J. Edgar Hoover, Public Enemy No. 1
newyorker.com
newyorker.com
EDIT: Lew wasn't one to tell tales, AFAIK. One of the most earnest and good-natured individuals I've ever met, though apparently not averse to a little mischief. RIP, Mr. Hedges. https://adventfuneral.com/tribute/details/174967/Lewis-Hedge...
If I recall this story correctly, the burglars left a note on the door that day, saying not to lock it, and apparently the people working there respected that, so when the burglars arrived that night, the door was unlocked.
From "The Burglary: The Discovery of J. Edgar Hoover's Secret FBI" book (highly recommended!):
"Acting as though he lived in the building, Forsyth opened the always unlocked front door, walked upstairs to the second floor, and went directly to the FBI office door. He felt slightly nervous but very confident.
His confidence quickly evaporated.
He could not pick the lock in thirty seconds. He could not pick the lock at all. As he faced the object of his many rounds of picking practice, Forsyth was startled. There were two locks, not one, on the main entrance of the FBI office. One was the simple five-pin tumbler lock that he remembered seeing and was prepared to pick, the same one Bonnie Raines remembered. But now there was a second lock, a much more complex one—a high-security lock that was extremely difficult to pick. Forsyth’s homemade tools were useless on this lock.
[...]
Forsyth arrived at the FBI office about that time. The thirty-second break-in plan now long gone, breaking in now seemed like it would be more like a small demolition job than a swift lock-picking exercise.
[...]
This time, in addition to the set of homemade tools in his briefcase, Forsyth carried a crowbar. It fit fairly well in the deep inside pocket of his used Brooks Brothers overcoat. A long time later, he marveled in amusement at how well the overcoat’s pockets, with their unusual depth, could be adapted to the special storage needs of a burglar. He easily picked the lock on the second door, the one that was not used as an entrance, in thirty seconds. But that was just the beginning. There was a deadbolt near the top of the door. He pulled out his crowbar and, with a quick maneuver, popped it. “I had to do it fast. Otherwise, there would have been a long creaking sound. I figured if you cause a quick bang, if someone hears it, they will think a cat knocked over the trash can in the alley, and it’s all done with.” He wasn’t sure that rationale made sense, but he found it comforting at the time. Then he pushed on the door. It wouldn’t move. Yes, Bonnie Raines was right. He didn’t remember exactly what she had said blocked the door; he just realized now that something “very big and very heavy” was on the other side. To move it even a tiny fraction of an inch, he had to lean on it with all his might. An agent who worked at the Media office said years later that, given the weight of the large cabinet leaning against that door, all of the burglars must have pushed the door open together. In fact, Forsyth alone did it, but with a great deal of worry. “It was obvious,” he recalled, “that if that sucker hit the floor it was going to wake up the whole neighborhood, not just the caretaker who lived directly below the office."
"As burglars, they used some unusual techniques, ones Davidon enjoyed recalling years later, such as what some of them did in 1970 at a draft board office in Delaware. During their casing, they had noticed that the interior door that opened to the draft board office was always locked. There was no padlock to replace, as they had done at a draft board raid in Philadelphia a few months earlier, and no one in the group was able to pick the lock. The break-in technique they settled on at that office must be unique in the annals of burglary. Several hours before the burglary was to take place, one of them wrote a note and tacked it to the door they wanted to enter: “Please don’t lock this door tonight.” Sure enough, when the burglars arrived that night, someone had obediently left the door unlocked. The burglars entered the office with ease, stole the Selective Service records, and left."
> the President “revealed something more acute: a fear of Hoover’s skill at wielding power, and a sense that even the President was no match for the F.B.I. director.” Nixon told his aides, “We may have on our hands here a man who will pull down the temple with him, including me.
https://curatedtaste.com/2022/11/the-cross-dressing-j-edgar-...
>The Soviet KGB began spreading disinformation about J Edgar Hoover's sexual proclivities in the 1960s. These included claims that Hoover was a gay cross-dresser. The fact is that in the well-regarded history book, The Sword And The Shield - The Mitrokhin Archive And The Secret History Of The KGB, authors Christopher Andrew and Vasili Mitrokhin, point out that like the CIA, the FBI was a major target of KGB disinformation operations and that, until his death in 1972, many of these measures were directed against J Edgar Hoover.
From what I understand, Twitter's security was/is shit, and bribing some random employee is all that was needed to hijack very high value accounts. I'd be surprised if the number of people who were able to access DMs and "like history" wasn't in the hundreds. Kompromat isn't very useful if everybody has it.
Of course establishment sources like The New Yoker would have us believe that state institutions are now non-partisan and trustworthy. Some would even suggest that mere suspicion of these institutions is a thought crime.
From my side, the historical record is more illustrative of the human condition. Names of individuals and bureaus may change, but the underlying incentives for corruption and abuse of power remain.
The New Yorker is somewhat famous for its sober, balanced tone. Even so, it's impossible to read this article and come away thinking that the writer considers the FBI trustworthy.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/02/01/can-joe-biden-...
>Can Joe Biden Restore America’s Belief That Government Is Good for People? Despite the gravity of the challenges ahead, President Biden and Vice-President Kamala Harris are setting out with some distinct advantages.
Sure, specifically the FBI is criticized in a narrower partisan context. The larger picture of institutional authority is celebrated by the author.
Take your pick of the stories from these search results. Show me where they critique the FBI's current political slant. Compare this coverage to stories celebrating institutional authority during the red scare or civil rights era. Please note that what we now call overreach wasn't overreach in the eyes of proponents or the complicit media voices.
My thesis stands. The New Yorker has no problem with institutional authority where it suits their partisan biases.
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22FBI%22+right+wing+extremi...
>The Growing Threat of American Political Violencehttps://www.newyorker.com › News › 2020 Election Oct 15, 2020 — The F.B.I. case agent assigned to the shooting was Tom O'Connor, a specialist in investigating violent extremist groups, from the Aryan ...
>Two January 6th Defendants and the Consolidation of Right ...https://www.newyorker.com › News › 2020 Election Jun 6, 2022 — A few days later, the F.B.I. arrested Reffitt in an early-morning raid. At Reffitt's trial in March, Jackson testified against his father and ...
>Biden's Vital but Fraught Battle Against Domestic Terrorismhttps://www.newyorker.com › News › Joe Biden Jan 25, 2021 — He warned of “a rise of political extremism, white supremacy, ... Previous F.B.I. campaigns to counter domestic threats have resulted, ...
I also don't buy the premise: the existence of any individual action by the FBI doesn't indicate a shift in their partisan tendencies. The original article goes to great pains to demonstrate this, e.g. with Hoover's begrudging support for civil rights violation prosecutions.
In other words, you're overextending yourself. Nobody has claimed that the New Yorker isn't okay with institutional authority (what would that even mean?). The only claim is that they haven't demonstrated any particular inconsistency regarding the FBI.