March 4, 2025
|
|
“Apparently, we were maybe just a year away from an absolute, total Democrat takeover that could never be reversed.”
That was cartoonist and author Scott Adams, speaking on Monday about the near-culmination of the Democrats’ plan for domination that was foiled by President Trump. Essentially, he said, Trump has “changed all the rules.” And no one could have done that but him. It seems our country dodged a figurative bullet just as much as Trump dodged a real one.
Of course, part of the plan was to bring in enough new Democrat voters to change the political landscape of the swing states for good. Elon Musk could see the big picture and has commented on this. Democrats would win Congress and the presidency and make DC a state, perhaps Puerto Rico as well. The President’s appointments would forever control the Department of “Justice,” and the rest of the intel agencies. Soros-funded DAs around the country have already dismantled law enforcement in cities plagued by crime. They also intended to pack the courts, at which point control would be complete.
But even though they haven’t succeeded in expanding the number of Supreme Court justices to change their political balance, they’ve still “packed” the courts in a different sense, with activist judges, and now Trump has to beat them back in order to exercise his own authority.
Which brings us to the legal case of Hampton Dellinger, a longtime Biden family friend who was the head of the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) when Trump came in for his second term. On February 7, 2023, President Biden had appointed him to a five-year term. But as President Trump did with most (all?) of Biden’s top “justice” officials when he came into office, Trump fired Dellinger.
This man had been a particularly toxic and partisan employee in an office likely full of toxic and partisan employees. Here’s a sample post, from several weeks before the 2020 election: “Has there ever been an American who posed a greater national security risk to America than Donald Trump?”
We’ll answer that question with a couple more: 1) Has there ever been an American President who wouldn’t fire an employee who had said this about him? 2) Has there ever been a federal employee who seemed more motivated than this guy to himself sabotage the security of President Trump?
This Swamp-dweller clearly needed to go. But just a few days after Trump fired him, Dellinger filed suit to keep his job, arguing that he could not be removed without “cause.” Never mind that Dellinger is the individual head of an agency operating under the purview of the Executive Branch and thus should undoubtedly serve at the pleasure of the President.
Dellinger had been let go in a brief email that did not state any specific “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office,” as was called for in the OSC statute. (Though it wasn’t included in the email, one would think a long history of tweets like the above is “cause” enough.)
Cutting to the chase, Julie Kelly reports: “Thanks to Obama-appointed DC District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson and the Supreme Court, which refused to end this farce last month, Dellinger remains in the office for the foreseeable future.” Late Saturday evening, Judge Jackson issued a 2-page order and a 67-page opinion that allowed Dellinger to keep his job.
She laughably argued in favor of Dellinger that the “independent” OSC “must remain entirely free of partisan or political influence.”
Did she happen to note that Dellinger, a self-described “progressive,” has a long record of anti-Trump statements? That he and his family have been longtime Democrat Party activists since, forever? That he ran for Lt. Gov. of South Carolina as a Democrat in 2008 and appears poised to enter Democrat politics again? If Judge Jackson really wants to keep the OSC entirely free of partisan or political influence, one would think that firing Dellinger would not only be fine by her, but strongly recommended.
The views held by Dellinger are, on their face, contrary to those of the duly-elected President. To cite just one, he’s helped the effort to remove Confederate monuments and change the names of certain military bases; Trump has been strongly on the other side of that. (Of course, even Trump would say there are “fine people on both sides” of that argument. He’d probably exempt Dellinger, though.)
In an irony of ironies, given this hyper-partisan’s own unfitness for a “non-partisan” office, he posted this soon after Trump left the White House in late January, 2020: “I knew Trump becoming POTUS would confirm his unfitness for office. And it has. What I didn’t fully appreciate in November ‘16 was that his presidency would reveal the unfitness of so many others to serve in their public offices nor how many lawyers he would debase.”
Dellinger doesn’t need any help to debase himself --- he does just fine.
Longstanding family ties with the Bidens are another area of concern. President Trump should be free to fire anyone who worked with Hunter Biden at law firm Bois Schiller during the period that firm represented Burisma. It seems the whole Dellinger family are Democrat activists; Kelly goes into that in more detail.
The family enjoys Trump-bashing on social media. (Isn’t it nice when families have activities they can do together?) Take our word, there is nothing too vulgar if it slams the new administration or fuels the tired Russia Hoax. “In just the past week,” Kelly writes, Drew Dellinger [Hampton’s brother] has reposted that claimed Trump is a Putin asset; blamed Elon Musk for starving children around the world; and demanded the resignations of Vice President J. D. Vance, Speaker Mike Johnson, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio for the dustup [with Ukrainian President Zelenskyy] in the White House last week.”
Oh, and not only is Dellinger battling his own firing, but he’s also successfully fought for the reinstatement of six probationary employees fired by Trump. He warns he’ll seek more. How is Trump supposed to run his own department?
Of course, the Trump White House has already appealed; the case goes next to the (sigh) DC Circuit Court. Then it’s likely headed to the Supreme Court, which has already determined in other cases that a President can remove a political appointee who serves as the single head of an Executive Branch agency (just not THAT Executive Branch agency). Jackson even noted in her own opinion that the OSC is the only agency whose head is still protected by this restriction.
That needs to change, NOW.
https://www.declassified.live/
As stated by one of our most respected legal analysts, the masterful Margot Cleveland, “There is still time for the Supreme Court to avert an unnecessary constitutional crisis created by litigants and their handpicked judge seeking to control the Executive Branch.”
As explained by Cleveland, Judge Jackson found a super-crafty way to go around President Trump. Since she had to recognize that federal courts “lack the power to enjoin the President of the United States,” she acknowledged that she couldn’t force Trump to recognize Dellinger as head of the OSC or stop him from interfering in the man’s duties. But here’s the tricky, technical part: the lawsuit had been filed not against Trump but against five OTHER defendants, all Trump APPOINTEES. We’ll list several titles, just to give you an idea: Director of the White House Presidential Personnel Office, Principal Deputy Special Counsel, CEO of the Office of Special Counsel, and Director of the OMB.
In other words, Judge Jackson knows she can’t stop Trump from coming right back and firing him again. So, why doesn’t the President just do that? Because the White House needs to get the case before SCOTUS and press them to overturn her order. That must happen, to prevent more of these piecemeal power-grabs by judges, or as we might call them, “attempted coups.”
So, where are we now? As Cleveland writes, “The Supreme Court may allow the normal appeal process to proceed on the question of whether Trump...has the unqualified power to remove Dellinger. However, with Judge Berman Jackson’s injunction to reinstate Dellinger now final, the Supreme Court is unlikely to delay consideration of that equitable remedy, for it represents a clear and intolerable interference in the President’s executive authority.”
Law professor Jonathan Turley will be glad to see this case going before the Court because Jackson’s opinion “may have just set up an appeal that both presidents and professors have long waited for to reinforce presidential powers.” Indeed, he says the new administration’s “Helter-Skelter approach” to terminations, including the firing of all inspectors general, may have been deliberate, leading to “a ruling [that] may be precisely what the Trump Administration is seeking as the foundation for a major new constitutional challenge.”
Turley echoes Cleveland here: “Ultimately, Dellinger can be removed even if the decision stands. The Trump Administration could have easily cited a basis like inefficiency or neglect. The question is why it decided not to do so. Clearly, it could just be a chainsaw approach to cutting positions. However, it may also reflect a desire for some in the Administration to challenge lingering case law limiting executive powers. In other words, they seem to be spoiling for a fight.”
In short, White House attorneys might be thrilled that Judge Jackson ruled as she did. They are, as Turley puts it, “hunting for bigger game than Dellinger and Judge Jackson just gave [them] a clear shot for the Supreme Court.”
RELATED READING: Cleveland’s reference to “litigants and their handpicked federal judge” reminds us of an article, also from THE FEDERALIST, last month about “judge shopping.” Who hasn’t seen case after case in which this strategy was obvious? Here’s a highly recommended piece by John A. Lucas on what can be done about it.
MORE RELATED READING THAT WILL MAKE YOU VERY ANGRY: Here’s a story that shows the result of deep political bias in the “justice” system and law enforcement. Now that U.S. veteran and Oath Keepers member Jessica Watkins has been pardoned and released, she has opened up about her mistreatment in prison by officials who apparently treated her no better than the worst terrorist. The treatment of this political prisoner qualifies as abuse and even torture. We’ll look further into the trial, too, but that looks like a sham, with a manufactured witness. This is a MUST-READ.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.
RELATED UPDATES: In breaking news Monday, James Dennehy, the FBI’s top official in New York was forced to resign. He says he wasn’t given a reason, but he’s been accused by the DOJ of withholding thousands of Jeffrey Epstein documents. That really caused a debacle for Pam Bondi’s office last week.
Another one bites the dust. Details here…
And in a suspiciously coincidental story, AG Bondi said that after she set a hard deadline for the turnover of the Epstein documents, the FBI delivered a “truckload” of them to her office. We’re sure they just forgot to look in the linen closet.
3 Special Elections Are Coming
We weren’t expecting Huck PAC to have to come to the rescue of 3 more races immediately following the 2024 elections, but the Democrats see this as their chance to un-do what the American People overwhelmingly voted for in November. Unlike a normal race, these elections are going to be short, savage and expensive -- and we’re ready to do everything we can to help! Please support Huck PAC with a donation in the amount you can afford. Every dollar helps→
Click here: Donate - Huck PAC
Leave a Comment
Note: Fields marked with an * are required.