RUTHFULLY YOURS

Last Wednesday, Sen. Tester (D-MT) released a laundry list of anonymously-sourced, unsubstantiated allegations against the current White House Physician and, until last Thursday, President Trump’s nominee for Secretary of Veterans Affairs. The Montana Senator accused Jackson of a wide range of misconduct, from overprescribing medications to drunkenly wrecking his government vehicle. Tester also accused Jackson of being frequently drunk on the job, based on a lurid tale (anonymously sourced, of course) about a Secret Service intervention to prevent a severely-inebriated Jackson from disturbing a sleeping President Obama during an international trip in 2015. Jackson, the story goes, was pounding on a hotel room door next to the President’s in the early hours of the morning.

Admiral Jackson vehemently denied the allegations and refused to withdraw for several days, before finally pulling his candidacy in the face of a media feeding frenzy and eroding Republican support. Jackson maintains his innocence, however, and appears to be telling the truth. Tester, by contrast, appears to have slandered the professional and personal reputation of a man who served in the Navy for twenty-three years, including as the physician in charge of resuscitative medicine at Camp Taqaddum, just outside of Fallujah, in 2006.

On Friday afternoon, the Secret Service released the following statement:

Over the last 48 hours, media outlets have alleged that U.S. Secret Service personnel were forced to intervene during a Presidential foreign travel assignment in order to prevent disturbing (former) President Barack Obama. The Secret Service has no such record of any incident; specifically, any incident involving Rear Admiral Ronny Jackson.

If Tester’s only motivation was to determine the content of Jackson’s character so his fellow senators could make an informed decision, why didn’t he confirm the accuracy of the charge with the Secret Service before he blasted it into the newsfeeds and nightly broadcasts of millions of Americans?

Nobody knows how to game the system for personal gain like an Illinois lawmaker. The political class voted themselves tens of millions of dollars in lifetime pension payouts. It’s time to end their ‘pension palace.’

Consider just one gross example. Have you ever heard of retired back-bench state senator John Friedland?

Millions of dollars in pension payouts flowed to John Friedland since 1992. Friedland earned $35,661 as a state senator, plus another $46,500 as a part-time employee at the Fox River Water Reclamation District. When he retired from the General Assembly, he received a one month full-time pay spike at the water district for $8,000 – causing his legislative pension to start at $80,856 instead of $30,312. Today, Friedland is pulling down $172,981 per year, due to lucrative ‘cost of living’ adjustments.

Although the ‘Friedland loophole’ was closed, Illinois state legislators still have one of the sweetest retirement deals in the country – and it’s at an amazing cost to taxpayers.

According to General Assembly Retirement System (GARS) disclosures, 137 lawmakers chose to participate in the state pension system while the rest have thankfully opted out. To fund these future retirement annuities, the state government made a $21.7 million payment in 2017, meaning each participating lawmaker’s future pension cost taxpayers $158,547 last year.

See the top all-time GARS pensions here.

At OpenTheBooks.com, we checked out who’s receiving what, when, and after how long – and it’s not pretty. For example, the largest pension of all-time goes to a 31-year long-forgotten state senator. After retiring from Springfield in 2000 – with a pension spiking stop at the Chicago schools – Arthur Berman (D) receives $20,849 every month. Annually, Berman receives $250,191 – that’s four times more than he ever made as a Springfield lawmaker.

The House Intelligence Committee released its long-anticipated and highly redacted Russian intelligence report Friday clearing President Donald Trump’s campaign from “colluding” with Russians in the 2016 presidential election and chiding the intelligence community for “significant intelligence tradecraft failings” as the committee found no evidence to date that collusion had occurred.

The 248-page report, of which some pages were completely redacted after review by FBI and DOJ officials, have raised the ire of committee Republicans and will lead to a review of the report once again in an effort to un-redact elements of the report that the Committee says does not relate to the classified material. Numerous Congressional committees have complained openly that the DOJ and FBI continue to “stonewall” their investigations and have slow rolled documents needed for adequate oversight of the highly controversial investigations into Trump and the Bureau’s handling of former presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server for government business.

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, R-CA, said in a press release that due to public interest and the importance of the report the Committee chose to make the report public. Nunes has had to threaten Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and FBI Director Christopher Wray with contempt of Congress before documents have been provided. It’s a battle that he continues to fight but one that has slowed down the progress of the Committee’s investigations, say congressional sources, familiar with the investigations.

Nunes stated in the press release that “we object to the excessive and unjustified number of redactions, many of which do not relate to classified information. The Committee will convey our objections to the appropriate agencies and looks forward to publishing a less redacted version in the near future.”
Three Major Takeaways from the Russia Report’s Findings:
1. Flynn Didn’t Lie

Former National Security Advisor Army Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, the embattled three-star general who was fired by the White House for allegedly misleading Vice President Mike Pence about his conversation with former Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, did not lie to the FBI special agents who interviewed him at the White House in January 2017.

This is important because Flynn eventually plead guilty to one count of making false statements about his December 2016 phone conversation with Kislyak to DOJ Special Counsel Robert Mueller, “even though the Federal Bureau of Investigation agents did not detect any deception during Flynn’s interview.”

“I explained that he could count on me to always tell him the truth. I said I don’t do sneaky things, I don’t leak, I don’t do weasel moves.” So said then-FBI Director James Comey, according to his own memo, to a recently inaugurated President Donald Trump on Jan. 27, 2017, at a private White House dinner.

In early May 2017, Trump fired Comey. Contrary to FBI policy, Comey promptly leaked four of the seven memos—at least one may have contained classified information—that he wrote concerning his conversations with the president. In short order, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein (Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself) appointed Comey’s friend and former colleague Robert Mueller as special counsel. Mueller’s task was to continue the counterintelligence investigation Comey initiated in July 2016 into possible cooperation between the Russian government and the Trump campaign. Within weeks of Mueller’s appointment, Comey testified to Congress that he had hoped his leaks would trigger such a result.

Apparently, Comey did not tell the president the truth when he assured him that he doesn’t do sneaky things, he doesn’t leak, and he doesn’t do weasel moves.

Launched last week with a massive media campaign, Comey’s new book, “A Higher Loyalty: Truth, Lies, and Leadership,” aims to cement his reputation for impeccable honor and irreproachable integrity. Instead, the book confirms that on matters of great public interest, he doesn’t always tell the truth.

Any author can make mistakes. Even the most meticulous sometimes get a date wrong, blur a crucial detail, overlook an important aspect of context. And it is distressingly ordinary for a writer, on behalf of a pet point, to exaggerate small matters and minimize large ones.

While promoting his memoir, A Higher Loyalty: Truth, Lies, and Leadership, former FBI director James Comey sat for what turned out to be a tough but fair and refreshingly civil interview by Bret Baier, host of Fox News’s Special Report. (See Part 1 and Part 2.) Owing to President Trump’s comparatively unhinged interview earlier in the day on Fox & Friends, the Trump–Comey feud over alleged leaking of classified information is drawing most of the media attention. But something more important is less apparent: Comey has implicitly confirmed what we’ve been saying here for well over a year: In the Clinton emails caper, the fix was in.

Before we turn first to leaking, some disclosure. I am fond of Jim Comey and have been for 30 years. I vigorously disagree with both his handling of the Clinton emails investigation and the manner in which the FBI has conducted what is supposed to be a classified, counterintelligence probe of Russia’s interference in the 2016 election — not a public, government-orchestrated campaign of insinuation that Trump was complicit in Russian perfidy.

No doubt because of my personal regard for him and respect for his high-end ability, I am inclined to cut the former director slack. He was thrust into a no-win situation: It is not his fault that Democrats nominated a criminal suspect, or that Republicans nominated an irregular politician heedless of the norms of discretion and distance that a president should maintain when dealing with his law-enforcement subordinates. Comey aside, I had no better friends in nearly 20 years as a federal prosecutor in New York than Dan Richman, the Columbia Law School prof through whom Comey transmitted information to the New York Times, and Pat Fitzgerald and Dave Kelley, Comey’s lawyers. These aren’t just former colleagues of mine; they are old friends. I haven’t tried to speak to any of them about this matter, but my esteem for them weighs on me — as does my duty to be an honest analyst. How well I resolve that tension is not for me to say; I can just tell you it is real.

Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee released a redacted version of the conclusions from their investigation into Russian election meddling Friday, saying they found “no evidence” of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.

“While the committee found no evidence that the Trump campaign colluded, coordinated, or conspired with the Russian government, the investigation did find poor judgment and ill-considered actions by the Trump and Clinton campaigns,” the Republican report states.

The report cited the Trump Tower meeting between Jared Kushner, Donald Trump Jr., and a Russian lawyer as an instance of “poor judgment” on the part of the Trump associates. The report also criticized the Trump campaign’s praise for and contacts with WikiLeaks, which it called a “hostile foreign organization,” as “highly objectionable and inconsistent with U.S. national security interests.”

The Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee were not spared in the report, which criticized Democrats for allegedly hiring Russian sources to draft opposition research against then-candidate Trump.

President Trump touted the report on Twitter Friday morning.Democrats, meanwhile, wrote a dissent to the 243-page report in which they accused the majority of a “lack of seriousness and interest in pursuing the truth.” Representative Adam Schiff, the leading Democrat on the committee, said Republicans had taken a “fundamentally flawed approach to the investigation” and reached “superficial and political” conclusions.

From time to time, Title IX supporters admit they know some campus rape accusations may be false. Yet, they still support the denial of due process rights to the accused.

Earlier this month, Clackamas Community College Title IX coordinator and Dean of Human Resources Patricia Wieck told The College Fix why believing accusers rather than waiting for evidence is important:

Believing survivors means let’s sit down and understand each other’s experience. Let’s believe what that person said, he or she has experienced, that we have experienced. It may not be the truth, as has been determined, but it is that person’s truth and what they were going through.

Are you kidding me?

This woman believes the false destruction of a man’s life via pinning on him one of the most horrible crimes a human can commit — some would argue the worst, and I can’t disagree outright — is preferable to a fair trial because of some postmodernist garbage?

The backers of Title IX have always used a lot of this “truth is subjective” nonsense to defend themselves. Her comments show the entire process is biased — by design.

Wieck is saying that even if the accuser is wrong, she’s right if she really, really feels that way. But if you’re the poor schmuck falsely accused of rape, your feelings — and the evidence you produce — don’t get the same treatment.

The reality is that truth isn’t subjective. Feelings aren’t truth. CONTINUE AT SITE

WASHINGTON – In response to the Starbucks incident in Philadelphia earlier this month, Dr. Cornel West said that Americans must fight white supremacy “in all of its forms.”

An employee called the police on two African-Americans in a Starbucks store for sitting inside and not making a purchase. The police arrived and arrested the men, who stated that they were waiting for someone to arrive for a business meeting. Starbucks announced that it plans to close all of its stores on the afternoon of May 29 for “racial bias education.”

West was asked for his preferred outcome of the Starbucks incident.

“We’ve got to fight white supremacy is all of its forms,” West replied after a “Save Our Sons: Stop the Killing” and “Condemn Donald Trump” National Black Men’s Convention march and rally organized by former New Black Panther Party Chairman Malik Shabazz, president of Black Lawyers for Justice, on Saturday outside the White House.

During his speech at the protest, West urged civil rights activists not to “isolate” white supremacy from capitalism.

“I have the love of God and it empowers me in the midst of all of this nightmare, all of the lies and mendacity, all of the cold-heartedness and mean spiritedness of Donald Trump and his cronies and Wall Street and the military industrial complex and the State Department and the Pentagon. They all go together,” he said. “Never isolate white supremacy from capitalism. Never isolate capitalism from colonialism and imperialism and let us bring our critiques to bear on patriarchy.”

West condemned police shootings of African-Americans, telling the crowd to remember that black police officers can be “trigger happy, too.” CONTINUE AT SITE

A newly declassified report on Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. elections reveals that former intelligence chief James Clapper lied to Congress about information he shared with CNN on the infamous Steele dossier.

Buried within a newly declassified congressional report on Russian meddling in the 2016 U.S. elections is a shocking revelation: former Director of National Intelligence (DNI) James Clapper not only leaked information about the infamous Steele dossier and high-level government briefings about it to CNN, he also may have lied to Congress about the matter.

In one of the findings within the 253-page report, the House intelligence committee wrote that Clapper leaked details of a dossier briefing given to then-President-elect Donald Trump to CNN’s Jake Tapper, lied to Congress about the leak, and was rewarded with a CNN contract a few months later.

“Clapper flatly denied ‘discussing[ing] the dossier [compiled by Steele] or any other intelligence related to Russia hacking of the 2016 election with journalists,’” the committee found.

When asked directly whether he had ever discussed the dossier with any journalists, Clapper replied that he had not, according to a transcript of the proceedings:

MR. ROONEY: Did you discuss the dossier or any other intelligence related to Russia hacking of the 2016 election with journalists?

MR. CLAPPER: No.