“If you knew then what you know now, would you have signed the application?” Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham asked Rosenstein during his testimony.
“No, I would not,” Rosenstein replied.
So that's all right. Good old Rod. Would never have signed a FISA warrant based on false information -- hey even information gotten from a questionable furriner like Steele. Thank goodness Christopher Steele wasn't a descendant of the notorious Lucy Steele of Sense and Sensibility!
But, Mr. Former Deputy Attorney General, what in the world did you think you were doing approving a FISA warrant for surveillance on a US person involved in a presidential campaign?
Would you not, as an experienced and intelligent Justice Department official, and as a US person, smell a rat?
Would you not, as an experienced and intelligent Justice Department official, and as a US person, hear an alarm bell?
Would you not, as an experienced and intelligent Justice Department official, and as a US person, think to yourself: Whoa Neddy? Obtaining intelligence on the opposition campaign? Not cricket, old chap. Or baseball, pal.
But here is what I think was going on. You, Mr. Former Deputy Attorney General, knew that the president, Barack Obama, was "interested" in the case. So you didn't call the guys that had originated the FISA warrant and grill them to within an inch of medium-rare. No. You just waved it through. Because.
Was it because you didn't want to risk the displeasure of the White House?
Was it because you knew that if you failed to get with the program you would "never work in this town again?"
Was it because you feared that, according to Obama house rules, the penalty for not getting with the program might be even more harsh that never working in this town again?
Well, all that is speculation. Who knows what works in the mind of man, eh, Mr, Former Deputy Attorney General?
But this give me an excuse to bring up the matter that I regard as the most basic for any electoral democracy. That the most important thing is the alternation in office. That when one party has had the presidency for two terms the right thing to do is for the Out party to win, and for the In party to concede with a good grace.
That the best way to avoid riots in the streets is for each party to get its turn in office.
This was taught to me by my Greek friend as the Greek colonels of 1967-74 were giving up power and returning Greece to electoral democracy. What is needed, said my friend, was for the Center Right to win and for the left to concede the election. Then what was needed was for the Center Left to win the next election and for the right to concede the election.
The last two times that the Democrats lost a change election when they were in power, in 2000 and in 2016, they failed to concede with a good grace. I regard this as the most serious political problem of our era.
And you, Mr. Former Deputy Attorney General, were right in the middle of the failure to concede. Indeed you were right in the middle of peculiar efforts to surveil the opposition party in the months before the election. For what purpose, may I ask?
Was it a purpose greater than the purpose of keeping a peaceable democracy where each party feels pretty confident that it will win or lose the next election in a fair fight?
Was it just a lack of judgement? Was it a case of pusillanimity? Was it a case of bad faith? Or was it a case of deliberate attempt to nobble the opposition?
Doesn't matter, really. The damage is done. And the chances are that the guilty will walk free.
But hey, Mr. Former Deputy Attorney General. I sure hope LTG Flynn gets his house back. That would be nice, don't you think?
No comments:
Post a Comment