Trump, Russia, Congress and the Media: Does an Untethed, Unaccountable Media Protect Our Freedom?

by Glenn A. Griffis.

On May 31, 2005 a great mystery was solved. As many students of politics and history had long suspected Mark A. Felt was, Deep Throat. He was the secret source of information in Washington Post reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein's Watergate investigations that turned the public against President Richard Nixon. Among other things Felt informed Woodward and Bernstein of a secret campaign-dirty-tricks fund in Nixon's re-election campaign office to finance operations like the break in to the Democratic National Committee's offices in the Watergate building. What Felt did not know was how much Nixon knew about the campaign skulduggery. Felt famously told Woodward and Bernstein “follow the money.”

Woodard and Bernstein kept their source's identity from everyone except their editor, Ben Bradley, until Felt came forward personally near the end of his life. Confidential sources have become the holy grail of American journalism. The current White House and many of the President's aides and advisers are being confronted daily with accusations about his campaign's supposed collusion with Russia. Much of the reporting comes from unnamed sources. In one article recently published in the Washington Post, 30-separate anonymous sources were referenced. When one compares events leading up to Watergate and the accusations made against President Trump's campaign one wonders who or what confidential sources really protect.

When one compares events leading up to Watergate and the accusations made against President Trump's campaign one wonders who or what confidential sources really protect.

There was nothing in Mark Felt's revelation that was ever connected to Richard Nixon. He offered no evidence that Nixon knew about or ordered the Watergate break in. What forced Nixon's resignation was no secret revelation of Felt's: it was Alexander Butterfield's testimony before Congress on July 13, 1973 that there was a taping system in the Oval Office that ultimately lead to Nixon's fall. That information came in a public hearing. Nothing leaked from “Deep Throat,” or any other anonymous source ever served as evidence of criminal activity in the Nixon White House. The anonymous information relentlessly broadcast on the evening news created suspicion, and kept the President and his team on the defensive, but it offered no evidence of wrong doing.

When Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox attempted to uncover the contents of the taping system, Nixon' ordered his Attorney General, Elliot Richardson, to fire Cox. The General refused and resigned. He then demanded the Assistant Attorney General, William Ruckleshaus, fire Cox. He refused and resigned. Nixon then ordered Solicitor General Robert Bork to fire Cox which he did. Although the firing of Cox lead to an hysterical media barrage of suspicion about the President's motives, no has ever questioned the legality of the firing, nor did it impede the investigation.

Although the firing of Cox lead to an hysterical media barrage of suspicion about the President's motives, no has ever questioned the legality of the firing, nor did it impede the investigation.

A new special prosecutor, Leon Jaworski, was appointed; he ultimately took Nixon's claim of executive privilege regarding the tapes to the U.S. Supreme court that famously ruled, “the President is not above the law,” forcing the release of the tapes. 

The tapes revealed Nixon's complicity in efforts to cover up illegal actions of his aides, subordinates, campaign staff, and to obstruct the investigation into the break into the Watergate building. Obstruction of justice is what brought Richard Nixon down, but none of the evidence of obstruction came from Mark Felt. Butterfield's testimony would have resulted in an investigation of obstruction against Nixon regardless of whether Felt had ever spoken to the Post. None of the information kept shielded by Woodward and Bernstein hurt Richard Nixon in any way. Did keeping Felt's identity secret protect either him, or the Post?

Felt revealed no national secrets. Nothing he revealed jeopardized any ongoing criminal investigation. While embarrassing to Nixon had Felt's identity been know, neither he nor the Post would have been damaged. Felt was near the end of his FBI career, and left the bureau a year later. The secrets were no threat to his safety, his life, his family or his job. So what exactly did the secrecy surrounding the identity of Deep Throat accomplish? It merely helped establish a narrative that hindered the President's ability to govern, and added intrigue and suspicion to the story. It gave Woodward and Bernstein undeserved status as paragon's of virtue and protectors of liberty. What it never revealed was Felt's motivation for talking. He was a disgruntled employee. He believed that as Deputy Director of the FBI under J. Edgar Hoover, that he was next in line for his position. When Hoover died on May 2, 1972 Nixon appointed his lifelong friend and Justice Department official, L. Patrick Gray, as director of the FBI. Felt believe he was passed over by Nixon. The only shielding his identity accomplished was reward his victimization attitude with hero status. Had Felt's identity had been known his resentment of Nixon would have denied him hero status.

Our current President, Donald J. Trump, finds himself under a barrage of accusations from his democratic opponents and media pundits, based largely on conjecture and shielded sources. The story line is that agents of the Kremlin cooperated surreptitiously with some actors in Trump's campaign to sway voter opinion in favor of Donald Trump, denying the Presidency to the Barak Obama's designated heir-apparent, Hillary Clinton, and subverting the democratic process. Let's compare circumstance surrounding the so called Trump Russian collusion and Watergate. Let's ask how the media's protected sources affected both stories.

Both events involved accusations of election tampering. In neither incident has there ever been a modicum of evidence that voters were swayed by nefarious actions or poll tallies changed. There was no voter fraud or manipulation ever established in the Watergate affair. The only voter fraud that has been proved in the 2016 election of Trump was fraudulent totals that favored Hilary Clinton.

The only voter fraud that has been proved in the 2016 election of Trump was fraudulent totals that favored Hillary Clinton. 

The accusations against Nixon were based on criminal activity of some of his campaign operatives and some of the actions of his staff.

The perpetrators of the Watergate break-in were an infamous band of characters, dubbed “the plumbers,” employed by the Nixon's campaign to “dig up dirt,” and play tricks on opponents. They were shown to have broken into the office of Daniel Ellsberg's psychiatrist and leaked his mental health information to the press. Vice President Spiro Agnew pleaded no-contest to charges he had improperly used his office as Governor of Maryland to influence contract awards in favor of some of his donors. He resigned in disgrace. Nixon had a history of tough, acrimonious campaigns, involving disreputable actions committed against him and by his campaign. So suspicion of Nixon was natural. Shielding Felt and other anonymous sources contributed nothing to a search for truth or to the progress of the criminal investigation. In the Russian Collusion scandal shielding sources is hindering the truth and unnecessarily prolonging the investigation.

Shielding Felt and other anonymous sources contributed nothing to a search for truth or to the progress of the criminal investigation. In the Russian Collusion scandal shielding sources is hindering the truth and unnecessarily prolonging the investigation.

The so called Russian Collusion scandal is very different. Donald J. Trump is a lavishly rich , and sometimes eccentric, billionaire who has never done more than donated and commented on any political campaign, candidate or event. Like anyone in business his ventures sometimes involved legal challenges or entanglements. On occasions where courts have ruled in his favor he has used the law to advance his interest, on occasions when courts have ruled against him, he has complied with judgments. That is what businessmen do! Donald Trump has never attempted to subvert the law. Neither The Trump Organization, nor the President, has ever been charged with a crime. None of the questions regarding his involvement with Russia have been based on any evidence of criminal activity. Crimes have been committed against him or his staff, such as the leaking of classified information that destroyed the career of General Mike Flynn. Much of the suspicion currently leveled at Trump actually has nothing to do with election tampering. The new accusation is that Trump fired FBI Director, James Comey which (as was the case when Nixon fired Archibald Cox) was  legal and no obstacle to  the Justice Department's investigation. Andrew McCabe, a democrat, married to a democratic Congresswoman, and an Obama appointee, was appointed acting Director of the FBI, and has testified that Comey's firing has had little or no affect on the investigation.

Lately anonymous sources have supposedly leaked the contents of Comey's private memos in which the President supposedly asked Comey to “go easy on Flynn.” If that is true it hardly rises to obstruction of justice. The President is given the Constitutional responsibility of enforcing the law. He sets enforcement priorities. Comey will testify this week about his conversations with Trump. Most think he wiil make no revelation of criminal activity. If it were proven tomorrow that Russia acted in Trump's favor and that he knew it, or even cooperated with it, where is the crime? The Watergate scandal began as an investigation into a crime, the break in and burglary of the DNC offices in the Watergate building. How did the Russia collusion scandal get started?

It started at the third Presidential debate when Fox News correspondent, Chris Wallace, asked then candidate Trump whether he would accept the results of the election (a loaded question that Trump turned on him).

“Well have to wait and see, Chris.” was his response.

This was the first incident the media used to create the perception that something was amiss in the Trump campaign. From that moment until 2 am November 9, 2016 the media went wild about how Trump was going to destroy American democracy by refusing to accept the will of the people when he lost . And yet within 24 hours after his victory the Hillary Campaign, the DNC and the democratic party did exactly that. Every day some pundit or politician implies that Trump colluded with the Russians to defeat Hillary, or someone close to his administration or campaign did. This innuendo is based on anonymous sources. The political establishment simply refuses to accept the American people elected a President from outside their coterie. So does shielding media sources preserve the Constitution or protect liberty?

While everyone agrees leaks damage national security and destroy reputations with slanderous accusations, few are willing to do what is necessary to stop them. Media privilege encourages leaks, shielding sources of information commends the incredulous. False leaks will continue, lives will be destroyed, and the media will continue to control the political agenda as long as we accept the principle that First Amendment gives media the privilege to keep their sources secret regardless of the consequences. 

It's time to end media privilege for issues of national security. Here is what the First Amendment says:

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.

The amendment protects people from intimidation or from duress from the government because of their beliefs or opinions. However, there is nothing in this amendment that gives the press the right to do protect people who harm others, hinder the administration of justice, or that diminishes appropriate Constitutional authority. There is no Constitutional right that allows the media to release information about the recent Manchester bombing hindering the investigation and damaging US relations with a close ally. When the media claims they have the privilege to protect the anonymity of their source, they are complicit in compromising of the national security. There is no protection for those who use speech to harm. The First Amendment was never intended to enable speech that does harm. Had that been the case libel, and child pornography laws would be unconstitutional. No serious defense attorney will claim first Amendment privilege for Anthony Weiner in his trial for sexting a 15 year old girl. 

The only thing the media privilege does is enable the media to establish a perception in the public mind without having to account for it's veracity.

The only thing the media privilege does is enable the media to establish a perception in the public mind without having to account for it's veracity.

There are a plethora of examples of the media lying to shape or subvert national policy. Walter Cronkite went on national television and lied to the American people about the efficacy of the Tet offensive. Public opinion turned against President Johnson and the Vietnam war. Johnson chose not to run for a second term and the political momentum in the democratic primary swung to Robert F. Kennedy. Media privilege has enabled politically motivated journalist to subvert the will of the American people and control the political agenda.

Is false speech that harms people, or harms the security of the country protected by the First Amendment? How was the interest of the public served by keeping the identity of Mark Felt from the public? How would Felt have been hurt by revealing it? The current Russian collusion scandal makes it clear that the media needs accountably for what they promulgate. Yes they have the right to publish whatever they feel is relevant. But they have no right to protect the identity of a source who leaks information that bring down a National Security Advisor for doing nothing illegal. It's time to end media privilege for issues of national security! Yes the media should be compelled to identify the leaker of Michael Flynn's identity. What gives the media the right to destroy a the reputation of a dedicated public servant with information that is unverifiable and illegal to possess? What gives the media the right to protect the source of a leak of information in the investigation of the Manchester bombing? The Constitution does not give them that right. 

The media claims an absolute right to shield their sources from identification. They also claim no responsibility for prevaricators whom they help destroy innocent people and national security for political gain. Media privilege has only served to give the corporate and political interest the ability to mislead and manipulate American politics. The media has never been concerned with truth. Walter Cronkite deceived the American people about the Vietnam war. His lie contributed to the loss of the War and to the loss of American lives. CBS news anchor Dan Rather was seeking to “influence to outcome of an election,” when he published forged documents about George W. Bush's service record. Had this information been kept secret by a claim of privilege a lie could have been responsible for Bush's loss and his reputation ruined. The secret of Deep Throat's identity served no judicious purpose. Media privilege is no protector of American Freedom, and it is not protected in the first Amendment.

It is time to end media privilege! Samson's Jawbone calls upon Congress to pass legislation giving judges and attorneys the right to compel the revelation of sources in interest of national security. The First Amendment was never intended to create and untethered, irresponsible media. End media privilege now!