Yo, Mr. President: Commuting Manning’s sentence is a BFD — and not in a good way.
Have we done one of these this year? Well if we have, we haven’t done it enough:
- President Obama Commutes Chelsea Manning’s Prison Sentence — Well, I suppose that’s all right. What would be outrageous and utterly unthinkable would be if he commuted the sentence of Bradley Manning, because that little slimeball betrayed his country big-time, and is lucky he wasn’t shot. Just to be clear about it. And let me say now that if the president is even thinking about dismissing charges against Edward Snowden, I may have to take back every good thing I’ve said about POTUS. That would be completely beyond the pale.
- Dollar Tumbles on Trump Comments — Welcome to the big leagues, Mr. Trump. Well, I don’t exactly mean welcome. That’s just what the worldwise major-leaguers say to the bushers when they do something stupid, right? If only we could send him down to single-A ball soon after the season starts Friday.
- British Leader Commits to a Clean Break From the E.U. — I’ve been seeing stories about this since early in the morning, starting with The Guardian, and I keep thinking, Isn’t this what we thought she’d say? Isn’t that what the referendum decided? I mean, I see that she says that in the future, British courts would hold sway, not E.U. courts. And I’m like, duh! They’re be NO point to a Brexit without that particular point of sovereignty. That’s minimal!
- Leatherman wants ‘dark-money’ groups to have to disclose donors — I’m all for that, and I’ve yet to hear a good argument against it.
- White Knoll standout, USC baseball commitment dies — A very sad story about a local kid who had his whole life ahead of him. I want to know more about what happened; I hope subsequent stories tell us.
Something I received just now from Lindsey Graham…
Related Posts
“The dollar tumbled to its lowest level in a month”
Oh dear, a whole month. Which I read as it’s been lower in the past year.
I heard on NBC News tonight that if Edward Snowden was going to get a pardon it would have been in this batch. I don’t know how they know that, but hopefully it is true.
The irony of the dollar “tumbling” due to Trump’s comments is that a strong dollar exacerbates our balance of trade deficit. A weaker dollar makes US exports more competitive.
Perfectly true.
On the other hand, if you plan on travelling abroad any time in the near future, a strong dollar is nice to have…
“Well, I suppose that’s all right. What would be outrageous and utterly unthinkable would be if he commuted the sentence of Bradley Manning, because that little slimeball betrayed his country big-time, and is lucky he wasn’t shot.” Just as I thought. If Bradley Manning wasn’t now Chelsea Manning, and if he was straight plus being a white male, his sentence wouldn’t have been given a second glance or consideration for reduction or commuting. But, changing the plumbing doesn’t change the fact that Bradley/Chelsea Manning committed the crime and should serve the full sentence. But, the poor little snowflake is now in transition from male to female and that changes everything, right?
And for anyone who wants to believe I could give a damn if Bradley wanted to become Chelsea, think again and don’t bother calling me homophobic, bigoted, or any of the other labels placed on people who object to sex change procedures, I could care less.
On 1): Well, I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that military fanboys would be all up in arms about this. But that persons who otherwise say they oppose the death penalty would suggest someone should’ve been shot in punishment just shows how thin and wobbly their principles are.
Manning served time. This was a (humanitarian) commutation, not a pardon. I’m fine with that.
“The quality of mercy is not strained;
‘T is mightiest in the mightiest; it becomes
The throned monarch better than his crown:
His sceptre shows the force of temporal power,
The attribute to awe and majesty,
Wherein doth sit the dread and fear of kings;
But mercy is above this sceptred sway;
It is enthronèd in the hearts of kings,
It is an attribute to God himself
And earthly power doth then show likest God’s
When mercy seasons justice.”
The only reason Manning is being let out of jail is because he wears women’s clothing. That’s how silly liberalism has become. (And it’s reason #5,697 why you got Trump.)
On a related note, you can’t say how awful the Wikileaks/Russian stuff is while defending Obama letting someone out of jail who gave classified information to Wikileaks. It’s either/or.
Either Wikileaks is bad and Manning should stay in jail, or it’s no big deal and Manning should go free. It’s kind of a binary choice. But hey, Obama gets a last minute bit of glory.
The damn thing is: Wikileaks is a Russian front, Manning is a traitor, and Russia really did try to undermine our election. But Obama doesn’t really care about that. It’s just about him and his feelings.
“On a related note, you can’t say how awful the Wikileaks/Russian stuff is while defending Obama letting someone out of jail who gave classified information to Wikileaks. It’s either/or.”
My thoughts exactly. The hypocrisy is so blatant it’s mind boggling.
And in the alleged Russian “hacking” of the election, nothing that was revealed was classified. It was all just run of the mill, behind the scenes exposure of the corrupt nature of the DNC. Trivial…
Y’all are completely right.
Oops. I put that reply on the wrong comment. I meant Bryan and Doug were right about the hypocrisy.
I in no way agree with Doug’s sentiments regarding what he and Trump are pleased to call “alleged Russian hacking”…
7 years is enough. Manning exposed atrocities committed by our military. No national security issues compromised.
Great touch by Bill using Portia’s plea for Shylock from Shakespeare’s “Merchant of Venice” applying it to Manning’s commutation of his sentence. But, we must remember how things actually turned out for Shylock after the verdict was rendered by following the original Shakespeare play’s plot line. Shylock became an outcast because he was forced to convert to Christianity and could no longer live with his fellow Jews and the Christian community didn’t receive him with open arms either. Manning could also be the perfect Antonio. First he accepts the benefits of being a member of the military and then he spits in the face of the military by betraying the trust placed in his care and then turns to the Commander-in-Chief and asks for mercy, a perfect substitute for Antonio’s loan request from Shylock. What is astounding is that so many are so willing to run to Manning’s aid, advocate for him, and portray him as a true American hero. How screwed up is that?
Then up steps one Barack Obama and grants Manning commutation of his sentence and at the same time, pokes his finger in the eyes of the military as one of his final gestures in office. Which goes to further my initial impression of Obama after he took office. He is a mean spirited, petty little man who never forgets a slight, insult, or opposition. For eight years, he has been quick to blame everyone else for any failures or mistakes instead of stepping up and accepting responsibility for them as the leader/POTUS of this country. He is as bad as Trump except he never goes on social media or any other media and makes idiotic comments. He waits until the most opportune time to strike back instead of behaving like a bull in a china shop on social media and the press.
If you think I am wrong, ask yourself why he didn’t go further to help Clinton win the presidency. If he actually wanted her to be POTUS and continue his “legacy”, he would have made dozens of campaign appearances with her or for her and he would have called on his very successful ground game cadre of volunteers to get out and go door to door on her behalf. Obama could have used his powers of persuasion to encourage his core supporters to vote but he didn’t do much more than give lame lip service to Clinton. It goes back to the 2008 campaign when Bill Clinton made several racist remarks about Obama to Ted Kennedy and others. Then if one considers the fact that a Clinton campaign aide was the one who started the “birther” issue and it was seized upon by Republicans and Obama’s opponents and gained momentum that lasted for several years, being the intelligent patient person he is, he waited until the most opportune time to exact his revenge on Hillary Clinton in a very Machiavellian way. And once again poking his finger in the eyes of the people of this country by not going public well before election day and confirming the speculation that Russia had indeed tried to influence the campaign. He didn’t make enough of the issue until “after” the election results were in.
IMHO, his eight years in office is not his legacy, his legacy is that he left us with a sorry candidate in Hillary Clinton and POTUS elect, Donald Trump.
I would guess that the men who have risen to the office of President rarely, if ever, allow themselves to admit mistakes. Can’t recall any President who truly admitted to errors, especially while still in office. Part of that may be personality and ego (the ego that would allow someone to think he could be leader of the free world in the first place) but perhaps a good bit of it is due to being surrounded with sycophants whose sole purpose is to make the President appear to be infallible and above reproach.
Wouldn’t it have been great if during the rollout of Obamacare, he had just once said “We screwed this up royally and I take full responsibility.”
Maybe if I put it in this context. An individual tosses his “hat in the ring” and runs for POTUS. The individual wins knowing full well he or she will inherit all of the responsibilities that come with the office and once inherited, they belong to him or her. Therefore, instead of constantly blaming everyone else for the problems, accept the fact that it was a personal choice to run for office and the inherited problems then become yours. It is then up to you as POTUS to seek the best solution possible to the problem and if it is not successful, accept the responsibility for the lack of success instead of deflecting and pointing fingers at your predecessor. Once you do that, then your finger is pointing to all past presidents because most of the problems have been in place for decades, not just a few years.
As to ACA, i.e., Obamacare, if Obama had come forth and told us that it was rolled out too soon and the problems associated with it needed to be addressed and fixed, he would have won re-election in 2012 by 75% of the popular vote and a historically large Electoral College margin.
It doesn’t matter if it is at the POTUS, executive, manager, supervisor, or any other level of management, if the person in charge admits they made a mistake or an error in judgment, it has been my experience they are more successful in life on a personal and public level than ones who refuse to admit error and take responsibility. One of my major clients is a prime example of admitting when he makes a mistake because he doesn’t go after employees who make mistakes and own up to them. Instead he encourages and is not hesitant to help correct mistakes and learn from them. Why should POTUS be any different?
“military fanboys”
Is that the fashionable term now for people who still care about this country, and who despise treason?
And I didn’t say he should be shot. I’m saying he’s lucky he wasn’t. I’m fairly careful with words, usually.
One man’s traitor is another man’s whistleblower. Revealing truthful information about government activities that are not constitutional, moral, or allowed is not treason. I’d like to see some actual evidence of the specific negative effects that were a result of the leaks.
The Obama administration has been one that has pursued and punished whistleblowers more than any previous ones. It has pursued leaks with a vengeance when a leak has been published or broadcast. But, I guess the most transparent administration in history doesn’t like the bright light to be shone on it at all. Wonder what will be used to highlight problems in the Trump administration, Broadway spotlights?
Nope, it’s the term of art for military sycophants.
How about war monger. No beating around the bush.
So, anyone who supports the military and believes in a strong military is a war monger? Am I interpreting your comment correctly? I guess I am a war monger because I support the military and strongly believe in a strong military presence for protection of this country. In a perfect world, there would be no need for any country to have a standing military but this isn’t a perfect world and anyone who thinks it will ever become a perfect world is not facing the reality of the history of this world.
There will always be threats and at times, the threats will be acted upon. Without a standing military, how will we respond to hostile actions? Write a letter to the local newspaper, post a comment on the internet, or make a sign and join a protest march?
Enough of this. The damage has been done, insults aimed at those of us who support a strong military, and Manning’s sentence for treason has been commuted by Obama. All else is now a waste of time, energy, and words.
Y’all really, really HATE this country’s military, don’t you?
Wow.
Doug, perhaps you’d like to enlighten us as to these alleged unconstitutional activities. And maybe Bud can share some of these “atrocities” with us. And don’t forget to distinguish them from the kinds of mistakes normally made in the fog of war, so that we’ll know these were deliberate war crimes — so we can all whip ourselves into an anti-military froth.
And when you’re done, maybe you should explain why this creep stole these secrets that he was bound and sworn and trusted by his country to protect, and — since he was under such a powerful moral obligation to tell the world how utterly horrible the U.S. military is — he didn’t go to U.S. news organizations, instead of to a Russian front organization that makes no bones about its hatred of America…
“Y’all really, really HATE this country’s military, don’t you?”
I hate the missions, not the military. They are just doing the job they are asked to do by politicians whose motivations and objectives are not what I believe are in the best interests of the United States. The “mission creep” has gone wildly beyond the concept of national DEFENSE into other areas like nation building and protecting the economic interests of certain multi-national oil corporations. It’s naive to believe that our military is driven by pure intentions.
“It’s naive to believe that our military is driven by pure intentions.”
No, it isn’t. That is the norm, and that is what I expect. And when someone like Manning or Calley betrays that, he needs to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
There’s nothing in the world wrong with nation-building. One of the great lessons of the past century is that it’s better to build up (as we did with Germany and Japan after 1945) than to merely defeat and leave your enemy crushed in the dust, as we did after 1918.
Of course, that’s not purely a military function, but the military can be a part of it — at least to the extent of maintaining security so that there’s a chance for something better to emerge.
Which, of course, we initially failed to do in Iraq. Then we DID, with the Surge. Then we didn’t, once again, in our haste to leave…
No, we — or at least I — despise your fawning attitude toward the military — and your tendency to paint anyone who doesn’t go all 100 yards with you on matters of national security as naive, unpatriotic or simply “liberal.”
I, for one, never said that Manning didn’t deserve punishment — only that time served was sufficient and mercy was a respectable and decent thing to do. All the hand-wringing over the possibility that this will encourage others to do what Manning did is nonsensical. ANY amount of jail time is enough dissuasion. And calls for him to serve the full 35-year sentence are nothing less than plain vindictiveness.
Just excuse any disgusting behavior with “the fog of war”. Was Mi Lai the fog of war? How about Abu Ghraib? If we had less war wouldn’t there be less fog?
Manning has already served a rather long sentence. He was not pardoned. Just don’t see why this is so controversial.
“Was Mi Lai the fog of war?”
No. That’s why that creep Calley was tried and convicted of murder.
And you know what? Nixon was wrong to commute his sentence.
At the risk of Bill calling me a hypocrite on capital punishment, I’ll say this guy had a point:
I’d just leave out the hanged, drawn and quartered part, but lock them away forever and use them as an example of what an officer must never become…
What Calley did was just an extension of what the U.S. government did over the course of many years. The decision to go into Vietnam created the environment that led to the massacre. His chain of command covered it up for more than a year – that level of complicit behavior doesn’t occur in a vacuum.
“Taking the witness stand, Calley, under the direct examination by his civilian defense lawyer George W. Latimer, claimed that on the previous day, his commanding officer, Captain Medina, made it clear that his unit was to move into the village and that everyone was to be shot, saying that they all were Viet Cong. Twenty-one other members of Calley’s “Charlie” Company also testified in Calley’s defense and corroborated the orders. But Medina publicly denied that he had ever given such orders and stated that he had meant enemy soldiers, while Calley assumed that his order to “kill the enemy” meant to kill everyone. In his personal statement, Calley stated that
I was ordered to go in there and destroy the enemy. That was my job that day. That was the mission I was given. I did not sit down and think in terms of men, women, and children. They were all classified as the same, and that’s the classification that we dealt with over there, just as the enemy. I felt then and I still do that I acted as I was directed, and I carried out the order that I was given and I do not feel wrong in doing so.”
“What Calley did was just an extension of what the U.S. government did over the course of many years.”
That statement — that’s what I’m talking about when I say y’all really, really hate this country’s military. Doug particularly goes ’round the bend on this.
It’s outrageous, black-and-white, “the military is evil” (and more outrageously, singling out the United States military, which is more constrained by the ideals of liberal democracy than ANY military ever was before this past century), as some sort of standout in that regard, that put you beyond the scope of making a defensible argument…
The military didn’t decide to go into Vietnam. They follow the objectives of the Commander in Chief.
The mission begat the generals who begat the strategy that begat the orders that put Calley where he was.
I am basically agnostic when it comes to those who serve. I appreciate those who serve – In fact, I encouraged a young Uber driver I had recently who was having trouble deciding what to do with his life to consider enlisting. Instead, I would like to see a much smaller military focused on defense. I don’t see the military as evil except when they make decisions that lead to the death of innocent people. That’s way up in the chain of command usually.
Sometimes. But I suspect it’s usually either a) a mistake, or b) somebody at the point of the spear losing it.
During the Battle of the Bulge, after word of the Malmedy massacre spread among America troops, a lot of them sort of spontaneously decided not to take any SS prisoners, but shoot them out of hand.
There was no order given to that effect, but I know of at least one instance in which a senior commander let it be known that that was OK by him. In fact, Omar Bradley — who I think of usually as a kinder, gentler sort of general (compared to Patton, anyway) — at one point expressed displeased surprise that an SS prisoner had been taken alive.
War can do that to you. And the fact that war CAN do that to you is one argument in favor of pacifism.
Of course, there’s light years of distance between that and killing women and children, which no amount of rationalization about the brutalizing effects of war can excuse, ever.
By comparison, I’m far less likely to lie awake at night over the fates of those SS troops. After all, some of them were killing civilians out of hand during that battle. But it WAS wrong, and I was sorry to read of Bradley’s attitude (in Beevor’s recent book)…
One of the more shocking things I’ve read about recently (in this case, in The Guns of August) was the way Germans indiscriminately killed Belgian civilians at the outset of WWI.
It was shocking for several reasons:
— These weren’t Nazis; nazism hadn’t been invented yet. They were just German soldiers. There was no ideology dehumanizing the Belgians as Untermenschen or anything like that.
— These weren’t battle-weary, traumatized troops. The real fighting of the war hadn’t even started. The Germans were just passing through Belgium on their way to attack the French. They were killing the Belgians because they were ticked off that the Belgians weren’t just lying down and getting out of their way.
— This was just 100 years ago. It’s not like the human animal has had time to evolve past this level of casual savagery. And yet… can you imagine German troops doing this today, after so little provocation? I can’t. So how could they have been like that so recently?
I’m sure there are other reasons, but I need to get back to work…
“Of course, there’s light years of distance between that and killing women and children, which no amount of rationalization about the brutalizing effects of war can excuse, ever.”
Hiroshima and Nagasaki humbly bow down in agreement.
Frankly, I’m more likely to condemn bombing cities IN GENERAL than Hiroshima and Nagasaki in particular.
In the context of what had been done by both sides up to that time, there was nothing particularly remarkable about the decision to use this BIG bomb we had managed to develop (after all, remember, the firebombing of Tokyo killed more people). In that context — and we have to consider everything in history within context — there was nothing monstrous about it. Okinawa had shown us what a devastating impact the invasion of the home islands would have — on the civilian population as well as on our troops.
Nor am I prepared to condemn the Allies wholeheartedly for strategic bombing in general. That would be rather priggish and anachronistic of me, for a guy in the era of low-intensity conflicts and drone strikes to condemn people who were engaged in total war, and trying to bring it to a decisive end.
But thank you for reminding me not to use sweeping, categorical statements when writing about something as morally ambiguous as war. I don’t like it when you do it, and I shouldn’t do it either…
Manning never committed treason (at least not by US standards).
The founding fathers were smart enough to know that making treason difficult would lead to a more stable country that didn’t have to suffer purge cycles like earlier republics. We have no “treason in spirit” or a treason “smell test”. Treason requires a very explicit set of attributes.
Manning had the good luck of Wikileaks being off the State Dept’s “no-no” list after the leaks, not before. After that point you can make a strong case for treason. Before the fact, not as much. Ex post facto and all that.
Good point but will ask Bryan for his take on your comment. Personally, I don’t believe it matters if Wikileaks was or was not on the State Department’s “no-no” list. The fact that Manning stole the information and gave it to a website known for printing anything that was submitted is reason enough to conclude that Manning acted knowing what he was doing was an act of treason. Disguise it anyway one wants, Manning had an obligation to perform his duty handling sensitive intelligence information and he violated his duty willingly and knowingly. Once he made the decision and acted on it, he became a traitor and was in violation of his sworn duty and military oath.
Had he given it to the New York Times would it still be treason? Would a reporter who accepted the information be in trouble? How about the paper if they printed it?
Seems like the messenger made the charges worse in some people’s eyes. The New York Times might be convinced to limit what was released. Wikileaks takes the “release it all, let the public decide” approach. And in some cases, the Manning information proved very useful in exposing corruption in various governments.
“Seems like the messenger made the charges worse in some people’s eyes.”
Absolutely. For a soldier to do such a thing is a seriously aggravating circumstance.
As for this: Had he given it to the New York Times would it still be treason? Would a reporter who accepted the information be in trouble? How about the paper if they printed it?
It would still be criminal for a soldier entrusted with classified material to betray that trust. Giving it to Wikileaks, an organization hostile to this country, just makes it far worse.
I don’t think the reporter should be prosecuted for receiving information, unless he conspired in actually helping to steal secrets.
I’m not going to favor prior restraint by the state against a newspaper, but I would disagree with the editorial judgment to publish stolen classified material.
“Good point but will ask Bryan for his take on your comment. Personally, I don’t believe it matters if Wikileaks was or was not on the State Department’s ‘no-no’ list. The fact that Manning stole the information and gave it to a website known for printing anything that was submitted is reason enough to conclude that Manning acted knowing what he was doing was an act of treason.”
Thanks for the vote of confidence, but I’m just a simple ol’ caveman lawyer who deals mostly with state law. But since you asked, I’ll take a whack at it. Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution defines treason as: “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.”
Manning certainly didn’t levy war, and I don’t think he “adhered” to our enemies giving them aid and comfort. He didn’t shelter or help an enemy in any direct way that I know of. I’m not sure what the “no-no” list is, but I’m not quite sure it’s legally relevant here unless it’s a list of enemies which Congress has said “giving information to these people is treason”. Maybe….I don’t know. In any event, I think treason would be over-charging him. What he did was take a huge cache of classified material and spread it out for the world to see in direct violation of multiple oaths, thereby putting people’s lives in danger….because he felt “morally compelled” to do it. It’s essentially the same thing Snowden did.
Accordingly, I think commuting his sentence is awful. I have zero sympathy for someone who intentionally discloses classified information, regardless of their motives. To enlist or receive a commission in the armed forces necessarily requires you give up some of your autonomy to make decisions like that. The army isn’t summer camp. Everyone doesn’t get to participate in the decision-making process. Everyone doesn’t get a participation trophy. If Manning didn’t like what was going on, he can report it to his superior officers. If they don’t do anything about it, then that’s that. That’s what he signed up for. No one conscripted him. He volunteered.
I don’t care if Manning is having a hard time in Leavenworth. It’s not supposed to be fun time – it’s federal prison and he’s got only himself to blame. If he’s having a hard time, maybe he should have thought about that before committing multiple felonies that rank slightly under treason where they line you up and shoot you.
And Obama’s rationale is that Manning is remorseful? I don’t care if he’s now remorseful for the crime. Oh, he’s remorseful now? Whoop-de-freakin’ do. Most everyone in jail is remorseful – that’s sort of the point. Now, Manning is going to be celebrated by liberal loonies even more and held up as a hero, probably making money on the left-wing lecture circuit. He violated his oath and put people in danger. Seven years for that is a joke.
“I have zero sympathy for someone who intentionally discloses classified information, regardless of their motives”
Would you go against client lawyer privilege if you learned your client had or intended to commit a crime? If Manning or Snowden felt they had no option through chain of command to release certain information, I can understand the motivation to do what they thought was the right thing.
Watch “Citizen 4” if you’d like a inside view of what was going on in Snowdens head at the time. He was willing to never see his family again.
Yes, I’m sure that’s a mercilessly objective account. There’s no way Hollywood would want to make this guy into a hero or anything…
Uh, it’s a documentary. In the room with him and Glen Greenwald when it all went down. Not the Oliver Stone movie.
I wouldn’t expect you to deal in the reality. Might cause you to have to back off your preconceived notions.
You’re totally right. There’s never been a documentary that skewed reality to achieve a propaganda goal… and Glenn Greenwald? Golly, I can’t wait to see that!
But yeah, I was thinking of the Oliver Stone thing.
Seriously, Doug, I don’t think I could stand a feature-length explanation of how awesome Snowden is. Just passing remarks to that effect practically give me apoplexy.
You see, everything about this guy, especially the fact that so many people admire him, encapsulates SO many pathologies that I see as seriously harmful to the country I love, forces that tear us apart.
I like to be able to find common ground with my fellow citizens. I hate partisanship, which causes people to despise each other. But I can’t find common ground with anyone making excuses for what Snowden has done. It causes me to despair; it undermines my faith in the power of reason.
And while my friend Doug, the cynic, is comfortable with alienation, I am not. I find it too painful…
“Would you go against client lawyer privilege if you learned your client had or intended to commit a crime?”
First, that’s two separate questions. “Had” implies a past crime. In the case where a client tells me they have committed a crime in the past, I am ethically prohibited from revealing that to anyone without my client’s consent.
For example, if you came to me and said “Bryan, I killed Brad last week, I want you to represent me since I think I’m about to be arrested, and I think you’re a super great lawyer who can get me off. ” In this hypothetical, I would be ethically prohibited from disclosing that confession. If I did disclose that information, I would expect to be immediately disbarred.
To the second question, “intended to” implies an intent to commit a future crime. For example, if you came to me and said “Bryan, I can’t take Brad’s stance on collateral damage by the military anymore. To show him what a dope he is, next week, I’m going to poison the entire water supply of West Columbia with arsenic, you know…because I’m such a bad shot with a gun, and I want you to represent me when the cops eventually catch me, but don’t tell anyone I’m going to do this, okay?” In this hypothetical, the ethical rules provide an exception to attorney-client privilege.
Specifically, Rule 1.6(b)(1) and (2), SCRE allows me to reveal information I believe reasonably necessary to prevent a client from committing a criminal act and to protect Brad (and the entire city of West Columbia from reasonably certain death or substantial bodily harm.
What was your point, again? 🙂
OK, Brad, so you are unwilling to even watch documentary footage of the events as they occurred when Snowden decided to release the information to Greenwald. This is live action stuff in hotel rooms. It’s Snowden at that moment. Instead, you will rely on your own biased opinion based on solely the evidence you choose. Are your beliefs that shaky that even exposure to an alternate view can’t withstand them?
Yeah, that’s it. I have no confidence in my “biases.” I mean, it couldn’t be what I said. It couldn’t be that I have enough in my life that makes me angry without adding that torture.
Golly, I sure wish I were capable of reaching logical conclusions, but all I am is a mass of unfounded “biases.” Which makes me wonder: Why didn’t I vote for Trump?
If only I could reach out, and listen to people who disagree with me, and learn from their superior wisdom. If I did that, if I grew in that way, maybe… maybe… maybe someday I could be big enough, open-minded enough, to host a blog in which people with different views come together and discuss the issues of the day in an environment of tolerance and civility.
But nah… if I can’t rise above my “biases” enough to watch a film sanctifying one of the people I despise most on the planet at my age, I guess there’s no chance of that…
Maybe if we did it like this — if your humble malchick were forced to viddy all — I’d get through it, and emerge enlightened on the other side:
“I’m just a simple ol’ caveman lawyer who deals mostly with state law.”
Your “leaks” and your “hacking” frighten me…
Another unfunny SNL skit.
You’re kidding, right? That may have been the most inspired bit of insanity on the show in that decade.
The match of concept and execution were perfect. The idea was inspired to start with, but his perfect manner — a slick, condescending lawyer transparently pretending to be humble and unassuming — was what made it perfect.
Hartman did a lot of funny stuff — his Bill Clinton was good — but this may have been his best ever. Certainly the most off-the-wall…
I don’t watch SNL anymore. What decade are we talking about, the Chris Farley motivational speaker decade?
MadTV blew SNL out of the water.
I agree with every bit of that, including the fact that “treason” may be technically the wrong word.
But we lack the word for clearly expressing the enormity of what he did. And I think it can be accurate to call someone “treasonous” without that person technically committing a crime that is constitutionally defined as treason.
I mean seriously, what IS the word for a soldier (as you say, part of an organization that has a chain of command, which he has no right to unilaterally ignore and substitute his own judgment — I mean, what was this guy’s rank? Private, E1) who takes information that his superiors deem classified and hands it to people who make no bones about their desire to undermine American security? I use the word “traitor” because I’m unaware of a word that fits better.
I’m open to suggestions, but I’ll give you a hint up front: “Whistleblower” doesn’t make the cut…
Wait — I now see that he was busted down to private from the lofty rank of PFC. But that doesn’t much change my point…
Apparently Obama considers him a patriot. Obviously he doesn’t share your opinion of the “enormity” of the situation regarding the impact it had on national security. Must be out of the loop on stuff you know about.
The ongoing theft of hospitality tax money continues.. How is it that Councilman Norman Jackson is allowed to get away with this? and is there ANY entity within Richland County government that is not corrupt?
From The State a month ago — and still being reported on/investigated by Ron Aiken of Quorum.
“Since 2014, a nonprofit with one employee, no accomplishments related to its mission and no correct address provided to the IRS or S.C. Secretary of State has received $166,000 in Richland County hospitality-tax funds and will receive another $75,000 this fiscal year. The charity, Second Chance Afterschool Learning Environment, Inc. (SCALE), describes itself on its IRS 990 forms and its website as an after-school tutoring/mentoring program for at-risk students with an additional mission to help the homeless. But according to records obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, SCALE’s only activity has been funding a community parade/reunion in the Horrell Hill area and acting as a fiduciary pass-through for a Caribbean restaurant’s annual reggae concert. And the group’s use of the funding has some County Council members questioning the county’s use and monitoring of hospitality, or H-tax, awards.”
http://www.thestate.com/news/local/article117408013.html
Here’s a tidbit from Aiken —
“DOING IT AGAIN
Before the Pinewood Lake Park Foundation came around in 2015, Jackson and Hart already had a history of working closely together in an arrangement eerily similar to the one they have now.
In 2013, Jackson personally directed or helped direct $175,000 of county money to a front company sources allege Jackson helped Hart create, Carolina Consulting Group, to produce feasibility studies for the county that documents obtained by Quorum through Freedom of Information Act requests show were performed by Chao and Associates.
Fast forward two years, and in the budget work sessions for FY 2015-16 county council discussed and eventually voted in favor of allowing the total hospitality-tax dollars left over after all the county’s commitments were met to be divided up evenly among council members for them to allocate in their districts as they saw fit.”
The bottom line is that the hospitality tax (like the penny tax for roads) should be abolished. These sources of directed funds are ripe for waste, fraud, and abuse and there is little that can be done to provide oversight and accountability.
It is gratifying to see the odious Barnum and Bailey circus meet its demise. Public opposition to these animal cruelty schemes is making a difference.
Sheesh…
Yes. While there may be some cases of mistreatment of some animals in some circuses sometime somewhere, it’s hard to believe that professional animal trainers and handlers are evil “odious” human beings.
Let’s close all the zoos while we’re at it. And let every gerbil run free from their cages.
Have you been a vegan long?
bud watched the PETA video.
“Leatherman wants ‘dark-money’ groups to have to disclose donors — I’m all for that, and I’ve yet to hear a good argument against it.”
Well, I think you’ve seen some arguments against it, but I guess that means you didn’t think they were very good.
One argument would be what I kind of think of as the Ashley Landess argument, which is that the purpose of disclosure laws, and other laws related to campaign finance, is to make it easier for the citizens to discover potential evidence that their public officials might have been bought. Hence, disclosure of the sources of income for elected officials, for example. What this proposal seems to be about, on the other hand, is making it easier for public officials to discover exactly which citizens might be calling them out or opposing them. This can arguably have the proverbial “chilling effect” on such citizens’ willingness to exercise their first amendment right to criticize politicians.
Yes, I was specifically thinking of Ashley Landess’ group when I said I haven’t seen any good excuses.
I think all citizens, and public officials are citizens, have a right to know who’s pulling the strings behind well-financed groups seeking to influence public policy. We know who’s contributing to public officials’ campaigns. Among other things, it would be good to see the overlap in those lists of names.
Decades ago, here’s the reputations that the Policy Council had, as expressed by someone who worked with the state Chamber: It was the tool of a bunch of very rich guys who had made their pile and had zero interest in policies that might build our state’s economy so that others might also have a chance at good futures. So they wanted to tear down the very idea of government trying to improve education, incent growth, etc.
In fairness, I think the Policy Council has evolved somewhat since then. But I have no idea how much without having a better idea of who is underwriting it.
Sorry, but the distinction you point to doesn’t impress me. If you’re one of the state’s loudest voices touting transparency — and the council is, and good for them — you do not look good insisting on a lack of transparency for yourself.
This is why I wrote for the Brookings Insitution about how dangerous the decline of newpapers is for accountability in government. We have groups like the Policy Council filling part of the vacuum left by shrinking papers. But you always knew who was backing newspapers — it was the advertisers you saw every day. Thank God advertisers had no say on editorial policy, but if you thought they did, you know who they were.
We have no idea who’s paying for the Policy Council’s version of investigative journalism. And with an organization with no established tradition of editorial independence, that’s a big problem…
Now that he SC Supreme Court has ruled the succession once Haley steps down, how long before Leatherman resigns, the Senate votes someone else as Pro Tem, that person gets elevated to Lt. Governor, the Senate then votes Leatherman back into the Pro Tem seat? A technique that has been used twice in the past 2-3 years. Once you step down, there should be a rule or law stating that you can’t regain that seat for at minimum 2 years. Just another form of corruption in the State House.
Explain please what is “corrupt” about that. If a majority want him to be president pro tem, if he has the votes, he should be president pro tem.
This gag provision — like some crazy trapdoor that opens beneath a contestant for no reason on some absurd reality TV show — shouldn’t be allowed to override the will of the Senate as to who they want to be pro tem.
Seriously, make the case for why a person elected by the voters to the Senate, and then elected by fellow senators to be president pro tem, should — because of actions by other people that he had nothing to do with — suddenly be demoted to an unrelated office that neither the voters nor senators intended for him to hold.
It makes zero sense. And if there’s a legal way around it, and he has the votes to take that route, he should…
Let’s not pretend to ignore the obvious motivation why Leatherman wants to stay in the Senate — for his own personal benefit, not some altruistic sense of service to the people who elected him. He needs to keep his hands on the purse strings.
Yep, because that’s the only reason anybody ever runs for office, right?
They may run for an altruistic reason but eventually most of them can’t keep their hands off other people’s money. How many names do you want me list? The percentage of known corrupt politicians is far higher than you’ll find in the general public. Why is that?
Because the standards we have for rectitude in public officials are higher.
We expect, and have a right to expect, accountability from public officials. And we demand that things be done in the open, so we can see when they fall short. And being human, they frequently do.
Most dealings of private businesses are private, and we hear only about the most egregious wrongdoing that causes them to get caught against the odds.
A public official dips into the till to lavishly decorate his office, and we hear about it. A private CEO does that, and at most a couple of members of his board might grumble about it, privately…
Yep, I acknowledge that there’s always been that problem, that conflict, with Leatherman. (With him personally as a public official — not with the idea that a person who holds the office of pro tem should not be forced arbitrarily to become lieutenant governor. Which is my point.)
But consider this if you will: the problem with Leatherman arises from his being a private businessman.
Ironic, huh? If he were an actual career politician who had never met a payroll — that creature that most folks who extol the superiority of the private sector utterly despise — there’d be no problem…
“Because the standards we have for rectitude in public officials are higher.”
Seriously? The standards we have are the same: Don’t steal money. Your decorating example is a poor one — first, because there is no law against it and second because the CEO as the boss has the right to do whatever he wants and face the consequences from shareholders, board. A lavish decorating budget won’t result in jail time.
Anyway, we’re not talking about decorating offices. We’re talking about steering hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars to personal businesses. Or taking campaign donations that were intended for one purpose and using them for personal benefit.
It’s no different than embezzlement. When people do that in the private sector, they are arrested.
How many managers have you worked with who were stealing money? Not fudging expense reports.. stealing large sums of money. It just doesn’t happen as often or as easily in the private sector.
And my point, again, is that you don’t know of a bunch of people in the private sector who got caught with their fingers in pie because they don’t get caught as often.
Because what they do isn’t in the open as much. Public business is more in the open, because we expect it to be in the open, as we should…
“But consider this if you will: the problem with Leatherman arises from his being a private businessman.”
Huh? Whatever problem is due to personal ethics, not his background in business. A didn’t cause B.
What’s troublesome is that you are so bought into your perception of government as good that you can equate redecorating an office with funneling millions of tax dollars to a personal business.
Um, no. I wasn’t equating anything to anything. I was just offering an example of the difference between public and private…
Odds are it’s why Leatherman has stayed in so long.
After having first hand dealings with Leatherman when he was heavily involved in contracts/construction, I cannot disagree with Doug on this one. Odd that the man who owned one of the largest pre-cast concrete companies in South Carolina ended up being the chairman of the contract review board and if a bid was protested and if the state engineer ruled in favor of the contractor who was successful and if the chairman’s friend was the loser, if an appeal was filed, the case then went before Leatherman’s committee for another review. I know of one instance when Leatherman told the respective side’s attorneys and the board he couldn’t vote but he would still chair the appeal and “guide” the committee on the fine points of the rules. Surprise, surprise, the contractor and his sponsor won the appeal, later overturned by a higher SC court ruling. What was not brought out at the time was the fact that the sponsor was a long time friend and supporter of Leatherman’s political aspirations. Prior to the appeal when Leatherman was still a Democrat, he ran for governor. The sponsor held a political rally for Leatherman in Horry County. Conflict of interest? Nah, not Leatherman.
Now he is listed as president of Leacon, Inc. and is worth over $2 million. But, Leacon, Inc. office is his home address along with Hugh Leatherman, LLC. Want to learn a little more? Follow this link: http://www.thenerve.org/leatherman-owns-millions-discloses-nothing/
Leatherman could care less about who is going after other members of the house, he only cares about finding out who is going after him. This is in light of the recent election when an effort was made to unseat him. He had to actually advertise and campaign for a change.
Ethics be damned unless they benefit Leatherman and then he is all for them.
Thank you, Bart. There is enough anecdotal data about Leatherman’s business dealings with the state to be reasonably sure his political office has been very beneficial to him financially.
But then I believe Brad also thought Bobby Harrell was a good guy a couple years ago as well.
You are more than welcome.
Footnote: The final disposition of the anecdote is that the original successful contractor had to give a credit back for the money they saved by obeying the procurement code as it was meant to be, not as interpreted by the attorney representing the sponsor and other contractor. The attorney for the sponsor was also the attorney for the SC Subcontractors Association and Leatherman’s precast concrete company was an active member of SC Subcontractors Association. Why? Because his precast company was classified as a subcontractor for almost all of the projects they were able to secure.
One observer of the review hearing noticed that the sponsor, losing contractor, and all of the members of the review board were very tight and one of the other contractor’s officers was a neighbor of a board member.
The observer told the winning contractor after the review board hearing that they were going to lose and needed to be prepared to move to a higher court to appeal. He was basically laughed at because the jackass VP of the winning contractor thought he was 10 feet tall and bullet proof. Ended up costing the winning contractor close to $35k in legal fees, etc. In today’s currency, it would amount to at least $100k or more. The observer paid attention to what was going on but the attorney and VP for the winning contractor never paid attention to the incestuous relationship between the review board members, the sponsor, the losing contractor, their attorney, and all of their close ties to Leatherman.
Clarification: The losing contractor had already accepted the decision of the state engineer who was an honorable and just individual. But, the sponsor was a subcontractor/supplier and couldn’t legally file a protest or appeal to the review board. So the sponsor went to the losing contractor, offered to pay all expenses, legal and otherwise if the losing contractor would file an appeal. So, draw your own conclusion. Sponsor held a political rally/event for Leatherman when he was a Democrat and running for governor of SC. Then, the sponsor convinced the losing contractor to accept his offer and file an appeal before the review board. And who was the chairman of the review board with his own attorneys and staff? Hugh Leatherman. Conflict of interest? Nah, not Leatherman. Not the man wanting an ethics law passed so he can find out who is contributing money to have him defeated.
Erskine Caldwell couldn’t have written a better novel about “good ol boy” politics in South Carolina.
Okay, borderline unethical… legal but unethical, just as when McConnell did it a couple years ago. The law should have been changed then. When you take the position, you know the deal if the Governor or Lt. Governor leave office.
While we are discussing commuting Bradley’s sentence, consider the other move Obama made that flew under the radar for a while. Obama released FALN terrorist Oscar Lopez-Rivera who is still unrepentant for acts of terrorism and murder in the United States in the 70s.
Most won’t remember how in 1975 this man and his terrorist gang bombed a restaurant in New York killing four people. In all, he and his gang committed 135 acts of terror in the United States. If you are not familiar with the man, he is a staunch separatist for Puerto Rico from the United States. Go on the internet and check him out just to verify for yourself that he is a true terrorist, not a freedom fighter or an insurgent. He is just like Obama’s good friend, Bill Ayers, an unrepentant murderer. The difference is that Ayers got off due to a legal procedure but Lopez-Rivera wasn’t as fortunate and didn’t have family millions to buy the best legal defense possible.
Once again, our out-going president (don’t let the door hit you in the ass on the way out) has poked the people of this country in the other eye as a parting gesture. This is actually worse than commuting Bradley’s sentence. What message is Obama sending us? A go to hell message, loud and clear. And it is very likely more is to come before Trump is sworn in on Friday.
Obama is a chameleon and hides his nasty side very well. I read his books, watched his campaign speeches, watched his DNC convention address in 2004, and come away with many conclusions but the one that stands out is that he is an angry, petty little man who holds a grudge and never lets it go. At this point, as much as I dislike Trump and Clinton, either one is preferable for me over Obama. At least Clinton and Trump seem to care about and love our country.
I am glad he is exiting the White House. Hopefully the stench of his far leftist ideology, redefining terrorists to downgrade their dangerous acts of murder to something akin to a “domestic crime” and his dislike for America can be successfully fumigated and removed from the White House.
It takes a lot for me to really get angry. I can get upset and respond but after this, it is anger. And all of you who see him as an intellectual, pragmatist, and all of the other elitist descriptions you can conjure up, take him, he is yours. And no, my anger and dislike has nothing to do with the color of his skin, it is the color of his heart and mind, black as the bottom of a 500 foot deep abyss. And if you can continue to support him in letting this killer out, then you need to re-examine who you are deep inside. This was not a release due to compassion, it was a KMA to America.
Bart, I started to reply, but it got so involved I’m going to turn it into a separate post…
And… I lost the whole thing when I got distracted while copying and pasting.
So it might be awhile…
Brad, this is a bit long, but i thought it is one of best post election political analysis (not just president, but overall political) I’ve seen. Especially interesting is section on gerrymandering. At your leisure, and possibly another thread.
http://www.nbcnews.com/specials/democrats-left-in-the-lurch
I’ll try to find time to look at it.
I’ve been meaning to write about a Twitter exchange I had recently with a guy who wrote a new book about the cost of gerrymandering.
I very much appreciated that the president mentioned the problem yesterday in his last press conference. Now, if only the people who will still be in office after tomorrow would care enough to do something about this cancer on our body politic…
For those attending the innauguration, be on the lookout for trouble.
http://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/351853/Screenshot-2017-01-19-11-58-32-128932.JPG