Columns, Congress, Constitutional Law, Criminal law, Justice, Media, Politics

Barr’s Appointment Of Special Counsel Leaves Biden and Democrats In A Muddle

Below is my column in USA Today on the implications of the appointment of U.S. Attorney John Durham as a Special Counsel.  House Intelligence Committee Adam Schiff and other Democrats have already denounced the move and called for the next Attorney General to consider rescinding the appointment.  While Schiff previously called for legislation to protect Special Counsel Robert Mueller to complete his work without interference from the Attorney General, he ramped up the rhetoric against Durham as leading a “politically motivated investigation.” Durham was previously praised by Democrats and Republicans alike as an independent, apolitical, and honest prosecutor.  After insisting that the public has a right to see what has been uncovered over years of investigation by Mueller, they are now pushing to end the Durham investigation and forestall any final public report.

Here is the column:

Attorney General Bill Barr made two important evidentiary decisions yesterday that delivered body blows to both President Donald Trump and President-elect Joe Biden. First, Barr declared that the Justice Department has not found evidence of systemic fraud in the election. Second, he declared that there was sufficient evidence to appoint United States Attorney John Durham as a Special Counsel on the origins of the Russia probe. The move confirmed that, in a chaotic and spinning political galaxy, Bill Barr remains the one fixed and immovable object.

By appointing Durham as a Special Counsel, Barr contradicted news reports before the election that Durham was frustrated and found nothing of significance despite Barr’s pressure. Some of us expressed doubts over those reports since Durham asked for this investigation to be upgraded to a criminal matter, secured the criminal plea of former FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith, and asked recently for over a thousand pages of classified intelligence material.

Under the Justice Department regulations, Barr had to find (and Durham apparently agreed) that there is need for additional criminal investigation and “[t]hat investigation or prosecution of that person or matter by a United States Attorney’s Office or litigating Division of the Department of Justice would present a conflict of interest for the Department or other extraordinary circumstances.” He must also find the appointment in the public interest.

Notably, the investigation of Clinesmith is effectively completed. So, what is the criminal investigation and what is the conflict?

Developing conflicts

Presumably, the conflict is not in the current administration since it would have required an earlier appointment. The conflict would seem to be found in the upcoming Biden administration.

Some conflicts developing seem obvious as Biden turns to a host of former Obama officials for positions, including the possible selection of Sally Yates as Attorney General. Yates was directly involved in the Russian investigation and signed off on the controversial surveillance of Trump associate Carter Page. She now says that she would never have signed the application if she knew what she knows today.

Durham is now authorized to investigate anyone who may have “violated the law in connection with the intelligence, counter-intelligence, or law-enforcement activities directed at the 2016 presidential campaigns, individuals associated with those campaigns, and individuals associated with the administration of President Donald J. Trump, including but not limited to Crossfire Hurricane and the investigation of Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller, III.” The list of the names of people falling within that mandate is a who’s who of Washington from Hillary Clinton to James Comey to . . . yes . . . Joe Biden.

Bizarrely, reports have claimed that Trump was irate at the move as a “smokescreen” to delay the release of the report. That ignores not just the legal but political significance of the action. From a political perspective, the move is so elegantly lethal that it would make Machiavelli green with envy.

Over the last few months, Democrats appeared to be laying the foundation to scuttle the Durham investigation as well as any investigation into the Hunter Biden influence peddling scheme. House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) denounced the Durham investigation as “tainted” and “political.” On the campaign trail, Biden himself dismissed the “investigation of the investigators.” Over in the Senate, Democrats joined in the mantra with Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., and others denouncing the continued investigations.

By converting Durham into a special counsel, Barr makes it harder to fire him. It is not uncommon for presidents to replace all U.S. Attorneys with political allies. Durham however is now a Special Counsel and his replacement or the termination of his investigation would be viewed as an obstructive act. Indeed, when Trump even suggested such a course of action, he was accused of obstruction by a host of Democratic politicians and legal experts.

The appointment also makes a public report more likely. While Durham already secured a conviction, prosecutors do not ordinarily prepare reports. Special counsels do.  Moreover, with the Mueller report, virtually every Democratic leader demanded that the report be released with no or few redactions. The Trump administration waived most executive privileges and released most of the report except for grand jury information. Even that was not enough for figures like Speaker Nancy Pelosi: “I have said, and I’ll say again, no thank you, Mr. Attorney General, we do not need your interpretation, show us the report and we can draw our own conclusions.” House Judiciary Committee Chair Jerry Nadler demanded the release of the “full and complete Mueller report, without redactions, as well as access to the underlying evidence.” The Durham appointment will now force Democrats to answer why they do not support the same public release of the report so that voters can “draw our own conclusions.”

Complicating Sally Yates’ nomination

The move also complicates the nomination of Sally Yates, who is widely cited as a front-runner for the position of Attorney General. Yates would be placed in an even more precarious position than Jeff Sessions who recused himself to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest at the state of the Trump administration. Yates has a clear and obvious conflict. She played a role in the earlier Russian investigation. That investigation was based in part on the “Steele dossier,” a report by a former British spy which has been shown to be unreliable and flawed. American intelligence warned that Steele’s main source was a likely Russian agent and the dossier may have been used for Russian disinformation. While the Clinton campaign repeatedly denied funding the dossier during the election, reporters later showed that it lied after finding a money trail through Clinton’s campaign legal counsel. Most recently, it was disclosed that President Obama was briefed on an American intelligence report that Clinton had ordered the creation of a Russian collusion story to take pressure off her own scandal involving her private server. Yates testified recently that she has no recollection of these warnings and does not recall knowing about the funding of the Steele dossier.

Yates would have no choice but to recuse herself in dealing with the Durham investigation. However, if the Biden administration used her designated deputy to scuttle the investigation or the report, the Biden administration will have done what Trump never actually did. All of those columns and speeches contorting the language of the obstruction statute would come back to haunt the Democrats.

It is, to use the words of fired Special Agent Peter Strzok, the ultimate “insurance policy” that Durham will be allowed to complete and release the facts of his investigation. Worse yet, the Democrats themselves made the case for him to do so.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and a member of USA TODAY’s Board of Contributors. Follow him on Twitter: @JonathanTurley

210 thoughts on “Barr’s Appointment Of Special Counsel Leaves Biden and Democrats In A Muddle”

  1. Pingback: Thinking About Things: Ruminations about The Biden Justice Department - Chesapeake Observer

  2. “Durham is now authorized to investigate anyone who may have “violated the law in connection with the intelligence, counter-intelligence, or law-enforcement activities directed at the 2016 presidential campaigns, individuals associated with those campaigns, and individuals associated with the administration of President Donald J. Trump, including but not limited to Crossfire Hurricane and the investigation of Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller, III.” The list of the names of people falling within that mandate is a who’s who of Washington from Hillary Clinton to James Comey to . . . yes . . . Joe Biden.”

    That is one very broad prosecutorial brush.

    So, it’s no wonder that Schiff immediately started screaming like a stuck pig.

    Time to pop some popcorn.

  4. Sidney Powell: I Have Huge Bag of Shredded Ballots – Raffensperger & Sterling Should Be Investigated

    1. Perseus killed the Kraken. Doesn’t she know the end of the story? She’s as stupid as Brad Parscale when he called the Trump Campaign the Death Star.

      1. The State of Georgia responding to the suit from Wood and Powell –
        “Their claims of election fraud and malfeasance belong more to the kraken’s realm of mythos than they do to reality.”

        1. Anon: “The State of Georgia responding . . .”

          And yet the state of Georgia and the Georgia Bureau of Investigation are investigating some 250 cases — including the debacle at State Farm Arena:

          “Earlier this week, Secretary Raffensperger announced that his office had approximately 250 open investigations related to the 2020 General Election,” Governor Kemp said. “In order for Georgians to receive a timely conclusion to these important investigations, I thank the secretary for formally requesting Georgia Bureau of Investigation assistance in order to provide additional manpower and resources.”

          1. They already investigated the State Farm Arena and concluded there was nothing wrong, jackass.

      2. “Perseus killed the Kraken.”

        Fortunately for Powell (and election integrity), the Left doesn’t have a Perseus. Only Lilliputians.

        1. The courts have ruled against them so far. Those judges were appointed by both Republicans and Democrats, and she has Republican elected officials fighting her in court too. Your problem is that you think this is about “the left,” when it’s about facts and law against Powell’s error-laden briefs. It’s a bipartisan effort against her.

      3. Perseus killed the Gorgon, Medusa.
        The Kraken is a Scandinavian, not a Greek, monster.

        Manners.

    2. Democrats are trying to steal 2 House Seats.
      The 2020 election is a farce.

      Now Who’s Contesting Elections?
      The Democratic House could overturn results in Iowa and New York.

      https://www.wsj.com/articles/now-whos-contesting-elections-11607124449

      Iowa’s state elections board on Monday certified Republican Mariannette Miller-Meeks’s victory in the 2nd district, flipping a seat currently held by a Democrat. But her opponent, Rita Hart, is dusting off a 1969 federal statute to have the House of Representatives pick the winner. That means Democrats in Washington could overrule Iowa voters to seat a co-partisan and grow their majority.

      The Iowa race was decided by six votes. The counting went on for weeks as 24 counties canvassed and recanvassed over 390,000 ballots, and lawyers from both sides haggled with election officials over machine counting, ballot qualifications and voter intent.

      Normally this exhaustive process would end matters. Not this year. Ms. Hart’s campaign said it will bypass an Iowa court appeal and ask the Committee on House Administration to intervene. The House has final say on its Members’ elections and the Supreme Court has held that courts can’t intervene in those decisions under the Constitution’s Article I.
      That means the count in Iowa’s 2nd District will become a political fight rather than a legal one. House Democrats in 1985 took advantage of the same process to reverse Indiana’s state certification of a Republican winner in a Congressional race. They refused to seat either candidate in January, and in May declared the Democrat the winner after their recount excluded 32 absentee votes.

      That was a polarizing moment in House history and it hasn’t been done since. But this is a year of breaking precedents, and the Democrats are well-equipped for the fight. Marc Elias, the Democratic election lawyer, helped use the courts to engineer changes to voting rules ahead of the 2020 election that benefited Democrats. Politico reports that his firm, Perkins Coie, is representing Ms. Hart. Given the sympathetic audience they are likely to enjoy in the House, Ms. Hart’s lawyers want to throw enough doubt on the outcome to give Democrats political cover to overturn the result.
      Perkins Coie is also in New York’s 22nd district upstate, where Democrat Anthony Brindisi is down by 12 votes in the preliminary final count to Republican Claudia Tenney. They want a judge to review county election board decisions on disputed ballots. Ms. Tenney’s lawyers warn in a court filing of “the perils of trying to recreate a Board’s findings in the absence of appropriate Board notations,” and ask the judge to put the race to an end.

      The judge, Scott DelConte, is a Democrat respected by conservatives. He has questioned whether he has “jurisdiction to continue to look at these ballots,” the Tenney filing notes. New oral arguments are set for Monday. If Mr. Brindisi can’t convince the judge, he could also end up asking the House to save his seat.

      One reason for the chaos in the district a month after election day is New York’s last-minute expansion of absentee voting, over Republican objections, which overwhelmed county election boards. Liberal voting rules helped make the race nearly impossible to resolve. That would make it especially brazen if national Democrats used their political power in the House to overturn the result that was finally delivered.

      Yet House Democrats are sweating, having lost at least 10 seats when they were supposed to gain that many. If Ms. Miller-Meeks and Ms. Tenney prevail, the House will likely be split 222-213, leaving the GOP five seats from a majority in 2022 and potentially narrowing Nancy Pelosi’s path to be re-elected as Speaker in January. The Democratic pressure to do everything in their power to prevent these two losses will be immense.

  5. So far they got Biden on the cheap, $11 million dollars. How much we don’t know about is unknown.
    —–
    Director Of National Intelligence: China Is Targeting Congress With Threats
    By Hank Berrien

    On Thursday, writing in The Wall Street Journal, Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe issued a clarion call warning of China’s determination to dominate the United States, revealing that he had “briefed the House and Senate Intelligence committees that China is targeting members of Congress with six times the frequency of Russia and 12 times the frequency of Iran.”

    https://www.dailywire.com/news/director-of-national-intelligence-china-is-targeting-congress-with-threats

    1. Populist: “Did Justice Alito . . .”

      I wondered why he chose Dec. 9, and had not considered the “contested” angle. Thanks for linking to that article.

        1. Can’t you get anything right? No one from the blog made the statement. The statement was placed on the blog by populist and an address was provided. You make things up. If you look at the citation it came from the Populist Press a news consolidator that is reporting election stories and other stories when they occur.

          Like all news reports stories can change with time. In this case you are calling them untrustworthy, but they didn’t say that was Alito’s thinking. This is what they said: “Did he lay a trap for Democrats with his December 9th response deadline?

          Did you take note of the question mark? You are too hateful and that is why so many things you say aren’t true or reliable.

          If you hate someone, according to you, they are guilty even if the evidence proves otherwise. Keep proving yourself for what you are.

          1. Allan, CTHD was noting that one of the names you’re posting under is “Populist.” She wasn’t calling a news aggregator untrustworthy, she was calling you untrustworthy. She’s right about that. You keep proving yourself for what you are — a troll.

  7. Rudy G said on Hannity that, ” We don’t need the courts” and after 46 failed lawsuits, I can see why he and Trump think that way. OK Rudy, lets go with your way, lets lock up the Trump crime family at 12:01 January 20, 2021.

    1. What crimes did the Trump ‘crime family’ commit? We know which ones the Biden crime family committed, those are public knowledge.

      1. Fishwings says the same things over and over again but can’t provide any logic or reason to them. Go to a 5 year old and have him memorize a few statements. Then let them intermittently write those statements on the net. That is what you get from fishings.

        1. “Tax fraud?”

          – Anny
          _____

          Trump’s tax records are in the IRS. Are you saying the IRS is complicit with Trump in tax evasion?

          1. Are you saying that you don’t know the difference between state and federal taxes?

          2. George, anonymous knows very little. It is true NYS and NYC have their own taxes but NYS goes after citizens especially with those that leave the state and had a high income or net worth. They contrive a tax bill and then investigate. The cost of a citizen to defend themselves is high and NYS intimidates them into settling a case that should never have existed. NYS then settles. Pure intimidation of most people squeezing a lot of dollars out of people who don’t owe a dime.

      1. America is in a condition of hysteria, incoherence, chaos, anarchy, corruption and rebellion.

        President Abraham Lincoln declared martial law, seized power, neutralized the legislative and judicial branches and ruled by executive order and proclamation to “Save the Union.”

        President Donald Trump must now declare martial law, seize power, neutralize the legislative and judicial branches and rule by executive order and proclamation to “Save the Republic.”

  8. Come on, Turley…you should have figured out, by NOW, that Barr is a Swamp rat and this is all a scam. Durham might be ligitimate but he’s not the boss. Barr has held this “investigation” in check for 2 years–including at critical election time. This appointment will amount to nothing. And Barr can’t wait for Biden’s inauguration so he can give Durham’s investigation it’s death blow. All done. Nothing to see here…move along.

  9. https://www.newsweek.com/democrats-worry-special-counsel-john-durham-will-tie-bidens-hands-settle-old-scores-russia-1551680

    “Barr is using the special counsel law for a purpose it was not intended: to continue a politically motivated investigation long after Barr leaves office,” Schiff wrote.”

    Golly gee, Adam.

    One good ” politically motivated investigation” deserves another.

    Now you and Nancy will have to eat a sh*t sandwich of your own making.

    But this sandwich will be far more nasty, because Mueller was a washed up senile amateur, and Durham is a stone cold professional killer.

    1. Schiff and Pelosi didn’t appoint Mueller. He was appointed by Rod Rosenstein, the Republican Deputy A.G. appointed by Trump.

      1. As St. Ronnie of Reagan said….”There you go again” Facts do NOT matter to the cult. They are to busy eating their own to see who is more batsh*t crazy. And you can clearly see who’s winning.

      2. “Schiff and Pelosi didn’t appoint Mueller.”

        That is completely irrelevant.

        As you will find out the hard way, Durham is not Mueller.

        And he’s going to force feed you and the Democrats and Republicans who participated in the Russiagate charade a huge sh*t sandwich.

        It is going to be very fun to watch.

        1. LMAO that you think it’s irrelevant to your insistence that it was a ”politically motivated investigation” of Pelosi’s and Schiff’s making. You’re so befuddled that you don’t even know what you said.

          1. Where did I write that it was solely of Pelosi and Schiff’s making?

            Answer: Nowhere.

            I am fully aware of all the people involved that cooked up the now debunked conspiracy theory known as Russiagate.

            You’re extremely dumb, ChiCom.

            Enjoy your sh*t sandwich.

    2. The primary purpose of the Durham appointment seems to be so right wing commenters can continue to predict the coming deluge of indictments of all major Democrats, like they have been promising for almost 2 years now – and nothing. Perhaps Rhodes should read what Barr said about it: It is now limited to FBI behavior during Crossfire Hurricane.

      Enjoy Rhodes!

      1. Joe, you’re extremely simple minded, and are incapable of critical thinking.

        John Durham doesn’t care about Party affiliation, and neither do I.

        However, there are agents inside the FBI who are highly partisan, and they will sing like a Canary when they are looking down the barrel of prison time.

        Durham already has a lot of them who have been singing in order to save their own ass.

        You should just focus on reading Winnie the Pooh books.

        1. Rhodes, you’re like Allan, trolling by attributing your own failings to others.

  10. The Dems do not care about conflict of interest, they have made that abundantly clear in their actions over the last 5 years. Barr was useless, part of the swamp, and Durham went along. Making Durham “special counsel” means nothing as Barr will be fired, the Dems will put in an “acting” AG while they search for a candidate and the “acting AG” will rescind Durham’s appt. Or Biden, himself will fire them both since the President has those powers. Barr dropped the ball, Durham rode the taxpayer gravy train and turned a blind eye. Since, these deep state people haven’t been indicted for their seditious actions and attempted coup against the POTUS both Barr and Durham are complicit in the attempted coup.

  11. After deliberating, it is with a heavy heart that I decided to post a video of Rudy Giuliani
    passing gas. As a rule of thumb, the one who denied it, supplied it & further more, he who smelt it, dealt it.

    1. When a crime is committed their is usually an investigation and if found guilty that person goes to prison and the punishment fits the crime. We are a country of laws or used to be. Us law abiding citizens watch in disbelief the crimes happening today by the government. An election being stolen right before our eyes and we are expected to sit on our butts and do nothing. IF Biden gets into power will their be a revolt or will us conservatives just wait for the knock on the door by the radical left to harm us or lock us up for treason just because we disagree with a massive growth of government, forced to give up our guns, our kids going to the same schools wearing the same clothes being brainwashed into believing only the government knows best, not mom and dad. Sound familiar!!! In 1918 someone started a movement and came to full power in 1933. It was Germany and his name was Hitler. About 80 million Americans believe we may be there again today in the USA!

      1. “if found guilty”

        No one has been found guilty of stealing the election. It’s a conspiracy theory. Don’t buy into it.

        There have been a few people who engaged in voter fraud; for example, 2 people were arrested for trying to fraudulently cast 2 votes in PA. That’s not a stolen election.

        1. Time will tell and I hope the truth will become known soon. I am not a conspiracy theory guy but the facts are the facts and day by day we are finding more smoking guns with DNA all over them. The outcome of this election will end up before the Supreme Court where all the evidence will be presented and we all will watch what happens. The court is 5/4 conservatives. We will see who lies under oath. The Clintons and Obamas are very good at playing with the truth. This is one time in history where their may not be a peaceful transfer of power. You have no idea how angry the religious conservatives are…these folks are in some way connected to the military or police force or both…we are not snowflakes…we do not back down…we don’t start a fight but we sure know how to finish one. Freedom is earned.

          1. Harry,

            I highly doubt that this will end up in the Supreme Court. They don’t have to grant cert to any cases of these cases, and I doubt that there are enough justices who think there’s any real legal issues for SCOTUS to weigh in on. (BTW, the court is 6-3 conservatives. Roberts may not be conservative enough for some conservatives, but that doesn’t make him a centrist.)

            According to Marc Elias of Democracy Docket, Trump and his allies won a small case in PA involving very few ballots, and they’ve lost 46 cases.
            They just lost another one this morning, where the 11th Circuit ruled against Lin Wood:
            https://twitter.com/marceelias/status/1335257865607581698 (copy of the ruling attached)

            Is there anything that can convince you the election wasn’t stolen?
            If so, what would convince you?

            1. “Is there anything that can convince you the election wasn’t stolen?
              If so, what would convince you?”

              You have asked the same question more than once. Democrats did everything they could to prevent ID verification. They did their dirty work when the poll watchers were told to leave or in positions where they couldn’t see what was happening.

              All of that is clearly on record. If people are blindfolded, tapes destroyed and the perpetrators made the evidence disappear it is very hard to prove their guilt even when they are.

              1. 1-I’m NOT a lawyer thank God 2- just a semi-retired general dentist with a masters degree 3- it is what folks believe to be true that matters 4-I believe the constitution of the USA should not change or ever be changed by progressives. It is not a living breathing document. IMO. 5-people do get away with murder-OJ Simpson and the death of Vince Foster by Bill Clinton. Benghazi deaths by Obama 6-The Supreme Court is 5/4 Roberts is a left wing progressive IMO. 7-Given this, I don’t think that Dominion is anxious to get within a country mile of discovery:
                In the *fall of 2020*, UBS Securities LLC — which is 75% owned by the Chinese government — invested $400 million in Staple Street Capital. Staple Street Capital owns Dominion Voting Systems (DVS).
                Dominion’s voting machines were widely used in the election. With $400 million from China, Dominion’s corrupt Security Chief, Eric Coomer, then put that dirty money to “good” use in the election.
                Coomer is a passionate defender of Antifa, and loathes Trump. He said to Antifa members: “Don’t worry about the election; Trump’s not gonna win. I made f***ing sure of that!” And so, flush with Chinese cash, he did. 8- We have all the guns and ammo to do what has to be done IF it comes to that. I am almost 72 and lived an amazing life. I would much rather die in battle than in some nursing home locked up in memory care like where Biden will soon find himself.

                1. Harry, I’d still appreciate your answering my questions: Is there anything that can convince you the election wasn’t stolen?
                  If so, what would convince you?

                  The first one is a yes/no question.

                  1. “Is there anything that can convince you the election wasn’t stolen?
                    If so, what would convince you?”

                    You have asked the same question more than once. Democrats did everything they could to prevent ID verification. They did their dirty work when the poll watchers were told to leave or in positions where they couldn’t see what was happening.

                    All of that is clearly on record. If people are blindfolded, tapes destroyed and the perpetrators made the evidence disappear it is very hard to prove their guilt even when they are.

                    Convince us the democrats did none of those things.

                    1. Allan, you keep responding to Committ’s question to Harry. Are you posting as Harry too?

                      You seem so desperate for Committ’s attention. It’s a little creepy.

                    2. many thanks but I can fight my own battles and could argue a case before any court…the difference is I would never lie and commit perjury…also any attorney worth their salary would NEVER ask a question in court they did not know the answer to themselves…and it happens all the time…even Shakespeare said a bunch of lawyers at the bottom of the ocean was a good start

                  2. NO!!!!! I am listening to Sebastian Gorka and Joe De Geneva and Victoria Toensing…ALL 3 Conservatives…this election was STOLEN!!!!!!!!!!

  15. NEW UN AMBASSADOR BRINGS DECADES OF AFRICAN, CARRIBEAN AND HR EXPERIENCE
    -Appointment is historic victory in fight for Diversity and Inclusion; Experience Supports Justice for Black Farmers Act

    —

    NEW YORK CITY – The Party today announced the appointment of Linda Thomas-Greenfield as the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. In her new role, Ms. Thomas-Greenfield brings broad global perspectives from decades of experience in African and Caribbean affairs. She has also served the Party in a critical human resources role.

    “As Assistant Secretary for the State Department’s Bureau of African Affairs, Ambassador Thomas-Greenfield led the development and management of U.S. policy toward sub-Saharan Africa. Her distinguished Foreign Service career includes an ambassadorship to Liberia and postings in Kenya, the Gambia, Nigeria, and Jamaica,” said Vice President Kamala Harris. “She also served for nearly two years as the State Department’s HR chief under President Obama,” Harris added.

    Harris continued, “The UN Ambassadorship is the Party’s most visible foreign relations role. Ambassador Thomas-Greenfield will be on the front lines fighting for my administration’s strategic priorities, a message that will be clearly understood by both friends and foes alike. This is a truly historic appointment.”

    “Ambassador Thomas-Greenfield has first-hand, practical experience from the front lines of the highly successful land-use reforms pioneered by President Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe after that country threw off the yoke of colonial oppression. Her experience will be invaluable as we implement the Zimbabwean model in the US through the Justice for Black Farmers Act, which I recently introduced in the Senate,” said Senator Cory Booker, Party Senator from New Jersey.

    Ambassador Thomas-Greenfield’s full biography is available here: https://www.academyofdiplomacy.org/member/linda-thomas-greenfield/

    —-

    Immediate implementation of these guidelines is authorized under previously approved directives adopted in response to the COVID-19 emergency. Further information on these guidelines will be communicated as circumstances dictate.

  16. Barr may be a swamp thing but he’s got a devilish sense of humor. Bring on the Durham report and the whistle blowers. Biden hoisted on a petard he and his winged monkeys forged all the while Trump is watching from his balcony is epic karma. Let the Biden D̶i̶s̶a̶s̶t̶e̶r̶ ̶M̶o̶v̶i̶e̶ Administration begin! It’ll be tough but ‘no pain; no gain.”

    1. This is not going to look good on Barry’s resume.

      Obama’s “Promised Land” is going to resemble Dante’s inferno.

      “There is no greater sorrow than to recall our times of joy in wretchedness.” – Dante Alighieri, Inferno

Comments are closed.