Overwhelming Voices: “Actions… require Mr. Barr to resign” As 1100 Former DOJ Employees Decry Corruption

Inept. Incompetent. Careless. Reckless. Unethical. Immoral. Contemptuous. Brazen. Illegal. Nefarious. Corrupted. Wicked. Criminal. Deceitful. Perfidious. Duplicitous. Recreant. Treacherous.

Those adjectives, and more, characterize not only the POTUS, but his entire administration.

“Political interference in the conduct of a criminal prosecution is
anathema to the Department’s core mission
and to its
sacred obligation
to
ensure
equal justice under the law.”

Recently, in contravention of ethical protocol, Attorney General William “Bill” Barr intervened following the Federal conviction of Roger Stone, a corrupt Republican political operative known for his “dirty tricks” – whom has a bizarre adoration of Richard Nixon to the extent he has a tattoo of Nixon’s face on his upper back – who was found guilty on all counts with which he was charged, which included:

1 count – Obstruction of an Official Proceeding;
5 counts – False statements, and;
1 count – Witness Tampering.

In an official memorandum written by the DOJ last week, Barr’s office wrote in part, that,

“The government respectfully submits that a sentence of incarceration far less than 87 to 108 months’ imprisonment would be reasonable under the circumstances.”

“While it remains the position of the United States that a sentence of incarceration is warranted here, the government respectfully submits that the range of 87 to 108 months presented as the applicable advisory Guidelines range would not be appropriate or serve the interests of justice in this case.”

United States Attorney General William “Bill” Barr

Following Barr’s interference, all FOUR career Federal Prosecutors in the Roger Stone case resigned following the Attorney General’s recommendation that the Prosecuting Attorneys recommendation of 7-9 years as Stone’s punishment be significantly reduced.

The four whom resigned are:
• Aaron S.J. Zelinsky, Special Assistant U.S. Attorney (lead prosecutor), and U.S. Attorney in Maryland;
• Jonathan Kravis, Assistant U.S. Attorney, from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia (whom also resigned from the DOJ entirely);
• Adam C. Jed, Special Assistant U.S. Attorney;
• Michael J. Marando, Assistant U.S. Attorney, also Assistant U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia.

To say that there’s little confidence left in the Department of Justice (DOJ), would be a diplomatically generous characterization.

“Mr. Barr’s actions
in doing the President’s personal bidding
unfortunately
speak louder than his words.”

Most recently, in response to his meddling, over 1100 former DOJ employees have publicly called upon Barr to resign.

Writing in part, they identified that “The Justice Manual — the DOJ’s rulebook for its lawyers — states that “the rule of law depends on the evenhanded administration of justice”; that the Department’s legal decisions “must be impartial and insulated from political influence”; and that the Department’s prosecutorial powers, in particular, must be “exercised free from partisan consideration.””

They further stated wholehearted support for the four now-resigned prosecutors in the Stone case, by writing that,

Should Attorney General Bill Barr Resign?

I think there’s little question that this administration is very likely the MOST corrupt administration in the history of our nation. Not even the Nixon administration could hold a candle to it.

And, to be certain, corruption needn’t be blatant, nor does it require violation of law. There is such a thing as “legal corruption,” and this POTUS and his administration are living, breathing, examples of such legal corruption.

Roger Stone, center, pictured in 1985 with fellow Republican operatives Paul Manafort, left, and Lee Atwater. (Photo By Harry Naltchayan/The Washington Post).

So, exactly what IS corruption?

While words usage and meaning often changes over a period of time, one can discern what words meant by examining their origin and derivation, which is called “etymology.”

The etymology of the word “corrupt” shows that, as an adjective, it emerged in the early 14c., and meant “corrupted, debased in character,” and was derived from the Old French word “corropt,” meaning “unhealthy, corrupt; uncouth” (of language), and came directly from the Latin word “corruptus,” which is the past participle of “corrumpere” meaning “to destroy; spoil,” while figuratively it means to “corrupt, seduce, bribe.”

The Latin word itself was an from assimilated form of the Proto-Indo-European past participle stem of “rumpere” meaning “to break,” and a Sanskrit source states that a portion of the word from that language meant “to suffer from a stomach-ache.” It was also used a verb and meant to “deprave morally, pervert from good to bad.” Around that same time, it included, and incorporated a use and meaning to be “guilty of dishonesty involving bribery.”

There is a “longstanding difficulty about the term “corruption” and its use in social science and political advocacy.”

“Corruption” implies deviation from some ideal state, and so defining corruption usually involves an implicit or explicit selection of a baseline standard of “correct” behavior. The three most common possibilities – none entirely satisfactory – are:

1. Law (“corruption” entails violation of specific legal prohibitions on, say, bribery, nepotism, embezzlement, etc.)

2. Public opinion (“corruption” involves acts, or patterns of behavior, that would be viewed by most citizens as wrongful abuses of power, whether or not they are illegal)

3. Public interest (“corruption” involves acts, or patterns of behavior, that contravene the public interest—whether or not the actions in question are illegal and/or the subject of widespread disapproval).

The Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics at Harvard University writes that there are “…two specific forms of corruption across American states: illegal and legal.

We define illegal corruption as the private gains in the form of cash or gifts by a government official, in exchange for providing specific benefits to private individuals or groups.

“It is the form of corruption that attracts a great deal of public attention. A second form of corruption, however, is becoming more and more common in the U.S.: legal corruption.

We define legal corruption as the political gains in the form of campaign contributions or endorsements by a government official, in exchange for providing specific benefits to private individuals or groups, be it by explicit or implicit understanding.

“Such dealings are, in turn, one aspect of the broader issue of Institutional Corruption which,

New Threats Emerge In 2020

When Russia – our sworn enemy – decided that they wanted to influence the election, to cause Donald Trump to win… I mean… what do you say!?!

If it had been Hillary Clinton, I would’ve been against it.

But it wasn’t.

But the thing is, is that, the Russians have achieved what they wanted to do – and that is to get the President elected. And when you acknowledge that fact, you have to come to the conclusion that, for that reason, he is an illegitimate President regardless of how many Electoral College votes he got. And the Electoral College should be abolished. Because it was designed for a country 250 years ago.

And the problem with that – not bashing the Constitution – but the idea is, “it’s time for a change,” because right now, when you can communicate with someone on the opposite side of the globe, when you can talk to someone in Hong Kong, when you can talk to someone in London, England, when you can talk to someone in Sydney, Australia, when you can talk with someone in Banff, Canada, when you can talk with someone in Switzerland, and in Mumbai, India, SIMULTANEOUSLY, and have a conference call, you KNOW that worldwide global instant communications has revolutionized the way that we are able to think about things. That is a transformation of UNPARALLELED proportion! When one person can have a voice and speak around the world – globally, in an instant – our forefathers never dreamed of anything like that. They certainly didn’t dream of an automobile. And they could not have dreamt of satellites. They certainly couldn’t have dreamt of rockets. They didn’t even have electricity, for heaven’s sake! And they came up with this idea of the Electoral College.

Why?

Because communications was not instant n 1776, or in 1787 when the Constitutional Convention was established. They had to wait WEEKS, or even MONTHS, before people could be able to hear about what was going on. And now, we can have it in an instant. You have it on your cell phone.

Look, the Communist Chinese government has now written a Social Media app called