Feeds:
Posts
Comments

From listening to a bit of FBI Director James Comey’s testimony before the House Oversight Committee, it isn’t really hard to grasp what was behind the Federal B.I.’s no-prosecution recommendation in the case of Hillary Clinton. Here is the Bureau’s thinking in a nutshell: even though the Espionage Act sets forth gross negligence as the required mental state for a violation, the feds can’t prosecute everyone, so they have reserved prosecutions for specific-intent cases. If the Director’s summary of the FBI’s historic practice is correct, then the no-prosecution recommendation in Clinton’s case is consistent with that. Fair play.

What I don’t get are Comey’s repeated, totally gratuitous, and absurd general statements about the criminal law: that crimes generally require specific intent rather than negligence; even that criminal statutes requiring only negligence may be constitutionally infirm on that ground. If that were so, a lot of people currently serving time for involuntary manslaughter would be amazed.

Nor do I get the Director’s waffling on the question of whether Clinton violated the law. The answer to that question, assuming that Comey’s characterization of Clinton’s information-handling as “extremely careless” is accurate, would clearly be “yes.”

If I were making Comey’s case, I would ask and answer four simple questions:

Q1: Did Clinton violate the law?

A: Yes. The law requires gross negligence in handling information; she was grossly negligent.

Q2: Can federal prosecutors prosecute every violation of the law?

A: No.

Q3: In light of that, how have federal prosecutors decided whom to prosecute?

A: By looking at whether the evidence further shows intent to violate the law, intent to cover up a violation, or intent to give confidential information to enemies.

Q4: Did Clinton violate the law in a manner that shows such intent?

A: No.

Therefore, Clinton violated the law, but the FBI’s no-prosecution recommendation is consistent with the FBI’s and the Justice Department’s treatment of other persons who violated the law’s gross negligence standard. The kinds of violations Clinton committed have customarily been handled, not by criminal prosecution, but administratively within agencies.

Was that so hard?

“Is national grieving still possible?” Russell Moore asked yesterday, for good reason. The Orlando shootings have unmasked a sad reality which, if it continues to spread, doesn’t bode well for the United States going forward: that for many Americans, exploiting the angles of cultural identity politics is more important than expressing common humanity and compassion (e.g., by offered prayers, cries of lament, calls for aid). Not a few words of unqualified, unreserved grief and kindness have been met with something like: “Until you support legislation/programme X, your expressions of grief aren’t worth a single molecule of spit from your vile mouth.”

Also unsettling: several important facts from Orlando — like what the killer’s precise motives and associations were — are only just now being established with something like solid precision. But in many quarters the commentary, spin, and blame cycles ran faster than the investigative and reporting cycles. Instead of digging up and beholding the stubborn facts in all their terror and sordidness — and complexity — the priority of the day was to transform just outrage at a profoundly evil act into hatred against Group X.

Such responses haven’t, thank God, been universal or even predominant. But they have been common. Far too common. Where the expression of human grief and the practical alleviation of human pain are less weighty matters than which Reichstag Fire Narrative wins, there is a disease in the public mind. If you have been smacked down by Bizarro Nation for expressions of grief and sympathy, even for organizing or participating in relief efforts, do not be discouraged. Carry on. You are the sane ones.

That said, since it is imperative that our love “abound yet more and more in knowledge and in all judgment,” none of us ought be obtuse about the following realities:

(1) The fifty persons who have died, and the one-hundred and three who were shot, were shot at a gay nightclub. The killer targeted his victims because they are gay. Therefore, while constructive responses to this act of terrorism must be general and national, not factional, it will not do to blind ourselves to the fact that all persons and communities which identify as LGBT, and friends and family of LGBT persons, are and for some time will be suffering from particularly acute grief for their loved ones and fear for their safety. Note that, respect it, and act accordingly;

(2) The murderer-terrorist in Orlando was a Muslim. Therefore, it will likewise not do to blind ourselves to the fact that Muslims and Muslim communities in the United States are and for some time will be uniquely subject to, and suffering from elevated fear of, backlash. Note that, respect it, and act accordingly;

(3) Whenever terrorists strike, two opposite errors will appear to tempt us: first, “the killer was a totally unique monster, an unhinged lone wolf”; second, “the killer is the true face of Bogeyman Group X which, given half the chance, stands ready to mobilize an army of people to go and do likewise.” Note both errors well, note that they are in fact errors, and avoid them.

May the recently departed rest in peace. Grace and peace to those whose homes and communities have been and will be particularly affected by this evil.

Christ, have mercy upon us.

Blessed are the casino owners, for theirs is the kingdom of money.

Blessed are those who boast, for they shall have Total Recognition.

Blessed are the egomaniacs, for they shall inherit the front page headlines.

Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for controversy, for they will have carcasses on which to gorge themselves.

Blessed are the vindictive, for they shall scratch out vindication.

Blessed are the outrageous, for they shall be seen as inscrutable.

Blessed are those who denigrate the competition, for they shall make the Deal.

Blessed are those who are written about, for theirs is the kingdom of money.

Blessed are you when you have a young, beautiful piece of a**, for it won’t really matter what they write about you.

I cannot say I’m surprised we’re not doing the French non-Mistake. Still, I find the collapse of Bill Kristol’s first independent-candidate trial balloon a little depressing, for the reasons Mr. Noah Rothman states eloquently in this article.

Which means back to the drawing board for conservative #NeverTrump movers and shakers, and a longer wait for a good candidate for many of the rest of us conservative voters, who are hoping for a reasonable alternative to swallowing either of the presumptive major-party nominees as a “lesser” evil.

Meanwhile, some discontented conservative Christians (by which I mean people, mostly Catholics and Evangelicals, who would regard the Apostles’ Creed as true and the Bible as inspired even where its ethics plainly conflict with the ethics of the contemporary secular world, including but not limited to the ethics of the Sexual Revolution), convinced that stopping the Donald must be regarded as priority no. 1 in the 2016 election, have started floating the possibility of voting Clinton, and even asking Evangelical leaders to spend their credibility in telling their congregations that it’s okay to vote Hillary.

To these I would urge patience and caution, and a more realistic appraisal of the evils a Clinton administration would represent. There are the general evils of a Clinton administration — like the fact that its head would be corrupt — but for small-o orthodox Christian voters, Clinton’s presidency would present the following, more specific, evils:

(1) If Ms. Clinton gets to pick one or more Supreme Court justices (and appoint many lower federal judges) it’s pretty certain that Elane Photography v. Willock will be written into federal Equal Protection jurisprudence, and cases like Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores and Rosenberger v. Univ. of Virginia overruled, at soonest opportunity. Moreover, as hinted by Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli in his oral argument in Obergefell v. Hodges (see pp. 36-39), under a Clinton administration and with Clinton appointees as federal judges, it’s quite possible that many evangelical and Catholic institutions which hold to Scriptural and historic Christian norms on sex (the kind we are and the kind we do) will be Bob Jones-ed. And given the tenure of federal judges, the judiciary could continue delivering such results for decades after the end of a Clinton term of office. In other words: goodbye to any meaningful Free Exercise, RFRA, Free Speech, and Free Association protections for the “hater” class; hello to the de facto Establishment of liberal theology and religious tests for office (read: no Evangelicals, conservative Catholics, or Orthodox Christians need apply — unless they’re prepared to remain closeted and perform all official acts like good secular liberals).

(2) A President Clinton would almost certainly enjoy the protection and support of the Democratic Party, its Governors, and its Representatives and Senators. She’d also be propped up by much of the mainstream media. A President Trump, by contrast, would not only face vigorous opposition from the opposition party and media, but also considerable suspicion within his own party. (I regard most of the Trump endorsements now coming from the GOP as pro forma fulfilments of Party loyalty pledges.) And as unsettling as it is that Trump has smashed so many (to borrow David Frum’s excellent term) protective guardrails of American democracy, it wouldn’t surprise me if many even among Trump’s now-devoted supporters end up withdrawing their support after his election. It’s easy to arouse popular anger and energy by cheap (and often inconsistent) signaling on the campaign trail. But when someone has to govern, the all-things-to-all-men signaling has to stop and tough choices have to be made. In that reality, I think a good many grassroots Trump supporters would quickly become disillusioned and fall away — bad seed as well as good withers quickly in the rocky ground.

(3) When the popular support dries up and the opposition and suspicion do not, Trump would no longer have the means to pound further upon the guardrails of American politics — except perhaps via his use of the presidential bully pulpit. And here I’ll make a concession: a President Trump’s use of the bully pulpit would almost certainly prove damaging. Perhaps more damaging than a President Clinton’s. Certainly it would prove damaging in less predictable ways. We can be pretty sure that Clinton’s national preaching, like her policies, would embolden abortion-rights absolutists and illiberal Social Justice Warriors, neither of which needs further emboldening right now. Trump’s pulpit rhetoric would . . . well, who knows? Inflame racial hatred? Teach boys to objectify women? Provoke foreign powers? Alienate allies? Forge unholy alliances with authoritarian leaders like Vladimir Putin? No one can say with much certainty, but the candidate’s own lips regularly make the darkest speculations entirely plausible.

This likely abuse of the bully pulpit, however, I regard only as a good reason not to vote for Trump. It still isn’t a good reason for conservative Christians to throw their support to Clinton. So don’t be impatient. We may not have a French Revolution, but other help could be on the way — if not to win, at least to lead a serious and noble opposition we can support in good conscience.

The voice of Eric Peters, wonder that it is, works in many settings. He often tours with acoustic guitars only, which sounds folk-y — and his voice has a warm softness that makes it work that way. But when he goes to the top of his tenor range and then further up into his pellucid falsetto, it’s not hard to imagine him as the frontman for some stadium rock band.
What a delight, then, to hear Eric’s Far Side of the Sea — and be amazed that the singer’s voice also has a thoughtful restraint that sounds entirely natural in new wave and synthpop.
 photo-original
The album hasn’t released yet, but rest assured that you’ll want to own it when it does.

Continue Reading »

He needs no defense

This is the message we have heard from him and proclaim to you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.

The New Testament is full of sentences that are the gospel in shorthand. I have always found this one from John (1 S John 1:5) the most striking. Not only because it directly confronts the heart of both open unbelief and Christian crankiness and fear — the suspicion that God has a sadistic and miserly side — but because this message really does run through all of Jesus’s conversation. The way of life and renovation of the heart prescribed in the gospels are amazingly difficult. And yet very often Jesus’s portrait of his happy, lavishly generous Father might make one forget the difficulty: “It is your Father’s good pleasure to give you the kingdom.”

When the world slanders Jesus, or remakes him after one of its own patterns, the Christian’s impulse is often to defend his elder brother, to “set the record straight.” Commendable impulse, but wrong: the “Christ’s defender” ethos is misleading. He needs no defense, unless it be the defense of our example — that we delight in listening to our Elder Brother and learning of him.

SJWs and spousal abuse

Corporate and structural evil is indeed something insidious, its very corporate-ness a convenient cover for everyone complicit to avoid personal responsibility.

Consider, for example, the modes of discourse commonly practiced by Social Justice Warriors (SJWs). They change definitions of key terms every fifteen minutes so no one is ever sure where they stand. They shout down any opposition and then demand the unqualified right to speak freely — regarding neither common courtesy nor reasonable time, place and manner restrictions. They use their own dignitary injuries as offensive weapons. Of their “targets” they demand self-loathing for vaguely defined offenses, or for the offenses of ancestors, and give only half-rewards to most of the contrite. That the contrite aren’t entirely clear about what they did wrong, you see, means they aren’t actually contrite enough; perhaps they’ll be more fully rewarded when they grovel more convincingly.

If a husband interacted with his wife that way, we’d call it spousal abuse.