RUTHFULLY YOURS

President Trump should be afraid. Very afraid.

No, not of the flailing Robert Mueller investigation or the latest accusations by porn star Stormy Daniels. He shouldn’t fear a trade war with China or the prospect of another government shutdown weeks before the crucial midterms elections. This threat is far more insidious, far more dangerous to the legitimacy of his presidency and the possibility he will win a second term.

It is: The NeverTrump War Room.

The mere thought likely sends chills down the steely spines of Trump supporters everywhere. I mean, it’s one thing to stare down Senator Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) or Kim Jong-un. It takes a whole different level of gamesmanship to go toe-to-toe with Senator Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) and shrewd GOP “consultants” such as Mike Murphy. How will Trump ever prevail over these masterminds, these cunning masseurs of the Republican electorate?

Talk about big button versus small button.

The NeverTrump War Room is the brainchild of Murphy, who—at least according to him—is “one of the Republican Party’s most successful political media consultants.” He’s a diehard NeverTrumper who worked for Jeb Bush in 2016. But despite raising $119 million for the former Florida governor’s amazing presidential campaign, Murphy couldn’t get his candidate past the March 2016 South Carolina primary, where Bush came in fourth place. (After that humiliating loss, Murphy defended himself, telling the Los Angeles Times without a hint of irony, “There are a lot of people in the cheap seats with a lot of opinions. What have they done?”) That wasn’t even Murphy’s most expensive defeat: He helped Meg Whitman spend $150 million of her own money to lose the California governor’s race in 2010.

So who better to offer crack advice about how to beat Trump in a Republican primary in 2020? In a menacing column for Politico Magazine that must have Team Trump in a full-blown panic, Murphy claims “plenty of exhausted Republican elected officials” are asking him whether Trump will face a primary opponent in 2020. Murphy’s weary imaginary pals allegedly pray another Republican will take on a president with approval ratings in the low-to-mid 80s among his fellow partisans.

On March 17, ex-CIA Director John Brennan tweeted about the current president of the United States: “When the full extent of your venality, moral turpitude, and political corruption becomes known, you will take your rightful place as a disgraced demagogue in the dustbin of history. . . . America will triumph over you.”

That outburst from the former head of the world’s premier spy agency seemed a near threat to a sitting president, and former U.N. Ambassador Samantha Power tweeted that it probably was: “Not a good idea to piss off John Brennan.”

If there is such a thing as a dangerous “deep state” of elite but unelected federal officials who feel that they are untouchable and unaccountable, then John Brennan is the poster boy.

Immediately after the 2008 election of Barack Obama, the careerist Brennan quickly reinvented himself as a critic of the very methodologies that he once, as a George W. Bush administration official, had insisted were effective. Brennan was initially appointed Obama’s top counterterrorism adviser, and then took over the CIA after the abrupt and mysterious resignation of Gen. David Petraeus following the 2012 election.

Brennan claimed that intelligence agencies had not missed clear indications in 2009 that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the so-called “underwear bomber,” would try to take down a U.S. airliner. Just days later when his denials were ridiculed, Brennan flipped and blasted intelligence agencies for their laxity.

In 2011, Brennan falsely alleged that the Obama administration’s drone program had not caused a single civilian death in Pakistan over the previous year. In truth, around 50 civilians had been killed by drones since the 9/11 attacks.

Two years ago, Americans were horrified to learn that as many as 1,000 of our nation’s veterans had died while waiting for medical care at Department of Veterans Affairs facilities.

Any hopes of reforming the dysfunctional VA culture were dashed two days ago when Secretary Robert McDonald made an appalling comparison to waiting in line at Disney parks.

“When you go to Disney, do they measure the number of hours you wait in line? What’s important is, what’s your satisfaction with the experience.”
Today, nearly half a million veterans still wait to see a VA doctor.

So, we opened the books on the VA. Here’s just a sample of our findings:

The VA spent $1.7 million on ’employee engagement’ and other satisfaction surveys with Gallup (2010-2014). There is no indication these polls found, flagged or identified the most egregious scandal in VA history.
The VA paid $303 million in salaries to non-essential positions: Painters ($185 million), Interior Designers ($64 million), and Gardeners ($54 million). While veterans were dying, the VA managers were rewarding the efficiency of these positions with bonuses (2012-2015.)
$751.1 million spent on ‘household’ and ‘office’ furniture including furniture rental, draperies, curtains, carpeting, modification, repair and maintenance (2010-2015). Much of from luxury, upscale manufacturers.

While the veterans wait weeks to see a doctor, we found:

The VA lawyered up and added 175 attorneys.
Dramatically increased their spending on public relations (PR).
Reformed bonuses’ so millions of dollars continued to flow to many of the same employees who gamed-the-system during the scandal.

and much more…

https://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trump-ousts-va-secretary-david-shulkin-1522274017?mod=cx_politics&cx_navSource=cx_politics&cx_tag=collabctx&cx_artPos=2#cxrecs_s

WASHINGTON—President Donald Trump on Wednesday said he had ousted his Veterans Affairs secretary, David Shulkin, and tapped the White House physician, Ronny Jackson, as his replacement.

“I am pleased to announce that I intend to nominate highly respected Admiral Ronny L. Jackson, MD, as the new Secretary of Veterans Affairs,” Mr. Trump tweeted Wednesday. He said Robert Wilkie, who currently serves as under secretary of defense for personnel and readiness at the Department of Defense, would serve as acting secretary “in the interim.”

In a statement issued by the White House, Mr. Trump praised Dr. Shulkin’s work and “the many great things we did together at Veterans Affairs, including the VA Accountability Act that he was helpful in getting passed.” The president called Dr. Shulkin a “great supporter of veterans across the country and I am grateful for his service.”Dr. Shulkin didn’t return a request for comment on Wednesday.

Dr. Jackson is a U.S. Navy rear admiral who has served as a White House physician during the past three administrations. In that role, he has overseen health care for the cabinet and senior staff, served as a physician supervisor at Camp David and led the White House Medical Unit, the White House said.

Dr. Jackson, if confirmed by the Senate, would take over the second-largest federal agency, which has more than 370,000 employees. The agency is responsible for, among other duties, providing health care services to veterans. The agency has struggled in recent years following a 2014 scandal over wait-times for VA hospital appointments.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/g-men-under-subpoena-1522278053

Director Christopher Wray said Tuesday that he is doubling to 54 the number of FBI agents working to respond to documents subpoenaed by House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte, and it’s about time.

Mr. Goodlatte is looking into the FBI’s investigation of Hillary Clinton’s private server and its use of the Steele dossier to spy on former Trump campaign associate Carter Page, among other things. The FBI has been notably uncooperative, and news reports say Mr. Wray’s latest cooperation came only after Attorney General Jeff Sessions told him no more slow-walking information.

What matters now is whether the FBI provides Congress the records in a timely way—and without the sneaky redactions that have been used to keep the American people in the dark. One example: the text messages between FBI paramours Peter Strzok and Lisa Page regarding Rudolph Contreras. Federal Judge Contreras presided over the case against former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn. He and Mr. Strzok knew each other, so Mr. Strzok and Ms. Page were excited when Judge Contreras was appointed to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court in 2016.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday heard its second challenge this term to partisan gerrymanders, this time in a case brought by Republicans. The GOP argument isn’t any better than the Democratic case last fall from Wisconsin, and both argue strongly against judicial intervention.

In Benisek v. Lamone, Republicans in Maryland’s 6th Congressional district contend that the Democratic legislature retaliated against them when redrawing the House map in 2011. Lawmakers lopped off 65,000 GOP voters and packed 30,000 Democrats into the 6th district, which helped Democrat John Delaney in 2012 defeat 10-term GOP Rep. Roscoe Bartlett by 21 points. The new district lines “disrupted and depressed Republican political engagement in the area, and manifestly diminished their opportunity for political success,” the GOP plaintiffs allege, thus violating their First Amendment rights.

The Court has long held that drawing districts inherently implicates political questions. But in Davis v. Bandemer (1986), the Court opened a crevice for judges to review political gerrymanders even though a majority couldn’t agree on a standard for determining how much politics is too much. None has emerged.

While the GOP plaintiffs say any map that has more than a “de minimis” effect on voter engagement and dilution is discriminatory, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg asked, “What falls in the de minimis category?” Neither the Constitution nor federal law offers an answer, and lawyers in the case disagree. Judges would identify partisan discrimination when they see it.

Under the plaintiffs’ “de minimis” standard, even redrawn districts that make elections more competitive could be unconstitutional. As Justice Anthony Kennedy mused, natural population shifts could impel a state legislature to redraw a district in a way that dilutes a partisan majority. Would that be retaliation?

Chief Justice John Roberts wondered about independent voters, who often turn elections including in Maryland’s 6th. While Mr. Delaney won by 21 points in 2012, he squeaked by with 1.5% in 2014 when GOP Gov. Larry Hogan carried his district by 14 points. The Maryland Solicitor General noted that independents in 2012 overwhelmingly favored Democrats “because of the views of those voters and the strength of that candidate,” not the district lines.

Justice Stephen Breyer playfully suggested the Court use a blackboard to consider the pros and cons of various theories of discrimination to show that “maybe there are different parts of gerrymandering that rises in different circumstances.” The problem is that there is no precise standard that could possibly account for the multiple factors that affect every redistricting and election.

In the Gill case the Court heard last fall, Democrats advocated a convoluted formula called an “efficiency gap” to measure partisanship. But the efficiency gap varies from election to election as voting shifts on an individual and district level. More than half of all maps drawn in the last 45 years had an efficiency gap in one election greater than the 7% standard that Democrats proposed as a bright illegal line.

Maryland’s map had an efficiency gap of 6.7% in 2012 but exceeded 12% in 2016. So Maryland’s map could have been constitutional in 2012 but struck down four years later under the Gill standard. Establishing an arbitrary standard would invite endless parade of partisan gerrymander challenges, politicizing the judiciary.

Consider what happened when the Democratic majority on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court last month struck down the state’s Congressional map as violating the state Constitution. The partisan judges redrew the map in a way that favored Democrats. Republican appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court for an injunction were denied. But why is a partisan map drawn by Democratic judges better than a partisan map drawn by GOP legislators?

Impassioned protests following the mass shooting at a Florida high school culminated over the weekend with marches on Washington, D.C., and other cities. To properly evaluate these spectacles, let’s suspend for the moment Aristotle’s recommendation that the youth should not study politics because they are ruled by their passions rather than reason.

Their anguished voices merit more than condescension. But they have not generally received a serious response, even from those who support their efforts. The best possible start is to consider the view not just of their own “out of it” fathers, but the view of those even more “out of it” fathers, the bewigged gentlemen we call America’s Founders.

In the current controversy we can get to that view by consulting the best adult guide we have on hand and he is that most distinguished American, Justice Clarence Thomas. He teaches us from the grounds of constitutionalism—how citizens ought to debate politics, elect representatives, and advance policies. These practices reflect the purpose of a First Amendment that defended the freedom of speech, press, and assembly. Going beyond the other justices, he argues that neither the First Amendment nor the 14th amendment was intended for kids.

Having gained notoriety as the “BONG HiTS 4 JESUS” case, Morse v. Frederick (2007) pared back the court’s calamitous decision in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969), which asserted that school kids are presumed to have the First Amendment rights of adults. The justices in Tinker embodied the spirit of the 1960s.

In Morse v. Frederick, Chief Justice John Roberts reaffirmed the right of school officials to exercise discipline. The justices ruled that a high school student did not have the right to sue his school’s principal, who suspended the teen for displaying a banner at a school event that read, “BONG HiTS 4 JESUS.” (The student wanted his banner back, too.) Concurring, Justice Samuel Alito went further, presciently noting, “School attendance can expose students to threats to their physical safety that they would not otherwise face . . . . Experience shows that schools can be places of special danger.” Not just rights to speech but also rights to privacy and other civil liberties may be restricted, he implied.

In the ongoing saga that is Washington, thousands of government emails go missing and a strange dossier charts a bevy of bedwetting prostitutes. The cast of this tale features, among others, a former FBI boss, several shadowy Russians, an American Soviet scholar with a short-wave radio, and a British spy we might call Agent 00$6.95.

The tale also stars FBI lovebirds trading texts about a secret society in the Justice Department and a mysterious “insurance policy.” By all indications, this policy was to be claimed in case a real estate developer named Donald Trump should actually win the White House. Which he did. The story ought to make for a blockbuster movie. Except that it would be a remake. In 1981, “Absence of Malice” already dramatized some of the story’s key themes.

Down in Miami, union boss Joey Diaz has been murdered, but the authorities have no suspects. So prosecutor Elliot Rosen (Bob Balaban) goes looking for somebody to frame. His target is liquor distributor Michael Gallagher, son of a deceased gangster, played by Paul Newman in probably his best performance.

Rosen leaks a fake story that Gallagher is under investigation in the Diaz case. Reporter Megan Carter, played by Academy Award-winner Sally Field, consults Davidek, the paper’s attorney, played by John Harkins. As he explains, “as a matter of law, the truth is irrelevant. We have no knowledge the story is false, therefore we’re absent malice. We’ve been both reasonable and prudent, therefore we’re not negligent. We can say what we like about him. He can’t do us harm. Democracy is served.”

Carter discovers that when Diaz was killed, Gallagher had taken his Catholic friend Teresa Peron to Atlanta for an abortion. When that becomes public, Peron kills herself.

“Couldn’t you see what it meant to her?” Gallagher says. “Didn’t you like her?”

The stricken Carter then outs Elliott Rosen as the source of the leak. Gallagher, his business and reputation now in ruins, makes a plan.

He tells District Attorney Quinn he will find out what he can about Diaz if Quinn will publicly drop the investigation. At the same time, Gallagher makes anonymous donations to Quinn’s campaign for mayor. Rosen thinks it’s a bribe and leaks the story to Carter. Enter James A. Wells, assistant U.S. attorney general, wonderfully played by Wilford Brimley.

A women-only social club is being investigated by the New York Commission on Human Rights. It’s almost certainly illegal.

The Wing is a women-only social club and workspace in New York and Washington, D.C. One of its founders worked for Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, and its in-house magazine, No Man’s Land, once featured a trans woman named Hari Nef on the cover. Members say it empowers them, allows them to work without the specter of sexual harassment that lurks around so many corners, and provides them with a valuable social network. It is “not for everybody in the whole world,” one of its members told Jezebel, “but for a specific slice of it” whose members share “certain community values.” Score one for free association.

Except the Wing, precisely because it is a women-only social club and workspace, appears to be in plain violation of New York’s public-accommodations law. Jezebel’s J.K. Trotter has the story. It is illegal in New York, as it is across the country, for businesses that provide public accommodations to “deny” the “full and equal enjoyment” of those accommodations to someone because of his gender (or race, creed, sexuality, etc.). There are exceptions: Groups that have fewer than 400 members and meet certain criteria can qualify as “distinctly private” clubs, which are permitted to discriminate. Meanwhile, larger businesses can apply for exemptions in the “bona fide interests of public policy,” though only three such exemptions have been granted in the last ten years. The Wing has more than 1,500 members, and has not applied for an exemption. Therefore, Trotter reports, it is under investigation by the New York Commission on Human Rights. A civil-rights litigator tells him the group is “likely illegal.”

The possibility that a trendy social club espousing progressive values and contributing to female empowerment is illegal has led to some wishcasting. Law professor Melissa Murray tells Trotter that the investigation is “patently absurd,” and finds the notion that anti-discrimination laws might apply to women’s groups “ludicrous.” Because the mayor of New York is Bill de Blasio, perhaps the Wing will survive: A city spokesman tells New York magazine that the mayor “is fully supportive of the Wing’s mission.” But whether or not New York files suit, it should not be particularly controversial to assert that a business that both furnishes public accommodations and discriminates on the basis of gender might be on the wrong side of an anti-discrimination statute.

In his review of recent books about the life of former President Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Rhodes (Books, March 17) repeats the now well-known warning made by President Eisenhower in his Jan. 17, 1961 speech about the “military-industrial complex.” It is important also to recall another warning the president made in the same speech about the need for universities in the U.S. to maintain freedom and independence from federal control imposed by the government making federal grants for research and other programs and activities sponsored by the universities. The president said: “The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by federal employment, project allocations and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded. Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.”

Em. Prof. John A. Clark University of Michigan