The Nunes Memo
I think something important is being missed when it comes to the infamous Nunes memo. Future readers will probably have no idea what I'm talking about, but in short, staff for Devin Nunes, chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, drafted a memo purporting to reveal abuses in the way that the FBI obtained court permission to conduct surveillance on Carter Page, a Trump campaign adviser. The memo contained classified information and was misleading, and so the FBI opposed its release. However, the House Intelligence Committee voted to release it, and Trump approved.
The memo has been met with near-universal derision (here's John Reed, here's Julian Sanchez), except of course for the all-important conservative propaganda machine, which has treated it as proof of some kind of Deep State conspiracy against Trump. So in a sense the memo has already been debunked, but the Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee have prepared their own memo that purports to debunk it further. Since that memo, too, contains classified information, its release must be approved. The House Intelligence Committee has voted unanimously to release the Democratic memo, and it now awaits Trump's approval. He has five days to decide.
Trump is saying that he will defer to the FBI. Recall that this is precisely what he did not do with respect to the Nunes memo. The FBI clearly and vocally opposed its release, but Trump ordered it anyway.
Now consider the position this puts the FBI in with respect to the Democratic memo. On national security grounds, presumably the FBI is inclined to oppose releasing the memo for the same reasons it opposed releasing the Nunes one. On the other hand, the FBI opposed the release of the Nunes memo in part on the grounds that it was misleading, and basic fairness seems to demand that if the FBI is the final arbiter of whether the Democratic memo gets released, it should assent even if, in a perfect world, neither memo would have seen the light of day.
But the real point here is that the FBI is inevitably being politicized by this kind of exercise. If the FBI green lights the release of the Democratic memo after trying to stop the release of the Nunes memo, it will look partisan to conservatives. But if it exercises the power Trump has delegated to it to block the Democratic memo, then it will look partisan to Democrats. (However, it's worth pointing out that politically this may be a very good outcome for the Democrats.)
Practically without trying, Trump is forcing the FBI to confront choices that are bound to diminish its status as a broadly respected, nonpartisan law enforcement organization. (I suppose I have to make the obligatory point that its nonpartisan reputation wasn't exactly well-deserved, but that is not the same thing as welcoming its loss.) Meanwhile to a large extent the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence has already gone to pieces.
And there you have it. There's really no amount of skill or prudence that can keep an organization from being corrupted in the Trump era, not to mention the organizations that are cheerfully marching to his tune already. I think people have this vision in their head of what authoritarianism looks like, and this isn't it. The problem is that by the time real authoritarianism shows up, the safeguards that we have put in place to prevent it will have been eroded. So I think, for instance, that Ross Douthat's optimism is badly misplaced:
Who gives a shit about a trade war with China or the explosion of NAFTA! I mean, I do, but those are just ordinary policies that are rightly subject to ordinary political debate. If the country elects protectionist politicians, it can expect protectionist policies. The problem I think is that Douthat simply isn't vigilant enough, isn't attentive enough to the damage Trump is doing to our institutions. These are the same institutions that we will rely on if and when we face real tyranny, but by then it may be too late.
The memo has been met with near-universal derision (here's John Reed, here's Julian Sanchez), except of course for the all-important conservative propaganda machine, which has treated it as proof of some kind of Deep State conspiracy against Trump. So in a sense the memo has already been debunked, but the Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee have prepared their own memo that purports to debunk it further. Since that memo, too, contains classified information, its release must be approved. The House Intelligence Committee has voted unanimously to release the Democratic memo, and it now awaits Trump's approval. He has five days to decide.
Trump is saying that he will defer to the FBI. Recall that this is precisely what he did not do with respect to the Nunes memo. The FBI clearly and vocally opposed its release, but Trump ordered it anyway.
Now consider the position this puts the FBI in with respect to the Democratic memo. On national security grounds, presumably the FBI is inclined to oppose releasing the memo for the same reasons it opposed releasing the Nunes one. On the other hand, the FBI opposed the release of the Nunes memo in part on the grounds that it was misleading, and basic fairness seems to demand that if the FBI is the final arbiter of whether the Democratic memo gets released, it should assent even if, in a perfect world, neither memo would have seen the light of day.
But the real point here is that the FBI is inevitably being politicized by this kind of exercise. If the FBI green lights the release of the Democratic memo after trying to stop the release of the Nunes memo, it will look partisan to conservatives. But if it exercises the power Trump has delegated to it to block the Democratic memo, then it will look partisan to Democrats. (However, it's worth pointing out that politically this may be a very good outcome for the Democrats.)
Practically without trying, Trump is forcing the FBI to confront choices that are bound to diminish its status as a broadly respected, nonpartisan law enforcement organization. (I suppose I have to make the obligatory point that its nonpartisan reputation wasn't exactly well-deserved, but that is not the same thing as welcoming its loss.) Meanwhile to a large extent the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence has already gone to pieces.
And there you have it. There's really no amount of skill or prudence that can keep an organization from being corrupted in the Trump era, not to mention the organizations that are cheerfully marching to his tune already. I think people have this vision in their head of what authoritarianism looks like, and this isn't it. The problem is that by the time real authoritarianism shows up, the safeguards that we have put in place to prevent it will have been eroded. So I think, for instance, that Ross Douthat's optimism is badly misplaced:
A short list of major things Trump has threatened to do, but hasn't, in part because of influence of Senate GOP + his own appointees:— Ross Douthat (@DouthatNYT) February 5, 2018
Blow up Iran Deal, trade war w/China, reinstate waterboarding, blow up NAFTA, blow up NATO, major reset w/Russia, fire Sessions, fire Mueller ...
Who gives a shit about a trade war with China or the explosion of NAFTA! I mean, I do, but those are just ordinary policies that are rightly subject to ordinary political debate. If the country elects protectionist politicians, it can expect protectionist policies. The problem I think is that Douthat simply isn't vigilant enough, isn't attentive enough to the damage Trump is doing to our institutions. These are the same institutions that we will rely on if and when we face real tyranny, but by then it may be too late.
posted by James | 2:54 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home