Merrick Garland's DOJ politicization

Any thought that Merrick Garland was a moderate disappeared this afternoon when he named a special counsel to investigate President Trump. AG Garland's explanation for naming the special counsel is a word salad that would make VP Harris or KJP proud. Part of Garland's statement says "Based on recent developments, including the former president’s announcement that he is a candidate for president in the next election, and the sitting president’s stated intention to be a candidate as well, I have concluded that it is in the public interest to appoint a special counsel."

That's one of the most impressive collections of weasel words I've ever seen! That takes quite a bit of doing. I've been reading spin since the Clinton era of the 1990s.

This has been expected since the raid on Mar-a-Lago. The notion that this 'investigation' is impartial is a joke. When, not if, Special Counsel Jack Smith obtains an indictment from a super-friendly DC grand jury, Trump will face charges in Washington, DC. That trial will result in a conviction.

That's how 'impartial' special counsels work in DC. That jury will be out less than an hour. Meanwhile, Joe Biden will say that he had nothing to do with the 'investigation.' That's a steaming pile of BS. That's how the Swamp operates:

I watched this riff live this afternoon:

First, Trump had to deal with the Mueller investigation, which was really run by hyper-prejudiced Andrew Weissmann. If you think that Weissmann is impartial, read this tweet: There was a time when it wasn't that difficult to find honorable Democrats. These days, they're virtually impossible to find. Joe Biden has told black people if they don't vote for him, they aren't black. Sen. Schumer stood on the steps of the Supreme Court and threatened a pair of sitting SCOTUS justices. Merrick Garland won't prosecute people threatening SCOTUS justices while they're at home. If that sounds like the actions of honorable people, then you aren't a person of integrity.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Tim Walz's Confederate Flag Fiasco

Image
After Minnesota's Democrats shoved the most controversial progressive legislation down Minnesotans' throats, gossip started popping up about Gov. Walz being interested in running for president . That's died off but Gov. Walz is still making headlines, this time for all the wrong reasons. First, Gov. Walz isn't the brightest bulb in the chandelier. Still, Gov. Walz is fighting against Minnesota's history. This Alpha News article quotes David Hann, the chairman of Minnesota's Republican Party, as saying " The flag the DFL has eliminated was a version of the historic flag our regiments fought under during the Civil War. Minnesota was the first state to offer troops to the Union cause in 1861 , beginning a long tradition of leading the nation in confronting injustice. The DFL quest to erase our history is repugnant and should be rejected." Gov. Walz, though, sees things differently. He's quoted as saying "Minnesota is a diverse state, it continue
Read more

What is Kamala Harris afraid of?

Image
Apparently, Kamala Harris suddenly loves debating. Let me rephrase that. Harris loves debating as long as the moderators are partisan hacks. She wants nothing to do with a debate moderated by Fox's Bret Baier and Martha MacCallum. She's afraid of Bret and Martha because a) they'll either fact-check both her and Trump or they won't fact-check either of them and b) Bret and Martha aren't afraid of asking follow-up questions. To a candidate whose answers are scripted and who isn't quick on her feet, the last thing you want is a follow-up question. Kamala fears follow-up questions like vampires hate wooden stakes, sunlight and holy water. Why has Kamala Harris avoided Fox News like the plague? The moderators/propagandists fact-checked Donald Trump aggressively but didn't fact-check Harris . Why didn't David Muir and Linsey Davis fact-check both candidates equally? Is it because Harris doesn't like fair fights? Perhaps she's just afraid of getting exp
Read more

Why is Joe Biden letting Hamas off the hook?

Image
It isn't disputable whether Joe Biden's administration is letting Hamas off the hook. That issue was settled months ago, when a spineless Joe Biden caved to activists interested in saving Hamas and thwarting the Israelis' attempt to defend themselves. Gerard Baker's op-ed highlights what's at stake for the U.S. if the terrorists are permitted to survive. In his op-ed, Baker wrote "If, under the pressure of internal Democratic politics and global public opinion, the Biden administration forces a 'cease-fire' that leaves our closest ally in the region short of victory over an enemy that seeks to destroy it, sooner or later we shall all pay the price." It's time to revisit George W. Bush's speech to a joint session of Congress on Sept. 20, 2001. It's required that we remind ourselves of one of its most important paragraphs. In talking about who committed the atrocities of 9/11, President Bush identified al-Qa'ida as "a collectio
Read more