RUTHFULLY YOURS

The first presidential debate between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump is only days away. What can we hope for? A revealing gaffe, a zinger that hits home, a flash of true spontaneity or a glimpse of the real character of the candidates—these seem to be the most anyone is hoping for, and more than we are likely to get.

Debates, at their very best, are the diamonds of democratic politics—crystal clear in argument, sparkling with wit, free from the discolorations of petty self-interest and shaped to focus light on the great issues of the day. But diamonds are rare, and no one is expecting a jewel on Monday night. The problem isn’t only that our candidates are lackluster, tempting as that explanation may be. Nor does the fault lie mainly in the quality of the questions or the skill of the moderator. The forum itself is flawed. How many ways are there to say, “Vote for me”? That line will always be more advertisement than argument.

The first televised presidential debate, starring John Kennedy and Richard Nixon, aired 56 years ago on Sept. 26, 1960. People who listened on the radio thought Nixon won, but those who watched on TV thought Kennedy won, and the election was so close that the TV factor might have made a difference. But should it have? Did viewers learn something from the grainy, flickering black and white images on their tiny TVs that was really relevant to the question of which policy or person was best for the country?

The Kennedy-Nixon debate garnered mixed reviews, including severe criticism from establishment figures. The journalist Edward R. Murrow called it “a puny contribution, capsuled, homogenized, perhaps dangerous in its future implication.” The historian Henry Steele Commager responded with an essay entitled, “Washington Would Have Lost a TV Debate.” “The present formula of TV debate,” he remarked, “is designed to corrupt the public judgment and, eventually, the whole political process. The American Presidency is too great an office to be subjected to the indignity of this technique.” Though the televised debates returned and eventually became a regular part of the campaign, it is hard to think of even one that stands out as a model of informed and informative discourse.

During most campaign cycles, someone will write an essay comparing the disappointing pettiness of modern debates to the great Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1858, a series of daylong exchanges in various towns around Illinois during the contest between Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas for a Senate seat. (Lincoln lost.) Whereas in modern televised debates, a candidate often has just 90 seconds for an answer, those debates gave each speaker 90 minutes for a single response. Audiences stood all day in the late summer sun to listen to intricate arguments about matters of national importance, such as the extension of slavery into the western territories. Our attention spans on the couch at home don’t compare very well.

Hillary Clinton says she wants the votes of Republicans who are troubled by Donald Trump, but you wouldn’t know it from her continued left turns on the economy. On Thursday she decided that her proposal to raise the death tax to 45% from 40% isn’t enough and endorsed even higher levies that would apply to thousands of estates.

Though she defeated Bernie Sanders in the primary, she is adopting the socialist’s death-tax rate structure. She’d tax all estates over $10 million at 50%, apply a 55% rate on estates over $50 million, and go to 65% on assets above $500 million. The 65% rate would be the highest since 1981 and is another example of how she is repudiating the more moderate policies of her husband and the Democrats of the 1990s.

The left claims only the super-wealthy will pay high rates, but the Sanders plan that Mrs. Clinton is copying did not index exemption levels for inflation. One reason a bipartisan movement emerged to reform the death tax in the 1990s was because the then 55% rate engulfed ever more taxpayers over time. Mrs. Clinton would also end the “step-up in basis” on stock valuations for many filers, triggering big capital gains taxes for a much broader population.

She also knows most of her rich friends will set up foundations, as she and Bill Clinton have, to shelter most of their riches from the estate tax. As Americans have learned, these supposed charities can be terrific vehicles for employing political operatives while they wait for Chelsea to run for the Senate.

The author is absolutely right…..by naming the Saudis best American friend as vice president, Ronald Reagan paved the way for George Bush (1) and his buddy James Baker to destroy the real Reagan/Goldwater legacy…..even as they took spurious credit for “ending the cold war” as son Jeb stated…..rsk

Ronald Reagan’s worst mistake was named George H.W. Bush. Bush was the price that Reagan paid for the support of fake conservatives.

And the price ended up being his legacy.

Reagan had never felt good about naming Bush as his second, worrying about “turning the country over to him.” And he was right to worry. Once in office, Bush disavowed Reagan’s economic policies, which he had always hated, got deep into bed with the Saudis with disastrous results, and lost a winnable election to Bill Clinton. Reagan had handed Bush victory and Bush had brought Republicans utter defeat.

Bush was the ultimate political insider, with shaky popular appeal, but impeccable political connections. Loyal to party, rather than principles, he was trusted by the establishment in sensitive positions. His final task was to undermine the Reagan Revolution. It’s unsurprising to hear that he will vote for Hillary.

George H.W. Bush ran against Reagan as a left-leaning Republican. In Congress he had backed a plethora of destructive leftist programs. On his way to the White House, he was for abortion and the ERA and the FHA. Described by his wife as a social liberal and a fiscal conservative, he failed to live up to even that low bar in the White House.

Past party labels, George H.W. Bush has a great deal in common with Hillary Clinton. Both of them emphasize social welfare in domestic policy and Muslim appeasement in foreign policy. They both view the role of government as that of patron rather than representative. They see political leaders as wiser than the people they serve. They despise “religious fundamentalism” of the non-Islamic kind, hate Israel, cheer Planned Parenthood and want to fight as many wars for the Saudis as they can manage.

Bush is not unique in that regard. The latest Bush incarnation, Jeb, ran on that same noblesse oblige of an unwanted elite lecturing taxpayers on their obligations to the Democratic Party’s voter base. Bush I had no interest in what the people in his district thought of his social welfare votes at their expense. But this philanthropic contempt runs through much of the fake conservative class which incessantly lectures conservatives on the virtues of illegal immigration, freeing drug dealers and social welfare.

In a recent column, Bret Stephens recognized that one of the lessons from this past weekend’s terror attacks is that “there is [a]… benefit in the surveillance methods that allowed police in New York and New Jersey to swiftly identify and arrest Mr. Rahimi before his bombing spree took any lives.” A Wall Street Journal editorial that same day noted that “Since 9/11… the NYPD has made great progress in being able to track down terror suspects.” And while the New York and New Jersey police departments deserve high praise for their handling of these attacks and quick apprehension of those involved, I cannot help but wonder if the injuries to its 29 victims could have been prevented.

In the years following 9/11, the NYPD, under the leadership of Police Commissioner Ray Kelly, organized the Demographic Unit, a creation of CIA officer Lawrence Sanchez who established it in 2003 while working at the department. The unit was designed as a surveillance program in which undercover officers infiltrated New York and New Jersey Muslim-owned businesses, mosques, and Islamic schools in order to detect terror threats before they were executed. According to a New York Times article:

The goal was to identify the mundane locations where a would-be terrorist could blend into society. Plainclothes detectives looked for “hot spots” of radicalization that might give the police an early warning about terrorist plots. The squad, which typically consisted of about a dozen members, focused on 28 “ancestries of interest.”

Unfortunately, the program was discovered in 2009 and under public pressure from local Muslim communities as well as legal challenges to the program, Kelly’s successor, William Bratton, ultimately closed down the unit. One of the loudest critics of the undercover surveillance was New Jersey governor Chris Christie who, joined by then-Newark mayor Cory Booker, called the program “disturbing” and “deeply offensive.” Christie took issue with the fact that, notwithstanding the Newark police department’s involvement with the program, neither he nor the feds were informed. In 2012 Christie stated, “I know they think that their jurisdiction is the world. Their jurisdiction is New York City. My concern is this kind of affectation that the NYPD seems to have that they are the masters of the universe.”

Christie also reportedly approached Attorney General Eric Holder with his concerns. However, after a three-month investigation, New Jersey attorney general Jeffrey Chiesa “concluded there was no evidence to show the NYPD’s activities in the state violated New Jersey’s civil or criminal laws.” Nonetheless, within several months of that finding, the NYPD caved to pressure and pulled out of New Jersey and by 2014, much to the delight of New York City mayor Bill de Blasio, the program was shuttered completely.

One has to wonder what universe Christie is living in in which he believes that terrorists abide by geographic and law enforcement jurisdictional lines. When this story broke, the Associate Press reported that the NYPD was also secretly monitoring the activities of campus Muslim student groups at over a dozen colleges in the Northeast. While not exactly the politically correct thing to do (as we all know from the degrading treatment every American receives going through TSA lines), PC behavior is not going to save us from radical Islam. An honest discussion about the indoctrination that occurs within local Muslim communities, and most especially their mosques, is warranted and necessary rather than the indefensible focus on offending a demographic that is taking no outward steps to help prevent terrorism.

The Commission on Presidential Debates, which is in charge of Monday night’s cage match between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, lists three topics on its website for the 90-minute debate: America’s Direction, Achieving Prosperity and Securing America.

Moderator Lester Holt, a news man, knows that as of last Saturday, this debate is mostly going to be about an Afghan-American named Ahmad Khan Rahami and a Somali-American who stabbed nine people in a Minneapolis mall.

If they can get in a few thoughts on “America’s Direction,” that’ll be nice, but national security—terrorism—has muscled its way to the top of a presidential campaign’s stack of issues. We were there last in 2004, when Americans decided they’d take George W. Bush over John Kerry in the lingering shadows of 9/11.
Now the choice is these two.
Ahmad Khan Rahami’s pressure-cooker bomb blew up in the Manhattan neighborhood of Chelsea, about five blocks from where I live. Within the hour, my phone was buzzing with the same text message from family and friends: “Are you all right?” This is the way it is now. Thousands of identical texts—are you all right?—surely poured into St. Cloud, Minn., Saturday after the stabbing spree.

On whether Mrs. Clinton or Mr. Trump is better able to deal with the mass-murder compulsions of Islamic terrorists, opinion polls before Saturday essentially said Hillary is ahead by a point or two. You might expect that on so grave an issue, a former secretary of state and two-term U.S. senator would be ahead by more than a nose of someone she describes as totally unfit to be on the same stage with her.

But he is, and they’re tied, so the American people must be seeing something the conventional media wisdom can’t or won’t on terrorism. CONTINUE AT SITE

Both presidential candidates had campaign events scheduled in North Carolina Tuesday, but only one of them actually made it to their event.

At High Point University, Trump spoke for about 30 minutes to a crowd of 2,000 people — mostly students. Later in the day, he held a rally in Kenansville, NC — a town with fewer than 900 residents. Between 7,000 and 10,000 people were expected to attend that rally in Duplin County. According to WNCT, nearly 10,000 people poured into the tiny town to hear Trump speak at an event center that holds only 6,000 people. Those who made it in say they were not disappointed.

“He’s sincere about making America great,” says Trump supporter Freddie Stancil. “That’s what he means. He’s coming down here to the root of these people who work hard.”

A sentiment we continually heard throughout the day from Eastern North Carolina residents is they appreciate Trump stumping in Duplin County, an area that is often overlooked when plotting stops on the campaign trail.

Thank you Kenansville, North Carolina! Remember- on November 8th, that special interest gravy train is coming to a very abrupt end! #MAGA pic.twitter.com/DFzuUrWogB
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 21, 2016

Hillary meanwhile, had planned a private fundraiser at a home in Chapel Hill, where well-heeled donors were asked to pay up to $100,000 for the pleasure of having lunch with her. Clinton campaign officials canceled the fundraiser Monday afternoon — no reason given.

The Clinton event was billed as “lunch with Hillary Rodham Clinton” and had four donation levels to attend.

Those contribution levels were described as $100,000, which featured “chair reception with Hillary,” $33,000, which included a “host reception with Hillary,” $5,000, which included “preferred seating” and $2,700.

The weekend’s terrorist attacks in New York and New Jersey were fortuitously timed for Garden State governor Chris Christie: Not only did he get to project steely determination in a sudden crisis; the jihad diverted attention from the explosive start of the Bridgegate trial. Opening to the New Jersey jury in the case against two of Christie’s most trusted (but now former) aides, a federal prosecutor argued that the governor knew about the 2013 lane shutdown at the George Washington Bridge while it was happening.

This contradicts Christie’s years of indignant (albeit likely false) insistence to the contrary. It also raises a question for the Obama Justice Department: If the governor knew of the partisan, retaliatory shenanigans being executed by his underlings, for his political benefit, and under circumstances in which he had the power to put a stop to them forthwith, why wasn’t he indicted along with his aides?

As readers of these columns know, I am not a Christie fan. In addition, I’ve found his claims of innocence in the Bridgegate scandal implausible from the start — based on both the circumstances and the governor’s economical approach to the truth when it comes to any of his administration’s foibles. Nevertheless, my many years as a prosecutor lead me to cut the governor some slack here, at least until we see the actual evidence.

In conspiracy cases, it is a commonplace for both defendants on trial and the prosecutor to take liberties in heaping blame on the dead and the missing — i.e., those who, though participants in the relevant events, are not present in court as defendants (e.g., fugitives, defendants whose cases are pending, and apparent participants whom the government has chosen not to charge, for reasons that can range from the obvious to the dubious). Political-corruption cases are no exception.

The dynamic is easy to understand. Piling ostensibly damning evidence on an uncharged person is a lay-up for the prosecutor. Since he is absent from the defense table, an uncharged man has no nettlesome lawyer fighting on his behalf to suppress the government’s evidence or at least minimize its impact. And while the defendants on trial may be damaged derivatively by that evidence (otherwise the prosecutor would not be offering it), they will not want to be perceived by the jury as taking on the defense of the uncharged person, so they don’t put up much of a fight. After all, the defendants on trial will inevitably seek to shift blame to the missing, uncharged person as well — to argue to the jury that the defendant is being scapegoated in order to protect some powerful missing person, or to obscure the prosecution’s investigative missteps that allowed the “real” culprit to slip the noose.

Since both sides of the case have motives to exaggerate the culpability of the missing, uncharged person, the lawyers’ opening comments have to be viewed with some skepticism. Rather than jumping to conclusions, it is better to wait for the witnesses’ testimony — to ask whether it is supported or contradicted by the paper trail of e-mails, sundry documents, and investigative reports.

A federal judge angrily denounced the Justice Department for not leaning on the Department of State to release some Hillary Clinton emails in a more timely manner.

U.S. district judge Richard Leon, who is overseeing the release of the emails under the Freedom of Information Act, warned DoJ that the government appears to be withholding information from voters in advance of the election.

Washington Times:

Judge Leon, who has earned a reputation as a funny but caustic jurist, particularly when he finds government bungling, said the Justice Department, by not forcing the State Department to cooperate better, is risking its own storied reputation.

He specifically called out the federal programs branch that acts as the lawyer for the rest of the government, and the head of that division, Marcia Berman. Ms. Berman wasn’t in the courtroom Monday, but has been a frequent figure at the courthouse over the last year as the administration has had to defend its handling of Mrs. Clinton’s emails.

Mondays’s case, filed by the Daily Caller News Foundation, concerned documents detailing Mrs. Clinton’s access to top secret programs. The State Department said it has found more than 1,000 documents dealing with the subject, but said it would take nearly a month to process 450 unclassified documents, and couldn’t say how long it would take to process the classified ones.

The case is one of dozens pending where the department has been accused of slow-walking, keeping information out of public view for far longer than is allowed under the Freedom of Information Act.

The State Department says it is overwhelmed by the requests and its own limited budget and manpower. Officials also say the Clinton emails are complicated because they involved classified information that requires a stricter, more time consuming process to clear for the public.

But the government has also been reluctant to divulge important details. At one point on Monday the government lawyer on the case, Jason Lee, said he didn’t know how many pages were in the documents, sparking the judge’s ire.

Judge Leon ordered a faster production of the 450, and when Mr. Lee said they would do their best, Judge Leon pounced.

“Do better than your best. Do it,” he ordered, then proceeded to scold the government for its bungling, and said it was something other judges at the courthouse had noticed.

“You have a client that, to say the least, is not impressing the judges on is court … at being all that cooperative,” he said. “This way of doing business needs to stop.”

There has never been a State Department so politicized as this one. Political appointees are bound not by their oaths, but by their loyalty to the Obama administration.

Over the past few years, several judges hearing FOIA cases have excoriated the State Department for dragging its heels in releasing pertinent documents. These are not isolated incidents. They point to a pattern of foot-dragging designed to run out the clock on the Obama administration’s and Hillary Clinton’s wrongdoing.

It appears that, despite the remonstrances from judges, the State Department is succeeding.