Friday, September 25, 2020

A Cancer on Governance: Politicizing National Security Functions

alleging DoJ lies and misconduct before the court 
(pages 2 and 3 shown below)


Amidst all the chaos and crisis, this may not be high on most people’s radar screens. Nonetheless, it merits at least a mention. The New York Times reported on what seems to be another whistleblower outing the corrupt sleaze that characterizes the president’s vision of how government should operate. In his view, government should operate for his best interests, the country, democracy, American’s safety and well-being, and even the rule of law be damned. 

This episode of corrupt sleaze is in connection with the book John Bolton published over strenuous White House objections. The excuse was inclusion of national security information in his book. A federal judge was already written in a court document in a federal case charging Bolton with national security crimes that he believes that Bolton broke the law. Based on what the NYT is reporting, the judge has allegedly been lied to and deceived by the Department of Justice (DoJ). The NYT writes in an article, White House Accused of Improperly Politicizing Review of John Bolton’s Book
“White House aides improperly intervened to prevent a manuscript by President Trump’s former national security adviser John R. Bolton from becoming public, a career official said in a letter filed in court on Wednesday, accusing them of making false assertions that Mr. Bolton had revealed classified material and suggesting that they retaliated when she refused to go along.

The disclosures by the official who oversaw the book’s prepublication review, Ellen Knight, were the latest in a series of accounts by current and former executive branch officials as the election nears accusing the president and his aides of putting his personal and political goals ahead of the public interest and of an evenhanded application of the rule of law.

In an extraordinary 18-page document, a lawyer for Ms. Knight portrays the Trump administration as handling its response to the book in bad faith. Her account implied that the Justice Department may have told a court that the book contains classified information — and opened a criminal investigation into Mr. Bolton — based on false pretenses.
She also said an aide to Mr. Trump “instructed her to temporarily withhold any response” to a request from Mr. Bolton to review a chapter on the president’s dealings with Ukraine so it could be released during the impeachment trial, wrote Ms. Knight’s lawyer, Kenneth L. Wainstein.

He said that his client had determined in April that Mr. Bolton’s book, “The Room Where It Happened,” no longer contained any classified information, but the “apolitical process” was then “commandeered by political appointees for a seemingly political purpose” to go after Mr. Bolton. The actions she was asked to take were “unprecedented in her experience,” the letter said.

The Justice Department defended the review process and the White House’s decision to deem the materials in Mr. Bolton’s book classified, citing sworn statements by national security officials. “The publication of a memoir by a former national security adviser, right after his departure, is an unprecedented action, and it is not surprising that National Security Council staff would pay close attention to ensure that the book does not contain the release of classified information,” said a department spokeswoman, Kerri Kupec.” 

Notice that the DoJ statement by Ms. Kupec does not assert that Bolton’s book contains any nartional security information. It is possible that Ms. Kupec is exaggerating or lying when she asserts that Bolton’s book publication was an unprecedented action. It is not clear that Kupec’s statement is even relevant because Bolton took pains to have his book reviewed and cleared in advance for national security reasons. 

The NYT article also notes that Ms. Knight, who was a government classification expert, alleged “that political appointees repeatedly asked her to sign a declaration to use against Mr. Bolton that made false assertions. She said that after her refusal, she was reassigned from the White House despite earlier expectations that she would transition to a permanent position there.”

Since Ms. Knight has submitted a statement to the court, she is probably on the hook for perjury if she lies in the statement. On the other hand, the president and his aides do not hesitate to lie when it suites them, including when it makes no sense to lie. Given horrendous the track record of lies and deceit by the president and his enablers and the relevant circumstances for Ms. Knight, it is rational and fair to believe that Ms. Knight is credible, and the DoJ is lying for political reasons to serve the president. 

Unless this matter gets somehow swept under the rug and completely disappears, time will tell who is lying and who isn’t. 









No comments:

Post a Comment