2016 Post Election Ethics Train Wreck

Comment of the Day: “Ethics Quote of the Month: Banned EA Commenter ‘David’” (2)

/ Jack Marshall / 8 Comments

As I just banned another misbehaving commenter who stopped off here just to show he was smarter than me and to defend Snopes (“…But for Snopes?”), it seems a propitious time to post this Comment of the Day, the second (the first is here) to be inspired by my post about another banned commenter calling me a “Trump supporting fascist.” And he was much smarter than the jerk I just banned.

Here is A M Golden’s Comment of the Day on the post, “Ethics Quote of the Month: Banned EA Commenter ‘David’”:

***

When I was about 11 years old, my grandparents’ church showed a movie called “The Hiding Place” about a Dutch family that hid Jews from the Nazis. I was fascinated by the idea that there could exist a country so very unlike America where people could be punished for helping others. Since I was already very interested in history, I began what is now a 40-plus-year study of the Third Reich and Hitler, in particular.

I do not consider myself an expert; however, I am certainly more knowledgeable than the average layperson. I have read hundreds of books over the years concerning Nazi Germany and not just the military build-up and harassment of Jews. I’ve read a lot about the culture, the education and the day-to-day life of Germans.

And, of course, I’ve read multiple biographies of Hitler himself. Not every biography is created equal, though (Don’t get me started on movies about Hitler. The last one I tried to watch was a TV movie called “Hitler: The Rise of Evil” starring an otherwise fine actor named Robert Carlyle. I turned it off after 10 minutes due to the blatant misrepresentations and outright fabrications of Hitler’s early life. Apparently, the expert consultant had his name taken off of it for the same reason). Some biographies are pretty bad and postulate things that are not likely to be true. A good example of this are the ones that try to push the idea that Hitler was a homosexual.

Continue reading →

Ethics Quote of the Month: Banned EA Commenter “David”

/ Jack Marshall / 35 Comments

“Fuck you, you Trump -supporting fascist!”

––Ethics Alarms troll “David” signing off after being banned

Why is this just an “ethics quote” instead of an “unethical quote”? I chose that designation because the line is invaluable information, revealing the crippling delusions at the heart of the implacable Trump-deranged that swarm around us.

“David” entered the fray here demonstrating some rhetorical ability and intelligence. It became clear, however, that he was here only as a hostile adversary and an advocate, not to explore ethics issues but to confront those whose analysis didn’t mesh with his pre-determined ideological and partisan biases, which proved unshakable. They also manifested themselves in trolling and sealioning tactics to relentlessly push a single narrative, the one that the news media, the resistance, Democrats and, to significant extent, Trump himself has fostered by his own incurable trolling habit.

The sequence that produced that quote goes like this. Trump is a bad person, and thus anything he is accused of, anything harmful that is predicted about his future conduct, any malign motives or intent that is attributed to him. must be true regardless of the sources and irrespective of facts. The confluence of these presumed vile acts, confident predictions and bad motives and intent points to racism, lust for power, instability, a thirst for revenge, and determination to topple the democracy. This, in turn, “proves ” that Trump is a super-villain out of Marvel Comics, and driven by fascist aspirations.

Continue reading →

Ethics Dunce and Legal Ethics Dunce: The Connecticut Bar Association

/ Jack Marshall / 5 Comments

This is concerning, but, frighteningly enough, not surprising. As Ethics Alarms has noted many times, the legal profession has been among the critical institutions most thoroughly corrupted, indeed lobotomized, by partisan bias and Trump Derangement. As if that wasn’t bad enough, I am also getting reports from various quarters about the deep corruption in many state bar associations. This is especially problematic for me, as bar associations are a significant market for my ethics training services (if they ares sufficiently corrupt, such organizations tend to say “We don’t need no stinkin’ ethics training!”). Well, the Connecticut Bar is in the minority of bar associations that have never sought my wisdom, so I am unencumbered by conflicts of interest.

Continue reading →

Ethics Alarms Sends Its Thanks To The Federalist For Neatly Explaining Why EA’s “2016 Post Election Ethics Train Wreck” Diagnosis Was and Is Correct

/ Jack Marshall / 17 Comments

The “2016 Post Election Ethics Train Wreck” isn’t the longest running Ethics Alarms ethics train wreck or even the most disastrous, perhaps (The Trayvon Martin-George Zimmerman Ethics Train Wreck is older and arguably worse, since it encompasses the Ferguson Ethics Train Wreck and the George Floyd Ethics Train Wreck too), But it has been disastrous enough. Fredo is up there again because, dammit, I was right about how sinister and dangerous the Democrats’ response to Trump’s shock defeat of Hillary. If anything, I underestimated how bad it would be, but for my correct analysis this blog was abandoned by all of the Trump haters who were sure I was their ally, since I had been pointing out the new President’s myriad flaws for two years.

Well, bias made them stupid, and I was punished for it. “You’ve drunk the Kool-Aid!” declared a previously esteemed visitor here when I (again, correctly) called the Mueller investigation what it was, a set-up to cripple Trump’s Presidency by Clinton allies in law enforcement, Congress and the media. “Banned Bob,” as the appropriately exiled commenter Bob Ghery will be known as henceforth, wrote in a recent comment that he had followed EA for years but noticed a while back that it had become “political and angry.” I hate the “angry” cheap shot; it’s a popular way to discredit my considered analysis as emotional, which it is not. I was and am emphatic that what the Democratic Party has done since the 2016 election has created a looming existential threat to American institutions, values and democracy. I’m not “angry” about it. And I have been forced to spend more time on political ethics because this epic breach of political ethics in America is the most important ethics story by far since Ethics Alarms started in 2009, indeed since Watergate.

I’m obligated to write about it. I will stop when the Axis stops using totalitarian tactics to undermine the Constitution, our culture, our communities, and our political discourse.

Thus I was thrilled to read the latest post in The Federalist titled, “Democrats’ 2016 Election Trutherism Lurks Behind Trump’s Show Trial Conviction.” An excerpt:

Continue reading →

Ethics Quiz: The Senators’ Letter

/ Jack Marshall / 65 Comments

I think I could check through the names of the 20 or so most prolific Ethics Alarms commenters and guess with nearly 100% accuracy how each of them will respond to this ethics quiz.

Eight Republican Senate Republicans released a letter after President’s Trump was declared guilty as charged in his mysterious “he did something illegal in there somewhere and besides, he’s a bad guy and everyone should hate him” trial in Manhattan. It declares that they will not do anything to support President Biden for the rest of his term in office: not vote on any legislation for non-security funding, not vote on judicial and political nominations, not not vote in favor of “expedited consideration and passage” of any Democrat-proposed legislation.

Signed by conservative GOP Senators Mike Lee, J.D. Vance (Ohio), Tommy Tuberville (Ala.), Eric Schmitt (Mo.), Marsha Blackburn (Tenn.), Rick Scott (Fla.), Roger Marshall (Kan.) and Marco Rubio (Fla.), the terse missive states,

Continue reading →

Regarding That Verdict in Manhattan…

/ Jack Marshall / 110 Comments

I’ve been getting a lot of inquiries about the verdict in the falsely dubbed “hush-money trial” that came down with unseemly speed yesterday. As with other high profile trials where I have not been on the jury or in the courtroom, I don’t have a legitimate basis for much ethical analysis of the trial itself, including the competence of the attorneys or the judge. The Kyle Rittenhouse prosecution was an exception, because of the blatant prosecutorial misconduct in that case that was evident from direct quotes (and the defense’s ethics were dodgy as well).

The position that it was unethical to bring this case to trial as a form of what has been dubbed “lawfare” by critics is already locked in for me, and that is the most important feature of the case. As to the substance of the charges, the absurd number of counts in the indictment were obvious over-charging, an unethical prosecution trick but one that isn’t ever punished. The fact that Michael Cohen was the “star” witness against Trump should have, in my view, made the prosecution’s case insufficient to sustain a conviction on its face. Maybe others in historically significant criminal trials have been convicted “beyond a reasonable doubt” based on the testimony of such a throbbing habitual liar—the Lincoln assassination conspirators and Sir Thomas More come to mind—-but the former was a pro forma military tribunal affair where the defendants’ rights were severely restricted and there was never any chance that they would not be convicted, and the latter took place in England under the direction of a vengeful despot.

The fact that the verdict came down so quickly in what was a very strange and complicated case—with judge’s instructions to the jury that would take me a couple of days to read and understand—strongly suggests a jury that had made up its mind already. I believe that it was wrong not to sequester the jury: I did see a lot of the broadcast media coverage, and it was generally disgusting. The ugly cheerleading for a conviction on all the channels except Fox News, which sounded like an arm of the defense team, couldn’t help but bias the jury.

Oh—those jury instructions are here. Good luck.

Continue reading →

“Nah, There’s No Mainstream Media Bias!” For Some Strange Reason, Sayeth the NYT, Trump Doesn’t Trust Our Intelligence Agencies…

/ Jack Marshall / 13 Comments

Wow, what could possibly account for that? The man is paranoid!

I missed “Campaign Puts Trump and the Spy Agencies on a Collision Course” in the Times two weeks ago. Fortunately a non-Ethics Alarms-reading friend sent me this column by the usually astute and trustworthy Holman Jenkins at the Wall Street Journal. (Aside: I continue to wonder why so few of my friends and long-time associates read this blog, and none of my family members. It must be me, or as one friend who does read Ethics Alarms once said in a moment of self-doubt, “All my best friends hate me.”) His assessment of the significance of the piece tracks exactly with mine, and he seems to be coming from a similar point of view: he doesn’t have any illusions about Donald Trump, but he still finds the Times’ dishonest and biased coverage of him since Trump’s election despicable. Except this one initial arch comment—Gee, imagine not trusting intelligence agencies!—I’ll leave the commentary to Jenkins with a few footnotes from me:

Continue reading →

The Supreme Court, the “Suicide Pact,” and Ethics Zugzwang [Corrected]

/ Jack Marshall / 5 Comments

I confess, I didn’t expect the U.S. Supreme Court to give Donald Trump’s Presidential immunity claim as serious a hearing as it did in last week’s oral arguments. Now that I read the transcript, however, I understand “what’s going on here,” to quote my own starting point for ethics analysis. Its focus, or at least the focus of the conservative members of the Court, is appropriate considering the current assault on our system of government by the totalitarian Left as it tries to use the criminal laws, the courts, and partisan prosecutors to prevent the public from throwing them out of office.

Naturally the Left is furious, and is attacking the justices. The attack isn’t based on legal reasoning, but the same tactic progressives and Democrats used to claim that SCOTUS had “stolen” the 2000 election by finally ruling that enough was enough, and that it was time to settle the identity of the leader of the nation and not paralyze the government fighting over an election with a filament thin edge within the margin of statistical error. The Bush v. Gore ruling was an example of one of the core functions of the Supreme Court as it has evolved: stepping in to guide the Constitution and the nation through unanticipated situations the Founders never considered or prepared for. But Democrats attacked Justice Scalia and the other conservative justices for defying their own guiding principles—“textualism” and “originalism,” the idea that the Constitution should not be extrapolated into new areas never anticipated or discussed in the original document. That judicial philosophy is a conservative bulwark against the arrogant and excessive “legislation from the bench” that marked the Warren Court in the Sixties, and to a lesser extent its predecessor in the Seventies, the Burger Court, the latter most infamously in the purely political Roe decision, finding a right to abortion in a document that didn’t hint of such a thing.

After hearing the oral argument in Trump v. U.S. and detecting signs that some of the Justices on the rightish side of the ideological spectrum agreed that some kind of Presidential immunity might be prudent and even essential, the Axis howled. “Two years ago, conservatives relied on a strict interpretation of the Constitution’s text and original meaning to overturn the federal right to abortion. But on Thursday, as they debated whether Trump can be prosecuted for his bid to subvert the 2020 election, they seemed content to engage in a free-form balancing exercise where they weighed competing interests and practical consequences,” whined Politico. “Some critics said the conservative justices — all of whom purport to adhere to an original understanding of the Constitution — appeared to be on the verge of fashioning a legal protection for former presidents based on the justices’ subjective assessment of what’s best for the country and not derived from the nation’s founding document.”

Translation: “The judges we support do this all the time and we think it’s wonderful, but these bad judges can’t do it no matter how much sense it makes because they have made it clear that they generally disapprove of the practice.”

Continue reading →

This Time I WANT to Defend Donald Trump…

/ Jack Marshall / 12 Comments

The almost unanimous mainstream media mockery of former President Trump briefly snoozing during the kangaroo court “hush money” trial isn’t the most noxious example of biased, hostile news media coverage as the Axis attempts to, again, clothesline the American leader so many of them have pledged to destroy (Hi there, NPR!) , but it’s particularly contrived and ignorant. Attention should be paid: these are the people crippling democracy while claiming that they want to save it.

The idea, of course, is tit-for-tat: Republicans and conservatives (along with anyone with eyes and ears who isn’t so biased they can’t think) have been pointing out the obvious crisis that the man supposedly overseeing our government is failing mentally and physically, unable to keep a full schedule or speak coherently, almost certainly operating with a metaphorical hand shoved up into his suit and head to give the (barely credible illusion) that he is really calling the shots, in thrall to a dangerous far left cabal, and too old to be safely entrusted with the Presidency even if all of the forgoing weren’t true. Therefore the counter argument, juvenile as it is (“So’s your old man!”) is to default to “wahataboutism” (as well as the usual anti-Trump Big Lies). Trump’s too old! Trump’s no more able than Biden!

Continue reading →

Bitter, Pathetic, Miserable Hillary Clinton

/ Jack Marshall / 15 Comments

Yes, I know I’m breaking my own rule about not using unflattering photos of Hillary Cinton, a pledge I made during the 2016 Presidential campaign I think—it might have been earlier. She deserves it in this instance.

I feel genuine compassion for Hillary, just as I do for Al Gore (and Samuel J. Tilden) up to a point. It must be terrible to win the popular vote for President of the United States and lose the election. I think it must be a little like what I am trying to deal with right now after waking up one morning and finding my wife dead.

Hillary is bitter and angry, and I understand that. The ethical mandate in such a situation is to strive to deal with these emotions with dignity, and, in her position as a public figure that many Americans admire and respect (mistakenly), to serve as a role model for everyone else who finds themselves suddenly losing something or someone that assumed they had firmly and safely in their embrace.

She’s failed that mandate spectacularly and repeatedly. Clinton lost the Presidency, not only by the quirk of the Electoral College, but also through her own perfidy, arrogance and incompetence, yet she refuses to take responsibility for any of that. In her view, at least publicly, it is all Donald Trump’s fault, along with the”deplorables” who voted for him. From the moment she learned that she had lost the 2016 election in a stunning upset, Clinton has set out to do everything and anything she can to hurt him, beginning with declaring his election illegitimate, spawning the Russian collusion investigation that crippled his Presidency, and using every opportunity to trigger the Trump Deranged with inevitably diminishing returns.

Continue reading →