Columns, Constitutional Law, Justice, Media, Politics

A “Slippery, Bootlicking A.G.”? The Media Goes Silent As Garland Adopts Previously Denounced Positions Of Barr

Below is my column in The Hill on the recent decisions of Attorney General Merrick Garland to support the prior positions taken by his predecessor, William Barr, on issues ranging from the Lafayette Park protests to immigration to withholding information related to the Mueller investigation. Positions that were once denounced by media and legal experts as raw partisanship have now been adopted by the Biden Administration with little acknowledgement from those same figures.

Here is the column:

When Joe Biden nominated Merrick Garland to be attorney general, many — including me — heralded Garland as an honorable, apolitical judge who would follow the law. He was not, the Washington Post editors insisted, “a lackey who will serve as the president’s personal attorney” like Donald Trump‘s AGs. Garland has indeed followed the law, but some are not thrilled by where it has taken him.

President Biden’s Department of Justice (DOJ) has adopted some of the same positions taken by the Trump administration that a host of legal and media experts once denounced. This week, the DOJ sought to replace itself as the defendant in a lawsuit against Trump brought by writer E. Jean Carroll, who alleges that Trump raped her. The week before, it sought to dismiss a Black Lives Matter lawsuit over the clearing of Lafayette Park during a June 2020 protest.

This time last year, both positions were cited by legal and media experts as grotesque examples of then-Attorney General Bill Barr’s political bias. Now, those same experts are silent as Garland takes the same positions Barr took in federal court.

Garland is free, of course, to reject prior legal positions of Barr, but he has reached the same conclusion as his predecessor on several points of law thus far. In yet another adherence to Trump-era policy, the DOJ will defend opposing the ability of Puerto Ricans to receive social security disability benefits before the Supreme Court. Likewise, Garland agreed with Barr that a DOJ memo finding no legal basis for an obstruction charge against Trump should not be released to the public in its entirety.

Is Garland a Trumpist mole, part of some “deep state” resistance to his own president? Or is the more likely alternative that some in the media and many others in politics or the law knowingly distorted past legal controversies to use those as political fodder against Trump?

The general lack of media criticism — or even coverage — has never been more striking than with the latest filing in the Carroll case. In November 2019, Carroll sued Trump, claiming he defamed her when he denied sexually assaulting her. She alleges that Trump raped her in a Manhattan department store dressing room in the 1990s.

The Biden administration has told the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that it — rather than Trump — should be the defendant because his comments were made as part of his official capacity as president. Said the Biden DOJ: “Courts have thus consistently and repeatedly held that allegedly defamatory statements made in that context are within the scope of elected officials’ employment — including when the statements were prompted by press inquiries about the official’s private life.”

That is the identical position taken by then-AG Barr last year.

A district court rejected that effort, and the Trump administration appealed. While I disagree with the treatment of any such statements as part of a president’s official duties, I stated at the time that there was support for the position in the governing federal statute and case law.

However, some media outlets featured an array of experts who denounced Barr’s legal move. Vanity Fair was typical of the coverage with a column titled “Bill Barr Sinks To New Low, Uses Justice Department To Try To Kill Trump’s Rape Defamation Suit.” In it, writer Bess Levin explained that the move proved that Barr was “willing not just to do [Trump’s] dirty work but to do it completely out in the open and without a scintilla of shame.” Citing the DOJ effort to replace Trump as a party in the suit, Levin declared that experts confirmed that “this special arrangement is wholly unique to Trump and his slippery, bootlicking A.G.” She cited University of Texas law professor and CNN legal analyst Steve Vladeck and an array of other experts cited in a New York Times article. The Times wrote how “some current and former Justice Department lawyers, speaking on the condition of anonymity, echoed Mr. Vladeck’s concerns, saying they were stunned that the department had been asked to defend Trump in Ms. Carroll’s case.”

One would expect that these same media outlets and experts would denounce Garland now as another “slippery, bootlicking A.G.” doing Trump dirty work. But … no.

The same is true with the Biden DOJ ‘s recent filing in the BLM lawsuit. Last year news stories stated as fact that Barr ordered Lafayette Park to be cleared of protesters to make way for Trump’s controversial photo op before St. John’s Church. From the outset, the Trump/Barr conspiracy claim had little support, and soon there were reports contradicting it. As I explained in my testimony to Congress on the protest, the plan to clear the park area to establish a wider perimeter was due to an extreme level of violence by protesters over the preceding two days, including the injury of a high number of federal officers. The violence was so great that Trump had to be moved to a bunker. (An IG investigation debunked the conspiracy theory). None of that mattered. Viewers on CNN, MSNBC, and other news outlets wanted to hear that it was all a conspiracy. Experts like Vladeck continued to claim that Barr ordered federal officers “to forcibly clear protestors in Lafayette Park to achieve a photo op for Trump.”

Now the Biden administration is arguing that the BLM case should be dismissed. Moreover, it is advancing the same position as Barr’s DOJ that “Presidential security is a paramount government interest that weighs heavily in the Fourth Amendment balance.” The DOJ’s counsel, John Martin, added that “federal officers do not violate First Amendment rights by moving protesters a few blocks, even if the protesters are predominantly peaceful.”

The Biden administration is not reluctant to change positions in litigation when it disagrees with the prior administration. However, in these cases the Biden administration insists that Barr was right on the law, even if it disagrees with Trump’s statements themselves. That would likely come as a surprise to many viewers of CNN or MSNBC.

Reasonable people can disagree about such legal disputes — but the point of much of the past coverage was that there was no real dispute, just raw political abuse by Barr.

As we watch the anger and divisions growing in our nation, we need to be honest about the role that media coverage continues to play in our age of rage. It is little surprise that many are enraged when legal experts state as a fact that the Justice Department is acting without legal basis; that makes for undeniably good ratings. Now that the ratings have receded, however, the law has again emerged — with the Biden administration in full agreement with its predecessor’s legal arguments.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can find his updates on Twitter @JonathanTurley.

163 thoughts on “A “Slippery, Bootlicking A.G.”? The Media Goes Silent As Garland Adopts Previously Denounced Positions Of Barr”

  1. The MSM traded professional journalism and reporting for drive-by, left-wing, political propaganda many years ago.
    I’m just surprised that Jonathan is still surprised.

    1. Do bear in mind, Mr. Detmar, that Turley is beholden to his employer Fox News which pays him handsomely to criticize the MSM. It cannot be gainsaid that were Turley in the employ of MSNBC or CNN, he would be pointing out the deficiencies of the Right Wing media Fox, Newsmax, One America Network, Infowars, etc. One would be naive to overlook Turley’s prejudice against the MSM out of his loyalty to Fox, not unlike Sean Hannity who subscribes to Trump’s view that the MSM is “the enemy of the people” though Turley, to be fair, has never gone that far to vilify the MSM. If Turley leaves Fox and rejoins the MSM from where he came, you’ll see that he’ll change his tune.

  2. https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2021/06/13/new-york-times-reports-andrew-weissmann-and-robert-mueller-sought-then-hid-special-counsel-surveillance-of-trump-white-house-attorney-don-mcghan/

    This is the world you are describing Mr. Turley. You keep assuming the best of people in it. This may have been appropriate twenty or more years ago (doubtful!), but now it’s completely out of date and out of touch. It has been called a ‘swamp’ for a reason. The corruption is endemic, systemic, irreparable. At this point the only positive course forward would be to cancel the entire Republic, close down DC, and re-constitute a new one from scratch. This is not going to happen, of course, so what we will end up with, since an equitable rule of law is no longer in effect, is some sort of totalitarian state. That will take decades to go through its beginning, middle and ending phases by which time everyone reading this and their children will most likely have passed on.

    But the world you keep assuming is there – the world where government officials, intelligence officers, lawyers, judges, medical experts and so on are honorable – is long gone.

  3. To make the accused’s denial of guilt actionable is to turn our justice system inside out; to destroy it.

  5. The media inflames this stuff for their own purposes which is the real culprit here. Not left or right, they are culpable of willingly using the medias bias to slant stories the way they want. What you are doing is cherry picking, and I am sure you don’t see it, mostly I imagine out of deference to your good friend Mr Barr, but what you do is what they do albeit with a little more attempt to find center, while never quite reaching it and always teetering off to the right. See, you’re speaking about certain news channels. So lets be real. The stories you are condemning were noticeably absent on Fox news and their affiliates. So be clear. Its not the “media” but the liberal media you are complaining about. The conservative media on the other hand, offers just as many slanted opinions on their side of the misrepresented news and so no ones getting any real stories any more. You turn to Fox you get right wing spin. You turn to CCN or MSNBC you get left wing spin. Some media tries to find center. mcneil leher news hour used to be impartial, although I can’t attest for them now as I don’t watch the news anymore (I don’t even have tv service) . Newsweek often hits some middle of the road stories that try to glean a little unspun fact out of the days stories but again slant and bias always seems to find its way in now as news went from being news to being editorial commentary with a story attached to it. This all stems back to a fateful decision in 1998 by the Clinton administration to deregulate the news for the first time in modern history (since we had television) thanks to the lobbying by CNN to allow them to broadcast 24×7. Remember that? Before that the news was considered a sacred obligation by the three networks to inform the public twice a day, once morning and once evening about important matters around the country and the world. It wasn’t allowed to be commercialized and it wasn’t allowed to be editorialized although editorials were permitted as such but you seldom saw any such talk on the evening news back then. Remember the arguments? The news “shows” were allowed like Meet the Press and This Week, Face the Nation etc and they discussed on them the potential problems of running a 24×7 news show. “What are they going to talk about” was the common theme. “They’ll read the news then what?” and that was the fear. That after 30 minutes of reading the news, they would be compelled to start editorializing, and sensationalizing the news to maintain viewership. They said they’d get fixated on certain news stories and blow them out of proportion, confuse the public and help sow conspiracy theories or misinformation over time. They even worried about “partisanship” sneaking in, …heaven forbid. And what was the first month like? Does anyone remember? I do. CHANDRA LEVY. That’s what CNN talked about for 9 solid months. CHANDRA LEVY. They’d read the news, then EDITORIALIZE and SENSATIONALIZE all day long the story of Chandra Levy, and sure enough in the process, their sensationalizing turned to speculation about “who done it” and pretty soon they’d hung a congressman Gary Condit, out to dry as the “prime suspect”. They smeared him, made the public believe he’d killed her, he lost about everything yes he had an affair with her but it wasn’t the publics business, that was “gossip” not news, it had nothing to do with the murder but CNN made it appear he was guilty. Just like all the pundits and news people off the editorial shows like This Week and Meet the Press, had so accurately predicted. He was ruined before they found out it was simply a foreign exchange student who had no relationship to her whatsoever and Condit was 100 percent innocent. The damage was done, just as so prophetically warned a year earlier, and as so many predicted they never retracted or apologized or set right the damage they had done. Not that they could have “fixed it” but they could have owned up to it. But they didn’t. They just went merrily onto the next story, which was Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinski and the 2000 election, all which hid their multitude of sins against Gary Condit and the public for smearing him to them and misleading them, neatly under the rug. So I feel your pain about your friend Mr Barr being smeared by the left spin news. I am just waiting for you to adjust your partisan blinders, so you can see more clearly the real problem and stop being part of it by consistently carrying water for one side. The problem in this country isn’t liberals. And the problem in this country isn’t conservatives. The problem in this country are liberals AND conservatives, and the commercialized media that placates to them.

    1. By the way, I apologize for this posting “anonymously”, I was clumsily attempting to log into my newly created Word Press account and even tried using my Facebook login and failed apparently, but looks like I got it now. I am introducing myself for one reason and one reason alone. To remove the stigma of comments made behind the comfort of anonymity, which is par for the course in this blog as we see day in and day out for the last 20 years from the same anonymous handles which allow the “regulars” to troll, insult, ridicule and speak with a level of abandonment that they would no doubt curtail somewhat were they willing to man-up as it were, and put their names and identifies behind their comments. I’ve posted from time to time in here over the years but not often. I go by the anonymous handle of “JO MAMA” (don’t ask, I don’t have an answer for why that name…its just what I used ….) however I can no longer in good conscience post my thoughts, comments, observations and opinions from behind the comfort of anonymity as pretty much everyone else in here does daily as that is part of the problem I see today. Too many people have too much to say but they don’t really want to say it for whatever reason, fear of retaliation, blacklisting, loss of income, clients, employment, etc. And the problem with that is the same problem with, …oh say,….donning a white hood. Once your identity is hidden, you find much more “courage” if you can call it that, to say and do things one might not do were they honest enough to put their names behind it. And I just can’t do that and say what I think and believe, and see….without being willing to put myself behind my own words. So hello. I’m Chris Weber. I’m not a scholar, lawyer, pundit or politician. I’m not the smartest guy in the room by along shot, just an average guy in his early 60s with an average blue collar job, an average life and of average intellect, trying to make sense out of the world I grew up in that has somehow, turned into this. Nice to meet you.

      1. I agree with you 100% that no one should be allowed to post unless by name which can somehow be proven is not a pseudonym. The lack of accountability is what contributes to all the unnecessary trolling on the internet. The problem goes back to antiquity to Plato’s Ring of Gyges. Welcome, Chris!

        1. Agree totally. Also pleased that you posted something without mentioning Fox news and the fact that Turley contributes on that network. Getting counseling?

    2. I agree with you 95%. I agree that cable news is a business, and we all are agreed that money is the root of all evil. So the only consideration that prevents spinning or lying in order to pander to viewers for higher ratings and more ad dollars is journalistic ethics and the threat of defamation lawsuits.

      I agree that there is a conservative bubble and a mainstream bubble nowadays, and the two have never been further apart in terms of newsworthiness. But I disagree that they are equally spinning. Since you have a good memory of TV history, you will recall long before cable, ABC, NBC and CBS competed in the news but NEVER criticized each other. There was an agreed policy not to disparage each other; it was taboo to even acknowledge the existence of the other.

      When Fox came along, it distinguished itself by claiming that it was “fair and balanced” UNLIKE the mainstream media. It went out of its way to disparage the MSM in an effort to position itself as “real news for real Americans.” Even today, the mainstream networks don’t disparage each other though they do criticize Fox News to defend themselves from Fox’s attacks.

      Since Fox’s mission is to expose the “liberal bias” in the MSM, it cannot see the world as the MSM does. Whatever the MSM says, Fox has got to find a different spin; otherwise, it is no different than the MSM. Fox cannot credit the MSM with the correct take on the news because it claims that the MSM is ineluctably biased! So Fox has to find fault with the MSM no matter what in order to sustain its brand that it is exclusively unbiased and truthful.

      Ironically, Fox is being hoisted by its own petard because Newsmax and One America Network are attempting to position themselves to the right of Fox by claiming they are more loyal to Trump. For instance, OAN is actively promoting the Arizona audit, but Fox will not cover it at all. All of these maneuverings are attempts to cater to an audience in a bid for ratings gold. I don’t agree that there is a moral equivalence between Fox/Newsmax/OAN and the MSM. This race to the bottom began with Fox, and now Fox is becoming a victim of its own bad faith strategy.

      1. Jeff, you are not very good looking at tea leaves. In fact some of the time you don’t realize it but you are looking at coffee beans.

        Start with facts and then draw conclusions. The way you do it, draw conclusions and create facts, is a dishonest method of discussion.

      2. “. . . we all are agreed that money is the root of all evil.”

        I guess I’m not part of that royal “we.”

        The only ones who believe that are those who do not understand the value of money, and don’t grasp the high virtue required to make it.

          1. I specifically wrote “to *make*” money. There’s a world of difference between a wealth creator and a wealth appropriator — a distinction that some blur in the attempt to smear those who are productive.

            1. Criminals *make* money, whether you can admit it or not. One does not have to be virtuous to make money.

              I’m not smearing people who are productive by pointing this out.

              1. “I’m not smearing people who are productive by pointing this out.”

                You will do so at a later date.

        2. It IS evil to consider “money” a noun. If we see it as a verb, then we put it where it belongs – as facilitator of transactions without itself being a subject of transactions.

    3. Well said. But I digress, at least Fox actually reports the news, slanted as it may be at times. Mainstream news only promotes a propagandist narrative minus any news!?

    4. 1. You need an editor.
      2. The Hunter Biden laptop story turned out to be true. TheTrump-Putin collusion story turned out to be false…in fact the opposite of what happened.

      So the problem is indeed 99% with the left.

  6. Breaking News:

    Toobin Reinstated In Touching Interview: ‘I Got Off Easy’

    1. These communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs) are really sick!

      Public exposure must be a crime; a violation of a criminal code.

      Why wasn’t Jeffrey charged?

      It’s OK now to do a “Toobin” in a Zoom conference, live on air or anywhere you happen to catch the fancy.

      Just whip it out, Jeffrey.

      1. Jeffrey Toobin, Doris Kearns Goodwin, Donna Barzille, Brian Williams et al. should have been completely erased; ostracized from broadcasting and any other “official” or “professional” duty.

        And yet, there they are; front and center.

  7. Turley says:

    “Now that the ratings have receded, however, the law has again emerged — with the Biden administration in full agreement with its predecessor’s legal arguments.”

    Well, I would not say “full” agreement especially in light of today’s breaking news that Garland’s dropping the DOJ’s surveillance of members of Congress and the appointing of inspector Horowitz to look into the matter.

    Unlike Barr who is trying now to disassociate himself from Trump, I expect a full-throated defense of Barr tomorrow by his close friend Turley. I don’t envy Turley in his role of defending Barr against these ever increasing allegations of misconduct, but you do have to admire his steadfast loyalty to him come what may.

  8. I note that a whole bunch of nasty and foolish responses made by Anonymous the Stupid was removed from the blog. That makes replying is a more difficult task. No matter. All of his remarks deserve to be removed, so I will post this one in response.ATS is a nasty guy whose belief that color is more important than character is despicable.

    1. Actually, Allan, Darren is only removing comments from one specific anonymous commenter and not from the multiple different people you refer to as ATS. It’s evidence that you regularly refer to multiple people as ATS, but you’re too blind to understand.

      1. If there are two Anonymous the Stupids in existence on the blog, they do not differ in their lack of intelligence.

        Why should anyone believe what you say? You lie all the time. If you think you should be thought of as a more intelligent poster, get a name and an icon. Maybe you use more than one address, and Darren catches on. Maybe the blog is deleting posts by accident. Maybe some of the postings are too stupid to be left on the blog.

        A lot of things are possible, but before one draws any conclusions, one has to have some facts. That is where you fail, for you deceive and lie along with not being very bright.

        1. I’m smarter than you are Allan, though that’s not a particularly high bar.

          1. You think you are, but the proof is in the pudding. You sometimes have been able to memorize and even learn certain techniques, but you never learned how to think.

  9. Constance Oxley says:

    “Half the articles at this site are a treatise confirming that the DNC wholly owns about 95% of MSM, Academia, government bureaucrats, etc. It really and obviously drives the DNC trolls here bat crazy, Natatcha, Silberman, etc”

    Turley frequently points out the hypocrisy of the MSM. In like fashion, I merely point out his. As I have often said, I don’t disagree with most of Turley’s commentary. Indeed, I have much more in common with him than any Trumpist, such as yourself. Turley avows that he did not vote for Trump, he has noted on occasion Trump’s blatant lying, he has never subscribed to the Big Lie nor endorsed the Arizona audit (he has remained uncharacteristically silent on these controversies to my dismay). His first and natural inclination was to be a legal commentator for the MSM. Yet for some unknown reason- likely financial- he has decided of late to work for Fox News. Predictably, he now criticizes the MSM and NEVER finds the least bit of which to criticize the journalism at Fox News.

    Is that surprising? Of course not! But it is worth remembering Turley’s obvious bias. And I will keep pointing out to new readers to this blog of Turley’s ignoring worse abuses at Fox News which abuses he relishes criticizing at his media competitors.

    I have no doubt that Turley can handle my criticism and would defend my participation on this blog against those Trumpists who suggest I leave. He would not tell me to take a hike; after all, he is a firm believer in more speech not less!

    1. “But it is worth remembering Turley’s obvious bias”

      Not just this statement but the continued innuendo and libel even after being corrected makes this commenter not very trustworthy. Anyone on the blog has seen Turley posting the articles he has written for the media that are not Fox affiliates. I think CNN and MSNBC are afraid to permit Turley to say what he believes.

      I’m surprised that a lawyer would write the type of comments you have written on this blog.

      1. LOL, Allan, are you replying to Jeff anonymously in the hope that he won’t recognize it’s you?

        ” this commenter [is] not very trustworthy”

        Allan’s insults always describe Allan better than they do the person he’s criticizing.

    2. , he has never subscribed to the Big Lie nor endorsed the Arizona audit (he has remained uncharacteristically silent on these controversies to my dismay)

      There is no controversy. Government doing an audit of an election is well within their powers.

      1. Turley does not mention the Big Lie because he does not want to acknowledge that it exists. Fox News is being sued for billions for spreading it to millions. Naturally, the less said about it now, the better!
        I suspect Turley does not mention the Arizona audit for the same reason that Fox News will not touch the subject. Ever since Fox has been sued, none of its employees push the Big Lie, and, therefore, it stands to reason that none of its employees will discuss the Arizona audit since it sustains the lie that the election may have been stolen.

        Turley represents Fox, and he is unflinchingly loyal to it. He will do its bidding by disparaging its media competitors. However, he will not go as far as Hannity, Carlson, Ingraham and Levin in calling the media “the enemy of the people.” He does what he can without stopping to their level of rage, but he has no shame in working for a company which profits from fueling that rage. His association with the likes of Hannity, Carlson, Ingraham and Levin will mark him for the rest of his professional career.

  10. This is yet another reason to turn off corporate media. Also, the viewership has decreased dramatically in the past year and has been falling for some time. How are they (the media) going to fill a 24 hour news cycle? Journalism has hit a low. When we used to watch 30 minutes of national news and 30 minutes of local news, the quality was very good. The editors didn’t go to print until the facts were straight and verified by people who had real names and the legal department said “Go!”

    Let the chips fall where they may, but only if based on verifiable truth. All persons in authority are fair game for tough, hard hitting and relentless questions and follow up questions—Democrat, Republican, Independent and no matter what race, religion should face scrutiny and there is a way to do this in a professional manner.

  11. “He notes “we cannot be sure what QAnon is except for what they say,” but he can’t be bothered to check for himself whether QAnon is saying things that are false.”

    I have heard numerous stories about QAnon, a few that came from Anonymous the Stupid that uses it as a buzzword despite the fact he doesn’t know what QAnon is. I actually searched to find out, and it looks like what I said. QAnon is being used as a buzzword to incite suspicion by liars like Anonymous the Stupid, who promotes hate.

    I don’t think those things are true, but I don’t know for sure because most of the stuff written has no factual basis. Their website seems to indicate a different type of organization than the buzzword suggests. Only stupid people like Anonymous the Stupid can draw a definitive conclusion.

  12. In response to Constance ATS wrote: “Nonsense. Do you even understand what kind of data you’d need to collect if you wanted to test a conjecture that “the DNC wholly owns about 95% of MSM, Academia, government bureaucrats, etc.” (e.g., what kind of sampling would need to be used)?”

    There has been considerable investigation into what Constance said and what she said is reasonably truthful.

    Anonymous the Stupid you have shown your ignorance once again and you were nasty as well.

  13. The organizing principle is that the Democrats and their media enablers will take whatever position they think will help them obtain and maintain power.

  14. The fact that Turley could use the term “bootlicking” while he does everything he can being being protective of Trump and Barr is just too damn funny. FOX is getting their money’s worth.

    2. FishWings, wake up. Turley was quoting from an article by Bess Levin of Vanity. FishWings opens the Turley forum with his preconceived quest to knock Turley. He finds a word that catches his eye and builds his narrative around it not paying any attention to the context of the article. He is obsessed with getting his cheap shot in for the day with no regard for increasing the knowledge of any reader much less his own. With FishWings schools out for summer, schools out forever.
      .

      1. It’s Turley’s blog, he’s the one who has turned his law blog into a echo chamber for the right. And so in your mind I’m supposed to write things only you want to read or hear? Turley opened himself up to criticism when he went political. And I take it, your mind is made up whatever the facts are or where they lead.

        2. Fishy, it’s Merrick Garland who is siding with Trump. He has decided to stand as the defense of Trump. So Garland and Turley are now echo chambers for the right. Read the article with understanding instead of insulting Turley. Sorry, with understanding might be asking to much. By God, you’ve got your little game and no one is going yo take it away from the little fella.

        3. And so in your mind I’m supposed to write things only you want to read or hear

          Here’s thought. You could just engage on the topic and stop the childish trolling.

          1. How can anyone engage in a topic, when one side does not believe in reality or facts? Their mind is made up well before any topic can be discussed.

    3. Fish the term “boot licking “ was used in reference to the many including Vanity Fair used to describe Barr and his ruling, sad though that the only incite you gained was using the word boot licking, very deep fish.

  15. The Deep Deep State says, “We can do anything we want if we have the DOJ, FBI and the CIA, that’s all we need, those are the keys to our existence, dominance and dictatorship.”

    “We conducted the Obama Coup D’etat in America, up to and including the 2020 election theft, with America’s full knowledge and there wasn’t a thing the “patriotic” minions and peasants (i.e. Americans) could do about it.”

    Merrick Garland, Christopher Wray and William Burns – The Three Stooges of the Deep Deep State.

    It’s going to take the likes of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, James Monroe, Benjamin Franklin, George Mason, Patrick Henry, Nathan Hale, John Hancock et al. to perpetuate America per their admonitions.

    To wit,

    “But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

    – Declaration of Independence, 1776

  16. Inasmuch as Mr. Garland has been Attorney General for all of 90 days, I think it a tad premature to conclude that his actions to date represent a ratification of the decisions of his predecessor, much less approval of the latter’s conduct in that position. And should it come to pass that Mr. Garland undertakes investigations of President Biden’s political foes at the insistence of the White House, that will not serve to exonerate Mr. Barr. It will merely mean that the nation has been condemned to a succession of “slippery, bootlicking” AGs.

    1. Mike, there were times that Barr disagreed with Trump and said so. Please sight for us anytime that Rahm Emanuel or Loretta Lynch said anything in contradiction to their President. We anxiously await your enlightenment.

      1. Barr was ensconced by the Deep Deep State to stop Trump.

        Barr did his Deep Deep State duty well.

        Barr threatened to submit his resignation while the Senators who “advised and consented” him into position threatened, not merely impeachment, but conviction if Trump accepted it.

        If America had a patriotic military, it would have imposed martial law just long enough to annihilate Deep Deep State communism and re-implement the “manifest tenor” of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

  17. Journalistic integrity is dead. We are at the mercy of hacks controlling the flow of information through the news media, social media, and even internet search engines.

    Unless you really search for unbiased, accurate information…

    1. As if you would know anything about this, Karen, a devoted disciple to the alt-right propaganda machine. Of course, in fairness to you and your ilk, none of these people are really “journalists”.

        1. It may shock you to know that I tune in to Fox, OAN, NewsMax, Talking Points and others just so I can understand where the hell people like you are coming from. On a broadcast I heard this morning (source I didn’t care enough to take note of), I saw some dumb witch of a woman claim that Kamala Harris got where she is today by performing sex acts on some man. As if having a law degree, getting elected: first as prosecutor in San Francisco, then as AG for the State of California, next as Senator from the State of California weren’t qualifying to serve as Vice President. Anything to denigrate a Democratic woman, but especially one of color.

          1. Well….if the story fits….

            Kamala did not get a single vote in the Dem presidential primary. She bombed even in her home state of Cali. She dropped out before Iowa.

            Then she got the job of VP only because she is a woman of color.

            Remember when Joe Biden said it was a prerequisite for his vice president? He said, point blank, that he was *only* considering “women of color” to join him on his ticket

            AND!! Kamala was not even his first choice, but the powers-that-be behind the scenes forced his hand and he selected Kamala.

            After one of the debates it was Dr. Jill who told people that Kamala could go “F herself” after she pointed out that Joe is a racist. (Which he is.)

            Kamala got the job *because of her color and gender.

            Now she gets judged on her character but conveniently gets to throw down the race card and/or the woman card to excuse her own failings, of which there are many.

            1. Kamala Harris is an unaccomplished “Empty Trouser Suit” and the false result of a “rigged” election.

              She paid for faux ascendance with sexual favors – she didn’t say “NO” like Me Too Christine Ballsey Ford, and all the Harvey Weinstein girls, she said “YES!”

              She prosecuted marijuana use while using marijuana.

              She is a conforming communist, consumed by an aberrant desire for personal power for personal power’s sake as compensation for her existence as a barren woman with no raison d’etre.

              As Hillary Clinton bore one child for political appearances, Kamala Harris rented a nice white family for the last election.

              Kamala Harris will never be a “natural born citizen” as both her parents were not citizens at the time of the candidate’s birth, and Kamala Harris will never be eligible for vice president or president.

              Kamala Harris IS a tragedy; a walking, talking disaster.

              1. Source please, George. Alleged sexual favors with whom and in exchange for what? How would you know? Careful. Your misogyny is showing.

                Regard the Vice President with some modicum of respect.

  18. Half the articles at this site are a treatise confirming that the DNC wholly owns about 95% of MSM, Academia, government bureaucrats, etc. It really and obviously drives the DNC trolls here bat crazy, Natatcha, Silberman, etc.

Comments are closed.