Senator Chuck Schumer Confirms SCOTUS Ruling by His Dissent

For John, BLUF:  Senator Schumer and his clique, blow hot and cold on the Federal Judiciary, including the US Supreme Court.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Schumer:  ‘Disgraceful’ Trump immunity decision will ‘weaken’ democracy

From The Hill, by Reporter Alexander Bolton, 1 Jult 2024, 12:43 PM ET.

Here is the lede plus three:

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) slammed the Supreme Court’s “disgraceful” decision Monday to shield former President Trump’s official acts from prosecution, which will delay his trial on Jan. 6-related charges.

Schumer warned the 6-3 decision “enables the former President to weaken our democracy by breaking the law.”

“This is a sad day for America and a sad day for our democracy. The very basis of our judicial system is that no one is above the law. Treason or incitement of insurrection should not be considered a core constitutional power afforded to a president,” he said.

Schumer also warned that the Supreme Court has undermined its credibility, echoing the criticisms of other Senate Democrats who have accused conservative justices on the court of becoming partisan players.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumr (D-NY) has a history of opposing rulings of the US Supreme Court, even threatennig Justices..

I use Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer as a sort of bellweather.  If he is against it, it must be good.

I wonder if Senator Schumer has even read the US Supreme Court decision, TRUMP v. UNITED STATES, which is 111 pages, with dissents.  The decision itself, written by Chief Justice John Robers, is 43 pages.

Probably not.  Too much work.

Regards  —  Cliff

6 January 2021

For John, BLUF:  Democrats seem to have long memories, but an inability to understand that some are less locked in on the events of 6 January and its long term impact on our Democracy.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Wow, Democrats Lost the Capitol Riot Narrative Big Time

From PJ Media, by Writer Matt Margo,is, 6 January 2025, 6:14 PM.

Here is the lede plus one:

In the four years since the Capitol riot, Democrats have tried incessently to turn it into a national tragedy akin to 9/11 and/or the Pearl Harbor attack. With the goal of preventing Trump from being able to seek the presidency again, they even called it an insurrection (it wasn’t) and accused Trump of inciting it (he didn’t).

There efforts failed, and Trump was reelected on November 5, becoming the first Republican presidential candidate to win the national popular vote since George W. Bush. Oh what a sweet victory it was. On Monday, Trump’s victory over Kamala Harris was certified, and once again, Democrats proved they just can’t let their phony baloney narrative go.

The article comtains numbers showing how attitudes have shifted on the events of 6 January 2021.  One paragraph that stood out was this.

A deeper dive reveals an even more striking reality.  In January 2021, 48 percent of voters blamed Trump for the Capitol riot.  By December 2023, that number had fallen to just 37 percent.  Fewer Americans blamed Trump, fewer thought it made him ineligible to lead, and, perhaps most tellingly, far fewer cared enough to remember it.  When asked about their biggest memory of Trump’s first term, only 5 percent of Americans pointed to January 6.  Among Republicans, it was a meager 2 percent.

Politico reported that today the US Department of Justice announced it is considering more prosecutions with regard to the events of 6 January 2021.

Federal prosecutors are weighing charging as many as 200 more people for their involvement in the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol — including 60 suspected of assaulting or impeding police officers during the riot that nearly derailed the transfer of power from Donald Trump to Joe Biden.

I expect it is to the advantage of Republicans that leading Democrats, such as Senator Chuck Schumer, remain fixated on the events of four years ago.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

6 Jan Issues Again Surface

For John, BLUF:  Some wish to make 6 january into a terrible tragedy and a threat to our way of Governmnent.  I am not sure they are convincing.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Liz Cheney, Jan. 6 Committee suppressed key evidence of Trump pushing for 10,000 National Guard troops to protect Capitol: Report

From Blaze Media, by Reporter Paul Sacca, 10 March 2024.

Here is the lede plus six:

Former Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) and the January 6 Committee suppressed key evidence that former President Donald Trump pushed for 10,000 National Guard troops to protect the U.S. Capitol building ahead of the riots, according to a report.

Cheney and the Democratic-led House Select Committee on January 6 contended that there was "no evidence" to support Trump officials' claims the White House had pressed for 10,000 National Guard troops ahead of the protests in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 6, 2021.

However, a transcribed interview conducted by the committee from January 2022 appears to show evidence that Trump urged Democrat leadership to bring in thousands of National Guard troops to prevent any widespread violence on Jan. 6, according to a new report from The Federalist.

Then-Deputy Chief of Staff Anthony Ornato was interviewed by the committee on Jan. 28, 2022.  The transcripts show that he told Cheney and other investigators that he overheard White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows urge Democrat D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser to request as many National Guard troops as she needed to protect the city before the demonstrations centered around the results of the 2020 presidential election.

By signing up, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, and agree to receive content that may sometimes include advertisements.  You may opt out at any time. Ornato testified that Meadows "wanted to know if she need[ed] any more guardsmen."

"And I remember the number 10,000 coming up of, you know, 'The president wants to make sure that you have enough.'  You know, 'He is willing to ask for 10,000.'  I remember that number," Ornato told the January 6 Committee.  "Now that you said it, it reminded me of it.  And that she was all set.  She had, I think it was like 350 or so for intersection control, and those types of things not in the law enforcement capacity at the time."

Mollie Ziegler Hemingway wrote, "Not only did the committee not accurately characterize the interview, they suppressed the transcript from public review.  On top of that, committee allies began publishing critical stories and even conspiracy theories about Ornato ahead of follow-up interviews with him.  Ornato was a career Secret Service official who had been detailed to the security position in the White House."

President Biden's State of the Union characterization of our political ssituation is dire:

Not since President Lincoln and the Civil War have freedom and democracy been under assault here at home as they are today.

Do we believe that, aside from the persecution of Donald Trump by a form of Lawfare,♠ that our political system is in trouble?  I am not so sure.  How does it compare to the Palmer Raids or the 47,000 who showed up for the Bonus March?  What about the shoot-up of the House of Representatives, wounding four Congressmen, back on 1 March 1954, just over 70 years ago?

A for the 6 January 2021 event itself, there is too much hand waving to satisfy me.  For example, the murder of Ashley Babbitt.  The pipe bombs.  The Capitol Police waving in visitors.  The failure to release hours of video.  The fact that arrests in the wake of of 6 January are increasing today, rather than decreasing.♥ However, there are certain time limits.  U.S. Attorney for D.C. Matt Graves says the statutes of limitations for many of the charges used by prosecutors will expire on 5 January 2026 – "on the eve of the riot's five-year anniversary."

If then Speaker Nancy Pelosi has not appeared to stack the Special Committee I would be more trusting of the cohnclusions.  As it is, it appears tainted and that is on Ms Pelosi.

Regards  —  Cliff
♠  The thing most glaring to me is the way DoJ has passed over Preside4nbt Biden's mishandling of classified information from when he was a Senator and Vice president, but prosecution of President Trump for like offenses, from when Mr Trump was President, when he had vastly greater powers.  while some don't see it, it screams at me. ♥  Is this some form of political intimidation?

The End Game for Mr Hur

For John, BLUF:  DOJ Special Prosecuter Robert K Hur concluded that the Federal Government should not prosecute President Joe Biden for the mishandling of classified information.  He did it in a way to protect Special Prosecutor Jack Smith's case againt Donald J Trump for a similar activity.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

‘No, No, No, No, No’:  Rep. Byron Donalds, NBC Host Kristen Welker Clash Over Hur Report’s Conclusion

From The Daily Caller, by Reporter Hailey Gomez, 25 February 2024, 2:42 PM ET.

Here is the lede plus one:

Florida Republican Rep. Byron Donalds and NBC host Kristen Welker clashed Sunday over the conclusion from special counsel Robert Hur’s report which investigated President Biden’s handling of classified documents.

Donalds appeared on “Meet the Press” to discuss his support of former President Donald Trump for the upcoming general election.  During the interview, Welker questioned the congressman on a claim from Biden campaign co-chair Cedric Richmond calling a recent comment from Trump over his criminal charges “plain racist.”

My interest is further down, where Host Kristen Welker tried to say that Special Council Robert K Hur didn't have enough evidence:

“Hold on, I have to hit the pause button for one minute, Congressman, because the Hur report was very clear that there was not enough evidence to bring charges against President Biden and that ultimately there was not —,” Welker stated before Donalds cut in.

It would seem Ms Welker missed this sentence in Mr Hur's report:

Our investigation uncovered evidence that President Biden willfully retained and disclosed classified materials after his vice presidency when he was a private citizen.

That seems pretty straight forward.  As someone who has handled classified information I would take that as saying Mr Biden broke the rules.  If that sentence had been written about one of my Brothers i would recommend they hire a lawyer immnediately.  Handling classified information is serious business.

Perhaps Ms Welker was mislead by the first paragraph of Mr Hur's Report Executive Summary:

We conclude that no criminal charges are warranted in this matter.  We would reach the same conclusion even if Department of Justice policy did not foreclose criminal charges against a sitting president.

Yes, and the Report goes on:

However, for the reasons summarized below, we conclude that the evidence does not establish Mr. Biden's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Prosecution of Mr. Biden is also unwarranted based on our consideration of the aggravating and mitigating factors set forth in the Department of Justice's Principles of Federal Prosecution. For these reasons, we decline prosecution of Mr. Biden.

This is where the "diminished faculties and faulty memory" came in:

Mr. Biden's memory was significantly limited, both during his recorded interviews with the ghostwriter in 2017, and in his interview with our office in 2023.

The more expanded version is:

We have also considered that, at trial, Mr. Biden would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory,  Based on our direct interactions with and observations of him, he is someone for whom many jurors will want to identify reasonable doubt.  It would be difficult to convince a jury that they should convict him — by then a former president well into his eighties — of a serious felony that requires a mental state of willfulness.

I would suggesst that in order to prevent long term libility for the President, Mr Hur had to fuzz up the ability to obtain a guilty verdict.  If he did not, then his efforts to exonerate President Biden would then be turned against DoJ in terms of its efforts to prosecute President Trump.

I suggest that a conclusion was drawn that the easiest way to protect President Biden from prosecution, while not getting in the way of the prosecution of Mr Trump for similiar activites, was to suggest a jury would view Mr Biden sympathetically, due to his age and faulty memory.  He would remind them of a beloved Grandparent.

At the same time the President would need to be able to show his strength, so as to avoid removal from office under the Twenty-Fifth Amendment.  Or be removed from the Democratic Party 2024 ticket.

Meanwhile, the prosecution of Mr Trump could proceed.

It worked.  The report came out.  Mr Biden held a Press Conference where he did pretty well, showing himself fit to be President.  And, Mr Trump is still under indictment.

The down side is that this will increase the cynicism of a portion of our Citizens and lead to even more distrust of the Department of Justice.  If this group is merely from the Basket of Deplorables, then it may be an acceptable outcome for Democrats.

Regards  —  Cliff

Sloppy Work on the 6 January Events

For John, BLUF:  The events and outcomes from 6 January 2021 are still not clear to a lot of us.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Whatever happened to “independent journalist” John Sullivan, who filmed the killing of Ashli Babbitt?

From Neo, by Neo, September 21, 2023.♠

Here is the lede plus three:

In connection with yesterdays’ thread about a man claiming to be an “independent journalist” who has been convicted for the Capitol breach on J6, commenter “gallchobhair” has this question:

Does anyone happen to remember what ultimately happened to “journalist” John Sullivan, who gleefully filmed the Ashli Babbitt murder? If I recall correctly, he got off pretty much scot free.

I hadn’t thought of him in a long while, but he certainly got a lot of attention at the time. Most of the articles about him were written in the initial weeks after the event. But I found an update from this past August:

John Earl Sullivan, arrested in Salt Lake City, no date listed. Indicted on 2/3/21 and pleaded not guilty to six counts. Remains free on personal recognizance.

And then Neo goers on to talk about the situation.

Two things strike me abnout this.  The first is that our justice system is so inefficient that we are still conducting prosecutions against all these clearly dangerous and dasterdly people who demonstrated at our nation's Capitol on 6 January 2021, two and a half years ago.  It is a good thing for our Republic that they weren't an orgnized revolutionary body or they would have finished the job long ago.

The second thing that strikes me is the uneven way in which justice is being administered by the Department of Justice with regard to the totality of participants on 6 January 2021.  The level of punishment seems uneven to me

Then, there is the sense some of us have that the House Commission on the events of 6 January was weak and uneven, leaving a lot of questions unanswered, with misinformation filling in the gaps.  For exsmple, a friend of mine is convinced that National Guard Troops were available thaz day, but never called upon.  I, on the other hand, believe thst National Guard Troops were offerred, but rejected by the authorities on Capitol Hill.  Both views can not be correct, can they?

I think this is a fail for Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi, but also a fail for Attorney General Merrick Garland.  We will just have to wait for the revisionist historians to get around to revealing the truth.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  Who is Neo?  Just another Conservative living near here and surrounded by Progresives.

Hunter's Indictment

For John, BLUF:  The indictment of Mr Hunter Biden didn't make sense at the time.  This helps clear it up a little.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

The Hunter Biden Indictments Are a Ruse.  Here’s Why.

From PJ Media, by Reporter Matt Margolis, 15 September 2023, 11:04 AM.

Here is the lede plus three:

It’s a true reflection of the sad state of our justice system that we have to be suspicious of anything it does.  When we first learned that Hunter Biden would likely be indicted, I was skeptical and felt that even if Special Counsel David Weiss did indict him, it would be a ruse.  Still, when the indictments came down on Thursday, it was hard not to feel somewhat elated—but that suspicion still nags at me.

Seriously, does anyone believe that Hunter Biden will actually face any jail time?  Would Weiss, one of the architects of Hunter’s ridiculous plea deal, actually put Hunter Biden behind bars? I don’t.  But in the meantime, many think it is a possibility.

According to Mike Davis, a former law clerk for Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch, we shouldn’t be fooled by these indictments, and he explains why.

“Don’t be fooled,” he began in a lengthy post on X/Twitter. “Today’s indictment of Hunter Biden for gun felonies is just more coverup by Delaware U.S. Attorney David Weiss, who has protected the Bidens for years.”

And then Mr Davis explains in some detail.

It appears to me the Democratic Party Establishment does not want President Biden to run in 2024. To avoid a messy fight at their Convention, 19-22 August 2024, Mr Biden needs to step down before the Primaries get serious.  For that to happen, Mr Hunter Biden needs to be in a safe harbor.  That task falls to DoJ and Special Counsel David Weiss.

The other loose end is Ms Kamala Harris.  If she isn't going to slide in as the Democratic Party nominee someone will have to talk to her, or force her out as Vice President.♠

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  à la Spiro T Agnew.

Special Counsel Appointed

For John, BLUF:  The larger issue here is the future of President Biden and how the Democratic Party nomenclatura will jump.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

AG Merrick Garland appoints a special counsel in Hunter Biden probe

From NBC News, by Reporters Daniel Barnes and Kelly O'Donnell and Monica Alba and Ali Vitali and Dareh Gregorian and Ryan J. Reilly, 11 August 2023.

Here is the lede plus two:

U.S. Attorney David Weiss was appointed special counsel in the ongoing probe of the president's son Hunter Biden, Attorney General Merrick Garland announced Friday.

Weiss will be responsible for the “ongoing investigation" of President Joe Biden's son "as well as for any other matters that arose or may arise from that investigation," the Justice Department said in a statement.  Weiss, who was already overseeing the Hunter Biden probe and is based in Delaware, asked to be appointed special counsel on Tuesday and Garland agreed it was "in the public interest" to do so, the attorney general said.

The move was announced shortly before prosecutors from Weiss's team revealed in a court filing the plea talks over tax and gun charges against the president's son had broken down and the case would likely have to go to trial in California or Washington, D.C.  Later Friday, prosecutors suggested they could bring different charges against Hunter Biden in the new case.

The first issue is that the regulation calls for a Special Counsel to be appointed from outside the Government.  (28 CFR § 600.3 - Qualifications of the Special Counsel)  Clearly, Mr David Weiss is not from outside the Government.  Perhaps we will get a leak from DoJ, explaining the rationale.

For me the second issue is that this complicates President Biden's decision making.  I had been hoping that a plea deal between Mr Hunter Biden and DoJ might create space for President Biden to step down, citing "health concerns".  That space is gone.  Now what?

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Mr Trump's Path

For John, BLUF:  Is Mr Donald Trump's presence in the 2024 Presidential race going to distort the outcome?  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

If Donald Trump Were An Ethical, Responsible Public Servant And Wanted To Do What Was In The Best Interests Of His Nation…

From Ethics Alarms, by John Marshall, 28 July 2023.

Here is the lede plus two:

…he would announce that he was withdrawing from the Presidential race immediately, because the prosecutions he faces, just or unjust, will be a destructive distraction from the election as well as an impediment to him serving as President if he were nominated and elected.

And if I were an aardvark, I could save money on groceries by eating ants and termites.

Trump won’t do this, of course (that is, drop out, not eat ants and termites), but it is the only ethical alternative. A lawyer facing a single serious indictment would step away from his or her law firm. An ethical judge would resign. A doctor facing indictments would take a leave of absence. A general facing such legal jeopardy would retire. The United States cannot have a Presidential candidate laboring under the shadow of multiple criminal prosecutions any more than it can afford to have a mentally declining President who serves as a puppet for aspiring totalitarians. Trump continuing his candidacy increases the likelihood of both.

Mr Marshall makes a good point.  But, Mr Trump is unlikely to step away.

As Mr Marshall points out:  "His entire career has been built on a foundation of stubbornness, resilience and a refusal to admit defeat:  quitting his quest for redemption goes against his core."  This persistence is who Mr Donald J Trump is.

All of that said, I do not believe Mr Trump is acting, in his own mind, in an unpatriotic manner.  His line, "They aren't after me.  They are after you, and I am just in the way."  He sees himself doing his duty, and is being opposed by the Deep State.

Regards  —  Cliff

Prosecutorial Misconduct

For John, BLUF:  The Department of Justice is working hard to convict Presidential Candidate Donsald J Trump of somesthing.  Maybe too hard.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

If Alleged DOJ Misconduct Is True, A Judge Could Dismiss The Whole Case Against Trump

Here is the sub-headline:

The conduct claimed is perhaps unprecedented and certainly flagrant.  If proven true, the judge would be well within her rights to consider dismissal.

From The Federalist, by Former Federal Prosecutor Will Scharf, 5 July 2023.

Here is the lede plus two:

Lost in the breathless headlines over the indictment of President Trump for alleged violations of the Espionage Act is a story that deserves much more attention than it has received thus far: the allegation that a senior official at the Department of Justice attempted to shake down Trump’s co-defendant’s lawyer.  It is a scandal in the making that could result in the investigation of senior DOJ officials, which should lead to public congressional hearings, and that might even result in the entire case against Trump being dismissed.

Trump’s co-defendant is Waltine “Walt” Nauta, a Navy valet who served in Trump’s White House and who remained a personal aide to Trump after he left office.  Several weeks ago, Nauta’s lawyer, a distinguished, highly-regarded Washington attorney named Stanley Woodward, leveled accusations against senior members of the Department of Justice, including DOJ Counterintelligence Chief Jay Bratt, who is now a part of Special Counsel Jack Smith’s team of prosecutors.  According to news reports, Woodward claimed in a sealed letter to D.C. District Chief Judge James Boasberg that, in a meeting to discuss Nauta’s case, Bratt indicated that Woodward’s application to be a D.C. Superior Court judge could be impacted if he could not get Nauta to testify against Trump.

If true, and I see no reason why Woodward would make such a threat up — and especially no reason why Woodward would risk his career by making such a representation to a federal judge — Bratt’s alleged misconduct could result in heavy sanctions, and is a potential ground for dismissal of the entire case against Nauta and Trump.  Depending on what exactly was said, Bratt could even face criminal prosecution himself.

Presidential Candidate Donald J Trump has a lot of flaws.  I am reading about some of them in Commander in Cheat, a 2020 book mailed to me by my buddy, Juan.  However, it is up to the Voters to decide if Mr Trump's flaws are greater than those of his opponent.  In 2016 they said no.  In 2020 they said yes.

Comparing candidates is the job of the Voters  It is not the job of the US Department of Justice.  We went through that with Saint James Comey, who took it upon himself to save the nation and the world.  We, the Voters, do not need that kind of help.  If Mr Trump broke some law, fine, go after him.  However, let us have no DOJ intervention to "save" the nation (or President Joe Biden).

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Missing the Message

For John, BLUF:  It seems the Democrats can't read the Republican base and the Republicans return the favor.  And the unenrolled?  Where do they fall?  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Jill Biden:  It's "a little shocking" that some Republicans still support Trump after indictment

From Hot Air, by Reporter Karen Townsend, 13 June 2023, 7:31 PM.

Here is the lede plus one:

Her husband is trying not to talk about Trump’s indictments but Jill Biden is yammering away. She has officially begun her role as fundraiser for Joe Biden’s re-election campaign and will be touring the country.

She’s starting out on the Upper East Side of Manhattan, which seems appropriate now that the Democrat Party is the party of the wealthy and elites. Speaking to a small group of Democrat donors in an apartment, she said she was surprised to see a headline before her flight landed that said a majority of Republicans still plan to vote for Trump, even as he prepared to appear in a court in Miami on Tuesday.

“They don’t care about the indictment. So that’s a little shocking, I think,” she said.

Jill told the donors that the 2024 presidential election presents a choice – a choice between the “strong, steady leadership” of her husband or the “chaos and corruption, hatred and division” of “MAGA Republicans.” WOW! I sure hope she continues with that line of attack because it’s a beauty. The matriarch of the Biden crime family is calling the former president corrupt. As if that isn’t tone-deaf enough, she calls “MAGA Republicans” out for “hatred and division.” Are you kidding me?

Law Professor Glenn Reynolds says:  "If anything, the reverse."

An ABC/Ipsos Poll shows:

Independents are more divided, with 45% believing he should have been charged, a third saying he should not have been, and 22% saying they don't know.

I think Mr Trump is polling pretty well.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

President Trump v DOJ

For John, BLUF:  It is time to stop the use of the law to get at one's political opponents, particularly in the case of presidential elections.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Donald Trump pleads not guilty to classified documents charges

From CNN, by Reporters Tierney Sneed, Hannah Rabinowitz, Jeremy Herb, Holmes Lybrand and Katelyn Polantz, Updated 13 June 2023, 4:38 PM EDT.

Anyone following the news knows that Former President Donald Trump showed up in Court today to plead Not Guilty to Charges brouoght by the US Department of Justice (Indictment Here).  This is so embarrassing.  We are becoming a banana republic.

I would like to see someone put an end to this use of the legal system to attack former Presidents, and people running for President.  I don't think President Biden is in a position to do that.  He has backed himself into a corner.  However, President Trump is in a position to set, or reset, the standard.

I would like to see President Trump make a public statement along the following lines:

Recent events involving the Department of Justice and myself could be reason to react in a bitter manner.  I am innocent.  But, it has happened, even though it should not have.

However, the presidency is a small fraternity.  Today, of all the Presidents, only six are living, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, George W Bush, Barack Obama, myself and Joe Biden.  We have unique experiences, and have carried heavy burdens, burdens others cannot imagine.

When I am again inaugurated President, in 2025, I will not be legally going after any members of our fraternity, including President Biden.  There is nothing to be gained by settling political scores by creating legal cases against former Presidents.  We are brothers, and some day brothers and sisters, and we should protect each other.  While it is good for us, much more important, it is good for our Nation.

Set a good standard, Mr President.

Regards  —  Cliff

2020 Election Campaign Reexmined

For John, BLUF:  It is not possible to go back and say what would have happened if information had come to light before an election, but it should make us careful to ensure such information manipulation is reduced in the future, which falls on the Press and other media.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Kash Patel wants to know about the role of Wray and Barr in the FBI and DOJ liaison with Twitter

From The New Neo, by Herself, 14 December 2022.

Mr Kash Patel asks sojme questions. Here is the lede, a tweet:

The Dirty Truth (Josh)
@AKA_RealDirty

#KashPatel: The only way there would be this level of engagement from the FBI/DOJ with Twitter is if Bill Barr and Christopher Wray personally authorized it. If @elonmusk doesn’t release, everything subpoenas need to go out because nothing is ever deleted at the FBI.

Further down she writes:

I would guess that Wray and Barr would say the briefings were to warn about “Russian disinformation” that might affect the 2020 election. But weekly face-to-face meetings? Seems like a lot more must have discussed than that.

What are the legal ramifications of what happened between Twitter and the government actors, whomever they were? Philip Hamburger writes about it in the WSJ (I can’t read the whole thing because of the paywall, but Instapundit has a hefty excerpt):

Cooperation between government officials and private parties to suppress speech could be considered a criminal conspiracy to violate civil rights. The current administration won’t entertain such a theory, but a future one might.

The fundmentl question for the Voters is if the 2020 Election was perverted by forces inside our Federal Government.

As far back as August of this year The New York Post headlined:  "79% say ‘truthful’ coverage of Hunter Biden’s laptop would have changed 2020 election".

And, one wonders how the political science professors in academia are looking at this?  Are their Progrewsive views at war with any insights that President Trump would have won if a cabal had not suppressed the truth about the Hunter Biden Laptop?  I don't believe the likes of Speaker Nsncy Pelosi give a fig for clean and fair process, but it could come back to bite them if other parties adopt the same approach to elections.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Getting Trump

For John, BLUF:  Our politics appears to be becoming more and more partisan.  Is there a way we could pause?  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Special prosecutor won’t be Mueller sequel

Here is the sub-headline:

From The [Lowell] Sun, by Noah Feldman, 26 November 2022.

Here is the lede plus three:

To no one’s surprise, Attorney General Merrick Garland has appointed a special prosecutor, Jack Smith, to investigate former President Donald Trump. You might think that you’ve seen this movie before. But there’s little reason to think this will be a repeat of the Robert Mueller investigation that declined to bring charges against Trump. Charges are more likely this time around — though that doesn’t guarantee they will stick.

Remember how worried we were about whether special counsel Mueller would be fired? And remember how then-Attorney General William Barr subverted Mueller’s report by misrepresenting its contents in advance of its release?

Garland is no Barr. He will respect the special counsel’s independence. It would be almost impossible for him to insist on prosecution if Smith judged it inappropriate. And it would be astonishing if he blocked charges that Smith wanted to bring. Either method of contravening the special prosecutor would politicize the prosecution decision. Garland’s whole emphasis at the Department of Justice has been to restore the department to its traditional (and desirable) status as nonpartisan.

Smith is by all accounts a straight shooter, free of partisan bias. He won’t be afraid to charge Trump with federal crimes if the evidence supports it. That’s bad news for Trump. Especially because, with respect to the classified documents Trump took from the White House to Mar-a-Lago, it already seems clear there is enough evidence for criminal charges.

The article is kind of disrespectful of former US Attorney General William Barr, while puffing up Attorney General Merrick Garland.

More interesting to me is how the author sees Special Council Jack Smith as "a straight shooter, free of partisaan bias."  Not everyone sees it that way.  Take Ms Mia Cathell, of Town Hall.  Her 25 November 2022 (11:00 AM) article, "There's Something Fishy About the Special Counsel Investigating Trump" brings up how Mr Smith went after Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell, esentially knocking him out of the 2016 GOP Presidential Primary Race.  The fact that the US Supreme Court reversed the conviction 9 to 0 doesn't erase the blot at the time, which disrupted our political process.  I would mark him down for this.

Then, there is Mr Smith's close association with the former IRS Official, Ms Lois Lerner.  Enough said.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Loss of Objectivity

For John, BLUF:  I am disappoointed in The New Yorker in its selection of "experts" to interview.  Apparently Diogenes was not available.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

What the F.B.I.’s Raid of Mar-a-Lago Could Mean for Trump

Here is the sub-headline:

A former federal prosecutor and general counsel for the F.B.I. explains the process and implications of obtaining a search warrant on the home of a former President.

From The New Yorker, by Staff Writer Isaac Chotiner, 9 August 2022.

Here is the lede plus one:

On Monday, F.B.I. agents searched the Florida home of former President Donald Trump, possibly commencing a new phase in the legal scrutiny that he has faced since leaving office.  According to the Times, the search concerned classified material that Trump removed from the White House and took to Mar-a-Lago.  What remains unclear is whether they found any information related to attempts by Trump and his allies to overturn the results of the 2020 Presidential election.

To understand what the search might signal, I spoke by phone with Andrew Weissmann, a former federal prosecutor and F.B.I. general counsel who worked on the Mueller investigation.  He is currently in private practice and a professor at N.Y.U. School of Law.  During our conversation, which has been edited for length and clarity, we discussed why Merrick Garland was almost certainly involved in the decision to order the search, what criteria the government uses for asking a judge for a warrant, and the quickening pace of the Department of Justice’s January 6th investigation.

I got to then mention of Mr Andrew Weissmann and stopped reading.  This is a fox guarding the hen house issue for me.  The article is totally discredited.

As for the raid, it was about the Dirty Dossier and Bureaucratic self-protection.

Where is Émile Zola when we neen him?

Regards  —  Cliff

Your Hurt vs My Republic

For John, BLUF:  What appears to be a Democratic Party sense of hurt feelings with regard to Donald Trump is playing out in DoJ investigations, actions that threaten the sense of one Republic amongst the politicians.  The sense that things are basically fair and one should wait for the next election.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

The FBI And DOJ Criminalizing Opposition To The Regime Is How The Republic Ends

Here is the sub-headline:

A two-tier justice system is not a justice system. It is a totalitarian system.  Its purpose is not justice but population control.

From The Federalist, by Ms Joy Pullmann, 8 August 2022.

Here is the lede plus four:

On Thursday, Barack Obama’s Attorney General Eric Holder decided it was the time to bring the subtext of the Jan. 6 show trials and related domestic security state activities into the open.

“My guess is that by the end of this process, you’re going to see indictments involving high-level people in the White House, you’re going to see indictments against people outside the White House who were advising them with regard to the attempt to steal the election, and I think ultimately you’re probably going to see the president, former president of the United States indicted as well,” Holder told SiriusXM host Joe Madison.

Holder noted that the U.S. Department of Justice he formerly headed is working with the illegally constituted Jan. 6 Commission towards this goal. We know these entities are also working with the FBI, whose head bit his thumb at congressional oversight repeatedly in a public hearing last week.

i believe Attorney General Eric Holder was, to me, the biggest disappointment of the Obama Administration.  He declared we needed a conversation on race and then failed to lead that conversation.

But, on to the longer term implications of the actions of the Department of Justice and the FBI:

An indictment of former President Donald Trump would be a breathtakingly authoritarian turn. It would amount to the U.S. security state refusing to accept “no” from America’s voters yet again. An indictment would be an unelected and unaccountable federal agency overruling voters’ two-time rejection of impeachment through their elected representatives.

This is the core danger of the administrative state:  Its now open propensity to go rogue. It is apparently hellbent now on turning the United States into a banana republic.

If President Trump turned out to be a modern day Aaron Burr (Former Vice President), then judicial action would be appropriate.  I am doubtful such is the case.  And, in the case of Aaron Burr, to the frustration of President Jefferson, there was no conviction.

I would hate to lose our Republic over the pique of certain Democrat office holders.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Depopulate DC

For John, BLUF:  I have heard calls to make the District of Columbia a Ghost Town.  I think it is a bridge too far.  It is as good a place as any to hold the politicians.  But, disperse the Agencies and their bureaucrats..  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Dismantle the D.C. Company Town

Here is the sub-headline:

It’s time that Americans faced up to the reality that their governing apparat is a corrupt, self-engorging Leviathan.

From American Greatness, by Author Roger Kimball, 4 June 2022.

Here is the lede plus one:

Gertrude Stein famously warned that it was important to know how far to go when going too far.

It pains me to admit that Democrats seem to have a far better sense of all that than do Republicans.  Perhaps it’s because Democrats have a visceral appreciation of William Hazlitt’s observation that “those who lack delicacy hold us in their power.”  The Democrats, that is to say, long ago became expert at the game of holding their opponents to standards that they themselves violate not just with impunity but with ostentatious glee.

The Author, Mr Kimball, then goes on to compare the treatment of a Ms Hillary Clinton Lawyer, Mr Michael Sussmann, with the treatment of GoP (and Trump Administration staff members) retired Army Lieutenant General Michael Flynn and Mr Peter Navarro.  Just for spice the Author mentions Attorney General Eric Holder being cited for Contempt of Congress and nothing happened.  Definite double standard.

The author mentions:

Increasingly, once-respected institutions like the FBI, Congress, the Justice Department, to say nothing of the educational establishment and corporate culture, have lost their claim on the people’s allegiance.$nbsp; That allegiance is not something that can be repaired by diktat.

Too right.  And President Biden's hectoring manner also isn't going to heal this.

There used to be a West Virginia Senator who made it a practice of moving DC Federal Agencies to West Virginia.  That would be Senator Robert Byrd.

We could all benefit by encouraging that state of mind.  The Nation's Capitol is a corrupt City.  Has tended that way for a long time.  Likely can't be reformed, so we should spread it out.

Electing Republicans won't fix this, nor would the election of Socialists.  Our best hope is to reduce the bureaucracy in DC.  Not close the City.  We need a national capitol.  But, reduce the bureaucratic concentration of power in Washington and its environs.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Trusting The Government to Do What is Right

For John, BLUF:  The Department of Justice, and the FBI, are large Bureaucratic organizations and sometimes act for self-preservation, rather than the larger good of the nation.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

DOJ collected Project Veritas emails but didn't reveal it to federal judge overseeing case

From Hot Air, by Writer John Sexton, 22 March 2022 3:30 PM ET.

Here is the lede plus one:

An attorney for Project Veritas sent a letter to District Court Judge Analisa Torres accusing the Department of Justice of sidestepping her prior rulings designed to protect the journalistic and attorney-client privileges of the organization.  Microsoft recently revealed that the DOJ had previously seized Project Veritas documents from a cloud account using a warrant which was not revealed to the court and which Microsoft was forbidden from revealing until recently.

At the base of all of this is the FBI investigation into how Project Veritas wound up in possession of Ashley Biden’s diary.  An FBI raid of homes belonging to Project Veritas CEO James O’Keefe and two former PV journalists, resulted in the FBI seizing a number of phones, laptops, thumb drives, etc. last November.  Project Veritas asked Judge Torres to appoint a Special Master to review the seized information and determine what should and should not be turned over to authorities.  Judge Torres agreed and ordered everything that had been gathered turned over to the Special Master.  But even after she issued that decision, the DOJ didn’t reveal the PV documents it had already collected from Microsoft and went behind Judge Torres back and the back of the Special Master she appointed to keep the previously seized documents a secret.

More recently Brietbart had an article (12 May) saying "Whistleblower Says FBI Targeting ‘News Media’".  It appears, from the outside, looking in, that the FBI and Project Veritas have developed mutual animosity and just can't let go.

The thing that bothers me is some unit of the Department of Justice writing its own rules regarding searching and seizure of information.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Solicitor General Gets An Ethics Waiver

For John, BLUF:  Ethics is a tricty area.  You might think it is unethical, but someone else might say it is necessary for a larger justice requirement.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Biden’s top Supreme Court lawyer granted ethics waiver to argue for race-based college admissions

From The College Fix, by Ms Margaret Peppiatt, of Franciscan University of Stuebenville, 14 JANUARY 2022.

Here is the lede plus two:

The Department of Justice has granted U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar an ethics waiver, permitting the former Harvard professor to support race-based admissions in a Supreme Court case involving Harvard University.

Prelogar, who taught at Harvard Law School in the fall of 2020, was nominated for Solicitor General in August 2021 and confirmed by the Senate that October.  Under the Biden Ethics Pledge, Prelogar was prohibited from working on a court case relating to her former employer until two years after her appointment.

But the ethics waiver releases her to argue the case before the Supreme Court.

This is a two-for.  First is the ethics waiver.  Since the law suit is against the President and Fellows of Harvard College the waiver seems a little iffy.

Then there is the nature of the case, racial discrimination in college admissions.

In Students for Fair Admissions, Asian-American students argues Harvard discriminated against them in admissions policies based on race, violating Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

I am of the opinion that Harvard switched from discriminating against Jews to discriminating against Asians.  In my mind, tainted by my belief in meritochracy, this kind of discrimination is unfair and un-American.  A period of quotas to reverse racial discrimination seems not unreasonable, but as a long term policy it seems wrong.  And, it seems counter-productive.  We should wish our best minds trained in our best institutions.

All that said, since the Biden Administaration has decided to fight on the side of Discrimination, they need a good Lawyer.  Perhaps Ms Elizabeth Prelogar represents the best available.  After all, she did teach this sort of thing (Ms Prelogar taught the Supreme Court and Appellate Advocacy Workshop) at Harvard Law School.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Protecting the Federal Attorney

For John, BLUF:  Government officials should feel safe while executing their duties.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Federal marshals won’t provide a security detail for confirmed US Attorney Rachael Rollins despite recent threats against her life

Here is the sub-headline:

Recent e-mail to prosecutor:  “You’ll probably die.”

From The Boston Globe, by Reporter Andrea Estes, 17 December 2021, 6:15 pm.

Here is the lede plus three:

Federal marshals have declined a request from newly confirmed US Attorney Rachael Rollins for a full-time security detail, rejecting her arguments that recent threats show she could be in danger, according to two people with direct knowledge of the security discussions.

Rollins, the first Black woman to serve as US attorney for Massachusetts, has said threats against her have grown more vicious since her Senate confirmation vote earlier this month during which Republicans attacked her as a dangerous, pro-criminal prosecutor. A blatantly racist e-mail sent to the Suffolk district attorney’s office on Dec. 9 warned that “SOMEONE, SOMEWHERE IS PLOTTING TO PUT ONE IN YOUR FACE OR HEAD!!!

“You’ll probably die ... I don’t have the (nerve) to outright kill someone ... but keep going and you will find one (who does have the nerve) ... I hope,” said the e-mail, which Rollins turned over to the US Marshals Service for investigation.

But the Marshals Service, which protects federal officials, declined to provide Rollins with a security detail after investigating the threats, the two people said. One author of a threatening e-mail apologized, the two people said, and marshals concluded Rollins was at low risk.

I szympathize with Ms Rollins having to deal with death threats.  However, there are some 30,000 federal officials who could receive protectoin from the US Marshal Serice. On the other hand, in its infinite wisdom, the US Congress has only authorized 3,067 marshalls, plus 4,700 Court Security Officers.  I pray that none of those threatening Ms Rollins have the courage, or stupidity, to try to kill or injure her.

The other thing I noted in the article was that Ms Rollins is taking a pay cut to move up to being the Federal Attorney for the full state of Massachusetts.  As the Suffolk district attorney she earned $191,000 pa.  Plus, a car, a driver and a security detail.  As the Federal Attorney she will earn $172,500, and will lose the car, driver and protection unit.  Is this a comment on Suffolk county and profligate ways, or a comment on the Federal Government, deep in debt?  Or does it mean that the Federal Government should have different pay scales for different parts of the nation?

In the mean time, regardless of our political leanings we should counsel our friends and neighbors not to use inflamtory language about our elected officils.  It is OK to call for impeachment or to circulate recall petitions.  It is not OK to threaten elected or appointed officials or their familites with physical violence.

It doesn't matter if you follow Émile Loubet or Émile Zola, one needs to have some moderation in one's approach to politicians.  Remember, the most stiupid remark of the Twentieth Century was by a member of the Frankfurt School, Professor Herbert Marcuse:  "Tear down the Weimar Republic.  Whatever replaces it has to be better."

Let us not tear down this Republic.  Whatever replaces it will likely be worse.

Regards  —  Cliff

Who Watches the Watchman?

For John, BLUF:  Per The New York Post, "The FBI raided Project Veritas founder James O’Keefe’s home on Saturday, as authorities continued to investigate the apparent theft of President Biden’s daughter’s diary".  They tipped off friendly press, which didn't see the irony.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Even the Washington Post Wonders if the Justice Department Went Too Far in Raiding Project Veritas

From PJ Media, by Mr Robert Spencer, 17 November 2021, 2:54 PM ET.

Here is the lede plus two:

It’s hard to believe that all this is happening in the United States.  First, secret police chief Merrick Garland directed the FBI to monitor parents who protested at school board meetings against the imposition of Critical Race Theory (CRT) in schools.  Then there was the Justice Department’s raid of the home of Project Veritas founder James O’Keefe because of Ashley Biden’s diary.  After that came the arrest of harsh Biden critic Steve Bannon for contempt of Congress, the first such arrest in decades, for his refusal to cooperate with the Democrats’ Jan. 6 pseudo-insurrection show trials.

Then today came news of FBI raids of the homes of Colorado’s Elections Clerk and Rep. Lauren Boebert’s (R-Colo.) campaign manager.  It looks as if the Justice Department has become an authoritarian tool of Biden’s handlers in their quest to criminalize dissent from their agenda — and this corruption is advancing so rapidly that even the Washington Post, a reliable mouthpiece of the Deep State, is now wondering if it is all going too far.

When you’re on the left and lose the Post, you’ve really gone too far.  It’s abundantly clear at this point that the Post is fully on board with the authoritarian Biden/Garland agenda.  Its coverage of the Attorney General siccing the FBI on law-abiding anti-CRT parents included such Orwellian headlines as “Faced with Republican criticism” — which all good Post readers know is something that is always wrongheaded, ill-advised, cynical, opportunistic, and on the wrong side of history — “Attorney General Garland defends school board memo”; “A man gave a Nazi salute at a school board meeting to oppose mask rules.  Ted Cruz defended it as a form of protest”; and “Garland asks FBI to address recent ‘disturbing spike’ in threats against educators.”  Nonetheless, if you go too far too fast, you risk waking up the sleeping populace, and so the Post is now calling for the Injustice Department to slam on the brakes.

From my understanding it seems that there is a campaign to shut down Project Veritas.  I don't think this is good for Press Freedom.  For Press Freedom for all press outlets.

In addition, there is the appearance that the Department of Justice, as an institution, has become a partisan supporter of the Democratic Party side of many cultural issues.  This kind of perception on the part of a fair sized part of the Citizenry is not a good thing in a Democracy.  The Department of Justice should work hard to not only be impartial, but to appear impartial.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff