Former appellate judge Michael McConnell — obliterated Speaker Pelosi's BS about constitutional crisis

15 May 2019

Demonstrating how lyingly useless the Phony Opposition Party is

Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats have been trying to recover from:

having tacitly

to admit that

(as a result of the Mueller Report)

their smearing of President Trump

(for being Vladimir Putin's alleged puppet)

was a lie.

Part of their new ruse . . .

— intended to cover that previous bad faith — has been their attempt to smear Attorney General William Barr for somehow, and completely irrelevantly, violating the legal principles of his office.

This new Democratic Party ploy has been a dirty one, in that it is so obviously not true. Indeed, it rests upon chastising the Attorney General for:

(a) exhibiting good faith — with regard to releasing a report that he was not obligated to release

and

(b) redacting those elements within that report that privacy concerns and grand jury law required him to do.

In short

AG Barr is allegedly in contempt of Congress for doing his job, within the lawful parameters that the position historically has displayed.

That's a curious state of affairs, isn't it?

Ergo

One might claim that the Democratic Party — during the last two years — has been the group most crassly violating the spirit of the US Constitution on a daily basis.

First it tries to coup d'état a legitimately elected American president on the basis of an outrageous fabrication. And then, having ignominiously failed at that, it tries to unseat his lawfully acting attorney general.

A judge's legal perspective

Former 10th Circuit Court of Appeals judge (now law professor) Michael McConnell recently contrasted:

Congress 2012 contempt proceeding against Attorney General Eric Holder

(initiated regarding the withholding of documents pertaining to ATF's illegal Fast & Furious debacle)

with

the one initiated against AG Barr

(over the partially redacted Mueller Report).

Judge-professor McConnell concluded that:

If President Obama was justified in invoking executive privilege to protect the confidentiality of documents and conversations that are unprotected by any law,

how can Obama’s admirers be so insistent that Barr is wrong to invoke executive privilege to protect grand-jury materials,

which are among the most highly protected and confidential of all categories of information in our system?

This question should be obvious to anyone of legal bent, especially those who witnessed the evolution of both matters.

The moral? — An American culture actually based on regard for Law — would be shouting Speaker Pelosi and her brain-dead Klan down

That we are not, reflects how little regard the US public (and its leaders) have for Law's attempt to regulate potentially damaging expressions of our too-base natures.

Today, we live in free-for-all in which people clobber each other with lies and whatever force their wealth and physical clout can generate.

This state of affairs constitutes every genuine conservative's definition of a societal nightmare. I also have trouble seeing how genuine liberals will survive in a culture that lacks agreed upon ways of doing things.

Thus, I cannot see any merit to the Donkey Party's (evidently now rigid) insistence on demonstrating all the qualities that our culture, not fondly, calls asinine.

How is Democrats' Beelzebubian performance going to constructively counterbalance the Republican Party's own pact with the Devil?

PeteFree.com

Former appellate judge Michael McConnell — obliterated Speaker Pelosi's BS about constitutional crisis