RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://thefederalist.com/2019/12/13/take-note-democrats-the-uk-election-was-a-referendum-on-progressivism/

Last night, in a historic election, the UK Conservative Party celebrated its most sweeping victory since Margaret Thatcher, the original “Euroskeptic,” won the election for Prime Minister in 1987. The election had been regarded as particularly momentous, given the UK’s recent struggles to bring the much-debated Brexit to fruition. The Conservative Party won 364 seats in UK Parliament, compared to Labour’s 204, catapulting Conservative leader Boris Johnson to the position of Prime Minister. It was the worst defeat for Labour since 1935.

But in addition to Brexit woes, the election was also saddled with the baggage of the UK Labour Party and its controversial leader, Jeremy Corbyn. Over the past several years, Labour has been mired in accusations of anti-semitism, which seemed to plague both its members and leaders. The accusations culminated in nearly a dozen members of the party opting to defect in protest of Corbyn’s incapacity to deal with what many felt to be a rising culture of toxicity within Labour.

Just last week, a leaked memo written by Jewish Labour members to the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), the UK’s official regulatory body devoted to issues of discrimination, revealed the depths to which both the party and Corbyn had minimized, dismissed, or simply ignored accusations of anti-semitism within Labour, often identifying such criticisms to be a “right-wing smear.” Several times in an interview with BBC’s Andrew Neil last month, Corbyn failed to offer any sort of substantive apology, even when confronted with the statistic that nearly a half of British Jews were “seriously considering” leaving the UK, should Corbyn win the election.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/12/13/the_evidence_against_trump_vs_the_evidence_against_the_fbi_141950.html

The House of Representatives, if the pundits are right, is about to impeach Donald Trump for attempting to use his position as president of the United States for his personal political benefit. Everyone should agree that impeachment is a serious matter, simply — if not for any other reason — because it nullifies the votes that over 60 million people cast in 2016. Under these circumstances, what do we actually know about the conduct that has put the president in jeopardy of impeachment?

In a criminal trial — a trial that would send a person to prison, or worse — we insist on a proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It’s highly unlikely that any of those who believe impeachment is justified would say that the evidence is sufficient to conclude that the charges against him are true beyond a reasonable doubt.

In a civil case, where a person is sued for doing wrong to another, the standard is a preponderance of the evidence. That means the evidence should be examined and weighed to determine liability. That standard — preponderance of the evidence — would appear to be the minimum requirement for the finding of any wrongdoing, particularly when the question is the impeachment, conviction and removal of the president.

The full House is about to debate the impeachment of President Trump on a charge of putting his personal political interests ahead of the interests of the United States. There are reasonable grounds to debate whether this is an impeachable offense, but at this point the real question is whether the House has the evidence to take such a fateful step for the country.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2019/12/high-crime-nothing-deborah-weiss/

As most of you know, the House has announced that it will issue articles of impeachment this week. As of now, two have been determined, though there may be more to come. They are: 1) Trump’s “abuse of power” and 2) “obstruction of congress”.

ARTICLE 1: ABUSE OF POWER

1) This article of impeachment document uses the word “scheme” to describe Trump’s colloquy whereby he asked Ukraine President Zelensky to conduct investigations. This is consistent with the Democrat lawyer/witness Daniel Goldman’s “testimony” where he repeatedly referred to Trump’s request for investigations as a “scheme”. This word is a characterization of a fact, and not a fact in and of itself.

2) The article asserts that President Trump solicited an investigation that “would benefit his re-election, harm the political prospects of a political opponent and influence the 2020 elections to his advantage.” Note: here the Democrats are not attributing motive but simply stating that such investigations would benefit the President. So it appears that the Democrats believe anything which happens to benefit the president and harm an “opponent” is impeachable. If we accept the possibility that the proposed investigations were to root out corruption, as President Trump has indicated, then perhaps on some level, this article is acknowledges, in effect, that rooting out corruption is to Trump’s advantage and a Democrat opponent’s disadvantage in the 2020 election.

3) Subsequently, the article states that Trump did this for “corrupt purposes”. This language echoes Professor Feldman’s testimony as well as conclusions. Professor Feldman repeatedly, without any objective basis, used the adjective “corruptly” to describe President Trump’s neutral behavior, in order to attribute motive to him, despite the fact that he is not a mind-readers and has no direct evidence to support his conclusion.

https://pjmedia.com/trending/stalinesque-republicans-erupt-after-nadler-abruptly-ends-impeachment-hearing-in-the-dead-of-night/

House Republicans erupted in anger after House Intelligence Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-Kangaroo Court) abruptly ended debate over the articles of impeachment levied against President Trump shortly before midnight on Friday, announcing that there would be a vote at 10 a.m. the next day.

“It has been a long two days of consideration of these articles [of impeachment] and it is now very late at night,” Nadler declared. “I want the members on both sides of the aisle to think about what has happened over these last two days and to search their consciousnesses before we cast our final votes.”

“Therefore the committee will now stand in recess until tomorrow morning at 10 a.m. at which point I will move to divide the question so that each of us may have the opportunity to cast up or down votes on each of the articles of impeachment and tell history to be our judge,” said Nadler. “The Committee is in recess.”

Ranking Member Doug Collins tried to object, saying that the chairman had not considered members’ schedules the next day. “Mr. Chairman, there is no consulting from the Ranking Member on your schedule for tomorrow in which you’ve just blown up schedules for everyone?” Collins asked. “You chose not to consult the Ranking Member on a schedule issue of this magnitude? This is kangaroo court that we’re talking about.”

https://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Beyond-Trump-Derangement-Syndrome-610766

The fact that groups like Students for Justice in Palestine went ballistic over this stroke of genius makes perfect sense.Every time left-wing Jews think that they’ve nailed US President Donald Trump once and for all, he does something to deflate their Democratic bubble. Rather than spurring them to rethink their stance and shed their snobbery toward the Republican leader for whom they did not and will not vote, however, his actions cause them either to double down or grudgingly to give him credit where they wish it were not due.

Take this week, for instance, when he made history by signing an executive order aimed at protecting Jews from campus antisemitism and preventing taxpayers’ money from funding it.

The fact that groups like Students for Justice in Palestine went ballistic over this stroke of genius makes perfect sense, since they are among the greatest perpetrators and promoters of Jew-and-Israel-bashing on university quads across the country. But the Jews who joined in the attack by calling the executive order “antisemitic” – or who claimed, as Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Connecticut) did, that it “smacks of what happened in the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany” – are afflicted with a disease that goes way beyond Trump Derangement Syndrome.

Indeed, such members of the tribe ought to have their heads examined, or at least hang their heads in shame. They will do neither, of course; being a left-wing liberal means never having to say you’re sorry, after all, especially when you’re proven wrong.

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/doj-ig-barr-horowitz-fisa-democrats-andrew-mccarthy

At Wednesday’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearing about Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s report on investigative abuses in the FBI’s Trump-Russia investigation (codenamed “Crossfire Hurricane”), Democrats continued an effort begun ten days ago to hoodwink the public into believing Horowitz is in a bitter dispute with Attorney General William Barr over a key finding in the report.

The dispute allegedly stems from what is portrayed as Barr’s dissent from the IG’s conclusion that the probe was properly predicated – i.e., that there were sufficient factual grounds to open an investigation of whether the Trump campaign was complicit in the Kremlin’s cyberespionage attack on Democratic party email accounts.

In point of fact, as discussed in my Fox News Opinion column on Wednesday, the two men have less a difference of opinion than a difference in focus – the distinction between what may be done and what should be done.

I’m tempted to say there is no real dispute, but let’s leave it at saying the dispute is wildly overstated.

A cautionary note: People should be suspicious about media coverage of the attorney general. For decades, Bill Barr has enjoyed a well-earned reputation for legal acumen and personal integrity. But he is now working for Donald Trump.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/12/thwack_matt_gaetz_nailed_dem_impeachment_counsel_daniel_goldman_.html

Attorney Daniel Goldman appears to be the brains of the impeachment operation, doing all the heavy lifting for Chairman Adam Schiff of the House Intelligence Committee.  Perhaps the most satisfying moment in the House Intelligence Committee’s impeachment hearing Monday came when Rep. Matt Gaetz confronted Goldman, the hired-gun counsel of the committee’s majority.  

Goldman was visibly uncomfortable as Gaetz began by asking him if he is non-partisan, and Goldman laughably claimed to be so.  Then Gaetz moved in for the kill, asking him, “Have you ever tweeted anything at the president?”

“I have made a number of tweets in my private capacity before I came to this job when I worked in the media,” Goldman replied.

“As a matter of fact, this is one of those tweets,” Gaetz said gleefully displaying the posterboard.

https://thefederalist.com/2019/12/12/steele-dossier-peddled-insane-conspiracy-theory-that-american-jews-were-secret-russian-spies/

The widely discredited Steele Dossier at the heart of the Russian collusion hoax peddled an insane conspiracy theory about how Russians were convincing Jewish Americans of Russian descent to download malicious malware on American computers.

On page five in the third paragraph of the dossier, former British spy Christopher Steele wrote that agents of the FSB, the Russian Federal Security Service, were approaching Russian-Jewish-Americans who worked in the IT industry to conduct covert operations.

“In terms of the FSB’s recruitment of capable cyber operatives to carry out its, ideally deniable, offensive cyber operations, a Russian IT specialist with direct knowledge reported in June 2016 that this was often done using coercion and blackmail,” Steele wrote. “In terms of ‘foreign’ agents, the FSB was approaching US citizens of Russian (Jewish) origin on business trip to Russia.”

The GOP’s Four-Point Defense Of Trump Is Devastating

During Thursday’s mark up of the articles of impeachment in the House Judiciary Committee, Republicans unveiled a four-point defense of President Trump that is stunning in its simplicity and blows massive holes in the Democrats allegations of abuse of power. Essentially the Democrats are accusing Trump of shaking down Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky by withholding aid and demanding announcement of investigations, including one involving Joe Biden’s son, Hunter.

To this, the central charge in the articles of impeachment, Rep. Jim Jordan and others presented four specific facts. First, both Trump and Zelensky say there was no pressure applied. Second, the transcript does not indicate Trump making any demands or setting any conditions. Third, Ukraine was not aware that the aid was delayed. And fourth, aid flowed without any announcement of investigations. Taken together, these four defenses have more than enough weight to crush the Democrats’ case, but lets look at them one by one.

The fact that Zelensky says on the record that he did not feel pressure from Trump is an important one that has been widely ignored. As Rep. Matt Gaetz argued, there can’t be a shake down if the person being shook down has no idea its happening. Unless Zelensky is lying, the entire case against Trump just disappears.

Democrats on Thursday, as they have before, but more vehemently so, said that of course Zelensky must be lying. He needs American aid so he is lying to stay on the good side of the president. Setting aside the fact that the Democrats making this claim have no evidence to support it, it also undermines the credibility of Zelensky, one of the very things they accuse Trump of doing.

As to the transcript itself, the GOP members honed in on the fact the “favor” in the conversation was not a “a favor for me,” but a “favor for us.” And later the “us” is clarified as “our country.” This also strikes at the core of a case that depends upon the claim that Trump’s only interest in Ukraine policy was getting dirt on Joe Biden to help himself politically.

When Trump says, after asking Zelensky to investigate Ukrainian interference in 2016, “our country has been through a lot.” He means the Mueller probe, and he’s not wrong. How much evidence or information about Russian interference exists in Ukraine is up for debate, but the fact that it is a legitimate subject of interest for the President is not.

One of the few facts in all of this where there is some debate is when exactly Ukraine became aware that the military aid had been delayed. But all versions place it very late in the timeline of events, certainly long after the July 25 phone call with Zelensky. That’s like trying to blackmail someone with scandalous photos of them without letting them know you have any scandalous photos of them. It’s impossible.

The delay of the aid was part of a wider set of concerns regarding how much Ukraine could be trusted with the money. Throughout the late summer and fall, through a set of meetings and phone calls with American officials Zelensky proved to Trump that he could be trusted. That is what Trump wanted to know and why he released the aid without any announcement of investigations.

And that final fact, that the aid was released without the announcements Democrats claim were the condition to release them, really puts the period on the sentence. Democrats claim the aid was only released on September 11 because the White House became aware of the whistleblower report. But this ignores the fact the aid had to release by September 30, and doing so is a two-week process.

So essentially, aid was released on or about the deadline set to release it. That is a much more plausible explanation for the timing than some whistleblower report spooking Trump. Is it possible Trump was angry at yet again being undermined by people in the federal government for exercising his legitimate powers? Sure. But there is no evidence to suggest that Trump was ever planning to ultimately kill the aid.

These four basic points will make up the core of the Republican defense of Trump on abuse of power charges. The White House should be very happy. Unlike the serpentine choose your own adventure story the Democrats have cooked up, this is a straightforward and simple defense, it can be explained quickly and it all makes perfect sense.
David Marcus is the Federalist’s New York Correspondent. Follow him on Twitter, @BlueBoxDave.

https://defensemaven.io/bluelivesmatter/news/new-law-will-prohibit-ny-judges-from-jailing-armed-suspects-who-resist-arrest-yaX0r7GzQEGrM-qb9QkuLA/

New York lawmakers eliminated cash bail for many violent offenses beginning January 1, 2020.

New York, NY – Under the City of New York’s so-called justice reforms, suspects will no longer be held in jail for carrying weapons beginning in January.

Offenders found in possession of a wide array of weapons – including guns, switchblades, swords, machetes, and stun guns – will instead be issued a “desk appearance ticket” and “set free,” the New York City Police Benevolent Association (PBA) pointed out in a Facebook post on Tuesday.

Lawmakers also eliminated cash bail for hundreds of other criminal charges.

“This law starts on Jan. 1st for ALL of New York, not just New York City,” the PBA noted in another post.

On Nov. 19, Queens Senior Executive Assistant District Attorney James Quinn released a complete list of the offenses that judges will no longer be able to set bail for.

“Under the new bail laws…Judges in New York State cannot set bail on any of the following crimes (and most attempts to commit these crimes), and must release the defendant on non-monetary conditions, regardless of criminal record, ties to the community or previous bench warrants on other cases,” Quinn wrote.

The list stretched on for four pages, and included offenses such as stalking, arson, resisting arrest, money laundering in support of terrorism, rioting, vehicular assault, unlawful imprisonment, negligent homicide, and a slew of drug-related charges.

Criminal offenses against children, including child abuse, promoting child prostitution, facilitating female genital mutilation, and possessing or promoting a sexual performance by a child will also be treated with a mandatory release.