RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/victoria-taft/2022/06/03/hillarys-attorney-operated-an-fbi-office-at-law-firm-but-wait-it-gets-worse-n1602734

Do you ever get the feeling that we’re playing checkers while our enemies are playing chess? That things are not as they seem? That’s the way it feels in the story of Spygate, the Trump-Russia collusion lie, FBI corruption, and the latest chapter of that entire sad and duplicitous saga that was lived out in a D.C. courtroom this week. Hillary Clinton and Democratic National Committee attorney Michael Sussmann was acquitted by a jury whose forewoman said she felt the special counsel team led by John Durham should have better things to do than investigate a lawyer supposedly lying to the FBI about the president being a Russian spy.

No biggie, you understand.

As I reported for PJ Media, the evidence in the Sussmann case pointed to an extraordinarily cozy relationship between the FBI and Perkins Coie. Sussmann had credentials to get inside the FBI and was considered to be a trusted Confidential Human Source (CHS).

But the latest news about this relationship gives rise to more and more troubling questions.

Congressmen Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) and Matt Gaetz (R-Fla) say a whistleblower informed them that Perkins Coie, for which Hillary and the DNC’s campaign attorneys Marc Elias and Sussmann worked, had an FBI outpost there. That’s right, an office space inside the Perkins Coie law firm was run  “in concert with the FBI,” according to Gaetz. And Michael Sussmann was “operating that worksite.”

There could be a simple (cough) explanation to which the proletariat are not privy on why the FBI would have an outpost there, but Gaetz has a few questions. In an appearance on Fox News Channel’s “Tucker Carlson Tonight” (see video below) Gaetz wondered, “What reason would there be for that? What leverage would the Perkins law firm have over the FBI given this work they’re doing together? Why would [FBI Director] Christopher Wray allow it to continue?”

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/joe-biden-lied-about-gun-manufacturer-immunity-he-wasnt-close-to-the-truth/?utm_

I know this will be hard to believe, but Joe Biden lied in last night’s speech to the nation. Here is one especially egregious example:

We should repeal the liability shield that often protects gun manufacturers from being sued for the death and destruction caused by their weapons. They’re the only industry in this country that has that kind of immunity. Imagine. Imagine if the tobacco industry had been immune from being sued, where we’d be today. The gun industry’s special protections are outrageous. It must end.

Biden has made this claim before, as did Hillary Clinton. Politifact rated it false in 2015. As Biden knows perfectly well, or should know unless his mind is completely shot, there are multiple industries that enjoy federal statutory immunity from lawsuits over the use of their products.

Biden refers to the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), passed with overwhelming bipartisan support and signed by President George W. Bush in 2005. (Biden opposed it at the time.) Under the ordinary principles of tort law, product-liability lawsuits are for defective products that malfunction; the manufacturer of a legal product cannot be held responsible for the product working as designed, unless it has somehow failed to warn users of a risk of use. This is why Biden’s analogy to cigarettes is flawed: The theory of many product-liability lawsuits against cigarette manufacturers was either that cigarettes were marketed with false assurances of their safety or that the manufacturers concealed dangers of the product. That is obviously not true of guns: Everybody knows that guns are lethal weapons if used as designed.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/florida-ron-desantis-governor-covid-data-manipulation-rebekah-jones-ig-report-11654292011?mod=opinion_lead_pos3

A frequent phenomenon of our times is the flurry over an alleged scandal that on examination turns out to be false. The latest case is the claim that Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis manipulated Covid data.

Mr. DeSantis became public-health enemy number one by defying the left’s lockdown consensus early in the pandemic. When former state health department employee Rebekah Jones claimed she was fired for refusing to fudge state Covid data to support the state’s reopening in spring 2020, national and local media outlets reported her allegations as fact.

“Florida Dismisses A Scientist For Her Refusal To Manipulate State’s Coronavirus Data,” NPR reported. After the Florida Department of Law Enforcement executed a search warrant of her home, Ms. Jones claimed Mr. DeSantis had “sent the gestapo” to silence her. “FDLE raid dramatizes Florida’s COVID-19 coverup” the South Florida Sun Sentinel editorialized.

But according to the Governor’s office, Ms. Jones was fired for repeated “insubordination” and making “unilateral decisions to modify the Department’s COVID-19 dashboard without input or approval from the epidemiological team or her supervisors.”

https://cei.org/blog/george-washington-george-jarkesy-and-the-administrative-states-lack-of-fundamental-justice/

The recent ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in Jarkesy v. SEC is a victory for limited constitutional government on many levels. As Mario Loyola, professor at Florida International University and senior fellow here at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, writes in The Wall Street Journal, the court “has taken what could be a historic step toward restoring the Constitution’s checks and balances.”

The case involved the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) seeking penalties for alleged fraud against hedge fund manager George Jarkesy. Utilizing a provision of the Dodd-Frank “financial reform” of 2010, the SEC chose to pursue Jarkesy in an internal proceeding before an administrative law judge (ALJ) rather than a normal federal court that is part of the judicial branch created by the Constitution’s Article III. As Loyola points out, in Jarkesy’s and other cases, the SEC “acts as rulemaker, prosecutor, and judge for America’s securities laws.”

On multiple grounds, the Fifth Circuit majority found the SEC’s denying Jarkesy the venue of a federal court in which to defend himself to be in violation of the Constitution. The court ruled that, because fraud has been a common-law offense to which jury trial right attaches, and the SEC in-house proceeding lacked a jury of his peers, Jarkesy was denied his Seventh Amendment guarantee of trial by jury.