RUTHFULLY YOURS

This is what Cummings an unrelenting “impeachnick” said on July 24 about the President after the Mueller meeting in Congress:

Cummings:

CUMMINGS: I first wanted to applaud Chairman Nadler and–who heads our judiciary committee and certainly our chairman of intelligence committee for what they did today and their committees. What they did was paint a picture for America.

One of the most chilling things that I have noticed that–that I’ve witnessed is when a member of–former member of our committee, Mr. Amash, a Republican, went to his town hall meeting and got a round of applause in a Republican district after he had said that he felt that the president should be impeached. But that wasn’t the thing that got me. What really got me was when a lady at the end of the–the town hall meeting said I didn’t know that there was anything negative in the Mueller report about President Trump. That says a lot.

And to her credit, our Speaker made it clear that we needed to paint a picture for America for they could–so that they could fully understand what is going on. This is a critical moment in–and our country’s history. Don’t–don’t be fooled. And it is a moment which people will be talking about and reading about 3, 400, 500 years from now. And they are going to ask the question what did you do when we had a president who–who knew the rules and knew that our founding fathers had done a great job of creating a constitution and had put in all the guardrails but never anticipated that we would have a president that would just throw away the guardrails.

And that’s why what happened today is so critical. It was a giant step in making sure that the American people were–got a picture of all of this and hopefully will look towards the future and say we’re not going to have this. Both Mr. Nadler and Mr. Schiff said something that’s very critical. This isn’t normal.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/07/resistance-inc/Why impeachment isn’t going away.

Trump supporters are right to feel vindication after Robert Mueller’s testimony before Congress. At times the special counsel seemed unfamiliar with the contents of his own report. He came across as aloof and confused and often unable to answer both Democratic and Republican questions to the lawmakers’ satisfaction. The same media figures that began the day saying Mueller’s appearance might be the game changer ended up calling it a flop. “Democrats now have one option to end Trump’s presidency,” read the headline of Dan Balz’s analysis in the Washington Post. “The 2020 election.” Trump, as always, put it more memorably: “truth is a force of nature!”

The real truth is Mueller’s testimony was never going to interrupt preexisting trends. Support for impeachment has been stable for a year at around 40 percent in the Fox News poll of registered voters. Fox asks, “Do you think President Trump should be impeached and removed from office, or not?” In June 2018, 39 percent of respondents answered yes. Last week, 42 percent said the same. Opposition to impeachment has hovered around 50 percent during all this time. When the most recent Fox News poll asked if Mueller’s testimony might cause voters to change how they felt about Trump, only 8 percent said there was a strong chance of that happening. Forty-nine percent said not at all.

Views of President Trump are cast iron. Mueller might have overturned this equilibrium by offering new evidence incriminating Trump or by saying definitively that Trump obstructed justice. He did neither. Nor was he going to. It was clear from his May press conference that Mueller did not want to appear before Congress and that he had said all he was willing to say in his report. The negotiations over his testimony that stretched into midsummer, the sudden delay of his testimony by a week, and the addition of his chief of staff as counsel further indicated his reluctance as well as his lack of assurance before the cameras. The presence on the committee of Republicans hostile to Mueller’s investigation and to his findings meant that the hearing would not be entirely favorable to Democrats. Sure enough, Mueller’s performance was a disappointment.

https://pjmedia.com/trending/trump-goes-nuclear-on-cummings-his-dist

It misinterprets the rule against indicting a sitting president.

Editor’s Note: This is the first article in a two-part series; the second will appear tomorrow.

Robert Mueller’s congressional testimony was such a bumbling fiasco that it was easy for a viewer to be confused — and stay that way — about the main bone of Democratic contention regarding his report: the “OLC guidance” that prevents the Justice Department from charging a president with crimes while he is in office. Specifically, how did it factor into the special counsel’s decision — or, rather, non-decision — on the main question he was appointed to answer: Did President Trump obstruct justice? How did the special counsel’s dubious reliance on it as a rationale for abdicating on this question affect the publication and ramifications of the Mueller report?

We’ve plowed this ground before, but it is worth revisiting. We will do that in this weekend’s two-part series. This is Part 1.

The OLC Guidance

The OLC is the Office of Legal Counsel, the lawyers’ lawyers in the Justice Department who formulate policies that guide federal prosecutors throughout the United States. The OLC guidance at issue in the Mueller investigation is the prohibition on indicting a sitting president. This rule is said to be derived from constitutional and prudential considerations.

I do not believe the guidance is sound. But that’s beside the point: The guidance is binding on Justice Department lawyers, period. That means it is also binding on special counsels. By regulation, they are firmly in the Justice Department chain of command.

Consequently, the OLC guidance applied to Mueller’s investigation of President Trump. In particular, it was relevant to the obstruction aspect of the probe, which was always a criminal investigation. (For reasons that need not divert us, the “collusion” part of the case was pretextually conducted as a counterintelligence investigation.)

Because (a) the president was the principal subject of the obstruction probe and (b) the objective of such a criminal investigation is to indict wrongdoers, the pertinence of the OLC guidance is obvious. The question is: What is the effect of its application?

https://pjmedia.com/trending/amazon-purges-reviews-of-bestselling-anti-obama-book/

Reports of Amazon purging reviews from conservatives books on their site have been made for some time now. PJ Media’s Megan Fox reported in March 2018 that many conservative authors noticed a mass deletion of reviews. Well, another purge has taken place. This one targeted my book, The Worst President in History: The Legacy of Barack Obama. This book was approaching 1,000 reviews until Amazon decided to clean house. On Tuesday, the book had 945 reviews. On Wednesday, the book had only 693 reviews. A whopping 252 reviews (approximately 27 percent) simply vanished. Worse yet, most of the purged reviews appear to have been positive ones, as the average rating went down from roughly 4.5+ to 4.2 stars.

I can prove this because I have screenshots: