RUTHFULLY YOURS

A year ago, in August 2015, this column called “The Donald” the Democrats’ Trump card. It is hard to imagine any other Republican candidate who could rescue a thoroughly discredited Hillary Clinton from a devastating defeat in this year’s election.

Now 50 prominent Republicans with foreign-policy and national-security experience have taken the unprecedented step of publicly and collectively announcing that they cannot vote for Donald Trump because they believe that he would be “the most reckless president in American history.”

Why? Not only because he has “demonstrated repeatedly” that “he has little understanding” of the nation’s “vital national interests,” but because “Mr. Trump has shown no interest in educating himself.”

Indeed, Donald Trump has shown little real interest in anything besides Donald Trump.

His response to these criticisms has been completely predictable. Trump has not even tried to answer the charges or to assure the American people on something as important as their survival and the survival of this nation. Instead, there is the standard Trump tactic of launching unsubstantiated charges against his critics.

Even if all his charges against his critics were 100 percent true, that is no assurance to the American people on the vital issues they raised — and for which there are innumerable examples of Trump’s own words and deeds to make people worry about what he would do in the White House.

Donald Trump cleaned up one of his messes, endorsing the re-election of fellow Republicans Paul Ryan, Kelly Ayotte and John McCain. On Monday, he laid out a tax plan that GOPers are genetically predisposed to embrace.

This assures us that Mr. Trump is not crazy in any clinical sense—incapable of changing his approach and adapting to feedback from the environment.

It only semi-assures us on another question. At least part of Mr. Trump is serious about being president—or, anyway, about mounting a campaign that won’t rebound disastrously on the GOP.

Those who marinate in the hyperbole of the moment found Mr. Trump’s bickering with the parents of a slain American soldier of a different order of personal dysfunction, recklessness and political tone-deafness than his threats against Jeff Bezos, his attack on Judge Curiel, his fake buddy act with Putin, etc.

In fact, the back and forth with the Khans was distressingly normal compared with these other episodes. The Khans launched an unquestionably partisan attack (which does not mean it lacked substantive validity) in the most partisan of venues, a Democratic convention.

For once the personal and political were united in one of the Donald’s miscarriages. He may have been motivated by a personal slight but he wasn’t politicizing the nonpolitical for personal or business reasons.

Mr. Trump is still an outside chance to win the presidency. Those commentators who spend all their effort pronouncing him unacceptable—and consigning to reputational hell any who quibble—are letting down their fans. For voters the problem is a multidimensional one.

If Mr. Trump isn’t crazy, unstable or irrational, then he’s merely unpresentable. A Hillary presidency may be preferable if Mrs. Clinton’s only path to presidential achievement is through a Republican Congress. But a possible outcome is all the levers landing in the hands of Democrats who believe nothing is wrong with America that more regulation and redistribution can’t fix. Read the Washington Post’s chilling account of how her campaign gestated Mrs. Clinton’s “detailed and complicated economic policy agenda.” Try not to think of Ira Magaziner’s health-care task force in 1993.
In contrast, Mr. Trump’s campaign has been a promise to make America great again—not a laundry list. It’s reassuringly likely that his most ill-advised and headline-grabbing policy pronouncements mean nothing. That’s a plus.

He tells an excitable part of the electorate what it wants to hear, on guns, trade and immigration. When you tell the public untruths, in Mr. Trump’s understanding of business, that’s marketing.

WASHINGTON—A conservative watchdog group on Tuesday released 296 pages of emails from former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s personal server, including many exchanges that weren’t handed over to the government as part of the Democratic nominee’s archive.

The new emails, released by the group Judicial Watch, offer fresh examples of how top Clinton Foundation officials sought access to the State Department during Mrs. Clinton’s tenure. The documents were obtained through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by Judicial Watch against the State Department.

A spokesman for the Clinton Foundation, a nonprofit organization established by former President Bill Clinton, didn’t immediately return a request for comment. Mrs. Clinton had attached her name to the foundation after she left the U.S. government and subsequently removed it when she started her presidential campaign.

In an exchange from April 2009, a longtime aide to Mr. Clinton told three of Mrs. Clinton’s top advisers that it was “important to take care of” a particular person, whose name has been redacted from the document. That person had written the aide, Doug Band, under the subject line “A favor…” to thank him for the “opportunity to go on the Haiti trip,” which the person called “eye-opening.” Mr. Band was a chief adviser in helping Mr. Clinton launch the Clinton Foundation after leaving the White House.
Huma Abedin, a longtime confidante of Mrs. Clinton who is now working for her campaign, replied to Mr. Band: “We have all had him on our radar. Personnel has been sending him options.” Mr. Band responded: “Great.” Mr. Band was an important figure in helping Mr. Clinton set up his postpresidential career and has since co-founded a New York company called Teneo Holdings. CONTINUE AT SITE

On Monday, Donald Trump stopped the wisecracks and laid out a serious plan to jumpstart the nation’s limping economy. He proposed tax cuts, regulatory relief, unfettered development of coal, oil and natural gas, and fairer trade pacts. One item in his plan will do more than all the others to get the nation working again–cutting corporate taxes. Trump pledges that “under my plan, no American company will pay more than 15% of their business income in taxes.”

Immediately, Hillary Clinton pounced on Trump’s “tax breaks for big corporations.” Her class warfare rhetoric reminds us that in this election voters have to decide between Hillary’s politics of envy or Trump’s agenda of economic growth for everyone.

First the facts: the U.S. corporate tax rate is 35% — highest in the developed world. Even with deductions, companies here pay on average 27%, which is more than in most other countries. Since 2000, nearly every industrialized country has cut corporate taxes to compete for business – except the U.S.

Consider Ireland. It’s not just shamrocks making that country green. Money’s been pouring in from around the globe, since Ireland slashed its corporate tax rate to 12.5%, one of the lowest in Europe. In 2015 the country’s economy grew three times as fast as the United States. Companies from the U.S. and across Europe hurried to set up operations there.

Closer to home, Canadians of all political stripes — Liberals, Conservatives, and Progressives — put their ideological differences aside and agreed to lower the country’s corporate tax rate from 42% to 26%. They decided that fighting over a bigger economic pie beat arguing over how to divvy up a smaller one.

Last year I arrived early for a lunch address by Gen. Michael Hayden, who ran the National Security Agency and later the Central Intelligence Agency in the George W. Bush administration. Hayden was already there, and glad to chat. The conversation turned to Egypt, and I asked Hayden why the Republican mainstream had embraced the Muslim Brotherhood rather than the military government of President al-Sisi, an American-trained soldier who espoused a reformed Islam that would repudiate terrorism. “We were sorry that [Muslim Brotherhood leader Mohamed] Morsi was overthrown” in July 2013, Hayden explained. “We wanted to see what would happen when the Muslim Brotherhood had to take responsibility for picking up the garbage.”

“General,” I remonstrated, “when Morsi was overthrown, Egypt had three weeks of wheat supplies on hand. The country was on the brink of starvation!”

“I guess that experiment would have been tough on the ordinary Egyptian,” Hayden replied, without a hint of irony. As Tommy Lee Jones said in “Men in Black,” Gen. Hayden has no sense of humor that he’s aware of. He repeated the same point verbatim a few minutes later in his speech: It was a shame that the Muslim Brotherhood government of Egypt was overthrown, by acclaim of the majority of Egypt’s adult population, which had taken to the streets as the country careened towards ruin. Hayden, like Sen. John McCain, the Weekly Standard, and the majority of the Republican foreign policy establishment, believes that America should try to foster a democratic version of political Islam. It lionized Morsi’s Muslim Brotherhood in Washington, nurtured Turkey’s dictator Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and armed “moderate Islamists” in Syria as a supposed democratic alternative to the Assad regime. Hayden’s specialty was signal intelligence, and by all accounts he was good at his job. He is clueless about foreign policy.

Gen. Hayden was perhaps the most prominent signator of a letter from fifty former national security officials who served in Republican administrations, declaring that Donald Trump “lacks the character, values and experience” required of a president and, if elected, “would put at risk our country’s national security and well-being.”

Trump responded, “The names on this letter are the ones the American people should look to for answers on why the world is a mess, and we thank them for coming forward so everyone in the country knows who deserves the blame for making the world such a dangerous place.” That is exactly correct. He might have added that they are incapable of learning from their mistakes and doomed to repeat them if given the opportunity.

The Republican Establishment believed with fervor in the Arab Spring. Weekly Standard founder Bill Kristol went as far as to compare the abortive rebellions fo the American founding. It backed the overthrow and assassination of Libya’s dictator Muamar Qaddafi, which turned a nasty but stable country into a Petri dish for terrorism. It believed that majority rule in Iraq would lead to a stable, pro-American government in that Frankenstein monster of a country patched together with body parts taken from the corpse of the American empire. Instead, it got a sectarian Shi’ite regime aligned to Iran and a Sunni rebellion stretching from Mesopotamia to the Lebanon led by ISIS and al-Qaeda.