The Biden - Harris Era.

[NattyBohChamps04]

Republicans Finally Admit They Have No Incriminating Evidence on Joe Biden and Family: A 65-page report, a press conference, and nothing to show for it

I'm sure one more investigation will yield something.

[old salt]

https://www.nationalreview.com/2023/05/ ... se-report/

Biden Campaign Collaborated with Intel Officials to Falsely Portray Hunter Emails as Disinformation: House Report

By ANDREW C. MCCARTHY, May 10, 2023

The emails demonstrated that Joe Biden was complicit in Hunter’s — indeed, the Biden family’s — lucrative business of monetizing Joe’s political influence.

The ballyhooed letter signed by 51 former U.S. intelligence officials, portraying the New York Post’s October 2020 reporting on Hunter Biden’s laptop as the product of a Russian influence operation, was itself a classic disinformation campaign executed by former U.S. intelligence officials, and abetted by the CIA itself, at the behest of the Biden campaign and in coordination with Democrat-friendly media.

That is the conclusion of a joint interim report released today by investigators from two House committees — specifically, the Judiciary and Intelligence Committees, run by Ohio Republicans Jim Jordan and Mike Turner, respectively — as well as Jordan’s newly formed Subcommittee on Weaponization of the Federal Government.

The 68-page report, supported by significant witness testimony and records of electronic communications, relates that the prime mover of the letter was Antony Blinken, then a Biden campaign adviser, who was later appointed secretary of state following President Biden’s election victory — which was given a substantial boost by the disinformation letter. While Blinken now poses as a scrupulous career diplomat above the grimy world of politics and bleats that he did not expressly direct the writing of a letter, he willfully set the project in motion.

The Post’s reporting, drawing on data from the laptop, especially Hunter Biden’s emails, demonstrated that Joe Biden, the former vice president and then Democratic nominee for president, was complicit in Hunter’s — indeed, the Biden family’s — lucrative business of monetizing Joe’s political influence. (Separately, the House Oversight Committee released a report on Biden influence-peddling today.) Though the family reaped millions of dollars from this enterprise, particularly from apparatchiks of the Communist Chinese regime, Vice President Biden had indignantly — if implausibly — denied both knowledge of it and discussions with Hunter about it. The Biden campaign was thus deeply concerned about the impact of the Post’s reporting, with the 2020 election less than three weeks away and polling showing that Trump was narrowing Biden’s lead.

According to the testimony of former acting CIA director Michael Morell, who was the main author of the letter and led the effort to recruit signatories, he was contacted by Blinken — the former deputy secretary of state with whom he worked in the Obama administration — three days after the Post broke the laptop story on October 14, 2020. Morell had not read the Post’s report and had no intention of getting involved or writing a letter until after speaking with Blinken. He was, nevertheless, being touted at the time as the potential CIA director if Biden won the election.

Morell recalled that Blinken did not direct him, in so many words, to write a letter. Yet they clearly discussed that it would be helpful for former vice president Biden to have ammunition to push back against what it was assumed would be then-president Trump’s highlighting of the Post’s reporting in the presidential debate that was coming a few days later — on October 22. Blinken also planted the seed in Morell’s mind that the most effective pushback would be to portray the Post’s reporting as the product of Russian disinformation. He pointedly asked whether Morell believed that Russian intelligence agents were involved in disseminating the Hunter Biden emails — notwithstanding that Morell had not read the reporting about the emails. Just in case Blinken’s elliptical words had failed to convey loudly and clearly enough what the campaign wanted, he also emailed Morell a USA Today article titled “A tabloid got a trove of data on Hunter Biden from Rudy Giuliani. Now, the FBI is probing a possible disinformation campaign.”

Morell proceeded to do some research of his own. He also consulted with Marc Polymeropoulos, the CIA’s former acting chief of operations for Europe and Asia — a credential that would lend credibility to a claim of Russian disinformation. Polymeropoulos agreed to co-write the letter, producing the first draft. He told the committees that Morell did not tell him with whom he was dealing in the Biden campaign, but “that someone from kind of the Biden world had asked for this.”

Morell maintained that he and others truly were concerned that Russia could be interfering in the election. They did not have any evidence, however, that Russia was in any way involved in the Hunter emails or their dissemination.

Meantime, Trump’s national-intelligence director, John Ratcliffe, issued a public statement to the effect that U.S. intelligence agencies had no indication that Russian intelligence services had played any role in the Post’s reporting. (Ratcliffe was responding to an unsupported claim by a top House Democrat, Adam Schiff, that the Russians were behind it.) Morell and his Biden-supporting colleagues sloughed off Ratcliffe’s statement, rationalizing that he lacked their depth of intelligence experience. Still, Morell conceded to the committees, he had no actual evidence of Russian involvement, just an inchoate sense that there were many ways Moscow could have been involved.

This is why, after Morell edited Polymeropoulos’s draft, the proposed letter he circulated to potential signers described the Post’s reporting as having the “feel” of a Russian operation. Former Obama director of national intelligence James Clapper, who similarly had no proof of Russian involvement, suggested that Morell “strengthen the verbiage” of the letter by amending this vague “feel” language. Clapper proposed instead an assertion that the Post’s reporting bore “all the classic earmarks of a Soviet/Russian information operation.” Morell made this “editorial” change, Clapper having said he’d “gladly sign on.” Former CIA director John Brennan, who had succeeded Morell and who worked closely with Clapper in the Obama-Biden administration, also signed on, congratulating Morell on a “good initiative.”

Morell conceded that he wanted the letter published because he wanted Biden to win the election. Potential signers were told that the authors “believe the Russians were involved in some way in the Hunter Biden email issue,” though no such way was actually explained. The email added, “We think Trump will attack Biden on this issue at this week’s debate.” The point, former intelligence officials were told, was to have Biden armed to respond to Trump with “perspectives on this from Russia watchers and other seasoned experts.”

Because CIA officers sign lifetime agreements that prohibit the unauthorized dissemination of classified information, Morell had to ensure that the letter go through a review by CIA’s Prepublication Classification Review Board (PCRB). As the CIA’s former top official who was seen as its potential future boss, Morell told the agency’s PCRB component in a 6:34 a.m. email that this was a “rush job” because he needed to get the letter out “as soon as possible.” He got an acknowledgment shortly after 7 a.m., and the letter was approved for publication as written by around 5 p.m. — warp speed by government standards.

Though the CIA is a government agency that is supposed to refrain from politics, it appears that the PCRB recruited at least one former intelligence official to sign on to the letter orchestrated by the Biden campaign. Former CIA official David Cariens happened to have written a book that was being reviewed by the PCRB at the same time Morell’s letter was being reviewed. The CIA official who was in charge of reviewing Cariens’s book told him about the Morell letter and encouraged him to sign. Cariens told the official that he and his wife, also a former CIA agent, would sign on, and they are in fact among the 51 signatories.

Morell conceded to the committee that it would be “inappropriate” for the CIA to have promoted the letter, and Polymeropoulos added that such an action by the CIA would be “incredibly unprofessional” — particularly if Cariens had been led to believe his agreement to sign the letter would influence the PCRB’s approval of his manuscript. (Moreover, the PCRB process is supposed to be a confidential one, in which information about one applicant’s writing project is not shared with other applicants.) The letter’s principal authors told the committees that they did not seek or encourage that kind of assistance from the CIA.

At present, it appears that the Carienses signed on because they wanted to, not because they thought approval of David Cariens’s book hinged on signing the letter. The committees are continuing to investigate the CIA’s actions, but they report that the agency is stonewalling their demands for production of relevant files.

Once the letter was final and 51 signatures had been gathered, Morell and his colleagues worked with the Biden campaign to shop it to preferred media outlets. For this purpose, Nick Shapiro, who had communications experience at the CIA and the White House, was recruited. The imperative was to get the letter published before the Trump–Biden debate. They initially offered an exclusive to the Washington Post, and when it didn’t bite, to the Associated Press. The AP also declined, but Shapiro finally hit pay dirt with Politico’s Natasha Bertrand (who’d reported prodigiously on scantly supported claims of Trump collusion with Russia).

The letter’s drafters and signers knew their statement would be spun as a finding that it was Russian disinformation. Lacking proof that this was the case, they realized their reputations would suffer if they were seen as baselessly branding the Hunter emails as a Russian intelligence operation for Biden’s political benefit (i.e., if they were seen as doing exactly what they were doing). Many of them thus wanted Morell to build in some deniability. As a result, a caveat was buried in the letter: “We want to emphasize that we do not know if the emails provided to the New York Post by President Trump’s personal attorney, Rudolph Giuliani, are genuine or not and that we do not have evidence of Russian involvement.”

The caveat was strictly CYA. Morell admitted to the committees that he knew this nuance would be lost in the publication of the letter because “hyperbole” is the coin of the political realm. In the event, the screaming headline on Bertrand’s October 19 Politico report on the letter was “Hunter Biden story is Russian disinfo, dozens of former intel officials say.”

Far from trying to correct Bertrand’s misstatement, Morell sent the signatories a self-congratulatory October 20 email, observing that “Politico did a nice job getting out the story of our letter.” The committees note that Morell “expressed no concern about the story’s conclusory headline that the laptop was Russian disinformation.” The Politico story was widely shared by such Biden campaign cheerleaders as Jen Psaki (who would soon become the Biden White House press secretary). One signatory, Thomas Fingar, a former Bush-43 national-security official, tried to get colleagues at Stanford University to promote the letter because it “conveys our judgment that the Hunter Biden emails story . . . is actually Russian disinformation.”

The letter had the desired effect. It was reported in major media outlets as an authoritative assessment that the Hunter Biden emails were a Russian disinformation operation. More to the point, on the evening of October 22, at the last presidential debate, when Trump brought up “the laptop from hell,” Biden was ready, replying:

Look, there are 50 former national intelligence folks who said that what this, he’s accusing me of is a Russian plan. They have said that this has all the characteristics — four–five former heads of the CIA, both parties, say what he’s saying is a bunch of garbage.

Biden made no mention of the fact that his campaign had orchestrated the letter and worked to arrange its media publication and dissemination. The committees’ report reproduces email traffic in which the letter’s signatories pat themselves on the back over Biden’s “really cool” use of the letter to deflect Trump’s criticism. After the debate, Morell was called by Biden campaign chairman Steve Ricchetti, who thanked him for putting out the statement.

Remarkably, after they exploited their former government positions for partisan purposes, some of the most prominent signatories on the letter, including Brennan and former NSA director Mike Hayden, expressed outrage that Congress was investigating, as if all they had done was exercise their First Amendment rights to participate in politics as private citizens. They discussed the possibility of a coordinated response. The committees recount that, “to his credit,” Morell rejected that idea, opining that coordination would make signatories vulnerable to a claim of complicity in “a conspiracy to obstruct a congressional investigation.”

The three House committees are continuing their investigation. In closing the interim report, they concluded that there is a direct line between the former intelligence officials’ letter deceptively depicting the Post’s reporting as Russian disinformation and the suppression of that reporting by major social-media platforms in the critical final days of the 2020 campaign.

[jhu72]

House oversight of Biden is finding nothing burgers.

[a fan]

https://www.nationalreview.com/2023/05/ ... se-report/

Biden Campaign Collaborated with Intel Officials to Falsely Portray Hunter Emails as Disinformation: House Report

By ANDREW C. MCCARTHY, May 10, 2023

Translation: as a Republican operative, I am OUTRAGED that former Intel officials didn't play along with Giuliani's smear campaign where he gave the NYPost exclusive "information" that no one else could verify.....just weeks before the election.

[Seacoaster(1)]

Steve Doocy to James Comer this morning: "You don't actually have any facts to that point. You've got some circumstantial evidence. And the other thing is, of all those names, the one person who didn't profit -- there's no evidence that Joe Biden did anything illegally."

Ron Johnson concedes there is now and may never be any evidence of wrongdoing by Biden. More of an aura I guess.

But the YAs of the world are ready to believe it and vote for Trump a third time.

[Farfromgeneva]

Economist-my argument since he took office

https://www.economist.com/leaders/2023/ ... ndant-jobs

Joe Biden is more responsible for high inflation than for abundant jobs

The main effect of the president’s economic policies has been to boost prices

May 11th 2023
The way Joe Biden tells it, the only part of his economic record that really matters is jobs. America’s roaring labour market beat expectations again in April. The unemployment rate is lower than in any year since 1969. The share of 15- to 64-year-olds in employment has surpassed its pre-pandemic peak, which was itself the highest seen since 2007. Mr Biden likes to tell people that his presidency, which began in the midst of a rapid recovery from covid lockdowns, has coincided with more monthly job creation, on average, than any other in history. Provided America avoids a debt-ceiling crisis, and the associated halt to federal spending and probable lay-offs, the booming labour market looks like a ticket to re-election in 2024.

Listen to this story.
Enjoy more audio and podcasts on iOS or Android.

Unfortunately for Mr Biden, however, another part of his record tells a less flattering story. High inflation continues to imperil the economy and vex voters. And placing his record in a global context reveals that he is more responsible for surging prices than he is for abundant jobs.


Mr Biden is right that America’s post-covid jobs recovery has been exceptional by historical standards. After the global financial crisis it took 13 years, by some measures, for the labour market to regain its health. This time it has taken little more than three years. The White House attributes surging employment to the $1.9trn “rescue plan” Mr Biden unleashed shortly after taking office in 2021. It contributed nearly a third of America’s total pandemic-related fiscal stimulus, which was worth an astonishing 26% of GDP, more than twice the average in the rich world.

If the Biden stimulus had been responsible for the jobs boom, though, you would expect America’s labour market to be stronger than those of its peers. But in Canada, France, Germany and Italy working-age employment rates surpassed pre-pandemic highs by the end of 2021; Japan followed in 2022. Among the g7 group of economies America has beaten to a full recovery only Brexit-blighted Britain, where the employment rate is still lower than it was at the end of 2019.

That employment bounced back in most places suggests that America’s jobs recovery had more to do with the unusual nature of the pandemic recession, brought about by lockdowns and social distancing, than with Mr Biden’s gargantuan stimulus. The extra public spending surely boosted demand for workers, but what followed was a historic surge in job vacancies and worker shortages as the economy overheated. Actual employment would almost certainly have shot up anyway. By the time Mr Biden came to office the jobs recovery was already two-thirds complete, having defied economists’ gloomy predictions.

Mr Biden’s stimulus did, however, put a rocket under inflation. In April “core” consumer prices, which exclude energy and food, were 13.4% higher than when he came to office. They have risen more than in other g7 countries, and their acceleration coincided with the introduction of Mr Biden’s stimulus. Research suggests that, even by September 2022, the largesse was pushing up core inflation by about four percentage points.

The White House is not solely responsible for inflation: the Federal Reserve failed to raise interest rates in time to offset the fiscal stimulus, and the energy crisis that followed Russia’s invasion of Ukraine made a bad problem worse. But it was Mr Biden who lit the inflationary touch-paper—and whose signature policies are probably still boosting prices. It is now clear that the Inflation Reduction Act, which was supposed to cool the economy by shrinking deficits, will in fact widen them, owing to the higher-than-forecast take-up of its clean-energy tax credits.

Where America’s recent record looks exceptionally good is growth. The IMF forecasts that its GDP per person will this year be 4.6% larger than in 2019, easily the biggest increase among the g7 economies. Sadly for Mr Biden, though, this has little to do with him. The outperformance reflects better growth in productivity, not a faster employment rebound. America exports more energy than it imports, meaning in aggregate it benefited from surging fuel prices. And its pandemic spending from 2020 onwards focused more on supporting incomes than preserving jobs, resulting in a faster reallocation of workers around the economy than in Europe, which relied on subsidised furlough schemes. Both factors predate Mr Biden’s presidency.

Voters seem to sense that the main effect of the president’s economic policies to date has been to worsen inflation. Polls show that far more Americans think Donald Trump, Mr Biden’s predecessor and probable opponent in 2024, did a better job than Mr Biden of handling the economy, than the reverse. The longer inflation persists, the more likely it becomes that the Fed keeps rates high enough to tip America into recession—perhaps around the time of the election. Mr Biden’s largesse could go down as the mistake that let Mr Trump back into office. ■

[Brooklyn]

Republicans Finally Admit They Have No Incriminating Evidence on Joe Biden and Family: A 65-page report, a press conference, and nothing to show for it

I'm sure one more investigation will yield something.

https://i.imgur.com/1PL6cwd.png

[Typical Lax Dad]

https://www.economist.com/leaders/2023/ ... essimistic

In the 1940s and early 1950s America built a new world order out of the chaos of war. For all its shortcomings, it kept the peace between superpowers and underpinned decades of growth that lifted billions out of poverty. Today that order, based on global rules, free markets and an American promise to uphold both, is fraying. Toxic partisanship at home has corroded confidence in America’s government. The financial crisis of 2007-09 dented faith in markets. America’s failures in Iraq and Afghanistan undermined its claim to spread democracy. Today most countries refuse to heed its call to enforce sanctions on Russia. And China’s rise has spurred American politicians to take a more selfish, zero-sum approach to geopolitics.

China’s rise has also increased the threat of war. In a conversation with The Economist, Henry Kissinger, who will be 100 this month, warns that China and America are “on the path” to confrontation. “Both sides have convinced themselves that the other represents a strategic danger,” he says. The stakes could not be higher: both are nuclear-armed. Both are also dabbling with unpredictable artificial intelligence (ai). The elder statesmen’s eldest statesman worries that, just as before the first world war, the superpowers will stumble into catastrophe.

Since arriving in the Oval Office in 2021, Joe Biden has developed a new strategy to preserve American pre-eminence and reduce the risk of conflict. Jake Sullivan, the latest of Mr Kissinger’s successors as national security adviser, recently gave the fullest account yet of this Biden doctrine. His narrative weaves together middle-class prosperity, defence and climate change. He repudiates the free-market “Washington consensus” and calls for the government to play a muscular role in society, with a strong emphasis on national security.


This means hyperactive industrial policy. Big subsidies will catalyse private investment in semiconductors and clean energy. Export controls will create “a small yard and high fence” to keep selected technology with potential military uses out of unfriendly hands. At the same time, the administration is softening its rhetoric. Instead of “decoupling” from China’s economy, it talks of “de-risking”. It wants to find common ground on climate change, African debt and even Ukraine. On May 10th and 11th Mr Sullivan spent eight hours with his Chinese counterpart, the first high-level contact for months.

Behind the doctrine is a belief that a virtuous circle can make America and the world safer. State intervention and protectionism will boost industry, helping the middle class and cooling America’s populist fevers. Less erratic leadership (after Donald Trump’s) will restore America’s authority abroad, even if the Biden team breaks a few global economic rules. The relationship with China will be managed with “strategic maturity”. As a precaution America will keep spending large sums on its military forces to deter China from aggression.

Will the new doctrine work? After the chaos of the Trump years, Mr Biden’s commitment to diplomacy is welcome. It will be on display at the g7 summit this week. He is right that American foreign policy must deal with new challenges, from Chinese coercion to climate change. However, especially when compared with the post-1945 order, the Biden doctrine is flawed. Its diagnosis of America’s problems is too pessimistic, and some of its prescriptions would make America weaker.

Start with the economy. Despite what many believe, America’s economic power is not declining. With 4% of the world’s people, it generates 25% of global output, a share unchanged since 1980. No other big country is as prosperous or innovative. As we noted last week, the size of China’s economy is unlikely ever to surpass America’s by much. The main source of America’s strength is creative destruction and open markets in a rules-based global economy. So although Mr Biden is right to reinforce the social safety-net, his state-led, insular economic vision may ultimately erode living standards and American clout.


The Biden doctrine seeks to stabilise relations with an autocratic and paranoid China. In this task it is hampered by a second flaw: it muddles legitimate policies with America-first rule-bending. Mr Sullivan wants to combine export controls with co-operative trade, and an arms race with collaboration. But China’s leaders think this strategy is meant to keep China down. America’s case would be stronger if export controls didn’t keep expanding, if Trump-era tariffs were not still in place and if its politicians were not vying to outhawk each other on China. The lack of agreement on trade makes everything harder. Never mind rules on ai, America and China have no system for nuclear-arms control: China’s arsenal will almost quadruple by 2035.

The final flaw concerns allies. Mr Biden has backed Ukraine and revived nato and alliances in Asia. Yet America’s unpredictable economic nationalism and unwillingness to offer access to its markets undermines its influence. Europe fears a subsidy race and worries escalating tensions with China will cause it severe damage: our calculations show Germany’s economy is twice as exposed to China as America’s is. The decay of global rules is accelerating the embrace of a transactional approach to foreign policy by emerging economies. The post-1945 order rested on American constancy: each administration was guided by predictable interests. Today allies and enemies know chaos may follow the election in 2024. Trumpian dysfunction is not Mr Biden’s fault, but it makes it vital to be predictable and open now.

Free, open and predictable
Americans need to be persuaded that a more optimistic, positive-sum approach is in their interests. This is the key that will keep their country strong and unlock a better foreign policy, by allowing it to help forge new global rules on trade, climate, ai and more that old allies and new ones can rely on. Such a revived global order would be the best defence against an autocratic one led by China. Unfortunately the Biden doctrine fails to rebut the narrative of American decline and so has not resolved the tension between the country’s toxic politics and its role as the linchpin of a liberal order. Unless America looks out at the world with self-confidence, it will struggle to lead it.■

[Farfromgeneva]

https://www.economist.com/leaders/2023/ ... essimistic

In the 1940s and early 1950s America built a new world order out of the chaos of war. For all its shortcomings, it kept the peace between superpowers and underpinned decades of growth that lifted billions out of poverty. Today that order, based on global rules, free markets and an American promise to uphold both, is fraying. Toxic partisanship at home has corroded confidence in America’s government. The financial crisis of 2007-09 dented faith in markets. America’s failures in Iraq and Afghanistan undermined its claim to spread democracy. Today most countries refuse to heed its call to enforce sanctions on Russia. And China’s rise has spurred American politicians to take a more selfish, zero-sum approach to geopolitics.

China’s rise has also increased the threat of war. In a conversation with The Economist, Henry Kissinger, who will be 100 this month, warns that China and America are “on the path” to confrontation. “Both sides have convinced themselves that the other represents a strategic danger,” he says. The stakes could not be higher: both are nuclear-armed. Both are also dabbling with unpredictable artificial intelligence (ai). The elder statesmen’s eldest statesman worries that, just as before the first world war, the superpowers will stumble into catastrophe.

Since arriving in the Oval Office in 2021, Joe Biden has developed a new strategy to preserve American pre-eminence and reduce the risk of conflict. Jake Sullivan, the latest of Mr Kissinger’s successors as national security adviser, recently gave the fullest account yet of this Biden doctrine. His narrative weaves together middle-class prosperity, defence and climate change. He repudiates the free-market “Washington consensus” and calls for the government to play a muscular role in society, with a strong emphasis on national security.


This means hyperactive industrial policy. Big subsidies will catalyse private investment in semiconductors and clean energy. Export controls will create “a small yard and high fence” to keep selected technology with potential military uses out of unfriendly hands. At the same time, the administration is softening its rhetoric. Instead of “decoupling” from China’s economy, it talks of “de-risking”. It wants to find common ground on climate change, African debt and even Ukraine. On May 10th and 11th Mr Sullivan spent eight hours with his Chinese counterpart, the first high-level contact for months.

Behind the doctrine is a belief that a virtuous circle can make America and the world safer. State intervention and protectionism will boost industry, helping the middle class and cooling America’s populist fevers. Less erratic leadership (after Donald Trump’s) will restore America’s authority abroad, even if the Biden team breaks a few global economic rules. The relationship with China will be managed with “strategic maturity”. As a precaution America will keep spending large sums on its military forces to deter China from aggression.

Will the new doctrine work? After the chaos of the Trump years, Mr Biden’s commitment to diplomacy is welcome. It will be on display at the g7 summit this week. He is right that American foreign policy must deal with new challenges, from Chinese coercion to climate change. However, especially when compared with the post-1945 order, the Biden doctrine is flawed. Its diagnosis of America’s problems is too pessimistic, and some of its prescriptions would make America weaker.

Start with the economy. Despite what many believe, America’s economic power is not declining. With 4% of the world’s people, it generates 25% of global output, a share unchanged since 1980. No other big country is as prosperous or innovative. As we noted last week, the size of China’s economy is unlikely ever to surpass America’s by much. The main source of America’s strength is creative destruction and open markets in a rules-based global economy. So although Mr Biden is right to reinforce the social safety-net, his state-led, insular economic vision may ultimately erode living standards and American clout.


The Biden doctrine seeks to stabilise relations with an autocratic and paranoid China. In this task it is hampered by a second flaw: it muddles legitimate policies with America-first rule-bending. Mr Sullivan wants to combine export controls with co-operative trade, and an arms race with collaboration. But China’s leaders think this strategy is meant to keep China down. America’s case would be stronger if export controls didn’t keep expanding, if Trump-era tariffs were not still in place and if its politicians were not vying to outhawk each other on China. The lack of agreement on trade makes everything harder. Never mind rules on ai, America and China have no system for nuclear-arms control: China’s arsenal will almost quadruple by 2035.

The final flaw concerns allies. Mr Biden has backed Ukraine and revived nato and alliances in Asia. Yet America’s unpredictable economic nationalism and unwillingness to offer access to its markets undermines its influence. Europe fears a subsidy race and worries escalating tensions with China will cause it severe damage: our calculations show Germany’s economy is twice as exposed to China as America’s is. The decay of global rules is accelerating the embrace of a transactional approach to foreign policy by emerging economies. The post-1945 order rested on American constancy: each administration was guided by predictable interests. Today allies and enemies know chaos may follow the election in 2024. Trumpian dysfunction is not Mr Biden’s fault, but it makes it vital to be predictable and open now.

Free, open and predictable
Americans need to be persuaded that a more optimistic, positive-sum approach is in their interests. This is the key that will keep their country strong and unlock a better foreign policy, by allowing it to help forge new global rules on trade, climate, ai and more that old allies and new ones can rely on. Such a revived global order would be the best defence against an autocratic one led by China. Unfortunately the Biden doctrine fails to rebut the narrative of American decline and so has not resolved the tension between the country’s toxic politics and its role as the linchpin of a liberal order. Unless America looks out at the world with self-confidence, it will struggle to lead it.■

Doesn’t seem new just swapping out of temporal variables from standard corporate left policy but a few points I strongly agree with a bolded.

[Typical Lax Dad]

https://www.economist.com/leaders/2023/ ... essimistic

In the 1940s and early 1950s America built a new world order out of the chaos of war. For all its shortcomings, it kept the peace between superpowers and underpinned decades of growth that lifted billions out of poverty. Today that order, based on global rules, free markets and an American promise to uphold both, is fraying. Toxic partisanship at home has corroded confidence in America’s government. The financial crisis of 2007-09 dented faith in markets. America’s failures in Iraq and Afghanistan undermined its claim to spread democracy. Today most countries refuse to heed its call to enforce sanctions on Russia. And China’s rise has spurred American politicians to take a more selfish, zero-sum approach to geopolitics.

China’s rise has also increased the threat of war. In a conversation with The Economist, Henry Kissinger, who will be 100 this month, warns that China and America are “on the path” to confrontation. “Both sides have convinced themselves that the other represents a strategic danger,” he says. The stakes could not be higher: both are nuclear-armed. Both are also dabbling with unpredictable artificial intelligence (ai). The elder statesmen’s eldest statesman worries that, just as before the first world war, the superpowers will stumble into catastrophe.

Since arriving in the Oval Office in 2021, Joe Biden has developed a new strategy to preserve American pre-eminence and reduce the risk of conflict. Jake Sullivan, the latest of Mr Kissinger’s successors as national security adviser, recently gave the fullest account yet of this Biden doctrine. His narrative weaves together middle-class prosperity, defence and climate change. He repudiates the free-market “Washington consensus” and calls for the government to play a muscular role in society, with a strong emphasis on national security.


This means hyperactive industrial policy. Big subsidies will catalyse private investment in semiconductors and clean energy. Export controls will create “a small yard and high fence” to keep selected technology with potential military uses out of unfriendly hands. At the same time, the administration is softening its rhetoric. Instead of “decoupling” from China’s economy, it talks of “de-risking”. It wants to find common ground on climate change, African debt and even Ukraine. On May 10th and 11th Mr Sullivan spent eight hours with his Chinese counterpart, the first high-level contact for months.

Behind the doctrine is a belief that a virtuous circle can make America and the world safer. State intervention and protectionism will boost industry, helping the middle class and cooling America’s populist fevers. Less erratic leadership (after Donald Trump’s) will restore America’s authority abroad, even if the Biden team breaks a few global economic rules. The relationship with China will be managed with “strategic maturity”. As a precaution America will keep spending large sums on its military forces to deter China from aggression.

Will the new doctrine work? After the chaos of the Trump years, Mr Biden’s commitment to diplomacy is welcome. It will be on display at the g7 summit this week. He is right that American foreign policy must deal with new challenges, from Chinese coercion to climate change. However, especially when compared with the post-1945 order, the Biden doctrine is flawed. Its diagnosis of America’s problems is too pessimistic, and some of its prescriptions would make America weaker.

Start with the economy. Despite what many believe, America’s economic power is not declining. With 4% of the world’s people, it generates 25% of global output, a share unchanged since 1980. No other big country is as prosperous or innovative. As we noted last week, the size of China’s economy is unlikely ever to surpass America’s by much. The main source of America’s strength is creative destruction and open markets in a rules-based global economy. So although Mr Biden is right to reinforce the social safety-net, his state-led, insular economic vision may ultimately erode living standards and American clout.


The Biden doctrine seeks to stabilise relations with an autocratic and paranoid China. In this task it is hampered by a second flaw: it muddles legitimate policies with America-first rule-bending. Mr Sullivan wants to combine export controls with co-operative trade, and an arms race with collaboration. But China’s leaders think this strategy is meant to keep China down. America’s case would be stronger if export controls didn’t keep expanding, if Trump-era tariffs were not still in place and if its politicians were not vying to outhawk each other on China. The lack of agreement on trade makes everything harder. Never mind rules on ai, America and China have no system for nuclear-arms control: China’s arsenal will almost quadruple by 2035.

The final flaw concerns allies. Mr Biden has backed Ukraine and revived nato and alliances in Asia. Yet America’s unpredictable economic nationalism and unwillingness to offer access to its markets undermines its influence. Europe fears a subsidy race and worries escalating tensions with China will cause it severe damage: our calculations show Germany’s economy is twice as exposed to China as America’s is. The decay of global rules is accelerating the embrace of a transactional approach to foreign policy by emerging economies. The post-1945 order rested on American constancy: each administration was guided by predictable interests. Today allies and enemies know chaos may follow the election in 2024. Trumpian dysfunction is not Mr Biden’s fault, but it makes it vital to be predictable and open now.

Free, open and predictable
Americans need to be persuaded that a more optimistic, positive-sum approach is in their interests. This is the key that will keep their country strong and unlock a better foreign policy, by allowing it to help forge new global rules on trade, climate, ai and more that old allies and new ones can rely on. Such a revived global order would be the best defence against an autocratic one led by China. Unfortunately the Biden doctrine fails to rebut the narrative of American decline and so has not resolved the tension between the country’s toxic politics and its role as the linchpin of a liberal order. Unless America looks out at the world with self-confidence, it will struggle to lead it.■

Doesn’t seem new just swapping out of temporal variables from standard corporate left policy but a few points I strongly agree with a bolded.

Good article. Food for thought.

[Farfromgeneva]

https://www.economist.com/leaders/2023/ ... essimistic

In the 1940s and early 1950s America built a new world order out of the chaos of war. For all its shortcomings, it kept the peace between superpowers and underpinned decades of growth that lifted billions out of poverty. Today that order, based on global rules, free markets and an American promise to uphold both, is fraying. Toxic partisanship at home has corroded confidence in America’s government. The financial crisis of 2007-09 dented faith in markets. America’s failures in Iraq and Afghanistan undermined its claim to spread democracy. Today most countries refuse to heed its call to enforce sanctions on Russia. And China’s rise has spurred American politicians to take a more selfish, zero-sum approach to geopolitics.

China’s rise has also increased the threat of war. In a conversation with The Economist, Henry Kissinger, who will be 100 this month, warns that China and America are “on the path” to confrontation. “Both sides have convinced themselves that the other represents a strategic danger,” he says. The stakes could not be higher: both are nuclear-armed. Both are also dabbling with unpredictable artificial intelligence (ai). The elder statesmen’s eldest statesman worries that, just as before the first world war, the superpowers will stumble into catastrophe.

Since arriving in the Oval Office in 2021, Joe Biden has developed a new strategy to preserve American pre-eminence and reduce the risk of conflict. Jake Sullivan, the latest of Mr Kissinger’s successors as national security adviser, recently gave the fullest account yet of this Biden doctrine. His narrative weaves together middle-class prosperity, defence and climate change. He repudiates the free-market “Washington consensus” and calls for the government to play a muscular role in society, with a strong emphasis on national security.


This means hyperactive industrial policy. Big subsidies will catalyse private investment in semiconductors and clean energy. Export controls will create “a small yard and high fence” to keep selected technology with potential military uses out of unfriendly hands. At the same time, the administration is softening its rhetoric. Instead of “decoupling” from China’s economy, it talks of “de-risking”. It wants to find common ground on climate change, African debt and even Ukraine. On May 10th and 11th Mr Sullivan spent eight hours with his Chinese counterpart, the first high-level contact for months.

Behind the doctrine is a belief that a virtuous circle can make America and the world safer. State intervention and protectionism will boost industry, helping the middle class and cooling America’s populist fevers. Less erratic leadership (after Donald Trump’s) will restore America’s authority abroad, even if the Biden team breaks a few global economic rules. The relationship with China will be managed with “strategic maturity”. As a precaution America will keep spending large sums on its military forces to deter China from aggression.

Will the new doctrine work? After the chaos of the Trump years, Mr Biden’s commitment to diplomacy is welcome. It will be on display at the g7 summit this week. He is right that American foreign policy must deal with new challenges, from Chinese coercion to climate change. However, especially when compared with the post-1945 order, the Biden doctrine is flawed. Its diagnosis of America’s problems is too pessimistic, and some of its prescriptions would make America weaker.

Start with the economy. Despite what many believe, America’s economic power is not declining. With 4% of the world’s people, it generates 25% of global output, a share unchanged since 1980. No other big country is as prosperous or innovative. As we noted last week, the size of China’s economy is unlikely ever to surpass America’s by much. The main source of America’s strength is creative destruction and open markets in a rules-based global economy. So although Mr Biden is right to reinforce the social safety-net, his state-led, insular economic vision may ultimately erode living standards and American clout.


The Biden doctrine seeks to stabilise relations with an autocratic and paranoid China. In this task it is hampered by a second flaw: it muddles legitimate policies with America-first rule-bending. Mr Sullivan wants to combine export controls with co-operative trade, and an arms race with collaboration. But China’s leaders think this strategy is meant to keep China down. America’s case would be stronger if export controls didn’t keep expanding, if Trump-era tariffs were not still in place and if its politicians were not vying to outhawk each other on China. The lack of agreement on trade makes everything harder. Never mind rules on ai, America and China have no system for nuclear-arms control: China’s arsenal will almost quadruple by 2035.

The final flaw concerns allies. Mr Biden has backed Ukraine and revived nato and alliances in Asia. Yet America’s unpredictable economic nationalism and unwillingness to offer access to its markets undermines its influence. Europe fears a subsidy race and worries escalating tensions with China will cause it severe damage: our calculations show Germany’s economy is twice as exposed to China as America’s is. The decay of global rules is accelerating the embrace of a transactional approach to foreign policy by emerging economies. The post-1945 order rested on American constancy: each administration was guided by predictable interests. Today allies and enemies know chaos may follow the election in 2024. Trumpian dysfunction is not Mr Biden’s fault, but it makes it vital to be predictable and open now.

Free, open and predictable
Americans need to be persuaded that a more optimistic, positive-sum approach is in their interests. This is the key that will keep their country strong and unlock a better foreign policy, by allowing it to help forge new global rules on trade, climate, ai and more that old allies and new ones can rely on. Such a revived global order would be the best defence against an autocratic one led by China. Unfortunately the Biden doctrine fails to rebut the narrative of American decline and so has not resolved the tension between the country’s toxic politics and its role as the linchpin of a liberal order. Unless America looks out at the world with self-confidence, it will struggle to lead it.■

Doesn’t seem new just swapping out of temporal variables from standard corporate left policy but a few points I strongly agree with a bolded.

Good article. Food for thought.

Minor comment though-in some ways I skew towards more spirit based policy and what I mean by that is that the more explicit and verbose you make rules the easier it is to navigate them to circumvent the spirit of the rule. Maybe that’s just a language issue more than meaning in the piece

[youthathletics]

Nice to see the Biden classified documents issue gets swept away on a technicality.....oops, we just put the folders in a bankers box like we were told.

In realville, those with clearances are responsible for such, and would most likely lose clearance and or be prosecuted.

[a fan]

Nice to see the Biden classified documents issue gets swept away on a technicality.....oops, we just put the folders in a bankers box like we were told.

In realville, those with clearances are responsible for such, and would most likely lose clearance and or be prosecuted.

That's ok. Remember, we've been told by the forums "classified document experts" that we civilians are stupid, don't understand the system, and the system is just fine. We've been told the problem is "the people", not the half-wit classified docs system.

Sorta like saying that I shouldn't change a thing in my factory even though people are getting seriously hurt every years using the same equipment and procedures. But what do I know? Apparently I'm a dumb ol' civilian, and logic applies everywhere but in our classified Doc system.


Problem? What problem? Oh hey, maybe the Biden Admin. will get it right, YA. After all, Biden was just a VP when he screwed up those documents, right?

Every U.S. presidential administration since the 1980s has mishandled classified documents, according to testimony from a National Archives and Records Administration official released Wednesday—after the discovery of classified documents at the homes of President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump led to two federal probes.


https://www.forbes.com/sites/brianbusha ... 76f31b18b9

[youthathletics]

Nice to see the Biden classified documents issue gets swept away on a technicality.....oops, we just put the folders in a bankers box like we were told.

In realville, those with clearances are responsible for such, and would most likely lose clearance and or be prosecuted.

That's ok. Remember, we've been told by the forums "classified document experts" that we civilians are stupid, don't understand the system, and the system is just fine. We've been told the problem is "the people", not the half-wit classified docs system.

Sorta like saying that I shouldn't change a thing in my factory even though people are getting seriously hurt every years using the same equipment and procedures. But what do I know? Apparently I'm a dumb ol' civilian, and logic applies everywhere but in our classified Doc system.


Problem? What problem? Oh hey, maybe the Biden Admin. will get it right, YA. After all, Biden was just a VP when he screwed up those documents, right?

Every U.S. presidential administration since the 1980s has mishandled classified documents, according to testimony from a National Archives and Records Administration official released Wednesday—after the discovery of classified documents at the homes of President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump led to two federal probes.


https://www.forbes.com/sites/brianbusha ... 76f31b18b9

I think you are grossly conflating two things (i) document handling vs. (ii) document tracking. The latter, I agree is a problem, the former, is an individual accountability problem and is very easily solvable..just enforce the GD rules already in place. But like most things in life, the clouted receive passes.

[MDlaxfan76]

Nice to see the Biden classified documents issue gets swept away on a technicality.....oops, we just put the folders in a bankers box like we were told.

In realville, those with clearances are responsible for such, and would most likely lose clearance and or be prosecuted.

That's ok. Remember, we've been told by the forums "classified document experts" that we civilians are stupid, don't understand the system, and the system is just fine. We've been told the problem is "the people", not the half-wit classified docs system.

Sorta like saying that I shouldn't change a thing in my factory even though people are getting seriously hurt every years using the same equipment and procedures. But what do I know? Apparently I'm a dumb ol' civilian, and logic applies everywhere but in our classified Doc system.


Problem? What problem? Oh hey, maybe the Biden Admin. will get it right, YA. After all, Biden was just a VP when he screwed up those documents, right?

Every U.S. presidential administration since the 1980s has mishandled classified documents, according to testimony from a National Archives and Records Administration official released Wednesday—after the discovery of classified documents at the homes of President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump led to two federal probes.


https://www.forbes.com/sites/brianbusha ... 76f31b18b9

I think you are grossly conflating two things (i) document handling vs. (ii) document tracking. The latter, I agree is a problem, the former, is an individual accountability problem and is very easily solvable..just enforce the GD rules already in place. But like most things in life, the clouted receive passes.

I disagree...it's the tracking...people make mistakes, don't realize they've made the mistake, and no one knows the documents are even missing.

Intent to elude detection is a totally different thing, obstruction is a totally different thing. Those certainly we'd agree are on those making those decisions.

[a fan]

Nice to see the Biden classified documents issue gets swept away on a technicality.....oops, we just put the folders in a bankers box like we were told.

In realville, those with clearances are responsible for such, and would most likely lose clearance and or be prosecuted.

That's ok. Remember, we've been told by the forums "classified document experts" that we civilians are stupid, don't understand the system, and the system is just fine. We've been told the problem is "the people", not the half-wit classified docs system.

Sorta like saying that I shouldn't change a thing in my factory even though people are getting seriously hurt every years using the same equipment and procedures. But what do I know? Apparently I'm a dumb ol' civilian, and logic applies everywhere but in our classified Doc system.


Problem? What problem? Oh hey, maybe the Biden Admin. will get it right, YA. After all, Biden was just a VP when he screwed up those documents, right?

Every U.S. presidential administration since the 1980s has mishandled classified documents, according to testimony from a National Archives and Records Administration official released Wednesday—after the discovery of classified documents at the homes of President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump led to two federal probes.


https://www.forbes.com/sites/brianbusha ... 76f31b18b9

I think you are grossly conflating two things (i) document handling vs. (ii) document tracking. The latter, I agree is a problem, the former, is an individual accountability problem and is very easily solvable..just enforce the GD rules already in place. But like most things in life, the clouted receive passes.

Totally disagree.

If you don't know where the documents are, and who has them....how do you hold anyone accountable for having them, when they shouldn't? You have to be tipped off, somehow.

[youthathletics]

Nice to see the Biden classified documents issue gets swept away on a technicality.....oops, we just put the folders in a bankers box like we were told.

In realville, those with clearances are responsible for such, and would most likely lose clearance and or be prosecuted.

That's ok. Remember, we've been told by the forums "classified document experts" that we civilians are stupid, don't understand the system, and the system is just fine. We've been told the problem is "the people", not the half-wit classified docs system.

Sorta like saying that I shouldn't change a thing in my factory even though people are getting seriously hurt every years using the same equipment and procedures. But what do I know? Apparently I'm a dumb ol' civilian, and logic applies everywhere but in our classified Doc system.


Problem? What problem? Oh hey, maybe the Biden Admin. will get it right, YA. After all, Biden was just a VP when he screwed up those documents, right?

Every U.S. presidential administration since the 1980s has mishandled classified documents, according to testimony from a National Archives and Records Administration official released Wednesday—after the discovery of classified documents at the homes of President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump led to two federal probes.


https://www.forbes.com/sites/brianbusha ... 76f31b18b9

I think you are grossly conflating two things (i) document handling vs. (ii) document tracking. The latter, I agree is a problem, the former, is an individual accountability problem and is very easily solvable..just enforce the GD rules already in place. But like most things in life, the clouted receive passes.

Totally disagree.

If you don't know where the documents are, and who has them....how do you hold anyone accountable for having them, when they shouldn't? You have to be tipped off, somehow.

You both are missing the entire point or have my comment confused, maybe neither of you have ever held a clearance and gone through brutal extensive process. My point.....when you are first cleared, then in control of and in possession of classified documents, not to mention you also told that 'assume' everything is classified/sensitive, the accountability is on YOU, FULL STOP, you OWN those documents (essentially)...treat them as if they are the blood that flows in your veins.

To blame the accounting process, is a direct result, and the symptom of personal irresponsibility of the those in pocession of gov't docs...FULL STOP. If there is not agreement on this, then it makes sense why it seems to be far easier to blame someone else and avoid personal responsibility...which is where we are these days....its always someones elses fault, unless its for the better, then we own the responsibility.

[a fan]

You both are missing the entire point or have my comment confused, maybe neither of you have ever held a clearance and gone through brutal extensive process. My point.....when you are first cleared, then in control of and in possession of classified documents, not to mention you also told that 'assume' everything is classified/sensitive, the accountability is on YOU, FULL STOP, you OWN those documents (essentially)...treat them as if they are the blood that flows in your veins.

To blame the accounting process, is a direct result, and the symptom of personal irresponsibility of the those in pocession of gov't docs...FULL STOP. If there is not agreement on this, then it makes sense why it seems to be far easier to blame someone else and avoid personal responsibility...which is where we are these days....its always someones elses fault, unless its for the better, then we own the responsibility.

Buffalo Bagels. Ten seconds ago I cited that the Reagan White House failed with their docs, too. You can't chalk this up to the silly game of pretending like Reagan era's sense of personal responsibility was better than today's. They failed just like everyone else.


And YA, for heaven's sake: If you don't know where the documents are, and who has them? How could you POSSIBLY know that the people in the Reagan era handled documents properly?

And pretty please, don't play the game of bailing from the conversation. Give me the courtesy of accepting that you CAN'T tell if the all of the Reagan era employees handled the documents with more responsibility then they do today. It's IMPOSSIBLE to know.

I don't understand how you don't see this as THE problem.

[youthathletics]

You both are missing the entire point or have my comment confused, maybe neither of you have ever held a clearance and gone through brutal extensive process. My point.....when you are first cleared, then in control of and in possession of classified documents, not to mention you also told that 'assume' everything is classified/sensitive, the accountability is on YOU, FULL STOP, you OWN those documents (essentially)...treat them as if they are the blood that flows in your veins.

To blame the accounting process, is a direct result, and the symptom of personal irresponsibility of the those in pocession of gov't docs...FULL STOP. If there is not agreement on this, then it makes sense why it seems to be far easier to blame someone else and avoid personal responsibility...which is where we are these days....its always someones elses fault, unless its for the better, then we own the responsibility.

Buffalo Bagels. Ten seconds ago I cited that the Reagan White House failed with their docs, too. You can't chalk this up to the silly game of pretending like Reagan era's sense of personal responsibility was better than today's. They failed just like everyone else.


And YA, for heaven's sake: If you don't know where the documents are, and who has them? How could you POSSIBLY know that the people in the Reagan era handled documents properly?

And pretty please, don't play the game of bailing from the conversation. Give me the courtesy of accepting that you CAN'T tell if the all of the Reagan era employees handled the documents with more responsibility then they do today. It's IMPOSSIBLE to know.

I don't understand how you don't see this as THE problem.

The portion in bold is my standing accountability argument.....and again, you must not have ever gone through clearance screening.

I really cant explain it any clearer than I already did but I'll try,

You are stuck on the 'inventory' of docs...I already said I agree. BUT, even if the docs are inventories.....why is going to say Mr. President, we need those docs back.....and if he says I cant find them.....we'll whos fault is that?...exactly, the person "in care' of them. My point screaming at the top of my lungs.....I handed you my baby to take care of while I went overseas, you agreed to all the terms, you stuff him in the closet and forget about him.....its not my fault I handed you my son to watch. But for some reason, in your logic, you want to say its my fault I didnt come check on him or ask for proof you still have him?

[a fan]

You both are missing the entire point or have my comment confused, maybe neither of you have ever held a clearance and gone through brutal extensive process. My point.....when you are first cleared, then in control of and in possession of classified documents, not to mention you also told that 'assume' everything is classified/sensitive, the accountability is on YOU, FULL STOP, you OWN those documents (essentially)...treat them as if they are the blood that flows in your veins.

To blame the accounting process, is a direct result, and the symptom of personal irresponsibility of the those in pocession of gov't docs...FULL STOP. If there is not agreement on this, then it makes sense why it seems to be far easier to blame someone else and avoid personal responsibility...which is where we are these days....its always someones elses fault, unless its for the better, then we own the responsibility.

Buffalo Bagels. Ten seconds ago I cited that the Reagan White House failed with their docs, too. You can't chalk this up to the silly game of pretending like Reagan era's sense of personal responsibility was better than today's. They failed just like everyone else.


And YA, for heaven's sake: If you don't know where the documents are, and who has them? How could you POSSIBLY know that the people in the Reagan era handled documents properly?

And pretty please, don't play the game of bailing from the conversation. Give me the courtesy of accepting that you CAN'T tell if the all of the Reagan era employees handled the documents with more responsibility then they do today. It's IMPOSSIBLE to know.

I don't understand how you don't see this as THE problem.

The portion in bold is my standing accountability argument.....and again, you must not have ever gone through clearance screening.

I really cant explain it any clearer than I already did but I'll try,

You are stuck on the 'inventory' of docs...I already said I agree. BUT, even if the docs are inventories.....why is going to say Mr. President, we need those docs back.....and if he says I cant find them.....we'll whos fault is that?...exactly, the person "in care' of them. My point screaming at the top of my lungs.....I handed you my baby to take care of while I went overseas, you agreed to all the terms, you stuff him in the closet and forget about him.....its not my fault I handed you my son to watch. But for some reason, in your logic, you want to say its my fault I didnt come check on him or ask for proof you still have him?

Ok great. The goalposts are in place, and we have the metaphor you gave me.

Let's walk through what you think is perfectly acceptable for your baby, and this is just off the top of my head.

1. You have no way of checking up on your baby at any time. Can't call. Can't text.
2. You have no way of knowing where your baby is at any time.
3. You have given me no timeline to return your baby.... could be years. Decades, even.
4. There isn't just one baby, my man. There are MILLIONS of babies, and numbers 1-4 apply to all of them
5. You have no way of knowing if I've returned your baby.
6. You literally don't care if I return the baby, because you have no way of checking if I returned the baby.


....do you need me to keep going?

And to answer your question: because you, as the father of the baby, set up conditions #1-#6....I would, without hesitation, hold BOTH of you responsible for losing the baby.

So....are we on the same page now? Do you get why the problem is a SYSTEMIC problem?

My solution is the same: either fix the system, or don't have any "babies", and don't mark them classified. Pick one.

Because looking at #1-#7, it's patently clear that this system doesn't give a sh(t about their baby.