It’s not the one you’re hearing about. All the media attention is on the notion that Russians “hacked the election” or something. Or they’re telling us again that there’s “no evidence” Trump Tower was wiretapped, even though the investigation isn’t over yet and we can’t possibly know that.
But here’s what we do know: Someone committed a felony by releasing the names of Trump campaign associates whose phone conversations were caught in surveillance. Congressman Trey Gowdy covered it on Monday during the James Comey testimony. Congressman Devin Nunes gave more detail later in the week.
It may not have been illegal that the calls in question were surveilled, because when you’ve got a legitimate warrant to conduct telephone surveillance on a target, you’re going to hear the other side of the conversation as well. But the law is very clear about how the identities of such people are to be treated when information is released. If there is not a compelling reason to release the names of non-targets involved in these conversations, they are to be redacted. You’re not supposed to know who those people are.
Unless that information is formally de-classified, making these identities public is a felony.
When members of the intelligence community leaked such transcripts involving Trump associates in recent months, they did no such redacting. All the Trump associates who were involved in these conversations had their rights violated as a result. And remember, these are almost certainly people who remain to this day members of the intelligence community, quite possibly working behind the scenes to undermine the agenda of the duly elected president of the United States.
Not only that, but members of the media – who received these leaks and published the information they contained – know who the criminal leakers are, and are protecting their identities to this day.
This raises an interesting question, does it not? If someone in the White House is alleged to have committed some violation of law – even if the evidence is fleeting, or if the person making the allegation is a blatant partisan – this is treated as a very serious matter and we hear about it day after day after day. This whole business about the Trump campaign “coordinating with the Russians” is based on the prospect that someone, somewhere, might have committed a crime – although no one has shown any evidence that this happened at all.
But the intelligence officials who leaked these names absolutely committed crimes. The media know who they are and know what they did. Why is clear evidence of criminal behavior among U.S. intelligence officials not considered a major scandal and a very serious matter?
Is it because a) the news media are benefitting from the criminal behavior; and b) the criminal behavior is being perpetrated at the expense of the Trump White House? Is this why these people get a pass for their lawbreaking, while we obsess endlessly over a matter that as far as we know didn’t even involve any lawbreaking?
One of the rules of partisanship is that you pretend to be devoted to the law when the other guy breaks the law, and it helps your side to act indignant about it. But when someone breaks the law on your behalf or for your benefit, they are brave whistleblowers or “truth tellers” or whatever you think you can sell.
The fact of the matter is that we only know for sure about one criminal act in this whole thing, and no one seems to care about it. If the law has ceased to be anything but just one more tool of partisanship, it’s no wonder Democrats don’t want judges like Neil Gorsuch – who actually takes it seriously.
