What was supposed to be a post updating the public on worrisome FBI tactics instead has become “Example Umpteen” of the arrogance and lack of transparency of elected officials.
In this case, the offender is Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., or at least his press staffers at the Senate Judiciary Committee of which he is chairman. Having boasted about talking tough to FBI Director Christopher Wray, Graham is now keeping mum about the results of his demand for FBI answers. He is now refusing to answer even a single question about his inquiries regarding civil liberties, public safety, and possible abuse of power.
In the wake of the FBI’s heavily armed, riot-gear arrest of political fixer Roger Stone as part of special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia-related investigation, Graham made a big show of releasing a letter he had written Wray to demand an FBI briefing. Specifically, he expressed concern about “the number of agents involved, the tactics employed, the timing of the arrest, and whether the FBI released details of the arrest and the indictment to the press prior to providing this information to Mr. Stone’s attorneys.”
Graham’s concerns were justified, not just with regard to the Stone case, but more broadly. For years, critics have cited apparent abuses and even tragedies resulting from excessive use of force by federal agents. A broad coalition that spanned the political right, center, and left joined forces in a project to fight overcriminalization, prosecutorial abuse, and the militarization of police and federal agents.
Graham gave the FBI a deadline of Feb. 5 to provide the briefing he rightfully demanded as part of the Senate’s legitimate role performing oversight of federal agencies. Then, though, Graham went quiet. The deadline came and went without comment.
On Feb. 7, a week before this writing, I tried contacting Graham’s Judiciary press office to ask whether the briefing had taken place and, if so, what Graham had learned. Considering that Graham had proactively gone public about his demand for a briefing, I assumed he would welcome the friendly inquiry.
I left voice and email messages, plus a message with the young woman who answered the phone. After 24 hours, I tried again. I received no answer, nor even an acknowledgment of my request.
I followed up again on Monday, Feb. 11. No reply. So, I instead left a voicemail for Andrew Ferguson, the committee’s chief nominations counsel. Two days later, he informed me that he doesn’t handle the matters about which I inquired, but would forward my questions to the press office. I thanked him.
Six hours later, still no word from the press office. So I pinged them again, still politely, but pleading: “I still await a call. PLEASE give me the courtesy of an answer. Thanks, Quin.”
Five minutes later, I finally received an e-response from Kevin Bishop: “We have nothing to add at this time. When we do we will be sure to let you know. Let me know if you have any other questions.” In two further terse messages, Bishop offered no useful answers, and evaded the question when asked whether the FBI had given any response.
In Graham’s demands from the FBI, Graham represents the public. In my request as to whether those demands were met, I represent the public’s right to know matters that should be of public record. What policies, rules, or laws govern how federal agents conduct search warrants and arrests? What restrictions are placed on them? How are innocents — dogs, children, wives reportedly awoken from bed and forced to stand in the street in a nightgown and bare feet — treated or protected?
These are serious matters. This isn’t about protecting the execrable Roger Stone; it’s about the small business owners, the science project aficionados, and the elderly orchard growers whose lives have been ruined by spurious arrests, often conducted by frightening and even brutal methods.
From the weeks of delay in offering an answer, one might get the impression that Graham thinks these things are his business, but none of ours.
