Trump indictment

What About Whataboutism?

/ Jack Marshall / 3 Comments

The agreed-upon “resistance”/Democratic/mainstream media rebuttal of complaints that the Justice Department has fashioned a new set of standards for prosecution in order to neutralized Donald Trump is being met by smug accusations of “Whataboutism.” Whataboutism is one of the Ethics Alarms rationalizations on the list, and high up that list, at #2. Before I wrote this post, I checked what I had written, which was short and to the point:

The mongrel offspring of The Golden Rationalization and the Bible-based dodges a bit farther down the list, the “They’re Just as Bad” Excuse is both a rationalization and a distraction. As a rationalization, it posits the absurd argument that because there is other wrongdoing by others that is similar, as bad or worse than the unethical conduct under examination, the wrongdoer’s conduct shouldn’t be criticized or noticed. As a distraction, the excuse is a pathetic attempt to focus a critic’s attention elsewhere, by shouting, “Never mind me! Why aren’t you going after those guys?”

Moved by the current “Axis of Unethical Conduct’s distortion of the concept, I added the following to avoid future confusion (or corrupt rhetorical misappropriation):

Continue reading →

Update: More Ethics Observations On The Trump Indictment [Expanded]

/ Jack Marshall / 25 Comments

For the record, I am royally sick of this topic already, and it’s just starting, with more than a year to go. I’m sick of Trump, I’m sick of the Democrats’ “destroy the village to save it” obsession with stopping Trump without just winning elections fairly and squarely, and I’m sick of the hypocrisy on all sides, and I’m really sick of reading obnoxious comments in moderation from single-minded ignoramuses who won’t even try to examine all sides of a complex issue, probably because they aren’t capable of it.

Sure, I’ll double down. I wrote on Friday that the decision to indict Trump was wildly irresponsible (if you didn’t discern that from my comparison to cloning dinosaurs, maybe you need to find another blog to hang out at) and was a utilitarian botch of existential proportions, and the tsunami is already developing, as that tweet above from a generally perceptive conservative Twitter wag indicates. Also predictably, gloating Democrats are tossing more of the afore-mentioned jet fuel on the fire, like this asshole:

Yecchhh. But let’s dig in…

1. The last post on this matter has surpassed the number of comments that allow normal people to read them all, so I’ll be overlapping a bit. For example, Alan Dershowitz also framed the indictment as I did, writing in Newsweek that it was “The Most Dangerous Indictment in History,” and saying in part,

This moment portends a massive change in the norms of this nation that all Americans who care about the neutral rule of law should pay close attention to, for it raises the specter of the partisan weaponization of the criminal justice system—not just by the Democrats targeting Trump but by Republicans who will certainly retaliate when they regain control of the criminal charging process.

That is how a large proportion of the public will regard it, and the evidence is irrelevant. Dershowitz also reminded me of Big Lie #6, “Trump’s Defiance Of Norms Is A Threat To Democracy.”

Remember? Democrats are hoping you won’t, but throughout the Trump Presidency, the accusation from the “resistance”/Democratic Party/mainstream media alliance (The Axis of Unethical Conduct) was that Trump was undermining democracy by not following unwritten “norms”—you know, like not using impeachment as a partisan tactic, not attempting to de-legitimatize the President, his election, and the Supreme Court, not weaponizing a health emergency to justify loosening election integrity measures, not intentionally violating the Constitution with Executive Orders like the one requiring Federal workers to be vaccinated, not giving a national speech declaring anyone who opposes his policies of being fascists and dangers to democracy…wait, I’m sorry! Those were some of the norms Democrats chose to defy; I get confused sometimes. My point is that the hypocrisy is staggering. There is a reason no former President or current major Presidential constender has ever been arrested or indicted by the rival party: it reeks of Third World dictatorships, and almost guarantees dangerous national division. This is why Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon.

Continue reading →

Friday Finale: The Trump Indictment, Trolls, And Turley

/ Jack Marshall / 122 Comments

1. I banned a troll today. The relatively new commenter kept pretending not to understand my point introducing the Open Forum, which was that for the Biden Administration’s now indisputably partisan and politicized Justice Department to indict its Democratic President’s chief rival for essentially the same conduct that Biden engaged in was “throwing jet fuel” on what is already a highly combustible political division in the country, and thus reckless and irresponsible. The now-banned commenter kept pointing to technical distinctions and differences in details between Biden’s misappropriation of classified documents and Trump’s, which misses the ethics point, either deliberately (trolling) or stupidly.

Continue reading →

“Apparently Donald Trump Is A Ham Sandwich,” Continued: Prof. Turley Weighs In, Among Others

/ Jack Marshall / 40 Comments

I’ve been looking for commentary by legal and ethics experts I trust that defend Alvin Bragg’s indictment of Donald Trump, now that the thing is in black and white. (Speaking of White: old Popehat blogger Ken White was one of the first I checked. The former Ethics Alarms Award-winner as best ethics blogger has so far avoided the topic, I suspect because he regards explaining why an indictment of someone he obviously detests is a lot of hooey with the same eagerness he applies to having sex with a horseshoe crab.) In the earlier post today, Ethics Alarms looked at Andrew McCarthy’s analysis, which was searing in its contempt for Bragg’s efforts. Later, I discovered that one of the Washington Post’s worst knee-jerk progressive members of its editorial board, Ruth Marcus, wrote,

…the indictment unsealed on Tuesday is disturbingly unilluminating, and the theory on which it rests is debatable at best, unnervingly flimsy at worst.That is a scary situation when it comes to the first criminal charges ever lodged against a former president.

Then she almost immediately demonstrated why I hold her in such contempt by adding,

I’m not saying prosecutors will lose this case. They could well win, and I hope they do, because a failure to secure a conviction will only inflame Trump and his supporters in their claims that the criminal justice system is being weaponized against them.

Got that? She hopes Bragg wins a bad case and Trump is convicted because Trump and his supporters will have evidence to support the “claim” that the criminal justice system is being weaponized against them. Somebody explain to Marcus, a lawyer, though it always astonished me that she is, that ethical lawyers don’t want defendants to be convicted on bogus charges no matter who they are.

Continue reading →

Apparently Donald Trump Is A Ham Sandwich [Corrected]

/ Jack Marshall / 40 Comments

Of course, we’ve known for decades that the man was a ham. Yesterday, however, unethical prosecutor Alvin Bragg provided decisive evidence that the former POTUS is also a ham sandwich, with an abusive grand jury indictment that perfectly embodied the old saw (first coined by former Chief Judge of the New York Court of Appeals Sol Wachtler) that district attorneys could get grand juries to “indict a ham sandwich.”

When the breathlessly anticipated indictment finally came down from the grand jury (here is the indictment), it fulfilled the worst predictions of critics.

“Oh, we have to wait to see the indictment” was the mantra from Bragg’s defenders, and that was sort-of true. However, we already knew that this was a bad case: the statute of limitations has lapsed, Bragg has no jurisdiction to enforce federal law, the act of paying for a non-disclosure is not a crime, the claim that the pay-off was really a campaign contribution is based on circumstantial evidence at best, the key witness is Michael Cohen, one of the sleaziest lawyers in the professions long line of sleazy lawyers and convicted perjeror, and both the Justice Department and Bragg himself had already decided it was too weak to prosecute, at least to prosecute ethically. Moreover, Bragg’s “statement of facts” before the indictment (which you can read here), made the case sound just as weak as many suspected it was.

When we learned that there were 34 counts, we thought, or at least I did, “Wow! Bragg must have a lot more to pin on Trump than Stormy Daniels and Michael Cohen!”

Uh, no.

Continue reading →

Ethics Reflections On Jeb Bush’s Tweet

/ Jack Marshall / 82 Comments

Jeb Bush—remember him?—managed to reclaim his lost significance briefly with the tweet above, which was batted around the Sunday morning TV shows, on podcasts and in various blogs.

Observations:

  • He wouldn’t mention Trump’s name, because the former POTUS is the equivalent of Voldemort to the Bush family. How juvenile. But Jeb was and is a weenie, and that’s one of the reasons he never got to run for President.
  • Why should anyone care what Jeb Bush thinks about the indictment? He isn’t a lawyer. He isn’t a New York politician. Using the tweet as an appeal to authority is pathetic: “But Jeb Bush says…” on this topic is exactly as persuasive as “But Joy Behar says…”
  • It’s too late, by about seven years, for the Bush family to emulate fairness and objectivity regarding Donald Trump. The previous two Republican Presidents could have helped unify the GOP, helped Trump accomplish policy objectives they agreed with, bring NeverTrumpers back into the fold and avoided (maybe) the current Democratic Party assault on democracy by not acting like the Corleones and sending out their Luca Brasis to seek revenge on Trump for saying mean things about George and Jeb. They made it clear that they placed family pride above national interests and the institution of the Presidency. Jeb, like George W. is ethically estopped from urging fair treatment of Trump now.
  • The tweet makes no sense, when it isn’t stating the obvious. The fact that Justice et al. didn’t take up the case doesn’t prove anything by itself. Maybe those decisions were political and Bragg’s was not. Of course “this” is very political: any time a prominent political figure is investigated or charged it is political by definition, because the actions have political consequences. “No shit, Sherlock”—indicting a former President is very political, but that doesn’t automatically mean it also isn’t a matter of justice. James Comey decided in part that Hillary Clinton should be let off the hook for conduct that lower level officials have been prosecuted for because he felt that charging a Presidential candidate mid-campaign would unjustly influence the election, which is a valid act of prosecutorial discretion. Was that “justice”? Would charging her have been less political and more about justice?
  • “Let the voters decide”? Ugh. When would Jeb want that principle to apply? Where would he draw the line, or would there be any line at all? Never indict a candidate or potential candidate regardless of evidence of a crime? Any crime? A felony? A crime involving “moral turpitude,” which disqualifies citizens from being lawyers? The public loves the King’s Pass,” #11 on the rationalizations list, which holds that special people—you know, the famous, the beautiful, the rich, the accomplished—should be held to lower standards of conduct than the schmuck next door. We don’t want people who think like that on juries, do we?
  • Asked to comment on Jeb’s tweet, former Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance, as political a DA as one could find, answered,

Continue reading →