RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/02/roger-stone-sentencing-ends-russia-collusion-part-i/

But the Democrats are cooking up an even weaker sequel

The Roger Stone sentencing farce is as fitting an end to the Russia Collusion saga as one could conjure up . . .  though it might be more fitting to call it the end of Russia Collusion, Part I. No sooner did the first flick conclusively bomb than the media-Democrat complex was issuing the casting call for Russia Collusion, Part II.

In the sequel, you’re asked to believe that Putin is manipulating the chesspieces to steal a second term for President Trump – somehow preferring an incumbent who beefs up the U.S. armed forces, pressures NATO allies to beef up theirs, imposes painful sanctions on Moscow, provides lethal aid to Ukraine, ramps up U.S. energy production, and seeks to thwart the Kremlin’s coveted natural-gas partnership with Germany, over an unabashed socialist who honeymooned in the Soviet Union and whose policies would wreck the American economy, end the resurgence of American energy production, and hollow out the American armed forces.

It’s a lunatic plot. But the scriptwriters no doubt figure that if they can peddle what they’ve been peddling for the last two weeks, they can peddle anything.

Stone was sentenced to 40 months’ imprisonment. This was smack in the middle of the federal sentencing guidelines’ range — 37 to 46 months — that Attorney General Bill Barr’s Justice Department argued would be a reasonable term. The AG’s position was a second-guess of the Stone trial’s prosecutors. That team, dominated by Mueller fabulists who portrayed the Stone case as Watergate revisited, had recommended something closer to a nine-year sentence.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/02/democrats_you_did_build_that_chicago_named_most_corrupt_city_in_us.html

A few days prior to President Donald J. Trump (R)’s compassionate announcement that he was pardoning or granting clemency to individuals from a variety of backgrounds, including many Democrats such as disgraced Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich, thus “making a point about government overreach in prosecutions, as well as reminding people about his First Step Act, which brings reformed (mostly minority) prisoners home,” two professors released a study proving:

Chicago Is The Most Corrupt City In The U.S., According To New Study

Chicago remains America’s most corrupt city, and Illinois the third-most corrupt state, according to a new report from the University of Illinois at Chicago.

The report, co-authored by UIC professor and former Ald. Dick Simpson, is based on an analysis of the public corruption statistics published by the U.S. Department of Justice. …

The DOJ’s data used contains statistics from 1976 through the end of 2018.

(Yes, that Department of Justice, and yes, the report definitely covers the years when Chicagoan Barack H. Obama [D] served in the Illinois state Legislature, represented Illinois as a senator and served as president of the United States.  Just thought I’d clear that up.)

https://dailycaller.com/2020/02/20/trump-approval-rating-gallup-poll/

President Donald Trump is enjoying a positive approval rating for the first time since his inauguration, according to a poll released Thursday.

49% of Americans approve of the job Trump is doing, compared to 48% who disapprove of Trump’s performance, according to a Gallup poll published Thursday. The poll also found that the president is enjoying his highest approval ratings among Independents since taking office at 43%.The poll suggests that the current state of the economy could help the president’s re-election efforts this Fall, finding that 61% of Americans believe the economy is getting better compared to 33% of Americans who believe the economy is getting worse. The poll also showed that more Americans are identifying as Republicans, with 32% identifying as members of Trump’s party, compared to 28% in Gallup’s prior two surveys.

https://pjmedia.com/trending/john-bolton-trashes-democrats-grossly-partisan-impeachment-downplays-impact-of-his-potential-testimony/

On Wednesday, President Trump’s former national security advisor, John Bolton, made a public appearance alongside Obama’s former national security advisor, Susan Rice, at Vanderbilt University, where he blasted the Democrats’ ”grossly partisan” impeachment against Trump, and downplayed the impact of the testimony he would have had on the outcome of the impeachment vote.

According to Bolton, the House “committed impeachment malpractice.” He added that “the process drove Republicans who might have voted for impeachment away because it was so partisan.”

Bolton also revealed that he was surprised the Senate voted against him testifying, but dowplayed the impact his testimony would have had anyway. “People can argue about what I should have said and what I should have done. I would bet you a dollar right here and now, my testimony would have made no difference to the ultimate outcome.”

Susan Rice was critical of Bolton for his silence. “I can’t imagine withholding my testimony, with or without a subpoena,” she said. “I also can’t imagine, frankly, in the absence of being able to provide that information directly to Congress, not having exercised my First Amendment right to speak publicly at a time when my testimony or my experience would be relevant.”

Bolton still refused to divulge details about his forthcoming book, which perhaps suggests that the information he has is nothing new, and doesn’t contain any evidence of actual wrongdoing by President Trump. We still haven’t seen actual excerpts from the book, and since Bolton believes that his testimony wouldn’t have changed the outcome, it’s probably safe to say when the book does come out, a lot of people who pre-ordered it expecting it to be Trump’s downfall will be very disappointed.

https://thefederalist.com/2020/02/20/why-richard-grenell-as-director-of-national-intelligence-is-a-loss-for-the-deep-state/

Richard Grenell has doggedly pursued the president’s agenda in the face of unrelenting defiance from the European Union’s most consequential power.

President Donald Trump’s pick of U.S. Ambassador to Germany Richard Grenell for acting director of national intelligence (DNI) is an inspired one of great symbolic and substantive significance.

In staffing another crucial position in the executive branch with someone who genuinely shares his worldview, instincts, and tenacity, President Trump is signaling to the Trump-haters of the administrative state, and its Deep State apotheosis, that those who reject or actively seek to undermine his America First agenda will no longer be welcome in meaningful positions.

This is no minor statement because the establishmentarian Resistance, knowing that personnel is policy, has sought to stymie the president’s agenda by seeking to undermine if not destroy like-minded individuals the president has considered for top-level posts.

Consider that the effect, if not intent, of the still-going effort to ruin Gen. Michael Flynn. It has gone beyond punishing him for sharing the president’s views, having directly challenged the national security and foreign policy establishment, and threatening its power and privilege. Its aim was to send a message from the very start of the administration that the president’s actual supporters need not apply.

Substantively, after eight years spent during the George W. Bush administration engaging in diplomatic combat with the “jackals” of the United Nations as the longest-serving spokesman and appointee in U.S. history, Grenell has doggedly pursued the president’s agenda in the face of unrelenting defiance from the European Union’s (EU) most consequential power.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/bolton-says-his-impeachment-testimony-would-not-have-changed-outcome-n1139461

NASHVILLE, Tenn. — Former national security adviser John Bolton said Wednesday he was surprised that Senate Republicans rejected his offer to testify in President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial. But he said that even if he had testified, it wouldn’t have changed the outcome of the trial because of how House Democrats handled their investigation.

“I think the House committed impeachment malpractice,” Bolton said at an event at Vanderbilt University with Susan Rice, who was national security adviser during the administration of former President Barack Obama. “The process drove Republicans who might have voted for impeachment away” because “it was so partisan,” he said.

But, he added, “my testimony would have made no difference to the ultimate outcome.”

All but one Senate Republican voted to acquit Trump of abusing the power of his office by pressuring Ukraine to investigate a political opponent.

https://www.city-journal.org/progressive-elected-officials-abuse-language

A new law in California bans the use, in official documents, of the term “at risk” to describe youth identified by social workers, teachers, or the courts as likely to drop out of school, join a gang, or go to jail. Los Angeles assemblyman Reginald B. Jones-Sawyer, who sponsored the legislation, explained that “words matter.” By designating children as “at risk,” he says, “we automatically put them in the school-to-prison pipeline. Many of them, when labeled that, are not able to exceed above that.”

The idea that the term “at risk” assigns outcomes, rather than describes unfortunate possibilities, grants social workers deterministic authority most would be surprised to learn they possess. Contrary to Jones-Sawyer’s characterization of “at risk” as consigning kids to roles as outcasts or losers, the term originated in the 1980s as a less harsh and stigmatizing substitute for “juvenile delinquent,” to describe vulnerable children who seemed to be on the wrong path. The idea of young people at “risk” of social failure buttressed the idea that government services and support could ameliorate or hedge these risks.

Instead of calling vulnerable kids “at risk,” says Jones-Sawyer, “we’re going to call them ‘at-promise’ because they’re the promise of the future.” The replacement term—the only expression now legally permitted in California education and penal codes—has no independent meaning in English. Usually we call people about whom we’re hopeful “promising.” The language of the statute is contradictory and garbled, too. “For purposes of this article, ‘at-promise pupil’ means a pupil enrolled in high school who is at risk of dropping out of school, as indicated by at least three of the following criteria: Past record of irregular attendance . . . Past record of underachievement . . . Past record of low motivation or a disinterest in the regular school program.” In other words, “at-promise” kids are underachievers with little interest in school, who are “at risk of dropping out.” Without casting these kids as lost causes, in what sense are they “at promise,” and to what extent does designating them as “at risk” make them so?

https://www.thinkers360.com/thought-leader-and-influencer-interview-with-chuck-brooks-president-brooks-consulting-international-and-adjunct-faculty-georgetown-university/

Thought Leader Interview

Thinkers360 interviews profile prominent members of the Thinkers360 community who embody the power of ideas in their work. In this edition, we speak with Chuck Brooks, President, Brooks Consulting International and Adjunct Faculty Georgetown University. Chuck is a globally-recognized cybersecurity thought leader and influencer, a two-time Presidential Appointee, with executive experience in marketing/branding, government relations, management, strategic partnering and digital engagement. He was recently featured in the Thinkers360 Top 50 Global Thought Leaders and Influencers on Cybersecurity.

Thinkers360: Tell us a bit about your background

CB: My background includes service in the public sector, academia, industry, and media.

In government. In government I received two senior Presidential appointments. I was a “plank holder” at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and appointed as the first Legislative Director of The Science & Technology Directorate. Earlier in my career I served as Special Assistant to the Director of Voice of America. For almost a decade on Capitol Hill I was a top Advisor to the late Senator Arlen Specter covering security and technology. In local government I also worked as an Auxiliary Police officer for Arlington, Virginia.

In industry, I served in senior executive roles for Fortune 1000 and smaller corporations including General Dynamics (Principal Market Growth Strategist for Cyber Systems), at Xerox (Vice President & Client Executive for Homeland Security), for Rapiscan and (Vice President of R & D), for SRA as (Vice President of Government Relations), and for Sutherland (Vice President of Marketing and Government Relations). As a globally recognized thought leader and evangelist for Cybersecurity and Emerging Technologies, I serve as Brand Ambassador for The Cybersecurity Collaborative, a peer-based CISO organization. I am also Executive Cybersecurity advisor to PCiTec, a woman owned HUBZONE small business, and serve on a variety of boards of companies.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/02/ag_bill_barr_will_he_or_wont_he_quit_the_narratives_change_by_the_minute.html

In the past week, there’s been non-stop speculation that Trump’s Attorney General, Bill Barr, may be run out of office or quit. On Tuesday alone, a report that Barr was on the verge of quitting was instantly followed with a statement that he had no intention of quitting.

This all stems from the fact that, when word broke that the vindictive Eric Holder holdovers in the Department of Justice sought the most extreme penalty possible for Roger Stone, Trump and Barr acted almost simultaneously, with Barr later insisting that his actions had nothing to do with Trump.

On February 11, Trump tweeted out that the sentence the DOJ was asking for Stone was an injustice:

At roughly the same time, Barr, as head of the Department of Justice, concluded that the sentencing memo was inappropriate and, instead, filed a memo asking only that the court exercise its discretion over sentencing. The left promptly went insane, saying that never before had an Attorney General been so utterly insane and corrupt. Former DOJ attorneys and officials (who are overwhelmingly Democrats) signed a petition that former Obama and Schiff staffers had written demanding he resign.