Yesterday, we posted about Representative Nunes stepping down from the investigation into Russian interference with the election. As we noted, as a direct result of his actions in briefing the White House on certain evidence that was found, he appeared less than impartial.
The mere fact that he briefed the White House in the midst of the investigation is to me less damaging to the appearance of impartiality than what he actually said. After briefing the White House, Representative Nunes rushed to make statements to the media that a “source” showed him intelligence reports indicating that communications of members of Trump’s campaign had been collected by the intelligence community. This gave President Trump the chance to argue that he was “somewhat vindicated” and that his claims of wiretapping were true.
What likely got missed by most people in Representative Nunes’ statements was the fact that there was no evidence that Trump Tower or Trump himself had been illegally wiretapped as had been claimed. Although Nunes and Representative Schiff had both previously noted there was no evidence of illegal wiretapping, Nunes’ statements as he rushed from the White House made it appear that there was new evidence since those statements; evidence that corroborated the President’s claims.
Instead, as was clarifed by Nunes in later days, members of Trump’s team were not targeted for a wiretap. Rather, those members merely happened to be recorded having communications with Russian agents in legal surveillance. Even fellow Republicans questioned why Nunes made the disclosure he did or that it was significant. However, by this point, the damage was done and it is likely that the general public at large believes the broader claim that there was evidence that President Trump was subjected to an illegal wiretap.
If it is not already apparent from the above, making public statements about details of an ongoing investigation is not a good idea. In the employment context, this could have a chilling effect on the investigation and future investigations. For example, employees may not raise future complaints if they believe that an investigation will not be confidential. With regard to the current investigation, witnesses may not come forward as they believe there is no point since there was already a finding in the investigation.
Finally, even assuming that a thorough investigation is completed and no wrongdoing is found, the complaining employee will likely not believe that there was an impartial investigation. Instead, the employee will believe that the employer was always on the side of the acccused and is now engaged in a cover-up to protect that employee.