Very Interesting Points On The Trump Indictment From Will Sharf

Will Scharf is a former federal prosecutor a Republican candidate for Missouri Attorney General; take that last part as you will. In a piec for The Federalist, he ticks off six problems for prosecutors trying to prove the alleged crimes in the Justice Department’s case against Donald Trump. Few of them have been explained thoroughly in the mainstrem media by an analyst not obviously inclined to declare Trump guilty, at least none that I have found.

Here are Scharf’s six; my few comments are in italics:

1. Interplay Between the Espionage Act and the Presidential Records Act: “…The Presidential Records Act sets up a system where the president designates all records that he creates either as presidential or personal records (44 U.S.C. § 2203(b)). A former president is supposed to turn over his presidential records to the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), and he has the right to keep his personal records.  Based on the documents I’ve read and his actions I’ve read about, I believe Trump viewed his “boxes” as his personal records under the PRA. There are statements he made, quoted in the indictment, that support that view. If Trump considered the contents of these boxes to be of purely personal interest, hence his designation of them as personal records, did he knowingly retain National Defebse Information? Did he really think these documents, like years-old briefing notes and random maps, jumbled together with his letters, news clippings, scribbled notes, and random miscellaneous items, “could be used to the injury of the United States”? Or did he just think of them as mementos of his time in office, his personal records of the four years, akin to a journal or diary?”

2. Classification and National Defense Information: “…Trump’s legal team needs to drive home this point over and over again: Classification is not dispositive in this case. Harm to America or benefit to foreign countries is the standard.  Anyone who has worked around government knows that overclassification is a huge problem. A ton of documents end up being classified because of arcane technical rules that may not reflect the real world. If the president were to ask the Navy what’s for lunch for the next week at Coronado, for example, there is a good chance the answer comes back with a classification marker on it.”

Continue reading

The White House Breast-Flashing Trans Activist Offers Authentic Frontier Gibberish And A Non-Apology Apology

Ugh.

I wouldn’t expect the individual who thought this…

…was a reasonable or ethical way to behave at the White House or to thank President Biden for inviting her and other LGBTQ activists to attend a political suck-up event would be revealed as a smart, articulate, ethical force in civic discourse. That three-minute babble-fest above, however, is special. I’m not even certain what the transsexual’s intention was. I can determine what it communicated, however:

Continue reading

Now THAT’S An Unethical Lawyer! [Expanded]

Every December, when I do an end-of-year legal ethics seminar for the D.C. Bar, I discuss the Unethical Lawyer of the Year. It’s only June, but it’s hard to see how anyone, not even Alvin Bragg, can match Jason Kurland this year

Kurland, an attorney who represented lottery winners and was once a partner at the prestigious firm Rivkin Radler, one of the 200 largest firms in the nation, was sentenced last week to 13 years in prison. He had been found guilty of wire fraud, wire fraud conspiracy, honest services wire fraud, unlawful monetary transactions and a related conspiracy charge.

Fraudulent representations by Kurland and his co-defendants caused his clients to lose more than $80 million. He also lifted $19.5 million from the account of one lottery winner to make an investment for the benefit of himself and his accessories.

Continue reading

Playing Bud Light Spin The Bottle

The facts are pretty straightforward. The parent company of Budweiser hired an ambitious, arrogant, woke woman to take over the marketing of Bud Light, which was the best selling beer in America. Having little understanding of the product’s market, and being so infected with wokism that she couldn’t comprehend the depth of the cultural divide regarding the current pro-transgender fad, she made the bone-headed decision to associate the brand with Dylan Mulvaney, a biological male internet performance artist who poses as female, both satirizing genuine transsexuals and celebrating them. From that moment, Bud Light was in a binary trap of its own making with no way out. The reaction against the botched marketing decision was over-whelming, with calls for a Bud Light boycott and a sudden fall-off ins sales. When the company tried to backtrack, including the sacking of its clueless marketing guru, the LGTBQ market also turned on the brand.

Continue reading

2023’s Most Insulting Made-Up Excuse For Unethical Conduct So Far

I had assumed this story from last month had wrapped up the prize: A Colorado man was pulled over by police for speeding and swapped seats with his dog so he could claim, or at least try to claim, that the dog was driving.

“The driver attempted to switch places with his dog who was in the passenger seat, as the SPD officer approached and watched the entire process,” the official statement reads. “The male party then exited the passenger side of the vehicle and claimed he was not driving.” The suspect showed “clear signs of intoxication,” and when the officer asked about his alcohol consumption, he tried to run away but was quickly caught.

The dog told the officers that he was grateful for their intervention because he “thought that idiot was going to kill us both.”

OK, I’m kidding about that last part. There have been some really weird ethics stories involving dogs lately. I ultimately decided not to write about this one, the Penn State professor caught having repeated sex with his dog to “blow off steam” because there are so many tasteless—but funny!—jokes that come to mind and I might not be able to resist making some of them.

But I digress. Almost as revolting as that story is the new leader for worst 2023 excuse, Dr Nicholas Chapman, 55, a British general practitioner, who has been convicted of putting his semen into coffee he served to a female acquaintance in September of 2021. The court was told that Chapman was accused of adding his semen to drinks he made for the victim on several occasions. When the woman kept a sample of some of the cofee he had made for her, tests confirmed the secret ingredient and the DNA matched Chapman’s.

The doctor swore he was innocent. He had a rare condition that causes him to ejaculate while urinating, he said, and he just keeps forgetting to wash his hands after finishing up in the loo.

[I used a photo of Porter, the first driving dog, above instead of a picture related to Chapman’s excuse because…well, you know why…]

Juneteenth Weekend Ethics Picnic Continued, 6/17/2023: A Happy Dance Gone Wrong, Japan Figures Out The Obvious At Last, And More

I decided to restrict yesterday’s installment to the national divisions theme, and realized this morning that there are all sorts of random items hanging around that deserve some consideration.

Such as…

1. The angry banned commenter who has been leaving comment on various posts like a suspended junior high school student drawing penises on the school basketball court as revenge just wrote this in a comment you’ll never see: “Your blog is basically a torrent of hate speech.” No further analysis from me is necessary, I presume. I occasionally have regrets about banning commenters. This jerk I regret allowing to comment in the first place.

2. Speaking of fractured thought processes, an occasional commenter here wrote a Facebook post criticizing the fact that a male “identifying” as female won the “Miss San Francisco” title. Me, I wouldn’t care if an inanimate carbon rod got the crown, but one of my friend’s critics, a Woke World Warrior, wrote (and later too down) this response: “What impact does this have on your life?” I immediately flagged it as an exquisite expression of dead ethics alarms and the absence of comprehension of the principles of ethics generally. What a wonderful world we would build if we all only cared about conduct that affected us directly and personally! And that is the flaw in the logic behind the question.

3. Here’s an ancient but still common baseball rationalization that drives me crazy, but that isn’t used sufficiently in the real world to justify inclusion on the list. When a home plate umpire makes an obviously wrong strike call, a baseball “color” announcer, usually an ex-player, will say, “He’s been calling that pitch a strike all day. That’s all hitter and players want, consistency. It’s his strike zone today, and as long as it doesn’t change, nobody can complain.” That’s idiotic. It’s like saying, “Yeah, that cop always tickets pedestrians for chewing gum, but as long as he’s consistent about it, it’s OK.” The umpires’ job is to enforce the strike zone in the rule book, which is very specific. They don’t have the authority to decide what is “their” strike zone.

Continue reading

Wine Ethics, Integrity, and The Roman Catholic Church

If you have trouble reading that, here’s the text:

Dear members of the Clergy: Please find the enclosed decree I have issued to address the use of wines of dubious or altogether invalid matter intended for the celebration of the Eucharist in this Archdiocese. It has recently been reported by two priests, having served in three different parishes, that upon their appointment to these parishes they soon discovered the long-term use of wines that were in fact invalid matter for the confection of the Eucharist. The result of this long-term practice in these parishes is that for any number of years all Masses celebrated were invalid and therefore the intentions for which those Masses were offered were not satisfied, including the obligation pastors have to offer Mass for the people… This is a gravely serious situation for which we must now petition the Holy See for guidance on restorative measures. Due to the grave nature of this situation, I must therefore forbid further use of any wines that are not specifically vinted for sacramental use in the Catholic Mass. Parishes must immediately discontinue use of all wines that have not been specifically produced to meet the requirements for sacramental usage. If upon checking the wine you currently use you find that it is invalid matter (contains additives such as elderberry extract, sugars, alcohol, etc.) you must notify Fr. John Riley by June 15 (your name will be kept confidential) so that the true scope of the situation in this archdiocese may be reported properly to the Holy See for its guidance.

Thank you for your immediate attention to this serious matter effecting the validity of the Eucharist…

It is times like these that I wish old Ethics Alarms commenting star tgt was still around. His epic battles with Michael West will be sung about by troubadours until the stars grow cold. Tgt was an icy-eyed foe of religion, and a story like this would have surely generated an epic Comment of the Day.

I’m not quite in tgt’s league regarding disdain for organized religion, but what an ethics mess. The Catholic Church requires all wine used for communion to be made from grapes without any additives: after all, it is supposed to be the literal blood of Christ. Additional flavoring, sugar, alcohol makes it “invalid matter.” The Church has lists of local wineries that produce wines that qualify as “valid matter” that Catholic priests can use; it also apparently has black lists of blasphemous brands that may promote their wines as “sacramental” when they are not.

How many masses have been held using “invalid matter,” thus rendering the masses themselves invalid? How many other masses around the country have been held using similarly taboo wine, and are similarly invalid? What is the remedy for that?

Continue reading

Juneteenth Weekend Ethics Picnic, 6/16/2023

This was the day, in 1858, that Abraham Lincoln, just-nominated as the Republican Illinois candidate for the U.S. Senate, addressed the state Republican Convention in Springfield and, speaking to more than 1,000 delegates, crafted a warning for the nation adapted from the New Testament: “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” It’s ironic, or perhaps appropriate, that the anniversary of the prophetic speech occurs as “Juneteenth,” the federal holiday designed to pander to African-Americans in the aftermath of the George Floyd Freakout makes this a long weekend. Juneteenth is a divisive holiday, based on race alone.

As A.M. Golden asked two years ago at the end of his guest column here, “Any thoughts on how easily America is going to transition into two Independence Days, one for whites, one for blacks?” My thought, based on the two years since: It is likely to transition into a permanently racially-conflicted and divided society, which is apparently just what progressives and Democrats want, only relived by further divisions. I fully expect, for example, for the next push by the increasingly bold and insatiable LGBTQ lobby is for a national holiday honoring the Stonewall riots that began on June 28, 1969. That one, like the federal holiday arriving on June 19, will also be celebrated by only one segment of the public while the others metaphorically scratch their collective heads, or, in the case of weenies, celebrate just to appear sufficiently woke.

I wonder what Abe would say about the dangers of today’s divided house?

1. On the topic of divided houses: NPR host Teran Powell used Flag Day to trash the American Flag and to discuss her anxiety when “surrounded by excessive American Flags.”

“For example, I’m Black American, and over the past few years, I’ve continued to analyze what the American Flag means to me,” Powell said. “Especially considering the growth in extremism in the post-Trump-presidency and those extremists using the American Flag against people of color to say they’re the real Americans.” Then she an anecdote about seeing American flags in Illinois when she was traveling with a friend, saying, “And both of us were like, ‘Yeah, we need to hurry up and leave. And I thought about it like, ‘why did we feel like that?”

Oh, I can answer that one. You feel like that because you live and anti-American, anti-white racist bubble, because you have swallowed Black Lives Matter propaganda whole, facts don’t matter to you because you like the benefits of being a perpetual victim. If NPR wasn’t practicing “diversity,” another bit of George Floyd reparations, I greatly doubt that any radio host who says “like” in consecutive sentences would have a job in radio.

Then, as supporting authority—don’t expect NPR to put on anyone who might say, “That’s bullshit, you know,”—Marquette University philosophy professor Grant Silva got the floor to agree with Powell, though more articulately:

“I also get a little bit anxious around the excessive imagery of the flag in part because in my experience, patriotism quickly slips into nationalism. Especially the simplistic version of patriotism, the flag waving, my country love it or leave it kind of attitude. That is just a hop, skip and a jump away from becoming nationalism.As much as I would like to see the flag displayed in a proud manner, it all too quickly takes on the stakes that, as a non-white person, can mean a lot, right? It can mean a sense of inclusion or exclusion. A sense of belonging or the ascription of perpetual foreigner, perpetual outsider status; that that flag is not for me unless I’m willing to abide by the assimilatory paradigm that some of these individuals that you’re talking about tend to put forward.

Oh nooooooooooooo! Not the assimilatory paradigm! Then he compared the experience of seeing American flags to how he felt when he saw “Immigrant Hunting License” stickers for sale.

We pay taxes to support junk like this. We allow people who reason like Silva to teach the next generation.

2. A racial ethics train wreck that started rolling five years ago has finally ground to a halt. As described here at Ethics Alarms, it all began after police were called to a Philadelphia Starbucks after two African American men refused to leave the coffee store after they were told that they could not use the rest room and needed to buy something in order to stay there. The men were waiting to meet a companion to have a meeting. The store management then summoned the police. Activists turned the incident into a racial grievance, and called for a boycott of Starbucks.The self-consciously Social Justice Warrior-friendly corporation immediately groveled an apology, and even though the store’s staff were following company policy, it promised heads would roll. The company also announced that anyone could use the bathroom in its stores, which became a disaster, but that’s another story.

Shannon Phillips, who worked for Starbucks for 13 years, was the regional director responsible for overseeing 100 stores in Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. Various white employees were suspended or fired as Starbucks set out to prove to the black community that it was determined to fight racism…by engaging in it. Soon after the Philadelphia incident happened, was ordered to place a white 15 year veteran manager on administrative leave for alleged racial discrimination. When Phillips protested, insisting that the man had done nothing to justify punishment, she was fired. Meanwhile, the district manager of the store where the incident occurred was black, yet he wasn’t reprimanded or disciplined. Phillips sued Starbucks for racial discrimination, claiming she was fired because of the color of her skin.

This week, a federal jury agreed, awarding her $25 million in punitive damages and $600,000 in compensatory damages.

A Popeye: The Mystery Word

It was 11 am, and having dropped my wife off for a physical therapy session and skipped breakfast, I decided to indulge my self in a guilty pleasure: a McDonald’s sausage biscuit. Say what you will about Mickey D’s: their sausage biscuits beat Jimmy Dean’s, and don’t tempt me to talk about the 7-11 barely-edible version.

So I waited in the Drive-Thru line at the nearest branch (the one that only occasionally get its orders right), and when I finally reached the speaker, made a quick and simple request: “A hash browns and sausage biscuit, please. That’s all.”

A woman said in an impenetrable accent, “Sorry, no biscuit. Just [????].” I had no clue what she was saying. It sounded like “eh.” “Pardon me? Could you repeat that?,” I asked. “No biscuit. Only [????].” Well, I had already decided to cancel the order, since the whole point was the item that wasn’t available, but as a matter of principle, I was damned if I was going to leave without knowing what the mystery word was.

Continue reading

Look! A “Great Stupid” Father’s Day Ethics Dunce: Springfield College

If something like this had appeared just a few years ago—you know, before the dark shadow of The Great Stupid had covered the civilized world—it would have been regarded as a joke.

Springfield College in Massachusetts has campus language police guidelines that, among other acts of indoctrination and attempted Orwellian mind-control, discourages students from using the word “father.” I assume that synonyms are similarly taboo, like “dad,” “daddy,” “pop,” and “papa,” and “pappy,” as well as “grandfather,” “granddad,” and “pop-pop.” “Mother,” and other “gender specific” terms like brother, sister, “boyfriend,” “girlfriend,” “husband,” “wife,” “son,” and “daughter” are also considered wrong and harmful.

The list prohibitions are not new at Springfield, and Ethics Alarms has discussed similar Orwellian nonsense at other schools before. I mention this example now because any educational institution that indulges in this kind of Great Stupid woke indoctrination needs to be exposed, mocked, derided, shunned, and driven either to close or reform. This isn’t an educational institution’s job. Constraining communication, serving as propaganda agents for political movements and using its position and influence to advance GoodSpeak is unethical, and extremely so.

Continue reading