RUTHFULLY YOURS

Two prominent American Jewish leaders expressed strong concern on Monday over US President Donald Trump’s declaration of faith in Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan as part of his sudden decision to withdraw the 2,000 US troops presently assisting Kurdish and Arab allies in Syria.

“This most recent embrace of Turkey as a strategic partner in this ‘new’ US policy — relating to ISIS, Syria, the Kurds — should raise serious alarm bells in Israel and in the pro-Israel community,” Abraham Foxman, the national director emeritus of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), told The Algemeineron Monday.

Rabbi Abraham Cooper — associate dean of the Los Angeles-based Simon Wiesenthal Center — meanwhile asked whether anyone could “seriously believe that Erdogan will block the land corridor Iran is creating across Syria into Lebanon,” one of the more serious long-term issues in Israel’s northern security theater.

“It’s difficult to fathom what it was that Erdogan promised Trump, and that is part of the existential challenge facing Israel,” Cooper told The Algemeiner.

Trump’s confidence that Erdogan will “eradicate” what remains of ISIS marks another dramatic turnaround in the US president’s turbulent relations with foreign leaders. Just in August, amidst a dispute over an American pastor, Andrew Brunson, who was imprisoned in Turkey, Trump declared a steep rise in steel and aluminum import tariffs on Turkey, along with sanctions against Turkish officials. In response, Erdogan urged a mass boycott in Turkey of the US electronics products, including Apple’s iPhone.

More recently, Turkey accused Trump of adopting a “comic” stance toward the murder in October of the Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi at Saudi Arabia’s consulate in Istanbul. However, in a sign that Trump was changing his attitude toward Erdogan’s Islamist government, Turkish presidential spokesman Ibrahim Kalin claimed on Monday that the US president had agreed to pay an official visit to Turkey during 2019.

Both Foxman and Cooper were in agreement that Trump’s new alignment with Erdogan should be regarded with alarm by the American Jewish community, especially as the Turkish president’s frequent antisemitic outbursts are increasingly echoed by other senior Turkish officials — such as Foreign Minister Mesut Cavusoglu, who on Monday invoked the historic “blood libel” in slamming Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as a “baby-killer.”

https://amgreatness.com/2018/12/23/the-neverending-mysterious-

Certainly, no one should defend a top-ranking federal employee’s lying to federal investigators or to his superiors in the Trump Administration, if that is what former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn did, as evidenced by his own confession.

Note if Flynn lied to President Trump or Vice President Mike Pence about details of his private conversations, then that is unethical and understandably should be grounds for dismissal. The distinction, however, is whether Flynn deserved to be fired or to be in jail.

What put Flynn in legal jeopardy were the general’s statements to FBI investigators that purportedly were false, and allegedly given deliberately to mislead two federal investigators.

I express doubt here only because of media reports and leaks that Special Counsel Robert Mueller later either pressured Flynn for a confession, by strategies of financial exhaustion or leveraged him by threats to indict his son, or both.

Without that pressure, one wonders how Flynn might have explained his earlier alleged inconsistencies in recounting a private off the record conversation with a foreign diplomatic official to two FBI officials. That is, had he had adequate legal resources or not faced prosecutorial threats to indict his son, would he have later claimed that months earlier that he had been dishonest to Peter Strzok and his fellow FBI investigator?

Had Flynn at the time been apprised of why Andrew McCabe was sending his agents over to the White House, Flynn would have had choices, perhaps Lois Lerner-like to plead the Fifth, or in James Comey fashion he initially could have told chief interrogator Peter Strzok on 245 occasions that he did not know or did not remember, or he simply could have told investigators in James Clapper fashion that he was giving the least untruthful version of the story.

https://theweek.com/articles/813343/mueller-delusion?utm_source=ntnlreview&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=nationalreview_partnership

It’s December, and you know what that means. It’s Mueller time!

Michael Flynn, the moderately distinguished ex-lieutenant general who served for all of 24 days as Trump’s national security adviser and said some rude things on the campaign trail, narrowly avoided being sentenced to community service on Tuesday after pleading guilty to lying about a perfectly normal conversation with a Russian diplomat in late 2016. Judge Emmet Sullivan was in fine form, accusing Flynn of having “arguably” sold out his country, which is code for “getting caught in an obvious perjury trap.” Flynn’s sentencing will now be delayed until next year so he has more time to cooperate with Robert Mueller’s special counsel probe into Russian election interference. So far his assistance has led to the indictment of two former business associates who are accused of having illegally lobbied for the extradition of a Muslim cleric on behalf of the Turkish government. Turkey and Russia share a sea border, folks.

We don’t know why Flynn lied, but we also have no idea why the FBI was asking him gotcha questions in the first place. It wasn’t authorized by James Comey, the FBI director at the time. There are really only two possible reasons. One is that sentient adults considered indicting Flynn under the terms of the Logan Act, which is the prosecutorial equivalent of announcing a snipe hunt. Another is that Andrew McCabe, then the deputy director at the bureau, went rogue, the way law enforcement officers at every level do every day. I’ll let readers decide which is more likely.

It is possible to be of two minds about Flynn’s brief political career. His “Lock her up!” chants during the 2016 presidential campaign were unbecoming of a military man. But these antics concealed a frequently thoughtful perspective on foreign policy. In a 2015 interview with The Intercept, he blamed the war in Iraq for the rise of the Islamic State and dismissed the Obama administration’s use of drones as a “failed strategy.” “When you drop a bomb from a drone,” he said, “you are going to cause more damage than you are going to cause good.” What a comfort to think that he has been replaced by John Bolton.

Meanwhile Mueller is doing a good impersonation of a delusional power-crazed middle-school librarian. “Did you ever have a conversation with Rob and Pat in this library? Did you use your library voice? Okay, was it on a Tuesday? No, it was actually a Wednesday, and you, sir, are getting detention. Oh, what’s that? You happen to know that Kev and Phil were smoking cigarettes on the loading dock back in the seventh grade? Thank you, thank you so much! No, that’s all right, I can ring their employers.”

http://goudsmit.pundicity.com/21910/the-betrayal-of-america-who-do-you-trust http://goudsmit.pundicity.com/http://lindagoudsmit.com

“Who do you trust?” is the foundational question in human relationships. Social relationships, family relationships, business relationships, romantic relationships, intimate friendships, professional relationships, political relationships – human relationships rely on trust. The existence of trust or the absence of trust defines human relatedness.

Parents tell their children when they are very young, “Whatever you do don’t lie to me.” Why? Because trust is the foundation of love.

Cheating is a catastrophic betrayal in adult love relationships. Why? Because successful relationships require trust.

So it is in politics. The existence of trust or the absence of trust defines human relatedness in both the private and public sectors.

Our representative government is founded on the principles of trust. We vote for candidates who we believe will keep their promises. Politics in the United States is currently experiencing seismic trust issues. Over the years it has become painfully obvious that politicians make deceitful promises on the campaign trail to get themselves elected. Then came Donald J. Trump, the political outsider who actually meant what he said when he promised to make America great again by putting America first. What happened?

President Trump has been stymied in his America first efforts since he took office by Democrats AND Republicans. Why? What would create a bilateral effort to stop a duly elected President from keeping his promises to strengthen America? If you want to know the motive look at the result.

President Trump’s America first policies are designed to benefit American workers, American families, legal American citizens, the American economy, the American military, and American businesses on Main Street. President Trump’s policies are unapologetically preferential and protective of American national interests. So, why would any American politician reject America first policies?

The motive for the stupefying, well-organized, multi-faceted, well-funded domestic and international campaign to destroy President Trump is GLOBALISM – a synonym for one world government. Globalists need a weakened America to impose supranational one world government. What?

Let me be clear. Globalism does not mean global trade. Global trade is the legitimate international commerce between sovereign countries. Globalism is the internationalized political infrastructure of the new world order under the auspices of the corrupt United Nations.

Globalists are the existential enemy of American sovereignty, independence, and they are desperately trying to destroy America first President Donald Trump and every one of his America first initiatives. Globalism is at war with Americanism.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/12/william-barr-attorney-general-nomination/

A response to Daniel Hemel and Eric Posner

University of Chicago law professors Daniel Hemel and Eric Posner have penned an op-ed for the New York Times in which they argue that William P. Barr is disqualified to serve as President Trump’s attorney general. Their rationale is that the advisory memorandum Barr wrote to Justice Department officials this past June, arguing against the validity of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s obstruction theory, raises questions about his objectivity and fitness.

Coming from such estimable scholars, the Hemel-Posner column is surprisingly vapid. In fact, it is so unconvincing, I can only conclude that it is the start of a two-part strategy: Set the table by staking out an aggressive but untenable position that Barr — an eminently qualified former attorney general — is not suitable to be AG; then, Democrats can appear oh so reasonable in ultimately arguing that Barr must at least recuse himself from oversight of the Mueller investigation. The latter would be a meritless contention, though one we are certain to hear.

Hemel and Posner concede that Barr explicitly disclaimed knowledge about many of the facts of Mueller’s investigation. Moreover, far from attacking the legitimacy of Mueller’s overall investigation, or claiming that a prosecutor may not validly investigate the president for obstruction, Barr asserts that a president may indeed be cited for obstruction by “sabotaging a proceeding’s truth-seeking function.”

Barr’s quarrel, the professors correctly state, is with what press reports indicate is an expansive construction of Section 1512(c) of the federal penal code. As I explained in a National Review column earlier this week, Barr contends that application of the obstruction statute is limited to innately wrongful acts of evidence and witness tampering; it cannot be stretched to cover prerogatives of the presidency (e.g., issuing pardons, dismissing subordinate officials, exercising prosecutorial discretion by weighing in on the merits of an investigation) that a prosecutor believes may have been improperly motivated. Otherwise, not only would the chief executive potentially be divested of his constitutional authority; the administration of justice would be damaged because this theory would apply to all executive officials — including, for example, prosecutors making strategic decisions in litigation, or making personnel and management decisions.

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/13454/trump-agenda

President Donald Trump has put a number of burning issues back on the agenda. These include the widening income gap in the United States, the unintended and unexpected consequences of outsourcing, and the disequilibrium created by signing trade agreements with countries with different labor laws and environmental, health and safety standards.

In foreign policy, Trump has managed to pass on an important message: don’t take American heavy lifting for granted! More importantly, Trump has persuaded millions of Americans excluded or self-excluded from the political arena to end their isolation and demand a meaningful place in collective decision-making.

Thus, for the time being at least, air-brushing Trump out of the picture is a forlorn task.

As the American political elite head for Christmas holidays, the buzz in Washington circles is that 2019 will start with fresh attempts at curtailing the Trump presidency or, failing that, preventing Donald Trump’s re-election in 2020. Amateurs of the conspiracy theory may suggest that the whole thing may be a trap set by the Trump camp to keep the president’s opponents chained to a strategy doomed to failure.

By devoting almost all of their energies to attacking Trump personally and praying that the Mueller probe may open the way for impeachment, the president’s opponents, starting with the Democrat Party leadership, have shut down debate about key issues of economic, social and foreign policy — issues that matter to the broader public. Reducing all politics to a simple “Get Trump!’ slogan makes them a one-trick pony that may amuse people for a while but is unlikely to go very far.

Despite sensational daily headlines furnished by the Mueller soap opera, there is little chance of the impeachment strategy to get anywhere close to success. And even if the pro-impeachment lobby succeeds in triggering the process, it is unlikely that this would lead to Trump’s removal from office. In fact, out of the 45 men who have served as President of the United States only two, Andrew Jackson and Bill Clinton, faced formal impeachment procedures, but neither was driven out of office.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/12/rand_paul_issues_festivus_edition_of_the_waste_report.html

“The stupid, inane, shocking, maddening, and depressing examples of how our federal government spends your tax dollars.”

Read it and weep, taxpayers.

Every Christmas since he took office, Senator Rand Paul has issued a “Waste Report” on government spending. This year, Senator Paul has outdone himself in finding the stupid, inane, shocking, maddening, and depressing examples of how our federal government spends the hard-earned tax dollars of citizens.

So here we are, another year past, another year to forget. A government shutdown resolved by hiking spending; nuked budget caps; a debt over $21 trillion; and Congress okayed $1.3 trillion in new spending – all in the first three months! An October 2018 report from the Congressional Budget Office showed net interest payments on the debt for fiscal year 2018 at $371 billion, $62 billion more than payments for fiscal year 2017. Given such largesse, it may seem like a few million dollars is a drop in the bucket. But to borrow from a line credited to former Senator Everett Dirksen(R-IL): “a million dollars here and there, and pretty soon you’re talking about real money.”

This year, The Waste Report is highlighting $114,514,631 of wasted money. We feature an old favorite due for an update and some instant classics, like a study of daydreaming. Exactly where taxes should go, right? No matter how much federal agencies waste, politicians think they’ve never got enough. But if there’s money to waste, there’s too much already. So, before the Feats of Strength can begin, there must be an Airing of (spending) Grievance.

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/345004-sod-mattis-served-as-uae-military-adviser-before-appointed-to-trump
Defense Secretary James Mattis served as an unpaid military adviser to the United Arab Emirates before joining the Trump administration, CNN first reported Wednesday.

The Pentagon reportedly gave Mattis permission to take on the informal advisory role in 2015, during his time as a fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. He also received approval to work for the UAE from the State Department.

Pentagon spokesman Jeff Davis said Mattis advised the UAE on rebuilding its military. He was not representing the U.S. government and was reimbursed for travel by the UAE, Davis added.

Though not previously made public, Mattis properly disclosed the information when he was nominated to be defense secretary, CNN said.

“He certainly hasn’t been hiding it,” Davis told the network.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/whats-next-in-fbi-oversight-11545350636

James Comey gave his follow-up testimony to Congress this week, in which he continued to profess memory loss about most of the 2016 investigation of the Trump campaign. Then again, the joke was on the former director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Thanks to two years of dogged investigation, House Republicans already know the story of the FBI’s 2016 doings. Mr. Comey wasn’t there to provide new details. He was there to account for his actions.

That’s the crowning achievement of this 115th Congress. Tax and criminal-justice reform and judicial appointments are all hugely important. But House and Senate investigators get pride of place for unraveling one of the greatest dirty tricks of our political times, in which a Democratic administration, party and presidential campaign either co-opted or fooled the FBI into investigating the Republican campaign. Lawmakers got to the bottom of this despite partisan attacks and institutional obstruction. Congress has taken that probe about as far as was ever going to be possible. The next steps are up to the White House.

In January 2017, CNN reported the explosive news that “classified documents” from a “credible” “former British intelligence operative” alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and Russians. It sounded bad and set off a hysteria that led to the recusal of Attorney General Jeff Sessions, the firing of national security adviser Mike Flynn, the launching of half a dozen investigations, and the appointment of special counsel Robert Mueller. Senior officials, including Mr. Comey, watched all this in full knowledge of the dossier’s provenance. They said nothing.

It was left to the House Intelligence Committee, under Chairman Devin Nunes, to extract the real story: that the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton’s campaign hired opposition-research firm Fusion GPS, which in turn retained a British gun-for-hire (Christopher Steele) to compile the so-called dossier; that Fusion injected this into the FBI, the Justice Department and the State Department; that this political dirt was a part of the FBI’s decision to launch an unprecedented counterintelligence investigation (which included human informants) into a presidential campaign; that this dirt was also the basis for a surveillance warrant against former Trump aide Carter Page; that the “credible” Mr. Steele was fired by the FBI; and that the FBI withheld the most sordid details from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which granted said warrant. And we separately know the Obama administration was engaged in the unmasking of U.S. citizens and leaking of classified information. CONTINUE AT SITE