NYTimes Bombs Air Force 1 Safety, DOJ Reacts

Letter to Romans: Trump’s DOJ subpoenaing NYTimes reporters to appear before a grand jury investigating alleged leaking of classified Air Force One security capabilities triggered cries of abuse. Would it ease the pain to clarify the competing interests & controlling law?

A review of all that seems especially timely given at least two thwarted assassination attempts on President Trump’s life & Iran’s new Ayatollah suggesting, after burying his old Ayatollah, the Islamic State won’t rest until it gets its “revenge” on No. 47. And is there anyone who really wants to argue national security & free press aren’t always going to be key, if competing, considerations? Here’s one inconvenient truth to consider in the midst of the NYTimes bombshell: The constitutional & statutory law covering DOJ/FBI vs MSM has mostly evolved piecemeal & never been fully fleshed out by the Supremes; yet the DOJ using a Grand Jury subpoena to call in the reporters for a fact-finding "talk" is a LESS aggressive move than had Justice gotten probable cause warrants (ala Biden on Trump) to raid their offices.

The US Supreme Court in Branzburg v Hayes (1972) set the then-shocking precedent that reporters don’t have an absolute constitutional privilege before a federal grand jury & can be forced to testify, even reveal confidential sources. Yet some subsequent rulings in lower courts have recognized a qualified reporter’s privilege. Congress especially got into the act via its Privacy Protection Act of 1980 by severely limiting gov’t’s ability to search newsrooms or confiscate reporters’ notes & favoring subpoenas; it also protects reporters who receive leaked classified information from having their offices raided while leakers are prosecuted under various federal laws criminalizing it. DOJ has also developed rigid internal rules to further level the playing field by often requiring approval for GJ subpoenas at the department’s highest levels. Still the “them vs us” tension persists. Have Justice Thomas’s & Alito’s “originalist” views suggested a better way than relying on such subjective, case-by-case legal gymnastics? Is it time to follow their lead in relying on the Founding Fathers’ wisdom when interpreting the Constitution? A hopelessly divided House (in Congress) won’t help. If so, maybe it’s time for another shocking Supreme Court precedent to sort out the mess.

Davd Soul