Sunday, February 16, 2020

UPDATED: On Career Prosecutors

Yesterday commenter Cassander recounted his personal experiences in law school, basically at the same time I was in law school--the mid seventies, for those of you who can remember those heady post-Watergate days. The comment is too long to reproduce in its entirety, but Cassander recounts the views a famous Constitutional Law professor sought to inculcate (I think that's the right word) in his students:

And so he exhorted us credulous students…don’t mind that stupid legislature…The U.S. Congress…elected by small-minded farmers, union members, rednecks, businessmen, and little people…disproportionately empowered by the federal system. In effect, never mind what the Framers’ wrote…Our legislative process…the rightness of our civilization… is paralyzed by democracy…but don’t fear! You…the elite, the up and coming elite…the best of the best…you lawyers…you Columbia lawyers…can make needed change which otherwise would not occur using the power of your intelligence.  
He went on: You can use the court system and sympathetic judges and a malleable Constitution to achieve what we cannot achieve in the legislature. I’m sure a large number of my classmates sitting in the room thirstily drank the kool-aid he was serving. How empowering! Certainly Ruth Bader Ginsburg (on the faculty at the time) did. In all likelihood my classmate Eric Holder was in the room. In all likelihood my classmate Scooter Libby was in the room.  
Wechsler told us in no uncertain terms that the smart people (as measured, I guess by grades and board scores sufficiently high to be admitted to Columbia Law School and its peer schools) should rule the country because we know better. It seemed all innocent and idealistic then. 

 I responded:

Another part of making the necessary changes is removing the people who disagree with the really smart people from positions of influence. That's where creative prosecutors come into play. In league with compliant LE.

 Those of you who have read Lee Smith's The Plot Against the President will be aware that in Chapter 15, Dirty Cops, Smith was kind enough to quote my views at some length, especially regarding the process by which the FBI over the past few decades was to a significant degree co-opted by leftist political activists--not in all its daily activities, but in politically sensitive cases. This co-optation was accomplished by greatly expanding the role of just those types of lawyers that Cassander describes in their student days. We see the results in the Lisa Pages, Comeys, Bakers, Trisha Andersons, and all the rest we're now familiar with from the Russia Hoax.

Today at PJ Media J. Christian Adams has an informative article along similar lines, on how our two tier "justice" or "just for us" system works, especially in DC. To give you some idea on where Adams is coming from, how he knows what he's talking about, this is his brief bio:

J. Christian Adams is an election lawyer who served in the Voting Rights Section at the U.S. Department of Justice. His New York Times bestselling book is Injustice: Exposing the Racial Agenda of the Obama Justice Department (Regnery).  His website is Follow him on Twitter @electionlawctr.

And here are some excerpts to give you a taste for the rest of the article:

Let's examine those Justice Department “career lawyers.” 
It is now plain that “career lawyer” isn’t a euphemism for unbiased and impartial. It’s exactly the opposite. It usually means Democrat, leftist, elitist, culturally hostile to middle America and feverishly anti-Trump. 
When I was at the Department of Justice, it was no different. I wrote a whole wild book about the prevailing madness, years before the country got a taste of Andrew Weissmann’s partisan biases. 
Justice Department “career lawyers” are highly skilled at finding reasons to kill cases against cabinet officials who disclose top-secret information, put State Department emails on private servers, or who lie on FISA warrant applications. The lessons learned in Ivy League law schools are put to good use in developing plausible excuses to avoid any grand jury presentations — at least plausible excuses to the Washington Post and now bankrupt McClatchy. 
After all, did any of the "career lawyers" bring the Holder criminal contempt findings to a grand jury? ... 
But when the target is Roger Stone, Paul Manafort, Carter Page, or dozens of Trump campaign officials who were served with grand jury subpoenas, by golly have the “career lawyers” got an argument in favor of action. 
It was the sweetheart deal for the Awan brothers, ... 
It was the manipulated outcome in another national security matter involving Democrat senate intelligence staffer James Wolfe, ... 
It was the non-prosecution of former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe for lying to investigators about his media leaks. 
It was the collusion with Mueller’s special prosecutors in allowing them to punt the Ukraine-related prosecution of Obama lawyer Greg Craig to Liu’s shop. ... 
It was failing to aggressively prosecute the radical #resist leftists who sought to disrupt the inauguration, even though James O’Keefe successfully recorded them plotting the violence. 
And most notably, it was a 9-year sentencing recommendation for Roger Stone by four “career lawyers” in Liu’s office. 
The “career lawyers” at the Justice Department did not stand for election and win. The entire Department should take note. There is a unitary executive. Elections matter. The president ran against the elites who are dispensing biased, sanctimonious unequal justice in Washington, D.C. 
It shouldn’t surprise anyone that he is keeping his promises.

This is the world that Trump and Barr are up against. It's not easy, draining this swamp. The swamp dwellers know the rules and are extremely adept--not to say shameless and unscrupulous--to bending those rules to their own ideological advantage. It's not easy reversing their actions, because they don't often slip up in ways that can be readily reversed.

UPDATE: This should give you some idea of the magnitude of the Resistance to Barr at DoJ. These are "former" officials, but you can imagine that they were replaced with mostly left people. Barr can't fire career civil servants without cause--serious cause. And even with cause, it's time extremely time consuming and labor intensive. Nor, with so many problem careerists, can they simply be reassigned--there aren't enough open spots for that.

Will Chamberlain 
This is the clearest indication yet that Barr is doing an outstanding job
Quote Tweet

The Washington Post
More than 1,100 ex-Justice Department officials call for Barr’s resignation

So, at the same time that Barr needs to understand Trump's political imperatives, Trump needs to take into account the difficulties Barr faces. I can't gauge the progress of the Durham investigation in terms of possible prosectutions. Certainly Durham has been and continues to be very busy.


  1. Those of us who graduated from state university law schools a) outnumber the Ivy Leaguers, and b) take a certain pleasure in putting the snobby ones in their place in a trial.

    I was very fortunate to know two Harvard grads (classmates) who graduated in the late 1930s and who assured me that the was no substitute for hard work in trial prep - that served me well. I will concede that they did write better briefs, though.

    Anyway, my take on the rot at the D.C. bar is that typically lawyers reflect the standards in their communities...for better or worse.

    1. I'll paste in a comment I wrote on another post just now, re "standards in their communities ... for better or worse":

      The FBI draws on the general pool of college educated young people, some who have gone through grad or professional school. What do you expect that pool to provide when filtering for political attitude isn't allowed and most of the people doing any filtering come from the same background?

  2. At the core of this is the standard practice of bringing and trying political cases in D.C., New York, or Eastern Virginia. It is no accident that Craig, for example, was turned over to Liu- that meant his trial took place with a D.C. jury pool. Same for Stone who was a resident of Florida- with the sure knowledge that neither man would get a fair jury in the normal sense of the word "fair"- Craig was guaranteed acquittal by a D.C. jury and Stone was guaranteed to be convicted.

    The same was done to Flynn- one of the reasons he pleaded guilty at all was because he and his lawyers at Covington knew his chances of jury acquittal in D.C. were zero- the best Flynn could hope for was a single juror holding out, but then it would just be retrial after retrial. Even Flynn's business partner got tried in the Alexandria division of EDVA whose jury pool is the D.C. suburbs, and he got convicted by the jury in a case where the government presented literally zero evidence to support the key element of their case- Rafieken was only saved by the fact that he just happened to have a judge appointed by George W. Bush.

    A good start would be a DoJ that routinely farms political cases to districts that have balanced jury pools, but that, of course, would require a DoJ that isn't politically biased itself.

    1. "A good start would be a DoJ that routinely farms political cases to districts that have balanced jury pools"

      That's not possible and would violate some long held basic notions of justice--as in, a jury of one's peers--in our system:

      This is a good example of why so much of the "conservative" criticism of Barr is wrongheaded.

    2. But not doing so guarantees a Republican or a conservative in a high profile political case doesn't get a jury of his peers.

      As a compromise, let all conservatives and Republicans get their trials in a rural district of Wyoming.

    3. So, while we wait for the Constitutional amendment ...

      Amendment VI

      In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

    4. You can get a case moved, Mark, for cause, and the right belongs to the defendant in that clause of Amendment 6, not the government.

    5. Right.

      1. The right 'belongs to the defendant,' but judges decide. Woops!

      2. Stone tried that, claimed he couldn't get a fair trial in DC. Didn't work.

      3. How many big political cases can you name in which a change of venue was granted for any reason, much less the reasons you've cited? Especially GOP defendants wanting to move from DC?

    6. Re my #1, the right may belong to the defendant, but the government gets to oppose the defendant's motion. How many judges are willing to buck the government? We've seen in the Flynn case how hard that is. Moreover, what we're really talking about in DC, but nobody wants to day it, is white GOP defendants and heavily black Dem juries. How many judges want to get involved in the whole racial grievance thing--on the side of white defendants?

    7. I couldn't find a single politically involved case where the Republican/Conservative defendant got a change of venue away from D.C., New York, or Eastern District of Virginia- not a single one, and many applied for such relief. It's a mug's game for such defendants.

    8. Sidney Powell has stated repeatedly in her motions that the whole prosecution game is rigged against the defendant. She has a new book out on the topic.

  3. Andrew Mccarthy has an amazing excellent related article analyzing why McCabe was not charged:

    1. McCarthy doesn't exactly spell it out, but he hints at the thinking that others have made explicit: Barr may have dismissed the McCabe false statement case because intent would be hard to prove--as a prelude to the same action on behalf of Flynn.

      IMO, that's still unsatisfactory from Flynn's standpoint, because he never should have been interviewed in the first place. And that may be also behind Barr's decision to bring in an outside prosecutor to 'review' the whole Flynn case--to go beyond mere dismissal to the underlying wrongdoing.

  4. Another article that proves the point. Look who’s saying Trumps intervention is shocking, and who is not. What’s their backgrounds?

    1. Ah, I see the article starts with Donald Ayer. You can search him on this blog.

  5. I tried to read Andrew McCarthy’s long article. I recall how late he came to reviewing the information about Crossfire Hurricane and the Russia Collusion hoax. He doesn’t seem to have any idea of how big a part Andrew McCabe played as he seemed to be the team leader for Page and Strzok and the “small group”. Near the end of his long piece, which is full of speculation, he drops in this little paragraph:

    McCabe is not out of the woods yet, of course: The Durham investigation is a separate matter, and it is continuing. But it is unclear whether he will face any criminal charges arising from that inquiry, whereas the now-dead-and-buried false-statements case against him looked cut-and-dried.

    Andrew is unclear because their are bushels of facts that he may never have seen.

  6. Thanks Mark!

    Good post of yours that told me more about Mr. Ayer...

    A pet peeve of mine in reading msm articles is having to figure out the background of people making quotes to figure out their biases. So often a person with an anti Trump quote, I find one of the few remaining fervent anti Trumpers. I don’t like the attempt at being gas lighted.

    1. Maybe you'll like this one, too:

      Juror 1261 in Roger Stone's case: Was justice undone?

      After taking so much crap from the Left, it's good to see Turley isn't backing down.

  7. And while I bring myself off the ledge, reminders like this allows me to take a step towards again ...

    "I’m still enjoying what I’m doing, there’s still work to be done. I’m still the President’s wing-man, so I’m there with my boy. So we’ll see," Holder said in an interview on the Tom Joyner radio show.

    Democrat AGs are part of the political stance and views of the Democrat administration whereas Republican AGs have to be independent and have separation from the Republican administration.


    I know Barr knows this. We all know this.

    Sigh, no matter what Trump does or does not do and say or not say, he, along with all inside Trump's administration will be branded and held in media/Democrat contempt.

    Barr can easily clarify, but has not. Trump has brought an olive branch, Barr is silent.

    Yes, Barr like Trump, is battling pretty much everyone in government along with most of the media. That should generate common cause that is held within a fox hole while under withering artillary and mortor fire.

    Am I reading too much into this? Are the explanations for this being too sympathetic to the difficulties that Barr is under all the downplaying what Trump has been dealing with from day one?

    Lastly, I agree that (last paragraph of Mark's thread) "... at the same time that Barr needs to understand Trump's political imperatives, Trump needs to take into account the difficulties Barr faces."


    Can Barr or any Republican AG be Trump's wingman?

    1. Nothing I've written should be taken to mean that I don't think Barr should be more confrontational with critics, and in a more Trumpian way. He's good at skewering critics face to face, and I expect him to shine in the House, but pointing out things like the Holder quote, etc., would be very welcome.

  8. To support this I give Eric Holder in a WaPo op ed in December 2019

    "This is a stunning declaration not merely of ideology but of loyalty: to the president and his interests. It is also revealing of Barr’s own intent: to serve not at a careful remove from politics, as his office demands, but as an instrument of politics — under the direct “control” of President Trump."

    That's the hypocrisy, the outrage.

    Holder goes on ...

    "His or her ultimate loyalty is not to the president personally, nor even to the executive branch, but to the people — and the Constitution — of the United States."

    Yet, not long ago Holder was Obama's "wingman" and Obama was his boy as he stated.

    Think back to Clinton's AG Janet Reno. She was declared the most independent from political, presidencial influence in our history.

    In a PBS News Hour interview by Jim Lehrer in 2001, Lehrer notes that AGs tend to be close friends of the president they are serving and can be considered the president's personal lawyer, yet Reno was not that kind of AG.

    Reno replied that she generally considered herself independent, but that she "wanted to do everything [she] could do to be a team player in the Cabinet." Reno noted that on national security issues and a few others, like when there was a split in the Soliticer General's on a bankruptcy tithing case in which President Clinton was interested in, she deferred to President Clinton.

    Heck, to further refine my argument, it's not Dem AGs versus Repub AGs, but all other AGs versus Trump's AGs.

    1. Don't get me started on Holder--beneath contempt.

    2. While I'm not able to account for all of them, Holder was absolutely without question among the most corrupt AGs in U.S. history. And now, hearing Zerobama's self-proclaimed "wingman" trying to accuse Barr of ... being Trump's wingman, I can't help but wonder if the scumBag-of-Holdering is worried about something. Or a lot of somethings.

  9. Thanks for this post. I am now almost certain Barr is doing everything he can to suppress the institutional Democrat bias within the Justice department. Unfortunately, there's not much he can do. (Especially when his hand-picked assistants turn out to be weak-willed pushovers)

    The solution is to starve the beast. Extended Gov shutdown next year with layoffs. Please God make it happen.

    1. Extended Gov shutdown next year with layoffs.":
      Why not this year?
      How long would it have to last, before layoffs could begin (esp. in DoJ)?

  10. Eight years of Obama populating and promoting radicals at the DOJ and throughout the executive branch spelled doom for America I believe. Joining forces with radical-dominated media, education, state governments and now increasingly corporations, they are now so entrenched that our course to oblivion is charted and set. Trump is a welcome but sadly temporary shift. Joe Stalin chuckles from the Soviet grave.

  11. -->More than 1,100 ex-Justice Department officials call for Barr’s resignation<--

    They left out the word "disgraced."

  12. @dfp21 and @Neill

    Here's the thing. I believe Barr's goal is to restore DoJ to its proper functioning. Problem: the old saw that personnel is policy happens to be true. Barr's 'solution' can't do the job. Mind you, however--it's not all on him. Neill gives a short list of 'radical-dominated' institutions. Barr can't address all that. The courts can help, but for this day and age the SCOTUS moves at a glacial pace. A second term with control of both houses could help. Could.

  13. Two of my points in telling my personal anecdote were to offer evidence that

    1) this transfer of power from the voters and the legislatures to the self-anointed 'elites' has been underway for a long time, and

    2) the elites are morally certain they are justified in making law and policy and imposing it on the populace.

    Explains a lot doesn't it?

    You are seeing it every day.

    When Vindman accuses Trump of disregarding the interagency foreign policy...

    When Weissmann made up crimes to charge Trump's associates with.

    When Schiff made up impeachable offenses to charge Trump with.

    There are innumerable examples.

    Also explains why neither Trump nor Barr will reverse the hegemony of the elites soon or without pain.

    1. And now 1,100 of these elite former prosecutors are calling for Barr's resignations. Prosecutors are to be left unsupervised--during Republican administrations. Hopefully, think the elite, that eventuality will never be allowed to occur again.

    2. Right. Not because Barr has done anything demonstrably 'wrong' but because they disagree with how he is running the department. Since they are smarter than us and they know better, the Attorney General nominated by the duly-elected POTUS and confirmed as the Constitution requires by the United States Senate...should resign.

      Changing the subject for a moment, but it relates to the problem of the 'elites'. Did anyone see Bannon on Bartiromo this morning? He was speculating about the developing friendship between Bloomberg and Mrs Clinton and wondered when Bernie's supporters will get tired of the antics of the 'elites' and come over to Trump's side. I kind of doubt there will be any mass exodus from Sanders to Trump when Bloomberg and Clinton screw Bernie (again) but you can kind of see Bannon's point. At the end of the day Bernie's and The Donald's enemies are the Deep State.

      The enemy of my enemy is my friend?

    3. Your experiences are as a young adult from the early 1970s

      Today a person born in 2012 could be in your same position or died in some far away land in "wars" that have no relevancy to the home shores of the US.

      That's a long time for Bill Ayers type folks to poison. Yeah, the same dude where Obama got his political blessing in the living room of.

      This, along with what is conclusively known to have happened to Trump and previously the Tea Party, is why I am astonished anyone who is in the fox hole with Trump will make any public statement against Trump.

      A multigenerational fight for our Constitution, which this is, means to come together, form a circle of wagons, using a non-PC metaphor, and fighting no matter if you like the head guy in charge or not.

      Trump is an elite by any objective standard and rejects their goals and views. His stances can be verified in 1980 fluff piece interview by Rona Berrett in which Trump has a couple of lines foreshadowing his stances today.

      There is no virtue in being technically correct while you lose everything.

      It's not me I am worried about. It's my children and any future grand children.

      Being ensconced in Southern Democrat biases, I have never known a time when the US of A was celebrated. I once held those views, but lost them in college at the University of North Texas.

      After taking 3 different oaths to defend the Constitution and seeing how many of our elites work to destroy it, I am truly disheartened when a person who, using non traditional means, is trying to get is back Constitutionally, is slighted even in the least by his own appointed, trusted underling.

      Yes, Barr and any AG, is subservient to the President. Just as is every friggin' military member no matter if have a eggs on your hat or not.

      This is a rant, again. Sorry.

    4. @Cassander: I can't give you a link, but there was in fact a not non-significant Bernie to Trump crossover in 2016.

      @TexasDude: Same here--worried for children and grandchildren. I was glad I retired when I did because I could see the change in the new 'kids' coming on board. And Trump has been basically consistent in his views all along.

    5. Headline:
      Bernie Sanders Voters Helped Trump Win And Here's Proof

      Bernie Sanders supporters switched their allegiance to Donald Trump in large enough numbers last November to sway the election for the real estate billionaire, according to an analysis of voter data released Tuesday by the blog Political Wire. Since Trump's shock victory over Hillary Clinton, much discussion has focused on the degree to which passionate Sanders supporters' refusal to embrace Clinton led to the Republican winding up in the White House.

      According to the analysis of the 2016 Cooperative Congressional Election Survey, fewer than 80 percent of those who voted for Sanders, an independent, in the Democratic primary did the same for Clinton when she faced off against Trump a few months later. What's more, 12 percent of those who backed Sanders actually cast a vote for Trump.
      Some asked for more detail on how Sanders primary voters behaved in general. This graphic shows this, including small % who abstained 2/n
      — Brian Schaffner (@b_schaffner) August 23, 2017

      The impact of those votes was significant. In each of the three states that ultimately swung the election for Trump—Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania—Trump's margin of victory over Clinton was smaller than the number of Sanders voters who gave him their vote.

      More here:

    6. I just reread it. I noticed that the Bernie --> Trump voters were rated very low on the partisan Dem scale, lots were basically Republicans. What's interesting about that is that Bernie apparently had some crossover appeal among voters simply unhappy with the status quo who may have given up on the GOP. When Trump emerged, it may have been a pretty easy shift for them.

  14. @Mark -- Yup. I've read the same. If Bernie does get 'screwed' I would expect Trump to make a play for some of his votes. Won't be easy w the AOC wing screaming murder.

  15. Last night I watched the MAGA Coalition guys (they got Sarah Palin to the Trump Hotel to speak in 2017) give a startling & contrarian opinion. They said the last think we want this year, before Nov, is indictments. Because that will drive up the anti-Trump energy of Dems. And the worst scenario is a prosecution and acquittal before Nov. They assume trials will be in D.C. with guaranteed acquittals given that political motives of the defendants will match the political motives of the D.C. juries.

    All of a sudden I'm in no hurry for indictments.

    1. It's an interesting view. I disagree that indictments would energize the Dems--I think it would depress them. I also disagree that there would be guaranteed acquittals. The reason I think that is because these defendants would be far from ordinary politicians. They'd be white LE (FBI), Intel (CIA), and prosecutors who would be charged with abusing their offices against innocent and fairly ordinary people, but also a decorated general. Among the witnesses would be their paid informants and others of their ilk turning on eachother. My view is that a heavily black DC jury would have little or no sympathy for those kinds of defendants. I say that having had experience in the 90s with jury nullification in a case that made it to national news. I may be wrong, but that's my view.

    2. The other concern is a D.C. jury will be very receptive to a defense attorney saying "TRUMP wants my client convicted! Trump tweeted ..." and at least 1 juror, guaranteed, will now have the excuse they wanted to vote their politics.

      Trump needs to go radio-silent regarding all DoJ/FBI investigations if he wants justice with a D.C. jury.

    3. Yes, that's probably Barr's biggest concern, but not one that he's about to discuss publicly.

    4. "having had experience in the 90s with jury nullification".

      Is this case the one about your bro-in-law?
      If so, I doubt that that case is analogous to these coming ones, as these are far more highly Politically Charged, than any such cases since, say, the Chicago Seven.

    5. No. For a few years at that time I was involved in drug intel work. It was a major trafficking case that spanned the country.

    6. OK.
      I still doubt that such a case is analogous to these coming ones, as these are far more highly Politically Charged.
      They'll be, by far, the real Trials of the Century.

    7. On the contrary. In the case I mentioned, in which the trial took place in Atlanta, a mostly black jury nullified what should have been a slam dunk by claiming that they wouldn't convict without recordings of the defendant--who was also black.

      While some half hearted prosecutions have failed in DC--Greg Craig, for example--any Durham prosecutions will certainly NOT be half hearted. I predict that black jurors in DC will NOT feel called upon to defend dirty cops, the way they feel called upon to defend black defendants.

    8. Cool, if Durham can get juries filled w/ "normal" DC blacks (akin to Atlanta blacks), as opposed to juries filled w/ federal employees (of any race).
      I still suspect, that Atlanta blacks might be more prone to hammering drug dealers (who mostly prey upon poor blacks), than DC blacks would be, to turn on Obama appointees, esp. when they're charged by these "racist" Trump guys.

    9. Moreover, I'll bet that, insofar as Jackson, Sharpton, Dyson, etc., laid low in the Atlanta case, they won't let this chance go, to agitate vs. any effort to touch OBAMA appointees.

  16. Kind of a negative, it's all over tone in the comments section tonight. You don't think that we can beat these punks? I do.

    I've said it before and I'll say it again, look at what ONE MAN has done in less than three years. There are a lot of people hungering for his leadership. Who has the larger rallies?

    By all means let's cut the administrative state down to size. But, can't some of you see that the dominance of the old media is dwindling, if not dying? There's lot of reasons for hope, especially if we believe in God and that we are on the side of right.

    I don't take direction from lying, liberal losers who worship money and power. I'm not as scared of them. Trump, acting as Toto, has pulled back the curtain and revealed the Dems/Deep State/Media as morally bankrupt, cowards, backstabbers, gluttonous Wizards who are really frightened men.

  17. I'm a little riled up this evening so I may have a chip on my shoulder. If the People re-elect Donald J Trump to a 2nd term, I really don't give a damn what 1,100 former prosecutors think. They sucked on the government teet for 30 or more years and all that easy milk ruined their character.

    How many of them dug ditches, served as janitors, waited tables or worked two jobs to make ends meet? How'd they do in the private sector?

    Going to Yale or Harvard doesn't make them any smarter than the rest of us. Their careers are gilded. Character reveals itself over a lifetime. George Will, William Kristol, David French, Kevin Williamson, Andrew Weissmann, Rachel Maddow, etc. Low class losers.

  18. This is my favorite story about the soda jerk's campaign:

    Bloomberg is buying up so many campaign operatives that down-ballot Dem campaigns unable to find staff

  19. I am negative and cynical. I get that.

    Even with all I have stated, I still have hope.

    I believe things can be incrementally righted, but it will take more than Trump or Barr or our own lives.

  20. TexasDude,

    Last night I was a little riled up. I get that way when I've had enough of the Deep State. I came across as scolding you and others but my point was more to exhort everyone to keep in mind the positive, such as the President appointing 25% of the Judiciary, surviving impeachment, four corrupt prosecutors are gone from the Stone Case, Liu is gone, we have an independent conservative internet presence, Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Mr. Wauck, the Federalist, Jeff Carlson and more.

    Our struggle is real but we have to fortify ourselves to save our country.

  21. I too still hope the ship can be righted. It dwindles...when one after another miscreant appears to slip off the legal hook. The viability of the Republic is riding on the shoulders of Barr/Durham..

    1. Neill, while I understand your sentiments and share them, I must take issue with your statement that "one after another miscreant appears to slip off the legal hook." I don't believe that that is happening, and I don't believe anyone who understands prosecution thinks that's happening.

  22. I hope it's not as it appears. News that another outside US Attorney brought in to review Flynn case is encouraging. Is it just Flynn, or other cases as well?

  23. Julie Kelly, American Greatness, does her usual fine job of digging. This time into the source of the 1,100 former DoJ lawyers’ letter demanding AG Barr resign because of his “interference” in the Stone sentencing recommendation.

    Times reporter Katie Benner, trying to make the stunt look like a legitimate grassroots effort, attributed the letter to Protect Democracy, which she described as a “nonprofit legal group.” But Protect Democracy is not an organic activist group spontaneously created by high-minded legal experts alarmed by Trump’s alleged flouting of the rule of law. Protect Democracy was launched in early 2017 as part of an extensive anti-Trump operation managed by a leftwing tech billionaire: Pierre Omidyar, the founder of eBay. This is who is behind Protect Democracy and a number of other nonprofits formed to destroy the president.

    In 2018, according to the group’s most recent tax filing, Protect Democracy collected nearly $7 million in donations; Omidyar’s most politically-active nonprofit, Democracy Fund, has donated $2 million since 2017. Democracy Fund is spending tens of millions each year to underwrite dozens of anti-Trump projects. “Over the past two years, I have seen alarming and sometimes unprecedented violations of our country’s democratic norms,” Joe Goldman, the fund’s president, wrote in 2018.

    Protect Democracy houses a number of former Democratic staffers—including a former aide to Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.)—and Obama White House alumni. Ricki Seidman, last seen advising Christine Blasey Ford, is a director for Protect Democracy.

    Several NeverTrumpers also are involved with Protect Democracy; National Review columnists Mona Charen and Linda Chavez, ABC News pundit Matthew Dowd, and failed presidential candidate Evan McMullin serve as advisors. As I’ve reported before, Omidyar is the sugar daddy for many NeverTrump outlets. The Bulwark, the offshoot of the shuttered Weekly Standard, is partially funded by Omidyar: Charlie Sykes, the Bulwark’s editor-in-chief, serves on the board of Democracy Fund.

    Omidyar also funds Republicans for the Rule of Law, headed by Bill Kristol; Lawfare, a central peddler of Russian collusion hoax propaganda; R Street, home to disgraced FBI lawyer James Baker; and Stand-Up Republic, headed by McMullin. All have been on the attack against Trump and Barr.

    More here:

    Surprised? /s

    1. Right. Usual suspects, treatment by MSM as expected.

  24. As an aside, the idea that a man with a fortune of $50 billion, Michael Bloomberg, could successfully present himself as the standard bearer for the Democrat Party...the Democrat (!) Party...ostensibly the party of the poor, minorities, and victims... simply by spending hundreds of millions of dollars on content-less anti-Trump commercials and mind-boggling.