Blessings on you and your family, and from all the Huckabee staff!
Today's newsletter includes:
- Bible Verse of the Day - Psalm 119:105 KJV
- The Highest Misery Index in a decade
- Durham responds confidently to Sussmann's attorneys
- And much more...
Join hundreds of readers already subscribing to the advertisement-free version of the newsletter (Delivering the morning and evening editions together in one email), go here.
DAILY BIBLE VERSE
Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.
Psalm 119:105 KJV
If you have a favorite Bible Verse you want to see in one of our newsletters, please email [email protected]
One Year Later
Yesterday, marked one year since Rush Limbaugh left us. Considering how the Democrats (and the “great leader” to our north) have amped up the far-left crazy since then, it’s frustrating not having him to turn to every day for commentary, advice, strategy and hilarious, well-deserved ridicule.
But a hat tip to Diana Allocco for searching through the files and coming up with so many great clips and quotes that help us to remember and to get a pretty good idea of “What would Rush say?”
A Giant Loophole
I’m sure you’ll be shocked to learn that the bill to bar Congress members from buying stock about which they might have insider information - the bill Nancy Pelosi actually supports - includes a giant loophole by not banning their spouses and family members from doing it.
Well, come on, you don’t want Nancy to have to give up one of her $20,000 refrigerators full of gourmet ice cream, do you? How much do you expect her to sacrifice in exchange for all her “public service”?
Critique of Leftwing “Woke” Culture
In what I hope is the start of a coming trend, Jennifer Sey, the former brand manager of Levi’s Jeans who was once on track to become CEO, is speaking out on how the leftwing “woke” culture of that company caused her to be targeted for wrongthink and pressured to publicly apologize for saying things that even they privately admitted were true. She was subjected to Orwellian accusations of being a “racist” for saying that schools should reopen (they said she wanted to kill black children, even though she has two black sons) and for defending the term “Mother’s Day” instead of “Birthing People’s Day.” They wanted her to go on an “apology tour” (I assume trading her Levi’s for sackcloth and ashes.)
She finally left, turning down a $1 million severance package that would have required her to keep quiet, choosing her freedom to speak up against the tyrannical mob over the money.
At the link is her story in her own words, all of which are well worth reading as we contemplate how we are going to vote and which companies we wish to patroniz
The Highest Misery Index in a decade
Those of us old enough to recall the Reagan era (pardon me while I take a moment to remember it…Oh, well, back to 2022) will recall the famous “misery index.” Invented by economist Arthur Okun, Reagan used it to convince Americans to choose him over Jimmy Carter. It was a combination of the unemployment rate and the inflation rate, the two together serving as a gauge of how miserable people felt with prices rising even while work was hard to find.
Well, last month under Biden, the misery index reached 11.5%, the highest in a decade, even higher than in the early days of the pandemic.
But I bet I know what you’re thinking: 11.5% seems awfully low, considering the widespread misery this Administration has created. Well, there are a few reasons for that. One is that it doesn’t include the many other ways the Democrats are spreading misery, like with open borders, skyrocketing crime rates and their never-ending assaults on personal freedom and individual rights. Another is that the unemployment rate is only 4%. But it seems much higher (and honestly is) because that stat only includes people who are actively looking for work, and not those who are living off government largesse. Also, unemployment claims “unexpectedly” jumped last week:
The third factor is that the bigger portion of the misery index, inflation, might be a high 7.5% (with no ceiling in sight), but that’s still a really lowball estimate. Boston columnist and radio host Howie Carr did a deep dive into how inflation is really affecting everyday Americans.
It’s not just a “high-class problem,” as Biden’s smug chief of staff dismissively described it. Carr quotes many listeners who shared their horror stories about both inflation and the supply chain shortages, from having to drive from store to store searching for cat food as if on a treasure hunt, to a man who put $25 worth of gas in his truck and it didn’t even cut off the “low fuel” light.
Carr also points out that the government inflation figure is kept artificially low by not including two of our biggest necessities: food and fuel. He consulted a website called shadowstats.com that computes inflation using the more honest pre-1980 formula. Under that, current inflation is actually 15.63%, the highest since 1947. That was so long ago that Joe Biden was only five years old.
Even accepting the artificially-low 4% unemployment rate, that would put the current misery index at nearly 20%. Yes, that feels a lot more accurate to me. Incidentally, the misery index hit a high under Jimmy Carter of 21.9%, but if anyone can break that record, I have faith that Biden can.
More TDS from the Biden White House
Once again, the Biden White House has demonstrated that exercising their Trump Derangement Syndrome is far more important than thinking about the longterm consequences of their actions. So Biden has ordered the National Archives to turn over all the White House records that Nancy Pelosi’s (illegitimate) January 6th Committee is demanding to rifle through, including those that Trump requested be shielded under executive privilege for reasons of privacy and national security reasons.
I’m sure Biden is having a celebratory ice cream cone over his latest “Get Trump” stunt, but if previous such efforts are a guide, it’s highly unlikely they’re going to find anything incriminating. But Biden has just foolishly set a precedent for dismissing executive privilege and allowing Congressional investigators of the opposing Party to demand any White House documents they want to see. I have a feeling that’s going to keep him very busy between 2023 and 2024, if he’s still in office that long.
Black Lives Matter Under Investigation in Kentucky
There are a number of investigations being launched into what Black Lives Matter has been doing with the approximately $90 million that was showered on them in the past couple of years by terrified white liberals and the corporations they run. Now, we know what they’re doing with $100,000 of it. They used it to pay the (shockingly low) bail of BLM activist Quintez Brown, who is charged with attempted murder for allegedly firing a shot at a Jewish Louisville mayoral candidate who’s running against a black candidate.
Here's some background on the shooting and the suspect.
As Redstate.com points out, the Washington Post mustered no outrage for BLM using donor funds to bail out an alleged would-be murderer, but they have time to call up and dox people from a hacked list of GiveSendGo donors and harass them about donating to support the Canadian truckers’ peaceful freedom protest. At this point, I can’t imagine using WaPo for anything other than bird cage liner. If your birds will deign to poop on it.
That piece also points out that the investigations of BLM’s finances are all on the state level. The Biden “Justice” Department can’t seem to find a thing worth looking into, just as they ignore Antifa and police who kill Trump supporters. Keep all of this in mind when you vote in November.
Durham responds confidently to Sussmann's attorneys
Michael Sussmann’s attorneys at Latham & Watkins –- the firm that has also represented the Hillary campaign, Hillary for America, The Clinton Foundation, Marc Elias, the law firm Perkins Coie, and seemingly just about everybody else being looked at by Durham –- have filed two motions this week, one on Monday requesting that Durham’s “Factual Background” on the case be stricken from his motion filed last Friday, and the other yesterday for a dismissal of the charge against Sussmann. In essence, they’re saying, “Our client did NOT LIE! And even if he did, his lie wasn’t material to the overall case, so it’s not actually criminal.” Pretty amusing, really.
RedState.com says “a closer look at the request shows it to be much more of a desperate heave into the end zone than a play expected to succeed.”
Sussmann’s attorneys call the case “extraordinary prosecutorial overreach” and even say the indictment “fails to state an offense.” They write, “It has long been a crime to make a false statement to the government. But the law criminalizes only false statements that are material --- false statements that matter because they can actually affect a specific decision of the government.” False statements about “ancillary matters” are “immaterial and cannot give rise to criminal liability.”
Amazingly, they’re telling Durham that Sussmann was visiting the FBI and the CIA just to give “tips” (actually the fake Alfa Bank story) and that the fact he was working for --- and billing --- the Clinton campaign was immaterial. “Allowing this case to go forward would criminalize ordinary conduct,” the motion says, “raise First Amendment concerns, dissuade honest citizens from coming forward with tips, and chill the advocacy of lawyers who interact with the government.” Oh, goodness, surely the special counsel wouldn’t want to criminalize ordinary conduct, like peddling a fake story to federal investigators and lying to them about why!
It sure looks like a last-ditch effort to us. This is what you use when you don’t have anything else.
As for trying to get the case dismissed, RedState points out that it’s the defense’s job to try to do that. They predictably came up with a way, but one that’s not compelling. “The existence of this motion does not in any way serve as evidence that Durham’s case against Sussmann is specious,” ‘Bonchie’ says. “In fact, a closer look at the filing shows it to be incredibly weak.”
How could Sussmann’s tip about Alfa Bank be “ancillary” to the FBI’s decision to investigate Trump, Russia and Alfa Bank? By presenting himself as a tipster, not a Clinton campaign lawyer –- which involved lying in answer to a direct question –- he made himself and his allegations seem more credible. And that would be, or at least should be, extremely material to the FBI’s decision on whether to open an investigation.
As RedState reminds us, Michael Flynn’s so-called “lie” to the FBI “did not appear to be material about much of anything,” and George Papadopoulos’s simple mix-up of dates didn’t, either, yet both of them were prosecuted. Those examples set the bar very low for a statement being “material.”
Sussmann’s attorneys also argued that Durham had used false and irrelevant allegations “plainly intended to politicize this case, inflame media coverage, and taint the jury pool.” Apparently, Durham was expecting these arguments to be made.
RedState cautioned that left-leaning “legal analysts” should wait until Durham has had a chance to respond before rushing to praise the defense’s motion to dismiss.
At the time of this writing, we’re still waiting on that response, but news broke Thursday evening about his no-nonsense response to the motion Sussmann’s attorneys filed earlier, the one to strike Durham’s “Factual Background” on the case.
“This court should deny the defendant’s motion,” Durham said. “If third parties or the media have overstated, understated, or otherwise misinterpreted facts contained in the government’s motion, that does not in any way undermine the valid reasons for the government’s inclusion of this information...Moreover, any potential prejudice or jury taint arising from such media attention can effectively and appropriately be addressed through the voir dire process during jury selection.”
We would add that this is the job of attorneys for both sides during jury selection. There will be plenty of media attention knocking the Durham investigation --- arguably much more than we’ll see that's positive --- so doesn’t that “taint” the jury pool as well?
Sussmann’s motion on Monday said that Durham’s allegations in the “Background Information” section of his filing last Friday, such as Rodney Joffe’s use of a “special arrangement” to obtain data from otherwise highly secure email servers for the President’s office, should be stricken. But Durham, in his response on Thursday, confidently defended his use of those details:
“The government included two paragraphs of limited additional factual detail in its motion for valid and straightforward reasons,” he wrote. “First, those paragraphs reflect conduct that is intertwined with, and part of, events that are central to proving the defendant’s alleged criminal conduct. Second, government included these paragraphs to apprise the court of the factual basis for one of the potential conflicts described in the government’s motion, namely that a member of the defense team was working for the Executive Office of the President of the United States during relevant events that involved the EOP [Executive Office of the President].”
Even with the explanation from Durham, Margot Cleveland wondered aloud on Thursday why he was being so forthcoming about certain facts in the case. “Why is Durham telling us this?” she asked. She said that if he had a nefarious reason, he would have done as the Mueller team did and leak selectively to friendly outlets. But Durham hasn’t been leaking at all.
She postulated that by putting some details of what he has in these motions, he “might prompt cooperation in a way that plea negotiations can’t.” Or perhaps he’s trying to make somebody nervous and incriminate himself. Or he hopes that by showing some of his cards, he’s making it “politically impossible” for the Biden administration to shut him down.
Or he’s trying to rattle the government by showing he’s a step ahead, as with IG Horowitz’ office after it failed to turn over cell phone evidence. Or he’s trying to keep “we the people” informed. Or it’s all of the above.
The DC Circuit Court generally looks with disfavor on motions to strike, she said, so it doesn’t look good for Sussmann’s defense on that. On the other hand, “How the court will rule is anyone’s guess at this point, but we will likely see a counter from Special Counsel Durham’s office first –- and maybe a few more hints on what is to come as well.”
Whenever we find ourselves generally on the same track with Margot Cleveland, we know we as non-lawyers are doing a pretty good job of sorting all this out. Read her analysis, and your legal IQ will go up about 50 points.
And something fall-down-funny she noticed: Sussmann’s lawyers actually cite Peter Strzok!
I Just Wanted to Say:
Thank you for reading my newsletter. Now that you are finished, leave me a comment. I read them!