Estimated Reading Time: 7 minutes

It’s hard to imagine showing up for a prayer meeting in front of an abortion mill and, before dawn the next day, having SWAT teams and FBI Agents banging on your door. Yet, not only this, but a host of other actions became routine, from spying on traditional Catholics to investigating citizens who posted things that opposed censorship or questioned the use of Covid masks. While these “best” practices have been thoroughly aired before congressional committees and subsequently on various social platforms, no one has yet been held accountable. However, this is not the first time such abuses have taken place.  The FBI has an unfortunate record of getting involved in domestic politics.

The FBI’s precursor was the Bureau of Investigation (BOI), established under the Department of Justice in 1908. The essential services it was intended to provide included the Justice Department having its own investigative body for the vast increase in antitrust and fraud cases at the time. Until then, investigators were borrowed from the Secret Service or private investigators. Additionally, the increasing presence of organized crime was a growing concern. The original employees consisted of known private investigators and investigators from other branches of government, who were not required to hold specific educational credentials.  

It was during the administration of Woodrow Wilson that the Bureau was granted wider powers to engage in political meddling after the passage of the Espionage Act on June 15, 1917, just after Wilson formed the American Protective League in March and April of that year. The “League” was comprised of citizens empowered to surveil, investigate, and take other unspecified actions against perceived domestic threats. That list included, but was not limited to, pacifists, dissenters, socialists (who opposed the war), and generally anyone in opposition to Wilson’s policies.  Perhaps some of this might be excused because the nation was at War, but in hindsight, little of it seems justified.

The backlash occurred after further excesses emerged in the post-war period, specifically in 1919 and 1920.  The then Attorney General Palmer made mass arrests using the Bureau, targeting suspected radicals,  anarchists, communists, and the rank and file of the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW).

The arrests were often conducted without warrants, and the fact that a union was involved, despite being a communist front organization, the outcry was heard in the halls of Congress. Once again, the legislators did not consider the full consequences of their law, and although expelling a great deal of hot air, they did not opt for corrective legislation. Instead, the new Attorney General, Harlan Stone, ordered the Bureau to restrict its investigations to violations of federal laws.

Stone also moved to reform the Bureau so that it would be a more “professional” organization, in the process of which he fired many he deemed incompetent and/or unreliable. So, here we are, repeating history.  Regardless of Stone’s reforms, the Bureau continued to grow and amass power under the young J.  Edgar Hoover. Although cautious about expanding the Bureau’s responsibilities, Hoover was building himself a powerful position. His focus had been on implementing internal improvements, like his own training institute for agents. He was steadfastly aware that any actions that meant his long-term tenure was needed were for his greater good.  

It was Hoover’s interest in applying science to investigations that led to his founding the Bureau’s technical laboratory in November 1932. Director Hoover created a central clearinghouse for fingerprints. Hoover decided to focus on high-profile gangsters and criminals, such as Bonnie and Clyde, John Dillinger, and “Pretty Boy” Floyd, and others who brought the Bureau into the national limelight. The successful elimination of notorious criminals earned them the descriptor “G-Men.” It was used in respect, not derision.  

In recognition of the new, wider involvement in the nation’s law enforcement, including being a key player in convicting Bruno Hauptmann in the Lindbergh kidnapping case, Congress gave the  Bureau additional authorities and a new name: the Federal Bureau of Investigation in 1935.

Just before WW2, the FBI was ordered by the Justice Department to conduct surveillance of German, Italian, and Japanese citizens and non-citizens in certain geographic “hot spots”. The FBI got considerable publicity with successful take-downs of German agents operating on American soil.

Following World War II, a perceived second “red scare” emerged at the onset of the Cold War in the early 1950s. It was the era of Senator McCarthy’s hearings, the House Un-American Activities Committee hearings, and the key trials of atomic spies and higher-level spies like Alger Hiss. The problem is it was not a “scare”, but a severe problem of Soviet penetration of our government and cultural institutions, like Hollywood.

The FBI gained in prestige during a time of active communist agitation and infiltration into key government bureaus and agencies.  This, in later years, was used to smear the FBI because the Communist Party ran candidates for office, had the outward appearance of a political party, and hence the FBI appeared to be meddling in domestic politics.  But it wasn’t that simple.  In the 1990s, following the release of the Venona decrypts, it became clear that the Communist Party was not an ordinary political party.  It not only received funding directly from the Soviet Union, but it was also involved directly in espionage activities.

This placed the FBI in a peculiar position.  It should not be involved in domestic politics as part of regular American political competition.  But what does it do if some of the political activity is directed from abroad, funded by an adversary, and involved in espionage activities? 

It would seem that monitoring politicians who work knowingly or unknowingly for a foreign government is a legitimate function, especially if the nation has already been involved in numerous proxy wars sponsored by that government.

The problem resurfaced during the student riots of the Vietnam era and the civil rights movement.  The FBI’s monitoring of Martin Luther King is often cited as an example.  However, it was not that simple once again.  King had occasionally been associated with members of the Communist Party.  His lead attorney, Stanley Levison, is a prime example, as was Jack (Hunter Pitts) O’Dell.

FBI files, including those informed by Venona decrypts, suggested Levison was involved with Soviet intelligence as a financial backer of CPUSA activities (e.g., Venona messages referencing CPUSA funding networks). King relied on Levison for strategic advice and fundraising for the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC). While Levison’s communist ties were real, there’s no conclusive evidence that he influenced King’s ideology or tilted him towards Soviet goals.  On the other hand, why did he have them as aides, and if they didn’t think they were an influence, why did they stay in their positions?

Besides the civil rights movement, there were numerous radical organizations of the period, including student organizations and even violent groups such as the Weather Underground and the Black Panthers.  Again, this was not always standard politics, unless you believe riots and setting off bombs at the Capitol are standard political activity.

Later, we encounter problems related to the Watergate break-in again.

But this creates a slippery slope of sorts.  Who is to know if such political activity is truly stemming from foreign interference? Moreover, suppose you can harm those with whom you disagree politically by creating a foreign influence factor when there was none. In that case, you have now falsely created reasons for police and intelligence agencies to abuse their power. This seems to be the precise problem in the last few years.

Then we get to the current era of abuse, the Steele Dossier, the impeachment proceedings, election interference by our law enforcement and spy agencies, all the way down to spying on Americans who have attended school board meetings.

And beyond the Russian collusion hoax, the FBI and CIA interfered in the election on a variety of levels, such as censoring or controlling the flow of information, harassing political opponents, and even complicity in the January 6th Capitol riots.

The problem common to all these cases, as always, is how to control the abuse of power.  The Founders wisely believed that the best hope for a stable government was to have a separation of powers among the branches of government and an independent, free press.

Congress had previously imposed requirements on these agencies, but they did not appear to be effective, as seen with the Church Committee in 1976.

It remains to be seen whether the self-adjusting mechanisms of the American Republic will adequately address the problem.

Stripped of all its complexity, what happened over the last few years is that Hillary Clinton paid for and created bogus intelligence, which was then swallowed gleefully by our own intelligence agencies.  The key was to link Trump to foreign powers and make him appear to be a stalking horse for Russia and its gangster government.  The law enforcement agencies and intelligence agencies came down on the Democratic side during a presidential campaign and continued to harass a President duly elected to office.  We now know many in the intelligence community knew the charges were bogus, but were overruled by high-level political appointees.

The Congress not only failed to supervise the intelligence agencies properly, but they also joined forces and used the bogus intelligence to try to impeach President Trump twice. They didn’t check the abuses; they magnified them.

The so-called FISA courts, which were supposed to check abuses of power by issuing warrants, allowed themselves to be lied to, and in most cases seem to rubber-stamp the requests by intelligence agencies to spy on Americans.  Thus, either you could say the courts failed, or they allowed themselves to be used.  In either case, they didn’t stop bad behavior and the grave violation of rights.

As for the “free press”, they largely joined in as well, although there were notable exceptions, particularly among independent news sites and blogs.  Besides joining in, the press slanted coverage and granted itself awards, such as the Pulitzer, for misleading the American public.

Lawyers were all over this scandal, and their professional ethics did nothing to constrain them.  Professional ethics were also tragically absent in the behavior of journalists.

In short, the standard mechanism was ineffective. The separation of powers and the existence of a free press did not stop the FBI and other intelligence agencies from abusing their power and interfering in our domestic political functions.  Professional ethics failed spectacularly. We need to contemplate the notion that our system, as it was designed, failed again, even after the experience of prior abuses.

We now seem to be in a period of counter-revolution, or, as we prefer to say, “restoration.” Some complain this is retribution, while we choose to view it as justice.  As long as the basic rules of law are respected, those who have abused power need to face a severe penalty.

It is vitally important that all these abuses get fully aired. Those guilty of abuses must be prosecuted if possible.  An example of historic proportions is necessary to drive change.

The Congress failed, the FISA courts failed, and the press failed. But the resilience of our political system has a chance to set things right.  Then, new consideration must be given to reforming our systems of governance so something like this cannot happen again.

As always, it seems to be a case of who monitors, the monitors.