Looking Back, and Looking Forward with Concern
There is important history that provides contrast for the
current accusations by the sitting President of conduct he claims to be illegal
[and which, if proved could be] against his predecessor. The current POTUS has
tweeted allegations of wiretapping of his campaign and Trump Tower during the
run up to the 2016 election. It is also important to note that the context of
the alleged wiretapping was a putative investigation of inappropriate ties or
espionage with Russian agents concerning the US Presidential election. This
charge comes amid a stream of rants on social media, many of which have been
dismissed as the ravings of an emotionally unstable and immature man of 70 years
who cannot brook any form of criticism. Wild and demonstrably false claims have
been tossed about in response to unfavorable media reports, even ones which
most people would not consider worth responding to or crediting by refutation.
Yet the allegations of illegal wiretapping hit a raw nerve both because of
historical context and political ramifications. As such, they could not simply
be passed off as the intemperate and ill-considered tantrum of a narcissist.
An initial point to consider is that the allegation, which
was probably not well thought out, is a sort of double edged sword. If the
allegation is at all true, it would certainly bespeak inappropriate
interference by a sitting President in the process of election of a successor.
However, because of the past problems and risks associated with Watergate [the
incident to which the POTUS compares his allegations] any attempt by President
Obama to engage in surveillance on US soil would have required prior approval
by a FISA Court. Such approval would have required presentation of significant
probative evidence to a judge to support probable cause to investigate illegal activity.
For such matters, it would be the equivalent of a search warrant. By making the
allegation, the POTUS implicitly concedes probable cause to believe that activities were taking place in
Trump Tower and within the context of his campaign that involved improper and
potentially illegal interference by foreign agents [in this case Russia]. By
attempting to deflect attention, the POTUS has perhaps inadvertently shone the
spotlight on himself regarding illegal activities. He is now obliged to back up the allegations with proof.
Turning, however, to the historical context of the
allegations, it should be observed that it is atypical for sitting Presidents
to initiate claims or charges of personal misconduct and illegal activities
against a predecessor. It is not only viewed as unseemly bad character, it also
degrades the Office of the Presidency, which may be viewed as a larger issue
that the office holder. Criticisms have been launched broadly about
implications of misguided policies of the prior administration, but personal
attacks are very rare, even when the successive office holders harbor enmity
towards each other. In contrast, President Obama could have precipitated formal investigations
and criminal charges against his predecessor, but chose not to do so ostensibly
for the aforementioned reasons.
Documented and testimonial evidence of not only
knowing about, but actually authorizing actions deemed international war crimes
in violation of Geneva Conventions were available against Bush and Cheney. Cheney admitted to commissioning the legal memo purportedly justifying torture of prisoners, a memo then used to bootstrap justification for operations at GITMO and Black Sites.To
be certain, there would have been international fallout from such prosecution,
but an argument was advanced that America’s loss of standing and moral
authority as a global leader might have been restored had the past actions been
confronted and officially renounced. Yet if the trauma of Nixon’s Presidency is
an emotional scar the nation carries, imagine how disturbing a conviction of
international war crimes would be for the nation. Obama, after careful
consideration, chose not to risk such damage.
The current allegations by the POTUS are quite different, in
that they appear to have no similar basis in fact or supporting evidence. They are apparently based upon third or fourth hand speculation in a right wing blog. If a FISA order for surveillance exists, it should be readily discoverable, and should have been reviewed carefully by the POTUS prior to making such allegations. The Intelligence Community and the Justice Department, so far, have denied existence of such an order or any operative surveillance. As noted above, even after such review, making such allegations should have been carefully considered. Possession of strong and supportable evidence should have been a bedrock predicate for even suggesting such charges. The allegations put in play involve not only domestic scandal, but
international diplomacy as well. To make such allegations is a very serious matter,
with very significant implications. To do so without substantive proof would be irresponsible and unworthy of the Office or President. We may never know
whether the current POTUS launched the serious allegations based upon a
deliberate but misguided strategic plan, or simply gave in to dyspeptic pique
and a temper tantrum. In either event, the action is one that bears careful
scrutiny and thorough investigation. It bears upon the judgment capacity and the emotional stability of the person
who occupies the Oval Office.
No comments:
Post a Comment