2016 Presidential campaign

Apology Ethics I: Let’s Play “Was Hillary Lying, Pazuzu, Or Was It Just Authentic Frontier Gibberish?”

/ Jack Marshall / 27 Comments

lying Pazuzu AFG

Bo Copley,  a West Virginia coal miner who recently lost his job, asked Hillary Clinton how she could say what she had said at a CNN forum in March, an apparent climate change manifesto that included the phrase, “We’re going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business”,  and then still “come in here and tell us how you’re going to be our friend.”

Hillary’s answer:

“What I said was totally out of context from what I meant because I have been talking about helping coal country for a very long time. And it was a misstatement, because what I was saying is that the way things are going now, we will continue to lose jobs. I didn’t mean that we were going to do it, what I said was, that is going to happen unless we take action to try to and help and prevent it. That’s what I meant to say. “

Oh. Well, that explains…wait, WHAT???? Continue reading →

No, Of Course You Don’t End Friendships Over Support For Donald Trump…

/ Jack Marshall / 42 Comments

cat and mouse

Donald Trump derangement has induced Slate’s Isaac Chotiner to pen one of the least self-aware and ethically tone deaf pieces within memory. In a post taking issue with New York Times columnist Peter Wehner’s  recent column arguing that political differences should not sever friendships and other  personal relationships, he argued that while Wehner’s principle was usually sound, it should not apply when the source of discourse is Donald Trump. He writes:

“Of course friendships should survive some political differences: I have friends who think differently than I do about everything from proper tax rates to abortion regulations. But having a friend who supports a blatantly (and proudly) bigoted candidate is categorically different. Everyone might have a different line about what issue to take some sort of moral stand on, but Trump has stepped over pretty much all of them.”

If Chotiner wants to choose his friends like that, he is free to do so. This is the attitude that is tearing apart the traditional connective tissue that makes America a unique and productive society, however, and he is promoting it.  It is also the demonization impulse, now being fed by zealots in both political parties and activists in every field, crusade and issue. This is the ultimate slippery slope. Hate your neighbor, if he doesn’t think like you do. Chotiner is embracing partyism, intolerance and, ironically, bigotry, exactly what he says makes Trump supporters unworthy of human companionship. Continue reading →

Comment of the Day (1): “Unethical Quote Of The Week: Chelsea Clinton”

/ Jack Marshall / 17 Comments

guns4

Over the weekend, J. E. Houghton contributed this excellent comment, spurred by Chelsea Clinton’s semi-incoherent declaration that seemed to admit that her mother was determined to reduce the Second Amendment right to bear arms to a nullity.

I apologize to J.E. for posting it as a main post later than I intended, though I am now glad I did. Chelsea’s inartful utterance confirmed what anyone paying attention already knows, but that is still a small minority of the public: the only way  anti-gun politicians can achieve the progressive nirvana alluded to by their rhetoric where there is no gun violence except when the government inflicts it is to make self-defense unavailable to the average American. It is important to emphasize what is wrong—as in unethical, undemocratic, unconstitutional, anti-autonomy and totalitarian—about this seductive and sinister position, and as attention on topics here tends to be fleeting, it’s good to have the topic exposed for another week.

Here is J. E. Houghton’s Comment of the Day on the post, Unethical Quote Of The Week: Chelsea Clinton.

 I have been interested in the 2nd Amendment debate for over a quarter of a century. In the early days, I honestly believed that there were good points on both sides of a reasonable debate both consistent with the idea that the 2nd Amendment is a fundamental individual civil liberty.

At some point in time, I concluded that there was a certain faction of political thinking that had no interest in an honest debate at all. But rather, this political faction was in fact a political elite that feared the political power of the American people and especially their potential “last ditch” power of armed insurrection if things got too far gone.

Continue reading →

Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s Authentic Frontier Gibberish In Defense Of Hillary

/ Jack Marshall / 13 Comments
Gabby Johnson for head of the DNC!

Gabby Johnson for head of the DNC!

I am going to add “authentic frontier gibberish” (or AFG ) to the Ethics Alarms glossary of special terms. It comes, of course, from a memorable moment in “Blazing Saddles,” but on Ethics Alarms it is usually used to describe either intentional or incompetent blather from politicians or others attempting to confuse the public, duck a question, or mislead everyone. It is deliberate communication malpractice, with the motive of not communicating but pretending to.

Seldom will you encounter a more ringing example of AFG than the foregoing. Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a master at AFG,  was asked by Fox News’ Chris Wallace why she called the FBI’s investigation of Hillary Clinton’s possible national security violations in her handling of official e-mails “ludicrous.”

Here was her response… Continue reading →

Unethical Quote Of The Week: Chelsea Clinton

/ Jack Marshall / 20 Comments
NEW YORK, NY - APRIL 17: Chelsea Clinton speaks at the Clinton Foundation's No Ceilings: The Full Participation Project at the Lower Eastside Girls Club on April 17, 2014 in New York City. Sharing the stage with her mother Secretary Hillary Rodham Clinton, the project is the first in a series of live and virtual dialogues designed to hear directly from girls and women, men and boys about their hopes and fears for the future. The event, which took live questions from schools around the country, is working to advance progress for women and girls around the world. (Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images)

(Of note: The Clintons are now the first family with three members having one or more “Unethical Quotes” on Ethics Alarms)

“It matters to me that my mom also recognizes the role the Supreme Court has when it comes to gun control. With Justice Scalia on the bench, one of the few areas where the Court actually had an inconsistent record relates to gun control. Sometimes the court upheld local and state gun control measures as being compliant with the Second Amendment and sometimes the court struck them down.  So if you listen to Moms Demand Action and the Brady Campaign and the major efforts pushing for smart, sensible and enforceable gun control across our country — in disclosure, have endorsed my mom — they say they believe the next time the Court rules on gun control, it will make a definitive ruling.  So it matters to me that my mom’s the only person running for President who not only makes that connection but also has a strong record on gun control and standing up to the NRA. This is one of those issues I didn’t know I could care more about until I became a mother. And I think every day about the Sandy Hook families whose children every day, don’t come home from school. And I can’t even imagine that living horror and tragedy.”

—-Chelsea Clinton, semi-incoherently campaigning for Mom this week.

Law professor Ann Althouse was really irritated by this speech, and posted twice about it. She points out that the Supreme Court in fact does not have an “inconsistent record” on gun control, so this statement is either ignorant or untrue—a tough call, since it’s Chelsea, and there is no reason to believe that she knows what she’s talking about, and she’s also a Clinton, which means that lying is in her DNA.

Althouse notes that the assertion about the Court sometimes upholding local and state gun control measures as Second Amendment compliant  and sometimes striking them down is “flat-out false.” Incompetent, irresponsible, or dishonest? Only Chelsea knows for sure, but “unethical” covers all three. Writes Althouse:

“She’s saying the cases are in disarray and the time is ripe for clearing up the confusion, getting to something “definitive,” but that’s not true. She’s really promoting changing the law that got settled in 2 very high profile, extensively briefed and argued cases that produced carefully thought out opinions. The Second Amendment does require application in particular cases (such as the case from last month, Caetano v. Massachusetts, which said the right included stun guns). So there are details to work out, but things have not been left in a state of confusion or in need of “a definitive ruling.”

Continue reading →

When Counting On Ethics Isn’t Enough: The Delegate Bribery Risk At The GOP Convention

/ Jack Marshall / 69 Comments
Fortunately, we all know Donald Trump doesn't operate this way...

Fortunately, we all know Donald Trump doesn’t operate this way…

This hasn’t come up before in party nominating conventions, because the last time there was a threat of a brokered convention no billionaires were running. Now, however, with Donald Trump likely facing a battle for delegates at the GOP battle looming in Cleveland, the specter has been raised of horribly unethical conduct being nonetheless legal: bribing delegates.

There are federal and state laws prohibiting bribery of elected officials, and laws making paying for votes illegal in elections. No laws seem to  restrict what private citizens serving as delegates at their parties’conventions can take in exchange for their votes on a nominating ballot, however. The closest, suggests former Bush administration lawyer Richard Painter at the Legal Ethics Forum, is the “theft of honest services” statute 18 U.S.C. § 1346, and it isn’t close enough. Continue reading →

The First Thing We Do, Let’s Slime All The Lawyers…

/ Jack Marshall / 27 Comments

the-blob-88

In election years I tell all my legal ethics seminar classes to start teaching their non-lawyer neighbors and relatives ABA Model Rule 1.2 b, which reads,

(b) A lawyer’s representation of a client, including representation by appointment, does not constitute an endorsement of the client’s political, economic, social or moral views or activities.

This, combined with the principle of zealous representation of one’s client, as expressed, for example, in D.C. Rule of Professional Conduct Rule 1.3…

(a) A lawyer shall represent a client zealously and diligently within the bounds of the law.
(b) A lawyer shall not intentionally:

(1) Fail to seek the lawful objectives of a client through reasonably available means permitted by law and the disciplinary rules; or
(2) Prejudice or damage a client during the course of the professional relationship….

…means that lawyers represent clients, and are bound to seek those clients’ objectives when those objectives are legal whether the lawyer likes or agrees with those objectives or not.

It means that it is ignorant, wrong and dangerous to the rule of law as well as the right of citizens to be the beneficiaries of laws in a democracy and not the servants of them, for unscrupulous political opponents to attack lawyers for the positions, objectives and needs of the clients they represented. It means that it is disgusting for maleducated journalists to misinform the already disturbingly confused public by using a matter that a lawyer-turned-candidate’s client needed legal advocacy for as an excuse to impugn the candidate’s character.

Lawyers do not have to agree with or like their clients’ positions, objectives or character, is that clear? Everybody? Lawyers are not to be held accountable for their client’s motives, conduct or legal objectives. Bill Cosby’s lawyers do not approve of rapists. Johnnie Cochran did not support the hobby of ex-wife knifing.

Yet this happens every election cycle, without fail: cheap shots directed at candidates who are lawyers based on one or more of their unsavory clients.  There are two lawyers left in the current primary competition, and guess what?

You guessed it.

Hillary’s ancient defense of a rapist was used to slime her all the way back in 2014. The unfair attack raised its misshapen and empty head last week on CNN, when a Trump supporter brought it up. What we know about Clinton is that she defended a child rapist she was appointed to represent pro bono in 1975, and did an excellent job. She used all the tactics that she was allowed to use. She attacked the credibility of the twelve-year-old victim, and threw sufficient doubt on the the chain of evidence that Clinton got an advantageous  plea bargain for her client, who served just ten months in prison. Sure, he was guilty, and Hillary knew it.  It was her job to make the prosecution prove its case with sufficient evidence, and they failed. The victim, we are told, has had a hard life because of the experience. That is not in any way Clinton’s fault or responsibility.

Now it’s on to Ted Cruz. Here is Slate’s click-bait, misleading, deceitful headline to further the “Ted Cruz is a some kind of sexually repressed weirdo” trope the left-biased media is peddling: Continue reading →

George Stephanopoulos Grills Hillary

/ Jack Marshall / 3 Comments
"Hi, Hillary! Gosh, it's good to see you!"

“Hi, Hillary! Gosh, it’s good to see you!”

On ABC’s Sunday morning talking heads show, Hillary Clinton is being interviewed right now “one on one” by former Clinton machine insider George Stephanopoulos. This is, as I have pointed out before without rebuttal because there is no rebuttal, a grotesque example of unethical journalism, a screamingly obvious conflict of interest, and an insult to ABC’s viewers.

I resolved not to watch this inevitable loogie in the eye of respectable and fair campaign coverage, because until viewers refuse to be treated with such contempt, news departments will continue to be contemptuous. Some strange impulse forced me to light on ABC for exactly 23 seconds, and I got to hear Hillary go through the same focus group-tested talking points, rationalizations and lies she has been using to defend her e-mail machinations for a year—“Colin Powell did it too,” “national security wasn’t endangered,” “it wasn’t the best choice,” etc.—and to thank the President for compromising the integrity of the investigation while he was saying that he wouldn’t compromise the integrity of the investigation. There was enough ammunition in that single snippet to give any competent and objective interviewer an opening to expose her deceit for all to see. George’s response, delivered with a benevolent smile and the dreamy gaze of a true blue admirer…

“So, are you confident about this Tuesday?”

Res ipsa loquitur.

 

“What Responsibility Does Facebook Have To Help Prevent President Trump in 2017?”

/ Jack Marshall / 8 Comments

Facebook qThis was one of the questions asked of Facebook employees in advance of a Mark Zuckerberg Q and A session in March; every week, the employees vote in an internal poll on what they want  Facebook CEO Zuckerberg to talk about. This week,  Zuckerberg openly criticized many of  Donald Trump’s various blatherings  during the keynote speech of the company’s annual F8 developer conference:

“I hear fearful voices calling for building walls and distancing people they label as ‘others.” I hear them calling for blocking free expression, for slowing immigration, for reducing trade, and in some cases, even for cutting access to the internet.”

This is his right, as much as any pundit, rock singer or blogger. Zuckerberg’s political positions on anything shouldn’t have any more influence than those of the guy next to you at the sports bar, because nothing about Zuckerberg indicates that he has any more expertise about national policy than Donald Trump.

Ethically,  every American has an individual ethical responsibility to prevent Donald Trump from becoming President, which means that everybody has a responsibility to keep him from being nominated. Do ponder that when you hear some of the worst of the Democrats and progressive biased journalists claiming that Trump cannot be fairly and democratically be denied the Republican nomination. They are either fools who assume that Hillary Clinton, who has proven herself capable of beating herself in any race, will waltz to the White House over Trump no matter what occurs in the chaotic future to come, or despicable Machiavellians who would knowingly roll the dice with the future of the country and the culture just to raise the odds of a Clinton presidency, itself a horrible prospect.

Facebook, however, is a communications medium that facilitates conversation, organization and the distribution of information among users. It does so under the illusion that users are in control of the process, but of course it is Facebook puling the strings. Facebook could definitely manipulate its service to undermine Trump. Gizmodo notes… Continue reading →

A Conflict of Interest Lesson: The New York Observer’s Donald Trump Endorsement

/ Jack Marshall / 15 Comments

Trumps

Stipulated: Jared Kushner, who is married to Donald Trump’s daughter Ivanka Trump, and who owns the The New York Observer, which he purchased in 2006, was in a difficult situation regarding the New York Republican primary. (That’s Jared on the right in the photo above.)

He had a clear and unresolvable  conflict of interest. If his paper endorsed Trump, the endorsement would appear to be dictated by family loyalty rather than objective analysis, and would harm whatever credibility the paper has left (it has been falling in influence and quality for a long time). If The Observer endorsed anyone else, in addition to whatever problems it would cause Kushner behind closed doors (and they would undoubtedly be considerable), a rejection by a paper with such a strong Trump family connection would be interpreted as having special significance, and would be handing a potent weapon to Trump’s adversaries.

Kushner’s dilemma was made worse by the fact that for any newspaper to endorse Donald Trump for President without a conflict of interest that at least would explain such an idiotic position would be tantamount to an admission of collective insanity, instantly turning such a  paper into the successor of the late, lamented Weekly World News, which was prone to breaking scoops like this one:

Weekly_World_News_-_Cover_Art_4800

Faced with these two mutually unacceptable alternatives, there was only one ethical, rational, responsible course that would acknowledge the conflict of interest without falling prey to it: endorse nobody, and explain why.

Nah! Continue reading →