Deconstructing the Narrative of the Resistance

If you are like me, anytime you hear or see a news story now that begins out with: “X number of such-and-such experts” or “former intelligence officials” or “retired military officers” or some such “sign letter saying Y,” you have realized to low cost it. We’re supposed to be impressed by the appeal to authority and/or the quantity of those signing off on a proposition. 

We aren’t. Not even when they’re judges. 

Now, it pains me a bit to say that because I’m a firm believer in the judiciary and its having a vital position in our governance. And, as a recovering lawyer myself, one who practiced law in a number of courts before a number of judges over the course of nearly three a long time, respect for the bench is ingrained. I’m properly acquainted with the fact that rulings often do not go the method we wish them to, but primed to start from the premise that judges know what they’re doing and get it proper more often than not. They get that “wisdom of Solomon” deference, which, I understand, is often unwarranted. I’m merely acknowledging my default setting on this. 

So when I noticed the story a number of days in the past about “42 retired judges” having signed off on an “open letter” criticizing the Trump administration’s indictment of former FBI Director James Comey, I semi-dismissed it. I knew not to put a lot stock in it — that it was possible a cohort of By no meansTrump kinds being trotted out to sound spectacular; that I’d in all probability disagree with their take; and that, in the entire scheme of issues, it wasn’t value the ink or digital space used to create it. I wrote it off. 

But then, while listening to my favourite podcast (“America This Week“) on Saturday, hosts Matt Taibbi and Walter Kirn fleshed it out a bit more, and I used to be surprised at the absolute absurdity of the parts of the letter they shared. 

So, I felt compelled to search it out myself and see if it was as dunderheaded as it sounded. Indeed, it was and is, so, as I did with the narrative of the left following Charlie Kirk’s assassination, I now really feel compelled to deconstruct this ridiculous letter authored/signed by what I’m now referring to as the Resistance Judiciary™️.

SEE: Deconstructing the Narrative of the Left – Part 1: Fact vs. Opinion

Deconstructing the Narrative of the Left – Part 2: The Debate

First, a phrase about the signatories: Top of the record is Judge Michael Luttig, a former Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. His identify could sound acquainted, as he’s a frequent speaking head on legacy media shops sounding the alarm about the Bad Orange Man and such. Okay, that tracks. 

I really did not acknowledge any of the other names on the record — none have been from Missouri; surprisingly few have been from what we would think about pink states, even. Plenty of California, Massachusetts, and New York, though. Bearing in thoughts that these are all retired judges and thus, would not be of current classic, the most charitable studying of political affiliation as to the judges and/or the executives who appointed them is that this record consists of a 75 % Democrat, 25 % Republican lean. And by charitable, I imply assuming that somebody appointed by Ronald Reagan or George H.W. Bush is aligned with Donald Trump and the Republican Party of 2025. In other phrases, realistically, there could also be two or three judges on this record who still vote Republican. 

That proper there undercuts the “authority” this missive carries. We do not know, of course, how many former judges have been contacted who opted not to hop on this bandwagon — and whether or not they did so due to ideological motivation, or out of second-hand embarrassment for the ones who did. 

Does it look like I’m being harsh? Well, let’s transfer on to the physique of the letter and dissect it (main bullet factors are the letter’s language; sub-points are my commentary): 

• “The rights and liberties of Americans are protected by the Constitution and the Rule of Law.”
  • Check. We are in settlement.
• “Those rights and liberties of every American are in grave danger today, as President Donald Trump continues to corruptly abuse the power of his office by directing the United States Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation to target his critics and his perceived political enemies for investigation and criminal prosecution.” 
  • There’s a lot to unpack there. It’s largely their opinion/characterization, but while I agree it sounds ominous, I’m left questioning why they never spoke up during the Biden or Obama administrations. Yes, this is whataboutism, but even if we take their characterizations at face worth, they’re willfully turning a blind eye to something that occurred prior to January 20, 2025. It also presupposes there’s no legit investigation or prison prosecution to be had. 
• “His every threat and every pretextual investigation and prosecution further corrupts America’s democracy and Rule of Law.”
  • Again, this presupposes there’s nothing to examine or prosecute. And why can we always default to “America’s/our democracy” with zero acknowledgment that we’re a republic? 
• “In the United States of America, the Constitution forbids President Trump from ordering the unfounded prosecution of his perceived political adversaries and his critics.”
  • Hold the telephone right here, yer honerz — I’m completely sure the Constitution never once mentions “President Trump.” Does it place limits on the scope of the president’s authority? Yes. ALL presidents. 
• “While the Constitution does not prevent President Trump from firing federal prosecutors, no prosecutor should ever be fired for refusing to bring baseless charges against President Trump’s political adversaries and critics.” 
  • Okay, again, they skip proper past the acknowledgment of that which is within the purview of the president and proper into prejudging the case against Comey and saying the expenses against him “baseless” and due to his criticism of Trump (like criticism of Trump is a rarity). 
• “Yet that is exactly what Donald Trump has done. He has fired his own prosecutors because they refused to pursue criminal charges against Americans for whom he harbors personal animus and then he has immediately installed handpicked replacements who have pursued the investigations or indictments that their predecessors declined to bring, despite reportedly having been told that there was insufficient evidence to bring charges.”
  • I believe this is a truthful level to argue. This is their opinion and they’re entitled to it, though, of course, one would possibly query what they’re basing it on.  
• “As a consequence of President Trump’s actions over the past nine months that he has been in the presidency, no American is safe from criminal prosecution, regardless of whether they have violated the law and regardless of their political or ideological views.”
  • This is hyperbolic, to say the least. Are they contending that the Constitution no longer affords Americans protections? And weren’t they just saying Trump was going after his political adversaries? But now it is just anybody and everybody, willy-nilly?
• “For the first time in American history, the bedrock First Amendment right of American citizens to disagree with their president and their government and to express their views and opinions on any matter they wish — including their president — is under unprecedented attack by the President of the United States.”
  • So, I assume these tremendous folks have been asleep during the Biden years? No familiarity with Missouri v. Biden/Murthy v. Missouri? No awareness of the Twitter Files? Or Google’s current admission that it took down YouTube accounts under strain from the Biden administration? Or Facebook/Meta’s acknowledgment of related actions? 
  • More importantly, what on God’s inexperienced earth does the First Amendment have to do with the expenses against Comey? Are they contending that there aren’t federal statutes that criminalize making false statements to Congress or interfering with congressional proceedings? That St. Comey is someway immune from their software because he also occurs to be a critic of Trump? He’s not being charged for his criticisms of (or veiled threats against) Trump. 
  • Also, the Department of Redundancy Department is looking relating to the highlighted parts above. 
• “All Americans have an obligation as citizens of this great country to speak out against this unprecedented attack on our freedom of speech and to demand that Donald Trump’s attacks on our right to speak freely without fear of being persecuted and prosecuted by our government must stop now.”
  • Again, how is Comey’s prosecution an assault on freedom of speech? Are these former jurists genuinely contending that the First Amendment protects false statements in congressional proceedings? 
  • And again, I suppose it is good that they determined to wake up and determine that authorities suppression of speech is a dangerous factor. Where have been they circa 2021 and 2022? 
  • Lastly, what is it they’re hoping to accomplish with this? Do they suppose this will gin up enough outrage and offended calls to the DOJ that it’s going to just reverse course and determine to drop the case against Comey? Is that how they suppose the judicial system is meant to work? Is that how they determined circumstances when they sat on the bench?

I do not know who drafted this letter. I do not know how intently those who signed it read it or how deeply they thought about it. I do know that other than giving a thrill up the leg of those who already agree with them, this is about the lamest advantage signal I’ve ever seen. And I’m completely embarrassed for the once vaunted judiciary. 

 Judges Statement on Comey  by  Susie Moore 

Editor’s Note: The Schumer Shutdown is right here. Rather than put the American people first, Chuck Schumer and the radical Democrats compelled a authorities shutdown for healthcare for illegals. They own this.

Help us continue to report the reality about the Schumer Shutdown. Use promo code POTUS47 to get 74% off your VIP membership.