RUTHFULLY YOURS

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange made news on Fox News’ “Hannity” Tuesday night when he produced evidence that seemed to prove that Hillary Clinton lied to FBI investigators about classified markings. During her FBI interview on July 2, Clinton claimed that as secretary of state she didn’t know that information marked “(C)” denoted confidential material. According to the FBI documents, she had speculated that a “C” in brackets was used for marking paragraphs in alphabetical order. The obvious follow-up question — “Gee, did you ever see an ‘A’ or ‘B’ in the preceding paragraphs?” — was not asked. The FBI, stunningly, took her at her word.

Assange claimed that Clinton knew full well what the (C) was for — because she has used it thousands of times herself. He dropped the bombshell at the end of his interview with Sean Hannity.

“In the FBI report released Friday, I agree with your analysis, it is very strange that was released Friday afternoon on a Labor weekend,” Assange said. “I do think it draws questions to what sort of game the FBI is trying to play. … Hillary Clinton says that she can’t remember what a ‘C’ in brackets stands for. Everyone in positions of government and in WikiLeaks knows it stands for classified, confidential. And in fact, we have already released thousands of cables by Hillary Clinton…with a ‘C’ in brackets right there,” said Assange while producing one of the documents. “Thousands of examples, where she herself has used a ‘C’ in brackets, and signed it off, and more than 22,000 times that she has received cables from others with this ‘C’ in brackets. So, it’s absolutely incredible for Clinton to lie. She is lying about not knowing what that is, but it’s a bit disturbing that James Comey goes along with that game.”

Clinton knew. And the FBI knows she knew.

Goldman Sachs has enacted a set of rules that bans the firm’s top employees from contributing to certain campaigns, including the Trump-Pence ticket.

The rules kicked in Sept. 1 and will apply only to partners of the firm. The firm says the rules were meant to remove any implication of so-called “pay to play.” Four years ago, the bank paid $12 million to settle charges that a former Boston-based banker had picked up bond underwriting business in the state while working for and contributing funds to the campaign of a then Massachusetts state treasurer and governor-hopeful, Tim Cahill.

But the people in the Trump campaign are sure to question the timing. That’s because the rules ban donations to politicians running for state or local offices, as well as donations to state officials who are seeking federal office. That makes campaign contributions to the Trump-Pence ticket a no-no. Pence is the current governor of Indiana.

At the same time, the rules do not restrict donations to Clinton-Kaine. Kaine is a U.S. Senator for Virginia, and not considered a local official under Goldman’s rules. Lloyd Blankfein, Goldman’s CEO, has declined to say who he is supporting for president. But is known as a long-time Clinton supporter. Blankfein donated to Clinton when she ran against Obama is 2008.

Goldman declined to comment on this story.

“The policy change is also meant to minimize potential reputational damage caused by any false perception that the firm is attempting to circumvent pay-to-play rules, particularly given partners’ seniority and visibility,” the firm wrote in the memo first seen by Politico. “All failures to pre-clear political activities as outlined below are taken seriously and violations may result in disciplinary action.”

Fortune in July reported that SEC rules would make it nearly impossible for the Trump-Pence campaign to raise money from private equity managers, citing pay-to-play rules.

The ban doesn’t eliminate a large number of potential Trump donors. The bank has 467 partners globally, out of 30,000 plus employees. But since Goldman partners tend to be some of the wealthiest people in finance, the fact that they aren’t allowed to send money to the Trump campaign could make a difference, particularly among the race for Wall Street dollars, where Trump has been trailing Clinton but catching up lately.

Forget the new dump of Hillary Clinton emails. Forget the phony claims that the missing communications were all about wedding plans and yoga routines. Forget, too, the many requests from Doug Band in which the Clinton Foundation honcho hoped his quos (hefty donations to the Clinton Foundation) would translate into quids (e.g., special access to the secretary).

Forget them all. The most disturbing aspect about the FBI dump may not be fresh evidence of another Clinton lie. The most disturbing thing about Mrs. Clinton’s continuing email drama may be where she’s telling the truth.

Or at least a half-truth. Mrs. Clinton told the FBI it was “common knowledge” at State that she used private email. Agents further quote her as saying she “could not recall anyone raising concerns with her regarding the sensitivity of the information she received at her email address.”

However unseemly the cashing in of the Clinton family, whatever the trampling of the ethics accord the Clinton Foundation had signed with the White House, even apart from the walking conflicts-of-interests that were Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills, the much larger stink here is this: Mrs. Clinton was allowed to spend her four years as secretary of state off the grid.

It isn’t so much that Mrs. Clinton set up a personal server so she would not be accountable the way normal political appointees are held accountable. It’s that no one in government stopped her. The inspector general’s report notes that when two IT officers expressed their concern in 2010 that her private email system meant federal records were not being preserved, they were told “never to speak of the Secretary’s personal email system again.”

As a result, when the American people finally learned about Mrs. Clinton’s use of private email for public business, it wasn’t because of a functioning civil service. It was because of a hacker. CONTINUE AT SITE

To listen to conventional wisdom, Hillary Clinton practically cannot lose the presidential election. The various forecasting services, from FiveThirtyEight to CNN to Predictwise, give the Democrat about a 70% chance of winning the White House in November. Few commentators are betting on Donald Trump. Yet the available evidence shows that the race is steadily trending toward Mr. Trump, whose victory remains quite possible.

Consider the polling trends. In a four-way race including Libertarian Gary Johnson and Green Party candidate Jill Stein, Mrs. Clinton’s lead is now only 2.4 points in the Real Clear Politics average. That’s down significantly from a month ago. In early August, following the Democratic Convention, Mrs. Clinton was up by six points in the YouGov/Economist survey, and eight points in the ABC/Washington Post poll.

When third parties are excluded, Mrs. Clinton does a bit better against Mr. Trump: She leads by 3.3 points in the Real Clear Politics average. Yet that figure has been cut by more than half in a month. In addition, the head-to-head matchup loses relevance each day that public dissatisfaction with the two major-party nominees does not subside. Mr. Johnson, the Libertarian, has held steady for months at about 7% support in the polling average, and the Green Party’s Ms. Stein has stuck at about 3%.

The latest surveys look even more ominous for Mrs. Clinton. Virtually all of those taken in the past week show Mr. Trump ahead, tied, or trailing but within the margin of error. The new CNN/ORC poll, out Tuesday, puts Mr. Trump up by two. Rasmussen’s release last Thursday showed 40% for Mr. Trump and 39% for Mrs. Clinton. The Reuters/Ipsos tracking poll out Friday had the same figures. The L.A. Times/USC tracking survey shows a statistical tie. The latest Investors Business Daily/TIPP survey has Mrs. Clinton up by one, but the margin of error is 3.4 points.

What accounts for this tightening? On the most straightforward level, it seems that Mrs. Clinton is coming down from the bounce she received after the successful Democratic convention. But something else has changed as well. In the latest ABC/Washington Post poll, published at the end of August, her image hit a career low: 56% of Americans viewed her unfavorably and only 41% favorably. This is a significant slide from even early August, when the same poll had Mrs. Clinton at 52% unfavorable and 46% favorable.

ITT Technical Institute folded on cue Tuesday after the Obama Administration issued a regulatory death warrant last month. ITT investors must be wishing they had ponied up for political protection like Laureate International Universities, the for-profit college that paid Bill Clinton $17.6 million to serve as its “honorary chancellor.”

ITT’s decision to close all of its 130 some campuses—stranding 40,000 students and 8,000 employees—comes after the Education Department barred new enrollees from tapping federal aid, delayed loan reimbursements and raised its collateral by $153 million. ITT had a mere $78 million on hand at the end of June and no way of meeting the Administration’s cash demand.

ITT’s execution follows the usual pattern: A pack of regulators attack from all angles—i.e., the Accrediting Council for Independent Colleges and Schools, Securities and Exchange Commission, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and state Attorneys General—and try to run their target out of business before it can raise a legal defense. None of their charges have been proven in court.

Department officials claim they are merely trying to protect students and taxpayers even though the SEC and CFPB allegations involve ITT’s private loan program. Many ITT students won’t be able to transfer to other schools, and the college’s closure means that nearly $500 million in student debt could be wiped out. ITT has put up only $90 million in collateral to cover discharged loans. Taxpayers would be on the hook for the rest.

Although Education Secretary John King claimed that ITT could have stayed in business by taking “corrective action,” liberals appear to have plotted the company’s assassination long ago. Rohit Chopra worked at the CFPB and the Center for American Progress before signing on as a special adviser to Mr. King in January. In June 2015 Mr. Chopra warned ITT shareholders that the department “can revoke eligibility for federal student aid with minimal notice” and that “ITT may be forced to post even more collateral to maintain eligibility. . . . Unless ITT makes improvements to management culture, the board of directors, and executive compensation, it may be unable to survive over the long term.”

Immediately after the department imposed its lethal sanctions on ITT, Mr. Chopra departed for the Hillary Clinton campaign. Maybe he’ll be tasked to answer questions about the Clintons’ lucrative ties to Laureate.

According to the results of a public records request by Judicial Watch, Bill Clinton was paid $17.6 million to serve as Laureate’s “honorary chancellor” between 2010 and 2015. Laureate has also donated between $1 million and $5 million to the Clinton Foundation. The company’s founder Doug Becker contributed $2,700 to Mrs. Clinton’s current presidential campaign. CONTINUE AT SITE

(JNS.org) A group of 90 U.S. military generals, including the only Holocaust survivor to become an American general, signed an open letter supporting Donald J. Trump for president on Tuesday.

The letter, which includes four four-star and 14 three-star flag officers, was organized by Major Gen. Sidney Shachnow and Rear Admiral Charles Williams. The two major issues that spurred the letter are opposition to the temperament accusation and national security.
“The beating that Trump is taking [by Hillary Clinton’s campaign] that he doesn’t have the temperament to be the commander-in-chief is erroneous,” Williams told JNS.org. “We wanted to get this out right now.”

Shachnow, a 40-year Army veteran who served as a Green Beret, was Commanding General of the U.S. Army Special Forces Command Airborne at Ft. Bragg. He’s the recipient of the Distinguished Service Medal. Williams served as Commanding Officer of five organizations throughout his career and received the Legion of Merit.

Williams’ colleagues, who have advised Trump privately, say the billionaire businessman listens 90 percent of the time and asks questions 10 percent. “He grasps the concept then moves onto the next issue, which is what a CEO and leader does,” Williams said.

For many in the military community, national security is the biggest concern and in conversations with numerous peers, Williams said many were willing, and continue to be willing, to sign their names to the open letter supporting Trump.

“If you don’t have national security, you don’t have anything,” Williams said. “These guys have spent their lives in national security, the military is an extension of the State Department. They’ve been on the front lines. When you look at the world and what’s gone wrong, Hillary Clinton didn’t make the world any better. More of the same is not the answer.”

So far, Williams contacted 170 out of over 3,000 living retired admirals and generals. While 90 people have agreed to sign onto the letter so far, Williams said others told him they will vote for Trump but didn’t want to sign a public statement. Few expressed criticism of the letter, he said.

The group may do a second announcement after reaching out to more in the military community, Williams added. Tuesday’s letter is ahead of the Sept. 7 event where Clinton and Trump will appear in a first-ever “Commander-in-Chief Forum,” hosted by the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America in New York City. It will feature questions from NBC News and an audience made up of mostly military veterans and active service members.

For months, I have been arguing that Hillary Clinton should be impeached. It is all well and good to prosecute a former government official for any crimes she has committed. Indeed, the Constitution expressly provides for criminal prosecution in addition to impeachment. Nevertheless, for the Framers — and, if we had common sense, for us — the imperative was to deprive a corrupt person of any further opportunity to abuse government power. Whether the official should also be convicted and sent to prison was not unimportant but, in the greater scheme of things, decidedly secondary.

Interestingly, the main pushback I received upon positing this argument was not that Mrs. Clinton is undeserving of impeachment. That, of course, is a measure of the seriousness of her high crimes and misdemeanors: the e-mail scandal; the reckless mishandling of classified information that has surely exposed our national-defense secrets to hostile powers; the mass destruction of thousands of government records after Congress asked for them; the obstruction of government investigations; the serial lies to Congress and the public; the shocking failure to provide security for Americans stationed in Benghazi and the failure to attempt to rescue them during a terrorist siege; the lies to the American people and to the families of murdered American officials about the cause of the attack; the trumping up of a prosecution against the video producer scapegoated for the Benghazi attack; the Clinton Foundation corruption involving the sale of influence for donations, the favors done for shady benefactors at the expense of national security, and the use of the State Department as an arm of the Clinton pay-to-play enterprise.

No, the main objection to impeachment is the claim that, because the former secretary of state does not currently hold public office, there is nothing from which to remove her. Hence, as a non-incumbent who merely seeks the nation’s highest office — after proving herself manifestly unfit in a subordinate office — she is said to be immune from impeachment. How could she be impeached from the presidency, the question is posed, if she is not president? How could she be removed from an office she does not hold based on offenses not committed while wielding presidential power?

These questions and the non-incumbency theory behind them fundamentally misconstrue the constitutional remedy of impeachment, which is not limited to removal from power but includes disqualification from future office. Moreover, their premise is wrong: The proceeding against Clinton would not be a presidential impeachment; it would be an impeachment based on her abuses of power as secretary of state, which would have the constitutional effect of disqualifying her for the presidency.

The Constitution does not limit impeachment to incumbent officials. Article I endows the House of Representatives with the “sole Power of Impeachment” — i.e., the power to file articles of impeachment. It further empowers the Senate with “the sole Power to try all Impeachments.” Significantly, in prescribing the standard for conviction in the Senate, Article I, Section 3 states that “no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present” (emphasis added).

It literally is impossible to write quickly enough to stay abreast of the scandals engulfing Hillary Rodham Clinton.

After a delightful visit with my family and friends in southern California, I sat down at Los Angeles International Airport late Thursday night to await my flight back to New York City. I planned to write a recap of just last week’s news regarding Hillary’s e-mails, the Clinton Foundation, and several of President Obama’s policies that Clinton backs.

I jotted down a simple outline, to which I since have added a few details:

1. Gilbert Chagoury: The Lebanese/Nigerian businessman gave $1 million to $5 million to the Clinton Foundation and pledged $1 billion more. The foundation’s Doug Band contacted Hillary’s top aide, Huma Abedin, to arrange a meeting for Chagoury with the U.S. ambassador to Lebanon. The Los Angeles Times now reports that Chagoury “was pulled off a private jet in Teterboro, N.J., and questioned for four hours because he was on the Department of Homeland Security’s no-fly list. He was subsequently removed from the list and categorized as a ‘selectee,’ meaning he can fly but receives extra scrutiny.” Why? A “Homeland Security document shows agents citing unspecified suspicions of links to terrorism, which can include financing extremist organizations.” He later was denied entry visas because “the U.S. put Chagoury in its database used to screen travelers for possible links to terrorism.”

2. Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran, which Hillary Clinton supports, reportedly includes secret side agreements that permit the ayatollahs to cheat on how much enriched uranium they can produce and how many radiation “hot rooms” they can operate. Codifying Tehran’s violations of this agreement made it easier for Obama to end sanctions, unfreeze Iran’s assets, and surge billions of dollars into the hands of Earth’s biggest state sponsor of radical Islamic terrorism.

All Never Trump conservatives maintain that their decision to never vote for Donald Trump is guided by their principles. I have no doubt that this is true.

But some of them — though by no means all — seem to imply, or at least may think, that conservatives who vote for Trump have abandoned their principles. Indeed, the charge of compromising on principle is explicitly leveled at Republican politicians and members of the Republican “establishment” who support Trump.

I cannot speak for all conservatives who are voting for Trump, but I can speak for many in making this assertion:

We have the same principles as the Never Trumpers — especially those of us who strongly opposed nominating Trump; that’s why we opposed him, after all. So almost everything that prevents Never Trumpers from voting for Trump also troubled us about the candidate. (I should note that some are less troubled today.)

So where do we differ?

We differ on this: We hold that defeating Hillary Clinton, the Democrats, and the Left is also a principle. And that it is the greater principle.

Obviously, the Never Trumpers do not believe that. On the contrary, some of the most thoughtful Never Trumpers repeatedly tell us that the nation can survive four years of Hillary Clinton–Democrat rule. And then, they say, conservatism will have cleansed itself and be able to take back the nation after four calamitous years of a Hillary Clinton presidency — whereas if Trump wins, he will be the de facto face of conservatism, and then conservatism will have been dealt a potentially fatal setback.

This argument assumes that America can survive another four years of Democratic rule.

So, it really depends on what “survive” means. If it means that there will be a country called the United States of America after another four years of a Democratic presidency and a left-wing Supreme Court for quite possibly another four decades (as well as dozens of lifetime appointments to the equally important lower federal courts), the country will surely survive.

But I do not believe that the country will surely survive as the country it was founded to be. In that regard we are at the most perilous tipping point of American history.

It is true that the country’s survival was threatened in the 1860s, and only a terrible civil war kept it whole. But, with the colossal and awful exception of slavery, neither side challenged the founding principles of America.

Donald Trump demonstrated true chutzpah in accepting an invitation from Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto to meet with him.

On August 31, 2016 Trump met Peña Nieto just hours before addressing an enthusiastic crowd of supporters in Arizona where he laid out his ten-point plan to address the immigration crisis that impacts so many of the challenges and threats that America faces today.

It was politically courageous for Trump to meet with the Mexican President. After nearly eight years of the feckless Obama administration, his demonstration of strength and focus at that meeting was refreshing.

Peña Nieto has compared Trump to Hitler and Mussolini, and Trump has, for the past year, made it clear that he opposed the policies of the Mexican government that have resulted in so many criminals, gangs and narcotics flowing from Mexico into the United States.

The meeting was a gamble but it paid off. As President John F. Kennedy said during his inaugural address,

“So let us begin anew–remembering on both sides that civility is not a sign of weakness, and sincerity is always subject to proof. Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate.”

While President Kennedy was referencing the ongoing tensions with the former Soviet Union and our relationship with Mexico is hardly as adversarial as was our relationship with the USSR, Mexico is separated from the United States by the longest border that divides the First World from the Third World, thus creating huge economic pressures on that border.

Mexico is an important trade partner of the United States. However, a huge component of that trade is illegal and involves illegal aliens, narcotics, weapons and money flowing across the border in violation of our laws.