Raising social involvement, self awareness and self improvement topics, because our communities are the sum of our personal beliefs, behaviors, action or inaction. Only "we" can improve our family, work place, school, city, country, etc.
Sunday, August 16, 2026
Blanche is so Not Good for USA
What sad state of affairs for Law and Order in the USA...
What stunned me yesterday was when Blanche said he couldn't dream of a situation where a president would ask him to do something illegal or unethical. There are many presidents I admire. There have been some presidents who are great men. But none of them have been without flaws. None of them, have not approached ethical lines, and I would say, none of them have not on occasion crossed them. Ethical issues are not always simple. The answers to the questions they raise are not always obvious. I think many of us in our lives have been faced with ethical choices for which we have sought advice. And that is certainly the case with legal issues. The image of President Trump, our new Attorney General tried to construct yesterday of an all seeing, all knowing, giant of ethical understanding simply does not correspond with any reasonable sort of reality. How could Blanche possibly expected anyone to buy into it? Why wasn't there open laughter in the studio?==Hiram
The president recently allowed a personal business of his to give prior notice of his tweets, which among other things could move markets to those who pay a rather large sum of money. Is it reasonable to say that such an arrangement involves no ethical issues? Can anyone reasonably assure us with anything approaching certainty that such an arrangement isn't a form of insider trading? Just after hearing about it, I and really pretty much everyone I talk to think that it was. I heard someone discussing it the other day. She pointed out that even if the president was not liable under securities laws for insider trading or something close to it, there we no assurances at all that those who purchased this info and trade on it couldn't be charged with insider trading. For me, this is an example of the unforeseen consequences of making the president exempt from criminal law. Just because, the president can't be charged with a crime doesn't mean those who deal with him can't be charged with a crime.If you were involved in a conspiracy which was possibly criminal, how would you feel if you knew for a fact that a guy you were conspiring with was exempt from prosecution but you weren't? Would that contribute to a healthy atmosphere of mutual trust?==Hiram
How will the country survive 2 more years of Trump. Dems winning one or both chambers of Congress should help, at least a little bit. He is way worse than what I imagined back in 2016.
Here is a question I have b:een asking in various forums: Attacki==ng fast boats in the Carribean which may or may not be carrying drugs raises legal issues for a president. Is it the attorney general's job to form an opinion on the legality of such actions and advise the president accordingly? Or is it the attorney general's duty to provide a legal rationalization for a decision that has already been made on other ground?==Hiram.
Another sort of related issue is what does an attorney do when a client doesn't take his advice. And of course here, who is the attorney general's client? The American people? Donald Trump? Someone else? But yes, I think in the ordinary course of things, if a client rejects his lawyer's advice, it is hard to see how the lawyer continues the relationship. If he doesn't listen to me, why should he pay me money? The lawyer might well ask.==Hiram
Here is an off topic question I have been tossing around so I thought I would raise it here. I have been thinking a lot about the "Greed is good", speech in the 1987 movie, "Wall Street". It contains within it a very concise view of markets and the role they play in capitalism. It's been 39 years since the movie came out, and that means there has been a lot of time to consider the arguments Douglas made, and to really ask how they turned out. Were his views right at the time? Did they prevail over time? What do we think of them now? In general, how did things turn out?==Hiram
What stunned me yesterday was when Blanche said he couldn't dream of a situation where a president would ask him to do something illegal or unethical. There are many presidents I admire. There have been some presidents who are great men. But none of them have been without flaws. None of them, have not approached ethical lines, and I would say, none of them have not on occasion crossed them. Ethical issues are not always simple. The answers to the questions they raise are not always obvious. I think many of us in our lives have been faced with ethical choices for which we have sought advice. And that is certainly the case with legal issues. The image of President Trump, our new Attorney General tried to construct yesterday of an all seeing, all knowing, giant of ethical understanding simply does not correspond with any reasonable sort of reality. How could Blanche possibly expected anyone to buy into it? Why wasn't there open laughter in the studio?==Hiram
ReplyDeleteI had very similar thoughts as I was listening to his responses to the questions.
ReplyDeleteThe president recently allowed a personal business of his to give prior notice of his tweets, which among other things could move markets to those who pay a rather large sum of money. Is it reasonable to say that such an arrangement involves no ethical issues? Can anyone reasonably assure us with anything approaching certainty that such an arrangement isn't a form of insider trading? Just after hearing about it, I and really pretty much everyone I talk to think that it was.
ReplyDeleteI heard someone discussing it the other day. She pointed out that even if the president was not liable under securities laws for insider trading or something close to it, there we no assurances at all that those who purchased this info and trade on it couldn't be charged with insider trading. For me, this is an example of the unforeseen consequences of making the president exempt from criminal law. Just because, the president can't be charged with a crime doesn't mean those who deal with him can't be charged with a crime.If you were involved in a conspiracy which was possibly criminal, how would you feel if you knew for a fact that a guy you were conspiring with was exempt from prosecution but you weren't? Would that contribute to a healthy atmosphere of mutual trust?==Hiram
Thank Heavens we are not totally reliant on the current DOJ or Congress to hold Trump accountable.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.politico.com/news/2026/08/12/trump-intercept-truth-social-lawsuit-01035538
How will the country survive 2 more years of Trump. Dems winning one or both chambers of Congress should help, at least a little bit. He is way worse than what I imagined back in 2016.
ReplyDeleteLaurie
Here is a question I have b:een asking in various forums: Attacki==ng fast boats in the Carribean which may or may not be carrying drugs raises legal issues for a president. Is it the attorney general's job to form an opinion on the legality of such actions and advise the president accordingly? Or is it the attorney general's duty to provide a legal rationalization for a decision that has already been made on other ground?==Hiram.
ReplyDeleteLaurie, I agree...
ReplyDeleteHiram, It should be the prior... Unfortunately, lately it seems to be the latter. :-(
Another sort of related issue is what does an attorney do when a client doesn't take his advice. And of course here, who is the attorney general's client? The American people? Donald Trump? Someone else?
ReplyDeleteBut yes, I think in the ordinary course of things, if a client rejects his lawyer's advice, it is hard to see how the lawyer continues the relationship. If he doesn't listen to me, why should he pay me money? The lawyer might well ask.==Hiram
Here is an off topic question I have been tossing around so I thought I would raise it here.
ReplyDeleteI have been thinking a lot about the "Greed is good", speech in the 1987 movie, "Wall Street". It contains within it a very concise view of markets and the role they play in capitalism. It's been 39 years since the movie came out, and that means there has been a lot of time to consider the arguments Douglas made, and to really ask how they turned out. Were his views right at the time? Did they prevail over time? What do we think of them now? In general, how did things turn out?==Hiram