For citizens that protested the Patriot Act, and were shocked by the revelations of government surveillance revealed by Edward Snowden, recent news about the Steele Dossier, which was paid for with cash funneled from the Clinton Campaign, to the DNC and then though law firms is extremely troubling. For Virginians, we have to wonder just how involved was former Governor McAulliffe? As campaign chairman for Mrs. Clinton, how could he not be aware of the payment for Steele’s work? As this thing unravels, Governor Northam, McAulliffe’s right hand man, and who was hand picked to be the Democratic nominee, may have some explaining to do. Also, Virginia Sen. Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee who has been leading a congressional investigation into President Trump’s alleged ties to Russia, had extensive contact last year with a lobbyist for a Russian oligarch who was offering Warner access to former British spy and dossier author Christopher Steele. Throughout the text exchanges, Warner seemed particularly intent on connecting directly with Steele without anyone else on the Senate Intelligence Committee being aware. In one text to the lobbyist Adam Waldman, Warner wrote that he would “rather not have a paper trail” of his messages.
A new batch of text messages between FBI officials Peter Strzok and Lisa Page revealed that President Barack Obama wanted updates on the bureau’s investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server. The pair both worked at one point for Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s probe of alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.
News about Obama wanting updates from Comey on the Clinton email probe is troubling given that he said months earlier that ‘I do not talk to FBI directors about pending investigations. … I guarantee that there is no political influence in any investigation.’
But the new batch of texts now raise questions about Mr. Obama’s involvement in the Clinton investigation.
On Sept. 2, 2016 — just weeks away from election day — Ms. Page texted Mr. Strzok, her lover, about preparing a report for then-FBI Director James B. Comey because “potus wants to know everything we’re doing.”
The message was one of more 50,000 texts the pair sent over a two-year span between July 2015 and July 2017. Mr. Strzok was the lead investigator on the Clinton email probe. He was also, briefly, a member of special counsel Robert Mueller’s team investigating ties between Russia and Donald Trump’s presidential campaign.
The texts have raised questions about Mr. Strzok’s independence on both cases. Previously released texts have revealed Mr. Strzok’s and Ms. Page’s anger toward Mr. Trump, calling him an “idiot” and “loathsome.”
In another text, Mr. Strzok calls Virginians who voted against then-FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe’s wife “ignorant hillbillys” (sic).
Mr. McCabe’s wife, Jill, ran for a state Senate seat in Virginia but lost. Mr. McCabe received criticism for allegedly slow-walking the Clinton investigation and the fact that his wife received nearly $500,000 in campaign donations from a Political Action Committee affiliated with then-Gov. Terry McAuliffe, Virginia, Democrat, who was also chairman of Mrs. Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign.
That text came from Strzok to Page on Nov. 4, 2015, the day after Jill McCabe lost a hotly contested Virginia state Senate election. Strzok said of the result,“Disappointing, but look at the district map. Loudon is being gentrified, but it’s still largely ignorant hillbillys. Good for her for running, but curious if she’s energized or never again.”
In another email on 8/26/2018, Strzok and Page disparage southern Virginia:
Strzok – Just went to a southern Virginia Walmart. I could SMELL the Trump support…
Page – Yep. Out to lunch with (redacted) We both hate everyone and everything.
Page – Just riffing on the hot mess that is our country.
Strzok – Yeah…it’s scary real down here
Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., along with majority staff from the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, released the texts, along with a report titled, “The Clinton Email Scandal and the FBI’s Investigation of it.”
The newly uncovered texts reveal a bit more about the timing of the discovery of “hundreds of thousands” of emails on former Congressman Anthony Weiner’s laptop, ultimately leading to Comey’s infamous letter to Congress just days before the 2016 presidential election.
On Sept. 28, 2016, Strzok wrote to Page, “Got called up to Andy’s [McCabe] earlier.. hundreds of thousands of emails turned over by Weiner’s atty to sdny [Southern District of New York], includes a ton of material from spouse [Huma Abedin]. Sending team up tomorrow to review… this will never end.” According to the Senate report, this text message raises questions about when FBI officials learned of emails relevant to the Hillary Clinton email investigation on the laptop belonging to Weiner, the husband to Clinton aide Huma Abedin.
It was a full month later, on Oct. 28, 2016, when Comey informed Congress that, “Due to recent developments,” the FBI was re-opening its Clinton email investigation.
“In connection with an unrelated case, the FBI has learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the investigation. I am writing to inform you that the investigative team briefed me on this yesterday…” Comey said at the time.
The question becomes why Comey was only informed by his investigative team on Oct. 27, if the Clinton emails on Weiner’s laptop were discovered by Sept. 28, at the latest.
Other texts show more examples of the officials’ opposition to Trump.
On Election Day 2016, Page wrote, “OMG THIS IS F***ING TERRIFYING.” Strzok replied, “Omg, I am so depressed.” Later that month, on Nov. 13, 2016, Page wrote, “I bought all the president’s men. Figure I need to brush up on watergate.”
The next day, Nov. 14, 2016, Page wrote, “God, being here makes me angry. Lots of high fallutin’ national security talk. Meanwhile we have OUR task ahead of us.” (what is the task?)
Page’s meaning here is unclear, but Senate investigators say, coupled with Strzok’s Aug. 15 text about an “insurance policy,” further investigation is warranted to find out what actions the two may have taken.
The last text is from Page to Strzok, and comes on June 23, 2017, when she wrote, “Please don’t ever text me again.”
It’s unclear whether she became aware that they, and their thousands of texts, had been discovered.
Raymond Otton says
meh…………..big deal, scandal, schmandle.
Anyone think we’ll ever see a perp walk by one of these swamp creatures?
In more important news, we did see Mr. Trump’s toupe lifted by a breeze right there on prime time CNN. (Don’t ask what I was doing watching CNN, OK?)
Jack A Roe says
No, but you will see your governor mentioned again and again over the next four as ‘from The Eastern Shore’ or an ‘Eastern Shore Governor’…ect. when in reality he did not even carry his home county in the election.
Tina Moore says
Obama and his cronies (including globalist RINOS) essentially spent 8 years turning the federal government into the strong arm branch of the neo-Marxist Obama administration. They openly violated federal law at will. Obama and his administration egregiously interfered with the 2016 elections through illegal spying, unmasking, leaking, and hiding information. Now more evidence emerges every day that the Democrats (rather than Trump) are guilty of collusion with Russia to influence the election? Obama/Clinton and all swamp denizens needs to be held accountable for numerous crimes against the American people. It makes me extremely angry that Obama/Clinton and their globalist ilk have violated my constitutional rights to a freely elected representative government. It makes me angry that they are not sitting in a cell in Leavenworth at this very moment.
Tina Moore says
The buck might stop with Obama. But he was always a Globalist puppet. As was Bush and his father. And the Clintons. It will be interesting when Obama is faced with the death penalty for treason whether he will name those Who-shall-not-be-named. We want the names and heads of the Mafia Bosses. The Old Money vampires that have been pulling the strings for centuries. Going all the way back to Britain and Europe.
Tina Moore says
Quotes from the muslim….
It was Obama who told an Islamic dinner – “I am one of you.”
It was Obama who on ABC News referenced – “My Muslim faith.”
It was Obama who gave $100 million in U.S. taxpayer funds to re-build foreign mosques.
It was Obama who wrote that in the event of a conflict -“I will stand with the Muslims.”
It was Obama who assured the Egyptian Foreign Minister that – “I am a Muslim.”
It was Obama who bowed in submission before the Saudi King.
It was Obama who sat for 20 years in a Liberation Theology Church condemning Christianity and professing Marxism.
It was Obama who exempted Muslims from penalties under Obamacare that the rest of us have to pay.
It was Obama who purposefully omitted – “endowed by our Creator” – from your recitation of The Declaration Of Independence.
It was Obama who mocked the Bible and Jesus Christ’s Sermon nn The Mount while repeatedly referring to the ‘HOLY’ Quran.
It was Obama who traveled the Islamic world denigrating the United States Of America.
It was Obama who instantly threw the support of your administration behind the building of the Ground Zero Victory mosque overlooking the hallowed crater of the World Trade Center.
It was Obama who refused to attend the National Prayer Breakfast, but hastened to host an Islamic prayer breakfast at the WH.
It was Obama who ordered both Georgetown Univ. and Notre Dame to shroud all vestiges of Jesus Christ BEFORE you would agree to go there to speak, but in contrast, you have NEVER requested that the mosques you have visited adjust their decor.
It was Obama who appointed anti-Christian fanatics to your Czar Corps.
It was Obama who appointed rabid Islamist’s to Homeland Security.
It was Obama who said that NASA’s “foremost mission” was an outreach to Muslim communities.
It was Obama who as an Illinois Senator were the ONLY individual who would speak in favor of infanticide.
It was Obama who were the first President not to give a Christmas Greeting from the WH, and went so far as to hang photos of Chairman Mao on the WH tree.
It was Obama who curtailed the military tribunals of all Islamic terrorists.
It was Obama who refused to condemn the Ft. Hood killer as an Islamic terrorist.
It was Obama who has refused to speak-out concerning the horrific executions of women throughout the Muslim culture, but yet, have submitted Arizona to the UN for investigation of hypothetical human-rights abuses.
It was Obama who when queried in India refused to acknowledge the true extent of radical global Jihadists, and instead profusely praised Islam in a country that is 82% Hindu and the victim of numerous Islamic terrorists assaults.
It was Obama who funneled $900 Million in U.S. taxpayer dollars to Hamas.
It was Obama who ordered the USPS to honor the MUSLIM holiday with a new commemorative stamp.
It was Obama who directed our UK Embassy to conduct outreach to help “empower” the British Muslim community.
It was Obama who embraced the fanatical Muslim Brotherhood in your quest to overthrow the Egyptian President, Hosni Mubarak.
It was Obama who funded mandatory Arabic language and culture studies in Grammar schools across our country.
It is Obama who follows the Muslim custom of not wearing any form of jewelry during Ramadan.
It is Obama who departs for Hawaii over the Christmas season so as to avoid past criticism for NOT participating in seasonal WH religious events.
It was Obama who was un-characteristically quick to join the chorus of the Muslim Brotherhood to depose Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak, formerly America’s strongest ally in North Africa; but, remain muted in your non-response to the Brotherhood led slaughter of Egyptian Christians.
It was Obama who appointed his chief adviser, Valerie Jarrett , who is a member of the Muslim Sisterhood, an off-shoot of the Muslim Brotherhood.
Chas Cornweller says
Wow! Tina Moore, I want to know where did you get that bubble you currently live in? I want to find one just like it, but instead of seeing black boogie men as Mooslum Presidents and Christian haters, I want mine to be where I experience brightly colored sunsets, never ending adult beverages, unicorns and people linked arm in arm helping and caring for one another. And no more war! Yeah, THAT bubble.
Interesting that this article is about elitist’s minions mocking those that elitists have been taking advantage of for years while feeding them scraps of paper with lies to enable elitists to maintain their elitists powers. But, most of you don’t really get that, do you? You just want to believe what the man in the grey box tells you. And mock those that you feel empowered over. Dance, puppet, dance.
Mike Kuzma, Jr. says
Buwahahahahahahahahaha, a LIBERAL calling someone a follower……..
Oh Chassy Sweetheart??
RUSSIA!!!! BOOO!!!!!!!
You lefties are freaking clueless.
Jack A Roe says
If wishes were horses, then beggars would ride.
Maybe you should head for the land that’s far away
Besides the crystal fountain
So go and see
The Big Rock Candy Mountain…
Chas Cornweller says
Directly pointed at Jack-A-Roe: Sometimes the lights all shining on me…other times I can barely see…lately it occurs to me, what a long strange trip it’s been. Ms. Roe, or is that Jack? A comely and sonorous alias you have there, Missy. For you see, the song, Jack-A-Roe is an old English ballad about a lovely and wealthy female who dresses in men’s clothing (specifically a sailor’s uniform) to be allowed to follow the man of her heart. Sort of a reverse Chelsea Manning, you see. But, I am sure I am not telling you anything new here. I just find it interesting that you would chose an alias that would reflect a woman dressed as a man. But, somehow, I suspect you are a male, with a male alias; who uses a male persona to disguise a female to dress like a man. Confused?
Not me, for in essence, Jack-A-Roe is nothing more than a transvestite cross-dresser. Not matter the situation, that really is what you got there. Think about that next time you start to hurl stones.
Paul Plante says
Chas Cornweller, dude, while we have you here on a roll in all of your oratorical splendor, what on earth do you make of all this HOO-HAH being raised in the liberal bastions of modern-day America over a remark Jeff Sessions made the other day about the origins of our legal system in this country?
Talk about hysterical shrieking, Chas Cornweller, this stuff in the liberal bastion print media is simply ignorance of pretty much everything on steroids.
To borrow one of your phrases, or one pretty much like one of yours, anyway, it is ignorance on the hoof in a stampede.
Let’s take a look, Chas Cornweller, and you will see exactly what I mean.
Here, let’s start with this Fox News article “Media frenzy after Sessions notes law enforcement’s ‘Anglo-American’ heritage” by Samuel Chamberlain on 12 February 2018, where it is stated as follows:
The Justice Department pushed back strongly Monday after critics, including some in the media, claimed Attorney General Jeff Sessions used racist language when he addressed a group of sheriffs.
Sessions told the National Sheriffs Association, “The office of sheriff is a critical part of the Anglo-American heritage of law enforcement.”
end quotes
That innocuous statement about the Anglo-American heritage of our law enforcement in this country which was previously uttered by the Democrat Messiah and Mahdi and Taiping Barack Hussein Obama Magnus without a flutter or whimper of protest in the main stream media, became the stuff of a torrent of screeching protest when uttered by Jeff Sessions, because while people liked Obama and therefore would tolerate anything he said, they don’t like Jeff Sessions, so when Sessions says the same thing they had no trouble with Obama saying, they attack Jeff Sessions for it.
Getting back to that Fox article, Chas Cornweller, we have this:
The “Anglo-American heritage” part of Sessions’ comment caught the eye of writers at a number of media outlets.
Newsweek headlined a story with “Jeff Sessions faces fresh racism charge after praising ‘Anglo-American Heritage’ of law enforcement.”
end quotes
Now, talk about gross ignorance on the hoof in a stampede, Chas Cornweller, you could find no better example of it than right there.
That is what sheer stupidity in the body politic looks like in real life, Chas Cornweller, and to borrow another one of your phrases that I like because I thought it was kind of catchy; it ain’t pretty!
But there is more, Chas Cornweller, and it gets even more pitiful, to wit:
There was even more outrage on social media.
Time magazine national correspondent Charlotte Alter tweeted that Sessions’ statement was proof that “our justice system is rooted in white supremacy.”
end quotes
HIUH?
Are you ******* ******** me?
Proof that our justice system is rooted in white supremacy?
What kind of moronic claim is that?
How dirt stupid does one have to be to think that way, if that can in any way be called “thinking?”
And look at this ignorance chiming in, which is dangerous ignorance given the one dude is a senator:
Sen. Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii, tweeted that the remarks were “a dog whistle” and “appalling,” while actress Alyssa Milano said that Sessions should be “fired immediately.”
end quotes
And here we get to the absolute idiocy and stupidity of these people being exposed for all the candid world to see, and they should:
DOJ officials were quick to point out that Sessions was referring to the precedent-based English common law system that forms the basis of the American legal code.
“As most law students learn in the first week of their first year, Anglo-American law – also known as the common law – is a shared legal heritage between England and America,” spokesman Ian Prior said in a statement.
“The sheriff is unique to that shared legal heritage.”
“Before reporters sloppily imply nefarious meaning behind the term, we would suggest that they read any number of the Supreme Court opinions that use the term.”
“Or they could simply put ‘Anglo-American law’ into Google.”
end quotes
First-year law student my ***, dear friend, Chas Cornweller.
I knew that by the fifth grade at the latest, because it was taught to us as a part of AMERICAN citizenship.
Look at section 14 of Article I, the Bill of Rights, of our New York State Constitution for proof of that, to wit:
[Common law and acts of the colonial and state legislatures]
§14. Such parts of the (English) common law, and of the acts of the legislature of the (English) colony of New York, as together did form the law of the said (English) colony, on the nineteenth day of April, one thousand seven hundred seventy-five, and the resolutions of the congress of the said (English) colony, and of the convention of the State of New York, in force on the twentieth day of April, one thousand seven hundred seventy-seven, which have not since expired, or been repealed or altered; and such acts of the legislature of this state as are now in force, shall be and continue the law of this state, subject to such alterations as the legislature shall make concerning the same.
But all such parts of the (English) common law, and such of the said acts, or parts thereof, as are repugnant to this constitution, are hereby abrogated.
end quotes
Now tell me, Chas Cornweller, as you are considered by the people in their collective wisdom to be an expert in such matters, where is there any “racism” in that Constitutional provision?
How warped and twisted would someone’s mind have to be, Chas Cornweller, to find any racism there, because there isn’t any.
So what then is this hysterical shrieking on the internet and TWITTER, that bastion of pure mindlessness in America where people who can’t think in complete sentences go to be among friends and kind, by this Time magazine national correspondent Charlotte Alter who mindlessly and foolishly tweeted that Sessions’ statement was proof that “our justice system is rooted in white supremacy?”
Talk about “fake news,” Chas Cornweller, that right there takes the prize!
And then look at this for comparison, Chas Cornweller:
In 2009, then-President Barack Obama cited the “Anglo-American legal system” while discussing his administration’s approach to law enforcement, CBS News reported.
In 2016, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Bill Baer used the term “Anglo-American” during a speech in China with no apparent controversy.
end quotes
Infantile America, or what, Chas Cornweller?
And should these people like this Time magazine national correspondent Charlotte Alter who tweeted that Sessions’ statement was proof that “our justice system is rooted in white supremacy” who are so ignorant about OUR country and OUR history really be allowed to vote?
Isn’t that dangerous, Chas Cornweller, to turn OUR country over to people like Time magazine national correspondent Charlotte Alter who know nothing about OUR country by giving them a vote as to who should govern it?
The candid world would like to know your thoughts on the matter.
Peggy-O says
Pluck….
Paul Plante says
WOW!
All I was going to say was that I have never found Obama to be all that truthful, like no boots on the ground in Syria, so when he says “I do not talk to FBI directors about pending investigations. … I guarantee that there is no political influence in any investigation,” I think that is nothing more than a lot of horse****.
Paul Plante says
WOW, Chas Cornweller, dude!
On the Richter scale of sheer and unmitigated eloquence, Chas Cornweller, which you are spouting literal gouts of above here, you are up somewhere about a 24, which is largely uncharted territory today, where the best most of your possible competition can muster doesn’t even fill up a TWEET.
Take, for example, the lofty and soaring oratory of our recent president Barack Hussein Obama, whose oratory has been held to rival that of Julius Caesar of Rome, who Cicero thought was one of the best Roman orators ever:
The White House Office of the Press Secretary For Immediate Release January 29, 2015
Remarks by the President to the House Democratic Issues Conference
Sheraton Philadelphia Society Hill Hotel
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
7:34 P.M. EST
THE PRESIDENT: Hey!
(Applause.)
Hello, hello, hello!
(Applause.)
Hello, Democrats!
Thank you so much.
Everybody, sit down, sit down.
It’s good to be with you, Democrats.
(Applause.)
It’s good to be in Philadelphia.
(Applause.)
My understanding is we still have our host, Mayor Nutter, here.
Where’s Mayor Nutter?
(Applause.)
There he is right there.
I want to just remind the New England and Pacific Northwest contingents, this is the City of Brotherly Love.
So regardless of what you think about Sunday, I want you all to keep it clean.
(Laughter.)
I am not taking sides on that one.
(Laughter.)
I want to begin by — oh, bring your own football — is that — oooh.
(Laughter.)
Oooh.
AUDIENCE: Ooooh —
THE PRESIDENT: Wow.
(Laughter.)
That’s why we’re Democrats!
Thank you.
(Applause.)
end quotes
Regardless of the praise heaped on that oratorical effort by the pundits, Chas Cornweller, and as you can imagine, with a speech like that from Obama, who was very popular, they were many, and included such luminaries as Nancy Pelosi, who would be expected to know the difference after all her years in Washington, D.C., where she has heard the best this country has to offer when it comes to eloquent oratory, and yet, Chas Cornweller, not to stoke your ego overmuch here, but I think you surpass all of them, JFK, Obama, Dick Nixxon, the pack of them, Chas Cornweller, if you can believe that.
I mean, Chas Cornweller, look at how this line simply flows like water naturally going downhill: “Wow! Tina Moore, I want to know where did you get that bubble you currently live in?”
You could so easily, Chas Cornweller, convert that minto a prize-winning haiku, and my goodness, Chas Cornweller, not to be too effusive with high praise here, but what a lot of visceral imagery you have packed in there with your use of the metaphorical “bubble” Tina Moore currently lives in.
A key point you raise on the metaphysical scale Chas Cornweller, and this might escape the non-philosophically oriented among us, is that people do in fact “get” (i.e., come to have or hold (something); receive;
succeed in attaining, achieving, or experiencing; obtain) the bubbles they currently live in, something the Taoists have known for centuries, whether we in this country did or not, so with some mental application, Chas Cornweller, you too could build a bubble of pure guardian chi around yourself, and inside your bubble, instead of being fixated on seeing black boogie men as Mooslum Presidents and Christian haters, you could have yours be where you experience brightly colored sunsets, never ending adult beverages, unicorns and people linked arm in arm helping and caring for one another, and no more war!
Yeah, Chas Cornweller, THAT bubble.
It could be yours but for, you know what I am saying?
And Chas Cornweller, yes, as you have so eloquently put it, this article IS about the minions of the elitists mocking those that elitists have been taking advantage of for years while feeding them scraps of paper with lies to enable the elitists to maintain their elitists’ powers.
And I think that yes, Chas Cornweller, most of us really do get that.
And of course, Chas Cornweller, there are indeed people out there who want nothing more than to believe what the man in the grey box tells them.
And mock those that they feel empowered over.
Dance, puppet, dance, as you observe, Chas Cornweller.
But seriously, dude, do you think those are the kinds of people who would have the mental courage and moral fortitude that would enable them to be independent enough in their thinking to be able to handle an organ of truth like the Cape Charles Mirror?
Wouldn’t the irreverence for those in positions of authority displayed in here rattle their gyros off their gimbals and thereby scramble their thoughts?
Aren’t those the people who more likely to congregate at a safe echo chamber like Democrats Underground as their bubble?
Paul Plante says
With respect to the comment attributed to Barack Hussein Obama, who I have never found to be all that truthful, where he says “I do not talk to FBI directors about pending investigations. … I guarantee that there is no political influence in any investigation,” which I personally think is a bunch of horse****. THE HILL has a story entitled “GOP senators question ‘unusual’ message Susan Rice sent herself on Inauguration Day” by Olivia Beavers on 12 February 2018 which would seem to refute Obama’s contention and verify mine, to wit:
Two top Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee are questioning former national security adviser Susan Rice about an “unusual” message she sent to herself on Jan 20, 2017 – President Trump’s Inauguration Day.
Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) questioned Rice why she sent a note detailing a conversation she observed on Jan. 5 between then-FBI Director James Comey and then-President Barack Obama.
“It strikes us as odd that, among your activities in the final moments on the final day of the Obama administration, you would feel the need to send yourself such an unusual email purporting to document a conversation involving President Obama and his interactions with the FBI regarding the Trump/Russia investigation,” they wrote in a letter to Rice.
They said that in the message, Rice noted how Obama repeatedly emphasized during the meeting on Russian election hacking with Comey that he wants every aspect of the issue handled “by the book.”
“The President stressed that he is not asking about, initiating or instructing anything from a law enforcement perspective.”
“He reiterated that our law enforcement team needs to proceed as it normally would by the book,” Rice wrote, according to an excerpt included in the senators’ letter.
Grassley and Graham said despite her repeated mention of Obama stressing the need for a proper investigation, “substantial questions have arisen about whether officials at the FBI, as well as at the Justice Department and the State Department, actually did proceed ‘by the book.'”
end quote
So what is up with that, one must wonder.
If Obama was truthful when he said “I do not talk to FBI directors about pending investigations,” was Susan Rice then lying about Obama talking to Comey about the Russia/Trump investigation?
But why would she lie about something like that?
Getting back to THE HILL article:
They said they found record of her note through the National Archives, which preserves files from a presidential administration.
The GOP senators’ own unusual letter comes at a time when Republicans are intensely scrutinizing whether Obama-era officials sought to damage Trump’s presidential campaign during last year’s election.
end quotes
What a pathetic mess that is down there in Washington, D.C. all the way around is my thought as I follow this soap opera along.
And to think we taxpayers are footing the bill for this, on-going farce.
More fools us, isn’t it?
Chas Cornweller says
Paul, as I am not lawyer and it’s not even in my field, I will not engage in a lengthy discussion on the terms that Jeff Sessions used in his speech the other day. But, as anyone with any ounce of an education knows, the term Anglo-American justice directly relates to the Old World of justice according to the court system created in England…going all the way back to the Magna Carta. Simple and neat, huh? Don’t you wish.
HOO-HAH, seems to be the operative word of the day, dear sir. There is enough HOO-HAH going around to refloat the Titanic, fuel China for a thousand years, satiate the masses with sleepy time pills for several lifetimes…etc. If HOO-HAH had any worth. It doesn’t. Those that react to these “Dog Whistles” as Brian Schatz puts it, are now busy looking over other criteria emulating from the gated community we call “Inside the Beltway” or D. C. Us journalistic inclined folks know better, don’t we? Since there seems to be a shortage of money (in most folks’ pockets, anyways) nowadays, HOO-HAH appears to have taken on the currency of exchange. Everyone “feels” so much better spreading their little bits of HOO-HAH all around. From the tippy-tippy top all the way down to poor little “Johnson” sitting in his momma’s darken basement writing up his memoirs and cleaning his newly acquired AK-15, all the while spewing his twisted and sickened rhetoric for all the world to read. Sad. Beyond sad…it is the true state of the world, today. HOO-HAH, indeed.
And let’s look at the world of today. And a close look at our so called “Anglo-American” Justice system everyone seems so proud of here in America. I’m going to name out a few cases and you call out whether they were “Just” or not. I’ll make it easy (at first).
1. Salem Witch Trials
2. Dred Scott Decision
3. Ed Johnson
4. Thomas Griffin and Meeks Griffin
5. Scottsboro Boys
6. George Stinney
7. Clarence Earl Gideon
8. Delbert Tibbs
9. Brian Baldwin
10. Orenthal James Simpson
If you see a pattern here, you are correct…there is one, all the way up to number ten. Number one and ten are anomalies.
This is not to mention the thousands (THOUSANDS!) of black citizens of this country lynched by mob without due process or the act of a hearing before their peers (Anglo-American Justice-again, that term!) and killed by processes you and I cannot even imagine human beings doing to one another. So, do you wonder why now, it is such a dog whistle? Is it not as plain as the nose on your face? So, are we talking about a sensibility here? You bet we are.
Jeff Sessions has a history, as you may recall. Beginning with his name, proudly after two (2) Confederate States leaders (P.T. Beauregard, a Confederate general and Jefferson Davis, president of the Confederacy). What’s in a name, you may ask. Well, let’s go further. In 1985, As assistant U.S. Attorney in the Office of U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Alabama he prosecuted a case against three African American community organizers for alleged tampering of voter ballads. The case ended in an acquittal for all three defendants. Next, at a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee for the affirmation of his nomination by Ronald Reagan as U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama, Sessions was shown to have uttered racist remarks against several organizations. One being the NAACP as un-American and Communists inspired. He once called a civil rights attorney (who happened to be white) a “disgrace to his race.” He could not recall making that statement. He told Thomas Figures, a black Assistant U.S. Attorney, that he thought the Ku Klux Klan was “Okay, until I found out they smoked pot.” Sessions later stated that he was joking, but apologized for making that statement.
These are but a few of his past transgressions to minorities in this country. Now, I am sure you can weight this with a feather and come up with opposing arguments. But, my point is this…the perception of his racism is already out of the bag. African Americans do not forget and most are ever watchful of miss-steps with all officials. Why? Why, indeed! I don’t know…maybe it has something to do with miscarriages of justice these past four hundred years. Maybe, the legalese of the court is now understood by educated persons of color. Where, a hundred years ago, those words were being used against them. Where ninety-eight percent had no idea what those words and terms meant. And how they could be used to rail-road them to a lifetime of hard labor or the electric chair or worst. Jeff Sessions is a reminder of those days, Mr. Plante. A clearly defined reminder of the slickness and sick ways powerful white men used the system (Anglo-American Justice) to take away fathers and sons and dismantle families. Words used to denigrate an entire populace and keep them in a second or even third-class status position. Now, I am not saying Jeff Sessions is one of those men. I am not saying he isn’t. But, don’t you think with all the HOO-HAH floating around his haloed head and the sitting in the spotlight of that precarious spot of his job, he’d carefully weigh the power of his words before he spoke them? But, then again, maybe as a high-powered lawyer…he already did. My Hoo-hah for today, sir.
Paul Plante says
Gadzooks and zounds, Chas Cornweller, but you are on quite a roll there!
So, Chas Cornweller, to sum up what I thin k you might have said, because indeed, you said a lot, in 2009, when then-President Barack Obama cited the “Anglo-American legal system” while discussing his administration’s approach to law enforcement as CBS News reported, was he talking about the same Anglo-American legal system that has all those other black folks feeling kind of twitchy because it was Jeff Sessions (same first name as Jeff Davis, who everybody knows was a real bad dude) talking about it and not Obama?
Do you think we ought to scrap English common law and replace it with the law of Haiti or Zimbabwe or Uganda to make people in this country feel better about themselves?
Paul Plante says
Dear Chas Cornweller, not to intentionally pop any of your well-constructed bubbles here, or to overly disparage your personal shibboleths, but even a cursory look at our so called “Anglo-American” Justice system everyone seems so proud of here in America shows clearly that the “Anglo-American” justice system had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the Salem Witch Trials.
In her essay “History of the Salem Witch Trials” by Rebecca Beatrice Brooks on August 18, 2011, the author tells as follows, Chas Cornweller, about those times, which I doubt the majority of Americans living today, and perhaps you are one of them, can even begin to comprehend, to wit:
The Salem Witch Trials of 1692 were a dark time in American history.
More than 200 people were accused of practicing witchcraft and 20 were killed during the hysteria.
Ever since those dark days ended, the trials have become synonymous with mass hysteria and scapegoating.
end quotes
Mass hysteria, Chas Cornweller, has nothing whatsoever to do with the “Anglo-American” justice system, and I am frankly surprised, Chas Cornweller, that an intellectual powerhouse such as yourself would shinny yourself out onto such a flimsy twig as you have done above to try to convince us in here who know our history otherwise.
For those unfamiliar with them, the Salem Witch Trials were a series of witchcraft cases brought before local magistrates in a settlement called Salem which was a part of the Massachusetts Bay colony in the 17th century.
The Salem Witch Trials officially began in February of 1692, when the afflicted girls accused the first three victims, Tituba, Sarah Good and Sarah Osborne, of witchcraft and ended in May of 1693, when the remaining victims were released from jail.
Of importance to understanding why this has nothing to do with the “Anglo-American” justice system and everything to do with ignorance, superstition and religion, fear of the Devil, and witches who did his bidding, was very real in Salem at the time, keeping in mind that we are talking about an isolated English settlement of religious fanatics in 1692, which happens to be 326 years ago now.
In 17th century Massachusetts, people often feared that the Devil was constantly trying to find ways to infiltrate and destroy Christians and their communities.
Getting back to the essay “History of the Salem Witch Trials” by Rebecca Beatrice Brooks, the author yells us that “(A)s a devout and strongly religious community living in near isolation in the mysterious New World, the community of Salem had a heightened sense of fear of the Devil and then experienced a ‘trigger’ when Tituba, one of the accused witches, confessed that she and others were in fact witches working for the Devil,” which induced panic and hysteria and quickly sparked a massive witch hunt.
As history informs us, Tituba’s confession is the main reason why the Salem Witch Trials happened.
Now, as intelligent people today who are indeed forced to have to wade through a literal ocean of HOO-HAH on a daily basis, we need to focus on these following words in order to understand why our dear friend and fellow devoted American patriot Chas Cornweller is pulling our legs when he tries to make us think and believe that the Salem Witch Trials are an example of “Anglo-American” justice as opposed to religious persecution:
“(A)s a devout and strongly religious community living in near isolation in the mysterious New World, the community of Salem had a heightened sense of fear of the Devil ..”
end quotes
For one thing, which our dear friend Chas Cornweller neglects to mention, the people of Salem were English, not Americans, and for another, they were religious fanatics.
As our study of the real history shows us, in addition to this constant sense of fear that the Devil was constantly trying to find ways to infiltrate and destroy Christians and their communities, Salem residents were also under a great deal of stress during this period due to a number of factors.
One major factor was that in 1684, King Charles II of England had revoked the Massachusetts Bay Colony’s royal charter, a legal document granting the colonists permission to colonize the area.
The charter was revoked because the colonists had violated several of the charter’s rules, which included basing laws on religious beliefs and discriminating against Anglicans.
end quotes
Note, people, that we have a king here acting in a very political manner based on religion, which has nothing to do with “Anglo-American” justice and everything to do with politics and religion.
Getting back to the actual history Chas Cornweller must not think we are aware of or intelligent enough to understand, shortly thereafter, Charles II died and then James II replaced him and merged the Massachusetts Bay Colony into the Dominion of New England which instituted a royally-appointed government with many strict new laws.
However, in 1689, after the Glorious Revolution occurred in England, the Massachusetts Bay colonists overthrew the unpopular Dominion of New England.
Then, in 1691, the new King and Queen of England, Mary and William of Orange, issued a new, more anti-religious charter, instead of reissuing the old charter, and also combined the Massachusetts Bay Colony, Plymouth Colony and several other colonies into one.
The new charter and regime basically continued the policies of the Dominion of New England.
The puritans, the witch-burners, who had left England due to religious persecution, feared their religion was under attack again and worried they were losing control of their colony.
The political instability and threat to their religion created a feeling of uneasiness and discontent in the Massachusetts Bay Colony.
Other factors included a recent small pox epidemic in the colony, growing rivalries between families within the colony, a constant threat of attack from nearby Native-American tribes, and a recent influx of refugees trying to escape King William’s war with France in Canada and upstate New York.
According to Charles W. Upham in his book Salem Witchcraft, it was a tough time for the colonists:
“It was the darkest and most desponding period in the civil history of New England.”
“The people, whose ruling passion then was, as it has ever since been, a love for constitutional rights, had, a few years before, been thrown into dismay by the loss of their charter, and, from that time, kept in a feverish state of anxiety respecting their political destinies.”
“In addition to all this, the whole sea-coast was exposed to danger: ruthless pirates were continually prowling the shores.”
“Commerce was nearly extinguished, and great losses had been experienced by men in business.”
“A recent expedition against Canada had exposed the colonies to the vengeance of France.”
All of these things created a tense environment in Salem and heightened the colonist’s fear and anxiety.
According to the book “An Account of the Life, Character, & C of the Reverend Samuel Parris, of Salem Village,” the colonists began to suspect that the Devil was responsible for their recent hardships:
“It was in this point of view that we discover the courage of the people of Salem Village, who were engaged in opposing what they considered the machinations of the Devil – they supposing he was the cause, operating through the agency of witches, of all the torture and misery they beheld, and that, by their opposition, they were liable also to suffer from his malignancy.”
“They believed, also, that the Devil was about to establish an agency, or kingdom in New England; and had actually commenced operations in Salem Village.”
end quotes
So what are we really seeing there, people?
Think about it for a moment – what on earth do the Salem Witch trials have to do with “Anglo-American” justice and Jeff Sessions in the United States of America in 2018?
Actually, they have much more in common with the scapegoating we see in our times today with Hillary Rodham Clinton denouncing American citizens as a “basket of deplorables.”
As to these poor black folks that our dear friend and fellow American patriot sheds copious amounts of tears over, they were slaves precisely because they followed their own law, which was not “Anglo-American” justice, but the law of the jungle, as we can from WIKIPEDIA, under the heading “African participation in the slave trade,” as follows:
African states played a key role in the slave trade.
Slavery was a common practice among Africans.
Chieftains would barter their slaves to European buyers for rum, spices, cloth or other goods.
Selling captives or prisoners was common practice among Africans and Arabs during that era.
In the 1840s, King Gezo of Dahomey said:
The slave trade is the ruling principle of my people.
It is the source and the glory of their wealth…the mother lulls the child to sleep with notes of triumph over an enemy reduced to slavery…
end quotes
Is that the “law” we should have here in the United States of America to replace this apparently failed system of “Anglo-American” justice, the law of the jungle from Africa which is a clearly defined reminder of the slickness and sick ways powerful black men like the King of Dahomey used the system (African law of the jungle) to take away fathers and sons and dismantle families and keep them in a second or even third-class status position?
What say you, Chas Cornweller?
The candid world which watches would dearly love to know.
tkenny says
Sessions doesn’t seem to be the sharpest tool in the shed. A man carrying the baggage that he has, you would think ,would be a little more careful of his wording.
From your favorite resource Paul, Wikipedia I think you would agree that there is a big difference between the two words
Law enforcement is any system by which some members of society act in an organized manner to enforce the law by discovering, deterring, rehabilitating, or punishing people who violate the rules and norms governing that society.[1] Although the term may encompass entities such as courts and prisons, it is most frequently applied to those who directly engage in patrols or surveillance to dissuade and discover criminal activity, and those who investigate crimes and apprehend offenders,[2] a task typically carried out by the police or another law enforcement agency.
Legal systems are the systems of civil law, common law and religious law.
From USLegal – Legal system refers to a procedure or process for interpreting and enforcing the law. It elaborates the rights and responsibilities in a variety of ways. Three major legal systems of the world consist of civil law, common law and religious law.
As you can see Anglo – American Law Enforcement and Anglo-American Legal System are NOT inter-changeable
Mike Kuzma, Jr. says
We have an Anglo-American system of jurisprudence in our Judeo-Christian country.
Insipid definitions aside.
Paul Plante says
Ah, yes, jurisprudence, a word the majority of people in America today likely have never even heard, because today, it is a very un-used word that may not even exist anymore except in the minds of dinosaurs like Mike Kuzma and myself.
According to Merriam-Webster, the definition of jurisprudence can be the science or philosophy of law, or a system or body of law, as in Roman jurisprudence.
Of more importance to our troubled times, jurisprudence can also mean the course of court decisions as distinguished from legislation and doctrine – a tendency that has become apparent in the jurisprudence of the American courts, where we have political federal judges and “Andy Cuomo” political judges in New York legislating from the bench and making a dog’s dinner of the law as written.
Indeed, in his January 13, 2012 University of Richmond Law Review essay entitled “A Vanishing Virginia Constitution?” by the Honorable Stephen R. McCullough, Judge, Court of Appeals of Virginia who prior to his appointment to the Court of Appeals of Virginia, served as State Solicitor General, Office of the Attorney General, Commonwealth of Virginia, with a J.D., 1997 from University of Richmond School of Law and a B.A., 1994 from the University of Virginia, the author informed us as follows on that subject of the shifting sands of jurisprudence at the federal level, to wit:
The Supreme Court can and does overrule its own precedent, expressly or in practical effect.
More broadly, throughout its history, the Court has engaged in significant philosophical realignments, moving from natural law to positivism, and transitioning from Lochnerist invalidation of congressional acts to the New Deal accommodation of very broad assertions of federal power.
end quotes
More properly stated, if you really want to know what the law actually is, it depends on the day of the week and what judge you happen to be listening to.
The law today in the United States of America, and especially the corrupt totalitarian ****hole of New York state under progressive democrat Young Andy Cuomo, who is the law in that corrupt ****hole, is not what is written on paper by legislatures; it is what some judge has pulled out of his or her *** at that particular moment in time, a phenomenon known as “mutability,” defined as “liability or tendency to change.”
And jurisprudence can also be a department of law, as in medical jurisprudence.
As an aside, the law in Barack Hussein Obama’s home country of Kenya was inherited in part from colonial British jurisprudence, just as ours was when we were still British colonies.
As to the history of the word, the jurisprudence of Sir Edward Coke in 1628 meant “knowledge of or skill in law,” a now archaic sense that reflects the literal meaning of the word.
“Jurisprudence” itself goes back to Latin prudentia juris (literally “skill in law”), from which was derived the Late Latin formation jurisprudentia, and subsequently our word, jurisprudence.
According to the Cornell Law School definition of jurisprudence, the word jurisprudence derives from the Latin term juris prudentia, which means “the study, knowledge, or science of law.”
However, in the United States jurisprudence commonly means the philosophy of law and according to the Cornell Law School, legal philosophy has many aspects, but four of them are the most common:
1. The first and the most prevalent form of jurisprudence seeks to analyze, explain, classify, and criticize entire bodies of law.
Law school textbooks and legal encyclopedias represent this type of scholarship.
2. The second type of jurisprudence compares and contrasts law with other fields of knowledge such as literature, economics, religion, and the social sciences.
3. The third type of jurisprudence seeks to reveal the historical, moral, and cultural basis of a particular legal concept.
4. The fourth body of jurisprudence focuses on finding the answer to such abstract questions as “What is law?” and “How do judges (properly) decide cases?”
As to schools of jurisprudence, we have Formalism vs. Realism.
As Cornell Law School tells us, apart from different types of jurisprudence, different schools of jurisprudence exist.
Formalism, or conceptualism, for example, treats law like math or science.
Formalists believe that a judge identifies the relevant legal principles, applies them to the facts of a case, and logically deduces a rule that will govern the outcome of the dispute.
In contrast, proponents of legal realism believe that most cases before courts present hard questions that judges must resolve by balancing the interests of the parties and ultimately drawing an arbitrary line on one side of the dispute.
This line, realists maintain, is drawn according to the political, economic, and psychological inclinations of the judge.
end quotes
A prime example of judges resolving cases by balancing the interests of the parties and ultimately drawing an arbitrary line on one side of the dispute, which line, realists maintain, is drawn according to the political, economic, and psychological inclinations of the judge is found in the New York Times article entitled “Sotomayor, a Trailblazer and a Dreamer” by Sheryl Gay Stolberg on May 26, 2009 where Sonia Sotomayor was quoted as saying that “(P)ersonal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see.”
The facts that judges choose to see based on their personal experiences also includes all the facts judges do not choose to see based on their personal experiences, and given that judges are political, their experiences will also be political, including a lot of boot-licking and doing favors, and so any facts that go against the facts will be tossed in the judicial crapper, never to see the light of day again.
We had another prime example of that in the cheesebox legal decision of the political appointee judges of the Appellate Court for the Third Judicial Department of the State of New York in Matter of Plante (that being myself) v. Buono (that being then-Rensselaer County Executive John L. “Smiling Jack” Buono, who was offered an $80,000 bribe in 1988 to get rid of me), 172 A.D.2d 81 (1991) that our formidable debating opponent tkenny dragged into here from the judicial toilet in the state of New York, wherein was stated as follows:
“Thus, combined with the fact that even at the hearing petitioner (myself) did not completely recognize Van Praag (former New York State Republican Party secretary and political hack serving as Rensselaer County Commissioner of Health despite not being a medical doctor) as his direct superior in the county government and that, as he is fully aware, his credibility has been destroyed, it cannot be said that his dismissal is so disproportionate to the offense as to shock one’s sense of fairness”
end quotes
That “cheesebox” decision is a textbook example of how some politically-appointed judges can totally transform the law as written and turn it into a travesty and a mockery full of absolute falsehoods.
Getting back to Sonia Sotomayor, and her “Latina Jurisprudence,” which is based on her political experience in corrupt New York state, where according the New York Times article entitled “Sotomayor, a Trailblazer and a Dreamer” by Sheryl Gay Stolberg on May 26, 2009, “She was the tough-minded New York City prosecutor, and later the corporate lawyer with the dazzling international clients,” that New York Times article also quoted her as follows:
“My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar.”
“I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging.”
“But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage.”
end quotes
Now, as we talk of jurisprudence in here, what the hell does Sonioa Sotomayor’s gender and Latina heritage have to do with anything a federal judge is supposed to do according to the oath they swear before taking the bench to administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and to faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon them under the Constitution and laws of the United States?
And that takes us back to the Cornell Law School discussion of jurisprudence, as follows:
Some legal realists even believe that a judge is able to shape the outcome of the case based on personal biases.
end quotes
And there is Obama judge Sonia Sotomayor and the “Andy Cuomo” judges in New York state, all of whom shape the outcome of the cases based on their personal biases, as opposed to the law as written, which is why the “law” has become such a pathetic joke in this country, which makes it only natural that we would end up with a political hack like Jeff Sessions as attorney general of the United States of America.
And then, according to Cornell Law School, there are the Positivists v. Naturalists, to wit:
Apart from the realist-formalist dichotomy, there is the classic debate over the appropriate sources of law between positivist and natural law schools of thought.
Positivists argue that there is no connection between law and morality and the only sources of law are rules that have been expressly enacted by a governmental entity or court of law.
Naturalists, or proponents of natural law, on the other hand, insist that the rules enacted by government are not the only sources of law.
They argue that moral philosophy, religion, human reason and individual conscience are also integrate parts of the law.
end quotes
God help the innocent person who ends up before a “naturalist” judge who rules by his or her emotions of the moment based on such undefined and undefinable concepts moral philosophy, religion, human reason and individual conscience coupled with what they had to eat last night and how that later affected their digestion.
According to Cornell Law School, some have attempted to break down schools of positivism and naturalism (aka: anti-positivism) into 3 distinct groups, to wit:
1. exclusive legal positivists:
According to exclusive legal positivists, what makes up the law is exclusively determined by social facts.
2. anti-positivists:
According to anti-positivists, moral facts determine the legal relevance of actions which people/institutions take.
3. inclusive legal positivists:
According to inclusive legal positivists, moral facts might play a part in determining the content of the law, but only if the relevant social practices assign them that role.
Inclusive legal positivism is a form of positivism because it holds that social facts are the ultimate determinants of the content of the law, and that the law might be determined by social facts alone.
But it allows that people might choose to have the content of their law depend on moral facts, as they seem to do, for example, when they prohibit punishment that is cruel, or confer rights to legal protections that are equal.
end quotes
The Cornell Law School continues as follows:
The above mentioned schools of legal thoughts are only part of a diverse jurisprudential picture of the United States.
Other prominent schools of legal thought exist.
These include but are not limited to:
1. Critical legal studies,
2. feminist jurisprudence,
3. law and economics,
4. utilitarianism,
5. legal pragmatism
end quotes
And that brings us to this view of judicial reality in an Associated Press/yahoo news article entitled “Bush’s Judges Already Making Their Mark” by Nancy Benac on 7-6-05, as follows:
No need to wait until President Bush appoints a Supreme Court justice to see how he will make his mark on the federal judiciary.
One level down, dozens of conservative appeals court judges appointed by Bush already are helping to shape the law in ways that ultimately could have as much, and in some ways even more, impact than the nine justices of the nation’s highest court.
Since Bush’s appellate judges have only gradually taken their seats on benches around the country, and the cases that they draw run the gamut, it’s still early to chart their impact on specific issues.
But already it is clear that these judges make up a solidly conservative crowd that tends to lean Bush’s way on the big issues of the day.
“There may be no litmus test, but the president will appoint someone who is in the conservative mold,” said law professor Cass Sunstein at the University of Chicago.
“When the president talks about strict construction, everyone knows what he’s talking about.”
Overall, in his four-plus years in office, Bush has pushed a Republican-leaning federal judiciary farther to the right with more than 200 appointments to appellate and district courts.
Bush’s district appointees stand out as particularly conservative on civil liberties cases such as abortion, freedom of speech and gay rights, Robert A. Carp, a political scientist at the University of Houston found.
By the end of his second term, Bush could eclipse Presidents Clinton and Reagan in the number of judges selected — and leave an ideological imprint on the courts for generations to come.
Since 1968, when Nixon was elected, Republican presidents have appointed 1,040 judges; Democrats have named 625.
While many of the Bush appointees are replacing jurists named by previous Republican presidents, toward the end of his term Bush could have more opportunities to replace some of the Clinton judges, which would have even greater impact.
The cumulative effect, said political scientist Donald Songer of the University of South Carolina, is that “the last three Republican presidents’ nominees control virtually the whole judiciary.”
People for the American Way, a liberal advocacy group, titled its 2004 study of Bush’s judicial appointees “Confirmed Judges, Confirmed Fears.”
It concluded that Bush appointees already have moved to limit significantly congressional authority and protection of individual rights.
“For many, many of the nominees in the lower courts, the Bush administration has been decidedly pushing toward judges with a pretty firm right-wing ideology,” said Elliot Mincberg, the group’s legal director.
Wendy Long, counsel for the conservative Judicial Confirmation Network, said that when it comes to the courts, Bush “gets it” in a way that even his father and Reagan did not.
His nominees “understand the problems with the way the Constitution has been interpreted and will go about fixing that in their own decisions,” she said.
end quote
So with all of that said, is anyone really surprised that we have ended up with a political hack like Jeff Sessions as the attorney general?
Is that any worse than having a political hack like Sonia Sotomayor on the United States Supreme Court?
Isn’t the law a sick joke either way around?
Paul Plante says
Hey, tkenny, dude, what it is?
S’sssssssup, dude?
And let me tell you, tkenny, you have made the day of a host of your multitude of fans up this way where I am, and likely across the continent, as well, if not the world (this is the world-wide web afterall thanks to Al Gore, a Democrat) by appearing in here as you have just done, gifting them with this following philosophical gem to ponder:
Sessions doesn’t seem to be the sharpest tool in the shed.
end quotes
Let me tell you, tkenny, when the crowd read that, they erupted in cheers of “right on, tkenny, tell it like it is, dude,” and even “tkenny for president next time around,” which is a catchy slogan when you think about it, tkenny.
It’s the internet age in politics now, tkenny, so you could find yourself the subject of a citizens’ draft.
And then there was this which had them scratching their heads, tkenny, in confusion over what message you are trying to convey with this following:
A man carrying the baggage that he has, you would think, would be a little more careful of his wording.
end quotes
HOLY COW, tkenny, the people are saying!
What did tkenny just do there?
Did he just put a good-sized gob of spit on his fingertip and then jam it into the ear of the attorney general of the United States of America?
Oh, the bravery of the man (tkenny) they are saying, telling the United States attorney general to watch his mouth when he is speaking to the public in America!
They think you come across as modern-day heroic there, tkenny, which only adds to your loyal internet following.
But then tkenny, in that inscrutable way that you have about you, you lose us here with this following:
From your favorite resource Paul, Wikipedia I think you would agree that there is a big difference between the two words
end quotes
Pardon us collectively if we all say “HUH?” here at the same time, tkenny.
A big difference between what two words?
Did a vital part of your post where you made mention of two words you think are different not get printed?
Is that what we are missing?
Now, you say, and I would agree, given that, as you know, tkenny, I was involved in Public Health Law enforcement as Rensselaer County Associate Public Health Engineer before becoming disabled, that theoretically, in theory, that is, law enforcement is any system by which some members of society have a duty to civilized society to act in an organized manner to enforce the law, in my case the New York State Public Health Law, which is now considered a joke in New York State, thanks to Sonia Sotomayor, by discovering, deterring, rehabilitating, or punishing people who violate the rules and norms governing that society.
And there is where it all breaks down tkenny – who gets to determine what rules and norms actually do govern that society?
Who makes the rules, tkenny?
And then you say, quite enigmatically, actually, that although the term (are we still talking law enforcement here?) may encompass entities such as courts and prisons, it is most frequently applied to those who directly engage in patrols or surveillance to dissuade and discover criminal activity, and those who investigate crimes and apprehend offenders, a task typically carried out by the police or another law enforcement agency.
end quote
What meaning, pray tell, of any relevance to the FBI calling the people of Virginia a bunch of hillbillys or red necks or some derogatory term like that, are we to take from that above, tkenny?
Frankly, tkenny, it very much sounds like a truism from a Tom Dewey presidential speech one newspaper of the time contended could be reduced to four sentences: “Agriculture is important.”
“Our rivers are full of fish.”
“You cannot have freedom without liberty.”
“The future lies ahead.”
end quotes
Does the future always lie ahead, tkenny?
How come the future is never now?
And then, tkenny, you erupt with this bit of profundity as follows:
Legal systems are the systems of civil law, common law and religious law.
end quotes
What can anybody say to that but “well, okay,” tkenny?
And from there, you then take us to here:
From USLegal – Legal system refers to a procedure or process for interpreting and enforcing the law.
It elaborates the rights and responsibilities in a variety of ways.
Three major legal systems of the world consist of civil law, common law and religious law.
end quotes
And again, tkenny, what can we say but okay?
I don’t see an alternative but to do so, tkenny.
What about you?
And talk about stumpers of enigmas, tkenny, this one you have handed us here is a real doozy:
As you can see Anglo – American Law Enforcement and Anglo-American Legal System are NOT inter-changeable.
end quotes
They are two-sides of the same coin, tkenny.
You just got done explaining that to us in great and exacting detail above here, tkenny, with no stone left unturned, no matter how small, so what is with this trick question you just handed us here about Anglo – American Law Enforcement and Anglo-American Legal System not being inter-changeable?
However on earth said they were in the first place?
Oh, wait, I know, tkenny, dude, you sly devil you, it was a test to see how many of us actually read to the end of one of your posts.
So I did well then, I would say, because I did, and so did your multitude of adoring fans up this way who think you should be their president for life.
Paul Plante says
And Chas Cornweller, seriously, dude, what is up with this statement of yours @ February 15, 2018 at 7:24 pm, where you say, “Paul, as I am not lawyer and it’s not even in my field, I will not engage in a lengthy discussion on the terms that Jeff Sessions used in his speech the other day.”
How can basic citizenship knowledge not be “in your field,” since it is basic citizenship knowledge EVERY American citizen is supposed to know by the time they are out of grade school, so what does not being a lawyer have to do with anything?
Why would you have to be a lawyer to know basic American citizenship responsibilities?
More to the point, how can one discharge their citizenship duties if they don’t even know basic information like what is the basis for our legal system in this country?
And then, right after telling us that you’re not a lawyer, you launch into a lawyerly discourse on our legal system/system of laws in this country as follows:
But, as anyone with any ounce of an education knows, the term Anglo-American justice directly relates to the Old World of justice according to the court system created in England…going all the way back to the Magna Carta.
Simple and neat, huh?
Don’t you wish.
end quotes
Actually, Chas Cornweller, our system of laws go back in time much further than that, as can be seen from this excerpt of an essay on the eligibility of people to be American presidents based on citizenship, to wit:
However, “naturalizes” is also not an exact translation, which in Anglo-American law has come to mean a statutory or administrative process, but which for Vattel meant “makes one a citizen”, which could include natural circumstances.
The rule of jus soli goes back to at least 508 BC in Athens, when it was used to establish citizenship in districts called demes.
The Romans mainly used jus sanguinis to organize the empire into national groups each with its own legal system (although they had to introduce the office of praetor peregrinus to adjudicate disputes between members of different groups).
However, the Edict of Caracalla in 212 AD made jus soli the rule for the entire Empire.
The rule was carried to France and England under Roman domination, and the Normans adopted it and spread it to Scotland, Wales, and Cornwall.
end quotes
Do you really have to be a lawyer to understand that, Chas Cornweller?
I am not a lawyer, and yet, I can understand it, and as an American citizen who votes, I have, just like you, an OBLIGATION to the nation I am a citizen of to understand that.
And then , you come out with this truism:
HOO-HAH, seems to be the operative word of the day, dear sir.
There is enough HOO-HAH going around to refloat the Titanic, fuel China for a thousand years, satiate the masses with sleepy time pills for several lifetimes…etc.
end quotes
And do you know why that is, dear friend Chas Cornweller?
It is because people like this Time magazine national correspondent Charlotte Alter who tweeted to the world that Sessions’ statement was proof that “our justice system is rooted in white supremacy” are so ignorant about OUR country and OUR history, and people who are even more ignorant then pick up on her TWEET, and since they don’t know any better, and seeing she writes for TIME magazine, in their own ignorance, they think the ignorance she is spewing must be factual, and so the ignorance spreads exponentially, leading to all the HOO-HAH spewing you are the witness of today in America.
And that take us to your enigmatic and esoteric statement that:
Those that react to these “Dog Whistles” as Brian Schatz puts it, are now busy looking over other criteria emulating from the gated community we call “Inside the Beltway” or D. C.
end quotes
It is your reference to “dog whistles” there that is throwing people for a loop, Chas Cornweller, as they try to figure out how humans can hear a dog whistle, which is tuned to a frequency the human ear can’t hear.
Can you give us some better guidance on what you intended to say there, Chas Cornweller?
The common folks up here to the north of you would appreciate it for the sake of clarity and comity.
And then you tell us this, Chas Cornweller:
Since there seems to be a shortage of money (in most folks’ pockets, anyways) nowadays, HOO-HAH appears to have taken on the currency of exchange.
end quotes
Aren’t you talking about Bitcoin?
As to people having money in their pockets, Chas Cornweller, it was only recently that MARKETWATCH reported in an article entitled “Wages grow at fastest pace in more than 8 years as U.S. adds 200,000 jobs in January” by Jeffry Bartash published Feb. 2, 2018 as follows:
The U.S. created 200,000 new jobs in the first month of 2018, showing that companies are still hungry to hire more than eight years after an economic expansion began.
Even better, worker pay also rose at the fastest yearly pace since 2009.
end quotes
And then in another MARKETWATCH article entitled “Consumer sentiment climbs to second-highest level in 14 years” by Steve Goldstein published Feb. 16, 2018, the following was stated:
The University of Michigan said its consumer-sentiment index rose to a reading of 99.9 in February, up from 95.7 in January and the second-highest level in 14 years.
It appears that the tax cuts signed into law by President Donald Trump — now that they are beginning to land in worker paychecks, courtesy of lower tax withholdings — are starting to make a difference.
end quotes
So it looks like somebody has money in their pocket, or at least they think they do.
And then you turn around and throw us for a real loop here, Chas Cornweller, with this following enigma:
Everyone “feels” so much better spreading their little bits of HOO-HAH all around.
From the tippy-tippy top all the way down to poor little “Johnson” sitting in his momma’s darken basement writing up his memoirs and cleaning his newly acquired AK-15, all the while spewing his twisted and sickened rhetoric for all the world to read.
end quote
That poetical and lyrical reference to “poor little Johnson sitting in his momma’s darken basement writing up his memoirs and cleaning his newly acquired AK-15,” which could be a verse from a Tom Petty song, or maybe one by Warren Zevon, you know “Well, I went home with the waitress, The way I always do, How was I to know, She was with the Russians, too, Send lawyers, guns and money, Dad, get me out of this,” really had the people scrambling, I can tell you, Chas Cornweller, looking in your previous posts for some clue as to who this poor little Johnson with the AK-15 really is.
So help us out here, Chas Cornweller?
Who is Johnson?
Is he or she real, or just a metaphor relating back to Lyndon Baines Johnson getting us mired down in VEET NAM, where we were facing real Johnsons armed with AK-47s?
And then you say, “And let’s look at the world of today.”
To which I reply, “but I thought we already were!”
Was I wrong?
Larry says
Will it ever end or do we wait for History Books to explain how crooked the Obama administration was.