Common Sense: Justice delayed

Major media is reporting that two federal agency inspectors general have requested referrals to the Justice Department for Hillary Clinton’s use of unsecure servers for official e-mails. Apparently, the requests for review go back a bit. The Justice Department says it is reviewing them. Others would say it is sitting on them. Regardless, this is the first official confirmation that elements of the federal government believe the Mrs. Clinton may have broken the law.

It’s worth noting that other high-level government officials involved in national security issues have been fired from their jobs and even prosecuted for simply taking a laptop with classified information home to work. There cannot be a double standard, with Mrs. Clinton — due to her fame and aspirations — being held to one standard and everyone else held to a different standard.

The Justice Department needs either to move forward with the inspector general referrals or explain why it has decided not to proceed.  It would not be good to have this potential criminal issue unresolved during the presidential campaign.

*                  *             *

It would seem to me that U.S. Senator Charles Schumer has received more than enough feedback from New Yorkers to know that the president’s sign-off on behalf of the United States on the UN nuclear agreement with Iran is widely and passionately opposed. This should help the usually talkative senator finally say something definitive on this issue.

Obviously, he does not have to take the same position held by countless constituents. That is his right. Nevertheless, I think it is worth noting that the deal is widely opposed by a broad philosophical and political as well as ethnic spectrum of the New York electorate. This, to some degree, parallels the unusual Middle East dynamic in which Israel and many Arab nations have also expressed strong opposition to the agreement.

*                  *            *

It will be interesting to see how quickly the fast food industry can move towards automation at check-out. It already pretty much can, if desired, set up cafeteria-style pick-up. Clearly, the $15 minimum wage will speed this process up.

And from a consumer perspective, we should be supportive of this effort. Why would anyone want to pay more for a fast food meal (which is marketed as being affordable), if to keep prices down all the franchise has to do is modernize its operation?

I suspect very few of McDonald’s or Burger King’s customers believe that they have a moral responsibility to pay more so the new 25 and 30 percent pay raises can be covered. In today’s world, ATMs and E-ZPass have eliminated many jobs. Now we can add the $15 minimal wage for fast food workers to the list.

*            *            *

I do not care for Donald Trump. I think his bombastic style has further degraded a presidential race that has already become less about policy and more about shock politics. This, however, should not take away from the fact that Trump and his family have had a very positive relationship with the City of New York and its citizens for many decades. That is why I find Mayor de Blasio’s comments that the city will make an effort to reduce its business with Trump deplorable.

Trump has pumped billions into the city in terms of investments, which in turn have and continue to create and maintain literally tens of thousands of jobs. These are jobs that contribute to the economy. These are people who pay taxes. And for that Trump deserves his share of credit.

And, in other instances, the Trump Organization has successfully bid on city contracts.  It followed law, apparently provided the best quality product for the least cost and appears after many years of doing business with the city to be generally free of controversy.

The mayor may not like what Trump has to say as a presidential candidate, but that does not give him the right to penalize him and, in effect, city residents by attempting to damage his business.

As I said, I am no fan of Trump, but I am less of a fan of a public official attempting to penalize a businessman for exercising his right of free speech.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.