Protocols of Safety

Only a serious student of government would know and understand many of the protocols that are employed in running our federal government. Most have been in place for over a hundred years (the protocols, not the students!). Protocols guide people through complicated processes all the while keeping order to their work.

This order is there for a reason: to carefully preserve authority, image of serious purpose, and safeguard conflicting processes. Open communication with the public is one ideal espoused often, but justice and fairness is also a key principle of our social order.

The criminal justice system – police, prosecutors, courts, appeal courts, et. al. – are an example of complexities involved with open communications. Not all issues can be aired or discussed when the process of justice is still working a case. Protection of rights for both plaintiff and defendant is the objective here; so too, the procedures of evidence purity and chain of supervision of that evidence; and prosecutorial process to protect witnesses, defendant rights, and the credibility of the system of justice overall.

These protocols can become nitpicky. It doesn’t take much imagination to understand why.

The same holds true in government circles, to wit: Congress enables formation of departments and agencies to perform work for the government and its people; the Executive Branch administers these agencies but protocols of purpose are defined by Congress must be met; administrative details still must reside in the Executive Branch for accountability. And the Judicial Branch is available to settle disputes should they arise. All three branches of the federal government are involved in these protocols to safeguard the right things get done, and for the right reasons. Complexity of purpose and function easily get confused.

And Congress has oversight of executive functioning to make certain the intent of Congress is being followed.

Interestingly, the current white house administration is locked into a deep investigation into the possibility Russia meddled with the 2016 elections and that the victor’s campaign may have consorted with Russian personnel to affect the election results.

This is a Department of Justice mission to investigate. Congress exerts oversight to watch the process is performed properly. The Executive branch runs the Department of Justice. The political ramifications of the findings of the investigation are enormous if charges are proven. Such would be damaging to the incumbent white house occupant (republican) and his protectors in Congress (republican) and the administrators in the Department of Justice (republican). Who makes certain hanky-panky isn’t played with the protocols?

Example: a Congressional oversight committee is investigating the Mueller investigation; they  found a memo that they find suspicious; the committee did not adjudge the accuracy of the memo or pertinence with the investigation; they just think it is ‘fishy’ and have said so; so far this memo is confidential because it is part of the protocol operation of the investigation and tie-ins with the FBI which has responsibility within the investigation. The republican in charge of the oversight committee voted to make the memo public when protocol says not to. The FBI has weighed in on this and recommends to their boss, the white house occupant, not to authorize the release of the memo. The white house is suggesting the memo will be released.

The FBI in this instance has lost control of its own protocols; same with the Department of Justice, and all because of the actions of a politically charged oversight committee.

So far the Judiciary has not been involved. That is the next logical step, but by then the memo will have been released and the feared damage done. At that point the investigation may be called into question because of the abridged protocols.

Protocols are important. Transparency of government is important. Sometimes these two collide and transparency suffers for a time until everything gets sorted through. I suggest that mr. trump sustain protocols for now lest he damage the system of justice.

That is the fairness we all say we support. Sometimes it is not easy. This is one of those instances.

February 2, 2018