RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/02/roger-stone-may-speak-at-his-own-risk-according-to-constitution/

A judge’s desire to run a tight ship is worthy, but it is secondary.

If I were the prosecutor on Roger Stone’s case, I’d be delighted that he continues to speak out publicly.

Capitol Hill has finally started to take notice of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s brass-knuckles investigative tactics: Rather than call defense counsel to arrange Stone’s surrender on charges of misleading Congress that have been expected for months, Mueller had dozens of well-armed agents swarm Stone’s home as if it were Osama bin Laden’s compound. But Stone’s lunatic theories, spun nightly on cable TV, make Mueller look downright judicious. In his latest rant, Stone deduces that “Russian collusion” is Mueller’s pretext not just to nail to him, but to impeach both President Trump and Vice President Pence, then install Speaker Nancy Pelosi and, finally, Hillary Clinton as president. Mueller, of course, has not even charged Stone with a conspiracy, or anything to do with Russia’s espionage; and in the many indictments he has filed, the prosecutor has never hinted at criminal misconduct by Trump, much less Pence.

As I mentioned to Rich Lowry during The McCarthy Report podcast this week, Stone’s statements in the raucous press conference outside the courthouse the day he was arrested were about 90 percent of the way to a guilty plea. The defendant conceded that, sure, he may have made some untrue statements in his congressional testimony, but they were surely immaterial or the result of failed recollection. Good luck with that. On CNN a few days later, while stressing that he had no advance knowledge of the WikiLeaks disclosures of Democratic emails, Stone acknowledged, “I always said that there could be some process crime.” Not the best approach when the indictment does not accuse you of such advance knowledge but does charge seven felony counts of process crime.

Still, the fact that it is not in Stone’s interest to keep talking does not vitiate his First Amendment right to do so.

Payrolls surge by 304,000, smashing estimates despite government shutdown

Job growth in January shattered expectations, with nonfarm payrolls surging by 304,000, the Labor Department says.
Economists surveyed by Dow Jones had expected payrolls to rise by 170,000.
There were revisions. December’s big initially reported gain of 312,000 was knocked all the way down to 222,000, while November’s rose from 176,000 to 196,000.
The unemployment rate ticked higher to 4 percent, a level where it had last been in June, a likely effect of the shutdown, according to the department.

U.S. jobless claims dropped to lowest in 50 years

The number of Americans filing jobless claims fell to the lowest in close to 50 years last week. Based on historical trends, LPL Financial analysts argue this could signal a recession is further off than many expect.

The big picture: Jobless claims are a leading indicator, LPL Research Chief Investment Strategist John Lynch says. Historically, a 75,000–100,000 increase in claims over a 26-week period has been associated with a recession.

“The U.S. labor market remains strong and will help buoy consumer health and output growth this year,” Lynch said.

Yes, but: The data excludes 380,000 workers who went without pay because of the political impasse over President Trump’s plan to build a wall along the Mexican border.

https://amgreatness.com/2019/01/31/the-real-reason

After what seemed to be a done deal following a relatively smooth public hearing last week, the Senate Judiciary Committee now has delayed until February 7 the vote to confirm William Barr, President Trump’s nominee for attorney general. The reason, according to news reports, is lingering concerns about how Trump’s incoming attorney general would manage the investigation of Special Counsel Robert Mueller, which is soon expected to conclude.

Despite Barr’s repeated assurances that he will follow Justice Department rules in his handling of Mueller’s final report, as well as a pledge to resist any attempted interference by the White House, Democrats on the committee remain unconvinced. “[Barr’s] answer was not particularly reassuring or clear as to the public disclosure of the Mueller report,” Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) told MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell earlier this week.

Democrats also have accused Barr of bias against the Mueller investigation based on a detailed memo he authored last year that objected to the special counsel’s reported interest in whether President Trump obstructed justice. Some have suggested Barr should recuse himself from the investigation, which would be a repeat of a terrible mistake made by former Attorney General Jeff Sessions in 2017.

The committee’s vote is scheduled to take place one day before acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker testifies in front of the House Judiciary Committee on a number of topics, including the Mueller probe; Trump foes claim Whitaker should have recused himself from oversight of the investigation based on some of his past comments, even though a Justice Department ethics review cleared him of any conflicts.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/01/abortion-new-york-virginia-bills-expand-injustice/

Explicit support for abortion “all the way up to 40 weeks” is increasingly becoming a mainstream Democratic position. The quote is from Kathy Tran, a Virginia state legislator; but her bill has the support of the state’s supposedly moderate governor, Ralph Northam, who in defending it suggested that in some circumstances a full-term child should be delivered and then (at least) allowed to die.

Most Democrats still would not go as far as Northam. But Tran’s position is shared by New York Democrats, who have passed a law stipulating that abortion at any stage of pregnancy is legal so long as an abortionist says it is necessary to protect a pregnant woman’s health. The law does not claim that the pregnancy itself has to threaten her health and does not limit health to physical health. It is a restriction designed to be unenforceable, and thus also to be deceptive.

Many of the leading Democratic presidential candidates have endorsed similar federal legislation: It would wipe away any state laws that protected unborn children even late in pregnancy. Bans could remain on the books only if they included health exceptions rendering them, too, unenforceable.