deceit

Why Would Anyone, Ever Believe Bill Clinton When He Says Something Like…

/ Jack Marshall / 2 Comments

…”But even with 20/20 hindsight, I saw nothing that ever gave me pause.”

He said that in his opening statement to the House Oversight and Government Affairs Committee before being grilled about his involvement with Jeffrey Epstein.

Hilarious!

Deceit is Bill Clinton’s native tongue, and he is fluent and skilled at it. This is a man who defended himself against allegation regarding Monica Lewinski saying he was never “alone” with the comely intern on the grounds that no one is alone when he is with someone. Bill declared that he never had “sex with that woman” because he held that getting blow-jobs wasn’t sex. He defended his deliberate misstatements to a grand jury by saying that he never lied, that he just wasn’t “helpful.” (It’s “the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth,” and as a lawyer, he knows damn well that not being helpful means withholding the “whole truth.”) He lied under oath, as President, during the Paula Jones hearing, and had to give up his law license as a result.

That statement is so obviously meaningless coming from Clinton that it’s beneath his usual level of mendacity. ‘It didn’t ever give me pause’ ‘even now” spoken by a cold-eyed sociopath only means: “That stuff? That’s never given me pause. I just don’t care. Didn’t then, don’t now.” You can fill in the crude next line yourself. Bill Clinton has been a sexual predator his whole life, and has always escaped accountability. Why would Epstein surrounding Clinton with attractive, submissive, teenage girls give him pause?

If the House Republicans were going to shatter the “norm” of not calling former Presidents to testify, they at least could have justified it by calling one who could relay useful information in response to their questioning. Bill Clinton is smarter than any of them, and a masterful liar. His testimony was useless, except to prove that he’s still “got it.”

Ethics Villains: Illinois Lt. Gov. Juliana Stratton (D), Gov. J.B. Prizker and Senator Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.)

/ Jack Marshall / 7 Comments
New Juliana Stratton Ad “Fuck Trump, Vote Juliana”
byu/GeckoLogic inillinois

Stay classy, Juliana, Tammy, Governor, Illinois, Democrats.

There is no excuse for this.

Stratton is seeking retiring Sen. Dick Durbin’s (D-Ill.) seat, with the state’s primary taking place on March 7. This is impressive in one respect: she is actually giving voters a chance to replace the objectively awful Durbin with someone even worse. the At least Polling averages from Decision Desk HQ show Stratton trailing behind Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.) with 18.5 percent compared to Krishnamoorthi’s 30.5 percent. So I guess Stratton decided that the best way to make up ground is to energize the Trump Deranged vote and say “fuck.”

Right on cue, later last week there was another foiled assassination attempt on the President whom Democrats call racist, a dictator, Hitler and a fascist, all provocation for the weak of mind and ethics to view as justification to murder our nation’s leader. As a Fox News history-reading reporter noted, they want Donald Trump assassinated just like Benjamin Harrison.

Since anyone likely to be persuaded—or even entertained—by this bottom of the unflushed toilet bowl political offal, it’s unlikely that any of them will be bothered by the candidate lying to their faces in the ad, smirkingly saying. “They said it, I didn’t!” That’s deceit, and deceit is lying. This miserable excuse for a public servant is openly lying in her campaign ad, and thinks it’s funny.

I’m so old I remember when the Democratic Party and its zombie media accused Sarah Palin of causing Rep. Giffords to be shot because Palin put her face in cross-hairs on a campaign map to indicate that the Arizona Democrat could be defeated. In addition to their other anti-virtues, Democrats are hypocrites on a level previously unapproached by mortal man or woman. As in 2024, they deserve to lose in the mid-terms, and if Republicans can’t accomplish that against such a vile, destructive, divisive and ugly party, they should just give up and start pottery barns or something. Maryland. Oregon. California. Minnesota. Illinois.

Not just unethical.

Not just irresponsible.

Disgusting.

Brief Note: Hilariously Incompetent Unethical Quote Of The Day: Cea Weaver, Head of Mayor Mamdani’s “Office to Protect Tenants”

/ Jack Marshall / 4 Comments

“Some of those things are certainly not how I would say things today.”

–—Cea Weaver, answering questions about her past , anti-white racist, sexist and Marxist comments in her deleted social media accounts

Wow! She really is bad at this! If you are going to give a Clintonian answer, as in “deceitful so that careless listeners don’t understand what you are really saying,” you have to do better than that! What she said just means, “I wouldn’t admit what I believe now because it will get me in trouble, so I would phrase it less bluntly.”

What you’re supposed to say, Cea, as a lying Communist, is, “Those statements on social media do not accurately reflect my beliefs and positions today. I want to look forward, not backward, to the great new policies Mayor Mamdani has for this great city and its residents.”

You’re welcome!

Comment of the Day: “Ethics Verdict: Justified, Necessary, and Ethical”

/ Jack Marshall / 4 Comments

This refreshing Comment of the Day by EA Ace AM Golden concludes with a trenchant point: Why does someone need to be reading Ethics Alarms or doing their own research to be properly informed of the context of a news event rather than misled by selective reporting?

I should have included the historical precedents for the recent Trump White House decision to exercise its own discretion over what news organizations and other news sources should be included in briefings, but my point was that it didn’t matter what the “precedent” was because today’s news media and the unethical way they have covered this particular President have no valid precedents. However, AM’s perfectly illustrated point is equally important: as usual, the news media is framing anything Trump does as a “threat to democracy” rather than giving the public the information it needs to make up their own minds.

Once I read AM’s COTD, I was even more disgusted with the New York Times than I usually am. Pure deceit: the piece says that it’s a “decades long” precedent to not pick and choose among news organizations, see, so if AM’s precedents are waved in the Times editors’ smug faces, they can say, “Well, those examples were still many decades ago, so what we wrote is correct!”

But even if the Times reporters and lazy editors had been aware of the precedents AM reveals (I’d bet anything that they didn’t bother to check), they still wouldn’t have mentioned them because Trump is following the examples of two revered figures, one of them on Mt. Rushmore and the other unanimously regarded as our greatest President in the last hundred years.

And just to preempt the usual excuse that self-banned Times defender “A Friend” would typically post until I sent the comment to Spam Hell, those Times readers who are the reliable epitome of erudition, fairness and oversight saving the biased Times from itself, I checked all the nearly 2000 comments to the news story. Most agreed that Trump is an aspiring dictator, but not a single one mentioned the Roosevelts.

Here is AM Golden’s illuminating Comment of the Day on the post, “Ethics Verdict: Justified, Necessary, and Ethical”…

***

Continue reading →

Unethical Interview Exchange Of The Decade: “Meet the Press” and Senator Schumer

/ Jack Marshall / 14 Comments

And this kind of thing is why I stopped watching Sunday Morning public events shows more than a decade ago. The disgraceful exchange, on “Meet the Press,” which has fallen apart in chunks since its glory days with Tim Russert:

Continue reading →

Obama’s Clever Fake Magnanimity

/ Jack Marshall / 9 Comments

I’m sorry, but to those who are saluting the allegedly classiness of our 44th President, I say “Fool me once, shame on him, fool me 2,576 times, he can bite me.”

Now make no mistake: Obama know how to fake virtues he doesn’t have, and that’s an important leadership skill. Most Americans probably think he really was trying to be a “President for all Americans,” when he was in fact one most disastrously divisive Presidents in our history. He knew how to act Presidential: if only Donald Trump had that skill (or wanted to have it), he might be far more effective. On the other hand, enough people figured out Obama’s act (and Hillary’s, and Biden’s, and Bill Clinton’s, and Joe Biden’s, and Kamala Harris’s…) that they decided that an open vulgarian that didn’t pretend to be something he isn’t (like nice, kind, respectful, dignified, civil, even-tempered…well, ethical, frankly).

There are several tells in the statement, which, of course, is being fawned over as if Michelle and BO didn’t attack Trump personally when they played cavalry to Kamala’s ill-fated metaphorical wagon train to the White House. Obama suggested that Trump was senile, which takes quite a bit of gall for any Democrat, considering that they pretended that Joe Biden was solving Rubik’s Cube blindfolded for years when he really belonged in a home with a drool cup. I don’t call that “good faith and grace.”

But my favorites were the words he used on Kamala and her pathetic campaign.

In the theater world, a constant ethical dilemma is what to say when you go to a friend’s show and the show, or the friend’s performance, stinks on ice. Books have been written about this problem. “I’ve never seen you better!” is a classic response; pure deceit, of course, but effective. “That was memorable!” is another. Obama chooses his words carefully, and the carefully chosen deceitful word he used for Harris’s disastrous campaign was “remarkable.” It was remarkable all right: remarkably inept and ineffective. Before that, Obama calls Knucklehead and Harris “extraordinary.” Same trick. Actually, in theater circles, using more than one of these deliberately two-edged superlatives is considered risky, but I don’t think Obama cares: he has plausible deniability.

Finally, he says, “he couldn’t be more proud.” That one’s a version of the theater classic, “I couldn’t have enjoyed the show/your performance more!” (My personal favorite variation, “I’ve never seen you better!”)

Oh yeah, this guy’s good.

ABC Provides A Fake News Classic!

/ Jack Marshall / 18 Comments

“Nah, there’s no mainstream media bias!” I find this stunt by ABC News today as astounding as it is unforgivable.

The Axis, as I noted yesterday, is shaken to its core by polling data that seems to show that Kamala Harris’s efforts to hide, lie, cackle and flip-flop her way to the White House is no longer working despite the news media’s intense assistance. Meanwhile, Nate Silver posted today that his analytical model gives Trump a 53.4% chance of winning Wisconsin, 54.9% in Michigan, 60.8% in Nevada, and a 64.9% chance of winning Pennsylvania, giving Trump a likely 312 votes in the Electoral College.

So ABC, determined to rescue their party’s flagging spirits, published a story headlined, “Harris support rises among some likely voters: POLL.” “As previously reported, Kamala Harris leads Donald Trump by a slight 4 percentage points, 50-46%, among all adults and registered voters alike, and by 6 points, 52-46%, among likely voters in the latest ABC News/Ipsos poll. While those numbers are virtually identical, closer assessment shows movement to Harris in some groups when comparing all adults with likely voters — notably, those younger than 40, younger women in particular and Black people,” this trusted name in journalism announced.

Continue reading →

More Election Ad Deceit in NH

/ Jack Marshall / 6 Comments

Former Senator Kelly Ayotte is the GOP candidate for Governor of New Hampshire. She is also one of the long-time Roe v. Wade opponents who is being targeted by pro-abortion groups in attack ads. If you listen closely, some of the ads reveal the dark and ominous heart of the ‘We Love Abortion!’ movement.

I have had to watch one such ad repeatedly while following the Boston Red Sox as they are just-barely contending for a wild card berth. A sad-eyed mother reveals that when she was pregnant, a doctor who checked out the embryo (that was well past the usual legal abortion period in many states including New Hampshire) told the mother that “my baby would not survive.” She goes on to say that Ayotte is so cruel that she would make a mother like me “carry” a baby for months knowing that “it would not survive.” Ayotte supports the current 24 week limit on abortions.

Continue reading →

Trump Sues ABC and Stephanopoulos For Defamation. Good.

/ Jack Marshall / 2 Comments

EA discussed George Stephanopoulos’s unethical, partisan, and thoroughly biased interrogation of Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC.) about her endorsement of Donald Trump during the March 10 interview on ABC’s Sunday talking heads show, “This Week.” It was one of the more blatant examples of how the mainstream media’s partisan biases and “Get Trump!” slant has rampaged through U.S. journalism like a cancer, but nobody should have been shocked r surprised. Stephanopoulos was a Democratic operative and a Clinton minion when he was hired. His performance against Mace was George being George; it was not the first time his biases and dishonesty were put on display. ABC should never have hired him, but then ABC, like NBC, CBS, NPR, the New York Times, the Washington Post et al. have virtually abandoned ethical journalism for partisan advocacy.

Yesterday Trump’s lawyers filed a lawsuit over Stephanopoulos saying that Trump had been found “liable for rape.” The jury specifically found Trump liable for sexual abuse under New York law, but not rape. Under classic defamation law, falsely stating that a woman has engaged in illicit sexual activity was per se defamation, but 1) Trump isn’t a woman 2) defamation by a news source against a public figure is measured by a tougher standard under the New York Times decision, requiring “actual malice,” and 3) George was carefully tip-toeing around the edges of acceptable (under the law) celebrity smearing. I highly doubt that Trump can prevail. Nonetheless, I’m glad he filed the lawsuit…hell, I’m not paying for his lawyers. If significant numbers of Americans who have been metaphorically sleep-walking for the past 30 years or so finally see Stephanopoulos for what he is, and can connect the dots to realize what this tells us about American journalism, it will be a good thing.

Continue reading →

Regarding “The Appeaser’s Apology”

/ Jack Marshall / 2 Comments

In last week’s open forum, there was discussion regarding this incident:

During his testimony in a U.S. Senate hearing on social media and its negative effect on children, Meta founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg responded to a question inquiring whether he had taken any action to mitigate the problem, such as firing employees, providing compensation to alleged victims or apologizing to the families of people who were harmed by posts on Facebook or Instagram, which his company also owns. In response, Zuckerberg stood up, turned to an audience including parents holding up pictures of loved ones, and said,

“I am sorry for everything that you have gone through. It’s terrible. No one should have to go through the things your family has suffered. And this is why we invested so much and will continue doing industry leading efforts to make sure that no one has to go through the types of things your families have had to suffer.”

Tasked (by himself) with deciding where this statement falls on the Ethics Alarms Apology Scale, commenter JutGory opined,

It almost looks like a Number 8 (A forced apology for a rightful or legitimate act, in capitulation to bullying, fear, threats, desperation or other coercion.), except that Zuckerberg is not apologizing for a rightful or legitimate act. The Legislators were ascribing acts to him when he did nothing.

It also looks like a 10 (An insincere and dishonest apology designed to allow the wrongdoer to escape accountability cheaply, and to deceive his or her victims into forgiveness and trust, so they are vulnerable to future wrongdoing.), except that, again Zuckerberg is not apologizing for something he did.

I think the Apology Scale needs another collateral entry that does not actually fit on the scale: The Appeaser’s Apology: A forced apology offered in response to a baseless accusation of wrongdoing because the person demanding the apology is too stupid or self-righteous to bother reasoning with.

Continue reading →