Trey Gowdy on new Flynn revelations: It's not the FBI's job to see what they can get away with
The FBI is supposed to investigate crime not create it, says Fox News contributor Trey Gowdy, former chair of the House Oversight Committee.
PROGRAMMING ALERT: Listen to "The Trey Gowdy Podcast" every week. Find it at FoxNewsPodcasts.com.
I hope you will give my podcast, "The Trey Gowdy Podcast," debuting Tuesday, May 5, a chance by listening on Tuesdays, beginning with my three-part series on fairness, and let me know what you think.
It is important how we collectively define fairness, protect against the consequences of real or perceived unfairness, and have a long-overdue family discussion on who will assume the mantle of providing or arbitrating that fairness.
Fairness. What is it? How do we define it? Is it foundational? What happens to victims of unfairness, externally and internally? What impact does unfairness have on the bystander, the interested observer? Who do we trust, individually and collectively, to judge whether something is fair and mete out the consequences for unfairness?
SOL WISENBERG: MICHAEL FLYNN CASE — HOW FBI OFFICIALS, STEP BY STEP, ABUSED THEIR POWER
I think “fairness” is a beautiful word, aesthetically and otherwise. It has a certain radiant symmetry to it. But like other beautiful things, it is challenging to define, it is challenging to apply, it is challenging to contrast, and it is supremely challenging to find the person or entity we trust enough to judge and administer it.
Fairness can mean "equally," but then we would need to address which distinguishing facts or circumstances are significant enough to warrant disparate treatment because the word "equal" comes with its own challenges to define as well.
Fairness can mean "accurate," but something can be accurate and not fully fair. Fairness seems more encompassing than simple accuracy. It is accurate to say: "I took the book away from you." It is incomplete, and therefore unfair, to not also and simultaneously include that the book belonged to me in the first place, was loaned to you, and you failed to return it despite multiple entreats to do so.
More from Opinion
Fairness can include some measure of "balance," but balance alone does not bring out a fair or just result. I would be a rich man if I had a nickel for every print reporter who defended a story by saying it was "balanced." Allowing someone to simply respond to an allegation, which has no merit, may be "balanced," but it is not fair. The fair thing is to investigate the allegation before you shift the burden of responding onto the person asked to defend the allegation. Likewise, having two opposing, albeit equally inaccurate positions included in a media piece may be "balanced," but society does not benefit from the balancing of two incorrect positions.
Fairness can mean "evenhanded." Our criminal justice system strives to be fair, but it is decidedly not "even." One party gets to go first in an opening statement and oftentimes that same party goes last in a closing argument. One party has the burden of proof, while the other party has no burden to prove anything. One party has certain appellate rights and jury selection opportunities not afforded the other party.
Regardless of how we define the word "fair" we can agree it is an indispensable foundation of a culture worth living in.
We know it's the bedrock of our justice system. We miss it and notice its absence from our current political system. We recognize it when we see it, even if we may struggle to fully define it.
When you do experience unfairness, even in something small, it has a profound impact on you. It impacts how you view yourself. It impacts how you view others. And it impacts how you think others view you.
Likewise, the reality or perception of unfairness, the absence of fairness either intentionally or unwittingly, would be correspondingly bad and noxious. What happens when there is unfairness? What effect does unfairness have? What happens when a group either is treated unfairly or perceives it is being treated unfairly? What happens on an individual level? What impact does it have on you when you believe you have been treated unfairly?
History, literature and music are all littered with powerful examples of unfairness. Whether it is "Cinderella" or “Billy Budd.” Whether it is watching or reading accounts of innocent people charged, convicted and punished – it has a profound impact on us.
Have you ever had a call go against your team in a game? Have you ever perceived your candidate was treated unfairly compared with a competing candidate? Have you ever received a poor ruling in a court case? Has a boss treated you unfairly; rewarded someone because of who he or she is rather than what he or she has accomplished? Have you let someone in line only to not have it reciprocated?
CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP FOR OUR OPINION NEWSLETTER
Sometimes, in life or in sports, the referee or judge is bad to both sides – like an umpire who can't decide what the strike zone is no matter which team is pitching. But what about when it seems all the calls go against just us? What happens when the referee calls holding against us, but never against the other team? What happens when a different standard is applied to us than to others? What happens when someone notices all of our flaws and faults but recognizes none of the flaws and faults present in a competitor?
I have rarely been the victim of unfairness in my life. I am not an experiencer of unfairness so much as an observer. It's happened some but not nearly to the extent of what many of you and others have experienced. But when you do experience unfairness, even in something small, it has a profound impact on you. It impacts how you view yourself. It impacts how you view others. And it impacts how you think others view you.
Unfairness even on a small, inconsequential level has an effect on the person who believes he or she is being treated unfairly.
It eventually leads the person who is being mistreated to recalibrate "fairness" in his or her own mind. Rather than valuing evenhandedness and objectivity we begin to openly root for and minimize bad calls against our opponents. We reorder or restructure what is fair. We, in essence, redefine fairness. We minimize disparate treatment. We become relativists. The end justifies the means because the means is no longer evenhanded.
When you experience unfairness, you begin to no longer see it as that aspirational virtue we should all long for; we see it as an illusion, a reality for some but not for us. We start looking for make-up calls, for things to go our way even if undeserved because the equilibrium needs to be restored. Long term, systemic unfairness changes the way we view and define what is fair.
When people are treated unfairly they may tend to view themselves as excluded from societal norms and they feel abandoned. It provokes anger. It provokes questions of self-worth and it challenges other conventions. Mainly, however, it leads to a restructuring of what is fair. If someone treats me unfairly what keeps me from evening the score in my own mind? How do we even the score? We can either treat others unfairly or we can begin to judge ourselves by a different, more lax, standard.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
If fairness is good and unfairness has significant negative consequences on the individual and the broader culture, who are the referees? Who is the arbiter of what is fair and not in our country? Who calls the balls and strikes? Who calls the penalties? Who metes out the punishment for acts of unfairness? Do we have any referees left in America? Do we even want them anymore? Do we trust any individuals or entities to be the neutral, detached arbiter we need?
Of all the important topics I could have begun a podcast with I chose fairness. I think the diminution of objective standards of fairness and the absence of a societal "referee" we can trust – even if we do not like – is among the most significant challenges our culture faces.