Here’s Some More Refreshing “Kool-Aid”: Prof. Turley Explains The Mike Flynn Scandal

The prevailing attitude toward the growing and eventually irrefutable evidence that hostile forces within the FBI and the Justice Department were unethically,  illegally and unconstitutionally working behind the scenes to undermine the President and, if possible, have him removed from office was that this was just another right-wing conspiracy theory. That spin allowed the mainstream media to justify refusing to investigate the many smoking guns that were being uncovered,and to report on them using the familiar techniques it employs when it wants to protect its fellow Axis of Unthical Conduct allies, the Democrats and “the resistance.”

The illegal FISA  warrants to allow surveillance of the Trump campaign that a federal judge eventually ruled constituted both judicial and prosecutor misconduct were a small part of the ethics train wreck that was the Mueller investigation. When Ethics Alarms accurately described this breach of law and ethics, I was accused here of “drinking the Kool-Aid,” in a now familiar ploy by blinded or unscrupulous partisans to throw up metaphorical sand and dust, allowing wrongdoing to prevail. By their definition of the term, Prof. Jonathan Turley has mixed-up another delicious pitcher of the beverage. Yum!

Let me interject here what a continuing Ethics Hero Turley is. Almost alone among law professors, scholars and academics, he has been willing to call out ethical misconduct throughout the Trump Administration years thus far without consideration of who benefits or whose political fortunes the truth might harm. For this, progressives have regularly denigrated as a traitor to the cause, the cause being “Get Trump.”  Turley is a Democrat and an old fashioned liberal—you know, the kind that had integrity—but never flinches when it is time to call out the Left on its increasingly unconscionable conduct.

Now the Constitutional Law expert has turned his legal analysis skills on the developing Michael Flynn story. His unequivocal conclusion: “The Flynn Case Should Be Dismissed In The Name Of Justice.”

This is unusually direct for Turley; I have sometimes criticized him for excessive professorial equivocation. Not this time, however.

Read his whole essay, which is as clear and unbiased an explanation of what was done to Flynn, and why, as you are likely to find. (Like some other law school-employed bloggers, like Ann Althouse, William Jacobson and Paul Caron,  Turley is a more trustworthy journalist than most journalists.)

Some impressive excerpts:

There has been a concerted effort by media and legal experts to shrug away these highly disturbing documents by saying that such abuses happen all the time.  Journalist Ben Wittes, one of James Comey’s most vocal defenders, went even seemed to make such abuse of Flynn into a victory for racial justice:

“If you’re outraged by the FBI’s tactics with Flynn, keep in mind that they do these things every day against drug dealers, gang members, and terrorists. Except those people are black, Hispanic, and Middle Eastern—not “lock ‘er up” lily white.”

Many of us have spent our careers fighting such abuses for people who are not “lily white.”  That does not excuse abuses of people There was a time when MSNBC, CNN, the Washington Post and other outlets were voices against such prosecutorial abuse. However, in this age of rage, even this record is dismissed as “routine” to avoid undermining a crushingly consistent narrative that the Russian investigation was based on real crimes, albeit collateral crimes.  The “nothing to see here” coverage sacrifices both legal and journalistic values to to maintain a transparently biased narrative.

The jaw-dropping quote from Wittes triggers another example of Turley being too gentlemanly. The quote is signature significance for someone who has no ethical compass at all, and for whom racial advocacy has distorted all rational consideration of right and wrong.

These new documents further undermine the view of both the legitimacy and motivations of those investigations under former FBI director James Comey. For all of those who have long seen a concerted effort within the Justice Department to target the Trump administration, the fragments will read like a Dead Sea Scrolls version of a “deep state” conspiracy.

This is just a bit more to add to the towering pile of evidence of what a sinister, destructive force James Comey was, and how hilarious was the claim that the President firing him was an “obstruction of justice.” It doesn’t matter why Comey was fired…he could have been fired because Trump didn’t like his ties. Removal of this blight on the FBI was in the interests of justice no matter what triggered it.

The new documents also explore how the Justice Department could get Flynn to admit breaking the Logan Act, a law that dates back to from 1799 which makes it a crime for a citizen to intervene in disputes between the United States and foreign governments. It has never been used to convict a citizen and is widely viewed as flagrantly unconstitutional. In his role as the national security adviser to the president elect, there was nothing illegal in Flynn meeting with Kislyak. To use this abusive law here was utterly absurd, although other figures such as former acting Attorney General Sally Yates also raised it. Nevertheless, the FBI had latched onto this abusive law to target the retired Army lieutenant general.

Ah, yes: the Logan Act, previously violated, and flagrantly too, by such worthies as Jimmy Carter, Jesse Jackson, John Kerry, and Dennis Rodman, among others.

Another newly released document is an email from former FBI lawyer Lisa Page to former FBI special agent Peter Strzok, who played the leadership role in targeting Flynn. In the email, Page suggests that Flynn could be set up by making a passing reference to a federal law that criminalizes lies to federal investigators. She suggested to Strzok that “it would be an easy way to just casually slip that in.” So this effort was not about protecting national security or learning critical intelligence. It was about bagging Flynn for the case in the legal version of a canned trophy hunt.

It’s fascinating how the same names keep popping up in this plot: Comey, Strozok, Page, Sally Yates, McCabe. All conservative fever dreams, of course.

As the Supreme Court made clear in 1932, “universal sense of justice” is a stake in such cases. It is the “duty of the court to stop the prosecution in the interest of the government itself to protect it from the illegal conduct of its officers and to preserve the purity of its courts.”

Flynn was a useful tool for everyone and everything but justice. Mueller had ignored the view of the investigators and coerced Flynn to plead to a crime he did not commit to gain damaging testimony against Trump and his associates that Flynn did not have. The media covered Flynn to report the flawed theory of Russia collusion and to foster the view that some sort of criminal conspiracy was being uncovered by Mueller. Even the federal judge used Flynn to rail against what he saw as a treasonous plot. What is left in the wake of the prosecution is an utter travesty of justice.

That’s enough. As I say, read the whole thing. Many people should go to prison because of this, and many lawyers should lose their licenses, They almost certainly won’t, in great part because the confused American public will be told, in many forums, that it’s all just “Kool-Aid.”

31 thoughts on “Here’s Some More Refreshing “Kool-Aid”: Prof. Turley Explains The Mike Flynn Scandal

  1. It’s always good to read Turley’s columns — and when I get directed over there, I usually end up reading several.

    I am constantly flabbergasted by what the FBI has done — in our name(!). They have abused the trust we have placed in them, and undermined their credibility for a long time to come.

    I overhead someone on Morning Joe saying something about Trump supporters ‘doubling down’. I don’t know the context, but I can say this: I was not a Trump supporter in 2016, but I’ve watched him over the past 3 years.

    He has earned my vote this time around, and I don’t think I am alone. I simply home this pandemic won’t cost him the election, especially since I think he has, overall, done a pretty decent job in dealing with it.

    • I think there’s a pretty good chance it WILL cost him the election. Obama was unstoppable because he was an incumbent AND had the media on his side. Trump has the media solidly against him, AND he is going to be deprived of every strength he has. He can’t hold rallies to fire up the base, the economy is going to be underwater for a VERY long time (the governors will see to that), and he is facing a challenge that no president ever has before. He’s probably doing the best he knows how, but his best will never be good enough for the media, who will play up his every mistake or shortfall and bury his every success, while constantly sowing fear (has he reopened too soon?) and doubt (what did he know and when did he know it?). His best will never be enough for the opposition, either, who will slow-walk or outright block his every initiative, and constantly convene committees to dig into his every action, question his officials instead of letting them run their agencies, and leak lots of unfavorable information. Oh yes, and then there’s the mail-in ballots the Democrats are pushing (voter fraud? Don’t be silly, voter fraud never happens, lay off the Kool-aid). IF by some miracle he still pulls it off, I guarantee you a second wave of the virus is coming, worse than the first. If Biden is elected, that second wave will never materialize, because the media will call it something else and minimize it, maybe even turn it into yet another blue success story (those are the only kind of success stories).

      It’s very easy to succeed when you have a lot of loyal flunkies to lie for you and a press eager to accept the lies without a single question. The press is like the slippery con man who promises some mark a Spanish princess if he will pay to free her. However, the mark is told he must never ask questions (lest the holes in the plot be revealed) and he must never tell anyone else (lest his friends or family convince him to see sense). So he pays, and pays to bribe the border guard, and pays to get her a flight, and so on, until either the mark gets cleaned out or the plot pays out, at which point the con man disappears, never to be seen again.

      • Steve I think (hope?) you’re wrong. I think your perception is colored by being in the northeast. Just had an email from a college friend in Woodstock, NY and, of course, totally Trump Deranged. He said in passing something to the effect that “fortunately, Trump’s only going to be around for a few more months.” I just don’t see Trump losing, certainly not to Joe Biden. I can’t imagine people who voted for him in 2016 not voting for him this time. And like Diego, I held my nose and voted for HRC in 2016 but ever since the day after the 2016 and seeing the media’s reaction, I’ve been rooting for him. I fully expect him to win. The media and the Dems being irrationally and relentlessly against him is a benefit for him. Anyway, that’s how I see it out here in the hinterlands.

        • OB, there will be televised debates and I think these will make all the difference. Can you imagine Biden winning a straight-up debate? I can’t.

          • Neither can I, d_d. And there’s so much Biden material for attack ads from the Trump campaign, which is very well funded this time compared to 2016. I have to say I got a kick out of Trump urging Biden to fight the rape allegations. Talk about going against the grain….

          • The Democrats have literally banished into oblivion the fact that Trump trounced Hillary Clinton in the debates. They act as if he’s an easy mark for any liberal. He won the debates against Christie, Bush, Rubio, Paul, Huckabee, Cruz and Kasich, all of whom thought he was an idiot, and Clinton, and people still think Biden will walk all over him, even if Joe is wearing a protective helmet by then. It’s amazing.

            • Honestly, yours is the first unbiased opinion I have ever heard that Trump defeated Hillary pretty decisively in the debates. I kind of despaired of hearing any kind of consensus, leave alone an unbiased opinion, regarding what happened in the debates. Everyone I was connected with on social media saw what they wanted to see, and said either that Trump chewed Hillary up and spit her out, or that Hillary made Trump look like a fool and he never laid a glove on her. My own opinion was that he was, like Robin Williams, unstoppable once he got going, and Hillary’s tactics were just too easily confounded by him. I’d like to hear more of your thoughts on those debates and how Hillary got beaten. (or you can just link back if you did and I missed it)

              Now, as for Biden in a debate, well, he chewed Paul Ryan up pretty well. He was mocking him left and right and Ryan just looked like a deer in the headlights most of the time. You said at the time that Ryan should have called him out on it, but I think, like Trump, once Biden got going, there was no jolting him back into line by asking him when he was going to stop being an ass. If he had done that, then it would have looked like he had snapped and could be gotten to.

              However, at this point I think it’s safe to say Biden has lost a few steps from where he was in 2012. He barely grasps where he his, let alone what’s going on, and his attempts at getting pugilistic with citizens just make him look like a punch-drunk old boxer who’s long past his prime, but either refuses to accept it or doesn’t comprehend it. Like Jack Doyle, he’s a shattered, out-of-it shell of what he used to be, except he won’t admit in a moment of sobriety that he’s headed for a less than wonderful end.

              Half of me wonders if Biden could refuse to debate Trump, saying he has better things to do than cross words with a xenophobic, racist bully, even though he could kick his ass, and thereby avoid the country seeing just how out of it he is. What do you think?

              • To be honest, I think Biden HAS to debate. Otherwise, it looks like he’s afraid of Trump. But I also know that Trump will eat him alive.

        • I’d like to think you can’t fool all the people all of the time, Michael. I think the media have overplayed their hand on Trump and people discount most anything the media says. I think there’s a strong anti-elitist streak in the American populous.

      • Multiple apolitical people in this corner of the Northeast are so tired of progressive grandstanding, that Joe doesn’t have a snowball’s chance of getting their votes because they just won’t shut up and get on with their lives. And now that Wuhan virus overreach has made Dem governors like Wolf overstep their power, the tiredness has spread. The bigger risk is that today’s pissed workingman won’t get out and vote having forgotten the ‘well-meaning’ gestapo. (like the Bab Bee humor thing abt the NYC mayor)

      • I question a lot of this, Steve. Obama wasn’t unstoppable at all. Yes, Obama cheated is several ways, with the IRS, the Benghazi disinformation, the Obamacare lie that didn’t come out until after the election. Yes, the news media was in the tank for him.
        But the GOP was pathetically behind the curve technologically, and its system for getting out the vote broke down completely. That didn’t have to happen. Gop/conservative turnout was weaker than expected, and that was, basically, because the hard right were being assholes…Romney wasn’t pure enough, he was a RINO, he was a liberal in Massachusetts. Obama was a weak, weak, inept President, and deserved to lose. and WOULD have lost, if the conservatives has been half as enthusiastic about beating him as African-American voters were going to vote for a black President no matter what.

        Romney was also a too reserved candidate. He won the first debate, then didn’t follow up on his momentum. It drove me nuts. He’s not great by any means, and no, he’s not a conservative—he’s a technocrat, like FDR. He solves problems. If Romney had had more Trump in him, and been able to hit back at Obama as hard as he was attacked, he would have won. I was certain he would win.

        The news media is much, much MUCH weaker now than it was in 2012. Trump’s approval hovers around 40-45%, but that includes conservatives who don’t think he’s conservative enough (he’s also a technocrat, just a strange one), and people like me, who don’t approve of his personality, style and ethics, but who may well disapprove of the proton-totalitarians more. Nobody is enthusiastic about Biden. Nobody. Presidents are not elected on hate, at least haven’t been so far. I’d say then odds are better that Trump will win in a landslide, like Nixon in 1972, than taht Biden will win by any margin. Lots of people hated Nixon; nobody hated McGovern.But not enough people were crazy enough to vote for such a weak, blah candidate just out of hate. for Nixon.

        • You make some interesting points. Yes, the GOP could have done better in 2012, although I think because they had relative success in 2010 they were going in overconfident with the way things had worked then (despite the fact they should NOT have run some of those far right candidates). Yes, Romney was a technocrat who failed to excite the base, but I wouldn’t put it all on the hard right staying home in a snit. Romney had absolutely no fire in the belly and didn’t fight back against cheap shots, I call that the Bork mistake since Robert Bork thought maintaining a dignified silence was enough. He also allowed Obama to turn his resume into his indictment, and paint him as a heartless plutocrat who was completely out of touch with ordinary people, who may have roughed up gay classmates back in school, who mistreated a pet, and whose wife owned a horse, the dream of every young girl. He absolutely failed to capitalize on the first debate. Overall, he just didn’t want it badly enough. That said, I lost al lot of respect for Romney when he tried to lecture the GOP against Trump becoming the nominee. He was the wrong man for the job and did it the wrong way. I lost the rest of my respect for him when he voted to convict during the recent impeachment. Although several of my black, liberal coworkers (who sneered at him and bashed him in 2012) now praised him and said he was the only GOP senator to take his oath seriously, I can’t see any reason for him to have done that other than that he is a member of the dwindling “bitter brotherhood” of Never Trumpers who took the opportunity to spite Trump when it presented itself. If I were the president now I’d tell him he is persona non grata at the White House until I leave.

          The media has taken a beating, but they still aren’t beaten. The pollsters have probably figured out what went wrong in 2016 and corrected to allow for it, at least I hope they have, or they are just feeding us push polls. I think they will use every dirty trick in the book to get Trump out of there. One thing that would help Biden is putting a black woman on the ticket. I don’t know if it would bring out the black vote in the same numbers as Obama, but black votes for black. I’d keep an eye on those states where Trump broke the blue wall last time out. You can bet your bookshelf that the Democrats will be firing up the machine in Detroit, Madison, Milwaukee, Pittsburgh and Philly to try to make sure that wall won’t crack again. Then there’s the suburban vote. A lot of the losses this past time out were in the suburbs, where a lot of women are getting fed up with Trump. That said, in Michigan you also have Gretchen Whitmer, the proto-tyrant, who’s probably pissed off a lot more voters than she needed to, and in PA you have Tom Wolf, whose popularity is eroding (he’ll be gone in 2022). It is theoretically possible that Trump could pull a 1972. You do make a strong point that simple hatred of the president isn’t usually enough. However, pure hatred has now kept the Democratic party going since 2016 and did get them some success in 2018. Also, what if Biden runs up the popular vote in CA and NY, but doesn’t win the electoral vote? That could really be messy.

          We shall see. A Chinese disguised ill wish is “may you live in interesting times.” We’re definitely there.

          • Indeed.

            I agree completely about Romney as a candidate: my point was and is that Obama was not the shoe-in you suggested. And if he had had Trump’s turn-out, he would have won.

            As you may recall, I made Romney an ethics hero for his anti-Trump speech. He was right on all counts. If he had the guts to give as passionate a speech about Obama, he might have prevailed. My position was that the GOP had an ethical obligation to refuse to give Trump the nomination, much as the Democrats have an obligation not to nominate a man teetering on dementia.

            His vote on impeachment was petty and unforgivable.

    • I voted for the President in 2016, holding my nose and fearing the worst, but absolutely refusing to vote for Secretary Clinton. My worst fears were realized, but not in the way I expected. The President is sometimes a dolt, he’s a playground bully and he’s uncouth. But he has done two things. First, for all his flaws, he’s done a reasonably good job. Second, he has turned what was a radical Left wing in 2016 into raving, raging lunatics that are completely unhinged from reality. My biggest fear was chaos…and I got it, but not from the President.

      I have NEVER voted a straight ticket in my life in any election, but if we survive until November, that will change. I will proudly pull the lever for the President.

  2. The FBI abbreviation causes one to muse about what those letters stand for F’ed Beyond Imagination.

    At least the upper echelons of the system have been weaponized based on politics and against the will of the people. Nice.

    It is clear some of the perpetually aggrieved wish the system to be used against any enemy including based on your race. Also, nice.

    Sad part is they’ve been indoctrinated to think this is just.

    • So bizarre the Left and the media are suddenly FBI boosters. Hilarious. Signature Significance, in fact.

  3. Many people should go to prison because of this, and many lawyers should lose their licenses, They almost certainly won’t, in great part because the confused American public will be told, in many forums, that it’s all just “Kool-Aid.”

    Well, you know, law enforcement exists to enforce laws in the protection of the citizenry. All rational argument against vigilantism is rooted in the theory that because law enforcement does this, private citizens shouldn’t. Now, if law enforcement doesn’t enforce the laws, particularly in the case when law enforcement personnel are abusing their own power, vigilantism not only can’t be rationally opposed, not only should it take place, not only will it be inevitable, but it will be ham-fisted and stupid because the general population has been systematically, industrially de-educated.

    Human sacrifice, cats and dogs living together, mass hysteria

    If Barr doesn’t throw the book, there’ll be civil war, or whatever the stupid equivalent of that might be. If he does, some soy-suckers will scream at the moon on CNN. That might start one too, but better to start it with integrity. I, for one, would like my body to be found in a dignified pose, not huddled over for warmth in the fetal position like some coward devoid of fortitude. If I could have my corpse wired in place on horseback (a dead horse, let’s be humane) and coated in molten bronze, that’d be even better. We’re just picking out ways to die by this point, but mortality being 100% anyway, I guess we always were.

    • Most of the suspects have been CNN employees since they left their jobs with the government. I’d say John Brennan is my least favorite of the whole bunch. What a sanctimonious felon and traitor.

      • They seem to have all thought it was in the best interest of the denizens of the District of Columbia that a rank outsider not be allowed to actually hold the most powerful job in town. It was as simple as that.

        • I would presume their desperation is about avoiding accountability? But then, their desperation to remove him ended up being the thing which drew attention to their nefariousness. Then again, maybe they did just hate his style so much and were so complacent about their untouchability that’s they acted out without a second thought. “Those whom the gods would destroy” and all that.

          • Having an outsider in the White House was perceived by them as an existential threat to their entire set-up in D.C. An outsider wouldn’t know how the game is played. It was a pure power play by the government employees who run the day to day machinery of the government. Trump isn’t “one of them.” He wouldn’t defer to them and play according to the rules, so, therefore, he had to go. By any means necessary. Strictly a power play. Guys like Brennan and Clapper and Comey a bad news.

    • Stunning comment. I admit bias in regard to the el Cid thing. What an image! Writing here to add that, just this morning, an out-of-work truck driver/neighbor, who has a stereotypically rough and “de-educated” American background, accompanied me on my long morning walk. We had no more reached the trail when he came out in favor of an immediate civil war.
      Who vs. Whom? Democrats vs. Republicans, he answered.
      I can usually count on him to give me the unfiltered nonsense from his parolee-flavored news-and-culture sources. S/:+ ’bout to get real (as he would say), it seems to me.

      • Oooh, el Cid. Now that’s a good statue with a legacy to match. Could you expect less from the nation of matadors and St. James Matamoros?

    • We already have a blueprint for the response to unchecked federal law enforcement.

      Ruby Ridge should have ended with imprisoned federal agents and disbarred federal prosecutors. It didn’t.

      Waco should have ended with imprisoned federal agents and disbarred federal prosecutors. It didn’t.

      Timothy McVey and Terry Nicols motivation was those two facts.

      • Yeah, I guess that could be a stupid civil war, or at least one-man iterations of it. Now, though, the federal investigator malfeasance is wadded up with political correctness, a seemingly-trumped-up totalitarian quarantine, a media which can’t stop tripping over its own hypocrisy, and a virtual Weekend at Bernie’s presidential candidate who will probably win the popular vote by suspicious mail-in ballots from California alone totaling a grater sum than the population of the American Southwest. I’m sure I left off about a dozen things. It’s like they performed a few small scale tests to get the formula for crashing the social currency right and decided to scale to full production in the last few years.

  4. Unfortunately, this behavior seems all-too common with the FBI. I seriously wonder if the FBI actually serves a useful purpose to the nation. The whole “we will send your child to prison unless you plead guilty to a crime you didn’t commit” think seems like SOP to the FBI and the Justice Department these days. We have them spying on their political rivals, refusing Congressional AND Presidential oversight, framing citizens, and possibly staging terrorist attacks on US citizens. Remember, Comey was widely regarded as the most principled man to head the agency in some time. What does that say about the agency? I don’t think I have seen the FBI do anything useful in quite a while. Perhaps we would be better off without them.

    If they are doing something useful, it is high time someone in the agency stands up, condemns activity like the Flynn case, the Hillary Clinton investigation, the Russian Dossier, the Mueller Probe, etc and tells us what they are doing for the US public. Instead, they will probably just tell us that there were only minor problems with all those cases, the problems did not change anything substantial, and they fixed everything with a mandatory, afternoon training session over cocktails.

    • The days of J. Edgar Hoover ready to crush anyone who stood in his way are over. However, the Bureau is still one of the most powerful agencies anywhere in this nation, possibly second only to the National Security Agency and the Central Intelligence Agency, about the former of which very little is known due to the clandestine nature of their work, the latter of which does not operate domestically much if at all, and the most powerful law enforcement agency in the country, bar none. If they decide you are a target, you’re going down, and only the Bureau of Prisons knows where you’ll end up. Just speaking to them can land you in very hot water if you make a mistake or stumble over your words. You can’t escape them, if you try, expect to be surrounded by a dozen or more guys in green SWAT gear who will not hesitate to shoot your head off, and if you get past them, expect the last thing you see to be a red dot before a sniper takes you down. Their authority reaches everywhere, the only way you get beyond their jurisdiction is to leave the country altogether, and if they are looking for you rest assured one of the first things they will do is put a hold on your passport, which limits your options to do that. They might freeze your bank accounts or any other resources you have. By the time they are finished you will plead guilty to something just in the hopes of one day getting your freedom back.

      • How about Chris Wallace, the expert on everything, on the FBI:

        “Fox News Sunday” anchor Chris Wallace said Friday he was surprised to see people “rallying” behind ex-national security adviser Michael Flynn, arguing the former Trump administration official should not have lied to the FBI.
        Wallace, who was speaking on Fox News, said Flynn erred in speaking to the FBI voluntarily shortly after President Trump was elected.
        “Did the FBI play hardball? Yeah. Guess what? The FBI plays hardball. And guess what? If you are talking to the FBI — and a lot of lawyers would say don’t talk to them unless you have to — don’t lie,” he said.

        What a cocky, smarmy jerk. He evidently has no idea of the reporting on the case.

        https://thehill.com/homenews/media/495662-chris-wallace-on-michael-flynn-dont-lie-if-youre-talking-to-the-fbi

  5. This is the most disturbing part of Turley’s article:

    “Even the judge in the case has added to this disturbing record. As Flynn appeared before District Judge Emmet Sullivan for sentencing, Sullivan launched into him and said he could be charged with treason and with working as an unregistered agent on behalf of Turkey. Pointing to a flag behind him, Sullivan declared to Flynn, ‘You were an unregistered agent of a foreign country while serving as the national security adviser to the president of the United States. That undermines everything this flag over here stands for. Arguably, you sold your country out.’”

    A judge is there to protect the judicial system. This one didn’t. Why? From what I saw, he was appointed by President William J. Clinton to serve as United States District Judge for the District of Columbia, after having appointed by Reagan and Bush the Elder to other judicial positions. Why would a federal district court judge permit such a miscarriage of justice in his court? From my experience, the federal district court judges are appointed for life and treat those courtrooms as their own private fiefdoms.

    jvb

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.