“Lock her up!” fared at or near the top of  the Most Memorable Rally Chants charts in Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign. Turning that election into a referendum on Hillary Clinton — and particularly on the seeming impunity she enjoyed after getting caught illegally storing classified materials on an unofficial server — may have made the difference in securing Trump his four years of residence at the White House.

It was thus no surprise that Democrats responded to MAGA protests over the supposed injustice of an FBI search at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence, seeking illicitly retained classified materials, with eye rolls and a smirking “but her emails!”

If you’re looking for hypocrisy, there’s no need to pick a side here — it’s rife on BOTH sides.

Based on then FBI director James Comey’s 2016 press briefing (and later testimony before Congress), it’s fair to say that Hillary Clinton, as Secretary of State, knowingly and willfully violated 18 US Code §793 (“Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information”) and §1924 (“Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material”) and that, had she been charged and tried, would have been convicted of those offenses by an impartial jury.

Why wasn’t she so charged, tried, and convicted? Why do today’s Trump-haters write off the whole incident as just vicious political skulduggery?

Because she’s Hillary Clinton.

The Mar-a-Lago search warrant specified one of those same two US Code sections (§793), as well as §1519 (“Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in Federal investigations and bankruptcy”) and §2071 (“Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally [of government documents]”).

Why does MAGA World object to the investigation resulting in the warrant (and prospectively to any prosecution) as mere political skulduggery?

Because the subject of that investigation is Donald Trump.

Both sides are right, and both sides are wrong.

Yes, there are plenty of raw political machinations going on here. If Hillary Clinton hadn’t run for president, and if Donald Trump hadn’t actually BEEN president, these incidents would have gone down as minor and forgettable scandals, like former Bill Clinton administration official Sandy Berger’s barely remembered theft and destruction of classified documents from the National Archives.

But in BOTH cases, political officials, including Clinton and Trump, should be subject to the same “rule of law” they enthusiastically inflict on the rest of us at every opportunity.

If there’s probable cause to believe that Trump committed a crime, he should be prosecuted for that crime, just like anyone else.

And, the statute of limitations not having yet run on Clinton’s violations of 18 USC §793 (which, as has been bullhorned concerning Trump, is part of the Espionage Act), she should be prosecuted as well.

Perp walks! Orange coveralls! Maybe they can even share a cell, the better to catch up on old times.

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

In an effort to keep up with the times and serve a profitable market segment,  southern-style comfort-food restaurant chain Cracker Barrel recently added a new item to its menu.

“Experience the out of this world flavor of Impossible [TM] Sausage,” the “Old Country Store” announced in an August 1 Facebook post, accompanied by a photo of two of the plant-based patties.

Responses across thousands of comments vary from gratitude to “meh, I’ll stick with the real thing” to … well, here’s a somewhat representative sample from commenter “Barry Deaton”:

“I just want to know why all these companies feel that they have to follow the leader on all of this crap. Cracker Barrel is a great company and they got great Without Woke Meat. Get the message most people don’t want this crap. You are only appealing to a small percentage of people. I still love Cracker Barrel but please stick to your roots.”

Yes, there are even calls going around for a boycott.

My priors were, thankfully, not confirmed when I clicked on a link to a piece by minister Brett Younger at Baptist News Global titled “Are left-wing radicals pushing Cracker Barrel to the edge of the slippery slope?”

“They call it ‘comfort food’ for a reason, writes Younger. “It makes us feel comfortable. The latest silliness is not about sausage but fear of change. Social media magnifies our foolishness, so we need to think about which wars are worth fighting.”

Can I get an amen?

Cracker Barrel isn’t “going woke.” Cracker Barrel is noticing a market opportunity and hoping to profit from it.

Somewhere between 5% and 10% of Americans (depending on which poll you look at) consider themselves “vegetarians” or “vegans.”

More than one in five Americans say they’re eating less meat, mostly for health reasons.

That’s a lot of people buying and eating a lot of food.

If I had to guess at Cracker Barrel’s demographic focus, I’d guess it’s on the high side — lots of early Gen Xers and Boomers, many of whom have been told by their doctors to cut back on the meat (especially red meat) for heart health, to reduce cholesterol levels, etc. — and families with internally diverse dietary needs and preferences.

That’s why Cracker Barrel’s menu already includes options like chicken sausage links and egg whites.

Let me emphasize: Options!

You can still get “Grandpa’s Country Fried Breakfast”:  “Two eggs with choice of Breakfast Side plus Country Fried Steak or Fried Sunday Homestyle Chicken. Served with Biscuits n’ Gravy.”

You can still get the “Country Boy Breakfast” — three eggs, sirloin steak AND ham, and biscuits with gravy.

They’re not going to chain you to a chair and force-feed you egg whites and Impossible [TM] Sausage.

You could also drive through Burger King and order an Impossible [TM] plant-based Whopper, or the original with a beef patty.

Or you can sit at home and eat spinach, or chocolate-covered pork rinds.

Relax. Variety and choice are the spice of life. And the exact opposite of “woke.”

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

That today’s culture wars lack a convenient place to pigeonhole Tom Cornell, whose seven decades of activism in the Catholic Worker movement continued until his passing on August 1, shows their limitations rather than his.

In a 2002 profile, Andrew Blackman noted that Cornell “shares common beliefs with liberals and neo-conservatives, communists and cardinals, and he harshly criticizes all of them.” Cornell was the sort of radical for social justice who told liberals that radicalism didn’t mean being “liberal but more so,” since his analysis of the ills of war and poverty traced them to fundamentally “different premises.” He wasn’t any more accommodating to those who professed his anti-abortion position but who seemed to be only  “concerned about people … until they’re born.”

Cornell’s means were just as distinct from partisan politics on either side. In a 2014 interview with Commonweal, he explained: “In the Bible we read, ‘I was hungry and you fed me.’ It does not say, ‘I was hungry and you formed a committee!’ Our thing is just getting down and doing it.”

Cornell’s opposition to the wars in Vietnam and Iraq drew and built on a tradition of Catholic Worker pacifism going back to Ammon Hennacy’s noncompliance with the draft during World War I (Hennacy was the sort of labor comrade Dorothy Day could dub “a pacifist even in the class war”). Cornell was instrumental in legitimizing pacifism as an alternative to just war theology and ensuring, as Karl Hess observed at the American bicentennial, “that when for reasons of conscience, people refuse to kill, they are often exempted from active military duty.”

If, as Hess added, “there are no exemptions for people who, for reasons of conscience, refuse to financially support the bureaucracy that actually does the killing” (since “the state takes money more seriously than life”), that was not for Cornell’s lack of trying. A 1967 petition cosigned by Cornell vouched that living below the minimum income tax threshold was morally preferable to funding the “poisoning of food crops, blasting of villages, napalming and killing of thousands upon thousands of people.”

Raising that income tax threshold would allow more workers of all belief systems to follow Cornell’s example. Meanwhile, the sort of voluntary community organizing pioneered by Cornell and other Catholic Workers to deal directly with social problems could make up for any ensuing budget shortfalls for the functions of the state that aren’t deadly.

New Yorker Joel Schlosberg is a senior news analyst at The William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

1. “A Pacifist Even in the Tax War” by Joel Schlosberg, Antiwar.com, August 8, 2022
2. “A Pacifist Even in the Tax War” by Joel Schlosberg, CounterPunch, August 10, 2022