Will Republicans improve the performance of the House, as they vowed they would, or do the bidding of Donald Trump’s 2024 campaign?
Our Brittany Bernstein reports on the investigation into President Biden’s mishandling of classified intelligence announced by congressman James Comer of Kentucky, the new chairman of the now-Republican-led House Oversight Committee.
It is not only appropriate but important that Congress look into this matter, as a Democrat-led committee would undoubtedly do if a Republican had done what Biden apparently has. Yet, Republicans must bear in mind that this is a significant early test of whether they will improve the performance of the House, as they vowed they would do during last week’s drama over Kevin McCarthy’s quest to become speaker, or do the bidding of Donald Trump’s 2024 campaign, which is what Democrats predicted they’d do.
This is not an auspicious start.
As Brittany writes:
Comer also sent a letter to the National Archives [and Records Administration (NARA)] on Tuesday saying the committee plans to investigate “whether there is a political bias” at the agency, citing “inconsistent treatment of recovering classified records held by former President Trump and President Biden.” Comer requested that the agency turn over related documents and communications within 14 days and that senior Archives officials offer testimony by January 17.
“It appears that it’s another cover-up,” Comer told CBS News on Tuesday. “And we just have a lot of questions with respect to how Biden’s been treated verses how Donald Trump was treated.”
It is not unreasonable to wonder about political bias at NARA. As I’ve previously detailed, the archivist, Debra Seidel Wall, collaborated with the Biden Justice Department (its Office of Legal Counsel) to obscure the fact that Biden rejected Trump’s effort to assert executive privilege over files retained at Mar-a-Lago. (For obvious political reasons, Biden sought to distance himself, so Wall helped project the fiction that she, rather than Biden, was making the decision.) But, that said, it is asinine for Comer to compare NARA’s handling of the Biden and Trump situations as if the two were analogous.
Comer claims that NARA “instigated a public and unprecedented raid at Mar-a-Lago — former President Trump’s home — to retrieve presidential records.” That is a preposterous assertion. In reality, NARA quietly pleaded with Trump for nearly a year over the thousands of government records he was retaining in violation of the Presidential Records Act. Trump finally agreed to surrender what turned out to be some of the documents — about 15 boxes’ worth — in January 2022, only after NARA lawyer Gary Stern, having gotten nowhere with Trump’s representatives, told them that the agency might soon refer the matter to Congress.
When NARA officials reviewed the 15 boxes, they found several documents bearing classification markings. At that point, because this was evidence of unlawful retention of national-defense information (a federal crime) NARA referred the matter to the Justice Department. That was completely appropriate.
Months later, also after failed negotiations with Trump (who had no lawful basis to retain the materials at issue), the Justice Department issued a grand-jury subpoena — in effect, a court order demanding that Trump and his representatives produce any documents marked classified that the former president was continuing to hoard. It was Trump’s flouting of that subpoena that ultimately resulted in the August Mar-a-Lago search, and a more recent effort to have him held in contempt. NARA did not “instigate” the search, as Comer claims. The Justice Department did that, but only after Trump’s representatives provided a false sworn statement to the grand jury to the effect that Trump had fully complied with the subpoena — and only after prosecutors first sought and obtained permission from a federal magistrate-judge who found probable cause that Trump had committed three felonies.
In stark contrast, Biden’s lawyers evidently found the ten or so unlawfully retained classified documents in Biden’s private office at his Washington think tank (Penn Biden Center) on November 2. Reportedly, they immediately notified NARA, which promptly alerted the Justice Department — just as it had done in the Trump situation. Biden and his representatives have since cooperated with NARA to account for the documents, as well with the Justice Department in its investigation. Moreover, it is not NARA’s fault that, for two months, the Biden administration withheld information about the president’s mishandling of classified information. NARA didn’t publicly broadcast Trump’s violations, either: It notified the Justice Department, just as it did with Biden.
None of this excuses what Biden did. It is clear, though, that the incumbent president tried to mitigate the damage while Trump was mulishly combative. It is ridiculous, in any event, for Comer to portray Biden’s cooperation and Trump’s recalcitrance as equivalent situations. They’re not. Because of that, it would not have been surprising if NARA had treated them differently — if, as Comer misleadingly puts it, the agency had engaged in “inconsistent treatment [in] recovering classified records held by” Trump and Biden. But I don’t see how NARA can reasonably be faulted here; it seems to have been as consistent as the very different circumstances allowed.
House Republicans need to understand that the country is watching them closely right now, making up its mind about whether they are going to address the country’s deep problems or be the Trump hacks that Democrats say they are. What credibility are they going to have in probing the FBI and Big Tech if the public becomes convinced that they acting as Trump’s lawyers — and trying to defend the indefensible — rather than devoting their time to the protection of American civil liberties?