SCOTUS Can't Find Leaker. Iranian Enrichment Level. Russian Violations? PBC. Klaus Schwab. Getting Old.

+++++++++++++++++++++++

                                                                                    =

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Has the Supreme Court Given Up on Finding the Leaker?
by Alan M. Dershowitz


The failure to discover the leaker of the Supreme Court's draft decision overruling Roe v. Wade is an unsatisfactory resolution to one of the most serious breaches of confidentiality in American history. Let us not underestimate the seriousness of this leak. It apparently encouraged a potential assassin to try to murder Justice Brett Kavanaugh in an effort to change the outcome of the case. The mystery of who leaked this draft decision must be solved. 

Following the Supreme Court's released findings of the investigation into who leaked the draft decision overruling Roe v. Wade, the matter seems to be closed. There has been no public disclosure of any further efforts to identify the malefactor.

This is an unsatisfactory resolution to one of the most serious breaches of confidentiality in American history.

Let us not underestimate the seriousness of this leak. It apparently encouraged a potential assassin to try to murder Justice Brett Kavanaugh in an effort to change the outcome of the case. It could easily have succeeded in doing so.

The failure to discover the leaker will encourage others to engage in actions which they believe are well-intentioned civil disobedience even if it does not involve the disclosure of governmental wrongdoing. The mystery of who leaked this draft decision must be solved.

The investigation done by the Supreme Court was destined to fail. It was put in the hands of the Court's Marshall, whose job it is to protect the Justices and to assure order in the Supreme Court building. The office of the Marshall is not equipped to conduct difficult investigations.

The matter should have been turned over to the FBI or a special counsel appointed by the Justice Department, as was done with the unauthorized possession of classified material by President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump.

Let us be clear about one thing: the improper disclosure of the Supreme Court draft opinion in this case was at least as serious a breach as the Biden or Trump violations. Neither Biden nor Trump disclosed any classified material or actually endangered the security of the United States. They were dangerous because of the potential improper disclosure, whereas the Supreme Court leak involved an actual disclosure that impacted the High Court in numerous negative ways.

Trump criticized the Supreme Court investigation: he argued that the reporter who published the draft opinion should have been subpoenaed and threatened with imprisonment if he or she did not disclose the source. The reporter would undoubtedly claim that such compulsion would violate the journalist-source privilege that exists in many jurisdictions. It is not an absolute privilege, as evidenced by the fact that journalists, most famously Judith Miller of The New York Times, actually spent time in prison for refusing to comply with judicial orders to disclose her source. Subpoenaing a journalist and threatening her with imprisonment should be an absolute last resort.

Would it be justified in this case? Perhaps. The likelihood is that, like Miller, the journalist who received and published the draft opinion would refuse to disclose its source, although no one ever knows what impact the threat of imprisonment would have on a given journalist.

The journalist was not at fault for publishing the draft opinion. It was highly newsworthy, and like the Pentagon Papers and other confidential materials that have been published, the journalist receiving them has an obligation of disclosure to the public.

The same cannot be said about the Supreme Court employee who violated the commitment to confidentiality by improperly disclosing a document that was supposed to be kept secret until the decision was rendered by the Justices. If the source or sources are finally identified, they will probably defend their actions on the basis of a higher good. But noble ends to not justify improper or unethical means, especially if the disclosure might well have threatened innocent lives.

So do not allow the investigation to end with the report of failure. Thus far the entire matter has been relegated to the judicial branch, because that is the one most directly affected. All Americans are the victims of this breach, and both the executive and legislative branches have default roles to play if the Supreme Court cannot do the job properly.

Despite the fact that disclosure in and of itself may not be a crime, it may involve criminal conduct either before, during or after the disclosure itself. If the leaker lied to a law enforcement person -- including the Supreme Court Marshall -- that might be a crime. The FBI certainly has jurisdiction to investigate whether a crime has been committed.

Congress, too, may have an appropriate role in assuring that this breach does not recur. The report issued by the investigators faulted the security at the High Court. That problem will not be easy to solve: law clerks work on drafts and often take them home. The investigation also disclosed that several law clerks told their wives or partners about the decision.

When I was a law clerk in the Supreme Court 60 years ago, each Justice had only two law clerks and there were far fewer personnel in the institution. The first two months, the doors of the Supreme Court were open to anyone. A visitor could simply knock at the Justices' door and ask for an appointment. Then in the third month, President John F. Kennedy was assassinated. After the assassination, nearly everything changed. Security was enhanced, barriers were erected and access to the Justices was severely limited. Nothing, however, was done to protect the secrecy of draft opinions and it seems that little or nothing has been done since.

It will not be cost-free to impose restrictions on law clerks' access to draft opinions and their handling of them. Even so, this cost, provoked by the current breach, may be worth incurring in order to protect future disclosures.

Alan M. Dershowitz is the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law, Emeritus at Harvard Law School, and the author most recently of The Price of Principle: Why Integrity Is Worth The Consequences. He is the Jack Roth Charitable Foundation Fellow at Gatestone Institute, and is also the host of "The Dershow" podcast.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

'Deeply worrying' – Washington experts on Iran’s new enrichment level

This development, emphasized by the monitors, represents the significant risk that the country's unrestrained atomic activity could bring about a global crisis.

WASHINGTON – Experts were alarmed by a Bloomberg news report that revealed International Atomic Energy Agency monitors in Iran last week detected uranium enriched to levels nearly high enough for a nuclear weapon.

This development, emphasized by the monitors, represents the significant risk that the country’s unrestrained atomic activity could bring about a global crisis.

Inspectors need to determine whether Iran intentionally produced the enriched uranium or if the concentration was the result of an unintended buildup within the network of pipes connecting the hundreds of fast-spinning centrifuges used to separate isotopes, according to Bloomberg.

What do the experts say?

“The report should be deeply worrying,” said Dennis Ross, a distinguished fellow at The Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

Enrichment to 84% “is essentially going to weapons grade, [with] the difference from 90% being so small,” he said, adding that it was hard to believe it was an accident or a loading issue.

“I suspect it is again part of an Iranian play to see what the reaction is,” Ross said. “If it is tough rhetorically, but little more, the Iranians will know the world will adjust to a new reality, just as it did when they went to 60%. If this is the case, the Iranians are putting themselves in a position where they can decide later to go to a bomb, but they will believe they have the option.”

Getting the Europeans to go along with snapback is certainly one step, but even that is unlikely to have much of an impact, he said, adding that the Iranians would threaten to pull out of the Non-Proliferation Treaty if that is done.

“There needs to be a set of quiet messages to Iran that if this is not reversed and the ongoing nuclear program halted, they will be putting their entire nuclear infrastructure at risk,” Ross said. “Conducting exercises in the region that simulate or rehearse air-to-ground attacks against hardened targets should be organized soon.”

Andrea Stricker, deputy director of the Nonproliferation and Biodefense Program at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, said the Iranians were likely experimenting with producing near-weapons-grade uranium “in a way that Tehran believes the IAEA would not detect – when the material is in intermediate stages of enrichment rather than a final product.”

“That Iran would even take this step underscores the failure of the West’s diplomacy-first approach,” she said. “Washington and Europe have presided over two years of Iranian atomic advances met with virtually zero penalties. Thus, it is no surprise that Tehran continues to push the envelope.”

“Washington must resurrect a comprehensive strategy to penalize, roll back and deter further Iranian nuclear advances and reinstitute economic pressure to destabilize the regime while it is weak at home,” she added.

The multilateral cooperation between the US, the Gulf Cooperation Council and Israel “will be key to maintaining regional preparedness to confront the full range of Iran’s threats,” Stricker said. “It is a natural progression based on cognizance of this mutual menace to peace and security.”

Iran can go to 4 bombs within a month if they want to

According to John Hannah, a Randi and Charles Wax senior fellow at the Jewish Institute for National Security of America and a former national security advisor to vice president Dick Cheney, Iran was almost certainly practicing its capability to breakout or sneak out to a bomb very quickly.

“This is only the latest step in that process,” he said. “Earlier violations included deploying cascades of advanced centrifuges, enriching to 60% and enriching directly from 5% to 60%. Already, Iran has accumulated enough highly enriched uranium to go for four bombs within a month of a decision to break out and enough for a fifth bomb shortly thereafter.”

“Politically, Iran is also continuing its salami tactics to test the resolve of the United States, Israel and Europe,” Hannah said. “A decade ago, Prime Minister [Benjamin] Netanyahu drew a redline on a cartoon bomb at the UN and threatened that if Iran accumulated enough 20% uranium for one bomb, Israel would destroy its nuclear program.

“Today, the 20% redline is a long-distant memory. The redline turned into a green light. Now they have enough high-enriched uranium for at least five bombs, and much of it not only in the form of 20% but 60% uranium. And what were the consequences imposed on Iran? Virtually nothing.”

“The Europeans should immediately respond to this provocation by triggering a snapback of all UN sanctions,” he said. “They should also withdraw their ambassadors from Tehran. President [Joe] Biden should publicly declare the JCPOA dead. The US should expedite the delivery of critical capabilities that Israel needs to enhance its own ability to destroy Iran’s key nuclear infrastructure, especially KC-46A refueling tankers and refilling the war reserve stockpile in Israel with thousands of long-range precision munitions capable of penetrating underground bunkers. Unfortunately, I have little to no hope that any of these steps will be taken,” Hannah said.

And:

The Editorial Board 

Russia has been refusing for months to allow U.S. inspections of Russian nuclear facilities, as called for under the New Start Treaty. Even the Biden Administration felt obliged this month to acknowledge the violations, which must have been embarrassing since President Biden had unilaterally extended the 2010 treaty in his first days in office. Mr. Putin’s suspension is truth in arms-control advertising.

Russia’s foreign ministry said the decision is “reversible,” but there’s no reason to believe that. Russia also violated the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty, which caused the Trump Administration to withdraw. Mr. Putin’s goal in making his New Start announcement was no doubt to increase public anxiety in the West as part of his effort to reduce support for Ukraine. He wants Americans to think Crazy Ivan might start a nuclear war.

But arms-control treaties can’t stop an adversary determined to evade them. Meanwhile, treaties create a false sense of security for the party that honors their terms. This is how Russia was able to build an arsenal of as many as 2,000 tactical nuclear warheads, despite the INF treaty. The U.S. has about 230.

The suspension of New Start means the U.S. will lose access to inspect some Russian nuclear sites. But the U.S. has other intelligence means of monitoring Russian forces.

Nuclear deterrence depends on having a credible nuclear force that can threaten an adversary. It can be buttressed by robust defenses that put doubt in the mind of an adversary that a nuclear first strike would succeed. The U.S. is only slowly modernizing its nuclear force after decades of deterioration, while U.S. defenses have a limited ability to intercept a small number of incoming missiles.

With Russia at war against the West, and China refusing to negotiate while it rapidly builds its nuclear force, rebuilding U.S. nuclear deterrence will have to be a U.S. priority. Holding out hope that Mr. Putin will change his mind about New Start is a fool’s errand.

Finally:

We recently learned of the “Penn Biden Center” through the Justice Department’s search for classified material in Joe Biden’s numerous homes and offices of which it was one.  But just what is the Penn Biden Center?  Well known author Paul Kengor attempted to find out.  Please read his piece to learn what he discovered (or didn’t).

CB

 

Paul G. Kengor is an author and professor of political science at Grove City College, a private liberal arts college in Grove City, Pennsylvania. He is the executive director of Institute for Faith and Freedom, a Grove City College conservative think tank/policy center. He is also a visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution, and Peace, a conservative think tank at Stanford University.

Kengor received his master's degree from the American University School of International Service and his doctorate from the University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public and International Affairs. Kengor has focused much of his work on Ronald Reagan, the presidency, conservative politics, the Cold War, the communist movement, and Catholicism. He has done work for the Center for Strategic and International Studies and the conservative think tanks, the Heritage Foundation and the Allegheny Institute for Public Policy; and has served on the editorial board of Presidential Studies Quarterly. He does a regular commentary for three nationally syndicated radio programs: American Radio Journal, Moody Broadcasting, and Ave Maria Radio Network. He also writes for the conservative American Spectator.

What in the Hell Is the Penn Biden Center?

Clearly it has a bad case of cult of personality.

by PAUL KENGOR

If you’re like me, you’ve only recently heard of the Penn Biden Center at the University of Pennsylvania, generously described in the press as a “think tank.”

My ignorance is instructive. You see, I’m somewhat of a connoisseur of think tanks. Some people are connoisseurs of the arts, food, fine wine, and even good cigars. But I, dear reader, have an odd expertise in think tanks. I’ve worked at, written for, and even written about think tanks. I’ve given lectures at and even lectures about think tanks in grad schools, describing these distinctive entities, left and right and center. I actually began my professional career at a think tank, the Center for Strategic & International Studies. Next week, I speak at the Heritage Foundation. I’ve been a fellow at the Hoover Institution, the Institute for Faith & Freedom at Grove City College, and countless state and local think tanks.

If you’ll indulge me a bit more, I can relate an anecdote about this strange career path. I recall telling my working-class, Italian Catholic grandmother and her sisters that I worked for a think tank, only to elicit a puzzled look. “Paulie,” my grandma asked, “where do you work in Washington, D.C.?” I named the place and explained, “It’s a think tank, grandma.” This prompted my crusty grandpa to snap, “What in the hell is a think tank?”

All of which is a perfect segue to the Penn Biden Center.

Given my over three decades of think tank experience, I hereby assert, definitively, with no embarrassment, that I had never heard of the Penn Biden Center until it exploded into the news. And I’m certain that that’s more a product of the Penn Biden Center than anything lacking in my studious cranium.

To borrow from my Papa, I found myself wondering, “What in the hell is the Penn Biden Center?”

So, I ventured to the website of the Penn Biden Center for Diplomacy & Global Engagement. Alas, I remain even more in the dark. I found a few articles and what seem like press releases. I found no reports or policy papers, which is odd because such is the main product of a think tank.

I did, however, find Joe Biden — everywhere. Biden’s grinning mug is splashed all over the thing. When you first open the website, you see Biden. When you click the first heading, labeled, “We’re Focused On,” you’re assaulted with some mindless mishmash about “Advancing the Dialogue of Internationalism.” The viewer is greeted by — surprise — two photos, both of Joe Biden. The first is a photo of, quite appropriately, old Scranton Joe and China’s Xi taking a friendly stroll together at some bridge near Beijing.

I say appropriately because, as readers know, the only thing maybe worth knowing about the Penn Biden Center is its possible shady connections with Xi and China. That being the case, I’m sort of surprised that whoever runs the website left that photo posted. Then again, the academic world moves very slowly. Perhaps they’re on sabbatical.

The next two “We’re Focused On” headings talk about “Advancing Threats to the Liberal International Order” and “Engaging a New Generation.” In each of these, once again, all photos boast one common feature: Joe Biden.

If you click the “Our Vision” tab, it takes you to the center’s mission statement. That statement includes five short paragraphs of politically correct twaddle about the center’s dedication to a “democratic, open, secure, tolerant, and interconnected world benefits all Americans.” It concludes with a paragraph about the group’s grand namesake, one Joe Biden:

Throughout his decades of public service, the Center’s namesake, Joseph R. Biden, Jr., has fought to secure American global leadership by defending and advancing a liberal international order. The Center will bring President Biden’s lifelong commitment to public service to its every endeavor.

The remainder of the page’s exciting mission statement is a longer section about — spoiler alert — the one and only: Joseph Robinette Biden Jr.

So, in sum, the Penn Biden Center is a monument to one man. It may shock Biden’s conservative detractors to hear this but, apparently, the heretofore alleged cognitively challenged president is, in fact, a one-man think tank.

Who would’ve thunk it?

Even progressives seem slightly annoyed. A January 2021 piece at the American Prospect, the left-wing periodical launched in the 1990s by Robert Kuttner and Robert Reich, observes:

Three years ago, Joe Biden launched a center with his name on it through the University of Pennsylvania that’s just blocks from the Capitol. Since its opening, the Penn Biden Center’s office on Constitution Avenue in Washington, D.C., has housed the future secretary of state, the president’s top adviser, and, not surprisingly, the future president himself. But for an organization with such high-profile alumni and staff, its mission is surprisingly unclear.

Well, not totally unclear. It’s about Joe Biden.

Of course, nothing I’ve said in this column gets to the core of why the Penn Biden Center is in the news. This time last year, my old friend and colleague Peter Schweizer released a major book, Red-Handed: How American Elites Get Rich Helping China Win, that reported on the stench of communist Chinese cash possibly connected to the center or the university. “The flow of money to the University of Pennsylvania should raise some eyebrows and offer cause as to who is financing the Biden Center’s Operations,” writes Schweizer. “One trend is unmistakable: after the Biden Center’s announcement that it was opening at the University of Pennsylvania, donations from the Chinese mainland to Penn almost tripled.”

According to Schweizer, that was in the amount of tens of millions of dollars.

It is indeed suspicious. It smells of corruption at the highest levels — government, Biden, and the already rotten higher-ed establishment. Speaking of which, the compassionate progressives at Penn charge your kid over $63,000 per year for tuition and fees (not including room and board). That itself is a scandal.

But back to the nuts and bolts: I’ve worked for think tanks with budgets under a million bucks that produced more in five months than the Penn Biden Center has done in five years. Chi-comm connections aside, let it be said that even the very essence of the Penn Biden Center as a think tank is questionable. Other than serving as a dubious tribute entity to Joe Biden, I don’t see this thing as doing much. Of course, in the world of academia, that would be no surprise. But in the world of think tanks, it is a surprise. There doesn’t seem to be much thinking going on at this think tank. Other than perhaps thoughts about the next big check

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Brain CHIP Revelation - Klaus Schwab Confirms Everything!

Brain CHIP Revelation - Klaus Schwab Confirms Everything! Read More >> +++++++++++++++++++++ Getting old is tough! +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++