RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/05/robert-mueller-press-conference-impeachment-politics-democrats/

The special counsel just upped the pressure on those in the party who think impeaching Trump is politically ill-advised.

B ob Mueller decided to shoot up the town before he rode off into the sunset.

It is fair enough to observe that in his short but explosive speech, delivered at the Justice Department this morning, the special counsel did not say anything that wasn’t already set forth in his report — a point being emphasized by the White House. The sprawling report is 448 pages long, however. In his nine-minute address, Mueller quite consciously highlighted the portions of the report that fuel the Democrats’ calls for impeachment.

Mueller was adamant that he did not make a finding on whether President Trump should be charged with obstruction of justice because the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has issued guidance forbidding the indictment of a sitting president. I’ve argued before that he is completely wrong on this, but that is beside the point.

What matters is that Mueller can be fairly understood to be saying he believed President Trump committed obstruction of justice. That is not the only possible interpretation, but it is the most likely interpretation.

Mueller said Wednesday that if he had concluded there was insufficient evidence to charge Trump with obstruction, he would have said so (as he did with collusion). He then emphasized that he did not say so. That strongly implies that he believes the evidence is sufficient (notwithstanding that the attorney general has found otherwise). Mueller added that, in deciding not to allege obstruction even though the evidence was arguably sufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, he relied on the OLC guidance. Finally, he deduced from this, and from his understanding of the Constitution, that in our system it is for Congress, not federal prosecutors, to deal with presidential misconduct.

https://amgreatness.com/2019/05/28/political-bias-in-big-tech-is-a-major-problem/

Suspicions of political bias in big tech companies are nothing new. Many people have suspected tech companies of being more left-leaning. Recent events and studies, however, are slowly turning these suspicions into facts. This political bias is detrimental not only to the companies and their users but also to the country.

A recent study by Northwestern University showed Google’s search engine ranked left-leaning political sites higher on its news feed. According to the survey, 86 percent of Google’s top stories over the course of a month came from 20 left-wing news sites. Out of these 20 sources, CNN, the New York Times, and the Washington Post were leading the pack.

Google is not the only tech company credibly accused of bias. Facebook and Twitter have also been denounced for censoring right-leaning accounts and groups in their respective platforms. The three tech companies were summoned to a congressional hearing last year to explain themselves.

One might think that these cases of political bias are isolated to the big tech companies but nothing could be further from the truth. Silicon Valley, a region known to be at the vanguard of technological development in the United States, is a very left-leaning place located in a deep blue state.

https://www.wired.com/story/google-tracks-you-privacy/?utm_source=pocket-newtab

You’re probably aware that Google keeps tabs on what you’re up to on its devices, apps, and services—but you might not realize just how far its tracking reach extends, into the places you go, the purchases you make, and much more. It’s an extensive set of data, but you can take more control over what Google collects about you and how long the company keeps it. Here’s how.

It’s worth emphasizing first that we’re really dealing with two topics: The amount of data Google collects on you, which is a lot, and what Google then does with it. Google would say its data collection policies improve its services—helping you find a restaurant similar ones you’ve liked previously, say—whereas users might disagree.

A lot of the data we’re going to talk about here is only visible to you, or used in a limited way to make ads more relevant to you. Ultimately, your choice is either to trust Google to use all this data responsibly (you can view the privacy policy here), not use Google services at all, or limit the information it can gather about you. Since the first two are basically binary, we’re going to focus on that third option.

On the Web

The best place to start taking control over Google’s tracking habits is the Activity Controls page in your Google Account on the web. If you’re currently signed into Google in your browser, that link should take you straight to it. The data Google holds on you is split into six sections. You can turn off tracking on any of them using the toggle switches you see on screen.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/05/28/its-middle-night-do-you-know-who-your-iphone-is-talking/?utm_source=pocket-newtab&utm_term=.d5e5cc4bdd66

It’s 3 a.m. Do you know what your iPhone is doing?

Mine has been alarmingly busy. Even though the screen is off and I’m snoring, apps are beaming out lots of information about me to companies I’ve never heard of. Your iPhone probably is doing the same — and Apple could be doing more to stop it.

On a recent Monday night, a dozen marketing companies, research firms and other personal data guzzlers got reports from my iPhone. At 11:43 p.m., a company called Amplitude learned my phone number, email and exact location. At 3:58 a.m., another called Appboy got a digital fingerprint of my phone. At 6:25 a.m., a tracker called Demdex received a way to identify my phone and sent back a list of other trackers to pair up with.

And all night long, there was some startling behavior by a household name: Yelp. It was receiving a message that included my IP address -— once every five minutes.

Our data has a secret life in many of the devices we use every day, from talking Alexa speakers to smart TVs. But we’ve got a giant blind spot when it comes to the data companies probing our phones.

You might assume you can count on Apple to sweat all the privacy details. After all, it touted in a recent ad, “What happens on your iPhone stays on your iPhone.” My investigation suggests otherwise.

IPhone apps I discovered tracking me by passing information to third parties — just while I was asleep — include Microsoft OneDrive, Intuit’s Mint, Nike, Spotify, The Washington Post and IBM’s the Weather Channel. One app, the crime-alert service Citizen, shared personally identifiable information in violation of its published privacy policy.

https://thefederalist.com/2019/05/29/mueller-just-proved-his-entire-operation-was

At a hastily-arranged Wednesday press conference, Special Counsel Robert Mueller proved that he was never interested in justice or the rule of law.

If there were any doubts about Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s political intentions, his unprecedented press conference on Wednesday should put them all to rest. As he made abundantly clear during his doddering reading of a prepared statement which repeatedly contradicted itself, Mueller had no interest in the equal application of the rule law. He gave the game, and his nakedly political intentions, away repeatedly throughout his statement.

“It is important that the office’s written work speak for itself,” Mueller said, referring to his office’s 448-page report. Mueller’s report was released to the public by Attorney General William Barr nearly six weeks ago. The entire report, minus limited redactions required by law, has been publicly available, pored through, and dissected. Its contents have been discussed ad nauseum in print and on television. The report has been speaking for itself since April 18, when it was released.

If it’s important for the work to speak for itself, then why did Mueller schedule a press conference in which he would speak for it weeks after it was released? The statement, given the venue in which it was provided, is self-refuting.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/not-exonerated-is-not-a-standard-any-free-country-should-accept/

I’m sorry to be a broken record on this, but this line from Robert Mueller infuriates me:

“If we had had confidence that the president had clearly not committed a crime we would have said so.” Mueller

— David M. Drucker (@DavidMDrucker) May 29, 2019

That’s not how it works in America. Investigators are supposed to look for evidence that a crime was committed, and, if they don’t find enough to contend that a crime was a committed, they are supposed to say “We didn’t find enough to contend that a crime was committed.” They are not supposed to look for evidence that a crime was not committed and then say, “We couldn’t find evidence of innocence.”

I understand that Mueller was in an odd position. I understand, too, that this wasn’t a criminal trial. But I don’t think those norms are rendered any less important by those facts. By asking the executive to investigate itself, it was guaranteed — yes, guaranteed — that we’d have a fight over “obstruction of justice.” For the architect of that investigation to keep saying “We aren’t exonerating our target” is extraordinary. Innocence is the default position in this country. If a person doesn’t have enough evidence that someone committed a crime to contend that a crime was committed, he is obliged to presume his innocence. “Not exonerated” is not a standard in our system, and it shouldn’t be one in our culture, either.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/05/john-brennan-steele-dossier-trump-russia-investigation/

Signs point to yes.

I n a prior column, I addressed the public debate over Bill Barr’s authority to declassify intelligence regarding the Obama administration’s Trump-Russia investigation. Lurking behind this debate, we should understand, is that administration’s handling of the Steele dossier: a compilation of faux intelligence reports.

The dossier was, of course, generated by the Fusion GPS firm — principally, by British spy–turned–hack-for-hire Christopher Steele and journalist-turned-fabulist Glenn Simpson. The dossier is a slipshod, unverified opposition-research screed, sponsored by the Clinton campaign and the DNC. Its sensational allegations of a Trump-Putin conspiracy to undermine the 2016 election (including by hacking and disseminating Democratic emails) were never verified. Nor was its salacious claim that the Kremlin possessed a video recording of Trump engaging in sexual hijinks, and thus could blackmail him into doing Russia’s bidding if he were elected.

Suffice it to say that the Obama-administration officials involved in pushing the dossier are running for the hills to distance themselves from it, particularly after Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s final report effectively rejected it. Most prominent in this regard is former CIA director John Brennan.

Brennan is as hyper-political an intelligence official as we have ever had. And when called on his excesses, such as the CIA’s spying on the Senate during his watch, his default mode is to misrepresent what was done and then frustrate the investigative process. On the dossier, he is playing to type.

https://us20.campaign-archive.com/?u=2cf2a73e6220e59e3c1c4a60c&id=7e453c34e9&e=0c8ccf8e98

The healthcare industry is broken.Both parties want to change the way our nation approaches healthcare… the question is, how?
Here’s the heart of the issue: the industry needs a transparency revolution.

Why is it that you can’t cost compare the price of healthcare services the same way you’d compare any other major financial decision? It’s illogical at best and corrupt at worst. 

Our Honorary Chairman, Dr. Tom Coburn, appeared on Fox & Friends to discuss this exact issue.
He lays out a recommended national policy that could change everything.

https://amgreatness.com/2019/05/28/jurisprudence-and-the-failed-coup/

The indispensable Victor Davis Hanson recently noted, “Real coups against democracies rarely are pulled off by jack-booted thugs in sunglasses or fanatical mobs storming the presidential palace. More often, they are the insidious work of supercilious bureaucrats, bought intellectuals, toady journalists, and political activists who falsely project that their target might at some future date do precisely what they are currently planning and doing—and that they are noble patriots, risking their lives, careers, and reputations for all of us, and thus must strike first.”

He was discussing what we are now beginning to understand was the attempt to oust Donald Trump begun by officials in the Obama Administration, including certainly former FBI Director James Comey, assistant director Andrew McCabe, former acting Attorney General Sally Yates, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, former CIA Director John Brennan, former FBI counterintelligence chief Peter Strzok, former FBI attorney Lisa Page, and quite possibly President Obama himself.

This will, in the long light of history, be regarded as the greatest misuse of governmental power ever to appear in our politics, and yet there has been very little attention paid to how this could occur and why at this particular time in our political development.

https://pjmedia.com/trending/mueller-spokesman-denies-key-claim-in-new-anti-trump-book-by-michael-wolff/

It doesn’t seem so long ago that Michael Wolff’s book Fire and Fury was promoted so heavily by the media hoping to undermine President Trump. Michael Wolff himself claimed his book would “finally end” the Trump presidency.

What ended up happening instead was that Wolff’s book was revealed to be full of fictions. Wolff would eventually admit that the book was full of lies, but the endless coverage of the book, a media blitz most authors can only dream of getting, contributed to a number of anti-Trump narratives being believed by the left, and the Never Trump right. The book ended up selling nearly five million copies.

While any other author who admitted to making up stories for a non-fiction book might be shamed into never writing a book again, Michael Wolff has written a new book, called Siege: Trump Under Fire, which comes out next week. The Guardian has obtained an advance copy of the book, which makes the explosive claim that “special counsel Robert Mueller drew up a three-count obstruction of justice indictment against Donald Trump before deciding to shelve it.”  Wolff claims that his findings are “based on internal documents given to me by sources close to the Office of the Special Counsel.” CONTINUE AT SITE