they could to undermine and impugn Trump. [Here I erroneously stated that Trump was not invited to the DC memorial service for Bush I. In fact, he attended.] The Bush neocons hated Trump for slamming the Iraq war, and the family would not forgive him for mocking Jeb.
Please don’t open a comment with pure fantasy again. It makes me stop reading. I’ll return to your not-quite as obnoxious other points later, if I remember.
“1.If you really think the Bushes “kissed Trump’s ass”, you’re delusional…Please don’t open a comment with pure fantasy again. It makes me stop reading.”
I mean, you must have stopped reading before you even read it, because I said exactly the opposite of this. I said they did NOT kiss his ass.
“To begin with, they refused to endorse him in the 2016 election,”
Refusing to endorse a presidential candidate harms the national interest and the office of the presidency…how, exactly?
You’re really arguing that the mere act of not supporting Trump for president harms the country and disqualifies one from expressing an opinion on him. But you’re not a Trump supporter?
“The Bush orbit, which includes Liz Cheney, Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson, biased legal ethicist Richard Painter (Bush’s White House ethics guru), and many others, spent all four years doing everything they could to undermine and impugn Trump.”
Vague and non-responsive. I asked for specifics about Jeb and the Bushes and these are vagaries about people in their orbit. (Your claim about Liz Cheney is also completely false. She was an ardent Trump supporter for the four years of his administration and only turned on him after January 6th.)
“Bush Sr. and the family pointedly snubbed Trump for HW’s funeral, when all POTUS’s past and current are invited by tradition and protocol. It was a transparent insult.”
That’s also not true. Trump was at HW’s funeral. I just looked it up and there are tons of articles about Trump being there. Are you mixing him up with John McCain?
“The Bush neocons hated Trump for slamming the Iraq war, and the family would not forgive him for mocking Jeb.”
And…why should they? As a reminder, one of the things Trump said about Jeb was that he “has to like Mexican illegals because of his wife.” Is that something you’d forgive if he said it about you and your wife? I wouldn’t.
So the only actual example you’ve presented here of the Bushes “placing family pride above national interests and the institution of the Presidency…” is that they didn’t support him for president in 2016.
I can only refer you to my moniker as a response to that.
Now I’ve had a nice, mediocre lunch, so I’ll calmly address this: “You say you’re not a Trump supporter but you always seem more angry at his detractors than you do at him.’
1. I am not “angry”. When an issue makes me angry, I say so. Emotion is irrelevant to ethics.
2. It isn’t fair, I guess, to expect newcomers here to do adequate research on where they are (though I od expect everyone to read the comment policies). However, as the EA search engine will show, there are more negative posts about Donald Trump here than any two, maybe three, public figures COMBINED on this blog since 2009. I have never been and never will be “a Trump supporter.” You realize this is an ethics site, right? What I support is the core ethical principle that all individuals are owed the same ethical conduct by others, and the leadership principle (the other topic of this blog) that every President must be accorded the same deference, respect and opportunity to succeed regardless of his past or partisan antipathy.
Trump was never given those factors, which he earned by the fact of being elected. I am not defending him, but the institution of the Presidency, and I would do the same for any President treated similarly; there have never been any, though Andrew Johnson comes closest. He was not elected, however.
I asked for evidence of unethical conduct on the part of the Bushes toward Trump and you didn’t provide any. Most of your examples were about people who are not Bushes. Your example about Liz Cheney was factually false. Your example of the Bushes not inviting Trump to HW’s funeral was also factually false (and would not, in my opinion, have been unethical even if it were true). The only actual example that was about the Bushes was that…they didn’t endorse Trump in 2016. The fact that you’ve written so many negative posts about Trump yourself makes this more confusing, not less. It’s like you’re the only one allowed to criticize Trump, and anyone else who does so must be doing so for illegitimate reasons, while yours are objective and pure. And this is in response to a tweet where Jeb was defending Trump! But because he didn’t defend him strongly enough in the past, he’s “estopped” from doing so now? That is the logic of knights and kings, or cult members and their leaders, not of citizens and presidents.
Seriously wrote, “It’s like you’re the only one allowed to criticize Trump, and anyone else who does so must be doing so for illegitimate reasons, while yours are objective and pure.”
You should take the time to thoroughly read the Ethics Alarms comment policies pay particularly close attention to the section titled Ethics Alarms Discipline and the subsection Banning.
Sorry, I just went back to the previous election and you said you voted Trump for president.
I guess you can claim you voted “against” Biden, but then I can say you “supported” Trump over Biden, so it just seems like word games to me.
You’re playing the word games. I “support” any elected President. Trump’s term was sabotaged in contravention of our government’s principles. I voted for Trump because it was crucial that the Democratic party’s anti-democracy efforts to legitimatize the 2016 election and to undermine an elected President not succeed, so neither party would try to do it again. In 2020, I would have voted for anyone opposing any Democratic candidate.
“I voted for Trump because it was crucial that the Democratic party’s anti-democracy efforts to legitimatize the 2016 election and to undermine an elected President not succeed, so neither party would try to do it again.”
Not to be a jerk, but…how did that work out for you?
Because the other party DID try to delegitimize the 2020 election, immediately, in far more blatant (and violent) terms than the Democrats did. And they’re still doing it.
Also, I’m still waiting on actual examples of how the Bushes sabotaged Trump’s term, other than not endorsing him in 2016. Surely you don’t believe that in itself is unethical. (The Liz Cheney and HW funeral examples you gave me were factually inaccurate.)
The whole “Trump Colluded with Russia®™ to Steal the 2016 Election” propaganda campaign started in November 2016.
My longtime usenet ally, Christopher Charles Morton, had obserrved this. He posted in the comments section of a Cleveland Plain Dealer article that the Democrats were acting like the German ultrarightwing circa 1919.
It was not just President Carter who said that President Trump lost the 2016 election.
https://mtracey.medium.com/the-most-predictable-election-fraud-backlash-ever-4187ba31d430
What has been revealed since is that the whole Steele dossier was a fake. An FBI lawyer, Kevin Clinesmith, actually pleaded guilty to lying to a court for the purpose of obtaining a warrant.
Delegitimazing the 2020 election is called payback, retaliation, and revenge. Sadly, the antics of the Democratic leadership after the 2016 elections have made it too easy to believe the delegitimazation claims regarding the 2020 election.
Hillary Clinton is truly a toxic force in American politics.
Seriously? wrote, “He dropped the charges because he did not find evidence that she “intentionally transmitted or willfully mishandled classified information.””
I’m going to say this as politely as I can; you’ve swallowed the left’s propaganda narrative hook, line, and sinker. If you really believe what you just wrote then this belief is signature significant and I’d have to say that apparently you’re very susceptible to partisan biased propaganda.
I’m quoting James Comey, a Republican. He isn’t on “the left.” He may have been wrong, but if so, he couldn’t have been motivated by “partisanship.”
Ah the old standby He a Republican therefore he must not be biased against Trump.
Comey was also working in concert with John Brennan who voted for a communist Gus Hall to ensure Trump was informed of the salacious Steele documents so that they could be sent to the NYT and wash Post.
No he is an insider whose status was threatened just like all others who saw the potential end of the gravy train.
“Ah the old standby He a Republican therefore he must not be biased against Trump.”
I did not say that. I said he’s a Republican, so.a direct quote from him can’t be “leftist propaganda,” and that he was not acting out of partisanship when he made the statement about Hillary I quoted. That is true by definition. What do you think “partisanship” means?
“Comey was also working in concert with John Brennan who voted for a communist Gus Hall to ensure Trump was informed of the salacious Steele documents so that they could be sent to the NYT and wash Post.”
This is too many conspiratorial degrees of separation for me to follow. You’re saying that Comey is obviously biased because…he was working with the CIA director, because said CIA director voted for a communist in 1976?
This is an argument I am meant to take seriously?
And you’re mad that they informed Trump of information he needed to have. Of course, if they hadn’t informed Trump of the dossier, you’d be bashing them for that, and accusing them of keeping secrets from Trump that he had a right to know.
It’s all so transparent.
“I said he’s a Republican, so.a direct quote from him can’t be “leftist propaganda”
This is a good example of too much of your “logic” as you have been displaying it here. A direct quote from anyone that echoes Leftist propaganda is still leftist propaganda. If David Duke utters the essence of BLM propaganda, it is still BLM propaganda.
So what is the evidence for your claim that Comey “decided in part that Hillary Clinton should be let off the hook for conduct that lower level officials have been prosecuted for because he felt that charging a Presidential candidate mid-campaign would unjustly influence the election, which is a valid act of prosecutorial discretion?” I provided Comey’s explanation. It can’t be an “echo” of leftist propaganda, or anything else, because it was literally his job to determine whether she committed a crime. In his words, she did not, and that’s why he didn’t charge her–not because he felt that charging her would be inappropriate. Haven’t you been arguing that we can’t know what Trump thinks or wants, only what he says? But you feel comfortable saying what Comey “felt” even though it contradicts his words? How is that consistent?
I’m not going to go through all of the Comey muck at this point, because he’s not worth it. He deserved to be fired; his claim that no one had ever been prosecuted for Hillery-style misuse of classified material was untrue. He lied to Congress and breached the law (and legal ethics) himself when he leaked information to the new media. He’s scum.
Seriously wrote, “[Musk] says he bought Twitter to open up more “free speech” on the platform, and that was clearly a lie; here’s just one of many stories demonstrating his hypocrisy on that issue:”
Seriously dude, one case in India does not extrapolate to a pattern of free speech censorship and hypocrisy. Show me a pattern where Twitter is still censoring free speech, like it was before. Here in the USA, free speech is a core concept of our constitution and culture and it’s really clear that Musk is actively promoting free speech on Twitter.
I’m all for free speech and open debate but even I, on my blog, have standards/policies that I strictly enforce.
Musk’s pattern of hypocrisy on free speech is extensive and well-documented. I’m sorry right-wing sources have hidden it from you.
https://www.techdirt.com/2022/12/15/elons-commitment-to-free-speech-rapidly-replaced-by-his-commitment-to-blatant-hypocrisy-bans-the-joinmastodon-account/
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/04/25/elon-musk-and-free-speech-track-record-not-encouraging.html
Jack wrote, “If you’re on Twitter, please follow me, and I’ll reciprocate.”
Far Out Dude!!!
That’ll give me two actual followers, not including myself of course. Maybe I’ll eventually get that count up to the whopping forty-seven followers I have for my blog. Yup, I’m quite the 21s century internet fad.
All joking aside, I’m glad you’re finally back on Twitter supporting the changes regarding free speech that have been taking place.
Yes, Modi and Xi Jinping are also thrilled with the changes regarding free speech that have been taking place.
https://www.techdirt.com/2022/08/23/free-speech-absolutist-elon-musk-pens-column-for-chinese-censorship-agency/
Still not grokking why this idiocy “deserves support.” Is it because it owns the libs?
Musk is a jerk. No doubt about it. Nevertheless, he was right to take down twitter’s previous management, which was a left-propaganda cabal. It banned conservatives, embargoed a legitimate news story to help Biden, and suppressed opinions that were contrary to progressive/Democrat agendas He’s made many mistakes, but he is sincere and a supporter of free speech, even if he lacks the necessary skills and judgment to balance the scales properly.
No, he isn’t a principled defender of free speech, I’ve posted enough links here today to prove that. If Twitter was a “left-propaganda cabal” before, it’s just a right-propaganda cabal now.
Musk hasn’t banned progressive voices, and he isn’t a conservative himself. That statement is a wild exaggeration.
1. Yes he has https://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/amp/rcna59638
2. Yes he is https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/dec/21/elon-musk-liberal-twitter-plans-benevolent
3. It’s a wild exaggeration to say that Twitter “banned conservatives” as a general rule. Tens of thousands of conservative accounts were active prior to Elon’s buyout. Many thrived there.
But to get back on topic: can you please tell me what, beyond not endorsing Trump in 2016, the Bushes did to Trump that was so unfair? Can you at least acknowledge your inaccuracies in stating that Liz Cheney opposed Trump from 2016-2020 and that Trump was not invited to HW’s funeral?
Yikes! You are 100% right—Trump did attend H.W.’s funeral in D.C. My error. I was mixing it up with the OTHER bitter Republican that banned Bush from his funeral, John McCain.
As for Liz—sure, she voted Republican in Congress. She was not a vocal Trump supporter, but she was always part of the Neocon group, and as soon as she could she worked hard to make Trump pay for condemning her Dad’s war.
On Twitter bans: the list of users pre-Musk banned by the platform contains no progressives of idols of the Left at all.
I was skeptical that Elon Musk would follow through on his promise to restore Twitter to the “free speech wing of the free speech party” that it advertised itself as.
His most vocal opponents opposed him not because they felt he would fail, but because they were afraid he would succeed.
By the way, should the old Twitter management be indicted for violating campaign finance laws?
Now that I’m agreeing that the funeral statement was in error and fixed the erroneous comment, I expect you to similarly admit that saying the Bushes not “kissing Trump’s ass” when they pointedly refused to endorse him for President undermines his Presidency. Of course two past GOP Presidents refusing to endorse their party’s nominee supported the eventual “resistance” assault designed to undermine Trump’s term. W. also broke with his practice during Obama’s years of not commenting negatively on another President to take shots at Trump.
(Actually, I don’t expect you to admit that. But you should, because it’s true.)
Admit what? That there’s a difference between not endorsing someone, and not kissing their ass? I genuinely still don’t get it.
You’re also moving the goalposts; you originally said that the Bushes undermined the institution of the presidency, and now you’re saying that not endorsing him undermined his presidency. Those are two different things, and conflating them is very strange from a non-Trump supporter.
No one is ethically required to endorse a president that they think isn’t qualified for the job, and the Bushes had no reason to believe he was qualified. There is certainly no ethical obligation to endorse a president who has attacked your wife’s nationality. By the same token, it isn’t unfair or harmful to the national interests for anyone to criticize a president when they deserve the criticism. You haven’t argued that the Bushes’ criticism of Trump was wrong… just that it’s a violation of tradition. But of course, Trump himself violated tradition in many ways that harmed the institution of the presidency and our national interests. Arguing that others should stay silent about that just doesn’t make sense.
I do thank you for acknowledging the error about H.W.’s funeral. Liz Cheney is not one of the Bushes, and judging them based on her conduct is unfair. It is also unfair to say that she “worked hard to make Trump pay for condemning her Dad’s war” when her criticism started right after January 6th, not right after Trump condemned the Iraq War. By all indications, she is working hard to make Trump pay for January 6th.
Again, when we make inferences about Trump’s wants and motivations, you call us biased. Why is it not biased for you to make so many inferences about the wants and motivations of Trump’s critics?
1.“Bushes undermined the institution of the presidency, and now you’re saying that not endorsing him undermined his presidency. Those are two different things, and conflating them is very strange from a non-Trump supporter.”
In this case, a distinction without a difference. The treatment of Trump as President has weakened all Presidents, and the Bushes aided and abetted. There would be no “let’s Go Brandon!” without it.
Warning 2: Imply that I’m dissembling by saying I’m not a Trump supporter one more time, and you’re gone.
2. “No one is ethically required to endorse a president that they think isn’t qualified for the job, and the Bushes had no reason to believe he was qualified. There is certainly no ethical obligation to endorse a president who has attacked your wife’s nationality. By the same token, it isn’t unfair or harmful to the national interests for anyone to criticize a president when they deserve the criticism. You haven’t argued that the Bushes’ criticism of Trump was wrong… just that it’s a violation of tradition.”
WRONG. You are conflating personal obligations with national and professional obligations. It is unethical for any past President to not support the current one at least to the extent of conferring legitimacy and respect. W himself said as much, when Obama was President, and Obama was breaching another norm by constantly attacking Bush.
3.”But of course, Trump himself violated tradition in many ways that harmed the institution of the presidency and our national interests.” And there it is, the tit for tat rationalization that shows you don’t know ethics from a rutabaga. That’s how TRUMP reasons. As long as he holds the office, he dserves the appropriate treatment due the office, not the individual.
4. She is motivated by personal animus. Cheney know the law and the rules, and also knows the Jan 6 with hunt is a partisan “Get Trump” effort. Like McCain, she waited for the moment when she could (she thought) hurt him worst, and was willing to go against her party to do it. The law and facts would have to be a lot more on her side for me to believe she was acting on principle. It was pure spite.
Remember I said you are obsessed with Trump?
“The treatment of Trump as President has weakened all Presidents, and the Bushes aided and abetted. There would be no “let’s Go Brandon!” without it.”
You can’t know that, and I find it an absurd claim. The “Let’s Go Brandon” people are the same ones who spent the Obama years calling him a “foreign Muslim.” They’re the “lock her up” crowd. Trump, a birther himself, becoming president has a lot more to do with their boldnes and juvenile behavior than Trump’s critics.
Your claim here is just part of the right-wing victim narrative that puts all responsibility for Republican foolishness onto the Democrats. The “party of personal responsibility” is apparrently full of voters who lack agency and were just *forced* to vote for Trump because the Democrats, uh, criticized them.
“WRONG. You are conflating personal obligations with national and professional obligations.”
And again, there was no national or professional obligation for anyone to endorse Trump in 2016, and it’s absurd for you to argue that there was.
“It is unethical for any past President to not support the current one at least to the extent of conferring legitimacy and respect. W himself said as much, when Obama was President, and Obama was breaching another norm by constantly attacking Bush…And there it is, the tit for tat rationalization that shows you don’t know ethics from a rutabaga. That’s how TRUMP reasons. As long as he holds the office, he dserves the appropriate treatment due the office, not the individual.”
Criticism and non-endorsement does not invalidate “legitimacy and respect,” and that’s all we’re talking about here. It isn’t unethical to marshall justified criticism. “Tradition” is not an inherently ethical value. Trump’s conduct in office not only justified former presidents’ criticism, it necessitated it.
” the Jan 6 with hunt is a partisan “Get Trump” effort”
You can’t use this rhetoric and then get offended when people notice the similarities between it and the rabid MAGA crowd, and if I’m not allowed to point out those similarities, then I don’t need to waste time here. The January 6th hearings were righteous and necessary, and Cheney is on the right side of them. You’re on the wrong one. I’m not “obsessed with Trump,” you’re obsessed with defending him in hysterical terms because of your bias against Democrats. That’s why you lumped in Liz Cheney with the Bushes, and HW with McCain; all Trump critics who go after him in any but the most dulcet of terms are an undifferentiated mass to you. You’re angry at Cheney for criticizing Trump now, so you feel the need to retroactively apply her Trump-hatred to the four-year-term in which she supported everything he did. You constantly assert that Trump’s motivations don’t matter and it’s pointless to speculate on them, while applying ulterior motives to his critics, even when (or especially when) you can’t refute their criticism.
I think I’m done here.
I would argue that the Bushes felt Trump as President would weaken all Presidents and the damage the office.
Which is probably why they didn’t endorse him.
You haven’t proven anything. He’s trying to do a difficult, maybe impossible task, but at least he’s trying. As the Twitter Files DID prove, the previous censors at Twitter don’t even agree with the principle of free speech.
There’s something quite familiar about the dragging the goal post around style of rhetoric coming from the new commenter that calls themself “Seriously?” but I can’t quite place my finger on it, yet. Also this “Seriously?” commenter seems to have some kind of chip on their shoulder that’s coming across as a bit of a vendetta against Jack and a few of the commenters.
Well, presuming “Seriously?” finally complied and submitted a *real name* and *real email address* and assuming the person “Seriously?” most reminds me of didn’t just create a new email and present a false name, then Seriously is not the commenter I think he or she is.
Have not received that information yet.
Jack Marshall wrote, “Have not received that information yet.”
Big surprise.
“A slightly related note: I finally decided to get back on Twitter. The account is Ethics Alarms @EthicsAlarmist, replacing the old Captain Compliance handle.I’ll be linking EA posts there eventually, and also being more active than I was under the previous censorious regime: I think Elon deserves support. If you’re on Twitter, please follow me, and I’ll reciprocate.”
BOUT TIME!
Followed.