So, I saw this woman. She looked good, so I said hi. ;-)

She’s from DC. (That’s bad)

She’s an attorney. (That’s worse)

She works at the DOJ. (Oh, hell no)

I figured she was a lost cause, but I decided to see if I could get some inside scoop from her. She laughed that everybody in the city of DC is an attorney. (I don’t find that funny)

I asked her what she thought about the Sussmann indictment. (Who?)

She has no idea who Michael Sussmann is, much less that he was indicted. She has no idea who John Durham is.

She works on the civil side of things, not criminal. But still. She is a fucking attorney in fucking DC, and she works at the D.O. fucking J. Hello! Anybody home?

She told me that when a federal government employee gets fired, they have due process rights. I thought, yeah no shit, everybody has due process rights. I told her everybody has due process rights, and she really could not comprehend the concept that everybody has rights. She seemed to think that federal government employees “are in a privileged position” (her words) and that’s why they have due process rights. For a seemingly intelligent woman, this chick is clueless.

I left the conversation thinking that this is exactly what we see with so many doctors. Both doctors and attorneys are taught a very narrow slice of the truth of their professions, and then they have blinders on to anything that is not within the scope of what their professors, bosses, and co-workers spoon-feed to them. They have no knowledge beyond their tunnel vision. Much of what they think they know is not true. And there is a lot of truth that they are completely unaware of.

And these attorneys in DC have an obvious arrogance about them. They think they are on the top of the food chain. They think they have somehow “made it.” The reality is the federal government is at the bottom of the food chain. They are servants. Nothing more.

I also listened to an interview on the radio where a lawyer was talking about how so many judges have been “fooled” (that was the word used) by claims of the 1905 Supreme Court case related to mandating vaccines. He said it was a very narrow ruling (only applied to a specific situation, not related to what we are seeing now), and even that was overturned later by the Supreme Court. It seems that lawyers are bamboozeling judges into believing that the court case is relevant when it is not. But apparently, judges are too lazy or too stupid to read.

Clown World.