Thursday, January 26, 2023


Trump, Biden, and the double standard on mishandling classified documents

by Jeff Jacoby

EVER SINCE it transpired that President Biden, like his predecessor, had improperly retained classified government documents, both men's claques have been busily explaining why the other guy's transgression is worse.

Team Biden's line is that the president's legal team has fully cooperated with law enforcement and the National Archives, whereas Donald Trump obstinately refused to return the classified documents he had taken, even after being subpoenaed. The former president's loyalists, on the other hand, point out that the White House discovered on Nov. 2 that Biden had improperly taken classified documents when his term as vice president ended but suppressed the information for 68 days. Trump, to his discredit, stashed thousands of documents in the storage room at Mar-a-Lago and it took an FBI raid to recover them. Biden, to his discredit, insists he has "no regrets" about leaving classified material in multiple locations, including the garage of his Delaware home.

When he was asked on "60 Minutes" last September to comment on Trump's hoarding of top-secret documents, the president professed to be aghast that "anyone could be that irresponsible." Now others are saying much the same about Biden.

On Tuesday, meanwhile, former vice president Mike Pence notified Congress that "a small number" of documents bearing classified markings were found in his Indiana home.

Attorney General Merrick Garland has appointed special counsels to investigate the Trump and Biden cases. But it's not too early to draw some obvious conclusions.

To begin with, it seems evident that both men broke the law. Under Section 1924 of Title 18 of the US Code, it is a crime for any federal officer or employee to "knowingly remove" documents containing "classified information of the United States" and to "retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location." There are differences between the two cases, but the language of the statute is clear. Trump and Biden plainly did what it forbids.

Second, neither the president nor the former president has to worry about facing a serious criminal penalty. Big shots in these cases never do.

"Carelessness with government secrets has become endemic in official Washington," observed The Washington Post this week. In recent years, highly classified government material has been mishandled by numerous senior officials, including former attorney general Alberto Gonzales, former CIA directors John Deutch and David Petraeus, former national security adviser Sandy Berger, and at least two former secretaries of state, Colin Powell and Hillary Clinton. None of them was punished with anything more severe than a temporary loss of security clearance or a fine. Petraeus, who supplied classified material to a former mistress who was writing his biography, paid the heaviest price: He resigned from the CIA and was charged a $100,000 penalty.

Getting caught with classified government documents earns prison time only when the offender is a low-level federal employee or contractor. Just ask Asia Lavarello, Ahmedelhadi Serageldin, Harold Martin III, Reynaldo Regis, Benjamin Bishop, or Reality Winner. Their names are little known. But all of them ended up behind bars for doing what numerous high officials have gotten away with.

Perhaps the most important point is this: Even without any wrongful intent, it is inevitable that government documents classified as secret will be mishandled or misappropriated for the simple reason that there are way too many of them.

The amount of federal paperwork classified as confidential each year is staggering. At a congressional hearing in 2004, then-Representative Chris Shays noted that in the previous year, at least 14 million documents had been placed off-limits by the nearly 4,000 government officials authorized to do so.

"No one can say with any degree of certainty how much is classified, how much needs to be declassified, or whether the nation's real secrets can be adequately protected in a system so bloated," Shays said. "This much we know: There are too many secrets."

With the coming of the digital era, the already vast sea of classified documents swelled into what the director of the Information Security Oversight Office, a division of the National Archives, calls a "tsunami." The 14 million documents a year being designated as secret in 2004 has metastasized into more than 50 million a year today, according to Oona Hathaway, a Yale Law School professor and former special counsel to the Pentagon. A maxim attributed to Frederick the Great holds that "he who protects everything, protects nothing." The Prussian king was referring to battlefield strategy, but the principle applies equally to government paperwork. The annual classification of tens of millions of documents, most of which do not deal with ultrasensitive national security secrets, serves mostly to shelter the political class from scrutiny and to keep from the public information it has a right to see.

So far there's no indication that any actual harm was caused by the cavalier manner in which Trump and Biden made off with classified material. Politics aside, it may all amount to a big nothing. The same can't be said of Washington's bloated classification process. The breathless obsession with who mishandled classified government documents — and how, where, and when — makes headlines. What really deserves attention is why the documents were classified in the first place.

***********************************************

DOJ Announces Two Indictments for Vandalism of Pro-Life Organizations

The U.S. Department of Justice announced two indictments by a federal grand jury on Tuesday in case where pregnancy resource centers were targeted with vandalism, intimidation, and interference — months after pro-abortion vandals targeted pro-life organizations across the country after a draft of the Supreme Court's Dobbs decision leaked.

The two Florida residents indicted on Tuesday — Caleb Freestone (27) and Amber Smith-Stewart (23) — allegedly "engaged in a conspiracy to prevent employees of reproductive health facilities from providing those services."

Specifically, the defendants "targeted pregnancy resource facilities and vandalized those facilities with spray-painted threats...including 'If abortions aren't safe than niether [sic] are you,' 'YOUR TIME IS UP!!,' 'WE'RE COMING for U,' and 'We are everywhere,' on a reproductive health services facility in Winter Haven, Florida." In addition, it's alleged the defendants also targeted pro-life organizations in Hollywood, Florida, and Hialeah, Florida.

The Justice Department explained that the indictment alleges the defendants "violated the FACE [Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances] Act by using threats of force to intimidate and interfere with the employees of a reproductive health services facility in Winter Haven because those employees were providing or seeking to provide reproductive health services" and by "intentionally damaging and destroying the facility's property."

According to DOJ, each defendant would face a maximum of 12 years in prison, three years of supervised release, and fines up to $350,000 if convicted.

"Since the leak of the Dobbs decision eight months ago, there have been at least 79 attacks — including firebombings and threats of violence — on pregnancy centers and other nonprofits working to save lives," noted Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, in reaction to the indictments. "We thank House Republican leaders for standing with the front-line heroes serving women and families in our communities and keeping the pressure on the Biden-Harris administration."

Calling the indictments "good first steps," Dannenfelser reminded that "the fight for equal justice is far from over."

"With a new House GOP majority positioned to exercise its oversight powers, we are finally beginning to see some accountability," Dannenfelser continued. "Yet the Justice Department continues to target the people of states that protect unborn children and their mothers. Congressional Democrats had the opportunity to condemn the violence and all but three refused, and again we have had to call on the White House to stop vilifying pro-life Americans," she said. "The pro-life movement is keeping a watchful eye on this administration and we will not be silent in the face of violence and intimidation."

*********************************************

Connecticut Lawmaker Proposes Bill to Allow Illegal Immigrants to Vote

A new piece of legislation introduced by a Democrat in Connecticut would amend the state’s constitution to allow non-citizens, including illegal immigrants, to vote in municipal and state elections.

The bill was introduced by state Rep. Juan Candelaria, who told local outlet the Hartford Courant that if the bill does not pass, it will open up a debate about giving illegal immigrants the right to vote.

"When we talk about undocumented individuals, they are part of our fabric of this nation and of the state,” he said, adding that he wants to “have the dialogue” and debate the subject.

Connecticut’s Republican House leader Rep. Vincent Candelora called the legislation “completely outrageous” and said it should not make it to the stage of a public hearing.

"I think that the fact that we have open borders and now we are potentially opening up elections to non-citizens completely erodes our sovereignty in this country and in our state," he said.

According to WTNH, there are currently over 240,000 “non-citizen immigrants” living in Connecticut.

Last week, the Vermont Supreme Court ruled that the state’s capitol, Montpelier, can allow non-citizens to vote in local elections. The court ruled that it does not violate the Vermont Constitution, which restricts non-citizens from voting in state elections.

Local outlet VTDigger noted that Montpelier City Council President Jack McCullough said that the initiative began when town residents claimed that it was “not fair” that some non-citizens who paid taxes and participated in the community “were not allowed to vote on on the local elections and the local issues that affected their lives.”

In September, Townhall reported that the Massachusetts Secretary of the Commonwealth’s office certified the required amount of signatures needed for a ballot initiative to repeal a state law that would allow illegal immigrants to obtain a driver’s license. According to WGBH, state voters voted against repealing the law allowing illegal immigrants to get a driver’s license.

Under the new law, illegal immigrants in the country will be able to apply for a driver’s license if they provide the Registry of Motor Vehicles with a foreign passport or consular identification document.

***********************************************

Democrats Ramp Up Pro-Abortion Extremism With Senate Press Conference

The Biden administration sure has taken it pretty hard that Roe v. Wade was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court before it could celebrate its 50th anniversary. President Joe Biden, who considers himself a "devout Catholic" spent what would have been the anniversary--January 22, a Sunday--tweeting to promote abortion. Vice President Kamala Harris not only heavily promoted abortion that same day while giving a speech in Florida, she even intentionally left out parts of the Declaration of Independence to do so. Their fellow Democrats join them in such extremism, as evidenced by a Tuesday press briefing from Senate Democrats.

The pro-abortion speakers, which included a whole host of Democratic senators, made radically extreme remarks throughout. As he's done in the past, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) took the cake.

"America is on our side, completely, completely, if he look across the board with what people think" on abortion, he claimed while shaking his clenched fist.

When it comes to what that "side" entails, Congressional Democrats, with few exceptions--plus the Biden administration--have been championing the so-called Women's Health Protection Act (WHPA), which they say will merely "codify" Roe v. Wade. Such urgency ramped up after the Court overturned Roe last June with its Dobbs v. Jackson case, and with what would have been the 50th anniversary having just passed.

In reality, though, the WHPA would actually expand Roe, by allowing for abortion up until birth without any legal limit.

While the WHPA passed the House in the Democratic-controlled 117th Congress, it couldn't get a majority of support in the Senate, let alone overcome the filibuster. Further, Republicans now control the House, which early on in the 118th Congress passed commonsense pro-life initiatives. This includes the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, which merely mandates proper medical care be given to a baby who survives an abortion attempt. Not only did 210 House Democrats oppose it, but Schumer has made clear that these pro-life won't be going anywhere in his chamber.

In responding to the press conference over Twitter, Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America pointed to the results from a Knights of Columbus/Marist poll released last Wednesday. While a majority of Americans do consider themselves pro-choice, they are not anywhere near as extreme as today's Democratic Party.

Sixty-nine percent of Americans favor restrictions such as limiting abortion to the first three months of pregnancy. The numbers are pretty evenly split among Democratic respondents, with 49 percent holding this view. Just 21 percent of overall respondents agree with the likes of Schumer, which is that "abortion should be available to a woman any time she wants one during her entire pregnancy."

SBA Pro-Life America also released a statement from Marjorie Dannenfelser, their president. "Pro-abortion Democrats and the radical abortion lobby are spreading misinformation to scare women and doctors as they try to distract Americans from their own extremism. Pro-life laws prevent intentionally ending the life of unborn children and every pro-life law ensures doctors can provide critical care to mothers in need. Make no mistake: the Democratic Party agenda is to mandate abortion on demand up to the moment of birth, paid for by taxpayers, in every state. In Congress, every Democrat except one voted against medical care for babies who survive abortions. Vice President Harris even censored the words of our nation’s founding promises in her push to deny unborn girls and boys the unalienable right to life," Dannenfelser highlighted.

She also emphasized support for commonsense pro-life restrictions on abortion. "Nearly 70% of Americans--women, Independents and rank-and-file Democrats included--want commonsense protections for unborn children and mothers that were continually blocked under Roe v. Wade. They overwhelmingly reject the Democrats’ extremism. In the Dobbs era it is clear pro-life laws are saving countless lives. The people are on the side of life, and the pro-life movement will tirelessly expose and refute pro-abortion lies."

Schumer was joined by other particularly pro-abortion Senate Democrats, including Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell of Washington state, of Washington state, with Murray serving as the president pro tempore; Tina Smith of Minnesota who worked for Planned Parenthood; Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut; Dick Durbin of Illinois, who serves as the majority whip; Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada; Mazie Hirono of Hawaii; Ron Wyden of Oregon; and Debbie Stabenow of Michigan.

The majority leader also retweeted moments from the press briefing throughout Tuesday from those who are as equally extreme on abortion, including Planned Parenthood's President and CEO Alexis McGill Johnson and NARAL.

In her tweet, McGill Johnson claimed that "Abortion is health care" is something "we all know to be true." The poll findings above would dispute that, though.

****************************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

*****************************************

No comments: