The Democrats Brazenly Know They Have Been Demanding Forbidden Disclosures and Unrealistic Deadlines - The American Spectator | USA News and Politics
The Democrats Brazenly Know They Have Been Demanding Forbidden Disclosures and Unrealistic Deadlines

The Democrat deceit never seems to end.

Now that the Mueller Investigation into the Russia Collusion Hoax has blown up in their faces, they are generating new lies, new hoaxes to revive the momentum they have lost. Attorney General William Barr provided Congress with a rapid almost-overnight summary of the Mueller findings, but Pelosi and Schumer, in tandem with the Left-Mediacracy that now is a wing of the Democrat party, rebounded soon enough with ridiculous demands that are built on new lies and hoaxes, chief among them:

  1. Barr summarized in only four pages a report that ran more than 300 pages, obviously a Watergate-quality cover-up.
  2. If Barr deletes any grand jury testimony from the report he releases, it is a Watergate-quality cover-up.
  3. If Barr does not disclose the entire Mueller Report within some four or five days after he received it, it is a Watergate-quality cover-up.

Although some members of Congress may be mentally unhinged — for example, an Amy Klobuchar who throws hard solid objects at people, who eats salads with her hair comb and then makes people wash her filthy comb, and who forces underlings to recite their failings to third parties — most of them really are normal everyday types. Their normalcy works against them because it convicts them of willful deceit. Schumer and Pelosi seem to be normal, not mentally ill, not schizophrenic or paranoiac. That leaves only one fair conclusion: (i) they either are pathological liars who lie so frequently that they do not even perceive they are lying, or (ii) they are more mentally healthy than that and thus know they are lying. To grant them the benefit of the doubt, one must determine whether it is kinder to assume them mentally ill or to assume them pathological liars.

Look more closely, ad seriatim, at the three brazen lies:

1. Summarizing 300-400 Pages in Four Pages

Can the essence of the American Civil War — a four-year war whose annals run far more than 400 pages — be summarized in four pages? Consider this one paragraph:

The Southern economy relied on slavery. The North found slavery immoral. The South refused to let Northern industrial interests force them to abandon their plantation-based agricultural and social system. In addition, the South resented having their states’ rights impinged by a federal government that they believed pursued other interests antithetical to theirs. The Southern states tried to pull away and form an independent country, but the North would not allow them to secede, so a war ensued. It was a terrible war, with brother killing brother for some four years. More people died at Antietam/Sharpsburg than in any other day in American history. More died in two days at Shiloh than in any other two days in U.S. history. More in three days at Gettysburg than in any other three in American history. The South fought valiantly under brilliant generals, led by Robert E. Lee, a West Point graduate who had been offered the opportunity to head the American armed forces but felt greater loyalty to his state of Virginia. He was assisted by brilliant generals like Thomas J. “Stonewall” Jackson, who gained his sobriquet at First Manassas/Bull Run and who gained many brilliant victories, but who was killed prematurely when one of his own men shot him in a tragic “friendly fire” late-night incident as Jackson returned from a scouting mission after winning one of his greatest victories, the surprise attack on Joseph Hooker’s troops at Chancellorsville. Jackson’s left arm had to be amputated, and he died eight days later of pneumonia, uttering the words: “Let us cross over the river, and rest under the shade of the trees.” Gen. Lee would say: “[Jackson] has lost his left arm, but I my right.” Meanwhile,President Lincoln struggled mightily to find a general equal to the task of leading the Union’s armies. He went through so many. George McClellan could train and drill his men, but he often seemed unwilling to fight. Others including Irvin McDowell, Henry Halleck, Ambrose Burnside, Joseph Hooker, and George Meade could not get the job done. Finally, President Lincoln named Ulysses S. Grant. Grant had been a failure in many life pursuits and had a drinking problem, but he proved willing to make tough decisions, to absorb terrible losses, and to keep fighting. He proved to have the mettle to wait out a victorious 1863 seven-week siege of Vicksburg, Mississippi and a nine-month siege of Petersburg, Virginia that helped end the war. The North lost most battles fought on Southern soil, and the South lost all their battles in the North, most importantly the 1863 Battle of Gettysburg that ended with a terrible massacre when Gen. Lee ordered Pickett’s Charge that proved all-but-suicidal. The fighting continued another two years after Gettysburg, culminating in Lee’s surrender to Grant at Appomattox Court House, virtually where the Civil War’s first main battle had been fought. President Lincoln was assassinated less than a week later.

Yes, the above paragraph by design is not all-inclusive. But if this much could be summarized in one paragraph, consider if it went on another three and a half pages. Of course the four-year Civil War could be summarized in four pages! Any 400-page book can be summarized in four pages. There is a 12-volume compendium called “Masterplots” that contains hundreds of plot summaries of the great books of literature, each respectively summarized masterfully in two pages. That is what Attorney General Barr promptly provided Congress immediately after receiving the Mueller Report: a four-page bottom-line summary of the Mueller Investigation findings and conclusions. Of course it could be done in four pages! Anything can be summarized effectively in four pages. With the Passover Seder (one night’s seder in Israel, two nights outside Israel) only three weeks away, one is reminded of this one-line summary of Jewish liberation from Egyptian bondage:

“We were slaves. There were ten plagues. They let us out. They changed their minds and attacked. We won. Let’s eat.”

(The abbreviated version — “They attacked. We won. Let’s eat” — also works for Chanukah and Purim.)

It is a brazen lie, meant to sow civil discord and doubt, to suggest that Attorney General Barr’s summary to Congress was faulty. If it were, Mueller would have spoken out by now and said “I did not devote two years of my life to see the report trashed and mischaracterized this way.” Moreover, Barr knew that he would be releasing the greater report a month later. The man is an accomplished figure who would not be so short-sighted as to undo a lifetime of achievement with a false summary that would be exposed weeks later. Rather, short-term-focused Democrats have projected their own failings and mendacities onto him. Barr’s four-page summary is ample.

2. Withholding Grand Jury Proceedings from Public View

Most Americans have no idea what goes on in a grand jury. As an attorney of more than two decades and a law professor of fifteen years, I do. Most people would be shocked to learn how “un-American” a grand jury is, how many basic Constitutional rights are abridged in a grand jury hearing. Witnesses and the accused may not have their attorneys in the room. They must testify, unprotected by any legal counsel, with no one to rise and object on their behalves to malicious smears and unacceptable and inadmissible questions. The prosecutor becomes buddy-buddy and chummy with the grand jurors, leaves those grand jurors utterly unaware of the unfairness and virtual cheating going on in the grand jury room, all while he or she abuses and threatens witnesses. It is the most unbelievable denial of rights. Why do we even allow such a thing?

The thinking is as follows: If the prosecution is permitted that kind of super-enormous unfair advantage to make its case, and if the grand jury nevertheless emerges still convinced that the prosecution hasnocase, then the accused is spared ever being brought to a public trial. Thus, a grand jury indictment actually proves nothing other than that, well, maybe the prosecution has a case. That is the reason no one is imprisoned after an indictment — because now the prosecution actually has to prove its case under fair rules giving the other side an equal chance to defend. But if a Ferguson grand jury refuses to indict the officer who killed Michael Brown, then we know there is no need to subject him to a public trial. Hands up, Don’t Indict. Case dismissed.

And that is a core reason that the law prohibits disclosing grand jury testimony and information to the public. The law knows that it all has been obtained under unfair one-sided rules that deny the witnesses basic simple civil-liberties protections they would enjoy during a regular open hearing. During the grand jury proceedings, prosecutors make accusations that have no grounds, and they get away with it. After abusing a witness, they may send him or her out of the room, yelling: “Before this is over, you will be sitting in prison for twenty years!” The witness scampers out of that purgatory, with no attorney to rise and object, with no judge in the room to impose sanctions on the prosecutor — and with the grand jurors mistakenly inferring that the innocent person just thrown out will be going to prison.

Those of us who know how the system works know this very well. Many of the Democrats demanding that William Barr disclose grand jury testimony know this, too, because they are attorneys. They are liars — outright deceitful liars — even as they demand that Barr release the grand jury proceedings because “the people have a right to know.” A fair and honest news media would expose the lie and would inform the public, but the Left Mediacracy now are a wing of the Democrat Party. They echo… echo… echo. They are accessories after the crime of lying. And then these media cry when they are called “Enemies of the People.” But the bottom line is unequivocal: Grand jury testimony may not be released.

3. Disclosing Everything Within Less Than a Week

Given the severe legal obligation on Barr to assure that no protected name, confidential fact, protected source, or national-security detail that is contained in the Mueller Report accidentally is released to the public, it always was going to be impossible for him to release the 400-page report in its entirety or promptly. Yes, he could release it in “weeks, not months” — but he never possibly could release it in “days.” The Democrats know that. Most legislators have gone to law school. Any serious civil litigation, no matter the subject (business dispute, car accident, anything) entails a demand for documents. Before demanded documents can be produced, they must be gathered and then reviewed by attorneys or their aides to assure that privileged and protected matters are not released. Thus, attorneys may not hand over documents that contain privileged attorney-client communications, attorney work-product materials that could reveal internal litigation strategies, or proprietary documents that would disclose unique corporate secrets (like the Coca-Cola formula or an algorithm devised by Microsoft or Samsung). The opposing side always has the right to file a court motion seeking disclosure of protected materials, but experienced attorneys know when such motions are without merit. Most state legal codes impose monetary sanctions against attorneys who bring bogus motions for the release of protected documents without substantial justification.

Every lawyer who ever has practiced litigation has done document reviews. Sometimes they run for days, sometimes for weeks. I have worked on and later supervised document reviews that ran many months: a Justice Department investigation into alleged corporate price-fixing, a state prosecution against tobacco companies. The Democrats, except for the bartenders who just got elected, know very well how long a serious document review can take. A former prosecutor like the Honorable Liar from Connecticut, Senator “Da Nang Dick” Blumenthal, knows full well that Attorney General Barr and his team need some serious time to comb through every page of the Mueller Investigation to assure all protected materials are excised and redacted. The Democrats’ demand that the report be handed over in just a few days is a deceit because, except for the recently elected bartender who thinks the world is ending in twelve years and that we amended the Constitution to stop FDR from seeking reelection, they know first-hand, from their own personal experiences, that it cannot be done that quickly.

The Democrats know they have been demanding forbidden disclosures and unrealistic deadlines. It is despicable because it is so brazen.

Dov Fischer
Follow Their Stories:
View More
Rabbi Dov Fischer, Esq., a high-stakes litigation attorney of more than twenty-five years and an adjunct professor of law of more than fifteen years, is rabbi of Young Israel of Orange County, California. His legal career has included serving as Chief Articles Editor of UCLA Law Review, clerking for the Hon. Danny J. Boggs in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, and then litigating at three of America’s most prominent law firms: JonesDay, Akin Gump, and Baker & Hostetler. In his rabbinical career, Rabbi Fischer has served several terms on the Executive Committee of the Rabbinical Council of America, is Senior Rabbinic Fellow at the Coalition for Jewish Values, has been Vice President of Zionist Organization of America, and has served on regional boards of the American Jewish Committee, B’nai Brith Hillel, and several others. His writings on contemporary political issues have appeared over the years in the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the Jerusalem Post, National Review, American Greatness, The Weekly Standard, and in Jewish media in American and in Israel. A winner of an American Jurisprudence Award in Professional Legal Ethics, Rabbi Fischer also is the author of two books, including General Sharon’s War Against Time Magazine, which covered the Israeli General’s 1980s landmark libel suit.
Sign up to receive our latest updates! Register

By submitting this form, you are consenting to receive marketing emails from: The American Spectator, 122 S Royal Street, Alexandria, VA, 22314, You can revoke your consent to receive emails at any time by using the SafeUnsubscribe® link, found at the bottom of every email. Emails are serviced by Constant Contact

Be a Free Market Loving Patriot. Subscribe Today!