Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Partisanship and congressional intelligence oversight: the case of the Russia inquiries, 2017-2020

2023; Taylor & Francis; Volume: 39; Issue: 1 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1080/02684527.2023.2249792

1743-9019

Vincent Boucher, Frédérick Gagnon,

Judicial and Constitutional Studies

ABSTRACTWhat patterns of behavior can we observe among the leading figures of US congressional intelligence committees’ Russia inquiries? We argue that current typologies to study the roles of legislators in intelligence oversight do not fully capture the impact of partisanship on overseers’ behavior. Revisiting Loch Johnson’s typology of ‘role definitions’ to account for the behaviour of these legislators, we define four types of congressional investigators to understand how partisanship affected legislators’ behavior during the congressional investigations on Russian interference. We conclude by showing how our role definitions could be used to study congressional intelligence oversight on other high-profile issues.KEYWORDS: Congressoversightintelligencecongressional committeesRussiapartisanship Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Notes1. Zengerle, ‘The Thruth Is Out There’. The New York Times Magazine, April 29, 2018: 42.2. Kriner and Schickler, ‘The Resilience’; Gagnon and Boucher, ‘From the Hill’.3. Johnson, ‘The Church Committee’; Rohde, In Deep.4. Zegart, Eyes on Spies.5. Zegart and Quinn, ‘Congressional Intelligence Oversight’; Zegart, ‘The Domestic Politics’.6. Kriner and Schickler, ‘The Resilience’; Kriner and Schwartz, ‘Divided Government’.7. With the following exceptions: Ott, ‘Partisanship and the Decline’; Kibbe, ‘Congressional Oversight’.8. Parker and Dull, ‘The Weaponization’.9. Johnson, Spy Watching, 281–82.10. Carter and Scott, Congress and U.S. Foreign Policy.; Fridriechs and Tama, ‘Polarization and U.S. Foreign Policy’; Saunders, ‘Elites in the Making’.11. Kriner and Schickler, Investigating the President, 6.12. Ibid.13. McCubbins and Schwartz, ‘Congressional Oversight’.14. Ibid., 167.15. Johnson, ‘Congress and Intelligence’, 130.16. Fowler, Watchdogs, 10.17. Deering, ‘Alarms and Patrols’.18. Zegart and Quinn, ‘Congressional Intelligence Oversight’, 746.19. Ibid., 760–64; Zegart, ‘The Domestic Politics’, 10–14.20. Kibbe, ‘Congressional Oversight’, 28.21. Zegart and Quinn, ‘Congressional Intelligence Oversight’, 761.22. See Johnson’s ‘shock theory’ of intelligence accountability, an adaptation of McCubbins and Schwartz’s model. Johnson, ‘Congress and Intelligence’, 131–32; Johnson, ‘A Shock Theory’, 343–347; Johnson, ‘The Contemporary Presidency’, 835.23. Zegart and Quinn, ‘Congressional Intelligence Oversight’, 754–59; Zegart, Eyes on Spies.24. Lindsay, Congress and the Politics, 65.25. Zegart, ‘The Domestic Politics’, 14–15.26. Ibid., 9–16. See also Ott, ‘Partisanship and the Decline’, 87.27. Johnson, ‘The Church Committee’, 209; Zegart and Quinn, ‘Congressional Intelligence Oversight’, 749–50; Johnson, ‘A Shock Theory’, 355; Ott, ‘Partisanship and the Decline’, 87.28. Kibbe, ‘Congressional Oversight’, 33–38. See also Zegart, ‘The Domestic Politics’, 19–20; Lindsay, Congress and the Politics, 66.29. Kriner and Schickler, ‘The Resilience’, 437–38.30. Fenno, Congressmen in Committees, 1–2.31. Johnson, ‘The U.S. Congress’, 480–84. On the motivational factors driving lawmakers oversight behavior, see also Nolan, ‘Intelligence Oversight’; and Fowler, Watchdogs, 47–68.32. Zegart, Flawed by Design, 32.33. Carter and Scott, Choosing to Lead, 16–19.34. Fowler, Watchdogs, 199–200.35. Howell and Pevehouse, While Dangers, 34.36. Johnson, Spy Watching, 286. For an alternative role typology, see Zegart, Eyes on Spies.37. Johnson, “Ostriches, Cheerleaders, 98–100. See also Johnson, ‘Congress and Intelligence’, 140.38. Johnson, ‘Ostriches, Cheerleaders’, 98.39. Adapted from Ibid., 99.40. Lowenthal, The Future of Intelligence, 122.41. Aberbach, ‘What’s Happened’, 19.42. Kriner and Schwartz, ‘Divided Government’; Parker and Dull, ‘Divided We Quarrel’.43. McCarty, Polarization, 134–155.44. Lowande and Peck, ‘Congressional Investigations’.45. Mills and Selin, ‘Don’t Sweat’, 616.46. DeVine, ‘Covert Action and Clandestine Activities of the Intelligence Community’, 3.47. Homan and Lantis, The Battle; Napolio and Rezaee, ‘Extremists and Participation’.48. Lee, ‘Presidents and Party Teams’, 787.49. Parker and Dull, ‘The Weaponization’, 61.50. Lee, ‘How Party Polarization’, 272.51. Mettler and Leavitt, ‘Public Policy’, 260.52. Milner and Tingley, Sailing the Water’s Edge; Homan and Lantis, The Battle; Carter and Scott, eds. Congress and U.S. Foreign Policy.53. Fowler, Watchdogs, 47–8 & 72–73.54. Marshall and Haney, ‘The Impact of Party Conflict’.55. Fowler, ‘The Continued Decline’; Saunders, ‘Elites in the Making’.56. Kibbe, ‘Congressional Oversight’, 41–42.57. Ibid., 39.58. Weissman, A Culture, 112. See also Knott, ‘The Great Republican’, 51; Johnson, ‘Accountability’, 106.59. Nolan, ‘Intelligence Oversight’.60. Hinckley, Less than Meets, 56–59; Kibbe, ‘Congressional Oversight’, 39.61. Ott, ‘Partisanship and the Decline’, 69–94.62. Knott, ‘The Great Republican’, 57.63. Walker, ‘Reforming Congressional Oversight’, 706.64. Johnson, ‘Congress and Intelligence’, 128; Snider, The Agency, 86–7; Seliktar, The Politics of Intelligence, 166.65. Johnson, ‘Accountability’, 109; Walker, ‘Reforming Congressional Oversight’, 707.66. Kibbe, ‘Congressional Oversight’, 41.67. Snider, The Agency, 348–49.68. CQ Almanac 2011, ‘Intelligence Law’.69. Johnson, Spy Watching, 305–6.70. Nokken-Poole dimension, like DW-Nomination dimension-1, measures ideology on a scale of 1,0 (conservative) to −1,0 (liberal). While DW-Nominate considers legislators’ ideological inclinations to be stable throughout the careers of members of Congress, Nokken-Poole provides ideal points to measure ideology of a senator or representative for each Congress they served in. McCarty, ‘In Defense’, 172–184.71. Lee, ‘Presidents and Party Teams’, 778; Kriner and Schwartz, ‘Divided Government’, 308–10.72. We replaced this dimension of Johnson’s typology because our research focuses on the relationship between partisanship and legislators’ involvement in intelligence oversight, not support for intelligence activities per se.73. Office of the Director of National Intelligence, ‘Assessing Russian Activities’,74. Warner, ‘Keynote Conversation’,75. Ibid.76. Warner, ‘Joint Statement’; Gagnon and Boucher, ‘From the Hill’,77. Kriner and Schickler, ‘The Resilience’, 437.78. Evans and Schiller, 'The U.S. Senate',79. Flegenheimer, M., and J. Steinhauer. ‘Democrats Want Inquiry as G.O.P. Concern Grows’. The New York Times, February 15, 2017: A17.80. Flegenheimer, M. ‘Sticking With Trump, Republicans Resist Calls for Wider Russia Inquiry’. The New York Times, March 3, 2017: A19.81. Bromwich, J. ‘Who Are the Members of the Senate Intelligence Committee?’. The New York Times, June 9, 2017, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/08/us/politics/senate-intelligence-committee-members.html.82. ‘Comey Testimony: Highlights of the Hearing’. The New York Times, June 8, 2017, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/08/us/politics/james-comey-testimony-hearing.html.83. Warner, ‘On Senate Floor’.84. Schor, E. ‘Intelligence Committee Will Investigate Possible Russia-Trump Links’. Politico, January 13, 2017, https://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/burr-says-intel-panel-will-investigate-possible-russia-trump-links-233621.85. Becker, J., Rosenberg, M., and M. Haberman. ‘Senate to Question President’s Son-in-Law on Talks with Russia’, The New York Times, March 28, 2017: A1.86. Levine, M. ‘Trump Jr. to Appear Before Senate Intelligence Committee Wednesday’. Politico, June 11, 2019, https://www.politico.com/story/2019/06/11/trump-jr-senate-intelligence-committee-1360664.87. Flegenheimer, M., and E. Huetteman. ‘2 Senators Vow Firmer Inquiry as House Flails’. The New York Times, March 30, 2017: A1.88. Ibid.89. Gagnon and Boucher, ‘From the Hill’.90. U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, ‘Russian Active Measures’,91. Ibid., 7.92. Matishak, M., and A. Desiderio. ‘Senate Intel Report Confirms Russia Aimed to Help Trump in 2016’. Politico, April 21, 2020, https://www.politico.com/news/2020/04/21/senate-intel-report-confirms-russia-aimed-to-help-trump-in-2016–198171.93. Goodman, R. ‘Who Is Richard Burr, Really? Why the Public Can’t Trust His Voice in the Russia Probe’. Just Security. February 13, 2019. https://www.justsecurity.org/62573/richard-burr-leadership-senates-russia-investigation-disintegrate/.94. Sullivan, S. et al. ‘Senators from Both Parties Pledge to Deepen Probe of Russia and the 2016 Election’. The Washington Post, February 14, 2017, https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/top-senate-republican-blunt-says-congress-should-probe-flynn-situation/2017/02/14/8abbcad4-f2d5-11e6-a9b0-ecee7ce475fc_story.html. See also Gagnon and Boucher, ‘From the Hill’.95. Miller, G., and A. Entous. ‘Trump Administration Sought to Enlist Intelligence Officials, Key Lawmakers to Counter Russia Stories’. The Washington Post, February 24, 2017. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-administration-sought-to-enlist-intelligence-officials-key-lawmakers-to-counter-russia-stories/2017/02/24/c8487552-fa99-11e6-be05-1a3817ac21a5_story.html.96. Everett, B., and M. Levine. ‘Mueller Report Ropes in Senate GOP’. Politico, April 18, 2019, https://www.politico.com/story/2019/04/18/burr-mueller-probe-white-house-1282098.97. Gazis, O. ‘Richard Burr on the Senate Intelligence Committee’s Russia Investigation, 2 Years On’. CBS News. February 7, 2019. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/richard-burr-on-senate-intelligence-committees-russia-investigation-2-years-on/.98. U.S. House of Representatives, Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, ‘Intelligence Committee Chairman’.99. Ibid.100. U.S. House of Representatives, Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, ‘Intelligence Committee Ranking Member’.101. Huetteman, E., and M. Schmidt. ‘Questioning the Credibility of the House’. The New York Times, March 24, 2017, A15.102. Ibid.103. U.S. House of Representatives, Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, ‘Intelligence Committee Ranking Member’.104. Ibid.105. Ibid.106. Gagnon and Boucher, ‘From the Hill’.107. Adam Schiff (@RepAdamSchiff), Twitter, March 20, 2017.108. ‘HPSCI, Report on Russian Actives Measures’. NPR, March 22, 2018, https://apps.npr.org/documents/document.html?id=4448589-Hpsci-Declassified-Committee-Report-Redacted. See also Gagnon and Boucher, ‘From the Hill’.109. U.S. House of Representatives Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, ‘HPSCI, Minority Views’.110. Ibid.111. See note 1 above.112. Ibid.113. Demirjian, K. ‘Coats Pledges to Work with Lawmakers on Probe into Russia’. The Washington Post, February 28, 2017, https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/national-intelligence-pick-coats-is-set-for-confirmation-hearing/2017/02/28/172e171a-fdc6-11e6-99b4-9e613afeb09f_story.html.114. ‘Representative Nunes on Russian Election Interference’. C-SPAN, March 22, 2017, https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4662861/user-clip-devin-nunes-march-22.115. Lucas, R. ‘Nunes Memo: What’s In It And What’s Not’. NPR, February 2, 2018, https://www.npr.org/2018/02/02/582713363/memo-russian-overtures-to-trump-aide-triggered-fbi-investigation.116. U.S. House of Representatives Documents Repository, ‘Memorandum’.117. Rucker and Leonnig, A Very Stable Genius.118. Kevin Clinesmith, a former FBI lawyer, admitted to having altered an email that was used to prepare the Bureau’s application for the fourth FISA warrant to eavesdrop on Carter Page.119. Bryan and Tama, ‘The Prevalence of Bipartisanship’.120. Excludes unanimous consent approval for DNI McConnell (2007), CIA Panetta (2009) & DNI Clapper (2010). Data: Roberts et al., Political Institutions.121. Data sources for figures 3 & 4 : Lewis et al., Voteview; Stewart III and Woon, Congressional Committee.Additional informationNotes on contributorsVincent BoucherVincent Boucher holds a PhD in Political Science (University of Quebec at Montreal) and teaches International relations and American politics at University of Sherbrooke and Bishop's University. His research focuses on U.S. foreign policy decision-making and American political institutions.Frédérick GagnonFrederick Gagnon is a full professor of political science and holds the Raoul Dandurand Chair in Strategic and Diplomatic Studies at the University of Quebec at Montreal. He teaches American Politics and researches American political institutions and Canada-United States relations.