The Federal Bureau of Indoctrination?

If you are at least as old as I am, you will remember the TV show, “The FBI.” From 1965 to 1974, Efrem Zimbalist, Jr. portrayed Inspector Lewis Erskine, who “personified the calm, business-suited government agent who always tracked his criminals down, scientifically and methodically and with virtually no emotion at all… Neither he nor his partners allowed themselves to become emotionally involved in their work which focused on a range of crimes, from bank robbery to kidnapping to the occasional Communist threat to overthrow the government. The cases were based on real FBI files and ranged across the United States and involved counterfeiters, extortionists, organised crime, Communist spies, and radical bombings.”

For many years, the Federal Bureau of Investigation cultivated a positive image through shows like “The FBI,” and other media outreach. Described by its most famous director, J. Edgar Hoover in 1961, the FBI was “(e)stablished in 1908 as the investigative arm of the U.S. department of justice, (and) is a fact-finding agency which does not evaluate the results of its investigations or recommend prosecutive action…(t)he two primary areas of FBI activity are general investigations and security operations. Within the latter field, it has jurisdiction over espionage, sabotage and subversive activities on a nation-wide scale… the FBI…reports the results of its investigation(s) to the attorney general, chief legal officer of the United States, his assistants and the various U.S. attorneys in federal districts throughout the United States for decisions as to prosecutive action.”

Would J. Edgar recognize the organization he led from 1924 to 1972 in the 21st century? What effort does the FBI make to cultivate a “positive image” in today’s world?

Rather than focus on professional, dispassionate “fact-finding,” the Bureau has found itself involved in other avenues of image-making. For instance, in remarks given by the current FBI Director Christopher Wray to the National Association of Women Law Enforcement Executives in April of this year, the director noted that the Bureau was “working hard to remove barriers and create a reflective workforce—not just in terms of gender, but across a full spectrum of diversity…(t)he FBI is focused on recruiting and building a diverse workforce…(w)omen now make up 45% of our workforce overall and nearly a quarter of our senior executive positions…(w)e’ve also increased our recruiting initiatives at Historically Black Colleges and Universities and are expanding our recruiting focus to other minority-serving institutions…I’m proud that the FBI is addressing this important issue, but I know that we can do even better, and we will.”

These remarks underscore an emphasis on diversity and inclusion policies that have been in place at the Bureau since 2015, when “the FBI added diversity as one of the organization’s core values…(w)e stand committed, as today’s FBI, to fostering a culture of inclusivity and diversity.” In fact, “The FBI’s Office of Diversity and Inclusion was created in 2012 to provide guidance and implement programs that promote a diverse and inclusive workplace that allows all employees to succeed and advance.”

This office was created in response to Barack Obama’s Executive Order 13583, dated August 18, 2011, which “establish(ed) a coordinated Government-wide initiative to promote diversity and inclusion in the Federal workforce” by “highlight(ing) comprehensive strategies for agencies to identify and remove barriers to equal employment opportunity that may exist in the Federal Government’s recruitment, hiring, promotion, retention, professional development, and training policies and practices,” and to “identify appropriate practices to improve the effectiveness of each agency’s efforts to recruit, hire, promote, retain, develop, and train a diverse and inclusive workforce.”

While no one seriously disagrees that a modern workforce is not restricted to one race or sex alone, the FBI (as well as other federal agencies) exhibits a particular preoccupation with this issue. The 2015 Policy Directive that established the Diversity and Inclusion guidelines for the FBI created a “Diversity and Executive Council,” as well as “Diversity Advisory Committees,” a “Diversity Advisory Council,” and a “Diversity and Inclusion Coordinator.” These various levels of bureaucracy are tasked with ‘provid(ing) support to underrepresented groups within the FBI,” and “encourage employee and management participation in diversity events…and cultural awareness activities.” “Diversity training for supervisors and managers…includes a discussion of diversity and inclusion, as well as the use of work assignments as a professional development tool,” while “Diversity training for all other employees” includes “attendance at…diversity training event(s) or activit(ies)…completing an online course on a diversity and/or inclusion-related topic…participating in a workplace discussion group focusing on a diversity and/or inclusion topic (eg, a book, an article or an event)…”

The Report concludes tomorrow

Judge John Wilson (ret.) served on the bench in New York City

Quick Analysis

Judge Merchan continues to deny justice to Donald Trump

In August of 2024, we discussed the US Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. United States. We described the three tiered system enunciated by Chief Justice Roberts to determine whether or not the actions taken by the President of the United States are entitled to immunity from criminal prosecution or not. The first tier are acts within the President’s constitutionally mandated authority which are subject to “absolute immunity.” The next are acts that may have “presumptive immunity,” and are subject to examination with evidence that rebuts the presumption of immunity. The third are acts which are unofficial, and which enjoy no immunity. In September, we also discussed the effect this decision should have on the New York County criminal case currently pending against President-elect Trump before Judge Juan Merchan. We cited to a CNN report, which described the evidence used against Donald Trump at the trial of that matter: “Trump’s lawyers pointed to testimony at trial – including from White House officials Hope Hicks and Madeleine Westerhout – they argued should not have come before the jury…'[a]ll of Hicks’s testimony concerning events in 2018, when she was serving as the White House Communications Director, concerned official acts based on [Presidential] authority for which President Trump is entitled to absolute immunity,’ Trump’s attorneys argued. ‘[the Supreme Court’s ruling] specifically forbids prosecutors from offering ‘testimony’ from a President’s ‘advisers’ for the purpose of ‘probing the official act.’” Sure enough, as Chief Justice Roberts stated in the Presidential Immunity decision, “[a]llowing prosecutors to ask or suggest that the jury probe official acts for which the President is immune would thus raise a unique risk that the jurors’ deliberations will be prejudiced by their views of the President’s policies and performance while in office. The prosaic tools on which the Government would have courts rely are an inadequate safeguard against the peculiar constitutional concerns implicated in the prosecution of a former President.” At the time, we stated that “Judge Merchan allowed testimony regarding Donald Trump’s official acts as President, acts which enjoy absolute immunity and which cannot be used against him, or even be entered into evidence in a criminal trial, a situation which could have been avoided had Judge Merchan delayed the trial until he’d received the guidance of the US Supreme Court.” Nonetheless, we predicted that Judge Merchan “will find a way to justify his actions once again, and let stand the unlawful conviction of former President Donald Trump.” You know how much we hate to say we were right…but…we were right. “This Court…finds that the evidence related to the [President-elect’s] claims relate entirely to unofficial conduct and thus, receive no immunity protections,” Judge Merchan wrote in his December 16, 2024 decision. “Further, even if this Court were to deem all of the contested evidence…as official conduct falling within the outer perimeter of Defendant’s Presidential authority, it would still find that the People’s use of these acts as evidence of the decidedly personal acts of falsifying business records poses no danger of intrusion on the authority and function of the Executive Branch, a conclusion amply supported by non-motive-related evidence.” In so ruling, the Court denied Donald Trump’s motion to dismiss his New York County conviction. Let us examine these findings, in light of the evidence admitted at the President-elect’s trial, and then compare that evidence to the acts granted absolute immunity by the US Supreme Court. In his decision, Judge Merchan discusses the testimony of Hope Hicks, who served as the Communications Director for the Trump White House. “Defendant argues that in her roles at the White House, any communications between Ms. Hicks and Defendant must receive absolute immunity…as Defendant’s ability to speak freely to Ms. Hicks was a core function of the Executive. According to Defendant, because Ms. Hicks wielded executive power on his behalf, authority that exists pursuant to Article II of the Constitution, any communications [President Trump] had with [Hicks] are subject to absolute immunity,” the Court wrote. Judge Merchan also noted that “[t]he People argue that the communications Defendant had with Ms. Hicks…constitute unofficial acts not entitled to any level of immunity.” In his inevitable agreement with the arguments presented by Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg’s office, Judge Merchan wrote “Defendant’s argument that any communication he had with Ms. Hicks is subject to absolute immunity by virtue of the position she held in the White House is mistaken…the President himself may speak in his unofficial capacity as a candidate or party leader, and certainly he can do so in his private capacity as well. Any argument that private conduct transforms into official conduct by communicating about the same to an individual with a particular title is without merit.” Thus, it is Judge Merchan’s position that the conversations Donald Trump had with his Communications Director are not entitled to immunity, even though those discussions were held at the White House, while Donald Trump was serving as President of the United States, merely because those discussions were not related to official Executive Branch activities. Sounds possibly reasonable – until you examine the Presidential Immunity decision more closely. In September, we wrote that “the statement made by Chief Justice Roberts in his majority opinion in the Presidential Immunity case [is significant]; ‘Presidents cannot be indicted based on conduct for which they are immune from prosecution…[t]estimony or private records of the President or his advisers probing such conduct may not be admitted as evidence at trial.’” This statement by Chief Justice Roberts points to a blanket immunity for ANY discussions had between the President and his advisors, regardless of the nature of those communications. Further, we noted that the Supreme Court issued the following warning: “[t]he government…contends that a jury could ‘consider’ evidence concerning the President’s official acts ‘for limited and specified purposes,’ and that such evidence would ‘be admissible.’” In rejecting that argument, Chief Justice Roberts states “[t]hat proposal threatens to eviscerate the immunity we have recognized. It would permit a prosecutor to do indirectly what he cannot do directly – invite the jury to examine acts for which a President is immune from prosecution […]