In October 1963, Attorney General Robert Kennedy authorized wiretapping Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s home and the offices of King’s Southern Christian Leadership Conference.
Within the next few months, surveillance widened to include King’s hotel rooms while he was on trips. The pretext? An informant had told the FBI that one of King’s advisers had been a member of the Communist Party just a few years before he began working with King.
The FBI never found evidence that King was a communist. But in bugging his hotel rooms, they found alleged evidence of extramarital affairs, and recorded them. In late 1964, the FBI anonymously sent King one of those recordings, along with a letter urging King to kill himself to avoid public humiliation.
Fast forward to 2016, three months before a presidential election, the FBI launched Operation Crossfire Hurricane, aka Russiagate. On the thinnest of pretexts—dubious gossip and a Clinton funded research project, pretentiously called the “Steele dossier”—the bureau justified its investigation into Trump's campaign. It gave Trump's opponents ample ammunition, fueling two years of speculation over a baseless accusation.
The bureau’s feeble justification, their misleading of the FISA courts, and texts from the man who led that investigation unmasked the bureau’s agenda. That was Peter Strzok, who assured his girlfriend that Trump wouldn’t be elected: “No. No he won't. We'll stop it."
With Trump, Russia was once again the boogeyman. And, again, when the dust had settled, there was no crime or collusion. The bureau never found evidence that the Trump campaign had conspired or coordinated with the Russian government. Decades apart, we see a pattern of overreach, from an institution with short-term memory.
A history of overreach
Of course it wasn’t the FBI’s first foray into politics. You could make a good argument that J. Edgar Hoover built his political power through in-depth surveillance files on politicians, activists and celebrities. Congress estimated that the bureau "installed over 7,000 national security surveillances," including many on American citizens, from 1940 to 1960.
The campaign against MLK was done under the guise of anti-communism, despite any evidence linking King to communist activities. King had actually preached against communism, saying it went against his Christian beliefs, but the idea that he was a communist stalked him throughout his public life. These actions against King were among the FBI's most egregious that we know.
But why?
What's at the heart of this? A mix of power, ego, and corruption. When agencies get too big for their boots, thinking they're the guardians at the gate, things go sideways. The guise of national security becomes the golden ticket to meddle and muddle as they please.
Whether it's chasing “national security” shadows or diving headfirst into election drama, too often, the FBI’s end game was about flexing power, not upholding justice. Its history of interfering, from Hoover's era to the Trump investigations, makes it clear that safeguarding democracy requires vigilance not only against external threats but also against the misuse of power within our own institutions.
The real casualty in all this? Public trust. It’s important that Americans have the proper amount of trust in our institutions, yet that’s something that can only happen when those institutions act in a trustworthy manner.
The Tower of Babel story in the Bible was only a few verses, but succinctly warned us of the dangers of hubris, overreach, and the inevitable collapse when our institutions become too large and strive for omnipotence.
— Ken
The 'King as communist' thing is pretty strong. Until I read this I believed it to be true. I wonder which other things I believe are FBI misinformation?
Nicely written--why do theses overreaches occur under Democratic administrations?