RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/stacey-lennox/2020/06/29/sidney-powell-drops-a-bomb-or-two-on-the-glaring-problems-with-the-flynn-case-n588095

Sidney Powell won a significant victory when her writ of mandamus was granted by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals requiring Judge Sullivan to dismiss the case against General Michael Flynn. At this time, Judge Sullivan has not entered the dismissal. Powell sat down with Jan Jakielek for an extended interview about the case and dropped a few bombs in the process.

Powell began by saying it is extraordinary that Judge Sullivan has not complied with the order. In her experience, this would typically occur within 24-48 hours. The briefing and hearing schedule have both been canceled, but the case has not been formally dismissed. She added the full court could review the case, but in this circumstance, it would be unprecedented.

Her interest in the case was ongoing before she signed on the replace General Flynn’s prior defense team. Powell reports having ongoing concerns about the case, especially related to Andrew Weismann. Referring to him as the “lead villain” in her book “License to Lie,” she explained the prosecutor had a long history of making up crimes, hiding exculpatory evidence, and railroading people with the enormous power of the federal government.

https://www.ajc.com/news/local/opinion-hello-outrage-atlanta-shootings-surge-but-not-the-cops/pUYKjFGY8LcxSVlrHZpb4H/

https://www.ajc.com/news/local/opinion-hello-outrage-atlanta-shootings-surge-but-not-the-cops/pUYKjFGY8LcxSVlrHZpb4H/

The exchange was surreal, a sign that the wheels may be falling off public safety in Atlanta.

Fittingly, it happened Monday during the City Council’s Public Safety Committee hearing as council members and interim Police Chief Rodney Bryant were grappling with the unrest plaguing the city.

Councilman Antonio Brown, who represents the district just west of downtown, was getting ready to speak in the virtual meeting when he told the chief: “I was just notified there was a young man who was just shot and killed at 377 Westchester Boulevard. Can you get a unit out there? He’s been on the ground and there’s no police who have come. He’s dead already, he’s on the ground and the residents have put a sheet over him and the police still haven’t arrived.”

It sounds like Afghanistan: Can you please come and pick up the body?

But there’s more.

On June 13, as angry protesters milled around the south Atlanta Wendy’s the day after Rayshard Brooks was shot in the parking lot by a cop — and hours before the restaurant was burned down — there was a wild shootout in the Edgewood neighborhood in east Atlanta. Five people were wounded and two were killed. Residents reported hearing perhaps 40 gunshots.

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/police-investigating-protesters-after-confrontation-with-armed-st-louis-homeowners/

A couple pointed guns at protesters who were on private property outside their home Sunday night, as the demonstrators marched past on their way to St. Louis mayor Lyda Krewson’s residence to demand her resignation. Police are now investigating the incident to determine whether the protesters committed trespassing and fourth-degree assault by intimidation.

Mark and Patricia McCloskey stood outside their home on Portland Place, a private street, as hundreds of protesters, some of them armed, marched by and chanted. The McCloskeys had been inside their home when they heard loud activity outside and saw “a large group of subjects forcefully break an iron gate marked with ‘No Trespassing’ and ‘Private Street’ signs,” St. Louis police said.

“The group began yelling obscenities and threats of harm to both victims,” the police said. “When the victims observed multiple subjects who were armed, they then armed themselves and contacted police.”

Law experts have noted that Missouri’s Castle Doctrine allows homeowners to use deadly force to defend their private property from intruders.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/06/supreme-court-abortion-decision-chief-justice-john-roberts-misrules/

“One can only speculate why Chief Justice Roberts has engaged in his contortions. Perhaps he believes that this decision will somehow strengthen the legitimacy of the Supreme Court as an institution above political strife. Instead, he has reinforced the impression, on all sides of our national debates, that he is the most politically calculating of the justices. He has diminished the belief in the impartiality of judges among those Americans who have been most reluctant to give it up. What he has accomplished for his institution is further disgrace.”

The Constitution does not prohibit Louisiana from requiring abortionists to have admitting privileges in hospitals near where they operate. We know this fact from reading it; from the debates over the ratification of its provisions, none of which suggest that anyone believed that it could be used in such a fashion; and from the fact that for many decades states prohibited abortion altogether without anyone’s even alleging that they were violating the Constitution. Now five justices of the Supreme Court have conceded this obvious point.

The Court will not allow Louisiana this regulation anyway. Chief Justice John Roberts is one of the five justices who do not believe the law conflicts with the Constitution, rightly interpreted. He voted in 2016 that an identical Texas law should be upheld, and his opinion in the Louisiana case says that he still agrees with his reasoning then. Nevertheless, he claims to believe that the Louisiana law is too similar to the law that his colleagues in 2016 struck down over his dissent. The force of precedent, he maintains, requires the law to be nullified. Otherwise, Americans would lack confidence in the rule of law. It is, on the other hand, wonderfully inspiring to that confidence for a justice to strike down a law that he concedes the state had the constitutional authority to enact.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/one-mans-supreme-court-11593472794?mod=opinion_lead_pos1

So much for all those crocodile fears about the end of abortion rights. The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 Monday that a state can’t even require abortion providers to have admitting privileges at a hospital. And the logic of the concurring opinion from Chief Justice John Roberts, who provided the fifth vote, suggests not even de minimis regulation of abortion will survive his Court’s scrutiny.

A woman’s right to abortion wasn’t at issue in June Medical Services v. Russo. No woman seeking an abortion was a plaintiff. The case was brought by abortion providers, who claimed that Louisiana’s requirement that they have admitting privileges at a hospital would be an undue burden on the ability of women to obtain an abortion.

Here’s the stunner: Four years ago a different Court majority overturned a similar Texas statute, with then Justice Anthony Kennedy joining the four liberals. Chief Justice Roberts dissented in that case. Yet on Monday the Chief joined the liberals, citing his duty to follow precedent.