A Constitutional Crisis (No, Really!)

Perhaps you, like I, have been waiting to see if the Republican majority (i.e. the Stupid Party) would release the FISA memo, or would cave to the Democrats' (i.e. the Evil Party) caterwauling.  Amazingly, the FISA Memorandum has been released with only minor edits requested by the FBI and the Committee Democrats. I was surprised, but there appear to be a few Republicans with a bit of spine and a pair of...well...you get the idea.

Clarice Feldman has her take on the affair in her weekly "Clarice;s Pieces" article at the American Thinker entitled The 'Constitutional Crisis' the Fourth Estate Birthed. Feldman cites Kimberly Strassel of the Wall Street Journal, and Mark Penn of The Hill in noting that none of the claimed objections to releasing the FISA memo were true. It doesn't reveal sources and methods. Further, the hypocrisy of the press is shocking. the same NY Times and Washington Post, who argued that the public was entitled to know what was in the Pentagon Papers, and published them, now wants the public NOT to know the contents of the Trump Dossier or the findings of the House Intelligence Committee. Feldman:

Lacking any coherent policies, the Democrats have pinned their hopes on persuading Americans that Trump is Hitler, Stalin, a usurper and a traitor who must be impeached. Their reaction to the release of the memo underscored their fright as this last remaining hope -- impeachment -- slips away. A prominent voice on that end has been Congressman Adam Schiff, who claimed falsely that the memo was inaccurate. Other Dems claimed it would reveal sources and methods that would endanger national security. (It didn’t, by the way.) The Wall Street Journal’s “Best of the Web” took hard aim at Schiff:

"In March of 2007, a very libertarian sort of Congressman announced that he was “deeply troubled” by what he called “abuses of authority” by the FBI in acquiring personal information on U.S. citizens. Over the years, he urged various restrictions on the ability of the executive branch to get information on Americans’ phone calls. In order “to protect privacy and increase transparency” he sought in various ways to reform the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court -- the very court that approved the electronic surveillance of a Trump associate for reasons that are still not entirely clear.

Way ahead of the news, he specifically introduced the “Ending Secret Law Act” which according to a press release from his office, “would require the Attorney General to declassify significant Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) opinions, allowing Americans to know how the Court has interpreted” its legal authorities.

He said that his legislation “will help ensure we have true checks and balances when it comes to the judges who are given the responsibility of overseeing our most sensitive intelligence gathering and national security programs.”

His name is Adam Schiff, and he is now the ranking member on House Intelligence. But oddly he doesn’t seem to want to take credit for his early concern for civil liberties."

You can read Ms. Feldman's article for yourself, and you should. It covers the topic very well. I would like to also highlight an additional piece, a blog post over at Streetwise Professor:

Some of the reporting and commentary on this issue has been utterly incredible (in many senses of the word). For example, Trump overruled current-FBI director Wray’s objection to releasing the memo. The WaPo framed this as “Trump defies Wray.” Um, who the hell works for whom? If there is defiance going on, it is Wray’s going public with his objections to the actions of his Constitutional superior. Wray should have raised his objections in private to Trump, and if overruled (as he was, in the event), kept his mouth shut in public, or resigned–and then kept his mouth shut. To lobby publicly (and disingenuously, by raising national security concerns) in an attempt to pressure his superior into doing something is beyond the pale.

Or should be, anyways. But one thing that this entire sordid episode has demonstrated is that the bureaucracy generally, and the intelligence and federal law enforcement agencies in particular, consider themselves an independent power, a co-equal–superior actually–branch of government, the Constitution be damned. Trump is deemed the usurper. Indeed, it is clear that many senior members of the FBI, DOJ, and the intelligence community considered it their right to intervene in the election in order to prevent Trump’s election, and failing that, to kneecap his presidency. And virtually all of the political class in the US is on their side. This is the real Constitutional crisis.

You should view this as a Constitutional danger regardless of your partisan leanings. For ask yourself: would you like the same to be done to your guy (or gal)?

It is also disgustingly ironic that in a fervid controversy about the alleged intervention of the Russian siloviki into an American election reveals that high-ranking American officials in control of the vast powers of US law enforcement and intelligence used siloviki methods (including most likely disinformation planted by Russian siloviki!–you can’t make this up!) in an attempt to influence an American election and then to cripple the winner of that election when their original plotting failed/

Indeed, the Russian siloviki have it going for them that they aren’t nauseatingly sanctimonious about their skullduggery–refreshingly cynical is more their style. James Comey and others cannot say the same.

The emphasis is mine.

This is what happens when the protections in our Bill of Rights are allowed to be weakened.  The NSA spying, the secret courts, all are violations of the 4th Amendment.  Just because part of our communications happen to go over the air waves (which the government claims, also unconstitutionally) does not give the government the right to those communications, any more than they can read your mail because it goes through government hands.  Even if, and that is a big IF, they are protecting you, that is no excuse for violating the 4th Amendment, or indeed any of the Bill of Rights.  In a similar way, the Gun Control Act of 1968 is a violation of our Second Amendment rights,   It represents a prior restraint on people acquiring guns legally, though it does not stop them from acquiring them illegally, which is its stated purpose.  Whether the Supreme Court agrees is also immaterial, since they, as members of the Federal government, are unlikely to oppose the Fed except in the most egregious of cases.

Somehow, we the people must ultimately take back control.  Electing Trump will probably not do the job, but it is a beginning..But, it also matters that We the People have faith in our system of government as laid out in the Constitution, and that we also have a stiff spine and a pair of...well...you get the picture,   If needs be, we must be willing to shout down the voices of those who call for government protection, because we know, as they do not, that the government doesn't really protect you.  They protect themselves.