“A Criminal Like Trump”: Federal Judge Tosses Aside Judicial Restraint In Public Interview

President Donald Trump has been criticized by Democrats and Republicans alike for his recent spate of pardons, including corrupt ex-congressmen and the father of Jared Kushner. I was one of those who immediately criticized those pardons as manifestly unjustified and inimical to our legal system. However, none of that makes the comments of senior U.S. District Judge Robert Pratt of the Southern District of Iowa any less troubling. Judge Pratt gave an interview slamming the pardons in a departure from judicial ethics rules barring jurists from engaging in such political commentary.

I have previously criticized Judge Emmet Sullivan for using his courtroom to air grievances against President Trump. Platt however dispensed with any pretense of judicial function in airing his grievances over the pardons. He told the Associated Press that “It’s not surprising that a criminal like Trump pardons other criminals. But apparently to get a pardon, one has to be either a Republican, a convicted child murderer or a turkey.”

Pratt was discussing pardons that included former Ron Paul campaign chairman Jesse Benton and campaign manager John Tate, who were convicted at trial of concealing $73,000 in payments that went to a state senator.  Again, my concern with the comments is not the merits but the messenger.

Pratt was appointed by President Bill Clinton in 1997 and remains an active judge on a reduced docket as a senior status judge.  As such, he remains subject to the Code of Judicial Ethics.  State judges have been sanctioned for yielding to such temptations to vent their opposition or criticism to Trump.  Federal judges however have engaged in such public commentary without sanctions.

Pratt’s comments raise serious questions under three of the most basic canons of judicial ethics barring judges from engaging in political activities and positions:

A judge shall uphold and promote the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary, and shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.

A judge shall conduct the judge’s personal and extrajudicial activities to minimize the risk of conflict with the obligations of judicial office.

A judge or candidate for judicial office shall not engage in political or campaign activity that is inconsistent with the independence, integrity, or impartiality of the judiciary.

Calling the President of the United States a criminal and denouncing pardons would seem overtly engaging in a political commentary or activity.  It is a troubling dismissal of the long-standing avoidance of such commentary by judges to preserve judicial impartiality.

Making it worse is the fact that Pratt was involved in Sorenson’s case.  He sentenced him to 15 months in prison in 2017 — a surprising departure from the recommended probation of the prosecutors due to Sorenson’s guilty plea and cooperation.  Indeed, Sorenson helped convict Benton, Tate and former Paul deputy campaign manager Dimitri Kesari. His sentencing was troubling for many of us in the defense bar because the recommendation for probation was consistent with past cooperation cases. Pratt’s sentence was not.  Nevertheless, the sentence was within his discretion.

A federal judge has every right to sentence defendants harshly for conduct that they believe warrant added punishment. However, that should be the full extent of their role. They are not grand inquisitors who continue to hound or condemn defendants. They are certainly not appropriate figures to denounce such individuals if they secure commutations or pardons. This is not a personal vendetta and judges should not be seen as wiping up public sentiments against previously sentenced defendants.  Even once a judge leaves the bench, I would argue for continued reticence in making such public comments. However, Pratt has not left the bench. He is still hearing cases while engaging in political commentary.

Much like Judge Sullivan’s use of his final order to condemn former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, this is a gratuitous and injudicious act. Indeed, Pratt is more troubling than Sullivan’s as commentary outside of the courtroom.  Republicans and even Trump associates could well come before Pratt in future cases — facing a jurist who gives public interviews to denounce Trump as a criminal.

Not surprisingly, there has been little beyond praise for Pratt. Call it another example of Trumpunity in our age of rage and hypocrisy. Legal ethicists and experts stretched ethical rules to the breaking point to support actions against Republican lawyers for filing election challenges. Yet, they are again conspicuously silent on these controversy.  Indeed, many Democrats recently denounced public comments by Justice Samuel Alito but have no criticism of Pratt or liberal jurists like the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in far more serious public comments.

What Pratt said publicly was wrong. It undermines not just his credibility but that of his court and his other colleagues.

369 thoughts on ““A Criminal Like Trump”: Federal Judge Tosses Aside Judicial Restraint In Public Interview”

  1. @HUL – I’m not sure if you’re stating your own opinons or simply copying from another article, but your response is nonsensical.

    “And really, his comment makes no sense. The only people who receive pardons are criminals.”

    In the case of Flynn, there was never any crime whatsoever. You can plead guilty all day long to something, but that does not make you a criminal. In Flynn’s case, the “charge” was lying to the FBI. THAT is not a crime unless certain very specific criteria are ALL true – in Flynn’s case, NONE of them were true. Trump pardoned Flynn so that he could no longer be persecuted by a rogue judge who frankly should be shot for his third world antics.

    “Update: The pardoned Blackwater contractors were in fact convicted of murdering children.”

    Correction: They killed children. Killing is not murder if it is a byproduct of legitimate State action and not simply an act of wanton war crimes. Since all killings in war COULD be considered “murder,” this ploy is often used by leftists to smear our warriors. I frankly don’t care if they shot them on purpose (perhaps they thought the children were carrying bombs or weapons) – under the LAW, if POTUS decides the act was justified in the interests of our country, it is not criminal.

    Likewise, the Emoluments clause is a patently absurd argument. Becoming President does not mean you have to divest yourself of every business; nor does the nickel (probably less) President Trump happens to receive when some foreign dignitary happens to stay at one of his properties amount to sufficient monies to rise to the level of bribes. It is a childish, churlish, and silly argument.

    You are apparently one of those people so programmed to hate DJT that you have abandoned all reason and civility. You, and people like you, are what is wrong with our country.

    1. Flynn pleaded guilty to knowingly and willfully making materially false statements to the FBI. That’s a crime. You can certainly say he was lying when he said that he made them knowingly and willfully, but there’s no question that the 302 shows him making materially false statements.

      The Blackwater guards’ convictions ranged from first degree murder to voluntary manslaughter. Trump didn’t say that that the killings were justified or that they weren’t criminal. How sick that you’re trying to excuse them.

      Emoluments clause cases are still pending in the courts. It’s not a childish argument.

      1. “that he made them knowingly and willfully, but there’s no question that the 302 shows him making materially false statements.”

        I keep hearing this claim. I am not trying to be argumentative here, but no one ever has shown us the words that prove what you contend above. Do you know something the other posters don’t. If so why not post the quotes and linkage.

        1. Tell you what, D3, if you “post the quotes and linkage” and to where you previously asked people to do this, showing that a “no one ever has shown us the words,” then I’ll quote from the 302 to prove that the 302 shows him making materially false statements. Otherwise I’m not going to take the time to do it.

          1. That has been done over and over again. I never asked anyone to do that, so now we see you cannot produce what you said existed.

            All talk, no action. Pure impotence.

            1. If it has been done over and over, then it should be easy for you to link to an example.

              If you’re not willing to put the effort in for me, why should I put the effort in for you?

              If you think my insistence that you play by the same rules means “All talk, no action. Pure impotence,” OK, but you’re also all talk, not action, so I guess you think you’re impotent too.

              As for “now we see you cannot produce what you said existed,” no, you’re confusing unwillingness and inability. There’s a really easy way to test it, just provide the kind of evidence for your own claims that you want me to provide for mine. Hold yourself to your own standards.

              1. All I ask for is for a quote and a link for the 302 but you don’t have it because it doesn’t exist. Since you continue to say the opposite it is evident that you are a liar and a fool.

                1. I was just asking you to apply your own standards to yourself. Instead you’ve responded with more insults. That says more about you than me.

                  1. You can’t be that dumb. Show the 302’s . This claim of yours has been made over and over again. It was proven false and none of the sad sacks could ever produce the quotes or the links.

                    Maybe you are dumber than one could possibly think.

                    1. Maybe you’re more of a hypocrite than one could possibly think. Don’t demand that others meet standards that you’re unwilling to meet yourself.

                      If you want a quote or a link from someone, be willing to provide one yourself.

                      You insist that it was proven false, but you’re unwilling to prove that.

                    2. I don’t have to prove it false. It was done many times. You are stating what was disproven. Go to the 302’s and find what you say exists.

                      You are a crybaby and a dumbas$.

                2. By the way, if you just Google Flynn 302, it will pull up a bunch of copies, some with different amounts of redactions. So it’s totally bizarre for you to say that a link for the 302 doesn’t exist.

                  1. It took you this long to tell us something we already know? That is NOT demonstrative of a keen mind.

                    The issue is your claim: “but there’s no question that the 302 shows him making materially false statements.” I await for you to google Flynn and produce that proof. This has been debated over and over again. Commit lied about it as well and you have now accepted her lies. You can now try to prove what she couldn’t.

                    All this demonstrates that you are not a credible individual and that what you write is worthless.

                    1. No, Allan, I don’t have to play by your double standards.

                      You won’t prove your own claims here, like “Commit lied about it,” so I won’t waste my time proving anything on your behalf.

                    2. Anonymous, no one is asking you to prove their claims. I am asking you to prove your claim and as usual you can’t. It’s tough being ignorant.

                      If you spent as much time trying to learn reading comprehension as you do trying to figure out who is who on the blog, you might even recognize how stupid you sound.

        2. They don’t know anything but what MSLSD instructs them to believe, and they blindly parrot it continuously until instructed otherwise by their masters. The Zombie Apocalypse is already here. The agents themselves wrote that they did not think it was a lie, that it was immaterial to the case, and that none of the other criteria necessary for the charge to apply were met – but the zombies are utterly immune to facts.

          1. Prior to Flynn pleading guilty, “the government informed defense counsel that DAD Strzok said that the defendant had a sure demeanor and did not give any indicators of deception during the January 24 interview, and that both of the interviewing agents had the impression at the time that the defendant was not lying or did not think he was lying.” But time doesn’t stop, and the agents changed their minds after they gathered more evidence.

            You keep saying that it was immaterial, which is bunk. Whether Flynn, as incoming NSA, lied to the VP-elect is absolutely within their jurisdiction to investigate, and that’s all the law requires: that it be within their jurisdiction.

            You’re the one who seems immune to facts here.

            1. Hey, dunce – feel free to provide a link to the quote Flynn allegedly said and prove it was consequential when we know the basis of the investigation was illegal? Then seek psychiatric help before you hurt yourself.

              1. I’m not sure what quote you’re referring to. I only have to provide evidence for things I’ve claimed, not for things you pull out of your ass. Seek psychiatric help yourself.

                I said that the 302 shows him making materially false statements. For example, the 302 says “On December 28th, KISYLAK sent FLYNN a text stating, “Can you call me?” FLYNN noted cellular reception was poor and he was not checking his phone regularly, and consequently did not see the text until approximately 24 hours later. Upon seeing the text, FLYNN responded that he would call in 15-20 minutes, and he and KISLYAK subsequently spoke.” That was false. The FBI established that Flynn saw Kislyak’s text much sooner and communicated via text and phone with the Trump Transition Team in Mar a Lago about what to say to Kislyak prior to calling him. As another example, the 302 says “The interviewing agents asked FLYNN if he made any request of KISLYAK to vote in a particular way or take any action. FLYNN stated he did not. … The interviewing agents asked FLYNN if he made any comment to KISLYAK about voting in a certain manner, or slowing down the vote, or if KISLYAK described any Russian response to a request by FLYNN. FLYNN answered, “No.”” That’s also false. I could give more examples, but you get the idea.

                  1. You’re not very attentive. I said that Flynn pleaded guilty to a crime. The evidence for that are his signatures on the statement of the offense and the plea agreement.

                    1. “ I said that Flynn pleaded guilty to a crime”

                      And you were wrong. He plead guilty to a “charge,” not a crime – something which was not a crime, no matter how much you idiots try to say otherwise.

                      Like all DerangeoKKKrazis, you are incessantly dishonest.

                  2. No, Jonathan, “No matter how much you idiots try to say otherwise,” violating 18 U.S.C. § 1001 is a crime. Flynn was charged with violating 1001(a)(2), and he pleaded guilty to that crime.

                    1. no, he did not. Besides, my son can beat the sh!t out of your son so there you go

                      This is what we have come to in our nation: facts, truth, objectivity are crap. Intimidation and lying are the new tools of running a country. Thank you China

                    2. Jonathan can speak for himself, but you are an idiot. You start by saying certain things Flynn did were criminal. Those things were proven not to be material facts. In fact a transcript of Flynn’s call was available to the FBI.

                      Now that you can no longer claim that Flynn lied about a material fact you quote the law which exists and to which he pled guilty to under duress. However, in the end you still are unable to prove that Flynn lied about material facts yet you keep shooting your mouth off that he did. It is a problem when your mouth is bigger than your brain.

                      I second JG. You need serious help.

                    3. LMAO that there are now 4 of you arguing with me, but not a single one of you presents any evidence. Beijing Biden claims to care about “facts, truth, objectivity” but doesn’t present any. 11:24 AM Anonymous says that I “start by saying certain things Flynn did were criminal,” when that’s not how I started. He can’t even follow a simple conversation, which doesn’t bode well for his ability to follow all of the relevant documents.

                      I don’t have “to prove that Flynn lied about material facts” myself. The Court already ruled “that Mr. Flynn’s false statements were material within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2)” and “The sworn statements of Mr. Flynn and his former counsel belie his new claims of innocence and his new assertions that he was pressured into pleading guilty to making materially false statements to the FBI. … it is undisputed that Mr. Flynn not only made those false statements to the FBI agents, but he also made the same false statements to the Vice President and senior White House officials, who, in turn, repeated Mr. Flynn’s false statements to the American people on national television.”

                      It’s laughable that y’all keep trying to insult my intelligence when you’re the ones making such weak arguments.

      2. “Flynn pleaded guilty to knowingly and willfully making materially false statements to the FBI. That’s a crime.”

        Completely false. I can lie all day long to an FBI agent if I want. I can tell him I slept with his ugly wife. It isn’t illegal.

        Lying to an FBI agent is ONLY a crime when multiple things are true, NONE of which were true in the first place. It was not a legally legitimate investigation by the agent’s own words. You can argue that the AGENT did not commit a crime by conducting a baseless investigation by saying he may have genuinely BELIEVED there was reason to pursue it, but we now know that wasn’t true either. The alleged lie(s) Flynn told were not relevant to the subject of the investigation. They were unintentional (he simply misremembered). There are several more criteria, ALL of which must be true to legally charge him with that crime – NONE of them were true.

        When you eat and drink in the sewer of ideas, it is no wonder your head is full of rot.

        1. I posted a reply to this earlier, but I hasn’t shown up, so I’ll try to recreate it.

          Yep, you can tell an FBI agent that you slept with his ugly wife, and it isn’t illegal, because it isn’t MATERIALLY false. Flynn made MATERIALLY false statements to the FBI.

          The law doesn’t require that the interview occur in the context of an existing investigation, only that it be within the FBI’s jurisdiction. Of course it was within their jurisdiction to question the incoming NSA about why he’d lied to the VP-elect. The government argued that Flynn’s false statements were material, and Sullivan ruled they were material. I couldn’t care less that you disagree. It’s possible that Flynn misremembered, which is why I said that you can certainly say he was lying when he said that he made them knowingly and willfully. But it’s hard to imagine that Flynn saying that he didn’t get Kislyak’s message for 24 hours and called shortly after getting it, when he received it shortly after it was sent and conferred more than once with other members of the transition team about what to tell Kislyak before he called Kislyak.

          Perhaps your last line describes you, it doesn’t describe me.

          1. “ Flynn made MATERIALLY false statements to the FBI.”

            Nope, you are lying again. The DoJ said it was immaterial. The agents put in their written reports it was immaterial. The underlying basis has been refuted utterly, meaning it is IMPOSSIBLE for it to have been material. You are a pathetic pathological and delusional liar, you lose and we are done.

            1. The DOJ said that the false statements were material multiple times, and Sullivan ruled that they were material. The DOJ later changed its claim, but it never explained why it changed its claim and whether the DOJ lawyers had been lying all of those earlier times when they said the false statements were material, and Sullivan didn’t change his ruling that the false statements were material.

              You now say “The agents put in their written reports it was immaterial,” and I’ll tell you what you told me: “feel free to provide a link to the quote” those agents “allegedly said and prove it.”

              LMAO that you double down on your infantile insults and simply declare yourself winner. Fine by me if you don’t respond again, but that would just demonstrate that you can’t or won’t prove you own claim that “The agents put in their written reports it was immaterial.”

      3. Flynn pleaded guilty to knowingly and willfully making materially false statements to the FBI. That’s a crime.

        Pleading guilty is not a crime. And of course he has no way of knowing whether anything he says was material. Obviously, as a matter of law, nothing he said could be material when the FBI had the transcripts of what he actually said. And he had no way of knowing whether his statements were even made in the context of an investigation constituting a “matter’ under the relevant statute. And lots of people plead guilty to crimes they didn’t commit because of simple cost-benefit analyses. And on top of that you have the fact that the FBI withheld ALL Of the relevant evidence so Flynn couldn’t construct a defense. You are not arguing in good faith.

        1. Yep, pleading guilty isn’t a crime. Knowingly and willfully making materially false statements to the FBI is a crime.

          How foolish of you to suggest that it couldn’t be material because they had the call transcripts. They were trying to understand things like why he’d lied to Pence and what direction he’d gotten from the transition team re: his communications with Kislyak. Those things weren’t in the call transcripts, and Flynn could definitely know that they were material to a matter in the FBI’s jurisdiction, which is why he was hiding that information from them. You’re also wrong about the FBI having withheld all of the relevant evidence, just look at their discussion of this in the appendix to document 122.

          I don’t know if you’re not arguing in good faith or simply ignorant.

          1. “Those things weren’t in the call transcripts, and Flynn could definitely know that they were material to a matter in the FBI’s jurisdiction, ”

            Which all matters less than a fart in the wind.

            To be a crime, there must be an ongoing investigation with a legitimate basis (there was not), the lie must be intentional (it was not, it was merely misremembering), and the lie must be relevant to that specific investigation at hand (not simply to some nebulous thing over which the FBI may or may not have “jurisdiction over”). There is more, but you clearly are uninterested in the facts as they get in the way of your pathetic talking points.

            Better keep your janitorial job, Sparky, you clearly suck at law and at reasoning. You won’t make it as a propagandist, either, despite how happy you are lying.

            1. No, there’s doesn’t have to be an ongoing investigation. The law only requires that it be “any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States.” Have you read the law? Perhaps you haven’t, and that’s why you keep misrepresenting this. Questioning the incoming NSA to explore why he’d lied to the VP-elect is within the FBI’s jurisdiction. I’ve already responded to the rest, and I’m not going to repeat myself. Your many insults are childish. Grow up.

      4. “Flynn pleaded guilty to knowingly and willfully making materially false statements to the FBI. That’s a crime. ”

        Nope. Lying to the FBI is only criminal if all of the following conditions are met:

        1. The lie occurs during questioning regarding a legal and legitimate investigation. We now know that there was no substantiating evidence to initiate the investigation; the investigation was supposed to be closed for that reason, but yet it was kept open knowingly and therefore illegally for reasons we can all certainly guess. Fail.

        2. The lie is relevant to the intent of the investigation. Fail.

        3. The lie is intentional, not simply mis-remembering. Fail.

        The lie is intended to prevent justice from being done. Fail.

        The 302s substantiate all of the above. In this case, the 302s were FALSIFIED ILLEGALLY. Fail.

        Flynn was illegally prosecuted and persecuted, and those who participated in it – especially Judge Sullivan – are guilty of multiple counts of violating Flynn’s Constitutional rights and should be in jail for many decades.

        As for the Blackwater guards, they were government contractors (para-military) and it is utterly at the discretion of POTUS to determine if their acts were conducted in the interests of the United States, period.

        The ignorance propagated to the people of this country by public school indoctrination is absolutely astounding and utterly dissappointing.

      1. Our typical nasty poster, anonymous is up for another day of ignorant posting. 5 more words that say absolutely nothing.

  2. Kamala Harris is a hypocrite, a liar, a phony, and a complete fraud. Which is why she bombed out of her home state’s Democratic primary. Even THEY do not like her! Why? Because she is unlikeable!

    “Getting the COVID-19 vaccine will save your life. I have absolute confidence in our scientists and look forward to getting my second shot.’ said Kamala Harris, who previously, recklessly cast doubt on the vaccine if it came during President Trump’s tenure. Kamala is a FRAUD! Kamala is a HYPOCRITE!

    The election was STOLEN. Everyone knows it!

    Not My President! Kamala Harris is a fraud. Joe Biden is a corrupt, lying, senile fraud.

    Resist! Resist! Resist!

    They will never occupy the White House! FRAUDS!

    #Biden is Not Our President! Not now! Not ever!

    1. A barren, inexperienced daughter of foreign citizens who knows nothing but the pursuit of power by any means. Ask Willy how good; how deserving she is. She rented an nice white family for this election.

      Simply brilliant!

  3. We knew Trump’s pardons would test our faith in the President’s impartiality, in our Constitution and in the fairness of Life.

    On impartiality: President Bush and President Obama were partially responsible for the collateral deaths of many civilians, including women and children, but they were never charged with massacres.

    There is no question the US Constitution and United Nations Charter are in need of reform.

    Is Life fair? President Trump is neither Jesus Christ nor God the Father. We do not know the afterlife fate of these pardoned men. Trump’s pardons are not absolute, and may be mortal sins in themselves. The power of the pardon is surely a two-edged sword.

    I pray the decisions of President Trump and President-elect Biden help us grow in faith through this difficult transition.

    1. Jonathan, what’s with the aside on collateral deaths by W and Obama and no mention of Trump’s responsibility. You cannot be the President of the US without accepting that your decisions will result in deaths of innocent people. Perhaps you missed that Obama reported estimates on collateral deaths while Trump hid them and was certainly responsible for his share.

      “Trump Revokes Obama-Era Rule on Disclosing Civilian Casualties From U.S. Airstrikes Outside War Zones”


      “The U.S.-led coalition fighting the Islamic State militant group (ISIS) has killed more civilians during President Donald Trump’s first seven months in office than in the three years it existed under his predecessor, according to the latest estimate by a U.K.-based monitor….”


      1. Joe, I think Johnathan Maxson is possibly a false flag commenter who tries to sound ‘independent’ but really has a hidden agenda of some kind.

      2. “what’s with the aside on collateral deaths by W and Obama”

        Obama destroyed Libya and Bush destroyed Iraq.

        How many sovereign nations has Trump destroyed?

        You’re an idiot.

  4. Thanks Kurtz.

    This results in a “one-dimensional” universe of thought and behavior, in which aptitude and ability for critical thought and oppositional behavior wither away…but I am interested in the question of how to cause people to break free of the grasp billionaires have on our thinking about all the possibilities of our existence.

    Well, unless Operation Warp Speed is producing a Red Pill Coronavirus vaccine, I don’t believe a new enlightenment is on the immediate horizon. I always look to history to predict the future and I don’t believe we have to look back any further than why the American Revolution happened. After 150 years of Great Britain’s policy of salutary neglect, as Jefferson’s 27 grievances prove, it took all of that and it was still barely enough to move that small population of colonists to say enough is enough. Keep in mind that was all happening during the Enlightenment era. Over a couple of centuries removed from that era and we certainly haven’t been influenced by any salutary neglect. We are however piling up grievances…again. I believe Jefferson was describing the same unenlightened masses then and now when he said: and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. History will repeat itself. The only question is when will enough people have that AHA! moment.

    1. Olly, a need to believe in conspiracies is evidence of a weak mind that is both unable to deal with the complexities of life and human interactions and a wish to be in command of “secret knowledge” overlooked by others. On 2nd look they almost always require belief in concerted action in secret by large numbers, a task more difficult than most groups can accomplish absent sever penalties and discipline.

      Occam’s razor is a better lens.

      1. Electric chair, lethal injection, firing squad are what Americans have in mind for Leftists. But hey! We will allow you to pick your exit strategy because we embrace inclusivity and diversity

      2. On 2nd look they almost always require belief in concerted action in secret by large numbers, a task more difficult than most groups can accomplish absent sever penalties and discipline.

        Well isn’t that the truth! After 4 years and a mountain of evidence that proves many people were involved in the Russia/Trump conspiracy hoax, we still have an absence of severe penalties and discipline.

        Keep ’em coming. Thanks. 🙂

      3. “a need to believe in conspiracies is evidence of a weak mind”

        Speaking of your “weak mind”.

        Are you actually unaware that people have overtly and covertly conspired with each other for centuries?

        “Conspiracy Theorist”: Someone who questions the statements of known liars.

        “We are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies on covert means for expanding its influence; on infiltration, instead of invasion; on subversion, instead of elections; on intimidation, instead of free choice. It is a system which combines military, diplomatic, economic, scientific and political operations. Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed.”

        – John F. Kennedy

  5. A judge makes a completely unsupported assertion and compromises the trust an ordinary person might place in him. This is not that difficult people.

    1. Art Deco, you do realize that what you just said applies to trump, right? If you don’t see that you would make a perfect example of what cognitive dissonance is.

      1. I forget, is Trump in an Article II or Article III position? While Judges do fall under a Code of Ethics, I’m not aware of any such code for the POTUS. Ah, rules, schmules.

        1. A president makes a completely unsupported assertion and compromises the trust an ordinary person might place in him.

          1. A president makes a completely unsupported assertion and compromises the trust an ordinary person might place in him.

            That is your opinion and one not shared by millions of voters. But for arguments sake, what is the risk a President faces in doing so? Not getting reelected. If it’s egregious enough, that would likely have consequences for their party down ticket. Just like in 2020…right? If that occurs in their 2nd term, they risk alienating voters to their preferred successor. Just like in 2016…right? But when this unethical behavior is exhibited from the bench, public trust in Article III judges is diminished. Add in unethical (illegal) behaviors from high-ranking members of the FBI, Special Prosecutor teams, prosecutors within the DOJ, House Intel/Judiciary committees and the Senate Judiciary committee, MSM and Big Tech, public trust in these institutions will evaporate. They are left with relying on the one thing they can do…vote. Remove confidence in that process ever being legitimate and you’ve set the stage for the people to exercise their legitimate and natural right to take whatever means are necessary to restore confidence in our government.

          2. “A president makes a completely unsupported assertion and compromises the trust an ordinary person might place in him.”

            What an idiot. Where’s the beef? You incessantly talk while saying absolutely nothing.

      2. “Art Deco, you do realize that what you just said applies to trump, right?”

        You just displayed a perfect example of “cognitive dissonance”, and you don’t even realize it.

        Pratt is a Federal Judge, not a politician. Politicians of all stripes make completely unsupported assertions all the time. But a Judge is never supposed to make unsupported assertions, or accusations.

        The fact that you have no concept of why that is the case speaks volumes about your extremely low intelligence.

        1. You know those idiot surveys Parade magazine used to publish where some jackwagon would assemble a convenience sample of history professors to rate the presidents?. Peter takes those seriously.

Leave a Reply