Does anyone still need convincing that Gov. Walz is among the most irresponsible, civically ignorant, repellent and dishonest elected officials in the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave? Apparently so: the University of Minnesota Law School invited him to give the main address as its commencement ceremony. Even if Walz were not a clueless demagogue, constitutional dunce and enemy of free speech (he thinks “hate speech” should be punished), he’s an absurd choice to give a speech to law school grads. Not only isn’t he lawyer, he lacks the rudiments of critical thinking essential to the law. He doesn’t know what lawyer do, or what their standards of conduct are.

Walz didn’t disappoint: he continued on the path of unhinged demogoguery that has characterized his pronouncements since he dragged Kamala Harris and the Democrats down to defeat. (Yes, I know there were dozens of factors that resulted in the Totalitarian Party’s well-earned loss in November, but when I absolutely knew the Harris ticket was doomed was when Walz bumbled his way through the debate with J.D. Vance.)

Here are the lowlights of the unethical speech he inflicted on the recent graduates. There are more gaffes and lies than acceptable sections, which is, I guess, impressive it its own, warped, knickleheaded way. My comments are in bold, his blather is in italics:

“The court doesn’t always get it right. Nixon’s Attorney General, Elliot Richardson, chose to step aside rather than follow through on a criminal president’s unlawful order.”

Huh? First, the incident he’s alluding to, when President Nixon ordered his Attorney General to fire Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox, didn’t involve a court at all. Nice start, Tim! Nonsense right out of the gate!

Second, Nixon’s order was not unlawful. He had the power to fire the special prosecutor, which is why legal scholar Robert Bork, the next in line after two AG’s resigned rather than follow Nixon’s edict, went ahead and fired Cox.

Yes, the law school invited a speaker who doesn’t know what “illegal” means.

“Well, once again, in this pivotal moment in history, lawyers are our first and last line of defense.”

Again, huh? Lawyers don’t stop anything; courts do. Judges do. Juries do Law enforcement does.

“When you join the bar, you’re going to swear an oath to preserve and protect the Constitution and the laws of your state and nation. Elected leaders like me take the same oath. That means that, no matter what we do or where we work, we share not only a moral duty but a professional obligation to defend the rule of law.”

Wrong. The oath lawyers take in Minnesota says nothing about “preserve and protect.” It reads, “You do swear that you will support the Constitution of the United States and that of the state of Minnesota, and will conduct yourself as an attorney and counselor at law in an upright and courteous manner, to the best of your learning and ability, with all good fidelity as well to the court as to the client, and that you will use no falsehood or deceit, nor delay any person’s cause for lucre or malice. So help you God.” Elected leaders do not take the same oath.

You’d think that Walz would at least check before he made such a fatuous statement in public. Nah.

“That’s a pretty big deal. The rule of law is the foundation of pretty much everything we care about. It’s what lets us settle our differences peacefully, makes it possible to start or grow a business, and empowers us to stand here and exchange ideas freely. Without the rule of law, everything else crumbles away, and that’s where you all come in.”

The administration that Kamala Harris said she wouldn’t change a thing about was repeatedly hostile to the rule of law, notably the immigration laws.

“Right now, more than any other time in my lifetime, we need you to live up to the oath that you’re about to take, because I have to be honest with you: you are graduating into a genuine emergency. Every single day, the President of the United States finds new ways to trample rights and undermine the rule of law.“

Well, to be fair, Walz never studied law, so maybe he just doesn’t know what he’s saying. Democrats are arguing that this President is trampling on rights by enforcing the law.

And “every day”? That would be a lie if Trump said it.

“Now, I get it—for some of you out there, some would say this is getting way too political for a commencement address. But I would argue I wouldn’t be honoring my oath if I didn’t address this head-on.”

Here’s that oath: “I do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Minnesota, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of Governor.” There is no interpretation of those words that obligate a governor to give a commencement speech, especially an unethical one.

“I’m going to start with the flashing red light: Donald Trump’s modern-day Gestapo is scooping folks up off the streets. They’re in unmarked vans, wearing masks, being shipped off to foreign torture dungeons—no chance to mount a defense, not even a chance to kiss a loved one goodbye, just grabbed up by masked agents, shoved into those vans, and disappeared.“

This is complete fiction. If it were said about a private individual, it would be grounds for a lawsuit. If a lawyer said it, I’d consider filing an ethics complaint, because lawyers are prohibited from engaging in dishonesty, fraud, misrepresentation and deceit.

“To be clear, there’s no way for us to know whether they were actually criminals or not, because they refused to give them a trial. We’re supposed to just take their word for it.”

They aren’t being deported as punishment for being criminals, Tim, they are being deported because they are here illegally.

“When duly elected members of Congress tried to exercise their constitutional right of oversight at an ICE facility, they get shoved around and threatened with arrest.”

Videotapes of the incident Walz alludes to belie his assertion. The members of Congress were deliberately disrupting ICE operations as a political stunt.

“When courts told them repeatedly to knock it off, they brazenly defy them.”

…a particularly broad and misleading characterization that no actual lawyer would dare use before a judge. “Specifics, counsellor?”

“Meanwhile, we have an aspiring fascist in Stephen Miller on TV talking about suspending habeas corpus. All of you know this: that’s only used in times of rebellion or emergency, neither of which is happening right now.”

As Walz is proving as he gives his fatuous speech, talking nonsense isn’t a threat to anyone or any thing. Walz is also committing deceit: Miller was talking about suspending habeus corpus for non-citizens, not everybody. The writ of habeas corpus can only be suspended in cases of rebellion or invasion, not “emergency.” Like so much of his speech, here Walz is feeding the graduates misinformation. His likely response to that accusation? “Whatever. They know what I mean.”

Yeah, he’s a great role model for lawyers…

“By the way, they’re not only kicking out folks who are undocumented here, they’re kicking out citizens. A few weeks ago, they kicked out three children, all under 8 years old. One of them had brain cancer, for Christ’s sake.”

Pure deceit and misinformation! Walz is referring to children, who are not being “kicked out,” but who are being taken out of the country by their own parents. This is a new Democratic Party Big Lie narrative.

“It’s not hyperbole to say we’re not far from a world where anyone could get that knock at the door, and there’s no guarantee you’d get your day in court or that you’d ever make it home alive from whatever corner of the world they stick you in.”

Of course it’s hyperbole. It’s a ridiculous hyperbole.

“Then you have a Vice President who, when not getting chastised by various popes, is offering up horrific arguments—horrific arguments. It is his view that due process is optional. I don’t know what the hell they teach at Yale, but the Constitution is pretty clear. It doesn’t say “only if it’s convenient.” It’s crystal clear.“

Who cares what “various popes” think about our Vice-President? I certainly don’t. And again, Walz is engaging in deceit. Vance has supported the minority view that Constitutional due process is only guaranteed to citizens. I think he’s wrong, and I’ll bet that the theory goes down in flames at the Supreme Court. Nonetheless, the Constitution is not “crystal clear” on the matter. If the Constitution were so clear, we wouldn’t need the Supreme Court as often as we do.

This is, however, one of the few useful nuggets in his idiotic speech. When lawyers say anything is “crystal clear,” it’s because it isn’t.

“Here’s the thing: due process isn’t just lawyer speak. It’s a right that stretches back centuries. It was wrested away from kings, that heroes fought and died for, and we’re just going to surrender it? Surrender it to Donald Trump, a guy whose only knowledge of the law is by being a criminal defendant himself?”

I’d guess that a head-to-head legal knowledge face-off between Walz and Trump would be a draw,

“I am going to talk about it. It’s happening in front of our eyes. I’m going to talk about this damn jet. I don’t know if you heard it. The President is getting this—I’m a little obsessive about things that really irritate the crap out of me, and this type of stuff—because this palace in the sky is getting from the Qatari government, which he gets to keep for himself when he’s done.“

None of this is factual, as has been pointed out here and elsewhere.

“Let’s be very clear: it’s a flying bribe, blatantly unconstitutional. Even worse, this whole deal was signed off on by the Attorney General of the United States, ostensibly our nation’s top lawyer, famously an independent job. But now, the Attorney General, Pam Bondi, is acting as the President’s personal attorney, and, weirdly enough, coincidentally enough, she happens to be a lobbyist for the government of Qatar.”

Again, since the gift is to the U.S., not Trump personally, there is nothing unconstitutional about it. What a trivial, petty, desperate Trump Deranged rant this “speech” is! Such eloquence! Such soaring rhetoric!

Somebody tell Tim that Pam Bondi is not a lobbyist for anyone. She was a member of a lobbying firm in D.C. that had Qatar among its clients.

Walz: “Whatever.”

Well, that’s 90% of the speech; I can’t stand any more. Walz is an embarrassment. Shame on the University of Minnesota for debasing its students’ graduation with such fool.

___________________

Pointer: JutGory