Let It All Out

Here is one of the very few objective and non-hyperbolic pieces I’ve read on the subject of the Nunes memo. The author maintains that the best approach is public release of all information relevant to the memo, subject to minimal redactions necessary to protect intelligence sources and methods. (He notes that, given Washington’s well-known penchant for overclassifying, it’s likely that a publicly releasable version providing the full context could be developed without impacting legitimate national security concerns.) This approach would afford the public the ability to draw its own conclusions based on consideration of the Nunes memo itself together with the contrasting viewpoints of the FBI and Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee. (The Democrats have already developed their rebuttal, which is being suppressed for now by Committee Republicans.)

He concludes, quite sensibly, that without such full disclosure, “we’re just taking the GOP’s word regarding what the memo argues or Democrats’ word that those arguments are bunk. The whole thing will devolve into a partisan poo-flinging contest that, I’d wager, even people with a more-than-casual interest in politics will quickly tune out.”

 

The Curious 30-Day Gap in the Clinton Email Investigation

How the FBI handled the trove of Clinton-related emails it found on Anthony Weiner’s computer (apparently supplied by his former wife, Huma Abedin) created a monumental uproar on the eve of the 2016 presidential election. The Wall Street Journal and Washington Post now report that senior FBI officials, including Deputy Director McCabe, knew of these emails at least a month before then-Director James Comey notified Congress in the waning days of the election campaign that the Bureau was reopening its Clinton email investigation based on their discovery. Why on earth didn’t the FBI expeditiously analyze these newly-discovered emails during this 30-day period in order to determine whether they materially affected the Clinton investigation? Doing so would have avoided the fiasco that resulted when, within two weeks preceding the election, Comey first  informed Congress of the emails and then several days later said in effect “never mind.” (Once the damage was done by Comey’s initial submittal, the FBI was able to determine within just a few days of intense review that the Weiner emails were not significant.) Understandably, Comey’s actions drew intense scorn from both political sides as well as many objective sources. It’s not clear when during the 30-day period Comey became aware of the new emails.

The subject of this 30-day gap seems to be overshadowed for the moment by the virtual political war over the Nunes memo. However, the Justice Department’s inspector general is said to be focusing on this subject as part of his overall review of the FBI’s Clinton email investigation. There are hints in media reports that whatever McCabe did or didn’t do in relation to the Weiner emails was the real cause for his early departure from the Bureau. The inspector general’s report is expected to be completed within a few months. What it reveals may well prove to have greater and more lasting importance than the bruhaha over the Nunes memo.