By David French
Thursday, September 14, 2017
Let’s begin with a brief flashback. On March 22, House
Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes conducted a bizarre press
conference on White House grounds. His claim? That Obama-administration
officials had monitored members of the incoming Trump administration as part of
routine surveillance of foreign officials.
The whole episode was strange enough that it ultimately
led Nunes to recuse himself from the Russia probe. After all, he’d gone to
White House grounds to “brief” the president on information he’d obtained from the White House. He did so without
sharing that information with his committee and as part of a transparent effort
to help the Trump administration muddle through one of its many self-imposed
public firestorms. (In March, Trump had tweeted claims that Obama had
wiretapped Trump Tower before the election.) In short, he did the wrong thing
the wrong way.
But that didn’t mean that all of Nunes’s claims were wrong. He asserted that he’d
seen evidence that Obama administration officials had “unmasked,” or disclosed
in intelligence reports, the identities of Trump officials who met or
communicated with representatives of foreign governments and that “none of this
surveillance was related to Russia.” These were serious claims, and while they
may not involve criminal behavior (“unmasking” isn’t a criminal offense), it
would be highly improper — corrupt, even — to abuse America’s national-security
resources for partisan political advantage.
Former national-security adviser Susan Rice was at the
center of the storm, accused of making a vast number of unmasking requests.
What was her response? On the very day of Nunes’s press conference she said, “I
know nothing about this. I was surprised to see reports from Chairman Nunes on
that count today.”
Over time, however, her story evolved. She later
clarified that she was simply saying that she didn’t know “what reports Nunes
was referring to.” In April she said she never did anything “untoward with
respect to the intelligence” she received. So, what was the truth? Did she “know
nothing” or did she do nothing “untoward”? Those aren’t the same statements,
and the differences matter.
Let’s flash forward to yesterday. Lost amidst the news of
the Trump “deal” with Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer was this little scoop from
CNN:
Former national security adviser
Susan Rice privately told House investigators that she unmasked the identities
of senior Trump officials to understand why the crown prince of the United Arab
Emirates was in New York late last year, multiple sources told CNN.
Allegedly, the meeting happened before the UAE tried to
“facilitate a back-channel” between Russia and Trump transition officials. The
story continues:
The Obama administration felt
misled by the United Arab Emirates, which had failed to mention that Zayed was
coming to the United States even though it’s customary for foreign dignitaries
to notify the US government about their travels, according to several sources
familiar with the matter. Rice, who served as then-President Obama’s national
security adviser in his second term, told the House Intelligence Committee last
week that she requested the names of the Americans mentioned in the classified
report be revealed internally, a practice officials in both parties say is
common.
“I know nothing” is old and broke. The new hotness is,
“Yeah, I did it, and it was totally cool.” But I’m sorry, Susan Rice doesn’t
get the benefit of the doubt.
I’m having Benghazi flashbacks. In September 2012, faced
with a bad news cycle following a horrific terrorist attack, Rice went on
national television and told falsehood after falsehood. To keep a campaign
narrative alive for just a few more days (remember, Obama was running as the
guy who had decimated al-Qaeda), she helped transform a setback into a scandal.
After all, Americans understand that sometimes terrorists succeed. We do not
understand (and should never accept) any decision to lie to minimize the
threat.
Here we go again. Back in March, Susan Rice wanted to win
another news cycle. If she told the truth — that, yes, she had made unmasking
requests — she might have given a floundering Devin Nunes a lifeline. So she
pled ignorance. She claimed not to know things that she plainly and clearly
knew in detail.
So, what now? Some in the media are ready to let bygones
be bygones, accept the new story, and move on. That’s clearly the tenor of the
CNN piece, which says that “her explanation appears to have satisfied some
influential Republicans on the committee.” CNN even claims her testimony is
“undercutting both Nunes and Trump and raising new questions about whether any
Trump associates tried to arrange back-channel discussions with the Russians.”
That’s one way to spin catching a former administration
official in a blatant falsehood. I propose a different approach. Don’t believe
anything she says. Verify everything. It’s entirely possible that the new story
is the true story, but there’s also no reason for a member of the public to
accept it on faith — or on the basis of CNN summaries.
It’s long been important to fully investigate the Russia controversy. Yes, investigate the
Trump administration. But we also need to know if the Obama administration
politicized otherwise-proper foreign-surveillance operations.
Much of the media are well on their way to locking in a
white-hat/black-hat narrative on the contrast between the Obama and Trump
administrations. The facts, however, are far messier, and Obama’s
administration far more scandal-ridden than its defenders admit. Susan Rice may
seek high office again. We have to learn the truth about her conduct in office,
and we cannot sweep even one more lie under the rug.
No comments:
Post a Comment