The Patriot Post Digest 6-20-2017

________________________________________
The Patriot Post Digest 6-20-2017
From The Federalist Patriot
Free Email Subscription
________________________________________

Mid-Day Digest

Jun. 20, 2017

IN TODAY’S EDITION

There are questions raised by Mueller’s choices for his investigative team.
SCOTUS gives a boost to the First Amendment.
Trial by media is not justice, and two recent cases illustrate that quite well.
Daily Features: Top Headlines, Cartoons, Columnists and Short Cuts.

THE FOUNDATION

“Man, once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous, and like a ship without rudder, is the sport of every wind. With such persons, gullibility, which they call faith, takes the helm from the hand of reason and the mind becomes a wreck.” —Thomas Jefferson (1822)

TOP RIGHT HOOKS

Impartial Investigators or Hit Squad?1

Several weeks ago, we asked2 whether Robert Mueller’s investigation into President Donald Trump and the whole Russia fiasco was legitimate or a witch hunt. It’s enough that he’s an old friend and virtual mentor for James Comey3, but we’re discovering much more about the investigation by virtue of the team Mueller is putting in place.

Among that team are three individuals with troubling ties to the Clintons and Democrats. Anthony Weismann is a prosecutor who’s given a lot of money to Barack Obama and Democrats. Aaron Zebley represented Justin Cooper, who was a Hillary aide and one of two people with access to Clinton’s clandestine email server — Cooper helped set it up. Perhaps most questionable is Jeannie Rhee, who worked for Eric Holder, gave $16,000 to Democrats in the last nine years, and, the kicker, represented Hillary Clinton in the lawsuit over her emails and defended the Clinton Foundation in a racketeering lawsuit.

Nevertheless, former independent counsel Ken Starr said of Mueller, “He has his head down, he’s doing his job, he’s assembled a fantastic team. That is a great, great team of complete professionals, so let’s let him do his job.” Mueller is indeed respected on both sides of the aisle. And yet…

The appointments prompt questions about the team’s objectives and impartiality. Can having Clinton attack dogs on the case be a good sign for Trump? Newt Gingrich doesn’t think so. “Republicans are delusional if they think the special counsel is going to be fair,” he said. “The fix is in.” Lefty Harvard legal scholar Alan Dershowitz warned the investigation was becoming “too political,” saying, “In a partisan atmosphere like this, you have to be so careful not to give the other side the ability to claim prejudice. And I think they have given the other side the ability to claim prejudice.” And former Clinton advisor Dick Morris asserted, “This is not a special prosecutor’s staff; this is a hit squad.”

Strategically, there are two possibilities. One, investigators are going to rabbit trail and find something, somewhere about Russia or something else, and then make a referral to the House to trip up the GOP ahead of the 2018 election. The question of impeachment will be hung around Republican necks, which will be especially troubling for Republicans in marginal districts.

Two, contrary to Dershowitz, Mueller has diversified his team so that when they find nothing, they’ll be immune from charges of partisanship. Let’s hope it’s the latter, but brace for the former.

SCOTUS Rules in Favor of Free Speech4

The Supreme Court ruled in an unanimous 8-0 decision Monday to strike down the Patent and Trademark Office’s denial of trademark for an offensive band name. The case in question was brought by the Asian-American band The Slants, who had been denied a trademark on the basis that their name was deemed disparaging and offensive. The government argued that trademarks did not fall under First Amendment protections of free speech because they weren’t private speech — in fact, that a trademark is government sanctioned speech. Therefore, the government argued, when the government reviews trademark applications it is free to deny granting them based on what it deems offensive or disparaging.

Thankfully, the Supreme Court correctly saw the government’s contorted rationale for what it was — a justification to deny freedom of speech. Justice Samuel Alito stated, “We have said time and again that ‘the public expression of ideas may not be prohibited merely because the ideas are themselves offensive to some of their hearers.’” He continued, “We now hold that this provision violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. It offends a bedrock First Amendment principle: Speech may not be banned on the ground that it expresses ideas that offend.”

Not only is the Supreme Court’s ruling good news for The Slants, but it holds positive implications for the National Football League’s Washington Redskins. In 2014, the Patent and Trademark Office canceled the trademark5 on the team’s name because it deemed “Redskins” to be “disparaging” to Native Americans. Lost on the social justice warrior yahoos is that no one names their team something they find disparaging. The Redskins’ appeal is currently stuck in the Fourth Circuit Court, but this ruling should inform the lower court’s decision.

Americans should rejoice over the fact that freedom of speech has been protected from those who would seek to prevent it, no matter how “noble” their cause may have been. And this should be a reminder that there will always be those who will seek through the power of government to silence the speech of those with whom they find offense or disagreement.

Top Headlines6

Otto Warmbier dead; former U.S. prisoner of North Korea, sent home in a coma, was 22. (Fox News7)

Recalculation of illegal votes by non-citizens puts number closer to Trump’s. (The Washington Times8.)

Republicans introduce new gun-carry legislation in wake of Alexandria attack. (The Washington Free Beacon9)

Demos block witnesses from testifying in House intel probe. (The Washington Free Beacon10)

Washington Post: Hey, maybe single-payer health care isn’t such a great idea. (Hot Air11)

Demos plan to halt Senate business over GOP health bill. (Hot Air12)

Parties brace for outcome of Georgia election — most expensive House race ever. (The Hill13)

EPA ends $1 million taxpayer-funded gym membership program. (The Washington Free Beacon14)

VA whistleblower who testified in Congress stripped of job duties in Atlanta. (Washington Examiner15)

Canadians could be jailed or fined for using incorrect gender pronouns. (The Daily Signal16)

Policy: Don’t bail out failing states like Illinois. (Investor’s Business Daily17)

Policy: Wisconsin’s remarkable job growth should be celebrated. (E2118.)

For more, visit Patriot Headline Report19.

What Are You Doing For Liberty?

Sometimes readers ask us what good a donation to The Patriot Post will do in the fight for Liberty. Good question. The answer is that we’re a leading advocate of Liberty and limited government through our hard-hitting daily news analysis. By covering the latest headline stories from a constitutional perspective, we provide grassroots Patriots with the tools needed to spread the word and make a real difference.

To protect the integrity of our content, we have never accepted advertising, which inevitably influences objective analysis. Nor have we ever charged a subscription fee, which would limit our ability to reach large numbers of students or those on fixed incomes.

But we depend on your generosity to keep this resource coming. If you are able to financially support our steadfast promotion of Liberty, please support The Patriot Fund20 today. Thank you for standing with us! —Nate Jackson, Managing Editor

Don’t Miss Patriot Humor

Check out Don’t Be a Stupid Hog21.

If you’d like to receive Patriot Humor by email, update your subscription here22.

FEATURED RIGHT ANALYSIS
Trial by Media23

By Paul Albaugh

Far too often when a crime occurs, people often tend to rush to judgment on who did it, what happened, why it happened and what the consequences should be for those involved. In today’s age, with everyone having endless information at their fingertips, this has become commonplace.

The mainstream media is guilty of rushing to judgment on most issues, and tragic events such as a death or murder are no exception. It can also be said that the mainstream media often pours gasoline on the fire — all to keep people tuned in to the disaster. More often than not, tragedies end up being glorified by continuous coverage and the speculations and opinions spewed forth by the “news experts” are designed more to get people talking than they are to carefully weigh the facts.

________________________________________
The Patriot Post Digest 6-20-2017
From The Federalist Patriot
Free Email Subscription
________________________________________

It’s as if the accused are going through trial by media before they get to their trial by jury. Two criminal cases decided on Friday serve as examples.

The first case involved Minnesota police officer, Jeronimo Yanez, who shot to death Philando Castile during a traffic stop in July of last year. Yanez faced a trial by jury and was acquitted of manslaughter24 and all other charges related to the incident.

Recall that the media had repeated the narrative that Officer Yanez had murdered an armed but law-abiding citizen who had done nothing wrong, and it was most likely, the story went, because of racism. The facts presented to the jury showed that Officer Yanez was following protocol. Castile lawfully informed Yanez that he was carrying a firearm, although he told25 the officer after being asked for his driver’s license. Yanez told Castile “don’t reach for it” once and “don’t pull it out” twice before he opened fire on Castile, who was reaching for something.

It really doesn’t matter what Castile was reaching for — as Officer Yanez testified, he felt that his life was in danger. Castile’s girlfriend, who was in the passenger seat at the time, insisted Castile was reaching for his driver’s license, not his gun. What is undisputed is that Castile was reaching for something. Should Officer Yanez have been a bit clearer in his instructions? Absolutely. Should Castile have stopped reaching for whatever he was reaching for and placed his hands in view and asked for clearer instructions from officer Yanez? Absolutely.

Tragically, Castile lost his life. Yanez, despite being acquitted, has been relieved of his duties as a law enforcement officer and will live the rest of his life with the decision he made that day. Yanez is certain to face more trial by media on the verdict, but, with the facts before them, the jury could not “beyond a reasonable doubt” charge Yanez with manslaughter.

The second case involved Michelle Carter, a young woman who was found guilty26 of involuntary manslaughter — Massachusetts Judge Lawrence Moniz found her responsible for the death of her boyfriend, Conrad Roy III. (Carter waived her right to a trial by jury.) Carter had been sending her boyfriend text messages and calling him in the days and weeks ahead of his death, telling him repeatedly to kill himself.

Some commentators condemned the decision. National Review’s David French called it a “terrible verdict26,” arguing that Carter should not be held responsible for her boyfriend’s death because Roy was the one who carried out the action in killing himself. Meanwhile, Hot Air’s Jazz Shaw echoed similar sentiments and argued27 that Carter in essence has been charged with a thought crime. That is, she thought that her boyfriend should kill himself and she told him to do so. Do we really want the courts punishing people for their thoughts and words?

Carter arguably had the right to say what she did to her boyfriend, but were her words consequence free? Was it right that she initiated a form of psychological bullying to the point that it prompted her boyfriend to take his own life? Words have meaning and words have consequences — ask Rep. Steve Scalise28. Roy was mentally unstable and it seems that Carter may be as well.

The point of briefly covering these two cases is this: We have a justice system in place to decide cases. We should not rush to judge other people based on a few newspaper headlines or breaking news stories that rarely ever present all of the facts and evidence. The American justice system features the concept of innocent until proven guilty, and that hasn’t changed despite news stories that portray people as guilty until proven innocent. Americans have the right to a trial by jury for a reason — so that all of the evidence and facts can be presented and decided by our peers.

Is our justice system perfect? Do all trials end up with justice being truly served? Sadly no, but the media would serve the public far better if it would do more reporting and less adjudicating, and leave the rest up to the jurors and the court system.

MORE ANALYSIS FROM THE PATRIOT POST

America’s Integrity Crisis29 — As a society we have moral values, ethics and other rules that we should uphold at all times and under all circumstances.
Trump Signs Apprenticeship Executive Order30 — The EO rolls back regulations and streamlines the process for employers to offer apprenticeship programs.

BEST OF RIGHT OPINION

Stephen Moore: Fast Growth, and Lots of It, Is Right Around the Corner31
Rich Lowry: Yes, Hate Speech Is Free Speech32
Tony Perkins: Daleiden Charges: And the Arrest Is History33

For more, visit Right Opinion34.

OPINION IN BRIEF

Stephen Moore: “Every Obama budget forecast that annual growth would reach 3.5 to 4.5 percent. Bullish growth was just around the corner. (Remember Joe Biden’s ‘Recovery Summer’ tour?) Consider how these bullish forecasts squared with reality. In 2009 they said we would get growth up to 4.6 percent. In 2010 they said we would get growth of 4.3 percent. In 2011 they said we would get growth of 4.4 percent. In 2012 they said we would get growth of 4.1 percent. In 2013 they said we would get growth of 3.6 percent. In 2014 they said we would get growth of 3.4 percent. We never got growth above 3 percent under Obama, and the average growth was 2 percent, ending at 1.6 percent. The reality was, on average, about 1.5 percentage points below the projection, which was about an 80 percent overestimate of growth. Maybe we should have just hired the tarot-card readers. Their predictions couldn’t have been any worse. So now the very people who made these preposterous forecasts are telling us 3 percent growth is a fantasy under Trump. Under their model, tax increases create 4 percent growth, but tax cuts can’t get us to 3 percent growth.”

SHORT CUTS

Insight: “The law of progress holds that everything now must be better than what was there before. Don’t you see if you want something better, and better, and better, you lose the good. The good is no longer even being measured.” —Hannah Arendt (1906-1975)

For the record: “Let’s not mince words: Otto Warmbier was an American kid who made one foolish mistake, one that should not have cost him his life. The North Korean regime arrested him on unjust grounds, possibly as a bargaining chip in negotiations, and ultimately tortured him to death. … There is no good reason for any American citizen to go to a land where they can be arrested at any time for any reason and tortured to death.” —Jim Geraghty

Dezinformatsiya: “Bigoted Homophobe Steve Scalise’s Life Was Saved by a Queer Black Woman.” —Fusion’s Anne Branigin

Alpha Jackass: “For violent resistance to work it’d need to be organized. Individual acts can be understandable, but likely counterproductive/ineffective. What’s more harmful: Putting millions already on the margins more at-risk via draconian policies, or shooting a racist lawmaker in the hip?” —Huffington Post’s Jesse Benn

Braying Jenny: “You have people on the Right … trying to sort of make themselves the victim. They seem to crave this idea of being the victims of hate” —MSNBC’s Joy-Ann Reid

Braying Jackass: “There is not a single good person who voted for Trump. Not one.” —columnist Patrick S. Tomlinson

Non Compos Mentis: “On Friday the White House … announced that they are reversing the Obama administration’s steps to normalize relations with Cuba because of their human rights violations. … Cuban officials said, really? Because the U.S. is in no condition to lecture us about human rights given the racial discrimination happening in America now.” —Whoopi Goldberg

Useful idiots: “In the Soviet era, most villagers worked on huge collective farms. Life wasn’t easy, but the government provided for the people.” —NBC News correspondent Lucy Kafanov

And last… “Charity is the outdated idea that people can help each other without guns involved.” —Frank Fleming

Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis
Managing Editor Nate Jackson

Join us in daily prayer for our Patriots in uniform — Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen — standing in harm’s way in defense of Liberty, and for their families.