Deterioration of Relations Between the FBI and Congress
When I was at the bureau, lawmakersâ requests for information got prompt responses.
By
Thomas J. Baker
Wall Street Journal
May 10, 2018 6:53 p.m. ET
Last week we learned that some Republican members of Congress are considering articles of impeachment against Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein if he doesnât hand over certain Federal Bureau of Investigation documents. In January, House Speaker Paul Ryan had to threaten the deputy attorney general and FBI Director Christopher Wray with contempt to get them to comply with a House subpoena for documents about the Steele dossier.
I spent 33 years in the FBI, including several working in the Office of Congressional and Public Affairs. The recent deterioration in the bureauâs relationship with Congress is shocking. It truly is a change in culture.
Former Directors William Webster (1978-87) and Louis Freeh (1993-2001) insisted that the FBI respond promptly to any congressional request. In those days a congressional committee didnât need a subpoena to get information from the FBI. Yes, we were particularly responsive to the appropriations committees, which are key to the bureauâs funding. But my colleagues and I shared a general sense that responding to congressional requests was the right thing to do.
The bureauâs leaders often reminded us of Congressâs legitimate oversight role. This was particularly true of the so-called Gang of Eight, which was created by statute to ensure the existence of a secure vehicle through which congressional leaders could be briefed on the most sensitive counterintelligence or terrorism investigations.
On Aug. 27, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes asked the FBI to deliver certain documents immediately. The bulk of the documents werenât actually delivered until Jan. 11. I canât imagine Mr. Webster or Mr. Freeh tolerating such a delay. One of the documents Mr. Nunes requested is the electronic communication believed to have initiated the counterintelligence investigation of Donald Trump in July 2016. The FBI had previously provided a redacted text of that communication, but the Intelligence Committee wanted to see more.
On March 23 the bureau essentially told the committee it wouldnât lift the redactions. There are legitimate reasons why the FBI would want certain portions of a sensitive document redacted, such as when information comes from a foreign partner. But there are ways around such difficulties. Select members of Congress have in the past been allowed to read highly sensitive documents under specific restrictions.
Former FBI Director James Comey didnât even inform the Gang of Eight that the bureau had opened a counterintelligence investigation into the campaign of a major-party candidate for president. He testified on March 20, 2017, that he had kept Congress in the dark about the Trump investigation because heâd been advised to do so by his assistant director of counterintelligenceâdue to âthe sensitivity of the matter.â
The Gang of Eight exists for precisely this purpose. Not using it is inexplicable.
This isnât the way a law-enforcement agency should behave under our system of separation of powers. Attorney General Jeff Sessions must push Mr. Wray to get the FBIâs relationship with Congress back on track. It wonât be easy, but the American people deserve it and the Constitution demands it.
Mr. Baker is a retired FBI special agent and legal attaché.
Appeared in the May 11, 2018, print edition of The Wall Street Journal.
Retired at Retired federal employee; soccer and softball coach, public address announcer, church activities
6yYou are exactly right!!
Retired after 32 years in law enforcement
6yLaw enforcement officers at all levels must always be answerable to the elected leadership. It makes no difference if the officers are local, county, state, or federal there must be accountability to the electorate. Even in matters where the elected officials are themselves the target of the investigation there must be oversight by someone who ultimately answers to the general public. Failure to adhere to this principle results in law enforcement losing the confidence and support of those they are supposed to be serving.