RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/poll-medicare-for-all-support-craters-when-voters-told-it-eliminates-private-market/

When self-described supporters of a Medicare-for-all health-care system were told that the policy would eliminate the private insurance market entirely, more than half of them rescinded their support, according to a Politico/Morning Consult poll released Wednesday.

Of the 50 percent of total respondents who said they supported a generic Medicare-for-all proposal, 51 percent rescinded their support when answering a subsequent question that included a definition of the policy as eliminating the private insurance market, with 22 percent retreating completely to “don’t support” while another 29 percent reverted to “don’t know.” Previous polls measured support for a generic “Medicare for All” proposal but did not define the policy.

The poll, which surveyed 1,991 voters from February 7-10, found that net support for a generic “Medicare for All” plan also fell 15 percentage points since January 19. The decrease was more significant among Republicans at 21 percentage points, but the policy’s popularity also suffered an 11 percent net decrease among Democrats.

http://thefederalist.com/2019/02/13/fec-still-refuses-investigate-alleged-84-million-clinton-campaign-money-laundering/

Tuesday evening the Committee to Defend the President (CDP) filed a motion in a D.C. federal court seeking to supplement the complaint it had filed against the Federal Election Committee (FEC) in April 2018. In its original complaint, the CDP alleged that the agency responsible for enforcing campaign-finance law failed to act on an administrative complaint the CDP had filed with the FEC. That complaint charged that, during the 2016 presidential election, Democrats illegally funneled approximately $84 million through the Hillary Victory Fund to the Democratic National Committee (DNC), which then illegally coordinated with the Hillary Clinton campaign.

To understand the alleged scheme requires familiarity with controlling campaign-finance law and campaign contribution limits. As I explained at the time CDP sued the FEC last April:

Under federal law, ‘an individual donor can contribute $2,700 to any candidate, $10,000 to any state party committee, and (during the 2016 cycle) $33,400 to a national party’s main account. These groups can all get together and take a single check from a donor for the sum of those contribution limits—it’s legal because the donor cannot exceed the base limit for any one recipient. And state parties can make unlimited transfer to their national party.’

This legal loophole allows ‘bundlers’ to raise large sums of money from wealthy donors—more than $400,000 at a time—filtering the funds to the national committees. Democrats and Republicans alike exploit this tactic. But once the money reaches the national committees, other limits apply.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/senate-has-uncovered-no-direct-evidence-conspiracy-between-trump-campaign-n970536

After two years and 200 interviews, the Senate Intelligence Committee is approaching the end of its investigation into the 2016 election, having uncovered no direct evidence of a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia, according to both Democrats and Republicans on the committee.

But investigators disagree along party lines when it comes to the implications of a pattern of contacts they have documented between Trump associates and Russians — contacts that occurred before, during and after Russian intelligence operatives were seeking to help Donald Trump by leaking hacked Democratic emails and attacking his opponent, Hillary Clinton, on social media.

“If we write a report based upon the facts that we have, then we don’t have anything that would suggest there was collusion by the Trump campaign and Russia,” said Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, in an interview with CBS News last week.

https://quillette.com/2019/02/12/

At the height of the #MeToo ferment over Judge Brett Kavanaugh, hundreds of Harvard and Yale law students shut down their classes to protest Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court. The students demanded that Kavanaugh’s sexual assault accusers be believed unconditionally, simply on the basis of having made an uncorroborated accusation.

Many of these elite law students will end up as judges. Yet the media cheered them on, even though their rejection of the presumption of innocence, if carried to the bench, would demolish a cornerstone of Anglo-American jurisprudence.

However, if you argue that female college students have agency to prevent many cases of what feminists label as campus rape then you have unfitted yourself for a judicial career, according to a large segment of the media and the political class. Last week, Democratic Senator and presidential contender Kamala Harris contemptuously grilled a judicial nominee for having written that female students can control whether or not they get drunk, the usual prelude to the hook-up sex that the campus rape industry routinely classifies as rape. Neomi Rao, whom President Trump has selected to fill Brett Kavanaugh’s now-vacant seat on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, penned several op-eds as a Yale undergraduate questioning the idea that females are always helpless victims of the male libido, unable to avoid regretted dorm room sex. Rao’s treatment on Capitol Hill suggests that fealty to the narrative of perpetual female victimhood is fast becoming a prerequisite for a judgeship.