Recent rulings by two federal judges in the District of Columbia illustrate how politically biased its entire judiciary has become.  Former Chief Judge Beryl Howell concluded that Donald Trump had not been sufficiently forthcoming in producing documents sought in a defamation suit‚ so she awarded judgment to the plaintiffs in a decision that is certain to be challenged on appeal. She also ruled there were grounds for a ‘crime-fraud exception‘ to Trump’s claims of attorney-client privilege. Earlier‚ she had publicly expressed the hope that federal prosecutors would go easier on J6 defendants who agreed to cooperate with the House’s heavily partisan J6 Committee‚ a rather astonishing breach of judicial ethics. (READ MORE: The Lies of Trump Prosecutor Jack Smith) Along the same lines‚ District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan scheduled Trump’s trial for his attempts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election for March 4‚ 2024‚ the day before the multitude of primary elections on Super Tuesday‚ claiming she had balanced Trump’s attorneys’ need to prepare against the public interest in resolving the case expediently. She also has consistently ruled against Trump’s efforts to subpoena J6 Committee materials. Unsurprisingly‚ both judges were appointed by President Barack Obama. At least at the District Court level‚ Trump has yet to prevail in any substantive motion. Judicial Corruption at Watergate Trials The rulings of these two judges are eerily reminiscent of those of the D.C. judges who came to prominence 50 years ago during the unfolding of the Watergate Scandal. Judge Chutkan‚ for example‚ has distinguished herself for meting out exceptionally harsh sentences to those convicted in the January 6 riots‚ including imposing jail time even when not recommended by prosecutors. One cannot help but be reminded of “Maximum John” Sirica‚ the self-appointed Watergate trial judge‚ who (at the secret behest of Samual Dash‚ Majority Counsel of the Senate Ervin Committee) imposed sentences of up to 40 years on the Watergate burglars‚ but conditioned possible reductions for those agreeing to cooperate with Dash’s committee‚ which was as stacked against Republicans as last year’s J6 Committee. Sirica was also the judge who famously refused to postpone the Cover-up Trial following Nixon’s dramatic resignation‚ despite recommendations by both prosecutors and defendants‚ saying on Aug. 19‚ 1974‚ “There is no better time to try this case than the present‚” and adding (rather astoundingly) “this case does not arouse passions‚ hatred and anger‚” which might have justified a delay.  To the monolithic media‚ Sirica was a national hero and was named Time magazine’s 1973 Man of the Year for his aggressive conduct in the Watergate Burglary Trial. But it is difficult to recall a single instance where he ruled in favor of any Watergate defendant. Perhaps the best critique of Judge Sirica is Renata Adler’s article published in Harper’s Magazine in August 2000. (READ MORE from Geoff Shepard: The 18½ Minute Gap in Watergate Recording) Additional documents surfacing in the past decade shed further light on Sirica’s extraordinary judicial conduct. They detail at least a dozen ex parte meetings with Watergate Special Prosecutors‚ including Archibald Cox‚ Leon Jaworski‚ Henry Ruth‚ and the Ervin Committee’s Majority Counsel Samuel Dash. Those hugely improper meetings‚ along with Sirica’s false sentencing of John Dean‚ show an undeniable lack of due process for Watergate Cover-up defendants. Sirica sentenced Dean‚ Nixon’s principal accuser‚ to a prison term of one to four years‚ for the avowed purpose of increasing his credibility as prosecutors’ lead witness. He then reduced that sentence to “time served” once Nixon’s senior aides had been convicted in the Cover-up Trial.  Had these documents not been improperly removed by the top prosecutors — and kept secret for 40 years — they could well have resulted in overturning Sirica’s Watergate verdicts.  Similarly‚ Judge Gerhard Gesell‚ appointed by Sirica to preside over the Plumbers Trial at the behest of prosecutors‚ also had a series of ex parte meetings with Watergate prosecutors‚ each dutifully noted in their internal records. This was particularly offensive as they successfully lobbied the judge to exclude any national security defense for White House Plumber investigations into leaks of highly classified materials. D.C. Circuit Corruption Continues Any hope that the bizarre rulings by Judges Howell and Chutkan might be reversed by an appeals court in the D.C. Circuit appears remote at best. Its current makeup stems from 10 Democrat appointments against three by Republicans — the desired result of Sen. Harry Reid’s ending the filibuster on judicial appointments in his infamous exercise of the “nuclear option” on Nov. 21‚ 2013. Judge Chutkan‚ in particular‚ is a direct beneficiary of Reid’s action‚ being nominated to the D.C. Circuit on Dec. 19‚ 2013 — just a month later. Political troubles on the D.C. Circuit did not originate recently. Perhaps most egregiously‚ there is Archibald Cox’s ex parte meeting with the D.C. Circuit’s chief judge‚ David Bazelon‚ in October 1973. Cox had become so concerned with Judge Sirica’s pro-prosecution rulings‚ that he feared they would win at trial‚ only to be reversed on appeal. This was particularly true because Sirica was already the most reversed judge in the District‚ typically for running roughshod over defendants’ due process rights to fair trials. (READ MORE from Geoff Shepard: Reevaluating the Saturday Night Massacre) In a highly improper secret meeting‚ Cox urged Bazelon to stack the appellate panel on any appeals from Judge Sirica’s criminal cases. Suggesting that the full nine-member appellate court hear all such appeals‚ thereby assuring the court’s dominant liberal bloc could see to it that Sirica’s rulings would not be overturned. That’s precisely what Bazelon did‚ hearing all 12 such appeals sua sponte en banc‚ that is‚ by the full court from the very beginning‚ a procedure that had never occurred — before or since — in any criminal appeal to any Circuit Court in our land.  The full story is best told by the distinguished jurist‚ D.C. Circuit Judge Laurence Silberman‚ in his last public appearance before his 2022 death. You can find his re-telling at 1:36:27: It’s not just that clear judicial bias has existed in the District for at least the past 50 years‚ the D.C. jury pool remains equally tainted. Its juries are selected from voter registration rolls‚ a pool that voted 95 percent against Trump in his 2016 victory against Hillary Clinton. This is a well-recognized‚ long-standing bias. According to Bob Woodward’s The Brethren (1979)‚ Justice Potter Stewart told Justices Byron White and William Brennan on July 13‚ 1974‚ the day following John Ehrlichman’s conviction in the Plumbers Trial‚ “Stuart said that‚ as a white man‚ he would not want to be tried in the District of Columbia‚ where the juries were predominantly black. ‘You bet your ass‚’ Brennan replied.”  One major difference since Watergate is today’s lack of a media monopoly. Fifty years ago‚ there were only three TV networks: ABC‚ NBC‚ and CBS‚ all headquartered within six blocks of each other in mid-town Manhattan‚ along with two dominant newspapers: The New York Times and the Washington Post‚ and two weekly news magazines‚ Time Magazine and Newsweek. It wasn’t just a single narrative‚ it was a single narrative generated by one group of New York City elitists. Today‚ at the very least‚ such seemingly biased judicial holdings are being publicly challenged — by Newsmax and Fox News‚ by podcasts and talk radio — and the American public is being offered the opportunity to learn first-hand of their potential impact.  Even so‚ one can only wonder about the possibility of private communications going on behind the scenes today — by and between judges‚ journalists‚ prosecutors‚ and Congress — all of which might just surface over the next 50 years. Geoff Shepard came to Washington in 1969 as a White House fellow after graduating from Harvard Law School. He served on President Richard Nixon’s White House staff for five years‚ including a year as deputy counsel on the president’s Watergate defense team. He has written three books about the internal prosecutorial documents he’s uncovered‚ many of which are posted on his website‚ www.shepardonwatergate.com.  The post Yesterday and Today: Judicial Bias in Washington‚ DC appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Homosexuals abusing surrogacy‚ mold‚ and the Boston Tea Party are just some of the subjects considered on this week’s Spectator P.M. Podcast. Hosts Aubrey Gulick and Luther Abel get into what the Supreme Court might think about abortion pills. The two then consider Christmas decor and the merits of tap dance before Luther recommends checking out Ben Stein’s thoughts on aging in “My Life at 79‚” while Aubrey highlights Scott McKay’s thumping of Joe Biden’s failure to secure foreign-aid funds in “It’s Joe Biden’s Fault He Can’t Get the Ukraine Funding.” (WATCH: The Supreme Court Will Hear Case on Abortion Pill. Here’s Why That Matters.) The two conclude by discussing Anne of Windy Poplars and two films Luther finally got around to seeing: Master and Commander and Top Gun: Maverick. Like and share The Spectator P.M. Podcast on all your favorite platforms‚ and be sure to tune in next week! Read Aubrey’s and Luther’s writing here and here. Listen to The Spectator P.M. Podcast with Aubrey Gulick and Luther Abel on Spotify. Watch The Spectator P.M. Podcast with Aubrey Gulick and Luther Abel on Rumble.  The post <;i>;The Spectator P.M. Podcast<;/i>; Ep. 9: Tap Dance Is Joe Biden’s Fault appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Shortly after returning home from Israel‚ I attended a pro-Hamas demonstration in Toronto‚ Canada‚ as a counterdemonstrator. But this was no ordinary pro-Hamas rally. Its participants billed themselves as “Jews Against Genocide.” It was held outside of Indigo‚ a big-box bookstore in Toronto that is owned by Heather Reisman‚ a wealthy Jewish businesswoman and philanthropist. Ironically‚ her store is known for promoting progressive books. But in the eyes of the demonstrators‚ this fact was irrelevant because she had committed an unforgivable sin: She was known for supporting charities in Israel. During an earlier demonstration in front of this bookstore‚ one of the attendees‚ a professor at York University‚ had vandalized the exterior of the building. Afterward‚ she had been arrested and charged with vandalism‚ and added to this was the charge that the crime was motivated by hate. In Canadian criminal law‚ any crime that is deemed to have been motivated by hate can lead to a stiffer sentence. This demonstration was clearly organized at least in part to protect her. READ MORE from Max Dublin: In Their Words: The Families of Hamas’ Victims “Jews Against Genocide” appears to be an umbrella group of ultra-leftist Jewish organizations. They are the ideological heirs to the rump of the numerous Jewish leftist organizations that arose mainly during the Great Depression‚ when it was considered humanistic by many‚ not only Jews‚ to be a communist. However‚ in February 1956‚ Nikita Khrushchev‚ then premier of the USSR‚ delivered a speech to the 20th Congress of the Soviet Union condemning his predecessor Stalin for his cult of personality‚ his violent repression of the population through purges and the gulag‚ and anti-Semitism. As he delivered this speech‚ some members of the audience burst into tears‚ and others had heart attacks‚ thus discovering that they did have hearts after all. This speech‚ which was soon partially leaked‚ created a huge rift in communist organizations both within the USSR and in the West‚ including in Jewish leftist organizations. After the revelations of Khrushchev’s speech‚ many Jews left these organizations entirely‚ and others split away into more mildly progressive organizations‚ while a rump clung to the extremist dogma. The “Jews Against Genocide” are alt-left Jews who are the spiritual and ideological descendants of this rump. It was a fairly large crowd of demonstrators‚ most of whom were wearing masks and many of whom were wearing T-shirts bearing the slogan “Jews Against Genocide‚” along with the obligatory Arab keffiyeh — but it was impossible to tell how many were actually Jewish. There were also a PA system and a table with microphones for speakers. The demonstration was apparently well organized and well-funded. (READ MORE from Max Dublin: A Goldfish in Time of War) When the first speaker began addressing the crowd‚ she said not a word about the atrocities committed by Hamas against Israelis on Oct. 7. Instead‚ characteristically‚ she began her speech by proclaiming the bone fides of her Jewish organization. They were Jews who cared deeply about Judaism and were there to uphold its highest ideals. They were deeply troubled because they remembered the Holocaust and were‚ therefore‚ horrified by the genocide that Israel was now perpetrating against the Palestinians. G.K. Chesterton once wrote: The Devil can quote Scripture for his purpose; and the text of Scripture which he now most commonly quotes is: “The Kingdom of Heaven is within you.” That text has been the stay and support of more … self-righteous spiritual bullies than all the dogmas of creation. This was the Jewish version of that sentiment. The second speaker was full of self-righteous indignation. How could the police have arrested the professor for what was obviously no more than civil disobedience? And to add on the charge of hate crime — obviously the work of an ignorant policeman! This speech was the part of the demonstration organized to exonerate the professor and save her from serving any jail time. And on that account‚ it may very well succeed. Canada’s criminal justice system is not corrupt as is America’s‚ but it nevertheless leans heavily toward excusing offenders. The rally was supposed to be an affirmation of righteousness but‚ despite all its pretenses‚ was clearly a mask of hatred‚ a hatred of Israel and of Jews. It has often been said that this is the ilk of the self-hating Jew. That epithet is a misnomer. Such Jews do not hate themselves. On the contrary‚ they are vain and full of themselves. But they do hate. They hate other Jews and anyone who is situated on the wrong side of the tracks vis-à-vis their touted intersectional ideology. For me the worst part of this experience was to find among this crowd one of my very oldest friends. He greeted me and‚ knowing what I must have been thinking and feeling‚ said this shouldn’t come between us. I said that we needed to talk. He said he did not want to talk‚ but I insisted we had to. We met for lunch the next day. First off‚ I asked him how he thought Israel should have responded to the Hamas atrocities of Oct. 7. He refused to answer and tried to change the subject. He claimed that he too had once been a Zionist but was no more since 1967‚ the year of the Six-Day War. He branded Israel as a settler-colonialist enterprise‚ parroting the propaganda that the Soviet Union had left as a parting shot when it was kicked out of the Middle East back then. All of the rest of his arguments consisted of whataboutisms‚ false-equivalencies‚ half-truths‚ diversions‚ accusations of thought crimes‚ and rhetorical fallacies. For example‚ he claimed that 150 of the Hamas prisoners who Israel released in exchange for the hostages were mere children. How old? Well‚ under 18. And why had they been arrested? No one knows. The obvious implication was that a 15-‚ 16-‚ or 17-year-old was a mere child who could not possibly do any harm or‚ at least‚ could not possibly have known what he or she was doing. (READ MORE from Max Dublin: We (Non-Islamists) Are All Jews Now) These are the mental gymnastics of the moral idiot savant. In her essays on lying in politics‚ Hannah Arendt observed that in order to be able to deceive‚ the deceiver must first deceive him or herself. This is inevitable; if the deceiver is no mere useful idiot and has even a smattering of conscience‚ then he or she must deceive him or herself in order to deal with the cognitive dissonance. Having recently returned from Israel and having witnessed in real time how the left and right sides of the country have now largely united in the face of this threat to their nation’s existence‚ it was particularly repugnant for me to witness this display of Jewish Jew-hatred in the crowd. As to the old friend I found among them‚ I have other friends to the left of me in the political spectrum‚ and we get along well enough by joking and bantering about our differences. I have always felt that people should not let their political differences come between them. But in the case of this particular old leftist friend‚ I felt compelled to make an exception to that rule. The post Throw That York Professor in Jail‚ Canada. Her Vandalism Was Anti-Semitic. appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

These days there are a lot of Christmas dinners with friends‚ family‚ or (the most dreaded) coworkers. The latter often result in impossible engagements‚ layoffs‚ fights‚ and drunken intoxications that would make a Viking blush. Many employees hate Christmas dinner because they believe they should behave in an exemplary manner while their managers drink like crazy‚ yell‚ and tell rude jokes. Since you’ll have to go anyway‚ I’ll tell you: The best defense is a good offense. READ MORE from Itxu Díaz: The Fourth Annual Idiot of the Year Awards First of all‚ the company Christmas dinner is a perfect time to switch jobs. For some strange reason‚ if‚ after two or three cocktails‚ you flirt with the boss’s wife‚ you’ll be fired in less than 24 hours. Many people spend the whole year waiting for such an opportunity for a change.  But maybe you’re of advanced age and this year’s Christmas dinner offers you the chance to go out for your first and last drink of the year. Maybe you want to dance‚ sing‚ jump‚ laugh‚ and fall in love with a girl twice your age‚ weight‚ and income. It’s a great chance to flirt; however‚ you’ll have to update some concepts with respect to how you did it in the ’90s‚ when you were flirting by marking your abs through your white T-shirt‚ leaving anonymous love notes on the blonde girl’s computer‚ and cutting your jeans at the knees.  The compliment‚ the good ol’ pick-up line‚ elegant‚ subtle‚ and exciting‚ no longer works. There are normal girls who will happily receive a compliment‚ but there is also a percentage of young women who take compliments as a sexist offense. Anyway‚ you’re in luck: Generally‚ those who believe that the compliment is sexist sport a very specific aesthetic — the one you would never want to compliment. On the subject of music‚ I’ll just tell you the basics: Don’t dance like your grandmother‚ don’t imitate Freddie Mercury when Bad Bunny comes on‚ and don’t say that the song Karol G sings is actually a copy of one of Billy Joel’s‚ even if in the midst of the drunken confusion you’re absolutely sure it is. Don’t ask the DJ for any Whitney Houston songs‚ let Michael Jackson rest in peace‚ and don’t try to be hip by requesting Miley Cyrus songs; it’s a Christmas dinner‚ not a terrorist attack. Poetry doesn’t really bedazzle the young girls today either‚ so you shouldn’t really bring out your ability to memorize T.S. Eliot’s verses — unless you recite them rapping‚ which might impress her; I don’t know if for better or for worse. Guys now flirt on their cellphones‚ so don’t think it’s rude if‚ while you’re telling that porcelain-skinned brunette how you survived the Vietnam War‚ even though you weren’t born‚ the woman is looking at her cellphone. It’s not that she’s not interested in the conversation‚ it’s just that she’s not interested in the conversation. Anyway‚ to successfully approach her‚ you should also pull out your cellphone and try to have a conversation looking at your screen while she looks at hers. By post-millennial standards‚ I think that qualifies as high-voltage romantic dating. It is also important to take care of your attire. Try not to dress up as the groom at a wedding‚ but don’t look like you just stole a skater’s clothes either. You should be dressed up enough so that the girl doesn’t notice you’re dressed up enough. I don’t know how it’s done‚ but that’s the point.  Finally‚ remember that young girls now no longer want luxury‚ money‚ or exorbitant promises about their future careers. They get that on OnlyFans. What they want is to have a good time‚ to have laugh a lot‚ and that the next day it doesn’t occur to you to even think about calling them for breakfast together.  If my advice fails and you still don’t manage to pick up the cute intern‚ you can always try the old spinster in the accounting department. It may not be as entertaining‚ but while you’re trying to woo her‚ at least you won’t be talking about how the company is doing‚ making coarse statements about politics‚ commenting on the poor quality of the company’s Christmas gifts‚ and generally any of those things that would make you change jobs in 24 hours without even having to hit on the boss’s wife.  Follow me for more DIY tips. Translated by Joel Dalmau. The post Flirting at the Company Christmas Dinner appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

A Not Very Happy Christmas For Young Americans

No Freedom Without Virtue‚ Part Three

From Boston Tea Party to Bill of Rights‚ Celebrating 250 Years of Freedom

Can Israel Be Both a Democracy and a Jewish State?

Filling McCarthy's Seat Is an Opportunity for Republicans and Democrats

‘Tis the Season for Bambi Fajitas