Advertisement

As we approach the one-year anniversary of the January 6 rally and breach of the Capitol Building, it’s time to take an unsparing look at what our “justice” system has become.

I know you share my deep concern that our judicial system increasingly –- and quite openly –- operates like that of a banana republic. The country is changing before our eyes. Yesterday, we looked at the use of “lawfare” to sway election outcomes, with Harvard Law School graduating an army of leftist attorneys specializing in how to manipulate election law. Today, let’s examine how leftist attorneys are weaponizing law enforcement and the courts against their political enemies. Case in point: the shocking violations of the civil rights of Trump supporters who were at the Capitol on January 6. Most say they can’t see their lawyers at all.

I just received this letter from reader Marlene:

“PLEASE tell your readers how to make a difference in how the J6 prisoners are being treated. How can we get this showcased in our communities?

“I live in NY and I will find out who to start writing, and start a petition demanding justice and fairness in their treatment. What else might be successful? This is unacceptable and I can only believe not enough people know about this. Is it legal to protest at the site they are being held? I will pray first, because I know that is where any success is going to come from, but if you can help with any direction I would appreciate it.”

Thanks to Marlene for writing. Yes, this is completely unacceptable and, yes, there are things we can and must do. Two Republican members of Congress, Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene and Texas Rep. Louis Gohmert are leading the way on this issue with a new report called “UNUSUALLY CRUEL: An eyewitness report from inside the DC jail.” On November 4, the two legislators, along with congressional staff members, were finally allowed to tour two jail facilities –- the Central Detention Facility (CDF) and, especially, the Central Treatment Facility (CTF), which houses the J6 detainees –-after two unsuccessful attempts by them and also by Reps. Matt Gaetz of Florida and Paul Gosar of Arizona.

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/kevindowneyjr/2021/12/07/reps-greene-and-gohmert-finally-met-the-j6-political-prisoners-what-they-saw-isnt-pretty-n1539714

Amazingly, it took a congressional letter and a confrontation with the DC mayor’s office and the Department of Corrections staff to get them in. The letter said they have “the right, prerogative, and duty as Members of Congress to inquire and inspect.” Even then, they say, after two hours of being shown around, they still hadn’t seen any of the J6 political prisoners (let’s call them what they are). It took an 11-minute “heated confrontation,” Greene says in her report, to make that happen. They finally got to meet with the approximately 40 prisoners, in an area of the prison that looked to them “much older” and not updated like the rest of the prison. According to one inmate, it had previously been used as a psychiatric ward.

Some prisoners cried and were “visibly shaken,” Green says. “The physical conditions in which they are held could only be described as inhumane.” The detainees claim they haven’t been able to see their lawyers and family members. Those who decline vaccination are not allowed to get haircuts –- and they’ve been there so long, they’re probably starting to look like someone else who was locked in a tower: Rapunzel. Some –- notably a 71-year-old detainee (!) named Lonnie Leroy Coffman, who has a very serious-looking injury to his arm –- need medical attention. (Other prisoners say Coffman really needs to be released.)

They hold their own religious services where they are because they are not allowed to attend any. Each day, they do their own salute to the flag and sing the National Anthem.

Greene was told of these prisoners being treated much more harshly than the others, with some reports of beatings. Other prisoners in the facility have access to flat-screen TVs, medical care, and reading material, though Greene describes this in the report as emphasizing “the supposed cruelty and racial prejudice of the U.S. prison system,” also promoting Nation of Islam and Critical Race Theory. One book prisoners were about to read was “THE NEW JIM CROW: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness.” At the same time, one hallway was lined with posters encouraging the freshly-indoctrinated inmates to register to vote. This in itself might be a topic for another day.

So, the J6 political prisoners have been in this place for going on a year, haven’t had their day in court, don’t see their families, don’t see their lawyers, are singled out for bad treatment and don’t even have access to reading material (not that they’d want THAT reading material)? The conclusion of Greene’s report includes this statement: “The congressional visit to the DC jail on November 4 unquestionably proved that there is a twotrack justice system in the United States. This two-tiered system is not based on race, violence or conviction of crime, but politics.”

Greene and Gohmert got to visit with the prisoners for about an hour. Before leaving, Greene prayed with them as a group and told them, “We’ve heard terrible things and I want you to know that Congressman Gohmert and I have basically refused to back down on the issue.” They said they had not lost hope. As the delegation was escorted out, they chanted, “U-S-A! U-S-A!” and then, “LET’S GO BRANDON!”

“The severe treatment of these inmates within the facility cannot be overstated,” the report says. None of these people have had trials or been found guilty of anything. Video shows that some who came into the Capitol that day were waved in by security. Some never even entered at all; they just happened to cross some “invisible line” outside.

Here’s a link to a pdf of the full report. The part specifically covering their visit with the J6 detainees –- including a transcript of the “heated conversation” preceding it –- starts on page 12 and is a must-read.

https://greene.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/greene.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/Unusually%20Cruel%20An%20Eyewitness%20Report%20From%20The%20DC%20Jail.pdf

Sharon Caldwell, wife of one of the detainees who at least is now on house arrest, wrote of the plight of those in prison and offered some specific ways to help.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2021/12/how_to_help_j6_defendants.html

“There are many ways you can help a J6er,” she writes. “You may donate to individual defendants, adopt a family in need this holiday season, and get information on how to send cards and letters to those incarcerated or under house arrest. Prayers, cards and letters provide tremendous joy, hope and strength to those affected. Here’s how to get mail to them.

https://www.patriotfreedomproject.com/connect-with-a-1/6er

More this weekend on what we can do to help our American political prisoners and bring their situation to light.

LEAVE A COMMENT BELOW, I READ THEM!

Prayer Tree - December 9

December 9, 2021

We are stronger together.  Submit your prayer request for HEALTH & HEALING or IN MEMORIAM by visiting my website here.

Our hope is that our newsletter readers and social media followers will consider these prayer requests each day.

HEALTH AND HEALING

"Please pray for my sister-in-law who has cancer. And for myself and my daughters, we have so many health issue."

"My husband, son, daughter, son in-law and his dad all have Covid. So far mild symptoms. I pray my two year old grandkids, and other family members do not get sick. One year ago I had Covid and recovered."

"My daughter. Going blind in left eye from corneal dystrophy. Mother of three and my baby girl. Thank you."

"My son and daughter for health and healing. Thank you. All praise, glory, love and thanks to God. Amen."

"Laury lynn: My health hasn’t been good, I’m diabetic and I’ve had some falls and was in a car accident and just would appreciate some prayers for better health and positivity! In my life! Thank you."

"Jessica Harkins was admitted to hospital about 5-6 days ago, covid. Wednesday I got word she’s been put in a medical induced coma. Please pray for her and also her (triplet) sister who has covid too."

"Please pray for the safety of our young, adult daughter who ran away from home with strangers she met online. Thank you in advance."

"Michael Mallinson, Stomach troubles."

"Husband recovering from ear surgery. Praying the growth will not return and there will be no complications during healing."

"Husband recovering from ear surgery. Praying the growth will not return and there will be no complications during healing."

"Have AFib 5 yrs, I'm 70. Now wearing out. Also need relief from apnea. I believe in healing!"

"Please heal my son Alex S. from pancreatitis."

IN MEMORIAM

"Please pray for our family as we laid my precious daddy to rest today but most important my mom who lost her spouse of 57 years."

Not long ago, I said that when it comes to elections going forward, our lawyers have to be better than their lawyers.

Mark Hemingway at RealClearInvestigations has a similar warning in a new article, titled “Harvard’s ‘Lawfare’ Programs are an Omen of Elections Not Decided at Polls --- but in Court.” Check out the poster boy at the top of his screen; it’s Marc Elias. Elias is probably the man most responsible for the fact that Joe Biden is sitting in the Oval Office right now thinking about ice cream.

https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2021/11/30/harvards_lawfare_programs_are_an_omen_of_elections_decided_not_at_polls_-_but_in_court_804560.html

How dare President Trump challenge the results of the 2020 election! Why, that’s tantamount to treason, the argument goes. Even encouraging states to conduct forensic audits is a threat to “our democracy,” as it implies problems and destroys trust in the system.

Never mind that the system --- in its current, essentially un-auditable state, does not deserve our trust.

And never mind that in the elections of 2000, 2004 and 2016, Democrats formally challenged the results of presidential elections that had been won by Republicans, in another classic case of “our rules for you, no rules for us.” As Hemingway points out, it was that series of challenges by the Democrats that led to the development of the network of leftist election litigators we have today. Of course, we first think of the Hillary- and DNC-connected firm Perkins Coie and attorneys Marc Elias and Michael Sussmann (currently under indictment), but according to former DOJ attorney J. Christian Adams, there were about 30 groups that jumped into action after the pandemic hit to make fast changes in state election laws, mostly to expand mail-in voting while removing any safeguards. The percentage of Americans who voted by mail doubled between the 2016 and 2020 elections.

After Trump lost in 2020 and some conservative states started re-tightening their rules, these armies of “progressive” lawyers got busy again, filing challenges to keep them from changing back.

So, do voters get to decide who wins, or do courts get to filter their voices and decide for them? Increasingly, we see the strategy of “lawfare.” So it might come as no surprise that Harvard Law School is getting in on this big-time, preparing attorneys for the day when election outcomes are routinely decided in court. Adams calls this next phase “Let’s set up an elite training academy.”

In April, Harvard Law started the Election Law Clinic, which gives students credit for working on campaigns (why am I reminded of the students at Georgia Tech who helped create the fake Alfa Bank story?), as well as “hands-on litigation and advocacy work across a range of election law areas, with an initial focus on redistricting and voter-suppression cases.” It doesn’t sound as though they’ll be working on any conservative campaigns, but maybe they can still get Stacey Abrams declared the rightful governor of Georgia.

The director, Ruth Greenwood, sees many students wanting to go into election law and wants them to be able to “hit the ground running as election lawyers from day one.” Law professor Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit sees this flood of new election specialists as creating more demand for that kind of expertise and litigation. In other words, it’s going to get much worse. Election days used to be something to celebrate as part of being American, but they’re increasingly something to dread.

In recent months, we’ve done some deep dives into the websites of some of these new groups that showed how amazingly organized and incestuous they are, and Harvard’s Election Law Clinic is part of that. Greenwood is a former fellow of the DNC’s Voting Rights Institute and has also worked at the Campaign Legal Center.

https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/campaign-legal-center/

As you can see, the CLC is funded in part by George Soros’ Open Society Foundation, and also by the Southern Poverty Law Center, the Ford Foundation and ActBlue. Greenwood describes the proposed legislation in H.R. 1 –- what we like to call the “Legalize Voter Fraud Act” –- as “the biggest step the federal government has taken to protect the right to vote since the passage of the Voting Rights Act in 1965.” It would be a big step, all right, in that it would unconstitutionally place elections under federal control. Adams has his own name for the bill; he calls it “a partisan weapon masquerading as a civil rights law.”

Here’s how radical and intrusive this group is: Harvard Election Law Center adviser Nicholas Stephanopoulos (not sure if he might be related to George), in a piece he wrote for Marc Elias’ group Democracy Docket, argued that Congress should refuse to seat a candidate who benefits from voter suppression under Article 1, Section 5 of the Constitution. He defines voter suppression as “policies that make it hard for people to register and vote.” We learned in 2020 how broadly they interpret that. They made it so easy to vote, any dead person can do it. And every vote by a dead person suppresses the vote of a live person who’s almost guaranteed to have voted Republican.

Another organization, Protect Democracy, is actually two: the 501(c)3 Protect Democracy Project, which is tax exempt and supposedly non-partisan hahahahaha, and the 501(c)4 United to Protect Democracy, which admits it is partisan. They list 70 employees on their website, but their address is a mailbox service they share with hundreds of organizations.

We wrote about the Protect Democracy Project when it gave a $300,000 check to Whistleblower Aid, which supported Eric Ciaramella, whose ginned-up complaint started Trump’s first impeachment.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/09/23/senate-report-confirms-suspected-impeachment-whistleblower-met-ukrainian-prosecutors/

Time Magazine wrote a piece last February about the alliance of these political groups with business titans like Mark Zuckerberg --- not to question their actions, but to praise them for “saving” the 2020 election. It was “an extraordinary shadow effort, dedicated not to winning the vote but to ensuring it would be free and fair, credible and uncorrupted.” (If you need to take a break to run and throw up, go ahead. We’ll wait.)

Feel better? Here’s the link to the full article, but I warn you, you’ll just have to throw up again.

https://time.com/5936036/secret-2020-election-campaign/

The Protect Democracy Project also conveniently owns a software company, VoteShield, that monitors voter databases. I am not kidding. Hemingway’s article has details.

J. Christian Adams, who has his own organization, the Public Interest Legal Foundation, says there are far fewer groups on the right to hold the left accountable for mistakes and/or misdeeds. I’d say going to law school now seems pretty much like going to journalism school –- not to practice law or journalism, but to “fundamentally transform.”

For when you have time, I’ll link to the video and transcript of a great interview by the founder and CEO of American Majority, Ned Ryun, with another Hemingway, this time Mollie, about the 2020 election. Having written the book RIGGED, she can summarize so clearly what was done, especially by sponsors such as Mark Zuckerberg and the Center for Tech and Civic Life. Elias’ strategy, she says, is to “expand the sphere of litigation, depending on how an election turns out.”

And that’s why our lawyers have to be better than their lawyers.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2021/12/ned-ryun-interviews-author-columnist-and-fox-news-frontpagemagcom/

LEAVE ME A COMMENT BELOW, I READ THEM>>>

The recent Supreme Court arguments on abortion that could repeal or roll back Roe v. Wade have reignited calls among Congressional Democrats for “court reform” (i.e., expanding the SCOTUS and packing it with liberals so they’ll always get their way.) Many are railing about how unfair it is that there’s now a conservative majority on the court, and that this injustice must be rectified. As Byron York explains, “The thinking among those Democrats is that if the court does something they oppose, it has become ‘partisan.’ Now, they need to intervene to make it less ‘partisan.’”

https://townhall.com/columnists/byronyork/2021/12/08/after-court-argument-seething-frustration-on-the-left-n2600282?utm_campaign=rightrailsticky1

You see, they define other people’s political viewpoints as “partisan” and their own as “objectively correct.” But even as the calls for court packing mount, the justification for it remains elusive.

When President Biden appointed a commission to study Supreme Court reform, many “progressives” assumed that its report would justify their lust for unlimited power by reading, “Pack it tighter than a carry-on bag!” Well, the report is out, and sadly for them, it doesn’t tell us anything other than what anyone with half a brain already knew.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/leahbarkoukis/2021/12/08/supreme-court-commission-n2600306

The commission said the disagreement among its members reflects that of the public: supporters of expanding the Court claim it would protect democracy, while opponents say it would harm the independence of the judiciary branch and make it subject to shifting political trends.

They wrote that any just statutory changes would require serious deliberation by Congress (are they even capable of that these days?) during which “we hope that Congress would keep in mind the central structural values of our Constitution" (good luck with that!), "particularly the principle of judicial independence, and consider what future Congresses, armed with the same constitutional powers, might someday attempt. Indeed, in recent years, we have seen democratic governments 'regress' or 'backslide' with respect to judicial independence. This has come about through electoral majorities using their power to favor the political agendas of those governments."

Unfortunately, to the people pushing court packing, that’s not a bug, it’s a feature. But it is a good sign that Americans still have enough common sense to recognize a naked, unconstitutional power grab when they see one, even people who were selected in hopes that they would rubber stamp it for approval.

Ironically, the Democrats made an error by not packing their court-packing commission with partisan liberals who would give them what they want, regardless of the Constitution or the consequences. They should've packed the court commission like they did the January 6th commission.