The case for Kash Patel at the FBI
Nothing is remotely improper or inappropriate about wanting a reformer at the Federal Bureau of Investigation right now. Three days before Donald Trump named Kash Patel, I explained why Democrats themselves should be no less unanimous than Republicans in wanting an overhaul.
Mr. Patel is a plausible if not particularly decorous nominee. A former public defender and former national-security specialist in the Obama Justice Department, he later did important work as a House Intelligence Committee staffer exposing the Steele dossier fraud.
A few others come to mind (apologies to them if they are horrified by the prospect): Andrew McCarthy, a former prosecutor who handled terrorism and mob cases for the Justice Department; Michael Horowitz, the Obama-appointed inspector general who exposed FBI wrongdoing in the Trump and Hillary Clinton investigations; John Durham, a U.S. attorney who investigated possible Central Intelligence Agency abuses for the Obama administration and possible FBI abuses for the Trump administration.
But where are the bipartisan worthies and elder statesmen who should have been leading public opinion to demand a crackdown on clear FBI abuses six or seven years ago?
And where are the Democrats? Mrs. Clinton has the clearest claim to have been deprived of the presidency by improper and bumbling FBI actions. The exit-poll evidence is less dispositive in Mr. Trump’s 2020 case. He also might have won if not for FBI and CIA veterans deliberately lying to the American people about the Hunter Biden laptop.
Mr. Patel’s nomination has set fire to the Brooklynesque fuzz on top of many media heads. In an unguarded podcast excess, he once called for civil or criminal proceedings against the press over its Steele reporting.
Relax. The law doesn’t allow scope for this. An FBI chief might help, though, by championing the release of classified documents to encourage the press to decide it no longer pays to stonewall. In three cases, the FBI and fellow agencies made use of false “Russian intelligence” concerns to get away with illegal or improper acts to influence our domestic politics. The press has been covering it up.
In the Hillary case, the “Russian” intelligence consisted of made-up email content attributed to Democratic activists and officials. In the Trump case, it was the Steele dossier, whose chief fabricator the FBI put on its own payroll for four years lest he admit the sordid truth about the Steele fabrications to the public that he admitted to the FBI.
In 2020, in a case that really spoke of the intelligence community’s confidence that major press outlets had been fully suborned and would play along with anything, FBI and CIA veterans plainly lied to suggest that Hunter Biden laptop data, which had already been in the FBI’s hands for 10 months, was Russian disinformation.
...
It does look like the FBI in some instances was trying to put its thumbs on the scales of justice for political purposes. I never believed the Russian collusion hoax and I doubt that any intelligent FBI agents would so why did they go along with the hoax? So far, they have not told us. What we do know is that the hoax was perpetrated by the Hillary Clinton campaign in their attempt to defeat Trump.
If the Democrats want to return to power they need to go back to focusing on issues important to voters and stop making up bogus charges against their political opponents.
Those at the FBI and CIA who pushed the hoax should lose their jobs. It looks like it was more than poor judgment behind the hoax. Patel should be allowed to clean house at the FBI.
See also:
Trump Shreds FBI Director Christopher Wray—'He Invaded My Home'
And:
And:
Trump Blasts FBI Director, Defends Jan. 6 Hostages in Tell-All Interview
'I'm looking to make our country successful. Retribution will be through success...'
Comments
Post a Comment