“We are the Faculty”: Hamline Professors Demand President’s Resignation After Abandoning Due Process and Academic Freedom

We previously discussed the action of Hamline University not to renew the contract of an art professor, Erika Prater, who showed an image of Muhammad as part of an arts class. The action was an affront to both free speech and academic freedom.  Prater has sued. In the meantime, the faculty has voted 72-12 to condemn the action and demand that Hamline President Fayneese Miller resign. With the exception of the 12 faculty dissenters, it is a relatively rare demonstration of academic courage in standing up to an anti-free speech mob. They are correct. Miller should resign immediately based on what we already know about this scandal.

Christiane Gruber, a professor of Islamic art at the University of Michigan, wrote about the incident in a December 22 essay for New Lines MagazineMuslims object to showing the image of Muhammad as deeply offensive to their religion. One of the paintings is a depiction of Muhammad with a veil and halo from a 15th century manuscript and is in the collection of the Metropolitan Museum of Art.The other is a depiction of Muhammad receiving a divine revelation from the angel Gabriel. That work appeared in an early 14th century manuscript by the statesman and scholar Rashid-al-Din. Gruber wrote that the second image “is considered by scholars, curators and art collectors a masterpiece of Persian manuscript painting … often taught in Islamic art history classes at universities across the world, including in the U.S., Europe, the Arab world, Turkey and Iran.”According to the student newspaper, The Oracle, the incident occurred on October 6 and drew an objection from a Muslim student. Dr. Everett sent an email to all university employees that the use of the works in class were “undeniably inconsiderate, disrespectful and Islamophobic.”Professor Gruber raises a deeply disturbing lack of due process by the university. Neither Miller nor Everett evidence the slightest concern for due process or academic freedom as they denounced this professor:

“Neither before nor after these declarations was the faculty member given a public platform or forum to explain the classroom lecture and activity. To fill in the gap, on Dec. 6, an essay written by a Hamline professor of religion who teaches Islam explaining the incident along with the historical context and aesthetic value of Islamic images of Muhammad was published on The Oracle’s website. The essay was taken down two days later. One day after that, Hamline’s president and AVPIE sent a message to all employees stating that ‘respect for the observant Muslim students in that classroom should have superseded academic freedom.’”

Professor Eugene Volokh has posted some of the correspondence. There is also a petition to support this professor.  PEN America has condemned Hamline’s actions.

The now removed defense from the student newspaper was written by Prof. Mark Berkson, Chair of Hamline’s Religion department. Professor Berkson acknowledges that such works must be shown with great sensitivity toward Muslim students:

“First, a majority of the world’s Muslims today believe that visually representing the prophet Muhammad is forbidden. Many observant Muslims would never create an image of Muhammad and will strive to avoid seeing one. So professors must not require Muslim students who believe that representation is forbidden to look at these images, and they must give students fair warning if such images are going to appear anywhere in class—in a book, a slide show, a video, etc. It is my understanding that, in the Hamline class, the professor gave students advance notice that the image would be shown (both in the syllabus and verbally), allowed students to turn off the screen if they wished, and did not require them to visually engage with the painting. The intent was to educate, not to offend or show disrespect.”

However, he insisted that the work was germane and valuable from a pedagogical standpoint. His insightful and respectful letter should be read by everyone before reaching any conclusions in this controversy. The fact that it was removed only adds to the chilling environment of intolerance by Hamline.

The student editors of The Oracle have much to explain in removing the letter. The fact that they will not even allow a reasoned, alternative view to be read is an indictment of their newspaper and journalistic values, though it is hardly unique today. Indeed, it is the same intolerance shown increasingly by mainstream media.

In this now deleted letter, Professor Berkson noted:

“Since some Hamline administrators labeled the showing of the painting “Islamophobic” (in one case, the phrase “undeniably Islamophobic” was used), my question for those who use that word is – Exactly where does the Islamophobia lie? Islamophobia is often defined as fear, hatred, hostility, or prejudice against Muslims. The intention or motivation behind the act would seem to be essential here. In this case, the professor was motivated only to educate students about the history of Islamic art. The professor tried to ensure that Muslim students who have objections would be able to avoid seeing the images. So, when we look at intention, we can conclude that this was not Islamophobic.

Another possibility is that the very act of displaying an image of Muhammad is itself Islamophobic. But if this were the case, there are a number of very disturbing implications. First, it would mean that anybody who showed these images in a classroom, a book, or on their wall, would be an Islamophobe. Any scholar who wrote a book about Islamic art and included these images for discussion or analysis would be an Islamophobe. Even Muslims (and, as we will see, many Muslims throughout history have created and enjoyed these images) would be Islamophobic if they did this. Second, it would mean that these images could never be seen by, or shown to, anybody. In effect, it would require an erasure of an entire genre of Islamic art.

Should no student be able to see this art? And what would it mean for a liberal arts institution to deem an entire subject of study prohibited?

Finally, it seems that the interpretation of the administrators means that if an act is prohibited to members of a particular religion, then everyone has to incorporate that prohibition into their own lives. Let’s quickly consider an analogy. Eating pork is forbidden to observant Muslims and Jews. Clearly, it would be an act of Islamophobia or antisemitism if someone were to intentionally sneak pork into a dish that was going to be eaten by someone for whom it is forbidden. But does this mean that Aramark can no longer serve any dish with pork? Must everyone consider pork forbidden? Most of us would agree that as long as there are plenty of alternatives for Muslims and Jews, then the mere offering of a pork dish is not Islamophobic or antisemitic. In the case of images, does the fact that many (not all) Muslims consider images forbidden mean that all of us have to incorporate this prohibition into our lives? Giving students the opportunity to see the images as part of an education in Islamic art (since using images is an essential part of the pedagogy of art historians) is not Islamophobic as long as Muslim students are not required to see them and steps are taken to ensure that no student sees them unintentionally.”

Professor Berkson is trying to balance interests while striving to preserve the essential academic freedom needed in higher education.

“This incident is about balancing academic freedom and religious commitments, not about Islamophobia. The situation is not helped by making accusations against a faculty member who is simply trying to share and teach the history of Islamic art with students. It is especially disturbing that some administrators who used the word ‘Islamophobia’ never even spoke with the faculty member to get their perspective. When, as in the case here at Hamline, everyone involved has good intentions (intention is a key concept in Islam, and the Prophet Muhammad himself said that people will receive consequences for actions depending on their intentions) and is doing their best to honor principles (religious and academic) that are important to them, we can find our way forward in open conversation and mutual respect.”

In contrast, President Miller and Vice President Everett show utter disregard for countervailing values, particularly free speech and academic freedom. Indeed, they declare that “when we harm, we should listen rather than debate the merits of or extent of that harm.” So, as an academic institution, you do not debate “the merits” of such controversies?

Instead, they insist that “it is not our intent to place blame; rather, it is our intent to note that in the classroom incident…respect for the observant Muslim students in that classroom should have superseded academic freedom…Academic freedom is very important, but it does not have to come at the expense of care and decency toward others.”

So academics have academic freedom only to the extent that it is not considered by some to be a denial of care or decency? Notably, that standard is based on how a lecture is received by any student rather than how it was intended.

The faculty have now called for Miller’s resignation and there is ample reason for her removal if a resignation is not forthcoming. University presidents have a core obligation to protect free speech and academic freedom. Miller not only failed to offer due process to a faculty member, but she proceeded to yield to the mob in demanding her effective termination.

The case is reminiscent of the costly and cowardly actions of Oberlin in pursuing a family restaurant that it falsely accused of racism. The vengeful litigation continued despite the early refutation of the claims. It ended up costing a breathtaking $36 million for defamation. Oberlin President Carmen Twillie Ambar and the Board burned through millions in litigation costs above the damages rather than admit that the college was wrong in the targeting of this grocery. That money could have been used for scholarships and other worthy purposes. Instead, Amber and the Board will simply ask alumni to foot the bill for a legal effort that seems to become little more than a revenge fetish. There has been no serious pushback against Ambar by alumni or faculty.

Miller likely thought that there would be no costs to this action. After all, who wants to stand up to a mob for some lone art history teacher?

That is why this faculty vote is so important. It is a vote of no confidence and it is well based. My only regret is that there are 12 professors who voted against the very essence of our profession. The student editors at The Oracle could also learn from the courage of their faculty about the protection of free thought and free speech at their university.

Here is the letter.

Statement from Full Time Faculty of Hamline University

January 24, 2023

In response to the current events and crisis facing the Hamline community concerning academic freedom, the faculty of Hamline University stand by these statements:

We are distressed that members of the administration have mishandled this issue and great harm has been done to the reputation of Minnesota’s oldest university.

We, the faculty of Hamline University, stand for both academic freedom and the education of all students. We affirm both academic freedom and our responsibility to foster an inclusive learning community. Importantly, these values neither contradict nor supersede each other.

We respect the diverse voices, backgrounds, and experiences of the entire Hamline community (students, faculty, staff, and administrators), and support the right of all to have their voices heard.

We believe our diversity of knowledge and experience makes us a stronger, richer community. Without this diversity, we would incompletely represent the community we strive to be.

We defend the right to academic freedom for the purpose of a strong liberal arts education and to uphold the principles of democracy.

We reject unfounded accusations of Islamophobia.

We condemn the hateful speech and threats targeting students and other Hamline community members.

We stand for intellectual debate and sharing of resources and knowledge without fear of censorship or retaliation.

We stand for the right to challenge one another’s views, but not to penalize each other for holding them.

We call for the fair treatment of and due process for all Hamline community members.

We thank and applaud students, faculty, and others in the Hamline community and beyond, who have taken the time and had the courage to speak out.

As we no longer have faith in President Miller’s ability to lead the university forward, we call upon her to immediately tender her resignation to the Hamline University Board of  Trustees.

We are united in this statement.

We are the faculty of Hamline University.

66 thoughts on ““We are the Faculty”: Hamline Professors Demand President’s Resignation After Abandoning Due Process and Academic Freedom”

  1. This college president and the 12 fascists were probably supporter of Andres Serrano’s P*SS Christ which was a statute of Christ in a jar of urine…that was funded by taxpayers!!!! The left called us troglodytes for not wanting tax dollars supporting this “art”.

    Of course the left thinks that Islam is magic and Christianity is evil and should be shut down. Funny how the left thinks. They hate the Church for their position on gays but have no issue with Islam, or any Islamic country. They boycott North Carolina over a bathroom bill but won’t criticize Tehran and support sporting events in the ME.

  2. Both Miller and Everett are “diversity” hires and both should be terminated, along with the “inclusivity” department Everett is VP of. Further, the student newspaper editors should also be replaced because they clearly have no clue as to what an editor’s job is. The search for merit and excellence should begin in college.

  3. If you want your curriculum to comport with your religious beliefs, you should be attending a madrassa, not a university. Oh, that’s right the student was female and not welcome there.

  4. Frederic Douglas said: “The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.”

    . The Hamblin Faculty has now defined the limits of Hamlin’s Presidential tyranny.

  5. Seems like there might be other undisclosed complaints against the university president. This is a single issue that could be resolved, but the majority of the staff is demanding the president resign? Either these staffers have been sheltered far too long or there are underlying issues.

  6. If this post by JT doesn’t make a deposit into your emotional bank account, then you’re morally bankrupt.

    Thank you professor!

  7. “DISCORDANT INTERMIXTURE AND FOREIGN PROPENSITIES”

    “The influx of foreigners must, therefore, tend to produce a heterogeneous compound; to change and corrupt the national spirit; to complicate and confound public opinion; to introduce foreign propensities. In the composition of society, the harmony of the ingredients is all-important, and whatever tends to a discordant intermixture must have an injurious tendency.”

    – Alexander Hamilton
    _________________

    If this were still America, citizen/voters would be European and religious freedom would still be among Christian denominations.

    Karl Marx changed all that through the unparalleled and quintessential antithetical, anti-American, “Crazy Abe” Lincoln.

    Constitutional America persisted for a mere 71 years until Lincoln et al. commenced the incremental implementation of Marx’s principles.

    Charity does not mean gifting one’s “kingdom and treasure” to direct and mortal enemies, and to pitiable dependent and parasitic people who fear freedom and congregate in communism.

    It is mystical and uncanny how and why Ben Franklin came to admonish “ourselves and our Posterity” against losing “your” republic.

    He somehow knew that “you” did not possess the courage and resolve to “KEEP IT.”

    1. It is good to read someone of the same opinion of Lincoln. He was, in the end, his own vehicle for destroying the Union.

      1. “IF DESTRUCTION BE OUR LOT”

        “Crazy Abe” knew and was bound and determined to destroy America for the benefit of abolition.

        Lincoln was the “earnest of the epoch” leading America toward the “RECONSTRUCTION of a social world” for Karl Marx.

        Lincoln had no overwhelming desire for a peaceful solution or legal means to end slavery.

        Lincoln had no concern for the clear meaning and intent of the Constitution (secession is fully constitutional – secession was the essence of the American Founders).
        ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

        “At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer. If it ever reach us it must spring up amongst us; it cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen we must live through all time or die by suicide.”

        – Abraham Lincoln, Address Before the Young Men’s Lyceum of Springfield, Illinois, January 27, 1838

  8. Save Hillsdale College, the faculty at Hamline University practically stands alone in standing up for true academic freedom in America. If they continue, they might consider renaming the school Fort Apache after the 41st Precinct in the Bronx. Thank you, Jonathan, for an excellent article.

  9. “Holy Patrick Henry, Batman”! At last, a faculty with the cojones to turn the worm. DEI becomes DIE!

  10. Fayneese Miller and the 12 professors who voted in support of her are clearly idiots.

    If you don’t like depictions of things, don’t look. That’s what maplethorpe taught us decades ago.

    The fact that leftists align with muslims is absolutely amazing, incomprehensible, actually.

    1. The fact that leftists align with muslims is absolutely amazing, incomprehensible, actually.

      your comment is prime facie evidence that stupidity populates this forum. I usually ignore most of the asinine comments on here, and there are many. I wont let this one slide, though.

      Muslims are as varied as Christians. Some are holy and inspiring, while others betray their purported faith. Making global comments about a people of faith, Muslims, whom you clearly have zero knowledge of said religion, says volumes about you. I worked with a Muslim physician specialist at the university yesterday, a dept head. Kind, deferential, soft spoken, clothed in humility, treats patients and staff colleagues with class and respect, commands attention from physicians during medical cases, and a very dedicated doctor. I would submit myself to a medical procedure to this Muslim doctor in a heartbeat versus a blowhard Christian physician, many that there are.

      With free speech comes responsibilities. Your comment was irresponsible.

      I apologize, Diogenes, that comments like Neil’s exist.

      1. ” your comment is prime facie evidence that stupidity populates this forum. ”

        Estovir, stop virtue signaling at the expense of others. That is not what God intends.

        Good and evil exist in every religion, including your own, and your attitude reflects the land of the seven deadly sins. If Thomas Aquinas were here, he would tell you so. Such pride and wrath are not befitting one who wishes others to see him as aligned with righteousness.

        Diogenes is a good man no matter what religion he chooses because I think he believes in those things good people have in common. I doubt he believes in Sharia law, Abrogation or Taqiya. Diogenes is not trying to replace our Constitution with the Koran. Additionally, he does not choose the later, more violent portions of the Koran, nor does he lie and deceive.

        The left and the Islamists (note the ’ists’) work together to destroy this fine nation. The Muslim Brotherhood declaration lays out their plans to destroy the west. Anyone can google that statement brought to our attention during the Holy Land Trials. It is detailed and horrifying.

        The two groups use many of the same tactics to destroy the fiber of this nation, and you, Estovir, have fallen into the trap. Such guilelessness in an educated person is dangerous.

      2. Ahh, the 1% makes the 99% look good defense.

        Yeah muslims!!! Gays love them, women love them, everybody should love them. Just don’t show a picture of some dude they think divine. I’m glad you are feeling the benefits of your Stockholm syndrome, I suggest you move to a muslim run nation, or enroll at Hamline for the time being, to fully experience the wonder that is sharia.

        PS Don’t ever qualify my free speech, ever. ZERO responsibility comes with my comments, and effect of them, good or ill, is simply a manufacture of your imagination, which is apparently very malleable.

    2. “The fact that leftists align with muslims is absolutely amazing, incomprehensible, actually.” Actually there is far more in common between fanatical ideologues of the prog/left bend and your typical fanatic islamic jihadist. Both are convinced of their moral superiority, the license to do what ever is necessary to rid the world of the infidel and their blindness to their own ignorance. The humorous part is that the prog/left have their heads so far up their own *sses that they miss the similarity entirely; or else they they purposefully deflect that mirror image for the sake of the ultimate goal of world domination.

  11. The owners of Hamline University alone may “claim and exercise” dominion over that private property.

    Parents may pay the Hamline tuition or pay tuition elsewhere.

    Members of the faculty enjoy the freedom of speech and assembly off campus and are free to fulfill their contracts or breach their contracts.

    I believe this is the essence of American freedom, free enterprise, free markets and free market competition.

  12. Professor Berkson acknowledges that such works must be shown with great sensitivity toward Muslim students

    Professor Berkson is far too generous. Moslems who have a problem seeing depictions of Mohammed should not be studying Islamic art at a non-Moslem university. Depictions of Mohammed are an essential feature of Islamic art.

    Imagine a Christian student studying classical European art and objecting to being shown any nudes!

    1. Milhouse: Excellent point. This whole thing had the stench of a setup. How could anyone — even a college student — take an Islamic art course and not expect to see these images?

    2. Do not forget the fact that the prog/left uses – in fact urges – grievance groups to amplify their whine for the purpose of cultural destruction. I am certain that we had muslims studying within our university systems decades ago who would never have felt the need to cause chaos. These muslims are now just duped tools in a larger scheme to destroy western civilization, one brick at a time.

  13. In my mind is a picture of Mohammed with his finger emerging from his nostril covered in various earth tones which glop onto his tongue and the thought bubble over his head goes, “Ummm, we do taste like bacon!”

  14. time to end all federal aid and loans for colleges. STOP Woke!
    Also Tax all non-profits where anyone gets $100k+ you are a non-profit if you are paying people millions!

  15. These days I carry hand-sanitizer in a holster…just on the off chance that I mistakenly shake the hand of an academic, journalist, social worker, BLM’er, Antifa, Greta Thunberg, NYT editor, Harry & Meghan, Cher….

    1. wrong protection….you should carry a Constitution and Bill of Rights…to protect against the Mind Disease they are spreading!

  16. Seriously. What is it going to take? Is it not clear that leftist fascists have all but taken over higher ed? And I mean completely. I expect idiocy from the likes of Svelaz, (bad) Anonymous, Justice Holmes, Gigi, etc. who are either very old and retired and privileged or do this for money and change the minds of exactly zero people everyday (hope they are paying you well, at least. And you are still going to have to pay taxes on that s***), but seriously, the rest of you – you are willfully sending your kids to these places, and in most cases you are paying for it, and in the 21st century, you are paying a f***uva lot. Disavow yourselves now of the notion that most modern degrees are worth anything whatsoever. My niece got her degree fifteen years ago, and even then I could’ve passed her exams when I was in junior high school. Save the money and let your kid stay home, if you are that nonchalant about it. They will learn about the same.

    I have come to the conclusion that there are a great deal of us that still think college is is some sort of coming of age experience. It isn’t, and if you don’t want your kids indoctrinated, don’t send them, or be fine toothed comb about it (look at the least look at fire https://www.thefire.org). They will not be learning skills to make them better adults. You’d quite honestly be better served teaching them to read, buying them a set of classic books, and making them do chores for a single penny of an allowance.

    1. James,
      Well said.
      My daughter saw part of the take over of academia first hand. She kept her head down, worked hard and finished early and 3rd in her class.

      Higher education is no longer education but indoctrination. I agree with you. Teach you kids early and while they are young. Some colleges are still worth the price but they are becoming fewer and fewer. Soon that degree will not be worth the paper it is printed on.
      A plumber, HVAC, mechanic have better chances of succeeding in this new emerging world of wokeism.

      1. When you realize that Sheila Jackson Lee has a BA in political science from Yale it becomes quite evident that degrees are worthless these days. And affirmative action has greased the slide to that state of worthlessness,

      2. @upstat

        Certainly. My wife is a teacher and has had, in the past to do CTEL qualification in California. The first two components are actually about pedagogy, logic, and method. But component three is the most absurd, asinine, racist bull**** I have ever seen in my life, and it dates back to *1989*. It also effectively erases components one and two. But you have to have all three. This IS the liberal mindset, which is no mind at all.

        We didn’t have a wide scale www in 1989, so it stayed sequestered. Now? If one cares about this? You had better be relentless in raising your hand and your voice, and you’d best not waver, even a little bit.

        It is very telling that Schiff posted his outrage video initially on tik tok (the largest youth platform), and not YouTube, not Twitter. They are absolutely, 200%, gleefully doing their damndest to indoctrinate our youth, and because we are ignorant/lazy/can’t be bothered/gov will fix it – it’s working splendidly.

    2. Is it just the college experience you are worried about? I have grandkids. They (six of them) will all be homeschooled. I have totally given up on the ‘one-size-fits-all’ government schools who couldn’t care any less about what you want your kids taught. Look at the commentators on MSNBC (mostly lawyers from Ivy League schools). Look at what the medical profession has become and what they will do to young children and the unborn. Educate them yourself and then send them on to Hillsdale or Grove City. The rest of them are steaming pile of you know what.

    3. james: While I support your POV, I fear it’s too late. By the time these kids get to college they will already have been indoctrinated, starting from kindergarten, with junk science and CRT. College is where we get to see what 12 years of liberal CRT education has done to our children. And it ain’t pretty.

  17. I would be more concerned with the bunch of ideologues who hired this agenda-driven haridan in the first place. Until you root out the inner core of who is deciding how things are managed, firing one hapless moron and replacing her with a duplicate will get you nowhere. The root cause of our societal miseries of late go deep and beyond our borders and we need deal with those first and then set out house in order.

    1. Alma, what do you mean by “deep and beyond our borders”? The success of wokism in its “march through the institutions” has been extraordinary, and hard to explain. What is your theory of the “inner core?”

      1. Any sound history of the late 19th century up to the present in Western culture will illuminate just where we were slowly turned, by many world events, toward the path we are on now. It isn’t just one institution or person but a series of events that has enabled radical ideas (not necessarily new ones, mind you) to come to the forefront because of advancements in travel and communication for example. Much as the printing press was able to coalesce the various grievances prior to Martin Luther or the flaws of Divine Right rule etc, our new world has allowed wrong headed ideas to flourish because of general increased affluence, increased communication to the point where large groups of people can turn events in directions that, when seen from a distance, were not as beneficial as imagined by idealists. I would list the UN and The Great Society legislation of the 1960s as good examples of that.

        1. Alma, without discounting previous attacks on our Constitution, if we had to pick a decade where America became the realistic target for those against the Constitution and the individual freedoms our nation offered, I would choose the decade of the thirties. It was then that the enemies created an infrastructure and gained traction.

          In the following decade, we saw the left cause the country to focus on a man’s personality who was correct rather than what the man, Joe McCarthy, was correctly saying. That is the decade when lying and deception took force and started to come out in the open, leading to the following decade of destruction known as the 60s.

  18. Is Turley going to ignore the Mike Pence classified doc debacle? It seems he would have to face the fact the Biden is not the only one who has problems with classified documents. it seems Republicans are having a hard time with their current narrative because they would have to apply it to Pence too. Are republicans going to investigate why Pence took classified documents to his home? Why did he lawyers search instead of the FBI as Turley demanded in earlier columns? It’s going to be interesting to see what kinds of excuses he comes up with.

    1. The subject of the post is free speech and academic freedom. While the handling of classified documents by Biden, Pence, and Trump should be open to discussion, it would be helpful to remain on subject.

    2. @Svelaz

      You are an idiot that convinces no one of nothing. 🙄 But by all means, carry on old man, carry on.

      1. James, it is called “thread jacking” which is the posting of something that has nothing to do with the topic under discussion in the hope of diverting readers to another a topic of the thread-jacker’s choice. The solution is simple, put up a sign that says “DO NOT FEED THE TROLL”. Ignore the trolls and let them rant on. Robbing them of their jollies takes away their fun.

    3. Why Pence had his lawyer search, rather than the FBI, is very simple: He had no knowledge at all that there was anything untoward there. He had no particular reason to suspect that there was anything. So what should he have told the FBI? Please come to my house and search it just in case there is something illegal?! He was merely worried, with the current news in mind, that who knows, there might be something there, so he asked his lawyer to look, just in case. The moment the lawyer found something that he shouldn’t look at, he reported it promptly.

      That is very different from Biden’s case, where for some reason he was supposedly having lawyers moving papers when they “accidentally” found these documents. Why were they looking in the first place? Clearing out an office, when you have no reason to suspect anything illegal, is a job for moving men, not highly paid lawyers. And when they did find it, they did NOT report it to law enforcement. They reported it to the White House, which sat on it for a while, and eventually reported it NOT to law enforcement but to the friendly staff at the archive. And still covered up the further “discoveries” until it became inevitable that they’d become public.

      Contrast all that with Trump, who had the documents in a secure facility that the FBI had approved, and was in the middle of negotiations with the archive over what should be sent there and what he could keep.

    4. WH officials announced the Biden admin will be sending 31 M1A1 Abrams Main Battle Tanks, multiple M88 recovery vehicles, and some 500 smaller support vehicles.
      The Doomsday Clock is now at 90 seconds to Midnight, the closest it has ever been to Midnight.
      If it has not already, WWIII just may become a reality this year.
      The world just may be on the brink of nuclear Armageddon and you are moaning about classified documents?
      Get a clue.

      1. Every time Putin or one of his flunkies says the word “nuclear” I yawn. He’s better for sleep than Ambien.

    5. Svelaz, was Pence’s kid in bed with UK or the CCP? Please see the letter Hunter wrote that appears to be using TOP SECRET INTELLIGENCE to his “business partner” after he told him to buy a burner phone. Wake up, loser.

Leave a Reply