Judge Jeanine Pirro. Liars, Leakers, and Liberals: The Case Against the Anti-Trump Conspiracy. Center Street, 2018.
Judge Jeanine Pirro. Radicals, Resistance, and Revenge: The Left’s Plot to Remake America. Center Street, 2019.
Judge Jeanine Pirro has been a prosecutor, a judge, and an
Emmy-winning host of a televised court show. She is currently a Fox News
personality. Here are some thoughts and observations about her books:
A. Pirro praises Donald Trump’s accomplishments as President.
Unemployment has been at an all-time low over the past three years,
notwithstanding the Federal Reserve raising interest rates; by contrast,
economic growth during the Obama years was sluggish, even as the Fed
kept interest rates low. Pirro attributes the economic growth under
Trump to Trump’s deregulation and lowering of the corporate tax rate.
Further on the domestic front, Trump has acted on issues about which
liberals only talk, such as criminal justice reform. While Pirro admits
that she sides more with victims than criminals, she states that
criminal justice reform reduces recidivism and thus is a positive
development. On the international scale, Trump has gotten results. After
Trump threatened to impose a tariff on Mexican products, Mexico started
taking care of illegal immigrants rather than sending them in masse to
the United States. Trump has helped bring North and South Korea to the
negotiating table, even as North Korea abandons its nuclear program.
Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, has presided over historic
cooperative meetings among Israel and Arab nations, particularly Saudi
Arabia, as they seek common ground. Trump’s tough stance towards China
has gotten positive results. Some of Pirro’s analysis, particularly on
North Korea, is rather dated, as Kim Jong Un continues to taunt
President Trump and perform tests. As of my writing this, however
(December 2019), unemployment remains low; on the other hand, the
tariffs have resulted in high prices.
B. Pirro argues that Trump is a threat to the “deep state,” which
seeks to undermine him. She is rather nebulous about what the deep
state’s precise motivation is. What policies does the deep state support
that Trump opposes or threatens? They have said or implied that they
support global stability, which Trump threatens through his
irresponsible rhetoric and lack of knowledge, but are there areas in
which their policies benefit the establishment, whereas Trump’s ideas
walk away from that? In terms of motivations, Pirro highlights a variety
of factors. America’s intelligence agencies contain a lot of Clinton
appointees, so they lean towards the liberal establishment. Yet, Pirro
portrays James Comey as self-centered and opportunistic rather than
ideological, similar to J. Edgar Hoover, who threw around his power to
intimidate both Democratic and Republican Presidents. When Comey
criticized Hillary’s e-mails right before the 2016 election day, Pirro
contends, he was showing Hillary that he was a force with which to
reckon, even as he declined to accuse her of anything illegal. While
Pirro’s books are incomplete in detailing the motivations of the deep
state, she is clearer in highlighting the motivations of other opponents
of Trump: a desire to profit from cheap labor, being upset at Hillary
losing the election, etc.
C. Where does Pirro stand on the non-interventionist foreign policy
with which Trump has been associated? On the one hand, she comes across
as somewhat hawkish and bellicose. Whereas some like Trump for being
pro-Russian, Pirro denies that Trump is that, for Trump has imposed
tough sanctions on Russia and has assisted the Ukraine. She praises
Trump for bombing Assad’s Syria. She speaks rather favorably about
George W. Bush’s War on Terror. On the other hand, Pirro seems to favor a
non-interventionist foreign policy. While she supports Trump’s
strategic bombing of Syria, she agrees with Trump that regime change is
not the way to go, for who knows what will replace Assad? We saw how
Obama’s overthrow of Qadaffi in Libya turned out, as Islamic extremists
supplanted the Libyan dictator. Pirro praises Trump for speaking against
the Iraq War in a Republican debate, amidst an audience of Bush
loyalists who roundly booed him. She agrees with Trump that NATO
countries should shoulder more of the financial burden.
D. Pirro provides an effective discussion of so-called socialism in
the Scandinavian countries. Contra Bernie Sanders, Pirro argues that
Scandinavia is not exactly socialistic. It has a policy of low corporate
tax rates and few government regulations, which stimulates the economy
and allows it to pay for its generous social programs; meanwhile, it
seeks to make its social programs less generous. When Scandinavia tried
the Bernie approach, which is to soak only the rich to pay for its
social programs, the result was economic disaster, which was why it
embraced low corporate taxes and fewer government regulations. At the
same time, Pirro notes, taxes are high in Scandinavia, particularly for
the middle class. The VAT is a tax on sales that people throughout
Europe have to pay. One question Pirro does not address in this
discussion is how Scandinavia’s economy does so well, with such high tax
rates. Even if businesses produce a lot as a result of low corporate
taxes and few government regulations, would not the high individual tax
rates and the VAT discourage consumers from buying those products?
E. Pirro talks a lot about the private Trump and the private Hillary.
The private Trump, she believes she knows, for she and he have been
long-time friends. She has observed his interaction with his children as
a father, and she knows about his work ethic, his common touch, and his
generosity towards those in need. Hillary, she does not seem to know
personally, but she bases her portrayal of Hillary on things she has
experienced and learned. She almost ran against Hillary for U.S. Senate,
and Hillary spread untrue rumors against her. She knows people who live
in Hillary’s town, and, while people in town see Bill a lot, they
almost never see Hillary; Pirro interprets this as Hillary’s contempt
towards the non-elites. Pirro also refers to a speech in which Hillary
says that the more creative parts of the country voted for her in 2016
rather than Trump, which Pirro sees as Hillary’s dismissal of “flyover
country.” Speaking for myself, I do not judge Hillary for being aloof,
since I can be introverted and aloof myself. But that does make me less
likely to vote for her, since she seems to be a bit of a snob.
F. The topic of sexism occurs in Pirro’s first book. Pirro talks
about her own experience with sexism when she helped implement a policy
against domestic violence. She quotes Kellyanne Conway, who sees sexism
within the Republican Party as a problem. Pirro notes favorably that
Trump employed women in prominent positions, back when that was rare. At
the same time, Pirro is not a fan of the women’s march, which she sees
as merely anti-Trump rather than constructive. She also points out the
hypocrisy of the establishment media, which lauded Ivanka Trump as a
businesswoman, then changed its tune once her father ran for President.
G. In a number of cases, Pirro is detailed and informative in her
discussions. She brings her legal expertise into her analysis, as when
she defends Attorney General Barr against the charge that he perjured
himself. In criticizing the Steele dossier, which became the basis for
Obama’s spying on Trump’s campaign, she notes that the mainstream media
saw through it and rejected it as unreliable. While she acknowledges
that some of Trump’s appointees have ethical problems, she contends that
they are minor, compared with what most politicians do, and she
contends that Robert Mueller has tried to lessen their sentences if they
will hand over alleged dirt on Trump. Pirro is also helpful in
explaining the purpose of ICE and how it differs from the INS: ICE, in
contrast with the INS, focuses on finding the illegal immigrants who are
in the country. Where Pirro may be a bit sketchy is that she assumes as
factual the idea that Hillary Clinton gave uranium to Russia, in
exchange for contributions to the Clinton foundation and expensive
speaking fees for Bill. This claim has been widely disputed.
While the book is detailed, it is an easy read—-perhaps because of its conversational tone, clarity, and passion.