RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/matt-margolis/2023/06/15/gop-congressman-brilliantly-destroys-dei-during-hearing-n1703542

Joe Biden has done all sorts of things to compensate for the fact that he’s just an old white guy in a party that basically hates white people. He picked a black woman as his running mate, pledged to nominate a black woman to the Supreme Court, and routinely nominates people for various positions based on what diversity boxes they check off, rather than their competence. Under his administration, multiple government agencies have Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion offices to effectively mandate diversity in each department.

On Tuesday, Rep. Brian Mast (R-Fla.) questioned Ambassador Gina Abercrombie-Winstanley, the outgoing chief diversity and inclusion officer of the State Department (and the first person to hold that position), during a hearing on Capitol Hill and with incredible precision destroyed the entire justification of Abercrombie-Winstanley’s position.

Mast began by asking her if being bald, 5’-8”, or 6’-3” tall makes someone a better diplomat. Abercrombie-Winstanley began by laughing but eventually said no.

“Likewise, does being white make somebody a better diplomat?’ Mast continued.

“No, I do not believe so,” she responded.

Mast continued asking the same question of African Americans, Asians, Islanders, Native Americans, or any specific group, to which she affirmed that the answer was that “it doesn’t.”

Mast then asked her if he was white. Abercrombie-Winstanley couldn’t answer the question, repeatedly telling him she didn’t know.

http://www.swtotd.blogspot.com

“A modern American industrial strategy identifies specific sectors that are foundational to economic growth, strategic from a national security perspective, and where private industry on its own isn’t poised to make the investments needed to secure our national ambitions.”Jake Sullivan, National Security Adviser Brookings Institution, April 27, 2023

The presumption in Jake Sullivan’s words, quoted above, are astounding – that there is a, yet-to-be-named, “modern American strategy,” which identifies “specific,” but unstated, “sectors that are foundational to economic growth,” which are “strategic from a national security perspective.” But since the private sector has neither the means nor the foresight to “secure our national ambitions” (whatever they are), then it must be left to the public sector to decide how much and where to invest, decisions prior administrations from both parties have left to markets. Sullivan refers to this as Bidenomics. In reality it is central planning.

Greg Ip, in last weekend’s edition of The Wall Street Journal, wrote of Mr. Sullivan’s speech: “Sullivan’s target was what some in the policy world call neoliberalism: the free trade, laissez faire economic priorities shared by Republican and Democratic administrations for decades.” “Executive policy-making,” wrote Christopher DeMuth, a distinguished fellow at the Hudson Institute, in the same issue, “has an ideological basis – that of ‘expertise,’ which holds that modern life demands government by expert administrators in place of amateur legislators.” When did Karl Marx replace Adam Smith?

Certainly, there have been times when government has had to take the lead – in times of war, in building the interstate highway system, DARPA, NASA, etc. But the concept that a state-mandated industrial policy is the wave of the future is to believe that Russia, China, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, etc. have brought to their people greater efficiencies, higher living standards, a cleaner environment, and greater financial opportunity and equality than the democracy and free market capitalism of the United States, and the West.

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/19725/donald-trump-lawyer

There are disturbing suggestions that among the reasons lawyers are declining the case is because they fear legal and career reprisals.

There is a nefarious group that calls itself The 65 Project that has as its goal to intimidate lawyers into not representing Trump or anyone associated with him. They have threatened to file bar charges against any such lawyers.

I wrote an op-ed offering to defend pro bono any lawyers that The 65 Project goes after. So The 65 Project immediately went after me, and contrived a charge based on a case in which I was a constitutional consultant, but designed to send a message to potential Trump lawyers: If you defend Trump or anyone associated with him, we will target you and find something to charge you with. The lawyers to whom I spoke are fully aware of this threat — and they are taking it seriously…. It may even be worse today….

Good lawyers… generally welcome challenges, especially in high-profile cases. This case is different: the threats to the lawyers are greater than at any time since McCarthyism. Nor is the comparison to McCarthyism a stretch. I recall during the 1950s how civil liberties lawyers, many of whom despised communism, were cancelled, and attacked if they dared to represent people accused of being communists.

Our system of justice is based on the John Adams standard: he too was attacked for defending the British soldiers accused of the Boston Massacre, but his representation of these accused killers now serves as a symbol of the 6th Amendment right to counsel. That symbol has now been endangered….

Trump’s lawyers have now alleged that one of the prosecutors has suggested to Stanley Woodward, the lawyer for Waltine Nauta, Trump’s co-defendant, that his application for judgeship may be negatively affected if he persists in defending Nauta vigorously rather than encouraging him to cooperate against Trump. If that is true – and I have not seen the evidence to support it – then it represents a direct attack on the 6th Amendment.

Whatever one may think of Trump or the charges against him, all Americans must stand united against efforts to intimidate lawyers and chill them from defending unpopular clients pursuant to the 6th Amendment. Bar associations must look into the threats and actions of The 65 Project and of prosecutors who try… to influence the representation of clients by threats to their careers or other means.

Hard cases may make bad law but partisan cases endanger constitutional rights. We must do everything to assure that all defendants, including Donald Trump, get the zealous representation to which the Constitution entitled all Americans.

Former President Donald Trump has now been arraigned and pleaded not guilty. He was represented by two lawyers, neither of whom he apparently wants to lead his defense at trial. He has been interviewing Florida lawyers, and several top ones have declined. I know, because I have spoken to them. There are disturbing suggestions that among the reasons lawyers are declining the case is because they fear legal and career reprisals.

https://amgreatness.com/2023/06/14/indict-walt-nauta-why-not-the-biggest-liars-first/

Walt Nauta is a 10-year-Navy veteran and served as an aide to former President Trump both in and out of office. 

Special Counsel Jack Smith has now indicted him for allegedly “making false statements in interviews with the FBI.” The indictment’s subtext is that Nauta refused to cooperate with, and turn state’s evidence to, the special counsel in its efforts to convict the former president. 

But why stop the indictments with a man who loyally served and followed the orders of the former president of the United States, was a Navy veteran, and a hard-working immigrant from Guam? 

Are there not far bigger fish to fry to remind Americans that justice is blind? 

After all, when Special Counsel Smith announced his indictments of Trump, he lectured America on the rule of law and the cherished notion that no one is above it. 

So let us start with the former interim director of the FBI itself, Andrew McCabe. 

McCabe admittedly lied four times about his illegally leaking sensitive information to witnesses and mishandling classified information. 

Have those crimes suddenly ceased being felonies? 

Or is it now the policy of the United States government that an FBI director can lie with impunity, and leak, and mishandle sensitive classified information? 

Yet Walt Nauta may be sent to prison while McCabe will continue to earn a fine salary at CNN as a paid “expert” to deplore . . . what exactly?