The Congressional Intelligence Committee memo is going to be released shortly. This, unsurprisingly, is producing an intense, polarized reaction. Here is a very brief and incomplete summary of events.
Assertions of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia were made in 2016. At the same time a dossier appeared claiming he cavorted with Russian prostitutes (plural). The FBI became involved in tracing the dossier. At the same time, the FBI was looking at the use and security of emails on a private Clinton server, and the computer of her aide Huma Abedin.
Clinton was deposed, and James Comey pronounced her 'extremely careless' but not intending to act criminally. In late October a further cache of emails prompted a re-evaluation just days before the election. Somehow, these 30,000 more emails were reviewed in only days, and Comey again said Clinton had broken no laws.
Just before this declaration of innocence, Attorney General Lynch happened to run into Bill Clinton when their private aircraft were parked adjacently. They spoke for about half an hour, with the claimed topic their grandchildren. Such a meeting, between an attorney supervising an investigation (FBI is under the DOJ) and the husband of the investigation target, is highly irregular although not quite legal malpractice.
Two weeks later, Trump won the election, and the howls of outrage and disbelief have included assertions that Russia helped elect Trump. These claims of Russian collusion were so strident that Robert Mueller was appointed special prosecutor after Jeff Sessions, the Attorney General, recused himself in the case.
To date, Mueller's investigation has produced strong evidence of Russian interference in the US election, mainly by planting false stories in social media (FB particularly), but no evidence of collusion. One person, Michael Flynn, has pled guilty to lying to the FBI, and is now a cooperating witness, and another, George Papadopoulos, has pled guilty as well. Paul Manafort has been indicted on 12 counts, including making false statements and money laundering, related to his advocacy for a Russian group which appears to have no direct connection to the Trump campaign.
In the midst of all this mess, text messages from a pair of FBI agents came to light. They were strongly critical of Trump, and predicted Clinton's exoneration. One of the agents re-wrote and downgraded the criticism of Clinton delivered by Comey. The agents were afraid that too-strong criticism would result in discipline from the about-to-be-elected Clinton. They wrote of a secret society within the FBI, the nature of which is unclear at this time.
The initial investigation into Trump turns out to have been based on the fake dossier authored by Christopher Steele. Ongoing work on and use of this dossier was financed by Fusion GPS, an independent firm hired by Clinton for research into Trump's campaign. The FBI then started paying Steele to continue providing information, and hence the FBI investigation into Trump. Now there is second dossier claims deep Russian ties with Trump. It was produced by Cody Shearer, a notoriously manipulative former tabloid writer. It is claimed this was the basis of the wire taps of Trump campaign aides.
It is hard for anyone in this soap opera of 'justice' to have any credibility. Putting the various stories together, a reasonable conclusion is political corruption of the FBI, which used grossly corrupted sources as an excuse to wire tap a political candidate while soft-soaping the criticism of his opponent. The political use of the IRS in targeting conservative groups lends further credence to this narrative. Fake 'evidence', funded by the Clinton campaign, was used to start wire taps and make accusations of Russian collusion. That strikes me as a fair interpretation of the story to date, although clearly it is only an interpretation.
Now comes the decision to release a memo from the Congressional Intelligence Committee apparently addressing these issues. The memo has been reviewed by the FBI and DOJ, who do not object to its language or its content. It is said to contain damning material about activities at the FBI. In anticipation of its release, Mueller delayed sentencing of Flynn. This might be to keep him as a cooperating witness, or it might be because all 'evidence' against him will turn out to be fabricated.
Most reasonable people of all political interests want this story fully revealed. If there was official corruption, if Trump is a Russian stooge, if Clinton is a criminal, let us know. I think the memo ought to be released, and all these files and contacts and texts brought into the open. Only then can any faith in the FBI and our political system be restored. Whatever is true, the only way to know is to unpack it all.
When there is a fumble, there is always a crowd of players on the ground, pushing a shoving. In that pile there is pulling, gouging, crotch grabbing, eye poking, all in an attempt to get control of the ball. There are players on the periphery of this scrum making first down possession gestures. The refs have to pull players off the pile to see who actually has possession.
That's exactly what this is like. Both Republicans and democrats are wagging their fingers (and tongues) claiming their team has possession, and there is a pile of people doing dirty things out of sight. The special prosecutor is doing the equivalent of trying to decide if there was a fumble at all, while what everyone wants to know is who has the ball.
Democrats object to this process, fiercely crying it is nothing but a distraction from Mueller's work. It is not; it is an extension of that work. It is revealing to me that while Democrats want to block the memo, Trump is willing to talk to Mueller. Who sounds innocent here? Let everything come to light, and then we will know.
Ted
Assertions of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia were made in 2016. At the same time a dossier appeared claiming he cavorted with Russian prostitutes (plural). The FBI became involved in tracing the dossier. At the same time, the FBI was looking at the use and security of emails on a private Clinton server, and the computer of her aide Huma Abedin.
Clinton was deposed, and James Comey pronounced her 'extremely careless' but not intending to act criminally. In late October a further cache of emails prompted a re-evaluation just days before the election. Somehow, these 30,000 more emails were reviewed in only days, and Comey again said Clinton had broken no laws.
Just before this declaration of innocence, Attorney General Lynch happened to run into Bill Clinton when their private aircraft were parked adjacently. They spoke for about half an hour, with the claimed topic their grandchildren. Such a meeting, between an attorney supervising an investigation (FBI is under the DOJ) and the husband of the investigation target, is highly irregular although not quite legal malpractice.
Two weeks later, Trump won the election, and the howls of outrage and disbelief have included assertions that Russia helped elect Trump. These claims of Russian collusion were so strident that Robert Mueller was appointed special prosecutor after Jeff Sessions, the Attorney General, recused himself in the case.
To date, Mueller's investigation has produced strong evidence of Russian interference in the US election, mainly by planting false stories in social media (FB particularly), but no evidence of collusion. One person, Michael Flynn, has pled guilty to lying to the FBI, and is now a cooperating witness, and another, George Papadopoulos, has pled guilty as well. Paul Manafort has been indicted on 12 counts, including making false statements and money laundering, related to his advocacy for a Russian group which appears to have no direct connection to the Trump campaign.
In the midst of all this mess, text messages from a pair of FBI agents came to light. They were strongly critical of Trump, and predicted Clinton's exoneration. One of the agents re-wrote and downgraded the criticism of Clinton delivered by Comey. The agents were afraid that too-strong criticism would result in discipline from the about-to-be-elected Clinton. They wrote of a secret society within the FBI, the nature of which is unclear at this time.
The initial investigation into Trump turns out to have been based on the fake dossier authored by Christopher Steele. Ongoing work on and use of this dossier was financed by Fusion GPS, an independent firm hired by Clinton for research into Trump's campaign. The FBI then started paying Steele to continue providing information, and hence the FBI investigation into Trump. Now there is second dossier claims deep Russian ties with Trump. It was produced by Cody Shearer, a notoriously manipulative former tabloid writer. It is claimed this was the basis of the wire taps of Trump campaign aides.
It is hard for anyone in this soap opera of 'justice' to have any credibility. Putting the various stories together, a reasonable conclusion is political corruption of the FBI, which used grossly corrupted sources as an excuse to wire tap a political candidate while soft-soaping the criticism of his opponent. The political use of the IRS in targeting conservative groups lends further credence to this narrative. Fake 'evidence', funded by the Clinton campaign, was used to start wire taps and make accusations of Russian collusion. That strikes me as a fair interpretation of the story to date, although clearly it is only an interpretation.
Now comes the decision to release a memo from the Congressional Intelligence Committee apparently addressing these issues. The memo has been reviewed by the FBI and DOJ, who do not object to its language or its content. It is said to contain damning material about activities at the FBI. In anticipation of its release, Mueller delayed sentencing of Flynn. This might be to keep him as a cooperating witness, or it might be because all 'evidence' against him will turn out to be fabricated.
Most reasonable people of all political interests want this story fully revealed. If there was official corruption, if Trump is a Russian stooge, if Clinton is a criminal, let us know. I think the memo ought to be released, and all these files and contacts and texts brought into the open. Only then can any faith in the FBI and our political system be restored. Whatever is true, the only way to know is to unpack it all.
When there is a fumble, there is always a crowd of players on the ground, pushing a shoving. In that pile there is pulling, gouging, crotch grabbing, eye poking, all in an attempt to get control of the ball. There are players on the periphery of this scrum making first down possession gestures. The refs have to pull players off the pile to see who actually has possession.
That's exactly what this is like. Both Republicans and democrats are wagging their fingers (and tongues) claiming their team has possession, and there is a pile of people doing dirty things out of sight. The special prosecutor is doing the equivalent of trying to decide if there was a fumble at all, while what everyone wants to know is who has the ball.
Democrats object to this process, fiercely crying it is nothing but a distraction from Mueller's work. It is not; it is an extension of that work. It is revealing to me that while Democrats want to block the memo, Trump is willing to talk to Mueller. Who sounds innocent here? Let everything come to light, and then we will know.
Ted
Shoot. I just spent 20 minutes writing a long post, then deleted it accidentally before it posted.
ReplyDeleteBasically, this:
The FBI was started in 1906, to combat anti-government forces. Since then, the FBI (while doing other good anti-corruption work) has harassed and wrongly arrested civil rights activists, making itself an institution hated and feared on the left. The idea that suddenly, the FBI has developed a leftward lurch to the point of corruption, strains credulity.
Republicans have long been delighted with the FBI, as long as it is investigating people (socialists, communists, activists) they don't like. But when the conclusions of the investigations don't match their preconceptions, the only possible conclusion to draw is that the FBI is corrupt? I don't think so.
A couple of FBI agents, in their PRIVATE lives, expressed left-leaning political opinions. The idea that this proves corruption is completely unsupportable. In fact, the expectation that FBI agents should never have or express political views is probably a violation of THEIR civil rights.
I agree with you: "Most reasonable people of all political interests want this story fully revealed." The way to do that is to allow the FBI to do its work, not to compromise its investigations by publishing its classified documents and by conducting a PR smear campaign.
If, in fact, there is corruption in the FBI, then it should be investigated in with a proper investigation by trained and trusted people (which US congressmen are neither), not by a shouting match in the Media (mainstream or otherwise).
Here's my "fear of the day":
https://goo.gl/2kuxtq
This article perfectly summarizes the persistent smearing of our institutions, and of knowledge itself. Rush Limbaugh didn't cry "Science is corrupt!" in a vacuum; too many people want to hear that if facts contradict their opinions, then there must be a problem with facts.