Politicizing Justice

Last week (updated today) The Epoch Times posted an article about the appointment of a Special Prosecutor to investigate President Trump. I wonder if all the Americans who have decided that President Trump is the ultimate evil have actually looked at what is happening and what it means to the future of America. A sitting President has allowed a Special Prosecutor to be named to investigate a political opponent who may run for President. If you are happy with this, would you have been happy if this had happened after the Hillary Clinton email scandal where she erased much of what was probably evidence against her? This is the kind of thing that goes on in banana republics. I only hope America has not become one.

The article reports:

While the Republicans kicked off the 2024 presidential race with the announcement that former President Donald Trump was again running for president, in perhaps the ultimate sign of our ignominious times, the Democrats, in effect, kicked off their half of the contest three days later by appointing a special counsel to escalate their political prosecution of him.

This is where “our democracy” stands today: with its purported defenders engaging in the singularly anti-democratic act of siccing a hyper-politicized law enforcement apparatus on a candidate for the highest elected office, on dubious grounds, thereby subverting the political process by which we decide who represents us.

At a minimum, no doubt to an approving President Joe Biden, his law-enforcement arm is now engaged in what amounts to election interference against arguably the president’s top challenger—ironically probing in part Trump’s alleged interference with the transfer of power in 2020, when Trump could make the case that the deep state did the same to him from the inception of Russiagate in 2016 onward.

Worse, with Attorney General Merrick Garland’s appointment of Jack Smith as special counsel, the prospect of the former president being charged and convicted of something, anything, is more real than at any time during the perpetual campaign to purge Trump from the body politic.

Our ruling class really does wish to “lock him up,” or at least hold that threat over the former president’s head for maximum political gain.

The article concludes:

The legal persecution of Trump—an insurance policy of sorts should the political persecution of him and his supporters fail—is beyond chilling.

Those who loathe Trump, his policy, and his people, have proven they are willing to eviscerate the U.S. system in the name of defending it from traitors, authoritarians, and insurrectionists.

Their projection is reaching its apex.

Should it persist, we will be an unrecognizable country.

Please follow the link above to read the entire article. I personally think President Trump needs to be re-elected to illustrate that the Washington elite and media mob do not control the voters. Unfortunately, I fear that they do.

It Won’t Stop There

Do you honestly think that the constant attack and investigation of President Trump is actually about President Trump? Do you think the people behind the constant attacks and investigations of President Trump will stop with him? Do you honestly believe that whoever is the Republican presidential candidate in 2024 will not be subject to the same attacks and misuse of government power that President Trump has been subjected to? Can you honestly say that a Special Prosecutor should be appointed to investigate President Trump but not Hunter or President Biden’s business dealings? If you answered yes to any of the above questions, you should probably not waste your time reading any more of this article.

On Friday, Breitbart reported the following:

Attorney General Merrick Garland reportedly plans to name a special counsel to investigate former President Donald Trump, though he has yet to name such counsel to investigate President Joe Biden or his son, Hunter.

Update: Garland named John L. Smith as special counsel Friday afternoon in a televised press statement. According to LinkedIn, Smith is the Deputy Assistant Attorney General of the Civil Rights Division at U.S. Department of Justice — one of the most highly politicized, left-wing departments within the agency.

Hunter Biden acknowledged in December 2020 that he had been under federal investigation for possible tax violations. Since then, the investigation reportedly broadened to include more of his global business dealings.

However, Attorney General Garland has declined to appoint a special counsel, despite criticism from legal scholars who say that greater political independence is needed in an inquiry involving the president’s family.

On Thursday, I posted the following from The Washington Post:

Federal agents and prosecutors have come to believe former president Donald Trump’s motive for allegedly taking and keeping classified documents was largely his ego and a desire to hold on to the materials as trophies or mementos, according to people familiar with the matter.

The appointment of a Special Prosecutor is political. It is a preemptive strike to make sure the Republicans cannot win the White House in 2024. The politicization of justice that has occurred during the Biden administration is a serious threat to our Republic. If this stands, the criminalization of political views that are not in agreement with the party in power will become part of our daily life.

Looking For The Root Causes

On Thursday, The Daily Caller posted the following headline:

Biden Admin Still Working On ‘Root Causes’ Of Immigration Crisis As Border Crossings Remain At Record High

Is O.J. Simpson still looking for his wife’s killer?

The article reports:

Top officials from the Biden administration and the Mexican government met Thursday to discuss their work on border security, as illegal border crossings and cross-border drug trafficking remain at historically high levels.

Secretary of State Antony Blinken, Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas, Attorney General Merrick Garland, Mexican Foreign Secretary Marcelo Ebrard and Mexican Security Secretary Rosa Rodriguez held a press conference after meeting in Washington on Thursday to tout their progress on reining in drug trafficking, human smuggling and illegal arms sales across the southern border.

The Biden administration has continued to stress that it is focused on addressing the “root causes” of the border crisis, but the fruit of that labor isn’t evident to Americans yet.

Has it occurred to the Biden administration that one of the root causes of the border crisis might be that fact that there is no border wall to make crossing the border more difficult?

The article concludes:

Further complicating matters, the relationship between the U.S. and Mexico isn’t entirely copasetic. One journalist asked Blinken and Ebrard about recent comments from Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador blaming President Joe Biden for a “lack of control” at the southern border and criticizing the West for shipping arms to Ukraine.

Mexico has also blamed the U.S. for cartel gun smuggling. Blinken said the comments and actions gave him no doubts about the strength of the U.S. relationship with Mexico and the two countries’ ability to continue working together. But as the administration continues to stress the long game, polls show that Americans’ immigration concerns aren’t fading.

The cartels are currently controlling America’s southern border. That is not good for either Mexico or America. If the Biden administration were to come up with a workable plan to control the border, I suspect that Mexico would be willing to cooperate with that plan.

Have We Reached Banana Republic Yet?

On Thursday, John Hinderaker posted an article at Power Line Blog about recent legal activities that appear to be political.

The article reports:

A hallmark of banana republics is that those who lose power are apt to wind up in prison, or on the wrong end of a firing squad. Even more advanced countries, like Israel, sometimes have a regrettable tendency to prosecute former political leaders.

It is hard to think of anything more destructive to a democracy, and yet the Democrats are going down that path. It seems clear that they intend to bring criminal charges against President Trump over his keeping some White House documents at Mar-a-Lago–a trivial offense, as far as anyone knows.

And that’s not all. The Department of Justice has issued subpoenas to a large number of people who were associated in some way with the Trump campaign or administration. They generally seek information about efforts to challenge the reported election results in several states. A copy of one of the subpoenas, with the name of the person who was served redacted, is linked below. Take a look at the scope of the documents the subject of the subpoena is required to produce:

594129794-Redacted-Subpoena

In case you are wondering about John Hinderaker’s background in making the above statements, John Hinderaker practiced law for 41 years, enjoying a nationwide litigation practice. He retired from the practice of law at the end of 2015, and is now President of Center of the American Experiment, a think tank headquartered in Minnesota. He and two other lawyers founded Power Line Blog in 2002.

The article concludes:

So far, of course, no criminal investigations have been launched into Joe Biden’s shipping of illegal aliens to many points across the country, often in the dead of night, for the last year and a half.

More examples could be multiplied. Former Trump adviser Steve Bannon likely will go to jail for contempt of Congress, the same offense that former Attorney General Eric Holder was held to have committed by a bipartisan 255–67 vote of the House of Representatives. But unlike Bannon, Holder was not prosecuted. He now makes millions as a partner in a prominent Washington, D.C. law firm.

Given the thorough corruption of the Department of Justice under Merrick Garland, there is a reasonable possibility that the Democrats will move to imprison both Donald Trump and other prominent Republicans. I suppose they think they are secure, because Republicans would never follow such a third-world precedent when they regain power. I don’t know about that. In any event, there is a more fundamental question: are the Democrats trying to trigger a civil war, as they did in 1861? Judging from their actions, I think the question must be taken seriously.

Please follow the link to read the entire article. It is frightening to see how corrupt the Justice Department has become.

How The Cover-Up Worked


On September 2, NewsMax posted an article about the FBI’s handling of the Hunter Biden laptop case. It seems as though there were some serious conflicts of interest in the investigation.

The article reports:

A former FBI official accused of running interference in the investigation into Hunter Biden was ”running point” on the bureau’s handling of Tony Bobulinski, Hunter Biden’s former business associate who was tasked with setting up the family’s joint venture with the Chinese firm CEFC, the Washington Examiner reports.

Timothy Thibault, who has been accused of bias in handling the investigation into Hunter Biden’s laptop, resigned from the bureau abruptly last weekend.  

Bobulinski, who in 2020 accused Joe Biden of lying about his involvement in his family’s overseas dealings, was also a key witness in the Hunter Biden laptop saga. He has said Thibault suppressed the evidence he gave to the FBI about the Biden family.

The Hunter Biden laptop case was an important investigation that could have easily influenced the 2020 election. The fact that the case was squelched by the FBI does not say good things about the FBI.

The article concludes:

In a July letter to FBI Director Christopher Wray and Attorney General Merrick Garland, Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, said whistleblowers reported that Thibault had sought to close ”an avenue of additional derogatory Hunter Biden reporting” and sought to prevent it from being reopened.

”Mr. Thibault’s statement fails to address the allegations brought forth by whistleblowers who provided specific and credible allegations of political bias and his failure to comply with Department and FBI guidelines and standards.”

”Political bias should have no place at the FBI. We need accountability, which is why Congress must continue investigating and the inspector general must fully investigate as I’ve requested,” Grassley continued.

I am not convinced this case is going to be widely reported or have consequences even with all of the evidence that has come out. Americans need to find news sources that are reliable and report things of this nature. Otherwise, we will continue to elect politicians that use their office to get rich and totally ignore the interests of the American people who sent them to Washington.

Fighting For Transparency

On August 31, The Conservative Treehouse posted an screenshot of a memo Merrick Garland sent to DOJ and FBI employees reminding them of the restrictions involved when they talk to Congress. Coincidentally, the memo was written after several members of Congress had reported that they had been contacted by whistleblowers within the Department of Justice.

On September 1, Just the News reported that Senator Chuck Grassley has responded to that memo.

The article reports:

The Attorney General insisted the memo was not intended to discourage whistleblowers from reporting issues to Congress, but it came amid a string of whistleblower allegations from within the FBI both before and after the bureau raided former President Donald Trump’s estate.

“I write this letter to make clear to you that whistleblowers are the most patriotic people I know and they play an integral part in ensuring that inappropriate influences, political influence, and improper conduct within the Department and its components, such as the FBI, are exposed,” Grassley wrote. “Under your leadership, the Department and FBI have failed to be responsive to congressional oversight requests. Accordingly, it is often only because of whistleblowers that Congress and the American people are apprised of the type of wrongdoing that your memo seeks to protect against.”

“Even with your whistleblower caveats, and due to the timing of your memo, I remain concerned about the chilling effect it may have on whistleblowers who wish to approach Congress with information relating to fraud, waste, abuse, and gross mismanagement,” he concluded.

Congress is charged with oversight of the Department of Justice. It is becoming obvious that the current Department of Justice does not welcome that oversight.

 

We Have Reached Peak Insanity

On Tuesday, The Daily Caller reported that U.S. Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart will hold a hearing regarding the unsealing of the search warrant affidavit. Is it appropriate for the Magistrate who issued the search warrant to determine whether or not anyone can see the affidavit related to it? Are we supposed to overlook the fact that this Magistrate is loosely connected to Jeffrey Epstein? Those are just two of the questions I have about this case.

The article reports:

Reinhart will hold the hearing on Aug. 18 in the West Palm Beach Division, according to Fox News. The judge will opine whether the Department of Justice (DOJ) must unseal the search warrant materials for the raid on Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence, which likely include the search warrant affidavit. The DOJ is expected to argue to keep the document sealed, the New York Post reported.

…The DOJ adamantly opposes the release of the search warrant affidavit, which would include testimony from federal agents justifying the raid and information about witnesses. Assistant U.S. Attorney Juan Antonio Gonzalez argued making the affidavit public would risk “the integrity of an ongoing law enforcement investigation that implicates national security.”

Somehow I just don’t believe them.

The article concludes:

Attorney General Merrick Garland, who personally approved the raid, said at a press conference recently that FBI agents could be subject to increased threats as a result of the search.

A bipartisan group of lawmakers has requested the DOJ provide updates detailing the process of the search, which documents the FBI found, and how their release would impact national security.

Reinhart signed off on the search warrant that allowed the FBI to raid Mar-a-Lago. Reinhart, however, has ties to disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein, the Miami Herald reported. Reinhart quit his job as a U.S. attorney in 2008 and went to work for Epstein, according to the report. Reinhart was in private practice for 10 years before becoming a federal magistrate in 2018.

I heard a comment on the radio today that said generally the people pushing for transparency are the good guys. I suspect that is true in this case.

How The Truth Was Kept From Voters

On Tuesday, The Patriot Daily Wire posted an article explaining how the FBI managed to keep the investigation of Hunter Biden’s laptop from proceeding. The article includes some of the details about the obstacles currently preventing a thorough investigation of the contents of that laptop.

The article reports:

Several FBI whistleblowers say that the agency’s probe into Hunter Biden was internally sabotaged during the 2020 election in order to derail the investigation, after agents wrongfully deemed verified evidence as “disinformation” to ignore.

According to Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), agents investigating Hunter “opened an assessment which was used by an FBI headquarters team to improperly discredit negative Hunter Biden information as disinformation and caused investigative activity to cease,” adding that his office received “a significant number of protected communications from highly credible whistleblowers” regarding the investigation.

Grassley added that “verified and verifiable derogatory information on Hunter Biden was falsely labeled as disinformation,” according to the Washington Examiner.

…The whistleblowers say investigators from FBI headquarters were “in communication with FBI agents responsible for the Hunter Biden information targeted by Mr. Auten’s assessment,” and that their findings on whether the claims were in fact disinformation were placed “in a restricted access sub-file” in September 2020, according to Grassley, who added that the disclosures “appear to indicate that there was a scheme in place among certain FBI officials to undermine derogatory information connected to Hunter Biden by falsely suggesting it was disinformation.

Grassley summarized the new allegations in a Monday letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland and FBI Director Christopher Wray.

The Examiner notes that FBI agent Auten was involved in the Trump-Russia investigation, including interviewing Christopher Steele’s primary source, Igor Danchenko.

According to Grassley, the “volume and consistency” of the allegations regarding the handling of the Hunter Biden probe “substantiate their credibility.”

The article includes a copy of the letter mentioned above. Please follow the link to read the entire article. We still don’t (and probably never will) know the extent of the backroom deals that Hunter Biden has been (and possibly still is) involved in. Even if the case is allowed to proceed, it is doubtful that he will be seriously punished. We truly have a two-tiered justice system in America right now. If they continues, the country will not survive.

The Need For Transparency

On Thursday, The Daily Caller posted an article about a request by some Republican House of Representatives members demanding that the Department of Justice release body and surveillance camera footage as well any other footage in connection with the Jan. 6 Capitol riot. Why hasn’t that footage been released already, it’s been more than a year?

The article reports:

Wisconsin Rep. Glenn Grothman, Texas Rep. Louie Gohmert and South Carolina Rep. Ralph Norman first requested the information from the DOJ in October 2021. Now, they are re-upping their inquiry, asking Attorney General Merrick Garland to release the information since their constituents have a “growing concern” with the DOJ’s “apparent failure” to do so.

...Most of the 14,000 hours of surveillance footage from Jan. 6 has not been made public, Buzzfeed News reported in August 2021. It is unclear how things have changed roughly one year later.

“From every camera on the Capitol grounds – including body and fixed surveillance cameras – every second of footage from January 6, 2021 ought to be in the public domain by now,” Norman told the DCNF. “It is baffling to me why the Attorney General has failed to make the entirety of footage available, especially while the Select Committee is cherry-picking clips to suit its narrative.”

The article concludes:

“It continues to be our hope that all Americans have faith in our systems of government, including our criminal justice and judicial system,” wrote the Republicans in their letter, setting an August 4 deadline. “For this reason, it is imperative that the Department adequately respond to our requests in timely manner.”

The article includes a copy of the letter sent to Attorney General Merrick Garland. Transparency is needed because of the attempts to politicize the events of January 6th. The attempt to politicize the events of that day were made obvious when Speaker Pelosi blocked the Republican choices for the investigative committee. There is no way the current committee investigating January 6th has any form of legitimacy. The only reason the committee has been allowed to exist is because most of the Republicans in Washington have no desire to uphold the U.S. Constitution. As I have stated before–if Ghislaine Maxwell’s client list ever becomes public, it may explain a lot of votes in Washington in the past few years.

Labels Matter

On Sunday, John Hinderaker posted an article at Power Line Blog about the double standard used in reporting protests.

The article notes:

The Left has a rather schizophrenic attitude toward protests and demonstrations. Some are wonderful, like the George Floyd riots, which were not, in fact, protests at all. Or like arson and other destruction committed at pro-life facilities. Others are detestable, like the Dutch farmers’ protests, or the French “yellow vests,” or the Canadian truckers. Some protests, too, can only be ignored, like when hundreds of thousands of pro-life citizens show up for their annual march in Washington.

Currently the Left is “demonstrating” against the Supreme Court justices who concurred in the Dobbs decision. A few nights ago, as Scott has noted, left-wingers harassed Justice Brett Kavanaugh and other diners at the Morton’s steak house in D.C. Liberals viewed this effort as a triumph–Kavanaugh reportedly had to exit out a back door–and a pro-Democratic Party organization is now offering cash bounties to anyone who sees a conservative justice out in public in time for a flash mob to assemble.

When asked about such tactics, White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre was nonplussed. These are peaceful demonstrations, she replied, the very essence of democracy!

Creating an intimidating environment for political opponents is a sign of a tyrannical government. Protesting political figures at private locations that have nothing to do with their jobs is a form of intimidation.

The article concludes:

And, of course, all of this discussion takes place in the context of at least one assassination attempt against Justice Kavanaugh, the same man who was falsely and relentlessly smeared by the Democratic Party during his confirmation hearings. I think the leaders of the Democratic Party are well aware that their over-the-top attacks on conservative justices, and the kinds of harassment we have seen in recent days, are likely to lead to more assassination attempts. I think leaders of the Democratic Party hope that one or more conservative justices will be assassinated while Joe Biden is still (at least nominally) president, so that he can appoint a left-wing successor. I think this is why Attorney General Merrick Garland refuses to enforce 18 U.S.C. § 1507, which bans demonstrations at the homes of judges that attempt to influence their decisions. And I think this is why the Biden administration cheers on the mobs who harass conservatives in public places.

If this assessment seems harsh, ask yourself: what other hypothesis is consistent with the Democrats’ actions?

So, are protests and demonstrations good or bad? I think they are good–that is to say, consistent with our Constitution’s framework of ordered liberty–when they are peaceful (not “mostly peaceful”), when they are conducted in public places with proper permitting, and when they do not explicitly or implicitly threaten anyone. Citizens have a right to assemble peaceably, not to form themselves into mobs. They do not have a right to commit mayhem, to destroy property, or to threaten, menace, or unreasonably inconvenience others. Unfortunately, the “protests” that the Left likes most usually fall in the latter category. Let’s just hope they don’t result in even more catastrophic violence than we have already witnessed.

So far, the violence we have witnessed seems to be mainly on the liberal side–January 6th was not a totally peaceful protest, but did not include lighting fires, burning business, throwing molotov cocktails into police cars, or killing those trying to protect their businesses. If the violence on the political left, including antifa, BLM, etc., is not reined in, I fear that there will be violent pushback from the political right. That is a recipe for the destruction of America.

The Deep State Crosses Party Lines

In June I posted an article based on a post in The Conservative Treehouse about the appointment of Merrick Garland to the post of Attorney General.

The article in The Conservative Treehouse included the following:

The Democratic-controlled Senate voted 53-44 to approve Jackson’s (Ketanji Brown Jackson) nomination to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. All those in opposition were Republicans, with three voting with Democrats to approve the nomination.

Biden nominated Jackson, a Washington-based U.S. district judge, to the D.C. Circuit to replace Attorney General Merrick Garland on the bench. That appellate court has served as a springboard to the Supreme Court in the past, including for current Justices John Roberts, Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh. (read more)

On Friday, President Biden nominated Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to serve on the Supreme Court to replace retiring Justice Breyer.

On Friday, Just the News reported:

Jackson, 51, sits on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia and if confirmed by the Senate would become the first black female justice appointed to the nine-member high court. During earlier parts of her career, Jackson served as a clerk for Justice Breyer as well as a public defender, which made her resume appealing to Biden, who has voiced a desire to put more public defenders on the federal bench.

According to CNN, Jackson, received and accepted the offer from President Biden on Thursday night.

A decision Friday by the president would mark exactly two years since then-presidential candidate Biden promised to appoint the first black female justice to the court.

Biden said he would share his choice by late February. On Wednesday, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said there would absolutely be a public announcement before March 1.

On Friday, The Washington Examiner reported:

The connection between Jackson and Ryan (former House Speaker Paul Ryan) is complex, as Jackson’s husband has a twin brother who is married to Ryan’s sister-in-law.

Ryan has also supported Jackson through previous nomination processes. When former President Barack Obama nominated her to a spot on the U.S. District Court for the D.C. Circuit in 2012, Ryan testified on her behalf at the confirmation hearing and spoke highly of her qualifications, urging his fellow GOP colleagues to confirm her.

Jackson, 51, was known to be on a short list of contenders the White House considered for the role and exhibits a unique background, having been a federal trial court judge for eight years without experience as a prosecutor or major corporate lawyer. She also sat on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals bench, where notably Justices Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh served as judges before their promotions.

It will be interesting to see exactly what her impact on the Supreme Court will be if she is confirmed.

The Incestuous Swamp

On December 10th, The Washington Free Beacon posted an article which may explain why we are not hearing an awful lot from the Durham investigation.

The article reports:

A top adviser to Attorney General Merrick Garland is facing calls to recuse herself from the Justice Department’s investigation of the Trump-Russia probe, which has looked into the actions of her husband, National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan.

Margaret Goodlander serves as counsel to Garland, who oversees Special Counsel John Durham’s investigation. Garland has oversight of Durham’s budget, the scope of the investigation, and the release of a report Durham is believed to be writing. Sullivan, who married Goodlander in 2015, has been referenced in Durham’s indictment of a cybersecurity lawyer who worked for the Clinton campaign. While there is no indication that Durham is targeting Sullivan, the national security adviser could be a witness for the investigation given that he was a foreign policy adviser to Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign. Durham’s report could also reveal embarrassing details about Sullivan’s work on the campaign to dig up dirt on Donald Trump’s possible links to Russia.

A spokesman for the Justice Department said Goodlander “has no role in Mr. Durham’s investigation,” but it is unclear whether she has formally recused herself from the matter or whether the Durham probe is outside her Justice Department portfolio. Fox News reported that Goodlander advises Garland on antitrust and international issues.

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R., Iowa) and the watchdog group Empower Oversight say Goodlander should be formally recused from the Durham investigation to maintain public trust in the probe.

Maybe I’m missing something, but if your husband is under investigation by the Justice Department, you shouldn’t be working for the Justice Department.

The article concludes:

According to the indictment, Sussmann’s (indicted cybersecurity lawyer Michael Sussmann) former Perkins Coie partner, Marc Elias, in September 2016 briefed Sullivan and others on the Clinton team about his firm’s efforts to investigate the Alfa Bank data. Sullivan days before the election issued a statement that cited the Alfa-Trump allegations as evidence of collusion. It was unknown at the time that the Clinton campaign was investigating the Alfa Bank issue. The FBI later determined that there was no nefarious link between the bank and Trump.

Elias was the attorney who hired Fusion GPS, the firm that commissioned the Steele dossier. Durham indicted the primary source for the dossier, Igor Danchenko, on charges that Danchenko lied to the FBI about the identity of his sources. Dancheko allegedly lied by saying that a longtime Democratic operative, Charles Dolan, was not one of his sources.

Grassley and Empower Oversight have pressed the Justice Department over the recusal of another official, Susan Hennessey, who has pushed the false claim that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia. Hennessey, who serves in the national security division, last year criticized Durham’s investigation, calling it “partisan silliness.”

Grassley said Garland has stonewalled his requests for information about Hennessey and other Justice Department officials’ conflicts of interest.

“I’ve raised concerns about potential conflicts of several Biden Justice Department officials and can’t get a straight answer from the attorney general,” he told the Free Beacon.

The Free Beacon was once a client of Fusion GPS. All of the work Fusion GPS performed for the Free Beacon was based on public sources, and none of the work product appeared in the Steele dossier. For more information, see here.

The swamp is deeper and has more entangled vines than most of us ever imagined.

 

Ruining A City Already In Peril

On Tuesday, The New York Post reported that New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio has created the first legal ‘shooting gallery’ for drug addicts in the city.

The article reports:

With just four weeks left in office, Mayor Bill de Blasio launched the country’s first legal shooting galleries Tuesday morning, calling them safe havens for addicts — shortly before five people overdosed at just one of the clinics on opening day.

“Overdose Prevention Centers are a safe and effective way to address the opioid crisis. I’m proud to show cities in this country that after decades of failure, a smarter approach is possible,” de Blasio said in a statement.

The nonprofit-run centers, New York Harm Reduction Educators on E. 126th Street in Harlem and Washington Heights’ CORNER Project on W. 180th Street, opened Tuesday.

There were five overdoses at the East Harlem site that saw 85 users inject drugs laced with fentanyl including heroin on Tuesday. 

This is not the way to deal with the drug problem. Also, this is a big change to make four weeks before leaving office.

The article concludes:

Rep. Nicole Malliotakis (R-NY), whose district includes Staten Island and parts of southern Brooklyn, called on the Department of Justice to block the sites, noting that under former President Trump the DOJ said such sites would violate the federal Controlled Substances Act.

Malliotakis wrote US Attorney General Merrick Garland Tuesday urging him to “take swift action to enforce federal law.”

The congresswoman cited a Jan. 2021 Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that determined it was a federal crime for a supervised injection site run by a Philadelphia nonprofit to allow consumption of illegal drug use at its location.

“Instead of focusing on the root cause of the drug epidemic, Mayor de Blasio is enabling drug cartels that continue to break our laws, smuggle illegal drugs over our border, and prey on our children,” Malliotakis said.

“Crime and fentanyl use are at record highs because of open borders, botched bail reform, and anti-police policies that keep releasing criminal drug dealers back onto our streets. Opening taxpayer-funded heroin shooting galleries is not a proper solution. These centers not only encourage drug use but they will further deteriorate our quality of life,” she said.

De Blasio has largely turned a blind eye to daytime drug sprees in major city hubs like the Garment District and the Triangle Plaza Hub in the Bronx.

It might be a good idea to acknowledge that a good deal of our drug problem in America is related to two things–an open southern border and the Chinese manufacturing and selling of fentanyl. Until we are willing to address those two issues, we will continue to have an addiction problem in America. Setting up ‘safe’ places to take illegal drugs does nothing to combat either problem. There is no law regulating illegal drugs or controlling what is in them. There is no guarantee that an illegally purchased drug will not contain a fatal does of fentanyl.

Lying To Congress Is Only A Problem If You Are A Republican

Yesterday The Post Millennial posted an article yesterday that indicates Attorney General Merrick Garland lied to Congress when asked about using the Department of Justice Counterterrorism Division to investigate parents who were unhappy with the curriculum in their local schools.

The article reports:

In a letter addressed to US Attorney General Merrick Garland on Tuesday, Rep. Jim Jordan wrote that a whistleblower has revealed that the Federal Bureau of Investigation is using its Counterterrorism Division to investigate parents.

“Last month, during your testimony before the Judiciary Committee, you testified that the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation were not using federal counterterrorism tools to target concerned parents at local school board meetings,” Jordan’s letter began.

…”We are now in receipt of a protected disclosure from a Department whistleblower showing that the FBI’s Counterterrorism Division is compiling and categorizing threat assessments related to parents, including a document directing FBI personnel to use a specific ‘threat tag’ to track potential investigations,” the letter continues, calling into question the “accuracy and completeness of your sworn testimony.”

Jordan’s letter goes on to outline that during Garland’s Oct. 21 testimony, he stated that the Department and its components were not using counterterrorism statues and resources to target concerned parents, specifically stating that he could not “imagine any circumstance in which the Patriot Act would be used in the circumstances of parents complaining about their children.”

The letter states that they have received an FBI email from the whistleblower dated Oct. 20, the day before Garland’s testimony, sent “on behalf of” the FBI’s Assistant Director for the Counterterrorism.

…That document, which references Garland’s Oct. 4 directive to the FBI, reveals that the FBI created the threat tag “EDUOFFICIALS” with the purpose of tracking “instances of related threats.”

“We ask that your offices apply the threat tag to investigations and assessments of threats specifically directed against school board administrators, board members, teachers, and staff,” the document reads. “The purpose of the threat tag is to help scope this threat on a national level and provide opportunity for comprehensive analysis of the threat picture for effective management with law enforcement parters at all levels.”

“This disclosure provides specific evidence that federal law enforcement operationalized counterterrorism tools at the behest of a left-wing special interest group against concerned parents,” Jordan wrote.

Please follow the link above to read the entire article. It includes screenshots of the Whistleblower’s information.

The Impact Of Public Opinion

Many parents of school children objected when they were called domestic terrorists because they had questions or disagreements with what their children were being taught in school. As parents began speaking out, other Americans became aware of the situation and also voiced their opinion. The actions of the parents and others have gotten results.

Today The Federalist reported the following:

The National School Boards Association has apologized for a letter that Attorney General Merrick Garland used to target parents as “domestic terrorists.”

“We regret and apologize for the letter,” the NSBA said in a memorandum sent to members on Friday. “To be clear, the safety of school board members, other public school officials and educators, and students is our top priority, and there remains important work to be done on this issue. However, there was no justification for some of the language included in the letter.”

The original letter, publicly sent to Biden administration officials after the organization worked with the Biden administration to craft its language, asked the federal government to take action against parents and citizens who “threaten” or “intimidate” school board officials and education administrators. It said nothing of the reports of some school officials engaging in the same behavior against parents.

“NSBA believes immediate assistance is required to protect our students, school board members, and educators who are susceptible to acts of violence affecting interstate commerce because of threats to their districts, families, and personal safety,” the original letter read. “… As these acts of malice, violence, and threats against public school officials have increased, the classification of these heinous actions could be the equivalent to a form of domestic terrorism and hate crimes.”

As many as 20 state school boards have since distanced themselves from the NSBA in backlash against the letter: Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia and Wyoming.

Fourteen state school boards, including Pennsylvania’s, said they were not alerted before the NSBA sent the letter. The Pennsylvania School Boards Association voted unanimously last week to exit the NSBA.

The article concludes:

House Republicans grilled Garland on his decision to mobilize the FBI against parents.

“It concerns us that [your letter] was issued just five days after the National School Board Association sent a letter to President Biden which referred to concerned parents as the equivalent of ‘domestic terrorists and perpetrators of hate crimes,’” Louisiana Rep. Mike Johnson said. “Given the timing of all this, your memo appears to have been motivated by politics more than any pressing law enforcement need. This is concerning to us and it’s worthy of investigation.”

“A snitch line on parents, started five days after a left-wing political organization asked for it,” Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan said. “If that’s not political, I don’t know what is.”

This incident shows the power of Americans when they choose to speak up. All of us need to be ready to stand up against over-intrusive searches and threats from our government. It seems as if our law enforcement agencies on the national level have been politicized. The best protection for all of us is to make sure we elect local officials who respect and abide by the U.S. Constitution. Otherwise we will find ourselves living in a surveillance state.

Evidently Ethics Investigations Are Not Allowed In The Biden Administration

The Conservative Treehouse posted an article today about the possible conflict of interest in the Attorney General Merrick Garland’s investigation of parents objecting to the actions of local school boards.

The article reports:

Representative Mike Johnson (R-LA) questioned U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland about his clear conflict of interest today surrounding the Attorney General’s instructions for FBI agents to investigate parents who question school board curriculum. Merrick Garland’s daughter is married to the co-founder of the Critical Race Theory educational material being purchased by the school boards. The exact CRT material being directly challenged by the parents Garland has instructed the FBI to investigate.

In a clear conflict of interest Merrick Garland is using his office to protect the income and investments of his son-in-law’s business. However, when questioned about this conflict today, Merrick Garland says he will refuse to accept any ethical review of his conduct.

The article includes the following video:

The article concludes:

Conflict of interest much?

Yes, the Attorney General is instructing the FBI to investigate parents who might pose a financial threat to the business of his daughter’s husband.

Every government official should be expect regular ethics reviews of his conduct regardless of political party or position. The Attorney General is not above the law.

This Was Always The Next Step

On October 2nd, I posted an article about the National School Boards Association’s claim that school board members are under threat from parents who oppose some of the garbage being taught in our classrooms. The actual truth is that the National School Boards Association and the local school boards would like very much for parents to sit down and shut up, and the parents are not cooperating. There have been very few, if any, threats. One of the few benefits of the school shutdowns of the past year was that parents got a closer look at what their children were being taught. A lot of parents didn’t like what they saw and are now speaking out against it. Because the Teacher’s Union and affiliated groups are major donators to the Democrat party, this revolt by parents must be stopped. Enter the Biden administration’s Justice Department.

Yesterday Red State reported the following:

The struggle of parents to prevent school boards from sanctioning racial discrimination and stereotyping and imposing profoundly stupid Wuhan virus mitigation measures, like masking elementary school kids, has led to school board meetings becoming something of a battleground in the culture wars. School board members and educrats do not like being challenged or held to account by the rubes who elected them, and so they are claiming the mantle of victimhood.

Yesterday, I posted about a letter written by the president of the National School Boards Association…yes, there is such a thing…demanding that Joe Biden use the full force of the federal government to stop parents from speaking out. This letter included a request that the provisions of the Patriot Act be invoked against parents to keep school boards safe from being offended; see National School Board Official Demands Biden Use Patriot Act Against Protesting Parents.

Even though White House spokescreature Jen Psaki was publicly ambivalent about the letter, it was evident that Biden would eventually come to the rescue of the educrats because he needed their support. That help arrived today.

The article includes the following:

Justice Department Addresses Violent Threats Against School Officials and Teachers

Citing an increase in harassment, intimidation and threats of violence against school board members, teachers and workers in our nation’s public schools, today Attorney General Merrick B. Garland directed the FBI and U.S. Attorneys’ Offices to meet in the next 30 days with federal, state, Tribal, territorial and local law enforcement leaders to discuss strategies for addressing this disturbing trend. These sessions will open dedicated lines of communication for threat reporting, assessment and response by law enforcement.

“Threats against public servants are not only illegal, they run counter to our nation’s core values,” wrote Attorney General Garland. “Those who dedicate their time and energy to ensuring that our children receive a proper education in a safe environment deserve to be able to do their work without fear for their safety.”

According to the Attorney General’s memorandum, the Justice Department will launch a series of additional efforts in the coming days designed to address the rise in criminal conduct directed toward school personnel. Those efforts are expected to include the creation of a task force, consisting of representatives from the department’s Criminal Division, National Security Division, Civil Rights Division, the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, the FBI, the Community Relations Service and the Office of Justice Programs, to determine how federal enforcement tools can be used to prosecute these crimes, and ways to assist state, Tribal, territorial and local law enforcement where threats of violence may not constitute federal crimes.

Threats are not acceptable, but either is a crackdown against free speech, which is what this will eventually evolve into. Notice the words “where threats of violence may not constitute federal crimes.” Anything perceived to be a threat of violence (even though it may not be a federal crime) will come into play here. Is “I hope you get voted out of office” a threat of violence? Will it be considered one? This is a dangerous path.

 

Who Decided The Polices Involved?

Yesterday Trending Politics posted an article about freshmen Rep. Lauren Boebert of Colorado, who is leading Republican efforts to find out why those involved in the events of January 6th are being treated so differently than those members of Antifa and Black Lives matter who were involved in the riots last summer.

The article reports:

A group of Republican lawmakers led by freshmen Rep. Lauren Boebert of Colorado are demanding that the Biden administration explain the alleged unequal treatment of Black Lives Matter and Antifa protesters, many of whom have never spent a night in jail, and those who have been incarcerated for months following the Jan. 6 Capitol breach.

In a letter, Boebert and 10 other House Republicans asked Attorney General Merrick Garland to address “the apparent inconsistent application of the law with respect to rioters across the country,” according to the Washington Times.

“The foundation of our criminal justice system requires that all defendants are treated equally before the law, but the Biden regime is not living up to this solemn obligation,” said Boebert, in a statement.

The lawmakers say that prosecutors in Oregon have signed off on at least 12 “deferred resolution agreements in federal felony cases” resulting from clashes during last year’s protests in Portland, while some rioters from Jan. 6 are being held in solitary confinement.

“Reports are circulating that the Biden regime has held January 6th rioters in solitary confinement, while at the same time, they are letting BLM rioters that attacked federal buildings off with just a few hours of community service,” Boebert said.

The article concludes with a quote from a letter written by four Senate Republicans led by Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas in June:

“DOJ’s apparent unwillingness to punish individuals who committed crimes during the spring and summer 2020 protests stands in stark contrast to the treatment of the individuals charged in connection with the breach of the U.S. Capitol Building in Washington, D.C.,” said Tuesday’s letter from Boebert and the 10 other House members.

“Whether it is a mob breaking laws in D.C. or a mob in Portland or Minneapolis, the standard of justice should be the same in America,” they added.

The treatment of the people who entered the Capitol Building on January 6th is much more representative of a country ruled by a dictatorship than a free democratic republic.

The Question Of The Day

The American Thinker posted an article today asking a really good question about the 2020 election. The questions is very simple – “What if the 2020 Election Audits Show Trump Really Won?” There is no quick and obvious answer.

The article notes a few historical precedents and a few observations about our Constitution:

I. This we do know…

* With a strict constructionist view of the wording in the Constitution, the words are not there to “road map” how to fix possible presidential election fraud.

* The Constitution mentions nothing about the Electoral College re-convening. Historically, the Electoral College has never re-convened for a second time for a presidential certification.

…*  We do know that of the 4 key contested battleground “purple states” that were crucial, all had election irregularities election day, election night, and the following election morning.

…II.  So, what would happen if it became clear there was no election integrity in the four most important contested state cases?  What would happen?

*  Would the Supreme Court do absolutely nothing?  Would the Supreme Court say the Constitution is mute, and therefore they themselves have nothing they can do?  Would they say no federal law exists to right the wrong?  Would the Supreme Court remain impotent?

*  Would the Supreme Court place President Trump back in office and back into the White House?

*  Would Biden remain the president, nothing changes, and Biden serves out the remaining four years?  With Trump supporters seething but doing nothing?

*  Would Biden and his Attorney General Merrick Garland, after the Arizona audit proves fraud, stop “by any means necessary” any audits being conducted in any other states?  A complete stoppage of all future state audits.

*  Would Garland/Biden cite federal supremacy, federal civil rights laws, or federalize the state National Guards to make sure any remaining audits are stopped?

*  Is it possible that Biden and Kamala Harris would both be impeached out of office and Nancy Pelosi become President of the United States?   President Nancy Pelosi!  Pelosi is the Speaker of the House and is therefore third in line to the presidency.  The Constitution and federal law are clear on who is third in line: Speaker of the House.  President Pelosi!

*  Would President Trump admit that there is really nothing MAGA Nation can do, short of violence, and therefore simply just concentrate his efforts on the Republicans taking back the House and the Senate with Trump as their leader in 2022?  This is constitutional and legal but only works if there is not election theft again in 2022. 

III.  Four separate entities and groups are crucial to what might happen next if there is obvious election fraud and a stolen presidential election and the Constitution, federal courts, and federal law are mute on what happens next.

  *  The Supreme Court.  Even though it is obvious that the Supreme Court does not want to deal with the 2020 election, the Court might actually make tough decisions concerning the outcome.  Probably the big fear of the Court is that if they rule constitutionally against Biden, the progressives within the Deep State would just ignore the Court.  And the Court would be spectacularly neutered for all to see. A big fear.

  *  The military. What would the military do?  Especially what if the top brass goes one way, but the rank-in-file soldiers go the other way?  The generals appear to have already sold their soul to Biden.  So, it would surprise no one if the military generals stayed with Biden/Harris.  But what if the real soldiers themselves go the other way?

* The progressives. Considering what the progressives did, and allowed, and cheered for in the violent deadly riots last summer; we have a pretty good idea of how they would react. We saw the violence the progressives are willing to bring. We know how far the progressives would go if Biden were being removed by the Court.

* Trump supporters. Would they gear up for the 2022 off-year elections so that the Republicans under Trump’s leadership take both the House and Senate with filibuster-proof majorities? Would they wait passionately until the 2024 presidential election and support Trump? Or would they become more like the progressives and take matters into their own hands? Would they say enough is enough, and it “gets real,” really fast? Especially if the Supreme Court rules constitutionally for Trump, but the progressives say NO.

Conclusion. We just don’t know. We do not know what comes next. This is the situation America finds itself in when roughly half of the American people believe at the very least the election results to be very, very questionable; and then roughly half of the American people would not allow Biden/Harris to be removed from office no matter what the forensic audits might clearly show. The Constitution is mute. Federal law is silent. State laws are inconsistent. Emotions are very high. Compromise is unlikely at this point.

Frankly, I think the most rational solution is to make sure the mid-term election is an honest election, to make sure any election fraud in 2020 is widely reported, and to let the people vote the crooks who were involved out of office. Then a secure 2024 election would be able to undo some of the damage the Biden administration has done to America. However, I am extremely concerned that the American voters will never be made aware of the fraud that occurred.

 

Looking Behind The Curtain

When Merrick Garland was appointed Attorney General, it seemed a bit odd. It was an obvious slap in the face to the Republicans who had not brought his nomination to the Supreme Court to the floor of the Senate, but evidently there is more to the story. As you read this, remember that a lot of what have been called conspiracy theories have turned out to be true.

Yesterday The Conservative Treehouse posted an article about the reason behind the appointment of Judge Garland. The article provides some insight into what is happening behind the scenes in the Biden administration.

The article quotes a Reuters report:

Democrats overcame Republican opposition on Monday as the U.S. Senate voted to confirm federal judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, seen as a possible future Supreme Court nominee for President Joe Biden, to an influential appellate court.

The Democratic-controlled Senate voted 53-44 to approve Jackson’s nomination to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. All those in opposition were Republicans, with three voting with Democrats to approve the nomination.

Biden nominated Jackson, a Washington-based U.S. district judge, to the D.C. Circuit to replace Attorney General Merrick Garland on the bench. That appellate court has served as a springboard to the Supreme Court in the past, including for current Justices John Roberts, Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh. (read more)

What we have here is the deep state in action.

The article at the Conservative Treehouse explains:

The vote was 53-47 [link here] Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski and Lindsey Graham voted with Democrats to support KBJ to the circuit court. This Deep State manuever was transparently predictable. {Go Deep}  This was the real reason why Biden elevated Merrick Garland to AG, to get him out of the way for Ketanji Brown Jackson to work her way to a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court.  Obama would then have another tool for total control.

Remember the names of the Republicans who voted for this. They need to lose in primary elections as soon as possible.

The article at The Conservative Treehouse concludes:

We all know that Biden is an avatar for Obama’s third-term. Hence the plan by Team Obama (BLM) and James Clyburn (AME) to use a cognitively impaired tool to secure the 2020 club nomination. They then inserted Kamala Harris as the useful radical to manipulate for actual policy objectives.

Once you see the strings on the marionettes you can never return to that time before when you did not see them. It’s all a conspiracy theory until it’s proven accurate, then it’s racist…

The Democrats don’t have to pack the Supreme Court–all they need to do is replace a few traditional liberals with some radicals.

 

 

Misplaced Priorities

On Friday, PJ Media reported the following:

On Friday, Attorney General Merrick Garland announced that he would use the Department of Justice (DOJ) to target “new laws that make it harder to vote,” like the Georgia law President Joe Biden called “Jim Crow on steroids.” Garland falsely claimed that courts and intelligence agencies had “refuted” 2020 election integrity concerns, suggesting that the laws to restore election integrity are based on “disinformation” and even racism.

The article concludes:

The attorney general pledged that the DOJ would double the number of attorneys working on voting rights issues in the next 30 days. (Trump had left the department with 15 voting rights lawyers, about half the number under Obama.)

Contrary to Garland’s suggestions, voting integrity laws aim at restoring confidence in elections, not undermining it. The 2020 election involved a great deal of irregularities, from ballot drop-boxes with insecure chains of custody to the widespread mailing of mail-in ballots using outdated voter lists. Efforts to secure ballots from potential fraud are not based on disinformation or racism, but on legitimate concerns.

Yet it seems the Biden administration is intent on not just using baseless hyperbole to condemn election integrity efforts, but on weaponizing the DOJ to find pretexts to declare election-integrity measures illegal.

There are some real questions regarding the 2020 election. Those questions are being sorted out in various parts of the country. It is quite possible that massive fraud will be uncovered. What the remedy will be is anyone’s guess. It is quite possible that the news about voter fraud will be buried either by some new, breathtaking crisis or by simply not being reported. There is a group in Washington that has a vested interest in things remaining as they are. President Trump was a threat to that group. Currently there is a race between how quickly information on voter fraud can be verified and gotten out to the public and how fast those in New York State attempting to find President Trump guilty of something can come up with an excuse to arrest him.  Stay tuned.

 

This Will Not Keep Our Country Safe

Yesterday The Daily Caller posted an article about a recent report on domestic violent extremism.

The article reports:

Republican Indiana Sen. Mike Braun suggested to Attorney General Merrick Garland Wednesday that a report on domestic violence extremism placed disproportionate interest on the pro-life movement in a “wild attack” that identified “abortion-related violent extremists” as a principal threat.

Garland testified before a Senate subcommittee Wednesday where Braun brought up a declassified intelligence report on domestic violence extremism released by the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) in March. That report, Braun said, identified abortion-related violent extremists as a principal threat.

I don’t think the burning and looting of major cities last summer had anything to do with abortion.

The article continues:

“To me this seemed like kind of a wild attack on the pro-life community,” Braun said. “It did not list groups like BLM and Antifa, who have had a clear recent record of violent acts.”

“So can you explain what that was about?” Braun asked. “Why there would have been focus on that, and has there been a rash of incidents related to it?”

Garland said that the report described leading threats that were racially or ethnically motivated violent extremists, particularly white supremacists, adding that he doesn’t know where pro-life activists fit on the “threat matrix.”

What we are watching is the criminalization of political thought. It’s okay to burn down cities, destroy businesses and loot if you are on the political left, but if you hold conservative views, you are suspected of being potentially violent. This is a serious threat to our freedom in America.

The article concludes:

The DNI report specifically mentions that abortion-related violent extremists have ideological agendas in support of pro-life or pro-choice beliefs. The declassified report does not make specific mention of Antifa or Black Lives Matter, though it explains the category that Garland mentioned — anti-government/anti-authority violent extremists, a category which includes militia violent extremists, anarchist violent extremists, and sovereign citizen violent extremists.

DNI declined to comment for this story.

An Upside Down Department Of Justice

Yesterday The Washington Times posted an article about the priorities of the Department of Justice under Attorney General Merrick Garland.

The article reports:

Attorney General Merrick Garland acknowledged Wednesday that the Justice Department is prioritizing prosecuting those who participated in the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol over those who rioted and looted during last summer’s social justice demonstrations.

“I think it’s fair to say in my career as a judge and in law enforcement, I have not seen a more dangerous threat to democracy than the invasion of the Capitol,” Mr. Garland said in testimony before the Senate Appropriations Committee. “There was an attempt to interfere with the fundamental element of our democracy — the peaceful transfer of power.

“If there has to be a hierarchy of things that we prioritize, this would be the one we would prioritize because it is the most dangerous threat to our democracy,” he continued.

It should be noted that on April 15th, MSN reported:

Federal prosecutors in Portland, Ore., have moved to dismiss almost half the cases they charged in connection with violence accompanying last year’s protests over racial injustice, as authorities grapple with how to tamp down politically motivated unrest that has arisen since then.

Of 96 cases the U.S. attorney’s office in Portland filed last year charging protesters with federal crimes, including assaulting federal officers, civil disorder, and failing to obey, prosecutors have dropped 47 of them, government documents show. Ten people have pleaded guilty to related charges and two were ordered detained pending trial. None have gone to trial.

The penalties levied so far against any federal defendants, most of whom were arrested in clashes around federal buildings in Portland including the courthouse, have largely consisted of community service, such as working in a food bank or encouraging people to vote.

On January 3rd, The Daily Caller reported:

  • At least $4 million in physical damage was done to businesses downtown during the first month of protests, according to the Portland Business Alliance.
  • The riots cost downtown Portland another $18 million in revenue, according to the PBA.

I think it’s time for the Attorney General to re-examine his priorities. Those who participated in the riot at the Capitol deserve to be punished, but none of the rioters had weapons and the only person killed was killed by the Capitol Police. The destruction and threats to human life in Portland were far more serious. The only reason for the priorities the Attorney General is stating is political bias. No wonder many Americans have lost faith in the legal system in our country.