By Jim Geraghty
Monday, October 03, 2016
Susanne Craig, a New
York Times Metro reporter, wrote over the weekend that she received a
manila envelope on September 23 — with a New York City postmark and a Trump
Tower return address — containing three pages from Donald Trump’s 1995 state
tax filings. Craig was able to verify the authenticity of the New York,
Connecticut, and New Jersey tax records by talking to Trump’s accountant at the
time, but by her own account, she does not know who sent them to her.
It’s probable that the leaker was someone in Trump’s
orbit or someone connected to his wife at the time, Marla Maples, who signed the
documents and presumably had copies of them. But until the source comes
forward, it is impossible to rule out a more insidious scenario: that
individuals in the respective state tax agencies chose to reveal Trump’s
confidential information without his permission.
Journalists who tsk-tsk the general public’s suspicion
and reflexive distrust of the media should ask themselves how often
confidential, legally protected documents embarrassing to prominent Democrats
get anonymously leaked and published by the press. Because it seems to happen
to Republican office-seekers about once every election cycle.
Back in 1999, George W. Bush’s Yale transcripts were
leaked to The New Yorker.
In 2008, Helen Jones-Kelley, director of Ohio’s
Department of Job and Family Services, checked state computer systems for
information on Toledo-area resident Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher, a.k.a. “Joe the
Plumber,” who had become something of a folk hero on the right for skeptically
questioning Democratic nominee Barack Obama and spurring him to characterize
his economic plan in redistributionist terms. Jones-Kelley was given one
month’s unpaid leave for her violation of privacy regulations.
In 2009, an unidentified staffer in the U.S. Attorney’s
office “accidentally” mailed the Washington
Post a copy of a defense-sentencing memorandum filed under seal, alleging
financial misdeeds by former Maryland lieutenant governor Michael Steele. At
the time, Steele had just been elected chairman of the Republican National
Committee. He was never indicted and nothing of substance ever came from the
Justice Department’s investigation, but the damage was done. The Post ran the front-page headline “Steele
Campaign Spending Questioned.”
In 2011, Rick Perry’s college transcripts were leaked to
the Huffington Post.
In 2012, the National Organization for Marriage’s tax
records were published by the Human Rights Campaign., and the NOM accused the
Internal Revenue Service of leaking the information. In 2014, the IRS agreed to
pay the group $50,000 to settle a lawsuit over claims the agency had improperly
disclosed confidential tax information.
Earlier this year, a jury found that Pennsylvania
attorney general Kathleen Kane leaked confidential investigative material to a
Philadelphia newspaper to get revenge on a political enemy.
Have there been leaks of information damaging to
Democratic lawmakers? Sure, on occasion. Back in 1998, a judge ruled
prosecutors in Kenneth Starr’s office leaked grand jury information during the
investigation of Bill Clinton. And, of course, earlier this year WikiLeaks
released a trove of internal e-mails belonging to the Democratic National
Committee, apparently obtained by Russian hackers.
Yes, Republicans should be upset by the thought of
hackers — possibly working for a hostile foreign government — breaking into the
DNC’s servers and leaking their contents to influence the U.S. presidential
election. But if journalists wonder why many on the right aren’t all that upset
about it, this is why: A significant number of Republicans think the entire
celebrated culture of political journalism that relies on anonymous leaks is
corrupt and one-sided. They think a lot of people who have jobs that involve
handling sensitive information are driven by a partisan passion to expose any
information that could harm the GOP. They believe that university staff, court
employees, prosecutors, IRS agents, and state employees put partisan loyalty
ahead of any other oaths, rules, regulations, or laws. That perception may be
an excessive generalization, but it’s not entirely unfounded, either.
Tax returns are probably the most insidious form of a
leak, because everyone has to file them, and almost everyone prefers to keep
the details of their financial life private. We don’t have the choice to opt
out of giving all of our financial information to the government each year; we
take it on faith that the IRS will do its duty and protect our privacy. Most of
us avoid problems, but the examples of Bush, Perry, NOM, Steele, and Joe the
Plumber are a cautionary tale: If you become enough of a headache to Democrats,
then your confidential records become fair game.
We may never know who leaked Trump’s tax documents. A
rarely mentioned problem about anonymous sources is that you can’t rule out the
potential source that would most undermine faith in the system. And faith in
the system is circling the drain. In Sunday’s Times, reporter Craig urged more people to send her information,
declaring, “when people are worried that anything sent by email will leave
forensic fingerprints, ‘snail mail’ is a great way to communicate with us
anonymously.”
Sure. But it’s also a great way to ensure no one is held
accountable for breaking the law.
No comments:
Post a Comment