Podcast Summary
FBI's Trump-Russia probe showed 'sobering' disregard for procedures: The Durham report revealed the FBI disregarded established procedures in the Trump-Russia investigation, pursuing it despite knowing it was baseless and based on contradictory evidence, driven by political bias.
Key takeaway from the Durham report is that the FBI's investigation into the Trump campaign showed a disregard for established policies and procedures, pursuing the case despite knowing it was baseless and in the face of contradictory evidence. The report's author, John Durham, described this as a "sobering" failure of professionalism, but it goes beyond that. The FBI, which is supposed to uphold civil rights and respect for democracy, instead appeared motivated by political bias. One notable figure mentioned in the report is Igor Danchenko, a primary source for the infamous Steele dossier, which was used to justify the investigation. Overall, the report highlights a serious breakdown in the FBI's handling of the Trump-Russia investigation, with potentially far-reaching implications.
The FBI paid a Russian associate $300,000 despite knowing he provided false information: The FBI continued to pay a Russian associate $300,000 for information even after they knew it was false, and some of it was used to obtain warrants to spy on the president, potentially influencing the political process.
A significant portion of the infamous Trump dossier, which included allegations like Russian prostitutes urinating on him, was sourced from a single man named Igor Danchenko. He was a Russian associate at the Brookings Institution and had provided false or unverified information. Shockingly, the FBI continued to pay him $300,000 even after they knew he was a misinformer. Furthermore, Danchenko had obtained some of his information from a lawyer working for the Democratic National Committee. Despite the FBI's knowledge of Danchenko's potential as a Russian agent and his involvement in providing false information, they still used it to obtain warrants to spy on the president. This situation highlights a clear miscarriage of justice and the potential for biased or false information to influence the political process.
High-ranking officials involved in Russian collusion narrative briefings during 2016 election: Officials, including CIA, FBI, Obama, Biden, Lynch, and Comey, were involved in Russian collusion narrative briefings, potentially driven by partisan motivations or a conscious objective to overthrow a democratically elected president.
During the 2016 presidential election, high-ranking officials, including CIA director John Brennan, President Obama, Vice President Biden, AG Loretta Lynch, and FBI director James Comey, were involved in briefings on the Russian collusion narrative, which was later proven to be manufactured by the Hillary Clinton campaign. The kindest explanation for their involvement is that they were blinded by their partisan motivations, but a more likely explanation is that they had a conscious objective to undermine and potentially overthrow a democratically elected president due to their opposition to his policies and perceived threat to their established order. The media, particularly The New York Times, also played a role in promoting false claims of collusion despite a lack of evidence. Accountability for these media outlets should be considered.
Misleading the Public with Russiagate: Despite inaccuracies and potential harm, Pulitzer awards were given for Russiagate reporting, misleading the public for years and damaging trust in journalism
The reporting on the Russian collusion investigation between the New York Times, The Washington Post, and the FBI, as discussed, was riddled with errors, partisanship, and potential deceit. Peter Strzok, a key figure in the FBI's investigation, acknowledged the New York Times' publication of fake news, yet they were awarded Pulitzers for their Russiagate reporting. The American people were misled for years, with this narrative dominating the Trump presidency. Despite concerns about the accuracy and potential harm of this reporting, the Pulitzer committee upheld their awards. The magnitude of this situation calls for a significant mea culpa from these entities to regain public trust. This incident, which some consider to be worse than Watergate due to its far-reaching impact, highlights the importance of factual reporting and accountability in journalism.
Power balance between presidency and justice dept. shifted: The FBI's handling of investigations requires cultural change to prevent politically motivated probes, preserving public trust and the rule of law.
The balance of power between the presidency and the justice department has shifted dramatically since the Watergate era. While it was once widely accepted that the president held significant power over law enforcement agencies, the pendulum has swung in the other direction, allowing the justice department to investigate presidents and their associates with relative independence. However, this new dynamic has led to concerns about potential political motivations and abuses of power. The FBI's response to criticisms of its handling of the Russia investigation has been to characterize it as having made "missteps" and to implement new policies. But the report from Durham highlights the need for deeper cultural change within the FBI to address the toxic internal culture that has persisted. The stakes are high, as the potential for politically motivated investigations could undermine public trust in our institutions and erode the rule of law.
FBI's lack of integrity and disregard for procedures: The FBI's issues aren't solely about policies or laws, but also stem from a lack of integrity and disregard for established procedures among some personnel, as shown in the Michael Flynn case.
The root cause of issues at the FBI isn't necessarily policy or laws, but rather a lack of integrity and disregard for established procedures among some FBI personnel. An example of this is the interview of Michael Flynn at the White House during the Trump Russia investigation. Despite the FBI's long-standing policy against interviewing White House personnel without prior permission, they did so in an ambush-like manner, leading to Flynn's eventual prosecution for lying to the FBI. This case highlights the importance of FBI integrity and adherence to procedures. Until the FBI addresses this issue, new laws and guidelines may not significantly improve the situation.
FBI's Reputation and Trust: Concerns and Calls for Reform: The FBI's history of politically motivated investigations and high-profile failures has damaged its reputation and trust, necessitating reform
The FBI's actions and past mistakes have raised serious concerns about its ability to function effectively and impartially. The discussion highlighted instances of politically motivated investigations, such as the one against Ted Stevens, and high-profile failures like the Waco branch opinion compound and the anthrax investigation after 9/11. These incidents, spanning over the last 30 years, have damaged the FBI's reputation and trust. Mark Hemingway, a journalist from RealClear Investigations and The Federalist, emphasized that the FBI is in dire need of reform. Despite the gravity of the situation, there seems to be no easy solution, and some argue that the FBI may be beyond repair. Ultimately, addressing these issues requires a comprehensive assessment and significant changes within the organization.
