Political Misconduct Quotes

Our aim is not to do away with corporations; on the contrary, these big aggregations are an inevitable development of modern industrialism, and the effort to destroy them would be futile unless accomplished in ways that would work the utmost mischief to the entire body politic. We can do nothing of good in the way of regulating and supervising these corporations until we fix clearly in our minds that we are not attacking the corporations, but endeavoring to do away with any evil in them. We are not hostile to them; we are merely determined that they shall be so handled as to subserve the public good. We draw the line against misconduct, not against wealth.

In most communities it is illegal to cry "fire" in a crowded assembly. Should it not be considered serious international misconduct to manufacture a general war scare in an effort to achieve local political aims?

Now, are those engaged in the business of governing any different by nature from those they govern?" "Yes. They're prideful and tend to sexual misconduct. Also, the situation of being in government tends to drive you mad." "But are they more virtuous or more intelligent? Or more compassionate?" "Ha!" "Let's call that one a 'no.

The long-simmering anger at racism and economic injustice of alienated black youth in the ghettoes was erupting into violent and destructive urban insurrections. In every case these “riots” were triggered by police brutality or misconduct, most usually the killing or brutalizing of an unarmed black man.

A well-constituted court for the trial of impeachments is an object not more to be desired than difficult to be obtained in a government wholly elective. The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.

Nevertheless, it frustrated him that after this exhaustive investigation his opponents still rehashed the stale charges of misconduct. He had learned a lesson about propaganda in politics and mused wearily that “no character, however upright, is a match for constantly reiterated attacks, however false.” If a charge was made often enough, people assumed in the end “that a person so often accused cannot be entirely innocent.

Harvard Law School professor Jannie Suk writes about how hard it is to teach rape law in an era of trigger warnings. She explains how women's organizations now 'routinely advise students that they should not feel pressured to attend or participate in class sessions that focus on the law of sexual violence, and which might therefore be traumatic' as they might "trigger" traumatic memories'. She describes the way many students appear to equate 'the risk . . . of traumatic injury' incurred while discussing sexual misconduct as 'analogous to sexual assault itself'. As a consequence, more and more teachers of criminal law are not including rape law in their courses: 'it's not worth the risk of complaints of discomfort by students' and they fear being accused of inflicting 'emotional injuries' in classroom conversation.

Don’t be one of those so-called leaders who take the Black vote for granted,” a supporter told me. I was sensitive to the criticism, for it wasn’t entirely wrong. A lot of Democratic politicians did take Black voters for granted—at least since 1968, when Richard Nixon had determined that a politics of white racial resentment was the surest path to Republican victory, and thereby left Black voters with nowhere else to go. It was not only white Democrats who made this calculation. There wasn’t a Black elected official who relied on white votes to stay in office who wasn’t aware of what Axe, Plouffe, and Gibbs were at least implicitly warning against—that too much focus on civil rights, police misconduct, or other issues considered specific to Black people risked triggering suspicion, if not a backlash, from the broader electorate. You might decide to speak up anyway, as a matter of conscience, but you understood there’d be a price—that Blacks could practice the standard special-interest politics of farmers, gun enthusiasts, or other ethnic groups only at their own peril.

people can most plausibly be accused of witchcraft if they are: female or/and also: accused of sexual misconduct, as defined by their time and place; poor, either averagely or absolutely; an indigenous person, perceived to be in conflict with a colonial regime; disabled, vulnerable, or unwell; claiming unsanctioned knowledge or power, especially religious or medical; perceived to be politically subversive.

First, while the church shouldn’t affirm homosexual activity (or adultery, idolatry, or greed, for that matter), it should welcome anyone—gays included—to discover who God is and to find his forgiveness.5 Lots of people wear WWJD (What Would Jesus Do?) bracelets and T-shirts, but they don’t treat homosexuals as Jesus would. He wouldn’t react in fear or avoid them; he would welcome them, sit with them, and tell them of God’s deep interest in them. Many churches treat homosexuals as modern-day lepers—as outcasts; but Jesus came to heal, help, and set all people free to live for God. Surely churches can welcome gays without condoning their lifestyle—just as they can receive adulterers and alcoholics. As my pastor, Bill Stepp, regularly says, “God accepts you the way you are, but he loves you too much to leave you as you are.” It’s strange that professing Christians single out homosexual activity as the most wicked of sins. Often those who claim to be saved by God’s grace are amazingly judgmental, hateful, and demeaning (calling homosexual persons “fairies” or “faggots”) rather than being compassionate and embracing. Professing Christians are often harder on homosexuals outside the church than they are with the immorality within the church (cf. 1 Cor. 5:9–13). New Testament scholar Bruce Winter writes with a prophetic voice, “The ease with which the present day church often passes judgment on the ethical or structural misconduct of the outside community is at times matched only by its reluctance to take action to remedy the ethical conduct of its own members.”6 Second, the Bible doesn’t condemn homosexual inclinations, but rather sexual activity outside of a marriage relationship between husband and wife. In fact, no writers of antiquity, including biblical ones, had any idea of “sexual orientation”; they talked about sexual behavior. When the Scriptures speak against immoral sexual relationships, the focus is not on inclinations or feelings (whether homosexual or heterosexual).7 Rather, the focus is on acting out those impulses (which ranges from inappropriately dwelling on sexual thoughts—lusting—to carrying them out sexually). Even though we are born with a sinful, self-centered inclination, God judges us based on what we do.8 Similarly, a person may, for whatever reasons, have same-sex inclinations, but God won’t judge him on the basis of those inclinations, but on what he does with them. A common argument made by advocates of a gay lifestyle is that the Bible doesn’t condemn loving, committed same-sex relationships (“covenant homosexuality”)—just homosexual rape or going against one’s natural sexual inclination, whether hetero- or homosexual. Now, “the Bible doesn’t say anything about ——” or “Jesus never said anything about ——” arguments can be tricky and even misleading. The Bible doesn’t speak about abortion, euthanasia, political involvement, Christians fighting in the military, and the like. Jesus, as far as we know, never said anything about rape or child abuse. Nevertheless, we can get guidance from Scripture’s more basic affirmations about our roles as God’s image-bearers, about God’s creation design, and about our identity and redemption in Christ, as we’ll see below.

PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT IN UNITED STATES V. STEVENS AND “THE HAMMER” USED TO OVERRIDE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE’S VOTE

and listened to one of Michael Connelly’s Harry Bosch crime novels. Bosch was an LAPD detective who, over a thirty-year career that spanned about as many books, solved one major murder after another and yet his bosses still doubted his skill and integrity, regularly undermined his work, and repeatedly investigated him for misconduct. It frustrated her even more than it did him. His problem, she thought, was that he didn’t know how to play politics.

The Cover-Ups By now, most discerning conservative Americans know that anyone who is a part of the Deep-State Cabal receives the protection of the men and women within their inner-circle. A prime example is Hillary Clinton. Much of what she did with her personal servers and e-mails broke federal laws. She placed a personal server in her closet that held several classified e-mails that, by law, were only to be on a government-protected classified server. She then erased tens of thousands of e-mails to prevent them from being downloaded by investigators. She had her computer hard drive wiped clean to prevent professionals from finding what she had written, and she destroyed phones. She broke election laws by contacting a foreign government and paying for fake information to trap Trump. There are also questionable donations for the Clinton Foundation from world leaders to perhaps gain political favors. Despite all of this, why was she protected and never charged for criminal misconduct?

In recent years, widely reported allegations of judicial misconduct have revealed the extent to which the integrity and impartiality of the higher judiciary has been compromised in our country. These disclosures of suspected venality in some judges of the higher courts have shattered the ineffable image of the judiciary as a vigilant and ultimate protector of the values of a free society governed by law. This grave damage to the judiciary’s image has been caused by none other than some Indian judges, courtesy their tendency to hover around the seats of political power.

The effect of persistent, pervasive corporate misconduct is to promote public distrust of power-holders in general. From Superpower’s vantage point public cynicism, far from being deplorable, is one more element contributing to political demoralization and languor.

during Senator Steven’s trial. “The 500-page report by investigator Henry F. Schuelke III shook the legal community, as law professors described it as a milestone in the history of prosecutorial misconduct,” NPR reported.

The central institution of feudalism is the fief. The fief is the beneficium become hereditary with the personal bond added or accentuated. Grants of land, which at first had been made for life only, were presently made for two or three lives, and finally became hereditary. The heir, however, has to pay a relief to the lord as a token of the latter’s ultimate ownership of the land. And should there be no heir, the fief cannot be alienated – that is, willed, or given, or sold – to an outsider; it must escheat or revert to the lord who granted it in the first place. Also by misconduct the holder of the fief may forfeit his right to it, whereupon the lord takes it away from him – if he can. In general feudal inheritance tended toward primogeniture, that the fief should not be split up among several children or heirs, but that the oldest son should inherit it entire. In England this became the rule; in feudal France it was observed with exceptions, and these mainly in the case of small fiefs of little political importance; in Germany the inclination was to divide the fief among all the sons.