RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://pjmedia.com/trending/obama-was-accused-of-offering-hush-money-and-no-one-cared/

Yesterday’s news that President Trump’s former lawyer Michael Cohen pleaded guilty in federal court and accused Trump of committing a federal crime by directing him to pay hush money to two women “for the principal purpose of influencing the election” was definitely shocking. According to Cohen and his attorney, Trump violated campaign finance laws by allegedly directing Cohen to make these hush money payments. This point had me confused.

For the moment, let’s put aside the obvious problems with Cohen’s credibility and assume he’s telling the truth. According to a Reuters article about the Cohen pleas:

Under U.S. election law, campaign contributions, defined as things of value given to a campaign to influence an election, must be disclosed. A payment intended to silence allegations of an affair just before an election could constitute a campaign contribution, which is limited to $2,700 per person per election, some experts said.

So, let’s review… A payment to silence someone from making potentially damaging statements “could constitute” a campaign contribution according to “some” experts? There’s clearly a significant amount of subjectivity here. But, here’s the thing: if everything went down as Cohen says it did, then why wasn’t Obama held to the same standard?

That’s right, Barack Obama also offered an individual hush money “for the principal purpose of influencing the election,” but you probably never heard about it. It wasn’t to silence a mistress though, it was to silence his former pastor, Jeremiah Wright. Wright’s inflammatory, anti-American rhetoric caused Obama significant headaches during his first presidential campaign, and he tried to contain the damage to protect his chances of winning the White House.

Edward Klein broke the story in the New York Post on May 13, 2012—the same year Obama was reelected—that Obama’s team tried to buy Wright’s silence during the 2008 campaign. According to Wright, he was offered $150,000 through an Obama intermediary (one of Obama’s closest friends), and Obama himself tried to persuade him to keep quiet.

“Did Obama himself ever make an effort to see you?”

“Yes,” Wright said. “Barack said he wanted to meet me in secret, in a secure place. And I said, ‘You’re used to coming to my home, you’ve been here countless times, so what’s wrong with coming to my home?’ So we met in the living room of the parsonage of Trinity United Church of Christ, at South Pleasant Avenue right off 95th Street, just Barack and me. I don’t know if he had a wire on him. His security was outside somewhere.

“And one of the first things Barack said was, ‘I really wish you wouldn’t do any more public speaking until after the November election.’ He knew I had some speaking engagements lined up, and he said, ‘I wish you wouldn’t speak. It’s gonna hurt the campaign if you do that.’ CONTINUE AT SITE

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/271097/what-lefts-defense-brennan-really-exposes-bruce-thornton

The progressives’ hysterical response to President Trump stripping the security clearance from ex-CIA boss John Brennan reveals the sandy foundations of progressive ideology and its technocratic rule. Trump, of course, was responding to Brennan’s blatant politicization of his office, both while working for Obama, and now as a paid talking head on MSNBC. Like all attacks on Trump, the defense of Brennan is so intense because any assault on the federal Leviathan threatens to expose the false assumptions justifying its concentrated and unaccountable power.

The rush to the barricades on the part of bipartisan anti-Trumpers and deep-state veterans was a harrumphing “how dare you sir” rhetorical misdirection away from the privilege and power enjoyed and abused by the deep state. The fundamental justification for that power is the technocratic expertise its functionaries presumably possess. From the start progressives have rationalized their dismantling of the Constitution’s separated powers, and their expansion of federal offices and agencies, by touting “the beneficent activities of expert social engineers who would bring to the service of social ideals all the technical resources which research could discover,” as progressive theorist Herbert Croly put it.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/manafort-cohen-and-trump-1534894066

The jury conviction of Paul Manafort and the guilty plea by Michael Cohen on Tuesday are a damaging commentary on the shady operators Donald Trump associated with in his private and political life. Whether they also pose a fatal threat to his Presidency is far from clear, however, and the evidence in both cases is unrelated to the Russian collusion claims that set these prosecutions in motion.

A Virginia jury convicted Mr. Manafort on eight counts of fraud in his personal financial dealings, while failing to reach a unanimous verdict on 10 others. As these columns warned Mr. Trump in 2016, Mr. Manafort is a longtime Beltway fixer whose business was profiting from his political connections. He is the personification of “the swamp.”One irony is that Mr. Trump hired him as campaign chairman in part because most Republicans with political experience shunned the New York insurgent. Mr. Trump knew Mr. Manafort from his apartment in Trump Tower, and he came recommended for his experience as a convention delegate counter for Gerald Ford in the 1976 scrum with Ronald Reagan. Mr. Trump fired him as campaign chairman weeks after the July GOP convention, but in 2017 special counsel Robert Mueller targeted Mr. Manafort for his ties to Ukrainian politicians who are close to Russia.

Mr. Cohen’s guilty plea may pose a greater risk to Mr. Trump given the lawyer’s role in paying $130,000 to pornography actress Stephanie Clifford so she would keep silent about an alleged affair with Mr. Trump in 2006. Mr. Cohen first denied making the payments, and Mr. Trump publicly denied knowing about them, but Mr. Cohen now says they both knew.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/08/john-brennan-former-cia-director-diminishes-himself/When Trump’s opponents are baited into violating norms, they diminish themselves and their cause.

John Brennan may not know it, but he is acting in a drama scripted and produced by Donald J. Trump.

As Eli Lake of Bloomberg perceptively observed, President Trump isn’t trying to silence Brennan by revoking his security clearance, as the former CIA director’s defenders insist, but to elevate him as a foil.

Trump couldn’t hope for a better poster boy for the so-called deep state than a former CIA director who immediately began to sound like a commentator for MSNBC upon leaving government — and, indeed, signed up as a commentator for MSNBC.

It has been the usual practice of former top intelligence professionals to keep their political opinions, and especially their wild-eyed rants, to themselves. They understand that, having been entrusted with some of the most sensitive powers of the United States government, they should show forbearance and restraint lest they undermine the reputations of their institutions.

Brennan has had no such compunction. Granted, he’s acted under provocation. Trump has goaded him on Twitter and launched extraordinary broadsides against the work of U.S. intelligence agencies.

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/antifa-members-beat-leftist-protester-holding-american-flag/

A progressive Democrat earned his fellow left-wing protesters’ wrath earlier this month for the act of carrying an American flag.

Paul Welch, who describes himself as a “slightly progressive leftist,” was protesting the right-wing group Patriot Prayer’s August 4 rally in Portland, Ore. As he carried his American flag alongside other counterprotesters, several black-clad Antifa members carrying various weapons demanded he hand over the flag, calling it a “fascist symbol.” A viral video captured Welch clinging to his flag as several masked men in makeshift armor try to wrest it from his hands. One of them can be seen hitting him repeatedly and then clubbing him on the back of his head, which causes him to collapse instantly and lie curled up on the ground in his own blood.

“I remember thinking there was a very good chance that I could be beaten to death,” Welch told the Oregonian. A three-inch slash on his head required four staples, and he missed two days of work to heal from the concussion he suffered.

“The Right and certainly a lot of smaller groups like Patriot Prayer might rush to things like the flag and try to take it up as, ‘This is our symbol exclusively,’” the 38-year-old line cook said. “Part of my thinking was to take it back.”

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/stupid-bullsht-austin-texas-residents-and-tourists-oppose-renaming-city/

AUSTIN, Texas – Residents and tourists in Austin told PJM that they oppose the idea of renaming the state capital due to Stephen F. Austin’s support for slavery.

Austin, known as the “Father of Texas,” owned “a few slaves” in his lifetime and opposed efforts in Mexico to end slavery, according to author and historian Gregg Cantrell. In 1824, Austin defended the economic benefits of slavery, specifically for cotton. The city of Austin’s Equity Office published a report recommending street names to change since they honor figures who had ties to slavery, in addition to renaming the city itself.

The city’s report noted that Austin is “not directly tied to the Confederacy and/or the Civil War” but argued that the existing name is “within the spirit of the resolution representing slavery, segregation, and/or racism.”

Austin residents and tourists disagreed with changing the name.

“F**king no, stay Austin, I think the name is good. Just keep it this way; this is part of history, let’s keep it that way. You do not want to erase history right now. What’s the point?” said Leon, who was visiting Austin from Oklahoma.

“This is the stupidest bullsh*t I’ve ever heard. Why do they want to erase history? Can they change that by changing the name? No. Leave it alone, that’s my take. Some might think I’m crazy but, hey, I’m just like, don’t change it – don’t fix it, there’s nothing wrong, OK?” he added.

https://amgreatness.com/2018/08/20/from-one-psychodrama

Michael Wolff and his media-hyped blockbuster—that supposedly game-changing landmark of a book Fire and Fury—are now ancient history.

Fading similarly is Karen McDougal, Playboy‘s 1998 Playmate of the Year, and her National Enquirer grifter lawsuit that was also supposed to destroy the Trump presidency.

We are by now mostly tired with Stormy Daniels and her unhinged lawyer Michael Avenatti, who at least proved more entertaining than his porn-star client.

Consiglieri Michael Cohen, the Trump attorney who secretly taped his own client and apparently has been flipped to Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s side in his veritable war against Trump, is also sliding into the netherworld of no-news coverage and a legal morass.

Cohen now competes with the narcissist Omarosa Manigault, entering from stage left with her trunkful of tapes and gossip to demand her own proverbial 15 minutes of fame. She promises to release never before told, shocking, unprecedented, flabbergasting dirt on Donald Trump that will ensure his impeachment, indictment, and jail time—or reify the dreams of celebrities who have variously voiced desires to hang, dismember, smash, blow up, stab, shoot, and ignite the president.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/271089/social-media-corporations-step-attacks-matthew-vadum

The politically-driven censorship of conservatives by the gigantic, unregulated social media corporations controlled by the Left is moving into high gear as the crucial midterm congressional elections of Nov. 6 approach.

It’s no secret that social media platforms have been suppressing and marginalizing ideas they don’t like — and the ideas they don’t like are overwhelmingly of the conservative and patriotic variety.

But the social media corporations are ramping up censorship of right-leaning groups and individuals to give Democrats an advantage in the upcoming elections.

The stakes are high. If Democrats recapture either chamber of Congress from Republicans, President Trump’s conservative reform agenda will grind to a halt and investigating Trump for all manner of imagined misdeeds will be all Americans hear about 24/7/365. It will be political payback – pure and simple.

The immediate goal is to silence and intimidate conservatives, as well as anyone who supports Preside

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/12896/is-the-truth-the-truth-when-it-comes-to

All the Special Counsel needs, in order to charge a subject of an investigation with lying to a prosecutor, is a single witnesses willing to contradict the subject.

The witness may not only be “singing,” he may also be “composing” – that is making up or embellishing a story because he knows that the better his story, the better the deal.

Under federal law, the testimony of such a flipped witness need not be corroborated in order to secure a conviction.

Even one question that results in an answer that is contradicted by one witness would be enough to spring the perjury trap.

When Rudy Giuliani stated, perhaps inartfully, that “truth isn’t truth,” he was getting at a higher – or should I say lower – truth. This is a truth that virtually every experienced defense attorney and prosecutor understands: namely that prosecutors get to pick which witness — and which “truth” — to believe.

Giuliani was discussing President Trump’s decision whether or not to be interviewed by Special Counsel Robert Mueller. Giuliani made the point that even if President Trump testified truthfully, he could be accused of lying to a prosecutor – a serious felony – if the prosecutor chose to believe witnesses who have provided a different account.

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/andrew-cuomo-administration-regular-contact-corrupt-lobbyist/

Senior New York state officials regularly corresponded with, and acted on behalf of, a lobbyist and former aide to governor Andrew Cuomo in the months and years leading up to his indictment on federal corruption charges.

While the Cuomo administration has downplayed lobbyist Todd Howe’s access to senior officials, emails obtained by the New York Times after a protracted legal battle with the administration demonstrate Howe’s continuing influence.

In one particularly revealing email sent to Jim Malatras, then the director of state operations, Howe urgently requests payment for his clients, two developers contracted by the state for a public-private infrastructure project.

“Both need some payment as a sign of good faith before the close of business tomorrow,” Howe wrote to Malatras and his deputy, Andrew Kennedy, in December 2014 .