Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said on Sunday he does not believe a classified memo purported to list Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act abuses by the U.S. government should be released now.Lindsey Graham is bothered by FBI conduct in the abstract, but doesn't seem to believe that any specific evidence of wrongdoing should be released to the public. He says, and this is incredible, that "somebody outside of the Republican-led Congress" should vet the document first. Note that, as a Senator, Graham has not had access to the memo. He has the same knowledge of its contents as your or I, which is general characterizations given by members of the House. According to the Republican Senator from South Carolina, Republicans in Congress can't be trusted to release information to the public. This is not surprising, since Graham is alway a good little liberal whenever the press put a microphone in front of his face, but it is completely outrageous just the same. Graham isn't making a legal argument here. Congressmen have legal authority to disclose the full contents of the memo publicly on the House floor. Graham isn't implying that his party brethren don't have the legal authority. He's plainly stating that they don't have the judgment.
"No, I don't want it released yet," Graham told ABC's "This Week."
"I want somebody outside of the Republican-led Congress to look at these allegations," he said.
"I've been a lawyer most of my adult life and the way the FBI conducted itself in the Department of Justice bothers me," he continued.
Graham doesn't specify who outside Congress should supervise his fellow Republicans in the House. If Congress can't be trusted in the matter, then who can? The relevant parties in the DOJ cannot be referred to for impartial advice. (This hasn't stopped the DOJ from levying a public opinion against the release anyway.) The President can't be consulted, as he is a victim of the wrongdoing alleged in the memo. Who outside these listed groups have the necessary security clearances? We likely can't go granting additional security clearances to outside parties to review the judgment of Congress. Who would we choose, anyway? Perhaps the best route would be to have the DOJ-OIG review the four-page memo (primarily written by Republican House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes) and state whether it accurately reflects the results of their recently concluded investigation of the FBI. That would provide a testament to the authenticity of the summary, without pulling in uncleared third parties.
But if that is the only possible course of action, then what is the point of having a House intelligence oversight committee at all? If the House committee can't be trusted to provide oversight, then clearly they can't be trusted to provide oversight. (Hello, tautology.) Why have a chairman of that committee if he can't even properly provide a summary for committee actions (the investigation was performed at the request of Congress)? And, for that matter, what is the point of having an OIG? If they can perform investigations whose results can never see the light of day, and which no one, not even Congress, can act on, then what is the point of having internal investigation? The whole point is to expose criminals so they can be punished, and to point out flawed processes to be corrected. If the results of investigations must remain secret and can never be acted upon, then there is no reason for investigations. The time and money spent on unactionable investigations just amounts to government fraud, waste, & abuse, and should be eliminated entirely. Lindsey Graham and the entirety of the Democrat party would seem to suggest that oversight doesn't actually apply to our government. The people can't know about the crimes of the government!
Graham suggests the issue is partisanship. Because a Republican penned the summary, it is suspect. But the chairman would by necessity have to be of some party. Are we saying that no member of Congress can be trusted to summarize the work of committees simply because they have a party affiliation? Or just Republicans? Perhaps he thinks the Democrats should have a say in the matter. But they did have a say! Every single Democrat voted that the memo should not be released to the House at-large. The committee made its decision to do so any way. Graham would seem to suggest that the minority party should be able to obstruct Congressional actions it disagrees with. (Why is that any time Lindsey Graham or John McCain are in the news it is to show support for the Democrats? A rhetorical question.) The Democrats unanimously voted against releasing the memo but didn't have the votes to stop it. How else should these things work? Didn't their hero Barrack Obama famously quip that elections have consequences? Apparently there is no level to which the people of American can vote the Democrats out of office where they still don't yield ultimate control. And why should the Democrats be trusted at all? Of course they don't want the memo released. It reveals egregious crimes committed by Democrats! This is so obvious that the only way to properly get it into Graham's thick skull would be to dust off the old ballbat of common sense and bludgeon him continuously until the desired effect is achieved. Of course they don't want it released, and they don't give a shit whether terrible crimes were committed or not. These are the same House Intelligence Committee Democrats who clearly displayed that they could not care less whether or not Hillary Clinton actually committed crimes or was careless with the sensitive information that could compromise (i.e. kill) US agents and assets. Not one professed an iota of concern for these very serious allegations. They made a mockery of the proceedings. To suspect they would actually desire honest inquiry into even greater and more widespread allegations of wrongdoings by Democrats is a level of naïveté so profound that surely we must ask Webster's to revisit the definition of naïveté to reflect such extreme measures of the word.
If the Republicans in the House are being honest and accurate, then everything I've said here is sound. The Democrats, the media, and their lackeys like Lindsey Graham are actively trying to suppress government crimes from exposure or punishment. And if the Republicans are being overly dramatic and partisan, then what will happen if the memo is released? Clearly the Democrats will have to push to have the OIG report publicized in such a way to counter the Republican claims without exposing sensitive US programs for intelligence gathering. It can be done. In fact, it is the only way that this can be properly done. If it comes to that, and the Republicans then vote to not release additional details of the OIG report, then the tables will be turned, and they will be the ones obstructing the release of evidence of criminal wrongdoing from the public, and it will be clear that the memo was in fact partisan. If the Republicans are wrong then the crimes will never be able to be prosecuted and the whole things will turn into a PR disaster for them. In short, if you know someone is lying, the most effect strategy is to call their bluff. That is the way this dilemma can properly unfold, but the Democrats and Lindsey Graham are fiercely opposing such a scenario, probably because they know the reactions of Republican Congressmen who have viewed the memo are genuine. The only plausible scenario where liberals are reacting as they are is if the memo is an accurate representation of the findings of the IG. Are we supposed to believe that suddenly the left are gravely concerned about matters of national security? Even a joke must have an element of truth to be laughed at. This is just straight lunacy without even a redeeming upshot of dark humor.
The real question is this. Do we live in a country where state crimes are state secrets? Or to rephrase it, are we living under undeniable tyranny? If the elected bodies of Congress can't be trusted to provide oversight, then allegations of government crimes must be suppressed on principle. That is tyranny in and of itself. A massive battle is being waged. If the wrong side wins, it will be a clear signal that government by the people is totally dead. It is quite apparent who is lining up on which side of the battle.
No comments:
Post a Comment