RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/12/13/the_evidence_against_trump_vs_the_evidence_against_the_fbi_141950.html

The House of Representatives, if the pundits are right, is about to impeach Donald Trump for attempting to use his position as president of the United States for his personal political benefit. Everyone should agree that impeachment is a serious matter, simply — if not for any other reason — because it nullifies the votes that over 60 million people cast in 2016. Under these circumstances, what do we actually know about the conduct that has put the president in jeopardy of impeachment?

In a criminal trial — a trial that would send a person to prison, or worse — we insist on a proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It’s highly unlikely that any of those who believe impeachment is justified would say that the evidence is sufficient to conclude that the charges against him are true beyond a reasonable doubt.

In a civil case, where a person is sued for doing wrong to another, the standard is a preponderance of the evidence. That means the evidence should be examined and weighed to determine liability. That standard — preponderance of the evidence — would appear to be the minimum requirement for the finding of any wrongdoing, particularly when the question is the impeachment, conviction and removal of the president.

The full House is about to debate the impeachment of President Trump on a charge of putting his personal political interests ahead of the interests of the United States. There are reasonable grounds to debate whether this is an impeachable offense, but at this point the real question is whether the House has the evidence to take such a fateful step for the country.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2019/12/high-crime-nothing-deborah-weiss/

As most of you know, the House has announced that it will issue articles of impeachment this week. As of now, two have been determined, though there may be more to come. They are: 1) Trump’s “abuse of power” and 2) “obstruction of congress”.

ARTICLE 1: ABUSE OF POWER

1) This article of impeachment document uses the word “scheme” to describe Trump’s colloquy whereby he asked Ukraine President Zelensky to conduct investigations. This is consistent with the Democrat lawyer/witness Daniel Goldman’s “testimony” where he repeatedly referred to Trump’s request for investigations as a “scheme”. This word is a characterization of a fact, and not a fact in and of itself.

2) The article asserts that President Trump solicited an investigation that “would benefit his re-election, harm the political prospects of a political opponent and influence the 2020 elections to his advantage.” Note: here the Democrats are not attributing motive but simply stating that such investigations would benefit the President. So it appears that the Democrats believe anything which happens to benefit the president and harm an “opponent” is impeachable. If we accept the possibility that the proposed investigations were to root out corruption, as President Trump has indicated, then perhaps on some level, this article is acknowledges, in effect, that rooting out corruption is to Trump’s advantage and a Democrat opponent’s disadvantage in the 2020 election.

3) Subsequently, the article states that Trump did this for “corrupt purposes”. This language echoes Professor Feldman’s testimony as well as conclusions. Professor Feldman repeatedly, without any objective basis, used the adjective “corruptly” to describe President Trump’s neutral behavior, in order to attribute motive to him, despite the fact that he is not a mind-readers and has no direct evidence to support his conclusion.

https://pjmedia.com/trending/stalinesque-republicans-erupt-after-nadler-abruptly-ends-impeachment-hearing-in-the-dead-of-night/

House Republicans erupted in anger after House Intelligence Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-Kangaroo Court) abruptly ended debate over the articles of impeachment levied against President Trump shortly before midnight on Friday, announcing that there would be a vote at 10 a.m. the next day.

“It has been a long two days of consideration of these articles [of impeachment] and it is now very late at night,” Nadler declared. “I want the members on both sides of the aisle to think about what has happened over these last two days and to search their consciousnesses before we cast our final votes.”

“Therefore the committee will now stand in recess until tomorrow morning at 10 a.m. at which point I will move to divide the question so that each of us may have the opportunity to cast up or down votes on each of the articles of impeachment and tell history to be our judge,” said Nadler. “The Committee is in recess.”

Ranking Member Doug Collins tried to object, saying that the chairman had not considered members’ schedules the next day. “Mr. Chairman, there is no consulting from the Ranking Member on your schedule for tomorrow in which you’ve just blown up schedules for everyone?” Collins asked. “You chose not to consult the Ranking Member on a schedule issue of this magnitude? This is kangaroo court that we’re talking about.”

https://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Beyond-Trump-Derangement-Syndrome-610766

The fact that groups like Students for Justice in Palestine went ballistic over this stroke of genius makes perfect sense.Every time left-wing Jews think that they’ve nailed US President Donald Trump once and for all, he does something to deflate their Democratic bubble. Rather than spurring them to rethink their stance and shed their snobbery toward the Republican leader for whom they did not and will not vote, however, his actions cause them either to double down or grudgingly to give him credit where they wish it were not due.

Take this week, for instance, when he made history by signing an executive order aimed at protecting Jews from campus antisemitism and preventing taxpayers’ money from funding it.

The fact that groups like Students for Justice in Palestine went ballistic over this stroke of genius makes perfect sense, since they are among the greatest perpetrators and promoters of Jew-and-Israel-bashing on university quads across the country. But the Jews who joined in the attack by calling the executive order “antisemitic” – or who claimed, as Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Connecticut) did, that it “smacks of what happened in the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany” – are afflicted with a disease that goes way beyond Trump Derangement Syndrome.

Indeed, such members of the tribe ought to have their heads examined, or at least hang their heads in shame. They will do neither, of course; being a left-wing liberal means never having to say you’re sorry, after all, especially when you’re proven wrong.

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/doj-ig-barr-horowitz-fisa-democrats-andrew-mccarthy

At Wednesday’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearing about Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s report on investigative abuses in the FBI’s Trump-Russia investigation (codenamed “Crossfire Hurricane”), Democrats continued an effort begun ten days ago to hoodwink the public into believing Horowitz is in a bitter dispute with Attorney General William Barr over a key finding in the report.

The dispute allegedly stems from what is portrayed as Barr’s dissent from the IG’s conclusion that the probe was properly predicated – i.e., that there were sufficient factual grounds to open an investigation of whether the Trump campaign was complicit in the Kremlin’s cyberespionage attack on Democratic party email accounts.

In point of fact, as discussed in my Fox News Opinion column on Wednesday, the two men have less a difference of opinion than a difference in focus – the distinction between what may be done and what should be done.

I’m tempted to say there is no real dispute, but let’s leave it at saying the dispute is wildly overstated.

A cautionary note: People should be suspicious about media coverage of the attorney general. For decades, Bill Barr has enjoyed a well-earned reputation for legal acumen and personal integrity. But he is now working for Donald Trump.