Attorney Scott Pilutik wrestles with the news of the day, from a lawyerly perspective…
The FBI arrested six white supremacists (three who entered the country illegally from Canada) in advance of a planned gun rally in Virginia where the FBI claims that a few members planned to “open fire.”
Where some might see a threat from terrorism (and, ironically, illegal immigration), Trump sees a threat to the Second Amendment.
Meanwhile, regarding this story: National Archives Censors Anti-Trump Messages from 2017 Women’s March Photo to Avoid ‘Political Controversy’
The US National Archives justified censoring signs critical of Trump “so as not to engage in current political controversy” in keeping with its non-partisan mission, but when you censor opposition voices, you’re engaging in political controversy.
The National Archives mission statement is to “drive openness, CULTIVATE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION, AND strengthen our nation’s democracy through public access to high-value government records.”
It further claims to accomplish this by “allowing Americans to claim their rights of citizenship, HOLD THEIR GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABLE, and understand their history so they can participate more effectively in their government.” [emphasis mine in both]
The people holding the signs were engaging in “public participation” and attempting to “[hold] their government accountable.” When it mutes the protesting voices, the National Archives is engaging in propaganda, not documentation.
[And in regards to this story: House releases new evidence that show texts between Lev Parnas, Devin Nunes staffer]
The main reason why so many Republicans defend Trump’s indefensible conduct is that they’re equally implicated. House just dropped yet more bombs, this time showing that Devin Nunes’ top aide Derek Harvey was in daily contact with Lev Parnas working to get fabricated Biden dirt. At the very least, Nunes should not have been presiding over the impeachment inquiry. Nunes is still pretending not to know who Lev Parnas is.
And one more: Ken Starr once threatened Monica Lewinsky with criminal indictment if she didn’t testify against Bill Clinton, despite that she bore no actual legal risk had she declined. She caved, as you probably recall, and obtained an immunity deal.
Now suddenly Starr is representing a president facing an article of impeachment charging that he obstructed justice by preventing witnesses from testifying even in the face of a subpoena.
There’s small-h hypocrisy inherent to all politics and then there’s this.
I’m certain Starr will be able to distinguish then and now with cosmetic legal differences for himself and anyone needing such assurance to enter the tank. But c’mon.
