RUTHFULLY YOURS

“I understood this to be my recollection recorded of my conversation with the president.”https://amgreatness.com/2017/06/14/special-counsel-swamps-watchdog-trump/

That statement by James Comey had this old trial lawyer’s antennae buzzing. While being questioned about his memos-to-self by Senator Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) at last week’s big intelligence committee hearing, the former FBI director used the term “recollection recorded” not once but twice. He was rationalizing why he had failed to treat the notes he’d made of conversations with President Trump as government documents (maintaining, instead, that they were his own property).

“My view,” Comey elaborated, was that the “memorialization of those conversations was my recollection recorded.”

I won’t belabor the fact that the former FBI director’s memos were government records. It is a moot point. He has surrendered them to Robert Mueller, the special counsel appointed by the Justice Department.

My focus is on the fact that a special counsel is what Comey says he wanted, even though he repeatedly acknowledged that Trump himself was not under investigation, and even though the investigation in question—a counterintelligence probe of Russia’s interference in the 2016 election—is the kind that ordinarily does not get a prosecutor assigned. Because its objective is not to build a criminal case, a counterintelligence probe is conducted by intelligence agents and analysts, not criminal investigators and prosecutors.

Many other former Obama administration officials wanted a special counsel, too. So did Democrats and their media echo chamber—all convinced that Trump was not merely objectionable but unfit.

So, the question is: Was that the plan all along—to impose a watchdog on Trump?

Obviously, it has not mattered that there is no crime to investigate, even though the governing regulations make that a prerequisite for appointing a special counsel. Was Washington’s push for a special counsel spurred by concern over Russia or revulsion over Trump?

Without an evidence-based predicate for a criminal investigation of Trump, did the intelligence agencies undertake to build the predicate themselves? Did they reckon that the semblance of a criminal investigation would justify installing a monitor from outside Trump’s administration, with jurisdiction sufficiently elastic to keep the president in check?

Rep. Scalise, critically injured, is a strong conservative leader who upholds the Constitution, advocating for the principles of fiscal discipline, lower taxes, an all-of-the-above national energy strategy, a robust national defense, and conservative values.

As Chairman of the Republican Study Committee, a caucus of more than 170 conservative members in the House, he coalesced Members around a unified vision. During his time as chairman, Scalise championed a free-market, patient-centered Obamacare alternative that gained the support of 130 HouseMembers. He also introduced legislation that promotes job creation and economic growth, established an RSC national defense working group, released a conservative budget that would balance in four years, and crafted bills that protect constitutionally-guaranteed rights, like freedom of speech, from unelected Washington bureaucrats.

Passing a conservative alternative to President Obama’s “Buffett Rule” that was supported by outside groups like Americans For Tax Reform.
Banning the implementation of radical climate change regulations, saving millions of taxpayer dollars.
Defunding many of President Obama’s czars.
Eliminating redundant, costly, and time consuming trips for nearly 2 million American transportation workers by reforming the TWIC card process.
Defunding the wasteful spending of the Open World Leadership Center.
Holding the Obama Administration accountable for blocking American energy development through the moratorium in the Gulf of Mexico.
Reforming the FCC by eliminating unnecessary and burdensome mandates (link is external) on the telecommunications industry.

He is a strong and forthright critic of Obama’s negotiations with Iran, calling them naive and dangerous.He is a very strong supporter of Israel and ranked a -4 by the Arab American Institute.

May he recover swiftly from his wounds. rsk

Well, it finally happened. We’ve been saying for months now that the breathless false narrative created by the media about Trump supporters was going to lead unstable people to do bad things. We’ve seen it in Berkeley, where masked Antifa thugs attacked “Nazis” (or anyone in a Trump hat). Then there was Kathy Griffin’s disgusting mock beheading of President Trump, where she put the Left’s violent fantasies on display, followed up very shortly with Shakespeare in the Park featuring the stabbing assassination of Donald Trump to wild applause and standing ovations. These people are sick in the head.

Now a Republican congressman is in the hospital recovering from a gunshot wound he received during a congressional softball practice. The shooter allegedly asked a Representative Ron DeSantis if there were Republicans or Democrats playing. Upon hearing they were Republicans, he opened fire. Luckily, he was a very bad shot (as we all imagine anti-gun nuts to be). Squeezing off a reported 50 to 60 rounds and only hitting one congressman in the hip in a field full of them seems hard to do. We are all grateful for bad aim and for Capitol Police who returned fire, stopping the attack. House Majority Whip Steve Scalise is being treated for his injuries.
Sanders ‘Sickened’ That Alexandria Shooter Was Volunteer on His Presidential Campaign

Meanwhile, as blood still sits on the baseball field in Alexandria, Virginia, the Shakespeare in the Park players are getting ready for tonight’s bloody performance, where they will symbolically slay the Republican sitting president. I would like to remind you that after Democratic Rep. Gabby Giffords was shot, Sarah Palin was blamed by nearly every network for having a map with districts up for grabs shown with targets over them (one of which happened to be Giffords’ district). We were told that her map incited the shooting. These same people, however, aren’t all over CNN right now making the connection between the play featuring Donald Trump being murdered or Kathy Griffin’s bloody beheading and the shooting of Republicans playing ball.

Instead of calls for restraint and civility, Twitter is alive with celebration over evil Republicans being shot and targeted. The demonization continues. CONTINUE AT SITE

There’s law and there’s politics. When it comes to Robert Mueller, the special counsel appointed to conduct the so-called Russia investigation, the Justice Department did politics. That is why the public discussion of Mueller’s status — including probably farfetched suggestions that President Trump is on the cusp of firing him — has so botched the law.

At this point, unfortunately, the law must accommodate politics. The alarm bells that led to Mueller’s erroneous appointment cannot be un-rung. But legal surgery needs to be done, lest Mueller’s amorphous mandate lead to Scooter Libby 2.0, or worse, another Iran-Contra epic — a fiasco that seemed to have a longer run than Phantom of the Opera.

Bottom line: Trump should not dismiss Mueller, but the Justice Department must revise the special counsel’s jurisdiction. Maybe this time, it could be conformed to, you know, the law . . . specifically, the law that limits special counsels to criminal investigations, not counterintelligence probes.

Before we get down to business, let’s clear away the underbrush.

Mueller’s Potential Conflicts of Interest

As elaborated on in this space before, Bob Mueller is as straight an arrow as they come; he is not right all of the time (is any of us?), but he is always ethical and patriotic. Like others, I worry about the ideological bent and potential for overzealousness of the staff he has assembled. But there is no doubting their legal acumen, and with Mueller calling the shots, I believe the Trump administration and the public will get fair treatment. This situation warrants attention, but not panic.

Similarly, too much is made of Mueller’s being pals with Jim Comey, the former FBI director who succeeded Mueller’s twelve-year run in that lofty post. Mueller is a pillar of Washington’s legal and political communities, which heavily overlap. If cordial relations with people in Washington circles is disqualifying, then good luck finding a high-quality special counsel if you ever need one (which we didn’t in this case, but that ship has sailed).

The batrachian (toad like) Senator Grassley jumps into the swamp…..shame on him…..rsk

WASHINGTON—The Senate Judiciary Committee plans to open an investigation into the circumstances surrounding President Donald Trump’s removal of James Comey as FBI director, a probe that could examine the thorny question of whether Mr. Trump improperly interfered in an ongoing investigation by doing so.

“The Judiciary Committee has an obligation to fully investigate any alleged improper partisan interference in law enforcement investigations,” said Sen. Chuck Grassley, an Iowa Republican and committee chairman, said in a letter released Wednesday. “It is my view that fully investigating the facts, circumstances, and rationale for Mr. Comey’s removal will provide us the opportunity to do that on a cooperative, bipartisan basis.

“The American people deserve a full accounting of attempts to meddle in both our democratic processes and the impartial administration of justice,” Mr. Grassley said.
Mr. Comey was removed from his position last month by Mr. Trump. In testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee earlier this month, Mr. Comey said he had felt directed by the president to drop an investigation into former national security adviser Michael Flynn. Mr. Trump denies he gave such instructions.

The White House initially said Mr. Comey was removed for performance reasons, but Mr. Trump later suggested he was dismissed in part over the continuing Russia investigation.

Mr. Grassley’s letter came in response to a push from Dianne Feinstein, the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee. Ms. Feinstein has asked for Judiciary to conduct its own probe in addition to the other investigations unfolding on Capitol Hill. The Judiciary Committee has jurisdiction over federal law enforcement, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation. CONTINUE AT SITE

Attorney General Jeff Sessions took aim at unhinged Russian electoral collusion conspiracy theorists, pushing back against left-wingers’ wild claims that by doing his job he somehow betrayed America.

The comments by the former Republican senator from Alabama came during heated testimony yesterday before the Senate Intelligence Committee. Sessions denied, as he has done before, that he had any inappropriate contact with Russian officials or that he plotted with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s government to influence the 2016 election.

Sessions’ testimony came the day after Newsmax Media CEO Christopher Ruddy, a longtime friend of the president, claimed Trump was considering firing Special Counsel Robert Mueller, who is heading the investigation into the Russian conspiracy theory. A few hours before Sessions testified, Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein was asked by Sen. Susan Collins (R-Me.) if he would fire Mueller. Critics have accused Mueller of a litany of conflicts of interest that they claim ought to disqualify him as an investigator.

“Senator, I’m not going to follow any order unless I believe those are lawful and appropriate orders,” Rosenstein said during a hearing about President Trump’s $27.7 billion fiscal 2018 budget for the Department of Justice. Mueller “may be fired only for good cause, and I am required to put that cause in writing. That’s what I would do. If there were good cause, I would consider it.”

The attorney general’s appearance before the Senate Intelligence Committee was marked by several testy exchanges with Democrats. The senior Democrat and vice chairman of the committee, Mark Warner of Virginia, set the noticeably prosecutorial tone for his side by interrupting Sessions repeatedly. “The Russians massively interfered,” in the 2016 election, Warner claimed.

In his opening statement, Sessions said:

Let me state this clearly, colleagues. I have never met with or had any conversation with any Russians or any foreign officials concerning any type of interference with any campaign or election in the United States. Further, I have no knowledge of any such conversations by anyone connected to the Trump campaign. I was your colleague in this body for 20 years, at least some of you. And the suggestion that I participated in any collusion that I was aware of, any collusion with the Russian government to hurt this country which I have served with honor for 35 years, or to undermine the integrity of our democratic process is an appalling and detestable lie.

As attorney general, “I recused myself from any investigation into the campaign for president, but I did not recuse myself from defending my honor against false allegations.”

A grandstanding Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) accused Sessions of being less than forthcoming about his decision to recuse himself from the Russia investigation.

I believe the American people have had it with stonewalling. Americans don’t want to hear the answers are privileged and off limits or they can’t be provided in public or it would be inappropriate for witnesses to tell us what they know. We are talking about an attack on our democratic institutions and stonewalling of any kind is unacceptable.

Sessions forcefully denied that declining to answer questions about presidential communications constituted stonewalling. “I am following the historic policies of the Department of Justice,” he said.

Throughout the hearing Sessions repeatedly told senators that he wasn’t invoking executive privilege on behalf of President Trump. His default position was that conversations he had about official government business with Trump should be treated as presumptively confidential, at least until the president can make an informed decision about whether to shield the information by invoking executive privilege.

“I’m protecting the president’s constitutional right by not giving it away before he has a chance to review it,” Sessions told Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.).

George Orwell said, “The most effective way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history.” In the former USSR, censorship, rewriting of history and eliminating undesirable people became part of Soviets’ effort to ensure that the correct ideological and political spin was put on their history. Deviation from official propaganda was punished by confinement in labor camps and execution.

Today there are efforts to rewrite history in the U.S., albeit the punishment is not so draconian as that in the Soviet Union. New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu had a Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee monument removed last month. Former Memphis Mayor A C Wharton wanted the statue of Confederate Lt. Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest, as well as the graves of Forrest and his wife, removed from the city park. In Richmond, Virginia, there have been calls for the removal of the Monument Avenue statues of Confederate President Jefferson Davis and Gens. Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson and J.E.B. Stuart. It’s not only Confederate statues that have come under attack. Just by having the name of a Confederate, such as J.E.B. Stuart High School in Falls Church, Virginia, brings up calls for a name change. These history rewriters have enjoyed nearly total success in getting the Confederate flag removed from state capitol grounds and other public places.

Slavery is an undeniable fact of our history. The costly war fought to end it is also a part of the nation’s history. Neither will go away through cultural cleansing. Removing statues of Confederates and renaming buildings are just a small part of the true agenda of America’s leftists. Thomas Jefferson owned slaves, and there’s a monument that bears his name — the Thomas Jefferson Memorial in Washington, D.C. George Washington also owned slaves, and there’s a monument to him, as well — the Washington Monument in Washington. Will the people who call for removal of statues in New Orleans and Richmond also call for the removal of the Washington, D.C., monuments honoring slaveholders Jefferson and Washington? Will the people demanding a change in the name of J.E.B. Stuart High School also demand that the name of the nation’s capital be changed?

These leftists might demand that the name of my place of work — George Mason University — be changed. Even though Mason was the author of the Virginia Declaration of Rights, which became a part of our Constitution’s Bill of Rights, he owned slaves. Not too far from my university is James Madison University. Will its name be changed? Even though Madison is hailed as the “Father of the Constitution,” he did own slaves.

ASHINGTON — Attorney General Jeff Sessions gave his version Tuesday of parts of former FBI Director James Comey’s testimony expressing his concerns about meeting alone with President Trump, while emphatically denying to his former Senate colleagues that he colluded with Russia during the presidential campaign.

White House deputy press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders told reporters aboard Air Force One as President Trump flew back from Milwaukee today that he watched parts of the hearing, “thought that Attorney General Sessions did a very good job and, in particular, was very strong on the point that there was no collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign.”

The Sessions testimony unfolded as the FBI has been conducting an ongoing investigation into Russia’s campaign operations since July, and special counsel Robert Mueller has been compiling a team of prosecutors to start his investigation.

On April 27, 2016, Trump gave a foreign policy address at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington at which he, Sessions and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak were among attendees at a VIP reception. CNN reported that Comey told the Senate Intelligence Committee in closed session last week that Sessions and Kisylak could have met on the sidelines, as indicated by intercepts of Russian communications.

Sessions told the committee that the reception area included “two to three dozen people” and said he didn’t remember having a conversation with Kislyak. “Certainly, I can assure you, nothing improper, if I’d had a conversation with him,” he said. “And it’s conceivable that that occurred. I just don’t remember it.”

“I didn’t have any formal meeting with him,” the attorney general said later in the hearing. “I’m confident of that. But I may have had an encounter during the reception.”

Sessions, who had been named to Trump’s national security advisory board the previous month, said he “came there as a interested person, very anxious to see how President Trump would do in his first major foreign policy address — I believe he’d only given one major speech before, that one, maybe, at the Jewish AIPAC event.”

“So it was an interesting time to — for me to observe his delivery and the message he would make,” he added. “That was my main purpose of being there.”

During his opening statement, Sessions told senators: “I was your colleague in this body for 20 years, at least some of you, and I — and the suggestion that I participated in any collusion — that I was aware of any collusion with the Russian government to hurt this country, which I have served with honor for 35 years, or to undermine the integrity of our democratic process, is an appalling and detestable lie.”

Testifying before the committee last week, Comey recounted a Feb. 14 Oval Office meeting in which he said “the attorney general lingered by my chair” before leaving the room, at which point Trump, according to the former FBI director, said, “I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting [Mike] Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.”

Comey says that “shortly” after the Oval Office meeting, he was speaking with Sessions on the subject of Trump’s concerns about leaks when he “took the opportunity to implore the attorney general to prevent any future direct communication between the president and me.”

Seven months later, how are Trump voters feeling about their decision? Gary Abernathy of Hillsboro, Ohio’s Times-Gazette was a rare newspaper editor who endorsed Donald Trump for President in 2016. On Friday, he provided an update from his community of 6,600 people:

Interestingly, the conservatives I speak with do not really consider Trump one of them. Rank-and-file Republicans tend to view Trump more as an independent who ran under the Republican banner.

But for the most part, they’re still with him. They appreciate Trump’s “America first” agenda, not because they believe in isolationism, but because they believe the U.S. and its citizens should be the government’s top priority.

The president’s tweets can be as annoying to his supporters as to his opponents, and if there is a common criticism it is that he should tweet less. But his inability so far to overhaul health care, enact tax reform, destroy the Islamic State or “drain the swamp” is largely blamed on overreaching courts and the open “resistance” that appears dedicated to opposing anything Trump wants.

The 2016 election made clear how little the average voter in the Midwest has in common with the average journalist on either coast. But your humble correspondent is struck by how much the Trump analysis offered by small-town Midwesterners squares with the view of Trump voters who live and work in Manhattan. Yes, there are a few, and just like the much larger population of Trump voters in Middle America, they understand his faults but tend to appreciate his goal of American revival.

Meanwhile back in Ohio, Mr. Abernathy finds that constant negative coverage of Mr. Trump in the national media is still not having the intended effect, and may even be backfiring:

While Trump carried Highland County heavily, there are people here who did not vote for him and who do not care for him. But overall, despite the avalanche of negative news stories, Trump’s support remains firm. Hillsboro’s mayor mentioned recently that he has noticed Trump yard signs popping up again, either in a show of support or a sign of defiance.