Trump and Russia; Spasiba, Harasho!

[Joe]

How do you know it's garbage of the first order, if you have not read it?

I already read the Intercept piece.

That's not the one he was referring to.

I addressed both pieces.

[Forty Two]

Sorry about that. Yes, I see you did.

I'm not just throwing shit against the wall, Joe. A discussion of issues entails more than one perspective. The issue in the Hill piece should be whether the facts stated therein are accurate or not, not whether the author was moved to an opinion writing gig or has had scathing reviews. Even the mainstream media sources like CNN, MSNBC, FoxNews, etc. have shown themselves here and there to be untrustworthy. I agree, all sources should be verified, including the ones I post. However, given the flubs and problems with, say, CNN over the years, I wouldn't take what they say as indicative of a particular level of vetting and verification either.

But, you've made fair points about the authorship of the articles in question. We can look at it deeper. That's what discussions are for.

And, that's why I was a vocal opponent to these "clearinghouse" type threads, where everything about Trump has to be put in these general, run-on threads, and that new topics about specific issues are merged. What happens is, when an article or point is posted that might be controversial and merit deeper discussion, it gets mired in general anti-Trump rhetoric and other postings. So, it's hard to focus on a particular issue. A spygate thread would be helpful, and then we would take the articles from various sources and scrub them as best we can to find the truth as best as we can. Sometimes, I think you'll recognize, a source like the intercept, or wikileaks, truthout, dailykos or whatever, will bring something valuable to a discussion. Sometimes not, but instead of attacking each other, we should be addressing the allegations themselves.

[Brian Peacock]

Yeah, what's the actual issue here? I admit I haven't been following this in the media (or in this thread), but is it considered some sort of problem that the FBI was using undercover agents(?) in their investigation? If so, what's the problem?

The problem is masked by the constant hype in the media about it being "bullshit" that there was a "spy." They say "there was no spy!" So? There was a "confidential informant."

The problem is what the purpose of the confidential informant is, and the timing. Was there a legitimate reason to send Halper there when he was sent, or was this part of a political effort to attack the Trump campaign?

Use the shoe on the other foot test. If in 2019, Trump's Justice Department or FBI sends "confidential informants" to into the next Democratic candidate's campaign, and they say they were doing it to investigate Chinese activities, wouldn't you think there was a significant potential for political use of the FBI there?

When you look at Halper's history, does it strike you as concerning? He was reported decades ago having been a confidential informant into the Carter Campaign. https://theintercept.com/2018/05/19/the ... -election/

It's not a proven case that there was political machination behind these activities. But, there is certainly enough reason to delve into it further, no?

“The revelation of purposeful contact initiated by alleged confidential human sources prior to any FBI investigation is troublesome,” Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), an ally of President Trump and chairman of a House subcommittee that’s taking an increasingly aggressive oversight role in the scandal, told me. “This new information begs the questions: Who were the informants working for, who were they reporting to and why has the [Department of Justice] and FBI gone to such great lengths to hide these contacts?”

Kevin Brock agrees that Congress has legitimate questions. The retired FBI assistant director for intelligence supervised the rewriting of bureau rules governing sources, under then-director Robert Mueller a decade ago. Those rules forbid the FBI from directing a human source to target an American until a formally predicated investigative file is opened.

http://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/ ... ssia-probe

Brock sees oddities in how the Russia case began. “These types of investigations aren’t normally run by assistant directors and deputy directors at headquarters,” he told me. “All that happens normally in a field office, but that isn’t the case here and so it becomes a red flag. Congress would have legitimate oversight interests in the conditions and timing of the targeting of a confidential human source against a U.S. person.”

Other congressional and law enforcement sources express similar concerns, heightened by FBI communications suggesting political pressures around the time the probe officially opened.

“We’re not going to withstand the pressure soon,” FBI lawyer Lisa Page texted fellow agent Peter Strzok on Aug. 3, 2016, days after Strzok opened the official probe and returned from a trip to London. At the time, they were dealing with simultaneous challenges: the wrap-up of the Hillary Clinton email scandal and the start of the Russia-Trump probe.

Over several days, they exchanged texts that appear to express fears of political meddling or leaking by the Obama White House, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the CIA.

“This is MUCH more tasty for one of those DOJ aholes to leak,” Strzok wrote as the two FBI colleagues — then having an affair, the bureau later told Congress — debated how long they could delay a CIA-FBI meeting so as to “not play into the agency’s BS game.”

They voiced alarm when an FBI colleague — “Liz” — suggested the Obama White House was about to hijack the investigation. “Went well, best we could have expected,” Strzok texted Page after an Aug. 5, 2016, meeting. “Other than Liz quote ‘the White House is running this.’ ” Page then texted to assure Strzok of a paper trail showing the FBI in charge: “We got emails that say otherwise.”

The next day, they went into further detail about their White House concerns. “So maybe not the best national security president, but a genuinely good and decent human being,” Page texted Strzok, referencing former President Obama. Strzok replied: “Yeah, I like him. Just not a fan of the weakness globally. Was thinking about what the administration will be willing to do re Russia.”

In the end, the FBI secretly investigated the Trump campaign for months, engaging with other agencies on a more limited inquiry of Russian efforts to hack Clinton’s campaign.

The summer 2016 text messages are bookends to a series of London contacts that pre-date the official opening of the investigation and produced the evidence the FBI used that fall to justify its court-ordered surveillance of presidential campaign figures.

According to documents and government interviews, one of the FBI’s most senior counterintelligence agents visited London the first week of May 2016. Congress never got the FBI to explain that trip — but, soon after it, one of the most consequential moments of the scandal occurred: On May 10, Australian diplomat Alexander Downer met in a London bar with Trump adviser George Papadopoulos, who boasted of knowing that Russia would release dirt on Clinton.

That contact was not immediately reported to U.S. intelligence.

By early June, a second overture to a Trump campaign adviser occurred in London. In a “Dear Carter” email, a Cambridge University graduate student invited Trump campaign adviser Carter Page to attend a popular July security conference in London.

Carter Page declined to tell me the student’s identify but confirmed the student studied under Stefan Halper, a Cambridge University professor who helped organize the conference and has been identified in media reports as a confidential FBI source.

Carter Page said conference organizers paid his airfare and provided him dorm lodging, and Halper spent time with him during the conference, then continued conversations with him for months.

He says Halper asked to be introduced to a high-ranking Trump campaign official, Sam Clovis. On July 16, 2016, Carter Page relayed the overture to Clovis: “Professor Stef Halper spends part of the year in Virginia where he has a home in Falls Church; he's a big fan of yours having followed you on CNN and offered a range of possibilities regarding how he and the University might be able to help.”

Halper, a month later, emailed Clovis, referencing his contacts with Carter Page. “May I suggest we set a time to meet when you are next in Washington?” Halper invited on Aug. 29, 2016.

In the ensuing months, Carter Page, Clovis and Papadopoulos all became FBI focuses. Papadopoulos pleaded guilty in 2017 to a misleading statement about his knowledge of facts in the Russia case. Page become the subject of four surveillance warrants, and Clovis was interviewed by special counsel Robert Mueller; neither has been accused of wrongdoing.

The FBI received two more contacts about Trump-Russia allegations before formally opening its probe, both from people tied to Clinton.

A week before Carter Page left for London, the FBI was contacted by former MI6 agent Christopher Steele, recently hired by the Fusion GPS research firm to find Trump-Russia dirt; Fusion was paid by the Clinton campaign and Democratic Party.

The FBI did not act on Steele’s July 5, 2016, overture but, weeks later, Steele began working with agents. His now-infamous dossier became a key document justifying the surveillance warrants against Carter Page.

On July 23, 2016, shortly after WikiLeaks released the first hacked Clinton campaign emails, the Australian government contacted the State Department’s deputy chief of mission in London about Downer’s May 10 conversation with Papadopoulos. State forwarded the information to FBI headquarters.

A decade earlier, as Australia’s foreign minister, Downer arranged a $25 million grant to the Clinton family foundation to help fight AIDS.

Downer’s information moved FBI headquarters into action. Strzok was dispatched to London; a formal investigation was opened by month’s end.

This timeline doesn’t prove wrongdoing; these contacts could have occurred organically, or been directed legally through intelligence channels. Yet, congressional investigators and FBI insiders tell me, they raise questions about when the investigation officially started and how.

“There is no doubt the FBI kept getting ‘snowflakes’ in spring 2016 pointing toward Russia and Trump, and the bridges to the case ... clearly were built in London,” a U.S. official with direct knowledge of the investigation said.

The question is whether those bridges, as the children’s rhyme goes, come falling down when more facts surface.

John Solomon is an award-winning investigative journalist whose work over the years has exposed U.S. and FBI intelligence failures before the Sept. 11 attacks, federal scientists’ misuse of foster children and veterans in drug experiments, and numerous cases of political corruption. He is The Hill’s executive vice president for video.

So the problem, it seems, is that the FBI is seen to somehow belong to the party of the incumbent president. Which means that if the FBI wasn't an independent investigatory body under a Democrat president then we cannot expect it to be independent under a Republican one - or under any president ever. If the FBI is behoven to the political interests of the party of the sitting president then it should be disbanded immediately, wouldn't you agree?

[Scot Dutchy]

You are a braver man than me Joe. Wall papering is not my hobby.

[Joe]

Sorry about that. Yes, I see you did.

I'm not just throwing shit against the wall, Joe. A discussion of issues entails more than one perspective. The issue in the Hill piece should be whether the facts stated therein are accurate or not, not whether the author was moved to an opinion writing gig or has had scathing reviews. Even the mainstream media sources like CNN, MSNBC, FoxNews, etc. have shown themselves here and there to be untrustworthy. I agree, all sources should be verified, including the ones I post. However, given the flubs and problems with, say, CNN over the years, I wouldn't take what they say as indicative of a particular level of vetting and verification either.

But, you've made fair points about the authorship of the articles in question. We can look at it deeper. That's what discussions are for.

And, that's why I was a vocal opponent to these "clearinghouse" type threads, where everything about Trump has to be put in these general, run-on threads, and that new topics about specific issues are merged. What happens is, when an article or point is posted that might be controversial and merit deeper discussion, it gets mired in general anti-Trump rhetoric and other postings. So, it's hard to focus on a particular issue. A spygate thread would be helpful, and then we would take the articles from various sources and scrub them as best we can to find the truth as best as we can. Sometimes, I think you'll recognize, a source like the intercept, or wikileaks, truthout, dailykos or whatever, will bring something valuable to a discussion. Sometimes not, but instead of attacking each other, we should be addressing the allegations themselves.

Forty Two, I don't normally shoot the messenger as I did Solomon. I prefer to address the argument as I did the Greenwald article.

However, with limited time for reading, reputation matters. The feedback on Solomon isn't about a mistake here and there, it's detailed criticism from peers showing a pattern of hyping stories and shoddy reporting. His move out of news reporting at The Hill is significant because it was triggered by colleague complaints. I have no desire to analyze what looks to be a gish gallop from someone with such a history.

As to "spygate," I think the attempts to sow doubt on the appropriateness of the FBI investigation have been weak tea so far, especially in light of the GOP response, lead by Trey Gowdy. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim, and I haven't seen President Trump offer anything remotely justifying the accusation. Given that he has a well documented history of hyperbole and falsehood, until he comes up with something of substance, and as President he has the wherewithal to do so, I'm not much interested in speculative diversions or explorations of semantics.

[Joe]

You are a braver man than me Joe. Wall papering is not my hobby.

Oh, this isn't too bad. Before Seth got a real job, we used to have week long debates on a local forum. I always knew when I had his argument on the ropes, because he'd throw up thousands of words with sporadic all caps for emphasis. I'd have to diagram them sometimes.

[Forty Two]

The burden of proof is on the person making the claim, and I haven't seen President Trump offer anything remotely justifying the accusation.

This is what I've been saying about the Trump Russiagate investigation all along. However, when I raise that issue, the response is that we do the investigation first, and then see what the results are, not make the conclusion now that nothing untoward went on and stop investigating. I agree, and I have not said that there definitely was anything "improper" done. The FBI uses spies all the time - they put people in biker gangs, and mafia organizations, etc. - confidential informant, spy, whatever.

It might have been perfectly reasonable to send a confidential informant out there. However, the timing, and the potential for political shenanigans is there. I think that if the same thing were done under a Trump presidency, and a confidential informant was placed to investigate into a Democrat candidate's campaign, say, about contacts with China or other foreign persons, the Democrat supporters would wonder if there was a political motive, too, just based on the fact that the President runs the executive branch and the DOJ reports to him, as does the FBI.

Given that he has a well documented history of hyperbole and falsehood, until he comes up with something of substance, and as President he has the wherewithal to do so, I'm not much interested in speculative diversions or explorations of semantics.

Well, he doesn't really have the wherewithal. He would have to force the FBI to disclose its records and information about the 2016 hiring and use of Halper, and the investigation, and that's the very thing that neither the FBI, nor Mueller, nor the Democrats would allow him to do (politically).

Frankly, I think that is what should happen. There should be full disclosure of (a) what caused the FBI to become suspicious, (b) what caused them to hire Halper and when did they hire him, (c) when did his investigation begin, and (d) what what was the basis for the FBI opening its investigation (which apparently occured after it became suspicious of something and enlisted Halper.

I think that this should have been a special commission, like a 9/11 commission, and they could investigate the entirety of the Russia allegations, from 2015-16 onward, in all its aspects, and expose any wrongdoing by all concerned. Let's open it up.

If Trump is guilty of something, hang him. But, so far, I haven't seen any evidence, have you?

[Forty Two]

So the problem, it seems, is that the FBI is seen to somehow belong to the party of the incumbent president. Which means that if the FBI wasn't an independent investigatory body under a Democrat president then we cannot expect it to be independent under a Republican one - or under any president ever. If the FBI is behoven to the political interests of the party of the sitting president then it should be disbanded immediately, wouldn't you agree?

In some ways, the FBI must be seen as that. The FBI is part of the executive branch, and it is doing the job of the President. I.e., there is no provision in the Constitution for an FBI. The FBI was created as part of the President's job to "enforce the law." Congress makes law -- the President enforces it. If the country had 100 citizens, the President could put on a badge and be his own federal bureau of investigation or federal marshal. But, we have 330,000,000 people here, so he has bureaus and departments to which he delegates the responsibility. He can fire the head of the FBI at the stroke of a pen. He can direct what investigations the FBI should do. He can stop investigations. He can tell the FBI not to investigate someone. The only reason he doesn't is political. His opposition would hang him, and the American people don't want an FBI to be the President's tool.

I think that to a large extent, the FBI is generally not a politically motivated group. They investigate crime, in general, and enforce the law. However, when you're talking about the election of a President, and the investigation by the FBI of a political candidate's campaign, one would be naive to think that politically poweful people, like Senators and Presidents, would not use it for their own purposes when they can.

I wouldn't put it past the Republicans - not for a second. I don't credit the Democrats with being any better. It's not that I am sure about. I want verification.

Add to that, I don't trust cops. I think most of them are good, normal people like everyone else, but still I don't trust them. They have motivations, biases, and are as prone to error as anyone. They have preferences, political leanings, and prejudices. Humans are generally good, but not always good, and some minority are very very bad, including cops, and including FBI agents.

They serve the people. They ought not serve in secret. Too much emphasis is placed on secrecy in all of these things. Everything is secret, and half the time when things finally come to light, the information they were guarding doesn't seem to warrant any concern. The government thinks everything is secret and confidential.

And, I would definitely have no problem disbanding the FBI, the DEA, and the BATF. These entities are more dangerous than they are helpful. Their powers are too broad, their methods oppressive, and their abuses legion. https://www.aclu.org/issues/national-se ... hould-know

The FBI is exempt from the Whistleblower Protection Act. Though the law required it to establish internal mechanisms to protect whistleblowers, it has a long history of retaliating against them. As a result, a 2009 IG report found that 28 percent of non-supervisory FBI employees and 22 percent of FBI supervisors at the GS-14 and GS-15 levels "never" reported misconduct they have seen or heard about on the job. The FBI has also aggressively investigated whistleblowers from other agencies, leading to an unprecedented increase in Espionage Act prosecutions under the Obama administration, almost invariably targeting critics of government policies.

The FBI has thwarted congressional oversight by withholding information, limiting or delayingresponses to members' inquiries, or worse, by providing false or misleading information to Congress and the American public. Examples include false information regarding FBI investigations of domestic advocacy groups, misleading information about the FBI's awareness of detainee abuse, and deceptive responses to questions about government surveillance authorities.

Several ACLU Freedom of Information Act requests have uncovered significant evidence that the FBI has used its expanded authorities to target individuals and organizations because of their participation in First Amendment-protected activities. A 2010 IG report confirmed the FBI conducted inappropriate investigations of domestic advocacy groups engaged in environmental and anti-war activism, and falsified public responses to hide this fact. Other FBI documents showed FBI exploitation ofcommunity outreach programs to secretly collect information about law-abiding citizens, including a mosque outreach program specifically targeting American Muslims. Many of these abuses are likely a result of flawed FBItraining materials and intelligence products that expressed anti-Muslim sentiments and falsely identified religious practices or other First Amendment activities as indicators of terrorism.

The number of U.S. persons on the No Fly List has more than doubled since 2009, and people mistakenly on the list are denied their due process rights to meaningfully challenge their inclusion. In many cases Americans only find out they are on the list while they are traveling abroad, which all but forces them to interact with the U.S. government from a position of extreme vulnerability, and often without easy access to counsel. Many of those prevented from flying home have been subjected to FBI interviews while they sought assistance from U.S. Embassies to return. In those interviews, FBI agents sometimes offer to take people off the No Fly List if they agree to become an FBI informant. In 2010 the ACLU and its affiliates filed a lawsuit on behalf of 10 American citizens and permanent residents, including several U.S. military veterans, seven of whom were prevented from returning home until the suit was filed. We argue that barring them from flying without due process was unconstitutional. There are now 13 plaintiffs; none have been charged with a crime, told why they are barred from flying, or given an opportunity to challenge their inclusion on the No Fly List.

The recent revelation about the FBI using the Patriot Act's "business records provision" to track all U.S. telephone calls is only the latest in a long line of abuse. Five Justice Department Inspector General audits documented widespread FBI misuse of Patriot Act authorities (1,2,3,4,5), and a federal district court recently struck down the National Security Letter (NSL) statute because of its unconstitutional gag orders. The IG also revealed the FBI's unlawful use of "exigent letters" that claimed false emergencies to get private information without NSLs, but in 2009 the Justice Department secretly re-interpreted the law to allow the FBI to get this information without emergencies or legal process. Congress and the American public need to know the full scope of the FBI's spying on Americans under the Patriot Act and all other surveillance authorities enacted since 9/11, like the FISA Amendments Act that underlies the PRISM program.

[JimC]

Forty Two wrote:

Use the shoe on the other foot test. If in 2019, Trump's Justice Department or FBI sends "confidential informants" to into the next Democratic candidate's campaign, and they say they were doing it to investigate Chinese activities, wouldn't you think there was a significant potential for political use of the FBI there?

If there were some indications that the Chinese were stirring the Democrat pot, then sure, why not? To investigate in an undercover way, it is not necessary to be certain that illegal things are happening, just indications that it is possible. I'm sure that in many undercover investigations of ordinary criminal activities, a substantial number get no result, and the investigating agency moves on to the next problem...

[Joe]

The burden of proof is on the person making the claim, and I haven't seen President Trump offer anything remotely justifying the accusation.

This is what I've been saying about the Trump Russiagate investigation all along. However, when I raise that issue, the response is that we do the investigation first, and then see what the results are, not make the conclusion now that nothing untoward went on and stop investigating. I agree, and I have not said that there definitely was anything "improper" done. The FBI uses spies all the time - they put people in biker gangs, and mafia organizations, etc. - confidential informant, spy, whatever.

It might have been perfectly reasonable to send a confidential informant out there. However, the timing, and the potential for political shenanigans is there. I think that if the same thing were done under a Trump presidency, and a confidential informant was placed to investigate into a Democrat candidate's campaign, say, about contacts with China or other foreign persons, the Democrat supporters would wonder if there was a political motive, too, just based on the fact that the President runs the executive branch and the DOJ reports to him, as does the FBI.

Well, I was referring to a principle of argumentation, but the Mueller investigation faces it's own burden of proof, that of the courtroom. Their indictments have to justify bringing charges, and they have to make their case to a jury.

As for political considerations, you're right that the missing separation of power is a huge drawback in the organization of our government, but it's a product of the growth in power of the Executive Branch, and isn't something we can fix overnight.

Given that he has a well documented history of hyperbole and falsehood, until he comes up with something of substance, and as President he has the wherewithal to do so, I'm not much interested in speculative diversions or explorations of semantics.

Well, he doesn't really have the wherewithal. He would have to force the FBI to disclose its records and information about the 2016 hiring and use of Halper, and the investigation, and that's the very thing that neither the FBI, nor Mueller, nor the Democrats would allow him to do (politically).

Frankly, I think that is what should happen. There should be full disclosure of (a) what caused the FBI to become suspicious, (b) what caused them to hire Halper and when did they hire him, (c) when did his investigation begin, and (d) what what was the basis for the FBI opening its investigation (which apparently occured after it became suspicious of something and enlisted Halper.

I think that this should have been a special commission, like a 9/11 commission, and they could investigate the entirety of the Russia allegations, from 2015-16 onward, in all its aspects, and expose any wrongdoing by all concerned. Let's open it up.

If Trump is guilty of something, hang him. But, so far, I haven't seen any evidence, have you?

I don't know if he's guilty of anything more than being completely out of his depth, so I'll wait for the investigation to run its course. That is, if Trump doesn't bollix things up more than he already has. He seems hellbent on hanging himself sometimes.

[pErvinalia]

How do you know it's garbage of the first order, if you have not read it?

The same as he knows that facebook can get all your data across the web, without actually knowing how facebook can get your data across the web.

[pErvinalia]

So the problem, it seems, is that the FBI is seen to somehow belong to the party of the incumbent president. Which means that if the FBI wasn't an independent investigatory body under a Democrat president then we cannot expect it to be independent under a Republican one - or under any president ever. If the FBI is behoven to the political interests of the party of the sitting president then it should be disbanded immediately, wouldn't you agree?

Yeah, this is where the argument always ends up. The FBI is allegedly a partisan organisation. Never mind the fact that it is specifically not partisan. As you say, if the genuine belief is that it is partisan and just does what the current President wants it to do, then we may as well disband it. In reality, though, it isn't partisan, and it doesn't need disbanding. I don't know a hell of a lot about the FBI, but it seems to me that it does a pretty good job of policing and counter-intelligence.

[pErvinalia]

You are a braver man than me Joe. Wall papering is not my hobby.

Oh, this isn't too bad. Before Seth got a real job, we used to have week long debates on a local forum.

That was like 10 years of my life. I'm glad he's moved on and that part of my life is over..

[Forty Two]

Well, I was referring to a principle of argumentation, but the Mueller investigation faces it's own burden of proof, that of the courtroom. Their indictments have to justify bringing charges, and they have to make their case to a jury.

The same principle of argumentation applies. There hasn't been shown any evidence of Russiagate (Trump campaign collusion with Russia). The only thing that we have is suspicion that something improper was talked about at this meeting or that meeting. If suspicious possibilities are enough to retain an independent counsel and such, then I think what we see regarding the possible political machinations behind the investigation of Trump merits a look-see, too.

As for political considerations, you're right that the missing separation of power is a huge drawback in the organization of our government, but it's a product of the growth in power of the Executive Branch, and isn't something we can fix overnight.

Agreed. One of the biggest problems we face in government is the Legislature's delegation of power to the executive agencies to "regulate" instead of the Congress retaining the lawmaking powers. They took the easy way out, and said "here, we'll delegate a bunch of power to the executive, and let them worry about the details." They should have started a regulatory department within the Legislative branch.

Well, he doesn't really have the wherewithal. He would have to force the FBI to disclose its records and information about the 2016 hiring and use of Halper, and the investigation, and that's the very thing that neither the FBI, nor Mueller, nor the Democrats would allow him to do (politically).

Frankly, I think that is what should happen. There should be full disclosure of (a) what caused the FBI to become suspicious, (b) what caused them to hire Halper and when did they hire him, (c) when did his investigation begin, and (d) what what was the basis for the FBI opening its investigation (which apparently occured after it became suspicious of something and enlisted Halper.

I think that this should have been a special commission, like a 9/11 commission, and they could investigate the entirety of the Russia allegations, from 2015-16 onward, in all its aspects, and expose any wrongdoing by all concerned. Let's open it up.

If Trump is guilty of something, hang him. But, so far, I haven't seen any evidence, have you?

I don't know if he's guilty of anything more than being completely out of his depth, so I'll wait for the investigation to run its course. That is, if Trump doesn't bollix things up more than he already has. He seems hellbent on hanging himself sometimes.

Yes, but, again, I think the idea of an independent counsel is not the right way to go. They can't indict Trump. All this ever was was a way to dig up something for impeachment. If either side wanted to get at "the truth" they would have done a 9/11 Commission style investigation run by a bipartisan team of respected persons from a variety of backgrounds. Give the Commission subpoena power, and investigate what the Russians did, when they did it, and who they did it with.

[Forty Two]

So the problem, it seems, is that the FBI is seen to somehow belong to the party of the incumbent president. Which means that if the FBI wasn't an independent investigatory body under a Democrat president then we cannot expect it to be independent under a Republican one - or under any president ever. If the FBI is behoven to the political interests of the party of the sitting president then it should be disbanded immediately, wouldn't you agree?

Yeah, this is where the argument always ends up. The FBI is allegedly a partisan organisation. Never mind the fact that it is specifically not partisan. As you say, if the genuine belief is that it is partisan and just does what the current President wants it to do, then we may as well disband it. In reality, though, it isn't partisan, and it doesn't need disbanding. I don't know a hell of a lot about the FBI, but it seems to me that it does a pretty good job of policing and counter-intelligence.

The red herring is that the FBI is either "always a partisan organization" or "not ever a partisan organization." The fact is, it has been used in a partisan manner by Presidents in the past. There are people within the FBI that have political allegiances, and people do have biases and people do seek to help their friends. It doesn't mean that, generally speaking, in its day to day operations going after criminals that it's acting a partisan manner, as if it only goes after Democrats when a Republican is president. That's not the argument.

The idea is that it, like all law enforcement organizations, has engaged in abuses, messes up, lies, cheats, steals, plants evidence, ignores the truth, and does everything else humans do, including help political allies, and hurt political opponents - from time-to-time. To suggest that the FBI is inherently to be trusted when politics is involved, because the people in the FBI, from Comey, to McCable, to Strzok, to Page, to the rest of the folks working there are beyond reproach is naive.

The FBI gave hundreds of files on people (many from the Reagan and Bush administrations) to the White House in 1996, and the issue became "Filegate." Director Bieleski was forced to resign over improper raids and detentions over the Selective Service Act (draft). Director Burns was forced to resign when he and his FBI team concocted fake allegations against a Senator in an effort to stop the investigation of the Teapot Dome scandal. Under Herbert Hoover, the FBI accumulated secret files, and became famous or infamous for political information gathering. Director Sessions was fired for self-dealing and using FBI resources for personal projects and trips. There's the issue of the FBI's abuse of FISA.

The guardian of the Left here in the US, the Nation, even published a report on the FBI's interference in presidential elections: https://www.thenation.com/article/this- ... -election/

Hoover assumed that Thomas Dewey would be the next president. Hoover’s former assistant William Sullivan recalled that Hoover believed if he used the bureau’s resources on behalf of the Dewey campaign, he would be named attorney General as a stepping stone to the Supreme Court and eventually to becoming Chief Justice.

“Many agents—I was one,” recalled Sullivan, “worked for days culling FBI files for any fact that could be of use to Dewey.” After Dewey secured the nomination, Hoover fed him backgrounders on crime issues and information about Truman’s connections to Kansas City boss Tom Pendergast. The FBI also pressured HUAC chairman J. Parnell Thomas to jump-start its hearings after a grand jury brought no indictments from testimony by Elizabeth Bentley and Whittaker Chambers. As Drew Pearson wrote, “Those watching [Assistant Director] Lou Nichols note that he goes in and out of the office of [Thomas] like an animated shuttlecock.”

At the same time, the bureau was intensely involved in disrupting Henry Wallace’s third-party campaign. Wallace had been a target of the FBI when he was still vice president, but in 1948, the bureau stepped up its activities by surveilling and intimidating Wallace staffers and supporters and feeding negative information about Wallace to the press and the Truman campaign, which cooperated with the bureau’s efforts. Truman’s victory marked an end to Hoover’s ambitions. The 1952 election and the subsequent races found the director again in survival mode by making himself useful to his favored candidates.

While most people remember the 1952 campaign for Richard Nixon’s “Checkers” speech, the FBI’s efforts to slander Adlai Stevenson (perhaps for personal, as well as political reasons) as a closeted homosexual gets less attention. According to Hoover’s biographer, Curt Gentry, the director was the source of rumors that Stevenson had once been arrested on morals charges. The same rumors were spread in 1956, but only Walter Winchell took the bait, notoriously declaring that a vote for Stevenson was a vote for Christine Jorgensen.

In 1960, it was John F. Kennedy’s turn. Concerned about JFK’s possible plans, Hoover let Kennedy’s aides know that the bureau had recordings of JFK’s wartime trysts with Inga Arvad, a Danish woman suspected of having Nazi ties. Hoover was told he would be retained.

If Hoover were alive today he’d be 121 years old and undoubtedly still running the FBI. Considering Comey’s actions, perhaps a séance would be in order to see if he still is."

That last line, of course, was written in the Nation at the time when Comey was persona non grata for the Democrats and the American left. That was when he was claimed, by the Democrats, to have actively aided Donald Trump. They had no qualms sullying the name of the oh-so-honorable and non-partisan FBI then....