Epshteyn Poisons the Well of the FBI

Epshteyn’s recent “Bottom Line” is a classic case of the “poisoning the well” tactic: if you don’t like facts, attack the source of the facts as somehow suspect, and perhaps you can get your audience to think the facts themselves aren’t what they are.

Fidelity, bravery, integrity. That is the motto of the FBI. These days it is that integrity which is being called into question.

Note the use of passive voice.  The FBI’s integrity is “being called into question.”  By whom?  By Epshteyn? It’s not clear.  By choosing the passive voice, Epshteyn avoids putting his own reputation where his mouth is while also implying that this integrity-questioning is “out there” in the public sphere in general, not that it is pointedly coming from specific parties who have something to gain from doing so.

Recent reports have surfaced that FBI agent Peter Strzok was removed from the office of special counsel Robert Mueller. This occurred because of text messages agent Strzok sent that were critical of President Trump. The troubling thing is that this was not some low or mid-level staffer. Strzok was the number two official in the FBI’s counterintelligence division. He oversaw the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s email server. He was deeply involved in the investigation of meddling in the 2016 elections. This included being present for the FBI interview with former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn.

The argument, then, is that because an agent communicated political views that were not supportive Trump, the agent (and indeed the entire investigation) is suspect.  There is precisely zero claims, let alone proof, that the agent did anything with regard to the investigation that could be seen as politically motivated. But when one engages in poisoning the well, that doesn’t matter. 

And let’s not forget that Mueller dismissed the agent from the investigation.

Also note (again) the unwillingness to be specific.  Who has been investigated for “meddling” in the “elections?”   It’s purposefully unclear.

 

Here is one other vital piece of information: Peter Strzok was reportedly responsible for softening language in former FBI Director James Comey’s statement which described Hillary Clinton’s email activities. This change was from “grossly negligent” to a softer “extremely careless.”

This is particularly amusing given that it was allegedly unfair treatment of Hillary Clinton that was the trumped up (pun intended) rationale for the firing of James Comey (until Trump fessed up that it was, indeed, about the Russia investigation).  And never mind that the FBI’s announcement about taking another look at Clinton emails days before the election quite likely gave Trump the presidency. 

What does all this mean? What’s certain, is it continues to damage the FBI’s credibility.

What is the pronoun “it” referring to?  Why is the FBI’s credibility in general damaged by this?  In whose eyes is the FBI’s credibility damaged?  How is any of this “certain”?  Epstheyn says nothing.

Current FBI Director Christopher Wray said during a congressional hearing that he will take appropriate action once the inspector general of the Justice Department completes his probe into the FBI. Here is the bottom line: our brave men and women of law enforcement have to be allowed to do their jobs without constant second guessing. Having said that, Americans, including the president, have to be confident that they are not being targeted or mistreated because of political leanings of those enforcing our laws.

And Epshteyn does his best to undercut this confidence, which precisely what he intended to do. This perhaps isn’t surprising since Epshteyn himself was called before a Congressional investigation and, quite possibly, will need to answer to Mueller himself. 

The bottom line: Epshteyn engages in a classic case of well-poisoning, and, in so doing, shows disrespect to the premier law enforcement agency in the land.