Category Archives: Strassel

Justice. Rebuke.

Ms. Strassel’s conclusions say it all.  mrossol

WSJ. 11/26/2020 By

Chief Justice John Marshall once described the presidential pardon as “an act of grace.” In the case of Mike Flynn, Donald Trump’s pardon was something more. It was a requirement of justice.

Mr. Trump announced on Twitter Wednesday that he’d granted Mr. Flynn a full pardon. Liberals and the media are (as per their tedious usual) claiming the president stepped in to aid a corrupt crony. This has it exactly backward. The Flynn pardon was necessary—to correct a corrupt Federal Bureau of Investigation, a rogue special counsel, an unprincipled federal judge, and an embarrassingly complicit media.

This story dripped out over years, so it took until recently to get a full accounting of the government’s Trump-by-proxy takedown of Mr. Flynn. A decorated veteran, Mr. Flynn advised the Trump campaign and in November 2016 was named national security adviser. The FBI had spent months monitoring him as part of its Russia-collusion fantasy, yet by Jan. 4, 2017, it had found nothing and moved to close its case.

In rushed Peter Strzok—the now-disgraced then-FBI agent—to keep the investigation open. The FBI had snooped on a Flynn call to the then-Russian ambassador to the U.S. This is perfectly legal; ask Joe Biden’s team, which is making such calls now. The FBI nonetheless debated a ludicrous Logan Act charge, before settling on a simpler course. As former FBI counterintelligence head Bill Priestap put it in handwritten notes, one FBI option was “to get [Mr. Flynn] to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired.”

The FBI didn’t need to interview the National Security Agency about his conversation; it had the transcript. Yet the bureau’s then-Deputy Director Andrew McCabe sandbagged Mr. Flynn, arranging for him to meet with FBI agents without a lawyer. Former FBI Director Jim Comey later gloated over the setup. The FBI also chose not to provide Mr. Flynn a standard warning against lying, to keep him comfortable. Despite all this, the agents reported—according to government notes—that they “believe that F. believes that what he said was true.” He didn’t intentionally lie.

Fast forward to Robert Mueller, who didn’t care. The FBI knew in January 2017 that its collusion investigation was a bust; it confirmed the Steele dossier was a fabrication. So Mr. Comey engineered a special counsel to salvage the FBI’s reputation by ginning up unrelated “crimes.” Mr. Mueller dredged up the Flynn interview and threatened to prosecute the former national security adviser’s son unless Mr. Flynn pleaded guilty to lying. Facing bankruptcy, Mr. Flynn succumbed to this naked abuse of power.

Hope came with a new lawyer and Attorney General William Barr’s 2020 decision to review the case. But even as the executive branch moved to right its wrongs, a federal judge took up the persecutorial torch. In May the Justice Department moved to drop its case, presenting Judge Emmet Sullivan with veteran prosecutor Jeffrey Jensen’s assessment that the FBI never had a legitimate purpose in interviewing Mr. Flynn, that he should never have been prosecuted. The department also presented papers documenting the FBI’s shocking behavior.

The Justice Department, not judges, makes the call on whom to prosecute. Yet Judge Sullivan refused to accept the withdrawal, instead indulging his politics and his inner petty tyrant. He went so far as to appoint a fellow conspiracy theorist, retired Judge John Gleeson, to spout evidence-free claims that prosecutors were giving special treatment to Mr. Flynn. Judge Sullivan’s behavior was so outrageous that a federal appeals panel in June ordered him to dismiss the case. The full appellate court in August agreed to let him hold a hearing while warning him to get his act together.

Judge Sullivan held his hearing in September but by this week had yet to rule. Mr. Trump might have waited, in hope that Judge Sullivan would feel mounting pressure to regain some credibility by dismissing. Then again, there was every reason to believe the judge would string this out beyond Jan. 20. He’s made clear all along he wants Mr. Flynn subject to an avenging Biden Justice Department. Not because Mr. Flynn broke the law, but because Mr. Flynn is a stand-in for a president the judicial, prosecutorial and media elites despise.

That’s the sad reality of the Flynn mess. In a better world, the Flynn case would have been dismissed with prejudice, an on-the-record censure of appalling FBI and Justice Department behavior. But that’s why the judge refused to do it. It had nothing to do with guilt or innocence—but rather reputation. We remain in the last gasps of Never Trump world, where people of power told themselves it was OK to break rules, norms, standards—even the law—in their quest to take the president down. To dismiss the Flynn case would have been to acknowledge that this behavior was wrong. And that would have been too painful, too embarrassing, too galling for the haters.

So it was left to the White House to make this right, to take a wrecking ball to a rigged system. Mr. Trump acted correctly. And there could have been no more fitting, final rebuke to four years of drive-by shootings than to release the man the cabal claimed as its very first victim. Justice indeed, and on many levels.

Write to


The James Comey Election

People rightly ask whether Donald Trump has the “character” to be President. But what of the “character” of so many others who inhabit ‘the swamp’? Does abusing power for political gain fall under “character”? mrossol

WSJ 10/2/2020 By Kimberly Strassel

The political elite remain puzzled—and in agony—over how Donald Trump could still be in the race. A bullying debater! A purveyor of mistruths! A would-be autocrat! How has our country come to this?

The answer sat staring at them on a videolink this Wednesday, in the smug countenance of James Comey.

This obvious truth will be missed by the left and the media, which continue to comfort themselves with the fiction that Mr. Trump won in 2016 by preying on the weak and ill-informed. The opposite is true. The businessman was propelled to office on the fury of those who had seen too much. They’d watched for decades as an insulated elected class—Democrat and Republican alike—broke promises, failed to solve problems, and blamed it on the system.

These voters had watched the swamp take over—IRS targeters, self-righteous prosecutors, zealous regulators—armed with stunning powers and a mentality that they were entitled to make the rules, to tell the little people what was best for them. Voters fumed over the double standard. Hillary Clinton deleted government emails with abandon, while a 77-year-old Navy veteran went to prison for building a pond in contravention of “navigable water” rules.


Mr. Comey personifies what enrages those Americans. His testimony this week was a vivid reminder that the election won’t hinge only on the issues as defined by the media elite. Tuesday’s brawl was mostly about the virus, the economy, violence in the streets, the Supreme Court. But November’s vote for many Americans will be a choice between an administration that believes we the people should run Washington, and those who believe the swamp should rule the masses. Mr. Biden wouldn’t challenge the mandarins; he’d unleash them.


Chairman Lindsey Graham hauled the former FBI director in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee ostensibly to answer for stunning new details in the bureau’s Trump-Russia probe. But the hearing more broadly resurrected the breathtaking arrogance of the swamp. This was the crew that in 2016—based on the thinnest of tips—launched a counterintelligence investigation into a presidential campaign, complete with secret surveillance warrants and informants. Mr. Comey triggered the public release of the collusion accusations. He secretly kept memos of his conversations with a president, for future leverage. He leaked them, to provoke a special counsel and two years of hell.

FBI agent Peter Strzok in 2018 lectured Congress that the bureau had too many “safeguards” and “procedures” ever to allow “improper” behavior. Yet this past week provided evidence the FBI leaders blew through red light after red light. We already knew they based the probe on a dossier that came from a rival campaign. We knew the bureau was warned early on that the dossier was potential Russian disinformation. And now we know it discovered that the man who was the dossier’s primary source had been under FBI investigation as a suspected agent for Moscow. The bureau hid all of this from the surveillance court. It even doctored an email to conceal exculpatory information.

Mr. Comey highlighted the double standard again on Wednesday, as he danced around accountability. The probe’s biggest problem was that it was run at the top with no checks or oversight. Yet according to Mr. Comey, the top didn’t include the FBI director. “I can’t recall.” “I don’t remember learning anything.” “I don’t recall being informed of that.” “That’s about all I can recall.” “I don’t know.” “That doesn’t ring a bell.” So responded Mr. Comey for hours. His claims of obliviousness contrast with recent documents showing widespread concern in the FBI about the probe’s problems, with agents and analysts fretting about future “tough questions” and rushing to purchase professional liability insurance.

Mr. Biden has yet to be asked on the campaign trail if he approves of this FBI behavior, including its misrepresentations to a surveillance court. Or what he thinks of Mr. Comey, who has been excoriated in three inspector general reports. Or of former Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, fired for leaking and for lying to investigators. But Biden’s failure to voluntarily weigh in on such a consequential scandal may be viewed by voters as evidence that Mr. Biden is fine with it. And why wouldn’t he be? This all took place in Barack Obama’s and Joe Biden’s Washington.

Those eight years featured plenty of other swamp monsters, and don’t underestimate the number of Americans who fear a return to that world. Lois Lerner harassing conservative nonprofits. Supervisors at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives loosing guns in Fast and Furious. The Environmental Protection Agency minions who burned companies with ever-changing rules. The Bureau of Land Management harassment of ranchers and farmers. Energy Department officials steering stimulus payouts to Solyndra and other projects of Obama donors.

No one knows who will win this election. But the Comey testimony warns against thinking this battle will swing on candidate personalities alone. No matter how much the elite media wills it so.

Write to


The GOP’s ‘D’oh!’ Moment

Why Republicans can’t seem to think politically straight is not only frustrating, but incomprehensible.

WSJ 7/31/2020  by Kimberley A. Strassel

Senate Republicans experienced their “D’oh!” moment this week, and better late than never. If even Homer Simpson can experience moments of clarity, maybe the GOP can yet do a virus economy—and itself—some good.

As Congress spent another tortuous week nonnegotiating a fifth virus-relief bill, it finally dawned on Republicans that they are being played for fools. Democrats don’t want a bill; they want to win an election. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi—who may go down as one of Washington’s greatest cynics—knew exactly what she was doing in May, when she cooked up the $3 trillion monstrosity known as the Heroes Act. If the GOP said no to her outlandish demands, Democrats would brand them as uncaring, unable to lead, unworthy of controlling Washington. If instead she bludgeoned them into swallowing her spendathon, Democrats would wave the win as proof they should control Washington. Heads Democrats win; tails Republicans lose.


The GOP did its mightiest to aid this strategy, by having no alternative of its own. By May, Congress had spent nearly $3 trillion on the virus, and Republicans had plenty to pack into a message: The bills provided generous aid to the unemployed, small businesses, families, vital industry, schools, states, renters and health providers. The goals were to stave off economic collapse, provide a lifeline during a national shutdown, lay the groundwork for reopening. All that was accomplished—not that you hear Republicans noting it. The bills, moreover, provided a cushion to deal with lingering needs; as Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson recently noted, more than $1 trillion of those original packages has yet to be spent or obligated.


Instead of making these points, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell signaled the GOP was open to tacking Democratic demands on to the Republican priority of liability protection for businesses and organizations. The White House rolled out Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, who invited Mrs. Pelosi to dictate the GOP bill. Instead of putting together a plan focused on pro-growth economic policies, the Senate GOP cobbled together a hodgepodge of its own spending demands—money for schools, aid for farmers and, yes, $1.75 billion for a new FBI building. Cue a revolt by fiscal conservatives and party infighting—and two weeks of headlines about Republican “chaos.”


All the while, Democrats have broadcast—in plain English—that they have no intention of letting legislation succeed. Mrs. Pelosi this week described the two bills as a “giraffe” and a “flamingo” and said they were “not mateable.” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer won’t even try, refusing to engage in regular order—to bring a bill to the floor, to hold amendments and votes, and to send a rival product to a House-Senate conference. Democrats have a plan—blame Republicans for the bill’s failure and, by laughable extension, the nation’s economic woes.

And so it was encouraging to see Mr. McConnell acknowledge reality and move to put the GOP back on offense. Stepping back from talks on a big bill, the Senate GOP tackled the most pressing deadline—the Friday expiration of federal enhanced unemployment benefits. Sen. Johnson proposed renewing these benefits at about two-thirds of lost wages, or roughly $200 a week. This would allow the federal government to continue providing some aid, though not the current, crazy $600 a week that is discouraging so many from returning to work. Senate Republicans asked for unanimous consent on that plan, and Democrats blocked it. That means Democrats own the expiration.

Not that the press will put it that way, which is why it is also encouraging that Mr. McConnell now intends to put a legislative version of that unemployment extension on the floor next week and put Democrats on record voting it down. The only way to expose Democratic cynicism and intransigence is to beat the public over the head with proof—something the GOP failed to do with policing reform. A GOP vote would force Democrats to explain why two-thirds of regular pay is not enough—especially given prior Democratic proposals that set virus sick leave and family medical leave at two-thirds regular pay. When Democrats vote it down, Mr. McConnell needs to bring it up again. And again.

The GOP meantime also has an opportunity to rethink and put together proposals sharply tailored to economic growth. Then bring them up again, and again. Hammer home that Democrats are blocking economic revival. (You can bet that is what Mr. Schumer would be doing to Republicans right now, were the situation reversed.)


If Republicans allow this election to become a contest over which party can spend more taxpayer dollars, they will lose. Better to treat it as an opportunity to present true competing visions—between a GOP that has a plan for a bigger and better economy, and a Democratic Party that wants a vastly larger entitlement state. Yet making that contrast first requires Republicans to get there themselves. Get a plan, make the case.

Write to


Still mov ing left

WSJ 4/10/2020

When it comes to “fake news,” we had a whopper this week. Voters were informed that Bernie Sanders was dropping out of the Democratic presidential contest. Joe Biden only wishes it were so.

True, Mr. Sanders announced on Wednesday the “suspension” of his campaign, noting that he trailed Mr. Biden by some 300 delegates, and that no “honest assessment” showed a path to the nomination. The Vermont senator said he could not “in good conscience continue to mount a campaign that cannot win.”

Yet Mr. Sanders said he nonetheless would (and could in good conscience?) “stay on the ballot in all remaining states and continue to gather delegates,” so as to exert “significant influence” over the party. He also declined to promise he’ll help Mr. Biden get elected. He instead blandly noted that his rival was a “very decent man, who I will work with to move our progressive ideas forward.”

This isn’t an endorsement; it’s a threat. The Democratic Party is split, and Mr. Sanders is the undisputed leader of its progressive wing. He’s not conceding gracefully; he’s not rallying Democrats behind a nominee; he’s not going anywhere— not without extracting a significant show of fealty from Mr. Biden. Put another way, the man who was too radical to win the nomination is now determined to make Mr. Biden unelectable.

Within hours of the Sanders announcement, newspapers were reporting that the two camps were in negotiations over which Sanders policies Mr. Biden would need to adopt to get Bernie’s blessing. The New York Times reported that the Biden campaign might begin rolling out these changes as early as this week. Up for discussion: climate, health care and student loans, for starters.

Concessions on policy aren’t all Bernie is demanding. The negotiations also involve discussions about Mr. Biden’s future cabinet, including which progressives will go where, as well as who cannot play a role. The left wants a Biden administration ban on anyone who has worked on or near Wall Street, the fossil-fuel industry, the health-insurance sector and the lobbying world, to name a few.

In a sign the entire Bernie universe has already seized on this hostage-taking strategy, a coalition of eight progressive groups sent their own open letter to Mr. Biden Wednesday, explaining that a campaign pledge of a “return to normalcy” wouldn’t cut it: “Going back to the way things were ‘before Trump’ isn’t a motivating enough reason to cast a ballot in November.”

The only thing that would make them support Mr. Biden, they write, is his agreement to meet their demands, which include endorsing the Green New

Deal, Medicare for All, a 50% reduction in prison populations, a wealth tax, cancellation of student debt, free undergraduate tuition in public institutions, abolishing the filibuster, packing the Supreme Court, federal gun licensing, and abortion subsidized by federal taxpayers. Among the signers was Justice Democrats, the influential progressive outfit that was founded by former Sanders campaign leaders and supported the election of now-prominent voices like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

This is dangerous territory for Mr. Biden, and it highlights the party divide that Mr. Sanders has inflamed. Mr. Biden has already shifted significantly to the left, looking to attract progressive primary voters. He now favors a health-insurance “public option,” free community college, huge tax increases and forgiveness of many student loans. Sewing up a nomination is usually the moment at which a candidate begins pivoting back to the center to appeal to independent and moderate voters.

Mr. Sanders’s intention is not only to block such a pivot, but to jerk Mr. Biden further left. That sticks the putative nominee with an impossible choice. Mr. Biden can maintain a “centrist” course and risk losing Bernie’s base. Or he can cater to Mr. Sanders’s extreme agenda and risk alienating independents, disaffected Trump voters, suburban women, blue-collar workers, etc.

He can’t do both—the policy gulf is too wide. And even should Mr. Biden make a few concessions now, there’s no reason to believe the pressure will end. Mr. Sanders says he’s taking his fight all the way to the convention, recently postponed to August. Some party leaders are so worried, they are discussing the possibility that a “virtual” convention could minimize Sanders dissent. Such a move risks infuriating the progressive base.

Polls show the top priority of a majority of Democrats is defeating Mr. Trump. But a majority is not all, and in a close election, party unity and enthusiasm are paramount. For many Sanders voters, ideology matters more than victory. Is the socialist willing to act as a spoiler? By the looks of this week, you bet.

Write to