Adjunct Professor Joel Cohen wrote an op-ed comparing James Comey’s role in the F.B.I.’s Russia investigation to that of Mark Felt during Watergate.
President Trump is upset over leaks about the F.B.I.’s Russia investigation. And I’m sure he’s even more outraged now that his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, is a “person of interest” in the investigation.
Given the avalanche of leaks and their substance, it’s easy to assume that the F.B.I. is responsible for them. After all, who else besides James Comey, the former F.B.I. director, and his close aides would have known so much about Mr. Comey’s memo asserting that Mr. Trump asked him to drop the investigation into Michael Flynn, the president’s former national security adviser?
Yes, there is a benefit to the American public in knowing that the United States president engaged in such conduct, and that he lied about it. There is also benefit in knowing that law enforcement is actively and robustly investigating what is at least questionable conduct involving members of the Trump team and high-placed Russian officials.
…
No one complains nowadays about “Deep Throat,” who helped bring down President Richard Nixon during Watergate, even though we now know that it was Mark Felt, the associate director of the F.B.I., who met Bob Woodward of The Washington Post in that darkened garage. Time has a way of making us forget Mr. Felt’s horrible abuse of office. And let’s not forget, Nixon might have remained in office had the “whistle-blower” not publicly blown that whistle – clearly in violation of what the F.B.I. should stand for.
…
And even if we might think that Deep Throat’s disclosures were improper violations of proper governmental conduct, what’s going on today and what it tells us about today’s leakers is far worse. Felt and Mr. Woodward kept Deep Throat’s identity secret for 30 years. It was critical given the turmoil of Watergate that the public have faith in those enforcing the law, and Felt and Mr. Woodward somehow managed to let them keep that faith.
Today, the constant leaks only buttress President Trump’s claim that Mr. Comey and the “fake news” liberal media juggernaut are out to get him. The possible result? A potentially valid and meritorious finding of presidential wrongdoing may ironically be rejected by the voting public as having been sabotaged by a corrupt process – a result akin to the acquittal of O.J. Simpson, who was arguably framed for something he did.
We have rules that demand secrecy and confidentiality, particularly about grand jury activity, precisely to protect the rights of the innocent (or even the guilty) who become embroiled in investigations — high-profile and low. These rules should apply to investigations irrespective of whether the ultimate “person of interest” is popular or unpopular. They are rules designed to accomplish an overall public good. We can’t create exceptions by looking away in cases involving those we relish seeing excoriated.
We may never know whether the leak about Mr. Kushner’s bizarre proposal of “backchannel” contacts with Russian diplomats came from law enforcement officials, backbiters at the White House or just Mr. Kushner’s loose-lipped friends on the cocktail circuit. Either way, we simply can’t allow a protocol under which we conclude that some leaks are “good” and therefore we’re willing to look the other way at their impropriety or even their illegality. And make no mistake — the leaks currently springing from the F.B.I. are no different than those from Deep Throat.
Fortunately, we now have in place a special counsel investigating the Trump team’s alleged ties with Russia who has earned unmatched praise from those on both sides of the aisle. We need to trust him to do his job. If we can’t trust him to do it without occasional prods from reporters, then we should abandon the grand jury system in exchange for trial by media.
