There is a great deal we don’t know about the case of Stefan Halper, the Anglo-American academic who insinuated himself into the Trump campaign in order to help the FBI learn about any connections to Russian election meddling. The president and his allies claim the FBI planted Halper as a spy with the goal of undermining Trump’s candidacy. Trump’s critics argue that the bureau was already investigating meddling in the election and so it was proper to find out if campaign officials were dupes for Russian manipulators.
It would be extraordinary that FBI officials would sign off on the surveillance of a U.S. presidential campaign. Political campaigning is a sacred activity in our republic, and the chances of catastrophe resulting from agents of the government investigating a presidential campaign are enormous. But we have a high regard for the men and women who serve in law enforcement and believe they’ve earned the presumption of good faith. We can assume the FBI had reason to believe Russian operatives were using Trump campaign officials for nefarious purposes and had more than sufficient reason to seek out the operatives and identify their aims.
Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, has demanded documents related to the investigation from the FBI, and heretofore the bureau, citing White House support, has resisted those demands. The bureau altered its stance this week when the president tasked chief of staff John Kelly with ensuring that the FBI complied with congressional demands. That led to two separate meetings on May 24 where FBI director Christopher Wray and director of national intelligence Dan Coats briefed lawmakers on the documents. Originally there was to be only a single briefing for just two lawmakers: Nunes and Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), chairman of the House Oversight Committee. Democrats protested, and the White House scheduled a second meeting with congressional leaders of both parties.
As we go to press, it isn’t clear what the FBI presented to lawmakers. But it is doubtful that it will have mollified Trumpian anxieties or convinced Democrats that the FBI went rogue. Depending on who you are, the documents will have “proved” the FBI illegally spied on the Trump campaign or “proved” the FBI acted with proper restraint.
DoJ inspector general Michael Horowitz is already reviewing the FBI’s use of FISA warrants to investigate Trump associate Carter Page, and on May 21 the department announced that it has asked Horowitz’s office to expand its probe “to include determining whether there was any impropriety or political motivation in how the FBI conducted its counterintelligence investigation of persons suspected of involvement with the Russian agents who interfered in the 2016 presidential election.” That’s a good move—the IG has shown himself capable of censuring bureau officials for improper behavior. It was Horowitz who faulted former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe for leaking information to the media and misleading investigators.
John Kelly and the president’s personal lawyer Emmet Flood were both briefly present at the two briefings, sent according to the White House to “relay the president’s desire for as much openness as possible under the law.” We suspect that Trump’s call for transparency is conditional. He favors openness that might cause trouble for those investigating him but opposes transparency on matters relating to him, to his campaign, and to his businesses. (Did we ever see his tax returns?) So count us skeptical about the sincerity of the president’s sudden call for openness.
But we agree with his words. In the aftermath of President Trump’s accusation that the FBI wiretapped Trump Tower, we called for “radical transparency.”
It’s been nearly 15 months since we published those words. In the interim, Robert Mueller was named special counsel. His team has been investigating for more than a year. As we’ve noted before, he is a man of integrity, and we have confidence that he is running an investigation driven not by politics but by the pursuit of truth.
Given the behavior of the president and his defenders, we’re willing to bet that much of what we’re seeing here is an attempt to thwart investigators and obfuscate the facts —to create a counternarrative in which the president is an innocent victim of the “deep state.” We already know too much to accept such a claim at face value. If there have been legitimate concerns raised about parts of the investigations and about those charged with carrying them out, we continue to believe that the best way to address them is with radical transparency. It’s the only policy that stands a chance of breaking the present impasse in Washington. We are past the need for explanations. What’s needed is simple disclosure.
