Category Archives: ATTORNEYS

Trump threatens the very scary Leftist God complex

Trump is the avatar of an American reformation, for he is destroying the dangerous Leftist edifice that has turned our constitutional government into a god.

A few quotations to begin. The first is from Charles Lipson, writing about Mueller’s sinking reputation (and I guarantee that my ellipses are honest):

Republicans add three more serious charges against Mueller. *** Another serious charge — deliberate distortion of evidence — comes from president’s former attorney, John Dowd. He has shown the Mueller report edited one of his phone calls to change its meaning. Dowd is apoplectic, calling the report a “fraud.” Others will join him if additional distortions, misrepresentations, and omissions are found.

The second is from Paul Sperry, who spoke to people caught in the cross hairs of Mueller’s investigation (and, again, my ellipses are honest):

Now that Mueller has ended his probe finding no election collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, 10 witnesses and targets of his sprawling, $35 million investigation agreed to speak with RealClearInvestigations because they are no longer in legal jeopardy. *** Their firsthand accounts pull back the curtain on the secret inner workings of the Mueller probe, revealing how the special counsel’s nearly two dozen prosecutors and 40 FBI agents used harshly aggressive tactics to pressure individuals to either cop to crimes or implicate others in felonies involving collusion. *** Almost all decried what they called Mueller’s “scorched earth” methods that affected their physical, mental and financial health. Most said they were forced to retain high-priced Washington lawyers to protect them from falling into “perjury traps” for alleged lying, which became the special counsel’s charge of last resort.

The third, and final quote, is from William Barr:

Sometimes people can convince themselves that what they’re doing is in the higher interest, the better good. They don’t realize that what they’re doing is really antithetical to the democratic system that we have. They start viewing themselves as the guardians of the people that are more informed and insensitive than everybody else. They can- in their own mind, they can have those kinds of motives. And sometimes they can look at evidence and facts through a biased prism that they themselves don’t realize.

I’ll add a tidbit of my own, something that’s purely anecdotal, so you’ll just have to take my word for it: In my many decades as a lawyer, I’ve faced off against a lot of opposing attorneys. Most were just doing their jobs, more or less aggressively or effectively. Some, though, were deliberately dishonest. As far as they were concerned, the rules did not apply to them. Without exception, these unethical lawyers graduated from Ivy League law schools in the years after 1984.

This is not to say that every Ivy League law graduate with whom I dealt was dishonest. In fact, the majority were honest and some were even good attorneys. It’s just to say that every unethical attorney with whom I dealt came out of the Ivy League. In this regard, I’d like to point out that Andrew Weissman, Mueller’s second in command, a man with a reputation as an attack dog, and the person apparently in charge of the way in which the investigation proceeded, graduated from Columbia Law School, probably around 1984 or not long after.

I always got the feeling that the unethical Ivy Leaguers with whom I dealt truly believed that laws were for little people. When they looked in the mirror, they saw themselves as superior beings, above the ordinary rules. In their own minds, their Ivy League credentials elevated them to demigod status. They were oblivious to the fact that it’s dangerous when men think of themselves as gods, no matter how minor the deity they feel themselves to be.

Robert Mueller may technically be a Republican (although I’d classify him as almost fanatically “Never Trump”), but the others on his team were all Democrats. I’m sure some of them would claim religious belief but I can’t escape the feeling that these Mueller-team Democrats, in common with all modern, hardcore Democrats, reserve their highest and greatest faith for government.

To the modern Progressive, government is the instrument that will perfect mankind and save the earth. Government is the repository of power, both beneficent and punitive.

Progressives aren’t entirely wrong about the god-like qualities government possesses. I’ve already noted its all-encompassing control, as well as it’s ability to giveth and taketh away. Government is also effectively immortal for, as Reagan memorably pointed out, “No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we’ll ever see on this earth!”

Moreover, socialism reveals that the god of government is as jealous as Allah, for you may never worship any entity more than you do the government itself. In openly socialist nations, religious worship is outlawed. In less openly socialist nations — that would be Europe and the Progressive wing of America — God is denigrated, ridiculed, and maligned. The whole gay marriage movement has proven to be nothing less than a sustained attack on Christianity, both at a doctrinal and a practical level.

But here’s the really important distinction between religious gods and the god of government: The traditional Gods, whether from the Bible, the Koran, the Hindu pantheon, or even Greek or Roman mythology, all exist outside of humankind.  Government, however, is different: In Soylent Green fashion, government is people!

The ugly truth, though, is that men make lousy gods. I cannot think of a single man who has set himself up as a god, from Icarus to Nero to Caligula to Hitler to Stalin to Mao to Pol Pot to the whole miserable Kim family, who hasn’t come to a terrible end and, except for Icarus, taken thousands, millions, or even tens of millions of people with him.

Men who believe themselves to be gods are unconstrained by any rules, most especially the golden rule. Actual religions always have some element of the golden rule in them; government does not. There is no morality in government, just power. That’s why, going back to the quotations that opened this post, you have lawyers at the highest level of American politics falsifying evidence; entrapping people; and telling themselves that they, no matter what they do, are acting in the highest and best interests of “good government.”

The Leftists who make up both the open state and the Deep State, who walk the halls of Congress and huddle in bureaucratic offices, have succumbed to self-worship and no longer feel themselves bound by the morality that constrains all of us “little people.” Were the Leftists to have their way, we would be entirely ruled, not just by one Nero, but by an army of them, all wrapped cozily in their self-deification, meting out harsh punishments to all who falter in their government worship. The very fate the Founders feared when they wrote their exquisite Constitution, one intended to constrain government power, would be visited upon us.

No wonder the Left hates Trump so much. He threatens their god head. Even as they call him a tyrant and dictator, he is slowly but surely reining in government. He’s smashing its altars, shrinking its doctrinal rules (i.e., regulations), and investigating a priesthood (i.e., government bureaucrats) that’s become dangerously corrupt. This is the American reformation, and all I can say is, “Thank God — the real God that is — for it.”

The post Trump threatens the very scary Leftist God complex appeared first on Watcher of Weasels.

Harvard Law School turns its back on humane jurisprudence

Harvard Law School has abandoned one of the core principles of American jurisprudence — a citizen’s right to counsel when standing alone before the state.

I went to law school in a red state during the Reagan era. As you can imagine, law and order was a big deal there and then. Early on in my Constitutional Law class, our professor (a very famous Con Law scholar, I might add) asked the class for a show of hands signaling which of us would be willing to represent a defendant we knew was guilty of a heinous crime. Not a single hand went up.

He scolded us soundly and I have never forgotten what he said. I can’t remember it verbatim, I’m sorry to say, but I can remember the gist:

He said that, because the state’s police power is so vast; because it is judge, jury, and executioner; because it has a permanent cadre of lawyers dedicated to prosecuting law that they know intimately; and because of the breadth and depth of the state’s access to information, no one should ever have to face the law entirely alone.

Every individual, no matter how awful he is or seems to be, should have someone at his side when facing the awesome majesty of the government. We do this, not to allow bad people to escape justice, but to ensure that the government doesn’t abuse the tremendous power it has.

I found that very profound. But apparently my professor — and I did mention that he was a very famous Con Law professor — would be drummed out of Harvard Law School for that viewpoint:

A Harvard Law School professor who became a lightning rod on the Ivy League campus for working on the legal defense team of Harvey Weinstein has been let go as a faculty dean.

Neither Ronald Sullivan Jr. nor his wife Stephanie Robinson will continue as faculty deans of Harvard’s Winthrop House when their terms end next month, the university said Saturday.

Rakesh Khurana, dean of Harvard College, announced his decision in an email to residents of the school’s Winthrop House, calling the situation “untenable” and saying it was “informed by a number of considerations.”

Sullivan has been under fire from students since January when he emerged as one of the attorneys representing Weinstein in the media mogul’s upcoming trial where he faces multiple sex-crime charges.

From everything I’ve read, Harvey Weinstein is a scum bucket. He’s also an individual faced with the awesome majesty of the state, which acts as judge, jury, and executioner, and which has aggressive prosecutors on its permanent payroll (courtesy of the taxpayers). Our constitutional system holds that he is entitled to have a friend at his side in the court to make sure that the government does not abuse its incredible power. It is ironic that Harvard Law, probably the most prestigious law school in the country, has decided to punish the professor who took on that role.

Harvard Law School’s allegiance to law, to due process, to constitutionality, and to ordinary human decency is so tenuous as to be non-existent. And here’s the really funny thing: Ronald Sullivan Jr. is black. Given how Lefties are certain that the criminal law system is fatally flawed because of how it treats blacks, it’s ironic that it is demeaning a black man who is working to ensure justice within the criminal law system.

We in America take due process for granted without realizing how tenuous it is. About 15 years after Franco’s rule ended, I was on vacation in Spain with my mother. She was driving along at a modest speed because (a) that was how she drove and (b) she was in a foreign country. Nevertheless, a police officer pulled us over. We weren’t unique in being singled out. There were several police officers and they were pulling over every car they could.

The police officer who pulled us over was a happy, smiling man. He came over, announced that we were speeding, and told us to pay him the equivalent of $500. You’re going to write a ticket, right? That’s what we tried to mime at least. No. He was very clear. The money now, he indicated with a smile, or I arrest you. Fortunately, we had taken cash with us and were able to give it to him. We noticed that everyone else was paying up too.

When we arrived at our hotel, the clerk spoke fluent English. We explained to her what happened, because we thought we had fallen into the clutches of a particularly corrupt group of cops. She enlightened us: That’s how it’s done in Spain, she said. It’s a remnant of the Franco period. The cops are a law unto themselves and function as judge, jury, and executioner. Some of the money they collect even gets returned to the public till, although most lines their pockets.

I don’t know if that’s still the case in Spain, but I do know that’s the case in Vietnam, a communist country without an American-style constitution and without due process. A friend just returned from a visit to Vietnam. She told us how their guide got pulled over for speeding when he wasn’t speeding, and how he paid the cop then and there. When she and her husband commiserated with the driver, he shrugged. That’s just how it is in Vietnam. Police are judge, jury, and executioner.

Thanks to our Founders’ genius, our constitutional system is entirely about dis-empowering government. Part of that means that cops are neither judge, nor jury, nor executioner. They are merely authorized to bring people within the process. Once individuals are in the process, they need to be assured that someone will make sure that, as to them, that process is fair. That’s what lawyers are for. They’re not there to cheat or manipulate the law; they’re there to keep the government honest.

Harvard Law School no longer believes in the principle that criminal defense attorneys exist, not just to defend alleged criminals, but to keep the government honest. Instead, Harvard Law School has become so Leftist that, as to those it deems guilty (regardless of the absence of any formal process proving that guilt), it has abandoned any pretense of putting due process fetters on the law. And if one of its own forgets that animus trumps principle, even if he’s black, Harvard Law School will punish him.

(Image of Professor Sullivan from his Twitter Feed.)

The post Harvard Law School turns its back on humane jurisprudence appeared first on Watcher of Weasels.