RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/06/06/trump-signs-law-expanding-vets-healthcare-choices/673906002/

WASHINGTON — President Trump signed legislation Wednesday paving the way for a major overhaul of the Department of Veterans Affairs and expanded access for veterans to VA-funded care in the private sector.

The measure, which passed both chambers of Congress last month with overwhelming bipartisan support, delivers on a key campaign promise for Trump, who pledged to provide veterans with more non-VA health care choices.

“What a beautiful word that is — choice — and freedom to our amazing veterans,” Trump said at the signing ceremony. “All during the campaign I’d go out and say, ‘why can’t they just go see a doctor instead of standing in line for weeks and weeks and weeks?’ Now they can go see a doctor.”

Working out the details of exactly how and when that will happen is now up to agency officials tasked with drawing up regulations under the law.

If confirmed, Trump’s pick to lead the VA, Robert Wilkie, would lead that effort. Criteria to be considered include wait times for VA appointments, quality of VA care and distance from a VA facility.

Known as the VA MISSION Act, the law directs the VA to combine a number of existing private-care programs, including the so-called Choice program, which was created in 2014 after veterans died waiting for appointments at the Phoenix VA.

Two veterans from Texas who traveled to Washington to be at the signing said the Choice program has been extremely helpful for them. Laura Vela, who served in the U.S. Army, and Air Force veteran Antonio Garcia said they previously had to drive nearly four hours each way to reach the nearest VA hospital in San Antonio.

“To me, it’s the perfect program,” said Garcia, who had his knee replaced last year by a health care provider about a half mile from his home in Brownsville.

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/12033/swamp-strikes-back

The culture of the D.C. metropolitan area is one of wealth, privilege and self-proclaimed sophistication. The bureaucrats and insiders know what is best for you, best for your business, best for themselves, and they can make a nice living without being disrupted. Trump campaigned on disrupting this comfortable power perch; that is what they most hate about him.

The Russian collusion investigation has not found any collusion because the investigation was never about collusion. It was always about an out-of-control federal government, emboldened by the lawless age of Obama, and flexing its newfound muscle. The Russian collusion investigation is about a clash of cultures, with one culture being the culture of D.C. insiders, and the other being the folks who pay their salaries.

Each week, Robert Mueller’s Wonderlandian investigation into “Russian Collusion” appears “curiouser and curiouser”. Each week, it appears that the entire investigation never really had anything to do with Russian collusion, at least in the Trump campaign; only in the Hillary Clinton campaign, where all the investigators have been conscientiously not looking.

First, Mueller indicted General Michael Flynn for not telling the truth to an FBI squad that appeared unexpectedly at the White House to question him, when now it turns out that Peter Strzok, who interrogated him, said he had not lied. It also now turns out that former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe may later have altered Strzok’s interrogation notes, and then destroyed the evidence.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/06/obama-administration-iran-deal-failure-and-reckoning/The Obama administration’s ‘norms’ and ‘values’ included deception and weakness.

The “scandal-free” Obama administration sure liked to lie a lot. This morning, America awoke to yet another revelation that Obama officials misled Congress about their dealings with Iran.

A Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations report alleges that the administration secretly sought to give Iran access — albeit briefly — to the U.S. financial system by sidestepping sanctions kept in place after the 2015 nuclear deal, despite repeatedly telling Congress and the public it had no plans to do so. Specifically, the Obama Treasury Department issued a license that would have allowed U.S. banks to participate in a scheme to convert $5.7 billion in Iranian funds into U.S. dollars and then euros. The American banks declined to participate, “citing the reputational risk of doing business with or for Iran.” The license wasn’t unlawful, but, to quote the Associated Press, it “went above and beyond what the Obama administration was required to do under the terms of the nuclear agreement.”

In other words, the Obama administration tried to do Iran an immense financial favor, one not required by the deal itself, to uphold the mythical “spirit” of the agreement (yes, that’s their off-the-record excuse). Iran had reportedly complained that it “wasn’t reaping the benefits it envisioned,” and the Obama administration attempted to help — even though it had publicly assured Americans that “Iran will be denied access to the world’s most important market and unable to deal in the world’s most important currency.”

‘If we wish to preserve a free society,” Friedrich Hayek observed, “it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion.” New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo is a cautionary example.

Mr. Cuomo issued a statement in April warning financial institutions that they faced “reputational risk” if they do business with the National Rifle Association: “I am directing the Department of Financial Services to urge insurers and bankers statewide to determine whether any relationship they may have with the NRA or similar organizations sends the wrong message to their clients.” Soon after, the DFS hit an insurance company and a broker working with the NRA on policies for gun owners with large fines for license violations. The one-two punch of the warning and fines sent a chilling message to corporations with lawful business ties to the NRA.

This wasn’t the first time Mr. Cuomo had used extralegal coercion. In February he tried to change the rules in the middle of a transaction in which Fidelis Care, a nonprofit health insurer operated by the Diocese of Brooklyn, was purchased by a for-profit company, Centene . The governor demanded a massive cut because Fidelis earned much of its revenue from state-funded programs like Medicaid—money that was for services rendered.

Mr. Cuomo threatened both to withhold state approval of the sale and to push a bill through the Legislature confiscating the money whether or not the sale took place. They couldn’t stand up to the threats and will pay Mr. Cuomo a $2 billion ransom.

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/390922-gop-senate-report-says-obama-officials-gave-iran-access-to-us

A new Senate GOP-authored report alleges that top officials in the Obama administration secretly authorized Iran to convert assets to the U.S. dollar, even after the officials repeatedly assured Congress that no such financial transactions would take place under the 2015 nuclear deal.

Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio), chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, unveiled the new report on Wednesday, claiming top government officials granted a “license” that would allow the “conversion of Iranian assets worth billions of U.S. dollars using the U.S. financial system.”

“Senior U.S. government officials repeatedly testified to Congress that Iranian access to the U.S. financial system was not on the table or part of any deal,” the report reads.

“Despite these claims, the U.S. Department of the Treasury, at the direction of the U.S. State Department, granted a specific license that authorized a conversion of Iranian assets worth billions of U.S. dollars using the U.S. financial system,” it continues.

The transactions didn’t go through, however, because two U.S. banks refused to comply with the administration’s request to convert the money over legal and reputational concerns, the report says.

The report cites multiple instances where top officials such as Treasury Secretary Jack Lew pledged before Congress and the public that Iran would not have access to the U.S. financial system, both before and after authorizing the license.

https://amgreatness.com/2018/06/05/what-didnt-trump

How can a president obstruct justice when he did not know there was any justice to obstruct?

For more than a year, Donald Trump’s foes have pinned their impeachment hopes on the idea that the president obstructed justice when he allegedly told then-FBI Director James Comey in February 2017 to “let this go.” Comey claims that remark was about Michael Flynn, Trump’s former national security advisor, who had just been forced to resign amid allegations he lied about his conversations with the Russian ambassador during the transition.

The widespread (unconfirmed) assumption, then and now, is that Flynn was under some kind of investigation and that Trump’s off-the-cuff, vague remark (which the president denies) is evidence he was pressuring Comey to drop the case—and therefore obstructing justice.

Although Flynn did meet with FBI investigators in January 2017 (without a lawyer present and without notifying the White House), it is unclear whether Flynn was the subject of a formal investigation or the agency was simply looking for clarification about the conversations.

But a letter written by Trump’s lawyers to Special Counsel Robert Mueller and leaked over the weekend to the New York Times now reveals that the Justice Department refused to give a direct answer about whether Flynn was indeed under investigation at the time. According to the letter, a private meeting between Trump’s personal lawyer and then-acting Attorney General Sally Yates on January 27, 2017, went down like this:

Among the issues discussed was whether dismissal of Flynn by the President would compromise any ongoing investigations. Yates was unwilling to confirm or deny that there was an ongoing investigation but did indicate that the DOJ would not object to the White House taking action against Flynn.

Therefore, Trump’s lawyers argue, there “could not possibly have been intent to obstruct an ‘investigation’ that had been neither confirmed nor denied to White House Counsel, and that they had every reason to assume was not ongoing.”

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/270368/why-mueller-getting-desperate-daniel-greenfield

$16.7 million. That’s the bill for the Mueller investigation.

The last spending phase, from October to March, included $2.7 million in salaries with another $532,340 in travel expenses. And there’s no sign that this hideously expensive circus is ever going to end.

The latest high-wire act in the circus is yet another accusation aimed at Paul Manafort. This time, Mueller’s favorite target is being accused of witness tampering. Like most of Mueller’s favorite charges, such as making false statements, this isn’t a crime being uncovered, but arises from the investigation.

The accusation is also obviously a means to an end. Mueller had bet everything on pressuring Paul.

The pre-dawn no-knock raid of Manafort’s home was unnecessary, but intimidating. And Mueller’s people were grousing ever since Manafort had been released from house arrest.

In December, they wanted to rip up his agreement because he had supposedly been working on an editorial which violated the gag order, even though it was never published. This time around there’s another claim that he was in contact with his old buddies “in an effort to influence their testimony and to otherwise conceal evidence”. Now the goal may be to move Manafort from home to prison.

The low U.S. labor force participation rate has several causes, but a major one is the disincentive to work created by government programs. The Republican Party’s growth wing has spent years developing ideas for addressing these incentives not to work and rise up the economic ladder, and the results are starting to show.

Last month to almost no attention the House Ways and Means Committee moved a bill from Chairman Kevin Brady that would update the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, known as TANF. This program is the result of the Newt Gingrich-Bill Clinton 1996 welfare reform.

The American Enterprise Institute’s Robert Doar noted recently that TANF on the whole is a success. The program has declined as a share of 1996 spending while Medicaid and food stamps have exploded. One big reason is because TANF is a block grant to states, unlike the Medicaid racket that allows states to draw down more federal dollars for every new enrollee. The program even survived attempts at sabotage by the Obama Administration like expanding waivers for work requirements.

The current system requires states to engage 50% of families in work activities. But that means states can write off some of the tougher cases. And gimmicks like a “caseload reduction credit” allow states to buy down the 50% rate to a much lower benchmark or even 0% of families. Mr. Brady’s bill would require that 100% of recipients engage in work or training as a precondition of receiving benefits.

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/economy-jobs-report-more-openings-than-seekers/

The U.S. economy reached a record 6.7 million job openings in April, the Department of Labor stated Tuesday, hundreds of thousands more than the number of unemployed workers.

March and April both saw the number of job openings outstrip the number of unemployed workers.

There were 6.7 million job openings in April and only 6.35 million job seekers. The previous month saw 6.63 million job openings, more than the 6.59 million unemployed workers.

The number of openings has never been higher than the number of job seekers since the government started counting employment opportunities in 2000.

May saw 223,000 jobs added to the U.S. economy.

Obama defies the Constitution but sounds ‘presidential.’ Trump follows it but sounds like a loudmouth from Queens.

Donald Trump blusters nonstop. He offers contrasting messages about whether, on any given day, he might fire Special Counsel Robert Mueller, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, or Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. His tweets are certainly not presidential, at least as the adjective is usually understood.

At perpetual campaign rallies, Trump mocks his critics, caricaturing their voices and slamming them with adolescent epithets like “Cryin’ Chuckie Schumer.” He accuses House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of being an enabler of M-13 gang members after she chastised him for calling such psychopaths “animals.” Trump has defined his own uncouthness, which so incenses his opponents, as “the new presidential.”

Yet so far, after over a year of intense investigation, Special Counsel Mueller has found no evidence that Donald Trump — or even his low-level subordinates — had ever colluded with Russian government interests to hijack the 2016 election and defeat Hillary Clinton. Indeed, Mueller has shown himself desperate to indict almost anyone connected with the Trump campaign with almost any charge he can think of — other than colluding with the Russians to warp an election, his original mandate.

Call the Trump paradox “crass lawfulness.” What drives Trump’s critics nearly crazy is not any evidence that Trump has broken federal laws per se. Instead, their rub is that there are somehow no criminal statutes against a president boorishly acting “unpresidential” in his loud quest to supercharge the economy, while undoing the entire agenda of his predecessor, who was so dearly beloved by the media, universities, Hollywood, and identity-politics groups.

Certainly, President Obama’s teleprompted speeches were mellifluous. As some sort of postmodern preacher, Obama often sermonized to Americans about the predetermined “arc of history” that purportedly bent all of us inescapably toward his own just moral version of the universe.