RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/12/the_sham_that_is_the_mueller_investigation.html

Special Counsel Robert Mueller has finally provided his team’s sentencing recommendation for three-star general Michael Flynn. He has acknowledged that Flynn has provided 19 separate interviews with the Mueller team. The heavily redacted report provides no information concerning the testimony that Flynn provided. Flynn had pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI during the investigation of Russian collusion with the Trump campaign during the 2016 presidential election.

Flynn has had to sell his home to pay his legal bills during this process. His 33-year career serving our country seems to have meant little to the prosecutors trying to get him to turn on Trump. Although we have no direct evidence for his sudden decision last year to plead guilty and cooperate, many believe that this was done to protect his son from being prosecuted. This is the type of prosecutorial overreach that borders on ethical violations. It certainly makes us wonder: what is prosecutorial discretion?

Shockingly, the basis for this investigation includes citation of the Logan Act of the 19th century, limiting foreign negotiations by the general public. Most observers believe that the transition team is not subject to this law, which has rarely been used and never successfully when challenged in court. Unfortunately, the FBI investigators reported that they did not believe that Flynn was intentionally lying when questioned about his interaction with then-Russian ambassador Kislyak.

The report includes recognition that he did not register when doing work for the government of Turkey. This is usually corrected by paper changes, not prosecution. Further, all the information that led to the inquiry was collected through government communication-gathering. Though the government is required to minimize the mention of names of U.S. citizens, this information was leaked to damage Flynn and ultimately Trump.

So far, most of the Mueller prosecutions have been process crimes and not ones with any connection to Russian collusion. This includes George Papadopoulos and Michael Cohen. This makes one wonder why Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein began this inquiry in the first place. It is hard to dismiss all the unequal justice, including the questionable FISA warrant on Carter Page, begun with a phony Russian dossier.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/12/supreme-court-racial-preferences-affirmative-action/

The Supreme Court could be ready to rule that racial discrimination is illegal, even if it is purportedly done for a good cause.

Editor’s Note: The following is the sixth in a series of articles in which Mr. Yoo and Mr. Phillips lay out a course of constitutional restoration, pointing out areas where the Supreme Court has driven the Constitution off its rails and the ways the current Court can put it back on track. The first entry is available here, the second here, the third here, the fourth here, and the fifth here.

America has a race problem. It has always had a race problem. Slavery, as many have observed, is America’s original sin. The challenge that will confront the new Roberts Court is how far it will allow government to make amends for that sin, while preventing a new elite of social engineers from jury-rigging the right racial balances — all in the name of a racial diversity that has suddenly became an end of a just society, rather than merely a means. As with its passages on religion, the Second Amendment, or the role of the courts, the Constitution’s command is relatively clear. It is the Court’s past failures to live up to principle that has kept the issue in doubt, but the confirmation of Justice Brett Kavanaugh may finally put it to rest.

More than 150 years after the end of slavery, 60 years after the end of public-school segregation, and two years after America’s first black president left the Oval Office, accusations of racism fill our airwaves and screens. Democrats fresh off a solid midterm victory in Congress still claim that the suppression of minority voting cost them governorships and Senate seats, despite voter turnout that reached heights not seen since 1914. On the other hand, those same Democrats argue that governments should use racial data to draw voter districts and hand out government contracts, and argue that state and local police harbor such racial animus against minorities as to shoot them at high rates.

Meanwhile, Asian students have uncovered evidence that Harvard University has used ridiculous stereotypes to engineer the right racial balances in its admissions process. As a recent lawsuit against the Ivy League school has revealed, Asian Americans consistently make up just 19 percent of the student body, despite an increasing percentage of Asian-American college students nationwide. Asians score higher than any other group on academic criteria and extracurricular activities. If academic merit alone determined admissions, the university admitted that Asians would make up 43 percent of the student body, about the same level reached at the University of California at Berkeley after California ended affirmative action by popular initiative.