Los Angeles Times

The president’s wiretap tale

-

Donald Trump’s absurd accusation that Barack Obama wiretapped his telephones “during the very sacred election process” is a depressing reminder that a president who has access to the resources of the nation’s intelligen­ce agencies prefers to believe conspiracy theories.

Even more depressing than Trump’s weekend tweetstorm was what followed: his staff trying to justify his outburst, and some Republican­s — including House Intelligen­ce Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Tulare) — indulging the president in his attempt to shift public attention away from persistent questions about his campaign’s ties to Russia and onto a supposed plot against him by the Obama administra­tion and the intelligen­ce bureaucrac­y. That could introduce even more friction into congressio­nal investigat­ions of Russian interferen­ce in last year’s presidenti­al election, which already have been strained by partisansh­ip.

Trump’s sensationa­l assertion that Obama ordered phones to be tapped at Trump Tower has been denied by Obama and former Director of National Intelligen­ce James R. Clapper. FBI Director James B. Comey reportedly asked the Department of Justice to publicly repudiate Trump’s claim. Finally, there is the inconvenie­nt fact that presidents don’t order wiretaps.

So where did Trump get the idea that Obama wiretapped him? The best explanatio­n seems to be that he was inspired by a report in Breitbart News, which itself cited a commentary by radio host Marc Levin in which he urged Congress to investigat­e “Obama’s ‘silent coup’ against Trump.”

The Breitbart story also linked to stories in other publicatio­ns about an order supposedly issued by the Foreign Intelligen­ce Surveillan­ce Court for inspection of a computer server at Trump Tower in connection with an investigat­ion of Russian banks. But even the author of the original report about the supposed court order says that she never wrote that it included authorizat­ion for a wiretap.

Trump’s reckless accusation is inseparabl­e from his view that concerns about Russian meddling in the election are raised in an effort to delegitimi­ze his presidency. In fact, one can denounce Russian interferen­ce and still acknowledg­e Trump as the winner of the election — provided, of course, that his campaign wasn’t involved in Russian efforts to sabotage Clinton’s prospects. And so far there is no evidence of that.

But it is in the president’s interest, as well as the nation’s, to put to rest suspicions about any such collusion if they are untrue. That is why it is imperative that the Senate and House intelligen­ce committees expedite their investigat­ion of possible contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian intelligen­ce, perhaps coordinati­ng their investigat­ions to avoid duplicatio­n. Other aspects of the investigat­ion can wait until this matter is resolved.

For the congressio­nal investigat­ion to be credible, it must be bipartisan. That means Democrats must be willing to refrain from using it to score extraneous points against a president who is deeply unpopular with their base, and Republican­s must be willing not to endorse or acquiesce in outrageous allegation­s such as the wiretappin­g charge.

Meanwhile, if the president expects to be treated fairly he will stop the baseless attacks on others — including his predecesso­r.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States