Shortly after Donald Trump declared his intention to run for president in 2016, former FBI Director James Comey personally ordered an unprecedented off-the-books operation against him, according to a recently made public whistleblower report. The House Judiciary Committee has studied the report, which claims that Comey gave undercover female FBI agents instructions to enter Trump’s campaign under false pretenses in order to obtain potentially embarrassing evidence, even though the inquiry had no legal basis.
According to the accusations, Comey may have seriously abused his position of authority. If confirmed, it would reveal the FBI’s readiness to go outside established procedures in order to target a political campaign. Former FBI Assistant Director Chris Swecker said, “If accurate, this report is a booming, egregious violation of the rules governing the attorney general and the FBI.” Longtime Comey opponent Swecker stressed that any such inquiry would have needed unambiguous legal support, which this case doesn’t seem to have.
The whistleblower revealed that the operation was started as a “fishing expedition” by Comey and his closest friends. The Trump campaign was the target of this purported operation, which was carried out without a formal inquiry. Comey allegedly gave two female undercover agents instructions to serve as “honeypots,” who were supposed to interact with senior Trump team members, such as George Papadopoulos, who was then campaign advisor. Comey allegedly put up a trap to incriminate Trump’s associates, which is something that many people think law enforcement professionals should never do.
The whistleblower claimed that Comey made sure the inquiry was completely concealed from official FBI records, which was a major deviation from accepted practice. According to the admission, Comey gave the FBI permission to move forward with what the agent called a “unofficial, off-the-books” investigation of Trump’s campaign by ordering that no case file be created in the agency’s system. If confirmed, such techniques expose a clandestine activity carried out without the use of any of the conventional checks and balances.
When Comey ordered the infiltration, Trump, who declared his first campaign in June 2015, was apparently not under suspicion of any crimes. However, Comey allegedly started an illegal operation targeting his friends in order to obtain negative material about the then-candidate. According to reports, the FBI’s initial inquiry started well before the organization’s official Crossfire Hurricane operation, which was later purportedly a reaction to alleged Russian cooperation with the Trump campaign. This “off-the-books” investigation appears to have been a criminal investigation with an entrapment goal, in contrast to Crossfire Hurricane.
Comey’s actions were not properly justified, which begs the question of whether the FBI had any influence over the 2016 election. As Swecker noted, “It’s sensitive to the extent that it would have to have been predicated and [attorney general] approved.” According to Swecker and others, Comey’s operation violated law enforcement standards and regulations by not adhering to these legal criteria.
George Papadopoulos, a campaign advisor who was later found guilty in 2017 of lying to the FBI, was one of the key players the undercover agents allegedly targeted. Papadopoulos has repeatedly defended himself by saying that FBI agents with connections to intelligence operations tricked him into a plot involving Russian meddling and purported information about Hillary Clinton. The FBI agent Curtis Heide, according to the whistleblower, handled Papadopoulos, raising the possibility of a planned trap.
In public, Papadopoulos has expressed his belief that one of these “honeypots” was associated with the CIA instead of the FBI. This calls into question intelligence services’ collaboration or participation, which might expand the purported scope of Comey’s operation. The exercise might have far more profound implications for comprehending intelligence agency operations and their supervision if both the FBI and CIA were involved.
According to the whistleblower, the FBI’s undercover operation went on for a long time until a big news organization came across a picture of one of the undercover agents. The FBI allegedly intervened to stop exposure by asserting that the photo was of a “informant” who would be endangered if identified. This justification apparently prevented the story from going public, guaranteeing that the public would not learn of the FBI’s clandestine operations.
The whistleblower asserts that Comey made additional steps to conceal the operation after the near-exposure. According to reports, one of the agents was moved to the CIA in order to shield her from future witness calls. As a result of their involvement in the investigation, another FBI employee allegedly received a promotion. If accurate, such acts indicate a conscious effort to hide the FBI’s operations and shield those involved.
Members of the House Judiciary Committee acknowledged that they had received the report and said they “plan to look into” the accusations. The committee’s investigation might reveal whether Comey misused his power and whether the FBI behaved within the law. Many people’s long-standing concerns about the FBI’s politicization and possible weaponization against political candidates are highlighted by the whistleblower report.
Comey’s purported reasons are still unknown.
Critics counter that it would be a significant abuse of power if he intended to harm the Trump campaign. “This was an unexpected infiltration of a presidential campaign … it would have to have been approved by the [attorney general],” Swecker said. Swecker’s comments highlight the legal requirements for looking into a political candidate—requirements that Comey appears to have disregarded.
The Judiciary Committee’s examination of Comey’s conduct may reveal more about a larger problem in federal law enforcement. Although the FBI has long been accused of prejudice, this whistleblower report might offer hard proof that the organization supported one side in the 2016 election. If confirmed, it would lend credence to allegations that Comey’s leadership of the FBI motivated its actions more by partisanship than by morality.
Calls for more FBI monitoring will probably increase in response to this disclosure. Many contend that Comey’s purported behavior serves as a clear illustration of the improvements that must be made to federal law enforcement in order to guarantee accountability and openness. The whistleblower revelation offers more proof of a “deep state” plot to sabotage Trump’s presidency before it ever started, which is good news for those who backed him in 2016.
Finally, if proven true, Comey’s accusations might change how the public views the FBI’s impartiality. Although the American public expects federal institutions to maintain objectivity, this research raises the possibility that senior officials have abused their power for partisan ends. This is seen by many as a troubling pattern that has afflicted American politics recently.
About The Author
