Comment by Jim Campbell
February 17th, 2020
The Democrats’ entire premise is nonsensical, hysterical, and completely at odds with how presidents and their attorneys general interact.
Judges must be apolitical, but there is nothing in the Constitution that requires it.
Nothing the Democrats say should come as a surprise to anyone.
When was the last time they won an election that lying and stealing were not part of their plan?
The National Sentinel
By Jon Dougherty
(TNS) It’s becoming more obvious by the day that 2020 Democratic presidential contenders, as well as Garbage Party rank-and-file members of Congress, have nothing in their political arsenal to fire at President Donald Trump that will effectively counter his juggernaut heading into the November elections.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi believes that lying to Americans is about the fantastic economy created by the president’s policies and Republican tax cuts really aren’t as good as they’re actually seeing and living, but that’s not going anywhere.
The Trump economy is solid and growing.
The president has kept his promise on new trade deals.
Illegal immigration is down. The border fence/wall is going up.
The world is stable.
There is a peace deal with the Taliban ending the 18-year war in Afghanistan on the table.
Wall Street stocks, including personal 401(k) retirement savings plans, are at record highs.
The RNC and the Trump reelection campaign are raising monster funds. Trump rallies are getting bigger and more raucous.
And what do the Democrats have to counter all of this success and enthusiasm?
They tried impeaching the man most responsible for all of this success, but that turned out to be a political miscalculation that actually improved the president’s popularity.
Now they seem to be settling on an old narrative: That President Trump is a “threat to the rule of law” because he tweeted about a court case involving an ally who was about to be railroaded by four political activists posing as federal prosecutors.
The Hill reported Sunday:
Democrats are issuing dire warnings that the rule of law is under attack by President Trump after the Department of Justice (DOJ) overruled career prosecutors to seek a lighter sentence for longtime Trump aide Roger Stone.
The move incensed Democratic lawmakers and raised new questions about potential White House interference at the agency.
“Left to his own devices, President Trump would turn America into a banana republic, where the dictator can do whatever he wants and the Justice Department is the president’s law firm — not a defender of the rule of law,” Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) said Wednesday on the Senate floor in response.
The Hill even got in on the hysteria:
Many lawmakers called the shocking development just the latest in a series of assaults on the rule of law during Trump’s presidency.
For many, the Stone controversy appeared to be a tipping point for the politicization of the top federal law enforcement agency under Trump and what they fear is an unprecedented expansion of presidential powers.
Why is this a “shocking development” — because The Hill says so?
The paper even quoted the biggest liar and leaker on Capitol Hill — Adam Schiff — as someone who is ‘concerned’ about Trump ‘destroying’ the republic.
“When I look at tweets like that and consider that this intervention in the work of the Department of Justice and this direct attack on our rule of law and on the post-Watergate reforms that tried to build the wall between the White House and the Justice Department, I am struck by the fact that it’s all out in the open,” he told some podcast over the weekend.
This is the guy who held Trump’s impeachment inquiry largely in secret and wouldn’t allow the opposition party to call their own witnesses — like someone who operates in a banana republic.
“He thinks he’s above the law.
He has no respect for the rule of law,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told reporters Thursday.
“But where are the Republicans to speak out on this blatant violation of the rule of law?”
Even The Hill admits earlier in the story that “nothing in the Constitution requires the DOJ to be apolitical…”
Although nothing in the Constitution requires the DOJ to be apolitical, presidents for decades have sought to maintain a healthy distance.
Trump’s celebration of his hand-picked attorney general’s involvement in Stone’s case caused many to wonder if the traditional firewall had been eroded by politics.
All attorneys general are “hand-picked” by presidents.
They are nominated by presidents based on who he wants; he does not consult with political opponents to find out their opinions about who they’d like to see as attorney general.