Policy Experts See Little Upshot to Release of FBI Memo

A spokesman for Nunes likewise did not respond to an email asking if the congressman or his staff members had reviewed the underlying data used to produce the memo. Nunes did release a statement Wednesday, however, over what he called the “spurious objections” of the FBI and Justice Department.

“Having stonewalled Congress’ demands for information for nearly a year, it’s no surprise to see the FBI and DOJ issue spurious objections to allowing the American people to see information related to surveillance abuses at these agencies,” the California Republican said in a statement.

The Democratic Schiff hails from California as well. He said Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee prepared a counter-memo but that Republicans blocked them from releasing it.

Eddington with the Cato Institute noted in an interview the threat of compromising sensitive sources and methods would certainly explain why the Justice Department and FBI want the House memo to remain classified.

"If the Justice Department and the FBI are not willing - or are for that matter blocked by the administration from releasing portions of that FISA application to help people understand what's going on - then that's going to kind of create a polluted narrative that I think really becomes a problem," Eddington said.

Growing Congressional Dysfunction

Daniel Schuman with Demand Progress says the partisan split over the memo is unprecedented, and shows complete degradation of the committee’s objectives.

"We can't always see all the stuff that the FBI is doing, but [the intelligence committees] can see it," Schuman said. "And they're supposed to be skeptical, and they're supposed to engage in real oversight."

Like its counterpart in the Senate, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence emerged in 1975 after revelations that U.S. intelligence agencies had spied on U.S. citizens - including Martin Luther King Jr. - and attempted to assassinate foreign leaders.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in 1978, along with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, was one of several reforms brought about by congressional investigations of the intelligence abuses.

In Schuman’s view, however, the committees have appeared more concerned in recent years with bolstering the intelligence agencies than with protecting privacy rights.

Proof of that can be seen, Schuman said, in the bipartisan renewal earlier this month of Section 702 — a provision of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that allows U.S. intelligence agencies to collect communications, like emails and phone records, of foreigners abroad without a warrant. Privacy advocates complain that the program incidentally sweeps up communications from U.S. citizens communicating with foreigners.

While Republicans insist that Page’s surveillance amounts an abuse of Section 702, Schuman noted that this position did not stop them from voting to renew and expand that provision.

And Democrats opposed to the memo's release voted the same way.

"They have lost their perspective," Schuman said.

"All that stuff, which they were supposed to stop, in fact they sort of joined hands to protect," Schuman added.

National-security attorney Mark Zaid spoke about the committee’s roots as well.

"This committee in particular was not supposed to be full of friends or foes," Zaid said in an interview. "It was supposed to be made up of members who conduct neutral oversight. And it's not that at the moment."

Zaid warned that the increasing politicization of the House intelligence committee will make intelligence agencies less inclined to trust and cooperate with it.

"They are staking out this battle that is going to have, potentially, repercussions for many years to come," Zaid said.

Looking Back to Look Forward

While Democrats say the Justice Department’s independence is critical to its function, historian Daniel Feller noted in an interview this idea has been around only as long as the Watergate scandal.

"I'm not saying that's a bad idea, but it's a new idea," said Feller, a professor at the University of Tennessee. "People don't remember that John F. Kennedy appointed his brother to be his attorney general."

President Trump held up former President Barack Obama’s friendly relationship with Attorney General Eric Holder as a more recent example.

"When you look at the things that they did, and Holder protected the president. And I have great respect for that, I'll be honest," Trump told The New York Times in a Dec. 28 interview.

Feller, who specializes in the presidency of Andrew Jackson and the 19th century, said government norms can change over time, making it difficult to assess the viability of claims that Trump’s conduct indicates a slide into authoritarianism.

"This is not the first time that a president has behaved outside certain accepted norms," Feller said. "And it's not the first time that a lot of people thought, 'this is the end of the world.'"

Though Feller notes that he disagrees with most analogies between Trump and Jackson, he points to Jackson's presidency to show that historical periods can look different in hindsight than they do at the time.

"In retrospect, Jackson's presidency wasn't the salvation of the American Republic, which is what his supporters thought it was," Feller said. "Nor was it the end of the American Republic, which his detractors thought it was."

Subscribe to Closing Arguments

Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.

Email *

Submit