RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/273732/mourning-students-rebel-high-pressure-gun-control-matthew-vadum

Disgusted students in Highlands Ranch, Colorado, stormed out of a vigil May 8 for a high school student shot to death this week after two politically tone-deaf Democrat politicians and a left-wing group tried to turn the event into a posthumous pep rally for gun control.

This major public-relations setback in the leftist war on guns came a few days after Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) signed a new commonsense law allowing teachers to be armed while on duty. Parkland, Florida, was the site of the mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School that left 17 dead on Valentine’s Day last year.

The reaction to the attempted hijacking of what was supposed to be a memorial service for an innocent victim forced the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence to apologize for its affiliate, Team Enough, for politicizing the Colorado event.

Some of the students leaving the vigil were chanting “mental health,” according to local media. Apparently, it was a call for better mental health services to prevent future mass shootings. Some of the students complained they were not allowed to address the crowd at the event.

https://amgreatness.com/2019/05/09/was-sergey-kislyak-part-of-the-russian-collusion-hoax/

If the Trump-Russia election collusion hoax was a movie, Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak would have a starring role.

From Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ fateful recusal to National Security Advisor Michael Flynn’s resignation to the aftermath of FBI Director James Comey’s firing, the former Russian diplomat made more than just a few consequential appearances. The question is, were these incidental cameos or was Kislyak following a script written for him by the collusion fraudsters?

As Senate Republicans threaten to excavate the origins of the corrupt investigation into Donald Trump’s presidential campaign, they might want to take a closer look at how Kislyak helped shape the bogus Russian collusion plotline.

Kislyak appears 55 times in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s recent report. Alleged spy Maria Butina, sentenced last month to 18 months in federal prison for one count of conspiracy, met with Kislyak numerous times in 2015 and 2016 and promised to “collect the contact information of prominent conservatives” for him. He has openly bragged about his numerous contacts with Trump associates.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-constitutional-crisis-11557444084

America is in a “constitutional crisis.” Trump Administration officials have “decided that they’re not going to honor their oath of office.” President Trump is “almost self-impeaching” and “is every day demonstrating more obstruction of justice.”

All of these are quotes in the last 48 hours from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who will soon have to hire a lexicographer to come up with new ways to say that Mr. Trump is committing impeachable offenses. How many synonyms are there for “obstruction”?

Yet Mrs. Pelosi and House Democrats refuse even to begin a formal impeachment inquiry. If Mr. Trump is so disrespectful of the Constitution, and so in violation of the separation of powers, what are they waiting for? Mr. Trump still has 20 months left in his four-year term, so surely if the threat is so dire, Democrats will move urgently to fulfill their sacred vow to protect the Republic?

https://www.wsj.com/articles/what-nadler-really-wants-11557442946

Don’t think this week’s headlines about contempt of Congress and impeachment are about anything so serious as contempt of Congress or impeachment—never mind the “constitutional crisis” Speaker Nancy Pelosi declared Thursday. This is red-meat politics.

The House Judiciary Committee voted along party lines Wednesday to hold Attorney General William Barr in contempt. It demands Mr. Barr turn over an unredacted version of special counsel Robert Mueller’s report, as well as “all documents obtained and investigative materials created by” Mr. Mueller’s office.

Chairman Jerrold Nadler also threatened to hold former White House counsel Don McGahn in contempt if he doesn’t testify. Mrs. Pelosi spent all week meditating on the prospect of impeaching President Trump, accusing him of “obstruction, obstruction, obstruction,” and even declaring him “self-impeachable,” whatever that means.

Mr. Nadler insists the point of his subpoena fusillade is to obtain “evidence” as part of his “investigation” into “abuses of power” by Mr. Trump. This is obviously untrue, as evidenced by Mr. Nadler’s dogged, daily efforts to make sure he does not obtain any information of value.

Already, on April 18, Mr. Barr made available to senior members of Congress the opportunity to view a version of the report more complete than the one released to the public. It contains the minimum redactions required by law—only 1.5% is redacted material, compared with about 10% for the public version. Mr. Nadler could have weeks ago obtained a flurry of new detail about Mr. Mueller’s investigations and evidence. But neither he nor any other Democrat has visited the Justice Department to view the fuller report. CONTINUE AT SITE

https://twitter.com/andrewbostom/status/1126637002584150017

Imam Omar Suleiman who stated (link: https://bit.ly/2VcIWqY) bit.ly/2VcIWqY “The Zionists are the enemies of Allah, His Messengers, sincere followers of all religions, & humanity as a whole,” Delivered Opening Prayer in US House of Reps Today (link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=JiCAPZcjlWg) youtube.com/watch?time_con…

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/05/against-the-persecution-of-bill-barr/

The attorney general has gone above and beyond legal requirements in his release of the Mueller report. He deserves Congress’s gratitude, not its contempt.

The Democratic party’s current war on Attorney General William Barr is one of the most misguided, misplaced bursts of outrage that I’ve seen during the first term of the Trump administration. Barr protected the Mueller investigation, he went above and beyond legal requirements to release Mueller’s report to the public, and he has offered to congressional leaders far more details about the investigation than are publicly available. Yet now he’s subject to congressional contempt proceedings?

This is nonsense.

Barr has been far, far more transparent than governing law requires. The special-counsel regulations are crystal clear: The special counsel is required to deliver to the attorney general a “confidential report explaining [his] prosecution or declination decisions.” The attorney general is under no obligation to make that report public. Instead, the regulations state that he “may determine that public release of these reports would be in the public interest” and if so can release them subject to “applicable legal restrictions.”

This is exactly what Barr did: He released the report with minimal material redactions. The American public can read all about Russian interference in American elections, Trump’s unscrupulous campaign team, and Trump’s own deceptions right here. An annotated version can be read here. A bound volume of the report can even be bought here.

So why are Democrats now claiming that we’re in the grips of a “constitutional crisis”? Why are some openly suggesting using the sergeant at arms to arrest Barr and throw him in jail? The answer is absurd: because Barr has not complied with a congressional subpoena that demands from him documents he cannot legally disclose. Yes, that’s right. Congress is threatening Barr with contempt in part because Barr won’t break the law.

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/andrew-mccarthy-congress-contempt-barr-democrats-watergate

When Congress uses its contempt power, there are basically three avenues it can pursue for purposes of enforcement. In the case of the House Judiciary Committee’s party-line vote to hold Attorney General William Barr in contempt – for purportedly failing to produce a report he has actually produced – Democrats, who control the House, will use the route that is most political and, thus, least credible: the unilateral congressional procedure.

The committee will refer its finding for a vote by the full chamber. The stunt here is so nakedly partisan that the House won’t even try to get support from the Senate. In theory, the House could try to take enforcement action on contempt. Congress even has a jail cell in the bowels of the Capitol … though it hasn’t been used in many, many years, and it certainly is not going to be used against a cabinet officer of the executive branch. (I’m thinking the U.S. marshals would not take kindly to the House sergeant-at-arms showing up at Main Justice with a congressional arrest warrant for the attorney general).

On the other extreme, the House could theoretically avail itself of the second avenue: It could seek the help of the executive branch – specifically, the Justice Department – to pursue criminal contempt charges against the attorney general (i.e., it could ask the attorney general to prosecute the attorney general).

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/05/mueller-report-volume-ii-available-top-congressional-democrats/

As Congressional Democrats prepare to hold attorney general William Barr in contempt over his supposed lack of transparency, it’s worth remembering that he has made available to top Democrats the entirety of volume II of the Mueller report, save for two full and seven partial lines, which were redacted to protect grand jury secrecy in keeping with federal law.

In order to provide lawmakers with greater transparency into special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, the Department of Justice placed a less-redacted version of his report in a secure room on Capitol Hill, and granted access to that room to congressional leaders of both parties, as well as the chairmen and ranking members of intelligence and judiciary committees in the House and Senate.

As of this writing, not one of the six Democrats granted access to what amounts to 99.9 percent of volume II of the Mueller report, which details the president’s behavior as it relates to obstruction of justice, have taken the opportunity to examine it. If they had, they could have viewed the entirety of Mueller’s obstruction case against Trump except for the following seven redactions, two of which are applied to footnotes.

https://amgreatness.com/2019/05/08/jim-jordan-explains-why-democrats-are-really-holding-bill-barr-in-contempt/

The House Judiciary Committee voted 22-12 Wednesday morning to hold Attorney General William Barr in contempt of Congress for refusing to give the committee the full, unredacted Mueller report, essentially holding him in contempt for following the law. The full House will reportedly vote on the measure some time Wednesday afternoon.

“Even in redacted form, the special counsel’s report offers disturbing evidence and analysis that Trump engaged in obstruction of justice at the highest levels. Congress must see the full report and underlying evidence to determine how to best move forward with oversight, legislation and other constitutional responsibilities,” Nadler said in a statement on Monday to explain the move.

“The attorney general’s failure to comply with our subpoena, after extensive accommodation efforts, leaves us no choice but to initiate contempt proceedings in order to enforce the subpoena and access the full, unredacted report. If the department presents us with a good-faith offer for access to the full report and the underlying evidence, I reserve the right to postpone these proceedings,” he added.

Barr, however, has already provided a 99 percent unredacted version of the report to 12 members of Congress–six Democrats and six Republicans– to read in a SCIF at Justice Department headquarters or a secure room on Capitol Hill. Every single Democrat passed on the opportunity.

https://thefederalist.com/2019/05/08/san-franciscans-fiddle-streets-riddled-needles-feces/

One of the most annoying — and notorious — aspects of life in San Francisco is locals’ tendency to micromanage nearly all of everyday life, from shopping bags to perfumes to any attempt to use a carbon-fueled vehicle. When SF residents find someone in violation of their rules, whether or not formally codified, they call him on it in all their self-righteous glory.

Brock Keeling, the editor of a popular local site sf.curbed, is a “self-described and proud ‘militant pedestrian.’” He penned “Pedestrian Etiquette Guide: How To Use The Sidewalk Like A Good Person.” Those who activate his pet peeves are inherently bad, I guess. No treats for us.

According to Keeling, the need for sidewalk etiquette is enormous. There have been a lot of traffic fatalities, and, get this: “Ride-hailing companies have turned streets into cash cows. And said companies use San Francisco streets as testing grounds for driverless cars.”

God forbid Uber makes any profit. Of course, none of it proves that San Francisco pedestrians are incapable of using a sidewalk, but, nonetheless, Keeling came up with a total of 17 (seventeen!) rules, and posted them under the “Beginner’s Guide To San Francisco” category. Because in San Francisco, existing should be a chore.