RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://issuesinsights.com/2022/05/23/impeach-hillary-clinton-in-2023/

When it looked as if Democrats last year were going to try to impeach the already-impeached Donald Trump again after he left the White House, the Congressional Research Service said: “​​It appears that most scholars who have closely examined the question have concluded that Congress has authority to extend the impeachment process to officials who are no longer in office.” If so, should the Republicans take Congress as expected, they ought to impeach Hillary Clinton.

During the entire four-year Trump presidency, the American people were deluged with fake “Russia, Russia Russia” news. The mainstream media would not let up on the unfounded accusations that Trump was a stooge of Russian strongman Vladimir Putin, and there existed a dossier that proved it. It was a connection, said more than one talking head, that meant that Trump was not a legitimate president.

Of course it turned out the dossier was a literal pack of lies – and financed by Clinton and her party.

But that didn’t stop Clinton, the Democrat candidate whose “turn” it was to be president, from approving one of the dirtiest political tricks in U.S. history to, first, severely wound Trump’s election chances, then second, damage his presidency.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-clinton-did-it-robby-mook-michael-sussmann-donald-trump-russia-collusion-alfa-bank-11653084709?mod=opinion_lead_pos11

The Russia-Trump collusion narrative of 2016 and beyond was a dirty trick for the ages, and now we know it came from the top—candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton. That was the testimony Friday by 2016 Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook in federal court, and while this news is hardly a surprise, it’s still bracing to find her fingerprints on the political weapon.

Mr. Mook testified as a witness in special counsel John Durham’s trial of Michael Sussmann, the lawyer accused of lying to the FBI. In September 2016, Mr. Sussmann took claims of a secret Trump connection to Russia’s Alfa Bank to the FBI and said he wasn’t acting on behalf of any client. Prosecutors say he was working for the Clinton campaign.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/fda-seizing-seizes-baby-formula-crisis-shortage-europe-abbott-nutrition-hipp-holle-kendamil-infant-producers-11653248212?mod=opinion_lead_pos9

Hundreds of thousands of parents in the U.S. are scrambling to find formula for their babies, and President Biden has invoked the Defense Production Act, a Cold War-era national-security law to boost domestic production. Yet the Food and Drug Administration has been enforcing an effective ban on formula from Europe, the world’s largest producer and exporter.

Some of the current shortage of baby formula derives from pandemic-related labor and supply-chain problems, as well as a recall of Abbott Nutrition formula products, which knocked out a large chunk of domestic supply. The other domestic suppliers, such as Bobbie Baby Formula, simply can’t “flip a switch and just make more formula,” as CEO Laura Modi put it.

The FDA has announced streamlined regulatory approvals for European formula, but it’s unclear whether such popular brands as Hipp, Holle and Kendamil will be permitted in the U.S., because their infant formula products aren’t registered with the FDA.

European baby formulas are regulated by European regulatory authorities, and research has found that most meet FDA-required nutrient levels. They don’t meet FDA labeling and other requirements, however. Most don’t have formula-preparation instructions in English, specific labeling on iron content or instructions on how to store the product. The FDA also has concerns about European formulas requiring less water per scoop, the temperature conditions under which they are stored, and their lack of a system to notify U.S. consumers of recalls. Major European producers such as Hipp and Holle have not spent the time and money needed to comply with FDA regulations.

https://spectatorworld.com/topic/michael-sussmann-hillary-clinton-james-baker-fbi-durham/

Michael Sussmann, a senior lawyer for Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign, is currently on trial for lying to the FBI. The allegation is straightforward. As the election approached, Sussmann texted his old friend and fellow attorney, James Baker, requesting a brief, urgent meeting. Baker was the FBI’s top lawyer and Sussmann was a partner at Clinton’s election-law firm. They were friends from their days together at the Department of Justice and continued to know each other socially. According to the indictment, Sussmann told Baker he was coming solely to help the Bureau and not on behalf of any client.

To prove his case, Special Counsel John Durham and his team must show two things:

Sussmann lied when he said he wasn’t representing a client in that meeting; and
Sussmann’s lie had the “potential” to affect the FBI’s investigation. (According to the law, the lie need not actually affect the investigation; it need only have the potential to do so.)

Sussmann’s defense is to toss back the ol’ kitchen sink. “I didn’t lie. You can’t prove I lied. I had no reason to lie. And even if I lied, it really didn’t matter to the FBI.” That defense has two aims: create confusion for the jury and drag in the name of Donald Trump, for jurors in a city that voted almost unanimously for Hillary and undoubtedly loathe the former president. What Sussmann hopes for, in other words, is “jury nullification,” where the jury believes the crime has been proven but disregards the evidence and votes “not guilty.” That’s really Sussmann’s only chance.

What happened in court on Thursday should clinch the case for Durham, if the jury is fair-minded. The prosecution put on its star witness, James Baker. Baker’s obvious reluctance to testify against Sussmann makes his testimony all the more convincing. And that testimony is damning. With Baker on the stand, the prosecution introduced a text message he received from Sussmann, asking for a meeting the next day. The message is catastrophic for Sussmann’s claim he told Baker he had a client. He said, in writing, that he didn’t have one.

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/new-york-city-drops-charges-against-rapper-accused-of-shooting-police-officer/

The New York City Law Department announced Friday that charges against a 16-year-old rapper accused of shooting a police officer have been dropped, saying the teen “cannot be prosecuted.”

Camrin Williams, also known by his stage name “C Blu,” allegedly shot a police officer who responded to reports of an unruly crowd at Lorillard Place near East 187th Street on January 18. The teen would not remove his hands from his pockets and a struggle with police ensued. A gun Williams was holding discharged during the struggle, striking and wounding 27-year-old NYPD officer Kaseem Pennant and hitting the teenager in the groin.

The law department did not say why the charges had been dropped, according to the New York Post.

“Just because the city cannot prosecute doesn’t mean this individual should have been carrying an illegal weapon — a weapon which contributed to both him and an officer being shot,” the Law Department said in a statement obtained by the outlet. “Pursuant to Family Court Law, the case is now sealed and we are unable to say more about the matter.”

Before the alleged shooting, Williams already had a gun possession arrest on his record from 2020 and was placed on probation as a juvenile in the case last year.

Williams made headlines in January when he used an advance on his contract with Interscope Records to post his $250,000 bond, according to the New York Post.

However, shortly after posting bail Williams found himself back in juvenile court. A family court hearing found he had violated probation in the earlier case by allegedly possessing a firearm and shooting Officer Pennant, the report added.

https://amgreatness.com/2022/05/21/signs-and-portents-elon-musks-growing-political-maturity/

A few weeks ago, Exxon announced that it was banning the display of Pride and BLM flags at its headquarters in Houston. There was a ripple of unhappiness, but nothing was burned down, the media attention was muted, and the world went about its business as before. 

Across the country, school board elections are tossing out woke ideologues and partisans of critical race theory and replacing what amounts to gay pornography in the curriculum with more wholesome fare. The Biden Administration keeps running into roadblocks, most recently a judicial order halting its efforts to rescind Title 42, a Trump-era emergency order that turned away would-be immigrants at the U.S.-Mexico border. A few days ago, Biden’s absurd Disinformation Governance Board was shuttered and its pathetic director, Nina Jankowicz, sucked back into the memory hole whence she came. 

On Friday, Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager, Robbie Mook, testified that, what do you know, his former boss knew all about and in fact approved the spurious efforts to frame Donald Trump as a Russian asset, contrary to what she and her handlers have said ever since before Hunter Biden took his laptop to be repaired. 

Then there is Elon Musk. I have long been a fan of this Rocket Man, notwithstanding his mantras about “sustainable transport” and other sops from the green agenda. Hitherto, my enthusiasm was for his technological prowess, his hard work, and his amazing products. Now I find myself applauding his political savvy and efforts on behalf of free speech. Princeton University and other one-party bastions of conformity and self-congratulation should ponder Musk’s central observation about free speech: “When it’s someone you don’t like saying something you don’t like, that’s when it actually matters.”