Russiagate, Lawfare, and Other Nefarious Schemes to Destroy Donald Trump: Where were the Players Educated?

 James Howard Kunstler posted a blog today listing the leading players in the various schemes to destroy Donald Trump: Russiagate, Lawfare, the impeachment fiasco, the Mar-a-Lago raid, etc.

Kunstler's blog listed 43 names, and I added three more: Hillary Clinton, Antony Blinken, and Jack Smith. Most of these 46 people had impressive academic credentials and law degrees.

Here's a summary of what I found: Few anti-Trump characters held degrees from public universities, but Harvard, Yale, and Columbia were well represented.  Among the 46 participants in the grand anti-Trump conspiracies, there were 18 degrees from Harvard, 8 Yale credentials, and 5 Columbia degrees.

Here's the takeaway. The central characters in these anti-Trump dramas were well-educated. Indeed, 87 percent held graduate degrees, and 63 percent were lawyers. Most of the attorneys graduated from the nation's most prestigious law schools: Harvard, Yale, Georgetown, Columbia, etc.

It is time for Americans to cast aside their misguided infatuation with our nation's elite universities. Although they claim to be pillars of civic virtue, they produce far too many rogues. The arrogant and self-righteous people at the center of the anti-Trump conspiracies were engaged in a project to destroy our democracy, and most of them graduated from elite schools.

Hillary Clinton at Oxford

Postscript.  I could not find education credentials for two people that Kunstler listed: Joe Pientka and Steven Somma, but most have flattering Wikipedia listings.

Removing a biased federal judge from a case: The need for a streamlined appeal process

 Donald Trump and his supporters have repeatedly been battered by biased or hostile judges in the DC Circuit--a rat's nest of hacks for the Democratic Party. The January 6 protesters were treated horribly by some of these judges, and the Trump administration is routinely knocked about by federal judges intent on denying the Executive branch the ability to carry out the People's business.

What can be done? Litigants who believe their judge is unfair can file a motion in federal court, asking a judge to reassign a case to another judge due to bias, but such motions are routinely denied. Few judges will admit having prejudicial views toward the Trump team, and most are cunning enough to conceal their political views.

In fact, a recusal motion is likely to do nothing more than outrage the judge. How dare you accuse me of being unfair!

Of course, a party whose case is assigned to a hostile judge can appeal the denial of a recusal motion; however, appellate courts are reluctant to rule that a trial judge is unfair, especially the DC Circuit, where judicial abuse is most rampant.

We should look to the federal bankruptcy courts for a solution to this serious problem. Parties wishing to appeal an unfavorable ruling by a federal bankruptcy judge have two avenues for appeal. They can appeal to a federal district court judge, who may have limited familiarity with bankruptcy law.

  Alternatively, a losing party can appeal an unfavorable bankruptcy court decision to the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP).  These panels exist in some federal circuits and consist of three federal bankruptcy judges.

I followed student-loan bankruptcy litigation for many years. I observed that the BAP courts were more likely than federal district judges to rule in favor of insolvent student loan debtors.

Why? I think the bankruptcy judges are more sympathetic to college-loan borrowers than the district court judges, who often know nothing about the student loan crisis and have little sympathy for a debtor who took out loans to get a worthless degree and winds up owing two or three times the amount borrowed due to penalties and accumulated compound interest.

How about a similar panel to hear appeals from litigants who believe their cases have been assigned to an unfair judge?

This is how it would work. After a motion for recusal is denied, the litigant is given ten days to appeal the denial to a Recusal Denial Appellate Panel (RDAP), composed of three federal district judges. The panel would decide the appeal promptly, within ten days, based solely on the appellant's written brief.

To further ensure a fair review, an RDAP would only hear recusal motions coming from outside the panel's own circuit.

For example, President Trump's administration is fighting an attack on the Department's deportation efforts, and the case has been assigned to Judge James Boasberg, whom Trump believes is unfairly prejudiced.

The Department of Justice lawyers defending the Trump team's deportation efforts can file a motion asking Judge Boasberg to reassign the case to another judge. Still, he would likely deny such a motion.

If a Recursal Denial Appellate Panel existed, Trump's lawyers could appeal on the issue of bias, and the matter would be heard by a panel of federal district court judges from another circuit, such as the Fifth Circuit of Appeals, which has jurisdiction over Texas, Mississippi, and Louisiana.

This reform won't completely solve the problem of bias among the judges of the First Circuit, but it would help. 

Judge James Boasberg: What, me biased?