tit for tat

On The Axis Hypocrisy Re Letitia James, Tit-For-Tat, and Trump’s “Revenge”

/ Jack Marshall / 8 Comments

It is stunning how the Axis-biased legal analysts attacking the recent indictment of NY Atty General Letitia James for mortgage fraud manage to forget, or ignore, or intentionally omit how James campaigned as AG on a promise to somehow, some way, “stop” Donald Trump, meaning to lock him up or cripple him financially so he couldn’t run for President.

The day after she was elected in 2018, Letitia James was asked by a community activist if she was gonna sue President Trump. She said, “Oh, we’re definitely gonna sue him. We’re gonna be a real pain in the ass. He’s gonna know my name personally.” James didn’t hide the fact that she would be emulating Stalin’s henchman Beria, who infamously said, “Show me the man, and I’ll show you the crime.” She wasn’t the only Democrat looking for ways to use political lawfare against Trump: it was basically the primary strategy of the Biden Administration and the Democratic Party as the 2024 election loomed. (Back up strategy: Claim Trump is Hitler.)

James ultimately settled on charging Trump with loan fraud, alleging that he inflated the value of his properties to get bank loans. It was classic selective prosecution (at the trial, the banks agreed that indeed “everybody does it”) and the evidence showed that there were literally no damages: Trump’s organization paid back the loans with interest, the banks made money, and nobody was harmed. Never mind: thanks to a flagrantly partisan judge, Trump was hit with more than a half-billion in damages, which was ridiculous. As every objective commentator predicted, they were thrown out as “excessive.“

Meanwhile, as James was doing her party’s bidding, she was tweeting statements like this: “Roses are red. Violets are blue. No one is above the law. Even when you think the rules don’t apply to you. Happy Valentine’s Day!” How professional. Then there was this:

Boy, talk about putting a “Kick me!” sign on your own back!

Continue reading →

Ethical Quote of the Week: Donald Trump

/ Jack Marshall / 14 Comments

I sure didn’t see this designation coming! Trump is not prone to ethical outbursts. Maybe it’s even deserving of an Ethics Hero nod, under the circumstances. Here’s the quote:

“She seems to have an ability to survive, because you know she was out of the race, and all of the sudden she’s running for president. That’s a great ability that some people have and some people don’t have. She seems to have some pretty longtime friendships. And I call that a good thing. And she seems to have a nice way about her.”

—Donald Trump, upon being asked by a young woman at the Univision town hall, “What are the three virtues that you see in Vice President Kamala Harris?”

The Trump-Deranged among you will say, I’m sure, that this was not a sincere response, but a calculated one desigend to win over voters. You will say that because you are literally incapable of believing anything good about the man.

But I see that as a genuine expression of admiration from someone who knows what the job of political leaders requires, and who admires perseverance under adversity and stress, because he has experienced those things first hand. He realizes that having genuine long-time friendships in politics is rare and a sign of good character.

I don’t know where he gets the idea that Harris has a “nice way about her,” but its his assessment, not mine.

Trump answered that way, moreover, as Harris and her party are increasingly making the demonizing and the denigrating of Donald Trump personally as their main, last ditch pitch for voting Democrat in the election.

I honestly didn’t think he had it in him to say something like this. Tit-for-tat is part of Trump’s operating philosophy. If you say something bad about him or cross him, you’re terrible. If you help him out or do what he wants, you’re a great person and friend.

There may be a bit more depth to Trump’s character and world view than I have perceived over the years.

Prof. Turley’s Mutual Defense Proposal To Battle Ideological State Government Boycotts

/ Jack Marshall / 9 Comments

Ethics Alarms wrote about the efforts by some “blue” states, notably California, to unethically bully other states into bending to their partisan will in opposition to their own voters in this post from last month, condemning the practice. That essay involved California’s “black list” preventing state travel to others states that in California’s consistently warped assessment, “discriminates” against LGBTQ Americans—you know, like by not allowing biological men to instantly become female collegiate swimmers just by saying they are.

This is not the first coercive effort of its kind, nor will it be the last. Major League Baseball was convinced to move its All-Star Game in 2021 from Atlanta because a reasonable Georgia voting integrity law was falsely labeled as “voter suppression.” California was at it again last week, as Gov. Newsome called upon Hollywood production companies to stop filming in states such as Georgia or Oklahoma with strict anti-abortion laws. In other states, legislation is developing  to block any state contracts with businesses in states with anti-LGBTQ legislation or pro-gun ownership laws, or that significantly limit abortion.

The July EA post concluded,

California’s attack on pluralism, democracy and federalism as well as its unethical efforts to try to influence governing decisions of other states is far, far worse that any imagined “discrimination” the Golden State claims to be reacting to. California has no respect for other states; it refuses to acknowledge that everyone doesn’t agree with California’s frequently warped vales and priorities and that there is nothing wrong with that; and it is deliberately acting as an agent of discord and division in the nation at a time when such conduct by a state, an official, or even a celebrity is particularly irresponsible.

California’s boycott list expresses exactly the same un-American spirit as bars, restaurants and other establishments that refuse service based on political views (Ethics Alarms has discussed that revolting trend many times)….

How can California’s toxic conduct be stopped? …This may be one of those rare exceptions where “tit for tat” becomes ethical as a last resort. The other states should consider taking retaliatory measures against California, and execute their own boycotts.

Now Jonathan Turley, the rapidly red-pilling Constitutional Law scholar from George Washington Law School in D.C., has proposed a formula to do exactly that. He writes in part,

Continue reading →