Read Time:4 Minute, 21 Second
The FBI recently declared that it would re-open its investigations of two high-profile, extremely controversial, and ongoing cases: the 2023 discovery of cocaine at the White House and the Supreme Court’s draft opinion leak in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022), which overturned Roe v. Wade. Both cases elicited universal public outrage, accused speculation regarding institutional openness and safety, and raised accountability concerns at the highest echelons of the U.S. government. Reopening these cases has fueled yet another series of arguments over law enforcement efficiency, political pressures, and federal institutions’ authority.
History
The cocaine episode was reported in the West Wing in July 2023, when a trace amount of cocaine was discovered in a storage cubby that was frequently visited by staff and visitors. The incident was initially investigated by the Secret Service, which was closed after no suspect was discovered since there was no forensic evidence. Critics, even some members of Congress, wondered how such a security breach could take place at one of the most-watched buildings in the United States.
The Dobbs draft opinion was leaked to Politico in May 2022. It was a profound breach of the Supreme Court’s traditionally opaque construction since the document showed that the Court was upending nearly 50 years’ worth of federal abortion protection. As a reaction to the leak, citizens throughout the nation protested the violation. Chief Justice John Roberts attested to the validity of the draft opinion and directed an internal probe to be conducted by the Court’s Marshal. The probe concluded in January 2023 without the discovery of the source of the leak.
The reopening of both investigations raises important questions regarding how the cases were initially handled and why they are being reopened today, as well as our general concerns for government transparency and public trust.
The choice to reopen the cases implicitly indicates the prior investigations were not robust; however, critics have warned that the reopening of the investigations could be politically motivated—especially with election season looming; some people think reopening these investigations could serve several purposes to indicate a more serious stance on accountability, or to distract from other on-going controversies.
On the other hand, supporters of the investigations argue that an investigation is needed to uphold the integrity of the Supreme Court and White House security, irrespective of political timing. Supporters emphasize that not resolving ongoing incidents loses public faith and sets a dangerous precedent of neglect if unaddressed.
Additionally, both investigations concern individuals with high-level access and protectee populations demonstrating how to really and potentially implicate political influence on the depth or limitations of the investigation scope; however, both investigations projected a one-dimensional narrative with unfulfilled capacity to investigate with the use of contemporary forensic technology and inquisitorial power—raising questions of agency, oversight powers, risk assessment throughout internal procedures, and protocols.
Leaks and breaches of security in the federal government are not new phenomena. When the Pentagon Papers were released in 1971, people debated the seriousness of an internal leak. And in 2013, the dramatic Edward Snowden disclosures drew attention to institutional problems in federal agencies. What makes the leak of the Dobbs draft special is that the institutional actor is the Supreme Court, an institution that has historically been more insulated from public access than other legislative or executive institutions.
Similar to drugs being found in the White House, especially near spaces accessed by senior officials, raises issues that do not normally occur in other federal institutions; previous drug-related security breaches in federal settings typically included agents or visitors at subordinate levels and were quickly resolved.
Implications
If the renewed investigations yield clear results, it might instill some public confidence back into public federal institutions. If the source of the Dobbs leak can be determined, it may lead to future conversations around judicial secrecy and reform and the development of new protocols around the handling of sensitive documents.
Conversely, if the Courts cannot resolve these cases, once again there may be more public skepticism surrounding our public institutions. In addition, the feeling of double-standards, where high-profile individuals do not deal with scrutiny while the average citizen is held to the fire, may potentially lead to division of public opinion.
Furthermore, any results that would point to obstruction by an official body or several types of failure from the oversight of the agencies could result in congressional hearings or calls to change the administration of agencies, especially the Secret Service and the Supreme Court administration.
The FBI’s choice to open a fresh investigation into the 2023 White House cocaine discovery as well as the 2022 Dobbs draft leakage, is a complex crossroads of security, transparency, and political accountability. Each reinvestigation comes at a time when trust in American institutions is at a low ebb. Whether either investigation produces concrete results or simply more inconclusiveness, their scrutiny will surely have implications for continuing national discussions around issues of justice, institutional accountability, and democratic legitimacy.
At the end of the day, the ultimate effectiveness of these two investigations will depend on how independent, thorough, and transparent they are necessary and contingent components if trust is to be established or restored.
Keep reading Questiqa.us
Happy
0 %
Sad
0 %
Excited
0 %
Sleepy
0 %
Angry
0 %
Surprise
0 %
0
0
Average Rating