RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/01/ghislaine_maxwell_who_was_jeffrey_epstein_close_friend_had_her_emails_hacked.html

Ghislaine Maxwell was probably Jeffrey Epstein’s closest friend. She may also have been his partner in crime, for she’s been accused of procuring and sexually trafficking underaged girls for Epstein and his party pals – pals that may have among their number many famous men, including Bill Clinton and Prince Andrew. Ghislaine denies the charges.

While there’s no word about Epstein’s little black book, people are looking nervously over their shoulders now that news has come out that someone hacked Ghislaine’s personal email account. The Daily Mail is on the story:

Ghislaine Maxwell’s personal emails have been hacked, and damaging information, including the names of individuals linked to Jeffrey Epstein’s sex trafficking case, are at risk of being publicly released.

The revelation was made in a letter filed by the British socialite’s lawyers in the defamation case brought against her by Jeffrey Epstein accuser Virginia Guiffre, DailyMail.com has learned.

The letter was sent by Maxwell’s attorney, Ty Gee, on December 5 to New York federal court Judge Loretta A. Preska but made public last week. The letter addresses the materials that should remain sealed or redacted in the case.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/01/shifty_schiff_to_senate_please_give_us_evidence_to_make_our_case.html

The Democrats and their lapdog media, led by Adam Schiff, AKA Shifty Schiff, lectured us for the past three years that President Trump must be impeached and removed because they had clear, compelling evidence that President Trump committed impeachable crimes.

Now that the impeachment trial has started, Shifty Schiff is arguing that the Senate must subpoena documents and witnesses to prove the Democrats’ impeachment articles.  What happened to their “evidence”?

The premise of the Shifty argument is that President Trump must be guilty of something, so there must evidence somewhere to prove it.  Democrats want the Senate to issue subpoenas so they can rummage through documents and question witnesses in the hope of finding something they can use.  The logical question is, why and how do the Democrats believe that President Trump is guilty if they have no evidence that proves that President Trump is guilty?  If they had such evidence, they would present it instead of whining for subpoenas.

The Shifty Democrats know there is no such evidence because they know that President Trump did not commit an impeachable offense.  If there were evidence of guilt then the Democrats would have it.  President Trump released the transcript of his phone call with Ukraine’s President Zelinsky, so we know what he said.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7916377/Piers-Morgan-President-Trumps-got-Davos-cheering-economy-Hillary-beating-Bernie.html

‘Nobody likes him,’ rages Hillary Clinton in a new documentary film. ‘Nobody wants to work with him. He gets nothing done.’

She expanded on her vicious personal attack in an interview with The Hollywood Reporter: ‘It’s not only him, it’s the culture around him. It’s his leadership team. It’s his prominent supporters….and their relentless attacks on lots of his competitors, particularly the women.’

She concluded: ‘I think people need to pay attention because we want, hopefully, to elect a president who’s going to try to bring us together and not either turn a blind eye, or actually reward the kind of insulting, attacking, degrading behavior that we’ve seen… it’s all just baloney and I feel so bad that people got sucked into it.’

Wow.

Even by Hillary’s standards, this was a savage assault on a man she clearly believes is an absolute disgrace and shouldn’t be anywhere near the White House.

Hillary Clinton unloaded on Bernie Sanders saying ‘nobody wants to work with him. He gets nothing done’

In fact, it’s hard to imagine a more withering anti-endorsement and I imagine it may well end up being used in 2020 Election attack ads.

There’s just one problem…

She wasn’t talking, as you may have assumed, about Donald Trump.

She was talking about Bernie Sanders, a fellow Democrat and the man who is now leading the polls to be the party’s official nominee.

It’s hard to imagine a more glorious bone for President Trump to delightedly gnaw on with his KFC as he flies back home today from the World Economic Forum in Davos.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/01/trump_gave_a_brilliant_speech_in_davos_at_the_world_economic_forum.html

While America settled in for a week of pointless impeachment agony before the Senate, Trump was in Davos speaking in glowing terms about a revitalized America which has, at its center, the well-being of the American worker. He also gloriously rejected Greta Thunberg, that neurotic prophet of doom-and-gloom, and her dead-end ideology.

Trump began with his standard recitation of America’s extraordinary economic accomplishments on his watch. What made this speech special, though, and elevated it to brilliance, was how Trump explained the philosophy that created these staggering economic benefits. For Trump, it was about doing his best for the American worker because he knew that, unleashed, American workers could create economic miracles:

America achieved this stunning turnaround not by making minor changes to a handful of policies, but by adopting a whole new approach centered entirely on the wellbeing of the American worker.

Every decision we make — on taxes, trade, regulation, energy, immigration, education, and more — is focused on improving the lives of everyday Americans.  We are determined to create the highest standard of living that anyone can imagine, and right now, that’s what we’re doing for our workers.  The highest in the world.  And we’re determined to ensure that the working and middle class reap the largest gains.

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/hillary-clinton-defends-ties-to-harvey-weinstein-how-could-we-have-known/

Hillary Clinton defended her past association with disgraced Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein in an interview released Tuesday, suggesting she would not have taken the thousands in donations to her 2016 campaign if she had “known what we know now.”

“How could we have known? He raised money for me, for the Obamas, for Democrats in general,” Clinton told The Hollywood Reporter when asked if she had any regrets about her association with Weinstein. “And that at the time was something that everybody thought made sense. And of course, if all of us had known what we know now, it would have affected our behavior.”

Weinstein donated the maximum amount possible for an individual contributor to Clinton in both the 2016 Democratic primary and the general election, which Clinton said in 2017 that she would donate to charity after allegations of sexual misconduct broke against the Hollywood producer. FEC records show that Weinstein has raised over $2.3 million for Democratic causes in his career.

Actress Lena Dunham and journalist Tina Brown have both said they informed Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign of Weinstein’s sexual misconduct and warned them not to associate with him or accept his donations.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/calling-all-trial-witnesses-11579652544?mod=opinion_lead_pos2

The Senate impeachment trial began Tuesday with political theater over rules. Senate Republicans prefer an expeditious trial while Democrats who rushed to impeach in the House are suddenly demanding witnesses and crying “coverup.” So let’s break down what’s really going on in the fight over witnesses.

By our deadline, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell looked set to keep his caucus together for his organizing resolution. His framework provides Democratic House impeachment managers 24 hours over three working days to make their case, followed by the same for a White House defense. Bill Clinton’s trial also provided each side 24 hours, though neither ended up using even half.

But Democrats are demanding that the Senate also call former National Security Adviser John Bolton ; acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney ; Mulvaney adviser Robert Blair ; and White House budget official Michael Duffey.

This is more than a little disingenuous. House Democrats could have gone to court to challenge President Trump’s assertion of executive privilege over testimony, and the House did sue initially to compel former Bolton deputy Charles Kupperman. But House Democrats abandoned their demands when litigation didn’t fit their rushed political timeline. They declared instead that the existing evidence more than justified impeachment. Yet now their “overwhelming” evidence has become a GOP “coverup.”

https://pjmedia.com/trending/protesters-in-puerto-rico-call-for-governors-resignation-after-aid-found-in-warehouse/

Hundreds of protesters in Puerto Rico demonstrated outside the governor’s mansion and capitol building in San Juan, calling on Governor Wanda Vazquez to resign. The protest stems from a video showing tons of disaster relief supplies — some of it from Hurricane Gloria in 2017, that was discovered in a warehouse. A video of a crowd storming the warehouse went viral on social media last week, leading to nationwide outrage.

Associated Press:

“We have to get rid of all the corrupt officials,” said Mari Rivera, a government employee who said that Gov. Wanda Vazquez “needs to stop blaming others and show her face.”

About 600 people banged on pots and some waved Puerto Rican flags as one of them yelled into a bullhorn, “Wanda, turn over the disaster supplies!”

Evangelical preacher Ramón Marrero, who drove up from the southern coastal town of Guayama with his wife and daughters, said they came “to show our indignation, our annoyance, our rebellion.”

The scene reminded many of the beginning of protests that escalated over the summer and led to the resignation of former Gov. Ricardo Rosselló, with demonstrators once again vowing to remain in the streets until Vázquez also steps down.

Rossello was forced out after private chats with close associates were leaked, painting an unflattering portrait of the governor.

But this is a far more serious situation, with questions swirling around the unused supplies.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/gallup-majority-opposes-trump-removal/

As if we needed further evidence of our divided country: Gallup’s latest poll shows that a majority, 51 percent to 46 percent, opposes removing President Trump from office.

The polls are as divided as America. A CNN-SSRS poll conducted shortly after Gallup’s survey has a majority favoring conviction, 51 percent to 45 percent. The CNN-SSRS poll was of registered voters. Gallup’s was of adults. The RealClearPolitics average of polls is a tie: 47 percent for removal, 47 percent against it. The FiveThirtyEight average has 49 percent supporting impeachment, and 46 percent opposing it.

So America is split. And perhaps a little confused. What’s remarkable is how stable this division and confusion is. The “Pro’s” have held a slight advantage in FiveThirtyEight’s calculations since October. The “No’s” have held the slightest of edges in the RealClearPolitics average since December. Throughout it all, President Trump’s approval rating has waxed and waned within the low- to mid-forties.

Gallup’s number is positive for Trump. The pollster has him at 44 percent job approval. “Trump’s recent job approval ratings — though below the historical average 53% for post-World War II presidents — are among the highest of his presidency,” writes Jeffrey M. Jones.

They are also above his average 40 percent approval during his term. “Trump’s job approval ratings are nowhere near as high as Clinton’s were during his impeachment saga, but they are among the best Trump has registered as president.” They are also right about where Barack Obama’s approval was as he kicked off his successful reelection campaign.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/01/anti-trumpers-conduct-shadow-government/

Goodbye to the peaceful transfer of power.

T he frenetic opposition to Donald Trump by the Washington establishment, the new progressive, hard-left Democratic party, and in particular the veterans of the Obama administration has led to the ruination of a number of hallowed protocols and customs.

Impeachment has been redefined as a mere vote of no confidence and will become a rank political ploy for years to come once an opposition party gains a majority in the House. It is taking on the flavor of a preemptory device, a vaccination, rather than a medicine, as if to prevent future hypothetical crimes in the absence of current impeachable offenses.

Whistleblowers are now mere political operatives, who work with the opposition party to disseminate second- and third-hand rumor to prompt impeachment frenzies.

The FISA court has been disgraced. It was revealed to be either incompetent or actively partisan in its failure to question the Steele dossier’s legitimacy, in ignoring the warnings of Devin Nunes’s memo, and in the court’s selection of hard-core anti-Trump partisan David Kris to monitor FBI compliance with the recommendations of the Horowitz report. At this point, the existing FISA courts should probably be dismissed and the laws authorizing their creation rewritten.