Advertisement

While Democrats and much of the media continue exploiting the terrible Uvalde school shooting to promote gun control and repealing the Second Amendment, we’re learning that much of what we were initially told about the police response was wrong. That’s why Texas Gov. Greg Abbott was so furious that he was given false information to pass along to the public.

The latest story in dispute is the claim that the shooter got in because a teacher had propped open a door that was supposed to be locked. Not willing to take the fall, the teacher hired an attorney who says that video proves she heard men at the funeral home across the street yell, “He’s got a gun,” and she kicked aside a rock that was holding the door open and slammed it shut. She assumed it would automatically lock because it was supposed to. It did not, and it was reported that neither did another door in the school, despite nearly $70,000 being spent on security measures a few years ago.

https://hotair.com/allahpundit/2022/05/31/cops-wrong-again-uvalde-teacher-says-she-didnt-prop-open-door-that-shooter-used-to-enter-n473120

There was also this (warning!) very disturbing story about yet another giant red flag involving the shooter that apparently was ignored.

https://www.westernjournal.com/stomach-churning-video-shows-tx-school-shooter-holding-bag-dead-cats-sick-smile-face/

As for the investigation into why the police stood outside for 45 minutes while the shooter murdered children and teachers until Border Patrol agents finally arrived and ended the siege, it was reported that local police stopped cooperating with state investigators. The Department of Public Safety issued a statement claiming that the local police and school district were cooperating, but the Uvalde police chief hadn’t responded to a follow-up interview request made two days before.

https://www.westernjournal.com/uvalde-school-police-chief-not-cooperating-state-investigation-robb-elementary-massacre/

 

Meanwhile, “Beto” O’Rourke has flip-flopped yet again and now once more backs confiscating everyone’s AR-15 rifles, saying this “may not be politically popular.” I think that’s a rare understatement for him. If that tasteless stunt he pulled at the press conference didn’t end any chances he had of being elected Governor of Texas (and those were snowball level chances in Hades to begin with), this should do it.

https://www.westernjournal.com/beto-orourke-flips-backs-mass-confiscation-ar-15s/

But it’s not just Texans who are rejecting the argument that guns are to blame for school shootings. A new Rasmussen poll of likely voters asked what is most to blame for young men shooting up their schools.

https://justthenews.com/nation/states/center-square/poll-americans-blame-mental-health-more-guns-mass-shootings

Only 30% put most of the blame on access to firearms. Forty percent blamed it more on mental health. That aligns with comments made by the parents of both the Uvalde and Buffalo shooters, claiming that COVID lockdowns had made their sons estranged from their families, paranoid and susceptible to radicalization via the Internet.

https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/coronavirus/covid-paranoia-suspected-factor-buffalo-uvalde-mass-shootings

Ten percent each blamed family problems or social media, and 4% blamed problems in school.

I imagine at least 40% remember, as I do, when there were lots of guns and boys brought their rifles to school to go hunting afterward, but nobody shot their classmates. That was during a time when America valued marriage and family, two-parent homes, the sanctity of life, law and order, giving children discipline and moral instruction, worshipping God, reading the Bible and keeping sick entertainment like gory violence and pornography far away from kids. The left has been working diligently for decades to undermine all of those things, and now when amoral, disaffected youth with no moral compass shoot up a school, they blame it on the guns.

Ironically, their solution is to disarm law-abiding people who might not need to own guns if their cities weren’t also run by leftists who empty the jails, defund the police and refuse to enforce the laws. It’s all part of an endless cycle of leftists destroying things, blaming it on Republicans, then insisting that the only solution to the problems they caused is more of their policies. They’re like medieval doctors who knew only one cure for every ailment: more leeches.

Here’s a great editorial cartoon that sums up this endlessly recurring cycle perfectly.

https://townhall.com/political-cartoons/2022/06/01/190686?hpnl=true

Former Education Secretary Bill Bennett has similar thoughts on the decline of the family and the influence of fathers as contributors to the epidemic of violent young males.

https://www.foxnews.com/lifestyle/bennett-texas-school-shooting-moral-decay-parents

 

 

Here’s the kind of story that somehow tends to get released on late Fridays of holiday weekends when nobody will notice it: an internal State Department document proves that, just as many of us suspected and said so at the time, John Kerry and other former Obama officials were secretly meeting in 2018 with Iranian officials, continuing to conduct their own US foreign policy.

https://www.westernjournal.com/bidens-slip-tongue-denigrates-entire-political-system-democracy-not-perfect-never-good/

Some of the topics they discussed included “nuclear weapons, potential prisoner swaps, [the] Afghanistan withdrawal and negotiations with the Taliban.” While President Trump was deciding on sanctions and trying to extricate us from their bad Iranian nuclear deal, they were acting as if they were still in office, trying to preserve it by conducting their own US foreign policy and signaling that Iran should stand firm against America and the policies of the actual elected President.

Former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said the former Obama officials “working against their own nation’s policies alongside such a brutal regime” was “bad stuff, dangerous stuff, un-American stuff,” and that they “should be ashamed of themselves.”

Actually, it's far worse. They were illegally conducting US foreign policy with a hostile nation in an attempt to undermine the official foreign policy of the elected President. To accurately use terms that Democrats love to throw at their political opponents, it was sedition and insurrection, possibly treason, and at the very least, a clear violation of the Logan Act that they’re always trying to pin on other people.

Between current National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan’s alleged role in launching the groundless Russian Collusion investigation and “climate czar” Kerry’s illegal attempts to conduct secret negotiations with Iran, exactly how many treasonous individuals are currently on the Biden Administration payroll?

Over the weekend, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s husband Paul Pelosi was charged with DUI in Napa, California, after he reportedly crashed his Porsche into a Jeep while driving home from a party. Nobody was injured, and his attorney denied a report that it was a second offense, claiming the earlier DUI was someone else with the same name.

A spokesman for Nancy Pelosi said, "The Speaker will not be commenting on this private matter which occurred while she was on the East Coast."

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/house-speaker-nancy-pelosis-husband-paul-arrested-in-california-charged-with-dui/ar-AAXRuYv

Nice job of distancing herself from her husband by a continent. I have a feeling their house will be as frosty as her two luxury refrigerators when she returns home.

I could do an essay about how Nancy holds her political opponents to the strictest standards and wants to send them to jail for any offense, real or imagined. But since there could be personal issues at play here with her husband, I’m not going to pile on, at least not yet. However, I will turn the floor over to one of my writers, Pat Reeder, for a rebuttal of her brief statement:

“The reason I never knew my grandfather, and why my late father was never able to attend college, is that a drunk driver killed my grandfather when my dad was in high school. He had to immediately go into the Army, then to work to support his mother and younger brother. Because of that drunk driver, I was the first person in our family to be able to attend college. So please don’t tell me that DUI is a ‘private matter.’ It’s a matter of public safety that can have massive repercussions for innocent people. A car with a drunk at the wheel is just as deadly a weapon as a gun. I’d like to see you pretend to be just as concerned about the former as the latter.:”

The reign of terror and error by transgender activists might finally be coming to an end, judging by several news stories that all came in over the weekend. First, another top executive at Netflix defended Dave Chappelle's and Ricky Gervais' right to make jokes about trans people as a free speech issue, just as comedians make jokes about anyone else, despite the furious calls for boycotts and censorship and the hyperbolic claims that joking about the excesses of trans activists will cause people to die.

https://news.yahoo.com/netflix-says-standing-dave-chappelle-171600618.html

Even some members of the trans community are speaking up in defense of Gervais, saying that he’s not attacking trans people, he’s speaking truth to power about the excesses of trans activists. One trans journalist wrote, “Trans activist ideology has run unchecked for too long, and it is time to call it to account."

https://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/news/some-members-of-trans-community-support-ricky-gervais-amid-netflix-backlash/ar-AAXV4DE

“Harry Potter” creator J.K. Rowling has also refused to knuckle under to the cancel crowd and continues to speak out in defense of women (as Gervais would say, the old-fashioned kind, with wombs.) She was attacked for tweeting a news story about terrified women inmates at a New Jersey prison where officials are housing violent male felons who claim to “identify” as women. But HBO is still seeking a new creative deal with her.

https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1530576557839994882

And then the most surprising and possibly portentous pushback of all: the New York Times actually ran a story Sunday on the trans takeover of women’s sports that not only fairly presented the concerns of female athletes (who came across as much more sympathetic than the selfish “#MeFirst” attitudes of the trans activists they quoted), it actually included comments from doctors. These experts who have medical degrees (and I assume, eyes) said that swimmer Lia Thomas does have an unfair advantage because going through puberty as a male confers physical advantages that a year or even four years of testosterone-lowering hormones cannot reverse.

Of course, irrefutable biological facts aren’t enough to stop Thomas, who now wants to compete against women in the Olympics, where officials are still easily cowed by accusations of transphobia.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10871087/Trans-swimmer-Lia-Thomas-says-doesnt-need-anyones-permission-swim-woman.html

Sister Toldjah at Redstate.com sees all these things as hopeful signs that the tide of public opinion is finally turning against the tidal wave of radical transgender insanity that’s engulfed society over the past two years. Or at least that people are finally growing spines.

https://redstate.com/sister-toldjah/2022/05/30/breakthrough-ny-times-story-on-trans-athletes-more-proof-dems-are-losing-woke-culture-war-advantage-n572340

I think the trans people who are defending Ricky Gervais are right: these radical activists are doing them more harm than good. They say they just want to be accepted to live their lives like anyone else, but the radicals are insisting that they be treated as a special class, with the right to never be called out no matter how unreasonable they are, to never be laughed at (as we all are at times), and to have the power to destroy anyone who criticizes them.

They claim to be a poor oppressed minority and say that any criticism of them is “punching down,” even as they’re the ones crushing other people. News flash: When people are cowering in fear that you’ll glare their way and destroy their lives, careers and reputations just because they told a joke you don’t like, you aren’t a powerless underdog. You’re that monstrous child who sent people to the cornfield on “The Twilight Zone.”

By now, you know that Clinton campaign attorney Michael Sussmann was found not guilty of lying to the FBI, even though he did.

In his statement after the trial, Sussmann said he didn’t lie to the FBI. But that was a lie, too. Special Counsel John Durham had absolute proof, in the form of a Perkins Coie billing record and a text to then-FBI general counsel James Baker saying that Sussmann wasn’t meeting with him on behalf of clients when he really was. But the judge used a technicality to let jurors weigh that second piece of evidence minimally, as it had been handed over to Durham by Baker after the statute of limitations had lapsed. Once Sussmann couldn’t be charged for THAT lie –- the one in the text –- Baker happened to remember some texts, including that one. Isn’t it funny how a lapsed statute of limitations can jog someone’s memory?

So it appears Baker and Sussmann were on the same team. Baker helped Sussmann, and so did the judge, who worked like a champ to keep Durham’s evidence out of the courtroom.

Nick Arama discusses the judge’s ruling on Sussmann’s text message here. He also reviews what Durham managed to expose about Hillary and her campaign, noting there is more to come.

https://redstate.com/nick-arama/2022/05/31/we-may-not-like-the-sussmann-verdict-but-the-clinton-campaign-was-nailed-n572799

Durham surely knew by the time the jury had been seated --- maybe even by the assignment of U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper, an Obama appointee with huge ties to the Democrat Party and the DOJ --- that his chances of getting a conviction in this Washington DC court were nil. Heck, he probably knew it all along, but he had his reasons for pursuing it. Those who insist Durham’s defeat is some kind of “black mark” against his investigation are missing the important stuff.

Durham has exposed what Hillary and her campaign did, which went well beyond the “political dirty trick” of peddling a fake story to the media. They reinforced their fake story by also peddling it to the FBI to push for an investigation. In other words, they went to federal law enforcement under false pretenses to frame a political opponent, and THAT, if you or I did it, would be very serious indeed.

But this jury treated it like nothing. This is evident because the jury forewoman, who doesn’t give her name, has spoken to the media. And now we can see she went beyond the scope of what she was there to determine, concluding that the case shouldn’t have been prosecuted at all. “There are bigger things that affect the nation than a possible lie to the FBI,” she told the media.

Oh, REALLY?? What if, say, a Republican attorney for the Trump campaign had gone to a Republican-appointed FBI official with a fake story about Hillary Clinton a few days before the 2016 election, and had flat-out lied and said he wasn’t representing Trump? (Not that anyone would need to peddle a fake story about Hillary; there were enough real scandals about her.) Do you think this solid-Democrat Washington DC jury would just blow that off?

Of course not. They’d call it the crime of the century. They’d say this attorney was working with Russians. They’d blame him for Hillary’s loss. They’d call him an ultra-MAGA deplorable, an insurrectionist, destroyer of institutions, election-interferer. Their quick verdict would be Guilty, Guilty, Guilty. They might not even need any hard evidence, just an accusation by the Democrat special counsel. And that lawyer would be off to jail.

Of course, the judge made it a lot easier for the jury to think this was nothing, as he largely kept Durham’s evidence of the “joint venture” (broader conspiracy) out of the courtroom.

As Jonathan Turley tweeted: “Telling a lie to the FBI was the entire basis for the prosecution. It was the jury’s job to determine the fact of such a lie and its materiality.” As in, ONLY THAT. Turley noted that such a bias, if expressed during jury selection, would have led to this woman being challenged by the prosecution.

And Durham surely would’ve challenged her, but recall that Judge Cooper actually refused his challenge of some members of the jury pool who ended up on the jury.

The kicker: This woman insisted after the trial that politics had not been a factor.

Throughout the past two weeks, we’ve discussed the various factors that people are pointing to now in the post mortem. As Andrew C. McCarthy told FOX News Thursday evening, “In order to figure out this case, I think you really have to make up your mind about what the FBI is. Are they ‘a dupe’ or are they a willing collaborator? Durham has staked his investigation on the notion that they’re a dupe. You have to prove, for materiality purposes in a false statements trial, that the ‘duped’ party actually was fooled. And I think the evidence here was pretty strong that...they weren’t fooled at all by it. They fully knew that they were getting political information from a partisan source. And a lot of what they did was designed to conceal the fact that they knew that.”

All true. But that’s what we think Durham was really in that courtroom to show. Again, he had to know he would lose the Sussmann case, given the judge and jury. We believe this case was, to Durham, a “loss leader.” As you probably know, that’s a term in retail that describes a store selling one item, such as milk, at a loss, just to get people into the store. Similarly, the Sussmann case had to be a loss for Durham, but look at what it accomplished for the investigation as a whole!

In that observation, we are more in line with what Margot Cleveland says in her analysis from Tuesday. “...For all posterity,” she writes, Clinton’s fingerprints will be seen covering the worst political scandal of our country’s history.”

Here’s what she wrote just prior to the jury’s verdict, which, of course, she expected.

https://thefederalist.com/2022/05/31/even-if-the-jury-doesnt-convict-michael-sussmann-the-special-counsel-has-won/

"...Measuring Durham’s performance by the outcome in United States v. Sussmann would be a mistake,” she said. “...It would ignore the valuable information exposed related to the broader Spygate scandal. Using that gauge as a measure, the special counsel’s office succeeded wildly.”

Her piece is a must-read. It’s infuriating to see how much was made of the Alfa Bank story and the whole Trump-Russia Hoax, considering that it was all based on NOTHING. It became an industry, a make-work program for lawyers. Years wasted, hundreds of attorneys and investigators, many millions of dollars, people’s lives ruined (Michael Flynn, to name one), and the country divided, all over a fake story.

“Justice” became a joke. As Charles Lipson wrote for SPECTATOR, “Despite Sussmann’s not-guilty verdict, his trial revealed the rank odor of Washington politics. It suffuses our courts, our law enforcement bureaucracy, and the mainstream media. It reeks of insider dealing and extreme partisan bias. That stench should alarm anyone concerned about America’s ability to govern democratically.”

This is what the special counsel has exposed, and will continue to expose. Thank you, Mr. Durham.

https://spectatorworld.com/topic/stench-from-the-sussmann-verdict/

……………………………………….

More for Durham –- CAN WE BE SHOCKED ANYMORE?

As long as we’re talking about the stench of Washington politics, especially as it centers around Hillary Clinton and Perkins Coie, there’s a related story –- just breaking –- that the special counsel will want to look into, if he isn’t doing so already:

Reps. Matt Gaetz of Florida and Jim Jordan of Ohio received an FBI whistleblower contact about the existence of an actual FBI workspace inside DNC and Hillary law firm Perkins Coie, complete with a portal to the FBI database. In response to a letter sent to them by Gaetz and Jordan, Perkins Coie reportedly admitted they have been hosting this "secure work environment" since 2012.

That’s right, the premiere Democrat law firm –- and, by extension, Hillary Clinton –- had a portal right into the FBI databases. If this is what it looks like, it takes what Hillary was doing as First Lady in the White House with individuals' raw FBI data (remember her mysterious White House “personnel” officer Craig Livingstone?) to a whole new level.

It's how she rolls.  This kind of thing goes back decades for Hillary, with some of the same players bouncing from one scandal to the next. Here’s a little time capsule.

https://dailycaller.com/2016/03/15/filegate-attorney-represents-state-dept-tech-official-who-is-silent-on-hillary-server/

Fast-forward to 2022. “The outlined process certainly points toward a political spying and surveillance operation,” writes Sundance at CONSERVATIVE TREEHOUSE, who has long suspected the existence of something like this. Here are the details.

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2022/05/31/breaking-the-fbi-maintains-a-workspace-including-computer-portal-inside-the-law-firm-of-perkins-coie-the-ramifications-are-significant/

He says that the record of non-compliant searches shows “the same people were continually being tracked, searched and surveilled by querying the FBI database over time.” The scale and scope of these unlawful searches, going back to 2012, was noticed by FISA presiding Judge Rosemary Collyer. And 2012 happens to be the year Perkins Coie first started operating the FBI portal. Also, the dates in the report from Gaetz and Jordan about Perkins Coie are “in direct alignment,” he says, with Collyer’s report on unlawful searches..

He sees this as “having the potential to be extremely explosive.”

The story is so far-fetched, we didn't know how seriously to take it at first, but be assured, it's verified.  Gaetz appeared on Tucker Carlson's FOX News show Tuesday evening to talk about this, and he dropped another bombshell:  For the past year, the attorney working out of the FBI's "secure location" at Perkins Coie was...(drum roll, please)...
MICHAEL SUSSMANN.  He with the "Get Out Of Jail Free" card.
Gaetz said he's spoken to former federal prosecutors "on the Judiciary Committee and throughout the country" about this, and he hasn't heard of any similar set-up with a private law firm.  Sussmann, he added, is "an election lawyer," which raises even more questions.
Gaetz and Jordan are demanding immediate answers from FBI Director Christopher Wray.
This office needs to be shut down.  "The Democratic Party shouldn't have this special access, special 'portal,' to the FBI," he said, especially since we know their focus on digging up "oppo" research to use against their opponents.
AMERICAN GREATNESS has a report as well.

For the past two weeks --- the last one completely dominated by yet another horrific and senseless school shooting --- I’ve brought you the day-by-day report and detailed analysis of the Michael Sussmann trial, as unfolding in federal court by Special Counsel John Durham. Some might wonder why we’ve paid so much attention to a case that most major media aren’t bothering to cover at all.

Here's why:  I don’t think it’s an overstatement to say that the Durham investigation could be the last thing standing between us and the total loss of our system of justice. It doesn’t stand or fall on this particular trial –- with this judge and jury, it’s almost certain to be an acquittal, even with incontrovertible evidence that he DID IT –- but on the investigation as a whole, and what it reveals about the big picture.

John L. Simon, writing for THE EPOCH TIMES, concurs, and has written a commentary called “Why We Are Praying for John Durham.” When it comes to Durham and the deep state he's exposing, Simon is reminded –- in a more secular way, of course –- of that old gospel song, “He’s Got the Whole World In His Hands.”

He’s dealing with something “extraordinarily significant,” Simon tells us. “He holds in his hands the future of democratic government under the law, republican (small ‘r’) or otherwise, as we know it –- if not forever, for the foreseeable future.”

https://thescotfree.com/opinion/why-we-are-praying-for-john-durham/

It’s taken a long time to get here, mostly because of the COVID lockdowns that kept the special counsel from convening a grand jury and pushed him to the edge of the statue of limitations, but now, with the testimony of Hillary’s campaign manager Robby Mook, we know Hillary herself was aware of the plot and that even though she knew the Alfa Bank story was unverified, she personally gave the order to use it anyway. Incredibly, she had her campaign frame her political opponent for what could be considered a treasonous offense –- being a covert agent of the Russian government.

You know, Hillary has done some bad things in her time, and has always gotten away with them, but this takes the (Devil’s food) cake. Sure, she’s responsible for mishandling classified documents as Secretary of State with a “secret server” arrangement to keep her dealings out of reach, and then deleting the evidence –- even having it destroyed it with hammers –- but this hoax takes us to a whole new depth of Hillary-ness, at least that we know about so far. And it seems to us that if treason was committed, it was by HER and her allies. As Simon writes…

“While this all may not be treason in the legal/technical sense, it’s certainly as treasonous as any behavior that has come from the political class of either party in any of our lifetimes and, though completely ignored by the legacy media whose culpability in it was nearly total, vastly more serious than Watergate that they still obsess about.”

“Whether or not you believe in American Exceptionalism,” he says (and we’d like to think it still exists, or could), “the country that has been almost since its inception the envy of the world was busy stomping on its own institutions and itself to the edge of being unrecognizable. Could our enemies have asked for more?”

As for this trial, he reminds us that all Sussmann needs for an acquittal is ONE JUROR and notes the similarity to the O.J. jury, as we have. It’s likely that, in solid-blue Washington DC, every last one of the jurors voted for Hillary in 2016, probably even believing that Trump really was being helped in his campaign by Vladimir Putin. Some of them might still believe it. It’s not as if the mainstream media and the DOJ had come out and issued an apology or anything.

But this might not matter, because, as Simon writes, whether Sussmann is convicted or not, “the door has been opened to explore the ‘myriad accomplices’...”

“The question is, will the buck stop at Hillary or will she be thrown under the bus so the other denizens of our political class from the FBI to the White House can skate?” Simon is thinking beyond Hillary, we assume to Main Justice and even the Oval Office. Usually it’s Hillary throwing other people under the bus; this time, depending on who else might be implicated; she might be the one covered with tire tracks.

He says it’s in Durham’s hands “to steer our ship of state back to the rule of law. If not him, who?” And we’ll continue focusing on his effort. In Simon’s words, “It’s our job, every one of us, to disseminate it --- factually and with a minimum of rancor --- as widely as possible as the truth emerges.”

Law professor Jonathan Turley is doing the same, and he has a great opinion piece in THE HILL, “Friends with Benefits: Sussmann trial is a black eye for the FBI.”

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/3504813-friends-with-benefits-sussmann-trial-is-a-black-eye-for-the-fbi/

Turley writes that regardless of how quickly the verdict comes in for Sussmann, the verdict for the Department of Justice needs “little deliberation.” He calls Durham’s investigation “an indictment of a department and a bureau which, once again, appeared willfully blind as they were played by Hillary Clinton’s campaign.”

He points out the irony of it being Sussmann’s DEFENSE team that implicated Hillary as personally approving what he was doing. We would add that this was probably Durham’s strategy all along, though even he might have been surprised at how easily that testimony was elicited from defense witness Robby Mook.

Even on the stand, former general counsel at the FBI James Baker made it clear that he and Sussmann were friends –- as in, on the same side –- and that the real adversary was the special counsel. “This is not my investigation, it’s yours,” he said to prosecutors who were pressing him for information.

Joe Pientka told FBI agents that they were being ordered by the 7th Floor (Director James Comey) to investigate the Alfa Bank story, even though it had seemed preposterous to cyber analysts from Day 1. “It’s not an option,” Pientka emailed Special Agent Curtis Heide.

Of course, the FBI clung to the unverified “dossier” as well. As Turley writes, their eagerness “magnifies concern over the bureau’s alleged bias or predisposition on the Trump investigation.”

Jake Sullivan is implicated as well. He had to know the Alfa Bank story was unverified, yet he’s the one who created the sensationalistic bullet points to go along with Hillary’s tweet about it. This liar is currently working in the White House as Biden’s national security adviser. Remember this next time Sullivan comes to the podium to inform the nation about ANYTHING.

Will Durham even be allowed to write a final report on his findings? That’s hard to say, with Merrick Garland running the DOJ. Many in Washington no doubt hope there won’t be one, which is precisely why there MUST be one. Durham will find a way to get it out there.

………………………………..

Postscript

BAD DAY IN WASHINGTON, DC

by Laura Ainsworth, staff writer

The 1955 movie BAD DAY AT BLACK ROCK, starring Spencer Tracy and a fine ensemble cast, ran last weekend on TCM, and I decided to see it, not realizing it was a morality play with obvious parallels to the Durham special counsel investigation.

It wasn’t intended to be allegorical at the time it was made; in fact, the director tried to minimize comparisons to the blacklisting of the ‘50s. But now –- as conservatives find themselves being the ones blacklisted (“canceled”) and called insurrectionists –- I see amazing similarities to Durham’s investigation of the Trump-Russia hoax.

The setting is a tiny, completely isolated Western town, Black Rock, which, to me, symbolizes the Washington bubble. The law has broken down there, as the sheriff is a figurehead, totally ineffectual. This town is run not by him at all but by a handful of corrupt men who put him there and have him and everybody else intimidated. About four years previously, they did a very bad thing that they’ve so far managed to keep under wraps. But a stranger arrives in town asking questions and sniffing around.  He encounters obstacles at every turn but remains quietly undeterred.

The heart of the film resides in the less powerful characters who individually have to decide if they’ll continue to be controlled by the corrupt leadership of the town or take a risk and help the stranger find out about what they did and escape to tell the tale.  This is also their only hope of cleaning up the town.

Does that sound like the Durham investigation or what?