More than 1,100 former Department of Justice prosecutors and employees signed a letter released Sunday demanding that Attorney General Bill Barr resign from office.
The letter takes a staunchly partisan Democratic tone, leaving no doubt as to their partisan allegiances of the high-ranking government employees who have signed it. The letter claims that Barr is “doing the President’s personal bidding” for clamping down on a culture of corruption present within elements of the powerful government entity.
The liberal bureaucrats are especially upset with Barr’s intervention in the criminal case of a former Trump campaign advisor, Roger Stone. Stone was set to be sentenced to a draconian and lengthy prison sentence for process crimes that amount to no more than lying to congress, a witch hunt that had many James Comey-style elite DOJ employees smitten with glee. Barr intervened to overturn the sentencing goals of prosecutors tasked with the case, leading to several of them resigning in protest.
The moralistic and sanctimonious letter claims that Barr is somehow harming the credibility of the already controversial department, but the DoJ alumni that have openly endorsed it seem largely unaware that their own endorsement of a staunchly partisan and anti-Trump statement does far more to harm the already- questionable credibility of the department.
The letter from outraged bureaucrats is one of the latest incidences that suggest a liberal institutional bias prevailing at nearly every level of the Department of Justice. A chief FBI press officer was recently forced to resign after it was revealed that he accepted lavish gifts from New York Times and CNN reporters.
Also, as Stone remains lined up for a draconian prison sentence for conversations with government employees, anti-Trump agitator Andrew McCabe appears set to wholly escape any accountability for his naked partisanship revealed throughout the 2016 election.
What Happens If John Roberts Decides Not to Preside Over Trump’s Post-Presidency Impeachment Trial?
Trying to make sense of a messy situation.
Several Republicans and Democrats familiar with the negotiations over Donald Trump’s second impeachment trial have said that Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts does not want to preside.
A Politico report that broke the news reads as follows: “We’re hearing that Roberts, who for years has sought to keep the courts apolitical, was not happy he became a top target of the left during Trump’s first impeachment trial. ‘He wants no further part of this,’ one of our Hill sources says. A spokesperson for the chief justice declined to comment.”
As if it weren’t unprecedented enough for a president to have been impeached twice, Democratic lawmakers are hell-bent on holding an impeachment trial for a man who is no longer president. And it sounds like they’re going to get their wish: Senate leaders agreed Friday that the trial would begin Tuesday, February 9. It does not appear that Roberts’ decision is a factor either way.
This clown show needs some unpacking. First off, Roberts has very good reason to reject presiding over Trump’s impeachment trial. The Constitution states that the chief justice will preside when the president is tried. Not the ex-president, the current president. That alone should be sufficient.
Despite this, there may not be anything that expressly forbids Congress from impeaching and convicting former officials. Some legal experts have pointed out that “nothing in the text of the Constitution bars Congress from impeaching, convicting, and disqualifying former officials from holding future office.”
In light of all this, the radio silence of the Founders on this matter allows both sides to justify their support or opposition. Those in opposition say that because there’s nothing in the Constitution about trying a former president, there are no grounds to hold the trial. Those in support say that because there’s nothing in the Constitution about trying a former president, there is no legal reason to oppose the trial.
Furthermore, law professor Frank Bowman, speaking to the Washington Examiner, argued that if a trial is going to be held, it might be prudent for Roberts to preside.
“The vice president does have a personal interest in the outcome, insofar as conviction would eliminate Trump as a future political rival, either to President Biden or to Harris herself,” Bowman said. “I think the constitutionally safer call is that he should preside. That way, there can never be a later objection on the ground that the tribunal was not properly constituted.”
If Chief Justice Roberts decides to extricate himself from this mess, Democrats are said to be discussing the possibility of having Vice President Kamala Harris, who is also the president of the Senate, preside. Also being floated is president pro tempore and longest-serving senator Patrick Leahy.
Harris has a conflict of interest if she were to preside, however. And indeed that is why the Founders wanted the chief justice of a (theoretically) non-political entity of government to do so. Harris is not only of the opposite party and was on the ticket that defeated the Trump/Pence ticket, she might very well have aspirations for the presidency if Biden decides not to seek reelection. Trump himself may have his eye on the presidency once again as well, meaning that Harris would be presiding over the impeachment trial of a potential political opponent.
So if the legality of convicting an ex-president is gray, then it becomes a question of prudence. And prudence dictates that the impeachment trial should not proceed. The side that’s calling for “unity” is engaging in something fundamentally disunifying. Any attempt to convict a former president with no clear legal grounds is most definitely not a recipe for “unity” and “healing.” Our senators should just move on and worry about governing. Enough with the political shams and shenanigans.
The Swamp1 day ago
Democrats Move to Ban Trump Supporters From Joining the Military and Holding Federal Jobs
White House3 days ago
Biden White House Makes YouTube Upload of Inaugural Speech ‘Unlisted’ After Being Flooded With Dislikes
Big League Wellness2 days ago
Biden Nullifies Trump Executive Order Issued to Reduce Prices of Insulin and Epinephrine
Congress4 days ago
115 House Republicans Sign Onto Effort to Remove Neocon Liz Cheney as GOP Chair
Congress2 days ago
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene Calls Biden a ‘Threat to National Security’, Files Impeachment Resolution
Tech3 days ago
Lawsuit: Twitter Kept Child Porn on Platform Because It Does Not Violate Their Terms of Service
Politics3 days ago
Mitch McConnell Censured by Nelson County, Kentucky Republican Party for Betrayal of President Trump
Big League Economics3 days ago
Pete Buttigieg: Keystone XL Pipeline Workers Need to Get Different Jobs