RUTHFULLY YOURS

The striking thing about the latest Mueller investigation controversy — a kerfuffle over the special counsel’s acquisition of voluminous files from Trump’s transition organization — is how unnecessary it is.

As the word transition implies, an incoming president’s transition team is not yet in the government the president-elect will soon be running. It is thus in an ambiguous state: a private entity that is being briefed on government operations as it conducts preparations for governing; an entity through which private persons (i.e., non-government officials) are communicating with public officeholders and other private citizens in order to recruit potential administration officials, discuss policy, and understand the responsibilities the new administration will be taking on. There are obvious legal matters to be discussed, and hence the involvement of lawyers and discussions that are potentially privileged. There are strategic deliberations that go into public announcements and the formulation of policy.

It’s complicated.

That is why, if a prosecutor and investigators want to review presidential transition files, they should make the request directly to counsel for the presidential transition. That is the way to sort out any knotty legal issues, with court intervention if necessary, so that they do not become public controversies. But that is not the Mueller way, as we saw with the utterly unnecessary pre-dawn raid on the home of Paul Manafort — busting in with a search warrant and guns drawn, at the very time Manafort was cooperating with congressional committees, and when he was represented by well-respected lawyers through whom Mueller could have requested production of whatever materials he was seeking.

Mueller’s investigation is examining whether Trump campaign officials “colluded” in Russia’s espionage operations to interfere in the election, and whether contacts between Trump associates and Russian operatives amounted to actionable corruption. That being the case, the relevance of at least some transition materials is obvious.

Last Thursday, the Trump administration issued the first iteration of its congressionally mandated Interdepartmental Serious Mental Illness Coordinating Committee (ISMICC) report. Titled “The Way Forward,” the report is intended to be a blueprint for how the federal government can improve care for the most seriously mentally ill. It is a step in the right direction.

The ISMICC, working under the leadership of Dr. Elinore McCance-Katz, the assistant secretary of Mental Health and Substance Use Disorders, comprises ten federal members representing different agencies and 14 members representing the public- and mental-health industries. These officials were tasked with evaluating the nation’s response to the seriously mentally ill and proposing improvements to Congress.

The problem with our mental-health policy is huge. As I documented in Insane Consequences: How the Mental Health Industry Fails the Mentally Ill, despite $147 billion of annual spending in federal funds and another $40 billion or so in state funds, 140,000 seriously mentally ill individuals are homeless while 390,000 remain incarcerated. Thankfully, the ISMICC defined the rates of homelessness, arrest, incarceration, violence and needless hospitalization as the biggest problems facing the seriously mentally ill.

Helping the most seriously ill, those who can’t help themselves, is a legitimate core function of government. Unfortunately, both the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) and the Center for Mental Health Services (CMHS) remain headed by Obama holdovers who refuse to focus on the most seriously ill or address the most-pressing issues like violence, fearing that doing so will cause a “stigma” by highlighting the association between violence and untreated serious mental illness. Instead, these officials focus their agencies on pumping out pop-psychology webinars, publications and grants to improve “mental wellness” among the higher functioning. President Trump and acting HHS secretary Eric Hargan should replace the leaders of SAMHSA and CMHS with doctors like Dr. McCance-Katz who are committed to using taxpayer dollars for the most important issues that affect the seriously ill, not for the sideshows.

Beyond defining the problem, this first report contains initial recommendations made by the public members of the committee. Many are relevant to reducing homelessness, arrest, incarceration and needless hospitalization, but others are not. This is likely the result of the committee having very little time to sort through their ideas: The final report is not due until four years from now. So there is plenty of time to modify the recommendations and prioritize the most-important ones. Hopefully, the committee members will.

As we hoped, the Republican tax legislation improved as it moved through Congress. Harmful ideas such as eliminating the adoption tax credit were abandoned. Some tax relief for the working poor was added. The final bill should increase investment, reduce the distortionary effect of tax breaks, and lighten the especially excessive burden that the federal government puts on parents. While the bill is nobody’s idea of perfection, it is nonetheless a solid accomplishment and we are glad that Congress is moving quickly to pass it.

Our 35 percent corporate tax rate has stayed in place for decades as our major trading partners cut their rates. The new tax rate of 21 percent should help us compete better for capital. Allowing businesses to write off the cost of investments more rapidly is another pro-growth win in the bill.

The legislation rightly pares back two major deductions: the ones for mortgage interest, which will be capped at mortgages of $750,000 rather than the current $1 million, and for state and local taxes, which will be capped at $10,000 rather than being unlimited. In both cases we would have preferred more aggressive action, but the more moderate course chosen has the virtue of reducing the number of people who will face tax increases thanks to the bill. If some high-income households react to this change by leaving high-tax states, perhaps those states will in turn be moved to rethink their policies.

The bill’s major contribution to tax simplification is the expansion of the standard deduction. That expansion will make tax deductions less important: Only a small percentage of taxpayers will find it worthwhile to itemize. The bill also reduces the number of people who will have to calculate their taxes twice, by limiting the reach of the alternative minimum tax.

Thanks largely to the interventions of Senators Marco Rubio and Mike Lee, the legislation expands the child tax credit. We have long favored a large tax credit for children as the most practical way to remedy a disparity in our old-age entitlements: They overtax parents, who pay the same tax rates and get the same benefits as childless adults no matter how much they have contributed to those programs by raising children.

Following Roy Moore’s defeat in the Alabama Senatorial race, the political Nostradami of both parties are furiously predicting either doom or salvation for the other party. Dems think Doug Jones’ win means the South is up for grabs, and flipping the Senate and maybe even the House is possible. Donks predict that with the toxic Moore off the table, Jones’ win will no more flip the Senate than Scott Brown’s win did for the Republicans in 2010. More interesting is what Moore’s rise and fall tells us about our dysfunctional political culture.

Take the weaponization of sexual harassment and assault charges. A movement that started with Harvey Weinstein, a blatant offender who left enough credible evidence to start a criminal investigation, expanded into an orgy of accusations including clumsy flirting, boorish passes, juvenile gags, and other behaviors that in a workplace might constitute sexual harassment, but would not be subject to legal sanction. The level of subjective interpretations involved in many of these charges confuses the issue even further, and can leave determining “sexual assault” in the eye of the beholder. And of course, false charges are easy to manufacture once we are instructed to believe every accuser before any corroborating evidence is available.

An example of how subjective the standards are for making a serious accusation can be seen in the case of one of the three women who recently accused Trump of sexual impropriety. Here’s NBC’s reporting of one woman’s charge:

[The accuser] said when she competed in Trump’s Miss USA pageant in 2006, Trump came backstage unexpectedly when she and other contestants were wearing nothing but robes and he personally inspected the contestants. “I just felt so gross,” she said. “Just looking me over like I was a piece of meat . . . “Nobody dreams of being ogled when you’re a little girl wanting to wear a crown,” she added.

As reported, this charge is preposterous. We’re talking about a beauty pageant, not a spelling bee or the Academic Decathlon. These contestants are chosen for their physical beauty, including their sexual allure. I’ve never seen an obese homely woman in one of these pageants. And wouldn’t the accuser have shown more of her body during the swimsuit competition than Trump would’ve seen when she was wearing a robe? And isn’t being “ogled” the whole point of parading around on stage in a bikini? Given the accuser’s standard, every male judge and audience member was guilty of sexual assault.

Time has named #MeToo its ‘Person of the Year’ and every other day the hashtag lynch mob drags someone else in front of the spotlight. The accusations range from rape to harsh words. The evidence is hearsay. The target is shamed, fired from every job he ever held and purged from polite society.

Some are guilty. Some might be innocent. But we’ll never know because there’s no investigation. The time frame between accusation and purge is hours or days when it takes your average HR department a week to file a form. Just like in every totalitarian leftist state, the accusation is enough.

And then it’s on to the next one.

There’s nothing American about #MeToo. It’s the revolutionary justice of a leftist purge where random political violence against ideological enemies is used to heal social ills. If there’s poverty, shoot a few rich men. If there’s unhappiness, string up some priests. And if there’s sexual assault, destroy whichever names are passed along by a few influential, but enigmatic figures, Ronan Farrow, Yashar Ali, with ambiguous backgrounds and agendas, through pressure campaigns aimed at their employers.

And don’t ask any questions. Only bad people ask questions. Only bad people want proof. Only bad people don’t instantly believe an accusation. And you’re either with #MeToo or with its targets.

But maybe we should start asking a few questions.

Six years ago, I was stopped by a reporter and asked if I believed a rape victim.

Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the head of the International Monetary Fund who was likely to be the next president of France, had been arrested for sexually assaulting a hotel maid. Local tabloids and cable news quickly descended on the case of the suave powerful man who had assaulted a refugee hotel maid who had been gang raped in her own African country.

The French reporter who accosted me asked me if I believed the victim. He wanted to know what Americans thought should happen to Strauss-Kahn. I told him that in this country we put people on trial and we get all the facts before we punish them.

France didn’t wait for all the facts.

Dominique Strauss-Kahn’s political career ended. Sarkozy became the next President of France. And there were always rumors that the whole thing had been a setup by his political opponents. Nafissatou Diallo, the hotel maid, had managed to lie convincingly about almost everything. She had even lied about soldiers in Guinea gang raping her and what she had done right after the attack.

Finally, prosecutors gave up.

“In virtually every substantive interview with prosecutors, despite entreaties to simply be truthful, she has not been truthful,” they wrote about their own witness. “The nature and number of the complainant’s falsehoods leave us unable to credit her version of events beyond a reasonable doubt.”

She lied.

Like many of the accused men, Dominique Strauss-Kahn appeared to have little control over his appetites. But his reputation had been destroyed based on an accusation.

And an accusation alone should not be enough to destroy a person.

In the longest and most expensive trial in American history, members of the McMartin family were prosecuted for Satanic child abuse. The Los Angeles case dragged on for 16 years. The whole thing proved to be groundless.

During the Iraq War, Hillary Clinton, Al Franken, Rachel Maddow and many other leftists championed the case of Jamie Leigh Jones who worked for a Hailburton subsidiary in Baghdad’s Green Zone. Jones claimed to have been gang raped by her fellow employees. After 6 years, the case completely collapsed.

The University of Virginia’s Phi Kappa Psi fraternity won millions from Rolling Stone after being vandalized and harassed because of the magazine’s recent rape hoax article. ‘Jackie”, the woman in question, had made the whole thing up. But by then the witch hunt had already been unleashed.

That’s why Believe All Women is a terrible idea.