Thread by @AprilFDoss

Last night’s White House press statement about releasing unredacted information on the Russia investigation was a doozy. Only 139 words, but an awful lot to unpack, with lots of reasons to be concerned. I’ll try to walk through them here. bit.ly/2MFPZo9 1/x

First, what does the WH say they’re going to do? 1) Release info from a few pages of the 4th Carter Page FISA; 2&3) Release never-before-seen info from FBI interviews in the RU investigation; and 4) Release unredacted text messages from specific individuals at FBI and DOJ. 2/x

All four raise the spectre of creating a false narrative thru selective release of cherry-picked info, and risk damaging vital natsec interests and govt norms in the process. However, they raise these issues in slightly different ways, so it helps to break this mish-mash down.3/x

Re the FISAs: the WH has ordered declass of selected pages of the June '17 Page FISA. Remember this is FISA #4 on Page. By this time, he’s been under FISC-authorized surveillance for 9 months. The app would typically include highlights of new info & any needed corrections. 4/x

Bc a redacted version of that FISA was already released, we know those pages discuss “RU Govt’s Coordinated Efforts to Influence the 2016 U.S. PresElection;” G. Papadopolous; Page’s connections to RIS & “Coordination with RU Govt Officials on US Election Influence Activities.”5/x

Those pages were redacted under various FOIA exemptions, incl: 1) the info was properly classified, i.e., release could harm the U.S. (likely includes details re intel sources/methods); 2) the info was collected for LE and release could
interfere with ongoing investigation. 6/x

What about the rest of the FISA that this order won’t release? I’m not a big fan of releasing FISA applications; there are lots of good natsec & privacy reasons not to. That said, it’s hard to find a principled basis for overruling FOIA redactions for some pages but not others.7/

Declass should never be done to advance a particular political narrative: it undermines confidence in IC and future U.S. access to intel, and selective release of cherry-picked info doesn’t advance transparency, it just increases the risk of skewed interpretation of facts. 8/x

Re the Ohr interviews: From press, we know these relate to his contacts with Steele. Releasing this info risks undermining an ongoing investigation, it's not necessary for oversight (Congress already has access), & releasing only a subset of info doesn’t serve transparency. 9/x

Re texts: Many former natsec colleagues are focused on release of FISAs & intvws. I agree with those serious concerns. But IMO, the order releasing texts raises an even more corrosive risk of corrupting our institutions & allowing abuse of power directed against individuals. 10/x

Here’s why: our nation needs dedicated civil servants at every level. They need to know they’ll be treated fairly under the Privacy Act and various admin procedures; we need to make sure they don’t suffer adverse consequences for improper reasons. 11/x

One of the many discouraging things in the political narrative of this
investigation are the savagely personal, ad hominem attacks on individuals who are career civil servants. Can their official actions be scrutinized? Absolutely. Plenty of proper channels exist for that. 12/x

And yes, the level of heat & scrutiny can appropriately be different for
political appointees, senior execs, & salaried personnel. But setting people
up for reputational smears is no way to attract the most capable,
dedicated people to serve their country by working in govt. 13/

The unfortunate upshot of these decisions is that intel & LE sources will be less likely to cooperate; intel methods may be put at risk; individuals will be dissuaded from gov't service; the investigation may be undermined; & little meaningful transparency will be achieved. 14/x

Lots of questions remain. No docs have been released yet, and it isn't clear if DoJ, ODNI, & FBI will treat this as a mandatory declassication order, or a directive to review these docs for potential further release consistent with FOIA (which would mean lots of redactions). 15/x

The 139 words of this press release may get lost in the overall swirl of a very busy news cycle. But there are lots of good reasons to be concerned about the direction it sets and what happens next. 16/end