Tag: DOJ

Posted on

what keeps us from lying?

Too many times we turn off the news in disbelief and disgust.  Sometimes it’s ugly; there’s too much wickedness and wrongdoing in the world, as — save for one ’80’s pop song — most of us realize that heaven is not a place on Earth.

 

One of the more frequent motives for current head shaking is all the lies — or perhaps better said — all the potential lies.  The deceit.  The cover up.  The shifting of blame.  It’s almost robotic that when a person is accused of wrongdoing, they immediately claim responsibility rests elsewhere…

 

He did it.  She did it.  I wasn’t in charge then.  It’s his fault.  Who, me?  I’m a victim…

 

Not only is responsibility immediately deflected, most add an instant reason why another is actually to blame…

 

He doesn’t like me.  She’s out to get me.  He’s too young.  She doesn’t know any better.  They love persecuting Christians.  Bigots, that’s what they are…

 

… like the chairwoman of Louisiana’s Democratic Party, who said last week that much of the opposition to Obamacare is due to the color of Pres. Obama’s skin.  Please.  The Intramuralist read the legislation when proposed.  There is much to be concerned about (i.e. rising premiums, government overreach, care decisions based on cost — such as for the elderly and overweight…), but the concern has nothing to do with anyone’s skin color.  Ah, but lest I digress…

 

My point is that regardless of politics or personally awkward scenarios, there exists a huge potential for deceit.  As we watch the disturbing scandals unfold, for example, within the IRS and Justice Dept., the challenge is that we can’t tell who and when someone is telling the truth.  Friends, don’t let me infer that I believe all individuals are lying; the problem is that we can’t tell if they are.

 

And so we ask:  what keeps a person from lying?  Really.  What keeps us from being deceitful?  What stops us from sharing a little white lie or even a huge fib?  What within us stops us from shifting that blame elsewhere?  … or from just declaring “I don’t remember”? (… the current, least-damaging deceit method — because if we can’t remember, we can’t possibly tell the truth.)

 

Seriously, though, what stops us from lying?

 

It isn’t intelligence.  There is no moral compass automatically associated with intellectual brilliance.  James Frey, author of the autobiographical “A Million Little Pieces,” seemed highly intelligent when he appeared on “Oprah.”  Granted, it was fairly humbling when he had to admit that many of the events in his quite profitable bestseller were intentionally fabricated.

 

What keeps us from lying?

 

A position of power?  No.  The 37th President of the United States, one Richard M. Nixon, put that reason to rest.  Does the lie depend on topic?  Many claimed President #42’s lies under oath were acceptable because “everybody lies about sex.”  Did Pres. Bush lie about weapons of mass destruction?  Did Pres. Obama lie about Benghazi?

 

If we instead suggest that people refrain from lying because of that inner moral compass, I’m not certain that theory holds true either, as a close examination of society quickly depicts morality as increasingly relative.  Many of what was once considered wicked or wrong now seems actually accepted as good and pure and wise.  Friends, don’t misquote me; I am not suggesting that discrimination or disrespect was ever appropriately “considered wicked or wrong.”  My perception is that morality has become so relative that it’s logical to conclude that “to lie or not to lie” will also become a negative manifestation.

 

People lie.  People always have the potential to lie.  Even good people.  Unless we adopt a timeless teaching of truth that doesn’t sway with the winds of society, the potential for each of us to lie will only continue to increase.

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

not shocked

Perhaps what causes the public to most pause, recognizing again our shocking chagrin surrounding government, is when politics trump wisdom and integrity.  I remember my shock some 12 years ago — that ironically yet sadly — remains relevant now…

 

One of the more private, opportune acts taken by presidents of all persuasions is to pardon persons as the Chief Executive exits his term.  A pardon is the complete forgiveness of the crime and the cancellation of any penalty; it cannot be reversed.  Therefore, the effect of such act is that it’s as if the crime never occurred.

 

On Jan. 20, 2001 financier Marc Rich was pardoned by Pres. Bill Clinton.

 

From accounts shared years ago by Time Magazine, Wikipedia, and syndicated Washington Post columnist, Richard Cohen…

 

“Rich was a commodities trader who amassed both a fortune and some influential friends in the 1970s and ’80s.  Along with his partner, Pincus Green, he was indicted in 1983 on 65 counts of tax evasion and related matters.“

 

Rich was indicted in federal court of evading more than $48 million in taxes.  He was on the FBI’s Ten Most-Wanted Fugitives List.

 

“Before he could be prosecuted, however, he fled to Switzerland. There he remained, avoiding extradition and eventually arranging to be represented by Jack Quinn, a Washington lawyer and Clinton’s onetime White House counsel — in other words, a certified power broker.”

 

“Denise Rich, Marc’s ex-wife, had made several large donations to the U.S. Democratic Party and the Clinton Library during Clinton’s time in office.”

 

“Republicans and Democrats alike were dumbstruck by the Rich pardon.  The federal prosecutors who indicted Rich are especially livid, particularly because, by definition, Rich appears to be ineligible for a pardon:  He never took responsibility for his actions or served any sentence.”

 

“It was rare to pardon a fugitive — someone who had avoided possible conviction by avoiding the inconvenience of a trial.  The U.S. attorney’s office in New York — which… would oppose any pardon — was kept ignorant of what was going on.”

 

In the hours before leaving office, Clinton quietly pardoned Rich.  Clinton and Quinn actually bypassed the Justice Department’s pardon office — going instead to the Deputy Attorney General, asking for his opinion.  The Deputy AG replied, “Neutral, leaning towards favorable.”  And then, again in the words of the never-confused-to-be-a-conservative Cohen, “With a stroke of a pen, justice was not done.”

 

The Deputy Attorney General who authorized the pardon of an unrepentant fugitive was none other than current Attorney General, Eric Holder.

 

The Intramuralist — just like each of us — has a limited perspective.  I do not fully know the heart of another man, as such seems an ability of only the divine — not you nor me.  I do not know Eric Holder’s heart.  I do know here is the man who holds the highest law enforcement position in the land.  He is currently being swarmed and swamped by accusations of unethical behavior, directed with certainty at his department — and with increasing frequency, directed at Holder himself.  Targeting the press…  Targeting conservative groups…  Acting as if reporters were criminals.  Did he allow this?  Did he authorize such?  Is being unaware his only defense?

 

Holder was fully aware of Marc Rich and yet authorized his pardon.  Hence, while our chagrin may increase, we should sadly not be shocked.

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

a concerned citizen

Today the Intramuralist shares an interesting observation.  I’ve noticed something.  Put away your partisan hats.  Squelch any innate motive to passionately pounce.  Follow me here…

 

Each of us likes to claim we are honest and full of integrity.  Most of us believe we actually are honest and full of integrity.  But even the person who is not will still stake such a claim.  Sometimes they are aware they are not but they know the claim looks good/sounds good/is good.  Sometimes they are not aware.  And friends, intelligence has zero to do with the awareness of integrity.  As oft repeated amidst these posts, wisdom and intelligence are not synonyms.  I have a son who has Down syndrome, and while he may not score as high on some intelligence tests, he has incredible wisdom.  Wisdom is by far more important.

 

So I continue to wonder why administration after administration stakes the claim that they will be the most ethical… most transparent… and most responsible executors of government.  And I continue to wonder why administration after administration is not the most ethical… most transparent… and most responsible executors of government.  Again, no partisan pouncing; “administration after administration” includes all parties.

 

I am currently concerned about the extent of the Dept. of Justice and IRS scandals.

 

The DOJ privately sought affidavits — signed off on by Eric Holder, the Attorney General  — claiming they needed secret access into phone lines and computers, citing the potential criminal behavior of reporters.  The Associated Press, CBS, and FOX News each reportedly (thus far) were tapped; one reporter’s parents’ phone records were seized; the DOJ cited the reporter as a flight risk.  But there was no criminal suspicion; there was no probable cause; the DOJ unjustly scrutinized them — secretly.   The DOJ acted illegally even though they are supposed to be the administrator of justice in the land.  Questions:  who will be next?  Where else will the Dept. of Justice unjustly act?  Will we know?  Who in the administration knew?  This is alarming.

 

What concerns me as much — and what should unsettle every citizen — even though the DOJ activity is alarming  —  is the overreach of the IRS.

 

After the rise of the Tea Party in 2010, the IRS intentionally targeted conservative groups associated with either the party or 2012 election.  The tax-exempt status of those organizations was either delayed or denied.  Existing group status was upheld.

 

If you are no Tea Party fan, perhaps the overreach concerns you little.  Perhaps quietly somewhere in the back of your mind you’ve thought somebody should keep those rebel-rousing patriots in place.  Therein lies the problem… the fact that some thought it was ok… that our federal government secretly used their power to squelch the citizens’ influence… and the conclusion —  just like the Justice Dept. — that if it’s a conservative group this time, there will be a next time… and it may not be a group you dislike.

 

Back, no less, to what looks good/sounds good/is good…

 

There is no positive way to spin these scandals.  In regard to the IRS, we know that the IRS and White House have known about this scandal for some time.  We know that the two toyed deliberately with how to break this story to the public.  We don’t know exactly who knew what when, as the answers continue to be ambiguous.  The former IRS chief, Douglas Shulman, can’t tell us how it happened…  “I can’t say that I know.”  The acting IRS commissioner, Steven Miller, doesn’t remember who was responsible… “I don’t remember, to be honest with you.”  And Lois Lerner, the director of the IRS division that actually singled out the groups, pleaded the 5th Amendment before Congress yesterday.  She said she didn’t do anything wrong; but then again, she refused to testify.

 

These are seemingly intelligent people, friends — in both the IRS and DOJ — but from our limited perspective, they have not acted wisely.  Their actions continue to be disturbing.  They are not being ethical, transparent, nor responsible.

 

Hence, more questions:  what other motives are in play?  Who or what are they trying to protect?  Are they still claiming to be honest and full of integrity?  Or do they even realize they are not?  “NOT” is the key word.

 

Respectfully,

AR