The further to the left or the right you move, the more your lens on life distorts.

Tuesday, May 29, 2018

Break-in = "Investigative Entry"

Let's consider a bit of alternative history.

On the evening of June 17, 1972, burglars working at the behest of the Nixon administration broke into the offices of the DNC. Once the break-in became public knowledge, the Nixon administration, senior officials within the intelligence community and the FBI, and their allies in the media (like I said, this is alternative history) stated emphatically that it wasn't a "break-in," but rather a legitimate "investigative entry." They argued that the intent was to look for evidence that members of the DNC were colluding with the then-hated Russians.

When asked what evidence they had to justify the break-in (oops, "investigative entry"), they informed inquiring minds that they used a unsubstantiated dossier paid for by Nixon and the GOP. The dossier was proof positive of wrong doing, they claimed, and brought it to a judge to get a warrant for their entry. Oh ... I almost forgot, they never told the judge about the provenance of the dossier. When asked for further information by Democrats, they refused, citing "national security." The members of the Nixon administration further noted that the "investigative entry" was intended to protect the DNC and that investigative entries are quite legitimate when national security is at stake.

The Democrats formed congressional committees to investigate, but were accused by the GOP and their media allies (remember, alternative history) of traitorous conduct, attacks on the FBI and intelligence community. The DoJ refused to turn over critical documents, citing national security.

A member of the intelligence community, later called "deep throat," leaked exculpatory information to Woodward and Bernstein, who did little additional investigation but rather wrote piece after piece justifying the "investigative entry" and attacking anyone who questioned their belief in the high moral standards and patriotism of the burglars (oops, investigative entrants). Others in pro-Nixon media were oddly incurious about the strange events that surrounded the Watergate investigative entry, but at the same time defended the President. Not a single GOP member questioned the legality or ethics of Watergate, no one was indicted, and Nixon served out his term.

Sound ridiculous? Sure does.

But here's the thing. Change the dates, the terminology, the parties, and the players, and by analogy, this is exactly what's happening with the Crossfire Hurricane scandal. And BTW, if even 25 percent of the claims of wrongdoing for Crossfire Hurricane are proven true, this Obama administration scandal makes Watergate look like a school yard prank.