Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=6004"><span class="small">Harvey Wasserman, Reader Supported News</span></a>
Thursday, 03 November 2016 14:05
Wasserman writes: "The Chicago Cubs have won the World Series. They beat the team of Chief Wahoo and it's long past time for him to depart."
Cleveland fans hold up a picture of their mascot 'Chief Wahoo.' Native American activists have been calling for the team to drop their mascot for 20 years. (photo: Reuters)
After Cubs Win, It's Time for Chief Wahoo to Go
By Harvey Wasserman, Reader Supported News
03 November 16
he Chicago Cubs have won the World Series. They beat the team of Chief Wahoo and it’s long past time for him to depart.
With a rare comeback victory from being down three games to one, the Cubbies have ended the longest World Series drought in baseball history, beating the Cleveland Indians, the team with the second-longest drought. Not since 1908 have the Windy City north siders done this.
Congratulations especially to team president Theo Epstein, who put together the team that in 2004 ended the curse of the Red Sox, who had not won a World Series title since 1918. Now he's done it again in Chicago. How my native Boston let the best baseball operations guy and the best manager (Terry Francona) leave town at the same time is beyond me.
But the real loser this year is Chief Wahoo, and it’s time to bury him forever.
The Cleveland Indians have been soiled for decades with the most cringeworthy logo in all of sports. It is an obscene cartoon that is beyond degrading. I will not describe it in detail. Cover up the feather and it could be an insult to every racial or ethnic group on the planet.
The team name “Indians” is also in contention. It’s a complicated discussion. If Cleveland really wants to “honor” Native Americans, as team ownership says, why not choose a local tribe, like the Shawnee or Erie or Wyandot, and pay them a royalty?
At least Cleveland’s team is not the R*****ns, that pathetic football team in Washington, D.C. How any public franchise could bear such a vile, racist name is beyond tolerance, especially in the nation’s capital.
Dan Snyder, the grotesque, embarrassing owner of the R*****ns, has reconfirmed his inexcusable, pig-headed commitment to keeping the name.
He should follow the sterling example of the owner (Abe Saperstein, now deceased) of Washington’s professional basketball team, whose name he changed from the Bullets in reaction to gun violence. They’re now the Wizards, a terrific choice.
Snyder could open the name change up to the public, hold a contest, a national discussion, and a local vote, and make a ton of money while doing it. All those new jerseys and good feelings and general exposure would be priceless. Instead he clings to a racist “tradition” and confirms his ultimate loser status by putting truly lousy teams on the field, year after year.
In fact, Snyder is now the ultimate argument for public ownership of all major sports franchises, which is long overdue. I am part-owner (two shares) of the Green Bay Packers, America’s Real Team because it is owned by members of the public. Our nation needs to end the shame of our beloved major league sports clubs being owned by billionaires who shuffle them around like portable slave plantations. They manipulate public funding for stadiums designed to serve the corporate elite. They treat the players like chattel. They ignore and abuse the public investment while expecting massive subsidies and royal treatment.
Every community in which a major sports team operates should own and run that franchise.
And Cleveland can join the civilized world by forcing the Indians to change their name and bury that awful logo. It was painful seeing it on the sleeves and helmets throughout this gorgeous World Series. The logo’s presence was a terrible blot on an otherwise wonderful sporting event.
It should not be allowed to happen again. Cleveland needs to take a leap of good faith, bury Chief Wahoo, and get a new name.
FOCUS: We Must Listen to the Dakota Access Pipeline Protesters, Not Punish Them
Thursday, 03 November 2016 12:11
Ruffalo writes: "Last week, I was privileged to spend two days at the Standing Rock Reservation in North Dakota. Thousands of Native Americans have been camping along the Missouri river for months in an effort to defend clean water and sacred land from the Dakota Access oil pipeline."
Actor Mark Ruffalo at Standing Rock protests. (photo: Camille Seaman)
We Must Listen to the Dakota Access Pipeline Protesters, Not Punish Them
By Mark Ruffalo, Guardian UK
03 November 16
State authorities keep arresting native peoples who oppose the intrusion on their sacred land. But their message of defiance must be heard, for all our sakes
ast week, I was privileged to spend two days at the Standing Rock Reservation in North Dakota. Thousands of Native Americans have been camping along the Missouri river for months in an effort to defend clean water and sacred land from the Dakota Access oil pipeline.
I had my heart broken listening to the testimony of Chase Iron Eyes and Bobbi Jean Three Legs in a town-hall-style meeting. I had my hope renewed standing under grey prairie skies beside the Rev Jesse Jackson, bearing witness to the largest gathering of Native Americans in modern history. Representing hundreds of tribes, these courageous water protectors support the Standing Rock Sioux, defending their water and their way of life.
Plans call for the Dakota Access pipeline to carry highly toxic fracked oil across four states, 200 waterways, and land sacred to the Standing Rock Sioux. The protesters know that pipelines leak, explode, pollute and poison land and water, and they don’t want that happening to any of the millions of people who depend on the Missouri river. So they protest – peacefully. Inspired by a band of young Lakota runners crisscrossing the country on foot, they spend their days praying and chanting, and saying “no” to violations of their land, their health and their freedom.
But their peaceful efforts are being met with force. I heard first-hand accounts of violent encounters with armed private security guards, police bearing assault rifles, and aggressive arrests by the hundreds. I see the faces of the people I met on my Facebook feed, now marred by rubber bullets, eyes watering from teargas. Against these unarmed protesters, North Dakota’s governor has spent millions of dollars on additional security forces and even sent in the national guard.
This makes no sense. North Dakota is not in a state of emergency; it is in a state of grace. The protesters threaten nothing except an outdated system of dirty, dangerous energy.
What if, instead of brutalizing these protesters, we took a moment to listen to them? Not only are these men and women putting their bodies on the line to protect precious resources – they are charting the way to a better future for all of us.
I went to North Dakota at the invitation of Wahleah Johns, founder of Native Renewables. She grew up in a traditional Navajo community poisoned by a giant strip-mining operation and now works to create low-cost clean energy solutions for Native American families. Together, we delivered Navajo-made portable solar panels to provide clean energy to power medical tents and other camp facilities as winter approaches. The solar trailers symbolize a healthy, equitable, prosperous energy future made possible by clean renewable energy.
Kandi Mossett of the Indigenous Environmental Network is working ceaselessly to stop the Dakota Access pipeline. She grew up on the Fort Berthold Reservation in North Dakota and witnessed the terrible toll oil drilling and fracking took on the health of native people who lived nearby. She came to Standing Rock with her toddler on her hip and a powerful sense of justice.
David Archambault II is the Standing Rock Sioux tribal chairman. As I arrived in North Dakota, he was in my home state of New York sharing what’s happening at Standing Rock with a room full of philanthropists, inviting them to stand on the right side of history and support those working to stop the pipeline.
These indigenous leaders are just a few of the thousands of water protectors who know first-hand the toxic legacy of fossil fuel extraction and exploitation. They are forging a new path that integrates the latest in clean energy innovation with indigenous wisdom that cares for community, protects the land and looks toward the wellbeing of our children and grandchildren.
This clean-energy path is supported, too, by science and economics. Research from Stanford University shows it would be technologically feasible and economically beneficial for the US to transition to 100% clean, renewable energy. In fact, the shift is already happening. North Dakota already gets almost a quarter of its electricity from wind and water. Worldwide, renewables have now overtaken coal as the largest source of installed electric-generating capacity, according to the International Energy Agency. Every day of 2015 saw half a million solar panels installed around the planet.
Given this ongoing shift to clean energy – and the fact that renewables offer a more sustainable, more prosperous, and healthier future – it seems almost unbelievable that North Dakota authorities are spending energy and money violently defending a dying and dangerous system of energy production. This is not a conflict that can be resolved with brutality and ridicule. Rather, it must be faced with common humanity – with prayer, love and community, and first of all, with listening.
Like so many others who have heard the water defenders, I am standing 100% with Standing Rock – standing on the side of clean water, renewable energy and a just and healthy future for us all.
Galindez writes: "On Sunday evening in Des Moines, Our Revolution and Bold Iowa held an event as part of the #ClimateRevolution tour."
People protest against the building of a pipeline on the Standing Rock Indian Reservation near Cannonball, North Dakota, U.S. November 2, 2016. (photo: Stephanie Keith/Reuters)
“Our Revolution” Stands With Standing Rock
By Scott Galindez, Reader Supported News
03 November 16
n Sunday evening in Des Moines, Our Revolution and Bold Iowa held an event as part of the #ClimateRevolution tour. Emmy award winning filmmaker Josh Fox held a community screening of his new HBO documentary, “How to Let Go of the World and Love All the Things Climate Can’t Change.” Fox, who was nominated for an Oscar for his film Gasland, left for Standing Rock the next day.
Our Revolution is also calling for presidential candidate Hillary Clinton to take a stand against the Dakota Access Pipeline:
In a mailing to supporters, Our Revolution wrote:
The Dakota Access pipeline would carry some of the dirtiest oil on the planet across four states, putting at risk farms, native land, critical water sources, and our flight against climate change. This week, police arrested more than 100 Native activists and destroyed their encampment in the path of the pipeline.
Hillary Clinton said only that both sides need to come together to find a solution. That’s not good enough. The pipeline must be canceled, and the next president has the power to do it.
Our letter to Hillary Clinton:
The Dakota Access pipeline would threaten farms, poison the water sources for the Standing Rock Sioux tribe, and contribute to climate change. It cannot be built if we are serious about protecting the planet.
The next president has the power to stop the Dakota Access pipeline. Secretary Clinton, you must stand firm and stop this pipeline, just as President Obama finally canceled the Keystone XL Pipeline.
Josh Fox also talked about Clinton’s statement on the pipeline, calling it a “nothing burger,” and saying “she said absolutely nothing, which is inexcusable at this time.”
The Clinton campaign released the following statement last week:
We received a letter today from representatives of the tribes protesting the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline. From the beginning of this campaign, Secretary Clinton has been clear that she thinks all voices should be heard and all views considered in federal infrastructure projects. Now, all of the parties involved—including the federal government, the pipeline company and contractors, the state of North Dakota, and the tribes—need to find a path forward that serves the broadest public interest. As that happens, it’s important that on the ground in North Dakota, everyone respects demonstrators’ rights to protest peacefully, and workers’ rights to do their jobs safely.
While Fox acknowledged that the statement said absolutely nothing, he pointed out that Donald Trump supports the pipeline, so “ambiguity is the best we are going to do in this Presidential election, unfortunately.” Fox continued: “I don’t maintain any illusions that Hillary Clinton as a candidate supports our ideals, but what I will say is we know what her positions are, we read the emails, it is on us when she is inaugurated to also inaugurate the movement, inaugurate the political revolution, and to say we are here and we are not going anywhere, and we are going to make sure that platform is implemented, that our agenda, the people’s agenda, is enforced instantly.”
The incoming chair of the Nebraska Democratic Party, Jane Kleeb, also called for us to be in the streets fighting for the issues we believe in, but Kleeb also believes we have to be “inside the Democratic Party reforming and rebuilding the party that takes us more seriously.” Kleeb argued, “Unless we are inside, unless we are at the table, we can’t continue to make the case against pipelines and fracked oil, etc.” She went on to say, “We need to push Secretary Clinton on climate science, fracking, and on pipelines, because she is not with us yet on these issues.” Kleeb believes that “we have the power to push her to the right place.”
The event on Sunday night opened with local Iowa activists fighting the Dakota Access Pipeline (#DAPL), which comes through Iowa. Ed Fallon, the director of Bold Iowa, opened the program by thanking the three legs of the fight against the pipeline in Iowa, farmers and landowners who are continuing to fight the seizure of their land by eminent domain, Native American allies who have been fighting the pipeline’s path through their lands, and climate activists.
Fallon introduced Matt Olaf, a climate activist from Iowa CCI, to begin the program. Olaf said, “The pipeline is not a done deal; there are still permits pending, and we are pressuring the Obama administration to revoke permits already issued.” Olaf also pointed out that the ongoing construction has been in violation of conditions that were imposed when the Iowa Utilities board granted Dakota Access permits to build in Iowa. CCI is calling for a halt on construction while the company is not in compliance with the conditions of the permit.
Fallon then introduced Cindy Capolis, a farmer and landowner on the pipeline route who has been arrested twice while protesting. Capolis thanked all the supporters for giving her the encouragement to fight on.
The next Iowan to be introduced was Kim Weaver, who is running for Congress. Weaver, who is running against Steve King, got emotional when she talked about the pipeline going through her family’s land. A teary-eyed Weaver said to the crowd, “My dad told me that the pipeline was going through our family’s farm. It’s no longer being farmed, but I understand that the land is sacred. To the water protector [Floreece Whitebull], I am sorry that we have not kept our promises to you, because this is a fight worth fighting. This is a fight that we cannot stop fighting. It breaks my heart to think that our government is taking private land from people for private profit.” Weaver called her opponent a bad man whom she hopes to dethrone on November 8th, but said her fight pales in comparison to the fight against the pipeline.
Weaver’s was not the only emotional testimony presented at the event. The next speaker, a native woman named Floreece Whitebull, “Number 151,” was arrested at Standing Rock. Whitebull began speaking in her native tongue, and then introduced herself, saying she was given the number 151 when she was arrested last Thursday. She described being put in “dog kennels and being bused out.” She said people were met with military force and removed from ceremonial sweat lodges, elders thrown to the ground. Whitebull said, “We have the divine right to protect our children, and what’s going on is wrong ... It has taken this suffering and the trauma that we are incurring for the world to start realizing what’s happening, and if we have to bear the brunt of that then we will, because it is worth it, our children’s lives and our children’s futures are worth it.”
The next speaker was Mekasi Camp Horinek, the director of Bold Oklahoma. Bold Oklahoma, Iowa, Nebraska, and Louisiana are part of the Bold Alliance, a network of states fighting pipelines. Mekasi introduced himself as #4838, the number that was given to him when he was arrested at Standing Rock on Thursday. He called his home state of Oklahoma the pipeline crossing of America and the earthquake capital of the world. Mekasi said that while we are from different territories, we stand together in solidarity. He said he came to Iowa to show his support for all that people are doing to fight the pipeline in Iowa.
Jane Kleeb was the next speaker. Jane wasn’t always an environmentalist. When she formed Bold Nebraska it was to organize Nebraskans around progressive issues that would resonate with mostly conservative farmers. It took a while for a friend of hers to convince her that the Keystone Pipeline was the issue. She attended a community meeting full of angry landowners who were facing having their land seized by eminent domain. Jane had her issue, and they won many battles before finally convincing President Obama to turn down TransCanada’s permits for the Keystone Pipeline. If you remember, the southern leg of the Keystone XL pipeline was built. They hit a roadblock in Nebraska. After stopping Keystone, Kleeb and other pipeline opponents expanded their fight to stop other pipelines. The Dakota Access Pipeline was one they took aim at when they formed Bold Iowa. It was originally called the Bakkan Pipeline. Bold Iowa, like Bold Nebraska, has targeted organizing farmers and landowners to fight eminent domain. A Nebraska or Iowa farmer may not want to hear about global warming, but they do think the government shouldn’t be allowed to seize their land for use by a private company for profit. On Sunday night, Kleeb told the crowd, “We are all seeds of resistance, and unless we come together and form a strong, united, solid fight against these corporations, they will continue to tear us down … On November 9th, after Secretary Clinton is elected, we have to be in the streets … One thing that Bold is committed to ending is the use of eminent domain for private gain.” Kleeb declared that Bold’s purpose on this planet is to make sure that corporations no longer have that right.
Josh Fox then took the stage to introduce his film and build resistance. Fox spoke about the fact that everywhere he goes people are fighting pipelines. Josh reminded everyone that “neighbor talking to neighbor is more powerful than any corporate interest, is more powerful than any oil company, is more powerful than any pipeline. I have seen that over and over again, when we organize we win, when we say no and we organize and we put our bodies on the line and when we stand up for each other we win … I am so incredibly moved by what is going on at Standing Rock, the energy that was created has gone across the United States and across the world and it has changed the game in what we are doing to resist fossil fuels. It has changed the game in our efforts to stop fracking and tar sands oil and it has shown the world that the fossil fuel industry has no moral standing anymore, that they are brutalizing, racist, and inhuman.” Fox also played his trademark banjo while introducing the film.
The film takes us on a journey to the places hardest hit by climate change. While the stories are gut-wrenching, Fox succeeds at offering hope and showing the incredible spirit of people who should be consumed with bitterness and hate. Remember the quote earlier in the article from Floreece Whitebull, who talked about facing the brunt of the brutality being brought to bear in Standing Rock. In Josh’s inspiring film, that same spirit around the world is highlighted. You can purchase the film on iTunes and Amazon.
As the film was ending, Josh encouraged people to dance along with those dancing on the screen. Climate change, Standing Rock, fracking, pipelines are serious issues, but as Josh captures in his films, we can have fun building community-based resistance. We need to celebrate our victories while we learn from our defeats. We have to continue to support one another, and like Josh said, contribute what we love to the movement and the movement will love us back.
Scott Galindez attended Syracuse University, where he first became politically active. The writings of El Salvador's slain archbishop Oscar Romero and the on-campus South Africa divestment movement converted him from a Reagan supporter to an activist for Peace and Justice. Over the years he has been influenced by the likes of Philip Berrigan, William Thomas, Mitch Snyder, Don White, Lisa Fithian, and Paul Wellstone. Scott met Marc Ash while organizing counterinaugural events after George W. Bush's first stolen election. Scott will be spending a year covering the presidential election from Iowa.
Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.
Talk of a No-Fly Zone Distracts From Realistic Solutions for Aleppo
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=34049"><span class="small">Patrick Cockburn, CounterPunch</span></a>
Thursday, 03 November 2016 08:37
Cockburn writes: "Are there alternative scenarios, if not solutions? In Syria there usually are because there are so many players inside and outside the country, all claiming hypocritically to be acting in the interests of the Syrian people but invariably consulting their own interests first, second and third."
A Syrian man carries a child in the Maadi district of eastern Aleppo after a bombing. (photo: Ameer Alhalbi/AFP)
Talk of a No-Fly Zone Distracts From Realistic Solutions for Aleppo
By Patrick Cockburn, The Independent
03 November 16
Are there alternative scenarios, if not solutions? In Syria there usually are because there are so many players inside and outside the country, all claiming hypocritically to be acting in the interests of the Syrian people but invariably consulting their own interests first, second and third
he proposal put forward in Parliament to shoot down Russian and Syrian aircraft over Eastern Aleppo in a bid to end the bombardment of this part of the city is wholly unrealistic. The West is not going to risk a war against a nuclear power and its Syrian ally in order to help the 250,000 to 275,000 civilians trapped there. To pretend anything else is empty bombast detached from the realities on the ground. The danger of such wild schemes is that they divert attention from more realistic plans to save the besieged from further suffering and death.
These realities in Aleppo are that the city, once the industrial heart of Syria, has been split between government in the west and rebels in the east since 2012. In the course of this year, the Syrian army and Shia paramilitary forces from Iran, Iraq and Lebanon have surrounded East Aleppo which is being battered into ruins by Russian and Syrian air strikes and shelling. Hospitals and health care centres are being systematically destroyed. There is an economic blockade with UN aid convoys unable to pass through government checkpoints. It is near impossible to cook such food as there is because of the lack of propane gas cylinders and kerosene.
East Aleppo was first fully encircled by pro-government in forces in July when they cut the so-called Castello road in the north of the city which was the last link to rebel areas to the west. The main supply road from East Aleppo to Turkey had been severed in February. A rebel counter-offensive briefly broke through the siege lines in August in the Ramouseh Road in south Aleppo only for the Syrian army and its allies to re-impose the siege in September.
It looks unlikely that the encirclement can be broken by military means. The last time around the rebels suffered heavy casualties put at around 500 dead. The lesson of all the many sieges taking place in Syria and Iraq over the last year – Daraya in Damascus, al-Waer in Homs, Ramadi and Fallujah in Iraq – is that rebel light infantry stands no chance in the long term against heavy air attack directed from the ground.
The UN estimates that there are 8,000 rebel fighters in Aleppo of which 900 belong to Fatah al-Sham, previously the al-Qaeda affiliate Jabhat al-Nusra. They can inflict heavy losses on pro-government forces in street fighting if they fight to the last, but at the end of the day they will lose unless there is a change in the military balance in Syria through one or more of the outside powers involved in the conflict intervening more forcefully in the air or on the ground. President Bashar al-Assad has made clear that he is not going to relax his grip on East Aleppo, saying that he will go on fighting “with the rebels until they leave Aleppo. They have to. There’s no other option.” It is unlikely that anybody will stop him.
The UN Special Envoy to Syria, Staffan de Mistura, has proposed that there be mass evacuation of fighters and civilians to rebel-held Idlib province. He says that he personally is “ready physically to accompany you.” The Syrian government says that it is willing to give safe passage, but this sounds better than it is because of the extreme distrust on the rebel side of any assurances from Damascus that they will be safe from the Mukhabarat secret police now and in the future. The UN says that about half the civilians in East Aleppo are ready to leave now, but this is accompanied by understandable wariness.
During the siege of the Old City of Homs two years ago, which in many ways resembles the siege of Aleppo today, I talked to a middle aged man who had evidently been on the rebel side and two of whose sons were missing. He himself was free and living with other displaced people in a school in Homs, but he could not go to Damascus to ask about the fate of his sons because he rightly suspected that he himself – the last adult male in his family still free – would be arrested on the road and detained for an indefinite period. I said that I supposed that all men of military age were at risk. He laughed hollowly and replied that “we all at risk, every single one of us.”
This fear of the Syrian security forces is a main reason why civilians and others will not want to leave. Other reasons include the sheer danger of appearing on the streets in order to go and the attitude of the rebel fighters. In most rebel-held districts in Syria and Iraq rebels of whatever stripe do not want civilians to depart because they act as human shields. In some cases, they are forcibly prevented from doing so and those that get out have to pay large bribes, as has happened in Mosul and Raqqa in recent months. An organised withdrawal from East Aleppo under the auspices of the UN may be the best option for the civilians remaining there, but the collapse of the Russian-US ceasefire shows how difficult it will be to arrange.
Are there alternative scenarios if not solutions? In Syria there usually are because there are so many players inside and outside the country, all claiming hypocritically to be acting in the interests of the Syrian people but invariably consulting their own interests first, second and third. It is difficult to see where any outside force willing to break the siege will come from. President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, normally so belligerent on behalf of the Syrian insurgents, has been surprisingly mute about the fate of Aleppo. This is probably because he is more concerned with the threat from the Syrian Kurds and on fostering goods relations with President Putin with whom he has just signed a gas deal.
A further aspect of the Syrian crisis tends to be underestimated in the West which is over-obsessed with Russian intervention. Iran and Shia communities in Iraq and Lebanon see the struggle for Syria as a struggle for their own existence. They provide many of the fighters attacking East Aleppo and they are not going to give up until they win.
The FBI Is a Player in the 2016 Election, and the FBI Is out of Control
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=11104"><span class="small">Charles Pierce, Esquire</span></a>
Wednesday, 02 November 2016 13:54
Pierce writes: "The last time the internal politics of the Federal Bureau of Investigation got deeply entangled in a presidential election was in 1972, and that election wasn't remotely close."
FBI Director James Comey. (photo: Getty)
The FBI Is a Player in the 2016 Election, and the FBI Is out of Control
By Charles Pierce, Esquire
02 November 16
Nobody knows what's going on anymore.
he last time the internal politics of the Federal Bureau of Investigation got deeply entangled in a presidential election was in 1972, and that election wasn't remotely close. Nonetheless, as depicted vividly in Tim Weiner's book, Enemies, the incumbent Nixon Administration was trying to push out J. Edgar Hoover but were terrified to do so directly, in no small part because Nixon was a lot of big talk about being tough but generally choked when it came time to be tough. Hoover and the FBI had been involved in the larval stages of what would generally be summarized one day as "Watergate," including illegal wiretapping, but Hoover balked at any assignment that seemed to compromise his total control over the Bureau.
For example, after Daniel Ellsberg leaked the Pentagon Papers and then turned himself in, the Nixon people wanted Hoover to investigate Ellsberg preparatory to an indictment under the Espionage Act. Hoover refused. Nixon got pissed, and sent his own people into the fray to, among other things, break into Ellsberg's psychiatrist's office. And, at that point, we were pretty much off to the races as regards to what John Mitchell ultimately would call "the White House horrors."
For the next year, the FBI went into turmoil as Nixon tried to find a way to kick Hoover to the curb. William Sullivan, the FBI official who had helped develop the FBI's COINTELPRO domestic surveillance program, and who, as Weiner reports, was considered at the time to be Hoover's heir apparent, was infuriated at Nixon's meddling and, for the next year, as the White House geared up for re-election, Nixon and Hoover were at knifepoint and the morale in the Bureau tanked badly.
Sullivan and Hoover split when Hoover pulled the plug on COINTELPRO. Hoover was devastated by what he saw as Sullivan's betrayal and he died in May of 1972. Nixon replaced Hoover with a pliable doofus named L. Patrick Gray, who managed to stumble into involvement with the Watergate cover-up. A career FBI man named Mark Felt was passed over in favor of Gray and Felt was not happy. Soon, he was meeting in a parking garage with Bob Woodward of The Washington Post.
Anyway, the recent history of the FBI's involvement with presidential elections is not a promising one.
It's hard to keep up with what's going on. Clearly, there are FBI sources dissatisfied with decisions made not to keep investigating Hillary Rodham Clinton's e-mails and/or the Clinton Foundation. They're talking. There also seem to be FBI sources who are frustrated with what they see as the too-close-by-half relationship of the Donald Trump campaign to Russian oligarchs up to and including Vladimir Putin. They're talking. And there are people completely outraged by the bungling attempts by FBI director James Comey to involve himself so directly in the presidential election, and they're all talking. The FBI, in short, is out of control.
It's hard to know what to believe. Reputable reporters are producing contradictory information by the bucketful, and there's just enough ambiguity in it to make great ammunition for the completely unprincipled and truthless campaign being run by one-half of this election. This has exacerbated distrust within the electorate and, I would suspect, within the FBI itself, which is not something any of us should like to have going on as a new president enters office.
But we know from sad history that electoral politics is one area from which the FBI, and every other institution of the surveillance state, should stay away—or be kept away—at all possible costs, because they can do more damage by accident than any terrorist can do on purpose. Like it or not, and I don't, the FBI is a player in the 2016 presidential election, and the agendas that are roiling it at the moment are as big a part of it as the electoral college or Scottie Nell Hughes.
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.