TRUMP TO CNN: DONATE THE PROFITS I DRIVE TO VETERANS’ CARE:

Needless to say, this is a brilliant stroke by Trump, all kidding aside. In one moment, Trump has cast himself as a populist crusader against excess profits, as a champion of veterans (after his fumble about military prep school), and a leader in holding national media’s feet to the fire. If CNN goes along with this idea, Trump can take credit for the largesse. If they don’t, Trump has a new media target at which to aim for the next few weeks, one that doesn’t attempt to undermine conservative-media allies the eventual nominee will need to combat media bias in a general election.

As Ed Morrissey writes, “Troll-fu level: Master.”

DEVELOPMENTS IN DIVERSITY: White Writer Makes “Best Poetry” — With An Asian Pen Name. “In his bio for the anthology, Hudson admits that he used the pen name of Yi-Fen Chou as a strategy for getting his poems accepted by literary journals.”

Related: The Fall Of The Meritocracy.

SORRY FOR WHAT, HILLARY? Ron Fournier’s National Journal piece excoriates Hillary Clinton for her non-apologetic “apology”:

Six years after seiz­ing con­trol of gov­ern­ment email and after six months of deny­ing wrong­do­ing. Just this week, it took three dif­fer­ent in­ter­views in four days for her to beg the puni­est of par­dons: “I do think I could have and should have done a bet­ter job an­swer­ing ques­tions earli­er.”

You think? By any ob­ject­ive meas­ure, the Demo­crat­ic pres­id­en­tial front-run­ner has re­spon­ded to her email scan­dal with de­flec­tion and de­cep­tion, shred­ding her cred­ibiliity while giv­ing a skep­tic­al pub­lic an­oth­er reas­on not to trust the in­sti­tu­tions of polit­ics and gov­ern­ment.

An apo­logy doesn’t fix that. An apo­logy also doesn’t an­swer the scan­dal’s most im­port­ant ques­tions.

1. While apo­lo­giz­ing in an ABC in­ter­view on Tues­day, you said, “What I had done was al­lowed; it was above­board.” You must know by now that while the State De­part­ment al­lowed the use of home com­puters in 2009, agency rules re­quired that email be se­cured. Yours was not. . . .

2. If what you did was “above­board,” then you wouldn’t ob­ject to all ex­ec­ut­ive-branch of­fi­cials at every level of gov­ern­ment and from bothparties stor­ing their email on private serv­ers—out of the pub­lic’s reach. Tell me how that wouldn’t sub­vert the fed­er­al Free­dom of In­form­a­tion Act and “sun­shine laws” in every state?

3. If what you did was “al­lowed,” then you wouldn’t ob­ject to all ex­ec­ut­ive-branch of­fi­cials at every level of gov­ern­ment and from both parties us­ing secret serv­ers to shield them­selves from le­gis­lat­ive over­sight. Wouldn’t that un­der­mine the le­gis­lat­ive branch’s con­sti­tu­tion­al au­thor­ity? Wouldn’t it lead to more polit­ic­al cor­rup­tion? . . .

9. Ever hear of Thomas Drake? He’s the former seni­or Na­tion­al Se­cur­ity Agency of­fi­cial in­dicted un­der the Es­pi­on­age Act for keep­ing an agency email prin­tout at his home that was not marked as clas­si­fied. He pleaded guilty to a mis­de­mean­or. Why do you and your aides keep sug­gest­ing that it mat­ters wheth­er or not your emails were marked clas­si­fied? . . .

AT AMAZON, Fall deals on Men’s Jeans and Clothing.

Also, deals in Power & Hand Tools.

NEW SJW OUTRAGE: USING PHOTOSHOP ON A PICTURE OF A WOMAN TO MAKE HER SMILE MORE: “What I like most about modern SJW feminists is how they completely disprove all those old hoary negative stereotypes about women, like the old saw that they get hysterical over trivial matters usually related to fashion and beauty.”

RARITY: A commercial that actually says something positive about boys. Thanks to reader Ronald Henry for the tip.

LIFE IN THE 21ST CENTURY: Experiments Show How Lasers Can Despin Asteroids by Turning Them Into Rockets.

HOARDING IS BAD, but so is obsessive decluttering. “Diller’s compulsive-decluttering patients, she says, sometimes describe ‘this tightness in their chest if they see things that should be thrown out,’ one that can be eased only by getting rid of the offending objects.”

SCIENCE: A new technology will allow authorities to tell whether you used drugs recently, if you’re a smoker, even what sex you are—all from your fingerprints. But there’s this: “There is a cost to a test being less invasive: It doesn’t require someone’s permission to be conducted. Civil liberties advocates fear that our rights could be violated without us even realizing it – with a test whose accuracy is not yet known.”

REMINDER: Amazon carries rifle scopes. I like this Aimpoint.

FASTER, PLEASE: Peter Thiel Backs Biotech “Unicorn” Fighting Cancer Stem Cells.

21ST CENTURY RELATIONSHIPS: Campus Rape Panic Scaring Women Away From College. “Why is the government collaborating in this dangerous myth?”

LEGAL EDUCATION UPDATE: UT program to allow students to earn law, bachelor’s degrees while saving full year of tuition. ” In the program, students complete three years of approved undergraduate coursework in the College of Arts and Sciences. Following their third year, participating students admitted to the College of Law become full-time, first-year law students. The first year of law study will count toward a student’s law degree and also toward the completion of his or her bachelor’s degree. Two additional years of law study follow, after which a student earns a juris doctor degree.” We’re not the first law school to do this, but I predict many more will follow suit.

DONALD TRUMP OPED: It’s Amateur Hour With The Iran Nuclear Deal.

RICHARD EPSTEIN: Reining In the EPA.

TAXPROF ROUNDUP: The IRS Scandal, Day 854.

EUROPE’S IMMIGRATION PROBLEM is structural.

This time the crisis is over one of Europe’s most cherished icons: the Schengen visa-free/passport-free zone, which has given the European project arguably its strongest evidence yet that a larger and ultimately “pan-European” community would emerge from the nation-states bound by the treaty and the ideals behind it.

The current wave is fast invalidating all earlier numerical projections: Germany is looking at about 800,000 asylum applications this year; in July alone more than 100,000 people entered Europe, mainly through Greece and Italy. Reportedly, EU Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker will now call for the member countries to resettle the 160,000 people who have reached Greece, Italy, and Hungary—a fourfold increase relative to two months ago. This is the “Schengen wave” of immigration; now reaching the point of entry places one within striking distance of Europe’s interior.

The size and distribution of the resettlement quota within the EU has become an intra-family squabble, with Britain resisting and Germany and Italy asking for higher quota commitments from other countries, especially from the reluctant “new members.” Here Hungary has led the way in its opposition to the plan, building a barbed wire fence along the Serbian border and pushing enabling legislation through the parliament that would reassert national control. Prime Minister Viktor Orban has called the immigration wave a “German problem.”

So it now will come to this: Germany’s Angela Merkel will insist that increasing resettlement quotas for all is inevitable, making it a litmus test of intra-EU solidarity. If she gets her way—and she likely will next week—Greece, Italy, and Hungary will be allowed to dispatch the migrants from their territory to other countries, establishing an ad hoc quota policy of sorts. Problem solved? Not so fast, as another deal on the resettlement quota will not alter the overall migration dynamic or momentum, with push and pull factors (war in MENA and Europe’s generous social support and prospect of a better life) now mutually reinforcing and locked in. And in a world framed by instant communications and social media, the message of Europe’s promise will continue to go out to the desperate and the entrepreneurial thousands, reinforcing their determination to come.

You can’t have open borders and generous welfare benefits. At least, not for long. And something that can’t go on forever, won’t.

LIBERALISM DOESN’T DESERVE THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT: AT Commentary, Noah Rothman explores Bill de Blasio’s indifference to the gang-related shooting of New York Governor Andrew Cuomo’s aide Carey Gabay and the rapid increase in New York City’s homelessness:

No New York City resident or commuter can pretend not to notice it. There has been a dramatic increase in the number of people sleeping on the streets, begging on corners, nodding off with an outstretched hand amid an opioid-fueled stupor.

“This is a historic problem, decades old,” de Blasio said in his own defense. “The fact is, the Great Recession led to something we hadn’t seen before.” The mayor’s attempt to blame the city’s homelessness spike on a recession that began six years before he took office was exposed as naked scapegoating when he was asked if Barack Obama’s economy remained subpar. “The economy’s not worse, it’s better,” he said in direct contradiction to his earlier pronouncement. The mayor sought to inoculate himself against attacks on his record by noting that his administration has transitioned 15,000 out of city shelters and into affordable housing. “Putting people in a shelter costs their lives a lot,” he added. It’s unlikely that those souls who spend their days laying face-first on a sidewalk in Manhattan’s Herald Square being literally stepped over by morning commuters would agree.

“A city with homeless on its streets is a city that has no love of its people,” former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani recently wrote. “A city that lets people sleep in the streets doesn’t care.” The city’s homeless population is up by an estimated 59 percent over 2013. Calls from concerned citizens about the homeless population have spiked by 35 percent in the same period. In response to Giuliani’s stinging admonition, de Blasio called him “delusional” and suggested the rise in awareness of the city’s homeless problem was due only to the media’s renewed interest in the subject. Apparently, the mayor thinks his city’s residents are “delusional,” too.

Well, the socialist elites who a decade ago publicly longed for a return to the bad-old days of the 1970s and found their man to accomplish that in de Blasio might qualify.

MIGRANT CRISIS: Where Have The Gulf States Been? Why a region with $2 trillion in annual income can’t seem to spare much for the neighbors. Why should the rest of the world do more?

AT AMAZON, fresh deals on bestselling products, updated every hour.

Also, coupons galore in Grocery & Gourmet Food.

Plus, Kindle Daily Deals.

And, Today’s Featured Digital Deal. The deals are brand new every day, so browse and save!

IS THIS THE HOPE, OR THE CHANGE? In Egypt, Muslim Soldiers Slaughtering Their Fellow Christian Platoon Mates.

I DON’T WANT AN APOLOGY, I WANT AN INDICTMENT: “So Hillary Clinton mumbled some kind of apology yesterday. . . . This raises the question: Who gives a rat’s ass? Were you demanding an apology from Hillary Clinton? I wasn’t. I wanted the facts. And those are still in short supply.”

EVERYTHING SEEMINGLY IS SPINNING OUT OF CONTROL: Arizona authorities say nine vehicles possibly hit by gunfire along stretch of Interstate 10.

ASHE SCHOW: Colleges can’t win when it comes to campus sexual assault complaints.

It doesn’t seem to matter what a college does when responding to a sexual assault accusation — they are always wrong. That’s according to the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights, which investigates colleges and universities for alleged Title IX violations.

In a recent ruling against Michigan State University, OCR determined the school had violated Title IX because it took too long — four days — to remove accused students from their dorms. The fact that the students weren’t immediately evicted from campus, even though an investigation hadn’t even started, was also evidence of a violation.

OCR looked at two complaints, from students identified as Student A and Student B, to determine MSU was in violation of Title IX. While OCR mostly found “insufficient evidence” to support the complaints of the two students, what the agency found the university in violation of seemed like nitpicking.

“OCR also determined that the University failed to provide a prompt and equitable response to complaints filed by Student A and Student B, as Title IX requires,” wrote Meena Morey Chandra, a regional OCR director. . . .

Despite the MSU accuser not filing a formal complaint with the university against the two accused students (which would have been required to remove the students from their dorms) the university moved the students.

So, to the OCR, a university that received word of a sexual assault — even if it wasn’t provided in a formal complaint — must immediately upend the accused student’s life and then begin an investigation. Guilty until proven innocent indeed.

Speaking of innocence, both MSU’s outside investigator and OCR determined that there was not even a preponderance of evidence to suggest the alleged sexual assault had occurred. (By the way, some of the evidence that was favorable to the accused students was deemed “inappropriate” to OCR, but it still determined the sexual assault likely didn’t happen.)

Yet despite this, the university was still in the wrong, according to OCR. The university should have immediately opened an investigation into the matter even though the accuser did not want one. This is how the school failed to provide a “prompt and equitable response.”

How about we just defund OCR, and provide that all sexual assault investigations should be turned over to the police?