Below is column in USA Today on the widening number of ethical issues generated during the Trump Administration. I have been critical of some of the practices of the Trump Administration from nepotism to retroactive waivers to failures to divest. However, there should be equal concern and attention over some of the actions of Trump critics. It seems that the rising political passions are blinded both sides to core ethical principles and considerations.
Here is the column.
The Trump administration may prove for government ethics what the Kennedy administration proved for space exploration: We are rapidly going where no president has gone before — eclipsing even Richard Nixon.
This week, Trump triggered another controversy in saying that he would never have appointed Attorney General Jeff Sessions if he knew that the former senator was going to recuse himself from the Russian investigation. In fairness to Trump, some of these ethical problems were not of his making, and his critics have shown a similar disregard for ethical values.
Since his inauguration, the Trump administration has been at odds with ethics officials. The conflict reached its zenith recently with the resignation of Walter Shaub as director of the Office of Government Ethics. Shaub left little doubt that he was resigning in light of the serious conflicts with the Trump White House over breaches.
What is most striking about this record is that Trump’s critics are faring little better in their own ethical challenges. Indeed, this is a class where even the most generous curve would produce few passing grades.
Sally Yates: Fail
The ethical pileup was foreshadowed within days of the Trump inauguration by the actions of former acting attorney general Sally Yates, who ordered the entire Justice Department not to assist Trump in his immigration executive order restricting travelers from seven Muslim majority countries. As evidenced by conflicting opinions in the courts (and the most recent Supreme Court decision allowing the implementation of the immigration ban), there were good faith legal arguments supporting the order. Yet Yates dismissed the review of the Office of Legal Counsel without actually saying that the order was unconstitutional. Even Trump critics and former high-ranking Justice Department officials questioned Yates’ actions as unprecedented and unfounded.
Jeff Sessions: Pass
The next major government ethics challenge was faced by Sessions — the decision that led to Trump’s statement that he would not have appointed Sessions had he known that he would recuse himself. Ironically, this was the only passing grade of any figure in Washington in one of the recent scandals. Sessions yielded to the obvious ethical concerns over heading an investigation into alleged campaign wrongdoing, given his critical role in that campaign. Ethical rules require not simply the avoidance of conflicts but even the appearance of conflicts. Sessions did that and, in this group, he proved the curve breaker by taking the difficult but ethical course.
James Comey: Fail
Former FBI director James Comey has been lionized for leaking memos damaging to Trump and his obvious violation of professional and ethical standards. Comey insisted that he had the right to give the memos to a friend to leak to the news media because the memos were his personal property. The memos were clearly government documents and presumably classified at the confidential or higher levels. Media experts rushed to his side and claimed that the memos were like his personal diary, and one CNN legal analyst (and former FBI agent) Asha Rangappa insisted that the memos constitute merely “personal recollections.” The FBI has since confirmed the obvious that the memos are indeed FBI material, and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein this week stated that the memos were confidential and should not have been released. Other reports have confirmed that at least some of the memos were classified. In removing these FBI documents, Comey (who was tasked by Trump to find leakers in his administration) became a leaker himself when it served his interests.
Robert Mueller: Incomplete
One would think that the man who was appointed special counsel to investigate this mess would be clear of even the slightest ethical or professional concerns. From the outset, Robert Mueller was a curious choice. Mueller has a long and deep history with Comey and, according to CNN, interviewed for Comey’s job after Comey was fired by Trump. It seems highly unlikely that Trump did not discuss the termination of Comey with Mueller, as well as what he expected from a replacement during that interview. This makes him a potential witness. At the very least, Mueller should have addressed this conflict publicly and stated how he has taken steps to address it. Trump claimed this week that Mueller has “many other conflicts” that he may reveal later. In any case, the public remains in the dark because neither he nor Mueller have fully disclosed their past dealings. Since Mueller could still make such a record, he can at best eke out an incomplete.
Rod Rosenstein: Incomplete
Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein himself has even more pressing ethical concerns over his role in the investigation. He is an obvious and important witness to both the events leading up to Comey’s firing and its aftermath. Rosenstein was cited by the White House initially as the basis for Comey’s firing — a claim that was reportedly pulled back after vehement objections from Rosenstein. What is clear is that he was consulted by both Sessions and Trump on the firing and supported that decision. It is hard to imagine any investigation into the firing that would not make Rosenstein a central witness. Yet he continues to serve as Mueller’s superior on an investigation that could examine his own decisions and role. He should have recused himself weeks ago, but since he can redeem himself with a belated recusal, he also receives an incomplete.Ethics
In this age of rage, ethics can often seem quaint and precious. However, each of these individuals has shown how ethical lapses can ultimately undermine their credibility and their cause. Key players are now well beyond the navigational beacons of ethics. That course is unlikely to take any of them (or us) to a better place.
Jonathan Turley, the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University, is a member of USA TODAY’s Board of Contributors. Follow him on Twitter: @JonathanTurley
183 thoughts on “Government Ethics and the Russian Investigation: How Trump Officials, Investigators, and Critics Have Created An Ethical Quagmire In Washington”
Seems like a textbook example of Whataboutism. Per Wikipedia:
“Whataboutism is a propaganda technique formerly used by the Soviet Union in its dealings with the Western world, and subsequently used as a form of propaganda in post-Soviet Russia. When criticisms were leveled at the Soviet Union, the Soviet response would be ‘What about…’ followed by an event in the Western world”
Just substitute “Trump” for “Soviet Union” and “a criticism of his critics” for “an event in the Western world.” It’s not that difficult.
Is it too difficult for some to accept our quasi-semi-news media has repeatedly orchestrated a plethora of talking points attacks on President Trump? Does anyone believe David Brock’s ‘Media Matters’ is not a daily attack machine encouraged & funded by radicalized & moderate progressives? Is Brock & his surrogates not well paid? Have they not collected millions from patsy liberal groups? Suggest a serious reading of ‘The Smear’ by Sharyl Attkisson a must read. In this 294 page book, including index, you will read specifically about certain paid, professional & partisan propagandists.
A rebuplic if you can keep it….depends on…..a society with morals….or something like that.
Always good to be accused by folks like this. Makes for an interesting case. I watched a documentary last night on the Michael Jackson child abuse case. According to one of the jurors who held out the longest for conviction, Jackson’s innocence turned on the utter unbelievable testimony of the accuser and his gold-digging family who hit lots of other celebs up for cash in their “cancer for cash” scheme.
Trump might have turned an old bromide on its head:” With enemies like this, who needs friends?”
JT nailed, positively nailed this subject.
Trump has, through largely his own fault, failed so far on most of his promises. I don’t need to list them here. Making a good appointment to SCOTUS is a rare exception, as is appointing an awesome AG, which Trump now appears to attempt to undo his AG.
Stupid barely describes how ignorant is it for Trump to attack Sessions. Sessions is the very first Congress critter to publicly support Trump. Sessions has largely fulfilled Trump’s promises Re. arresting and deporting the plague of illegals, at great personal sacrifice. He also gave up a great Senate seat. Sessions actually believed in Trump’s pre-election agenda.
Trump demands allegiance from his administration, while he stabs his biggest supporter in the back! Back-stabber, thy name is Trump! Look in the mirror you fool. The guy who is second in charge, who replaces Sessions till a new AG is named, is married to a top Democrat, and who apparently hates the Trump agenda. The only person the Senate would approve is someone weaker that Sessions who absolutely promises to put Trump in prison if the facts lead that way. Trump could go his entire next 3.5 years with a temporary AG whose wife is a major Dem. Again, stupid is not a strong enough word.
Trump has almost no self control, and acts like he IS incompetent to be POTUS.
And I’d take my hair cutter over HRC, who belongs in prison, where Trump may find himself at the rate he’s going. Trump IS a political piker of the first order.
This reply to Enigma is based upon his accusations of Trump racism july 25, 2017 at 8:31 AM Part 2
As far as my statement that one should ignore racists: It clearly meant on an individual not political basis (“Why would anyone wish to associate with a racist?”) You are trying to prove racism where there is none. That is exactly what contributes to a lot of racism today so my suggestion is that instead of looking under the mattress for racism you intelligently stay away from private individual racism and fight it legally where it really exits. If you overshoot the mark you create more racism and that is what you have been doing here. Not only that but you are creating a reverse type of racism where blacks become racist against caucasians. That is not a good idea for it perpetuates itself and creates race wars. I don’t want to take sides. My friends are my friends because we enjoy each other. Their color, race and religion have nothing to do with their acceptability.
Overshooting the racist claim has created significant problems and have hurt the black population. Take a look at the problems between the different racial communities in minority neighborhoods and start examining the racism that exists between all of them.
I was taught by my mom that before I made a statement about others I should close my eyes and think how I would feel if that statement was made by me. Maybe you should do the same.
This reply to Enigma is based upon his accusations of Trump racism july 25, 2017 at 8:31 AM
I don’t think it is fair to convict the son based upon sins of the father. I don’t believe Trump’s father was racist either even though you wish to paint the racism claim with the broadest of brushes. If we use your logic then in Germany almost all people above a certain age would be considered Nazi’s and responsible for the murder of millions of people including gypsies, Jehovah Witnesses. Jews and other groups. Are you going to call that entire group racist? Do we wish to indict all the children of murders and racists. If not, tell me you retract this portion of your argument.
“From what I know about Trump he’s a lifelong racist”
Then it should be easy for you to list the things you know about Trump that make him a life long racist. You have listed a few circumstances which if extended to the general population would make all people black or white or others, racist. Look at the black communities and how they react to other minorities in their midst.
We have already discussed landlords and a small part of their problems. I am sure some of the people working for Trump might have been racist and some of the black people working for Trump might have been anti-Semitic and racist as well. We also know that black landlords tried to prevent black people from renting. Were those black landlords racist against blacks? In the days of slavery there were blacks that also owned slaves which makes things a little less clear. (Thomas Sowell wrote a book which explained the financial aspect of claimed racism which wasn’t true. It includes red lining, loans and some other housing issues. You sound like you have a chip on your shoulder so you should read it and then decide. The raw facts demonstrate something completely different than rampant racism. (not saying racism doesn’t exist). You would do well reading Thomas Sowell.)
The 5 kids let go by D’Blasio for rape probably were guilty though some of the 5 more so than others. There is a lot more to that case. Your conclusion in this case means that every white person in a jury that finds a black person guilty is a racist should the jury vote find the black person innocent. That is not racism. A $40 Million payoff by the city was not appropriate.
“didn’t want black people counting his money.”
This sounds more like heresy. Provide the source of the quote with the quote and why this should be considered an accurate statement. People’s memories are short and this sounds like a long term memory.
If we use your evidence to brand Trump a racist then everyone is a racist. Trump said it right, he is among the least racist persons. I believe him because I ***don’t have sufficient evidence*** to prove otherwise. In my mind people are innocent until proven guilty. You haven’t proven your case, but you have proven that people will make accusations of racism that are unfounded.
Mostly irrelevant comments from the ignoranti.
What a power-packed, fact-based, knowledge-filled reply………….NOT. https://img.memecdn.com/i-can-amp-039-t-hear-you-it-amp-039-s-too-dark-in-here_o_1822631.jpg
Benson you are a fopdoodling, zounderkite.
Just an average whiffle-whaffel scobblelotcher to the nth degree.
Spice up your comments will ya, please.
They are going well beyond a quagmire:
“In the most vocal opposition to president Donald Trump yet, former CIA Director John Brennan said that if the White House tries to fire special counsel Robert Mueller, government officials should refuse to follow the president orders, as they would be – in his view – “inconsistent” with the duties of the executive branch.
“I think it’s the obligation of some executive branch officials to refuse to carry that out. I would just hope that this is not going to be a partisan issue. That Republicans, Democrats are going to see that the future of this government is at stake and something needs to be done for the good of the future,” Brennan told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer at the Aspen Security Forum, effectively calling for a coup against the president should Trump give the order to fire Mueller.”
“the future of this government is at stake”
The one that Wesley Clark described as being taken over by a policy coup following 9/11?
Not surprised Brennan said that. Abhorred, but not surprised. If Trump fires Mueller, Congress can hire a different special counsel. Thank you for posting, Jill!
Unfortunately, the grade that seems most impactful – that of Trump’s performance – wasn’t offered. Debatable as the other grades may be, the decision to back away from a contextual assessment of the president’s actions implies a seemingly partisan view.
On purpose or not, Trump is exposing the corruption that has been synonymous with Washington for too long. “Creating an ethical quagmire”? There was nothing to create. It was already there. Now it is bubbling to the surface.
I wonder if it is on purpose:
“Everything in life to me is a psychological game, a series of challenges you either meet or don’t. I am always testing people who work for me.”
Daily Caller: Smashed Hard Drives Retrieved from Debbie Wasserman-Schultz’s Former IT Aide
The President praised Schumer’s comments on social media Monday morning, saying the Senator was finally admitting that “after 1 year of investigation” democrats have found “Zero evidence.”
Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
After 1 year of investigation with Zero evidence being found, Chuck Schumer just stated that “Democrats should blame ourselves,not Russia.”
6:52 AM – 24 Jul 2017
22,407 22,407 Retweets 77,424 77,424 likes
The Senate Minority Leader is referring to Hillary Clintons repeated assertions that outside factors cost her the White House; blaming her defeat on the FBI, James Comey, the Democratic National Committee, sexism, and of course, Russia.
Yates, Comey, Mueller, Rosenstein, Hillary et al. must be arrested for conspiracy to overthrow a duly elected government.
Looks like the FBI has made some progress towards the actual facts, evidence and truth.
“FBI agents seized smashed computer hard drives from the home of Florida Democratic Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s information technology (IT) administrator, according to two sources with knowledge of the investigation.”
Yeah, you would love that, wouldn’t you, you jackboot. You know, you would be right at home in Hitler’s Germany.
Thanks for reading.
The only evidence against President Trump is that he was elected President.
The “jackboots” are rioting, smashing windows and burning down buildings across America.
They don’t like honest and fair elections.
The “jackboots” are the redistributionist globalists currently conducting a coup d’etat in America.
An election where a candidate won and became President even though he lost the popular vote is neither honest nor fair.
You may not know, there are 50 states. President Trump won the popular vote in a majority of 50 state elections. Looks like you should have told Hills that earlier.
The fraudulent “vote” cast by hyphenated non-Americas in California is a result of illegal invasion/immigration which will soon be addressed vigorously by President Donald J. Trump’s administration.
LS despite what you believe we are a Constitutional Republic and the Constitution dictates the rules. If you wish the rules to be changed pass a constitutional amendment, but in the meantime you ought to read the document.
Then it’s built into the constitution that sometimes the President will be elected in an unfair and dishonest manner. It was also very unfair that the Pirates won the 1960 world World Series even though the Yankees outscored them more than 2-1.
Did you say, “sometimes the President will be elected in an unfair and dishonest manner?”
Obongo was the constitutionally ineligible son of a citizen of a foreign country with foreign allegiances as the Jay/Washington letter of July, 1787, placed a “strong check” against foreign allegiances by the commander-in-chief and raised the presidential requirement from “citizen” to “natural born citizen” which requires the “…the father is a citizen…” per the legal text and reference of the era and that which was “continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, sitting…” per Ben Franklin’s letter of December, 1786, thanking Charles Dumas for copies of that text, the Law of Nations.
John F. Kennedy’s father was a rum-runner for the mob and the mob fixed the 1960 election for Joe Kennedy’s son. Unfortunately, JFK failed to favor the mob as RFK tormented Jimmy Hoffa and Carlos Marcello and JFK allowed the Bay of Pigs slaughter of Cubans trying to recover Havana for the mob.
And who knows what the heck happened in the election of 1860 and the vote to ratify the wholly unconstitutional 19th amendment.
“Those who vote decide nothing. Those who count the vote decide everything.”
― Joseph Stalin
Have you see the Clinton Body Count?
Did those victims run into “jackboots?”
Clinton Body Count Rises
Joseph Rago, 34year-old Pulitzer Prize-wining editorial writer for
the Wall Street Journal, was found dead in his Manhattan apartment
Joseph Rago won the Pulitzer Prize “for his well crafted, against the
grain editorials challenging the health care reform advocated by
Barrack Obama,” his citation said.
John F. Kennedy’s father was a rum-runner for the mob and the mob fixed the 1960 election for Joe Kennedy’s son. Unfortunately, JFK failed to favor the mob as RFK tormented Jimmy Hoffa and Carlos Marcello and JFK allowed the Bay of Pigs slaughter of Cubans trying to recover Havana for the mob.
Watch the Godfather.
Looks like just about everybody is linked to the mob.
No I’m not banned?
Great. Here goes. I’ll be polite. Just the facts on why we are in the “Age of Rage”:
(1) Turley has said nothing about Trump’s documented racism that driven countless number of leading GOP figures to leave the party and poses a real threat to our democracy: FACT.
(2) Turley has fueled Trump’s racist conspiracy theories about President Obama, including backing wiretap story: FACT.
(3) Turley has never disavowed Trump’s Birtherism: FACT.
(4) Turley has never questioned Trump’s fitness for Office, even when Trump called Obama the ACTUAL founder of ISIS or boasted about grabbing women’s pussy: FACT.
(5) Turley has stated James Comey has committed a criminal act, but Trump has not: FACT.
(6) Turley has said ZERO about the criminality of Trump’s threats to Mueller: FACT.
(7) Turley says Trump can pardon himself and by his own definition this would include murder: Trump could kill someone and pardon himself!: FACT.
(8) Turley has cultivated a large audience of openly racist and “fake news” advocates whose views directly threaten our democracy and taken ZERO responsibility for this racist following: FACT.
(9) Turley has normalized Trump’s racism, sexism, and manifest threat to our democracy even as the vast majority of his peers now contend we are in the midst of one the most serious political crises in our history: FACT.
I defy anyone here to repudiate a single word I’ve written.
yup its definitely total crap, the ramblings of an idiot
Fact: you need Preparation H. 😣
Allan, Olly — Like I said — REFUTE a single word I’ve written. PROVE a single point is wrong. Calling all the MODS! PROVE a SINGLE point I’ve made is incorrect!
LOL! Citing your opinions as fact does not make them fact. The onus is on you to prove your opinion. I’m not going to do your work for you.
FACT: We are not a Democracy, we are a constitutional republic.
Ben Franklin, 1789, we gave you “a republic, if you can keep it.”
Ben Franklin’s republic was a restricted-vote republic not a one man, one vote democrazy. The Founders believed that Americans understood that Male, European, 21 with 50 lbs Sterling or 50 acres were the criteria necessary to vote. The Founders thought that Americans were coherent, rational, non-hysterical and understood the need for those criteria; thus they were not codified.
Ben Franklin, 2017, we gave you “a republic, if you can take it back.”
We are living in the centrally planned, redistributionist, socially engineered state of “Tytler’s Dictatorship.”
“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the people discover they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the canidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy–to be followed by a dictatorship.”
― Alexander Fraser Tytler
It’s crap, Chris. I’ll start with what Olly already told you “Just the facts “. That is not what happened in your long list of error and opinion.
“Trump’s documented racism ” Your opinion, not fact. Provide proof of Trump’s racism.
When you deal with the above we can go word by word or line by line to demonstrate how much crap there is in your posts.
(1) Documented Trump racism as FACT:
Donald Trump is a bigot and a racist – The Washington Post
Donald Trump Isn’t Fighting Terrorism. He’s Spreading Racism | Time …
(2) We are a “Representative Democracy” and a “const. repub”: FACT
(3) Turley’s view of self-pardon would allow Trump to kill someone and pardon himself:
You guys need any more schooling?
chris marker (aka roach the depressor):
You have keen misunderstanding of the difference between fact and opinion. There is no documented proof of racism by Trump and only the ideologically deluded would say so. If you have statements by Trump, video cuts, affidavits or the like, that is proof. What somebody says about something Trump has said or done is mere opinion. And perhaps you know the old bromide about opinions.The rest of your theses, Young Master Luther, are equally silly so no need to rebut the self-rebutting.
Now, run along and catch the latest installment of Walking Dead or Gravity Rush 2 or whatever claptrap you crazy teens are watching or playing these days. The adults want to have a conversation.
No documented proof?
Ok let’s review your “proof” in the article since you’re game to at least try:
Well the suit was against the management company and not Trump personally but let’s put that fatal flaw aside and look at your damning evidence:
“In the FBI files released Wednesday, which were posted on the bureau’s Freedom of Information Act website, a 1974 interview with a former doorman at a Trump property in Brooklyn highlights the allegations brewing at the time. The man said that he was told by his bosses that if a black person came to the location and inquired about an apartment for rent, he should “tell them that the rent was twice as much as it really was, in order that he could not afford the apartment.”
So the FBI interviews a former employee who tells them that his bosses told him that the company should not rent to blacks and to lie about the rent. Ipso fact, Trump is a racist!
Ok so let’s everyone out there point out the logical flaw to this argument. P.S. lawyers cannot play. Hint: It’s a 7-letter word that rhymes with “deer say.”
“But last fall, several people who tried to rent from Trump disputed his claims. Stanley Leibowitz, an 89-year-old former rental agent, told NBC News that the president’s father once told him: “You know I don’t rent to the N-word.”
“Donald Trump was right alongside his father when I was instructed to do that,” he added.”
Leave aside “several” really means “one” in the person of none other than Stanley Leibowitz, who is an 89-years old former leasing agent who recalls (whadya say, Sonny?) a conversation he participated in in 1973 and says Trump is a racist for standing next to his father while Trump’s father uttered a racist remark. Pretty thin gruel to brand a guy as a racist but then some folks enjoy destroying a man for his mere proximity to an alleged racist.
Thanks LT for the rudimentary exercise in critical analysis but keep swinging. I hear even a blind pig finds an acorn once in a while.
Just so you understand LS, black landlords will do the same as white landlords, not because of discrimination rather because of perceived problems. Some of those problems were created by radical groups seeking to disrupt. To men like Trump $$$ count more than race and the episode you provide doesn’t prove that Trump is a racist and I question a number of the details.
In fact there have been reports that Trump is an anti-Semite. Not true but some people will link similar things to Trump and draw the wrong conclusions. All his children that are married are married to Jews and his grandchildren are Jewish as well.
The story is quite the opposite. The accusers are racists since they will play the race card for their own advantage. Demeaning minorites in that fashion is racist. Don’t fall into that trap.
I provide two links from the Wash Post and Time magazine citing DOZENS of documented instances of Trump’s prima facie racism. I cited eminent GOP figures such as George Will, Bruce Bartlett, and others who publicly left the GOP b/c of Trump’s open racism. I even cited Joe Scarborough’s stated reason for exiting GOP b/c of racism. Are none of these FACTS satisfactory to you?!
You guys need any more schooling?
Sure. It’s called being open-minded; willing to learn. Try it sometime.
I’m waiting for any specific refutation of any factual point I made.
NO ONE HAS YET TO PROVIDE EVEN ONE. — FACT.
Fact: Trump denies being a racist
Fact: The instances cited show only that others think he’s a racist.
Fact: No racist words are put in Trump’s mouth by anybody.
Fact: You hate Trump.
Fact: You’re hyperbolic
Fact: You make me laugh.
I think you have been provided with an education as the difference between fact and opinion and I just provided you with what your own article said so I will quote your article which was an opinion piece. ” are not promoting American security so much as fear and racism.”
Now you can appologize, but you won’t because your nature is to spread mistruths.
DSS, Chris is hypergolic when Trump is added and that leads Chris to become Hyperbolic.
Chris I like to take things one at a time so I dealt with racism. The Washington Post address led nowhere. The Time address didn’t say he was a racist. It was their opinion that his policies promoted racism instead of security.
That doesn’t make a man a racist. I could just as easily say that about you. Your postings promote racism and based upon that statement some one else can do what you just did and say you are a racist.
You need to improve your research skills. No amount of schooling can help some people. Are you one of them?
chris marker – I repudiate the use of the word FACT, used so often and incorrectly.
Cite one specific point I made that isn’t supported by FACTS, please. FYI: Here’s working link to Dana Milbank’s published and DOCUMENTED Instances of rump’s racism:
This has been followed by nearly a dozen other documented report by the “REAL NEWS” Washington Post. Turley just published his own essay in the Post, so it’s not FAKE — though Turley did in FACT mislead folks by saying he had “no control” or no idea the editors would frame his op-ed as stating “Self-Pardon” is definitive. Note, however, Turley has had to walk back his assertion that the majority academics would accept the concept of self-pardon — It’s not even close! Turley is on a proverbial island with a few other castaways who believe in the validity of self-pardon.
“Cite one specific point I made that isn’t supported by FACTS, please.”
Chris, I already quoted you what you referenced and you were wrong there. I wait for your admission that you were wrong and then I will procede to the next citation you wish to provide.
After your admission you can quote the sentence(s) that provide facts in you next article.
So far in fact checking we are at: # of lies=1. # of truthfull statements=0
Could it be that Chris is using the Internet slang acronym FACT False Accusations Court Trouble
He is full of false accusations.
Freedom of thought, speech, religion, press, assembly and every other conceivable natural and god-given freedom per the 9th amendment and Americans cannot have an opinion on race, matriculate without the dictatorship of unconstitutional affirmative action or hire employees for their free enterprise operations without the dictatorship of unconstitutional affirmative action?
You’re confusing “freedomism” with “racism.”
In nature, birds of a feather flock together, which you would oppose.
You’re reading the redistribution of wealth and social engineering sections of the Communist Manifesto not the Preamble, Constitution and Bill of Rights, 1789.
Affirmative action IS irrefutably racism.
Discrimination is the first step of freedom.
If Americans cannot discriminate, Americans cannot be free.
“Discrimination is the first step of freedom”?!
I mean, you do get that not only do these words violate the thesis of the Dec. of Ind., but also the thesis of freedom and democracy itself? You do get this?
And if you think, for example, giving women the right to vote, which is one of the most important forms of affirmative action ever implemented in U.S. history is “racist” and/or unconstitutional then I suggest you simply go have a talk with your mom.
You are erroneously and deliberately conflating the crimes of harassment, stalking, assault, battery, rape, murder, etc. with the right to hold an opinion, choose and discriminate based on criteria set by the free individual.
You erroneously believe that the government can dictate assembly, where people live, their social reactions, matriculation and any and all operations, including hiring, by a private business owner which is private property and none of the government’s business and which may not be directed or otherwise interfered with by government under the right to private property as described by the Constitution and James Madison here:
James Madison defined “private property” as
“that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the
world, in exclusion of every other individual.”
“…IN EXCLUSION OF EVERY OTHER INDIVIDUAL.”
Government cannot take private property from one man to give private property to another without violating the very definition of private and the constitutional right to private property.
“Freedom of thought, speech, religion, press, assembly and every other conceivable natural and god-given freedom per the 9th amendment.”
Read the Preamble, Constitution and Bill of Rights, 1789.
Read the Naturalization Act of 1790 which was passed within a year.
The Founders established freedom including discrimination and choice, not the dictatorship of forced “Affirmative Action Privilege.”
You are reading the redistribution of wealth and social engineering sections of the Communist Manifesto not the Constitution.
People must adapt to their own characteristics and limitations.
People are “created equal” in theory while their success must be achieved in actuality.
Dictatorship is unconstitutional.
People must adapt to the outcomes of freedom.
Freedom does not adapt to people.
Chris, how does discrimination violate democracy?
I don’t think you understand what democracy is. I repeat again what I have said several times. Democracy means that 51% can vote to enslave the other 49%. Can you understand this simple statement?
“Affirmative Action Privilege” is unconstitutional.
There are some that only believe in alternate facts.
The Zionist U.S. government is trying to use a Russian investigation to divert attention from the Truth that Israel did 9/11 and about the Illegal U.S. / Israeli Wars.
Millions of men, women and children have been murdered / maimed due to these invasions.
2,888 architects and engineers are saying 3 NYC SKYSCRAPERS WERE DESTROYED BY CONTROLLED DEMOLITION ON 9/11
9/11: Explosive Evidence – Experts Speak Out
“If the government and media are lying to us about 9/11, it means they are controlled by the same people who carried out 9/11.”
The WTC towers were destroyed by airplanes running into the sides. I have co-authored a peer reviewed paper on this.
Walter Shaub, former head of the Ethics Dept, said that he had reviewed Rod Rosenstein’s actions and concluded that there is no need for him to recuse himself. Shaub knows more about Rosenstein’s situation than pundits.
Unfreaking believable. You just said that. This bozo was appointed by the wholly ineligible imposter, Obongo, who will never be eligible for the presidency as the son of a foreign citizen and was ensconced by the globalist ruling class shadow government comprised of dumbocrats and RINO’s. He sat through eight years of unconstitutional “overreach” (litigated by Pro. Turley), abuse of power at the IRS, the Benghazi Lie, abuse of power using American Intel to “wiretap,” “surveil” and “unmask” political opponents, State Dept. pay-for-play, Bleachbit destruction of evidence, post-election operations by Obongo “holdovers” to subvert a duly elected government and other crimes of high office by Obongo and Hillary. This guy is nothing but a seat warming liberal functionary.
After watching a video of a man punching a young girl in the face, getting all bunged up over government ethics violations seems to be a waste of time. Seriously, does anyone bother asking if the investigation itself is ethical? You make the case that the investigators are top shelf folks, therefore the investigation is justified. This whole investigation, is like putting together a jigsaw puzzle. One side is looking at the picture on the box and all they can see is President Trump and family behind bars. For some reason they cannot make the pieces fit. The other side keeps pointing at the picture and all they see is a scene from 17th century Salem, Mass. In the meantime, the American people see a daily dose of government getting cold chicken and then wildly punching with the hopes of knocking someone out.
You mean, like this man punching this girl-
Oh, that’s right! Since the perpetrator was a white cop and the victim a black girl, neither Turley nor his followers really care.
“Chris Rock – How not to get your ass kicked by the police!”
Comments are closed.