2016 Post Election Ethics Train Wreck

From The EA Archives: The Trump Presidency And “The Caine Mutiny”—A Reminder

/ Jack Marshall / 28 Comments

I watched “The Caine Mutiny” last night with a friend who had never seen it. I realized that I had written during Donald Trump’s first term about how the rebuke Navy lawyer Barney Greenwald (Jose Ferrer) delivers to the acquitted mutineers fit 2019’s “resistance”  like the proverbial glove. It fits today’s  Axis of Unethical Conduct even better. I’ll have some brief comments after the post.

* * *

Turner Movie Classics ran “The Caine Mutiny” again last night. It reminded me of what I wrote two years ago, when I really didn’t think that the “resistance” and the Democrats would continue on the destructive path they have for this long. I even wrote, foolishly, “This is the last time I’m going to try to explain why the fair, patriotic, ethical and rational approach to the impending Presidency of Donald Trump is to be supportive of the office and the individual until his actual performance in the job earns just criticism. Attempting to undermine a Presidency at its outset is a self-destructive act, for nobody benefits if a Presidency fails.” Of course, it was far from the last time I returned to the topic. In my defense, how could I know, at a point where the term “the resistance” hadn’t even surfaced yet, that the unparalleled assault on a President would not only continue, but escalate to the point where a newly minted Congresswoman would announce to a cheering mob, “We’re going to impeach the motherfucker!”?

Watching the movie, however, was striking. I know it well; I can recite many of the lines from memory. Yet the parallel with the Trump Presidency struck me smore powerfully than ever before, and sent me back to that previous post, in which I wrote,

“In The Caine Mutiny, a film version of the stage drama and novel “The Caine Mutiny Court Martial,” Captain Queeg (Humphrey Bogart), a man whose war-shattered nerves and self-esteem problems have rendered him an erratic and an unpopular officer, falters in his command during a storm. His officers, frightened and already convinced that their captain is unfit for command, mutiny. At their military trial, their defense attorney causes Queeg to have a breakdown on the witness stand, winning the case for the accused mutineers. Later, however, at the post trial victory party, the lawyer, Barney Greenwald (Jose Ferrer),  shames his clients. He represented them zealously, but he tells them that they were, in fact, at fault for what occurred on the Caine:

Ensign  Keith: Queeg endangered the lives of the men.

Greenwald: He didn’t endanger any lives.You did. A fine bunch of officers.

Lt. Paynter: You said yourself he cracked.

Greenwald: I’m glad you brought that up, Mr. Paynter, because that’s a very pretty point. I left out one detail in court. It wouldn’t have helped our case. Tell me, Steve, after the yellow-stain business, Queeg came to you for help, and you turned him down, didn’t you.

Lt. Maryk: Yes, we did.

Greenwald: You didn’t approve of his conduct as an officer. He wasn’t worthy of your loyalty. So you turned on him. You ragged on him, you made up songs about him. If you’d given Queeg the loyalty he needed, do you think all this would have come up in the typhoon? You’re an honest man, Steve, I’m asking you. You think it would have been necessary to take over?

 Maryk: It probably wouldn’t have been necessary.

Keith:  If that’s true, we were guilty.

Greenwald: Ahhh, You’re learning, Willie!  You don’t work with the captain because of how he parts his hair…you work with him because  he’s got the job, or you’re no good.

Exactly.

      Or you’re no good.

Donald Trump is in over his head. He knows it, I think. Maybe, just maybe, with a lot of help, a lot of support and more than a lot of luck, he might be able to do a decent job for his country and the public. It’s a long-shot, but what’s the alternative? Making sure that he fails? Making him feel paranoid, and angry, and feeding his worst inclinations so he’s guaranteed to behave irrationally and irresponsibly? How is that in anyone’s best interest? That’s not how to get someone through a challenge, especially someone who you have to depend on.

Continue reading →

Flashback: “Ethics Reflections On The Trump Assassination Attempt Prelude and Aftermath” and Observations on the Latest Attempt

/ Jack Marshall / 12 Comments

Fact: The Axis of Unethical Conduct is 100% responsible for the third serious attempt on President Trump’s life in less than two years. 100%. Denying this is spin.

I’m not tolerating it or allowing the Mad Left to duck responsibility. It has been pushing hate for years, mostly focusing on Trump but also on Republicans, conservatives, the United States of America, capitalism and our founding values. Many on the Left (including Senator Elizabeth Warren) cheered on or rationalized the murderous act of the man who murdered a health care insurance executive by shooting him in the back—you know, evil corporations, evil capitalism. Many on the Left cheered the assassination of Charlie Kirk. The “resistance,” Democrats and their propaganda engines, aka. “the news media,” have been calling Trump a dictator, a fascist, Hitler, a sexual predator, a convicted felon, a racist, a monster, an existential threat to democracy, a practitioner of genocide, constantly and repeatedly. A lot of people really believe these labels are justified; a lot more people are cynically and irresponsibly spreading those accusation because they will help the Democrats achieve their ultimate goal of single party rule.

I believe that a very large percentage of American progressives want Trump dead, one way or another. A Rutgers study, you may recall, found more than half of the progressive respondents to a survey said it would be at least somewhat justified to murder Donald Trump. I believe that this conclusion is inescapable.

It’s too bad for these corrupt and despicable Americans that Trump is really good at reacting to assassination attempt. Then again, he’s had more practice than anybody in U.S. history. In his comments to the media last night, the President said in part,

“This was an event dedicated to freedom of speech that was supposed to bring together members of both parties with members of the press. And in a certain way it did…I saw a room that was totally unified. It was in one way very beautiful — a very beautiful thing to see…In light of this evening’s events, I ask that all Americans recommit with their hearts to resolving our differences peacefully. We have to resolve our differences. You had Republicans, Democrats, independents, conservatives, liberals, and progressives in that room — a big crowd, record-setting crowd. There was a tremendous amount of love and coming together.

“We looked at all of the conditions that took place tonight. It’s not a particularly secure building. I didn’t want to say this, but this is why we have to have all of the attributes of what we’re planning at the White House. It’s actually a larger room and it’s much more secure. It’s got drone-proof and bulletproof glass. We need the ballroom.
 
“This is not the first time in the past couple of years that our republic has been attacked by a would-be assassin. In Butler, Pennsylvania, less than two years ago — you all know that story. And in Palm Beach, Florida, a few months after that, we came close again. We had some great work done by law enforcement.
 
…I’ve studied assassinations. The most impactful people, the people that do the most, are the ones they go after. Abraham Lincoln, the big names. I hate to say I’m honored by that, but we’ve done a lot. We’ve changed this country. There are a lot of people that are not happy about that.”

Trump’s assassination history is flawed, but in his case, it has some legitimacy. Abe Lincoln, of course, fits his narrative, but the other assassinated Presidents do not: McKinley, Garfield, and Kennedy. The President Trump just surpassed to become the failed assassination record-holder with three is Gerald Ford, not exactly one of the “big names.” Nevertheless, the resistance, Democrats and the Axis media have been vilifying this President because he has “done a lot.” and has foiled them again and again. Yes, Trump’s trolling, gloating, deliberately inflammatory rhetoric and defiant style make the target they have placed on his back a bit more vivid, but make no mistake: the Trump Deranged and the totalitarian-tilting Left put it there.

Before I get to the EA post I authored right after the 2024 assassination attempt, I want to quote from the later post on the same topic:

Pages: 1 2

Ethics Quote of the Week: “Spicy Bits” on “X”

/ Jack Marshall / 27 Comments

“The SPLC orchestrating the Charlottesville event and then pivoting to “endorse” the narrative that Trump coddles white supremacists is the definition of a classic Democrat false-flag operation. They manufacture the crisis, weaponize the media to lie about the “fine people” quote, and use it as a political cudgel to demonize heritage Americans. It’s not just hypocrisy; it’s the standard operating procedure for the Democrat junta regime that relies on fabricated morality and lies to maintain power.“

Honestly, I don’t see how any fair, honest, informed American can disagree with that statement. I’ll even employ the “No True Scotsman” approach: any American who does disagree with that statement is, by definition, not fair, honest, or informed, and perhaps all three.

The Southern Poverty Law Center, which we now know helped plan, organize, and pay for the Charlottesville demonstration, endorsed Kamala Harris, who a month later accused Donald Trump of enabling white supremacists during their debate.

The public now has sufficient information, even with the desperate attempts by the news media to submerge it all, to understand what a dangerous, Machiavellian, deliberately divisive and unscrupulous party the Democrats have allowed their organization to become. Regardless of one’s ideological preferences, it is unethical not to emphatically reject them.

Smoking Gun Evidence That Democrats and Progressives Seek One-Party Rule, Not Democracy: The Virginia Special Election

/ Jack Marshall / 10 Comments

This is another integrity test for your woke friends who claim that Donald Trump is a threat to democracy.

Tomorrow, Virginians (like me) will go to polling places to decide whether to vote for a “proposed constitutional amendment.” Note that the proposed amendment isn’t included on the ballot. This is because Democrats, who dominate the state government cheat. There is no other way to explain this.

Constitutional amendments, which must be approved by Virginia voters, have to be on the ballot with a full explanation of the amendment available to the public at least 90 days before the election. Virginia Code 30-19.9 provides,

“The explanation shall contain the ballot question, the full text of the proposed constitutional amendment, and a statement of not more than 500 words on the proposed amendment. The explanation shall be presented in plain English, shall be limited to a neutral explanation, which may include a brief statement on the effect of a “yes” and “no” vote on the question but shall not include arguments submitted by either proponents or opponents of the proposal.”

How has it been “made available”? I don’t know: I hadn’t seen it, and I’m fairly informed on such matters. Maybe it was in something I thought was junk mail. Maybe Democrats think posting something on a website nobody is likely to visit is sufficient advance notice. The alleged required explanation of the current proposed amendment is here. In addition to the deceitful and misleading language on the ballot above, we see:

Pages: 1 2

Does Anyone Really Have To Ask This Question?

/ Jack Marshall / 6 Comments

Ann Althouse, who for some strange reason is obsessed with AI in general and Grok in particular, asked her favorite bot, “Which U.S. First Ladies have received the cruelest treatment in the press (and in public conversation)? Especially which ones were disrespected as, essentially, whores?”

Anyone who doesn’t know the answer and the runner-up is both politically and historically ignorant. Obviously Grok informed Ann that Melania Trump is the “winner” and that it isn’t even close, telling the bloggress in part (my comments interspersed in bold),,

“Melania Trump stands out among actual U.S. First Ladies for receiving some of the most explicit, sexualized public disrespect in the modern era—being directly called a “hooker,” “whore,” or accused of having been a prostitute/escort. This came from tabloid stories, a New York Times reporter (who was reprimanded after a model publicly called out the comment), social media, and partisan commentary tied to her pre-White House modeling career and alleged links to escort services. She filed (and later settled or pursued) defamation suits, including a $150 million claim against the Daily Mail over “elite escort” allegations, which the paper retracted. Media and online discourse frequently framed her as ornamental, aloof, or unworthy in ways that veered into slut-shaming, far more personal and vicious than typical policy or style critiques faced by others. Some contemporary observers (across outlets) described her overall press treatment as among the worst for any modern First Lady.”
SOME? There’s no contest! Melania is first, second, third…American First Ladies have always, always, been treated with respect by the news media, though there have been partisan critics of some First Ladies like “Lemonade Lucy” Hayes, Bess Truman, Mamie Eisenhower, Nancy Reagan and Michelle Obama, but nothing close to the venom heaped on Malania. Back to Grok…
“No other serving First Lady matches this level of direct “whore/prostitute” framing in the historical record… The single most brutal sexual character assassination of a presidential spouse involved Rachel Jackson (wife of Andrew Jackson) during the 1828 campaign. Opponents dredged up her first marriage’s messy divorce and her subsequent union with Jackson, labeling her a bigamist, adulteress, “whore,” “harlot,” and woman of “open and notorious lewdness” in newspapers and pamphlets. She was devastated, withdrew from public life, and died of a heart attack shortly after the election (before inauguration). Andrew Jackson blamed the “slander” for her death and had “A being so gentle and so virtuous, slander might wound, but could never dishonor” inscribed on her tombstone. 
Note to Grok (and Ann): It wasn’t a “messy divorce,” it was a legally invalid divorce, so technically Rachel was a bigamist.
Pages: 1 2

The Drip Drip Drip Of Trump Derangement Evidence…

/ Jack Marshall / 2 Comments

Seen on social media (with over 6,000 “loves”:

“Name one thing this administration has done that it promised it would.I can name a dozen ways this admin has backstabbed his base. I can’t name single accomplishment other than feeling good the day he won.”

It’s one thing to be deliberately obtuse, continue with absurd Axis narratives (“Trump is senile”) and to deny facts right in front of your face, which is what my Trump Deranged Facebook friends do daily. It is quite another to put a statement as fatuous as the one above in the web like a hanging curve over the middle of the plate to Aaron Judge.

Conservative lawyer Will Chamberlain replied as I might have,

“Border crossings to near zero. Net negative migration. 95% reduction in asylum grants. Lawsuits against a slew of woke universities. DEI getting crushed everywhere. Massive, beneficial deregulation. No tax on tips. No tax on overtime. Venezuela turned into an American ally. And that’s just off the top of my head.”

He left out winding down the Dept. of Education, finally getting rid of public funding for NPR and PBS, using tariffs to negotiate more favorable trade deals, making major progress in ending the war in Gaza, seriously addressing crime in major cities, gutting idiotic climate change policies, and making America Great Again, which means, in part, going to the Moon again, demonstrating American military power, and ending wokey military policies that have nothing to do with defending the country. And that’s just off the top of MY head. It is also relevant that Trump has only been in office less than 15 months.

As for the alleged “endless wars” betrayal, any President who would not do what Trump did in Iran after assessing new developments and intelligence because of a campaign promise has breached his oath and his duty. That’s unethical as well as cowardly.

I know, I know…I promised to do an exhaustive and thorough post about what constitutes Trump Derangement beyond disapproving of the Presidents tweets, rhetoric, style and dubious taste in appointees. I hope I find time to do it (living up to my promises)…in the meantime, I’ll be addressing the issue piecemeal.

An Axis Trump Derangement Case Study: The White House Ballroom Tantrum

/ Jack Marshall / 6 Comments

Above is how a federal judge and all my Trump Deranged friends would like to see the White House East Wing look for the next three years or more.

How dignified and reflective of America’s history and greatness! This makes sense to them, you see, because President Trump took the initiative and decided to fix a long-standing deficiency of the White House, where he lives. Any previous President could have done this without uproar or significant opposition, you see, but as an example of the continuing 2016 Post Election Ethics Train Wreck, when the Left decided that it wasn’t going to accept the shocking election of a political outsider to foil their presumed coronation of a corrupt Democrat (but a historic one, see, so it was okay) and set out to obstruct literally anything he decided to do, big or small, important or trivial.

Pages: 1 2

MSNOW Revives Axis “Presidential Removal Plan E” In the Dumbest Way Possible, Raising the Need For a Similar “Incompetent Journalist Removal Plan”

/ Jack Marshall / 21 Comments

It should be clear by now that MSNOW, previously MSNBC, exists only to misinform the public and make Americans more ignorant and divided than they already are. When I learn that a friend gets his or her news from this entirely propaganda-obsessed network, I conclude, reluctantly that this friend is now an idiot, and I will have to confine our conversations to, oh, movie trivia or something.

As I peruse three news cable channels during the day, hoping to learn something either about the world or the ongoing deterioration of U.S. journalism ethics, there are certain faces that repel me like opposite pole of a magnet. Brian Stelter on CNN. Hannity on Fox News. Literally everyone on MSNOW, of course, but Jonathan Capehart is particularly prone to saying really stupid things as if they were worth listening to.

On “The Weekend” this week, Capehart set a new low even for him. He was so horrified by the President making the quip about surprise and Pearl Harbor in front of the Japanese Prime Minister—standard fare for Trump, who enjoys doing and saying quiet parts out loud and doesn’t care who is offended—that he railed,

“I sometimes wonder, why are we not having a 25th Amendment conversation about this president?Because a comment like that, if it had come out of the mouth of President Biden, we would have been in rolling coverage about how Republicans on the Hill think that he should be removed from office for talking to an ally like that, and making that comment in response to a question from a Japanese journalist.”

I know I could spend all my time on Ethics Alarms pointing out the astoundingly flagrant bias and Trump Derangement displayed by members of the Axis media, but Capehart’s idiocy in this instance is epic. Let’s see…

Pages: 1 2

Ethics Quote of the Month: Ninth Circuit Judge Kenneth K. Lee

/ Jack Marshall / 15 Comments

“District courts cannot stand athwart, yelling ‘stop’ just because they genuinely believe they are the last refuge against policies that they deem to be deeply unwise.”

—Judge Kenneth K. Lee of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, writing  separately as a panel overruled a district court and held that the President had the power to suspend the Refugee Admissions Program.

Of course he did. The law and Constitution is clear on that point, but a woke District Court halted the President’s decision anyway. This was unethical as well as illegal, but, as Prof. Josh Blackman writes,

“President Trump is back in office, progressives still challenge virtually every action he takes, and judges in blue states continue to grant relief. No surprise there. But there is a new dynamic. Now, not only are lower court judges resisting the President, but they are also resisting the Supreme Court. In August, Justice Neil Gorsuch rebuked an attempted . Judge Brian Murphy of the District of Massachusetts managed to get reversed twice by the Supreme Court in the same case. “When this Court issues a decision,” Gorsuch wrote, “it constitutes a precedent that commands respect in lower courts.” Gorsuch added that “[t]his Court’s precedents, however, cannot be so easily circumvented.” 

Remember, it is Trump’s opponents who keep accusing him of breaching “democratic norms,” yet the Axis of Unethical Conduct ( the “resistance,” Democrats and the media that carries on their propaganda) is literally defying the greatest democratic norm of all, the Constitution. Blackman calls this attempted usurpation of power by activist, partisan judges “judicial resistance,” in other words, an abuse of judicial power for partisan objectives. It is—this is me and not the professor saying this—grounds for impeachment. President Trump is not exceeding his Presidential authority as the Trump Deranged scream, but rather the judges and courts that are interfering in the Constitutional hierarchy. Unethical, you think? Damn right.

Blackman:

Pages: 1 2

Be Proud, Democrats! This Is The Face of Your Party:

/ Jack Marshall / 16 Comments

Nice! And Carville speaks for if not all, a majority of the Axis. I defy anyone to justify this with facts and logic as opposed to an appeal to emotion. There is no justification, and Carville’s party’s determination to make hatred for the nation’s elected leader viral and controlling of our nation’s fate and policies is ethically indefensible.

Nor do I care to hear protests that Carville is an outlier. A showboat, yes, but he is expressing exactly what the American Left has allowed to sustain its agenda. Hate. Ugly, corrosive, irrational, destructive hate. We saw the antics of Democrats during the State of the Union, and it was only a slight escalation of Speaker Nancy Pelosis despicable conduct during Trumps 2020 SOTU. The democrats are all Carvillized. Some just hide it better than others.

Amazingly, most of the hate is rooted in bitterness and bad sportsmanship. Democrats lost power because they proved themselves dishonest, corrupt and incompetent…and their reaction to losing is anger? Fury? Hatred of the man who beat them? How juvenile. How embarrassing.

How unethical.

How sad.