Unethical Quote Of The Month: The U.S. State Department
May 28, 2021 / Jack Marshall	/ 7 Comments
I don't think I should have to explain what's unethical about this disgusting document. It was leaked to Human Events. I'll just repeat what I have accurately written since the George Floyd Ethics Train Wreck started rolling, apparently to hell:
There is no evidence that this was an example of racism or police targeting black citizens.
It has yet to be settled whether George Floyd was murdered, much less "brutally murdered," as this despicable document states.
Black Lives Matter is a Marxist, anti-law enforcement, anti-American, racist organization that employs lies and violence as standard tools.
For the US. Government to openly endorse Black Lives Matter abroad or anywhere else is an abdication of truth, fairness, justice, patriotism, and responsibility.
The document in its entirety is below. The link is here.
Friday Ethics Catch-Up, 10/18/2009: Hillary Snaps, And More Evidence That Everything Is Spinning Madly Out Of Control
October 18, 2019 October 25, 2019 / Jack Marshall	/ 27 Comments
I am totally fried, and wondering if it is responsible to post in this condition. But ethics waits for no man…
1. Last chance to see my presentation at the Smithsonian, "Courtroom Drama:The Art of Cross-Examination." Details here. There will be a lot of ethics discussed, as you would expect, plus some Clarence Darrow, Atticus Finch, F.Lee Bailey, Perry Mason, Cousin Vinny, and "You can't handle the truth!," among other highlights. I'm doing the two-hour program with my younger sister Edith, who, unlike me, has actually done cross examinations.
2. Whoa! Tell me again what an honorable, trustworthy woman Hillary Clinton is. Here's Hillary, actually calling Jill Stein and Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, the lone moderate in the Democratic Presidential nomination race—well, the lone moderate who doesn't habitually grope women—"Russian assets" in a podcast:
And brava to Gabbard, who didn't mince words on Twitter in her response to the smear: Continue reading →
How Does Any Administration Or Federal Agency Allow Someone This Incompetent To Represent It In Public?
June 6, 2018 June 6, 2018 / Jack Marshall	/ 26 Comments
I am both puzzled and aghast, if not necessarily surprised.
From the moment candidate Trump pledged that his theoretical administration would employ "the best people," he has periodically shown that he or his subordinates mistake "the best people" with "mouth-breathing idiots, fools, and irredeemable slime-balls" with disturbing regularity. There was Omarosa. There was Anthony Scaramucci. There was Steve Bannon, and pathetic Reince Priebus. There was, of course, Michael Flynn, and is Scott Pruitt. And that is before we even start thinking about Michael Cohen.
I really don't understand this. For all his flaws…and as Lorenz Hart said in "Pal Joey"…
…one would assume that a successful businessman whose hit reality show was about hiring "the best people" would have some acumen in at least not hiring the worst people. And yet we still get examples like this…. Continue reading →
Case Study: How The New York Times Gave Trump The Chance To Say "Fuck You" And Saved Rex Tillerson's Job
December 1, 2017 December 1, 2017 / Jack Marshall	/ 47 Comments
"Once when I was reporting, Lyndon Johnson's top guy gave me the word they were looking for a successor to J. Edgar Hoover. I wrote it and the day it appeared Johnson called a press conference and appointed Hoover head of the FBI for life… And when he was done, he turned to his top guy and the President said, "Call Ben Bradlee and tell him fuck you." I took a lot of static for that–everyone said, "You did it, Bradlee, you screwed up–you stuck us with Hoover forever." I screwed up but I wasn't wrong."
—-Washington Post Editor-in-Chief Ben Bradley (Jason Robards, Jr.) in "All the President's Men."
Surely I wasn't the only one who immediately thought about this anecdote (apparently true) from the film version of the Woodward and Bernstein book about the Post's Watergate investigation. All yesterday, the news services were following the New York Times "scoop," based on anonymous leaks out of the Trump Administration, claiming that Secretary of State Rex Tillerson was about to be canned within days, with CIA head Mike Pompeo, a Trump favorite, taking his place.
I know a little bit about leadership and the kind of people who get to the top of the heap, the Presidents of the United States. I also know how I would think if I disliked and distrusted a newspaper and someone betrayed me within my staff, resulting in a premature revelation of my plans. Unless I regarded a personnel matter as essential, I'd change course to discredit the leaker and make the newspaper look bad.
Sure enough, President Trump tweeted today,
The media has been speculating that I fired Rex Tillerson or that he would be leaving soon – FAKE NEWS! He's not leaving and while we disagree on certain subjects, (I call the final shots) we work well together and America is highly respected again! https://instagram.com/p/BcLCXDYgQed/
Good for him. Continue reading →
The Washington Post's Very Bad, Very Revealing Day: How Often Does This Have To Happen Before Journalists Decide Their Bias Is Making Them Stupid…And Untrustworthy?
April 1, 2017 April 12, 2017 / Jack Marshall	/ 28 Comments
Yesterday, the Washington Post, one of the three alleged standard-bearers of U.S. print journalism, published gossip and lies as news, got caught and humiliated..twice!.., and again illustrated vividly why the distinction between hoax stories, what the mainstream media condemns as "fake news,'" and their own false reporting due to incompetence and bias, is illusory.
First, the Post published a weird and alarming story about how Secretary of State Rex Tillerson was behaving like a sultan and ordering subordinates to lower their gaze in his presence:
"Many career diplomats say they still have not met him, and some have been instructed not to speak to him directly — or even make eye contact"
This, of course, sparked widespread ridicule by the Left's bloggers, commentators, journalists and other tweeters, despite the fact that no sources were named to back up the claim. We have here an example of confirmation bias at its most foolish, on the part of the reporter, the editor, the paper, and the eager partisan bigots who think businessmen are monsters and the Trump administration is made up of freaks and creeps. The Huffington Post happily published a collection of celebrities, politicians and random social media users reacting to the story, including Democratic Congressman Ted Lieu , who said he found the article "disturbing."
So do I. I find it disturbing that the Post, like the New York Times, cannot be trusted to check out inflammatory slurs against public official before declaring them facts. Note that the quote says the diplomats SAY they have not met him, but that some HAVE been instructed not to make eye contact. The Post stated what sounds like obvious holdover-staff rumor-mongering and sabotage as truth, opening the door for widespread contempt and disrespect of the Secretary of State without justification. Yes, that's disturbing.
It was fake news. I didn't believe it. I assumed this was the Post's anti-Trump bias once again seeping into its deteriorating organizational brain. To his credit, Associated Press reporter Mike Lee immediately called foul, B.S., and fake news. Lee said that he had heard the allegation about employees being forced to avert their gaze in the presence of the Secretary of State two weeks before the Post's story was published, and after checking into the claim, determined that it was a rumor without basis.
He wrote,
"It's compelling gossip. I have looked him in the eyes and not turned to stone. At least not yet…This is not true and people repeating it are making it more difficult to address very real issues."
When challenged to back up his statement that the story was false, Lee replied,
"Because I have covered State since 1999. Because I know people who didn't start in 2009 [that is, Obama era partisans]."
Can anyone defend this Post sliming as anything but biased hackery?
But wait, there's more! Continue reading →
Update: Generalissimo Franco* Is Still Dead, And Snopes Is Still An Unethical Website
December 11, 2016 December 11, 2016 / Jack Marshall	/ 10 Comments
Snopes.com's favorite in "The Wizard of Oz," and I don't mean Ray Bolger…
The July 31 Ethics Alarms post detailing how snopes.com, usually referred to as the "fact and rumor check website," has quietly morphed into just another progressive Democrat online spin-merchant nailed these frauds based on their tortured spin to protect Hillary Clinton and her election prospects from legitimate criticism and, in the case of Clinton's decade-old defense of a child rapist, illegitimate criticism based on genuine facts that Snopes denied anyway.
That is…don't ask me why…the most read, linked and shared Ethics Alarms post ever. It even was the target of some of Hillary's paid online trolls, whom I recognized when I realized they were writing from the same (false) talking points memo. Just to be clear, there is no longer any legitimate dispute that Snopes can't be trusted, is subject to partisan bias, and is thus 100% useless as a "fact and rumor check website," since their writers warp facts and debunk the truth when they feel like it.
I ended the July pots on this depressing note for me, because I once used and recommended the site with confidence:
That's the end for Snopes. Even one example of bias-fed misrepresentation ends any justifiable trust readers can have that the site is fair, objective and trustworthy. Snopes has proven that it has a political and partisan agenda, and that it is willing to mislead and deceive its readers to advance it.
Can it recover? Maybe, but not without…
…Getting out of the political fact-checking business.
…Firing Dan Evon, who used the misleading flag photos, as well as Kim LaCapria.
…Confessing its betrayal of trust and capitulation to partisan bias, apologizing, and taking remedial measures.
With all the misinformation on the web, a trustworthy web site like Snopes used to be is essential. Unfortunately, a site that is the purveyor of falsity cannot also be the antidote for it.
I'll miss Snopes, but until it acknowledges its ethics breach and convinces me that the site's days of spinning and lying were a short-lived aberration, I won't be using it again.
Two developments since this was written are worth noting. The weird one is that the site has been prominently cited as an authority more often since that post than before it. NBC's FBI action drama "Blind Spot" had a character settle an argument by referring to Snopes, a first, and increasing numbers of news reports and op-eds have cited Snopes as well. Obviously the scriptwriters, reporters and pundits don't read "Ethics Alarms," but this is pure negligence. Snopes can't be trusted. It's as simple as that.
I have received from readers more examples of Snopes Spinning For Democrats, but this one, flagged by the Daily Caller, is worthy of this brief return to the issue. Continue reading →
Hillary Clinton: A Pre-Election Ethics Alarms Character and Trustworthiness Review: 2009-2016
November 7, 2016 November 7, 2016 / Jack Marshall	/ 29 Comments
The first Ethics Alarms post about Hillary Clinton ironically enough, in 2009, awarded her an Ethics Hero. (She has two.) "I know, I know. Truth and the Clintons have never been friends," it began. And, looking back, it was a pretty generous award: all she did was describe how an ethical decision is made, and claimed that was how she decided to accept Obama's invitation to be Secretary of State. It didn't prove she actually made the decision the way she said she did, and now, with the benefit of seven years' hindsight, I think it's likely that she was lying about it, as usual. Still, it proves that Hillary may know how to act ethically. This distinguishes her from Donald Trump.
Before heading to the voting booth, I decided to review all of the Ethics Alarms posts about Clinton. It is, I think it's fair to say, horrifying. You can find them all here.
There are unethical quotes of the week and month, Ethics Dunce designations, Jumbos, where Clinton denied what was in clear view to all, and KABOOMS, where the sheer audacity of her dishonesty (or that of her corrupted allies and supporters) made my skull explode skyward. If you have a recalcitrant Hillary enabler and rationalizer in your life, you should dare him or her to read this mass indictment—not that it will change a mind already warped, of course, but because the means of denying and spinning what they read will be instructive, confirming the symptoms of incurable Clinton Corruption.In July of 2015, I responded to complaints—including one from an ethics professor— that I was not objective regarding Mrs. Clinton, that I was picking on her. The response was a manifesto, stating my standards and objectives: Continue reading →
To Place The Recent Comey Letter And Hillary Clinton's Character In Proper Perspective, Recall This Post From January, 2016
It was an Unethical Quote of the Month, and a Kaboom, as it blew the top of my head straight off. Significantly, none of the Hillary defenders among the regular commentators tried to spin it, and in just ten months, it has been buried by so many other smoking guns and examples of signature significance regarding this woman's unshakable conviction that normal rules of conduct don't, and shouldn't, apply to her. Indeed I had forgotten it myself. Its last sentence was,
"I really don't know how supporters of Hillary Clinton can look at themselves in the mirror. I really don't."
That statement is easily twice as true now as it was then. Here is the post, titled, Unethical Quote Of The Month: Hillary Clinton (And By The Way, KABOOM!)…..
"I was surprised that he used personal email account if he is at State."
—Hillary Clinton, responding to a 2011 e-mail sent by senior aides about a dispatch from John Godfrey, a State Department employee.
This wasn't the most explosive of the Clinton e-mails revealed today by the court-ordered State Department release, but it's the one that made my head explode. How long did Hillary claim that her using a private e-mail sever for official communications was "permitted," that she did nothing wrong, that no State Department procedures or policies dictated otherwise, four years after she expressed surprise at the irregularity of Godfrey's conduct? Hillary wasn't just careless or clueless—she knew all along that using a personal e-mail account was wrong and risky. Why else would she be "surprised"? Who is surprised at employees doing what is allowed and appropriate?
My head didn't explode because I was shocked that Hillary has been lying all along. I always assume she's lying. It exploded because her brazen hypocrisy is mind-blowing. This is worse than her saying that victims of sexual abuse have a right to be believed. This is like Bill Clinton saying that the victims of sexual abuse have a right to be believed.
The Clinton Foundation's Confession, (or) "Is The Public Really As Stupid As The Clintons Think It Is?"
August 20, 2016 August 20, 2016 / Jack Marshall	/ 14 Comments
Bill Clinton said last week that the Clinton Foundation would no longer accept foreign or corporate money and also that he would resign from its board should Hillary Clinton win the Presidency.
The logic of this, one assumes, is to allay any fears that President Hillary Clinton would allow access and influence to be purchased by foreign powers by contributing to a foundation that exists substantially to line the pockets of the three and to provide a foundation...but the other kind, not the non-profit kind—for Clinton power-brokering, career advancement and mutual back scratching.
Allow me to pause for a brief expansion on that…
The New York Times, which really is good at telling the truth while deceiving its readers anyway, describes the Clinton Foundation as working "globally to combat AIDS/H.I.V., malaria, childhood obesity and climate change, and promotes women's rights and other causes." This is true, but it is also lying by omission, because it intentionally omits the shady side of the story. Here is how Jonathan Chait, as full-throated a Clinton booster as you can find in the pundit ranks, describes the Foundation:
"The purpose of the Clinton Foundation is to leverage Clinton fame into charitable donations. That purpose has important positive effects — shaking loose donations for AIDS prevention and training African farmers and other worthy causes. But it also has the unavoidable side effect of giving rich people a way to curry favor with a powerful elected official."
Exactly. Perfectly stated, except that "giving rich people a way to curry favor with a powerful elected official" is a euphemism for "quid pro quo," or better yet, bribery. It is unethical, and also illegal if you can prove it, which is generally hard to do, especially when the "contributions" are designated for worthy causes, though much of them somehow end up paying for the Clintons' regal lifestyle. Chait's uncritical assessment of this per se corruption is stated thusly:
"There's a reason the term politician is synonymous with lying, calculation, and ambition — these are common qualities for politicians. The Clintons are common politicians, motivated in general by a desire to implement policy changes they think will make the world a better place, but not immune to trimming and getting rich in the process. None of their behavior is disqualifying, given the number of elected officials, presidents included, who have done the same"
Translation: "Everybody does it, but the Clintons are just better at doing it and getting rich in the process. Stop bitching."
That Chait says that behaving this way isn't disqualifying explains everything, including why the metastasizing ethics rot in our government will slowly but surely result in the predatory elected official conduct common in Africa if the public doesn't insist that it is disqualifying, and start recognizing ethically-hollow opinion makers like Chait for what they are…enablers and courtiers.
Parenthetical discourse over; thank-you for your attention. Continue reading →
Why Is This News?
August 18, 2016 August 18, 2016 / Jack Marshall	/ 8 Comments
To again quote a cynical baby: "This is my shocked face…"
From McClatchey:
No record that Clinton, aides took required ethics training
"There is no evidence that Hillary Clinton or her top aides completed ethics training when they started at the State Department as required by federal law. State Department records show only three of nine top Clinton aides took the mandated training for new employees. Records also suggest that none of seven top aides required to take subsequent annual training completed it."
I'm sorry: I actually laughed out loud when I read this. STOP THE PRESSES! Actually, the news would be if Hillary attended any ethics training.
Anywhere.