RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/08/robert-mueller-donald-trump-inte

With testimony from the president’s top lawyer, the special counsel is in no position to claim he needs to speak with Trump.

For months, these columns have contended that, on the question whether President Trump should agree to a request by Special Counsel Robert Mueller III for an interview, the burden of persuasion has been imposed on the wrong party. That is, the president should not even be asked to submit to questioning at this point; the prosecutor must first establish that the president (1) is implicated in a serious crime and (2) has information or evidence that the prosecutor is unable to obtain from any other source.

That argument is bolstered by this weekend’s New York Times report that, with the president’s consent, Mueller’s team has conducted 30 hours of interviews with White House counsel Donald F. McGahn II. Having secured testimony from the president’s top lawyer, the special counsel is in no position to claim that he needs the president’s own testimony.

The president’s consent to make McGahn available to prosecutors is extraordinary, as it involves waiving both executive privilege and attorney–client privilege. As to the latter, some claim that there is no real waiver involved because McGahn purportedly represents “the presidency” in the abstract, not the actual incumbent. (The Times pushes this line, claiming that McGahn “viewed his role as protector of the presidency, not of Mr. Trump.”) This is nonsense. McGahn’s client is the president in the latter’s official capacity — in contrast to Trump’s private lawyers (Rudy Giuliani and Jay Sekulow).

http://thefederalist.com/2018/08/20/papers-saying-papadopoulos-lied-fbi-fbi-shows-either-also-lying-incompetent/

Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s office filed a sentencing memorandum Friday in its pending criminal case against George Papadopoulos, the former Donald Trump campaign advisor who pled guilty in October 2017 to making false statements to the FBI. Papadopoulos is scheduled to be sentenced next month.

Mueller’s team provided the court a detailed background of Papadopoulos’ criminal offense in the sentencing memorandum and suggested Papadopoulos’ lies justified a sentence of 0 to 6 months of incarceration. While much of the ten-page memorandum merely rehashes facts previously known, one passage includes a significant new admission that proves the FBI is either incompetent, or incompetent at lying.
Let’s Run Through the Context First

Before we get to why, a quick refresher. In early March 2016, Papadopoulos learned he would serve as a foreign policy advisor to the Trump presidential campaign. Later that month, Papadopoulos met a professor while traveling in Italy, Joseph Mifsud.

Sir Alexander Fraser Tytler (1747-1813), a Scottish jurist and historian, provides an explanation for why great societies do not survive for more than 200 years:

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury. From that time on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the results that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship (bondage).”

Our forefathers founded the United States of America as a republic and not a democracy to avoid this existential threat. So, what happened?

The Bern happened. Snowflakes and millennials discovered leaders in representative government who would provide the largesse from the treasury that they could not vote for directly. Bernie Sanders promised them the cradle-to-grave government support of socialism and its attendant breakdown of representative government – they trusted the Bern and they were all in. After Hillary and the DNC managed to deny Bernie the candidacy Hillary’s campaign moved further left politically to pick up Bernie’s constituents.

Hillary tailored her message toward Bernie’s followers and in the aftermath of her shocking loss to candidate Donald Trump her followers disavowed the American electoral system entirely. They have withdrawn their trust because they don’t like the outcome. This is unprecedented in American history. For 242 years the American public has accepted election outcomes and moved on. As in any competition there is a winner and a loser and everyone moves on to try again next time.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/08/20/fox-news-first-weinstein-accuser-was-accused-sexual-assault-brennan-mulls-taking-trump-to-court.html

#METOO HYPOCRISY: Actress Asia Argento, one of the first prominent women to accuse disgraced movie mogul Harvey Weinstein of sexual assault, agreed to pay $380,000 to an actor who accused her of sexually assaulting him when he was 17 years old, The New York Times reported Sunday night … The actor claimed that the assault took place in a California hotel room in 2013, according to the report. The age of consent in California is 18. The newspaper obtained documents sent between lawyers for Argento and the accuser that laid out a payment schedule. The notice of intent asked for $3.5 million in damages. The Times reported that the final agreement was reached in April of this year.

Argento, now 42, played a prominent role in the downfall of Weinstein, the former head of Miramax. In October of last year, The New Yorker published allegations by Argento that Weinstein forcibly performed oral sex on her in 1997. The allegations against Weinstein by Argento and other actresses — including Ashley Judd, Gwyneth Paltrow, Angelina Jolie and Rose McGowan — gave rise to the global “MeToo” movement and prompted a re-examination of the behavior of prominent men in other industries, most notably media.

https://newswithviews.com/deep-state-husbands/

Most of us are familiar with the Stepford Wives, but how many of us realize that the men involved in the so-called Deep State have wives that are anything but Stepford-type women?

Those of us who seek news outside of the mainstream know who Nellie Ohr is. Fox News spent the past week inundating us with information about her. The question is: Why did they wait so long to broadcast data published seven months ago? Fox News treated it like a news alert – called it that, in fact.

It’s almost as if everything is being carefully timed to achieve a very secret objective.

Do the words “statute of limitations” resonate as the reason behind Robert Mueller’s, the FBI’s, the DOJ’s and Congressional Committees’ unreasonable delays? If truth can be delayed long enough, no one goes to jail because the statute of limitations comes and goes so no one can be prosecuted.

When a crime (with a few exceptions – like murder) is perpetrated, the authorities have a limited amount of time to catch and prosecute the offender. If the statute of limitations says the authorities have three years to solve and prosecute the crime, the perp can confess the day after the three year limit passes and cannot be prosecuted for it. The crime is “dead.”

https://apnews.com/538f53ba67a14c9fba823607d906e7d2/Minnesota-Democrats-endorse-Ellison-amid-abuse-allegation

MINNEAPOLIS (AP) — Minnesota Democrats are standing behind U.S. Rep. Keith Ellison and his bid for state attorney general, with the state party giving him an endorsement Saturday amid an allegation of domestic abuse from an ex-girlfriend.

Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party Chairman Ken Martin said in a statement that Ellison “will be a champion for families and fight to hold powerful interests accountable.”

Ellison received 326 votes, or 82 percent of delegates on hand at the party’s state executive committee meeting Saturday, the Minneapolis Star Tribune reported.

The endorsement comes after Ellison won the Democratic primary just days after Karen Monahan said Ellison had once dragged her off a bed by her feet while screaming obscenities. Ellison has denied the allegation. Monahan has said she has video footage of the 2016 encounter, but has declined to release it. Ellison says the video does not exist.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/andrew-cuomo-doesnt-see-americas-greatness-because-he-doesnt-know-where-to-look Somewhere between Nickelsville and Bear Wallow Hollow along Virginia state route 71, the remains of a redbrick home smolders on the hillside overlooking the single lane road. Several volunteer firemen sit, drinking water near the remains of the home. It’s over 90 degrees out. The sun and heat are punishing, exaggerating the heaviness of […]

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/08/gender_confusion_a_tool_of_the_left.html

The Democratic Party has gone off the deep end in many more ways than just pushing socialism. One sign is the fanatical embrace of identity politics, which has become the hallmark of the Party of Obama (POO). Look at Vermont. There, the Democrats’ primary race for governor was won by Christine Hallquist.

What is unusual is that Hallquist calls himself a “transgender woman.” To put it more accurately and without any politically correct gloss, Hallquist is a male pretending to be a woman. His pretending isn’t all that convincing, as evidenced by this YouTube clip from Time magazine.

It’s worth a minute’s time to see Hallquist to connect a face and a voice to the name and see what the Democrats are pushing.

Yes, Hallquist is a man in spite of any superficial changes he has made to his appearance. The chromosomes of the cells in his body haven’t changed, and he can’t erase the fact that he fathered three children when he was known as David Hallquist. Now, it is one thing for an individual to assert himself to be a woman and to act the part. There are always oddities. However, it is something entirely different for a major political party to put forward such a confused person for a high-level position as governor of a state.

https://www.city-journal.org/html/andrew-cuomo-16114.html

New York governor Andrew Cuomo says that America was “never that great,” and he’s entitled to that view, but it would be interesting to know where the U.S. ranks in his personal list of great nations. And it’s amusing to imagine what the late Mario Cuomo, who so frequently praised America for the singular place that it is—“the greatest nation in the only world we know”—would have to say, especially in private, about his impulsive son’s latest outburst. Cuomo delivered his caustic observation at a bill-signing ceremony cum campaign pep rally on Manhattan’s Lower East Side, and it might be a mistake to take it for much beyond what it was: just another rhetorical drive-by shooting aimed at Donald Trump, the bête noire of New York Democratic politics.

But let’s unpack it anyway.

“We’re not going to make America great again,” Cuomo said. “It was never that great. We have not reached greatness. We will reach greatness when every American is fully engaged.” Perhaps the governor meant “perfect” when he said “great”—his language skills aren’t profound when he’s in political mode—and that would have the advantage of being true. Humans aspire to perfection, but never achieve it; greatness is a relative goal, reachable but open to mischievous rhetorical abuse.

Perhaps Cuomo was conjuring the spirit of his father’s keynote speech at the 1984 Democratic National Convention, a carefully composed, skillfully delivered attempted takedown of President Ronald Reagan’s “shining city on a hill” campaign theme. But this was an infinitely larger stage in a game played for immensely greater stakes, and Mario Cuomo was a masterful public speaker. At best, Andrew Cuomo’s crack was an uninspired knockoff of his father’s singular statement of principle and purpose. Just as Trump is no Reagan, Andrew is no Mario when it comes to political oratory.

http://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/402396-ex-us-attorney-jury-asking-about-reasonable-doubt-is-glimmer-of-hope-for

Former U.S. Attorney Kendall Coffey said that a question posed by the jury in Paul Manafort’s criminal trial about the definition of “reasonable doubt” offers a “glimmer of hope” for the former Trump campaign chairman.

Coffey told told Hill.TV’s Buck Sexton and Krystal Ball on “Rising” that Manafort is facing an uphill battle in his trial on bank and tax fraud charges over the vast number of documents presented against him by federal prosecutors.

“But his team has to have a little bit of glimmer of hope just from the question that jurors want to know more about reasonable doubt,” Coffey said.

“Because there are certainly cases where that can be the final thing that at least gives them a few hold-out jurors,” he continued, “because a hung jury here would be a big victory for the defense.”

A hung jury, or a jury that is so gridlocked that it cannot reach a verdict, would mark the end of the case for now; federal prosecutors could decide whether to retry Manafort.

The jury in Manafort’s trial in federal court in Alexandria, Va., ended its first day of deliberations on Thursday by asking the judge in the case to redefine “reasonable doubt,” along with three other questions.

Manafort’s team celebrated the question at the time, saying that it “indicates someone has doubts.”

The jury signaled in a note on Friday afternoon that they would not reach a verdict in the case before the weekend, requesting to end deliberations at 5 p.m. so a juror could attend an event.