Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
The Problem Isn’t the Appearance of Bias; It’s the Reality of Bias
FBI Director Wray’s attempt at assuring the public that he will respond effectively to the IG report had the opposite effect on me.
He pledges to train employees to avoid even the appearance of bias. Who thinks this is a solution, given that the reality of bias that’s been exposed? Would the problem have been avoided if employees like Strzok and Page had been better trained to avoid the appearance of bias? Suppose they had—thanks to good training—refrained from sharing their views in texts and emails? No doubt that would have saved the FBI public embarrassment, but would it have prevented the wrongs the report uncovered from happening? Would the actual effects of their favoritism toward Hilary and animus toward Trump have been averted? (I like Andy McCarthy’s characterization: Kid gloves in the one case and scorched earth in the other.) No.
I’d rather he’d pledge to purge the FBI of employees who exhibit bias. I rather he say the kind of political motivation on display in IG report will no longer be tolerated in its employees. I rather he pledged to institute policies that would make it practically impossible for his agency to become so dominated by employees of one political stripe that bias is inevitable. For instance, how about trying to make sure than any team investigating a politician is duly balanced in terms of political affiliation?
I get that there are good reasons for not considering political affiliation in hiring. But when it becomes apparent that the not-considering has led to a grotesque one-sidedness, some kind of remedial measures are surely in order.
I’m open to suggestions.
Published in General
Or in the words of Jamie McDonald, “kid gloves, made from real kids.”
I agree entirely. Also, Andy McCarthy’s latest column is spectacular. I think in the last year and half, he has gone from fairly sanguine about the whole thing (these are all honorable people and institutions) to seeing the whole cesspool for what it is and has been.
I have very low expectations of the IG reports on FISA and the Russia investigations based on this report.
I agree with you. I thought the statement by Wray was just about as weak as he could get by with.
There probably are a number of adjustments that must be made in and between the DoJ and the FBI in managing and separating investigations and prosecutions. Nobody should be able to do what Comey did and he accomplished it right out in plain sight.
You must understand that from the governments point of view, bias is not an issue. It is even desirable. These are political organizations and are expected to be bias in support of the government and its leadership. The whole issue is the public’s perception or belief. The public must maintain the belief in the fiction that these organizations are fair, competent, professional organizations instead of the corrupt political power structures they are.
I look for a few PR moves to look like the issue is being addressed and a couple PR campaigns to retrain the public’s mindset to that which is more desirable for the FBI (or other lettered agency) image.
Though the problems are very apparent now, I’d argue that they predate even Comey’s ruinous tenure. Think back to Waco and Ruby Ridge. I really noticed it when Mueller strapped the institutional blinders on the FBI when dealing with domestic Radicalized Muslims after 9-11.
Wray’s response to the report along with his behavior leading up to this has been totally unacceptable. There should be dozens of firings and multiple prosecutions at a minimum. Wray’s tenure to date has been rather underwhelming.
Rosenstein should have been fired a while ago- think he’s been one of the main problems at DOJ (I’m more indifferent on Sessions but feel he should end his recusal).
I get really depressed about this. It seems like every aspect of the federal government, from DOD to State to Justice to the FBI and on and on is essentially a corrupt entity working strictly for it’s own ends, Republic and citizens be damned.
You do not fire people for doing what they are supposed to / expected to do. That is why there have been little or no firings to date. Anybody that has been removed more recently is because the optics were bad, so they had to be removed. Not that they did anything that got them fired.
It’s hard to resist cynicism these days, I admit. But you go too far for me, FJG.
I think it is much harder for conservatives than Progs to get into many of our Fed agencies, especially State; and therefore, Progs are over represented there and probably in all except for DOD. My guess is that not many State Dept. types served in the military.
All Fed agencies must be staffed by a minimum of 51% former DOD types?
That makes sense. Most organizations practice forms of discrimination to some degree, be it racial, nationality, gender, sexual orientation or political philosophy. Since most of the governments of this county are basically Democrat / progressive controlled it only makes sense that their employment practices tend to hire, but mainly promote and retain those that are active supporters of Big Government, socialist, progressive, Democrat agenda.
I am not a cynic. I just tend to recognize / see the reality of situations and give voice to it. Most people see the same things, it is just that currently society apply pressure / indoctrination to get people to shift their perspectives to ones more socially acceptable.
In the case of the FBI, it is a corrupt organization with a long history of corruption. Not sure why everybody refuses to see its corruption now.
The agencies are the creations of Congress and funded annually. It is within the power of the House GOP to compel production of documents for reform hearings, and to pass bills intended to reform the FBI and DOJ. Their fake powerlessness is all kabuki theater, I believe. If so, it is on all of us to hold every Congress critter’s election or reelection hostage to action now.
http://ricochet.com/527737/whose-side-is-the-ig-on/
The DOJ IG in the Bush (43) years, a dimwit named Fine, criticized DOJ for hiring conservatives. After Obama became President, Hans von Spakovsky and Christian Adams looked at DOJ’s hires and found that “every single one” was a leftist. The IG said nothing.
Relocate the office to Rolla, ND; the lower house of Congress to Enterprise, MS; the Senate to Winterville, ME; and POTUS to Trump Tower in NYC; all other agencies to areas in which the closest airport has the least number of flights nationwide—but keep DOD at the Pentagon.
The problem will always be (corruptible) people, therefore the solution is to attenuate and disperse power. I see no other way. Government is the problem.
Kati,
Exactly so. This is the avoidance, once again, of the major wrong by distracting everyone with some minor issue. “Look a squirrel!” Maybe it’s time we all stopped falling for this cr*p.
Regards,
Jim
Suggestion: Don’t let an agent who has shown gross political bias run the FBI HR department.
I keep finding myself playing the devils advocate here. Does anyone know how strzok’s texts were obtained? Weren’t they private texts with his girlfriend? I’ve heard texts are encrypted. Even the FBI couldn’t get info from that terrorists phone a couple of years ago. Maybe I haven’t been following closely. Or were the phones owned by the FBI?
It’s possible to view his “we will stop them” text as merely a prediction that the investigation into the Trump campaign would soon pay off. We will quickly uncover the collusion and then Trump will have no chance of winning. Is there a reason this couldn’t have been what he meant?
Im sure they knew they should have avoided the appearance of bias. But did they know their texts would be publicized? If they had no reason to expect that, then they aren’t guilty of appearing biased, except to each other.
I wonder if the casual treatment and (very) possible cover-up of the Las Vegas massacre of country music fans ( aka Trump supporters) has anything to do with this attitude.
It just seems that our government is quite happy to have an us vs. them country. IRS FBI NSA ETC, and bought and paid for propaganda outlets.
I don’t think we are cynical enough. It’s hard for good people to comprehend, I know.
Hmmm, didn’t someone recently post about polishing up his resumé? (Jim CHAOS Mattis works in a civilian capacity in DOD now, right?) :-)
This thought would work better if the FBI had reached a conclusion in line with facts, not to mention followed investigative and prosecutorial protocols, in the Clinton email case. With the juxtaposition of that investigation having been conducted by some of these same FBI agents, a conclusion of biased action toward Trump in the Russia inquiry is warranted.
I was thinking that wasn’t far enough.
What annoys me most is that every Deep Stater being replaced is replaced with another Deep Stater.
Which suggests there is no one trustworthy to step into these roles.
In the IG report it’s clear that many of these people didn’t realize their communications would be retained. I put Strozk and Page among those.
Alternatively, since they believed Hillary would win, they didn’t think it would matter what they said on an “open channel.”
This seems in part to be a problem connected to the fact that FBI agents who gravitate to the higher-profile higher-prestige jobs in Washington are more political animals than the agents out in the field — Strozk and McCabe never bring the information to Comey about the classified emails on Weiner’s computer unless the FBI New York office forces their hand (in part because the knowledge of them wasn’t simply held by FBI-New York, but by NYPD, which also could have leaked the fact before Election Day). Those seeking to be the ones running things at the FBI showed a mindset towards going along with the conventional wisdom inside the Beltway and curry favor with politicians, which in their minds for 2016 and beyond had Hillary Clinton at the top of the power list.
McCabe’s wife running in Virginia as a Democrat and getting over a half-million in funding from Clinton crony Terry McAuliffe should have set off major alarms in 2015 that the bias at the top levels of the FBI had reached the point where top officials no longer cared if they openly showed signs of it, in large part because they had bought into the belief that the Executive Branch would be controlled by the Democrats for the rest of their lifetimes due to the changes in demographics and identity politics. The question is how far down the food chain in Washington do you have to go before you find FBI officials willing to overlook partisanship, or is it to the point you have to look completely outside the Beltway for people to clean up the system (while hoping they don’t come to Washington and also get corrupted by the hive mindset there).
I’m not even sure you can count on the “outside the Beltway” officials.
Where, Drew, would you look for replacements?…Or would you scrap Federal jurisdiction altogether?…Interested in your thoughts: Solutions, rather than – admittedly accurate – restatements of the problem. How do we move forward here?
Anyone who hasn’t heard Gowdy’s interview on Fox News Sunday today needs to watch it. He is not amused by Strzok, Comey, or any of the other star witnesses to be at Donald Trump’s upcoming trial. I wish Mueller good luck making a case against Trump that doesn’t include any evidence that is the work product of this cast of partisan bomb throwers. There’s no reason for Trump to kill this investigation; it’s already dead. Strzok et al killed it.
Scrap the FBI entirely, and then create a new organization with the same valid goals but with far more oversight. Then staff it with competent outside-the-Beltway people.
The reason I’m not sure if you can count on the non-DC-dwellers is that the attitude of the bureau chiefs inevitably filters down to the rank and file.
I think of all the situations in the past few years where there’s a shooting or a bombing or some violent action where we’re told that the FBI were already well aware of the murderers’ intentions, but did nothing about it. And that’s not just a problem with Washington. That’s all the field offices, too.
My brother is in law enforcement and his department recently handed a case over to the FBI — essentially washed their hands of it — because even though his local police department had enough on a suspect to arrest him charge him for bank robbery, the FBI preferred to simply put a track on the guy and watch what he did next.
Well, “next” could involve people dying. But the FBI didn’t want the guy arrested. Just tracked. So my brother’s department said “Fine, your problem then.”
So as much as I hear “Well, the problem is in Washington and all the field offices are staffed with good agents,” I’m not entirely convinced.
“The fish rots from the head” but it rots entirely.
We have to understand who we’re dealing with on the Left. Power is their aphrodisiac. They are completely addicted to it. So much so that they are convinced they are incorruptible and that their good intentions negate their lawlessness. Only people who believe this could seek to build up our Leviathan government. Conservatives (especially white Christian conservatives) are an obstacle to them immanentizing the eschaton. If they can’t persuade us of their righteousness (under the slogan of “unity,” cf one Barack Obama, No Red States, Blue States…), they seek to destroy us. They’ve already decided we’re irredeemable — deplorable. Destruction continues apace.
It’s time to man-up, conservatives, and face the enemy. With the corruption of our government, it may be past time.
Hire from the cops and local DAs offices ? Maybe FBI should always be a second career. Or direct from police academies. Maybe bring Sean Connery to help with screening. FBI, I’m told, has less to do with investigative work than getting witnesses to inform on each other: what happened to the shoe leather approach?