Advertisement

With the investigation of “Crossfire Hurricane” by U.S. Attorney John Durham looking more serious by the day, it’s obvious what the political cover is now. The memo has gone out to everyone in the Democrat Party and the media (but I repeat myself) to paint Attorney General Bill Barr, who had the gall to appoint Durham in the first place, as a purely political AG. Why, he’s not there to consistently enforce the law of the land; he’s just there to be President Trump’s protector, his lackey, his “wingman,” so to speak. (Wait, no, that was Eric Holder’s self-described role as attorney general for President Obama.)

Rep. Jerrold Nadler, with visions of impeachment still dancing in his head, assisted in this effort last week by bringing in federal prosecutor Aaron Zelinsky to speak to his House Judiciary Committee about Barr’s “interference” last February in the sentencing of Trump campaign associate Roger Stone.

Keep in mind that Zelinksy was a member of Mueller’s get-Trump special counsel team and also used to work under Rod Rosenstein. He was one of four prosecutors who dramatically resigned from the Stone case; in fact, he even chose to leave his position but (big surprise) continues to work with the Justice Department. In an interview for NPR on Thursday, Barr dismissed his testimony as “simply false” and “double hearsay.”

"I was the decision-maker in that case,” he said, “because there was a dispute. And usually what happens is, disputes, especially in high-profile cases, come up to the attorney general.” He said he had not discussed the sentencing with Trump and had already decided to change his recommendation before Trump’s angry tweet. Barr said that Stone “doesn’t deserve a break, but he doesn’t deserve to be...singled out, and treated more harshly than everyone else.”

I’ll point out what few Barr critics have: this was simply a sentencing RECOMMENDATION. Judge Amy Berman Jackson may follow the suggested guidelines or not. So what is the all-fired big deal?

Trump’s political enemies want looooong sentences for his associates because that puts pressure on him to pardon them, and that would unleash a media hysteria to last until Election Day. If this means putting a 67-year-old man behind bars potentially for life (especially if he gets coronavirus in there), so be it.

The narrative from now on will be that Barr is motivated only by the desire to help President Trump. Therefore, everything he does will be examined strictly from that perspective. It doesn’t matter that Stone’s sentence WAS harsh, that invading his home with a SWAT team while CNN cameras rolled WAS an abuse of power, and that the Russia “collusion” story in which he was ensnared WAS a hoax.

But Kimberly Strassel, writing about the Michael Flynn case in the WALL STREET JOURNAL, departs from the chosen media narrative. She points out that the three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals that ruled on Judge Emmet Sullivan’s rejection of Barr’s decision to drop the case has done something beyond simply rule on the legal merits.

Importantly, the ruling is also a rebuke of the FBI and Robert Mueller’s special counsel team. This isn’t being widely reported, of course, but Strassel says it marks the first time a federal court has acknowledged the misconduct that Barr is trying to bring to light.

Judge Sullivan had bought into the same (debunked) Democratic conspiracy theories the FBI had been using; recall that he flew into a fit and even called Gen. Flynn a “traitor,” right there in the courtroom. So, naturally, he couldn’t let this case go just because the attorney general told him to, choosing instead to call on retired Judge John Gleeson to take on the role of shadow prosecutor.

Strassel makes an important point: that if the circuit court judges had any thought that Sullivan was right about Barr playing political favorites, they could have allowed him to continue fighting that. Instead, they said quite bluntly that there was “no legitimate basis” to question the Justice Department's behavior.

They even went after Judge Gleeson for relying in his amicus brief on “news stories, tweets, and other facts outside the record,” contrasting that with the DOJ’s motion that “includes an extensive discussion of newly discovered evidence casting Flynn’s guilt into doubt.”

They said this “includes evidence of misconduct by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.”

According to Strassel, the DOJ had provided voluminous evidence --- I would add that this is thanks to the determination of Flynn attorney Sidney Powell --- that the FBI had improperly pursued Flynn, kept the investigation open even when it had produced no evidence of wrongdoing, gone after him on the never-used Logan Act when he had acted appropriately, and schemed to trap Flynn into perjury with an interview that had no “legitimate investigative basis.”

Recall that in February of this year, Barr appointed U.S. Attorney Jeff Jensen to review the Flynn case, and four months later, Jensen concluded that dismissal was “the just and proper course.” The appeals court decision was consistent with this.

Former U.S. Attorney Brett Tolman was on FOX & FRIENDS on Friday to offer a similar viewpoint, saying that Flynn was so wronged that he should consider a “Bivens Action” against the Department of Justice and former Obama administration officials. A Bivens Action is the legal remedy to use when one’s rights have been violated by a federal investigator.

"I hope he is looking at it strongly,” Tolman said. I would imagine that at this point, Powell's team is already putting together that lawsuit. Let’s hope they are, and also hope he becomes an extremely wealthy man after losing his career and financial security over this bogus case.

Tolman agreed with Powell’s brief that the newly obtained notes penned by Peter Strzok, which describes the underlying action of Flynn’s phone calls as legitimate, show that stunning exculpatory evidence was withheld from Flynn’s defense.

He described what happened as “an absolute effort --- call it collusion, conspiracy, whatever you want to say --- that now we know goes as high as the Vice President and the President. To not only withhold information about the investigation to the incoming President, but to go after the incoming President through the incoming national security advisor on an investigation that did not have a foundation to it.” The fact that they should still have managed to bring a case should concern everyone, he said.

Tolman dared to voice what we’ve known for a long time: that they were trying to keep Donald Trump out of the Oval Office.

So remember when Barr continues to be accused of politicizing the DOJ, it’s just another example of Democrats accusing others of what they themselves are doing. The attack on Barr is political, and it’s coordinated. It sure seems to me that Barr’s the one trying to get the politics OUT. If his decisions at times help President Trump, perhaps it’s because the President actually has the truth and the law on his side.

If you’re getting demoralized by all the polls showing Joe Biden winning in a landslide, don’t be. That’s the whole point of them. I’ll remind you that at this point in 2016, Hillary was supposedly ahead by 13 points, and I got plenty of eye rolls when I predicted that Trump would win. But if you wonder whether the majority of your fellow Americans have really gone crazy, then this might cheer you up a little.

Reporter Brian Cates reminds us of a number of important factors that the poll takers fail to take into account, such as state organization, ground game and campaign war chests. But the most important one of all is this:

“The Democratic party has openly turned into a party of stark raving lunatics.”

To be fair, I don’t know if the Party leaders are lunatics, or if they’re just pandering to lunatics, but neither one is a very convincing argument for giving them power over your life, your job, your business, your home and your family.

A lot of people are talking about (and I don’t know why) a Yahoo music editor’s article calling for replacing “The Star-Spangled Banner” as America’s National Anthem, possibly with “Imagine” by John Lennon. The excuse is that Francis Scott Key was a slaveholder (he also represented slaves trying to win their freedom in court, pro bono), and that the third verse that is never sung is “blatantly racist” (although his use of the term "slave" has been hotly debated and might mean people pressed into service by the British Navy, oh and by the way, did I mention that it’s NEVER SUNG?

This is hardly the first time anyone’s wanted to replace “The Star-Spangled Banner,” although until now, it’s usually been because it’s so hard to sing (the tune was taken from a drinking song with a high note you practically have to be drunk to attempt to hit.) The choice to replace it was usually Irving Berlin’s “God Bless America,” but we can’t have that now! Referring to God is almost as un-PC as honoring a slaveholder.

But what about “Imagine”? Look, I love the Beatles, but that has to be the most over-praised song of the past century. Even Lennon admitted that it’s basically the Communist Manifesto set to music. Radical leftists love it because it paints a picture of a utopian world without national borders, private property or religion, and Lennon often found himself having to correct their interpretations and reminding them that he wasn’t advocating for those things, he was just suggesting “imagining” that we didn’t have all those differences so we could work together globally.

But people DO have differences, and as experience has taught us, leftist prescriptions, like taking away religious freedom and property rights, do nothing but make them angrier and more likely for those differences to flare into war. Besides, imposing that "utopia" requires an ironfisted oppressive government, which isn’t likely in a world without borders. If the song has a dreamlike quality, that’s because it is a dream. A pipe dream.

Besides, if we had to do away with every song because the writer wasn’t a saint, we wouldn’t have much music left, and that includes John Lennon music. Wonder what the cancel culture would do if they realized John wrote a song intended as a feminist anthem that was called “Woman is the (N-word) of the World”?

As with all art, we have to learn to separate the creation from the creator. Francis Scott Key was a flawed human being, as are all human beings, but he gave us a great song that represents a great nation, and it stands for all our people. Some of the most inspiring renditions of it were performed by black entertainers, from Mahalia Jackson to Jimi Hendrix to Whitney Houston.

If the statue-smashing radicals really want to learn from the wisdom of John Lennon, I’d recommend instead a far better song: “Revolution.”

“You say you want a revolution, well, you know, we all want to change the world...

But when you talk about destruction, don’t you know that you can count me out…

You say you got a real solution, well, you know, we'd all love to see the plan.

You ask me for a contribution, well, you know, we're all doing what we can.

But if you want money for people with minds that hate, all I can tell is brother you have to wait…

You say you'll change the Constitution, well, you know, we all want to change your head.

You tell me it's the institution, well, you know, you better free your mind instead.

But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao, you ain't gonna make it with anyone anyhow…”

Remember when people used to complain about there being no difference between the Democrats and the Republicans? Is anyone still saying that now? It’s not just like comparing apples and oranges, it’s like the difference between Goofus and Gallant. Or Superman and Bizarro World Superman.

To start with, Minneapolis, like other big, longtime one-party Democrat cities, has suffered widespread riots, arson and looting and destruction of public statues and monuments by people who seem to thank that if you smash historic monuments, you change history (or as I call that, “Taliban logic.”) Their Goofus response: on Friday, the Minneapolis city council (which has not one single Republican) voted unanimously to abolish the police department. Some residents who vowed not to call the police and were immediately inundated with hundreds of homeless people and their various drug dealers and other problems could probably tell you where this is going to lead.

A local business owner whose bookstore was destroyed by arson said there are legitimate problems with the police, “but the way the politicians are going about it is just ridiculous. They are pandering to a certain segment of the public.” He said he won’t reopen his store if city leaders push through a “sufficiently stupid” plan. I feel confident that the one and only way in which the Minneapolis city council will exceed expectations is in the field of stupidity.

Fortunately, the city council doesn’t have the power to abolish the police force unless the citizens vote for it in November. Let’s hope they’re now undergone enough of the traditional process for clearing up one’s thinking (“A conservative is a liberal who got mugged”) to vote to abolish the current city council instead.

On the other side, President Trump’s Gallant response to the unrest was to sign an executive order requiring enforcement of federal laws against vandalizing public monuments and government property, providing assistance for protecting it, and withholding federal support and grants from local authorities who fail to do their jobs and protect it.

Trump has also taken measures to declare the violent radical left group Antifa as a domestic terrorist organization, and his DOJ is reportedly already conducting dozens of investigations of their organizers. Meanwhile, Democratic Rep. Jerrod Nadler (Goofus, NY) stood up in the House and declared Antifa to be “imaginary.” That’s right: the same guy who wasted many months and untold tax dollars to impeach the President over nonexistent crimes, and who has spent years pushing a Russian collusion hoax, believes that it’s Antifa that’s imaginary.

At that link, Republican Rep. Jim Jordan disabuses Rep. Nadler of his delusions, and at this link, so does a former Antifa member, who was quite surprised to learn that all the rocks he threw through windows were actually part of a quilting circle.

Rep. Nadler might also want to check out this video and ask himself, “If Antifa is imaginary, who sprayed that extremist graffiti, shoemaker’s elves?”

Senate Republicans offered up a serious police reform bill similar to but not as radical as the one from House Democrats. It was largely crafted by Sen. Tim Scott, one of the few black Senators and someone who’s had personal experience with racial profiling. Democrats, who claimed to care so much about black people that a bill had to be passed by July 4th, filibustered the Senate bill to kill it so it couldn’t even open up for changes and amendments, then insulted Republicans using racially charged terms such as “token.” Here was Sen. Scott’s response:

He also called Nancy Pelosi’s attempt to blame Republicans for the murder of George Floyd outrageous and sinful.

Meanwhile, back in Goofus Town, Speaker Pelosi claimed that only the Democratic House bill is worthy of “George Kirby’s name.” FYI: George Floyd was killed by a police officer in solidly Democratic Minneapolis. George Kirby was a gifted comedian and impressionist, best known for the 1970s TV show, “The Kopykats,” with fellow mimics Rich Little and Frank Gorshin. He was black, though, so she got that part right.

And while Democrats claim to be displaying their deep concern for black people by tearing down statues of Abraham Lincoln, the Republican who freed the slaves from their Democrat masters, the far-left California legislature just voted to put a measure on the ballot to rescind the state constitutional amendment barring discrimination based on race, gender or national origin. They claim this is good because it will allow them to impose race-based discrimination they approve of, so that the state can openly judge people by the color of their skin, not the content of their character. Since this is California, I won’t call that “Goofus” thinking. Let’s just call it Goofy.