Trump’s Subpoenas Are Not Unprecedented Despite The Media Hysteria

The Trump administration has issued subpoenas for four New York Times journalists, requiring them to testify before a grand jury in a criminal investigation. 

The subpoenas come after the Times reported on security concerns involving Trump’s new presidential aircraft — a gift from Qatar. The purpose is to compel the journalists to reveal their confidential government sources in the investigation.

The media is, of course, outraged by Mr. Trump’s actions. Most leading outlets, including ABC, The Washington Post, and the Associated Press, have labeled the subpoenas “unprecedented” executive overreach. They are not.

Let’s examine the darling of the press: the Obama administration. President Obama prosecuted more leakers under the Espionage Act than any administration in history.

Mr. Trump’s actions are problematic. They raise genuine questions about press independence and government overreach. But let’s add some historical context.

As with so many things Mr. Trump does, the subpoenas are not actually a departure from the norm. They only look that way because everyone else did it in the shadows while he does it in broad daylight — and this largely has to do with a hostile media (toward Trump) versus a sympathetic one (toward any and all Democrats).

Much of the Obama surveillance was conducted in secret; the affected organizations learned about it later, after records had already been collected. In 2012, the Justice Department obtained two months of telephone records from the Associated Press without providing notice of any kind.

If anything, this secrecy is all the more troubling from a free-press standpoint. Trump obviously believes (in error) that he is fully legally justified in his actions — hence his pride and publicity in them. It’s harder to make that case about Obama, whose subterfuge implies at least a certain degree of doubt that he had the right to do what he did.

Even more notably, in 2009, Fox News reporter James Rosen published a story on North Korean nuclear weapons. The story was based on an intelligence report that had been leaked by an administration official.

In order to obtain a warrant for Rosen’s personal emails, phone contacts, and communications information, the affidavit baselessly characterized him as a possible “aider, abettor, or co-conspirator.” While Rosen was not charged, the criminal language allowed prosecutors to obtain his material with no advance notice.

Would someone like to explain to me how exactly that’s different, let alone milder, than Trump’s subpoenas?

When pressed with these facts, many Democrats will be quick to respond, “Sure, it was a problem when Obama did it, and it’s a problem now. Let’s bring it to a swift end.” I don’t disagree.

This response, however, is hugely disingenuous.

Only now that Obama is out of public office can it become an unforgivable action. You can tell me all you want that it’s a red line, but it never kept you from endorsing Obama. It doesn’t keep you from pining for the days when the president was an upstanding, humble citizen. What’s different this time?

While Obama did eventually draw the criticism of the mainstream media, it was far from a comparable reception. Obama’s abuse of the Espionage Act was treated as a mere footnote in his presidency. Meanwhile, Trump’s actions are an “unprecedented” threat to the democratic process.

This is selective memory at its finest. How many people, especially younger people, even know about the Obama scandals? It seems the media did such a good job running cover that they even forgot about them themselves.

To be clear: The Trump subpoenas are wrong. The Obama scandals were wrong. But the press is also wrong for its incessant fearmongering and selective crucifixion. If it wasn’t the end times then, it’s not the end times now.

You don’t get to pick and choose. This is another case where the press — and its blatant bias — has become the story rather than a pursuit of the truth.