The McDonnell case -- Another study in criminal law as Democrat partisan warfare

From Clarice Feldman at The American Thinker Blog:

Former Virginia governor Robert McDonnell, by most accounts a popular governor, had a good day yesterday when a unanimous Supreme Court overturned his conviction on “honest services” fraud and Hobbs Act extortion charges.

The case was brought by U.S. attorney Dana Boente, an Obama appointee. The trial court judge was federal district court judge James R. Spencer, in circumstances about which Rachel Alexander wrote at the time of the conviction in Townhall:

On January 7, former Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell, a conservative Republican once considered a leading contender for President, was sentenced by a judge to two years in federal prison. A jury found him guilty of 19 counts of honest services wire fraud, obtaining property under color of official right, and extortion under color of official right in September for accepting more than $177,000 in loans and gifts from Jonnie R. Williams, the head of a dietary supplements company, who was later invited to the governor’s mansion and his cabinet. McDonnell’s wife Maureen was convicted of similar charges and will be sentenced later this month. McDonnell repaid more than $120,000 to Williams in 2013, before he was indicted, but prosecutors didn’t care.

Federal District Court Judge James R. Spencer could have sentenced McDonnell to community service, but instead threw the book at him. Tellingly, it came out in December that McDonnell had opposed the appointment of Spencer’s wife 18 years ago to the Virginia State Supreme Court during a partisan battle in the state legislature. McDonnell nominated someone else instead, and Margaret Spencer never made it onto the State Supreme Court, instead becoming a Circuit Court judge in Richmond. Reagan appointed Judge James Spencer to the bench, but it is reported that he and his wife are both Democrats.

Lawfare.

A Part-time Law Lecturer vs. the Constitution

From Clarice Feldman at The American Thinker Blog:

It’s a lie often repeated that Obama was a Constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago law school. In fact, he was just a lecturer there for a short time who never much impressed his colleagues. Watching this administration in action one wonders what, if anything, he understands about the Constitution at all. His is an administration based on flouting it.

It’s true that the judicial process moves slowly and such conduct can continue for a while until halted, but repeatedly the courts are catching up.

In fact, the Supreme Court has ruled unanimously against the administration 20 times.

No so much as a lie, but a Fairy Tale.

More extraordinary than the overt overreaching has been the perversion of the judicial process itself, and this week it came to a head in Texas where a federal district court judge caught the Justice Department lawyers lying to the court, not only a violation of their ethical responsibility, but a new low for DoJ lawyers who, when I first came here fifty years ago, were the models of probity, carefully supervised to see no one overstepped their obligations for truthful representations in court.

It used to be above reproach, not the DoJ is now a weapon to be used against one's political enemies.

Rebuking Obama's Folly

From Clarice Feldman at The American Thinker Blog:

Malik was a Pakistani who’d been living in Saudi Arabia when she became the online fiancé of Syed Farook, a U.S.-born citizen of Pakistani immigrants. While in Pakistan she was a member of a mosque headed by such a radical cleric the Pakistanis are considering closing down his mosque.

She entered the U.S. on a K-1 visa and somehow passed the required DHS screening.

It has been reported that the one thing that could easily have been checked on that application -- her address -- must not have been, for the address of her Pakistani home is nonexistent.
........................

Feeling better about the admission of thousands of “refugees” from Syria about whom we have even less ability to do background checks? I’m not.

And this will be the same background check used for the 10,000 or so Syrian refugees coming into this country,

The Journalists' Handbook: How to Write any Story Without Working At It

From Clarise Feldman at The American Thinker Blog:

At Ricochet, Jon Gabriel published a brilliant “Media Narrative Chart for reporting violent crime”.

This handy chart helps journalists frame the narrative of each crime, “not to tell the audience what happened, but to expand the event into an indictment of Western culture.” For example, if the attacker is a non-white shooter and the victim is white the narrative is about gun control. If the attacker is non-white and the victim is also “run story about the Kardashians instead.” Go read it, and tell me Gabriel is wrong. I don’t think he is, and I bet this cheat sheet soon is copied into every journalism student’s notebooks.

It's almost as if this article was written for The Onion. Sadly, it may reflect the reality more accurately than one may realize. See the Chart below: