Tuesday, September 26, 2023

How Republicans Will Botch the Biden Impeachment

Pro-impeachment wing headed for 
the ‘boring’ and ‘complicated’ traps


The most powerful response to Ben Shapiro’s tired mantra of “facts don’t care about your feelings” has always been “feelings don’t care about your facts.” Most simply, strong appeals to pathos will always triumph over attempts at stone-cold, emotionless logos.

But perhaps, aside from using emotional manipulation to distort the truth, the only other pitfall that is even more devastating to the “facts and logic” approach is a complete oversaturation of information, to the point that even those in pursuit of data and knowledge become either completely bored, or struggle to make sense out of a plethora of talking points even after the slightest bit of digging.

The pro-impeachment wing of the GOP is about to fall victim to both of these traps.

The Art of Storytelling

In a previous article, I warned that the GOP’s knee-jerk reaction to the Trump indictment would be an impeachment of Joe Biden, and that such a move would backfire tremendously on the party through a very clever appeal to emotion by the Democrats.

To make a long story short, the GOP will be – and by some, already has been – painted as making the impeachment not about Joe Biden himself, but rather, what his son Hunter has done.

Beyond the fact that it is much more difficult to tie these accusations back to Joe himself, rather than just make it about the President from the onset, some are already going straight for the heartstrings by bringing up the Biden family’s genuinely tragic past. Some, such as former Senator Claire McCaskill, have already begun framing the narrative that Biden is being punished by the opposition party for simply being a loving father, standing by his son after their family has experienced such disasters as accidental deaths, health complications, and histories of substance abuse. It may very well be totally fictional, but that’s the point of storytelling.

It is just a fact that the Left have become much better storytellers than the Right, and this is due in large part to their complete dominance of the culture, from Hollywood and academia to pop culture and social media. It is this acquired skill that has allowed the Left to not only dictate what goes up on the big screen or small screens in households across the country, but has also allowed the Left to successfully fabricate new realities out of thin air, from the myth of the gender pay gap to the absurd, yet now widely-accepted, belief in transgenderism.

The Stability of Simplicity

But one of the key elements of successful storytelling at a mass scale is something that the Right has still failed to understand: Simplification.

Four years ago, as the Democratic majority in the House of Representatives was preparing their narrative for the first impeachment of President Donald Trump, a political cartoon was released drawing a contrast between then-Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee Adam Schiff and then-Ranking Member Devin Nunes. With an obviously pro-impeachment slant, the cartoon depicts Schiff holding a sign that simply reads: “Trump → Ukraine → Bribe.” Meanwhile, Nunes holds a massive banner with a wide variety of names and phrases – including “Deep State,” “Fake News,” “Steele Dossier,” “CIA,” and “Hunter Biden,” among many others – with arrows pointing to and from every other term in wild directions.

To be clear, the citation of this cartoon is not meant to be a criticism of the work of former Congressman Nunes, whose actions undoubtedly marked the first step towards completely debunking the entirety of the “Russian collusion” hoax. But the point made by the cartoon still stands, a painfully accurate indictment of the GOP as a whole rather than any one congressman.

The Democrats’ narratives are able to be spread far and wide because of their simplicity. On “Russian collusion,” they always stuck to the script: “Donald Trump colluded with Russia to steal the 2016 election and install Trump as president.” On the Ukrainian phone call that led to the first impeachment: “Trump called the President of Ukraine and tried to pressure him into investigating Trump’s top political opponent ahead of the 2020 election.”

By keeping the narratives as straightforward as possible, it not only became easier to mindlessly repeat the story across all the major news networks, whether by members of Congress themselves or through their talking head puppets in the media, it became easier for their supporters on the ground to tell all their friends and neighbors. In mathematical terms, it always was as simple as “A = B, and B = C; therefore A = C.”

And, however easy their labors were, the fruits have already been borne for all to see. Despite President Trump’s vindication by Robert Mueller, a significant portion of the population – including those who would otherwise be apolitical – still genuinely believe in the “Russian collusion” hoax, even to this day.

An Overabundance of Details

By contrast, Republicans just cannot help themselves whenever they are trying to depict the latest big “scandal” from Democrats. The multiple congressional investigations leading up to the official impeachment inquiry have put this obsession with the details on full display. While Democrats keep their narratives, fact or fiction, to the simplest “A is B, thus C” explanations, Republicans will go on massive diatribes about how all 26 letters of the English alphabet – and perhaps even some letters of the Greek alphabet – are all connected in their own ways.

As far back as James Comer’s first major press conference, the GOP determination to be as comprehensive as possible has made for repeated disastrous efforts to effectively sell the message of Biden’s corruption. Despite multiple new revelations regarding payments from Romania and China that only add to the Bidens’ increasing mountain of suspicious foreign transactions, any potential substance to the presentation was bogged down by 30-page memos, promises of new subpoenas, and other vague details that made it all too easy for the mainstream media to dismiss it outright as a convoluted mess.

With the formal beginning of the impeachment inquiry, accusations have only increased exponentially, including such tangential stories as something involving the wife of the former Mayor of Moscowdiamonds from a Chinese businessman, and alleged campaign violations by the Biden campaign in 2020, among numerous other stories that have continued to flood the zone and over-saturate the market for Biden-related scandals.

Some have argued that the issue is simply a matter of choosing the right spokesman. Comer, for example, is not the most photogenic and objectively lacks in speaking and presentation skills; thus, one would say that the solution is to simply replace him with a more eloquent member of Congress. Names that have been floated for this purpose include conservative firebrands such as Matt Gaetz and Marjorie Taylor Greene. But as any film enthusiast would tell you, even a great actor can only do so much with the script they’ve been given.

Storybooks, not Encyclopedias

The Right’s tendency to over-detail their every claim and accusation has predated the latest impeachment effort. Perhaps one of the best representations of this trend that is not meant as an ironic political cartoon is this gargantuan graph from The Epoch Times, detailing the involvement of every major player and side character in the plot to spy on President Trump’s 2016 campaign.

While the full-resolution image is indeed very informative and would make for the basis of an intriguing tell-all book that would be promoted at many a D.C.-based think tank, the fact is that a massive cheat sheet like this completely and utterly defeats the purpose of effective messaging. If you present the average American with this billboard-sized chart and expect them to read through it themselves, do not be surprised if many of them balk and then turn away after fully processing the sheer size and volume of it.

If your goal is to persuade the voters that corruption is to be found here, the last thing you want to do is give them homework; it is incumbent upon you to explain the matter to them as concisely as possible, so that your followers can then spread that same simple message to their friends, coworkers, and neighbors. If the brave few try to memorize the entirety of such a colossal pile of information, they will more than likely forget many details, and come across as a raving, bumbling lunatic just as the mainstream media portrays them to be. Even if they were to succeed in reciting the whole of the Epoch Times’ chart from memory, they would simply encounter the same comprehension problem with anyone they are trying to persuade, and the dilemma continues anyway.

Some might respond to this theory with the suggestion that it implies most American voters are unintelligent or uninformed. Only the latter is true: It is the GOP’s responsibility to inform voters in a coherent way since the mainstream media has no intention of doing so. But just because someone fails to find interest in a cumbersome laundry list of names, dates, entities, and other details does not mean they are stupid. It is a perfectly normal reaction to be adverse to excessive levels of required reading in order to understand something, especially if it is not a mandatory assignment like you might find in a classroom.

President Trump understands the importance of simple messaging, and has maximized it before: From simple campaign slogans such as “Make America Great Again” and “Build the Wall,” to nicknames like “Crooked Hillary” and “Low-Energy Jeb.” He didn’t need specific bullet points outlining a 12-step policy program to win the presidency and start a seismic shift in the American political landscape. But as always, the Republican Party has failed to learn anything from the example set forth by President Trump.

To anyone outside of the Jim Jordan fan club, or those who still watch Sean Hannity with a genuine belief that a bombshell will drop any day now, it is still clear that impeaching Biden is a bad strategy that presents no rewards and only risks for the Right; with roughly one year to go before a crucial election, it is a bet that would make most gambling addicts sweat profusely. But at the very least, if the GOP are indeed fully committed to going through with impeachment, it would serve them well to stop hyperventilating over seventh- and eighth-degree examples of alleged corruption by the Biden family, and instead narrow it down to the most basic explanations possible about why he should be impeached.

If they cannot even sell the American people on the impeachment that they insisted on launching, then the best-case scenario will find a second Trump term, starting in 2025, once again dealing with a Democrat-controlled Congress. The worst-case scenario is self-evident: Biden will get up to four more years, with a renewed interest in revenge, and two Democratic majorities ready to help him round up the rest of the opposition.



X22, On the Fringe, and more- Sept 26

 




Meanwhile, More Than One-Third of Democrat Voters Think Americans Have 'Too Much Freedom'


Mike Miller reporting for RedState 

Are you sitting down? OK, so here's the thing: According to a recent RealClearPolitics poll, more than three out of 10 Democrat voters think the people of America enjoy "too much freedom." 

Imagine that: a substantial percentage of the Democrat Party — AKA: the party of "tolerance" and "inclusion" — wants to deny free speech or censor the First Amendment rights of people who don't believe as they believe.

Shocked? Me, neither. Here's more:

“Overall, 9 in 10 voters in the U.S. think First Amendment protections for freedom of speech is a good thing, while only 9% think it is a bad thing,” said pollster Spencer Kimball, who directed the RCP survey. “This is agreed upon across the demographics, like party affiliation, age, and race.”

For those who oppose censorship and put a premium on the free flow of ideas, that’s the good news. But there is bad news, too. Inevitably in our nation’s current hyper-partisan political environment, when one bores down on this subject, deeply divergent perspectives emerge — partisan differences.

Painting with a broad brush, Democrats grant significantly more deference to government than do Republicans when it comes to regulating free speech. This wasn’t the only fault line revealed by the RCP survey.

Some of what is dividing these differences is generational, as Millennials and Gen-Z have come of age in a digital age environment in which reasonable expectations of privacy seem a relic of the past. 

“Those under 30 are most open to censorship by the government,” Kimball noted, adding that 42% of this cohort deem it “more important” to them that the government protect national security than guard the right to free expression. Among those over 65 years old, the corresponding percentage was 26%.

The fundamental reason Democrats invariably defer to more government rather than less is because they view themselves as the government. Their ultimate goal is the creation of a permanent underclass that's beholden to the government — namely, the Democrat Party — to not only take care of them from the proverbial cradle to the grave but also to protect them from the evils of the Republican Party.

Here are some of the specific findings of the poll:

Republican voters (74%) and independents (61%) believe speech should be legal “under any circumstances, while Democrats are almost evenly divided. A bare majority of Democrats (53%) say speech should be legal under any circumstances, while 47% say it should be legal “only under certain circumstances.”

Nearly one-third of Democratic voters (34%) say Americans have “too much freedom.” This compared to 14.6% of Republicans. Republicans were most likely to say Americans have too little freedom (46%), while only 22% of Democrats feel that way. Independents were in the middle in both categories.

Although majorities of Democrats, Republicans, and independents agree the news media should be able to report stories they believe are in the national interest, this consensus shifts when it comes to social media censorship. A majority of Democrats (52%) approve of the government censoring social media content under the rubric of protecting national security. Among Republicans and independents, this percentage is only one-third.

Poll respondents were read this statement: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” Only 31% of Democratic voters “strongly agreed” with that sentiment, compared to 51% of Republicans.

Fully three-fourths of Democrats believe government has a responsibility to limit “hateful” social media posts, while Republicans are more split, with 50% believing the government has a responsibility to restrict hateful posts. (Independents, once again, are in the middle.)

Democrats are significantly more likely than Republicans to favor stifling the free speech rights of political extremists. Also, Republicans don’t vary by the group: Only about half of GOP voters favor censorship — whether asked about the Ku Klux Klan, Nazis, or the Communist Party.

In a reiteration of my earlier point, the definition of "tolerance," in the collective minds of the left, is: 

"You must not only tolerate our radical agendas; you must also embrace them. Publicly. However, if we oppose your agendas, we will reject them outright. Publicly. And we will do our damnedest to destroy you if you don't cease and desist at our command."

In other words, the American Democrat Party is the most hypocritical group of people on the planet, constantly preaching inclusion and tolerance while showing nary an ounce of it to those they oppose. 

The Bottom Line

The best (worst) part of the Democrat psyche is that these people are incapable of self-awareness, of recognizing their own hypocrisy and irony — and they have no idea how much comedic value they provide the rational among us.

That — and their desire to destroy America as we know it, of course.



Roman Balmakov's 'No Farmers, No Food' Exposes a Global Agenda Against Our Food Supply


Journalist and senior correspondent Roman Balmakov is probably the most recognizable face of The Epoch Times and its visual media arm, EpochTV. Balmakov hosts the program Facts Matter, where he deep dives into a particular political or cultural issue and lays out the facts surrounding that topic, rather than doing the typical cable news format of featuring a lineup of talking head experts and analysts who opine on the issue. What I also like about his program is that Balmakov attaches his research and notes in the video so that anyone can dig deeper into the information for themselves. 

It was one of those deep dives into the farmer protests in places like the Netherlands and Canada that Balmakov recognized a pattern of facts: Government, whether through policy, laws, or regulation, was squeezing farmers' ability to produce food. Generations of families who had worked and managed their land for decades, if not centuries, were suddenly unable to produce, pay their bills, or feed their own families. Balmakov is a young man, so he had the drive, energy, and his publication's backing to travel around the world and investigate this looming global food crisis. A crisis that is pretty much being ignored by most of the legacy media.

The result of his year-long deep dive is an Epoch Times original documentary premiering on Monday: No Farmers, No Food: Will You Eat The Bugs? I sat down with Balmakov last week to discuss his journey of discovery and why we should be very afraid about what the World Economic Forum, the United Nations, and other globalist elites have planned for us.

WATCH

The thought of a world where we are forced to eat bugs is sickening, and we know that Klaus Schwab, who looks like he never missed a meal in his life, is not going to be incorporating bugs into his diet. It's all on us, and the latest globalist push is to force you and me to do this in the name of saving the planet. Balmakov does an able job of exposing this not-so-hidden agenda behind global so-called green policies, like the nitrogen restrictions being imposed in the Netherlands, and the untold stories of farmers who are being forced out of business because of them. Balmakov points to how this disruption already occurring in the food supply will only grow worse, while edible bugs are being promoted and marketed as THE solution. 

WATCH:

Like my guns, they can pluck my bacon and steak out of my cold, dead hands. Sadly, they may be willing to have it come to that. If you haven't noticed, food prices have skyrocketed, and portions of shelves are empty. Despite the toxic composition and faulty processingfake meat is continually being pushed alongside the real thing. The clueless complain a little, but mostly just keep on trucking, particularly the urban dwellers as Balmakov noted,

Oftentimes people in urban centers, in the cities, they kind of forget about that fact and they vote for government policies that actually handcuff farmers and just strip them of any ability to provide a living for themselves.

Lest we also forget, American farmers are equally under attack. Thankfully, we have a U.S. Constitution and a legal system that was geared to favor the landowner. However, those lovely urban dwellers and low-information voters who already own nothing continue to make inroads to destroy the sovereignty of not only generational land ownership but their ability to earn a living off their land.

In California, Governor Gavin Newsom has made moves to destroy the water supply that flows from the Klamath River, supposedly for the sake of the Cohe salmon. Five years ago, it was the Delta Smelt. Their playbook is nothing new, and they make no attempt to be subtle. Save the planet, ruin people's lives.

Right now, they're having in on the Klamath River, which is sort of in the north part of the state. They have the Klamath Dam removal project. It's the largest dam removal project in the world. And they're doing it to supposedly save this salmon, the Coho salmon. I know this example very well because we went there and we talked to the local ranchers we featured in the documentary. They're trying to save this Coho salmon by removing this dam, but there's so many questions like, Did the Coho salmon ever even swim in this area? Like, the only example they have of it is this 1907 image. It's super black and white grainy, and it shows a bunch of farmer—bunch of fishermen holding up fish that look like salmon. But like you, you don't know. And they're using that as the evidence for the Coho salmon being there for like, 100 years. But in the process of that dam removal project, they're destroying the local community. I mean, the water situation there is just abhorrent. So, all the local ranchers are telling me their property is worthless. They're going to have to wind up selling it at a complete loss. You mentioned how the federal government is gonna destroy the homestead. Well, this is one of the ways. Like, if you can pull the water, well, I mean, a homestead without water rights is worthless, right?

But places like Florida, Texas, and Alabama have homestead laws that protect the rights of the landowners against government overreach and lawsuits. No surprise that many blue state dwellers are flocking to these red states. But despite these stronger protections, our federal government finds ways, both insidious and overt, to undermine these protections. 

WATCH:

The end-goal of all this: Return the country back to industrial revolution overcrowding and ghettos. The UN's Agenda 2030 touts so-called sustainable development in order to save the planet, but what they are really concerned with is removing individual freedom and choice. You will own nothing, eat the bugs, and be happy... or else. As Balmakov indicates, while no one can point to an organized "global" agenda per se, the policies being pushed by governments around the world are geared towards stripping autonomy and gaining control.

WATCH:

No Farmers, No Food: Will You Eat the Bugs? premieres September 25 on EpochTV. It is a compact, one-hour documentary that lays out the facts in sobering and sometimes frightening detail. Well worth your time, and an essential tool in understanding how to maintain your own individual liberties, which is our right given by God and our U.S. Constitution. 

As Balmakov encourages at the end of each Facts Matter program, "Stay informed. But most importantly, stay free."



Biden Continues to Import as Many Illegals as He Can Get Away With, Breaks Multiple Records in August


Mike Miller reporting for RedState 

Despite protestations to the contrary from Joe Biden, DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, and Karine Jean-Pierre, the most inept White House press secretary in recent history, the administration continues to import as many illegal aliens as it can get away with — and it will continue to do so, as long as it can.

In August, the Biden administration broke several illegal alien importation records, including record inflows of all illegals, illegals from Mexico, and non-working dependents.

Keep in mind, as we continue, that throughout the 2020 presidential election campaign season, with respect to illegal aliens, Biden promised everything from welcoming mariachi bands, piñatas for the kiddos, and one-way-only, northbound people movers all along the southern border.

So, how bad was it? 

In just one example, in 2022, 250,000 soon-to-be illegals crossed the rainforest in Venezuela on their way to the U.S. border. This year, the number has already topped 360,000.  

The August Records

Yep, in August alone

1: Biden’s deputies welcomed about 260,000 migrants across the border in August, or 23 times the inflow of 11,652 migrants in October of 2020, or Fiscal Year 2021. That date was President Donald Trump’s last full month before his defeat in the 2020 election.

The 260,000 arrivals in August 2023 include 232,972 migrants allowed across the border as Title 8 migrants, plus the monthly inflow of roughly 30,000 migrants each month who are being invited to fly into U.S. airports from their home countries.

2. Biden’s pro-migration border chief — Alejandro Mayorkas — also welcomed 55,502 Mexican migrants, even though he has the legal authority to send the migrants back over the border. This is an 11-fold jump from December 2020 — which was Trump’s last month in office — when 4,758 Mexicans were allowed across the border.

Mayorkas is accepting more Mexican migrants in exchange for cooperation from Mexico’s pro-migrant government, which is now helping to regulate — not stop — the flow of worldwide migrants across its territory. The Mexicans’ cooperation minimizes the media visibility of Biden’s global inflow into American society.

3. Mayorkas is also extracting more migrants from the Central American countries of Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras. This flow has jumped from 3,766 in December 2020 under Trump, up to 79,190 in August 2023. That growth marks a 21-fold increase by Biden.

4.  Mayorkas is also expanding the number of migrants that use his “CPB One” cellphone app to ask for appointments at the official gates at the border. The gates are managed by the Office of Field Operations (OFO), and they processed 51,913 migrants in August, up 47-fold from the 1,106 migrants admitted by OFO during Trump’s last full month.

5.  [A] record inflow of women and children, nearly all of whom are trying to join men who were allowed into the United States in prior months. The inflow of dependents reached 131,144 in August, up 60 times from the inflow of 2,162 in October 2020.

With no end in sight, and as I said at the top, the Biden administration will continue its damnedest to continue to import as many illegals as it can get away with.

And Then There's Eagle Pass, Texas

As my colleague Sister Toldjah recently reported, even the Hispanic Democrat mayor of Eagle Pass is fed up with the never-ending insanity of the Biden Border Crisis. 

See alsoDemocrat Mayor of El Paso Hammers Biden Administration on Border Crisis.

And the Biden illegal alien importation band plays on, from California to Florida, with no end in sight. 

The Real Impact of Illegal Alien Importation

While the left argues that illegal aliens take only menial jobs (not racist at all, by the way, my Democrat friends) and, therefore, don't impact the jobs or wages of everyday Americans, others argue that the sheer number of illegals streaming into the country is already impacting wage scales for (non-union) blue-collar workers.

I'm not qualified to make the above call, but in 2022, George J. Borjas, a professor of economics and social policy at the Harvard Kennedy School, weighed in on the issue.

I’ve been studying immigration for 30 years, but 2016 was the first time my research was cited in a convention speech. When he accepted his party’s nomination in July, Donald Trump used one of my economic papers to back up his plan to crack down on immigrants and build a physical wall: “Decades of record immigration have produced lower wages and higher unemployment for our citizens, especially for African-American and Latino workers,” he told the cheering crowd. 

[…]

[It] might be hard for many Americans to process, but anyone who tells you that immigration doesn’t have any negative effects doesn’t understand how it really works. When the supply of workers goes up, the price that firms have to pay to hire workers goes down. 

Wage trends over the past half-century suggest that a 10 percent increase in the number of workers with a particular set of skills probably lowers the wage of that group by at least 3 percent. Even after the economy has fully adjusted, those skill groups that received the most immigrants will still offer lower pay relative to those that received fewer immigrants.

Let's just call it "supply (of workers) and demand" (for jobs) and move on. 

The Bottom Line

I know I've written the following more times than I can remember, but I'm going to write it again.

When Democrats can't win by the rules, their kneejerk reaction is to cheat. When cheating isn't sufficient, they do their damnedest to change the rules. With respect to the never-ending Biden Border Crisis, we see both strategies. 

Joe Biden and the Democrats (falsely) believe that if they import enough "future Democrat voters," they can permanently change the political demographics of this country.

I parenthesized "falsely" because I've been convinced since at least 2018 that a majority of future Hispanic voters are not going to play the roles written for them by the Democrat Party.

End of story.



Murdoch Again – Hannity Will Host Debate Between DeSantis and Newsom


This is so transparently silly and yet simultaneously obvious in motive.

Both Gavin Newsom and Ron DeSantis are the approved corporate candidates for 2024.  CTH pointed out this effort a year ago, and all of the datapoints since then have perfectly aligned to the simple truth of the thing.  Either DeSantis or Newsom is acceptable to the Sea Island crew, and guess where the debate will take place. Yep, Georgia. lol

The intelligence glow-worm known as Sean Hannity, who will have to quickly learn the shut-up skills needed to be a debate moderator, is the chosen performance artist for the nonsense.   Hannity will likely take the multinational duo on a tour through the questions of policy that he would provide as solutions, and then ask each participant to give their opinion of Hannity’s, “I used to be a dishwasher and I know things” proposals.

FOX News Channel’s Sean Hannity will moderate a red vs. blue state debate between Florida Gov. and Republican presidential candidate Ron DeSantis and Democrat California Gov. Gavin Newsom, FOX News Media announced Monday. 

The 90-minute event will air at 9 p.m. ET on Nov. 30 in Georgia, marking the first time the two prominent governors will face off in a debate.

“I’m looking forward to providing viewers with an informative debate about the everyday issues and governing philosophies that impact the lives of every American,” Hannity said. (more)

This entire nonsense is so predictable; here’s my original graphic from 2022.  lol 😂🤣😂


Judge In Fulton County Trump Case Reveals How Dangerous This Prosecution Is To Our Country

Fulton County D.A. Fani Willis is the last person who should be deciding whether federal officials can question shoddy elections.



Did former President Donald Trump ask then-Assistant Attorney General Jeff Clark’s legal opinion concerning Department of Justice options for addressing voting irregularities in Georgia, or did Clark volunteer his legal analysis on the question without the president’s prompting?

The federal judge presiding over Clark’s removal case, who will decide whether Clark must defend himself in the Democrat stronghold of Fulton County or in a Georgia federal court, focused on that question during last week’s hearing. In doing so, the judge revealed just how crazy—and dangerous—this political prosecution is to the future of our constitutional republic.

Currently, Clark faces criminal charges in Fulton County, Georgia, after get-Trump prosecutor Fani Willis obtained a sprawling grand jury indictment against him and 18 co-defendants, including former President Donald Trump. That mid-August indictment charged the defendants with supposed crimes related to “alleged postelection interference with the 2020 presidential election in Georgia.”

A week after the indictment dropped, Clark sought to remove the criminal case against him to federal court, based on a federal statute, codified at § 1442(a)(1). That removal statute provides that a “criminal prosecution that is commenced in a State court” against an “officer” of the United States or any federal agency may “remove” the case to a federal court if the prosecution is “for or relating to any act under color of such office…”

A 2020 Draft Letter to Georgia Lawmakers

In arguing for removal, Clark stressed that Willis’s charge against him rested on a Dec. 28, 2020 draft letter he presented in his role as assistant attorney general to his superiors, Jeff Rosen, then acting attorney general, and Richard Donoghue, then deputy attorney general. Clark urged Rosen and Donoghue to sign the letter addressed to the Georgia governor, the Georgia speaker of the House, and the Georgia president pro tempore of the Senate.

It stated that the DOJ was “investigating various irregularities in the 2020 election for President of the United States” and noted that “we have identified significant concerns that may have impacted the outcome of the election in multiple States, including the State of Georgia.”

“In light of these developments,” Clark’s proposed letter continued, “the Department recommends that the Georgia General Assembly should convene in special session so that its legislators are in a position to take additional testimony, receive new evidence, and deliberate on the matter consistent with its duties under the U.S. Constitution.” 

Drafting Legal Opinion Letter Isn't a Crime

Rosen and Donoghue refused to sign the letter and took issue with Clark’s view of the facts. That made Clark’s drafting of the letter a crime, according to the Fulton County indictment that charged him with “criminal attempt to commit false statements and writings” for drafting that letter, presenting it in an email to Rosen and Donoghue, and later meeting with the two on January 2, 2021, to seek authorization to send the draft letter.

But if it were a crime—something Clark strenuously challenges, stressing he was merely presenting his legal analysis of the issue—then Willis is seeking to prosecute him “for or relating to” conduct he undertook “under color of” his federal office. Thus, according to Clark, he has the right to remove the criminal case to federal court.

Last Monday, Judge Jones held an evidentiary issue on the issue. Initially, attorneys for Willis argued Clark was not acting “under color of” his federal office, by positing that the assistant attorney general for the civil division had no role in investigating or pursuing election cases on behalf of the federal government.

To support that argument, Willis pointed to previous statements by Rosen and Donoghue, both of whom disagreed with Clark’s position and maintained it was not for Clark or the Department of Justice to involve itself in Georgia election issues. Willis also presented testimony from Joseph “Jody” Hunt. Hunt, who served as assistant attorney general of the civil division from August 2018 until July 2020, testified on Monday that Clark, in effect, was out of his civil division lane in drafting the letter.

President Wanted to Hear Clark’s Opinion

But, as Clark’s attorney stressed during the hearing, as an assistant attorney general Clark held authority to advise the president on all relevant issues, not just those within the province of the civil division. And, as Clark’s lawyer stressed, President Trump wanted to hear Clark’s legal opinion. The then-president met on January 3, 2021, with Rosen, Donahue, and Clark in the Oval Office, along with “six other senior administration lawyers from DOJ and the White House.” There the group discussed Clark’s draft letter for three-and-a-half hours.

While in the end Trump opted against sending the letter to Georgia, that the president huddled with the lawyers—including Clark—to discuss the issue confirms Clark was acting within the color of his office as a former assistant attorney general.

Judge Jones, however, seemed to see the issue differently, as demonstrated by his query of whether former President Trump had solicited Clark’s opinion or whether Clark, in violation of Department of Justice protocols, had reached out to the president first. The mere posing of this question exposes how far afield this entire prosecution has become.

Donald Trump was the head of the executive branch of government. Whether Trump solicited Clark’s opinion or Clark ignored Department of Justice protocol to present what Clark believed the best course of action to the president is not the court’s concern. And it is definitely not the concern of a county prosecutor.

President Decides Executive Branch Protocol

If Clark was out of line, if Clark acted outside the color of his office, that was for the president of the United States to decide. By obtaining Clark’s advice and weighing it against the advice of others in the Department of Justice, the president confirmed Clark was acting under the color of his office as assistant attorney general of the civil division at the time.

In short, that Clark violated department protocols, or even assumed functions beyond his normal authority, matters not because the president is the executive and the president holds the authority over the Department of Justice.

Consider, for instance, another scenario: An assistant attorney general bypasses protocols to inform then-President Trump that then-FBI Director James Comey was running a covert investigation into Michael Flynn based on a Hillary Clinton-funded fake dossier. It would be ridiculous to say that such a hypothetical assistant attorney general was operating outside the color of his office by taking such concerns directly to the president.

The same is true here. Clark apparently believed the Department of Justice was not adequately investigating voting irregularities in the national election, and he attempted to argue that position to his superiors. While it is unclear whether Clark also went directly to Trump, even if he did, that does not mean Clark was acting outside the color of his position.

Judge Jones has yet to issue his decision on whether Clark properly removed the Fulton County criminal case to federal court, but if the federal judge rejects Clark’s efforts to remove the case and finds Clark acted outside the color of his office, that would represent a dangerous precedent calling into question not just Clark’s authority, but the authority of the president of the United States.