RUTHFULLY YOURS

On the matter of the 2016 election, why is there an investigation into Russian meddling but no investigation of Justice Department meddling? The latter effort was more extensive. And it sure looks like it would be a lot easier to prove.

This week, courtesy of Judicial Watch, we learned that the Obama Justice Department and the FBI did, in fact, use the grand jury in the Clinton e-mails probe. Or, to be more accurate, they fleetingly used grand-jury subpoenas, which were issued to BlackBerry service providers at the tail end of the investigation — a futile attempt to recover e-mails sent to and from then–Secretary of State Hillary Clinton right before she transitioned from BlackBerry to her homebrew server.

That’s a story unto itself, which we’ll get to in due course.

The news of grand-jury involvement contradicts prior reporting, at least at first blush. As we shall see, to say a grand jury was “involved” does not mean there was a real grand-jury investigation. It does, however, reinforce what we have said all along: The main subjects of the investigation could easily have been compelled to provide evidence and testimony — which is what investigators do when they are trying to make a case rather than not make a case. There was no valid reason for prosecutors to treat criminal suspects to an immunity spree. They could, for example, have served grand-jury subpoenas on Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson, demanding that they surrender the private computers they used to review Clinton’s e-mails, including classified e-mails it was unlawful to transfer to such non-secure computers. The Justice Department did not have to make promises not to use the evidence against the suspects in exchange for getting the evidence.

Mrs. Clinton’s friends at the Justice Department chose not to subpoena Mrs. Clinton’s friends from the State Department and the campaign. The decision not to employ regular criminal procedures — i.e., the decision not to treat the case like other criminal cases — was quite deliberate.

No need to ‘convene’ a grand jury

When it comes to the grand-jury aspect of this affair, confusion has been caused by the inside-baseball manner in which legal beagles discuss it. I try to avoid that sort of thing, since the point is to clarify things for the non-lawyer. I must confess error, though, in at least once using the shorthand expression “convene a grand jury.”

Let’s reverse angle. The president’s first 100 days in office have been analyzed, dissected, evaluated. Not much left to say about them. What about the opposition? What do the Democrats have to show for these first months of the Trump era?

Little. Trump’s defeats have not come at the Democrats’ hands. Those setbacks have been self-inflicted (over-the-top tweets, hastily written policies, few sub-cabinet nominations) or have come from the judiciary (the travel ban, the sanctuary cities order) or from Republican infighting (health care). Deregulation, Keystone pipeline, immigration enforcement — Democrats have been powerless to stop them.

Chuck Schumer slow-walked Trump’s nominations as best he could. In fact his obstruction was unprecedented. But the cabinet is filling up, the national security team in place. On the Supreme Court, Schumer miscalculated royally. He forced an end to the filibuster for judicial appointments, yet lost anyway. If another appointment opens this summer, and the Republicans hold together, the Democrats will have zero ability to prevent the Court from moving right. No matter what he says in public, Schumer can’t possibly think that a success.

The prevalent anti-Trump sentiment obscures the party’s institutional degradation. Democratic voters despise the president — he enjoys the approval of barely more than 10 percent of them — and this anger and vitriol manifests itself in our media and culture. So Rachel Maddow and Stephen Colbert enjoy a ratings boom, the women’s march attracts a massive crowd, the New York Times sells more subscriptions, and Bill Nye leads a rainy-day “march for science.” The desire to ostentatiously “resist” Trump leads to better-than-expected results for Democratic candidates in congressional special elections. But the candidates don’t win — or at least they haven’t yet.

Democrats feel betrayed. The Electoral College betrayed them by making Trump president. Hillary Clinton betrayed them by running an uninspiring campaign. James Comey betrayed them by reopening the investigation into Clinton’s server 11 days before the election. Facebook betrayed them by circulating fake news. This sense of resentment isn’t so different than the sort Democrats attribute to Trump supporters: irritation at a loss of status, vexation at changed circumstances. The despondence of a liberal is alleviated when he sees throngs of protesters, hears Samantha Bee, scrolls through Louise Mensch’s tweets.

Makes him feel better. But his party is in tatters, reduced to 16 governors, 30 state legislative chambers, a historically low number of state legislative seats, 193 members of the House, 46 senators. The Democrats are leaderless, rudderless, held together only by opposition to Trump. The most popular figure on the left refuses to call himself a Democrat while sitting alongside the newly elected chairman of the Democratic National Committee. That chairman, dirty-talking Tom Perez, represents a professional, technocratic class that supports Wall Street and globalization as long as there is room for multiculturalism and social liberalism. That is a different strategy from both the 50-state approach of Howard Dean, Rahm Emanuel, and Schumer that brought Democrats control of Congress in 2006, and the anti-Wall Street, protectionist, single-payer Left of Bernie Sanders. Perez fights with Bernie Sanders and Nancy Pelosi over whether there is room for pro-lifers in the party — Perez thinks not. Pelosi enjoys the distinction of being an American political figure less popular than Donald Trump.

WASHINGTON – Stretched thin after 15 years of continued conflict, the U.S. is not currently capable of maintaining a modern and effective military against the Islamic State, Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) said Wednesday.

“To address these threats, to maintain the peace, and fight if we must, we have to maintain a capable, ready, and modern military, and the truth is, we’re not ready,” the majority whip said during an appearance at the Wilson Center. “And while I believe America will always rise to the challenges, once roused from our national complacency, it makes a dangerous world even more dangerous.”

President Trump in March proposed a $54 billion hike in defense spending, which would support forces against ISIS in Syria and Iraq. Last week, the president freed the Pentagon from Obama-era troop limit restrictions imposed on conflicts in Syria and Iraq, potentially opening the door for troop increases. U.S. strategy has been to support local military units against ISIS.

Cornyn said the military has been bogged down by blanket restrictions on discretionary defense spending and a lack of a coherent national security strategy, with military modernization suffering from a myopic view on financial challenges and deferred investment.

“You better believe our enemies, not hamstrung by red tape and regulations, take full advantage of our reluctance to deal with this on a bipartisan basis,” Cornyn said.

Even if ISIS is pushed backed in Iraq, Cornyn said the group’s “ideology spreads like a contagion through their so-called ‘cyber-caliphate,’ and continues to permeate the West and attract the vulnerable and disillusioned.”

U.S. military and partner forces this week carried out 18 strikes on ISIS targets in Syria and nine strikes on ISIS in Iraq, according to the U.S. Department of Defense. The attacks in Syria destroyed eight ISIS fighting positions, while efforts in Iraq resulted in the destruction of two enemy fighting positions and various weapons and vehicle caches, according to a department announcement.