Steve Hilton: Unmask the anti-Trump Deep State working against America’s best interests

Steve Hilton

The anonymous anti-Trump op-ed published by The New York Times on Wednesday confirmed what we all suspected. Members of the arrogant ruling class in Washington, furious that a populist interloper was elected by the people to dismantle the elitist policies that have hurt working Americans for decades, are fighting back.
Elitist commentators have mocked talk of the “Deep State” as feverish conspiracy-mongering. Well, now we know the Deep State exists. There really is a group of people embedded in the federal government actively working to block the policies that Americans voted for.
At the same time, anti-Trump commentators have lectured us for two years about how this president is “undermining democracy” and “subverting” those famous “democratic norms.” Well, now we know they are hypocritical idiots (intellectual idiots, of course – per Nassim Taleb’s wonderful formulation.)
I’m not sure what could undermine democracy more than a policy that was clearly articulated as part of a winning candidate’s platform being blocked by bureaucrats or political appointees who no one voted for. Isn’t it quite an important democratic “norm” that the policies of winning candidates and parties get implemented, rather than the policies of the losers?
Perhaps the most enjoyable aspect of last week’s Washington elite meltdown was the hilarious spectacle of the left cheering on Goldman Sachs veteran Gary Cohn for his efforts to protect the profits of the super-rich from President Trump’s efforts to protect American workers.
Now the hunt is on to identify who wrote the op-ed published by The New York Times. But I fear that misses the point. Finding and even punishing this one individual is not going to solve the systemic and structural problem of the Deep State: the fact that we have permanent ruling class in our government that pushes forward an elitist policy agenda regardless of who actually wins elections.
I have a bigger and better plan, and it’s one of the ideas in my new book, “Positive Populism: Revolutionary Ideas to Rebuild Economic Security, Family, and Community in America.”
The first step in beating the Deep State is to unmask the Deep State. This idea goes back to my own experience battling the permanent bureaucracy as senior adviser to Prime Minister David Cameron in Britain.
Before Cameron was elected, I went to see former Prime Minister Tony Blair to ask his advice about how to be effective in government. One thing above all that I remember was his stark warning about the civil service.
Blair told me: “You cannot overestimate the degree to which the civil service and the bureaucracy genuinely see themselves as the guardians of the national interest. They think it’s their duty to block and frustrate the here-today, gone-tomorrow politicians who come in with their crazy schemes. That is how they think. You have to realize that they really are there trying to stop you doing what you want to do. You’ve got to understand that, and be ready to fight them.”
Blair’s warning about Britain’s Deep State was prophetic, as I discovered even before David Cameron took office as prime minister.
One of our key Conservative priorities was government transparency. We had pledged to publish details of everything the British government spent money on, as well as the names, job descriptions and the organizational charts of the entire civil service, so citizens could see what their government did.
In a meeting ahead of the election, Cabinet Secretary and the head of the civil service Gus O’Donnell asked me and David Cameron: “Of course you don’t really mean all this government transparency stuff, do you?”

When I replied that we very much did, O’Donnell gave me a knowing look and said: “Yes. Well, we’ll see about that.”
And indeed, once we were in office, the civil service bureaucracy fought tooth and nail against the publication of any information at all about its scope and functions.
And then it dawned on me: Blair was so right. The permanent bureaucracy, self-righteously convinced of its “noble” mission to protect the country from risk-taking, was never going to be an ally in the kind of radical change we were trying to make. The last thing they wanted was to decentralize power – that would mean less power for them!
I realized there was no way we were going to be able to truly decentralize power and make government more accountable unless we actually bit the bullet and cut back the size of the bureaucracy – drastically.
I had an idea: For centuries, the British Empire was run out of Somerset House, a magnificent, palatial complex on the Thames, not far from Trafalgar Square. Here were the offices of the empire’s civil servants.
In the colonial era when “the sun never set on the British Empire” because it spanned the globe, the offices ruled from Australia and New Zealand to Africa, India and the Middle East, and across the Atlantic to Canada. In addition to all those charges, Great Britain administered all of Ireland and Scotland as well.
“How many staff worked at Somerset House?” I inquired. The answer? Roughly 10,000. Well: if Britain could preside over the largest empire in world history from one building that housed 10,000 people, why couldn’t modern Britain – which now had no empire to administer?
Why was it necessary for Whitehall (the nickname of the core civil service in London) to be staffed by well over 100,000 people? Using Somerset House as a guideline, I proposed an experiment: to cut the central civil service bureaucracy by 90 percent for a year or two, and to see the impact. To me, it was the logical corollary of our plan to decentralize power. If we really meant that, we would need fewer bureaucrats at the center, surely.
As you can imagine, this plan did not go down well with either the political or bureaucratic establishment. The elites never want to give up power. But they must give up power – or have it taken away from them – if we are to make government truly accountable to the people.
The federal bureaucracy in Washington – the American Deep State – is sorely in need of just such a radical shake-up. In 2017, the U.S. government’s civilian workforce consisted of nearly 3 million taxpayer-funded jobs. Anyone who has been to Washington has seen in city block after city block the sprawling physical landscape of bureaucracy. But what exactly do they all do there?
Many must do important work. But let’s find out exactly what. Let's open them up to scrutiny and hold them to account. It's our tax dollars after all. Let’s start by bringing into the open the secret world of the Deep State bureaucrats. Publish every civil service organization chart, along with salaries and job descriptions.
Let’s Unmask the Deep State. That will provide the necessary intelligence for establishing the scale of the cut in its numbers that we need. In the process, let’s clear out all the leeches and hangers-on – the useless elite management consultants who earn a fortune from the taxpayer for writing endless PowerPoint presentations for incoming administrations that really do nothing but rearrange the deckchairs on this bureaucratic Titanic that is the federal government.
The result is a self-referential ruling class of mandarins stuck in acronyms, cost analysis reports, and legal jargon. Hardly the government “of, by, and for the people” that the Founding Fathers had in mind.
We’ll be discussing this topic on “The Next Revolution” at 9 p.m. EDT Sunday on Fox News Channel with Dana Perino, Candace Owens, Charlie Kirk and Tezlyn Figaro. Hope you can join us!

Anti-Trump journalists find new, bizarre ways to join the resistance

Media bias seems to get worse by the week. Even a work week shortened by Labor Day delivered on that depressing trend.
Journalists cheered protests at the Supreme Court nomination hearing for Judge Brett Kavanaugh and swallowed a silly Internet hoax. Then there was the anonymous New York Times op-ed defending a “steady state” rebellion against President Trump. It was a new low for journalists devoted to overturning a democratic election.
Call it the pièce de résistance.
The New York Times trumped opposition leaders at CNN and The Washington Post. The three battle daily for liberal attention and journalistic kudos like unhinged “Bachelorette” finalists, each desperate to win favor.
The op-ed let the Times celebrate victory for now. It easily passed the Post with its snoozy new Bob Woodward book and CNN’s celebration for taking down InfoWars chief Alex Jones.
The Times said publishing an anonymous op-ed is a “rare step.” So rare, no one in journalism remembered anyone else doing it to attack the president of the United States. But then, we’ve only had President Donald J. Trump for about 20 months.
The op-ed brought out more insanity. MSNBC host Nicolle Wallace fantasized about removing Trump and said it was time for “a serious debate about the 25th Amendment in this country.” Fellow host Ari Melber combined with his guests to call the administration a “dumpster fire” 11 times in one segment.
Things were just as bad over at CNN. “Wolf” host Wolf Blitzer kept asking if America was heading to a “constitutional crisis,” as if a Times op-ed equaled the rule of law.
CNN Senior Political Analyst John Avlon gave viewers a “reality check” of what a 25th Amendment removal might look like if CNN staffers got their wish to get rid of Trump. Avlon had to admit the chance that would happen were “slim, to say the least.”
CNN’s website actually ran “7 terms you need to know to understand the anonymous NYT op-ed.” It included everything what an op-ed is, for the utterly clueless, and more talk about the unlikely use of the 25th Amendment. That didn’t stop headlines calling for it all week.
Naturally, the broadcast networks had their fun with the op-ed. The three evening news shows spent a total of nearly 15 minutes on the op-ed that night, precisely the celebration the Times wanted. ABC’s Chief White House Correspondent Jonathan Karl called the piece “a devastating portrayal of Trump the president.” As if we haven’t had any of those since Trump took office.
“The View” praised the op-ed, with co-host Sunny Hostin saying of the author, “this person is probably saving our country.” Host Whoopi Goldberg had the audacity to claim the opinion piece was “constructive criticism.”
“CBS This Morning” fill-in co-host Bianna Golodryga was a rare voice of reason about the op-ed. She worried it would exacerbate America’s “erosion of trust” in journalism.
She’s right.
2. ‘No, I’m Spartacus’: If the op-ed provided the drama for the week, the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the Supreme Court nomination of  Kavanaugh provided almost everything else – from comedy to farce.
Journalists loved how Democrats turned the hearing into a circus, complete with hundreds of arrests and women dressed in outfits straight out of Hulu’s pro-abortion dystopia “The Handmaid’s Tale.” There were breathless reports of “chaos” or “fireworks” but at least it was “dramatic” enough to keep journalists happy.
In reality, it was a “was all carefully choreographed,” reported ABC’s Terry Moran, as Senate Democrats and their most-unhinged allies created a scene they hope will aid them in the midterms, after Kavanaugh is already sitting on the Supreme Court.
CNN anchor Chris Cuomo invented a new word when he whined that the hearing was a “traveshamockery,” because Kavanaugh wouldn’t answer questions that would then force him to recuse himself from future rulings.
This came after Cuomo accused the GOP of trying to “stack the courts across this country with white, male, young judges. For the record, Cuomo is also white and male – and at 48, he’s five years younger than Kavanaugh.
That wasn’t even the best part. The left flipped out over former Kavanaugh clerk Zina Bash, who they claimed flashed an “OK” sign during the hearing. (Hint: She didn’t.) “The gesture was declared a white-power symbol and ‘a national outrage’ by a #resistance tweeter who has 200,000 followers,” wrote Politico and coverage of the left’s “Self-Own” went downhill from there.
According to The Washington Post: “Liberal activist and author Amy Siskind, in a now-deleted tweet, wrote that Bash’s hand symbol should ‘disqualify’ Kavanaugh from the Supreme Court.” It was too much for CNN’s “Reliable Sources” host Brian Stelter, who called out those involved for their “‘white power symbol’ nonsense.”
Bash got the last laugh, appearing to genuinely use the symbol during the next day’s hearing in a championship level act of trolling.
New Jersey Democrat Sen. Cory Booker delivered more farcical comments as he laughably claimed “I am Spartacus” for releasing Kavanaugh emails that he claimed could get him kicked out of the Senate. Only the emails had already been cleared for release. Once more, reporters ran with the fake news to promote the likely presidential candidate.
3. Obama’s Back: There is no one the media adore more than President Obama. It was love at first sight. Obama gave a speech at the Democratic Convention in 2004 that got him the nomination four years later. The New York Times still calls it “The Speech That Made Obama” and NBC said it was “electrifying.”
Now Obama has returned and journalists have visions of a rainbow-hued Camelot once more dancing in their heads. He spoke in Illinois Friday criticizing Trump and said “the politics of resentment and paranoia has unfortunately found a home in the Republican Party." The media have been pretending that is true for years, so they loved it.
CNN depicted the battle as “Obama and Trump fight for America's soul.” CNN host and former Obama green jobs czar Van Jones loved it and explained how “democracy is at risk.” Fellow host Brooke Baldwin called the speech “incredible.”
And Politico was giddy, claiming in a headline: “Obama vs. Trump: The clash everyone's waited for arrives.” By “everyone,” what Politico meant was “journalists.” Conservatives never wanted to see Obama again.
Then there was NBC News, which ran a headline on its website about Obama bashing Trump: “Obama slams 'crazy stuff' coming out of Trump's White House.”
Then NBC used a bizarre pair of headlines on stories about the president: “Fear and loathing on the Trump campaign trail” and “Analysis: President Donald Trump appears to be trying to scare up a midterms win. Literally.” The “analysis” (Journalism code for opinion) claimed: “President Donald Trump's weapon of choice is fear.”
It’s not Trump’s weapon of choice. It’s the news media’s.

North Korea marks 70th anniversary with somewhat muted military parade

Tanks roll past during a parade for the 70th anniversary of North Korea's founding day in Pyongyang, North Korea, Sept. 9, 2018.  (Associated Press)

Without long-range missiles

 North Korea showcased its latest weaponry and best goose-stepping soldiers Sunday as the reclusive nation marked its 70^th anniversary with a military parade at a time when it is under international pressure to dismantle its nuclear weapons program.

Tens of thousands of North Koreans waved colored plastic bouquets in Pyongyang’s Kim Il Sung Square and held them up to spell out words and slogans as tanks and artillery rolled by.

No long-range missiles were on display, with the parade instead focusing on economic development. North Korea traditionally uses holidays to showcase its military arsenal and new technology.

North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, right, raises hands with China's third-highest ranking official, Li Zhanshu, during a parade for the 70th anniversary of North Korea's founding day in Pyongyang, North Korea, Sept. 9, 2018.  (Associated Press)

The procession also celebrated civilian groups such as nurses, students and construction workers in an effort to emphasize the country’s economy.
The focus on the military and civilian sectors was not new to celebrations of North Korea’s founding.
In 2008 and 2013, the Korean People’s Army was not featured, only the civil defense units, officially called “Worker Peasant Red Guards.”
Kim Yong Nam, head of North Korea's parliament, set the relatively softer tone for the event with an opening speech that emphasized the economic goals of the regime, not its nuclear might. He called on the military to be ready to work to help build the economy.
Guests at the parade included the head of the Chinese parliament and high-level delegations from countries that have friendly ties with the North. North Korean leader Kim Jung-Un attended but did not address the crowd.
Afterward, he met with Chinese special envoy, Li Zhanshu, who is also the third-ranking member in China's ruling Communist Party. The two held up their joined hands to symbolize the countries' traditionally close ties, though the absence of Chinese President Xi Jinping could indicate Beijing still has some reservations about Kim's initiatives.
North Korea holds military parades almost every year and held one just before the Winter Olympics in South Korea in February.
This year’s parade wasn’t televised but the state media apparatus filmed it – even using drones with cameras.
Earlier in the day, North Korea media reported Kim visited the mausoleum where his grandfather, the country’s founder, and his father lie in state, Reuters reported.

Soldiers march past during a parade for the 70th anniversary of North Korea's founding day in Pyongyang, North Korea, Sept. 9, 2018.  (Associated Press)

The parade comes at a sensitive time in the region.
Washington wants North Korea to abandon its nuclear weapons program while Kim wants security concessions and a formal agreement ending the Korean War.
Kim will meet with South Korean President Moon Jae-in the coming weeks to discuss a path toward denuclearization.
This year’s celebration also marks a return of North Korea’s Mass Games, which involve tens of thousands of people dancing in unison in a display of national unity.

Sen. Richard Blumenthal Vietnam Cartoons

Richard Blumenthal’s Words on Vietnam Service Differ From History (He Lied)

By RAYMOND HERNANDEZ MAY 17, 2010

At a ceremony honoring veterans and senior citizens who sent presents to soldiers overseas, Attorney General Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut rose and spoke of an earlier time in his life.

“We have learned something important since the days that I served in Vietnam,” Mr. Blumenthal said to the group gathered in Norwalk in March 2008. “And you exemplify it. Whatever we think about the war, whatever we call it — Afghanistan or Iraq — we owe our military men and women unconditional support.”

There was one problem: Mr. Blumenthal, a Democrat now running for the United States Senate( he won), never served in Vietnam. He obtained at least five military deferments from 1965 to 1970 and took repeated steps that enabled him to avoid going to war, according to records.

The deferments allowed Mr. Blumenthal to complete his studies at Harvard; pursue a graduate fellowship in England; serve as a special assistant to The Washington Post’s publisher, Katharine Graham; and ultimately take a job in the Nixon White House.

In 1970, with his last deferment in jeopardy, he landed a coveted spot in the Marine Reserve, which virtually guaranteed that he would not be sent to Vietnam. He joined a unit in Washington that conducted drills and other exercises and focused on local projects, like fixing a campground and organizing a Toys for Tots drive.

Many politicians have faced questions over their decisions during the Vietnam War, and Mr. Blumenthal, who is seeking the seat being vacated by Senator Christopher J. Dodd, is not alone in staying out of the war.

But what is striking about Mr. Blumenthal’s record is the contrast between the many steps he took that allowed him to avoid Vietnam, and the misleading way he often speaks about that period of his life now, especially when he is speaking at veterans’ ceremonies or other patriotic events.

Sometimes his remarks have been plainly untrue, as in his speech to the group in Norwalk. At other times, he has used more ambiguous language, but the impression left on audiences can be similar.

In an interview on Monday, the attorney general said that he had misspoken about his service during the Norwalk event and might have misspoken on other occasions. “My intention has always been to be completely clear and accurate and straightforward, out of respect to the veterans who served in Vietnam,” he said.

Photo

AN ASSISTANT IN THE NIXON WHITE HOUSE In 1969, Richard Blumenthal was hired by Daniel Patrick Moynihan, presidential urban affairs adviser. Credit John Olson/Time & Life Pictures — Getty Images

But an examination of his remarks at the ceremonies shows that he does not volunteer that his service never took him overseas. And he describes the hostile reaction directed at veterans coming back from Vietnam, intimating that he was among them.

In 2003, he addressed a rally in Bridgeport, where about 100 military families gathered to express support for American troops overseas. “When we returned, we saw nothing like this,” Mr. Blumenthal said. “Let us do better by this generation of men and women.”

At a 2008 ceremony in front of the Veterans War Memorial Building in Shelton, he praised the audience for paying tribute to troops fighting abroad, noting that America had not always done so.

“I served during the Vietnam era,” he said. “I remember the taunts, the insults, sometimes even physical abuse.”

Mr. Blumenthal, 64, is known as a brilliant lawyer who likes to argue cases in court and uses language with power and precision. He is also savvy about the news media and attentive to how he is portrayed in the press.

But the way he speaks about his military service has led to confusion and frequent mischaracterizations of his biography in his home state newspapers. In at least eight newspaper articles published in Connecticut from 2003 to 2009, he is described as having served in Vietnam.

The New Haven Register on July 20, 2006, described him as “a veteran of the Vietnam War,” and on April 6, 2007, said that the attorney general had “served in the Marines in Vietnam.” On May 26, 2009, The Connecticut Post, a Bridgeport newspaper that is the state’s third-largest daily, described Mr. Blumenthal as “a Vietnam veteran.” The Shelton Weekly reported on May 23, 2008, that Mr. Blumenthal “was met with applause when he spoke about his experience as a Marine sergeant in Vietnam.”

And the idea that he served in Vietnam has become such an accepted part of his public biography that when a national outlet, Slate magazine, produced a profile of Mr. Blumenthal in 2000, it said he had “enlisted in the Marines rather than duck the Vietnam draft.”

It does not appear that Mr. Blumenthal ever sought to correct those mistakes.

In the interview, he said he was not certain whether he had seen the stories or whether any steps had been taken to point out the inaccuracies.

“I don’t know if we tried to do so or not,” he said. He added that he “can’t possibly know what is reported in all” the articles that are written about him, given the large number of appearances he makes at military-style events.

Photo

An official log of Mr. Blumenthal's Selective Service record. He received a series of educational and occupational deferments from 1965 to 1970.

He said he had tried to stick to a consistent way of describing his military experience: that he served as a member of the United State Marine Corps Reserve during the Vietnam era.

Asked about the Bridgeport rally, when he told the crowd, “When we returned, we saw nothing like this,” Mr. Blumenthal said he did not recall the event.

An aide pointed out that in a different appearance this year, Mr. Blumenthal was forthright about not having gone to war. In a Senate debate in March, he responded to a question about Iran and the use of military force by saying, “Although I did not serve in Vietnam, I have seen firsthand the effects of military action, and no one wants it to be the first resort, nor do we want to mortgage the country’s future with a deficit that is ballooning out of control.”

On a less serious matter, another flattering but untrue description of Mr. Blumenthal’s history has appeared in profiles about him. In two largely favorable profiles, the Slate article and a magazine article in The Hartford Courant in 2004 with which he cooperated, Mr. Blumenthal is described prominently as having served as captain of the swim team at Harvard. Records at the college show that he was never on the team.

Mr. Blumenthal said he did not provide the information to reporters, was unsure how it got into circulation and was “astonished” when he saw it in print.

Mr. Blumenthal has made veterans’ issues a centerpiece of his public life and his Senate campaign, but even those who have worked closely with him have gotten the misimpression that he served in Vietnam.

In an interview, Jean Risley, the chairwoman of the Connecticut Vietnam Veterans Memorial Inc., recalled listening to an emotional Mr. Blumenthal offering remarks at the dedication of the memorial. She remembered him describing the indignities that he and other veterans faced when they returned from Vietnam.

“It was a sad moment,” she recalled. “He said, ‘When we came back, we were spat on; we couldn’t wear our uniforms.’ It looked like he was sad to me when he said it.”

Ms. Risley later telephoned the reporter to say she had checked into Mr. Blumenthal’s military background and learned that he had not, in fact, served in Vietnam.

The Vietnam chapter in Mr. Blumenthal’s biography has received little attention despite his nearly three decades in Connecticut politics.

Photo

A CANDIDATE FOR THE SENATE Mr. Blumenthal at an April forum in Monroe. He is running for the seat Christopher J. Dodd is vacating. Credit Chang W. Lee/The New York Times

But now, after repeatedly shunning opportunities for higher office, Mr. Blumenthal is the man Democrats nationally are depending on to retain the seat they controlled for 30 years under Mr. Dodd, and he is likely to face more intense scrutiny.

After obtaining Mr. Blumenthal’s Selective Service records through a Freedom of Information Act request, The New York Times asked David Curry, a professor at the University of Missouri-St. Louis and an expert on the Vietnam draft, to examine them.

Mr. Curry said the records showed that Mr. Blumenthal had received at least five deferments. Mr. Blumenthal did not dispute that but said he did not know how many deferments he had received.

Mr. Blumenthal grew up in New York City, the son of a successful businessman who ran an import-export company.

As a young man, he attended Riverdale Country School in the Bronx and showed great promise, along with an ability to ingratiate himself with powerful people.

In 1963, he entered Harvard College, where he met Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who served on the faculty there and guided Mr. Blumenthal’s senior thesis on the failure of government poverty programs.

He received two student deferments during his undergraduate years there, the records show.

After graduating from Harvard in 1967, military records show, Mr. Blumenthal obtained another educational deferment and headed to Britain, where he filed stories for The Washington Post and attended Trinity College, Cambridge, on a graduate fellowship.

But in early 1968, President Lyndon B. Johnson, under pressure over criticism that wealthier young men were avoiding the draft through graduate school, abolished nearly all graduate deferments and sharply increased the number of troops sent to Southeast Asia.

That summer, Mr. Blumenthal’s draft classification changed from 2-S, an educational deferment, to 2-A, an occupational deferment — a rare exemption from military service for men who contended that it was in the “national health, safety and interest” for them to remain in their civilian jobs. At the time, he was working as a special assistant to Ms. Graham, whose son Donald he had befriended at Harvard. Half a year later, after the election of President Richard M. Nixon, Mr. Blumenthal went to work in the White House as a senior staff assistant to Mr. Moynihan, who was Nixon’s urban affairs adviser.

But at the end of that year, he became eligible for induction after he drew a low number in a draft lottery held on Dec. 1, 1969. His number was 152, and people with numbers as high as 195 could be drafted, according to the Selective Service.

Photo

He served in the Marine Reserve.

Two months after the lottery, in February 1970, Mr. Blumenthal obtained a second occupational deferment, according to the records. The status of people with occupational deferments, however, was growing shakier, with the war raging and the Nixon administration increasingly uncomfortable with them.

In April 1970, Mr. Blumenthal secured a spot in the Marine Corps Reserve, which was regarded as a safe harbor for those who did not want to go to war.

“The Reserves were not being activated for Vietnam and were seen as a shelter for young privileged men,” Mr. Curry said.

But Mr. Blumenthal’s campaign manager, Mindy Myers, said Monday that any suggestion that he was ducking the war was unfounded, saying he was engaged in important work. When he worked for Ms. Graham, for example, he helped teach children in a public school in the Anacostia section of Washington, for a project she had started there.

“It’s flat wrong to imply that Richard Blumenthal’s decisions to take a Fiske Fellowship, teach inner-city schoolchildren and work in the White House for Daniel Patrick Moynihan were decisions to avoid service when in fact, while still eligible for a deferment, he chose to enlist in the Marine Corps Reserves and completed six months of service at Parris Island, S.C., and then six years of service in the Reserves.”

Mr. Blumenthal landed in the Fourth Civil Affairs Group in Washington, whose members included the well-connected in Washington. At the time, the unit was not associated with the kind of hardship of traditional fighting units, according to Marine reports from the period and interviews with about a half-dozen men who served in the unit during the Vietnam years.

In the 1970s, the unit’s members were dispatched to undertake projects like refurbishing tent decks and showers at a campground for underprivileged Washington children, as well as collecting and distributing toys and games as part of regular Toys for Tots drives.

Robert Cole, a retired lieutenant colonel who did active duty overseas in the 1950s and later joined the unit as a reservist, recalled the young men who joined the unit in the late 1960s and early 1970s. “These kids we were getting in — a lot of them were worried about the draft,” he said.

After entering Yale Law School in the fall of 1970, Mr. Blumenthal transferred to a Marine Reserve unit in New Haven, Company C of the Sixth Motor Transport Battalion, Fourth Marine Division, which conducted occasional military drills, as well as participating in Christmas toy drives for children and recycling programs in neighboring communities, according to the unit’s command reports from the time.

In 1974, Mr. Blumenthal took a position as a law clerk for Justice Harry C. Blackmun of the United States Supreme Court and transferred back to a Washington unit, where he completed his service.

Sen. Kamala Harris Given LAPD Protection, Even When She Wasn't in LA

Los Angeles taxpayers paid for airline tickets, hotel stays, car rentals, and meals.

What to Know

• LAPD officers were dispatched to California cities outside of Los Angeles at least a dozen times to provide security for U.S. Sen. Harris

• LA taxpayers paid for airline tickets, hotel stays, car rentals, and meals, according to detailed expense reports

• The unusual arrangement was shut down by new LAPD Chief Michel Moore in July

 

Armed, plain-clothes LAPD officers were dispatched to California cities outside of Los Angeles at least a dozen times to provide security for U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris at public events, media appearances, and a party.

LA taxpayers paid for airline tickets, hotel stays, car rentals, and meals, according to detailed expense reports obtained by NBC News. The total cost of the trips, not including the officers' overtime, topped $28,000.

The LAPD routinely provides security for dignitaries and officials visiting LA, but a senior retired department official said the courtesy extended to Sen. Harris for her travels to other cities was unprecedented.

Mayor Eric Garcetti's office said the Mayor was, "unaware," of this unusual arrangement until July, when it was shut down by new LAPD Chief Michel Moore.

"It was not until Chief Moore was sworn in, conducted a new assessment of the threat, determined that this arrangement was no longer needed, and informed Mayor Garcetti, that the mayor became aware of the state-wide detail," Garcetti spokesman Alex Comisar wrote in an email Wednesday.

Garcetti said former LAPD Chief Charlie Beck was solely responsible for the program.

"Chief of Police Charlie Beck assigned a security detail for US Senator Kamala Harris shortly before she was sworn into office in 2017, based on a threat assessment he believed to be credible," said LAPD spokesman Josh Rubenstein. "Funding for the detail was provided by the Department budget."

Beck's signature appears on many of the LAPD documents authorizing the trips, including one that occured just 10 days after Harris was sworn-in to the Senate, in which two officers flew to Oakland to go with Harris to a, "retirement event," for a California Department of Justice official.

NBC4 asked LAPD to contact Beck for comment. No response had been received at the time of publication.

Between January 2017 and July 2018 the records show LAPD officers flew to San Francisco at least seven times, including a trip in April 2017, when Harris gave TV interviews, a trip in March 2018 for a speech at a YMCA event, and a visit in June 2018, to escort Harris to the San Francisco Pride parade, where LAPD officers were visible in video and pictures captured along the parade route.

Officers also traveled to Sacramento, Fresno, and San Diego for Harris. The use of the officers and the purpose of the trips were confirmed by Harris' office.

"Since she became a protectee more than a decade ago, Senator Harris has always deferred to public safety experts on procedures, protocols and determinations," said Harris' communications director Lily Adams. "Our office did not request or question LAPD's decision to provide protection and we are grateful for the ongoing work of officers in Los Angeles and across the state who risk their lives to keep all Californians safe," she said.

The decision to end the out-of-town security program for Harris was made around the time the Los Angeles Times filed a lawsuit that demanded Mayor Eric Garcetti turn over records detailing the taxpayer expense of his own security detail during his extensive out-of-state travels, after both City Hall and the LAPD refused to release the documents through a routine California Public Records Act request.

"Unfortunately we are not able to give out this information, as it could potentially undermine the Mayor's safety and security," LAPD spokesman Rubenstein wrote in an email to the Los Angeles Times that was cited in the newspaper's lawsuit.

The Times' lawsuit claims there is no portion of the Records Act that exempts these expense records from public disclosure.

An attorney for the Times pointed out in a court filing that the U.S. Secret Service has provided information about the cost of travelling security details for both Presidents Trump and Obama, and the cities of Chicago, Baltimore, and Seattle have all produced similar mayoral expense records for public review.

Cruz challenger Beto O'Rourke dinged for saying 'nothing more American' than kneeling during anthem

Beto O’Rourke, the Democrat challenging GOP Sen. Ted Cruz in the midterm elections, is being slammed by Republicans for saying there is “nothing more American” than kneeling during the national anthem.
“Comments like his are a slap in the face to every man and woman who has ever served our nation and put their lives on the line to defend American values,” Republican Party of Texas Chairman James Dickey said Thursday.
O’Rourke, a Democratic congressman, was asked at a recent campaign event about NFL players who kneel during the anthem. O’Rourke replied, “I can think of nothing more American than to peacefully stand up, or take a knee for your rights anytime, anywhere, any place.”
While Republicans decried the remark, liberals are celebrating it.
“His answer was perfect,” said the liberal news site NowThis, which posted video of the exchange.
Actor Kevin Bacon tweeted his thanks to O’Rourke. And basketball star LeBron James saluted O’Rourke for his “candid thoughtful words!”
Cruz, the conservative senator elected in 2012, has hit back on the campaign trail.
“When Beto O’Rourke says he can’t think of anything more American, well I got to admit, I can,” Cruz said during a recent stop in Corpus Christi, referencing American soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines who salute the flag.
He is also drawing attention to the praise O'Rourke has gotten from Hollywood celebs.
“Most Texans stand for the flag, but Hollywood liberals are so excited that Beto is siding with NFL players protesting the national anthem that Kevin Bacon just retweeted it,” Cruz said.
It comes as O’Rourke – who has benefited from favorable national media attention, sympathetic magazine profiles and comparisons to the Kennedys – is gaining ground on Cruz in polls.
A NBC News/Marist Poll released this week shows Cruz ahead of O’Rourke by just 4 points, with 49 percent support to O'Rourke's 45 percent.

Cruz challenger Beto O'Rourke's campaign denies asking VFW to remove flags for campaign event

Beto O'Rourke is running for Ted Cruz's seat in the Senate. His campaign says it did not ask a VFW to take down flags ahead of a campaign event.  (AP Photo/Richard W. Rodriguez, File)

Members of Rep. Beto O'Rourke's Senate campaign deny they ever asked for flags to be taken down for a campaign event at a Veterans of Foreign Wars hall in Texas.

O'Rourke, who's trying to unseat Republican Sen. Ted Cruz, has been crisscrossing the state holding town halls. One of them was in August at a VFW post in Navasota, northwest of Houston.

The commander of the post, Carl Dry, said he rents out the hall for lots of different events. But Dry said before the O'Rourke town hall, a young woman with the campaign asked take take down venue flags.
Dry explained there are two large flags hanging on the wall in the main hall, one for the United States and one for the state of Texas. There are also two standing flags on either side. Mr. Dry said after he told the young woman "no," a young man then came up and asked the same question. This time he replied, "Not just no, but hell no." He added, "I was a little hot they'd ask, especially at a VFW hall."
But Chris Evans, communications director with the O'Rourke campaign, said that simply didn't occur. Evans told Fox News: "Our campaign absolutely did not request that any flags be removed or taken down from the walls. It is incorrect to say that we did."
Evans added that the campaign has hosted dozens of town halls in VFW posts across the state, at which they "ensure that the flags are prominently and respectfully displayed."
The flag dust-up follows reports of O'Rourke's defending athletes who kneel during the national anthem in protest of racial injustice and police violence, an issue the Cruz campaign has highlighted in its campaign events and online.
As for Dry, he said being head of a VFW post, he won't weigh in on politics, but added "As far as I'm concerned, it's a non-issue."

Miss America Cartoons

Kavanaugh hearings see flood of document releases as Dems claim to flout Senate rules

After beginning with a bizarre series of document releases that prompted one top Democrat to compare himself to Thracian gladiator Spartacus, the third day of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation hearings centered on Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation -- and a string of emails from earlier in the nominee's career, more than a decade ago.
As Democrats questioned Kavanaugh, Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., on Thursday afternoon released a new batch of documents that appeared to be labeled "committee confidential," meaning they were cleared to be viewed only by the Senate Judiciary Committee, not the public.
Booker tweeted that the entire nominating process was a "sham," and claimed he was running the risk of being expelled from the Senate for breaking its rules by posting the Bush-era documents, which included Kavanaugh's thoughts on racial profiling in the wake of the September 11 terror attacks and his assessment of the Supreme Court's views on Roe v. Wade.
A Judiciary Committee spokesperson confirmed to Fox News late Thursday that at least some of the emails Booker had released were still "committee confidential" when he published them hours earlier, suggesting Booker had in fact violated Senate rules, although Republicans had said earlier in the day that they had cleared many of the documents for public release on Wednesday night.
Also on Thursday, Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif. -- another potential 2020 presidential contender -- circled back to a combative, mysterious moment during Wednesday's hearing, when she suggested Kavanaugh was hiding information intentionally.
Harris had asked Kavanaugh whether he ever had discussed Mueller or his Russia probe with anyone at Kasowitz Benson Torres, the nearly 300-member law firm founded by Marc Kasowitz, a former personal attorney to President Trump. Kavanaugh demurred at the time, saying, "I'm not sure I know everyone who works at that law firm."
On Thursday night, Harris offered some more information about the foundation for her line of questioning.
"I received reliable information that you had a conversation about the special counsel or his investigation with the law firm that has represented President Trump," Harris began. "I will ask you again and for the last time -- yes or no, have you ever been part of a conversation with lawyers at the firm Kasowitz Benson Torres about Special Counsel Mueller or his investigation?"
"The answer is no," Kavanaugh eventually replied. Harris moved on quickly, peppering Kavanaugh with an aggressive series of rapid-fire questions on everything from gay marriage rights to separations of illegal immigrant families at the border.
Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., had pressed Kavanaugh on the Kasowitz issue earlier.
"Your answer was vague," Blumenthal charged. "Have you discussed the special counsel investigation with anyone outside the group of judges on the D.C. Circuit [Court of Appeals]?"
"I've had no inappropriate discussions with anyone," Kavanaugh said. "If you're walking around in America, it's coming up, senator, so people discuss it."
WATCH: KAMALA HARRIS WARNS KAVANAUGH TO 'BE SURE ABOUT YOUR ANSWER' ON MUELLER DISCUSSIONS
Blumenthal's questioning echoed Harris' tone on Wednesday, when she briefly silenced the hearing room by flatly telling Kavanaugh, "I think you're thinking of someone, and you don't want to tell us."
The moment prompted another outburst from demonstrators. In total, 69 protesters were charged with unlawfully demonstrating in the Senate complex on Thursday, including 37 in the hearing room, according to Capitol Police officials. On Wednesday, 73 people were arrested and charged, including 66 from the hearing room.
For the most part, the day's questions focused on documents opaquely referenced by Democrats on Wednesday that Booker and other senators released Thursday.
Democrats pointed, for example, to a 2003 email that had been marked "committee confidential" in which Kavanaugh wrote: "I am not sure that all legal scholars refer to Roe as the settled law of the land at the Supreme Court level since Court can always overrule its precedent, and three current Justices on the Court would do so."
Kavanaugh, then a lawyer in the George W. Bush administration, was being asked for his opinion on a draft op-ed to be bylined by pro-life women. He repeatedly told Democrats that the email reflected only his opinion on the views of "legal scholars," and were not necessarily a fair reflection of his own opinions.
Crucially, that opinion seemed to be shared Thursday by Maine pro-choice Republican Susan Collins, considered a key swing vote in Kavanaugh's potential confirmation.
"I am told that he was editing an op-ed for clarity and was merely stating a fact that three judges on the court were anti-Roe,” Collins said. “If that’s the case then, and it’s not expressing his view, then I’m not sure what the point is.” Collins later told Politico she would review the matter again over the weekend.
Democrats also highlighted a 2001 email referenced on Wednesday in which Kavanaugh seemed dismissive of Department of Transportation regulations that gave preference to minority-owned companies, even where they did not offer the most competitive bid on a particular contract.
"The fundamental problem in this case is that these DOT regulations use a lot of legalisms and disguises to mask what in reality is a naked racial set-aside," Kavanaugh wrote, as part of his analysis that conservative members of the Supreme Court would “realize as much in short order and rule accordingly.” Kavanaugh on Thursday defended the email as an assessment of his views on the Supreme Court's probable take on the matter.
Earlier Thursday, Sen. Booker, D-N.J., claimed he was taking a dramatic risk by publicizing emails from 2002 that he had said on Wednesday indicated that Kavanaugh was open to racial profiling.
“I am going to release the email about racial profiling and I understand that the penalty comes with potential ousting from the Senate,” Booker announced, adding later: “This is about the closest I'll probably ever have in my life to an, ‘I am Spartacus’ moment.”
But in a strange twist, Republicans on the Judiciary Committee said that the George W. Bush library and the Justice Department had cleared several of the documents for public release the previous night, suggesting that Booker, in fact, was not risking anything by going public with the documents. Utah Republican Sen. Mike Lee had hinted Wednesday that the documents would come out, saying there was "no reason" to keep them private.
However, on Thursday afternoon, Booker continued publicly releasing documents that he said had been marked "committee confidential," posting on Twitter, "We will continue to release more committee confidential documents to draw attention to this sham process."
Late Thursday, a Senate Judiciary Committee spokesperson confirmed to Fox News that at least some of the documents Booker released were still "committee confidential" when he released them.
One of the 12-page email chains that Booker ultimately provided showed that, in 2002, Kavanaugh wrote that he "generally" favored racially neutral security measures in the long term. But he acknowledged that administration officials would need to "grapple" with the viability of a potential interim solution that included race as a consideration, suggesting that until race-neutral policies could be effectively implemented, national security concerns in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks could demand another approach.
Another email chain released by Booker later Thursday showed Kavanaugh admitting to "venting" in 2001 about reported changes to a bill providing funding both religious and non-religious drug and alcohol treatment centers.
"A religious drug treatment center should be no better -- but also no worse -- in the eyes of the government than a non-religious drug treatment center," Kavanaugh wrote, by way of arguing that the Constitution requires that faith-based organizations should not receive preferential treatment, but should still receive a "neutral" and fair shake.
Despite the tense atmosphere, there were pointed moments of levity. At one point, at the insistence of Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., Kavanaugh introduced several girls on a softball team he has coached through the years, rattling off their names and grade levels one by one. When he finished, the hearing room, which on dozens of occasions this week played host to loud and hostile anti-Kavanaugh protesters, broke out into applause.
And even though Texas Republican Sen. John Cornyn sparred with Sen. Booker earlier in the day as he appeared to flout Senate rules, the two shared laughs about book recommendations as the hearing concluded at the end of the evening.
Kavanaugh and members of the Judiciary Committee then headed into a private executive session. On Friday at 9:30 a.m., hearings will continue with a series of outside witnesses, including members of the nonpartisan American Bar Association, which recommended Kavanaugh as highly qualified.

Miss America contestant advances after response to NFL protest

Miss Virginia Emili McPhail raised some eyebrows after one of her answers during the Miss America contest.  (Facebook)

A Miss America contestant was selected as one of Thursday’s preliminary winners thanks in part to her response about NFL players kneeling in protest during the playing of the national anthem.

Miss Virginia Emili McPhail was asked what advice she would give players on whether to kneel or stand during the anthem, the Associated Press reported.

Calling it “a right you have,” McPhail waded into the polarizing issue, adding “but it’s also not about kneeling; it is absolutely about police brutality.”
Some NFL players have said they take a knee during the playing of the anthem to protest police brutality and social injustice.
The anthem protest has deeply divided the country, with some calling it disrespectful to the American flag and the military. President Trump has repeatedly criticized the NFL and the players over their actions.
After the competition, McPhail was asked by reporters if she was concerned that her answer would alienate those with opposing views.
“You’re entitled to your own opinion, but I stood up for what I believed was right,” McPhail said.
The protest was started by former San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick, sparking a wave of blacklash and support. Kaepernick, who is not signed by a team, was recently announced as the newest face of Nike’s “Just Do It” campaign.
The third and final preliminaries will be held Friday. The next Miss America will be crowned Sunday in Atlantic City.