Category: Enemies Foreign and Domestic

Tim Walz: Anti-Israel protesters ‘speaking out for all the right reasons’.

The Democratic vice presidential candidate failed to mention Hamas or the six murdered hostages in his response to a local radio station

Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, Vice President Kamala Harris’ running mate, told a Michigan NPR affiliate on Thursday that anti-Israel protesters in Michigan “are speaking out for all the right reasons.”

“I think those folks who are speaking out loudly in Michigan are speaking out for all the right reasons. It’s a humanitarian crisis. It can’t stand the way it is, and we need to find a way that people can live together in this,” Walz said in an interview with WCMU, a public radio station serving central and northern Michigan.

Walz has said little about the war in Gaza since Harris tapped him to be her running mate in August. His remarks in the WCMU interview, after a reporter asked how a Harris-Walz administration would handle the Israel-Hamas war, offered a look at his thinking on the topic. 

“I think first and foremost, what we saw on October 7 was a horrific act of violence against the people of Israel. They have certainly, and the vice president said it, l’ve said it, have the right to defend themselves, and the United States will always stand by that,” Walz began. 

In his answer, Walz did not mention Hamas. Nor did he refer to the six hostages, including U.S. citizen Hersh Goldberg-Polin, who were murdered over the weekend. 

“We can’t allow what’s happened in Gaza to happen,” Walz continued. “The Palestinian people have every right to life and liberty themselves. We need to continue, I think, to put the leverage on to make sure we move towards a two-state solution.”

Then, Walz clarified where, in his view, the U.S. should exert leverage: on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

“I think we’re at a critical point right now. We need the Netanyahu government to start moving in that direction,” said Walz. “We’ve said it and continue to say it, getting a cease-fire with the return of the hostages, and then moving towards a sustainable, two-state solution is the only way forward.”

Over the past year, Walz has attempted to appease both pro-Israel Democrats and more progressive Democrats who have become staunchly critical of Israel after Oct. 7. He drew scrutiny last month for having previously appeared at events with a Muslim cleric who has shared antisemitic and pro-Hamas content.

Kostas Moros

A lot of people foolishly believe that the gun control movement’s motivation is a misguided but good faith desire to stop criminal violence.

While that’s true of some people who have been personally affected by gun-related crime, for the party leaders and financiers of the left, it’s not really true. If stopping crime were the big concern, they wouldn’t embrace so many policies that quickly release violent criminals back into society.

Criminal violence isn’t the real target, the fact that broad gun ownership is a check on the erosion of other liberties is. What is happening in the UK and Brazil right now is much harder to do in the US. Millions being armed is a major deterrent to it.

Everything the modern American Democrat party does makes sense when you realize the goal is to turn us into docile and harmless western Europeans.

Harris-led office, ATF stonewalling probe into ‘collusion’ with anti-gun group lawsuit: House Oversight chair
Both the White House and ATF have turned down multiple House Oversight inquiries into charges of ‘collusion’ with Chicago’s lawsuit against Glock

Vice President Kamala Harris is campaigning on what she characterizes as a record of a tough former prosecutor. But a White House office she has “overseen” may have focused less on gun crimes and more on targeting a legal gun manufacturer.

The House Oversight and Accountability Committee says the Biden-Harris administration is stonewalling an investigation into potential “collusion” with a gun control group founded by billionaire former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg to boost Chicago’s lawsuit against Glock Inc.

Since June, neither the White House nor the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, better known as the ATF, has responded to multiple inquiries from the committee.

The ATF missed its most recent deadline to respond to the committee on Wednesday, Aug. 28.

“The American people should be very concerned that, rather than prosecuting criminals, the Biden-Harris White House is colluding with anti-Second Amendment groups, and rather than responding to serious congressional requests with transparency, the White House is choosing to not comply with our request,” Rep. James Comer, R-Ky., told Fox News Digital.

The committee has been investigating the White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention’s communications with the Everytown for Gun Safety regarding a lawsuit by the city of Chicago against Glock, a firearms manufacturer.

Continue reading “”

It’s nice we even have video for PID of an actual threat to the U.S.

Do We Need a ‘New Constitution’ to Protect Democracy™? Berkeley Professor Weighs in

Erwin Chemerinsky, Berkeley Law School dean and author of “No Democracy Lasts Forever: How the Constitution Threatens the United States,” is not a fan of the United States Constitution, which obviously makes him an ideal academic to teach the next generation of lawyers how to practice law.

Via Los Angeles Times (emphasis added):

No matter the outcome of the November elections, it is urgent that there be a widespread recognition that American democracy is in danger and that reforms are essential. No form of government lasts forever, and it would be foolhardy to believe that the United States cannot fall prey to the forces that have ended democracies in many other countries.

Although the causes are complex, many of today’s problems can be traced back to choices made in drafting the Constitution, choices that are increasingly haunting us. After 200 years, it is time to begin thinking of drafting a new Constitution to create a more effective, more democratic government.

Signs abound that American democracy is in serious trouble. Confidence in the institutions of American government is at an all-time low. The Pew Research Center has been tracking public trust in government since 1958. It has gone from a high-water mark of 77% in 1964 to our contemporary 20%.* A poll in September 2023 indicated that only 4% of U.S. adults said the American political system worked “extremely or very well.” A recent Gallup poll had only 16% of Americans expressing approval for how Congress is performing its job.

Especially individuals in their 20s and 30s are losing faith in democracy. A Brookings Institution study found that 29% of “young Americans say that democracy is not always preferable to other political forms.”

*These people never ask fundamental questions like: why is trust in government at an all-time low? Nothing is different about this guy’s analysis; he simply chalks it up to some vague failings of “democracy” without legitimizing the mistrust, which isn’t fit to be printed in the self-anointed guardians of Democracy™ like the Los Angeles Times.

**Here I feel compelled to offer the obligatory but necessary caveat that we don’t actually have a pure democracy. In generic terms, “democracy” means rule by the people. In practice, pure democracy is merely mob rule, which is not and has never been a foundation of Western civilization excepts for brief stints of upheaval like the French Revolution — and we saw how that story ended.


Continuing:

There is an alternative to a spate of separate amendments: starting fresh by passing a new Constitution. It does not take much reflection to see the absurdity of using a document written for a small, poor and relatively inconsequential nation in the late 18th century to govern a large country of immense wealth in the technological world of the 21st century.

It may seem strange and frightening to suggest thinking of a new Constitution at a time of great partisan division. But that existed in 1787; in many of the states, the Constitution was just barely ratified.

This brings back up ‘The Great Replacement Theory‘, but it appears to me to change the ‘why’ from mere political power to an actual hate of the normal average American who can’t be fooled all the time and can never be considered a reliable toady.

The Anti-Children Crusade

Depending on which sources you choose to believe, on or around the year 1212 A.D. there was a “crusade” made up largely of children. Supposedly it was a peace-minded movement to travel to the Holy Land and convert the Muslims there to Christianity. No, it didn’t work. Indeed, a great many of the participants were captured and sold into slavery. Others died of exhaustion before they got anywhere near the Holy Land.

Well, today there’s an ongoing “crusade” of another kind: an anti-children crusade. Those active in it will do just about anything to discourage live births, especially the births of white children. I’ve compiled a book of essays that touch on the subject. Also, Pascal and I write about it here now and then. It’s part of the reason for the decline of birth rates in Europe and North America.

The crusade against children has several parts. My fiction colleague Hans Schantz delineated some of its aspects here, in a passage from his novel The Hidden Truth. There are others beyond those Hans touches on, though. One emerged recently, from an unusual source:

     There’s a new U.S. surgeon general’s warning: Parenting can be harmful to your mental health.
     An advisory issued Wednesday by Dr. Vivek Murthy, the nation’s doctor, said parents in particular are under dangerous levels of stress.
     The report cites the American Psychological Association, saying nearly half of parents report overwhelming stress most days, compared with 26% of other adults. They’re lonelier, too, according to cited data from health insurer Cigna. In a 2021 survey, 65% of parents said they were lonely, compared with 55% of those without kids.

How about that, Gentle Reader! Taking responsibility for the life of a helpless human being comes with stress! Who could have guessed that before the Surgeon-General told us?

(By the way, how do we define “overwhelming stress?” Is there a metric of some sort? The number of antidepressants taken per week, perhaps? Or must we wait for the sufferers to commit suicide before we can confidently diagnose it?)

The stresses that impinge upon a household with minor children to care for are real enough. Yet our grandparents coped with them rather well. Generations before them did even better. That suggests that some, at least, of the stresses are of recent vintage. Rather than explore the matter in detail here and now, I’ll simply say “more anon” and proceed with my main point: the convergence of disincentives and discouragements against the bearing of children, which are most visible in First-World nations.

     A healthy fraction of those discouragements are deliberate. The people behind them don’t want white Americans to have children. White Americans – the people who built this country, and are still overwhelmingly responsible for keeping it going – are being out-reproduced by just about every other identifiable demographic. I leave the consequences to your imagination.

Who would find such a trend desirable, and why? Why does Vivek Murthy, “the nation’s doctor,” find it appropriate to add his voice to it? Anyone? Bueller?

More anon.

Gun Owners for Harris Highlight Lie of ‘Second Amendment Democrats’

“We can prevent gun violence while also supporting the Second Amendment,” a Giffords-sponsored “sportsmen’s” effort lies. “Gun Owners for Safety unites hunters, sport shooters, and collectors who want commonsense gun laws.”

Giffords, of course, along with all the other major gun prohibitionist groups, has endorsed Kamala Harris, who will sign whatever anti-gun legislation the Democrats succeed in passing and go for what they can’t through executive action. And then she’ll reshape the Supreme Court. That’s some “commonsense support.”

It’s never hard to find “Fudds” who are enthusiastic about voting for citizen disarmament pushing politicians and throwing fellow gun owners under the bus. A prime example is Harris’ Vice President pick, Tim Walz, once “A” rated and endorsed by the NRA. But while low information voters are being gaslit into thinking the Second Amendment can be ‘respected’ while it’s being eviscerated, a striking inequity is being revealed.

There is no parallel “pro-Second Amendment Democrat” movement happening. That’s because there’s no such thing as one.

Where are Second Amendment Democrats for Trump?

Experience shows they prioritize other issues above the right to keep and bear arms, meaning they really don’t understand it to be a right at all. This was unequivocally proven years ago, when I conversed with the head of the Second Amendment Democrats.

After all kinds of weasel-wording and Molon Labe-ing, he finally could not deny the one truth that ultimately defines them:

Under no circumstances will Amendment II Democrats support Republican candidates who run against anti-RKBA Democrats. We are, after all, Democrats.

I don’t know (or care) whatever happened to them, but do note there is a Facebook group that goes by that name, a group you can join with all of 19 members that doesn’t look like it’s been active for years. They offer further confirmation that there’s no such thing as what they claim to be:

Hello everyone. Who do we all think will be best on the 2nd Amendment of the current field? My guess is Bernie Sanders, though I suppose Amy Klobuchar has represented the most constituents with guns.

I agree that Bernie is the best bet. Not sure if Buttegeig would prioritize gun control like Booker or Warren.

Personally I feel like Buttigieg is the best candidate for president and to run against Trump, but not sure how I feel about any of their stances on gun control. There are so many issues.

It’s not my top priority either…

Obviously.

It’s not for the Giffords Fudds, either:

David Codrea’s take on the overeducated moron.

Gun Prohibitionist’s Ultimatum Warrants Appropriate Gun Owner Response

“I would personally suggest the gun control groups develop a BATNA to help induce more good-faith negotiating,” Tom H. Hastings, Director of the Peace and Nonviolence Studies, Conflict Resolution graduate program at Portland State University and Secretary for the Oregon Peace Studies Consortium writes in the Lockport Union-Sun & Journal.

“BATNA?” Hastings asks rhetorically (“Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement”).  “It simply means that, if you are trying to negotiate with anyone, it’s important to not only think about ‘what if these negotiations fail,’ but to let the others know what you will be forced to do in that case.”

What does Hastings believe he’s “negotiating,” with whom, and what will he feel compelled to do if his demands aren’t met?

“My choice of BATNA would be, ‘Look gun rights people, we want to negotiate common sense regulations with you,” Hastings explains. “However, literally every time we pass such measures at the local or state level, you work to overcome the will of the people by challenging those commonsense measures in court, with your lawsuits, and it’s all based on the Second Amendment.”

“So we have a best alternative to a negotiated agreement,” Hastings imagines. “Our BATNA is that we are going to stop all other gun control work and focus all our resources on a campaign to repeal the Second Amendment.”

No carrot, just the stick? Give us everything we demand or we’re going to take even more? Hastings’ use of the term “negotiating” invokes nothing so much as Inigo Montoya’s famous “You keep using that word” line from The Princess Bride.

Here’s a counter-BATNA, Mr. Hastings: No. Your move.

I can’t speak for all gun owners the way you presume to speak for all gun-grabbers, but for, say three percent of them (which would still be millions of us), the only response you’ll get is “We will not disarm.”

We’re not interested in negotiating our rights that you and your fellow travelers have no claim to. Come and take them.

We’re not going to surrender the most egalitarian power-sharing arrangement ever devised by men a lot smarter than you so that useful idiots can ensure the state has an unchallengeable monopoly of violence. Besides, we know from experience that no concession will ever be enough (that’s why they call them “totalitarians”), and we know from nature that if you throw a scrap of flesh to a circling pack of jackals, rather than go away sated they will be emboldened to move in closer.

It’s not like your idea is anything new or original. Google “Repeal Second Amendment,” and you’ll see no shortage of egghead dolts who, like you, believe they’re smart but haven’t thought things through about what demanding the same unconditional surrender from an armed populace will result in. The latest rumblings that come to mind are from California Governor Gavin Newsom going full Orwell with his offensive and absurd 28th Amendment.

I see you were proposing the same subversive, reality-denying nonsense back in 2022, when you even showed you were aware of the potential of “Civil War 2.0. With approximately 400 million guns floating around U.S. society and an armed MAGA-driven polarization met by an increasingly armed leftist radical wing, along with evermore virulent rhetoric and escalating numbers walking around open-carrying war weaponry in public…”

To give yourself some semblance of gravitas, you begin your piece by citing Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, who like you, called for repeal of the Second Amendment. But here’s the thing: Never meant to be an easy task, even if you could get the numbers needed to pass an amendment to the Constitution, repealing 2A would still not remove the right to arms. As the Heller majority noted when citing an earlier decision:

“The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it ‘shall not be infringed.’ As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, ‘[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed…’”

And it shall not be—some of us will see to that.

So now it’s back to you, Mr. Hastings. Your silly and offensive BATNA is rejected, we’re not interested. Now do your worst. But do one other thing first: If they ever do pass your sick little fantasy, flesh out how you think those enforcing it (certainly not you or your fellow gun-grabbers by proxy!) are going to make it all happen. And since there hasn’t been much original thought offered from your side so far, don’t forget to threaten using F-15s and nukes!

With “progressives,” every day is Opposite Day. So it figures an aging, grinning academic wearing a stupid peace symbol earring is proposing unleashing the bloody horrors of civil war on the people of the Republic, and doing it in the name of non-violence and democracy.

Imagine What President Kamala Harris Could Do to Guns If She Has Price Control Power

Vice President Kamala Harris rolled out the first of her policy positions and they seem eerily familiar. The Democratic nominee for president wants to attack runaway rising food prices by inserting government to set the prices grocery stores could charge at the checkout counter. That’s not what happens in a free-market society. That’s what happened in the Soviet Union and other failed communist and socialist states, like Cuba and Venezuela.

But what does that mean for gun sales? It could mean everything. If Vice President Harris were to get Congress to go along with her big government price controlling schemes, it’s not a stretch that she could use those same authorities to demand that firearm prices are artificially high and beyond the reach for all but the ultra-rich.

It would be a policy of “If you like your Second Amendment, you can keep your Second Amendment…if you can afford it.”

And recall that we recently discussed the growing trend of courts ruling you don’t have a Second Amendment right to purchase a firearm. Would a Second Amendment challenge to government price fixing succeed?

Continue reading “”

“Nasty” was Trump’s word for Hillary Clinton in 2016. It deserves wider circulation.

Andy Beshear Hopes Somebody Rapes J.D. Vance’s Wife or Daughter.

The Democrat Party is filled with trash people.

That’s not to say every Democrat is trash; just an abnormally large number of them are disgusting, nasty, vile, hateful liars whose fondest wish is to harm people they disagree with.

They want to cancel them, put them in jail, lock them in their homes, shame them for not wearing masks, force them to inject themselves with experimental gene therapies, and…have their family members raped.

And that’s just the party leaders. Look outside at the protesters, and they want to murder Jews.

What a nice group of people.

Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear is one of these “fine people” to coin a phrase, who, when he drops his mask, reveals himself to be a hateful scumbag of a man.

Continue reading “”

Pro-Hamas Activists Storm Democratic Event in NYC, Clashing With Police and Setting Off Smoke Bombs

While it wasn’t an official Kamala Harris campaign event in New York City, it was in support of her candidacy as local Democrats, including Mayor Eric Adams, arrived to give what’s reported as a pep rally for the vice president’s candidacy ahead of next week’s convention in Chicago, Illinois. There was one significant issue: the rally got interrupted by pro-Hamas activists, highlighting the simmering tension within the Democratic Party base about the war in Gaza (via Politico):

The energy and size of an ebullient rally of elected New York Democrats hyped for Kamala Harris’ candidacy met a massive crowd of pro-Palestinian demonstrators chanting, banging drums and waving banners Wednesday night.

The Democrats’ rally was interrupted repeatedly by the protesters — a reminder of one of the party’s biggest internal divisions.

But like the vice president has on the campaign trail, the speakers took the brief disruptions in stride. …

The gathering, dubbed the “New York City Kickoff” and attended by federal, state and municipal leaders as well as labor union members, delivered Democratic unity at an event space in Harlem. Both Gov. Kathy Hochul and Rep. Adriano Espaillat (D-N.Y.) urged the Democrats in solidly blue New York City to canvass in swing states like Pennsylvania for the Harris-Walz ticket and in swing districts around the state for House Democratic candidates.

The event wasn’t officially sanctioned by the Harris campaign, but it gave the feel of a pep rally or sendoff to the Democratic National Convention next week in Chicago.

The rise of academic hate.
Faculty have gone from professors to extremists

Nicholas Giordano is a professor of Political Science, the host of The P.A.S. Report Podcast, and a fellow at Campus Reform’s Higher Education Fellowship. With 2 decades of teaching experience and over a decade of experience in the emergency management/homeland security arena, Professor Giordano is regularly called on to speak about issues related to government, politics, and international relations.

 

There are far too many radical professors who dominate academia, peddle hate, and dehumanize those who dissent from their narrow-minded ideological views. For instance, Rutgers University has placed professor Tracy Budd under internal review for a post where she hoped the failed assassination attempt on former President Trump would “inspire others.” Since Campus Reform’s inception in 2009, we have spotlighted the escalating extremism infecting our college campuses.

While many college professors still cherish the institutional values of education – robust debate, free speech, and intellectual curiosity – unfortunately there are too many professors who have become even more extreme and unhinged. Not only does their rhetoric reflect poorly on our institutions and my profession, but the impact of their radicalism is undeniable and dangerous. How dangerous? Consider how five members of the student council at a West Bank university, which has direct ties to several American colleges and universities, were recently arrested for planning a significant terror attack.

How long will it be before the same extremism fosters a terror attack within the United States as radical professors indoctrinate students with their hateful ideology? From the October 7th Hamas terror attacks, which resulted in the grisly death of nearly 1,200 innocent men, women, children, and babies, to the assassination attempt on former President and current presidential candidate Donald Trump to attacks on voices like the Leadership Institute’s Riley Gaines who was attacked by a student mob at San Francisco State University.

They have become so brazen that they don’t bother to conceal their extremism. What does it say about our institutions that some professors feel emboldened to openly promote hate, anti-Americanism, antisemitism, and even violence? For example, Columbia University professor Joseph Massad called the October 7th attacks “awesome” and a “stunning victory of the Palestinian resistance.” Professor Russell Rickford of Cornell University called the Hamas terror attacks “exhilarating.” Vanderbilt University’s Ayesha Khan stated that Hamas deserves “to resist their oppressors by any means necessary.” Professor Mike Tosca referred to Jews as “pigs,” and “excrement” that should “rot in hell.” Another Columbia University professor advised students to avoid mainstream media outlets because “it is owned by Jews.”

With regard to the Trump assassination attempt, the ideological zealots couldn’t control themselves. Berklee College professor Marty Walsh proclaimed, “Too bad the shooter missed. Maybe this will spawn copycat shooters.” Professor Martha Galindo from Ocean County College was also upset that the shooter missed. Morgan State University professor Stacy Patton likened Trump to Hitler in an opinion editorial and claimed that ‘Black people’ wish the assassin killed Trump because they are “wishing for the death of evil.” Some in academia, including Uju Anya from Carnegie Mellon University, suggested that the attempt on President Trump’s life was staged.

Regardless of political views, the fact that some in academia display support for terrorist organizations, express disappointment that the assassination attempt failed, and openly call for copycat attacks and genocide is deeply troubling. Their hateful rhetoric goes against the basic principles of decency and respect that should govern any academic environment.

With educators like these, is it any surprise that students support a terrorist organization like Hamas. Given the state of our education system, it shouldn’t shock people that 30% of Gen Z’ers believe that Osama bin Laden’s ideas were a force for good. Is it any wonder why some students chant ‘death to America’ and openly celebrate the attempted killing of a former President.

It is clear that these extremists have become a dangerous influence on our youth. As a professor, it demeans our profession, and it’s why so many Americans have lost faith in our higher education institutions.

These extremists stigmatize the quality professors who remain committed to genuine education and the responsibilities placed on us as educators. They undermine the integrity of our educational institutions by molding an anti-American mindset. The consequences of their radicalism should be painfully evident to anyone who has been paying attention to the increasing political polarization and social division within our country.

Either they’ve been bought and paid for, or they’re closet moslems.

Tim Walz repeatedly hosted Muslim cleric who celebrated Oct. 7 and shared pro-Hitler website link

Democratic vice presidential nominee Tim Walz, on at least five occasions as governor of Minnesota, hosted a Muslim cleric who celebrated Hamas‘s Oct. 7 attack last year on Israel and promoted a film popular among Neo-Nazis that glorifies Adolf Hitler, the Washington Examiner found.

The imam, Asad Zaman of the Muslim American Society of Minnesota, joined other Muslim leaders in May 2023 for a meeting about mosque security with Walz’s gubernatorial office in Minnesota. Zaman also spoke at a May 2020 event to call for peaceful protests with the governor during the riots in Minnesota sparked after George Floyd’s death. In April 2019, the cleric delivered an invocation before Walz’s state address — just months after Zaman called for an end to a government shutdown at a press conference with Walz in January 2019.

Zaman, moreover, attended a May 2019 event that Walz hosted for Ramadan, social media posts show.

Walz’s ties to Zaman could serve as problematic baggage for the Minnesota governor as he campaigns with Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic presidential nominee. News of the ties also comes after a Washington Free Beacon report this week found Walz spoke at a 2019 event with an antisemitic scholar who has defended terrorism against Israel.

Continue reading “”

Harris Wanted to Use Illegal Registry to Harass Gun Owners and Confiscate Firearms.

Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris once threatened to use databases of gun owners to send police to their homes to confiscate firearms.

Ms. Harris described her gun control stance in August 2019 at a Democratic presidential primary forum that took place shortly after two deadly mass shootings in California and Texas.

She said she was “prepared to take executive action” to implement comprehensive background checks, crack down on gun dealers and ban the import of so-called assault weapons.

Ms. Harris said she knew how to enforce tough gun laws because as California attorney general she allowed police to “knock on the doors of people” on a state list of prohibited gun owners and people deemed a danger to themselves and others.

“We sent law enforcement out to take those guns because we have to deal with this on all levels.”

— Kerry Pickett in Harris backed using ‘lists’ of gun owners to send police door-to-door to seize firearms

Question O’ The Day
Do I look like someone who would make that basic mistake?
Answer O’ The Day:
Yes

If we can thank Senator McConnell for one thing, it’s keeping this moron hack off the Supreme Court

AG Garland slams dismissal of Trump’s classified documents case: ‘Do I look like someone who would make that basic mistake?’

Attorney General Merrick Garland suggested Tuesday that his lengthy legal career makes it unlikely that he illegally appointed Special Counsel Jack Smith to investigate alleged crimes committed by former President Donald Trump.

Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed the federal classified documents case against Trump earlier this month, ruling that the special counsel was not lawfully appointed by Garland – a determination that made the Biden administration official bristle.

“For more than 20 years I was a federal judge. Do I look like someone who would make that basic mistake about the law? I don’t think so,” Garland said in an interview with “NBC Nightly News.”

The attorney general noted that his “favorite room” in the Justice Department is its law library to hammer down the point.

“Our position is, it’s constitutional and valid. That’s why we appealed,” Garland added.

“I will say that this is the same process of appointing special counsel as was followed in the previous administration, Special Counsel [John] Durham and Special Counsel [Robert] Mueller, in multiple special counsels over the decades going back to Watergate and the special prosecutor in that case,” he said.

“Until now every single court, including the Supreme Court, that has considered the legality of a special counsel appointment has upheld it.”

In her July 15 order, Cannon ruled that Congress was required to appoint “constitutional officers” and the legislature was also needed to approve spending for such a prosecution.

“That role cannot be usurped by the executive branch or diffused elsewhere — whether in this case or in another case, whether in times of heightened national need or not,” she wrote in her 93-page ruling.

The judge determined that “Special Counsel Smith’s investigation has unlawfully drawn funds from the Indefinite Appropriation.”

“The Special Counsel’s office has spent tens of millions of dollars since November 2022, all drawn unconstitutionally from the Indefinite Appropriation,” Cannon wrote.

Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed the classified documents case against Trump earlier this month, arguing that the special counsel was unlawfully appointed by the attorney general.

“For more than 18 months, Special Counsel Smith’s investigation and prosecution has been financed by substantial funds drawn from the Treasury without statutory authorization, and to try to rewrite history at this point seems near impossible. The Court has difficulty seeing how a remedy short of dismissal would cure this substantial separation-of-powers violation, but the answers are not entirely self-evident, and the caselaw is not well developed,” she added.

Smith’s team is expected to file a brief related to their appeal in the case, which charged the 78-year-old Republican nominee for president with improperly hoarding sensitive and classified White House documents at his Mar-a-Lago residence after his presidency, by the end of August.

Trump faced up to 450 years in prison if convicted on all counts in the case.