Page 4A
OPINION
East Oregonian
Thursday, September 1, 2016
OTHER VIEWS
Founded October 16, 1875
KATHRYN B. BROWN
DANIEL WATTENBURGER
Publisher
Managing Editor
JANNA HEIMGARTNER
TIM TRAINOR
Business Ofice Manager
Opinion Page Editor
OUR VIEW
Clinton bleachbits her past
AP Photo/James MacPherson
Jon Don Ilone Reed, an Army veteran and member of South Dakota’s Chey-
enne River Sioux Tribe, poses at an oil pipeline protest near the Standing
Rock Sioux reservation in southern North Dakota on Aug. 25. Reed said he
fought in Iraq and is now “ighting for our children and our water.”
Oregon tribes
support Sioux
Eastern Oregon tribes are reaching
out to the Dakotas.
On Tuesday, Confederated Tribes
of the Umatilla Indian Reservation
chairman Gary Burke wrote a strong
letter of support to the Standing Rock
Sioux Tribe, who is protesting and
opposing the Dakota Access Pipeline
that would cross near their reservation
and put their resources at risk. That
protest has received considerable
media attention — though perhaps
not enough — and it highlights the
latest in a near-continual ight between
Indian tribes and those looking to take
resources from or move them through
tribal lands.
Tribes in the Dakotas, Iowa
and throughout the west see the
opportunity to turn this ight into
a turning point in tribal relations.
Nontribal members who are against
fossil fuel companies and support
treaty rights do, too.
The power of nonviolent protest,
empowered by social media, has
the opportunity to put the plight of
American Indians — and their treaty
rights — in front of more noses than
ever before.
“We are offering our support in
your valiant protest and remarkable
leadership,” wrote Burke. “Your cause
is growing.”
The Confederated Tribes of Warm
Springs did the same. Tribal chairman
Eugene Austin Greene Jr. wrote that
the Warm Springs tribes wished to
express “strong support for the efforts
.... to halt construction of the Dakota
access pipeline through traditional and
sacred lands in the Northern Great
Plains.”
Both Oregon tribes see victory
by the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe
as a beneit to American Indians
throughout the country.
“The project is a threat to
the natural environment and
endangers the health and security
of many Americans,” wrote Burke.
“Furthermore, this project has all
the appearance of being an affront
to inherent and speciic sovereign
rights of Indian Tribes and the federal
government trust responsibility. Action
that has the potential to cause harm to
your land or water resources should
have been considering in siting the
path of the pipeline.”
Greene Jr. noted the June 3 oil train
crash and spill near Mosier, and how
their treaty rights are endangered every
week by fossil fuels being transported
near their ishing and drinking waters.
“Natural resources being
commercialized, harmful drinking
water, oil, coal, trains, pipelines, toxic
waste, nuclear plants, air quality and
mining are some of the environmental
justice issues various tribes across
Indian country face today,” he wrote.
A federal judge is expected to issue
a ruling by Sept. 9 as to whether or
not the Army Corps of Engineers
violated the Standing Rock Sioux’s
treaty rights in approving the pipeline.
Perhaps the actions and words from
tribes across the country will make a
difference.
Unsigned editorials are the opinion of the East Oregonian editorial board of Publisher
Kathryn Brown, Managing Editor Daniel Wattenburger, and Opinion Page Editor Tim Trainor.
Other columns, letters and cartoons on this page express the opinions of the authors and not
necessarily that of the East Oregonian.
hile Hillary Clinton was
only the emails that dealt with personal
issues, like yoga or her daughter
preparing to deliver a big
Chelsea’s wedding. But in light of new
speech portraying Donald
revelations about the close relationship
Trump as a racist, a igure from
between Clinton’s Secretary of State
Clinton’s recent unhappy past — Rep.
ofice and the Clinton Foundation, a
Trey Gowdy, chairman of the House
question gaining urgency in recent
Select Committee on Benghazi —
days is whether Clinton destroyed
added a new word to the 25-year
foundation-related emails on the
vocabulary of Clinton scandals:
Byron
grounds that they were “personal.”
BleachBit.
York
“That’s the $100 million question,”
That is the name of a publicly
Comment
Gowdy told Fox’s Martha MacCallum.
available utility used to delete material
“I hope somebody in your line of work
from a computer’s hard disk. And it’s
not just for casual, quickie deletes of junk mail. will ask (Clinton): Did you consider foundation
emails to be personal or work-related? I have
It’s for when a user really wants to destroy
yet to see a single foundation email produced
material on a computer so that no one will be
by the State Department that was sent by her.”
able to recover it.
Gowdy went on to reveal a few details
According to Gowdy, BleachBit is what
about how Clinton destroyed
Clinton and her legal team
the documents she did not
used, or at least part of what
want anyone to see. “If
her team used, to destroy
she considered them to be
the 30,000 or so emails on
personal, then she and her
her secret system that she
lawyers had those emails
deemed “personal” from
deleted,” Gowdy said. “They
her years as secretary of
didn’t just push the delete
state. On Thursday, after
button. They had them
revelations that the FBI had
deleted where even God
perhaps worked its way
can’t read them.”
around BleachBit to discover
“They were using
an additional 14,900 emails
something called BleachBit,”
that Clinton did not hand
Gowdy continued. “You
over, Gowdy went on Fox
don’t use BleachBit for yoga emails or for
News to discuss both that development and
bridesmaid’s emails. When you’re using
the FBI documents that underlay the Justice
Department’s decision not to prosecute Clinton BleachBit, it is something you really do not
want the world to see.”
for mishandling classiied information.
Amid growing controversy over the Clinton
The public should be allowed to see those
Foundation, possible conlicts of interest, and
currently classiied FBI documents, Gowdy
allegations of access and pay-to-play, Gowdy’s
said, adding that he has reviewed them all.
words served to return the focus to what the
If people were allowed to read the papers,
New York Times’ Mark Landler recently called
Gowdy explained, they might well come away
the “original sin” of the Clinton email affair:
with questions about the wisdom of the FBI’s
Clinton took it upon herself to decide which
decision.
of her emails as Secretary of State would be
“I read every word of all of the witness
preserved, and which would be destroyed.
interviews,” Gowdy told Fox. “My takeaway
“There wasn’t an independent authority that
was this: Remember James Comey said
got to make that decision,” Landler said on
[Clinton] was not indicted because he didn’t
have suficient evidence on the issue of intent. I NPR’s “Diane Rehm Show” Wednesday. “And
didn’t see any questions on the issue of intent.” by the time we found out about it, those emails
were gone.”
And then there were those deleted emails.
With the help of BleachBit, we now know.
First, it’s long been known that Clinton and
■
her lawyers — and no independent arbiter —
Byron York is chief political correspondent
decided what to hand over and what to destroy.
for The Washington Examiner.
Clinton famously explained that she destroyed
W
The public
should be
allowed to see
those currently
classiied FBI
documents.
LETTERS POLICY
The East Oregonian welcomes original letters of 400 words or less on public issues
and public policies for publication in the newspaper and on our website. The newspaper
reserves the right to withhold letters that address concerns about individual services and
products or letters that infringe on the rights of private citizens. Submitted letters must
be signed by the author and include the city of residence and a daytime phone number.
The phone number will not be published. Unsigned letters will not be published. Send
letters to 211 S.E. Byers Ave. Pendleton, OR 97801 or email editor@eastoregonian.com.
OTHER VIEWS
State goes too far in Sweet Cakes punishment
A
The Oregonian
s legal briefs go, there’s
not much surprising in
the arguments offered by
Oregon Attorney General Ellen
Rosenblum’s ofice. The iling
backs Labor Commissioner Brad
Avakian’s inding that a Christian-
owned bakery violated Oregon’s
anti-discrimination statute when
it refused to make a wedding cake
for a lesbian couple. It counters the
Sweet Cakes by Melissa bakery’s
claims of religious freedom. And it
stands behind Avakian’s eyebrow-
raising award of $135,000 in
damages to the couple for their
pain and suffering.
But deep in the iling, things
go off the rails. The brief, written
by Senior Assistant Attorney
General Leigh Salmon, addresses
a side issue in which Avakian
concluded that comments by the
bakery owners violated a separate
state law that prohibits advertising
a future intent to discriminate.
In supporting Avakian, the brief
contends that seemingly innocent
language may be found to violate
state law.
It’s an astounding assertion. It’s
even more so when you consider
that the Department of Justice, in
charge of protecting free speech
and Oregonians’ civil rights, is the
one making that assertion. The idea
that the government may ind you
in violation of state law based on
how it chooses to interpret what
you say is a chilling claim.
By now, Oregonians know the
case’s background by heart. A
lesbian couple
had hoped to
order a wedding
cake from
Sweet Cakes
by Melissa, a
Gresham bakery.
One of the
women, Rachel
Bowman-Cryer,
went with her
mother in 2013
to the bakery
where she spoke
with co-owner
Aaron Klein.
When Klein
heard the cake would be for two
brides, he apologized and told her
“We don’t do same-sex wedding
cakes.”
The denial upset Rachel
Bowman-Cryer and angered
her partner, Laurel. They iled
a complaint with the state,
not realizing a media storm
would ensue. Eventually they
iled a new complaint with the
Bureau of Labor and Industries,
which investigated whether the
bakery violated the state’s anti-
discrimination law.
Avakian rightly concluded that
the bakery had broken the law. But
he opted to go further. He cobbled
together comments the Kleins had
made to argue the bakery was also
advertising its
intention to keep
discriminating
in the future,
in violation of
another state law.
Avakian noted
a sign that the
Kleins posted in
their store, which
closed amid
the uproar. In
the handwritten
sign, the couple
shared their
frustration over
the state’s actions
and pledged to “continue to stand
strong.” Avakian also pointed
to snippets from two interviews
that Aaron Klein gave. In one,
Klein, asked to recount what
happened on the day he refused
the wedding cake request, recalled
that he apologized and told Rachel
Bowman-Cryer they didn’t “do
same-sex marriage, same-sex
wedding cakes.” In an interview
ive months later, Klein said the
couple felt they had to “stand
The attorney
general’s ofice
would rather
circle the
wagons around
Avakian than
defend citizens’
free speech.
irm” in their beliefs. Collectively,
Avakian argued, the Kleins were
communicating a future intention
to discriminate.
Salmon defends the argument.
“Speciically, respondents noted
their intent to ‘stand strong’ and
‘stand irm’ in their ight,” she
writes. “While those statements
could refer to their legal battle,
those statements also could refer to
the denial of services to same-sex
couples — speciically, providing
cakes for same-sex weddings
generally. From those statements,
then BOLI could reasonably infer a
prospective intent to deny services
to same-sex couples. That is a
communication ‘to the effect that’
services would be denied based
on sexual orientation within the
meaning of ORS 659A.409.”
There’s a lot to pick on in
those four sentences. First, the
attorney general’s ofice admits
the comments could refer to the
couple’s objection to the state’s
case — a perfectly reasonable,
nondiscriminatory statement
that does not violate the law. Yet
the state is arguing that it should
be allowed to instead “infer” a
meaning that would make the
comments illegal.
That alone should sink the
state’s argument. But the brief
also contends that it is the three
statements “taken together” — not
viewed individually — that allows
someone to infer from them
that the Kleins are advertising
their intention to continue
discriminating. If the government
wants to punish someone for their
words, it needs a stronger case than
one built on vague, cherrypicked
comments from incidents that
occurred months apart.
What this suggests more than
anything is that the attorney
general’s ofice would rather circle
the wagons around Avakian than
defend citizens’ free speech.
This is a stand that Rosenblum
did not have to take.
Certainly, Rosenblum’s
ofice should defend Avakian’s
valid inding that Sweet Cakes
discriminated illegally against
the Bowman-Cryers. Her ofice
could even defend the exorbitant
damages ordered by Avakian,
even though the Bowman-Cryers
wanted only an apology. But
instead, she chose to also endorse
his constitutionally deicient
conclusion that Kleins’ ambiguous
words violated state law.
Conceding that weak claim
would require the willingness to
stand for what’s right, even though
it would beneit an unpopular
cause. But Rosenblum buckled.
Oregonians lose.