You do not need to be a Trump supporter to decry the tsunami of leaks coming from government higher-ups or those merely working for the government. It seems that virtually everyone who lives in Washington, D.C. is or wants to be a leaker.
I have two thoughts regarding leaks. Briefly, here they are.
First, there is no excuse, none whatever, for leaks. And I say that with Nixon and “Deep Throat” (Mark Felt[1]) fully in mind. The ends do not justify the means. On this subject, there can be no equivocation.
Gene Coyle, who worked for the CIA for 30 years as a field operations officer, had it exactly right when he recently said:
If you are that appalled at the actions of an administration, you should quit, hold a press conference and publicly state your objections. You can’t run an executive branch if more and more people think, ‘I don’t like the policies of this president, therefore I will leak information to make him look bad.’
Indeed, I am very pleased with the prosecution commenced this Monday of Reality Leigh Winner, 25, for removing classified materials and mailing those materials to the press. See the complaint here and the affidavit in support of the complaint here. Assuming this young woman is found guilty, I hope she gets a substantial prison sentence. If ever “general deterrence” applies, it is in the case of leakers, no matter their status or lack thereof.
You simply cannot maintain a democracy if self-righteous individuals in Congress or the Executive branch violate their fiduciary duty (and oath[2]) to keep secret that which is secret. President Obama knew this to be true. He spoke loudly about this problem and acted forcefully to prosecute leaks. See Scott Shane, Obama Takes a Hard Line Against Leaks to Press, New York Times, (June 11, 2010) (“President Obama has already outdone every previous president in pursuing leak prosecutions. His administration has taken actions that might have provoked sharp political criticism for his predecessor, George W. Bush, who was often in public fights with the press.”)
In this realm, if nowhere else, the Trump administration is following the example of President Obama. That is as it should be.
Second, the political branches of government and their workers would do well to emulate the federal judiciary and its workers, particularly the Supreme Court, when it comes to leaks. Leaks do spring from the Court and the lower courts but they are exceedingly rare.[3]
Judges, because they were once lawyers, know how and why to keep secrets and are committed to doing so. Keeping confidences is central to their way of life. Many lawyers, and most CDLs, will take titillating secrets to their grave. For these men and women, to do otherwise would be unthinkable. Once keeping confidences becomes ritualized, lawyers who become Justices view keeping secrets akin to the seal of the confessional.[4] The political branches would do well to “appropriate” the culture of the judiciary.
To sum up, leakers are cowards, not heroes. They betray their country. To me, it is that black and white.
Richard G. Kopf
Senior United States District Judge (Nebraska)
[1] He was the third and then second ranking official at the FBI.
[2] The oath of office taken by federal employees requires that the taker affirm that he or she “will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter . . . .” 5 U.S.C. § 3331. (Emphasis added.)
[3] See Jonathan Peters, The Supreme Court Leaks, Slate (July 6, 2012), describing Jan Crawford’s article, written after the decision was made public and based upon “two sources with specific knowledge of the deliberations,” claiming that Chief Justice Roberts had a change of heart in the ACA case. Peters adds: “The court has a long and colorful history of leaks that dates back to the mid-19th century.” This is the sort of hyperbole that one would expect from Slate. Even taking Peters’ recounting of history at face value, Peters ends his piece by acknowledging that “Supreme Court leaks are rare[.]”
[4] This culture permeates throughout the ranks of the Court’s employees. See, e.g., Mark C. Miller, Judicial Politics in the United States, at p. 173, Avalon Publishing (2015) (“The clerks sign a confidentiality agreement when they begin their work at the Supreme Court each July.”) (Footnote omitted.) Professor Miller was a Supreme Court Fellow from August of 1999 through August of 2000.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“”You can’t run an executive branch if more and more people think””
Never a truer word was spoken..
Sorry Judge K, it may be bad from the point of view of The System, but from the public’s view the more we learn about what the Govt is really doing the better. I think “the people’ would be best served by every Govt action going up on a public server, no secrets at all.
Govts go to war, not people. People get killed in wars, not Govts.
In point of fact, many governments (as well as nations and empires) have perished in wars. For example, you will not find the Hapsburg or Ottoman Empires on the map today.
Sorry Judge K,
your argument that public servants should do the job we hire them for fails because you didn’t realize that in KP’s head, that job looks completely different!
All the best,
David
PS: I’m so disappointed in you.
David,
I herewith banish myself to New Zealand’s Disappointment Island.
All the best, always.
RGK
It’s a pleasure to see David Myer-Lindberghbaby out and about again. You — and your anti-German speech law rantings have been missed.
You really think we should publish things like battle plans, or nuclear launch codes?
I certainly think the government has abused the general concept of state secrets in order to avoid accountability for things they have no legitimate reason to withhold from the public, but that hardly means the whole idea of state secrets is itself illegitimate.
Does anyone else see professional-ethical breach here? A sitting federal judge comments on a pending federal prosecution. The judge can have an opinion on a wide variety of topics or practices, and go public, without naming a particular defendant or case.
What if RKG should be named to the Appeals Court, or god forbid, the Supreme Court, where the same case gets docketed at some point? Now he’s in the awkward position of having to recuse himself. Jeff Sessions-breath, just sayin’.
The House of BB has little problem with leaks, but we’re on the other side of the fence. We want to know as much as possible about what goes on behind those governmental, bureaucratic curtains. We’re of the opinion that there may too many “state secrets”, and those supposed secrets make for an awful lot of busywork for government hacks who normally lose little sleep over the prospect of getting laid off. Unlike the rest of us slobs, hicks and hillbillies in the hinterlands, lowlands and highlands whose “need to know” state secrets is minimal-to-nonexistent.
Who gets to determine what is or what is not a state secret. That is the question?
Billy Bob,
Fun facts:
I am 70 years of age. I look and feel it.
Once, a long time ago, I was considered by some as the front-runner for a seat on the Court of Appeals. I knew better. Having written two partial-birth abortion decisions that landed in the Supreme Court I knew that I was far too politically toxic.
So, you don’t need to worry about me being elevated. The chances are exactly 0.
All the best.
RGK
In Bill’s favor, that was the most cogent comment he’s ever written. You brought out the best in him, Judge.
In any principal-agent relationship, the agent has access to the principal’s sensitive information for purposes of performing the duties of the agency, as directed by, and for the benefit of, the principal. Even outside the context of a national security organization, an agent has no right to appropriate the principal’s information to the agent’s personal financial benefit, or to the furtherance of the agent’s batshit, personal political goals. Such action is classic faithlessness and a breach of fiduciary duty, irrespective of whether it occurs in a context that makes it also criminal. So, even apart from the question of “state secret,” the principal gets to determine what the agent may and may not do with the principal’s information.
Faithlessness. A good word. Also an interesting word, given how easily it’s usurped for other purposes.
My gut tells me to draw a distinction between leakers and whistleblowers. Unfortunately defining whether an individual is one or the other is a matter of perspective, much like freedom fighter and terrorist.
In fairness, I think Judge Kopf’s quote of Gene Coyle made the difference clear from his perspective. If you go public and reveal your identity, you’re a whistleblower (though you may still face legal consequences, of course, morally it’s honest). If you try and conceal your identity and keep your job, you’re a leaker. I’d put the Pentagon Papers in between (if my recollection of what I’ve read is correct, I think they were originally leaked, but the leaker Ellsberg went public and surrendered before he was tracked down?).
This assumes of course that the system for all its faults is not one where the moral choice is to secretly try and sabotage it on a continuing basis by keeping your job (e.g. resistance to a genuinely oppressive and evil government’s bureaucracy, not merely profound disagreement with voters’ choice).
Of course, sometimes leaks are desired from an administration’s point of view (i.e. authorized leaks) to put some unverifiable information out without having to answer questions…
Same rule as in “Shogun,” for that lone instance in which a subject is justified in rebelling against his Lord.
“Judges, because they were once lawyers, know how and why to keep secrets and are committed to doing so. Keeping confidences is central to their way of life.”
I guess that helps explain Brady violations….
It also helps explain why CDLs don’t tell where the bodies are buried. It cuts both ways.
Josh,
My sentence that you quote above also fully explains quantum physics, string theory, chaos theory and the never ending patterns of fractals. But judges keep those secrets too.
By the way, I firmly deny allowing the wholesale violation of the Brady bunch. I always had a crush on Marsha and admittedly warped thoughts about Florence Henderson.
All the best.
RGK
Everybody had a crush on Marsha, but Florence Henderson? That’s just weird.
Crotchety old man yells at sky.
Could you narrow it down a bit?
Jay,
In my case, I also howl at the moon. All the best.
RGK
The premise touted here:
” there is no excuse, none whatever, for leaks […] [L]eakers are cowards, not heroes. They betray their country. To me, it is that black and white.”
leads directly to the underlying premise, which is completely unacceptable: that the only acceptable way to discuss government wrongdoing is on the government’s terms.
Whistleblower protections — despite recent efforts — still remain a good way to ruin a career, rather than an avenue for better government accountability. The same can be said for FOIA, which often requires requesters to have the time, money, and representation to convince a federal court to force the government to hand over the requested documents.
Multiple whistleblowers (esp. in the intelligence community) have tried going through the proper channels, only to be told they should shut up and mind their own business. It took Snowden’s leaks for the IC to re-examine their surveillance programs and effect changes with US citizens’ privacy in mind. The programs exposed by Snowden had been an area of concern for multiple whistleblowers, but nothing actually happened until *after* June 2013.
I agree somewhat with Kopf’s assertions that the plague of current leaks isn’t completely justified. I specifically have problems with intelligence community officials acting like they’re a tool of government accountability. They aren’t. But people working for the government are, and they often find exposing themselves to criminal charges is the only way to get the government to acknowledge its problems.
The government in general would prefer to be a closed loop — one in which the people they ostensibly serve are kept in the dark. Leakers let the light in. Some leaks are more justified than others, but blandly asserting leaking is always wrong grants the government a level of respect it certainly hasn’t earned.
The current rash of leaks is illustrative. It shows the people surrounding the president and his administrative team have zero respect for the Commander in Chief. At this point, he can’t even control his own tweets, much less lead a country. I have zero problem with leaks that point to his inability to govern a nation. Respect is earned. It doesn’t just come with the title, no matter how much Trump seems to believe it should. (Hence all the saber-rattling over the Electoral College results.)
I always enjoy reading Kopf’s perspective on legal issues, but the government often operates in gray areas. It often takes the clarity of uncensored, leaked documents to draw the line between black and white.
Tim,
Thanks for your comment. I agree with some it. In fact, one of the reasons I started blogging was in an attempt to bring more transparency to the actions of federal district judges like me.
I disagree with you, however, on several basic questions. I will ask you only three of them:
1. Should we trust leakers to know what to leak and what not to leak?
2. If one takes an oath to “well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office,” how is a leak of secret or privileged information consistent with that oath?
3. If the information is important enough to leak, then isn’t the more honorable, democratically acceptable and credible path to resign, make your objections known to the public, and willingly accept the consequences–both good and bad–of your actions?
Why don’t try your hand at answering these questions? Truly, I would be interested in your answers.
Anyway, thanks for commenting. All the best.
RGK
I’m not Tim, Judge, but as you know, sometimes there are no good answers.
Nobody likes a snitch.
But we realize that sometimes, snitches are needed. So we have the Whistleblower Act.
But nobody likes a snitch, so we never apply the Whistleblower Act properly. It is easy to find news of legitimate whistleblowers who have been punished. And they may have a hard time getting hired anywhere again, because no one likes a snitch.
So, in theory, your #3 shows the way forward, but as Tim pointed out, “Whistleblower protections — despite recent efforts — still remain a good way to ruin a career, rather than an avenue for better government accountability. ”
As far as your questions #1 and #2, there are certainly gray areas, but if a leak references demonstrably illegal activity in the office, that leaker should be protected.
Leaks, like the current one, about illegal activity by outsiders uncovered during an ongoing investigation, are obviously a different story. A lot of damage can be done by the mere disclosure that the government has figured out how to intercept certain communications, or has a spy in place.
Thanks, Patrick. As I indicated to another commenter, I have trouble equating “whistleblowers” with “leakers” because the former category is protected (sorta) by statute and the other category is illegal. All the best.
RGK
Judge Kopf:
1. There’s no way it’s possible for every leaker will leak something worth leaking, or possibly even fully comprehend the import of what they’re leaking. People are fallible, even those with the best intentions. So, they can’t be trusted to act wisely in every situation. But the government as an entity is no more trustworthy. If we leave it completely up to gov’t agencies to decide what’s in the public interest in terms of disclosure, we’ll see even less than we already do.
2. If the oath pertains to being a good steward of the people’s money and trust, the oath could certainly be read to cover leaking evidence of misconduct or wrongdoing, especially when the official channels for whistleblowing have either engaged in retaliatory action or attempted to bury the evidence. Of course, there hasn’t been a presidential administration yet that would agree with my assertion. Obama prosecuted more whistleblowers than all presidents combined to that point. His predecessors may have been less likely to pull the trigger, but they were no more welcoming of unapproved transparency.
3. I think accepting the consequences is an important part of whistleblowing/leaking, but that’s not the same as saying all leakers should be prosecuted. The problem with the “credible” path is it alerts the government to both the message and the messenger, giving it a head start on quelling both. Sometimes that path works. But it’s often difficult to tell until you’ve already made your choice.
(And let’s not forget prosecuting someone under the Espionage Act plays hell with due process, so telling leakers to take their lumps like proud Americans is to deprive them of some very American rights in advance.)
Thanks for your thoughtful post and response.
Tim,
Thanks for your thoughtful and fulsome response. By the way, I think folks who are protected under “whistleblower” statutes cannot fairly be equated with leakers. All the best.
RGK
I think anyone that think using the whistleblowing system is a good thing or what happens when the system fails to address a problem should look an Tom Drake’s experience with the NSA. This man went from a position paying 6 figures to working in a Radio Shack. His life will never be the same.
I’m not Tim, but re #2, an oath before God or an affirmation based upon one’s moral principles is dependent upon those principles (and one’s duty to God or religious duties otherwise if an oath sworn). So if one’s oath requires action (or inaction) that is evil enough (from that person’s understanding) it may compel violation of one’s oath based on those moral and/or religious obligations. At least that’s my (partly religious) perspective.
Now, if you know in advance there’ll be significant problems you shouldn’t take the job or swear the oath, but that doesn’t help if you find things out later. I don’t know what oath George Washington had sworn as a Major serving in the British militia in the French-Indian war, but even if his later actions fighting the British violated his earlier oath, I won’t fault him for it! I’m assuming militia officers had to swear an oath, but I don’t know for certain or what it would have been. And he was certainly open about his opposition to Britain!
#3, I agree that’s the ideal. In some circumstances (your child is receiving expensive counselling paid for by insurance to deal with a significant life-altering trauma?) I don’t know how fair it is to expect.
David,
As both a normative and practical matter, I don’t buy one’s personal religious or moral scruples as an excuse to violate the oath because one stumbles across something he or she did not contemplate at the time of taking the oath. Forswear the oath, and take your beating.
All the best.
RGK
Thank you Judge.
I don’t claim it as a legal excuse, only a moral excuse. Meaning yes, if you think morality requires violating it, take your legal lumps.
I would note only one thing. Leakers have a tremendous amount of self-regard, they always seem to know what is exactly in the public interest.
Allen,
Bingo!
All the best.
RGK
Also not Tim.
“1. Should we trust leakers to know what to leak and what not to leak?”
We’d be fools to do so, given our experience with Chelsea Manning.
“2. If one takes an oath to “well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office,” how is a leak of secret or privileged information consistent with that oath?”
It isn’t, but sometimes conflicting duties arise. In principle, violation of an oath might be the lesser of two evils.
“3. If the information is important enough to leak, then isn’t the more honorable, democratically acceptable and credible path to resign, make your objections known to the public, and willingly accept the consequences–both good and bad–of your actions?”
Yes, of course, but let’s not lose sight of what we’re demanding in the name of honor, acceptability, and credibility. So, a third-tier leak provided by Snowden is as follows: the NSA assisted Australian intelligence in spying on an American law firm retained by Indonesia in a trade dispute with Australia. Nobody even pretended terrorism was an issue, or even that any American interests beyond “we value Australia over Indonesia” were at stake. Say Snowden left all the far more damning intel on the governments’ servers, quit, and held his press conference about that matter alone. He gets prosecuted under the Espionage Act, which (subject to correction) pretty much excludes any affirmative defense. He can try to prove he didn’t say what he just said, but failing that, he goes to prison for potentially decades. honor and credibility intact. I don’t know that I, personally, have the chops for that…
Iris,
Thanks for putting needed details on the answers to my questions. I appreciate it.
As for Snowden, I simply don’t know enough about what he did to comment. But assuming you are correct in your description, if I were he I would stay in Russia. Hell, I have to live in Nebraska!
All the best.
RGK
Judge,
Obama did crack down pretty hard on leaks, except when they were politically expedient.
If no leaks are acceptable should he be found guilty and thrown in jail?
Paul,
Nope. No damn way. I learned with Ted. All the best.
RGK
Dear Judge Kopf,
In our system of government, Congress, not the national-security state, is supposed to oversee the actions of the national security apparatus. What happens when secrecy, ever increasing in scope, makes it impossible for for the watchers to know what is happening?
When Snowden made his revelations, many in Congress were surprised to find out what was happening in the security sphere. Can anyone keeping such information intentionally secret from the majority of Congress truly be said to be operating in a capacity to well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which they have entered?
You want to claim that all leakers can’t be labelled heroes… that’s fine. Can you honestly say that none can ever be operating within the true intent of their oath?
Keith,
You ask: Can anyone keeping such information intentionally secret from the majority of Congress truly be said to be operating in a capacity to well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which they have entered?
My answer is “yes.” Sorta.
Snowden’s job, insofar as I know what he was hired to do, did not entail dealing with Congressional oversight. My answer would be “no” if the someone you refer to was responsible for answering to Congress on national security matters.
In short, it was not Snowden’s job to judge whether his superiors were telling Congress the truth. In fact, I have serious doubts that he had knowledge of the full facts in order make such a judgment. Indeed, I know of no evidence that Snowden had a clue about what his superiors were telling Congress in the Sensitive Compartmented Information Facilities.
All the best.
RGK
Regarding the intelligence machine, even those serving on the House and Senate intelligence subcommittees are prevented from disclosing information to the rest of the House and Senate. There are even situations where committee members aren’t even able to include their staff. I would argue there isn’t adequate oversight of these agencies, especially those as technologically adept as the NSA. Sen Ron Wyden has been trying to get the NSA to provide to the committee how many American have been caught up in collection and hasn’t been able to get this accomplished, because of secrecy. It was Sen Wyden that asked Gen Clapper in the famous exchange where Clapper denied that the Intel community wasn’t keeping records on the American public when indeed the NSA was collecting our cell phone metadata. Is this something that the American public should have known? It was a leaker that provided this information and its release forced the Obama admistration to change the way the intel community did business, particularly when Americans were involved. The Tuskegee experiments were exposed by a leaker. Watergate was exposed by a leaker. The Mai Lai massacre in Vietnam exposed by a leaker. Don’t misinterpret my comments of being supportive of leakers, but I do acknowledge that leaks have benefitted this country in many cases, especially when the misconduct was wrapped in the veil of national security.
No one who has run a large organization would fail to agree with Judge Kopf. The contrary position spells organizational failure. No one would be well served by the failure of democratic government.
One moment while I don my armor.
Old adage, “In order to train a monkey, kill a chicken.” If guilty, Winner needs swift, sure, and very stern punishment. She can be the chicken to all the monkeys considering leaking secrets.
I am alarmed by this discussion. No one is using the reply button, and SHG has not said a word about it. Is he all right?
Well, not exactly no one. The Host is fine, just tired of being a scold. He could move the offenders to their proper positions, but that’s another fifteen bucks.
Forewarned is fore-alarmed.
I try to keep my nose out of managing other people’s posts. Notably, most of the comments to this post (other than the ones I trashed) were exceptionally good.
As for Judge Kopf, I’ve tried to get him to use the reply button, but it’s like trying to teach a judge to sing.
SHG,
Your WordPress reply button thingy is a bit wonky. I am almost certain that you have secretly acquired an HAL (Heuristically programmed ALgorithmic computer). After all, your son went to MIT. Apparently, that is why when I use the reply button HAL tells me: “I’m sorry Rich, I’m afraid I can’t do that”
All the best.
RGK
Afffirmative, Judge. I read you.
Pingback: Leaks: From Drips To Deluge | Simple Justice
Dear Judge Kopf:
I apologize for what reads like a public tummy rub but I don’t know how to write you off line. I really enjoyed your post and even more so your thoughts in the comments section. Although I don’t agree with you entirely, and my specifics don’t really add anything substantively, this was a thoroughly thought provoking post.
R/S
RTL
Ray Lee,
Thank you, truly. All the best.
RGK
What does it mean to say, as part of the government of a nation founded by a violent revolution, i.e. acts of treason, that “the ends do not justify the means”?
https://youtu.be/py1WDlaIr9A
David C.,
Sorry for the late reply to your very interesting question. I bet you were a good debater.
The Founders did not believe that the ends justify the means, at least in the sense I used the phrase. They were, in my opinion, quite honorable. They submitted the Olive Branch Petition to Parliment affirming American loyalty to Great Britain and asking the King to prevent further conflict. The King and Parliment rejected the petition and that, as they say, was that.
All the best.
RGK
My daughters read a picture book called “Maddie’s Fridge”. The plot’s dilemma arises when young Sophie discovers that her friend’s family have almost nothing to eat. Maddie swears Sophie to secrecy. After several days of mostly failed attempts to sneak food to her friend at school, Sophie breaks down and tells her mother, and they take groceries to Maddie’s house. The girls discuss the betrayal.
“Are you mad at me?”
“A promise is important!”
“You’re more important!”
Friendships, businesses, governments, justice systems and wars cannot operate without the preservation of secrets. Breaking the oath of confidence undermines the foundations of the system. For Judge Kopf, that’s a sufficient answer. Nothing could be more important than the promise. It’s an absolute rule.
Well, absolutism only answers an easy moral dilemma. On March 16, 1968 a Warrant Officer in the US Army ordered his crew to fire if necessary upon US soldiers who were commanded by higher ranked officers. WO1 Thompson had the “self-regard” to decide for himself that that soldiers were committing war crimes. He had sworn to “bear true faith and allegiance to the [Constitution]” and to “obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over” him. He decided to shoot the officers and soldiers if necessary. Eventually, they gave him a medal for it.
@Hon. Kopf-
RE: above commentor, “I guess that helps explain Brady violations…”
During a trial , an unknown “leaker” provides information to the presiding Judge Kopf suggesting that the District Attorney arguing in front of the court is concealing indisputable Brady Material. The leaked information (apparently from an unidentified Assistant DA) tells Hon. Kopf exactly where the Brady Material is located and that even a cursory investigation will find it and other Brady Material from past trials. The information apparently has not been shared with the Defense.
Does the Hon. Kopf share this information with the Defense, or does he have such disdain for leakers that he disregards the information even though it could be easily verified or refuted with a simple search? Can a courtroom run efficiently with leaky information?
BD,
I would get to the bottom of the apparent Brady violation. And, certainly, if it was truly Brady information the defense would get it. Not to be snotty, but I do not understand how your hypothetical addresses the points raised by my post. But, I am sometimes an extremely dull knife. So, please feel free to sharpen me.
All the best.
RGK
It’s a tangent, but perhaps worth thinking about: Google tells me that there is an oath for the Director of the NSA that includes both “swear to defend the constitution” and “faithfully carry out the duties of the office”. It also tells me that employees of the NSA have two separate oaths for “defend the constitution” and “keep the secrets of the NSA”. (I did not see anything definitive about ‘contractors’, but for the sake of argument…)
This would mean that if the NSA director is forsworn on one or the other, he’s forsworn. But employees seem to be in tension between the two separate oaths. … and treason aside, I don’t see as many penalties legislated against people people “only” forsworn in upholding the constitution.
I may be, (haha, maybe) a pie-in-the-sky kinda guy but I’m not convinced our governments, our nations, need secrets and I’m convinced they don’t need, and shouldn’t hold, as many as they do. So…
Even so, do you just trust random, rank and file employees, without an overall policy perspective, to decide which ones are OK to leak?
Nah, my point is there shouldn’t NEED to be any need to leak because everything barring the actual, literal, launch codes, is freely and openly accessible; not just legally required of the government but voluntarily released. Actual transparency.
Does this require a major shift in the thinking of the majority of humanity? Well, yeeees… kinda
And no, no need to point out the many, many reasonable exceptions. 哈哈
We got your point the first time. It doesn’t get stronger with repetition.
That wasn’t clear to me. I was just trying to help, “clarifying” (apparently unnecessarily) where a comment seemingly suggested there was maybe uncertainty of my point. That’ll learn me.
I’ve been here long enough to know not to repeat myself for the fun of it, especially when verging on, or completely, off-topic.
Nodandsmile,
I am a big proponent of making the judiciary more transparent. For example, I think the public is entitled to know each judge’s sentencing statistics. Let those chips fall where they may.
So, you and I would agree on many things about transparency. I suspect that where we would disagree is the order of magnitude.
Thanks for commenting. All the best.
RGK