RUTHFULLY YOURS

CNN could hardly contain its joy — or its exaggerations — in discussing Mike Flynn’s guilty plea. The cable channel provided wall-to-wall coverage, with barely a glance at the other big news: the first major tax bill in decades. The only thing missing was a Bronco chase on the L.A. Freeway.

President Trump’s apologists and his lawyers were spinning just as hard in the other direction. “Nothing to see here. Move along.”

In the days since the news broke, both sides have stuck to their talking points and turned the volume up to 11.

Let’s strip away the partisan hyperbole and sort out what we really know.

First, with Flynn’s plea alongside Paul Manafort’s indictment, Robert Mueller and the Office of Special Counsel have now snagged the two biggest fish they could catch, outside the Trump family itself. They are using every lure and net a prosecutor has. Manafort and Flynn have every incentive to cough up whatever dirt they have, and Flynn’s deal promises to do so. If that doesn’t worry the White House inner circle, they must be in a bunker.

Ah, but what dirt does the prosecutor have? Only Mueller, Trump and their inner circles know. Only they know whether senior Trump aides have committed underlying crimes or given false testimony. CNN doesn’t know. Fox doesn’t know. ABC doesn’t know and had to withdraw an incorrect report that the president himself was implicated. (The stock market was not amused.) Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) doesn’t know, even though he was smiling from ear to ear on TV and doing everything short of dancing and waving a “Mission Accomplished” banner.

What should worry the Trump team most is that Mueller presumably would not offer Flynn such a sweet plea deal if he didn’t have valuable information to proffer on higher-ups. And there aren’t many people above the national security adviser.

The quest for collusion is over. Special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s Russia investigation has not — either through leaks or announced indictments — revealed any collusion, and Democrats and their allies in the liberal mainstream media know that it never will. This reality is setting in among the president’s clearer-thinking foes, and they are transitioning to an obstruction of justice claim in an effort to sustain the fight with President Trump.

Mueller’s investigation has been looking into Russian meddling in the 2016 election since May. His team has made a number of consequential findings, but none of them establish collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. We would know by now if anyone close to Trump had actually colluded with Russia to impact the 2016 campaign. The only thing we know for certain is that Paul Manafort, Rick Gates, George Papadopoulos and Michael Flynn have been indicted for or admitted to things that fall short of collusion and have nothing to do with the president.

The Democrats know their faux-outrage over collusion is hollow and spent. Given that Mueller’s investigation hasn’t found the holy grail or produced anything that rises to the level of criminality on the part of Trump, liberals in Congress and in the media are now transitioning to an obstruction of justice story-line. Mueller is not talking, so the president’s critics are creating a new line of attack based on the notion that the firing of former FBI director James B. Comey was somehow a criminal act.

The problem with the Democrats’ claim is that the president can fire the FBI director for any reason or no reason at any time. Never mind that, they say. The Democrats believe the president’s motive was to end an investigation into Flynn and that doing so was somehow outside the bounds of his authority — and therefore criminal. That’s right: The liberals want to take us into a mind-numbing legal netherworld where the president committed a legal act with a corrupt mind-set and should therefore be impeached. I can’t imagine how this convoluted reasoning will lead to an indictable charge against Trump, but it is becoming the Democrats’ latest obsession.

Observers look for some sort of common denominator that would make sense of the daily news blasts of nonconsensual sexual escapades of media, political, and Hollywood celebrities.

No sooner are these lists of the accused compiled than they have to be updated, hourly. Long hushed, covered-up, or even forgotten sexual IEDs suddenly go off without warning and blow up a career.

Weirder still, the now-outraged often overnight can become the outrageous.

One moment Richard Dreyfuss expressed furor when he learned that gay actor Kevin Spacey long ago had groped his own son under the table (while the three were working on a script). The next minute, Dreyfuss himself was accused of an earlier repulsive unwanted sex act or advance toward a female subordinate.

New York Times reporter Glenn Thrush condemns the bad behavior of journalist Mark Halperin — and then finds himself accused of similar coerced sexual behavior. Senator Al Franken’s often sanctimonious outrages over the Fox News harassers would soon apply just as easily to his own behavior. We forget that the original context of Juvenal’s famous quip “Who will police the police?” was the insidiousness of sex.

Note these latest scandals are different from the age-old stories of consensual adultery. They are mostly not consensual affairs in the workplace, supposedly initiated by grasping subordinates or by oppressive bosses in midlife crises. Nor are they the connivances in dating and courtship — all the sort of consenting unions gone awry that are the stuff of novels and films.

Instead, in nearly all these examples of sexual harassment, there is inherently a beauty-and-the-beast asymmetry, male arrogance — and spitefulness. What repels is not just unwanted or coerced sex acts — but the gratuitous cruelty that so often surrounds them.

Hate crimes — defined as those directed at someone “based on his race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity” — are not only illegal; they are immoral and should not be tolerated.

However, we must not allow the dictates of political correctness, according to which “Islamophobia” is the most rampant form of bias in America, to cloud the reality that anti-Semitism is still more widespread.

In a prepared statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee on May 2, 2017, Prof. Brian Levin — director of the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism at California State University, San Bernardino — stated, “Hate crime, especially those based on religion, have [sic] increased in recent periods.”

Levin, who has dealt extensively with the topic for decades — analyzing statistics, compiling data and advising American and European policy-makers — argued that one of the problems involved in tracking hate crimes in the U.S. is that some states do not cooperate in collecting or reporting on the information. Another, he said, is that there is no uniform way in which different bodies (such as the FBI and the Anti-Defamation League) receive and investigate complaints.Additional confusion lies in that some crimes initially suspected as having been motivated by hatred of Muslims or Jews often turn out not to be “hate crimes” at all, but something else entirely. One example Levin provided was that of an attack on a Muslim establishment that turned out to be a simple robbery. Another was the recent case of a disturbed American-Israeli teenager who issued bomb threats to Jewish community centers and other institutions in the U.S. and elsewhere.

In the age of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, “character is destiny” sermons are now frequent. Clearly, a president who is “not a crook” or a philanderer is preferable to the alternative.https://amgreatness.com/2017/12/04/is-a-presidents-character-his-presidencys-destiny/

But is that simple moral calculation sufficient when this one person can make the lives of 330 million at least somewhat better or worse?

During the recent spate of sexual harassment accusations, three questions might pertain to presidential character and confuse us.

One, to what degree does personal sin determine governance?

In other words, if John Kennedy was, as is now reported, utterly sexually reckless while in the White House, would his libido affect his judgement? Did his rash personal shortcomings erode his political behavior, say, during the Cuban Missile Crisis or while negotiating a test ban treaty?

Second, to what degree are sins universal, rather than defined by local cultures and the era in which occur?

If any contemporary president emulated Kennedy’s sexually predatory behavior while living in the White House, would he now likely have been impeached?

Third, do we judge politicians by their worst or best moments or a mixture of both?

Does one good deed cancel out one, two, three or more sins—if they are not mortal, or at least not all that mortal?

Can we excuse the now-revealed to be groping World War II veteran President George H.W. Bush (who may have groped a bit while president in 1992, and in 2003 when he allegedly groped an underage female)? Bush’s sins were nothing like those of Bill Clinton in a hotel room with a frightened and resisting Juanita Broderick. A photo-grope is not comparable to a drunken Ted Kennedy swimming for safety as a young woman, the victim of his felonious reckless driving, was left to drown.