RUTHFULLY YOURS

A new report alleges that the Department of Veterans Affairs spent $20 million between 2004 and 2014 on costly artwork.

The expenditures included more than $1 million for a courtyard with a large sculpture at a Palo Alto veterans facility; $330,000 for a glass-art installation; and $21,000 for an artificial Christmas tree, according to the report.

Open The Books, a nonprofit that claims to be the world’s largest private database of government spending, in conjunction with Cox Media used government data to examine the Veterans Affairs Department’s (VA) spending on art for their facilities in the decade ending in 2014.

Much of the spending occurred at a time when veterans were experiencing lengthy waits for treatment at VA facilities. After as many as 40 veterans died while seeking care at the VA’s Phoenix Healthcare System, the federal agency’s inspector general found in 2014 that lengthy waits for treatment might have contributed to the deaths but did not definitively cause them.

The Veterans Affairs agency admitted publicly around this time that its health care operations were overwhelmed and understaffed.

Now this new report is sparking fresh anger from both veterans and lawmakers.

Illinois Sen. Mark Kirk, a Republican, wrote Veterans Affairs Secretary Bob McDonald on July 26, demanding a “moratorium on art spending by the VA.” In his letter, Kirk mentioned that a House Veterans Affairs Committee hearing last fall highlighted what he said were excessive expenditures, $6.3 million, by the VA on artwork at the Palo Alto Healthcare System.

A spokesperson for the Palo Alto facility told ABC News that it had more than $4 million in art contracts in 2013 and 2014, including for an installation on the side of a parking garage. The installation, meant to honor blind veterans, featured quotes by Abraham Lincoln and Eleanor Roosevelt in Morse code that light up. The irony, critics point out, is that a blind veteran would be unlikely to see the massive artwork that cost $280,000.

Of all the ignorant pronouncements in the 2016 presidential campaign, the dumbest may be that the Constitution forbids a “religious test” in the vetting of immigrants. Monotonously repeated in political speeches and talking-head blather, this claim is heedless of the Islamic doctrinal roots on which foreign-born Islamists and the jihadists they breed base their anti-Americanism. It is also dead wrong.

The clause said to be the source of this drivel is found in Article VI. As you’ll no doubt be shocked to learn, it has utterly nothing to do with immigration. The clause states, “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States” (emphasis added). On its face, the provision is not only inapplicable to immigrants at large, let alone aliens who would like to be immigrants; it does not even apply to the general public. It is strictly limited to public officials — specifically to their fitness to serve in government positions.

This is equally clear from the clause’s context. Right before the “no religious Test” directive, Article VI decrees that elected and appointed officials “shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution[.]” An oath of office customarily requires the official to “solemnly swear” that he or she will support and defend the Constitution, “so help me God.” (See, e.g., the oath prescribed by federal law.) The Framers tacked on the “no religious test” clause to clarify that the mandate of a solemn oath before taking office did not mean fidelity to a particular religious creed was required. The same principle informs the First Amendment’s prohibition on the establishment of a state religion.

This is as it should be. The Constitution prescribes very few qualifications for even the highest offices because its purpose is to promote liberty, which vitally includes the freedom to elect whomever we choose, to vote our own private consciences. The principal check on public officials is the ballot box, not the law’s minimalist requirements.

As voters, we have the right to weigh a candidate’s religious beliefs as a significant part of the total package. We have done so from the Republic’s founding — and to this day, virtually all candidates take pains to wear their faith, however nominal, on their sleeves. When the loathsome Jeremiah Wright fleetingly became an issue in the 2008 campaign, Barack Obama did not thunder, “Under the Constitution, you must not inquire into my religious beliefs!” He threw the Rev under the bus. When it comes to choosing those who will represent us, we do not limit ourselves by intrusive laws, but we reserve the right to bring to bear any consideration, including religion, that we deem relevant.

What works in the narrow context of qualification for public office does not extend to other aspects of governance — in particular, security.

PHILADELPHIA—Last night Hillary Clinton reminded us of what is least appealing about Donald Trump. She then proceeded to remind us of what is least appealing about her. (To be more precise, what is least appealing about her apart from the corruption and nepotism.)

“Don’t believe anyone who says, ‘I alone can fix it,’ ” she exhorted the audience at home and here, in the Wells Fargo Center:

Yes, those were actually Donald Trump’s words in Cleveland. And they should set off alarm bells for all of us. Really? I alone can fix it? Isn’t he forgetting troops on the front lines, police officers and firefighters who run toward danger, doctors and nurses who care for us, teachers who change lives, entrepreneurs who see possibilities in every problem, mothers who lost children to violence and are building a movement to keep other kids safe? He’s forgetting every last one of us.

And remember, remember, our Founders fought a Revolution and wrote a Constitution so America would never be a nation where one person had all the power.

Two hundred forty years later, we still put our faith in each other. Look at what happened in Dallas after the assassinations of five brave police officers. Police Chief David Brown asked the community to support his force, maybe even join them. And you know how the community responded? Nearly 500 people applied in just 12 days.

That’s how Americans answer when the call for help goes out.

This was excellent work by Mrs. Clinton’s speechwriters, at once inspiring to the listener and merciless to her opponent.

In fairness to Trump, it was based on a misinterpretation of his comment—and surely a deliberate one, as there is no question of the literacy of Mrs. Clinton’s speechwriters. Here is what he said last week in Cleveland, with some context:

I have joined the political arena so that the powerful can no longer beat up on people who cannot defend themselves.

Nobody knows the system better than me, which is why I alone can fix it. I have seen firsthand how the system is rigged against our citizens, just like it was rigged against Bernie Sanders—he never had a chance.

(As an aside, that last bit turned out to be truer than anybody outside the Democratic National Committee and WikiLeaks knew, didn’t it?)

Trump didn’t say, “I can fix it alone,” which is the claim Mrs. Clinton rebutted so effectively. His meaning was Only I can fix it—a more highly energetic formulation of a vanquished rival’s slogan, “Jeb can fix it.” Whether it is true that Trump can fix it, or that nobody else can fix it, is an open question.

But understood properly, the claim is no more than a bit of promotional hyperbole, similar to the assertion, often repeated in Philadelphia (though not by Mrs. Clinton herself) that she is the “most qualified” man, woman, other type of adult, or child ever to seek the presidency. It’s laughable when taken literally, but then so are most sales pitches.

Further, “I alone can fix it” had rubbed us the wrong way, and the subtle difference between it and “I can fix it alone” didn’t occur to us until after Mrs. Clinton had finished speaking and we were thinking about what to write about her speech. That means it likely occurred to very few of her listeners. And by the standards of political rhetoric, her twisting of his meaning was quite mild.

In sum, Mrs. Clinton effectively exploited her opponent’s poorly chosen phrase, and did so in a way that was almost fair. Good show. But then she went on:

Mr. Barrett, a retired U.S. Coast Guard vice admiral and former deputy secretary of the Transportation Department, is president of the Alyeska Pipeline Service Co.

For nearly four decades, the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System has served as Alaska’s economic artery while providing the rest of the U.S. with a reliable supply of domestic oil from Alaska’s North Slope. Even with lower oil prices and the shale revolution increasing domestic production, TAPS, as we Alaskans call it, remains a key component of the national energy infrastructure. But the pipeline needs more Arctic oil to sustain its contributions to Alaska’s economy and America’s energy security.

As president of the Alyeska Pipeline Service Co., which was formed in 1970 to build and operate TAPS, I’ve seen firsthand how essential the pipeline is to Alaska’s economy. One-third of all jobs in the state are tied to the oil and gas industry, and oil companies are, by far, the largest contributors to state revenues.

Even more important are the people who make the industry work. Thousands of Alaskans across the state—engineers and surveyors, pipeline technicians, welders and laborers, accountants and safety and environmental professionals—get up every day to ensure that Alaska’s oil and gas industry operates safely and responsibly, and continues to serve as the lifeblood of the Alaska economy, and a reliable energy source for America.

The pending five-year offshore leasing program under review by the Obama administration is critical to the continued operation of TAPS. The program stipulates the size, timing and location of possible leasing activity that the Interior secretary determines best meets the energy needs of the nation from 2017-22.

As the administration considers the public comments submitted on the draft plan, it is crucial to consider what is at stake. The draft 2017-22 leasing program includes three proposed sales in Alaska: one each in the Arctic’s Chukchi and Beaufort seas and one in Cook Inlet. The Arctic offshore resource potential is enormous. The Interior Department estimates that Alaska’s Arctic offshore basins hold more than 27 billion barrels of oil and 132 trillion cubic feet of natural gas—approximately one-third of the nation’s oil and gas reserves. Those resources could ensure a steady future supply of oil for TAPS.

After what even critics said was a highly effective Democratic National Convention, Hillary Clinton appears to have emerged as . . . the underdog.

Conventional wisdom has long held that Mrs. Clinton will capture the White House in November, regardless of the challenges her candidacy faces. With three months to go, that calculus looks shaky. The 2016 election is trending toward Donald Trump.

Yes, the race has been fluid and will likely remain so. Mrs. Clinton might get a solid convention bounce. But even in the best-case scenario, it seems unlikely to surpass Mr. Trump’s own bounce—five to six points in some polls, which is greater than President Obama’s in 2008 or 2012. The Republican’s boost is largely the result of Mr. Trump’s successful speech in Cleveland. Fifty-seven percent of those watching had a “very positive” reaction, and 56% said that they were more likely to vote for him. You’d never know it from listening to the mainstream press, which condemned the speech as “dark.”

Right now the momentum points in one direction: Mr. Trump’s. The race is tied in the Real Clear Politics polling average, which represents a reversal in his fortunes of three to four points. Earlier this week, with the GOP convention still fresh, Mr. Trump had the clear advantage and edged ahead of Mrs. Clinton. As polls during the first days of the Democratic convention began to be factored in, a statistical tie emerged.

WASHINGTON—Declining business investment is hobbling an already sluggish U.S. expansion, raising concerns about the economy’s durability as the presidential campaign heads into its final stretch.

Gross domestic product, the broadest measure of goods and services produced across the U.S., grew at a seasonally and inflation adjusted annual rate of just 1.2% in the second quarter, the Commerce Department said Friday, well below the pace economists expected.

Economic growth is now tracking at a 1% rate in 2016—the weakest start to a year since 2011—when combined with a downwardly revised reading for the first quarter. That makes for an annual average rate of 2.1% growth since the end of the recession, the weakest pace of any expansion since at least 1949.

The output figures are in some ways discordant with other gauges of the economy. The unemployment rate stands at 4.9% after a streak of strong job gains, wages have begun to pick up, and home sales hit a post-recession high last month.

Consumer spending also remains strong. Personal consumption, which accounts for more than two-thirds of economic output, expanded at a 4.2% rate in the second quarter, the best gain since late 2014.

On the downside, the third straight quarter of reduced business investment, a large paring back of inventories and declining government spending cut into those gains.

“Consumer spending growth was the sole element of good news” in the latest GDP figures, said Gregory Daco, an economist at Oxford Economics. “Weakness in business investment is an important and lingering growth constraint.”

WASHINGTON — Computer systems used by Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign were hacked in an attack that appears to have come from Russia’s intelligence services, a federal law enforcement official said on Friday.
The apparent breach, coming after the disclosure last month that the Democratic National Committee’s computer system had been compromised, escalates an international episode in which Clinton campaign officials have suggested that Russia might be trying to sway the outcome of the election.
Mrs. Clinton’s campaign said in a statement that intruders had gained access to an analytics program used by the campaign and maintained by the national committee, but it said that it did not believe that the campaign’s own internal computer systems had been compromised.
The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, the fund-raising arm for House Democrats, also said on Friday that its systems had been hacked. Together, the databases of the national committee and the House organization contain some of the party’s most sensitive communications and voter and financial data.
Meredith Kelly, a spokeswoman for the congressional committee, said that after it discovered the breach, “we immediately took action and engaged with CrowdStrike, a leading forensic investigator, to assist us in addressing this incident.”The attack on the congressional committee’s system appears to have come from an entity known as “Fancy Bear,” which is connected to the G.R.U., the Russian military intelligence service, according to an official involved in the forensic investigation.
The same arm of Russia’s intelligence operation was also implicated in the attack on the national committee, in which it gained access to opposition research on Republicans, including the party’s presidential nominee, Donald J. Trump.
“It’s the same adversary,” the official involved in the forensic investigation said. “These are sophisticated actors.”
The F.B.I. said on Friday that it was examining reports of “cyberintrusions involving multiple political entities” but did not identify the targets of the attacks.
The Clinton campaign used the program that was hacked to analyze voter data, but it did not contain voters’ Social Security numbers or credit card information, a campaign aide said. The campaign said it was confident, based on a review by outside experts, that getting into the program would not have allowed the hackers to gain access to the campaign’s internal emails, voice mail messages or other data.

Friends and Colleagues, some travel over the last couple of weeks left me unable to circulate columns and posts as usual (and some time off meant there were fewer of those anyway). Today I am sending out the latest, including the full version of a feature article about Hillary Clinton written for the print version of National Review, from our August 1 special Democratic Convention issue (which is available online only to subscribers). Links to other columns are below that article. Hope everyone enjoys what’s left of the summer. All the best, Andy
In early July, in a performance as legally baffling as it was politically predictable, Federal Bureau of Investigation director James B. Comey recommended against a felony prosecution of the former secretary of state and certain Democratic presidential nominee. The recommendation was gratuitous: It is the FBI’s function to investigate crimes; the Justice Department alone exercises charging discretion. It is a commonplace for case agents and government prosecutors to consult on both investigative tactics and charging decisions. It is a rarity, though, for the FBI director to get directly involved in, much less make, an indictment decision. That, in effect, is what Comey did. That his recommendation was uncalled for makes it all the more indefensible.

To stick for a moment with the FBI’s actual function, let’s note that its agents performed admirably, particularly in the forensic aspects of the investigation: the examination of Mrs. Clinton’s “homebrew” servers, the painstaking reassembly of millions of bits of data into thousands of e-mails (out of the 30,000 e-mails that Clinton and her phalanx of lawyers and aides had quite intentionally sought to delete and destroy). The FBI thus carried its burden to uncover evidence that can be used to establish the essential elements of crimes defined in federal penal laws. In this instance, according to Director Comey’s unusually transparent and devastating account of what his investigators found, it is simply incontestable that then–secretary of state Clinton (a) mishandled classified information in a manner that was grossly negligent (indeed, Comey called it “extremely careless”) and (b) concealed and destroyed federal records.

Yet Comey claimed not only that no prosecution was warranted but also that no reasonable prosecutor could disagree with this conclusion. The first assertion is flatly wrong; the second is breathtaking, and it evoked aptly spirited dissenting reactions from such iconic former prosecutors as Rudolph W. Giuliani, the former New York City mayor who, as U.S. attorney in Manhattan, hired Comey as a young prosecutor in the mid Eighties, and Michael B. Mukasey, the distinguished former federal judge who served as U.S. attorney general in the George W. Bush administration not long after Comey served as deputy attorney general. (Like Comey, whom I have known as a friend and sometime colleague for nearly 30 years, I was hired as an assistant U.S. attorney by Mr. Giuliani.)

When Comey testified before a House committee just two days after rejecting an indictment of Clinton, the flaws in his rationale were painfully apparent. He suggested that “American tradition” and the Constitution forbid criminal prosecution on an offense as serious as mishandling classified information — a felony carrying a potential ten-year prison term — if the required mens rea (state of mind) element of the crime in the relevant statute calls for mere negligence rather than intent to do harm. To the contrary, many state and federal crimes do not require proof of intentional or willful wrongdoing — indeed, virtually every state has long criminalized negligent homicide. Moreover, Comey inaccurately portrayed the gross-negligence offense as if it were an isolated excrescence in federal law; in fact, it is the bottom of a sliding scale of crimes involving national-defense secrets, carefully calibrated by Congress so that the most serious offense — classic espionage involving intended harm to the U.S. — is at the top. Appropriately, the least serious offense of gross negligence involving national-defense secrets is narrowly tailored: It applies not to all Americans but to officials with security clearances who are intimately familiar with rules governing their special obligation to safeguard intelligence.

But in any case, far from being merely negligent, Clinton’s outrageous conduct screams of willfulness. She intentionally set up an unlawful non-government communication system specifically to evade federal disclosure and accountability laws. In her position at the pinnacle of American foreign relations, she had to know it was inevitable that extremely sensitive intelligence matters would be discussed over the system. The hundreds of classified e-mails discovered included 110 (in 52 e-mail chains) sent or received by Clinton herself. Seven of these involved “top secret/special access program” intelligence — the most highly classified secrets in government, concerning deep-cover informants and closely guarded intelligence-collection techniques (meaning: information the revelation of which can get our agents killed and fold up vital national-security operations).

“Any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position,” Comey admonished, “should have known that an unclassified system was no place for” such exchanges. The director further acknowledged that Clinton’s homebrew system was woefully unsecure: It would have been better, though still against the rules, to use Gmail. Top Clinton aides exacerbated these security compromises, Comey recounted, by using unsecure communication systems while they were outside the United States and “in the territory of sophisticated adversaries.” Clinton clearly knew this practice was a major security breach, assuming she read her own memoir Hard Choices, which — though unmentioned by Comey — takes pains to describe the extraordinary communications precautions that must be taken overseas. The director, in fact, said it was almost certain that Clinton’s system had been penetrated by hostile foreign intelligence operatives (the deftness of whose methods prevents apodictic certainty). He further ruefully observed that, under Clinton, “the culture of the State Department in general” was cavalier, compared with that of other government agencies, when it came to safeguarding intelligence.