After someone — we still don’t know who — leaked a Supreme Court “draft opinion” in Dobbs v. Jackson (the case in which the Court is widely expected to overturn Roe v. Wade), Chief Justice John Roberts  characterized the leak as a “betrayal … intended to undermine the integrity of our operations …. a singular and egregious breach of that trust.”

Emory Law professor (and former SCOTUS law clerk) Alexander Volokh explains succinctly, via CBS Atlanta, why Court prioritizes confidentiality and why the leak is so controversial: “Justices rely on the ability to be candid.”

Something about that claim reminds me of another recent, and very different, controversy:

Throughout the various investigations of former president Donald Trump’s role in the January 6, 2021  Capitol riot, Trump and his lawyers have fought tooth and nail to prevent the release of documents to the US House Committee exploiti … er, investigating … that event by the US National Archives, on grounds of “executive privilege.”

I’ve argued (and the courts seem to agree) that even if “executive privilege” is justifiable, it inheres in an office (e.g. the presidency), not a person (e.g. Trump). That is, the power to release or not release presidential documents belongs to the current president, not whichever former president may have happened to generate those documents.

I got some pushback on that argument from more than one acquaintance, and their counter-arguments universally went something like this:

“If a president asks for my advice, will I give my best advice if I have to worry that whatever I say may eventually become public?”

The “would I be candid if what I say wasn’t kept secret?” argument doesn’t carry any weight with me.

If you want to wield power over, and collect a paycheck from, the public, what you say and do pursuant such activities is the public’s business.

If you’re not comfortable with the public knowing what you’re up to, there are plenty of jobs to choose from in the private sector.

If you’re not willing to be “candid” with the public you claim to work for, you’re not a “public servant,” you’re a “public enemy.”

I’m not big on creating new government sinecures, but if Allen Funt still walked among us we could do worse than to appoint him to the position of “transparency czar.”

Government activity shouldn’t take place — at any level or in any department — “in camera.” It should all take place on Candid Camera.

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 trial of former Clinton campaign attorney Michael Sussmann crossed a critical threshold Friday (May 20),” Jonathan Turley writes at The Hill, “when a key witness uttered the name ‘Hillary Clinton’ in conjunction with a plan to spread the false Alfa Bank Russian collusion claim before the 2016 presidential election.”

The witness: Robby Mook, who managed Clinton’s failed 2016 presidential campaign.

The revelation: According to Mook, Clinton personally approved the initial disinformation campaign that eventually became “Russiagate,” an attempt to explain/excuse Clinton’s poor performance and ultimate loss, and Donald Trump’s victory, as a function of Russian “meddling” in the election.

Sussmann is on trial for lying to the FBI — namely, misrepresenting himself as an independent actor rather than a Clinton campaign operative when he brought faked-up “evidence” of a communications channel running between the Trump campaign and Russia’s Alfa Bank to the bureau’s attention in 2016.

It was clear from the beginning that there wasn’t much substance to Russiagate. Its wild claims were held together with lots of duct tape and chewing gum, falling apart under even cursory examination, and the whole thing was finally revealed as a Seinfeld-like “show about nothing” in special counsel Robert Mueller’s 2019 report.

It was also clear from the beginning that it was a “pot calling the kettle black” situation, insofar as the Clinton campaign itself  “colluded” with Russian sources to get “dirt” on Trump, even as it accused him of doing the same to get “dirt” on her.

Those sources — tapped by former MI6 Russia Desk head Christopher Steele, on behalf of a firm (Fusion GPS)  acting as a Clinton campaign “deniability” cut-out — provided the content of the “Steele Dossier” the Clinton campaign later used to push the Russiagate scam.

It’s unlikely that Clinton will ever face criminal penalties or other severe consequences — beyond of course, losing a presidential election and discrediting herself in ways that preclude a comeback — for her leading role in this substanceless melodrama.

The best we can hope for is that history will treat her as very much the political twin of Donald Trump — a con artist, a sore loser, and a Big Liar.

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

“Failed gun legislation is the norm,” reads the headline at Axios, “after mass shootings like Buffalo tragedy.” Further down in the story, we read that an October 2017 mass shooting in Las Vegas “prompted fresh calls from lawmakers on both sides to pass gun control legislation.”

Also relating to the Buffalo shooting, the Sunbury, Pennsylvania Daily Item reports that it “prompted GOP legislative leaders to call Monday for the reinstatement of New York’s death penalty law for murders fueled by racism and hatred.”

I read a lot of news stories each and every day, and I’m always surprised at how often I see various events characterized as “prompting” calls for action — the same calls, for the same actions, from the same people who were making exactly the same calls for exactly the same actions long before the events in question.

In context, use of the word “prompt” COULD be correct in the theatrical sense: A cue for an actor to read well-memorized lines at the most opportune time.

But in context, most of these stories seem to use it in a different sense, per the 1913 edition of Webster‘s: “To instigate; to incite …. To suggest; to dictate.”

That is, the stories would have us believe that the “prompted” politicians and activists weren’t pushing for Policy X before Event Y, but are doing so now because of Event Y. They once were blind but now can see, see?

In reality, most of us don’t change our minds very often, or about very many things. And politicians and activists  resemble that remark on steroids.

They got where they are — whether it’s the US House of Representatives or the leadership of the Brady Campaign to Encourage … er, “United Against” … Gun Violence — by advocating for or against Policy X. Abandoning that advocacy isn’t a sound job security move; doubling down on it is.

Politicians and activists genuinely changing their minds is  extremely rare. When a politician even pretends to do so, it’s usually at a glacial pace and in an effort to get more in step with his or her party or faction so as to receive promotions (for example, see the correlation between Joe Biden’s presidential campaigns and his positions on abortion over the decades).

In most cases, claims of Event X “prompting” calls for Policy Y should be understood to mean “Supporters of Policy Y Seize Opportunity to Grandstand on Event X.”

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