On September 17, Politico reports, US president Donald Trump partially declassified a government surveillance application targeting former campaign consultant Carter Page and directed the US Department of Justice to publicly release text messages relating to the “Russiagate” probe between former FBI Director James Comey and other DoJ/FBI personnel.

Whether or not this is a SMART on Trump’s part remains to be seen, but in my opinion it’s the RIGHT move. I’m giving it two cheers, not three, only because I’d like to see more stuff declassified and publicly released.

Americans stand divided on the question of whether or not the Russian state “meddled” in the 2016 US presidential election. We’re also divided on the question of whether or not Trump and/or key associates of Trump, “colluded” in such meddling.

So far, the actual publicly produced evidence makes a very limited case for the “meddling” charge (a Russian troll farm apparently ran some cheesy Facebook ads, etc. and the whole operation doesn’t seem to have cost a drop in the bucket compared to e.g. Sheldon Adelson’s $125 million “meddling” on behalf of Israel), and no case at all for the “collusion” allegations that wouldn’t apply equally to Trump’s opponents (who paid a British former spy to work Russian sources for “dirt” on Trump).

At this point, “Russiagate” continues to look like a ham-handed attempt to explain away Hillary Clinton’s poorly run — and losing — 2016 presidential campaign, because nothing that happens to Hillary Clinton can ever be even a little bit Hillary Clinton’s fault.

Special Counsel Robert Mueller has had 16 months to get the goods on “Russian meddling” and “collusion.” So far he’s publicly produced bubkes beyond indicting some Russians who will never face trial (or, conveniently for Mueller, testify) and some charges (including a few with plea bargains or convictions) against Trump associates on pretty much everything under the sun except his actual brief.

The closest he’s come is with former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn, who’s admitted to lying to the FBI about post-election, not pre-election, contacts with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak — contacts concerning the United Nations and (there’s that other country again) Israel.

Classification of information by the US government is structured per Executive Order 13526, which mandates that:

“In no case shall information be classified, continue to be maintained as classified, or fail to be declassified in order to … conceal violations of law, inefficiency, or administrative error … prevent embarrassment to a person, organization, or agency … [or] prevent or delay the release of information that does not require protection in the interest of the national security.”

The allegations are already out there. The only plausible reasons for keeping the evidence for (or against) them classified are the reasons expressly prohibited in that executive order.

President Trump, get ALL the information out in public. Let the American people see the sausage, and how it was made, for ourselves instead of putting us through more re-runs of commercials about how great Democrats will think the sausage tastes and how Republicans will all get salmonella from it.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

The latest round of American boycott/buycott enthusiasm centers on Nike’s new marketing campaign, which features former San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick —  central figure of the “take a knee” protest movement in the National Football League and elsewhere.

Angry (and not very smart) anti-Kaepernick Nike customers are publicly burning their expensive Nike shoes and sharing the videos on social media as they vow to never buy the brand again.  But pro-Kaepernick customers (and the apathetic) have boosted boosted the brand’s sales and driven its stock to an all-time high.

All well and good. One nice thing about markets is that they’re hyper-democracies in which we all get to vote with our patronage, every day and with every purchase.

Unfortunately, some people think they’re entitled to vote with other people’s dollars.  Marshall Fisher, head of Mississippi’s Department of Public Safety, is one such.

Fisher recently announced that the state police he supervises will no longer buy Nike products, telling the Associated Press  that “I will not support vendors who do not support law enforcement and our military.”

The state’s governor, Phil Bryant, supports Fisher’s position on the matter, slamming Nike as “a company that pays an individual who has slandered our fine men and women in law enforcement.”

OK, so this may be something of an empty gesture as far as the market is concerned. Does the Mississippi Highway Patrol even purchase athletic shoes and apparel? If so, such purchases hopefully constitute a drop in the bucket of DPS’s $150-million-plus annual budget.

On the other hand, if Marshall Fisher and Phil Bryant want to make  political statements with their purchases, they should cover such costs out of their own pockets instead of sticking Mississippi’s taxpayers with the check.

Fisher and Bryant are virtue signaling. They’re chasing political support from “law and order” voters and  the law enforcement lobby. Maybe that’s good politics. I have a  couple of questions, though:

If the quality of a DPS-provided shoe makes a life-or-death difference to some situation a Mississippi Highway Patrol officer gets into, and if Nike’s offering was the best for that situation, what words of comfort will Fisher and Bryant offer the loved ones of a dead cop who went into that situation wearing inferior footwear?

And if the quality of DPS-provided shoes makes no such difference, why wasn’t DPS being fiscally responsible and doing its shoe-shopping at Walmart in the first place?

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

So much for gridlock. On September 12, the US House of Representatives proved that its members can in fact reach across the aisle to find common ground. On taxes? Spending? Foreign policy? Well, no. They agreed, on a voice vote, that they should get to decide what you can or cannot have for lunch.

“The Dog and Cat Meat Trade Prohibition Act of 2018” is exactly what it sounds like: A bill “to prohibit the slaughter of dogs and cats for human consumption.”

What’s up? Is there some pressing public health concern at stake? Is America in the throes of an epidemic of stolen pets ending up in stew pots?

Well, no.  According to the bill’s sponsor, US Representative Vern Buchanan (R-FL), it’s all about “how beloved these animals are for most Americans.” They “provide love and companionship to millions of people.”

In other words, it’s all about making Buchanan, the bill’s co-sponsor, Alcee Hastings (D-FL), and a bunch of other politicians look warm, fuzzy, and caring to the vast majority of Americans whose dinner plans don’t include Manx Cordon Bleu and pulled Shih Tzu sandwiches.

I’m one of those people. I like dogs (I have two) and tolerate cats (my wife and kids have four). That makes it pretty simple for me. I don’t want to eat dog or cat … so I don’t.

As for those who DO want to eat cat and dog, well, in what universe is that any of my business — or, more to the point, the US House of Representatives’?

There are countries on Earth where the slaughter and consumption of certain animals is officially discouraged or even illegal. Two that come to mind are beef (India) and pork (Muslim countries and Israel). My guess is that most Americans think that’s pretty crazy. And yet we have a house of Congress trying to make America like that.

Under House rules, any member can force a counted vote, and one-fifth of the members can compel a recorded vote. That this bill passed on a voice vote means that not one, let alone 87, out of 435 US Representatives objected to passing the equivalent of Sharia or Kosher law right here in America. And it wasn’t even based on any kind of coherent religious/philosophical argument, just “oooh … they’re so cuuuuuuuute.”

And that’s it for this installment of “why we’re better off when Congress doesn’t get anything done than when it does.”

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY