TBR News February 14, 2020
The Voice of the White House
Washington, D.C. February 14, 2020:“Working in the White House as a junior staffer is an interesting experience.
When I was younger, I worked as a summer-time job in a clinic for people who had moderate to severe mental problems and the current work closely, at times, echos the earlier one.
I am not an intimate of the President but I have encountered him from time to time and I daily see manifestations of his growing psychological problems.
He insults people, uses foul language, is frantic to see his name mentioned on main-line television and pays absolutely no attention to any advice from his staff that runs counter to his strange ideas.
He lies like a rug to everyone, eats like a hog, makes lewd remarks to female staffers and flies into rages if anyone dares to contradict him.
It is becoming more and more evident to even the least intelligent American voter that Trump is vicious, corrupt and amoral. He has stated often that even if he loses the
election in 2020, he will not leave the White House. I have news for Donald but this is not the place to discuss it.
Commentary for February 14: “The Albemarle Estate at Trump Winery at Charlottesville, Virginia is a large and gaudy mansion bought by Donald Trump.
It was cleaned and prepared for a sumptuous dinner to announce the creation of a Trump Winery.
Caterers prepared a many-course meal to be served in a glittering dining room with a special gilded chair at the head of the table for the host.
A small orchestra was to be present and every guest to be given a cardboard box containing a bottle of Trump wine.
Engraved invatations were sent out to the elete of Charlottesville’s wealthy population and when the day of the feast arrived, Trump walked around the building, adjusting chairs, puffing cushions and making sure the many large colored photographs of himself were properly placed.
But when the time came for the guests to arrive, no one showed up.
The parking lot was empty and Trump, according to interviewed staff members, became increasingly frantic, running back and forth from room to room and then outside to the terrace to search for guests.
After some time had elapsed, it became evident that he was being boycotted and he flew into a rage, kicking furniture, screaming at staff and turning a bright red in the face.
Following this social fiasco, Trump left Charlottesville, never to return and local wine shops stopped selling Trump wine because no one bought it.”
“Trump aches from his head to his toes
His sphincters have gone where who knows
And his love life has ended
By a paunch so distended
That all he can use is his nose”
The Table of Contents
• Roger Stone furore shows ‘crisis of credibility’ in US justice system, experts warn
• After slamming prosecutors and judge, Trump turns ire on jurors in Stone case
• Juror in Stone case calls Trump attacks ‘appalling’
• Barr: Won’t be ‘bullied’ by Trump on Stone case; jurors appalled
• William Barr says Trump’s tweets ‘make it impossible to do my job’
• American Bar Association Goes After Trump For Blasting Roger Stone Sentencing On Twitter
• US attorney-general called to testify on political interference claims
• U.S. Senate rebukes Trump, votes to limit Iran warmaking ability
• The Season of Evil
• The Encyclopedia of American Loons
Roger Stone furore shows ‘crisis of credibility’ in US justice system, experts warn
Senior figures sound the alarm and say rule of law – and democracy itself – under threat from Trump and DoJ allies
February 13, 2020
by Ed Pilkington in New York
The Guardian
The US justice system is facing a crisis of credibility that could undermine the integrity of federal prosecutors, politicize the legal handling of Donald Trump’s friends and enemies, and ultimately threaten democracy itself, top lawyers warn.
A barrage of former justice department figures have sounded the alarm following a decision on Tuesday by the US attorney general, William Barr, to undercut a sentencing recommendation for Trump’s friend Roger Stone. In a new court filing, Barr’s office condemned the initial recommendation of seven to nine years in prison as “excessive and unwarranted”.
The direct interference of the US attorney general in an individual sentencing decision by his department’s own career professionals was highly unusual. The White House and Trump himself also appeared to be involved, with the president posting a tweet shortly before Barr made his move that called the original sentencing proposal for Stone “horrible and very unfair”.
Trump later congratulated Barr on “taking charge of a case that was totally out of control”.
In the fallout, all four career prosecutors who had framed the initial sentencing recommendation quit from the case in protest.
The new filing and the instant resignations it provoked have now led to an outpouring of rebuke from senior legal figures who cautioned that the rule of law is being shaken by Trump and his DoJ allies.
“This is a crisis of credibility,” said Sasha Samberg-Champion, a former federal appellate attorney now with Relman Colfax. “Nobody knows whether decisions are being made based on the facts and the law, or whether they are based on a political whim.”
Chiraag Bains of Demos, who worked for four years as a DoJ prosecutor, told the Guardian he was shocked by events.
“This will have serious consequences for staff morale at the justice department, for the credibility of justice department attorneys in court, and for the public’s sense that the justice system is fair. How are judges or juries supposed to have faith that prosecutors represent the impartial position of the United States and not a political agenda?” he said.
Two of Barr’s predecessors at the helm of the DoJ expressed their distress. Eric Holder, US attorney general under Barack Obama, said in a statement that the conduct over Stone had “put at risk the perceived – and real – neutral enforcement of our laws and, ultimately, endanger the fabric of our democracy”.
Sally Yates, who briefly held the position of acting attorney general at the start of the Trump presidency, poignantly tweeted that the career lawyers of the DoJ – like the four who had resigned from the case – “are the backbone and the heart of the department. Your noble dedication to the rule of law is the foundation of our republic.”
The insulation of justice officials from any political interference in their handling of criminal prosecutions is seen as the bedrock of the entire US justice system. The concept is enshrined in the mission statement of the DoJ: “To ensure fair and impartial administration of justice for all Americans.”
In the wake of the Watergate scandal, new rules were put in place under the title “White House contacts policy” that severely restrict any communication between the president, his team and justice officials. That wall of separation has been honored by successive Republican and Democratic administrations since 1978.
“Trump has torn down that wall,” Bains said. “He treats the justice department’s prosecution powers as an arm of his political apparatus, to threaten perceived enemies and reward friends.”
Michael Bromwich, who acted as the DoJ’s official ethics watchdog between 1994 and 1999, was so alarmed by the apparent intervention of the White House in Stone’s sentencing that he called on federal prosecutors coming under improper political pressure to report it confidentially to his successors in the inspector general’s office. He said the integrity of government lawyers had been “publicly undermined to suit the whims of the White House”, and said the events amounted to “a cancer on our system of justice”.
Preet Bharara, the former US attorney for the southern district of New York, who was fired by Trump, accused Barr and the DoJ leadership of “humiliating its own career prosecutors, and giving special treatment to the president’s criminal associates. The worst part is they don’t seem even to care any more.”
Bharara is no stranger to the crossing of sacred lines by Trump and his cohorts. A few days before he was dismissed in March 2017, he received a phone call from Trump asking him to talk.
A direct call from the US president to a senior justice official in charge of highly sensitive investigations was utterly against protocol, and Bharara did not pick up the phone. Bharara later told the Guardian it was the best decision he ever made.
“Imagine what it would look like now if I were still US attorney and it became known that I had quiet little chats with the president at the same time we were investigating the Trump organisation.”
That is not the only incident in which Trump has attempted to wield the powers of the presidency to forward his political purposes and help his friends in their tangles with criminal prosecutors. In February 2017, Trump tried to cajole the then FBI director, James Comey, into ending an investigation into the former national security adviser Michael Flynn.
According to NBC News, the interference in Flynn’s case continues to this day. The news outlet reported that, in an echo of the Stone affair, senior DoJ officials intervened last month to try to undercut government sentencing recommendations for Flynn and spare him any prison time for lying to the FBI.
How the current crisis plays out could boil down to what Amy Berman Jackson, the judge in the criminal case against Stone, does next.
Stone was convicted by a jury in November of lying to investigators, obstructing a congressional investigation and witness tampering. Jackson has so far proven herself to be immune to Stone’s legendary wiles. She now exclusively has the power to determine Stone’s sentence.
At the sentencing hearing, set for 20 February, she will also be able to ask the justice department’s lawyer probing and potentially awkward questions.
Barr will come under further questioning on 31 March when he has been called to appear before the House judiciary committee. Democratic leaders of the committee said they wanted to address “the misuse of our justice system for political purposes”.
“This is a test for the entire justice system,” Samberg-Champion said. “It will determine whether political interference will be allowed to happen – because if you allow it once there is nothing to stop it happening again.”
After slamming prosecutors and judge, Trump turns ire on jurors in Stone case
February 13, 2020
by David Morgan and Sarah N. Lynch
Reuters
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – After attacking the prosecutors and judge in the trial of his longtime adviser Roger Stone, President Donald Trump on Thursday turned his sights on the jury that convicted the veteran Republican operative, elevating concerns about political interference in the U.S. judicial process.
Trump referred in a Twitter post to a Fox News story that accused some of the jurors in the case of political bias. “This is not looking good for the ‘Justice’ Department,” Trump wrote.
House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Trump’s comments on the Stone case have amounted to interference in the workings of the U.S. government’s judicial branch.
“This is an abuse of power – that the president is again trying to manipulate federal law enforcement to serve his political interest,” Pelosi, a Democrat, told a news conference. “This is not what America is about. It is so wrong.”
Trump on Tuesday criticized U.S. prosecutors who recommended a prison sentence of seven to nine years for Stone in connection with his conviction in a case stemming from former Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation detailing Russian interference in the 2016 election to benefit Trump’s candidacy.
The Republican president called their sentencing recommendation for Stone, whose friendship with Trump dates back decades, “horrible” and a “miscarriage of justice.”
Hours later, the Justice Department abandoned the recommendation, prompting all four prosecutors to quit the case. One left the department altogether.
In addition, former U.S. Attorney Jessie Liu, who oversaw the Stone case, resigned this week after the White House rescinded her nomination to a Treasury Department post, a source confirmed to Reuters on Thursday.
Trump on Wednesday thanked Attorney General William Barr, a political loyalist he appointed last year, for “taking charge” of the case. He also tweeted criticism of U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson, who is scheduled to sentence Stone on Feb. 20.
“This is the commander-in-chief, this is the top law enforcement officer, and he’s got a right to his opinion,” White House spokeswoman Stephanie Grisham told Fox News.
Trump has said he has not had direct talks with the Justice Department on the matter. The Justice Department has also said it did not confer with the White House, with one senior official on Tuesday calling the timing of Trump’s tweet “an inconvenient coincidence.”
Grant Smith, one of Stone’s defense lawyers, told Reuters that the defense team is examining social media posts, including one by the jury forewoman. Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani also called for an investigation into the jury forewoman, who did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Early on in the jury selection process, Stone’s lawyers were overruled by Jackson when they tried to strike prospective jurors who worked for the government or who had opinions about Trump. Some of the people Stone’s defense expressed concerns about, including a former White House official from former President Barack Obama’s administration, did not make the final cut on the jury, made up of 12 people and two alternates.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham, a Republican and Trump defender, wrote on Twitter on Thursday that he hoped the court would take the jury allegations seriously if the report was accurate, calling it “not fair.”
Justice Department representatives did not respond to a request for comment. Barr is due to testify before a House panel next month.
‘A RED FLAG’
Stone was found guilty in November on seven counts of lying to Congress, obstruction and witness tampering. He was one of several close Trump associates charged in Mueller’s probe, which Trump called a “witch hunt.”
All 10 Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday called on Graham to investigate concerns of interference.
“The decision to overrule career prosecutors to favor one of the President’s associates is shocking and unprecedented,” they wrote in a letter. “This is a red flag.”
Republicans in Congress have largely shrugged off the furor.
Senator Chuck Grassley, who sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee and also chairs the Finance Committee, told Reuters: “I’ll leave it up to a judge to decide whether a juror is biased or not.”
Stone’s supporters are pushing for a presidential pardon, which Trump has declined to comment on.
Trump was acquitted in the Republican-led Senate last week on impeachment charges brought by the Democratic-led House accusing him of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.
Reporting by David Morgan, Sarah N. Lynch, Susan Heavey, Mark Hosenball and Tim Ahmann; Writing by Sonya Hepinstall; Editing by Andy Sullivan and Will Dunham
Juror in Stone case calls Trump attacks ‘appalling’
February 13, 2020
by Sarah N. Lynch and David Morgan
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – A juror who helped convict a longtime adviser to President Donald Trump on Thursday called the president’s attacks on prosecutors, the judge and the jury involved in the case “appalling,” as Democrats accused Trump of interfering in the U.S. judicial process.
Seth Cousins, who served as a juror in the trial of veteran Republican operative Roger Stone, told Reuters he was concerned by developments that prompted all four prosecutors to quit the case.
“It feels like something outrageous is going on,” Cousins said in an interview.
Cousins spoke after Trump posted a Fox News story on Twitter that accused some of the jurors in Stone’s case of political bias.
“This is not looking good for the ‘Justice’ Department,” Trump wrote.
Cousins said he was upset by Trump’s remarks.
“I think it is appalling for the president of the United States to be attacking American citizens for patriotically fulfilling their duties,” he said.
House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi told a news conference that Trump’s comments on the Stone case amounted to interference in the workings of the U.S. government’s judicial branch.
“This is an abuse of power – that the president is again trying to manipulate federal law enforcement to serve his political interest,” said Pelosi, a Democrat. “This is not what America is about. It is so wrong.”
Trump on Tuesday criticized U.S. prosecutors who recommended a prison sentence of seven to nine years for Stone in connection with his conviction in a case stemming from former Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation detailing Russian interference in the 2016 election to benefit Trump’s candidacy.
The Republican president called their sentencing recommendation for Stone, whose friendship with Trump dates back decades, “horrible” and a “miscarriage of justice.”
Hours later, the Justice Department abandoned the recommendation, prompting all four prosecutors to quit the case. One left the department altogether.
In addition, former U.S. Attorney Jessie Liu, who oversaw the Stone case, resigned from the Treasury Department this week after the White House dropped her nomination for a post overseeing economic sanctions, a source confirmed to Reuters on Thursday.
Trump on Wednesday thanked Attorney General William Barr, a political loyalist he appointed last year, for “taking charge” of the case. He also tweeted criticism of U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson, who is scheduled to sentence Stone on Feb. 20.
“This is the commander-in-chief, this is the top law enforcement officer, and he’s got a right to his opinion,” White House spokeswoman Stephanie Grisham told Fox News.
Trump has said he has not had direct talks with the Justice Department on the matter. The Justice Department has also said it did not confer with the White House, with one senior official on Tuesday calling the timing of Trump’s tweet “an inconvenient coincidence.”
JURY
Grant Smith, one of Stone’s defense lawyers, told Reuters that the defense team is examining social media posts, including one by the jury forewoman. Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani also called for an investigation into the forewoman, who did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Early on in the jury selection process, Stone’s lawyers were overruled by Jackson when they tried to strike prospective jurors who worked for the government or who had opinions about Trump. Some of the people Stone’s defense expressed concerns about, including a former White House official from former President Barack Obama’s administration, did not make the final cut on the jury, made up of 12 people and two alternates.
All 10 Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday called for an investigation, but the panel’s Republican chairman, Lindsey Graham, has dismissed that idea.
He wrote on Twitter that he hoped the court would take the jury allegations seriously if the report was accurate, calling it “not fair.”
Other Republicans have largely shrugged off the furor.
“I’ll leave it up to a judge to decide whether a juror is biased or not,” Senator Chuck Grassley told Reuters.
Justice Department representatives did not respond to a request for comment. Barr is due to testify before a House panel next month.
Stone was found guilty in November on seven counts of lying to Congress, obstruction and witness tampering. He was one of several close Trump associates charged in Mueller’s probe, which Trump called a “witch hunt.”
Stone’s supporters are pushing for a presidential pardon, which Trump has declined to comment on.
Trump was acquitted in the Republican-led Senate last week on impeachment charges brought by the Democratic-led House accusing him of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.
Reporting by David Morgan, Sarah N. Lynch, Susan Heavey, Mark Hosenball and Tim Ahmann; Writing by Sonya Hepinstall; Editing by Andy Sullivan and Will Dunham
Barr: Won’t be ‘bullied’ by Trump on Stone case; jurors appalled
February 13, 2020
by Sarah N. Lynch and David Morgan
Reuters
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. Attorney General William Barr said on Thursday that President Donald Trump’s attacks on prosecutors, the judge and jurors in the trial of a longtime adviser undermined the Justice Department’s work, adding he would not be “bullied” by anyone.
In an ABC interview, Barr, the country’s top law enforcement officer, said Trump’s criticism of those involved in the case of Roger Stone “make it impossible for me to do my job.”
Barr spoke after his Justice Department abandoned prosecutors’ initial recommendation to give the veteran Republican operative seven to nine years in prison, prompting all four prosecutors to quit the case.
Trump has weighed in on Twitter all week with comments that have aroused concerns his administration is weakening the rule of law.
“I’m not going to be bullied or influenced by anybody … whether it’s Congress, a newspaper editorial board or the president,” Barr said.
“I cannot do my job here at the department with a constant background commentary that undercuts me,” Barr said, adding: “I think it’s time to stop the tweeting about Department of Justice criminal cases.”
The White House said Trump was not bothered by Barr’s remarks.
“The President has full faith and confidence in Attorney General Barr to do his job and uphold the law,” White House spokeswoman Stephanie Grisham said in a statement.
Trump’s fellow Republicans also expressed support for Barr.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a staunch Trump supporter, said Barr was “a great choice” as attorney general.
“I think if the attorney general says it’s getting in the way of doing his job, maybe the president should listen to the attorney general,” McConnell told Fox News.
Stone was found guilty in November on seven counts of lying to Congress, obstruction and witness tampering.
Trump posted a Fox News story on Thursday that accused some of the jurors of political bias. “This is not looking good for the ‘Justice’ Department,” he tweeted.
Seth Cousins, who served as a juror in Stone’s trial, told Reuters he was “appalled” by Trump’s remarks.
“It feels like something outrageous is going on,” Cousins said in an interview.
“I think it is appalling for the president of the United States to be attacking American citizens for patriotically fulfilling their duties,” he said.
TWITTER ATTACKS
The Twitter attacks started on Tuesday when Trump criticized U.S. prosecutors in the case stemming from former Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election to benefit Trump’s candidacy.
The Republican president called their sentencing recommendation for Stone “horrible” and a “miscarriage of justice.” Stone’s friendship with Trump dates back decades.
Trump on Wednesday thanked Barr, whom he appointed last year, for “taking charge” of the case. He also tweeted criticism of U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson, who is scheduled to sentence Stone on Feb. 20.
Trump and the Justice Department said they had not had direct talks on the matter.
Former U.S. Attorney Jessie Liu, who oversaw the Stone case, resigned from the Treasury Department this week after the White House dropped her nomination for a post overseeing economic sanctions, a source confirmed to Reuters on Thursday.
House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Trump’s comments on the Stone case amounted to interference in the workings of the U.S. government’s judicial branch.
“This is an abuse of power – that the president is again trying to manipulate federal law enforcement to serve his political interest,” Pelosi, a Democrat, told a news conference. “This is not what America is about. It is so wrong.”
Chief Judge Beryl Howell, the top judge on the U.S. District Court in Washington on which Jackson sits, also weighed in, saying in an unusual public statement that public criticism “is not a factor” in sentencing decisions.
‘LITTLE BIT BETRAYED’
In his interview, Cousins said the jury had not discussed politics.
“As a whole group, and in every single conversation that I was involved in or overheard, we never discussed politics as a jury. I have no idea what anyone’s political affiliation is,” he said.
The jurors have kept in touch and followed developments, Cousins said, adding they all “echo the sense of being appalled. Maybe a little bit betrayed.”
Grant Smith, one of Stone’s lawyers, told Reuters the defense team was examining jurors’ social media posts.
Early on in the jury selection process, Jackson overruled Stone’s lawyers when they tried to strike prospective jurors who worked for the government or had opinions about Trump.
All 10 Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee called for an investigation. The panel’s Republican chairman, Lindsey Graham, dismissed that idea.
He wrote on Twitter that he hoped the court would take the jury allegations seriously if the report was accurate, calling it “not fair.”
Other Republicans shrugged off the furor.
“I’ll leave it up to a judge to decide whether a juror is biased or not,” Senator Chuck Grassley said.
Stone was one of several close Trump associates charged in Mueller’s probe, which Trump called a “witch hunt.” His supporters are pushing for a presidential pardon. Trump has declined comment.
The Republican-led Senate last week acquitted Trump on impeachment charges brought by the Democratic-led House accusing him of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress stemming from his dealings with Ukraine.
Reporting by David Morgan, Sarah N. Lynch, Steve Holland, Susan Heavey, Mark Hosenball and Tim Ahmann; Writing by Sonya Hepinstall and Patricia Zengerle; Editing by Andy Sullivan, Will Dunham and Peter Cooney
William Barr says Trump’s tweets ‘make it impossible to do my job’
US attorney general says he will not be ‘bullied’ over decisions – but some observers question his motives
February 13, 2020
by Joan E Greve in Washington, Maanvi Singh and Edward Helmore
The Guardian
The US attorney general, William Barr, delivered a remarkable public rebuke of Donald Trump on Thursday, saying that the president’s tweets about the Roger Stone case “make it impossible for me to do my job” and that he would not be “bullied or influenced” over justice department decisions.
In an interview with ABC News, the attorney general acknowledged his comments could leave him open to backlash from the president, who is notoriously intolerant of criticism from his aides. But Barr said he was determined to lead the justice department without being influence by outside forces, including the president.
“I think it’s time to stop the tweeting about Department of Justice criminal cases,” Barr said.
Ignoring Barr’s criticisms, Trump tweeted on Friday morning, denying that he had attempted to interfere in the case but claiming he could have if he wanted to: “‘The President has never asked me to do anything in a criminal case.’ A.G. Barr [–] This doesn’t mean that I do not have, as President, the legal right to do so, I do, but I have so far chosen not to!”
Barr’s interview came as he faces fierce criticism from Democrats over his intervention in the case of Roger Stone, a longtime confidant of Trump who was convicted in November. Barr this week overruled prosecutors who had recommended that Stone be sentenced to seven to nine years in prison.
The move prompted a crisis of credibility for the US justice system, as top lawyers warned it could undermine the integrity of federal prosecutors, politicize the legal handling of Trump’s friends and enemies, and ultimately threaten democracy itself.
In his interview, the attorney general emphasized Trump “has never asked me to do anything in a criminal case”, but he acknowledged the president’s comments undercut his authority.
Despite Barr insisting he will not be “bullied” by Trump on justice department matters, some commentators were skeptical that Barr was actually trying to distance himself from the president or was working to protect the justice department from interference.
“I don’t think he’s fit for the office because I think what he’s done is undertake a campaign to undermine the Department of Justice,” former deputy attorney general Donald Ayer, told MSNBC.
Ayer, who preceded Barr as deputy attorney general under George HW Bush, added that Barr’s “pattern of conduct” since becoming attorney general involves “intervening out of usual course to protect Donald Trump”.
Former US attorney Preet Bharara tweeted: “I think Bill Barr is shrewd, deliberate, smart, calculating, careful, and full of it.”
An Obama-era justice department official, Matthew Miller, wrote on Twitter: “Don’t be fooled by this one, people. Barr is telling the president that his impulsiveness is making it politically harder for him to deliver the results he wants. If Trump would just shut up, Barr could take care of him much more effectively.”
“The best indicator of future performance is past performance,” wrote the US congresswoman Val Demings, of Florida. “Attorney General Barr’s past performance was to mislead the American people (about the Mueller Report) in order to cover up wrongdoing by the president. Why shouldn’t we believe that’s exactly what he’s doing now?”
In his interview with ABC, Barr added that public statements and tweets about the department and its pending cases “make it impossible for me to do my job and to assure the courts and the prosecutors in the department that we’re doing our work with integrity”.
He said: “I’m not going to be bullied or influenced by anybody … whether it’s Congress, a newspaper editorial board, or the president. I’m gonna do what I think is right. And you know … I cannot do my job here at the department with a constant background commentary that undercuts me.”
The White House press secretary, Stephanie Grisham, responded by saying the president “wasn’t bothered” by Barr’s comments: “[Barr] has the right, just like any American citizen, to publicly offer his opinions. President Trump uses social media very effectively to fight for the American people against injustices in our country.”
The attorney general’s comments come amid an intensifying fallout over the Stone case, after the justice department overruled its own prosecutors who had recommended that Stone, a longtime Trump ally and confidant, be sentenced to seven to nine years in prison. The four prosecutors on the case subsequently resigned in protest.
The department has insisted the decision to undo the sentencing recommendation was made on Monday night before Trump’s tweet calling the recommended sentence “very horrible and unfair”.
Barr, a Trump loyalist, is also under fire for the reversal, which has drawn fierce condemnation from former justice department figures and leading Democrats who have warned of an “abuse of power”.
The Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, speaking on Fox News, said the president should heed Barr’s advice. “I think the president should listen,” McConnell told the host Bret Baier. “If the attorney general says it’s getting in the way of doing his job, the president should listen to the attorney general.”
Barr is not the only high-profile figure to have criticized Trump this week. On Wednesday, the former White House chief of staff John Kelly spoke out against the treatment of the fired impeachment inquiry witness Alexander Vindman.
Stone was convicted in November of tampering with a witness and obstructing the House investigation into whether the Trump campaign coordinated with Russia during the 2016 election. He is scheduled to be sentenced next week.
American Bar Association Goes After Trump For Blasting Roger Stone Sentencing On Twitter
The organization put out a pointed statement about “public officials who personally attack judges or prosecutors” after the president did just that.
November 23, 2020
by Sanjana Karanth
Huffpost
The American Bar Association indirectly denounced President Donald Trump on Wednesday for publicly criticizing the sentencing recommendation for his friend Roger Stone as well as the judge presiding over Stone’s case.
“The American Bar Association steadfastly supports judicial independence and the sound exercise of prosecutorial discretion,” ABA President Judy Perry Martinez said in a statement on Wednesday. “Public officials who personally attack judges or prosecutors can create a perception that the system is serving a political or other purpose rather than the fair administration of justice.”
The message from the organization of lawyers follows Trump’s tweet early Tuesday morning calling the seven- to nine-year sentencing recommendation for Stone a “miscarriage of justice.” The Trump adviser had been convicted of witness tampering and lying to Congress.
All four federal prosecutors who ran Stone’s trial abruptly withdrew from the case after Justice Department leadership intervened to alter the sentencing recommendation later on Tuesday.
Trump also tweeted attacks at Amy Berman Jackson, the judge presiding over Stone’s case. Berman Jackson also presided over former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort’s case.
“Is this the Judge that put Paul Manafort in SOLITARY CONFINEMENT, something that not even mobster Al Capone had to endure?” Trump tweeted about Berman Jackson. “How did she treat Crooked Hillary Clinton? Just asking!”
The ABA message also appeared to refer to Attorney General William Barr, a Trump appointee and ally who has politicized the Justice Department in the president’s favor. Barr appears to have led the effort to reduce Stone’s sentencing recommendation, and Trump seemed to confirm Barr’s intervention in a series of tweets that praised the attorney general for “taking charge” of the case.
“It is incumbent upon public officials and members of the legal profession, whose sworn duty it is to uphold the law, to do everything in their power to preserve the integrity of the justice system,” Perry Martinez said in the ABA statement.
Trump told reporters in the Oval Office on Wednesday that he does not “want to say yet” whether he would pardon Stone, who has served as Trump’s adviser since the 1980s.
“I want to thank the Justice Department,” the president said. “They saw the horribleness of a nine-year sentence for doing nothing. You have murderers and drug addicts ― they don’t get nine years.”
Democratic leaders have demanded an explanation for the Justice Department’s decision to walk back the original sentencing recommendation, with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) saying Trump “engaged in political interference” by tweeting his criticism of the recommendation. Senate Democrats have demanded Barr either resign or face impeachment for intervening in Stone’s case.
US attorney-general called to testify on political interference claims
Justice department faces questions about Trump’s influence after Roger Stone prosecutors quit
February 13, 2020
Financal Times
House Democrats said that William Barr, the US attorney-general, will testify before Congress following allegations of political influence in the case of Roger Stone, a longtime ally of President Donald Trump. Jerrold Nadler, the Democratic chairman of the House of Representatives judiciary committee, said in a letter on Wednesday that Mr Barr, who was previously held in contempt by the House for refusing a request for documents related to the US Census, would appear for a hearing on March 31.A spokeswoman for Mr Barr did not immediately return a request for confirmation of Mr Barr’s appearance.The announcement came as the Department of Justice faced questions over whether senior officials interfered in Mr Stone’s case because of the president’s outrage over the sentence the DoJ initially recommended.On Wednesday Mr Trump gave further ammunition to claims of political interference in Mr Stone’s criminal case, attacking the “rogue” prosecutors who made the recommendation. “Congratulations to Attorney-General Bill Barr for taking charge of a case that was totally out of control and perhaps should not have even been brought,” said the president in one tweet. “Rogue prosecutors maybe?” he said in a second.The move by political appointees at the justice department to overrule the career prosecutors who secured Mr Stone’s conviction at trial has plunged the premier US federal law enforcement agency into perhaps its worst crisis of the Trump administration.
“A prosecutor withdraws from a case when they can’t in good conscience continue to participate. That’s how serious it is,” said Lisa Monaco, a partner at O’Melveny who was a senior justice department official in the Obama administration.Mr Nadler said in his letter he expected the attorney-general to answer questions about the Stone case and also Jessie Liu, the former US attorney who supervised the prosecution until last month and whose nomination to the Treasury department was abruptly pulled on Wednesday.The House judiciary chairman pointed to Mr Barr’s remarks that he had set up a “process” through which the DoJ is receiving information from Rudy Giuliani, Mr Trump’s personal attorney.Mr Giuliani has mounted a campaign against Joe Biden, the Democratic presidential contender, accusing him and his son Hunter of corruption in Ukraine — efforts that were central to Mr Trump’s impeachment, which ended last week in his acquittal. “In your tenure as attorney-general, you have engaged in a pattern of conduct in legal matters relating to the president that raises significant concerns for this committee,” Mr Nadler said in the letter.The controversy surrounding Mr Stone’s sentencing began on Monday when four career prosecutors on his case — Jonathan Karis, Michael Marando, Adam Jed and Aaron Zelinsky — recommended the 67-year-old Republican operative serve seven to nine years in prison for his conviction last year on charges of lying to Congress about contacts with WikiLeaks ahead of the 2016 election and for witness tampering. The prosecutors wrote that prison time would “serve as a powerful reminder that our democratic processes can function only if those called to testify tell the truth, and that serious consequences lie in store for those who do not”.Shortly after midnight on Tuesday, Mr Trump expressed his disapproval on Twitter. “This is a horrible and very unfair situation,” he tweeted.Later that morning the justice department said it would withdraw the seven to nine-year recommendation, insisting it had made the decision independently of the president and before his tweet.The four career prosecutors then quit Mr Stone’s case, with one leaving the justice department entirely, in a scene that had echoes of Richard Nixon’s “Saturday Night Massacre” — when senior leaders at the DoJ quit rather than follow the Republican president’s order to fire the special prosecutor investigating him.“When the public perceives that DoJ has departed from the bedrock principle of apolitical law enforcement, it does incalculable damage to its reputation for fairness and even-handedness,” said Matthew Axelrod, a former top justice department official in the Obama administration, now at Linklaters.Since the Nixon era, presidents have sought to maintain an arm’s-length relationship between the White House and the DoJ. There are strict protocols for contacts between the two entities regarding criminal prosecutions. The norm has its roots in questions about the perception of impartial justice, rather than strict readings of the US constitution, which some conservatives, including Mr Barr, view as giving the president authority to direct DoJ matters as he pleases.Mr Trump has shown little interest in protecting that perception. On Wednesday afternoon he declined to say if would pardon Mr Stone, but said his associate had been “treated very badly”.“People were hurt viciously and badly by these corrupt people. And I want to thank the justice department for seeing this horrible thing,” he said.
Democrats in Congress have called for the justice department’s inspector-general to review the case. Hogan Gidley, a White House spokesman, told the Fox News channel on Wednesday morning that Mr Trump “did not interfere here with anything”.“He has the right to do it, he just didn’t,” he said. A spokeswoman for Mr Barr did not return a request for comment earlier on Wednesday.The reversal in the Stone case has also put a new focus on other investigations of Trump associates, including Mr Giuliani, and Michael Flynn, his former national security adviser.Mr Flynn pleaded guilty in 2017 to lying to the FBI but has since sought to withdraw his plea. Last month prosecutors on his case recommended he serve up to six months in prison, in a reversal from their previous suggestion that he receive no jail time. Several weeks later they abruptly retracted the tougher recommendation and returned to asking for probation.Just a week after his impeachment acquittal, the president has exacted retribution on officials who testified in the House’s investigation and turned his ire on Judge Amy Berman Jackson, who is set to sentence Mr Stone on February 20.He also attacked her treatment of Paul Manafort, Mr Trump’s former campaign manager, whose case Ms Jackson also oversaw. The events have still managed to shock Washington even after years during which Mr Trump has continually and publicly attacked current and former law enforcement officials like no president has before.“Things like this certainly shake the public’s confidence in the justice department and its independence,” said Joseph Moreno, a former federal prosecutor now at Cadwalader. “There never should be a situation where you have four prosecutors resign from a case.”
U.S. Senate rebukes Trump, votes to limit Iran warmaking ability
February 13, 2020
by Patricia Zengerle
Reuters
Eight of Trump’s fellow Republicans joined Democrats to pass the war powers resolution by 55-45. The measure would require Trump to remove U.S. troops engaged in hostilities against Iran unless Congress declares war or passes a specific authorization for the use of military force.
Trump has promised a veto and there is not expected to be enough support to muster the two-thirds Senate supermajority to override. Fifty-three of the 100 senators are Republicans who rarely break with the president.
Senators voted nearly along party lines a week ago to acquit Trump of impeachment charges, after an investigation and trial that underscored Washington’s bitter partisan divides.
Opponents said the resolution’s passage sent the wrong message.
“We need to send a message of firmness, and not weakness,” said Senator Jim Risch, the Republican chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Democratic Senator Tim Kaine, a lead sponsor of the resolution, said the vote showed strength and reflected the importance of Congress weighing in on the decision to deploy troops.
Even if the Senate cannot override a veto, Kaine said the resolution’s backers hoped it would influence Trump when it came to future military action, adding that the president cared about what the public thinks, if not the Senate.
“The bill getting to his desk is an indication that we’re listening to our constituents and we’re telling him blundering into another war would be a bad idea,” Kaine told a news conference after the vote.
The bill’s supporters also noted that they were gaining more support for their efforts to take back Congress’ authority to declare war. The Constitution gives that authority to Congress, not the president, but presidents from both parties in recent decades have expanded the White House’s authority to pursue military action without legislators’ input.
In June, another resolution that would have required Trump to get Congress’ permission before striking Iran failed in the Senate.
The Democratic-controlled House of Representatives passed a similar resolution last month, also by less than a two-thirds majority. In addition, there are enough differences between the Senate’s version and the House’s that it must pass that chamber again before it can be sent to Trump’s desk.
Reporting by Patricia Zengerle, additional reporting by Susan Cornwell; Editing by Chizu Nomiyama, David Gregorio and Jonathan Oatis
The Season of Evil
by Gregory Douglas
Preface
This is in essence a work of fiction, but the usual disclaimers notwithstanding, many of the horrific incidents related herein are based entirely on factual occurrences.
None of the characters or the events in this telling are invented and at the same time, none are real. And certainly, none of the participants could be considered by any stretch of the imagination to be either noble, self-sacrificing, honest, pure of motive or in any way socially acceptable to anything other than a hungry crocodile, a professional politician or a tax collector.
In fact, the main characters are complex, very often unpleasant, destructive and occasionally, very entertaining.
To those who would say that the majority of humanity has nothing in common with the characters depicted herein, the response is that mirrors only depict the ugly, evil and deformed things that peer into them
There are no heroes here, only different shapes and degrees of villains and if there is a moral to this tale it might well be found in a sentence by Jonathan Swift, a brilliant and misanthropic Irish cleric who wrote in his ‘Gulliver’s Travels,”
“I cannot but conclude the bulk of your natives to be the most odious race of little pernicious vermin that Nature ever suffered to crawl upon the surface of the earth.”
Swift was often unkind in his observations but certainly not inaccuratre.
Frienze, Italy
July 2018-August 2019
Chapter 86
Every afternoon, exactly at four, Chuck would call Claude’s cell phone for a report of the day’s activities. There was seldom anything to report at either end of the line. Alex had caught six fish, one of which got away and five of which had ended up in a skillet. Claude did not like defecating in the woods but Alex didn’t seem to mind anything. They were in a remote area with no one around and Alex had taken to walking around naked and perhaps Chuck could have a word with him about this. He, Claude, found he had very little influence in the matter. When on the phone, Alex was very cheerful and admitted to having a substantially sunburned backside, making it painful to wear clothes. He apparently was having a great vacation but looked forward to getting back to his piano. Alex said pleasant things to Gwen and as usual, Lars was incommunicado.
“Alex is being difficult,” Chuck said to Gwen after one of these conversations. “Apparently he’s having a good time but Claude thinks he’s becoming entirely too independent. Well, he’ll be sixteen soon enough and we ought to consider getting him into some kind of a school. What do you think?”
“I don’t think it would do him any good, to tell you the truth. I asked him about this once and he said he hated school and never wanted to go back again. Besides, he’s doing a lot of reading on his own.”
“I know. He reads everything he can lay his hands on including a few books I don’t approve of. But you don’t want him to go away to school because he’s scragging you again, isn’t he? And don’t deny it. I’ve seen you walking around with a silly expression on your face and the two of you playing touchy feelie in the halls. Jesus, Gwen, do you want to get knocked up again? Remember the last time?”
“Oh yes,” she smiled , “the night he left. I wonder how he was able to get up so early in the morning?”
“What? Alex is probably up all the time. If you get pregnant again, dear, don’t
come whining to me. And you are technically in violation of the law.”
“No shit!”
“He’s only fifteen, dear, and you are legally of age. The authorities will claim you have raped him.”
“The authorities will never find out. Besides, we don’t do it all the time.”
“Of course not. Twice a day or three times?”
“Like, let’s say twice a week. But very seriously.”
“Fine, then it’s no school for Alex. You and he can raise a nice family here if you want. The place will look like something out of the Ozarks. By the way, I have a nice joke for you. If a husband and wife from the Ozarks move to California and get a divorce, can they still be called brother and sister?”
“Chuck! That’s awful. I have one for you. Where does a man in Arkansas go for sex?”
“I don’t know, Gwen. Church?”
“No, dear, the family room.”
“That’s enough of that but they do say that the family that lays together, stays together.”
“I think that had to do with prayer, Chuck.”
“Well, get on your knees for whatever suits you.”
She stood up and kicked off her shoes.
“Alex won’t be back for a week so why don’t you and I go upstairs for some recreation?”
“What? Cheating on your boyfriend so soon? My room or yours?”
There were four very expensive television sets in the house but they were rarely watched. Lars used his to view his erotic tapes, Gwen occasionally watched whatever looked interesting, Claude hadn’t turned his set on since he had moved in, Chuck had given his to Alex and Alex never watched anything except an occasional classical music performance on public broadcasting.
It has been a perfect day; warm and clear, and the as the season moved towards summer, the sun was becoming late in setting.
Chuck was sitting on his balcony, his feet up on the railing, watching the westering sun, Lars was in the gym, pounding on a punching bag and Gwen had just gone into her room to watch a program on an Italian fashion show.
A flight of descending crows caught Chuck’s eye and he watched them as they circled a tall pine tree that they were using for a roost.
He heard a faint, rising cry from somewhere in the house. It was a woman’s voice and belonged to Gwen. He had thoughts of Lars running amok or a huge snake crawling about Gwen’s bedroom as he scrambled out of his chair.
The sound, now punctuated by loud and unbelieving phrases, came from her bedroom and he opened the door in some concern.
She was sitting on the end of her bed, her hands pressed against her mouth and her cries were filtered through her fingers.
The television was on and Chuck turned to look at it.
A solemn announcer was just finishing a comment about a grave, national crisis and he turned to Gwen again.
“What in God’s name is going on in here, woman? What happened?”
She pointed to the screen.
“Oh my God, Chuck, someone shot the President! And your uncle! Oh my God! Chuck, do you think it might have been Claude?”
“Shit!”
The announcer was standing in front of some kind of a wooden platform hung about with patriotic bunting. In the background there were knots of people and the flashing lights of emergency vehicles.
“Less than an hour ago, an unknown assassin fired on the platform behind me, killing the President of the United States and Charles Rush, Chicago-based billionaire. We have no idea at this point who the killer was but we have been reliably informed that Secret Service units have joined forces with local law enforcement to search the dense undergrowth of this southern Illinois river community. Let’s watch an actual video of the moment when the President was gunned down. This is from our local affiliate and was taken at a ceremony where Mr. Rush was turning over control of his family holdings to the Department of the Interior as the largest private bird sanctuary in the United States.”
This was followed by a clip showing a large crowd standing on the festive platform. The President was easily identified and Chuck immediately recognized his uncle, standing next to the President on his right. The Secretary of the Interior was preparing to introduce his uncle with the following words:
“…and the generosity of Mr. Rush in making this gift to the people of the United States is both remarkable and deeply appreciated….”
His uncle was smiling and suddenly, his head seemed literally to explode in a burst of redness. The shocked President was just beginning to turn to look at him when his head, too, dissolved in a carmine aura. The cameraman’s hands shook and there was pandemonium on the platform as Secret Service guards closed around the group and others threw themselves down or tried to shove and push off the platform to the dubious safety of the yellowish sandstone embankment behind them.
A Senator from Illinois was seen trampling an elderly member of the Audubon Society in his flight and the clip ended.
“There it is, folks, the actual moment when the assassin’s bullets brought down the President. Both men were removed to the trauma center….”
Chuck was staring at the screen.
“Chuck, Chuck! I asked you if you think Claude did it? Can’t you call him on your cell phone? My God, Alex is with him! Chuck! Call Claude now!”
There was a phone in Chuck’s room and Gwen rushed in behind him.
He punched in the familiar numbers and there was a moment of static followed by Alex’s voice.
“Alex! This is Chuck! What’s happening with you? Where are you?”
“Hey Chuck! Claude and I left off fishing and we’re starting back home. I guess….where are we Claude? Where? Just south of St. Louis Claude says. Is everything OK? You sound weird.”
“You’re OK?”
“Sure. Do you want to talk to Claude?”
“Yes, put him on.”
There was noise and Claude took the phone.
“Yeah. What’s up, Chuck?”
“You went down into Illinois for your trip?”
“Didn’t I tell you?”
“No, you did not. Have you been listening to the car radio?”
“No. Why?”
“The President was shot somewhere down by the river. Gwen is worried.”
Claude’s voice was very flat.
“No problems here, Chuck. Too bad about the President.”
“I don’t want to talk anymore about this. When is your ETA?”
“I’m not pushing it, dad. Around eleven tonight or a little less. That OK with you?”
“Fine. Claude, I want you to call me here on a regular basis. Let me talk to Alex.”
Alex took the phone.
“Yeah? What?”
“This is a cell phone, Alex so mind what you say. I want you to call me here every hour, and let me know exactly where you are. Do you understand me, kid?”
“I understand you. Every hour.”
“Yes. And tell Claude not to drive too fast. OK?”
“OK. What’s the problem?”
“We can talk about this when you get home. Every hour.”
“Got it. Anything else?”
“No. Be good.”
“I will.”
And he cut the connection.
“My God, the rifle! Come on up to the attic with me. I put the gun away up there…”
And both of them rushed up the steps to the vaulted attic. Chuck snapped on the light. The aluminum gun case was gone.
“Oh shit! He took the gun, Gwen. I know he did it but why did he take Alex? I’ll kill him for doing that, I swear I will kill him!”
“Oh no you won’t, Chuck, I will. Come on, let’s go downstairs and wait. We can talk about this downstairs. Come on, let’s go. Turn off the light first. OK?”
And they sat in darkness in the living room, a portable phone on a side table.
Chuck’s anger gradually subsided to the level of reasonable sanity.
“I think it is reasonable, Gwen, to assume that Claude took the gun, drove to where my uncle was having his affair and shot him. I don’t doubt that at all. But he will answer to both of us as to why he took Alex with him. We agree on that, don’t we?”
“Completely.”
“I mean Alex is just a boy and Claude has no business at all involving him in such businesses. We also agree on that, don’t we?”
“Absolutely.”
“First we have to find out just exactly happened. I mean if there was any question about their involvement, they would not be driving up here, would they? They would have been arrested, no question about that.”
“None at all.”
“Maybe someone got a license number. We simply do not know, do we? I have an idea. Let’s watch the television and see what is going on. That way, if they have some identification of the car, I can warn Claude to ditch the car and we can drive down and pick them up. Do you agree?”
Before Gwen could answer, the phone rang.
It was Alex making his hourly report.
“Hey, Chuck! We should be in there in about thirty minutes.”
“Claude must be driving very fast, Alex. I told him to be careful, didn’t I? Doesn’t anyone listen to me?”
“Chill out, Chuck. Everything is fine here and we’re not driving too fast. Say, we’ve been listening to the news about the President. Are you watching it up there?”
“No, we’re very concerned, Alex.”
“You know they got the guy who shot those people.”
Chuck could hear Claude laughing in the background.
“What?”
“Sure. Some local nut named…what was his name, Claude? Amos Wirtz. The cops found him out in the woods, running around with a gun and he tried to shoot them so he is real dead right now. Claude wants to talk to you. I’ll see you all pretty soon. This is real exciting.”
“Claude? What’s this about finding the killer?”
“Sure Chuck. It was on the radio about a half an hour ago. Aren’t you watching this great drama unfold on television?”
“Spare me. I’ll see you when you get back and don’t speed.”
(Continued)
This is also an e-book, available from Amazon:
The Encyclopedia of American Loons
Eliyzabeth Strong-Anderson
Eliyzabeth Yanne Strong-Anderson is a fundamentalist that managed to become something of an internet sensation when she released her self-published book BIRTH CONTROL IS SINFUL IN THE CHRISTIAN MARRIAGES and also ROBBING GOD OF PRIESTHOOD CHILDREN‼ in 2008. Selling for $150 on amazon, the 648-page book is written in all-caps, presumably since God is in Heaven and Heaven is really far away, so God has to scream really loudly for Strong-Anderson to hear him here on Earth. It is also seemingly utterly unconcerned with tense, grammar or punctuation. The first sentence, “”YES: GOD KNOWS YOU HEART AND GOD KNOWS YOUR INTENTIONS: BUT>>: THE VERY ACT AND THOUGHT OF BIRTH CONTROLING> IN A CHRISTIAN MARRIAGE: HAS ROBB GOD AND THE CHURCH OF MANY PRIESTHOOD CHILDREN: **CHILDREN RAISED IN THE LOVE OF JESUS HAS ALWAYS BEEN A TRUTH AND A KEY TO FUTURE AND PROSPERITY OF THE KINGDOM OF GOD AND HEAVEN. **”, really sums up the whole book.
According to her amazon bio, Ms. Strong-Anderson is a “CHRISTIAN EVANGELIST SPEAKER: AND A CHRISTIAN HOLY BIBLE WRITER/TEACHER: CHOSEN AND CALLED BY THE HOLYSPIRIT GOD: MS. ELIYZABETH STARTED TWO CHRISTIAN CABLE TELEVISION PRODUCTIONS IN 1996: CALLED: CHRISTIAN POWER! HEALTH PROSPERITY AND SOUL!! AND > ALSO A: > TEENAGER AND KIDS TELEVISION PRODUCTION CALLED:> CHILDREN RAISED IN THE LOVE OF JESUS. *SHE ALSO STARTED A CHRISTIAN BASE MILITARY CHRISTIAN BOOKSTORES AND MALL CART BUSINESS DURING IN 1991.” Not only that, she apparently “ALSO HAS A 1ST DEGREE BLACK BELT IN TAEJUKENPO KARATE”. According to herself, her book is (apparently) written by God: “THIS IS A HOLYSPIRIT MANUSCRIPT BOOK: WHEN YOU BUY THIS BOOK YOU WILL BE READING A HOLYSPIRIT DIRECTED BOOK FROM GOD; & *CHRIST JESUS. THIS BOOK IS GODS HOLYSPIRIT VOICE:”.
To complete this entry we will just provide a few representative excerpts.
“*THIS WOMEN: ELIYEZABETH YANSTRONG>ANDRESON IS THE WOMEN THAT IS ON TELVISISION. **SHE RECIEVE THE IMAGE FROM GOD: WHEN HE APPEARS AT HER ON HER DREAMS.>> SINCE THEN: SHE HAS: BECOME A CLEAN TEACHER COMFORTER AGAINST THE EVIL BIRTH CONTROL METHDODS AND EVIL CITY MAYORS.***THIS BOOK TEACHED ME MANY>>THINGS AND MY LIFE IS VERY SILMILAR TO HERS LIFE.”
Strong-Anderson on education and science:
“*THE TRUTH IS> MY DAUTHERS GO TO SCHOOL AND HAVE A EVIL TEACHERS:> THEY MAKE THEM DO HOMMWORK. **WHY?? BECAUSE THEY ARE TEACHING THE EVIL WORKS OF DARWIN. **BUT THE TEACHRERS ARE NOT FILL OF THE: HOLYSPIRIT. THEY DONOT KNOW THAT THE TRUE REASON DARWIN WAS MAKING THE THOERIES OF EVULULTION. **HE BELIVED THE TRYANNROSARUS RIX WALKED AT> EARTH ONE MILION YEARS AGO. **THIS IS A LYE. **TAYRENROSUARAS RAX WAS SATAN IN DISGIUSE AS A DINESAUR:>> GOD SAY THE SERPANTS WAS THE EVIL LUCIFER AND LO I AM HERE TO SAVE YOU FROM THEM. ***DARWIN WAS THE SATAN: DISCIPLE. **HE WAS ALSO RACIST. **I TOOK MY DAUTHER OUT OF THE SCHOOL BECAUSE OF THIS EVIL!! **ITS NOT THE WAY OF GOD: AND NOT: THE GOOD WAY OF EDUCATION SUCCESS!! **THE DEVIL IS JEALOUS OF OUR CHRISTIAN LIFE AGAIN!! **”
It even offers health advice:
“THE TRUTH OF INSULINS COMING FROM DOGS OR PIG FLUIDS: IS THE CONSPIRACY TO DEFILE THE HOLY PERSON OR A AFRICAN PERSON. **CAUSING THEM TO TAKE ON A : ABOMINATION OF A UNCLEAN ANIMAL. **THIS IS TRULY THE WITCH DOCTORS WORK. **NOT A GOOD DOCTORS WORK. **INSULIN ALSO CAUSING CRIPPLING DISEASES. **AND TRULY I KNOW IT IS BECAUSE THE INJECTION OF PIG OR DOG INSULIN IS >EVIL AND FROM THE DEVIL. *IT IS NOT OF GOD. **AND THE PEOPLE WHO STARTED DOG AND PIG INSULINS SHOULD GET BLAME FOR MANY BAD CRIPPLING DISEASES THAT DIABETICS GET.”
She does seem to have had to deal with adversity herself:
“EVRY DAY> I ASK TO GOD: WHY I WAS ATTACKED BY THE LASER GUNS WHEN I GREW UP?? **THE ORGANIZED RULER OF DARKNESS: THE EVIL CITY MAYOR: WAS KEEPING RACISM IN THE > STREETS AND IT KEEP ME FROM BEING EMPLOY FOR 10 YEARS!! **THE LASER GUNS OF LUCIFAR!! **BUT IM THE HOLYSPIRIT DISCIPEL: I STAY STRONG FOR MY DAUTHERS> SO THEY DONT GROW UP TO BE DEMONIC DISCIPPLE. **THE SWORD OF GODS MOUTH WILL CRUSH:>>>THE NONBELIVERS.”
The main theme of the book is birth control:
“*BIRTH CONTROLS STOLED THE LIFES OF >THE: FUTURE BABBIES. THERE IS NOT GOING BACK TO THE FUTURE FOR BABYS WHEN: SATAN EVIL DEEDS ARE IN THE DOMINATION. **TRULY WE MUST REMOVE THE ERROR!! **GOD SAYS IT FOR TOMORROW!!>> GENESIS 5&10.**”
And you really need this book:
“AS YOU CAN SEE WHY THIS BOOK IS IMPOTANT FOR EVERY: ONE TO READ. **TEH LORD JUSES DEMANDS ITS TO BE SO!! **OVER A ONE-HUNDRED DOLARS IS CHEAP FOR THIS AMONT OF HOLY INFNORMATON. **YOU WANT TO BE A COMPENTANT HOLYSPIRIT PRACTITIONER DONT YOU?? *GET NOW OR BURN IN HELLFUR!!**”
Diagnosis: Well, we feel just a tiny bit bad about including here, but she really wants to be heard, and she did manage to become something of an Internet sensation back in the days.
Victor Martinez
Woody Martin’s “Blood of Jesus oil” is so daft it probably doesn’t even count as a scam, and doesn’t quite qualify him for an entry here. Victor Martinez is hardly a household name either, but he has some influence in UFO circles, and did for instance moderate the maillist that first broke the hilarious Project Serpo story, a poorly written science fiction story (and possibly intended as a hoax) about how a number of American astronauts visited the (fictional) planet Serpo in a spacecraft reverse engineered from the Roswell crash UFO in the 1950s by travelling 40 times the speed of light. (We’ve covered it before). Of course, many of the maillist’s subscribers, already on board with this kind of stuff, apparently accepted the story as detailing real events.
And Martinez himself is a true believer, who implores his readers not to be sidetracked by inconsistencies and nonsense in the story but rather focus on the bigger picture, “that twelve of our citizens from the United States of America embarked on a 13-year mission to live on another world. That’s where the focus should be – not on all of these petty, nit-picky details! [Like evidence, truth, coherence or physical possibility] That’s what everyone should be in awe of.” Awesomeness trumps veracity every time, apparently. Martinez trust the general veracity of the story because of the testimony of impeccable sources like Richard Doty, Whitley Strieber, who “claims to have met a surviving team member of Project Serpo in Florida,” and a number of conveniently anonymous source who ostensibly talked to an acquaintance of fellow UFO enthusiast Bill Ryan, who (the acquaintance) was “amazed that details were now being released” but doesn’t want his name revealed and would deny everything if asked. When your conspiracy is as far out as Project Serpo you’ll take the sources you can get; to Martinez the story is simply too amazing not to be true.
“Why the secrecy?” wonders Martinez – why is the government not willing to share the details of the mission with him and his followers? The answer, of course, is well withing reach, but we wager that Martinez will never figure it out. Instead, he is patiently waiting for “at least some major announcement regarding the UFO subject being made public;” some government person in power needs to step up since “most people need an authority figure to come out and say this-and-that […] because most people can’t think for themselves. In other words, they can’t weigh and evaluate the evidence on its own merits and come to a definitive conclusion on their own; they need someone to do it for them.”
Diagnosis: Some people are indeed unable to “weigh and evaluate the evidence on its own merits”, but that obviously doesn’t tend to prevent them from coming “to a definitive conclusion on their own”. Martinez is at least relatively harmless.