, , , , , , , , , ,

Mark and Patricia McCloskey

I have not written much about the McCloskey case.  As I’m sure you know, Mark and Patricia McCloskey are lawyers, and in the aftermath of massive and destructive rioting in St. Louis, a mob of hundreds of rioters expanded into the suburbs–the better to show evil white people they’re not safe anywhere–broke into their gated community, and trespassing on their property threatened rape, murder and arson.  Reasonably, they brandished an AR-15 and a pistol, successfully deterring the participants in that particular “summer of love,” many of who were armed with a variety of weapons, including at least one firearm.  No shots were fired, no one was injured, and the BLM and Antifa thugs eventually left the area.

One would think this a classic case of self-defense.  After all, the Supreme Court’s Heller decision essentially enshrined the right of Americans to keep and bear arms on their own property.  One would, however, be reckoning without local prosecutor Kim Gardner, one of many local prosecutors owing their position to money and political support from George Soros, one of the truly evil men alive today.  Gardner quickly charged the McCloskeys with unlawful use of a weapon among other offenses.  Nine of the hundreds of thugs were charged with trespassing, but Gardner quickly dismissed those charges.

The peacefully destroyed gate…

Now, a judge has taken an extraordinary step:

On Thursday, Judge Thomas Clark ruled that Gardner’s repeated references to the McCloskey case in fundraising emails for her re-election effort ‘raise the appearance of impropriety and jeopardize the defendant’s right to a fair trial.’

You don’t say.

‘Ms. Gardner has every right to rebut criticism, but it appears unnecessary to stigmatize defendant – or even mention him – in campaign solicitations, especially when she purports to be responding to others,’ he wrote. ‘In fact, the case law and Rules of Professional Conduct prohibit it.’

What’s this?!  A judge actually upholding legal ethics?!

Should Clark’s ruling stand, a special prosecutor will be appointed to handle the case. In St. Louis, the presiding judge picks the special prosecutor. Judge Rex Burlison is currently St. Louis’ presiding judge.

Clark has scheduled a status hearing on the case for Jan. 7, 2021.

Kim Gardner
credit: youtube.com

Clark noted in his 22-page ruling that it’s rare for prosecutors to be removed from cases and said that he didn’t reach his decision lightly, but added that Gardner’s series of fundraising appeals based off of the McCloskey case ‘aim to raise money using the defendant and the circumstances surrounding the case to rally Ms. Gardner’s political base and fuel contributions.’

This particular ruling applies only to Mark McCloskey’s case.  If it stands, it’s only logical it would also apply to Patricia’s.  There is an outstanding motion in her case to that effect.  Not only should the case never have been brought, it is essentially moot:

Today’s decision only adds more weight to the argument by the couple that their prosecution was politically motivated from the start, and given the fact that Gov. Mike Parson has already vowed to pardon the couple if they are convicted, there’s little need to waste taxpayer time and expense on a trial that’s based on trumped up charges in the first place.

Joel Schwartz, the McCloskeys’ attorney, says he’s hopeful that once a special prosecutor has been appointed, they’ll decide that charges weren’t warranted to begin with.

‘This is what we wanted,’ Schwartz said. ‘We would like a fair-mined prosecutor to take a look at the alleged crimes and reassess the evidence and see what they come up with because we don’t believe any of the evidence supports any of the charges. … as long as that happens, then I think we’ll have the right outcome and that would hopefully be no charges.’

Ironically, Gardner herself claimed that the McCloskeys were the ones politicizing the case, but they were out trying to defend themselves, not get re-elected to office.

But that’s different because Black Lives Matter, viva the revolution, they’re white and social justice!  From Paul Mirengoff at Powerline, here’s a portion of one of Gardner’s fundraising appeals:

You might be familiar with the story of the couple who brandished guns during a peaceful protest outside of their mansion. Well, today the Governor of Missouri weighed in, telling the press:

President Trump understands the situation in. . .St. Louis and how out of control it is for a prosecutor to let violent criminals off. . .and try to attack law abiding citizens.

Instead of fighting for the millions of Americans affected by the pandemic. . .President Trump and the Governor are fighting for the two who pointed guns at peaceful protesters during the Black Lives Matter protests. . . .

Kim needs your help to fight back. And right now she’s under national security from our divisive president, the Republican establishment of Missouri, and the right-wing media. . . .

Will you show Kim you stand with her and rush a donation today?

St. Louis will have an opportunity to re-elect progressive circuit attorney Kim Gardner, who time and again has shown she isn’t afraid to stand up and hold those accountable who are perpetuating a system of systemic racism and police brutality.

A small portion of the “peaceful protestors” besieging the Mc Closkeys
credit: nypost

Let’s review:  Gardner lied about the “peaceful protestors”—extraordinary how “peaceful protestors” engage in so many felonies and cause billions in damage–invoked TRUMP!!!!!, she’s being attacked by Trump, whose attack amounts to daring to criticize her, she’s under attack by “the right-wing media”—one wonders what that might be—and she’s fighting “systemic racism and police brutality” by prosecuting two people who lawfully protected their lives and property.  Gee, sounds legit to me…

This, gentle readers, is precisely the kind of system of “justice” D/S/Cs envision for us all. There yet remains some semblance of rationality, even in St. Louis.  But as always, the process is the punishment.  Fortunately, the McCloskeys can afford to defend themselves, but it should not be necessary.  Most Americans are not so well off, and D/S/Cs know the threat of prosecution, the exercise of raw, unlawful power, may be enough to get many to do what they want, or to just shut up.

That’s the point.  The McCloskeys are a warning to the rest of the little people: dare to oppose the revolution, and this not only could, but will happen to you!

They really haven’t a clue who they’re threatening.