Beyond the Cusp

May 6, 2018

Ends and Means and Which Justifies Which

 

There are many phrases about this subject such as, “The ends do not justify the means,” and other variations on the subject. The real problem is that government agencies often conduct their business as if the ends justify their means. There actually is a logical reason for why their operations appear as such. The government agencies are handed ends and told to write regulations to achieve what the Congressional legislation defined, thus the bureaucrats are charged to build the means to achieve defined ends. This means that their job description is to make means which are justified by the ends where the ends are the Congressional legislative work which is often vague and filled with generalizations and often touchy-feely terminology which only half defines the intended ends; they often lack conclusions and only provide broad suggestions. Then such sketchy definitions of what the Congress actually may have desired is left for the bureaucrats to determine the final ends which they believe the Congress actually desired. As is often the case, many different agencies and committees within each agency are given the legislation and told to work on a section and flesh out the Congressional intentions as best as they are able to interpret and make their work also fit well with the entirety of the legislation. This is why the government bureaucracy is often accused, rightfully, of using the ends to justify their means or writing regulations in order to attempt and fulfill their interpretation of the meaning of Congressional legislation which has been signed into law. This also has led to the definition of these agencies and their bureaucracy as being the “Deep State” and now being portrayed as the monster fighting against President Trump and his preferred ends.

 

Perhaps this would be a good time to try to define “Deep State” and what makes up this entity and how it came into being and other items which might be helpful. The first thing which needs to be told is under which party’s leadership the “Deep State” was predominantly established. This is easy to determine simply by looking at the history of the last century. During that time, there have been definitive prerogatives which applied to the two parties. The Republicans have mostly enlarged the military while cutting back on the rest of the government often using hiring freezes for all but the military and some of the research and development which would often include NASA, an area of government which has rarely ever received more than one percent of the total budget while being tasked with some of the most taxing and exacting demands. The Democrats have often worked at building support functions such as welfare, Social Security, social spending and placing taxes and regulations on industry to play to their particular special interests such as ecological lobby, workers’ rights and similar items. Probably the best means would be to quote from the Democrat Party 2016 Platform where we find the following; Workers Share in Near-Record Corporate Profits, Reining in Wall Street and Fixing our Financial System, Making the Wealthy Pay Their Fair Share of Taxes, Ending Systemic Racism, Guaranteeing Every Minority or Special Interest’s Rights, Protecting Voting Rights, Securing Environmental and Climate Justice, Making Debt-Free College a Reality, Guaranteeing Universal Preschool, Securing Universal Health Care, Securing Reproductive Health, Rights, and Justice, Preventing Gun Violence, Support Global Economy and Institutions and lastly Strengthening Management of Federal Government. Needless to say, for fairness we will also link to the Republican Party 2016 Platform. They are equally incriminating, especially when proving a point.

 

Back to our discussion, the Democrats more often are the party which hires the largest numbers of new government workers, especially in and around Washington D.C. This has led to the government agencies being predominantly liberal bordering on leftist. These are the people who make up the bureaucracy and who slowly have worked their way higher and higher to the point where they are now responsible for all of the hiring and they hire people of like minds. Unfortunately, nepotism is not exactly discouraged in reality though it is against most departmental hiring policy, but when your child is seeking a job, what could give them better job security than a job which after successful completion of a year in service you become almost unfireable. This is what faces each administration which wished to cut the size of the government, the only method is to freeze hiring. On the other side, monitoring the regulatory jungle from growing one is pretty much on their own. Trump has issued an Executive Order that for every new regulation an agency issues, they must retire two regulations. Still, there are so many regulations, some which have been found to be completely opposing one another. There are regulations which should have been repealed ages ago and with so many regulations, almost everybody has crossed the line of some regulation before noon providing you left the house. The reality is the government agencies are set up to operate filling in the means which result, if we are fortunate, producing the ends the Congress passed and the President signed into law.

 

Now we can look at some recent actions which have been in the News, actually has been the focus of the news almost to the point of obsession. The question we should be asking is whether the people assigned to enforce the laws have been using means to justify the proposed ends or using the means to lead to non-preconceived ends. Justice is supposed to be taking the evidence and seeing where it leads and not determining where the evidence is desired to lead and then fitting the evidence to reach that end. The Mueller investigation is exactly the opposite of what an investigation is supposed to be. As far as all appearances, the Mueller investigation has been set on the campaign and anything else necessary to find an impeachable offence which can be leveled at President Trump. He was to initially look into potential Russian collusion with the Trump campaign. The investigation is presumably heading towards its conclusion. The one major item left is the presumed discussion between Mueller and President Trump, providing President Trump proves foolish enough to provide Mueller with such a present.

 

Mueller Shooting Questions at President Trump

Mueller Shooting Questions at President Trump

 

United States District Judge T.S. Ellis III has been charged to preside over the special counsel’s criminal case against Paul Manafort. Friday, Judge Ellis accused the Mueller team of “lying” about the scope of its investigation; something which has been a bone of contention chewed on by many a commentator. He asked for a copy of the unredacted “scope memo” penned by Rod Rosenstein, something a far cry from what was provided Congress. From here, we can only go into conjecture also not having an unredacted version of the memo. By everything we have witnessed, Rod Rosenstein, the Undersecretary of Justice and number two man in the Justice Department, pretty much gave Mueller a free hunting certificate to go wherever was required to nail President Trump to the wall with impeachment as the trophy. He used this to take the evidence piled up, often illegally, by researched by James Comey, Andrew McCabe and, believe it or not, Robert Mueller. Much of what the Mueller probe has been targeting has been at President Trump’s friends and campaign personnel and apparently specifically targeting two people to get dirt on President Trump. The initial work was actually performed under President Obama with the FBI using the Russian dossier on Donald Trump produced by Christopher Steele through intermediaries for the Hillary Clinton campaign to receive a FISA warrant to wiretap Carter Page. This led to their finding reason to bring preliminary charges against him which they used to parlay into his turning evidence against Paul Manafort. This brought charges against Paul Manafort for purposes totally unrelated to the Russian collusion investigation and for something performed years before he was even part of the Trump campaign. This was hoped to have him turn over again President Trump but he decided that he would prefer to go down rather than provide what he would probably classify as lies in order to snare the President.

 

All of these moves have been the ends justify the means. The entirety of this investigation has smelled of throwing out the rules and just going for the prize at the end of the road. The charges they brought against Manafort resulted equally from the testimony of Page and investigations into Manafort by Mueller when he was President Obama’s FBI Director. Now he got to finish what he started as the Special Prosecutor with all the advantages of secrecy and the ability to bring charges which probably would never have gotten past a knowledgeable Grand Jury or passed a normal legal sniff test. These were the nature of the trap he set and pegged Manafort with while receiving an assist from Page in order to escape the trap he was caught in resulting from an illegally procured FISA warrant. There are so many ends justifying the means in this train all in an effort to initially injure candidate Trump in order to assist the Hillary campaign and after the election to everything changed to removing President Trump in order to save the nation. If they were really successful, they might even get the entire election thrown out as having been interfered with by the Russians and give Hillary and the Democrats a second chance in a special election. These people have been watching far too many Hollywood movies.

 

The interesting thing will be the coming Manafort trial with United States District Judge T.S. Ellis III presiding. He has initially shown a good deal of skepticism with his demand for an unredacted copy of the Undersecretary of Justice Rod Rosenstein “scope memo” which gave the extreme and apparently unlimited latitude which the investigation has taken. We might call the coming trial as deciding in this day and age, even when the reasons are presumably so obviously important to the safety of the nation and ensuring the perceived person deserving to be elected wins or otherwise gets a do-over, do such ends justify the means which have been gone to. Should the decision be that Manaford’s indictment was politically motivated and came from evidence which was beyond the scope of the investigation and thus inadmissible, then we will reach another question, will anybody high enough in this entire brouhaha actually be called to answer for all the illegal attacking of President Trump and his friends and campaign personnel? How high will the responsibilities be taken, Comey? Rosenstein? McCabe? Mueller? Hillary? Or even President Obama? Why would we include President Obama? Mainly because these investigations began under his watch and with former FBI Director Mueller and continued through his replacement, former FBI Director Comey, which would imply that Comey was instructed to continue Mueller’s initial investigation. We believe that once people rise to a certain level, they become virtually unsusceptible to legal indictment provided they quietly retire.

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

Blog at WordPress.com.