Alan Dershowitz on the Nunes memo: Republican ‘truth’ and …

The Republicans have now released the memo containing their version of what is in the controversial FSIA application. Not surprisingly, the Democrats have a different version. It should be easy to decide whose truth is more credible: Let the American public see the application itself instead of second-hand, partisan accounts and let us decide for ourselves.

The problem with that obvious solution is that the application is currently classified. But classification should never be used as it often is for political benefit or to protect agencies or individuals from just criticism. Let a nonpartisan expert decide what must be redacted for genuine security concerns, and let the remainder of the application be released.

We, the American people, have the right to know whether the application deliberately failed to disclose to the FISA court that the so-called Steele dossier was commissioned by political operatives seeking dirt on a political opponent. We are entitled to know how much weight, if any, was given to the dossier in the application.

The Republican memo, standing alone, raises questions about the process by which the warrants were obtained from the FISA court. The Democratic memo, if it is forthcoming, may purport to answer those questions. But it will never be able to answer them definitively without an objective assessment of the actual FISA application itself.

This episode strengthens the view I have long espoused that the entire enterprise of appointing a special counsel was misguided. Instead, Congress should have created a nonpartisan commission of objective experts to investigate all claims made by either party about any unfairness surrounding the 2016 presidential election. Nor are congressional committees an adequate substitute for a nonpartisan commission. Congressional committees by their nature are partisan, as evidenced by the dueling accounts of the FISA application.

Many Americans, though certainly not all, have also lost faith in the investigation being conducted by Special Counsel Robert MuellerRobert Swan MuellerSasse: US should applaud choice of Mueller to lead Russia probe MORE. Mueller himself continues to be held in high regard by most Americans, but many of his underlings are widely regarded as partisan. Mueller did the right thing by reassigning FBI agent Peter Strzok, after his communications with his girlfriend, an FBI lawyer, were revealed. But Strzok should have recused himself from the Clinton investigation based on his own knowledge of his bias against Trump. He should be fired, not merely reassigned, for not doing so and compromising the objectivity of Muellers investigation. When a president or a presidential candidate is being investigated, everyone involved in the investigation must be Caesars wife above reproach. Several of Muellers appointees do not pass that test.

The Republican memo just released is not the last word on the issue. It is the opening salvo by Republicans. The Democrats are responding. Both sides have partisan agendas.

Now it is time for the American people to have their interests considered. As Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis once put it, Sunlight is the best disinfectant. The corollary is that over-classification keeps the infection spreading.

Partisanship has its role in politics, but there is no such thing as Republican or Democratic truth. Each side has the right to its opinion regarding the significance of the FISA application, but neither side has a right to its own facts. So the next step is for the public to see the application, properly redacted to protect national security, so that we can judge for ourselves.

Alan M. Dershowitz is the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law, Emeritus, atHarvard Law Schooland author of Trumped Up: How Criminalizing Politics is Dangerous to Democracy. Follow him on Twitter@AlanDershand on Facebook@AlanMDershowitz.

Read more here:

Alan Dershowitz on the Nunes memo: Republican ‘truth’ and …

Related Post

February 4, 2018  Tags:   Posted in: Alan Dershowitz |

Fair Use Disclaimer

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Under the 'fair use' rule of copyright law, an author may make limited use of another author's work without asking permission. Fair use is based on the belief that the public is entitled to freely use portions of copyrighted materials for purposes of commentary and criticism. The fair use privilege is perhaps the most significant limitation on a copyright owner's exclusive rights.

Fair use as described at 17 U.S.C. Section 107:

"Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phono-records or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:

  • (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for or nonprofit educational purposes,
  • (2) the nature of the copyrighted work,
  • (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole, and
  • (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."