RUTHFULLY YOURS

Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) raised questions but received no answers from FBI Director James Comey on Wednesday, when Grassley pointed to an April 22 New York Times report saying that Comey believed Attorney General Loretta Lynch gave Hillary Clinton “political cover” during the presidential campaign.

“The subject is classified,” Comey said in response to Grassley’s questions.

The New York Times reported that Comey’s “misgivings” about Lynch were fueled by the discovery last year of a document “written by a Democratic operative that seemed – at least in the eyes of Mr. Comey and his aides – to raise questions about her independence.”

Grassley told the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday, “The email reportedly provided assurances that Attorney General Lynch would protect Clinton by making sure the FBI investigation, quote, “didn’t go too far.”

Grassley asked Comey, “How and when did you learn of this document? Also, who sent it and who received it?”

“That’s not a question I can answer in this forum, Mr. Chairman, because it would call for a classified response,” Comey replied. “I have briefed leadership of the intelligence committees on that particular issue, but I can’t talk about it here.”

You can expect me to follow up on that point,” Grassley said. And he continued:

“What steps did the FBI take to determine whether Attorney General Lynch had actually given assurances that the political fix was in, no matter what? Did the FBI interview the person who wrote the email? If not, why not?”

“I have to give you the same answer — I can’t talk about that in an unclassified setting,” Comey responded.

“OK, then you can expect me to follow up on that,” Grassley said again.

For the time being, President Trump has determined, the wall will have to wait.

The president is expected to sign a federal budget agreement this week that includes no funding for a barrier along the southern border. Supporters will be disappointed that Mr. Trump has yet to follow through on a signature campaign promise, but they can take some solace that his presidency is still young and the administration remains adamant. “Make no mistake,” said White House spokesman Sean Spicer on Monday. “The wall will be built.”

Whether or not that happens, some Republicans in Congress hope that Mr. Trump isn’t confusing a border wall with more meaningful immigration reform. “My concept of border security includes a robust guest-worker program,” said Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin in an interview with me on Tuesday. “It’s going to be a whole lot easier to secure the border when you’re not having to clamp down on people coming here to seek the opportunities that America provides.”

I contacted Mr. Johnson, who heads the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, to ask about legislation he’s been crafting with GOP Rep. Ken Buck of Colorado. Their proposal, not yet formally introduced, would create a visa program that gives states a much larger role in managing immigration based on local needs. The rationale is that different parts of the country have different labor demands, and state leaders are in a better position than Washington lawmakers to assess local economic conditions. The number of visas available would be determined by the federal government and indexed to economic growth.

To guard against foreign nationals gaming U.S. welfare programs, the bill will include eligibility restrictions, and states would be responsible for confirming that visa holders are in compliance with the rules. To guard against worker exploitation, the bill would allow visa holders to change jobs. For the most part, however, states would have the freedom to tailor immigration as they see fit. Eligibility and other requirements would be determined on a state-by-state basis. Some states might require employers to pay a higher prevailing wage than other states. Some states might allow illegal immigrants to obtain visas while others ban them. Some states might enter into voluntary agreements with each other to share guest workers. Some states may decide that they have no use for the visas and not apply for any. CONTINUE AT SITE

The media template for covering the 115th Congress apparently goes like this: When Republicans fail to pass a bill, they’re doomed. But when they succeed, they’re also doomed. Thus the same media sages who said the House could never repeal ObamaCare are now saying that the replacement the House passed Thursday can’t pass the Senate.

The wish is the mother of this analysis, and predictions about the Senate are worth about as much as the guarantees of President Hillary Clinton. The reality is that the House success, however narrow the 217-213 vote, is the first essential step toward fulfilling the GOP’s top campaign promise.

While the job was messier than it should have been, the result shows that Republicans can hold a governing majority despite unprecedented media, interest-group and Democratic hostility. The majority spanned the GOP conference from Michigan libertarian Justin Amash to moderate Carlos Curbelo, who deserves special notice for political courage considering his swing Miami district. If you doubt this is a big moment, imagine the media obituaries for Republicans if they had failed.

Credit goes to House leaders for sticking with their essential product and working around the edges to cajole a majority. The bill that passed is remarkably similar to the one that GOP leaders first introduced. The changes demanded first by the Freedom Caucus and then some moderates are tweaks that don’t alter the reform’s core architecture.

The bill includes deregulatory steps to pave the way for a variety of insurance coverage that more people can afford; the largest entitlement reform in decades by devolving control over Medicaid to the states; a $1 trillion spending cut over a decade; tax credits for individual insurance that begin to equalize the tax treatment of health care for individuals and businesses; and the repeal of ObamaCare taxes totaling $900 billion over 10 years.

The bill doesn’t repeal all of ObamaCare because it can’t without Democratic help under the Senate’s budget rules. But the bill marks a giant step away from the Democratic march to government-run health care, which is why the political and cultural left have been so vitriolic in their denunciations.

The Western Schism of the 13th and 14th centuries saw five antipopes contest the legitimate succession to the pontifical throne. The schism was officially put to rest by the Ecumenical Council of Constance in 1417, although three of the five papal charlatans continued unsuccessfully to rebel against the authority of the Council. What we might call the American Schism of our day resembles a bizarre rerun of that sectarian clash, albeit in a secular dimension. For eight years Washington was not Washington, but Avignon on the Potomac, presided over by Anti-President Barack Obama II.

Many observers feel that the controversial ascension of Obama to the White House is no longer newsworthy. The sun has apparently set on Obama’s destructive stewardship of the country. He must be allowed to fade into political irrelevance while the country tackles without distraction the enormous problems that confront it. “There’s a lot of work to do,” writes one commenter to a recently posted article of mine, “Let’s start by consigning Obama to the dustbin of history, and repeat his name no more.”

This is a relatively common sentiment, but it is, I believe, a blinkered view of the Obama phenomenon. The sun is still at its zenith as the reality and repercussions of Obama’s tenure remain in force. Obama isn’t going away. He is intent on maximizing the damage he inflicted on the country during the two terms of his faux presidency, having now set up shop in Washington to pursue a post-presidency agenda advancing a left-wing insurgency, civil unrest, racial conflict and the destabilizing activities of a shadow government. His Alinskyite community organizing, 501(c) (4) nonprofit operations, advocacy with DNC backing for the “fundamental transformation” of America, a $60 million book contract, and the lure of obscenely lucrative speeches, clearly meant to further his former executive policies (as well as line his pockets), all continue to promote, as Mathew Vadum writes, “the social polarization and ethno-cultural balkanization he encouraged while president.” Not even post-presidential interventionists like the heroic Teddy Roosevelt or the irritating nuisance Jimmy Carter saw fit to establish tactical headquarters in the city on the hill. Unlike any of his 43 predecessors, Obama is without shame or compunction in his violation of post-presidential tradition, conduct befitting the program of an anti-president.

But this is by no means the whole story.

American presidents swear an oath of office to honor the Constitution and defend the nation’s interests. Obama has done neither. If fact, he has labored assiduously against the social integrity, economic viability and political well-being of the country, burdening it with runaway debt and unemployment, initiating a program of lemon socialism (the stimulus package) and a form of national mortmain (GM, Chrysler), doubling down on scandals like Global Warming (that isn’t happening) and Obamacare (that isn’t working), repeatedly lying to the electorate, turning government institutions like the IRS against his own people, legitimizing theft via wealth redistribution, ruling through a camarilla of unaccountable special advisors or “czars,” dismantling the nation’s border controls, favoring the Muslim Brotherhood terrorist organization at home and abroad, surveilling across the national spectrum, acting, according to the New York Post, as a “stooge” for the Russians, and effectively vandalizing the country’s international image, prosperity and security. This is Obama’s so-called “legacy,” a kind of Herostratic honor (after a 4th century Ephesian named Herostratus who destroyed the Temple of Artemis in order to immortalize his name). Such a list of sinister “accomplishments” alone would amply qualify him for the title of Anti-President.

It’s May. The flowers are blooming. Young couples stroll through the park holding hands. And Hillary Clinton continues to tour the country explaining that she would have won if only it hadn’t been for the vast FBI-Russian-Misogynist conspiracy that shamelessly robbed her of an inevitable victory.

It’s not a campaign. It’s an anti-campaign. In our political tradition, losers go away. But the Clintons are the cockroaches of American politics. Getting nuked 306 to 232 won’t get rid of them. Instead they crawl out of the rubble, greedy antennas twitching, to cash in on their latest disaster.

Wearing one of Elton John’s used leather pantsuits, her latest act of fashion revenge on the nation that had spurned her, Hillary showed up at 583 Park Avenue in the sixth month leg of her Defeat Tour.

“If you drive around in some of the places that beat the heck out of me, you cannot get cell coverage for miles,” she told a horrified Manhattan audience that included Meryl Streep and Donna Karan who can no more imagine going out without cell phone coverage than without their personal assistants.

And people without cell phone coverage, unlike Los Angeles and New York, which accounted for her “popular vote” that Hillary always brings up, don’t matter. Except around election time when even people without cell phone coverage, personal assistants and Netflix accounts are still allowed to vote.

If it’s anyone’s fault that Hillary lost, it’s the “States” part of the United States.

Is it fair that 3 million progressive Hillary voters in New York City and Los Angeles County should be outvoted by a bunch of hicks in flyover country who can’t even get 4G on their iPhone 7S?

As another defeated candidate once said, “This anonymous clan of slack-jawed troglodytes has cost me the election, and yet if I were to have them killed, I would be the one to go to jail. That’s democracy for you.” That’s the position that the #Resistance, whose newest member is Hillary herself, embodies.

But as always, she was there to take responsibility. Absolute responsibility. Nothing relative about it.

“I take absolute personal responsibility,” Hillary declared. Then she blamed the FBI-Russian conspiracy. Not to mention misogyny. And lack of cell phone coverage.

Absolute personal responsibility, indeed. At this sad stage in Hillary’s career, students of the English language are forced to ponder whether she’s a liar or just doesn’t understand what words mean.

Even absent Hillary Clinton’s latest bleat about how he cost her the election, FBI director James Comey’s testimony on Wednesday at a routine oversight hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee was certain to be anything but routine. And sure enough, Comey mounted a vigorous defense of his letter of October 28, 2016 — eleven days before Election Day — in which he informed Congress that the Clinton e-mails investigation had been reopened.

Director Comey did nevertheless allow that he was made “mildly nauseous” by the suggestion that his letter affected the vote’s outcome.

Several features of the hearing were especially worth noting. I have dealt with one of them in a separate column — viz., the director’s continuing defense of his assessment that there was insufficient criminal-intent evidence to warrant charging Mrs. Clinton. Now, let’s turn to another: the Democrats’ effort to skew or erase entirely the context of Comey’s October 28 letter.

It would be foolish to deny that the letter may have had some impact on voters. The effect was likely very small: By the time of the letter (as our Jim Geraghty has related), 35 million Americans had already voted; most voters had already made up their minds about the e-mail scandal after many months of coverage and commentary; Comey’s notification did not announce charges or accuse Clinton of additional wrongdoing; and the ultimate determination that the new evidence did not change the FBI’s decision against bringing charges was also announced before Election Day. Still, to say President Trump’s margin of victory was “razor thin” is an understatement. So close was the contest that it is hard to discount anything as a factor possibly material to the outcome.

That said, Democrats would now have you believe that history began on October 28. In reality, the critical context of that day’s letter to Congress was the Comey press conference four months earlier — on July 5 — followed by the director’s extensive congressional testimony in the days that followed. It makes no sense for Democrats to complain about the letter and its departure from protocol but ignore the press conference’s far more extensive departures. To the (debatable) extent that there was a need to notify Congress in late October that the investigation had been reopened, it was precisely because the director, in early July, had made a highly unusual, highly public pronouncement that the investigation was complete and the case too weak to charge.

You may recall the unrestrained Democratic glee over that particular breach of protocol.

Of course, smarter Democrats perceive this incongruity. Thus, rather than ignore the Comey press conference, they bowdlerize it, choosing to remember only the first three-quarters of Comey’s bravura performance. That, you’ll recall, is the part in which the director rebuked Clinton for her inappropriate conduct, her “extreme carelessness” in handling highly classified information, the cavalier culture that prevailed during Clinton’s State Department tenure regarding the need to safeguard intelligence, and so on.

What Democrats choose to forget, and hope you will too, is the closing section of Comey’s remarks. That was when he seized the power of the Justice Department to render legal conclusions about both the prosecutorial merits of the case and the interpretation of the relevant criminal statute. In this conclusion, not only did Comey claim that Clinton’s conduct did not warrant an indictment, he gratuitously added the declaration that no “reasonable prosecutor” could disagree with his assessment.

This was a specious claim, but it commanded a respectful hearing, having come from an official who was not just the nation’s top investigator but had been a highly accomplished, top-ranking prosecutor in his own right. And remember (even if Dems prefer that you forget), Comey’s “lack of criminal intent” theory swept aside not only the classified-information felonies but also Clinton’s willful destruction of tens of thousands of government records — more felonies. By the time the press conference ended — poof! — it was as if someone had taken BleachBit to the thought of filing such charges.

Now that Clinton has lost and Democrats need a scapegoat, they have suddenly developed amnesia over this decisive aspect of the Comey press conference. But it saved Clinton’s candidacy. Now that we know what a lousy campaign she ran from July to November, Democrats understandably don’t regard this as any great favor. Back in July, however, when they were so sure that only Comey — and certainly not Donald Trump — could derail the next Clinton administration, Democrats could not have been more effusive in proclaiming the director’s unwavering integrity and legal acumen.

Now that Clinton has lost and Democrats need a scapegoat.

In his testimony today before the Senate Judiciary Committee (on which I’ll have more to say in an upcoming column), FBI director James Comey has stuck by his claim that declining to bring charges against Hillary Clinton for mishandling classified information was the right call because proof of intent was lacking. This is unsurprising. The director has repeated this analysis many times. It hasn’t gotten better with age, but given his insistence that “no reasonable prosecutor” could possibly disagree with him, I’m not holding my breath waiting for him to reverse himself.

In my column over the weekend, discussing a lengthy New York Times report about the Clinton e-mails investigation, I briefly rehashed why Comey is wrong about this:

This is a convoluted part of the story, stemming from the Justice Department’s effective rewriting of the applicable statute to avoid charging Clinton. As the Times tells it, the Justice Department and the FBI knew that to charge Clinton with a crime, it would not be enough to prove she had been “sloppy or careless”; instead, “they needed evidence showing that she knowingly received classified information or set up her server for that purpose.”

As I have contended before, this claim is specious on multiple levels. Subsection (f) of the pertinent statute (the Espionage Act, codified at Section 793 of Title 18, U.S. Code) makes it a felony to mishandle classified information “through gross negligence” — i.e., proving Clinton was sloppy or careless (or “extremely careless,” to use Comey’s own description) could have been sufficient. But beyond that, Clinton willfully set up a private network for the systematic handling of her State Department-related communications, in violation of federal record-keeping requirements of which she was well aware, and under circumstances in which she (a former senator who served for years on the intelligence Armed Services committee) was a sophisticated longtime consumer of classified information. She was keenly aware that her responsibilities as secretary of state would heavily involve classified information — whether it was “marked” classified or “born classified” because of the subject matter.

It is irrelevant whether Clinton’s purpose was to transmit or store classified information on the private, non-secure server; prosecutors are not required to prove motive. The question is whether she knew classified information would end up on the server, and her set-up made that inevitable.

That is, Clinton could have been prosecuted either for willfully mishandling classified information or for doing so through gross negligence.

As I elaborate in the column, the Times did not address the controlling statute in its 8,000-word article. Instead, the story was that Clinton could not be charged because of the purported Petraeus precedent. We are to believe that the evidence of former CIA director David Petreaus’s criminal intent was far stronger than Clinton’s, yet he was not charged with the felony mishandling of classified information (he was permitted to plead guilty to a misdemeanor); ergo, it would have been an abuse of prosecutorial discretion to charge Clinton with the felony.

I addressed this in the column as well:

This line of reasoning is fatuous — and it’s another instance of the Justice Department adopting Clinton campaign cant. Petreaus shared his classified diaries with a single person, a paramour who actually had a security clearance (albeit not one high enough to view what she was shown). Clinton’s offense was more extensive in duration and seriousness.

Assuming the accuracy of the Times’s account, Comey is quite right that Petraeus should have been indicted on much more serious charges (as I have contended). But the Justice Department’s dereliction in Petraeus’s case was hardly a justification for giving Clinton a pass on a more egregious offense that, unlike Petraeus’s, (a) almost certainly caused the compromise of government secrets to foreign intelligence services and (b) resulted in the destruction of tens of thousands of government records — a separate felony. Clinton’s misconduct should have been prosecuted under the governing law, not excused based on the sweetheart plea deal Petraeus got.

Some good news for readers who enjoy personal freedom and eating pizza: The Trump Administration this week delayed calorie rules that carried criminal penalties for errant pepperonis. Now Congress should rework the idea in legislation.

The Food and Drug Administration announced on Monday that the agency would delay a May 5 enforcement date for a rule that requires restaurants with more than 20 locations to post calorie counts on menu boards, ostensibly to encourage healthy choices and prevent a patchwork of state labeling schemes. The mandate was included in the Affordable Care Act in 2010.

But the resulting regulation has been thrice delayed because it required pizza chains to display per slice ranges for an estimated 34 million topping combinations. Imagine a sign that reads “200-800 calories per slice of one-topping medium pizza” with lists of individual accoutrements that span from 0-400 calories, with each one varying based on whether you add other toppings. Do you feel edified about your food choices?

The displays would be ripped up and replaced for every limited-time special. Franchisees—that is, local business owners, not Mr. Moneybags—would sign affidavits that “reasonable” efforts were made to ensure the accuracy of the placards. That’s an invitation for trial lawyers to drag every last pizza to a lab for verification. The penalties for noncompliance include a year in jail, and who knew that a job at Papa John’s could lead to a life of crime.

A bill in the House would eliminate the fines and hard time, as well as allow pizza places to display information online, where customers can already find it. Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price, who deserves credit for the stroke of common sense, voted for an earlier version of the legislation. Congress should move on it before next year’s new enforcement date arrives, though the FDA could also revise the rule.

The FDA’s final guidance is riddled with amusing introspections on what constitutes a “combination meal” or how to label pumpkin lattes, but the less funny reality is that the pizza industry has spent years and millions of dollars fighting this insane rule-making. The Trump Administration is right to put those resources back in the productive economy.