RUTHFULLY YOURS

The House Intelligence Committee closed its investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election, concluding there is “no evidence of collusion, coordination, or conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russians.” Rep. Mike Conaway (R-Texas), who led the committee’s probe, said his team interviewed 73 witnesses and reviewed more than 300,000 documents over the past 14 months.

But the media overlooked one damning nugget. The committee report disputes a key finding by President Obama’s intelligence team that Vladimir Putin and his regime “aspired to help President-elect Trump’s election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to him.” According to Conaway, trained analysts examined the underlying documents of the January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (which remain classified) and he said “the piece about Putin’s purported preference for Trump, we think, is not supported by the evidence. We disagree with them.”

Then why did the Intelligence Community make that claim? “That [IC review] started in early December and was finished in January, coinciding with an attack on the Trump presidency throughout that timeframe, and seemed to underpin that narrative that somehow Putin had more effect on the election than he should have, and delegitimize the Trump presidency,” Conaway told Tucker Carlson on Fox News. “That was a part of that narrative.”

Translation: Days before Trump’s inauguration, known political operatives—FBI Director James Comey, CIA Director John Brennan and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper—released a report with the imprimatur of the world’s most powerful intelligence apparatus to bolster the pernicious plotline that Putin helped Trump win the election and was henceforth an illegitimate president.

Considering the shameful post-election conduct by top Obama officials, including Comey and Brennan, and the possibility that Clapper leaked information to the press after he briefed Trump on the IC report, is anyone surprised? How many rats do we have to smell before we fumigate the nest? When will Americans get clear answers, and when will people publicly be held accountable for their role in propagating this ruse?

“It is important that when we refer to gun violence, we do not overlook the impact of police brutality and militarized policing, or see police in schools as a solution. We also recognize the United States has exported gun violence through imperialist foreign policy to destabilize other nations. We raise our voices for action against all these forms of gun violence.”

On the one-month anniversary of the shooting massacre at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, students and teachers across the country walked out of school at 10 a.m. Wednesday morning. Spearheaded by the Youth Empower branch of the Women’s March group, the walkout included at least 3,136 events nationwide.

Many demonstrations included 17 minutes of silence — one minute for each person who was killed by gunman Nikolas Cruz, who is in police custody. Prosecutors on Tuesday indicated they would seek the death penalty.

The Women’s March organizers described their impetus for the walkout this way: “We are living in an age where young people like us do not feel safe in our schools. This issue is personal for all of us, especially for those of us who are survivors of gun violence. We are walking out for all people who have experienced gun violence, including systemic forms of gun violence that disproportionately impact teens in black and brown communities.”

They added: “It is important that when we refer to gun violence, we do not overlook the impact of police brutality and militarized policing, or see police in schools as a solution. We also recognize the United States has exported gun violence through imperialist foreign policy to destabilize other nations. We raise our voices for action against all these forms of gun violence.”

Government officials and other donors have routed big money to pliable politicians through “charities” whose controls are purposefully gamed for too long.

The worst offenses typically occur in high-tax states, including California, where claiming “fake” contributions offers donors the biggest after-tax value, assuming the IRS and state taxing authorities look the other way, which they do all too frequently.

With President Donald Trump well along in replacing Obama-era holdovers in the Department of Justice and the IRS, rising California Democrats like Sen. Kamala Harris and Attorney General Xavier Becerra (shown above) must abandon any public pretense of supporting the Clinton family record of fake philanthropy inside and outside the United States.

The potential costs of not doing so are growing, as maturing investigations into Clinton Foundation charity frauds by the IRS, FBI and multiple foreign governments gather momentum. So helping to cover up crimes that began in 1997 and escalated to the present is certainly not a viable option in any U.S. state, even those long controlled by Democrats.

Will Becerra finally enforce California’s strict laws? And will Harris encourage her colleagues in the U.S. Senate to bring America’s outdated system of regulating complex charities into the 21st century?

Or will both of these Democrats continue to remain in thrall to the Clintons and either help cover up or simply look the other way on blatantly illegal fundraising by their false-front and fake charities?

California should stop protecting Illegal Clinton charities. The Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation filed Its 2016 Annual Report to California on Form RRF-1 seven days past the final deadline on Nov. 22, 2017. This key document was subsequently rejected.

That means the best-known Clinton charity has not been operating in full compliance with California laws for months, an adverse fact that should have been disclosed in other U.S. states where Clinton charities solicit donations, especially including New York.

Another glaring problem with the rejected California filing is that the total revenues of $77 million declared for the whole of the Clinton Foundation are much less than the $217 million in combined grants and contributions claimed on its 2016 external audit, which is available on page 5.

The calculation is: Total contributions of $135,445,489 plus total grants of $81,153,172 equal combined revenues of $216,598,561, which rounds up to $217 million. This large discrepancy is only part of the problems facing the Clinton Foundation in California.

This week the Republican majority of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) announced the conclusion of its investigation into Russia and the 2016 U.S. election, concluding in a summary of the draft report, “We have found no evidence of collusion, coordination, or conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russians.”

As they say, HPSCI hath no fury like a Schiff scorned.

Naturally, the Democratic congressman and prominent Russiagate peddler Rep. Adam Schiff was incredulous.

Fascinatingly, in his press release castigating the Republican-led committee for closing its probe into among other things collusion between Russian officials and the Trump campaign that Schiff has adamantly alleged for over a year, the very word “collusion” was absent. Let us put a finer point on it: Those who subscribe to the Russiagate conspiracy theory have settled on “collusion” with Russia as the central charge against the Trump administration. Schiff has screamed it from the rooftops. Is it not curious this this allegation is missing from Schiff’s latest missive, replaced by “Russian interference” and the “the role of U.S. persons connected to the Trump campaign in that intervention?”

Let us also recognize that under a presidency that has generated hyperbolic partisan action ranging from a slew of attacks on President Trump’s mental fitness pointing towards 25th Amendment removal, to the drawing of impeachment papers, “collusion” would appear to be a relatively restrained charge. This might indicate an implicit lack of confidence in there being any “there” there among the president’s detractors and believers in nefarious Russia dealings.
‘Collusion’ Is Not In Itself A Crime

The trouble with the notion of “collusion” — or perhaps its attractiveness depending on your perspective — is that it is an amorphous catchall. It does not constitute a crime. The closest related crime would be a conspiracy to commit an offense against or defraud the United States. Therefore, in context of a special counsel investigation for example, which requires that a crime be cited, it should be meaningless.

Will Democrats decide to be the party of Conor Lamb, whose moderate message seems to have won over a Trump district in Pennsylvania? Or will Democrats define themselves as the activists who mount a “resistance” against our duly-elected President but still struggle to resist the charms of Louis Farrakhan?

Today’s news brings this question into sharp relief. Mr. Lamb appears to have won a congressional seat in a district that Donald Trump carried by 19 points in 2016. Meanwhile, the radical Women’s March organization beloved by so many Democrats has rolled out its latest production.

Time magazine reports:

It’s been exactly one month since the deadly shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School — and some are choosing a somber way to pay tribute to the 17 people killed in the Parkland massacre.

Thousands of students and teachers began walking out of their classrooms on Wednesday, March 14 as part of the the #Enough! National School Walkout to raise awareness about issues of school safety and the impact of gun violence. The nationwide march, organized by Women’s March Youth Empower, began at 10 a.m. Many marches lasted 17 minutes, to represent each of the victims of the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School.

It’s perhaps unreasonable to expect the children who are missing class to be aware of all the people with whom they are associating. But their parents should exercise some care.

On Saturday, Masha Gessen wrote in the New Yorker about Women’s March Co-President Tamika Mallory’s ties to Mr. Farrakhan:

Two weeks ago, when Farrakhan delivered his annual address to a Nation of Islam gathering in Chicago, he gave a shout-out to Mallory, who was in the audience. Farrakhan’s speech was, as it usually is, replete with anti-Semitic, homophobic, and transphobic invectives. When the news of Mallory’s presence at the event surfaced, she did not disavow Farrakhan’s comments. (Mallory and fellow Women’s March leader Carmen Perez have both posted pictures of themselves with Farrakhan to Instagram; in a caption, Mallory calls him “definitely the goat”—the greatest of all time.)

After some public criticism, Women’s March eventually released a statement which condemned hatred but did not condemn Mr. Farrakhan. The statement said that his comments were “not aligned” with those of the organization.

Upon reviewing the comments, many voters would no doubt go much further than simply saying his views are not aligned with theirs. In the Chicago Tribune this week, Clarence Page details some of Mr. Farrakhan’s remarks at the event attended by the Women’s March leader:

Here, for example, are a few quick quotes from his speech to the Nation’s recent annual Saviours’ Day program in Chicago’s Wintrust Arena: The “powerful Jews,” he told the audience of thousands, “are my enemy.”

The Jews are also “the mother and father of apartheid,” he said, and “responsible for all of this filth and degenerate behavior that Hollywood is putting out turning men into women and women into men”

“Farrakhan has pulled the cover off the eyes of the Satanic Jew and I’m here to say your time is up, your world is through,” he said, getting thoroughly revved up. “You good Jews better separate because the satanic ones will take you to hell with them because that’s where they are headed.”

Mr. Page’s column is entitled, “How Farrakhan kills the joy in identity politics.” It remains unclear how dividing Americans by their demographic characteristics is a joyful experience. But the inability to resist associating with Mr. Farrakhan extends beyond activists to elected Democratic members of Congress. Journal contributor Jeryl Bier has been chronicling the problem in recent months, highlighting the changing story offered by Democratic National Committee Deputy Chairman Rep. Keith Ellison. CONTINUE AT SITE

Attorney General Jeff Sessions faces a decision that will be controversial no matter what he does: Fire former Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe, or overrule the recommendation of the FBI’s own internal investigators.

The recommendation to fire Mr. McCabe isn’t coming from Donald Trump or Russian bots. It comes from the FBI’s Office of Professional Responsibility. News reports say it is based on a finding from the Justice Department’s Inspector General that Mr. McCabe authorized the disclosure of sensitive information to a Wall Street Journal reporter about the investigation into the Clinton Foundation—and then lied about it to IG investigators.

The IG report remains secret, but it’s hard to believe the FBI would recommend such punishment if it did not believe Mr. McCabe’s actions were a serious breach of duty. The bureau’s recommendation is in marked contrast to the endorsement from his old boss, former FBI Director James Comey, who tweeted in January that Mr. McCabe “stood tall” as “small people were trying to tear down an institution we all depend on.” Did St. Jim know about his comrade’s alleged deception?

Mr. McCabe is connected to controversial FBI investigations into both presidential candidates in 2016, and in January he said he would formally retire on March 18 when he would have enough seniority to qualify for his pension. Firing him early could cost him that lifetime payout.

The American people still don’t know what went on at the FBI during those 2016 investigations. Several FBI and Justice officials will soon testify to the House Intelligence Committee. Perhaps Mr. McCabe’s firing would persuade them that there are consequences for untruthfulness. Time and again we have been assured of the FBI’s high standards. Imagine how Mr. McCabe would treat an American citizen who lied to the FBI.