RUTHFULLY YOURS

For a businessman it must be frustrating to sit at the Resolute desk in the Oval Office and realize how unbusinesslike is the government surrounding you.

President Trump issues executive orders, which can be stayed immediately by some obscure federal judge in a deep-blue state. He can ask the State Department to unwind the Iran treaty, but his own employees drag their feet. He negotiates with scores of congressmen who, like cats, enjoy being stroked but immediately go their own ungrateful way. And don’t even purr.

No wonder he is said to be frustrated. Some of these vexations come with the job. They are consequences of the very constitutional system he has sworn to preserve, protect, and defend. Separation of powers, an independent judiciary, and checks and balances are meant, in part, to frustrate over-ambitious office holders and their schemes.

These same constitutional devices, however, are also supposed to lead to better, more deliberative laws, judicial decisions faithful to the Constitution, and a chief executive who can energetically, to use e Federalist’s word, enforce the law and protect national security. They are supposed to produce good government, in other words.

But good government has not been forthcoming lately. This isn’t the Constitution’s fault. Its commands have been disregarded, or reinterpreted, and its operations distorted for so long and to such an extent that it functions as our frame of government much less reliably than you might think. Though still to be reckoned with, the capital-C Constitution yields far too often to the small-c (“living”) constitution, another word for government as usual in Washington, D.C.—that is, government as we have come to know, fear, and resent it since the 1960s.

When Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton concluded the political deal that put the nation’s capital on the banks of the Potomac, the District of Columbia was swampland; and to the metaphorical swamp it is returning. Trump is right about that. Some buildings, mostly monuments, museums, and memorials, continue to rise high above the muck, but others seem to inch lower every year.

Consider the Capitol, and the biggest legislative accomplishment it has seen since the 1980s, Obamacare. How could Congress have passed Obamacare the way it did in 2010—on a party-line vote, with corrupt bargains aplenty, and unconstitutional (big-C) provisions galore—and then turn around and fail to repeal the law the way it did this summer? “To lose one parent,” observed Oscar Wilde, “may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose both looks like carelessness.” To have passed President Obama’s health bill may be regarded as a grave constitutional misfortune. But to fail to repeal it smacks of constitutional carelessness. Democrats were responsible the first time, Republicans the second. The former didn’t tell the truth about Obamacare, the latter (some of them, at least) about their oath to repeal it. How then are the American people supposed to reassert control over their own government, if neither party can be trusted?

I don’t believe in coincidences. Not when it comes to crimes. Especially when they involve political corruption.

No such thing as a coincidence. Doesn’t exist.

Yet, we are led to believe it was merely a coincidence that Bill Clinton just happened to be on the tarmac of an Arizona airport at the same time as then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch. We are supposed to accept that their private meeting on board Lynch’s plane had nothing whatsoever to do with the criminal investigation of Hillary Clinton which the A-G was overseeing at the time.

Right. They just “schmoozed” about grandkids and what-not.

I guess it was also just a coincidence that a few days after the furtive tarmac meeting the decision was announced that criminal charges against Clinton, the Democratic nominee for president, would not be filed, notwithstanding compelling evidence that she repeatedly violated the Espionage Act by storing highly classified documents on her private, unauthorized and unsecured email server in the basement of her home.

Sure. Makes perfect sense. To a naïve, gullible fool.

Maybe it was purely a coincidence that there was another FBI investigation going on involving Russia’s corruption-fueled purchase of U.S uranium assets and which also happened to implicate the Clintons, but was kept hidden from Congress and the American people by Lynch and her predecessor, Eric Holder. Hmm…

And perhaps it was simply an odd coincidence that the investigation of this uranium bribery, extortion, money laundering and kickback case was supervised by then-FBI Director Robert Mueller, his successor James Comey, and then-U.S Attorney Rod Rosenstein, all of whom appear to have covered it up but are now directly involved in the Trump-Russia probe.

Strange confluence of people and events, eh?

I don’t buy any of it. Not for one minute. And not entirely because I don’t believe in coincidences. It is because all the above-mentioned people are known to trifle with the law or ignore disqualifying conflicts of interest. They seem to be without principles –devoid of the kind of scruples that should guide people in service of our government.

Mueller is serving as special counsel in the Trump-Russia case. He reports to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein who appointed him.

Yet both Rosenstein and fired FBI Director James Comey are witnesses in the case, since Rosenstein recommended to President Trump that Comey be fired.

It is well established that Comey and Mueller are long-time friends, allies and former partners. How can Mueller be fair and impartial given these glaring conflicts of interest? He cannot. And he should recuse himself. Rosenstein should also step aside in overseeing the case. He cannot be prosecutor and witness simultaneously.

Their conflicts are compounded by recent reports that all three men were involved in the Russian uranium case which was kept hidden from Congress. How can Americans have confidence in the outcome of the Trump-Russia case if they engaged in a cover-up of the Clinton-Russia case?

Which brings us to Hillary and Bill. The Clinton name is synonymous with scandal. The sleazy Whitewater land deals, an illicit affair with a young White House intern that led to impeachment, deceptions following the Benghazi murders, Travelgate, cattle futures, suspected slush funds, evidence of perjury, the list is seemingly endless.

Through it all, the ability of the Clintons to evade indictments would make Houdini proud. They are escape artists of the highest order.

Loretta Lynch should never have presided over the Hillary Clinton email case. She owed her career to none other than Bill Clinton who nominated her to serve as U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York which nicely positioned her for elevation to Attorney General a few years later.

As Hillary Clinton was beginning her job as President Obama’s chief diplomat, federal agents observed as multiple arms of Vladimir Putin’s machine unleashed an influence campaign designed to win access to the new secretary of State, her husband Bill Clinton and members of their inner circle, according to interviews and once-sealed FBI records.

Some of the activities FBI agents gathered evidence about in 2009 and 2010 were covert and illegal.

A female Russian spy posing as an American accountant, for instance, used a false identity to burrow her way into the employ of a major Democratic donor in hopes of gaining intelligence on Hillary Clinton’s department, records show. The spy was arrested and deported as she moved closer to getting inside the secretary’s department, agents said.

Other activities were perfectly legal and sitting in plain view, such as when a subsidiary of Russia’s state-controlled nuclear energy company hired a Washington firm to lobby the Obama administration. At the time it was hired, the firm was providing hundreds of thousands of dollars a year in pro bono support to Bill Clinton’s global charitable initiative, and it legally helped the Russian company secure federal decisions that led to billions in new U.S. commercial nuclear business, records show.

Agents were surprised by the timing and size of a $500,000 check that a Kremlin-linked bank provided Bill Clinton with for a single speech in the summer of 2010. The payday came just weeks after Hillary Clinton helped arrange for American executives to travel to Moscow to support Putin’s efforts to build his own country’s version of Silicon Valley, agents said.

There is no evidence in any of the public records that the FBI believed that the Clintons or anyone close to them did anything illegal. But there’s definitive evidence the Russians were seeking their influence with a specific eye on the State Department.

“There is not one shred of doubt from the evidence that we had that the Russians had set their sights on Hillary Clinton’s circle, because she was the quarterback of the Obama-Russian reset strategy and the assumed successor to Obama as president,” said a source familiar with the FBI’s evidence at the time, speaking only on condition of anonymity, because he was not authorized to speak to the news media.

That source pointed to an October 2009 communication intercepted by the FBI in which Russian handlers instructed two of their spies specifically to gather nonpublic information on the State Department.

“Send more info on current international affairs vital for R., highlight US approach,” part of the message to the spies read, using the country’s first initial to refer to Russia. “… Try to single out tidbits unknown publicly but revealed in private by sources closer to State department, government, major think tanks.”

The Clintons, by that time, had set up several new vehicles that included a multimillion dollar speech-making business, the family foundation and a global charitable initiative, all which proved attractive to the Russians as Hillary Clinton took over State.

“In the end, some of this just comes down to what it always does in Washington: donations, lobbying, contracts and influence — even for Russia,” said Frank Figliuzzi, the former FBI assistant director for counterintelligence.

The sleeper ring

Figliuzzi supervised the post-arrest declassification and release of records from a 10-year operation that unmasked a major Russian spy ring in 2010. It was one of the most important U.S. counterintelligence victories against Russia in history, and famous for nabbing the glamorous spy-turned-model Anna Chapman.

While Chapman dominated the headlines surrounding that spy ring, another Russian woman posing as a mundane New Jersey accountant named Cynthia Murphy was closing in on accessing Secretary Clinton’s department, according to records and interviews.

For most of the 10 years, the ring of Russian spies that included Chapman and Murray acted as sleepers, spending a “great deal of time collecting information and passing it on” to their handlers inside Russia’s SVR spy agency, FBI records state.

Murphy, living with her husband and kids in the New Jersey suburbs of New York City, reported a major breakthrough in February 2009 in an electronic message sent to her handlers: she had scored access to a major Democrat, FBI records state.

“Murphy had several work-related personal meetings with [a prominent New York-based financier, name omitted] and was assigned his account,” one FBI record from the case read. “The message accurately described the financier as ‘prominent in politics,’ ‘an active fund-raiser’ for [a major political party, name omitted] and a ‘personal friend’ of [a current Cabinet official, name redacted].”

Multiple current and former officials confirmed to The Hill that the Cabinet officer was Hillary Clinton, the fundraiser was New York financier Alan Patricof and the political party was the Democratic National Committee. None of the Americans were ever suspected of illegalities, but the episode made clear the Russian spies were stepping up their operations against the new administration after years of working in a “sleeper” capacity, officials said.

Patricof did not return a call to his office Friday seeking comment. But in 2010 he told The Washington Post after the spy case broke he believed he had been a victim of the spy ring, saying Murphy had worked for him but that he only talked accounting and not government or politics with her.

“It’s just staggering,” he told the Post about the idea of being targeted by Russia. “It’s off the charts.”

On Monday Bowe Bergdahl pleaded guilty to charges of desertion and misbehavior before the enemy. He will be sentenced next week. To all but a mendacious Administration and its accomplices among the court eunuchs of the Obama media, the truth about this man was obvious from the day of his release by the Taliban three-and-a-half years ago.. Me on June 3rd 2014:

In years to come, when archaeologists are prowling through the ruins of our civilization and wondering how it all happened, I would offer this snapshot. Here’s the history of America’s longest war in two anti-American losers, John Walker Lindh and Bowe Bergdahl, confused young men with a gaping hole at the heart of where their sense of identity should be, stumbling through the Hindu Kush trying to “find themselves”.

In the fall of 2001, the first confused anti-American loser trying to find himself, John Walker Lindh was on the enemy’s side – and was tried, convicted and jailed for life [CORRECTION: 20 years].

By the spring of 2014, the last confused anti-American loser of the Afghan war, Bowe Bergdahl, was on our side – and was honored by the President with a family photo-op in the Rose Garden and declared by the laughably misnamed “National Security Advisor” to have “served the United States with honor and distinction”.

That remains one of the most disgusting images of the last eight years: A deserter who betrayed his comrades being celebrated as a man of “honor” at the People’s House by the highest officials in the land. Me again, from later that week:

On last night’s Hugh Hewitt Show, Hugh and I discussed the continuing fall-out over the Bergdahl/Taliban deal, of which every aspect – whether you come at it from the terrorist end, the deserter end, the legal end, the pajama-boys-with-the-keys-to-the-White-House end – gets more revolting as the days go by. Apropos the President’s determination in his remarks in Brussels to dig in deeper, I said this:

MARK STEYN: ‘Obama’s words in Brussels today, for example, saying “Well, this was a father and his child, his 28-year old… whatever that is, Grade 23 child. You know, every parent wants to get their Grade 23 child back …and we don’t leave anyone behind. The fact is he walked out and he left America behind, this guy – and he did it, by the way, on the advice of his father. He wrote to his father saying, ‘I hate America, it’s a horror, I want to renounce my citizenship.’ And his father emails back, ‘Follow your conscience.”‘

HUGH HEWITT: ‘Oh, my God.’

I don’t think this point has been emphasized enough. Yes, one can argue that it’s appropriate to cut Bergdahl Jnr some slack – thankless war, out on the front line, the strain of it all beginning to tell… But what’s the father’s excuse? He gets communications from his son indicating he’s about to crack. He knows that out there, beyond their vulnerable encampment, is a primitive tribal society where pretty much everyone would either ransom his boy or cut to the chase and saw his head off to make a blockbuster jihadist snuff video for the bazaars of Jalalabad. Surely any responsible parent would say, “Look, I know it can’t be easy for you out there. But there are people who wish to do you harm beyond the fence. Stick with it, talk to your platoon leader… You’re serving honorably in a worthy cause…” You don’t encourage him to take a one-way ticket into the badlands of Afghanistan.

And just to underline that: the justification for Bergdahl Snr’s wacky behavior – the Taliban beard, the invocations of Allah, the Arabic and Pushtu, the pledge that the death of every Afghan child will be avenged – the justification for all this is that, well, he’s also been under a lot of strain. He hasn’t seen his kid for half-a-decade. That could unhinge anyone. Give the guy a break…

But the point is he was pulling this strange stuff before his son was kidnapped.

Which makes that Rose Garden ceremony even more bizarre in its weird optics – the President of the United States embracing a Taliban sympathizer at the White House. There was no need to hold such an intimate photo-op. Yet Obama chose to do it. Why?

“Any chance justice will finally come a-callin’ for the Clintons? I suppose anything’s possible. To get away with the “Foundation” scam for as long as Bill and Hill did would be a challenge for most of us. To do it under a six-year Mueller/Comey FBI investigation testifies yet again to the uniquely charmed lives these two lead…”

The big story this week is that the FBI uncovered a Moscow bribery plot just before the Obama Administration approved the transfer of 20 per cent of American uranium into the hands of the Russians.

And who precisely were the Russkies trying to bribe?

They also obtained an eyewitness account — backed by documents — indicating Russian nuclear officials had routed millions of dollars to the U.S. designed to benefit former President Bill Clinton’s charitable foundation during the time Secretary of State Hillary Clinton served on a government body that provided a favorable decision to Moscow, sources told The Hill.

The racketeering scheme was conducted “with the consent of higher level officials” in Russia who “shared the proceeds” from the kickbacks, one agent declared in an affidavit years later.

Fancy that! A racketeering scheme centered on the Clintons! Who’da thunk it? Other names in the story have a weary familiarity, too:

The connections to the current Russia case are many. The Mikerin probe began in 2009 when Robert Mueller, now the special counsel in charge of the Trump case, was still FBI director. And it ended in late 2015 under the direction of then-FBI Director James Comey, whom Trump fired earlier this year.

Unlike the current “Russia investigation”, where details of dawn raids on Paul Manafort are gaily leaked hither and yon, Mueller and Comey managed to keep the lid on this one for the six-plus years it was active. And happily it doesn’t seem to have obstructed either the Clintons’ or the Russians’ mutually beneficial relationship:

The first decision occurred in October 2010, when the State Department and government agencies on the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States unanimously approved the partial sale of Canadian mining company Uranium One to the Russian nuclear giant Rosatom, giving Moscow control of more than 20 percent of America’s uranium supply.

Hmm. Uranium One… Rosatom… Where have I heard those names before? Oh, yeah. From me, two-and-a-half years ago – April 27th 2015:

One of the lessons learned by the Clintons back in the Nineties is that, if you’re gonna have a scandal, have a hundred of ’em. And then it’s all too complicated and just gives everyone a big headache, and they go back to watching “Friends” or “Baywatch” or whatever it was back then. When a scandal gets too easy to follow, that’s where the danger lies.

As things stand, Vladimir Putin has wound up with control of 20 per cent of American uranium production.

That’s almost too funny an update of the line variously attributed to Lenin, Stalin and others: “The capitalists will sell us the rope by which we will hang them.” In this case, we’ve sold Putin the uranium by which he will nuke us. As the Russian news agency TASS reported two years ago:

‘MOSCOW, May 22 (Itar-Tass) – Russia’s nuclear power corporation Rosatom controls 20 percent of all uranium reserves in the United States, the corporation’s chief, Sergei Kiriyenko told the State Duma on Wednesday…

‘”I am pleased to inform you that today we control 20 percent of uranium in the United States. If we need that uranium, we shall be able to use it any time,” Kiriyenko said.’

Great! By the way, before he became America’s fastest rising uranium executive, Mr Kiriyenko was Prime Minister of Russia.

In return for facilitating the transfer to Putin of one-fifth of US uranium, the Clintons were given tens of millions of dollars by Vancouver businessman Frank Giustra (the founder of “Uranium One” in its pre-Putin days) and various of his associates. In 2006, Mr Giustra told The New Yorker:

“All of my chips, almost, are on Bill Clinton,” he said. “He’s a brand, a worldwide brand, and he can do things and ask for things that no one else can.”

Ah.

Oh, my mistake. When I said Giustra and his pals had given over $100 million to “the Clintons”, I meant they gave it to “The Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation” – or its Canadian subsidiary, established after Hillary had signed a disclosure agreement for the US foundation with the Obama Administration and, being Canadian, thus exempt from the disclosure agreement. At least as Bill and Hillary’s lawyers read it.

There is no Clinton “Foundation” – in the sense of a body that engages in charitable activities and does good works. As I said to Hugh Hewitt on the radio all those years ago:

Well wait, but just a minute, Hugh, there is no ‘Clinton Foundation’… The only purpose of this foundation is to enable this family to lead the lifestyle of a head of state after it has ceased to be head of state.

And the only reason anyone ponied up money to the “foundation” is that it was assumed a Clinton would be head of state again in a couple of years – just as the tedious requirements of the Russian constitution required Putin to take a break (albeit entirely nominally) from being head of state for a couple of years. After November 8th, the price for Clinton speeches mysteriously dropped 98 per cent – so the Clintons closed their “foundation”. But by then it had served its purpose.

Everybody who knows anything about charity knows the truth about the Clinton “Foundation” – as The New York Post reported, also all those years ago:

The Clinton Foundation’s finances are so messy that the nation’s most influential charity watchdog put it on its “watch list” of problematic nonprofits last month.

The Clinton family’s mega-charity took in more than $140 million in grants and pledges in 2013 but spent just $9 million on direct aid.

The group spent the bulk of its windfall on administration, travel, and salaries and bonuses, with the fattest payouts going to family friends.

Indeed. Me again, from April 2015:

For example, Chelsea’s chum Eric Braverman was paid $275,000 for five months’ work. In Clintonworld, charity begins at home. So, if, like all these big-hearted Saudi princes and Canuck uranium execs, you give money to the Clinton Foundation because you care about starving Third World urchins, for every million bucks you hand over, a full 64 grand goes to the Third World urchins and the remaining $936,000 is the processing fee. Paul Mirengoff cautions:

‘It’s important to note that the Clinton Foundation’s status as a problematic charity is distinct from the “Clinton cash” issue that Peter Schweizer and others have highlighted. “Clinton cash” focuses on the fundraising methods used by the Clintons. Specifically, there are substantial allegations that they raise money in part because nations and wealthy individuals hope to influence U.S. policy through their donations, and very possibly have succeeded in doing so.

It has always niggled me as to what the always arrogant 44th President of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama, actually meant when he was caught on an open microphone telling Russian President Dmitry Medvedev that he needed more “flexibility” from the Russians. They needed to give him “space” since “it was [his] last election” but “after ‘[his] election, [he] would have more flexibility.”

Medvedev’s retort was “I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir.”

While Medvedev may have understood what Obama was saying, most Americans were left quite bewildered by this cryptic message.

Until now.

Enter the breathtaking information that the most intricate and shady backroom deals were happening both nationally and internationally while Congress and the American public were deliberately kept in the dark, not only by the Obama administration, but also by Obama’s Department of Justice and the very same FBI officials who are now attempting to concoct a fictitious collusion story about Trump.

John Solomon and Alison Spann have discovered that

Before the Obama administration approved a controversial deal in 2010 giving Moscow control of a large swath of American uranium, the FBI had gathered substantial evidence that Russian nuclear industry officials were engaged in bribery, kickbacks, extortion and money laundering designed to grow Vladimir Putin’s atomic energy business inside the United States.

And even though it would have been an unbelievable law enforcement achievement “to have brought down a major Russian nuclear corruption scheme that compromised a sensitive uranium transportation asset inside the U.S. and facilitated international money laundering,” nary anything substantial was done to expose this deep-seated corruption.

For those who have, over the years, watched with horror and ire as Obama usurped power and ran the government like a dictator, the latest revelations are not especially surprising. For in our hearts we always believed that Obama was intent upon destroying this country in as many ways as he could. Now the facts have been established with incontrovertible evidence and they confirm what we always felt given Obama’s unending anti-American stance. An extremely serious national security breach was permitted under his watch.

But now that the smoking guns are being exposed, we also wonder if the few good people who have the power to effect change will now use that power. Will they recall the Psalmist who cried out

“O God, keep not Thou silence; Hold not thou silence, O God: hold not thy peace, and be not still, O God.

For, lo, thine enemies make a tumult: and they that hate thee have lifted up the head.

They have taken crafty counsel against thy people, and consulted against thy hidden ones.

When will “righteousness and peace” come together again? When will our country be restored and our faith in our leaders be re-gnited? “How long shall the wicked exult” and “speak arrogantly” as the “workers of iniquity bear themselves loftily”?

Until the swamp is truly cleaned out and our elected officials “stand up for ‘us’ against the workers of iniquity” and ensure that “the right shall return unto justice,” Obama and his ilk (Hillary Clinton, Lois Lerner, Eric Holder, Loretta Lynch, Bill Clinton, Samantha Power, James Comey, and Robert Mueller) will continue to wreak their evil. And we cannot look to the mainstream media to faithfully execute their job.

Today is the anniversary of former president Ronald Reagan signing into law the Tax Reform Act of 1986. The act was the second major law he signed to reform the tax code for the American people.

Republicans and Democrats came together to cut taxes for hardworking families in 1981, and again in 1986 to simplify the tax code, so that everyone could get a fair shake. The rest, as they say, is history.

The economy boomed, launching into one of the largest peacetime economic expansions in history. Dormant small businesses and factories sprung back to life. The famed American Worker produced at unprecedented levels. The median family income rose. And more American products than ever before reached foreign shores, stamped with those four beautiful words: “Made in the USA.”

The 1980s also saw extraordinary ideas transformed into reality by American inventors and entrepreneurs. Many of those creations dramatically improved our quality of life. Others connected us like never before and put an entire universe of information at our fingertips. Still others, like the space shuttle after its first launch in 1981, stretched the bounds of what we thought was possible for humankind.

It was a time of extraordinary optimism — it was truly “Morning in America,” an economic miracle for the middle-class.

A lot has changed since then, especially when it comes to taxes.

While our economic competitors slashed their taxes in hopes of replicating America’s success, our leaders remained complacent or, in some cases, reversed course.

We are now among the highest taxed nations in the developed world. Our tax code and laws have nearly tripled in length since the 1986 reforms. They now span 2,650 pages, with another 70,000 pages of forms, instructions, court decisions, and other guidance.

We have watched our leaders allow other countries to erode our competitive edge, take our jobs, and drain our wealth. And, for the first time in our history, Americans have feared that their children will not grow up to be better off financially than they are.

That era of economic surrender is now over.

In the nine months since I took office as president, we have removed intrusive, job-killing regulations at a record pace. We are leaving lopsided international deals that hurt America like the Trans-Pacific Partnership and Paris Climate Accord. We have unleashed American energy by ending the war on coal and approving major projects like the Keystone XL and Dakota Access Pipelines. And earlier this month, I signed an executive order to take important steps to free our people from the grip of Obamacare.

And now, unemployment is at a 16-year low. Wages are rising. Manufacturing confidence is higher than it has ever been. The stock market is soaring to record levels. And GDP growth climbed to more than 3% in the second quarter.

The optimism has returned — the sun is once again rising over America.

But our economy cannot take off like it should unless we transform our outdated, complex and burdensome tax code, and that is exactly what we are proposing to do.

Revising our tax code is not just a policy discussion — it is a moral one, because we are not talking about the government’s money – we are talking about your money, your hard work.

According to the Tax Foundation, taxes cost Americans more out-of-pocket than housing, clothing, and food — combined.

Somehow, this has become “normal” in the Land of the Free, but it should not be.

American families should not have to send more money to the government than they spend on building a better life for themselves and their children. You are the ones who carry this nation on your back, and it is time for you to get the relief that you deserve.

That is why we are taking action to dramatically reduce the burden that the sprawling federal tax code has become on our citizens.

Our plan will transform the tax code so that it is once again simple, fair and easy to understand. We want you to spend your valuable time pursuing your dreams, not trapped in a tax compliance nightmare.

We will cut taxes for hardworking, middle-class families.

We will double the standard deduction, which means the first $24,000 of a family’s income will be tax-free. We will also expand the child tax credit. And we will lower rates so that families will keep more of their hard-earned money.

We will also restore our competitive edge so we can create better jobs and higher wages for American workers.

Our plan will provide tax relief to businesses of all sizes, and deliver our small and medium-sized businesses the lowest top rate in more than 80 years.

Finally, we will bring back trillions of dollars in American wealth currently parked overseas.

Today’s tax system foolishly penalizes companies that bring foreign profits back to the United States. Our plan encourages companies to bring this money home, where it can be invested in American companies, American jobs and American workers.

If Congress comes together to enact this commonsense plan, the Council of Economic Advisers estimates that it will raise the annual income of a typical, hardworking American household by an average of around $4,000.

Just imagine the possibilities.

We have the benefit of hindsight as we look back at the three decades since our country’s last major tax reform. We can see what worked and what did not. And most importantly, we can apply the lessons learned to the challenges of today.

The tax cuts and reforms of the 1980s show that when we empower the American people to pursue their dreams, they will not only achieve greatness and create prosperity beyond imagination, they will build an entirely new world.

It is time to ignite America’s middle class miracle once again.

From a Nov. 13, 2010, speech by then-Lt. Gen. John Kelly to the Semper Fi Society of St. Louis, describing a 2008 suicide bombing in Iraq that killed two Marines, Cpl. Jonathan Yale, 22, and Lance Cpl. Jordan Haerter, 20. Gen. Kelly’s son, Second Lt. Robert Kelly, 29, was killed in action in Afghanistan Nov. 9, 2010:

What we didn’t know at the time, and only learned a couple of days later after I wrote a summary and submitted both Yale and Haerter for posthumous Navy Crosses, was that one of our security cameras, damaged initially in the blast, recorded some of the suicide attack. It happened exactly as the Iraqis had described it. It took exactly six seconds from when the truck entered the alley until it detonated.

You can watch the last six seconds of their young lives. Putting myself in their heads I supposed it took about a second for the two Marines to separately come to the same conclusion about what was going on once the truck came into their view at the far end of the alley. Exactly no time to talk it over, or call the sergeant to ask what they should do. Only enough time to take half an instant and think about what the sergeant told them to do only a few minutes before: “let no unauthorized personnel or vehicles pass.” The two Marines had about five seconds left to live.

It took maybe another two seconds for them to present their weapons, take aim, and open up. By this time the truck was halfway through the barriers and gaining speed the whole time. Here, the recording shows a number of Iraqi police, some of whom had fired their AKs, now scattering like the normal and rational men they were—some running right past the Marines. They had three seconds left to live.

For about two seconds more, the recording shows the Marines’ weapons firing nonstop, the truck’s windshield exploding into shards of glass as their rounds take it apart and tore in to the body of the son-of-a-bitch who is trying to get past them to kill their brothers—American and Iraqi—bedded down in the barracks totally unaware of the fact that their lives at that moment depended entirely on two Marines standing their ground. If they had been aware, they would have known they were safe, because two Marines stood between them and a crazed suicide bomber. The recording shows the truck careening to a stop immediately in front of the two Marines. In all of the instantaneous violence Yale and Haerter never hesitated. By all reports and by the recording, they never stepped back. They never even started to step aside. They never even shifted their weight. With their feet spread shoulder width apart, they leaned into the danger, firing as fast as they could work their weapons. They had only one second left to live.

The truck explodes. The camera goes blank. Two young men go to their God. Six seconds. Not enough time to think about their families, their country, their flag, or about their lives or their deaths, but more than enough time for two very brave young men to do their duty—into eternity. That is the kind of people who are on watch all over the world tonight—for you.

This morning President Donald J. Trump tweeted:

He’s referring to yesterday’s news that, as CNN headlined its story on the matter, “Fusion GPS partners plead Fifth before House Intel.”

Fusion GPS is the firm that paid for and disseminated the discredited dossier that former FBI director James Comey briefed President Obama and President-elect Trump about in January. The almost immediate and well-sourced leak of that briefing to CNN is what got the Russia scare really going in January. BuzzFeed published the dossier very soon after CNN’s story ran.

So, as Trump and CNN note, folks at the firm took the Fifth in a House investigation into that dossier and the firm that helped put it together (Fusion GPS executives similarly refused to testify under oath in a separate Senate inquiry). As to the questions of who paid for it, we still have absolutely no idea, although there have been published reports in The New York Times and Washington Post that Fusion GPS does anti-Magnitsky Actwork on behalf of Russia, that the dossier was funded by Democrats, and that the FBI also tried to pay for the dossier. Fusion GPS has also made the unsubstantiated claim that an unnamed Republican donor got the ball rolling on the dossier.

You might think that Russia-obsessed journalists would share the president’s curiosity about who funded the dossier and why Fusion GPS partners are worried about their legal jeopardy. You might think otherwise. Jake Sherman, a Politico senior writer, was utterly shocked to learn that there are questions about the FBI paying for the dossier. To wit:

Fun fact: the FBI was also in the U.S. government when word first got out that they tried to pay for opposition research on the out-of-power party’s nominee! Here’s theWashington Post’s Karen Tumulty:

Before I respond, a quick digression. Sometimes readers or viewers complain that “the media” haven’t covered a story. And it will turn out that the story was covered, deep in one media outlet’s newspaper. Or for a few seconds of a newscast. The Journolisters of Twitter don’t help the story go viral. They don’t dig further. It dies. But when readers complain that the story wasn’t covered, they point to that piece on page D14 and say, “See! We covered it!”

If I were a Fusion GPS-connected journalist desperate to bury news of the firm’s refusal to cooperate with a congressional investigation into Russian meddling in U.S. affairs, that is the approach I would have taken, instead of the one taken by journalists today. The approach they took today was to pretend that the story was made up. Instead, they could have pointed to the story that ran in the Washington Post on February 28 about how the FBI tried to pay the dossier drafter to continue his work:

The former British spy who authored a controversial dossier on behalf of Donald Trump’s political opponents alleging ties between Trump and Russia reached an agreement with the FBI a few weeks before the election for the bureau to pay him to continue his work, according to several people familiar with the arrangement.

When a Twitter interlocutor pointed out to Tumulty that her own paper had published the report that the FBI had tried to pay for oppo on the Republican nominee, she replied:

She’s quoting from the Post story. That story, incidentally, is based on anonymous sources, as all stories these days are. This from The New York Times also says that the FBI tried to, but ultimately did not, pay Christopher Steele for his dossier work. (Read on to get to the part about how the FBI did pay him, according to CNN’s anonymous sources.) It should be the first of many stories digging into how it was possible that the FBI got into the oppo research business on political opponents. As that story itself notes: