I’ve always been skeptical of people that use “national security” as a justification for various repressive policies, including government secrecy, trade barriers, the military draft, censorship, and even taking over Greenland.

That’s not to suggest that national security is never a valid concern—I would not advocate releasing nuclear weapons secrets—rather that the concept is overused, often as a way of achieving other more dubious objectives such as mercantilism and authoritarianism.

One “tell” that national security is overused as an excuse for secrecy is that even top officials don’t take the concept seriously.  While Edward Snowden remains in exile for exposing US government crimes, top officials from both parties routinely flout national security laws, with no legal consequences.  Most people are familiar with Clinton’s emails and Trump’s bathroom full of documents, but there are many other such cases that could be cited, including previous slip-ups by Pete Hegseth.

A recent example occurred with the Signal chat leaks to Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic.  I predict that none of the people responsible for leaking US military secrets will end up going to jail.  They are not “little people”.

As with Watergate, the cover-up is often worse than the crime.  The administration initially denied that the leak included any classified information such as war plans or specific weapons systems.  The Atlantic then decided that if the government didn’t regard this information as classified, there was no reason not to publish the entire Signal chat.  It turned out that top government officials were lying to the press and Congress.

When I was young, government officials would have had to resign after a fiasco like Signalgate.  Indeed, when I was young, an obviously unqualified cable news reporter would never be appointed Secretary of Defense, or confirmed by the Senate.  That America is long gone.  (Pete Hegseth once suggested that Hillary Clinton should have been prosecuted for a much more minor security leak.)  

Today, a different set of rules applies to the rich and famous.  Blue-collar types go to prison for violating prostitution laws.  The rich and famous purchase sexual favors with diamond bracelets and fancy dinners.  Blue-collar types go to prison for violating drug laws.  Rich and famous addicts go to rehab.  

PS.  Older readers may recall Leona Helmsley saying:

We don’t pay taxes; only the little people pay taxes.

Actually, the rich do pay lots of taxes; it’s the criminal justice system where they have a huge advantage. 

PPS.  There was an interesting case right here in Orange County where a 71-year old judge shot his wife after an argument, admitted to the crime, and even said he deserved to be convicted by a jury, and the jury still couldn’t reach a verdict.  Here’s the OC Register:

A year and a half after Superior Court Judge Jeffrey Ferguson, while sitting in a police station, said aloud to himself “I killed her. Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, convict my ass. I did it,” the actual jury tasked with deciding his fate announced they were deadlocked during their ninth day of deliberations, which lasted longer than the trial itself.

Imagine the same set of facts for a poor person.  You might say, “It’s complicated”.  Has there ever been a crime of passion that wasn’t?  Even black defendants get a break if they are rich and famous, as we saw in the OJ Simpson case.