PowerLine -> Is DOJ Going Soft On Leaks?
PowerLine -> Is DOJ Going Soft On Leaks?
- Is DOJ Going Soft On Leaks?
- Civil War Update: Blowback at Google
- Media Alert
- The RAISE Act: A Step In the Right Direction, But Nowhere Near Enough
- Theory and practice of the administrative state
|Is DOJ Going Soft On Leaks?
Posted: 06 Aug 2017 04:42 PM PDT
(John Hinderaker)This morning on Fox News Sunday, Chris Wallace asked Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein about the administration’s determination to stop leaks, including criminal leaks that damage national security. The key question here is whether DOJ is willing to go after reporters who publish classified information in violation of the Espionage Act. As Scott has written, there is no obstacle under current law to prosecuting reporters and editors. But Rosenstein seemed distinctly lacking in enthusiasm:
Emphasis added. The reporter is committing a crime, too. What about him?
Does Rosenstein seriously believe that illegally publishing classified information that is damaging to the national security is part of a journalist’s job? It sounds that way.
It is frustrating that Wallace seems to have a better grasp of the law than the Deputy Attorney General.
This riff is mystifying. Is Rosenstein seriously unaware of the many instances where reporters and editors have published classified information that compromised the nation’s security in violation of the Espionage Act? And what is the point of Rosenstein’s qualification of “purposely” breaking the law? Does he think the New York Times and the Washington Post are doing it accidentally?
Another good question by Chris Wallace. There is no federal shield law. Reporters are not entitled to protect their sources in response to a federal subpoena. If they refuse to answer questions about their sources, they can be jailed until they change their minds. This is what happened to Judith Miller some years ago.
I have no idea what that answer meant, but if I were a criminal reporter, I would be breathing easy.
A very squishy performance by Rosenstein. If President Trump really wants to stop illegal leaks, he needs to put the fear of God into reporters and editors. Nothing else will suffice. If three or four reporters–or, better yet, editors–were doing a hard time in Leavenworth, national security leaks would dry up quickly.
|Civil War Update: Blowback at Google
Posted: 06 Aug 2017 04:05 PM PDT
(Steven Hayward)Further to our item yesterday on the Google engineer who has circulated a politically incorrect memo about the authoritarian ideology of “gender diversity” at the company, Reuters reports today that two Google company spokespeople have officially condemned the memo:
Here’s the money graph:
Translation: You’re fired, dude. (If he isn’t already.)
Wait: what’s the old slogan of Google? “Don’t be evil” I think? Heh.
Posted: 06 Aug 2017 03:29 PM PDT
(John Hinderaker)I will be on the Mike Gallagher radio show at 10:30 Eastern tomorrow morning, talking about my post, Do the Democrats know how much trouble they are in?. If you don’t know where to listen to Mike in your area, you can listen to the show online here.
|The RAISE Act: A Step In the Right Direction, But Nowhere Near Enough
Posted: 06 Aug 2017 12:33 PM PDT
(John Hinderaker)A reader who is a long-time immigration skeptic and a close student of the issue takes off from a Ross Douthat column on the proposed RAISE Act:
Puh-leeez!……“steep cuts”? That’s absurd to the point of being intentionally obtuse, if not outright mendacious! The proposal is for a 50% reduction in green cards, i.e., legal permanent residence —- but over a ten year period! We gradually move from 1 million a year to 500,000 a year over ten years. The total new legal immigrant influx would be 7.5 million, instead of as under the status quo 10 million! Some cut…..oh, and it does NOT include the various categories of H1 visas for the “guest workers”-who-never-leave.
And here is one huge cost that no tweaking of admissions criteria can ever “address”: grotesque giantism, the palpable and extreme costs of environmental degradation, land use and sheer unmitigated crowdedness as the total population approaches Asian levels —- 500 million within the next 50 years or so.
That’s not the immigration “compromise” that I’ve been waiting for! What’s the compromise? We “keep the overall immigration rate close to where it is today”?….as opposed to what the left/Dem/MSM wants which is, for all practical purposes, unlimited immigration? Because of Emma Lazarus?
Unless this presumption, so confidently and casually asserted by assorted Times-men and others on the left, turns out to be…WRONG…then what? How do we get our country back after the left engineers yet more identity politics cum affirmative action led by the academic-industrial complex’s never ending the attack on traditional America (“America was never great”) as incorrigibly racist and in need of Transformation?
In a similar vein:
Unless it doesn’t! This must be a reference to the STEM “shortage” fraud. Instead of “pressure on wages at the bottom” let’s put pressure on wages at the upper-middle! We can bring in millions of mostly Asian genius-entrepreneurs in tech fields! I’m sure the Valley will welcome new waves of techno-coolies, as they openly refer to them. What do we do if this heroic “presumption” turns out to be wrong as well?
Immigration’s “economic benefits” have never been shown to be, on the most optimistic and tendentious accounts, anything but trivial on a per capita basis for existing native-born Americans. All that happens is grotesque giantism: larger aggregate GDP at the expense of enormous undesirable population growth and unwanted and unnecessary demographic change engineered for the benefit of the left.
This whole apology for the status quo on immigration — and that is pretty much what the Trump-Cotton-Perdue proposal is — is premised on the poll results were supposedly the middle position is that the rate of immigration should be unchanged. I’d like to see the poll results on this question:
Maybe the Times can get back to us on these questions.
|Theory and practice of the administrative state
Posted: 06 Aug 2017 10:04 AM PDT
(Scott Johnson)In this sixth and final episode of the RealClearPolitics podcasts on the administrative state, Anthony Mills Tony talks with the Claremont Institute’s John Marini about the origins of the administrative state and the current political scene. A professor of political science at the University of Nevada-Reno, Professor Marini argues that centralized bureaucracy has displaced the Founding Fathers’ vision of a constitutional republic. Their discussion touches on political philosophy, the decline of party politics, and the rise of Donald Trump.
Professor Marini fits the model of the student praised in Chaucer: “gladly wolde he lerne and gladly teche.” I have learned much from Professor Marini over the years. I found this podcast well worth my time. If you wish to proceed to an advanced course on the degradation of our constitutional form of government, this podcast may open the doors of perception and move you to further study.