Can The FBI Leadership Be Trusted To Be Apolitical

1. 82

   GA Andersonposted 6 years ago

   Now wait... It's a simple question prompted by a current read J. Edgar Hoover - The Man and The Secrets by Curt Gentry, and it chronicles Hoover's FBI up to his death.
   
   It is very cynical, relative to FBI leadership and its unfettered actions.  By unfettered I mean wherever Hoover ran into an operational prohibition, he would find a legitimate work-around, or simply hid his agency's actions from public oversight.
   
   For instance, to avoid having to release FBI information - that he didn't want to become public - he simply edited the official FBI files by removing whatever information he didn't want public to a separate personal/interoffice file system. This was his own personal secret file of secrets. This way, when FBI files were demanded, or subpoenaed, he could safely supply the official FBI files, and truthfully declare that he had done so.
   
   The book even discusses how he 'blackmailed', elected or appointed officials to see things his way. Now, "blackmail" is a strong word. One example given of his technique was that a Senator's daughter was seen, (obviously by an FBI agent or informer), in a known druggie club, with a less than desirable companion. Hoover would have someone drop the senator a note that said something like; "We know, as a parent, you would want to know that your daughter ..."
   
   Or, in the case of one Attorney General that got stopped for DWI, with a prostitute companion, he had someone pass a note to the AG that although the police report had crossed FBI files, he shouldn't be concerned that they had gone any further.
   
   There is a bunch more, but the gist is the FBI was very political - relative to whatever benefited Hoover's FBI.  He would pass helpful op-research to candidates he favored, and he would insure negative information about ones he didn't like was leaked.
   
   Now, Jake, ahorseback, and you others... leave the Left/Right thing at the door. As mentioned - it's a simple question of trustworthiness.
   
   Considering that this was the FBI of 45+ years ago, do you think we have reason to believe the FBI has gone professional since then? Can we be optimistic that Hoover's FBI was of another era that could not, and does not, exist today?
   
   GA

   replyreport
   1. 0

      promisemposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      I believe yes, to a degree. But no organization is perfect because they are filled with people who have biases of all kinds -- including racial, sexual, religious and political.
      
      Organizations that require a high level of trust in order to protect their credibility put in place standards to control the behavior of their people.
      
      That's why the FBI fired McCabe and Strozk.
      
      Average citizens expect perfection from politicians, law enforcement, doctors, lawyers and journalists among other professions. But they won't get it. They can only expect the good ones to give their best effort and the bad ones to get weeded out in time.

      replyreport
      1. 82

         GA Andersonposted 6 years agoin reply to this

         I agree with your "Yes, to a degree..." thought promisem.
         
         But that is an optimistic agreement. We all want to be able to have faith in our preeminent law enforcement agency, and, regarding the rank and file corps, I agree there will always be bias of some kind.
         
         My question was more concerned with the upper-tier management, primarily the top 3 agency leaders that would set the 'tone' of the agency.
         
         Without intending to make a judgement on these examples, I was speaking to the Comeys, Clappers, and Brennans of these organizations.
         
         I too think new policies, protections, and organizational safeguards have surely been emplaced since the Hoover era. But how can we be sure?
         
         Pre-Trump, it was Liberals who were skeptical of our intelligence and enforcement agencies, now it is the Conservatives that distrust them.
         
         Has either side had valid reasons for this distrust? Have the seemingly-obvious politicization of there agencies - since W. Bush - shown that we might be naive to think the FBI can be apolitical?
         
         I am skeptical. Not to the point of charging nefarious anti-American stuff, but skeptical that the top leaders can be truly non-political.
         
         GA

         replyreport
         1. 0

            promisemposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            I think we're largely on the same page. I also am speaking of the tone and leadership of the organization. The tone is set through the standards and the enforcement of the standards by the leadership.
            
            If you know any people in government, you may find on getting to know them better that the general public is excessively pessimistic about all forms of government.
            
            The Comeys, Clappers and Brennans are private individuals. They are now free to express their opinions and be as political as they want.

            replyreport
   2. 79

      Credence2posted 6 years agoin reply to this

      In all fairness to Hoover, while he was flamboyant and authoritarian in the manner in which he ran the Bureau, there was a time we welcomed it. During the depths of the Depression, we were all looking for heroes. What kid did not aspire to be a G-man? It was on the back of every "Wheaties" box. Culminating with the arrest of Alvin Karpis by Hoover, personally in 1935, effectively ending the era of the roving Midwest gangsters or rats as he called them, he could do no wrong.
      
      Changing times move beyond Hoover's ability to adapt and his idea of control and dirty little secrets were being seen as a liability from the Kennedy administration onward. With Robert Kennedy, Former Attorney General, mentioning the sheer danger of any man having as much power as Hoover had for so long as being dangerous. But the Kennedys had use for him as one would that pair of brass knuckles buried deep in one's pants pocket, using Hoover and his organization for morally questionable surveillance activity in the Civil Rights Era.
      
      He was an anachronism and irritant to Johnson and Nixon.
      
      With the death of Hoover in 1972, the idea of the BiG Kahuna, overbearing in prerogative and power, has gone with it. This in itself led to a professional Bureau not an agency that ran on the caprice of one man.
      
      I think that a Hoover like redux is not likely for today's FBI. In spite of the problems the FBI has had since Hoover, they pale when compared with those during the period that Hoover was in charge.
      
      Interesting questions about interesting times..Don't get me started, GA

      replyreport
      1. 82

         GA Andersonposted 6 years agoin reply to this

         Too late Cred, I can't avoid "getting you started."
         
         If most of Gentry's book can be believed, and I do think it can, the issue is more complex than just Hoover as a Big Kahuna.
         
         Two examples of 'then' that I can completely see as possible 'today':
         
         Wire taps, (planted microphones and such), and phone taps. paraphrasing from memory, both had legislative and policy guidelines and restrictions. But ... during the Commie Scare of WWII times, Hoover skirted those restrictions, either by too-broad interpretations, or outright lying about intel sources - and Roosevelt welcomed Hoover's information, and in several instances encouraged it.
         
         Again with Roosevelt, (I am not yet up to Johnson and Nixon times, but suspect I will find similar examples there): Opposition research, on both political opponents and opposition groups, Roosevelt used his Chief-of-staff to pass questions about specific people or groups to Hoover, and Hoover would pass reports back to Roosevelt - again through his Chief-of-staff.
         
         Here's a point in the book you may like - regarding Karpis; Informants gave up his location to local police. Because he was wanted by the FBI, they contacted FBI agents. Who naturally informed the head office, (Hoover).
         
         Hoover gave explicit instructions to do nothing more than to stake out the place, and confirm Karpis was there. The police were instructed to do nothing, it would be an FBI arrest. And nothing was to happen until Hoover could get there and personally make the arrest.
         
         Karpis was apprehended, disarmed, handcuffed, and placed in an FBI car before Hoover walked up to the car window and personally placed him under arrest. Or so the story goes.
         
         But I do agree with you that Hoover was of an era past, and could not exist in a similar form today. However, unfortunately, I am not so sure that the thought of the FBI being used as a political tool is unthinkable today.
         
         As a side-note, relative to your "every kid" lead-in, Hoover actually had a PR office whose only job was to generate and/or  plant favorable stories in newspapers and other publications. He also used his 'gossip-columnists' contacts; Pierson, Drew, and later, Anderson, to shoot-down or denigrate any negative FBI public issues.
         
         GA

         replyreport
   3. 81

      Don Wposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Not sure I understand the question. I initially read apolitical as non-partisan, but your examples suggest that's not what you meant.
      
      I'm confused because politics is an intrinsic part of leadership roles. Whether it be securing your budget, getting your department's priorities to the top of the pile, building and maintaining useful networks, forming mutually beneficial alliances against "opponents" etc.
      
      I can't imagine any (good) department or agency head not doing these things. The only difference seems to be the degree to which Hoover took it. But I may have misunderstood the question.
      
      Also, your current reading notwithstanding, is there any reason to restrict the question to the FBI? Is it not also applicable to other intelligence agencies?

      replyreport
      1. 67

         JAKE Earthshineposted 6 years agoin reply to this

         I thought GA was better than this, falling into the breitbart, Alex Jones conspiracy nonsense: This is just another foul discussion which should be terminated just like the other anti-American threads such as the one asking if John McCain was a patriot or a traitor as if it were a valid question:

         replyreport
         1. 82

            GA Andersonposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            Jake,  "... breitbart, Alex Jones conspiracy nonsense...", is that really the impression you took from the OP?
            
            I didn't intend, and upon rereading the OP, I don't see, any criticisms, or conspiracy charges in it. Where did you read it to say otherwise?
            
            What statement beat-up on today's FBI, or charged it with conspiracy-type actions?
            
            Surely you didn't take my reference to Comey, Clapper, and Brennan as examples of the management level I was talking about as criticisms of them, did you? If so, then I would point you to some of your past declarations about reading comprehension.
            
            Time to stand-up Jake, you made an inference in your claim that you thought I was "better than that," so step-up bud, show me where my statements fit your Brietbart or Alex Jones charges.
            
            GA

            replyreport
      2. 82

         GA Andersonposted 6 years agoin reply to this

         Your first thought was right Don, I did intend "apolitical" to stand for non-partisan. I completely agree with your statement about a good leader having to be very political - in the sense you described.
         
         To that point, I think Hoover was apolitical, relative to Democrats or Republicans. His party was the FBI, and in that sense he was very partisan. I have the impression that he didn't care which party was in power, as long as they didn't infringe on his power.
         
         Following that thought are the examples of his cooperation with Roosevelt, which I think were very political. He allowed his FBI to be used as a partisan tool - because it benefited his FBI to do so.
         
         Your response prompts me to think I should have said "independent" rather than apolitical. And perhaps I should also have tied that independence to ethical as a qualifier. Many of Hoover's actions, as portrayed, were far from ethical.
         
         It was probably my thoughts concerning Nixon and L. Patrick Gray, combined with the Hoover reading, even though I see their motives as different, that made me choose apolitical. .
         
         Also, as you can see by my Comey, Clapper, Brennan examples, I was unable to confine the question, as I stated it, to the FBI. I strayed. Probably because the question does apply to all intelligence agencies.
         
         GA

         replyreport
         1. 81

            Don Wposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            Thanks for the clarification.
            
            In that case, I'd say because of the nature of their business, agencies like the FBI, CIA etc. have more (and more stringent) safeguards in place to ensure independent, unbiased decision-making, than other government agencies.
            
            Those safeguards are geared towards ensuring employees decision-making capabilities are not compromised in various ways, and would also pick up overt political bias (or at least decisions that could not reasonably be justified based on the circumstances).
            
            I know you specifically asked about "leadership" but I think those are important points to make.
            
            In terms of leadership, as you said, the FBI Director is appointed by the POTUS and reports to the AG. Outside of that, Congress has its oversight role (which I believe has been turned into a partisan kangaroo court by Nunes et al, but that's another story). Point being that, there is oversight from Congress also.
            
            Then, within the FBI there are operational practices, policies and procedures to prevent violation of constitutional rights etc. E.g. the FISA court process. This represents oversight from the third branch.
            
            Obviously no system can be perfect, so that would be an unrealistic expectation, on balance, I think it's reasonable to believe a clear pattern of overt, politically biased decision-making could not currently be sustained for a significant period of time without being picked up by the safeguards and oversight in place.
            
            So much so, I think it might be more apt to ask if the FBI and other intelligence agencies are receiving too much political scrutiny right now. To the point that it is becoming interference.

            replyreport
   4. 69

      Ken Burgessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      
      
      
      > The FBI”s Ties to Private Sector Mercenaries (Infragard)
      
      >FBI's Violation of Rules in Spying on Trump Campaign Further Exposes Deep State
      
      >America’s Gestapo: The FBI’s Reign of Terror
      
      > The FBI isn’t breaking up with the SPLC — it’s just not keeping the relationship “official”
      
      I have to assume the question was posed merely to see what others have decided to believe. 
      
      The wonderful thing about the internet it is a wealth of information on any subject if one is willing to research the matter.  The above are just a handful of headlines I found without much effort.
      
      As for what the FBI should or shouldn't do (or be), the president is the executive.  The executive is unitary. The president should have control of the FBI, it is supposed to be that way.  There is no such thing as institutional independence or 'professionalism' that puts the FBI 'above the fray' in the constitutional arrangement of the United States. 
      
      The Framers of the Constitution intended that the elected president would be in control of unelected officials, what we are seeing at the moment are unelected officials attempting to usurp/subvert.
      
      Ohr, Strzok, McCabe, and others were in essence part of the former Administration, and in essence were acting out the will and want of that Administration.
      
      What I would say we are witnessing now, is an effort by the FBI (and perhaps other agencies) to ignore or counter the current president's authority.  When you add to this former officials like Brennan and Clinton  speaking out against the President and forming or joining "the resistance" we have in effect in our country a 'soft coup'.  But I digress...
      
      The president should and must be in charge of the FBI, DOJ, CIA, etc.  It is in essence his job to police the officials' discretion, not be held hostage to it.  Officials have a great deal of discretion; in law enforcement, this manifests in decisions as to what to investigate, whom to prosecute and how, we see Mueller running amuck with this now. 
      
      Both corruption and bias can appear in any system, and it is the duty of the president to reign it in, with the aid of the Congress exercising its oversight function.  And this is exactly what we see ongoing in our system now, what is in essence a battle between entrenched FBI directors of the former Administration (and their supporters in Congress) and the current President (and his supporters in Congress).
      
      It seems necessary to stress that in the actual case, Andrew McCabe was terminated on the basis of the FBI's own investigation, which found that McCabe had lied.
      
      Strzok’s firing was not because of texting about Trump. Strzok was directly involved in the handling of the FISA application to the FISC and he made statements under oath before Congress that made it clear he was lying by deception when they did not include the information on who paid for the dossier and that Bruce Ohr was back-channeling information from a discredited source when making that application. 
      
      FISA docs revealed Peter Strzok provided information which was used to obtain a FISA warrant on Carter Page, directly contradicting his sworn claims to GOP lawmakers.  The Deputy Director of the FBI decided to fire him for this.
      
      So, can we trust the FBI to be 'apolitical'?
      
      The answer is, clearly not.

      replyreport
      1. 81

         Don Wposted 6 years agoin reply to this

         The FBI's mission is "[t]o protect the American people and uphold the Constitution of the United States"(1). Not to support a sitting president.
         
         The President is a constitutional executive, not a king. FBI agents swear allegiance to the Constitution:
         
         "I [name] do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same . . ."(2)
         
         In fact the FBI explicitly says:
         
         "It is significant that we take an oath to support and defend the Constitution and not an individual leader, ruler, office, or entity. This is true for the simple reason that the Constitution is based on lasting principles of sound government that provide balance, stability, and consistency through time. A government based on individuals—who are inconsistent, fallible, and often prone to error—too easily leads to tyranny on the one extreme or anarchy on the other. The founding fathers sought to avoid these extremes and create a balanced government based on constitutional principles."(2)
         
         Is this attitude political? Yes. Is it the right approach? I believe so.
         
         And this is one of the reasons interference with an ongoing criminal investigation by a sitting president who's activities or associates are subject of that investigation, could trigger a constitutional crisis. Such interference could curtail or seriously hamper that investigation. So a president would effectively be placing himself/herself beyond the reach of law.
         
         All FBI agents are literally sworn to "support and defend" the law.
         
         (1)  https://www.fbi.gov/about/mission
         (2) https://www2.fbi.gov/publications/leb/2 … 9/oath.htm
         (3) ibid

         replyreport
      2. 82

         GA Andersonposted 6 years agoin reply to this

         Ken, our views of the FBI's mission and independence are so radically different that I don't see a possible middle ground on this one
         
         Maybe I could see the president as being entitled to some influence over the agency in terms of asking for some particular direction, or some influence over the philosophical mission by his appointment of its director, (think of the president's Supreme Court nomination power), but that's about it for me.
         
         Your response appears to say you think Pres. Nixon should have been able to stop the Watergate investigations.
         
         GA

         replyreport
         1. 69

            Ken Burgessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            GA,
            
            Obviously there is some confusion here as to who the FBI serves, and answers to.
            
            "Operating under the jurisdiction of the United States Department of Justice, the FBI is also a member of the U.S. Intelligence Community and reports to both the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence." - Dictionary Definition
            
            The AG and the Director are both appointed by and serve at the behest of the President.  They are approved by Congress, both the President and Congress oversee and control (supposedly) the FBI.
            
            If you reread my post, what you take as my opinion, is not, it is fact.  The President was and is granted control over unelected officials by the Constitution.
            
            Who exactly do you think the CIA, FBI, etc. answers to if not the President or his appointees?
            
            If they no longer serve the President, when in actuality that is exactly what they were created to do, SERVE the elected officials, Congress and the President, not threaten them, not incriminate them, or far worse then exactly who do they serve?
            
            That you (and others) disagree with my post, is more than a little surprising, and a good testament to just why our government is in the state that it is in.
            
            Not being overly familiar with Watergate, I can't confidently say what role the FBI played, however I believe it was at the behest of Congress.  In this case we have FBI officials snubbing their noses at Congress in open and private hearings, as well as interfering with the sitting President and attempting to interfere with his campaign and election.
            
            It is for this reason, that a few of them have already been fired, and there will probably be more firings yet to come. 
            
            Its ironic that they are being fired for being caught lying to Congress under Oath when there were so many other things they had dirtied their hands on.

            replyreport
            1. 82

               GA Andersonposted 6 years agoin reply to this

               There is confusion Ken, but, respectfully, (and I know your position is shared by others), I think it is you who are confused.
               
               But that is only my opinion, as is what follows. I believe that opinion can be supported, but I am not offering evidence of that support  - yet.
               
               The FBI serves the American people, not the president, personally. It is not his personal law enforcement arm.
               
               As for who any of these departments answer to, it is not the president, but to his appointee. Which is not the same as answering to the president.
               
               The only control the president has over the DOJ, FBI, or any other department led by an appointee, is the control of whether that appointee keeps his job. His control extends no further than that.
               
               He can fire the FBI director, but he cannot tell him how to do his job.
               
               He cannot control the mandate or charter of any organization, beyond driving legislative action to change a charter or mandate.
               
               By your logic the president has the authority to order the CIA to spy on American citizens. Surely you don't believe that?
               
               Regarding that Watergate point, the FBI director, L. Patrick Gray, hid and then destroyed incriminating evidence - at the direct request of Nixon. And in defiance of Congress - as you are claiming Comey did.
               
               But, neither my OP, nor my following comments are intended to be a judgement of the FBI relative to the current situation - which seems to be the point of your responses.
               
               GA

               replyreport
               1. 69

                  Ken Burgessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  
                  
                  I solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).   - U.S. Army Oath (same for all branches)
                  
                  An individual, elected or appointed to an office of honor or profit in the civil service or uniformed services, shall take the following oath:
                  
                  “I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”
                  
                  
                  
                  
                  
                  I am willing to accept that.  And that makes the agency more dangerous than I had considered, with far too much power and far too little accountability.  An agency that can blow off the President and Congress is an agency that shouldn't exist.  Almost as bad as the IRS.

                  replyreport
2. 0

   ahorsebackposted 6 years ago

   Hoover could not have happened today ,   There were no e -mails , cell phones personal or gov't ,   24 / 7 News Media ,   government oversight or ethics committees ,   There was no FBI , DOJ Facebook page , no  interdepartmental Twitter , 
   
   Social media is likely THE only reason that we have found all of the newest forms of corruption in the IRS . DOJ , FBI , Look at Trump , himself , what person reading his tweets won't know almost as much as Trumps right hand people in the inner circles know ?
   
   Unless there was sort of limitation to , not only to  today's social media but tomorrows too ;  the American public is going to only get closer to knowing the inner circles and their workings  of these departments  and institutions .
   
   We definitely need to beef up our ethics committees , oversight committees , internal government  -personal ideological -  media leakings  and  party agendas though. Or it only gets worse .

   replyreport
   1. 91

      wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      If you could beef up the ethics of our government by a factor of ten, well, 0 times 10 is still zero.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         ahorsebackposted 6 years agoin reply to this

         Yes ,  you are right about that , However with the onset of so much social media involved  don't you think that the worst offenses will be easier to detect and deal with ? I would be willing to bet that there will be many Comey's , Strzok's , Paige's and yes , Even Trump's who will chill their keyboards while on the job after this fiasco. .

         replyreport
   2. 82

      GA Andersonposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      I think your first paragraph is right ahorseback. Hoover would never have survived with such abundant oversight and 'fact-checkers'.
      
      But, regarding your last paragraph concerning governmental oversight, I am not so optimistic. I think it is only degrees of cleverness that would change. Just as my example of Hoover segregating FBI file information so that he could 'legally' comply with oversight requests, and just as he 'massaged' office holders and appointees, and committees, to circumvent many inquiries and mandates, I don't see it as impossible, (or maybe even improbable), that an equally clever director could do the same today. Just think of examples of emails and texts on 'burner' phones, instead of official agency phones, or registered personal phones.
      
      Comey might even be a comparable example. Where Hoover used leaks to "gossip columnists" Comey used leaks to a friend'.
      
      GA

      replyreport
3. 0

   ahorsebackposted 6 years ago

   Anybody here pick up on the story of Comey --Mueller massively enriching themselves through directing government military contracts through their relationships as civilian , government employeres Pre- Trump -Obama terms ?

   replyreport
   1. 0

      promisemposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      What is your source?

      replyreport
      1. 0

         ahorsebackposted 6 years agoin reply to this

         It's called media .

         replyreport
         1. 0

            promisemposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            In other words, there is no source.

            replyreport
4. 82

   GA Andersonposted 6 years ago

   I don't see the relevance of your Uniform Military Services oath Ken, but I do see that I was right that we would not find a middle ground on this issue.
   
   My OP question stands; Can we trust that enough safeguards and oversight exist, regarding today's FBI, to believe that we won't see another Hoover FBI?
   
   As both ahorseback noted with his point about the sunlight effect of today's social media and internet platform, and as Don W. noted regarding the rules and oversight protocols that Congress has put in place, I don't think we have to worry about another Hoover FBI.
   
   However, I can't carry that to the point that I feel comfortable trusting that the FBI, (particular to this conversation, but to all agencies in the general thought), is beyond the possibility of inappropriate partisan actions.
   
   It may seem like I am harping on the point, but I have to once again point to Nixon and FBI Director Gray. Or, to toss out a bit of red meat , perhaps Comey's leaking actions might be gist for a similar thought.
   
   GA

   replyreport
   1. 69

      Ken Burgessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      
      
      
      I see the two situations as complete opposites actually.
      
      Nixon, was a paranoid control freak, a life long politician in pursuit of power, and wanting to maintain it by any means necessary.
      
      Patrick Gray, the acting director of the FBI passed its investigative reports on the Watergate scandal to the White House, and was left to “twist slowly in the wind” by Nixon.
      
      Whereas Trump was not the President, had no political background or support from the FBI, and in fact was targeted by high ranking agents in the FBI that were determined to thwart his campaign, and then his Presidency.
      
      If anything compares to the Nixon debacle it would be the acts of Ohr, Strzok, McCabe, (and others) to brush every criminal act by Clinton under the rug while also fabricating criminal acts to frame Trump.
      
      On the one hand you had Nixon, a life-long Washington insider who was using every means he knew to keep his Presidency.
      
      And on the other you have a billionaire businessman who had no real ties to Washington and no real concept of how the FBI really works.
      
      As for the idea of the FBI (or CIA or any other spook or special forces command) being restrained or restricted by the "safeguards and oversight [that] exist" it isn't soundly based.   
      
      Whatever tales you read about Hoover, Watergate, etc. what went on in those times was child's play to the complexities and deceptions that are going on today.
      
      The answer to your question, I gave, it is resoundingly no.
      
      But I understand if you choose to disregard my opinion, to do otherwise might make it harder to sleep at night.

      replyreport
      1. 82

         GA Andersonposted 6 years agoin reply to this

         I guess I did open the door for you to bring Trump into the discussion, so I will close it now.
         
         Your opinion is a resounding no. I can understand that. Mine isn't a resounding no, but, as I have previously explained, it isn't completely contrary your "no" either.
         
         Whereas your "no" was to trusting the FBI - period, my OP and opinion was to whether we could trust that another Hoover FBI couldn't happen today.
         
         Ken, did you really intend to end this discussion by telling me I have my head in the sand if I don't completely agree with you?
         
         GA

         replyreport
      2. 0

         ahorsebackposted 6 years agoin reply to this

         Ken you are absolutely correct about this , and this is probably the best comprehensive definition of Nixon comparisons to Trump we've seen here !  Thank you.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            La Veeztaposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            A horseback, you are absolutely correct when you say “Ken you are absolutely correct about this” and it is the best what you said, and I have no trouble sleeping at night to admit it and thank Ken for nailing it.

            replyreport
   2. 69

      Ken Burgessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      
      
      
      OK GA, if you want me to specifically answer will we see one man sit in control of the FBI, and use that position to influence the direction the country moves in for half a century, this is unlikely.
      
      Not because of any safeguards, but because it is difficult to imagine someone having the ability to get to that position at a young enough age to actually hold it for 50 years. 
      
      AND
      
      Because that position is now secondary to the Director of National Intelligence, who IS subject to the authority, direction, and control of the President of the United States and required by the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 to serve as head of the sixteen-member United States Intelligence Community, of which the Intelligence Branch of the FBI falls under.
      
      HOWEVER
      
      What is currently being exposed, is just how the Intelligence agencies (along with the IRS), can be used collectively when the heads of those agencies are working unitedly to 'Hoover the country'.
      
      What Hoover was able to do singularly in his time, these days took the collective efforts of Brennan, Clapper, McCabe, Comey, Ohr, Strzok, etc.
      
      It took a conspiratorial effort of a collection of unelected officials to do what one unelected official had been capable of doing, simpler days pre-internet when the government and its agencies weren't nearly so large.
      
      Hoover held virtually unchecked power, hidden from the public, manipulating every president from Roosevelt to Nixon. He kept extensive blackmail files, used illegal wiretaps and hidden microphones, had connections to mobsters, and used them all to destroy anyone who opposed him, from the Kennedys to the the Supreme Court.
      
      Today the NSA has such power.
      
      Thanks to the internet (and the football field sized buildings spread throughout the country to collect and store data for the NSA)  There are files contained on every person, from sexual activities, membership in a suspected organization, drinking habits, health, taxes, etc. In other words a government organization, financed by the tax-payer, that was supposedly investigating criminal activities and protecting from terrorists, has used its resources to stockpile information on every American citizen.
      
      A dream Hoover couldn't have even imagined in his time.
      
      All the leverage and information it took Hoover decades to cultivate and collect, there for the taking, under the control of the Director of National Intelligence.
      
      Will we see another Hoover?
      
      Its just a matter of time, just not in the FBI.
      
      
      
      
      

      replyreport
      1. 0

         promisemposted 6 years agoin reply to this

         "The quote attributed to the famed actor was fabricated by a disreputable web site."
         
         https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/denze … ice-state/
         
         https://www.factcheck.org/2018/01/fake- … ton-story/

         replyreport
         1. 69

            Ken Burgessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            Yeah, actually there is plenty of evidence out there showing he DID say those things, snopes and factcheck are as reliable as CNN for telling you the facts/truth:
            
            “If the Democrats had won the election, we never would have found out they were using false documents to get warrants to spy on American citizens and political opponents. We never would have known this. Think about it!” said Denzel Washington at a press conference in New York.
            
            “They would have a tool they would use over and over again to circumvent the will of the people in future elections,” said Denzil Washington, who has just been nominated for an Oscar for his film Roman J. Israel, Esq.
            
            The nomination marks the eighth time Washington has been nominated in the best actor category, making him the most-nominated African-American actor of all time.
            
            “We know that a warrant to spy on the Trump team was issued based on media reports, and these media reports were based on information provided by an opposition research firm being paid by the DNC and Hillary Clinton.”
            
            “You guys can’t see what is wrong with this? You’re kidding me,” The Equalizer actor said, before adding, “Well I guess you are reporters. How many reporters was it that got caught colluding with the Clinton campaign?”
            
            Addressing the reporters personally, Denzel Washington called them out for refusing to publish anything critical about the Democratic Party.
            
            “I grew up a Democrat. I get it. I know a lot of people who hate Trump with a real passion.”
            
            “But you’ve got to understand that we dodged a bullet when Clinton lost. More than one bullet. We avoided a war with Russia, and we avoided the creation of an Orwellian police state.”
            
            Roman J. Israel, Esq. is available digitally now, with the Blu-ray and DVD hitting shelves Feb. 13.
            
              you can find your own links, or not, and just go bury your head in the sand and believe in your snopes report.  Or you can believe the many sites which report/quote exactly what he said.  The beauty of today's America is you can choose to believe in what reality you want to, one side or another is sure to support you in your delusions.

            replyreport
            1. 0

               promisemposted 6 years agoin reply to this

               The only "delusions" belong to people who believe easily proven propaganda.
               
               I choose to believe sites that follow fact checking, legal review and multiple sources of information.
               
               Snopes and Factcheck.org are the two most respected fact checking sites on the Internet. They challenge lies from both the left and the right.
               
               If you give a source for those quotes that does actual fact checking, I will accept them as true.
               
               The only sites I see that have them are right-wing blogs that simply repeat the same quotes from other right-wing blogs.

               replyreport
      2. 82

         GA Andersonposted 6 years agoin reply to this

         Well Ken, it looks like I may have been wrong. Now that it appears we are both on the same page, I think a common understanding - a middle ground, might be found.
         
         I hold no blind trust of the NSA, and certainly don't discount the possibility that an upper level 'bad actor' could misuse the power of his agency.
         
         I do not support the Patriot Act for the same reason I do not blindly trust the NSA - too much power, too much potential for abuse.
         
         However, I do stop short of considering that a cabal of intelligence heads, (and I think that is what it would take to create a Hoover-like agency or action), could exist to form such a conspiracy.
         
         GA

         replyreport
         1. 69

            Ken Burgessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            
            
            GA,
            
            I wish I didn't know for a fact that it has, did, and will again.
            
            But at least you are skeptical, hopefully you are part of a growing American majority, hard for me to judge, after all we still have millions who believe CNN presents news (not propaganda).
            
            I think I will leave things at that, I have more than given my 2 cents on this matter, I look forward to your next foray into the Forums

            replyreport
5. 0

   ahorsebackposted 6 years ago

   Promisem , If "Denzel Washington didn't make that statement "  ...........Okay fine who cares ?,  But whoever made that statement was surfing on a Tsunami , a wave of untold truths .  If you cannot see that the false Trump Collusion for instance is coming to an uneventful end in Mueller failures and that the absolute corruption investigation of the Obama /Clinton administration is about to take hold ; "Bigly" is almost unbelievable.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      promisemposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      My post goes to a larger point. It is partly because of propaganda that many people don't trust any institutions anymore.
      
      Our enemies especially love the breakdown in trust toward the FBI, NSA, CIA and other agencies. They can't wait for our democracy to fail.

      replyreport