Those of you who patronize the mainstream Lap Dog media in hopes of learning the news, this Summer are being treated to almost daily “revelations” documenting the myriad lies that were peddled for truth by Hillary Clinton, Il Duce Obama, Corrupt Demented Imbecile Joe Biden, and their various henchmen.

These so called revelations are presented as “now it can be told,” bombshells, but they’re really not new.  The truth is that these facts have been known at least since 2017.  They were told, but you just weren’t paying attention, and that’s not entirely your fault.  You’ve been lied to for so long, that it’s difficult for you to recognize the truth.

It’s been more than 140 years since Grover Cleveland proclaimed, “Public service is a public trust.”  We might debate whether that was true when Cleveland said it, but it sure ain’t true now.  The reason for this lies in the character of the people we elect to office.

Back in 1884, Joseph Pulitzer gave four reasons for endorsing Grover Cleveland.  “One, he is an honest man.  Two, he is an honest man.  Three, he is an honest man.  Four, he is honest.”  Nowadays, the focus isn’t on the candidate’s character.    Indeed, honesty doesn’t even seem to be important.

Politics has never been the bailiwick of saints or philosopher kings, but our leaders at least pretended to be honest custodians of the public welfare.  Sure, politicians always hid the truth, or shaded the truth to the extent they could, but at the end of the day, there were journalists willing to set the record straight.  Not anymore.  This didn’t happen overnight, and it’s not purely an American phenomenon.

Otto von Bismarck  observed, “People never lie so much as after a hunt, during a war or before an election.”

William Butler Yeats said it in rhyme.  “A statesman is an easy man, he tells his lies by rote.  A journalist invents his lies, and rams them down your throat.  So stay at home and drink your beer and let the neighbors vote.”

Of the  Soviet Union, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn said, “In our country the lie has become not just a moral category but a pillar of the State.”  Russian writer Elena Gorokhova expanded on this theme.  “The rules are simple: they lie to us, we know they’re lying, they know we know they’re lying but they keep lying anyway, and we keep pretending to believe them.”

Harry Truman might have been joking when he said,  “My choice early in life was either to be a piano player in a whorehouse or a politician.  To tell the truth, there’s hardly a difference.”  Truman was on to something.  The late P.J. O’Rourke entitled one of his books about Congress, Parliament of Whores.

Harry Truman also famously said of Richard Nixon, “There was a man who would never tell the truth when a simple lie would do.”  Truman would be distressed to learn that today’s Democrats have put Nixon to shame.

The Democrats have raised lying to an art form.  They’ve taken to heart the saying, “How do you get to Carnegie Hall? Practice,” but paraphrased it, “How do you gain and then maintain power?  Lie your asses off.”  They have refined this practice over many years, with the aid of alleged journalists whose motto is, “You lie, and we’ll swear to it.”

Just think about the sheer volume of shit that was peddled for truth by the Democrats.  “You can keep your plan, you can keep your doctor, and costs will go down.”  “The border is secure.”  “Joe Biden is sharp as a tack”  When in power, Democrats tell us, “The economy has never been better.”  “We created millions of jobs.”  When out of power, “It’s the worst economy since the Great Depression.”  “There’s rampant unemployment.”  They lie with impunity, secure in the knowledge that their lies will be repeated often enough by the media to convince the unsuspecting that they’re true.

This is a tactic has come to be known as The Big Lie.  The idea is, “If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed.”  This quotation often is attributed to Joseph Goebbels.  In reality, it comes from psychiatrist  Walter Langer, who while employed by the OSS, authored a psychoanalysis of Adolph Hitler.

Langer’s observation wasn’t original.  The 18th Century poet William Shenstone wrote, “A liar begins with making falsehood appear like truth, and ends with making truth itself appear like falsehood.”  The Democrats have truly mastered this art.  Which brings me to the inspiration for the title of this week’s offering, which comes from former Congressman Ron Paul, “Truth is treason in the empire of lies.”

And lying is the Democrats’ stock in trade.  Lying about Donald Trump has been the entirety of Democrat policy since 2015.  They told us Trump is racist.  He’s not.  Trump is anti-Semitic.  He has a Jewish daughter, son-in-law and grandchildren.  He has been the best friend in the White House that Israel has ever had, so he clearly is not.

My favorite Democrat lie is “Trump is a fascist.”  I’ve told you before.  Benito Mussolini’s definition of fascism was:  “Everything inside the State; nothing outside the State, and nothing against the State.”  That could be the motto of the Democrat Party.

In 2016 – “Trump will crash the economy.”  It soared.  Taxes were cut.  Lower income Americans benefited most.  Unemployment was negligible.

I have documented the multitude of lies that branded Trump a Russian agent.  They used the lies to cripple his first term.  How many times did Adam Schiff  (for brains) and Eric Swallwell tell us they had seen the evidence that now admittedly never existed.  Potential prosecutions are being contemplated.  Some Democrats are still repeating those lies.

In 2021, Democrats lied about the Covid vaccine, and used their lies to try to imprison Americans, and shut down the the economy.

Democrats lied about what they called the Inflation Reduction Act, which resulted in 9% inflation.

In 2024 and 2025 Democrats told us again Trump would crash the economy.  A lie.  The stock market would crash and bring about a depression.  As this is written the market is at record highs.   They said the tariffs would result in inflation.  A lie.  Trump has finalized trade agreements that greatly benefit the United States.  They said store shelves would be empty.  Lie.  Economic growth would be 1.8%.  The latest numbers show it is over 3%.  Tariff revenue in July alone is over $150 billion.  The Treasury reported a surplus in April.  Not to be outdone, as this is written, Democrats are calling these statistics “a mirage,” clearly embracing British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli’s observation that “there are lies, damned lies, and statistics.”  Democrats excel in each of these categories.

Democrat reaction to Trump’s illegal alien deportations is nothing more than a tissue of lies.  Democrats say no work will get done.  Restaurants will close.  Lawns will go unmown.  One elected Democrat imbecile in Vermont even said, removing illegal aliens was a matter of “national survival,” because without them, “who will wipe our ass?”  Oh, the horror!  Instead of economic ruin,  American employment, and American incomes are rising faster than ever before.  Yet they keep on lying.

“ICE is grabbing children from schools.”  Lie.  “People are being torn from churches.”  Lie.  “Citizens are being ‘disappeared.'”  Lie.

And what have Democrats gained from their decades of lying?  Democrat approval is at all time lows, around 33%.  Yet they have learned nothing.  All of the above presents American voters with a clear choice in upcoming elections.  Republicans aren’t perfect, God knows.  But who will better serve your interests?  The Party that actually does what it’s promised to do, or the Party that pees on your leg, and then tells you it’s raining?

I’ve often noted that, while Democrats spend so much of their time warning and lecturing about supposed “threats to democracy,” it’s the Democrats themselves who consistently threaten our form of government by attempting to steal our freedoms.  If Democrats didn’t stand for hypocrisy, they would stand for nothing at all.

Their playbook is both predictable and underhanded.  “Accuse your opponents of that which you, yourself are doing.”  This is a time honored principle which, over the years, has been falsely attributed to Karl Marx, Joseph Goebbels, and Saul Alinsky.  However, there’s no evidence that any of those three ever said that.

Obama’s campaign manager, David Axelrod, is a practitioner of the principle however, which he made clear in a 2010 NPR interview, in which he recounted a Chicago political tactic.  “Throw a brick through your own window, then call a press conference and claim you were attacked.”  The Obama/Axelrod practice of  “politics the Chicago way” explains much of what follows.

The closest I could come to identifying the source of the quotation was from the Case Histories of Sigmund Freud, who described what he called psychological projection as a defense mechanism, in which one ascribes his own unpleasant (or unlawful) behavior to others.  It’s really no wonder this tactic derives from a psychiatrist, as most Democrats are certifiably insane.

For Democrats, the projection of their own misdeeds onto their political opponents isn’t merely a defense mechanism, it’s a commandment that serves multiple purposes.  It throws the opposition off balance, forcing them to deny the charge.  It gives a compliant media the convenient “lie of the day” to spread far and wide, thus sparing them the drudgery of actual journalism.  And it’s an effective “slight of hand” exercise that distracts the public from their own conduct.

All the above is a preface to the recent declassification of intelligence community documents, which definitively establish what I have been writing for eight years now –Barrack Obama and members of his Administration, in concert with the 2016 Hillary Clinton campaign, engaged in what amounted to a coup de etat to deny Donald Trump election, and then to drive him from office.

As I often have noted, the fish stinks from the head, and Il Duce Obama was the stinking fish behind the myriad crimes that he, James Comey, John Brennan, James Clapper, and many others perpetrated against the American public.  The declassified documents prove that Obama conspired with Hillary campaign officials to concoct the story that intelligence agencies had evidence that Russia was interfering in our election in order to elect Trump.

The conspiracy began long before the 2016 election.  Many of the details are recounted in a great piece by Victor David Hanson in The Federalist.  On July 28, 2016, then-CIA Director John Brennan briefed Obama on a plan from Clinton foreign policy advisor Jake Sullivan (later Biden’s National Security Advisor), “to vilify Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal claiming interference by the Russian security service.”  James Comey, Joe Biden, Attorney General Loretta Lynch and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper attended the briefing.

After the briefing, the CIA forwarded the information to Comey and FBI Deputy Assistant Director of Counterintelligence Peter Strzok, with the subject line: “Crossfire Hurricane.”  Wile the declassified email from CIA to FBI is cloaked in “cover your ass” language, it is that “smoking gun” that Democrats always say they’re looking for.

“Per FBI verbal request, CIA provides the below examples of information the CROSSFIRE HURRICANE fusion cell has gleaned to date.”  “An exchange (REDACTED) discussing US presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s approval of a plan concerning US presidential candidate Donald Trump and Russian hackers hampering US elections as a means of distracting the public from her use of a private email server.”

Translation – “This is a political hit job, made up by Hillary.  You asked for it, so here it is.”  It was text book projection.  Trump never had any connection to Putin or Russians in general.  Meanwhile, it was Hillary who approved selling uranium to Russia, while Russians were sending millions to the Clinton Foundation.

What’s more, it’s abundantly clear that the years of continual witch hunting that crippled Trump’s first term were not the product of mistake, government incompetence, or good intentions.  It was a purposeful and knowing smear, calculated to frustrate, undermine and destroy the duly elected President of the United States.

The documents show that Obama and company were well aware that “Russia collusion” was a hoax created to shelter Hillary, while smearing her opponent.  The conspirators ran with, and repeatedly leaked to The Washington Post, the claim that evidence existed suggesting that Putin was interfering to help Trump.

However, the released documents unequivocally prove that conspirators knew that exactly the opposite was true.  Intelligence community assessments before and after the election stated that there was no evidence that the Russians had either the ability to interfere on behalf of Trump, and that there was zero evidence of any effect on the election.

Unsatisfied with the truth, which directly contradicted his  Russian Collusion bullshit story, Il Duce Obama ordered a new intelligence assessment to obtain a new opinion.  Only there was no real evidence, so against the objections of career CIA officials, Brennan ordered the inclusion of the Steele Dossier allegations, which he and the others knew to be unverifiable political trash.  Steele himself later confirmed this.

Il Duce Obama then cancelled the January 9, 2017 intelligence briefing that Trump was supposed to get, which would have contained the CIA’s conclusion that the Russians had no effect on the election, while he and the others continued to spread the false narrative.  The clear purpose of these acts was to sabotage in-coming President Trump by any means necessary.

For example, Victor David Hanson describes documents revealing that the CIA uncovered evidence that, before the election, the Russians were aware of the Obama/Clinton plan to smear Trump with the Russia hoax.  CIA Director Brennan asked the FBI to open a counter-intelligence investigation to determine how Moscow had come upon that information. (Presumably it was because they hacked Hillary’s unsecured server, and were reading all the emails she exchanged with Campaign Chairman John Podesta).

Instead of investigating Hillary’s leaky communications, however, the FBI used the the request, and the spurious Steele dossier, to obtain wiretaps to spy on the Trump campaign.  Along the way, the Obama conspirators bankrupted and ruined countless people, including General Flynn, George Papodopolous, Peter Navarro, Steve Bannon, and Jeff Sessions.  As real journalist Matt Taibbi has written, “This obnoxious story ruined lives, divided families, and paralyzed the country.  And it was all, demonstrably now, based on a lie.”

More importantly, these were crimes against our American form of government and against the American people.  When Il Duce Obama proclaimed on October 30, 2008, “We are days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America,” we had no idea that he intended to transform it into a Latin American Banana Republic, where honest elections are replaced by coups perpetrated by the ruling junta.

Maybe we expected too much from Il Duce.  Then again, what can you expect from a pig but a grunt?  If there’s any truth to the tired maxim, “No one is above the law,” then some people need to go to prison for these crimes.  I’m not holding my breath.

The Dog Days of Summer are upon us, and the nation is embroiled in a sickening soap opera centered around the late pervert, Jeffrey Epstein.  Much as I am convinced that all the Epstein hand-wringing is a massive distraction, I felt compelled to comment on it, in hopes that this non-issue might soon disappear.

Jeffrey Epstein would have been a sinister character even had he not risen to infamy as a sexual predator of underage women.  Even Epstein’s occupation is shadowy and uncertain.  Now, I’m a lawyer.  You may be a police officer, a salesman, or a truck driver.  The point is, your occupation isn’t a secret.

Here’s the Wikipedia description of Jeffrey Epstein’s occupation. [NOTE – Normally I would not rely on Wikipedia as a trusted source, however when you’re dealing with a fake fraudster, a spurious source seemed appropriate].   “An American financier and child sex offender.”  It gets better.  We’re told he was a teacher at the Dalton School, (an Upper Eastside NY school where the current tuition exceeds $64,000 a year) “despite lacking a college degree.”

After leaving the teaching profession, he somehow embarked on a career in banking and finance, and was employed at Bear Stearns.  Epstein was an options trader, and rose to the level of limited partner, before leaving Bear Stearns due to a securities law violation.

Epstein then started a financial consulting firm, whose clients included Saudi Arabian arms dealer Adnan Kashoggi.  He allegedly specialized in recovering funds that had been stolen by fraud.  During this time, the Brooklyn born Epstein told people he was an intelligence agent, displaying an Austrian passport that listed his place of residence as Saudi Arabia.

Along the way, Epstein worked for Towers Financial Corp., which turned out to be a $450 million Ponzi scheme.  He was never charged for those crimes.  However, in addition to money, Epstein had a passion for girls, as young as 12.

Starting in 2005, he was investigated for trafficking young girls for sex.  Rumor had it that he blackmailed prominent men by recording their sex acts with minors.  No such evidence implicating the rich and powerful has ever come to light.

In 2006, he was indicted for solicitation of prostitution.  His lawyers, including Alan Dershowitz, negotiated a favorable deal for Epstein.  The U.S. Attorney claimed he had been told “Epstein was intelligence” and was warned to “leave it alone.”

Was it true that Epstein was working for U.S. or foreign intelligence?  It’s unlikely.  Dershowitz reasonably argues that, had it been true, Epstein would have so informed his lawyers to get a better deal.  He did not.  I believe Dershowitz.  People who really work for intelligence agencies don’t disclose that fact to anyone, much less boast about it.  Only scumbag, bullshit artist, fraudsters like Jeffrey Epstein do such things.

Epstein got 18 months, served 3, and was admitted to “work release” at his “Foundation,” which coincidentally “contributed” $128,000 to the office of the County Sheriff holding him.

The FBI then got in the act, arresting Epstein in 2019 on sex trafficking charges.  He died, reportedly by suicide, while in custody, in August 2019.  The allegations as to Epstein and well known political and business figures traveling to an island he owned to engage in sex with underage girls come from a series of civil suits, not from an FBI or DOJ investigation.

Records regarding people who flew on Epstein’s plane have been public since 2009.  Donald Trump flew once, with his then wife and daughter accompanying him.  Trump knew Epstein, who was at Mar a Lago until Trump learned he had propositioned a teenage female employee, and threw him out.  Bill Clinton flew 27 times.

Why all the Epstein recap (or is it recrap?).  Because the latest Democrat “let’s get Trump” scheme is the notion that, after promising to release “the Epstein file,” the AG reports there’s no client list in the DOJ file.  Democrats are screaming “coverup.”  Coverup of what?  They don’t say.  The implication is that Trump’s name is “on the list,” incriminating him in Epstein perversions.

This is, of course, pure horseshit, but as you know, Democrats are the leading U.S. distributors of horseshit.  The Epstein file, such as it is, has been  known to the DOJ for nearly 20 years.  Ask yourself, is it possible that the same DOJ that two years ago was trying to imprison Trump for life over made-up bullshit, would have neglected to release information implicating him in an underage sex ring in 2016, 2020, or 2024?  Not likely.

The problem is that a number of Republicans, and dare I say, MAGA supporters, are calling for the firing of Pam Bondi, alleging that she’s protecting men “on the list.”  Donald Trump is tangentially responsible for this himself.

Trump has succeeded in convincing a sizeable majority of the country that the government always lies to them, always hides the truth, and always protects shadowy conspiracies.  As Americans we love conspiracy theories.  Such theories revolve around virtually every major event and scandal in American history.

From UFO’s, to the JFK, Martin Luther King, and RFK assassinations, to the drones last December, to the Chinese spy balloon, to Watergate, to the Pearl Harbor attack, and all the way back to secret Freemason symbols and treasure troves hidden in the Capitol, we’re hooked on conspiracy theories.

And we come by it honestly.  You’re not paranoid just because you think little green men from Mars are trailing you.  The government has a habit of lying.  The rich and powerful do seem to get bailed out, while the little guy gets screwed.

Only this flap is getting out of hand because the Trump loyalists have gotten high on their own stash.  Kash Patel and Dan Bongino told everyone there was an Epstein client list.  I’m sure they believed that.  But now in office, guess what?  There’s no list to release.  Did one ever exist?  If so, Alan Dershowitz never saw one.

He was involved in some of the lawsuits.  Much of the 30 gigabytes of “materials” in the Epstein file (that’s a lot of stuff) consists of child pornography, downloaded by Epstein, who is dead.  Such material could never be released.  Two New York judges have ordered much material no to be released, so the DOJ can’t release it.

Yet, there is no joy in MAGAville.  Trump is a victim of his own success.  He’s convinced supporters that everything the government tells you is a lie, but he’s now the government.  And the point of all this is, this is a scandal over nothing.

One GOP Senator says, “release the evidence of the sex ring.”  What ring?  It was 20 years ago.  Epstein was guilty as Hell, and he’s now dead.  His accomplice, Ghislaine Maxwell, was tried, convicted, and is serving 20 years.

Most of the juicy stuff about public figures, including Prince Andrew, came from civil suits, not from the DOJ.  The names involved were disclosed years ago, and any details are bound up in non-disclosure agreements following settlements.  Simply put, there’s no one else to prosecute.

The worst position a criminal defendant can be in is being charged, and having no information to trade for a better deal.  The Trump officials said evidence was being hidden, and promised to release it.  Now that it’s clear there’s nothing to release, they find themselves without red meat to throw to the lions of the MAGA world, who are screaming for blood.

For his part, President Trump is trying to convince the public that the Epstein coverup theory is just one more Democrat hoax, being used to slow him down.  And so it is.  Trump rightly asks, “Why are people still talking about this guy, this creep?”  It’s a good question.  Writer Stephen King, no conservative he, had a better response.  “The list is real, and so is the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus.”

Democrats were unable to do Trump in by tying him to a live woman, so now they’re trying to tie him to a dead pervert.  It won’t work.  Epstein was a crooked scumbag.  He’s dead.  That’s good.  Hopefully, the news cycle will move on to the next conspiracy theory.

I hate to say “I told you so,” but the fact is, since early in 2017, I have been writing on these pages (check the archive) that Il Duce Obama and key members of his Administration engaged in criminal activities designed to keep Donald Trump from being elected in 2016, and then to falsify evidence to be used to engineer what led to the Mueller Investigation and the impeachments.   Simply put, Obama, CIA Director John Brennan, DNI James Clapper, FBI Director James Comey, and a host of others conducted a prolonged campaign to deny Trump election, and then to cripple him once he was elected.

I said as much in a series of Frank on Friday postings.  See, Fake News But a Real Coup (3/10/17); Who Were Those Unmasked Men? (3/24/17); Back to the U.S.S.R. (7/14/17); Who Plays the Russia Game? (11/3/17); and Witch Hunt 2.0 (3/8/19).

In a nutshell, these works explored the now thoroughly debunked notion that Trump colluded with Russia to win election.  What became the Russia Collusion Hoax was the brainchild of Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee.  They hired law firm Perkins Coie to commission a dossier containing wholly fictional claims of Trump/Russia collusion in the 2016 election.  Millions of dollars changed hands.  The dossier’s author was former British Intelligence agent Christopher Steele.  He later testified under oath that he was unable to prove the veracity of any of its contents.

The CIA knew the dossier was fake, and likely took part in its creation.  The FBI knew that the dossier was underhanded opposition research from a political campaign.  No honest law enforcement official would go anywhere near such crap.  You remember what happened.  Because the Obama Administration’s top officials were thoroughly dishonest, they used the dossier to try to prevent Trump’s election, and then to overthrow his government.

Current CIA Director John Ratcliffe has uncovered and released information proving that Obama, Clapper, Brennan and Comey conspired to “to screw Trump,” by manipulating intelligence and silencing career professionals in the intel community.

Il Duce Obama’s fingerprints are all over this outrage.  Days before he left office in 2017, he authorized the release of raw intelligence to dozens of agencies, thus insuring the flood of leaks that plagued the Trump 45 Administration.  On January 5, 2017, Obama, Biden, Comey and Acting AG Sally Yates met to discuss how to handle the ongoing (fake) Russian Collusion investigation going forward.  Obama, who must have known that the dossier was fake, ordered Comey not to tell Trump, his incoming boss, about the investigation.  This is tantamount to ordering Comey to commit official misconduct.  Comey obliged him.

The Obama Administration issued an Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) in December of 2016.  CIA Director Brennan insisted on including the false information from the dossier in the ICA.  Career professionals at the CIA, including Analysis Director David Cohen, told him that including the dossier “did not meet even the most basic tradecraft standards,” and that its inclusion would undermine the credibility of the report.  Brennan overruled them, and the dossier was featured prominently in the ICA.

FBI Director James Comey also insisted that the dossier be included.  This served two purposes.  Including the false information in the ICA imparted to the dossier credibility that it did not deserve by cloaking it as genuine classified intelligence data.  This enabled Comey to take what he knew was false evidence (by January 2017, the FBI had determined the information could not be corroborated), and use it to get three FISA court warrants to permit the wiretapping of Trump’s telephones before and after the election.

In those warrants, Comey disclosed that the information came from Christopher Steele, but neglected to mention that Steele, who had been a paid FBI source, had been terminated for misconduct, including lying.  Vouching for the credibility of a source who has provided what you know to be false information and who you know was unreliable in the past isn’t merely sloppy police work, it’s criminal.

And then we come to perjury.  John Brennan, you will recall, was the driving force in seeing that the Steele Dossier’s falsehoods were included in the December 2016 ICA.  The problem is that he testified before Congress on May 23, 2017, and swore under oath that “the dossier wasn’t in any way used as the basis for the ICA.”  It’s now clear that was a lie.

For his part, James Clapper has repeatedly maintained that he knew nothing of a Russian collusion investigation.  Ratcliffe’s revelations seemingly put the lie to that story.  Comey has criticized a House Intelligence Committee Report that found there was no evidence supporting a Russian collusion investigation.  He insists there was evidence, and he ought to know, because he created it out of thin air.

The recent information from Ratcliffe proves that the allegations made by me, and a number of other commentators who simply reviewed the facts known as early as 2017 and then applied common sense to those facts, were right on the money.  Donald Trump was the victim of election interference.  This interference wasn’t perpetrated by some shadowy foreign actor, but by the Obama Administration, namely the president, vice-president, the CIA, the FBI, and a number of intelligence agencies, in coordination with British Australian and other intelligence sources.

The conclusion is inescapable.  The very lying, cheating, stealing Democrat hypocrites who constantly lecture us about “threats to our democracy,” themselves perpetrated the single most outrageous and dangerous attack on our form of government since 1807, when Aaron Burr was accused of trying to set up his own new country in what are now the States of Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama and Mississippi.

Much like the Burr conspiracy, the Obama conspiracy sought to overthrow the duly elected government.  18 United States Code section 371 comes to mind.  That law makes it a crime to conspire with others to defraud the United States government by impairing legitimate government operations.

That’s one of the crimes Special Counsel Jack Smith tried to pin on Trump.  In light of the recent Supreme Court decision on a president’s immunity for executive decisions, Obama might skate on that one.  Not so for Clapper, Brennan, and Comey.

Yet I’m not naive.  Aaron Burr beat the treason charge brought against him, and I have no doubt that these crooked pricks also will escape the noose.  The problem is that, until somebody’s ass is thrown in prison, they’re liable to pull the same crap again.

On March 28, 2025, in Attack of the Robes, I explored the problem of out-of-control federal District Judges, who, by issuing nationwide injunctions, have effectively vetoed President Trump’s Executive Orders, designed to implement the policies that voters endorsed in the 2024 election.  The blatant misconduct of the judges had gotten out of control.

Fancying themselves as super-executives, some of the 680 federal judges have stymied nearly every Trump order, by freezing executive action with nationwide injunctions, also known as universal injunctions.  What this means is, one person brings a lawsuit against the government in say, California.  The judge uses the filing of this single plaintiff to issue an injunction that prohibits the government from implementing its policy anywhere in the country.

Trump 47 Executive Orders were the subjects of more than 40 universal injunctions in five months.  85% of the injunctions came from California, Washington, Maryland, Massachusetts, and D.C., districts replete with berobed progressive ideologues masquerading as jurists.

As lawsuits and appeals take years to resolve, this practice effectively stopped the Chief Executive from governing.  Needless to say, this is not a consequence  intended by the Founders, and had it continued, our nation would have devolved into a judicial tyranny, turning democracy into judocracy, a term I had to make up because it never was intended to exist.

Last week, the Supreme Court finally remedied the situation  in Trump v. CASA, Inc.  Writing on behalf of herself, and the other five Justices on the Court, Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s    opinion drastically curtailed the issuance of universal injunctions.  The three liberal rubber stamps on the Court dissented.

I make the distinction between Justices and rubber stamps on this basis.  A judge or Justice says, “These are the facts, this is the law, therefore this is the judgment that must be reached.”  Rubber stamps, namely “Justices” Sotomayor, Kagin, and Jackson, employ a different methodology.  “Here is the result I must reach, so here’s the judgment.”  Simple, but hardly judicial.

In her majority opinion, Justice Barrett recounts that the use of universal injunctions was nearly unknown from the Founding until the 1960’s.  In the 21st Century, they have become more prevalent.

In a nutshell, the proper role of the Supreme Court is to interpret the question before them in terms of the original intent of the Founders who enacted the Constitution.  By this method, if a practice is not included in the Constitution, was not recognized by English Common Law at the time the Constitution was ratified, or was not granted to the Courts by Congress, then it is not authorized.

Nothing in the Constitution permits universal injunctions, nor was the practice part of English Common Law.  The only Court in the Constitution is the Supreme Court.  All other federal courts are created by Congress, which spells out the limits of their powers.  Congress never granted the right to issue universal injunctions.

Injunction is a remedy available to judges, but as Justice Sotomayor herself has noted, it is relief that may be afforded only to parties to a lawsuit, not to the public at large.

Justice Barrett devoted much of her opinion to a refutation of the dissenting opinion of Justice Katanji Brown Jackson.  This practice in itself is routine.  However, the tone of the refutation was unusually blunt for a Supreme Court opinion.  Normally, when a Justice says something meant to convey the notion that his or her colleague’s position is a load of crap, it’s done in gentle language, such as, “my learned colleague is mistaken.”  Justice Barrett’s take down of the Jackson dissent was no less than a brutal slap down, and one which was well deserved.

Justice Jackson is a product of Harvard.  She served on the Board of Harvard Overseers.  (I thought “overseer” was a racist title).  Anyway, it’s now clear why Harvard is so screwed up.  As a District Court judge, she invalidated a number of Trump 45 Executive Orders, writing, “a President is not a King.”  This made her a perfect Biden appointment to the high Court, which Biden was seeking to “Trump proof.”

In her dissent, Justice Jackson says the real question before the Court wasn’t whether a District Court judge is authorized to issue a universal injunction, because that’s a “mind numbing technical query.”  According to her, the real question is, “may a federal court order an Executive to follow the law?”

Confirming her claim that she doesn’t know what a woman is, Jackson wrote, “those who birthed our nation limited the powers of government to protect freedom.”  (I guess she considers the Founders birthing persons).  Jackson fails to notice that the judiciary is part of the government.  Moreover, judicial tyranny is more dangerous than Executive or Congressional tyranny, because we get to vote for them.  Judges are installed for life.

Justice Barret minced no words, writing that Jackson’s dissent “is not tethered to statute or precedent, nor frankly to any doctrine whatsoever.”  Jackson recognizes really no limit to judicial power.  Justice Barrett writes, “she offers a vision of the judicial role that would make even the most ardent defender of judicial supremacy blush.”  Barrett added, the Jackson position “is at odds with two centuries of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself.” Ouch!

Jackson complains that the analysis of the majority of the Court “involves boring legalese.”  Her prescription?  Once a judge decides something is illegal, everyone, everywhere must comply.  This sort of applies the Left’s Anthony Fauci principle to the judiciary.  Fauci was “the science,” so when he spoke, rightly or wrongly, all were obliged to submit.  Judges are “the law,” so when they speak, “everyone from the President on down must follow the law.”

The Jackson opinion remarkably states that “the Majority is so caught up in the minutiae of the government’s self-serving arguments, that it misses the plot.”  Firstly, every party to a lawsuit makes self-serving arguments.  It’s their job.  And as Professor Jonathan Turley aptly notes the “minuitae” that Jackson complains of consists of things like the Constitution and the Judiciary Act of 1798.  Turley added, “It’s the minutiae that distinguishes  the rule of law from judicial impulse.  Simply put, if one can’t be bothered by such “minutiae,” then one ought to avoid a judicial career.

While Jackson sees the role of the judiciary as overseers of the Executive, Justice Barrett correctly points out that’s not the proper judicial role.  Judges may resolve cases and controversies affecting the particular plaintiffs and defendants before the court.  The judiciary is not a super-government.  Jackson’s overriding principle is “everyone from the President on down must follow the law.”  As Justice Barrett wisely reminds her, “that goes for judges too,” adding, “when a court concludes that the Executive has acted unlawfully, the correction is not for the court to exceed its power too.”

All in all, the majority opinion in this case returns District Court judges to their proper lane, while at the same time conveying the clear message that Justice Jackson doesn’t know what she’s talking about.  When one judge’s review of  another judge’s argument starts with the phrase, “As best we can tell,” the plain language translation is, “disregard that, it’s gibberish.”

Here’s hoping that, with the meddlesome judges out of the way, the Trump agenda can move forward.