RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://pjmedia.com/trending/trump-may-revoke-security-clearances-of-brennan-clapper-mccabe-comey-hayden-and-rice/

The White House is looking into revoking the security clearances of several top Obama-era intelligence and law enforcement officials, White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders said Monday during the daily press briefing.

A reporter asked Sanders about Sen. Rand Paul’s (R-Ky.) tweets Monday morning, calling on President Trump to remove the security clearance of former CIA director John Brennan and others.Not only is the president looking to take away Brennan’s security clearance, he’s also looking into the clearances of Comey, Clapper, Hayden, Rice, and McCabe. The president is exploring the mechanisms to removing security clearance because they’ve politicized and in some cases monetized their public service and security clearances. Making baseless accusations of improper contact with Russia or being influenced by Russia against the president is extremely inappropriate, and the fact that people with security clearances are making these baseless charges provides inappropriate legitimacy to accusations with zero evidence. CONTINUE AT SITE

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-fbis-fisa-faults-1532388874

The FBI over the weekend finally released its Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act applications for warrants against former Trump aide Carter Page, and now we know why the bureau resisted disclosure. Even in heavily redacted form, the applications confirm that the FBI relied on dubious partisan evidence to justify its warrant and withheld relevant information from the court.

The applications also vindicate the criticism of the FBI’s surveillance requests that were laid out in February by House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes. The committee’s findings were based on a review of the FISA applications, which were still classified at the time. The main Nunes claim was that the FBI made the Steele dossier—which was commissioned by the Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee—“an essential” part of its initial application. The FISA documents confirm this.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/07/carter-page-fisa-applications-fbi-steele-dossier/

A salacious Clinton-campaign product was the driving force behind the Trump–Russia investigation.

On a sleepy summer Saturday, after months of stonewalling, the FBI dumped 412 pages of documents related to the Carter Page FISA surveillance warrants — the applications, the certifications, and the warrants themselves. Now that we can see it all in black and white — mostly black, as they are heavily redacted — it is crystal clear that the Steele dossier, an unverified Clinton-campaign product, was the driving force behind the Trump–Russia investigation.

Based on the dossier, the FBI told the FISA court it believed that Carter Page, who had been identified by the Trump campaign as an adviser, was coordinating with the Russian government in an espionage conspiracy to influence the 2016 election.

This sensational allegation came from Christopher Steele, the former British spy. The FISA court was not told that the Clinton campaign was behind Steele’s work. Nor did the FBI and Justice Department inform the court that Steele’s allegations had never been verified. To the contrary, each FISA application — the original one in October 2016, and the three renewals at 90-day intervals — is labeled “VERIFIED APPLICATION” (bold caps in original). And each one makes this breathtaking representation:

The FBI has reviewed this verified application for accuracy in accordance with its April 5, 2001 procedures, which include sending a copy of the draft to the appropriate field office(s).

In reality, the applications were never verified for accuracy.

https://pjmedia.com/rogerkimball/its-oakland-in-muellerville/

I liked what the great Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch had to say about the heavily redacted 400-page DOJ document dump regarding the FISA warrant to spy on Carter Page. It is, he said, a “self-licking ice cream cone.” The image is appropriately surreal.

But the more I think about it, the more I think it is only partially applicable to the whole RussiaGate melodrama we’ve been witnessing for the last year and a half.

Wikipedia defines this autogleipsimous activity as “a self-perpetuating system that has no purpose other than to sustain itself.”

The Mueller investigation and its attendant pseudo-pods in the media and “intelligence community” are indeed self-perpetuating.

But they exhibit a purpose that goes far beyond their own self-perpetuation.

No, in this safari, big game is the object, the end, the purpose, to wit: the destruction of the president of the United States.

That is the true purpose of this charade: not the truth about “Russian meddling,” not alleged wrong doing by Paul Manafort in 2005, not a lack of candor under FBI questioning by George Papadopoulos (who?) or Michael Flynn. The one true purpose (in addition to the welcome subsidiary effect of helping out the ratings of the MSM) is to hobble Donald Trump, a prelude to removing him from office.

There have been hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of words expended on trying the explain the “Russia collusion” narrative. It’s hard to get a handle on because its prime elements keep, er, “evolving.”

Absent any new revelations, I’d say that commentators like Kimberley Strassel and Lee Smith have it right. The whole show started with John Brennan, Barack Obama’s CIA director and Gus Hall-voting Trump hater. It was Brennan, operating on an erroneous tip, who cobbled together rudiments of the Trump-Russia narrative. He couldn’t get anyone to act on his story at first, but he then went to Harry Reid, former Senate majority leader, who lit a fire under James Comey, the disgraced former director of the FBI. CONTINUE AT SITE

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/270783/ted-kennedy-and-kgb-jamie-glazov

Editors’ note: In light of the Left’s deranged hysteria in response to President Trump’s recent press conference with Vladimir Putin in Helsinki, marked by pathological accusations that Trump has engaged in “treason,” Frontpage has deemed it important to bring attention to a forgotten story of verifiable scheming with the Kremlin — by the late Democratic Sen. Ted Kennedy against President Ronald Reagan. We are reprinting below Frontpage editor Jamie Glazov’s 2008 interview with Dr. Paul Kengor, who unearthed documentation detailing Kennedy’s outreach to the KGB and Soviet leader Yuri Andropov during the height of the Cold War, in which the Democratic Senator offered to collude with the Soviets to undermine President Reagan. There were no screams of moral indignation, or accusations of treason, about this matter from the Left at that time — nor since.

Ted Kennedy and the KGB.
Frontpage Magazine, May 15, 2008.

Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Paul Kengor, the author of the New York Times extended-list bestseller God and Ronald Reagan as well as God and George W. Bush and The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism. He is also the author of the first spiritual biography of the former first lady, God and Hillary Clinton: A Spiritual Life. He is a professor of political science and director of the Center for Vision and Values at Grove City College.

FP: Paul Kengor, welcome back to Frontpage Interview.

Kengor: Always great to be back, Jamie.

FP: We’re here today to revisit Ted Kennedy’s reaching out to the KGB during the Reagan period. Refresh our readers’ memories a bit.

Kengor: The episode is based on a document produced 25 years ago this week. I discussed it with you in our earlier interview back in November 2006. In my book, The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism, I presented a rather eye-opening May 14, 1983 KGB document on Ted Kennedy. The entire document, unedited, unabridged, is printed in the book, as well as all the documentation affirming its authenticity. Even with that, today, almost 25 years later, it seems to have largely remained a secret.

FP: Tell us about this document.

Kengor: It was a May 14, 1983 letter from the head of the KGB, Viktor Chebrikov, to the head of the USSR, the odious Yuri Andropov, with the highest level of classification. Chebrikov relayed to Andropov an offer from Senator Ted Kennedy, presented by Kennedy’s old friend and law-school buddy, John Tunney, a former Democratic senator from California, to reach out to the Soviet leadership at the height of a very hot time in the Cold War. According to Chebrikov, Kennedy was deeply troubled by the deteriorating relationship between the United States and the Soviet Union, which he believed was bringing us perilously close to nuclear confrontation. Kennedy, according to Chebrikov, blamed this situation not on the Soviet leadership but on the American president—Ronald Reagan. Not only was the USSR not to blame, but, said Chebrikov, Kennedy was, quite the contrary, “very impressed” with Andropov.

The thrust of the letter is that Reagan had to be stopped, meaning his alleged aggressive defense policies, which then ranged from the Pershing IIs to the MX to SDI, and even his re-election bid, needed to be stopped. It was Ronald Reagan who was the hindrance to peace. That view of Reagan is consistent with things that Kennedy said and wrote at the time, including articles in sources like Rolling Stone (March 1984) and in a speeches like his March 24, 1983 remarks on the Senate floor the day after Reagan’s SDI speech, which he lambasted as “misleading Red-Scare tactics and reckless Star Wars schemes.”

Even more interesting than Kennedy’s diagnosis was the prescription: According to Chebrikov, Kennedy suggested a number of PR moves to help the Soviets in terms of their public image with the American public. He reportedly believed that the Soviet problem was a communication problem, resulting from an inability to counter Reagan’s (not the USSR’s) “propaganda.” If only Americans could get through Reagan’s smokescreen and hear the Soviets’ peaceful intentions.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-gi-bill-wrong-from-the-pentagon-15319529

Donald Trump promised in his victory speech that he would “finally take care of our great veterans.” He took a step in the right direction last year by signing the Forever GI Bill, which lifts the time limit on veterans’ educational benefits and makes it easier to transfer benefits to dependents. But the Defense Department took a step in the wrong direction last week, prohibiting members of the armed forces who have been in the service for more than 16 years from transferring their GI Bill benefits to dependents.

The new rule is meant “to more closely align the transferability benefit with its purpose as a recruiting and retention incentive,” the Pentagon explained in a statement. The idea is that people who’ve served for 16 years have already shown a propensity to stay and therefore don’t need an incentive.

After six years of service, members can transfer their GI Bill benefits to a spouse or child—under the condition that they commit to serve at least four more years. After 10 years, service members can still cash in on the benefit, subject to the requirement only that they “serve for the maximum amount of time allowed by such policy or statute”—which can be less than four years. Transfers must be submitted while one is still in active-duty service.

http://thefederalist.com/2018/07/18/fired-fbi-director-james-comey-vote-democrat-o

Former FBI Director James Comey implied anyone who doesn’t vote for Democrats in the 2018 midterm elections is a traitor in a tweet Tuesday night. “All who believe in this country’s values must vote for Democrats this fall,” he said.

Comey has appointed himself as something of a moral compass for the country following his firing from the FBI last year.

He has been vocal in criticism of Republicans and President Trump. In April, he told ABC News he believes “the Republican Party has left me and many others.” But just a few months ago he said he doesn’t care which party Americans support, so long as they care about American values.

“I don’t think of it as my politics, I think of it as my values,” he told Meghan McCain on “The View” during his book tour. “I don’t care whether people support a Republican or a Democrat because I’m not either. I don’t care who they support. I hope the conversation with start with values, and come to policy second.”

Comey’s tweet could be considered an obstruction of justice, since Comey is currently under federal investigation. The Justice Department is examining whether he leaked classified information to the media.

The DOJ inspector general concluded his behavior as FBI director was “insubordinate” in a report released in June.

https://www.city-journal.org/html/chicago-violence-16058.html

Last Sunday, a 59-year-old woman on the West Side of Chicago was killed by a would-be carjacker. The felon walked up to the driver’s side of the car, which was being driven by a 71-year-old man, and pulled his gun. The senior citizen refused to surrender the vehicle and kept driving. The would-be carjacker opened fire at the car, striking the woman in the head and killing her.

The night before, on the South Side, a Chicago officer killed a 37-year-old man whom the officer’s patrol partners had observed behaving in a manner suggesting that he was carrying a gun. The officers tried to question Harith Augustus, and he appeared to pull something from his wallet, according to police body-camera footage, possibly his firearms owner-identification card. One officer tried to grab Augustus (the police report said that he became combative), but he pulled away and ran into the street, where he appeared to reach for the gun holstered on his right hip. One of the officers opened fire and killed him. Augustus’s gun was recovered at the scene.

True to script, the officer-involved shooting sparked violent street anarchy on Saturday night, instigated by Black Lives Matter, the Chicago Alliance Against Racist and Political Repression, and other anti-cop activist groups. Protesters threw rocks and bottles, some filled with urine, at officers. Four officers were injured. Chants included “How do you spell racist? CPD [Chicago Police Department],” and “Murderers.” Protests have continued, drawing intense local media and political attention. “This department is racist . . . and we’re tired of it,” said one of the organizers.

There were no protests against the taking of the carjacking victim’s life. Carjackings have nearly tripled in Chicago since 2015, averaging two per day in 2017 and close to that in 2018. In August 2016, officers tried to pull over a car involved in an earlier carjacking; someone inside the car opened fire and hit one of the officers in the face. The shooter was on parole for attempted armed robbery. In January 2017, a teen carjacker ambushed a 34-year-old mother in an alleyway where she had been parking her car. His initial blow to her head with his gun was so severe that it temporarily blinded her. “Quit trying to kick back, you white bitch,” the assailant said as he pistol-whipped her. Before the attack, the mother had noticed a van suspiciously idling in the alleyway, but decided to continue about her business, likely second-guessing herself about “racial profiling.” In March 2017, a man with a gun forced a 24-year-old woman into the trunk of her car and raced it around the South Side until crashing into a tree. In August 2017, a 28-year-old entrepreneur and student was fatally shot in his car when he refused to hand it over to the carjacker. In November 2017, a pair of thugs accosted an 88-year-old man and stole his Lincoln at gunpoint. They almost immediately crashed into a semitrailer truck and retaining wall; one of the two felons died in the crash.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/07/18/dems_big_lie_about_kavanaugh_137554.html

Democrats are so desperate to torpedo Brett Kavanaugh’s appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court that they’re resorting to scare tactics, telling Americans that his confirmation would put 130 million people at risk of losing their health insurance.

Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., says Democrats can sink Kavanaugh by showing how his appointment will lead to a court majority that “repeals ACA with its protections for pre-existing conditions.” It’s demagoguery. And it’s working, as demagoguery too often does.

Senator Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., a frequent Trump opponent, is already moaning that the SCOTUS appointment will determine if “West Virginians with pre-existing conditions will lose their health care.”

Not true. Even if the Supreme Court does strike down the Affordable Care Act someday, the era of insurance companies turning down applicants with health problems is over. Across the country, Republican and Democratic state lawmakers agree on that. They are busy devising smarter ways to protect people with pre-existing conditions and keep insurance affordable, with or without Obamacare. Not one of these plans throws people with health problems under the bus. Democrats’ rhetoric about losing coverage for pre-existing conditions is hysteria.

Even so, Democratic fearmongers have a shot at derailing Kavanaugh; they only need one Republican defection. With Senator John McCain, R-Ariz., absent due to brain cancer, Republicans have a razor-thin 50-49 Senate majority.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/when-district-judges-try-to-run-the-country-1531868155

When a federal district court in Texas issued a nationwide injunction in 2015 that halted the implementation of President Obama’s amnesty program for illegal-alien parents of U.S. citizens, many on the political right cheered. Two years later, when a federal district court in Maryland issued a nationwide injunction that blocked President Trump’s efforts to place restrictions on transgender people serving in the military, it was the left’s turn to celebrate.

In recent years national injunctions have somehow become all the rage, even though it’s not clear they are constitutional. Traditionally, an injunction requires the parties in a case—and only those individuals—to continue or cease particular actions. What makes national injunctions distinct and controversial is that they apply to people who are not parties in the case. And state attorneys general now regularly use them as political cudgels to thwart the implementation of federal policy not just in their respective states, but everywhere.

The Trump administration, for example, has tried to withhold funding from “sanctuary” cities that refuse to assist the federal government with immigration enforcement. After Chicago sued, a federal judge in the Northern District of Illinois not only issued an injunction but said it applied to other cities all over the country, which are not parties in the case.

The issue here is not the wisdom or silliness of a given federal policy. The bigger concerns are the scope of lower-court judges’ authority and the integrity of the judicial process. Under the Constitution, lower courts are empowered to decide cases for particular parties, not for the whole nation. In his concurrence last month in Trump v. Hawaii, the Supreme Court ruling that upheld the administration’s travel ban, Justice Clarence Thomas expresses skepticism that district courts have the authority to issue national injunctions and urges his colleagues to address this judicial adventurism sooner rather than later.

“These injunctions are beginning to take a toll on the federal court system—preventing legal questions from percolating through the federal courts, encouraging forum shopping and making every case a national emergency for the courts and for the Executive Branch,” Justice Thomas writes. “If their popularity continues, this Court must address their legality.” The same concern is echoed by a growing number of legal scholars, who worry that the national-injunction trend will result in the Supreme Court reviewing hastily considered lower court rulings that never had the chance to work their way up the system.

In testimony last year before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, Samuel Bray, a professor at Notre Dame Law School, explained that the Supreme Court justices typically wait until there’s a split at the circuit-court level before they decide to hear a case. National injunctions, he said, force the high court “to decide cases faster, with less evidence, with fewer contrary opinions—a recipe for bad judicial decisionmaking.”

As usual, both political parties helped pave the way in getting to this point. Republican state attorneys general obtained nationwide injunctions to stop various Obama administration initiatives. Under President Trump, Democratic attorneys general are using the same playbook. If you’re looking for someone to blame, says Josh Blackman, a professor at South Texas College of Law in Houston, try Congress. “Nationwide injunctions didn’t start with Obama and they didn’t start with Trump. They’ve been around for a while,” Mr. Blackman told me in an interview. CONTINUE AT SITE