I Know, Right?

 “Research is often the search for facts that support one’s prejudice(s); and the ignoring, and/or even hiding, of facts that do the opposite.”

 Mokokoma Mokhonoana, author

Human nature, right? "Confirmation bias" is what people generally do, because to do otherwise means facing outcomes that are uncomfortable. Uncomfortable enough so that it's easier to twist ourselves into giant Philly pretzels than admit we are, or have been, or always were mistaken. The bigger the stage, the harder the fall.

John Durham released his report - long-awaited, overdue or a nothing-burger, depending - about the investigations begun in 2016 known colloquially as Russiagate. Briefly, the core allegation argued that then-candidate Donald Trump had colluded with, and received material assistance from Russia in his effort to win election for president. The FBI was primarily in charge of the inquiry, the authority to conduct it involving the highest levels of the organization, and the Executive Branch of government.

As has been asserted for years and confirmed by two separate investigations from within the Executive branch of government - Russiagate always was a crock. At best, it was a failure of a process of checks and balances that the FBI asserts has been addressed. At worst - FBI officials knowingly used false information produced by a political campaign, manipulating it in such as way as to make it seem legitimate, to further the interests of the Democrat candidate for president and to damage the Republican. They attempted to frame an innocent man.

John Durham has left it up to the average American to decide where they stand.

The notion that FBI agents, among the most carefully selected and highly-trained law enforcement officers in America, need procedures and safeguards to tell them not to fixate on a target, obsess over trying (here, in vain) to uncover evidence that isn't forthcoming and discount evidence that their target is innocent - to try to charge someone with crimes despite evidence they did not commit them - that's astonishing. This was not a failure of process. It was a failure of the most basic kind.

Recruits in police academies are trained to... Okay, they are browbeat at almost every turn, with the concept of objectivity. The evidence is the evidence. It leads a reasonable person to draw a conclusion. Exculpatory evidence (proof that someone is innocent) is equally as important as inculpatory evidence (proof someone is guilty). In fact, the search for exculpatory evidence should be diligent, and any that is uncovered used in the ultimate outcome determination - not just guilt or innocence, but continuing or ending an investigation.

The FBI claims that it now has in place guardrails to keep it from happening again. Really? An FBI agent needs a rule to tell them not to use ginned-up "evidence" to obtain FISA warrants meant to eavesdrop on the Republican candidate for president? 

I'd love to hear what those guardrails are. The supervisory agent in charge of the investigation said publicly he "knew" Mr. Trump was guilty of collusion because of the agent's years of counter-intel experience. Really? It is obvious that the law enforcement principals in this melodrama, saving for later those who acted with actual malice, desperately wanted these allegations to be true, refusing to even consider that contrary evidence might exist, let alone going to look for it. They refused to discount their "feelings" when it became painfully obvious that the only evidence of collusion was made up.

If the evidence had been strong, a rookie cop would reach the same conclusion as a seasoned FBI agent. If the evidence was thin (an assessment apparently reached by British intel agents familiar with the facts) no amount of "counter-intel experience" can redeem it. That's not what happened.

One sees this from time to time from all levels of law enforcement. A recent investigation revealed (as one example) that a Fort Collins officer had skewed evidence while arresting a number of suspected DUI drivers. One supposes that he "knew" they were drunk, even if sufficient objective evidence was missing.

Solutions? Some are howling for accountability, and that may be part of it. The involved law enforcement and other federal agencies must reassert the long-held belief that to be trusted, one must be trustworthy. Not perfect. Just consistently striving to be worthy. All of the buzz words, the reconstituted programs, guardrails to keep arrogant upper level FBI supervisors honest...none of that matters if the basic process of compiling lawfully-collected evidence and evaluating it objectively is ignored because we all "know" the suspect is guilty.

No one is immune from human frailty. The question is, how did people this frail end up running the FBI?