RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://jamieglazov.com/2018/12/02/glazov-gang-a-blac

This new edition of The Glazov Gang featured Will Johnson, the founder and president of UniteAmericaFirst.com.

Will exposes Leftist Racism and Destruction, revealing the progressive faith’s heart of darkness.

Don’t miss it!

And make sure to watch Will and Jermain Botsio discuss Henry Davis’ new video, in which he proclaims: “I Ain’t Never Been a Mo–f–in Slave!” — and they reflect on how leftists are in panic mode as American blacks flee the Democratic plantation.

Also tune in to watch Jamie shed light on how John Bolton Praises My New Book, “Jihadist Psychopath,” where he shares how President Trump’s National Security Adviser has given his work a glowing thumbs up.

https://pjmedia.com/trending/comey-makes-a-deal-with-house-republicans-to-testify/

Former FBI director James Comey has come to an agreement with House Republicans to testify behind closed doors before the House Judiciary Committee about his actions during the Hillary Clinton email and Russian collusion investigations.

Comey had sued the committee, demanding he be allowed to testify in public about his actions. But the agreement states that he will give his deposition in private, although a transcript will be released to the public.

The Daily Caller reports:

Comey sought a public hearing, claiming in a court filing Thursday that he feared “selective leaks” from Republicans. But in an emergency court hearing Friday, Comey’s attorneys acknowledged that the request to quash the congressional subpoena was unorthodox, suggesting the motion had little chance of succeeding.

Comey wrote Sunday on Twitter that he was “grateful for a fair hearing from judge.”

He said that he will testify “in the dark” but that Republicans had agreed he is “free to talk when done and transcript released in 24 hours.”

“This is the closest I can get to public testimony,” he wrote.

The bid to squash the subpoena was more than “unorthodox.” It was arrogant. A witness before any committee cannot negotiate the manner of his appearance. Comey says he feared Republicans would selectively leak his testimony, trying to make him and the Democrats look bad. While that is entirely possible, it’s not up to Comey to protect a political party or his tattered reputation by avoiding a congressional committee.

Republicans argued against Comey’s motion to block the subpoena, noting that other current and former FBI officials have testified privately during the course of the committees’ investigation of the Clinton and Trump probes.

“Sixteen other people have testified under oath in the same setting that we’re asking him to do it and his claim that he needs to do it in public is, in my opinion, a farce,” Virginia GOP Rep. Bob Goodlatte, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, told Fox News on Friday.

Republicans have accused the FBI and Justice Department of going easy on former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and of abusing the surveillance court process to obtain spy warrants against former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page. CONTINUE AT SITE

https://www.wsj.com/articles/michael-cohens-lawyers-ask-for-no-prison-time-after-plea-

Lawyers for Michael Cohen, President Donald Trump’s former personal lawyer, asked a federal judge in a memorandum filed late Friday night to impose no prison time for Mr. Cohen at his scheduled sentencing later this month, citing Mr. Cohen’s contrition and his cooperation with law enforcement.

In their plea for leniency, Mr. Cohen’s lawyers said Mr. Cohen’s decision to cooperate with investigators reflected his “personal resolve, notwithstanding past errors, to re-point his internal compass true north toward a productive, ethical and thoroughly law abiding life.”

The memo stressed the “weighty and fraught” decision by Mr. Cohen to break with his longtime former boss, who the filing noted has repeatedly attacked the special-counsel investigation into his associates as a “witch hunt” and a “hoax.” Mr. Cohen, the lawyers said, “could have fought the government and continued to hold to the party line, positioning himself perhaps for a pardon.”

“In the circumstances of this case, at this time, in this climate, Michael’s decision to cooperate required and requires singular determination and personal conviction,” the lawyers wrote.

The filing came a day after Mr. Cohen, now 52 years old, pleaded guilty to one count brought by special counsel Robert Mueller’s office, in which he admitted lying to Congress about efforts to build a Trump Tower in Moscow during the 2016 Presidential campaign.

In August, Mr. Cohen pleaded guilty in Manhattan federal court to eight counts, including five counts of tax fraud, one count of making false statements to a bank, and two campaign-finance violations related to hush-money payments to two women who said they had sexual encounters with Mr. Trump. Mr. Cohen told the court that Mr. Trump ordered him to arrange the payments, which the president has denied.
CONTINUE AT SITE

https://www.wsj.com/articles/dont-let-muellers-report-go-unanswered-1543786233?cx_testId=16&cx_testVariant=cx&cx_artPos=3&cx_tag=collabctx&cx_navSource=newsReel#cxrecs_s

Special counsel Robert Mueller is likely to wrap up his investigation soon and issue a confidential report to the attorney general. It is important to understand the legal status of such a report and how it should be released and evaluated under the Justice Department regulations governing special counsels.

First and foremost, because it is the report of a prosecutor, it will inevitably be one-sided. Prosecutors pick the witnesses they present to a grand jury. Defense lawyers are not allowed to appear with their clients, or to present witnesses who might contradict the prosecutor’s case. Prosecutors need not provide exculpatory evidence, even if they are aware of it. Nor need they interview witnesses who might contradict their narrative. That is why it is generally considered unfair for prosecutors to issue “reports.” Normally prosecutors announce only that the subject has been indicted or not, without further comment.

Special counsels are permitted, and sometimes required, to issue reports—but in doing so they are governed by rules. The title “special counsel” might seem to give their findings special weight—to which they are not legally, morally or logically entitled. That is why in a high-stakes case like this one, it is imperative that the target’s legal team be allowed to issue its own report, presenting its side of the case. Basic fairness requires this, and the American public is entitled to judge for itself which side is more persuasive.

There should never be a presumption in favor of crediting the one-sided reports prepared by prosecutors. Such reports have no higher status than an indictment, and an indictment handed up by a grand jury is not proof of guilt—only a charging instrument. Like an indictment, a special counsel’s report should not undercut the presumption of innocence.

https://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/the-russia-probe-has-nothing-to-do-with-russia/

America is at war with itself and the Russia probe is the leading, but far from the only, front in that war.

Bad as Vladimir Putin is, the investigation has little or nothing to do with Russia–which has been what it is since the days of the tsars–and everything to do with us.

From the Okhrana (the tsars’ secret police that authored the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and specialized in agents provocateurs) to the Cheka to the NKVD to the KGB to the FSB, it has always been the same. The Russians — Soviet or not — have always engaged in disinformation. Their recent Facebook and Twitter offerings were nothing more than the tip of an iceberg that’s been sailing for years.

In other words words, there’s nothing new here. The indictments of the Russian hackers by Mueller and Company were no more than a face-saving charade. They will never be arrested and no one will care. No one remembers who they were even now, less than a year later, except that they vastly expand the number of those indicted for breathless press reports.

U.S. leaders have been trying, and largely failing, to cope with Russia in all its guises since Franklin Roosevelt. FDR was gulled by New York Times Moscow correspondent Walter Duranty, the progenitor of “fake news” and probably its worst practitioner, into thinking Stalin wasn’t so evil after all and that Dzhugashvili didn’t really starve over a million Ukrainians. And what little he did had to be done. After all, as Duranty put it, you had to break some eggs to make an omelet.
Exposing Joseph Stalin’s Media Apologist

Roosevelt went on to cede Eastern Europe to Stalin at Yalta, setting up decades of misery. When Reagan came along and tried to reverse the situation, building the military and confronting Moscow, many of our Democrat friends — the same ones attacking Trump for being soft on Russia — cried foul and went viciously after Reagan as a war monger.

The hypocrisy is beyond comprehension. Do these people think we’ve had a lobotomy and can’t remember anything? Maybe they have.

Nevertheless, after the Wall fell, things only got better for a brief time because Russia remained Russia and our leaders remained ineffectual or worse in their ability to deal with it. George W. Bush naively looked into Putin’s eyes and saw his “soul.” Obama was sleazier. He colluded with the Russian dictator, being caught on video whispering to Putin’s lackey Medvedev to tell Vladimir that he, Barack, would be freer to make concessions after the election. (If Trump had been caught doing such a thing, CNN would be playing it fifty times a day for the next fifty years.) And then he literally gave Syria to the Russian dictator, walking back on his red line on chemical weapons. (Again, if Trump had done that, CNN would have had a mega-orgasm. We need a new word for extreme hypocrisy.)

But now we’re in the era of Trump and that intramural blood sport the Russia probe is in full blast, threatening never to end, people being arrested right and left for process crimes or for engaging in the kind of corruption that has pervaded Washington, D.C., in both political parties since any of us were alive.

The latest is that we learn Donald, a businessman, was trying to build a Trump Tower in Moscow. As news, that’s right up there with the sky is blue and the sun rises in the East. CONTINUE AT SITE

http://swtotd.blogspot.com/

November was the “mean” month, or, rather, another “mean” month. Tweets, inanities, recriminations and a general sense of unpleasantness, swept the nation and Europe: In the U.S., ballots disappeared, others became water-damaged and some arrived without signatures. In Europe, France’s Emmanuel Macron, already on the ropes for the economy, called for a European military force: “We must protect ourselves with respect to China, Russia and even the United States.”This was said with President Trump, leader of the country that pays over 70% of the continent’s defense through NATO, standing nearby. This nastiness occurred despite the month hosting the great American holiday of Thanksgiving. Instead of giving thanks for living in this great land, the media and political elites went out of their way to find fault with anyone or anything that got in the way of their ideology, especially Donald J. Trump – witness the election results in Florida and Georgia and blame for the California wildfires. The crevasse created by identity politics, Mr. Trump’s Tweets and Trump haters grows wider and deeper. Bridging it grows more difficult and less likely.

Consider Jamal Khashoggi – not an admirable character, and not just because he was a columnist for The Washington Post, but because he was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, a right-wing, religiopolitical organization. Nevertheless, his murder was despicable and undoubtedly leaders in Saudi Arabia had fore-knowledge of the killing. But, spare me the hypocrisy – that does not make angels of those crying foul. Mr. Erdogan’s Turkey imprisons more journalists than any other nation according to PBS. Iran is a hotbed of exporting terrorism. Yemen is ground zero in the battle between Shias and Sunnis, with Iran supporting the Houthi rebels who have infiltrated the country against the Saudi-supported government. Mr. Trump does himself a disservice in the crudity of his response, but had he singled out MBS (Mohammad bin Salman) for blame, the media and the left would have found fault for his cozying up to the Turkish dictator. As well, they would blame him for a spike in oil prices, which undoubtedly would have followed an abandonment of our decades-old relationship with the Kingdom. What Mr. Trump should do, with MBS in the spotlight, is pull concessions from the Saudis. He has already told the Saudis to end the bloodshed in Yemen, but he should do more. He should push them to restore ties with Qatar and to ensure the Gulf Cooperation Council remains effective. He should pressure the Saudis to recognize Israel. Keep in mind, the Saudis remained our ally after 9/11, despite fifteen of the nineteen hijackers being Saudi citizens. And it was President Obama who, in September 2016, vetoed a bill that held Saudi Arabia legally accountable for 9/11. Fortunately, Congress overrode his veto. Just remember, there are no clear consciences when a democratic nation’s interests require allying with a dictator.

Elections in the United States were much as expected, though counting extended into the middle of the month, and one Senate race – Mississippi – not decided until November 27. (Republican Cindy Hyde-Smith won by eight points.) Some results were not accepted by those that lost, reminding one of Anthony Trollope’s 1858 novel, Dr. Thorne: “…no political delinquency is abominable in the eyes of British politicians, but no delinquency is so abominable as that of venality at elections.” The bottom line: Democrats took over the House, while Republicans increased their lead in the Senate.

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

There is big news ahead, and President Trump teased it yesterday from Argentina via Twitter. Politics has become a game of narratives, something well understood by both President Trump and his enemies in the media-Democrat establishment. For more than two years, the professionals of the cultural and media establishment have worked assiduously to create an objectively false narrative, with no evidence whatsoever, that Vladimir Putin actually changed the count of votes to hand Trump the presidency, making his victory illegitimate. Most Democrats actually believe this now and have in earlier polls as well.

But as I keep reminding our readers, President Trump was the most successful reality television producer in the history of the medium, and he understands a story arc well, as events that can be programmed unfold. That must be kept in mind in understanding this enigmatic tweet that came from the president half a world away, in Argentina for meetings with the leaders of the 20 biggest economies in the world.

Watch @seanhannity on @FoxNews NOW. Enjoy!

Here is the short (barely over a minute) segment on Hannity last night to which the president referred:

John Solomon has a smile on his face as he reveals that two prosecutors working for John Huber, the Salt Lake City U.S. attorney tasked by then-A.G. Sessions with investigating corruption beyond what the Mueller team is handling, “reached out” to a whistleblower from the Clinton Foundation.

The Clinton Foundation scandal is, as President Trump would say, yuuuuge. I am told by a knowledgeable source that the official that John Solomon cites “knows where the bodies are buried.”

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/419193-trump-russia-and-lessons-from-the-mob-did-godfathers-steer-collusion

Back in the mafia’s heyday, FBI and IRS agents had a set of surveillance rules.

If one mobster showed up in town, pay notice. If two arrived, be suspicious. If three or four were in the same vicinity, something was going down.

And if five or more headed to the same neck of the woods, a meeting of consiglieri or La Cosa Nostra’s council was likely happening. (This, because there were always five families in New York and some adjunct families elsewhere that made up the council’s leadership.)

There also was another rule of thumb: Mobsters would always have the same calling card, or excuse, to be in town. Attending a funeral (the mid-1980s mob meeting in Chicago) or a vacation in the sticks (the infamous 1957 gathering in upstate New York) were some of the more memorable ones.

Early in my reporting that unraveled the origins of the Trump-Russia collusion probe, tying it to Hillary Clinton’s campaign and possible Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) abuses, I started to see patterns just as in the old mob meetings: FBI or intelligence-connected figures kept showing up in Trump Town USA during the 2016 campaign with a common calling card.

The question now is, who sent them and why?

Interviews with more than 50 witnesses in the Trump case and reviews of hundreds of pages of court filings confirm the following:

At least six people with long-established ties to the FBI or to U.S. and Western intelligence made entrees to key figures in the Trump business organization or his presidential campaign between March and October 2016;

Campaign figures were contacted by at least two Russian figures whose justification for being in the United States were rare law enforcement parole visas controlled by the U.S. Justice Department;

Intelligence or diplomatic figures connected to two of America’s closest allies, Britain and Australia, gathered intelligence or instigated contacts with Trump campaign figures during that same period;

Some of the conversations and contacts that were monitored occurred on foreign soil and resulted in the creation of transcripts;

Nearly all of the contacts involved the same overture — a discussion about possible political dirt or stolen emails harmful to Hillary Clinton, or unsolicited business in London or Moscow;

Several of the contacts occurred before the FBI formally launched a legally authorized probe into the Trump campaign and possible collusion on July 31, 2016.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/12/robert-mueller-plan-trump-russia-investigation-report-not-case/
Special Counsel Mueller is building a report, not a case.

R ight after Special Counsel Robert Mueller racked up yet another guilty plea to a false-statements charge on Thursday, a friend asked me, “Doesn’t this destroy Michael Cohen’s credibility as a witness?”

Easier to destroy Satan’s conscience, I thought. Cohen would have to have some credibility before it could be destroyed, and how much could reside in a self-described “fixer” who openly compared himself to Tom Hagen, the lawyer-gangster in The Godfather. (I’ll stipulate that he has a law degree, but Cohen has always struck me as the Fredo of Trump World.)

Nevertheless, the flaw in my friend’s question was not the assumption that Cohen had some smidgeon of value as a witness until it was extirpated by his plea of guilty to lying to Congress (after he had already, in August, pled guilty lying to a financial institution, among other fraudulence). The real flaw was the assumption that Special Counsel Mueller is lining up witnesses and building a criminal case, like prosecutors do.

He is not.

No prosecutor builds a case the way Mueller is going about it. What prosecutor says, “Here’s our witness line-up: Michael Flynn, George Papadopoulos, Alex van der Zwaan, Rick Gates, Paul Manafort, Michael Cohen. And what is it that they have in common, ladies and gentlemen of the jury? Bingo! They’re all convicted liars.”?

For a prosecutor, like any trial lawyer, what the jury thinks is at least as important as what the law says. If the most memorable thing the jury takes into the deliberation room is that no one should believe a word your witnesses say, you are not going to convict the lowliest grifter, much less the president of the United States of America.

As a prosecutor, you build a case by having your cooperating accomplice witnesses plead guilty to the big scheme you are trying to pin on the main culprit. After all, what makes these witnesses accomplices, literally, is that they were participants in the main culprit’s crime. That’s the scheme you’re trying to prove. So, on guilty-plea day, the cooperator comes into court and admits guilt to the same conspiracy on which you are trying to nail the lead defendant.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/democrats-and-racial-division-1543621887

Democrats are taking racial politics to new heights—and no wonder, since the tactic has again succeeded. This week Republican Senator Tim Scott said he will oppose the nomination of Thomas Farr, tapped for a federal judgeship in North Carolina. Senator Jeff Flake is voting no to showcase his opposition to Donald Trump, and the two GOP defections are enough to torpedo Mr. Farr’s appointment this year.

Mr. Scott cited legal work that Mr. Farr performed decades ago for North Carolina’s then-Senator Jesse Helms. After the 1990 election, the Justice Department accused Helms of trying to intimidate black voters by sending a postcard claiming that people who recently moved were ineligible to cast ballots. Mr. Farr defended Helms in the matter. But he told the Senate last year that he wasn’t consulted on the postcard’s content and didn’t know it had been sent until Justice sent a letter to the campaign.

A 1991 internal Justice memo, published this week, says that Mr. Farr, who also had coordinated “ballot security” for Helms in the 1984 election, discussed the idea of sending some kind of postcard in 1990, but that he counseled against it. Nonetheless, Mr. Scott said Thursday that the memo “shed new light on Mr. Farr’s activities” and “created more concerns.”

There’s no reason to doubt the sincerity of Mr. Scott, the Senate’s only black Republican. But Democrats will see Mr. Farr’s defeat as a vindication of their most underhanded and inflammatory racial tactics.
***

Consider a second complaint against Mr. Farr: that the North Carolina Legislature retained him to defend its 2013 voter-ID law. “This is a man who stands for disenfranchisement of voters, particularly minority voters,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said this week. In a letter last year, four members of the Congressional Black Caucus wrote that in Mr. Farr the White House could hardly have found a nominee “with a more hostile record on African-American voting rights.”William Barber II, a former leader of the North Carolina NAACP, called Mr. Farr “a product of the modern white supremacist machine.”