RUTHFULLY YOURS

The battle over Florida’s 25 Electoral College votes in the 2000 Presidential election will certainly come to mind when any political analyst thinks of very close, very consequential American ballot disputes.

But as Edward Foley makes clear in Ballot Battles: The History of Disputed Elections in the United States (Oxford Press, 2016), a comprehensive and entertaining history of many such battles over more than two centuries, Florida was only the latest such example.

And in fact, there have been several such battles since the Supreme Court ruled in Bush v Gore in December 2000. These included the gubernatorial race in Washington State in 2004, and the Minnesota U.S. Senate race in 2008. The Minnesota dispute, which lasted well into 2009 before being settled, gave the Democrats the 60th seat in the U.S. Senate enabling the party to overcome a Republican filibuster and pass the Affordable Care Act (“ObamaCare”).

Foley argues, convincingly I think, that the Founding Fathers did not adequately consider the processes for settling ballot disputes, especially when partisans on the local or state level, could corrupt an honest vote count or even use force to pressure voters, and then submit the results they were seeking for certification on a state or Congressional level. Of course, at the time of the drafting of the Constitution, the plan was for U.S. senators to be elected by state legislatures, and U.S. presidents to be elected by electors chosen by these same state legislatures. The popular election of presidents did not begin for several decades with many states first adopting the practice in 1824, and the popular election of U.S. senators not until more than a century later when the 17th Amendment was passed. In any case, the direct election of senators and presidents did not bring with it much in the way of consistent or fair processes for determining the winners in ballot disputes.

Back in July, I wrote a post called “Anger is Making Us Stupid.” In it, I quoted no less authorities than Yoda and Jonah Goldberg (and have you noticed those two are never seen together?) to make the point that justifiable anger on the right was causing conservatives to follow blindly after an untrustworthy left-winger, one Donald Trump.

I’ve since adjusted that judgment somewhat. Many of the people who have gotten a) angry and therefore b) stupid were never really conservatives to begin with. They are rather working-class folks who have been sold out by both the Democrats (who despise them) and the Republicans (who have ignored them) while their jobs vanished and their wages stagnated and their mortality rate rose and their concerns went unheard. Of course they’re angry. They have every right to be.

But angry is angry and stupid is stupid and it’s now clear that Trump’s supporters, whoever they are, have been had.

Let me show you how.

Here are some typical responses to my attacks on Trump, copied from the comments section:

Anger isn’t making me stupid, it’s making me take a stand against another establishment loser like Dole, McCain, Romney. I would rather suffer more time in the wilderness than have another establishment President.

In another Fox News exclusive, Catherine Herridge reports that according to two sources, “at least one of the emails on Hillary Clinton’s private server” contained highly sensitive reporting of human intelligence sources engaged in ongoing operations, known as “HCS-O” in the intelligence community. “This is the most sensitive category,” Herridge said, “because of the jeopardy to the source.”

Both sources are familiar with the intelligence community inspector general’s January 14 letter to Congress, advising the Oversight committees that intelligence beyond Top Secret — known as Special Access Program (SAP) — was identified in the Clinton emails, as well the supporting documents from the affected agencies that owned the information and have final say on classification.

According to a December 2013 policy document released by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence: “The HSC-0 compartment (Operations) is used to protect exceptionally fragile and unique IC (intelligence community) clandestine HUMINT operations and methods that are not intended for dissemination outside of the originating agency.”

It is not publicly known whether the information contained in the Clinton emails also revealed who the human source was, their nationality or affiliation.

Dan Maguire, former Special Operations strategic planner for Africom, told Fox News the disclosure of sensitive material impacts national security and exposes U.S. sources.

Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates believes that “the odds are pretty high” that countries like Iran, China, and Russia hacked Hillary Clinton’s email server when she was secretary of State.

Gates made the statement on Hugh Hewitt’s radio talk show on Thursday, where he discussed his new book “A Passion for Leadership,” as well as a host of other issues in the news.

Hewitt naturally wanted to draw out of Gates his impression of Hillary Clinton’s email scandal.

“Are you surprised by the news that continues to come out about the former secretary of State’s server and the fact that the intelligence community’s inspector general has said there was a lot of very highly classified information on her server?” he asked.

Hillary Clinton’s political future is caught between an old hippie and the FBI.

Under fire, her collapsing campaign is retreating into paranoia and conspiracy theories. The Intelligence Community Inspector General, an Obama appointee, is being accused of conspiring with Republicans. The rise of Bernie Sanders is being attributed to “dark money” and political enemies by Clintonworld.

Hillary Clinton has a longstanding tendency to turn to a dark conspiratorial mindset when things don’t go her way. She blamed her husband’s affair with Monica Lewinsky on a “vast right-wing conspiracy”. Her close friend’s papers reveal that Hillary thought Bill had been “driven” to the affair by his “political adversaries”. It was easier for Hillary to blame her husband’s misbehavior on Republicans than to deal with reality. And her campaign is showing that her worldview hasn’t changed any since then.

The real story is that Hillary Clinton’s paranoia preemptively trashed her own campaign.

The entire FBI investigation would not exist if Hillary Clinton had just followed the law. Instead she chose to engage in a preemptive cover-up of her emails as preparation for her presidential campaign. The job of Secretary of State had never meant anything to her except as a stepping stone to the White House. She took it to fundraise and build up her resume while maintaining total control over her emails, in violation of the law, while displaying no regard for national security by storing highly classified materials on her own server. But instead of protecting her campaign, the cover-up created its biggest challenge.

The revelation that emails containing beyond top secret intelligence from “special access programs” ended up on her server, which according to a former CIA officer placed the lives of intelligence sources in danger, shows that Hillary’s paranoia not only endangered national security, but even risked lives.

The same thing happened once again with Bernie Sanders. Hillary Clinton was so determined to avoid a contested primary that she raised obscene amounts of money to intimidate potential rivals. This desperate fundraising strategy instead backfired by creating controversies around some of her donors and alienating the voters that she was raising money to influence.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/430126/donald-trump-conservatives-oppose-nomination
GLENN BECK, DAVID BOAZ, L. BRENT BOZELL III
MONA CHAREN, BEN DOMENECH. CAL THOMAS
THOMAS SOWELL, JOHN PODHORETZ ,KATIE PAVLICH
MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, EDWIN MEESE III,ANDREW C. McCARTHY
YUVAL LEVIN, MARK HELPRIN

Donald Trump leads the polls nationally and in most states in the race for the Republican presidential nomination. There are understandable reasons for his eminence, and he has shown impressive gut-level skill as a campaigner. But he is not deserving of conservative support in the caucuses and primaries. Trump is a philosophically unmoored political opportunist who would trash the broad conservative ideological consensus within the GOP in favor of a free-floating populism with strong-man overtones.

Trump’s political opinions have wobbled all over the lot. The real-estate mogul and reality-TV star has supported abortion, gun control, single-payer health care à la Canada, and punitive taxes on the wealthy. (He and Bernie Sanders have shared more than funky outer-borough accents.) Since declaring his candidacy he has taken a more conservative line, yet there are great gaping holes in it.

His signature issue is concern over immigration — from Latin America but also, after Paris and San Bernardino, from the Middle East. He has exploited the yawning gap between elite opinion in both parties and the public on the issue, and feasted on the discontent over a government that can’t be bothered to enforce its own laws no matter how many times it says it will (President Obama has dispensed even with the pretense). But even on immigration, Trump often makes no sense and can’t be relied upon. A few short years ago, he was criticizing Mitt Romney for having the temerity to propose “self-deportation,” or the entirely reasonable policy of reducing the illegal population through attrition while enforcing the nation’s laws. Now, Trump is a hawk’s hawk.

When Hillary Clinton’s e-mail scandal erupted last March, fair-minded people might have given her the benefit of the doubt. Distracted and perhaps overeager, the spanking-new secretary of state plowed into her duties and had her staff divert e-mails to her home-based computer server. This would be more convenient, she claimed, and would let her avoid the hassle of schlepping multiple handheld devices. Besides, “there is no classified material” on her server, she said, soothing journalists who covered this matter. “I did not receive nor send anything that was classified,” she reassured the media last July.

Things are now so much worse than they first appeared.

A top Clinton aide rebuffed a senior State Department official who tried to give Clinton standard computing gear. As the Daily Caller’s Chuck Ross has reported, State’s executive secretary, Stephen D. Mull, wrote Clinton’s chief of staff, Cheryl Mills, on August 30, 2011.

“We are working to provide the Secretary per her request a Department issued Blackberry to replace her personal unit which is malfunctioning,” Mull explained. He thought it was on the fritz, “possibly because of [sic] her personal email server is down.”

Deputy chief of staff Huma Abedin dismissively replied: “Let’s discuss the state blackberry, doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.”