RUTHFULLY YOURS

In the aftermath of last month’s shooting of Saheed Vassell, a mentally ill man menacing Brooklyn pedestrians with a tool that looked like a gun, Chirlane McCray conceded that “New Yorkers are right to ask if their city is doing enough to support [those] struggling with severe mental illness.” The answer is “no.” Continued tragedies prove that Mayor Bill de Blasio’s signature mental-health plan, ThriveNYC, is not helping those with the most serious mental illnesses.

The mayor and his wife have boasted about committing more than $850 million in funding over four years to ThriveNYC, which launched in 2015, but New York’s mental- health commissioner, Gary Belkin, admitted last year that just $165 million had been allocated to those with serious mental illness. Belkin has failed to specify how those funds were spent. In 2015, de Blasio also announced NYC Safe, a program specifically intended for the seriously mentally ill, who use a disproportionate amount of hospital or police services. But the city has published little data on the initiative other than to say that it is a small program, budgeted at $22 million a year.

In 2015, police received 150,000 calls about “emotionally disturbed persons,” or EDPs. In spite of, or perhaps because of, the mayor’s focus on the problem of mental illness, that number is now up to 165,000 calls. The mayor’s misallocation of mental- health spending has made police officers the first responders to incidents of acute mental illness, putting cops in the precarious position of negotiating with unstable individuals, who may be violent and irrational. These situations can be dangerous for everyone involved: of the 3,523 assaults on NYPD officers in 2016, 18.3 percent resulted from encounters with EDP. Last year, one of these encounters led to the death of Officer Miosotis Familia, shot by a schizophrenic man who had stopped taking his medication. And by offloading responsibility for dealing with the seriously mentally ill to the police, the city also puts patients at risk. Though the NYPD responds to the majority of EDP calls successfully and humanely, almost half of the department’s 501 Taser deployments in 2016 were in response to EDPs.

Criminal justice cannot be reformed unless there is serious bail reform. Minor offenders who cannot post bail must remain in prison until sentencing, and the length of that unendurable wait is often longer than the sentence which will ultimately by handed down. Men and women waiting for a hearing and sentencing lose jobs, leave families. Something requires change…..rsk
Criminal justice reform is returning to political prominence, thanks to Donald Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, one of its most ardent advocates. Ordinarily, that might be good news. But once again, the legislation at issue is so badly flawed that passage would cost taxpayers billions, yield little in the way of public safety or relief for the federal prison system and—at least according to liberal prison reformers—little reform.

The House Judiciary Committee, in a rare burst of bipartisan energy, last week passed the latest rendition of this recurrent theme. In an unusual non-party line 25-5vote, HR 5682, a watered-down version of legislation that has been kicking around Congress for several years, advanced toward consideration by the full House. Supporters hope the bill—which is also known as the FIRST STEP Act—will have a vote in the next couple of weeks.

HR 5682 would require the Federal Bureau of Prisons to provide more resources to reduce the likelihood of recidivism and ease reentry of prisoners back into society. A companion bill was introduced in the Senate but has yet to be taken up by the Judiciary Committee. A very different bill, encompassing a considerably wider array of reform, did pass the Senate Judiciary Committee several months ago over the objection of five Republican members.

The current bill has, not surprisingly, a wide list of supporters and opponents. To try to gain supporters, some of the most objectionable provisions of older legislation were left out and several new provisions added. Kushner has been able to secure White House backing, but Attorney General Jeff Sessions strongly opposes it. Several libertarian right-of-center groups, including those controlled by the Koch brothers, are strong supporters, while a number of left-wing groups, including the ACLU, People for the American Way and the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human rights strongly oppose the legislation because it doesn’t go far enough.

You’ve heard that prosecutors have so much influence over grand juries that they can “indict a ham sandwich.” An embarrassing moment for Special Counsel Robert Mueller occurred in court the other day when the lawyer for one of the three Russian companies he indicted had some bizarre news for the judge.

The Daily Wire:

U.S. Magistrate Judge G. Michael Harvey asked Eric Dubelier, one of two lawyers representing the accused Russian company, Concord Management and Consulting LLC, if he was representing a third company listed in Mueller’s indictment.

What about Concord Catering?” Harvey asked Dubelier. “The government makes an allegation that there’s some association. I don’t mean for you to – do you represent them, or not, today? And are we arraigning them as well?”

“We’re not,” Dubelier responded. “And the reason for that, Your Honor, is I think we’re dealing with a situation of the government having indicted the proverbial ham sandwich.”

“That company didn’t exist as a legal entity during the time period alleged by the government,” Dubelier continued. “If at some later time they show me that it did exist, we would probably represent them. But for purposes of today, no, we do not.” CONTINUE AT SITE

Judge T.S. Ellis has expressed skepticism about the scope of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation. “What we don’t want in this country is . . . anyone with unfettered power,” Judge Ellis, who is to preside over the trial of former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort, told prosecutor Deputy Solicitor General Michael Dreeben May 4. “So it’s unlikely you’re going to persuade me that the special prosecutor has unlimited powers.”

Judge Ellis is right to be skeptical. Mr. Mueller’s investigation has crossed a constitutional line, for reasons the U.S. Supreme Court made clear in the 1988 case Morrison v. Olson. That case is best known for Justice Antonin Scalia’s powerful lone dissent arguing that the post-Watergate independent counsel statute was unconstitutional. But Chief Justice William Rehnquist’s opinion for the court, while upholding the statute, set forth limits that the Mueller investigation has exceeded.
U.S. Chief Justice William Rehnquist in 1990. Photo: Cynthia Johnson/Getty Images

At issue is the Constitution’s Appointments Clause, which provides that “principal officers” must be appointed by the president with the Senate’s consent. Rehnquist wrote that independent counsel Alexia Morrison qualified as an “inferior officer,” not subject to the appointment process, because her office was “limited in jurisdiction” to “certain federal officials suspected of certain serious federal crimes.”

Mr. Mueller, in contrast, is investigating a large number of people and has already charged defendants with many different kinds of crimes, including—as in Mr. Manafort’s case—ones unrelated to any collaboration between the Trump campaign and Russia. That’s too much power for an inferior officer to have. Only a principal officer, such as a U.S. attorney, can behave the way Mr. Mueller is behaving. Mr. Mueller is much more powerful today than any of the 96 U.S. attorneys. He is behaving like a principal officer. CONTINUE AT SITE

Thursday on the floor of the House Financial Services Committee, Republican Congressman Mike Kelly of Pennsylvania interrupted Rep. Maxine Waters, a Democrat of California, when she was talking about discrimination.

“We’re trying to make America great every day and every way and the best way to do that is to stop talking about discrimination and start talking about the nation,” Kelly, a staunch Trump supporter, scolded Waters. “We’re coming together as a people in spite of what you say.”

“I want you to know that I am more offended as an African-American woman than you will ever be,” Waters said, speaking directly to Kelly. “And this business about making America great again, it is your president that’s dividing this country and don’t talk to me about the fact that we don’t understand… No, I will not yield, no I will not yield. Don’t tell me we don’t understand, that’s the attitude given toward women time and time again.”

Waters did not hold back when the Chairman intervened:

“You did not interrupt [Kelly] when he was making those outrageous remarks about him knowing more about discrimination than I know about discrimination. I resent that, and I resent the talk about making America great again.”

She continued: “He’s down here making a speech [about] this dishonorable president of the United States of America… and no I don’t yield (to Kelly), not one second to you. Not one second. Not one second to you.”

John Kerry was just seen leaving a cafe in Paris after meeting with what appeared to be five Iranians driven in vehicles with diplomatic plates, according to Trump campaign senior advisor Jason Osborne.

Osborne tweeted on Saturday: “So John Kerry just left a meeting @ L’Avenue in Paris w/3 Iranians. A friend was sitting next to their table and heard JK blasting @realDonaldTrump. The Iranians had a 5 person security detail and left in diplomatic vehicles. Is he FARA registered?”
✔ @_JasonOsborne
So John Kerry just left a meeting @ L’Avenue in Paris w/3 Iranians. A friend was sitting next to their table and heard JK blasting @realDonaldTrump. The Iranians had a 5 person security detail and left in diplomatic vehicles. Is he FARA registered? @seanhannity @TuckerCarlson

“FARA” is the Foreign Agents Registration Act. According to the Department of Justice, FARA “requires persons acting as agents of foreign principals in a political or quasi-political capacity to make periodic public disclosure of their relationship with the foreign principal, as well as activities, receipts and disbursements in support of those activities.”

Kerry has been criticized lately for trying to save the Iran deal behind the scenes. The Boston Globe reported his backdoor machinations in detail.

John Kerry’s bid to save one of his most significant accomplishments as secretary of state took him to New York on a Sunday afternoon two weeks ago, where, more than a year after he left office, he engaged in some unusual shadow diplomacy with a top-ranking Iranian official.

He sat down at the United Nations with Foreign Minister Javad Zarif to discuss ways of preserving the pact limiting Iran’s nuclear weapons program. It was the second time in about two months that the two had met to strategize over salvaging a deal they spent years negotiating during the Obama administration, according to a person briefed on the meetings.

With the Iran deal facing its gravest threat since it was signed in 2015, Kerry has been on an aggressive yet stealthy mission to preserve it, using his deep lists of contacts gleaned during his time as the top US diplomat to try to apply pressure on the Trump administration from the outside.

Is that legal? Many don’t think so.

Charles Hurt at the Washington Times recently penned a piece called “Throw John Kerry in Jail.”

Try to imagine for a second if some unelected diplomat from the Jimmy Carter administration had tried to interfere with President Reagan’s efforts to end the Cold War. Or if Condoleezza Rice had huddled with leaders from Iraq and Afghanistan to undermine President Obama’s policies in the region.

Of course, you cannot imagine that because it is unimaginable that even Jimmy Carter would have ever hired such a buffoon so utterly committed to hurting America. CONTINUE AT SITE

Secretary of defense Jim Mattis seems to always be on the wrong side of every issue.

1. He believes that global warming is a national security threat.

Mattis has long espoused the position that the armed forces, for a host of reasons, need to cut dependence on fossil fuels and explore renewable energy where it makes sense. He had also, as commander of the U.S. Joint Forces Command in 2010, signed off on the Joint Operating Environment, which lists climate change as one of the security threats the military expected to confront over the next 25 years.

Shouldn’t we have a secretary of defense more focused on real national security threats and less on imaginary ones?

2. Mattis believes that the so-called “settlements” in Israel’s Judea and Samaria are an “obstacle to peace” and that Israel could become an “apartheid state.” He shows zero understanding of the fundamental causes or the true nature of the dispute. For the so-called Palestinians, the existence of Israel is an “obstacle to peace.”

3. Mattis resisted a broader air strike on Syria when it was found to be using chemical weapons. Instead, we struck a few empty buildings at night. How do I know they were empty? Did anyone hear reports of a single casualty after the attack? No. Did anyone hear reports of plumes of chemical weapons dispersed by the explosions? No. It was a token effort, designed to do the minimum. You can argue whether or not we should have bombed Syria at all for employing chemical weapons (most of the victims of the Syrian regime have been killed by conventional weapons), but the pinprick kind of attack that Mattis recommended was simply ineffectual.

In an absurd tweet on Wednesday, Lawfare’s executive director suggested that Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) should be replaced as chairman of the House Intelligence Committee:
Susan Hennessey
✔ @Susan_Hennessey

This is a hugely significant story. DOJ and the IC do not trust the HPSCI chair to protect sources and methods that directly risk human lives. Nunes simply cannot continue to serve in the role and Speaker Ryan is wrong to not remove him and appoint a suitable choice like Conaway. https://twitter.com/mkraju/status/994318826404708353 …

That wasn’t even the most moronic tweet in Susan Hennessey’s arsenal. She went on to warn how “the intelligence oversight system is based on trust. Without trust it is irretrievably broken. The [Intelligence Community] and [Department of Justice] don’t trust Nunes and he cannot perform his job functions.” Get that? The Intelligence Community and the Justice department—which have proven to be as political and devious as a Chicago ward boss—are the white hats and Nunes is the black hat.

That is not ignorance on Hennessey’s part: it’s calculated deception.

Fortunately, it’s unlikely that House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) will heed an unreasonable demand from a political partisan tied to the left-leaning Brookings Institution. But it does unveil the latest tactic of the Left (and some on the Right) to discredit and ultimately oust Nunes, the only Republican on Capitol Hill who appears to have his act together when it comes to exposing the players behind the Trump-Russia election collusion scheme.

The Deep State Mob is continuing to squeeze the California congressman after he again threatened to impeach Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein for ignoring congressional subpoenas and withholding crucial documents from Congressional investigators. Nunes has minced no words about how the Justice Department and FBI have been “stonewalling” his committee’s investigation for months. And as Nunes inches closer to revealing the stinking core of what is potentially the biggest political corruption scandal in U.S. history, the Deep State Mob is trying to close in on him first.

Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa, the laconic Midwesterner with a steel trap mind, dropped a bombshell yesterday with a letter (the full letter appears below – pdf here) to Deputy A.G. Rod Rosenstein (who supervises the Mueller probe) and FBI director Christopher Wray. But in keeping with Grassley’s style, which has so often misled his opponents into overconfidence, you have to read between the lines to see where he is heading. The end point: uncovering the plot to frame General Flynn for lying to the FBI, including likely criminal acts by senior members of the FBI.

Recall that facing financial ruin, and threats to prosecute his son on unrelated charges, General Flynn pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI, yet James Comey told the Grassley Committee in a briefing:

[T]he FBI agents who interviewed Lt. General Michael Flynn, “saw nothing that led them to believe [he was] lying.” Our own Committee staff’s notes indicate that Mr. Comey said the “agents saw no change in his demeanor or tone that would say he was being untruthful.” Contrary to his public statements during his current book tour denying any memory of those comments, then-Director Comey led us to believe during that briefing that the agents who interviewed Flynn did not believe he intentionally lied about his conversation with the Ambassador and that the Justice Department was unlikely to prosecute him for false statements made in that interview. In the months since then, the Special Counsel obtained a guilty plea from Lt. General Flynn for that precise alleged conduct.

Comey has since changed his tune, in “a Fox News interview in which he denied he ever told lawmakers that he did not believe Michael Flynn lied.”

General Flynn’s sentencing has been delayed repeatedly, as Judge Emmett Sullivan (who replaced Judge Contreras after he was removed from the case) has demanded that all exculpatory evidence be handed over to him.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/05/did-fbi-have-spy-in-trump-presidential-campaign/The Steele-dossier author told Fusion GPS’s Glenn Simpson about a ‘human source.’ Something tells me Glenn Simpson did not make a mistake. Something tells me the co-founder of Fusion GPS was dead-on accurate when he testified that Christopher Steele told him the FBI had a “human source” — i.e., a spy — inside the Trump […]