Archive for the ‘Judiciary’ Category

Jonathan Turley’s op-ed should infuriate every civil libertarian across this nation. In the second paragraph of Prof. Turley’s op-ed, he wrote “Juror 1261, we now know, was Tomeka Hart. Her identity would have remained publicly unknown except for a public statement she made after the Department of Justice (DOJ) rescinded its initial sentencing recommendation for Trump confidant Roger Stone. In the midst of the firestorm of allegations of political interference, Hart disclosed that she was the foreperson on the Stone jury and gave a full-throated defense of the trial prosecutors: ‘It pains me to see the DOJ now interfere with the hard work of the prosecutors.'”

Prof. Turley added “That statement led many people to Google her name, and what they found was a litany of postings not only hostile to President Trump and his administration but also specifically commenting on Stone and his arrest — before she ever appeared for jury duty.” What happened after that is frightening. Prof. Turley’s op-ed was essentially an opposition research dump on Hart. Check this out:

Hart is a Democratic activist and critic of the Trump administration. She was the Memphis City Schools board president. Not surprisingly, given her political background (including a run for Congress), Hart has been vocal in public on her views of Trump and his associates.

She referred to the President with a hashtag of “klanpresident” and spoke out against “Trump and the white supremacist racists.” She posted about how she and others protested outside a Trump hotel and shouted, “Shame, shame, shame!” When profanities were projected on the Trump hotel, she exclaimed on Jan. 13, 2018, “Gotta love it.” On March 24, 2019, she shared a Facebook post — no longer public — while calling attention to “the numerous indictments, guilty pleas, and convictions of people in 45’s inner-circle.”

More worrisome are her direct references to Stone, including a retweeted post, in January 2019, from Bakari Sellers, again raising racist associations and stating that “Roger Stone has y’all talking about reviewing use of force guidelines.” She also described Trump supporters such as Stone as racists and Putin cronies.

In addition to her prior statements about Trump, his associates and this case, Hart is a lawyer. That only magnifies concerns that any bias on her part may have had a more pronounced influence on her fellow jurors.

WOW. How could such a person become part of a jury, much less the jury foreperson? Here’s how:

The brief examination in the voir dire hearing shows that Hart did disclose her ties to the Democratic Party. U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson asked if Hart’s political history would prevent her from being fair, and Hart assured her it would not.

Part of the problem, in hindsight, is that Stone’s attorney didn’t know any of this information. Prof. Turley explains that this might be because he’s incompetent or “uninformed.”

It certainly seems Hart had no place on the Stone jury. The Supreme Court has repeatedly declared that the “minimal standards of due process” demand “a panel of impartial, indifferent jurors.” Hart’s record suggests little that is impartial or indifferent. She was perfectly within her right to engage in such commentary and protests — but she had no right to sit in judgment of an associate of the president after her public declarations. Her participation raises serious arguments for setting aside the verdict, from the possibility of ineffective counsel to the denial of due process.

This doesn’t prove that Stone is innocent. It’s just proof that the trial is subject to extensive questioning. The process must be fair from start to finish. That’s the only way justice is consistently done. This exposes Tomeka Hart’s duplicity:

I have to believe that lying or, at minimum, not telling the whole truth, to the judge carries with it a penalty. Apparently, Tomeka Hart is as shady as Roger Stone. She deserves some sort of punishment. This type of behavior isn’t acceptable.

During his interview with Maria Bartiromo this morning, Devin Nunes talked about the corruption within the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, aka the FISC. House Intelligence Committee Republicans have been questioning the FISC’s integrity. Thus far, the FISC’s replies suggest a cover-up. Rather than answering Republicans’ questions, the FISC has stonewalled and given platitudes for answers. At this point, there’s a strong chance that FISA won’t be renewed when it expires this year.

Rep. Nunes expressed his frustration with the FISC during his interview with Bartiromo:

“It’s hard to imagine a worse person the FISC could have chosen outside [James] Comey, [Andy] McCabe, or [Adam] Schiff,” Nunes said. Speaking to Fox News contributor Sara Carter, Nunes added: “It’s a ridiculous choice. The FBI lied to the FISC, and to help make sure that doesn’t happen again, the FISC chose an FBI apologist who denied and defended those lies. The FISC is setting its own credibility on fire.”

It’s important to fill in the details:

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) has stunned court-watchers by selecting David Kris, a former Obama administration lawyer who has appeared on “The Rachel Maddow Show” and written extensively in support of the FBI’s surveillance practices on the left-wing blog Lawfare, to oversee the FBI’s implementation of reforms in the wake of a damning Department of Justice inspector general report last year.

The development on Friday, first reported by independent journalist Mike Cernovich, has roiled Republicans who have demanded accountability at the FBI. House Intelligence Committee ranking member Devin Nunes, R-Calif., told The Daily Caller that Kris’ appointment was “shocking” and “inexplicable.”

Quite frankly, this is what’s meant by the fox meeting the henhouse. By all accounts, Kris is the personification of the Swamp. Putting the Swamp in charge of reforming the Swamp is something that only the Swamp would think is reasonable. The truth is that this truly jeopardizes FISA.

If this is how unserious the FISC is, then they shouldn’t expect support from either side of the political aisle. There’s too much trust invested in the FISC to let it be untrustworthy. In fact, a total overhaul of that institution is warranted:

Earlier this month, the secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) ordered the FBI to re-verify all previous warrant applications involving the FBI attorney who falsified evidence against the former Trump campaign aide Carter Page. However, Fox News has learned the court did not order the FBI to double-check warrant applications involving other officials who made key omissions and errors in warrant applications as the bureau sought to surveil Page.

The FISC’s failure to request a comprehensive evaluation of previous submissions has stunned court-watchers who have questioned whether enough is being done to deter future misconduct by the FBI. In the past, the FISC has gone so far as to prohibit some FBI agents from appearing before the court after finding impropriety.

What’s needed is a reform-minded person to fix the FISC. In fact, I’d argue for hiring someone from outside the FISC to help with the reformation. Andy McCarthy or Trey Gowdy would be at the top of that short list, as would Michael Mukasey. This isn’t the type of thing that I’d entrust to leftists. They aren’t trustworthy. Before reforming the FISC, I’d put together a commission to determine what reforms and safeguards were needed. Mssrs. McCarthy, Gowdy and Mukasey need to serve on that commission. Ditto with Joe Lieberman and Evan Bayh.

Eliminating the FISA Court likely isn’t a legitimate option. That being said, keeping it in its current structure isn’t a legitimate option, either. This needs to get fixed immediately. And I mean fixed, not tampered with.

Now that Speaker Pelosi has caved, Democrats, aka Nancy’s support group, have started spinning things to make it sound like her impeachment delay succeeded. It’s understandable why they’d spin that. They know that she needs to save face to avoid utter humiliation. If she wants to save face, she needs another Botox treatment, not this spin.

Byron York’s article is aptly titled Pelosi caves. In the article, Chuck Schumer is quoted as saying “in the last two weeks, there’s been a cascade of evidence that bolsters the case, strongly bolsters the case, for witnesses and documents.” Consider this the Senate Democrats’ equivalent of House Democrats’ “bombshell testimony” coming from the Schiff Show. Spare me the spin.

During the Schiff Show portion of impeachment, we were told by the corrupt media that that day’s testifiers would provide “bombshell testimony” that would devastate Orange Man Bad. By mid-afternoon each day, that day’s star witness was the one decimated. By the time the Schiff Show transitioned into Nadler’s articles of impeachment hearings, Democrats were sinking fast. Impeachment had backfired to the point that the House Judiciary Committee didn’t bother calling fact witnesses. That’s because Democrats were still looking for a fact witness that wouldn’t hurt them.

There’s speculation that Democrats might try a second round of impeachment. Democrat activists were the only people who took the first round seriously. Why think that anyone would take another round seriously? Doug Collins appears to have this right:

“I believe she finally ran out of options and realized there was no political gain anymore,” Rep. Doug Collins, the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, said in a text exchange Friday. “The case never changed, and the outcome has not been altered, but it appears to have allowed them to talk more about it and try to influence public opinion away from the show in the House and the inevitable result in the Senate.”

The American people aren’t paying attention. They’re too busy enjoying their bigger paychecks, their latest promotions, their rising wages. They’re too busy taking vacations. Washington pundits are paying attention but that’s about it.

Now, the holdout is apparently coming to an end. A trial will begin. Pelosi will undoubtedly keep trying to mess with the president. But the trial will be out of her hands.

Let’s hope for a quick trial. The Democrats’ House impeachment managers don’t have anything to present except hearsay testimony. The Trump legal team should present the transcript of the Trump-Zelenskiy phone call and the whistle-blower’s complaint to provide a contrast between what actually happened and the Democrats’ gossip. If Democrats succeed in calling witnesses, Republicans should call the whistle-blower as a witness. If he’s called, the Trump legal team should insist that he give up the names of the people who leaked information to him.

Further, we know that John Bolton won’t testify. He might get called but President Trump will exert executive privilege. If Democrats want to challenge that in court, that’s their option. It’s also their option to pound their head into a brick wall. No serious judge will side with the Democrats in forcing the national security adviser testify about classified communications between the president and another head of state. It’s time to put the Democrats’ fiasco in the rear-view mirror.

Democrats finally proved that they have a sense of humor when they released the Schiff Report. The report contains enough malarkey to qualify for a Biden bus tour through Iowa. One funny line from the Schiff Report said “President Trump’s scheme subverted U.S. foreign policy toward Ukraine and undermined our national security in favor of two politically motivated investigations that would help his presidential reelection campaign,’ the Democrats’ report said.”

Do Democrats seriously think that Joe Biden has a snowball’s prayer in H-E-Double Toothpicks of defeating a president with a fantastic economy? It’s difficult picturing Democrats getting enthusiastic about Joe Biden at the top of next fall’s ticket. If Democrats publicly take Biden’s candidacy seriously, President Trump doesn’t. President Trump doesn’t picture any Democrat presidential candidates seriously. This was written later in the report:

The President engaged in this course of conduct for the benefit of his own presidential reelection, to harm the election prospects of a political rival, and to influence our nation’s upcoming presidential election to his advantage. In doing so, the President placed his own personal and political interests above the national interests of the United States, sought to undermine the integrity of the U.S. presidential election process, and endangered U.S. national security.

Just how did President Trump endanger “U.S. national security”? Second, if placing their “own personal and political interests above the national interests of the United States” was an impeachable offense, half of U.S. presidents would’ve gotten impeached. The more you read from the Schiff Report, the more people should question its seriousness.

Then the Schiff Report sunk to this low:


A paragraph very early in the Schiff Report contains this information:

During a July 25, 2019, call between President Trump and President Zelensky, President Zelensky expressed gratitude for U.S. military assistance. President Trump immediately responded by asking President Zelensky to “do us a favor though” and openly pressed for Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Biden and the 2016 conspiracy theory. In turn, President Zelensky assured President Trump that he would pursue the investigation and reiterated his interest in the White House meeting.

Here’s what the transcript says about investigating the Bidens:

I wanted to tell you about the prosecutor. First off, I understand and I’m knowledgeable about the situation. Since we have won the absolute majority in our Parliament; the next prosecutor .general will be 100% my person, my candidate, who will be approved by the parliament and will start as a new prosecutor in September. He or she will look into the situation, specifically to the company that you mentioned in this issue. The issue of the investigation of the case is actually the issue of making sure to restore the honesty so we will take care of that and wi11 work on the investigation of the case. On top of that, I would kindly ask you if you have any additional information that you can provide to µs, it would be very helpful for the investigation to make sure that we administer justice in our country with regard to the Ambassador to the United States from Ukraine as far as I recall her name was Yovanovitch.

First, it’s important to notice that the “I have a favor” paragraph is entirely different than the “Investigate the Biden” paragraph. In fact, they’re on separate pages. Where in the “I have a favor” paragraph does it mention military assistance? Further, the “I have a favor” paragraph doesn’t mention military assistance. Neither does the “Investigate the Bidens” paragraph.

Apparently, Mr. Schiff thinks that he can just make things up and people will just take his word on it. Mr. Schiff hasn’t figured out that the American people stopped giving Mr. Schiff the benefit of the doubt years ago. Further, since House Impeachment Committee Democrats voted on a 13-9 straight party line vote to approve the Schiff Report, they’re complicit in Mr. Schiff’s lies.

In response, President Trump engaged in an unprecedented campaign of obstruction of this impeachment inquiry. Nevertheless, due in large measure to patriotic and courageous public servants who provided the Committees with direct evidence of the President’s actions, the Committees uncovered significant misconduct on the part of the President of the United States.

Actually, President Trump didn’t claim executive privilege as often as Bill Clinton claimed it in 1998-99. It’s worth noting that Congress isn’t the final arbiter on claims of privilege. The Constitution gives the Judicial Branch the responsibility of settling disputes between the political branches, aka the Legislative Branch and the Executive Branch. Since Congress didn’t ask the judiciary to settle these disputes over privilege, it’s impossible to take the Schiff Report (or the Democrats who voted to approve it) seriously.

The Schiff Report isn’t a serious report. Its “Findings of Facts” section is especially farcical. That’ll require a separate post, which I’ll write Wednesday.

Alan Dershowitz’s latest article highlights an old phrase attributed to Stalin. According to the article, Stalin said “show me the man and I will find you the crime.” Appearing on America’s Newsroom, former Clinton Independent Counsel Ken Starr told this horrific story:

“The text of the Constitution just entrusts [impeachment] to the good judgment, whether it’s being exercised or not, to the House of Representatives,” Starr said. “But history will, I think, judge this not well. It should judge it not well. [You] didn’t have a full debate on the floor of the House — and that just lends itself to, ‘then to let’s go to court and have this litigated.’ “And of course, the chairman then says, ‘you go to court, you’re in contempt.’

“For [Schiff to] essentially declare guilt… is another procedural irregularity. He should try his best… to give the appearance of fairness and open-mindedness,” he said. “He’s already declared the president substantively guilty, as well as procedurally guilty.”

This isn’t about fairness. It’s about hating the outcome of the 2016 election, then doing whatever it took to string up the guy who defeated the woman who was going to shatter that last glass ceiling. This isn’t an impeachment inquiry. It’s an inquisition:

an official investigation, especially one of a political or religious nature, characterized by lack of regard for individual rights, prejudice on the part of the examiners and recklessly cruel punishments.

Point to anything that Adam Schiff, the Democrats’ Impeachment Chairman, has done to guarantee President Trump’s civil rights. Point to anything that Adam Schiff, the Democrats’ Impeachment Chairman, has done to guarantee the civil rights of anyone who served on the NSC were protected. It’s impossible to highlight such a thing because Schiff isn’t interested in such things. He’s interested in making history even if it means destroying the nation.

The gospel of Dershowitz

Under our constitutional system of separation of powers, Congress may not compel the Executive Branch to cooperate with an impeachment investigation absent court orders. Conflicts between the Legislative and Executive Branches are resolved by the Judicial Branch, not by the unilateral dictate of a handful of partisan legislators. It is neither a crime nor an impeachable offense for the president to demand that Congress seek court orders to enforce their demands. Claims of executive and other privileges should be resolved by the Judicial Branch, not by calls for impeachment.

This isn’t a constitutional crisis. It’s the Constitution working the way Madison, Jefferson and Hamilton codified it to work. The first step is to let the political branches fight things out amongst themselves. The only time the courts should get involved is after the political branches have proven they can’t resolve their differences.

As Dershowitz has said, a dispute isn’t cause for voting on an article of impeachment. It’s cause for letting the Constitution function the way Madison, Jefferson and Hamilton intended it to work. The legislative branch doesn’t resolve disputes. The executive branch doesn’t resolve disputes. Only the judicial branch gets to resolve disputes between the political branches. If Schiff wasn’t in such a rush to impeach President Trump, he’d let the judiciary settle this dispute.

Notice the slap that Prof. Dershowitz gave Mr. Schiff. Prof. Dershowitz said “Schiff calls it a rope-a-dope. There’s another word for it. It’s called checks and balances.” Schiff’s political animus is so strong that he isn’t capable of controlling himself. When Nixon was all but officially impeached, Chairman Rodino put together this roadmap for the House to follow. There isn’t a snowball’s prayer in hell that this roadmap will be considered, much less adopted. Adam Schiff won’t let this be considered. Nancy Pelosi is too partisan to let this become the law of the land.

Everyone knows that President Trump and Vice President Pence, aka Team Fun, are coming to Minnesota this Thursday. Good for them. They’re going all in to flip Minnesota. DFL Gov. Tim Walz sounds worried that President Trump will flip Minnesota. While Ed still thinks it’s a longshot, I still think it’s possible. I think it’s possible because, frankly, the Democrat presidential candidates are pretty mediocre. If there was a positive-sounding moderate voice that didn’t listen to the AOC + 3 crowd, I think Minnesota would be offlimits. Democrats don’t have a candidate that fits that description.

That being said, they’re sending out tons of fundraising emails:

John,
I’m sure you’re aware that President Trump is holding a campaign rally in Minnesota this Thursday, but I wanted to make sure you saw the breaking news that they’re tripling down.

Karen Pence and Lara Trump will now be coming to hold a campaign event on Wednesday, and Vice President Pence will be coming to hold a separate rally on Thursday. For both Trump and Pence, this will be the second time they’ve visited Minnesota this year. They’re going all-in on flipping Minnesota red, and they think they can do it with a message of fear and division.

But we know better. Minnesotans resoundingly rejected their scare tactics up and down the ballot in 2018, and as long as we can hold our own against the avalanche of far-right-wing money headed our way, we will again in 2020. So, with all eyes on Minnesota this week, we need to send a clear message. We’re setting a goal of 500 individual donors by Thursday night and we’re counting on you to hit it.

Most of Gov. Walz’s fundraising email is right but he got one thing wrong. Unfortunately, the thing that Walz got wrong is the biggest thing he got wrong. Lara Trump and Karen Pence don’t think that they’ll flip Minnesota from blue-to-red “with a message of fear and division.” If Minnesota flips, it’ll be because the economy is helping all population groups. The economy is helping minorities like never before. President Trump signed prison reform, which is already helping minority communities. The energy industry is incredible, with the US as the world’s energy superpower.

This looks like fun.

The Democrats, on the other hand, are the dividers. Democrats are the people pushing a divisive faux impeachment drive. Democrats retook the US House by promising the people that they’d fix health care. The Democrats haven’t fixed the problems they promised they’d fix. 33 Democrats joined the Problem Solvers Caucus. Thus far, those Democrats haven’t fixed anything.

When we had unified Republican government, they focused on making life better for the people. Republicans passed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which helped the economy take off like it never did during the Obama administration. They used the Congressional Review Act to repeal the Obama administration’s anti-energy regulations.

To be fair, there’s more to accomplish, like fixing immigration and asylum walls and building the wall between the US and Mexico. We still have to fix health care after the Democrats screwed it up with Obamacare. If you want a stagnant economy and rationed health care, including no private health care, vote Democrat. If you want a strong economy, vote Republican. If you want minorities prospering like never before, vote Republican. If you want your constitutional rights protected, vote Republican.

If you want Congress to waste time on a divisive faux impeachment inquiry, vote Democrat.

Anyone that thinks that Brett Kavanaugh’s family went through a living hell are right. It’s indisputable that the Kavanaugh family went through hell and then some. What’s frightening is that it’s likely that what they went through is nothing compared to what will happen if President Trump or President Pence picks someone like Amy Coney Barrett to replace Justice Ginsberg, especially if that Republican has a Republican Senate.

What Republicans need to understand is that this isn’t a confirmation process. To Democrats, confirming a Supreme Court justice that would tip the balance of the Court to a pro-Constitution majority is political bloodsport. It isn’t hyperbole to say that this is an existential threat to the Democratic Party. The biggest victories in the Democrats’ history weren’t won in the political branches, aka the legislative and executive branches. They were won through the judicial branch.

A judicial branch that isn’t heavily tilted in the Democrats’ direction is a frightening thought to Democrat demagogues. A solid originalist majority on the Supreme Court is the Democrats’ worst nightmare.

The lengths that hardline progressives will go to undermine originalist justices is disturbing. This weekend, the NYTimes ran an article that attempted to take another shot at Justice Kavanaugh that was, putting it charitably, thinly sourced. The ensuing firestorm has been telling:

Democrats couldn’t stop Justice Kavanaugh’s confirmation but that isn’t stopping them from attempting to take a second bite at the proverbial apple. A story that was peddled last year that the NYTimes and the Washington Post rejected at the time is being peddled this year as a new story. The thing about this new story is that it’s being pushed by a Clinton operative who’s refused to be interviewed and whose alleged victim can’t recall the incident. Nonetheless, everyone is hyping the article. That includes the NYTimes, CNN, MSNBC, the Washington Post and various other propagandist websites and networks.

Ancient hatemongers like Nan Aron will be out in force when the next nominee is named. Youthful hatemongers like Pete Buttigieg will criticize Republicans by preaching the liberal theology of taking the Bible out of context. Fictional stories, otherwise known as filthy lies, will be published claiming that the nominee is a combination of being meaner than Hitler, more bloodthirsty than Stalin and more ruthless than Ebenezer Scrooge.

Don’t think that these Democrat activists won’t attempt to subtly intimidate the nominees’ families. Remember that, to these Democrats, this is an existential threat. They won’t stop at throwing the kitchen sink at this nominee. If you think that I’m overreacting, remember what Democrats did to state legislative candidates last fall:

A candidate for Minnesota House in District 15B, Shane Mekeland, said he suffered a concussion when he was attacked while campaigning Friday at a restaurant in St. George Township. Benton County Sheriff Troy Heck said his office is investigating the alleged assault.

In another case, Rep. Sarah Anderson, R-Plymouth, says a man punched her in the arm after she confronted him about kicking some of her yard signs Sunday.

If people think that Democrats won’t come after the next Supreme Court nominee that a Republican makes, they haven’t learned from recent history. If Democrats won’t hesitate in attacking state legislators, why wouldn’t they attack a potential Supreme Court justice?

Republicans better prepare for the next confirmation battle. It won’t be pretty. It won’t be a test of wills. It’ll be a preview of Armageddon.

Now that the first ruling is in on SCERAC’s lawsuit is in, it’s time for St. Cloud Educational Rights Advocacy Council (SCERAC) to lick its wounds, then regroup. The arguments put forth by the Rinke-Noonan Law Firm on SCERAC’s behalf were deemed insufficient.

Specifically, “Stearns County District Court Judge Kris Davick-Halfen on Wednesday denied the advocacy group’s motion for a preliminary injunction and granted the state’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit”, writing “Throughout its filings, (the plaintiff) has made a passionate and thoughtful argument as to why the governor and legislature should provide the St. Cloud school district with the additional funding it requests. Nevertheless, this court cannot grant the relief (the plaintiff) requests and must grant (the defendant’s) motion.”

Later in the opinion, it states “(The plaintiff) does not allege that the St. Cloud District receives less funding per pupil than other school districts. Instead, the … complaint alleges that St. Cloud School District would be able to do more with additional funds. This does not constitute a violation of the Education Clause.”

Later, Davick-Halfen notes this:

When discussing the denial of the preliminary injunction, Davick-Halfen cited a Minnesota Supreme Court case where “a court should examine whether granting the (plaintiff’s) request would ‘maintain the status quo until the case can be decided on its merits.'” “The relief that (the plaintiff) is requesting in this temporary injunction would be a substantial change from what has been occurring,” Davick-Halfen states.

What SCERAC was asking the court to do is order the legislative and executive branches to do something that they chose not to do. This is prohibited by the separation of powers clause. Simply put, Minnesota’s Constitution doesn’t give the Judicial Branch the authority to intervene in the appropriations process. That’s left to the political branches. It isn’t left to the judicial branch.

When it comes to constitutional chicanery, California can’t be beat. Let me rephrase that. When it comes to constitutional chicanery, California can’t be beat, except in court. In this instance, it’ll get beaten like a drum.

Harmeet Dhillon lays out what’s happening when she writes “No one, not Congress, not the president, and certainly not a state government, may unilaterally change the requirements to be president of the United States without first amending the U.S. Constitution.” Then she writes “The U.S. Constitution is very clear as to the requirements to run for president: one must be a “natural born Citizen,” 35 years old, resident in the United States for 14 years. That’s it.”

That didn’t prevent California’s Democrat Gov. Gavin Newsom from signing a bill that attempts to add additional criteria to the Constitution through making new state law. It’s nothing but a PR stunt. That doesn’t mean action shouldn’t be taken. That’s where Harmeet’s law firm comes in:

On behalf of the Republican National Committee, the California GOP, and three Trump-supporting Republican voters in California, my law firm filed for a preliminary injunction in federal court to block this unconstitutional law before it can interfere with the 2020 presidential election. The president and his campaign have done the same.

Good for her. Good for them. It’s what I’d expect from California Democrats. It’s what I demand from Republicans.

Saying that Sen. Tina Smith’s intellectual heft isn’t impressive is understatement. Sen. Snith’s op-ed is filled with Schumer-styled partisanship. What isn’t said is that Senate Democrats went all-in with the Resist Movement in slowing down the confirmation of President Trump’s appointees. What isn’t said is that Democrats did this to keep Obama appointees in key positions as long as possible.

Now, Sen. Smith has written this op-ed to complain that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has said that the Senate is in the personnel business. Sen. Smith has a problem with that, saying “…McConnell has transformed the Senate into little more than the Trump administration’s personnel office, the place where good ideas go to die.”

Had Sen. Schumer, (D-NY), not tied the Senate up in nots with procedural gimmicks, President Trump’s appointees might’ve gotten finished by now. That’s why Senate Republicans changed the rules to limit debate on nominees. Sen. Smith doesn’t mention that fact, though. Then, to pour white gas on the fire she just started, she wrote this:

What that means is that day in and day out, the work of the Senate has been reduced to voting to pack the courts with Trump-appointed, lifetime federal judges, as fast as we can. And because McConnell and the Republicans have dramatically reduced the time for debate on most of these judges — from 30 hours to two — they can pack the courts faster than ever before.

Democrats created this problem. Had Pelosi and Schumer not pledged to empty the rules toolbox to slow down President Trump’s entire agenda, perhaps Sen. McConnell might be more willing to debate bills. Why should he take up far-left bills from the Democrat House knowing that they won’t fix America’s problems?

Then there’s this howler:

Voting on these nominees is part of my job as a senator, and I take this responsibility seriously. I make time to research the background of each nominee, but the truth is, there’s never any real debate.

That’s BS. She was part of a press conference prior to President Trump nominating Justice Kavanaugh to fill the opening caused by Justice Kennedy’s retirement. At that press conference, held hours before the nominee was known, a bunch of Democrats announced that they’d oppose whoever President Trump nominated. What part of that sounds like Sen. Smith and those other Democrats took “time to research” that nominee?

It’s well-known that Smith was the vice president of external affairs for Planned Parenthood of Minnesota, South Dakota and North Dakota. Sen. Smith’s decision to announce how she’d vote on the nominee wasn’t the result of painstaking, exhaustive research. It was the result of Sen. Smith’s far-left ideology on abortion on demand. Sen. Smith tries to keep that part of her history secret. Imagine that.

Sen. Smith is a waste of a Senate seat. She does whatever the Democrats tell her to do. That isn’t just on major issues. Sen. Smith follows the Democrats’ instructions to the letter on virtually every issue. In this video, Sen. Smith looks like the robot she’s been since becoming part of the Democrats’ minority:

Like Al Franken before her, Sen. Smith has been a partisan hack. The thought of her working across the aisle on important issues is laughable. It’s that simple.