Many officials in the Obama administration — including in the FBI — believed that if Donald Trump were allowed to become president, the republic as we know it would fall. And they may have been correct, just as the Delphic oracle was, but correct in the wrong way. Because as much harm as Trump caused to the rule of law at the riotous close of his four-year term, the FBI’s own actions in the 2016 election did, in its way, even more lasting harm to the institutions of the republic.
All of this is made clear this month in the release of the report by special counsel John Durham on his investigation into the “Russiagate” allegations, including whether the Trump campaign worked with Russia to influence the election.
During the 2016 campaign, the FBI received several tips about foreign interference in the election. In those involving the Clinton campaign, the FBI followed up on the rumors. It was able to dismiss some of them, and on others it gave “defensive briefings” to the Clinton team, warning them of the dangers foreign actors posed to them. But when a rumor of Russian collusion with Trump reached the FBI, it opened an investigation immediately, doing so without confirming the information through other sources or using any of the “standard analytical tools” that are typically employed.
The FBI got word of this alleged collusion from Australian authorities in July 2016 “concerning comments reportedly made in a tavern” by George Papadopoulos, someone in Trump’s orbit as an unpaid adviser. This “raw, unanalyzed, and uncorroborated intelligence” alone led to full investigations of four members of Trump’s team. No defensive briefing was provided to the Trump campaign.
Then came the so-called Steele dossier: a collection of reports generated by Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence agent running his own private security firm. Who hired Steele to do this? Fusion GPS, a different private investigation firm. Who hired them? Perkins Coie, a law firm. And who did Perkins Coie work for? The Clinton campaign. So, laundered though it was, the FBI was basing its investigation of one major party nominee on rumors collected by his opponent, plus some stuff someone in Australia heard in a bar.
Trust in all institutions is falling, and this report will make the FBI’s reputation fall still further. Undermining the rule of law and perverting the administration of justice used to be seen as obviously wrong, even when the weaponization was directed against a “bad guy.” That’s an essential part of how liberal democracy works. In subverting that, it may yet bring about its greatest fear: taking down this republic by its own actions.
All this occurred while the FBI was aware of a supposed plan approved by the Clinton camp “to vilify Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal claiming interference by the Russian security services.”
This gave no one at the bureau cause for alarm?
The Durham investigation came about to answer the questions opened by the Mueller investigation. Special prosecutor Robert Mueller found, after two years of investigating, that he “could not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.” Despite the political and media obsession with Russian “collusion,” Mueller found the factual basis of it all to be lacking.
How, then, did the FBI act so quickly on its suspicions, which were ultimately unfounded? Why did it investigate something that had seemingly no basis in reality?
Article URL : https://www.inquirer.com/opinion/trump-2016-presidential-run-fbi-investigation-20230529.html