Merrick Garland Is an Anarchist

Chesterton — the great G.K. Chesterton — once warned of “anarchy from above.”

As this Chesterton fellow explained:

“It isn’t necessary that anarchy should be violent; nor is it necessary that it should come from below.”

Chesterton concluded — gravely, sternly — presciently:

“A government may grow anarchic as much as a people.”

A government may grow anarchic as much as a people? Is it true?

This is not a partisan publication.

It rubs along on the premise that Republican and Democratic officials alike are overwhelmingly scoundrels, knaves and rogues.

We train our cannons on each of them.

That is because they each invade our peace and dignity in one form or other — as well as our wallet.

Accordingly, conservative readers have denounced us as liberals. And liberal readers have denounced us as conservatives.

And so we file our opening caveat. Thus filed, let us proceed…

Merrick Garland, Anarchist

If a government may grow anarchic as much as a people… we refer you to the present Attorney General of the United States — Mr. Merrick Garland.

For this fellow is the senior law enforcement officer in the land. And he has proven himself lawless.

Upon what rock do we stand? Why do we maintain that the nation’s senior law enforcement officer is himself lawless?

This is why…

Mr. Garland recently appointed a certain David Weiss as special counsel in the investigation of Hunter Biden’s alleged criminality.

Mr. Weiss serves presently as the United States attorney for the District of Delaware.

That is, he is an attorney of the United States government.

This is a cardinal and capital fact.

That is because United States statute forbids — expressly and unequivocally — an attorney of the United States government from serving as special counsel.

It is not legally allowable.

Here we do not speculate. Here we speak by the book.

We refer you to the United States Code of Federal Regulations, Title 28, Part 600.3.

This is the section of United States Code tackling the special counsel — its rules and regulations, its dos and don’ts, its shalls and shall nots.

From which:

“The special counsel shall be selected from outside the United States government.”

Do you see it? The law is as clear as gin:

The special counsel shall be selected from outside the United States government.

No Interpretation Allowed

The thing provides no creative interpretation, no penumbras and emanations surround it; it harbors no “mays” or “oughts.”

Thus it chains and binds — explicitly — a United States attorney general.

It affords him no oily loophole through which we can wriggle. Again:

“The special counsel shall be selected from outside the United States government.”

And yet — and yet — Mr. Garland appoints as special counsel a sitting attorney within the United States government.

Sure as sugar, this Garland character is cognizant of the United States Code of Federal Regulations, Title 28, Part 600.3.

Yet here he flouts and mocks it. He flouts and mocks the very law he swore to uphold.

“So help me God,” he pledged.

We hazard God is rather cross with him at present.

God is, after all, a law giver — and by every appearance a strict one.

Not Even an Explanation

Mr. Garland has yet to issue an explanation, to our knowledge at least.

He simply announced the appointment and walked off. How could he justify it?

We consulted our own legal counsel. They inform us he might cite his broad legal authority as acting attorney general.

Yet a question immediately presents itself:

Why would the special counsel statute’s drafters bother writing it… if it simply fell under the attorney general’s general authority?

The answer, by our lights, is that they would not.

Its purpose is explicit and it was written for an explicit reason:

Only a special counsel independent of government can be truly independent in the case before him.

Mr. Garland has turned the thing upon its head.

The number of attorneys within the United States exceeds 1.3 million.

Of these, some 35,640 “practice” law for the federal government.

That is, Mr. Garland had a batch of at least 1,264,360 attorneys from which to select.

Yet he selected one of the legally barred 35,640 — and not merely one of the legally barred 35,640.

He selected the one with the greatest possible bias in the case.

No Greater Conflict of Interest

As United States Attorney for the District of Delaware… did not Mr. Weiss offer Hunter Biden the “sweetheart deal” that would merely slap his wrists for alleged criminality?

He did. Yet it appears he did not wish to charge the junior Biden at all.

Constitutional legal scholar Jonathan Turley:

Now it appears that the controversial “sweetheart deal” was not the first choice of U.S. Attorney David Weiss. He actually was planning to let Hunter walk without even a misdemeanor charge despite massive unpaid taxes, gun violations and work as an unregistered foreign agent, among other alleged crimes…

The New York Times, which has spent years downplaying the Hunter Biden scandal, has published an internal account of the investigation. The Times reported that U.S. Attorney David Weiss was actually preparing to let Hunter walk “without requiring a guilty plea on any charges.” 

Adds former federal prosecutor Mr. Andrew McCarthy:

At issue was the corrupt “diversion agreement” that Weiss, on behalf of the president’s Justice Department, executed with the president’s son: the pact whereby Weiss gifted Hunter not merely a complete pass on a gun felony punishable by up to 10 years’ imprisonment, but a total immunity bath — no prosecution for bribery, money laundering, tax evasion, failing to register as a foreign agent or any other crimes arising out of the Biden family business of peddling Joe Biden’s political influence to operatives of corrupt and anti-American regimes. 

Can Mr. Weiss be less “independent?” Can his interest possibly be more conflicted?

Our own legal men have never encountered a brighter example. McCarthy in summary:

In reality, Weiss remains a high-ranking Biden Justice Department official who is ineligible to be a special counsel — at least by regulation as opposed to Garland’s hocus-pocus. A special counsel is an attorney brought in from outside the government, while Weiss is the Delaware U.S. attorney. A special counsel is brought in because the Justice Department has a conflict of interest, and Weiss is a high-ranking Justice Department official. A special counsel would have indicted the case by now, and Weiss has not. 

Yet Mr. Garland appoints this Joe Friday — “just the facts, ma’am” — to special counsel.

Is this Weiss character going to condemn himself for failing to pursue criminal charges against Hunter Biden — and suddenly heave the law book at him?

Or is he going to seize his deck broom… and sweep the entire thing under a very thick carpet?

We bet high on the second option. Will you hazard a bet against us? We will accept it eagerly.

The fox is guarding the henhouse.

Isn’t Justice Supposed to Be Blind?

We are not especially concerned with the junior Biden’s personal misconduct — we are not concerned at all in fact.

We are not even especially concerned with the politics of the thing.

Yet why should the average fellow hew to the law… when the nation’s senior law enforcement official… spits himself upon the law?

And not simply the law — but black letter, unambiguous, uninterpretable law?

Justice is blind, we are told. Yet where is Lady Justice’s blindfold?

It is stripped away.

She presently looks out with 20/10 binocular vision — with eyesight very nearly perfect.

She trains these eyes on those whom she chooses to train them upon… and away from those she chooses not to train them upon.

Thus we find:

At the highest levels law is arbitrary. At the highest levels law is capricious. At the highest levels law is selective.

It is anarchy from above…

The Daily Reckoning