There was a time when Americans could be proud of the FBI. It caught or killed famous gangsters of the 1930’s. It captured Nazi and Communist spies. It was a highly effective enemy of the KKK.
Today the FBI stands exposed as a politically-motivated and ethically-compromised institution, having acted as an ally of President Obama and his Democrats rather than a professional, impartial law enforcement agency.
Last Wednesday, Rep. Ron DeSantis revealed that the FBI was involved in the attempt to cover-up the terrorist role in the 2012 Benghazi murders. FBI agents were told by Deputy Director Andrew McCabe not to mention anything about terrorism in the FBI report, despite the evidence they had collected. Rep. DeSantis asked the proper question about this decision. “What operational reason would there be to issue an edict to agents telling them, in the face of virtually conclusive evidence to the contrary, not to characterize the Benghazi attack as a result of terrorism? By placing the interests of the Obama administration over the public’s interests, the order is yet another data point highlighting the politicization of the FBI.” (Deputy Director McCabe is already under investigation for possibly violating the Hatch Act by participation in the campaign of a Democratic candidate.)
The political lean of the FBI was obvious in the contrast between its lackadaisical attitude toward Hillary Clinton’s legal violations in her handling of classified emails and its eagerness to search for any possible crime by anyone even remotely connected to the Trump campaign.
That contrast became more understandable as news unfolded about the role played by FBI Deputy Director of Counterintelligence Peter Strzok. The political leanings of Strzok were revealed by his pro-Clinton, anti-Trump texts to another FBI employee. The texts were so outrageous that the FBI still refuses to let Congress see them. The truly amazing fact is that someone as partisan as Strzok was ever allowed to have such great influence over politically sensitive investigations.
It was Strzok who rewrote the FBI report on Clinton’s email scandal, removing the term “gross negligence” (which is the exact term used by Federal law to define criminal handling of classified material) and replacing it with “extreme carelessness” so as to justify failure to prosecute Clinton for her crimes. Strzok carried out key interviews with Clinton aides such as Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin, giving him the chance to exercise influence over what they would be asked and what would be passed over in silence.
It also appears that Strzok was the man who formally ordered the investigation into possible collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign. He was later assigned to work for Special Counsel Robert Mueller on that same investigation.
What is not yet known, but must be vigorously investigated by Congress, is whether Strzok played a role in arranging for US intelligence agencies to spy on Trump associates during the 2016 campaign and whether he was involved in the decision for the FBI to help finance the notorious anti-Trump dossier produced by Fusion GPS with financial support from the Clinton campaign.
It may well be that Strzok and other Democratic partisans were responsible for turning US law enforcement and intelligence agencies into an arm of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, and then becoming a key part of the “resistance” to President Trump.
With what we now know, two actions become mandatory.
First, the Clinton investigation must be reopened, using a special counsel to avoid the bias of the “professionals” in the Justice Department.
Second, Congress must press ahead with a thorough investigation of partisan Democratic activity by the FBI and the Justice Department. It seems very possible that the findings will require that the investigation be expanded to include Special Counsel Robert Mueller and his staff, whose political leanings are already known as Democratic and anti-Trump.
We must uncover all the facts, and then justice must be done.