RSS

Tag Archives: ethics

LA Times – The Trump Highway to Hell

This is the first of a three part series of editorials by the LA Times. It eviscerates the man, his inability to lead, and lack of intelligence and ethics.

Republicans are equally at fault for not getting rid of this POS by impeachment, and defending him against evidence of treason.

Image result for donald trump in hell

Our Dishonest President

It was no secret during the campaign that Donald Trump was a narcissist and a demagogue who used fear and dishonesty to appeal to the worst in American voters. The Times called him unprepared and unsuited for the job he was seeking, and said his election would be a “catastrophe.”

Still, nothing prepared us for the magnitude of this train wreck. Like millions of other Americans, we clung to a slim hope that the new president would turn out to be all noise and bluster, or that the people around him in the White House would act as a check on his worst instincts, or that he would be sobered and transformed by the awesome responsibilities of office.

Instead, seventy-some days in — and with about 1,400 to go before his term is completed — it is increasingly clear that those hopes were misplaced.

In a matter of weeks, President Trump has taken dozens of real-life steps that, if they are not reversed, will rip families apart, foul rivers and pollute the air, intensify the calamitous effects of climate change and profoundly weaken the system of American public education for all.

His attempt to de-insure millions of people who had finally received healthcare coverage and, along the way, enact a massive transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich has been put on hold for the moment. But he is proceeding with his efforts to defang the government’s regulatory agencies and bloat the Pentagon’s budget even as he supposedly retreats from the global stage.

It is impossible to know where his presidency will lead or how much damage he will do to our nation.

These are immensely dangerous developments which threaten to weaken this country’s moral standing in the world, imperil the planet and reverse years of slow but steady gains by marginalized or impoverished Americans. But, chilling as they are, these radically wrongheaded policy choices are not, in fact, the most frightening aspect of the Trump presidency.

What is most worrisome about Trump is Trump himself. He is a man so unpredictable, so reckless, so petulant, so full of blind self-regard, so untethered to reality that it is impossible to know where his presidency will lead or how much damage he will do to our nation. His obsession with his own fame, wealth and success, his determination to vanquish enemies real and imagined, his craving for adulation — these traits were, of course, at the very heart of his scorched-earth outsider campaign; indeed, some of them helped get him elected. But in a real presidency in which he wields unimaginable power, they are nothing short of disastrous.

Although his policies are, for the most part, variations on classic Republican positions (many of which would have been undertaken by a President Ted Cruz or a President Marco Rubio), they become far more dangerous in the hands of this imprudent and erratic man. Many Republicans, for instance, support tighter border security and a tougher response to illegal immigration, but Trump’s cockamamie border wall, his impracticable campaign promise to deport all 11 million people living in the country illegally and his blithe disregard for the effect of such proposals on the U.S. relationship with Mexico turn a very bad policy into an appalling one.

In the days ahead, The Times editorial board will look more closely at the new president, with a special attention to three troubling traits:

  1. Trump’s shocking lack of respect for those fundamental rules and institutions on which our government is based. Since Jan. 20, he has repeatedly disparaged and challenged those entities that have threatened his agenda, stoking public distrust of essential institutions in a way that undermines faith in American democracy. He has questioned the qualifications of judges and the integrity of their decisions, rather than acknowledging that even the president must submit to the rule of law. He has clashed with his own intelligence agencies, demeaned government workers and questioned the credibility of the electoral system and the Federal Reserve. He has lashed out at journalists, declaring them “enemies of the people,” rather than defending the importance of a critical, independent free press. His contempt for the rule of law and the norms of government are palpable.
  2. His utter lack of regard for truth. Whether it is the easily disprovable boasts about the size of his inauguration crowd or his unsubstantiated assertion that Barack Obama bugged Trump Tower, the new president regularly muddies the waters of fact and fiction. It’s difficult to know whether he actually can’t distinguish the real from the unreal — or whether he intentionally conflates the two to befuddle voters, deflect criticism and undermine the very idea of objective truth. Whatever the explanation, he is encouraging Americans to reject facts, to disrespect science, documents, nonpartisanship and the mainstream media — and instead to simply take positions on the basis of ideology and preconceived notions. This is a recipe for a divided country in which differences grow deeper and rational compromise becomes impossible.
  3. His scary willingness to repeat alt-right conspiracy theories, racist memes and crackpot, out-of-the-mainstream ideas. Again, it is not clear whether he believes them or merely uses them. But to cling to disproven “alternative” facts; to retweet racists; to make unverifiable or false statements about rigged elections and fraudulent voters; to buy into discredited conspiracy theories first floated on fringe websites and in supermarket tabloids — these are all of a piece with the Barack Obama birther claptrap that Trump was peddling years ago and which brought him to political prominence. It is deeply alarming that a president would lend the credibility of his office to ideas that have been rightly rejected by politicians from both major political parties.

Where will this end? Will Trump moderate his crazier campaign positions as time passes? Or will he provoke confrontation with Iran, North Korea or China, or disobey a judge’s order or order a soldier to violate the Constitution? Or, alternately, will the system itself — the Constitution, the courts, the permanent bureaucracy, the Congress, the Democrats, the marchers in the streets — protect us from him as he alienates more and more allies at home and abroad, steps on his own message and creates chaos at the expense of his ability to accomplish his goals? Already, Trump’s job approval rating has been hovering in the mid-30s, according to Gallup, a shockingly low level of support for a new president. And that was before his former national security advisor, Michael Flynn, offered to cooperate last week with congressional investigators looking into the connection between the Russian government and the Trump campaign.

Those who oppose the new president’s reckless and heartless agenda must make their voices heard.

On Inauguration Day, we wrote on this page that it was not yet time to declare a state of “wholesale panic” or to call for blanket “non-cooperation” with the Trump administration. Despite plenty of dispiriting signals, that is still our view. The role of the rational opposition is to stand up for the rule of law, the electoral process, the peaceful transfer of power and the role of institutions; we should not underestimate the resiliency of a system in which laws are greater than individuals and voters are as powerful as presidents. This nation survived Andrew Jackson and Richard Nixon. It survived slavery. It survived devastating wars. Most likely, it will survive again.

But if it is to do so, those who oppose the new president’s reckless and heartless agenda must make their voices heard. Protesters must raise their banners. Voters must turn out for elections. Members of Congress — including and especially Republicans — must find the political courage to stand up to Trump. Courts must safeguard the Constitution. State legislators must pass laws to protect their citizens and their policies from federal meddling. All of us who are in the business of holding leaders accountable must redouble our efforts to defend the truth from his cynical assaults.

The United States is not a perfect country, and it has a great distance to go before it fully achieves its goals of liberty and equality. But preserving what works and defending the rules and values on which democracy depends are a shared responsibility. Everybody has a role to play in this drama.

This is the first in a series.

 
6 Comments

Posted by on April 4, 2017 in Chumph Butt Kicking, High Crimes, News

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Yet Another Republican Says the “T” Word About the Chumph

Whispers are getting louder!

‘There is no other word for it’: Former Bush ethics czar says FBI uncovering evidence of ‘treason’

The former ethics lawyer for George W. Bush believes the FBI investigation into the Trump campaign’s alleged ties to Russia has uncovered evidence of treason.

Richard Painter, who joined a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of President Donald Trump’s foreign business ties, tweeted a link late Wednesday to a McClatchy report on a federal investigation into whether U.S. right-wing websites coordinated with Russian operatives to attack Hillary Clinton.

“(The) FBI uncovering evidence of treason,” Painter said. “There is no other word for it.”

Painter also agreed with Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) that an independent commission or select committee was needed to investigate possible collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign.

“Senator McCain is right – Congress has no credibility in undertaking the Trump-Russia investigation,” Painter tweeted.

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Fear of a Brown America – Pat Buchanan and “Suicide of a Superpower”.

Pat Buchanan slouches back into bigotry, with an extremely friendly interview from soul-bigot Sean Hannity…

Pat gets into his racial theories here, with “The end of white America” –

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Importance of Anita Hill

Anita Hill has a new book out – and it’s getting some pretty good reviews. Patricia J. Williams is a Law Professor at Columbia University, and what she has to say about the importance of Anita Hill travails at the Clarence Thomas hearings really clarifies a lot of what Hill meant to other professional women…

Anita Hill

The Legacy of Anita Hill, Then and Now

Sad fact: there are few women of my generation who don’t have what is known as our “Anita story.” Mine occurred in 1980. I was five years out of law school and had decided to shift my career from practice to teaching. I was walking down a long hallway at the Association of American Law Schools meat market for new hires. There were two men behind me who were joking about the excellent shape of my legs and the unusually well-defined musculature of my lower quadrants. (Did I mention that it was a very, very long hallway?) At the end of that eternal passage was my appointed interview room. I escaped into it, only to be followed by the two. They, as it turned out, were doing the hiring.

Life was like that sometimes, I thought. And so I went through all the proper motions of expressing how much my fine ideas could contribute to their faculty, pretending that nothing had happened.

I didn’t stop pretending nothing had happened until 1991, when Anita Hill testified to the Senate Judiciary Committee about the unwanted office approaches of her boss, then-chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Clarence Thomas. I remember how still and dignified she was at the center of that howling hurricane of mockery, meanness and machismo. It was like some psychedelic cross between The Crucible and The Wizard of Oz, with its swirling fantasies of witchcraft, conspiracy theories and mad satyric orgies. I remember everyone from Orrin Hatch to Rush Limbaugh dismissing anything that “might have happened” as “bedroom politics,” even though Hill’s allegations centered on misbehavior in the boardroom, not the bedroom, and even though those allegations implicated precisely Thomas’s public ethics as the chief enforcement officer of sexual harassment laws. “He said, she said” entered the national vocabulary. So did “They just don’t get it.”

Anita Hill graduated from Yale Law School in 1980. The percentage of women in law schools was 38 percent—in contrast to the approximately
50 percent it is today. Back in those times there were so few women among the legal professoriate that many law schools didn’t even have women’s bathrooms. And as for women of color—there were only five or six of us teaching in the entire United States.

If the percentages of women in all professions improved over the next decade or so, the ability to speak up and speak out was often constrained by fear of losing status, ruining one’s career. It was the shockingly abysmal treatment of Anita Hill by the United States Senate that changed all that. Women were mobilized in a way unseen since the time of the suffragettes. EMILY’s List took off, as well as hundreds of networks for women’s political empowerment. Twenty years later, if some men’s behavior has not changed as much as one might have hoped, the collective women’s response has undergone seismic change. It’s not “nothing” anymore.

Patricia J. Williams

Anita Hill remains an icon to whom subsequent generations are rightfully indebted. At the same time, she has not remained trapped by her own symbolism or frozen in time. It is sometimes forgotten that she is a respected scholar of contract jurisprudence, commercial law and education policy. She is a prolific author, publishing numerous law review articles, essays, editorials and books. Today, Hill is a professor of social policy, law and women’s studies at Brandeis University. Much of her most recent research has been on the housing market, and her most recent book, published this month, is Reimagining Equality: Stories of Gender, Race, and Finding Home.

It is ironic that the full substance of Hill’s remarkable intellectual presence remains so overshadowed by those fleeting, if powerful, moments of her Senate testimony. If the larger accomplishments of her life aren’t quite as iconic as that confrontation with Clarence Thomas, they nonetheless merit attention by feminists and scholars alike. To begin with, Hill is a remarkably elegant and accessible writer. For those who wish to apprehend the gravitas of her intelligence and dignity, Reimagining Equality would be a good place to start…(more)

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on October 8, 2011 in The Post-Racial Life

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Rangel Convicted on 11 of 13 Counts BY House Panel

OK – Charlie Rangel is guilty…

Now with that done  – Can we finally get around to frying the big fish?

House ethics panel convicts Rep. Rangel on 11 of 13 counts

A House ethics panel has convicted Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.) on 11 of 13 counts of violating House ethics rules.

Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), the chairwoman of the adjudicatory subcommittee and the full House ethics committee, announced the decision late Tuesday morning following an abbreviated public trial of the 20-term lawmaker and nearly six hours of deliberations.

“We have tried to act with fairness, led only by the facts and the law,” Lofgren said. “We believe we have accomplished that mission.”

The full ethics panel will now convene a sanctions hearing to recommend a punishment. Serious sanctions — including formal reprimand, censure or expulsion — require a vote on the House floor. Expulsion requires a two-thirds vote, while a reprimand, which Rangel refused to agree to in July, or a censure would need just a simple majority. The ethics panel could also impose a fine and diminish some of Rangel’s privileges.

Asked if he had any reaction to the panel’s decision, Rangel initally told reporters, “Nope, none.” The congressman said he did not know if there is an appeals process at this point and added that he first saw the ruling on television.

In an official statement, Rangel slammed the ethics subcommittee’s “unprecedented” decision, saying his due process rights were violated since the panel ruled without him having legal representation.

 

“How can anyone have confidence in the decision of the ethics subcommittee when I was deprived of due process rights, right to counsel and was not even in the room?” Rangel said. “I can only hope that the full committee will treat me more fairly, and take into account my entire 40 years of service to the Congress before making any decisions on sanction.”

The congressman did not indicate he would seek to appeal the decision saying, “While I am required to accept the findings of the Ethics Committee, I am compelled to state again the unfairness of its continuation without affording me the opportunity to obtain legal counsel as guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution.”

 

 
6 Comments

Posted by on November 16, 2010 in Stupid Democrat Tricks

 

Tags: , , , ,

Rangel Trial Begins

Another reason Democrats lost the House. While I certainly support getting the crooks out of Congress, and punishing the guilty…

You mean to tell me there are no guilty white folks in Congress?

And nobody deserves prosecution from the Bushit most corrupt administration in American history?

No wonder the Democrats lost.

Charlie Rangel threatens to walk out of ethics trial

Complaining that he was denied the right to have an attorney present for his ethics trial, an emotional Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.) threatened to walk out of the proceedings unless he was given more time to hire counsel.

Rangel began today’s hearing without an attorney present, and he quickly asked for a continuation of his trial. The ethics committee then went into a private session to consider Rangel’s request to postpone the trial.

Rangel parted ways with his law firm Zuckerman Spaeder last month after paying the firm $1.6 million. The New York Democrat said the firm wanted another $1 million, funds that he no longer had available after running through his campaign account.

“I am being denied to the right to have a lawyer right now because I don’t have the opportunity to have a legal defense fund set up,” Rangel said. “And because I don’t have a million dollars to pay my counsel.”

Rangel also complained bitterly that the ethics committee was trying to end the trial and sanction him before the end of the 111th Congress.

“Can you tell me under what theory of fairness would dictate that I be denied due process, that I be denied an attorney, because it’s going to be the end of the session?” Rangel said.

“How far does this go to a person not having counsel, not having due process, because we don’t have the time?”

When Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), chairwoman of the ethics committee, said the responsibility to have an attorney present was Rangel’s alone, he lamented that “All I’m asking is for time to have counsel.”

“My reputation, 50 years of public service, has to suffer because you have concluded that this matter has to end before this Congress ends,” Rangel said.

 

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on November 15, 2010 in Stupid Democrat Tricks

 

Tags: , , , , ,

Rangel Wins in NY

As expected, 20 time Congressman Charlie Rangel won his primary race in New York – virtually assuring him of another term…

And even more importantly to Rangel, providing him with the ability to pay off nearly $2 million in legal bills accumulated in defending himself against ethics charges.

Seems to me, if there was a single brain cell left in the Ethics Committee, they would have let Charlie go quietly into the night, following his promise to retire before this election.

Rangel Wins in NY

Rep. Charles Rangel has fought off five challengers to prevail in his Democratic primary. The victory—likely to assure the 80-year-old of another 2 years in Congress—comes despite multiple ethics charges pending against him, the AP notes. (More Rangel news here.) Democrats, including President Obama, had urged Rangel to consider stepping aside.
“This isn’t a win for Charlie Rangel, this is our community’s win. This is all of you that spoke,’’ the 40-year House veteran told supporters. “My heart is beating so fast because of the terrible accusations and allegations,’’ he said. “It beats fast because of my pride in coming from a community and my friends and voters say hey, we’ll make the decision.’’ Rangel is awaiting trial by fellow lawmakers for 13 alleged violations of House rules.

 
2 Comments

Posted by on September 15, 2010 in Stupid Democrat Tricks

 

Tags: , , , , ,

 
%d bloggers like this: