RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.wsj.com/articles/notable-quotable-memorial-day-11558732287

From Gen. John A. Logan’s General Order No. 11, establishing Memorial Day, May 5, 1868:

The 30th day of May, 1868 is designated for the purpose of strewing with flowers or otherwise decorating the graves of comrades who died in defense of their country during the late rebellion, and whose bodies now lie in almost every city, village, and hamlet churchyard in the land. . . .

We are organized, comrades, as our regulations tell us, for the purpose, among other things, “of preserving and strengthening those kind and fraternal feelings which have bound together the soldiers, sailors and marines who united to suppress the late rebellion.” What can aid more to assure this result than by cherishing tenderly the memory of our heroic dead who made their breasts a barricade between our country and its foes? Their soldier lives were the reveille of freedom to a race in chains and their deaths the tattoo of rebellious tyranny in arms. We should guard their graves with sacred vigilance. All that the consecrated wealth and taste of the nation can add to their adornment and security is but a fitting tribute to the memory of her slain defenders. Let no wanton foot tread rudely on such hallowed grounds. Let pleasant paths invite the coming and going of reverent visitors and fond mourners. Let no vandalism of avarice or neglect, no ravages of time, testify . . . that we have forgotten, as a people, the cost of a free and undivided republic. . . .

Let us, then, at the time appointed, gather around their sacred remains and garland the passionless mounds above them with choicest flowers of springtime; let us raise above them the dear old flag they saved from dishonor; let us in this solemn presence renew our pledges to aid and assist those whom they have left among us as sacred charges upon the nation’s gratitude—the soldier’s and sailor’s widow and orphan.

https://amgreatness.com/2019/05/25/lets-call-the-russian-collusion-hoax-what-it-really-is/

During the Japanese bombardment of Shanghai in 1932, the Austrian essayist Karl Kraus was anguishing over the placement of commas in a column. It might seem futile at such a moment, he told a friend, but “if those who are obliged to look after commas had always made sure they were in the right place, then Shanghai would not be burning.”

Hyperbolic? Perhaps. But the general point holds: words matter, as do the their appurtenances, punctuation. (After all, “Let’s eat Grandma” means something quite different from “Let’s eat, Grandma.”)

George Orwell made a kindred observation about the importance of having the courage to call things by their real names. Euphemism, the counterfeit of good manners, is the enemy of truth, which is the only ally worth having.

I have been thinking about this constellation of ideas recently as the news has been full of talk about the “Russian collusion hoax.” Use of the term “hoax” got a big boost in the aftermath of the Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report on the question of whether there was actionable cooperation, coordination, or collusion between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin. Two years, $34 million, and a wide swath of debilitating rumor, innuendo, and unrelated indictments and prosecutions later and we know that the answer to that question is “No, there was no cooperation, coordination, or collusion between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin.

Anyway, we know that if we haven’t locked ourselves in the bunker bulwark, closed our eyes, put our fingers in our ears, and chanted continually the NeverTrump mantras.

I myself have deployed the term “hoax” to describe what happened to Donald Trump and his colleagues—and to the American people—during and after the 2016 presidential campaign.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/editorials/rein-in-politicized-judges-and-their-injunctions

Federal district judges aren’t emperors for the whole United States. Congress and the Supreme Court should both remind them of that reality.

By issuing putatively national injunctions, Attorney General William Barr said in a May 21 speech to the American Law Institute: “One judge can, in effect, cancel the policy with the stroke of the pen. No official in the United States government [rightly] can exercise that kind of nationwide power, with the sole exception of the president. And the Constitution subjects him to nationwide election, among other constitutional checks, as a prerequisite to wielding that power.”

The subject arises because, on issue after issue, liberal district judges have blocked President Trump’s executive orders or rules promulgated by his administration. The most prominent example occurred when Trump ordered an end to the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals immigration program. Even though DACA was created out of thin air by an executive memorandum by President Barack Obama, three separate district judges ruled that Trump could not undo it using the same presidential power. All three said their orders apply nationwide.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/05/24/trump_orders_declassification_of_obama-era_russia_probe_intel__140417.html

Democrats leading the impeachment charge against President Trump have repeatedly called on him to justify his assertion that Obama administration officials tried to undermine his 2016 presidential campaign and election. On Thursday night, he took the first step in trying to do just that when he ordered the declassification of intelligence documents that he has said show the pathway Obama officials navigated to spy on the campaign.

In a directive to the CIA, the director of National Intelligence, the Pentagon and several other national security agencies, Trump handed Attorney General Bill Barr the authority to declassify or downgrade “information or intelligence that relates to the attorney general’s review.”  The president ordered the agencies to “promptly provide such assistance and information as the attorney general may request in connection with that review.”  

Barr has begun looking into the origins and timing of the FBI’s 2016 counter-intelligence investigation, code-named “Crossfire Hurricane,” aimed at uncovering evidence that Trump campaign officials were conspiring with Russians to interfere in the election. The FBI’s probe included wiretaps on a Trump adviser Carter Page. 

Trump’s move came earlier than many of his allies and associates had expected. Most had expected him to wait until Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz released the results of his year-long investigation into the sources and methods the FBI used to begin surveillance on the Trump campaign based at least in part on discredited information gathered by former British spy Christopher Steele.  

https://amgreatness.com/2019/05/23/loretta-lynch-deals-another-blow-to-fbis-cover-up-story/

The implausible justification for why James Comey’s FBI opened an investigation into the Trump campaign—a drunken encounter between a low-level campaign aide and an Australian diplomat in the spring of 2016, we’ve been told—is falling apart quickly.

And the newly-released testimony of former Attorney General Loretta Lynch just gave Comey’s cover-up story another blow.

As congressional investigators in 2017 closed in on the political origins of the unprecedented counterintelligence probe into four U.S. citizens associated with the Trump campaign, the New York Times threw the perpetrators a lifeline. It was not the dossier compiled by Christopher Steele, who in 2016 indirectly was being paid by the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic Party, that alerted Comey’s cops to the potential for chicanery between Team Trump and the Kremlin to rig the election.

No, it was when George Papadopoulos—a young, unpaid foreign policy adviser to the campaign—allegedly told Alexander Downer, an Australian diplomat, in May 2016 at a London bar that the Russians had dirt on Hillary Clinton. “The . . . revelation that a member of the Trump campaign may have had inside information about it were driving factors that led the F.B.I. to open an investigation in July 2016 into Russia’s attempts to disrupt the election and whether any of President Trump’s associates conspired,” the Times reported on December 30, 2017.

Not coincidentally, this is the same month the House Ethics Committee cleared Representative Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), the chairman of the House Intelligence committee, of a bogus ethics complaint that sidelined for eight months his crucial work into the handling of the dossier by top Obama officials. He would release his bombshell memo a few months later, exposing for the first time how the FBI used the Steele dossier as evidence on a FISA application to wiretap campaign volunteer Carter Page.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/05/obama_appointees_in_the_communist_orbit.html

This week Rush Limbaugh repeated a quote from James Comey in a  New York Magazine interview: 

“I’d moved from Communist to whatever I am now. I’m not even sure how to characterize myself politically. Maybe at some point, I’ll have to figure it out.”

It’s hard to pin too much on that quote.  Perhaps Comey was joking by calling his vote for Jimmy Carter a vote for a Communist, in mockery of his supposedly fellow Republicans. 

Joking about support for Communism is not all that funny in the Obama administration. Obama’s CIA Director John Brennan actually did vote for a Communist presidential candidate.  Brennan and Comey are two of the central players in the Russia Collusion Hoax.

Obama choose Communists and Marxists for the highest, most powerful positions in our land, including his closest political advisors, and his head of the CIA.  These facts are not in dispute.  Most are openly admitted by the people in question, as necessary damage control.  Our press  chooses not to report them.

Professor Paul Kengor has extensively researched the Chicago communists whose progeny include David Axelrod, Valerie Jarrett, and Barack Hussein Obama.  Add the openly Marxist, pro-communist Ayers, and you have many of the key players who put Obama into power.

John Brennan

Brennan (who was sworn in as CIA director on a draft of the US Constitution, without the Bill of Rights, instead of a Bible) said that while he had voted Communist, he wasn’t an official member of the Communist Party – and was relieved that he had been accepted into the CIA.

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/444802-ag-barr-puts-former-intel-bosses-on-notice

Things seem to be moving quickly now. It has been a remarkable few weeks in American history. Momentum is building toward uncovering the distasteful possibility that the targeting of a U.S. presidential campaign was actually a political operation, fostered at the highest levels of government, masquerading as an FBI counterintelligence investigation.

Attorney General William Barr has signaled that his interest in examining the origins of the investigation into the Trump campaign extends beyond whether the FBI operated “by the book,” as former FBI Director James Comey asserts. Barr also wants to understand the role that the larger intelligence community, or IC, may have played in all of this.

Barr has thrown punches that have left an interesting mix of characters with a standing eight count. Certain eyes around D.C. are a little glassy right now.

Barr’s words and actions are telling. First, he raised the concern that the Trump campaign was “spied” upon. His use of the word “spying” appears more calculated than casual. The wailing and gnashing of teeth that followed is also telling. “The FBI doesn’t spy” became the sputtering counter-refrain of those trying to mask their nervousness.

https://amgreatness.com/2019/05/22/federal-rats-are-fleeing-the-sinking-collusion-ship/

The entire Trump-Russia collusion narrative was always implausible.

One, the Washington swamp of fixers such as Paul Manafort and John and Tony Podesta was mostly bipartisan and predated Trump.

Two, the Trump administration’s Russia policies were far tougher on Vladimir Putin than were those of Barack Obama. Trump confronted Russia in Syria, upped defense spending, increased sanctions and kept the price of oil down through massive new U.S. energy production. He did not engineer a Russian “reset” or get caught on a hot mic offering a self-interested hiatus in tensions with Russia in order to help his own re-election bid.

Three, Russia has a long history of trying to warp U.S. elections that both predated Trump and earned only prior lukewarm pushback from the Obama administration.

It’s also worth remembering that President Bill Clinton and the Clinton Foundation had been recipients of Russian and Russian-related largesse—ostensibly because Hillary Clinton had used her influence as Secretary of State under Obama to ease resistance to Russian acquisitions of North American uranium holdings.

As far as alleged Russian collusion goes, Hillary Clinton used three firewalls—the Democratic National Committee, the Perkins Coie law firm and the Fusion GPS strategic intelligence firm—to hide her campaign’s payments to British national Christopher Steele to find dirt on Trump and his campaign; in other words, to collude. Steele in turn collected his purchased Russian sources to aggregate unverified allegations against Trump. He then spread the gossip within government agencies to ensure that the smears were leaked to the media—and with a government seal of approval.

No wonder that special counsel Robert Mueller’s partisan team spent 22 months and $34 million only to conclude the obvious: that Trump did not collude with Russia.

https://issuesinsights.com/2019/05/23/schumer-nadler-compared-impea

When President Bill Clinton, over 20 years ago, was probed by a special investigator, and 11 possible grounds for impeachment were found, including perjury, witness tampering and obstruction of justice, Democrats didn’t defend their party’s President the way Republicans defend Trump today.

No, Democrats were far more extreme.

What makes the rhetorical record so glaringly hypocritical is that in Donald Trump’s case, unlike Clinton’s, the investigator found no evidence of presidential crimes.

As congressional Democrats’ current leaders endure the pressure of their younger, further-to-the-left colleagues, who want Trump’s head on a platter ASAP, they’re going to find themselves haunted by their own ghosts of impeachment past.

Here is then-Congressman Charles Schumer of New York City, member of the House Judiciary Committee, on the House floor on Dec. 18, 1998, the day before Clinton was impeached. Schumer had won election to the U.S. Senate the month before.

“Voting against these articles will be my last act” as a member of the House of Representatives, Schumer declared, lamenting that “now we are routinely using criminal accusations and scandal to win the political battles and ideological differences we cannot settle at the ballot box … And it is hurting our country, it is marginalizing and polarizing this Congress.”

It sounds familiar. But Schumer then added, presciently: “I expect history will show that we have lowered the bar on impeachment so much, we have broken the seal on this extreme penalty so cavalierly, that it will be used as a routine tool to fight political battles. My fear is that when a Republican wins the White House, Democrats will demand payback.”