The FBI raid on former President Donald Trump's Florida home this week is just the latest in a long line of questionable actions taken against Trump going back to the 2016 presidential campaign and beyond. We still vividly recall the Steele Dossier, the FISA warrants against Carter Page, the Michael Flynn fiasco, James Comey, Peter Strzok, Andrew McCabe, Lisa Page, etc. The same high-level figures from the 7th floor of FBI Hqs were involved in the actions taken against Trump and the kid-gloves treatment of Hillary Clinton. A thought to ponder: The FBI never raided Hillary Clinton's home looking for classified government documents while she and her gang with destroying cell phones with hammers.
It is not a stretch to say at this point that the FBI had better produce something big this time. If this turns out to be a big nothing burger, their credibility will be damaged for years to come.
Many of Trump's supporters are now calling for the FBI to be abolished or defunded. I am not ready to go there yet. Being retired from federal law enforcement myself (DEA), I am not ready to throw law enforcement under the bus, or, to put it another way, to throw out the baby with the bath water.
However, it may be time for some reform in the FBI.
Like most old DEA agents, I have mixed feelings about the Bureau. That is based on having had some degree of working experience with them especially after they were given joint jurisdiction with DEA in drug investigations a few decades back. I thought it was a mistake back then, and I still do. The reason is that the FBI and DEA have two separate and distinct cultures due to the types of crimes the FBI has traditionally investigated vs drug investigations.
In the interest of full disclosure, I had an unfortunate experience while working a joint case with the FBI when I was stationed in Pittsburgh. Looking back, I can say that both sides, including myself, could have handled it better. Later, from 1990-1995, I spent the last 5 years of my career as an instructor in DEA's Office of Training, which, at the time, was co-located within the FBI Academy. We were moved there because the current administration and Attorney General Janet Reno were seriously considering abolishing DEA and putting it into the FBI-which, fortunately, did not occur. Reno correctly decided it was not such a good idea. At any rate, our relations with our hosts at the FBI Academy were fine. DEA now has its own facility just down the road from the FBI's in Quantico, Virginia.
To be more specific, most of the FBI's jurisdiction concerns white-collar crimes, in which a crime is committed, and the FBI investigates to find out who is responsible. Drug enforcement is much more street-oriented and pro-active with arrests mostly being made as the crime of a drug transaction or smuggling is in progress. It is true that the FBI also has a history of tracking down dangerous gangsters like John Dillinger. They also have a highly trained Hostage Rescue Team, the same unit involved in Waco and Ruby Ridge. More recently, the FBI has taken the lead in counter-terrorism operations, an effort I strongly support. Let me also add that I have a few friends in the FBI, and I believe in my heart of hearts that most rank and file agents are appalled at the recent controversies involving the Bureau.
But there are cultural and institutional problems in the FBI that go all the way back to J. Edgar Hoover. It is true that he built that organization from almost nothing into the country's largest and most sophisticated law enforcement agency. But Hoover also established a culture that put the Bureau's interests and reputation first and foremost, a culture that looked down on other law enforcement agencies. That has led to a lot of resentment down through the years.
After Hoover's death, subsequent directors like Clarence Kelley, William Webster, and Louis Freeh instituted reforms, but under more recent directors (including the Trump-appointed Christopher Wray), it appears more change is needed.
The FBI-as is the case with all law enforcement- should be apolitical. That is easy to say but hard to implement. Remember that the FBI is also charged with investigating political and police corruption. In the 2016 election, the FBI and then-director James Comey found themselves in a unique situation. They were investigating both presidential candidates. To be generous to Comey, one could argue that he was simply over his head and did not do a good job. If you read his book, you would think that he was the only moral force in all of Washington DC at the time. I have read the book, and I don't buy it.
The fact is that the FBI is now just as political as in the days of Hoover (to say nothing about the DOJ). I consider the Hillary Clinton investigation to have been whitewashed. On the other hand, while I am trying to keep an open mind on Trump, it is hard to come to any other conclusion than a small cadre of high-ranking officials on the 7th floor of the headquarters building has been on a 6-year quest to take Trump down. Up to now, they have failed and looked bad in doing it. But how do you remove a federal police agency from politics when you have political corruption and malfeasance going on in Washington? Somebody has to do it.
While I would be against abolishing the FBI, I feel there is still room for reform. It appears that some people in the FBI-in high positions- feel that they are somehow above the law. That thinking goes back to Hoover and it must end. For many decades, the FBI has considered itself head and shoulders above other law enforcement agencies. In terms of resources and jurisdiction over many crimes (perhaps, too many), the FBI is unique. With certain exceptions, which I mentioned above, the FBI is widely considered to be lacking in everyday street enforcement skills as compared to certain other federal agencies and local police.
Going back to the issue at hand, the Mar-a-Lago raid, if the Bureau doesn't produce the goods this time, their image is going to be sullied for a long time. Regardless of our political preferences, we should simply want the truth to emerge. It is my hope that Trump is innocent of any wrongdoing, but we need to see what the FBI found. This may turn out to be a crucial moment in the history of the FBI.
5 comments:
I think that you bring up some good points here. There are problems with the FBI, and there always have been.
However, I don't accept this narrative of "they've been out to get Trump". This is hardly the only investigation going after him. If there were this many going after Clinton or some other Democrat, is there any way the narrative here wouldn't be "If there's smoke, there's fire?" I mean, the guy has been a proven fraud long before he ever ran for President.
The man is a professional grifter. This isn't some conspiracy theory. After the election, as he continued to lie to his base about the stolen election, he took in donations to supposedly "stop the steal" but did nothing other than line his pockets. Before that, we have Trump University and other various scams and grifts.
Is it possible that maybe the Clinton thing wasn't whitewashed and that there actually wasn't anything there? Or, if you really HAVE to have Clinton be guilty of something, maybe she's just better at doing crimes and Trump is too stupid to not leave a trail behind him. (Surely as a former DEA officer, you're familiar with criminals who were too dumb to not leave you plenty of evidence.)
I mean, look at the way he's acting. Is he acting like an innocent person here? When this "raid" (which isn't even the right word for it) happened, he started by saying that the FBI planted evidence (of what? He never specified.) Then the narrative was that these documents had been declassified. After that, there was some "standing order" (that nobody ever heard of before) that everything he took with him was automatically declassified. And NOW his people are saying that he was "just bringing work home with him". (Never mind the fact that you don't bring work home from a job that you don't have anymore. I'm assuming you didn't take a bunch of DEA files with you when you retired.)
I think that the absolute best case scenario is that he's too stupid to even understand the implications of what's going on here.
I recently read a biography of the serial killer Ed Gein. He stated that he had been "set up" before the cops could even accuse him of something.
This Trump situation reminds me of that.
First point: Nobody can tell me that Peter Strzok, Andrew McCabe, Lisa Page and other high-ranking people were not out to get Trump. Strzok talked about his insurance policy against Trump getting elected. They knowingly used the unverified and ultimately false Steele Dossier to get a FISA warrant on Carter Page. The way they went after Flynn was highly questionable. I don't blame the rank and file, but there is corruption at the top.
You have your "bio" of Trump before he became president,fine, but when was he accused of being a racist until he ran for president. The whole Russian collusion case was a manufactured hoax by the Clinton campaign that the FBI higher ups jumped on. I don't know the facts about TRump university, and as far as his alleged handling and taking home of classified papers, let's wait and see what comes out of what the FBI seized. I am not trying to make the case that he is innocent of every allegation.
I may be guilty of deciding that Hillary broke the law based on my own experience dealing with classified docs while working overseas with DEA and using the DOS communication system. Hillary did things no junior foreign service officer would have done, it was a basic rule, and the law didn't even require intent, just negligence. It was a white wash.
If TRump truly took still-classified files home to Mar-a-Lago, shame on him and he will have to answer for it. But if this latest action turns out to be another Russian-collusion deal, shame on the FBI.
I get why you think Trump is a sleazebag. He is no choir boy. But I do not think he is racist, anti-Semitic, in cahoots with Putin etc. I don't like they way he contested the election even though I have my own doubts, which I can't prove. On a moral basis, you might say he incited people to act badly on Jan 6, but legally, I don't think you can prove intent to incite. He told them to march to the Capitol peacefully and patriotically. He eventually (much too late) urged them to go home in his usual inartful way.
I have tried to be fair with the FBI. While in DEA, I had some experiences with them including working at their academy for 5 years. I have had good and bad experiences. Basically, I believe that there is a culture at the FBI that they are the top dogs and can do what they want. That culture apparently still survives among the higher ups. I believe that the rank and file are decent agents. But some reform is in order. There has been some reform since Hoover died, but still more is needed in my view.
Interesting that you bring up the accusations of racism against Trump. At this point, I don't know what will convince the people who think he isn't one. Does he need to wear a Klan robe and/or a Gestapo uniform? The evidence is manifold. Even if we ignore the birtherism, the insistence of calling Covid-19 the "China Virus" or "Kung Flu", etc., we have the following:
*He was sued for violating the Fair Housing Act (refusing to rent to black tenants).
*There was a standing order to get rid of all the black people from the casino floor when he and Ivana visited.
*Insisting on the guilt of the Central Park Five after they were exonerated by DNA evidence.
*He was quoted as saying that "laziness is a trait in blacks" and later confirmed that he "probably" said that.
*He said that some of the Native American casino owners "don't look like Indians"
*And let's not forget the bit about how Mexicans crossing the border are "rapists"
So, I don't know what else a person wants in order to be convinced.
You should look into Trump University and his various business dealings before running for President. He had to settle over his "University" because it was essentially a scam.
I also don't accept that the Putin connection is a "proven hoax". It never was properly investigated in the first place. It could be true; it could not be true. One thing that is true and undeniable is that Putin ran a disinformation campaign via social media and he clearly wanted Trump to win. Does that mean that Trump collaborated? Not necessarily. But considering this man's M.O., it shouldn't shock anybody if it turns out to be true.
If Trump has always been such a racist, why did Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson give him community service awards? I see a lot of accusations here, but I don't see any convictions. I don't know enough about Trump University to argue with you. At any rate, I respect your opinions. There are lots of reasons not to like Trump and the way he acts. I just don't think he's the devil incarnate that his enemies make him out to be. I don't like the way the FBI has gone after him. I cannot apologize for having voted against Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden.
So we can agree to disagree.
I have to wonder how you think that racism works, if you think that getting awards from Sharpton and Jackson has any impact on his racism one way or another. Do you also think that a misogynist would never get married?
And those weren't accusations. Him being sued for a racist policy? That's a fact and a matter of public policy. (To cover just one example.)
I'm not trying to convince you that he's the devil incarnate. I'm just saying that the evidence is out there that he's both racist and a con artist. You keep saying that you don't know about Trump University, but it doesn't take a long time to learn about it. You can just read the headlines and see that he had to pay out a $25 million settlement.
If making excuses for him and not bothering to look into him makes you feel better about voting for him, then have at it.
But come on - be honest - if he were a Democrat running for President, don't you think that you'd be looking into all of these things and plastering them all over your blog?
Post a Comment