Reining In the Insurgent FBI

For the first time in the history of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, it becomes necessary for a President, a newly elected President, to fire the agency’s Director. It is politically painful. It is not an easy thing to cut short the 10 year appointment that was made by a previous President.

But newly elected President Clinton has to take action.

I called Director Sessions a few moments ago and informed him that I was dismissing him, effective immediately, as the Director of the FBI.

We cannot have a leadership vacuum at an agency as important to the United States as the FBI.

President Bill Clinton, July 19, 1993

William Sessions insisted he had done nothing wrong. A report from the ethics board of the Justice Department, the Office of Professional Responsibility, said otherwise.

Officially, the primary offense had been a series of private trips using public aircraft. The trips were to private events and visits to relatives, with little side trips to minor public functions to maintain a facade. The Director had taken along his wife.

But there had also been complaints about a lack of leadership. Director Sessions had a management style often described as disconnected. He seemed to enjoy the trappings of office more than the duties.

I think about those charges: the incidents of taxpayer funding for private trips, the pattern of listless management, when I consider the more recent, stunning involvement of the FBI in the just concluded election for President.

The shock of a reverse Trumanesque election may drown out what ought to be one of the most disturbing aspects of the campaign. We can hope not.

We have had horrible Presidents before.

I would not have thought it plausible that the tragedy that was President George W. Bush would be eclipsed by a more dangerous administration. As I see it, Mr. Bush could have been a capable President if he had shown the same interest in policy as he did in baseball.

I see a dim possibility of a more constructive variation. Donald Trump, like the last Republican President, has a notoriously limited span of attention. If a similar vacuum develops, it is within the realm of imagination that a responsible member of the new staff will achieve control. Reince Preibus has been mentioned as a possible Chief-of-Staff.

Sometimes the escapism of fictional entertainment gives me a break from the disturbing patterns of contemporary conservatism, especially as conservatives are about to take control of government. Sometimes the lessons of fiction can be applied to life.

One of my favorite television programs is “Blue Bloods” with Tom Selleck as Police Commissioner Frank Reagan. Selleck may be a bit of an ass in private life, demanding and paying for water for his plants during a California drought. But his introspective television persona is near perfect art.

Some of the scenes are kind of silly. Donnie Wahlberg plays one of the Commissioner’s two sons, Detective Danny Reagan. Danny seems to run through the city streets every other episode. “Stop! Police!” he yells. Then follows up with “Hey!” He chases a suspect on a sidewalk, dodging pedestrians. “Hey!” he hollers. He rounds a corner, on the heels of the perpetrator. “Hey!” He closes in “Hey!”

Perhaps there is some reason, beyond that initial self-identification as a police officer. To the uninitiated viewer, which is to say me, the only purpose would seem be saving the pursued criminal the trouble of glancing over his shoulder. Kind of like belling the cat. The person being chased knows exactly where Detective Reagan is at any given moment.

There is a more serious objection. One basic premise is a conservative’s pet delusion. Detective Danny is only too eager to break the rules, roughing up the occasional suspect to obtain a confession, threatening a witness with bodily harm to get a much needed clue. He is constantly reined in by more cautious superiors, who none-the-less appreciate his extreme success in solving cases that are beyond the reach of more orthodox investigators.

The Commissioner himself hosts a discussion at Sunday dinner with adult kids and grandchildren. He poses the cliché we have heard so many times. Suppose the only way you can find a hidden bomb is to beat information out of a suspect. Would you break the rules to save countless lives?

The easy response, the right response, is, well, yeah for sure. I would beat the guy until he gave it up. But we should also challenge the premise. The responsible answer has to be a little more complete.

If I could save my children from serious harm by cutting off my fingers, I would do that as well. But I don’t cut off my fingers as a first response if I hear a scream, because I am sure to a moral certainty that would not help. There are effective ways to save kids. Self-mutilation is almost never one of them.

It is not intuitive, but threats and beatings are not an effective way to get at the truth. Our fight against terrorism has taught us that physical pain is effective at getting false confessions. Torture does not get us the truth. Considerable police research is going into finding what is effective, and what simply wastes time. So far, we know that ticking bombs will more quickly be found by engagement than by brutality.

Television provides weekly morality plays, hypothetical fiction that occasionally makes us think. One episode struck me as especially thoughtful.

The Police Commissioner discovers that a behind-the-scenes investigation has uncovered something damaging about a political opponent of the city’s mayor. The mayor, the commissioner’s boss, demands the information. The Commissioner refuses, even when the mayor threatens his job. Unless an investigation results in court action, nothing goes to a politician. Not if a politician is a candidate. Not if a politician is already in office. Not even if a politician is the boss.

Well, good for that fictional enforcer of the law! Prosecutors and investigators alike have always been subject to a universal ethic. Information from official investigations are not to be shared outside of court, except in those extraordinary situations where lives are at stake. And no information is to be exposed when an election might be influenced.

That is a bedrock principle. The misuse and abuse of investigatory authority is not compatible with the essential functioning of a Republic. The use of the power of investigation by politicians can effectively end democracy. The use of the power of investigation by investigators to influence elections is just as dangerous.

In July, 2016, the Director of the FBI told Congress that an investigation into the private email server owned by Hillary Clinton had uncovered nothing that would merit criminal action. Then he launched into a public scolding, a severe public reprimand of Mrs. Clinton.

With eleven days to go before the Presidential election, he sent a dramatic letter updating Republicans about possible new evidence that might reveal some criminality. The weekend before the election, he sent a final letter confirming that there was nothing new after all.

Each turn of the vicious cycle was dangerous to the democratic process. The original report was ethically wrong. The public scolding was ethically wrong. The update to the original report was ethically wrong. The update to the update to the original report was too damn little, too damn late.

Reports indicate there were even vicious circles within those vicious circles.

A renegade right wing group inside the New York office of the FBI supposedly interviewed the author of one of those many highly creative conservative research books into the evil of all things Clinton. A small group of agents wanted to use it as the basis for an active investigation connecting a host of disparate points into a collection of connected stray dots. More mature superiors and attorneys in the Department of Justice gently explained rules of evidence and vetoed the idea.

The conservative cabal of aging, rebellious agents then conducted their own disinformation campaign. They told sympathetic representatives of right wing outlets that indictments of the Clintons were imminent.

The stunning upset election of Donald Trump can’t be credited to the FBI fiasco. In a sense that is unfortunate. It is a scandal that may pass unnoticed into precedent, unnoticed until the next time.

Some defenders of Director James Comey maintain that his violation of protocol was simply an attempt to head off the disinformation campaign by a few in some corner room of the New York office of the FBI. If Director Comey was guilty of anything, it was an absence of leadership.

It brings us to the final circle within this dangerous precedent, an arc going back to a public announcement 23 years ago.

We cannot have a leadership vacuum at an agency as important to the United States as the FBI.

If necessary, the new President should remove the Director. It is doubtful that Donald Trump will see that as a clear duty.

President Obama has enough time left in office to save President Trump from that decision. He can fire Director Comey himself.

Director Comey can save both Presidents from that damaging necessity. He can do the right thing.

Along the way, a private cell of rogue agents in New York should be escorted out of the agency and away from any investigatory authority.


Subscribe to the podcast via iTunes or RSS
to get episodes automatically downloaded.


5 thoughts on “Reining In the Insurgent FBI”

  1. I agree with your conclusion that Comey should absolutely be fired. I disagree with your reasoning behind that conclusion.

    He laid out a perfect case of why Hillary was “reckless” with classified information and then dismissed her intentional lawlessness by claiming that she had “no intent” in not safeguarding such information through her actions. WTF?!?!

    Decades ago when I was in the service and had a secret security clearance, it was made perfectly clear that any breach of that security would result in a revocation of the clearance and a court martial as minimum results. Using a “negligence” defense would not have mattered, as my last name is not Clinton.

    How much more important and potentially damaging to national security is that information that Clinton had on her private server? She KNEW better and cannot get away with simply saying that the information wasn’t “marked” as classified. (Or actually, I guess she could get away with it…)

    Shame on Comey for not doing his job. And shame on Americans who voted for Hillary despite her disrespect for the law and the security of our country. Such was a cynical view of putting party before country.

    1. Did you read Sanchez’s analysis, which was posted here?

      In any case, the significance of the e-mail scandal pales in comparison to that of Trump’s proposals and temperament. We have much more to lose from Trump making a mess of our relations with other countries, torturing people and executing their families, banning large groups of people from the country, etc. than we do from a discontinued server over which a few messages containing possibly mislabeled classified material (whose content we don’t even know, so whose significance we cannot judge) were sent by other people who should have known better, but had no intent to do wrong. At least everyone admits that it shouldn’t have happened! Trump makes no apologies and has no regrets and his followers seem to idolize him for it! I fear to see the sorts of scandals in which *he’ll* be involved once in office, assuming they even leak.

      So I say: shame on Americans who did not vote against Trump despite, well, just about everything about him. Such was a cynical view of putting party before country–or rage against the establishment before sanity.

      1. Ryan, I share your concerns regarding Trump’s temperament and some of his proposals. Some of the good proposals I fear were nothing more than empty campaign rhetoric. We shall see.

        There are plenty of reasons why I refused to vote for him and Hillary.

        The fact that you are ignoring the significance of Hillary’s email scandal (let alone myriads of others pointing to her dishonesty and corruption) is telling. It has been reported that there were thousands of confidential emails and the server was likely hacked by foreign governments. The fact is that it should never have happened and she knew better. Her disdain for keeping classified information safe should disqualify her from office alone.

        And yes, there are numerous reasons that also disqualify Trump as well. Unfortunately, that is with whom we are now stuck. All we can do is try to hold his feet to the fire if he strays off constitutional course. We’ll see if the cowardly Republicans are any better with him than they were with their pathetic job of checks and balances with Obama.

    2. I just came across this, T. Paine:

      “The Justice Department accused former Rep. Aaron Schock (R-IL) of running his congressional office and campaign committee like a personal money-making operation in a stunning, 24-count criminal indictment…”

      It was pretty bad, involving the selling of government services, some of it through a dummy corporation set up to commit fraud. Interestingly, there was no leak about it before the election, no reports to other politicians, no updates. It all went exactly with the protocols that protect democracy.

      I understand your hyper-partisan reaction. Carelessness with troop movements and military secrets are indeed a serious business that carries automatic penalties. Inadvertently storing received emails that dealt with what was already public knowledge – the fact that drones exist (gasp, really?), a congratulatory message about a public appearance, news that a UN official was about to retire, a reminder that the first woman leader of a country was about to take office – does not strike me as a series of compelling offenses.

      Two previous Secretaries of State, Republicans, also kept private accounts that ended up containing similar classified information. And for good reason. Rules about classified materials at the department lag far behind other parts of government, and way way behind technology. The practices with which all three secretaries tried to deal are leftovers from teletype days of the Eisenhower administration.

      The biggest difference between Secretary Clinton and her predecessors is that she kept a secure private server. The other two simply had accounts of the same type that you and I can get through google mail, something that does not seem to provoke your outrage.

      You and I can differ about the severity of her misjudgment. We should not differ about the dangerous precedent established by a small cabal within the New York office of the FBI, a precedent and a danger amplified by a weak and ineffective Director.

      It was not simply a wrong against Mrs. Clinton.

      Unless it is challenged severely, it will replicate in other cases. And that endangers democracy.

  2. Well, by now we know the drill, Bush, Powell, Cheney et al used private email servers.

    TP and Republicans have no problem with that. After all, IOKIYAR.

    Comey clearly violated the Hatch Act. Lock him up!

Comments are closed.