Douglas Caddy

Someone who knows him: Trump is a raging drug addict https://crooksandliars.com/2020/01/ex-apprentice-staffer-noel-casler?fbclid=IwAR3s6vxPeoqx9RSub1vqw0Ryx-YsvRxvU11yvMpsbwV1W1u1834AmYV5QDE

Larry: James Rothstein called me today because I had sent him a copy of the Timeline of sorties flown in the Bay of Pigs as posted by Bart Kamp above. He told me that he was familiar with some of the Timeline but that the Essex was part of a different operation. He also told me that his brother was on the Independence during the invasion. He knows too much about the Bay of Pigs to reduce it all to an email. He, like me, has only a limited amount of sand left n his hour glass (I'll be 82 this month and he is close behind me.) He is willing to be interviewed. I suggest that you telephone him if you want his oral history. I am sending his phone number to you using the forum's message service so expect a notification. Doug

READ: FBI documents from special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation By CNN Updated 5:18 PM ET, Mon March 2, 2020 https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/02/politics/read-fbi-mueller-documents/index.html?fbclid=IwAR0Qd3WNJt-0S2m9Yv8ePyo8g9N_jrQNTYJqXOZE2vBMhFuJRGZ2tj5zga0

Former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin: A Wealth Tax Is On The Table https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/economy/a-wealth-tax-is-on-the-table-top-wall-street-democrat-bends-the-knee-to-sanders-and-warren-agenda?fbclid=IwAR3JstjNmINPUvtoeVH8VKBHSNogOK2LfzO9zySn1f-IL2sphQVQ52lhnAI

FEMA prepping for possible coronavirus emergency declaration http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/fema-prepping-for-possible-coronavirus-emergency-declaration/ar-BB10DK4J?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=UE07DHP [Didn't President Trump say last week that soon infections would be down to zero? Did he not say with a wave of his hand that the virus would miraculously disappear ?]

I wish you had interviewed James Rothstein for your book who has a topic devoted to him in our forum. He was on the Essex during the Bay of Pigs invasion and helped supervise the loading of two nuclear bombs aboard the ship in preparation for the invasion. He is in contact today with a few sailors on other ships that were involved in the invasion. He could tell you about his and others being denied certain Veterans benefits because the role of the Essex has been covered up officially due to the nuclear bombs being on board.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/01/coronavirus-is-significant-threat-to-economy-and-trump-mark-zandi.html

The Coronavirus Has Put the World’s Economy in Survival Mode There’s little hope for a global economic rebound in 2020. By Eswar S. Prasad - The New York Times Mr. Prasad is a professor at Cornell University and a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. March 1, 2020 A man wearing a protective mask inside the Shanghai Stock Exchange building on Feb. 28.Credit...Aly Song/Reuters Whether or not the coronavirus turns into a global pandemic, the outbreak is already infecting economies and financial markets around the world. While governments try to navigate the fine line between being prepared and setting off panic, the economic costs are growing as countries and communities try to control the spread of the disease. The hopeful narrative about 2020 heralding a modest rebound in global growth now lies in ruins. Europe stagnated and Japan’s economy shrank in the last quarter of 2019, even as China and India were losing momentum. So this year was already off to a rocky start. Now, the coronavirus has put the world economy in survival mode. The spread of the virus is hurting travel, trade and supply chains worldwide. The Baltic Dry Index, a forward-looking indicator of global trade, has fallen by half and oil prices are down by about a quarter so far this year. U.S. stock markets, after initially taking the epidemic’s fallout in stride, are now experiencing a major sell-off. Why were stock markets sanguine for weeks after the outbreak began, and why are they now in full-blown panic mode? Financial markets are prone to large, sentiment-driven swings that sometimes seem out of line with economic fundamentals. But the news of the last few days suggests that, rather than coming under control and being confined to China, the outbreak is spreading and could get far worse. Stock markets in the United States and elsewhere are reflecting this reassessment of the epidemic’s future trajectory and the risks it poses. The notion of this outbreak being a short-lived negative shock to global demand now looks unrealistic. It is not just spending on restaurants and travel that is suffering, but also investment by businesses while they wait for the uncertainty to be resolved. This will have long-term effects on growth even if the outbreak proves short-lived. Stock markets mainly reflect the prospects of medium-size and large firms. Warnings of weaker revenues and profits from giants like Apple and Microsoft have contributed to the declines in major stock indexes. Even though the United States has so far been relatively unscathed by the epidemic, the plunge in stock markets last week reflects the supply chain disruptions faced by U.S. companies and also weaknesses in foreign markets that account for a significant portion of U.S. multinationals’ revenues. The disruption of supply chains, especially those that pass through Asia, is hurting businesses in multiple dimensions. Countries such as China, South Korea and Japan are critical to the supply chains for products ranging from plastic toys to iPhones to high-tech machinery. In these countries, manufacturers can’t get raw materials delivered reliably, are facing worker shortages and are having difficulty shipping out products. Rejiggering supply chains takes months, if not years. If the coronavirus spreads and causes disruptions to other major economies, it could wreak further havoc on supply chains. Still, big companies are better equipped to cope in difficult times. They tend to have large cushions of cash and can get financing from banks. The picture is bleaker for small companies. In most countries, including the United States, small private businesses are among the most dynamic in creating jobs. But they usually have slim financial cushions. Banks are often reluctant to lend to small businesses even in the best of times. Moreover, even if their employers stay afloat, employed workers are likely to pare back spending as they face uncertainty about job prospects and shrinking investment accounts. Another quandary that governments face, especially in China and other countries hit hardest by the coronavirus, is how to balance containing the spread of the epidemic with keeping their economies humming. Every day that factories stay closed and restaurants have no customers makes it harder to get things back up. On the flip side, the very nature of increased economic activity, with more person-to-person contacts, would make it harder to control the spread of the epidemic. There is no easy way out. The Federal Reserve and other central banks could cut interest rates. This might not do much good, as uncertainty will restrain consumer spending and business investment even if cheap loans were available. Government spending might be more potent. Any assistance that reaches small businesses and allows them to stay afloat or goes directly into the hands of low-income consumers will help. But consumers and businesses are as likely to stash away any extra cash as they are to spend it. Governments cannot eliminate uncertainty, but they can ensure the transparent and accurate flow of information. Even if the news is bad, consumers, businesses and investors need to know that they have a reliable picture of the facts. That, along with knowing that governments are doing all they can, might be the salve that everyone needs.

NYSE could close trading floor in coronavirus contingency https://www.fox5ny.com/news/nyse-could-close-trading-floor-in-coronavirus-contingency

Inside Trump’s frantic attempts to minimize the coronavirus crisis http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/inside-trumps-frantic-attempts-to-minimize-the-coronavirus-crisis/ar-BB10zgPE?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=UE07DHP

https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https://static01.nyt.com/images/2014/05/24/upshot/22UP-JFK/22UP-JFK-articleLarge.jpg?quality%3D75%26auto%3Dwebp%26disable%3Dupscale&imgrefurl=https://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/24/upshot/baseballs-role-in-jfks-life.html&tbnid=5iagOIceC_PL8M&vet=1&docid=J4Sd_qqpiHuZqM&w=600&h=475&itg=1&q=denbow+dallas+police+63+jfk&hl=en-US&source=sh/x/im#spf=1583026245839

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2431537/JFK-The-Final-Hours-seen-members-crowd-Texas.html?ito=facebook_share_article-top&fbclid=IwAR3DRoPh96pzB7HahTycYP6Wg9eXVxWk--JJL8l6wWicW2i3Ecq-K8bmRqE

Concerned About Nuclear Weapons Potential, John F. Kennedy Pushed for Inspection of Israel Nuclear Facilities https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/nuclear-vault/2016-04-21/concerned-about-nuclear-weapons-potential-john-f-kennedy?fbclid=IwAR2Miea7ecEznNr7R7DUu8tscBSrxPinUJ0Swr40OVN9fN3ZDwC_nNE8ISY

Trump Makes Us Ill Going viral is not a good thing this time. By Maureen Dowd Opinion Columnist - The New York Times Feb. 29, 2020, 2:30 p.m. ET President Trump and Vice President Mike Pence at a news conference Wednesday about the coronavirus.Credit...Carlos Barria/Reuters Donald Trump was right. Germs are scary. For three decades, I talked to Trump about his fear of germs. When I interviewed him at the Trump Tower restaurant during the 2016 race, the famous germophobe had a big hospital-strength bottle of hand sanitizer on the table, next to my salad, ready to squirt. He told me about the nightmarish feeling he had when a man emerged from the bathroom in a restaurant with wet hands and shook his hand. He couldn’t eat afterward. Today, in a stunning twist of fate, germs are infecting his presidency and threatening a bad prognosis for his re-election prospects. Trump is the first president to use the stock market as a near-daily measure of his success — and his virility — and now the market is slumping. If you want to own it on the way up, you have to own it on the way down. Investors, who worried when Trump began to rise in politics, soon realized that he had their backs. He was just a corporate vessel pretending to be a populist; the stock market was his sugar high. Now Trump is learning the hard way what my fatalistic Irish mother taught me: The thing you love most is the first to go. As Mike Bloomberg points out, investors have factored in Trump’s incompetence, and that is contributing to the market cratering. The president urged the Fed to do something soon to mitigate the stock market losses. Socialism for the rich! The scaremonger in chief has been downplaying the possibility of a coronavirus pandemic and joining Fox News hosts in accusing the “anti-Trump” media and “Do Nothing Democrats” of scaremongering about the virus. At the CPAC convention, Mick Mulvaney told a cheering crowd that impeachment was the “hoax of the day” and now the press thinks the coronavirus “is going to be what brings down the president.” The media, he said, should spend more time on positive stories, like the president’s “caring” relationship with his teenage son, Barron, even though White Houses usually frown on stories about young presidential offspring. Mike Huckabee went on the attack, asserting that Trump “could personally suck the virus out of every one of the 60,000 people in the world, suck it out of their lungs, swim to the bottom of the ocean and spit it out, and he would be accused of pollution for messing up the ocean.” On Fox, Don Jr. said the Democrats “seemingly hope” the virus kills millions to stop Trump’s winning streak. Rush Limbaugh chimed in that the media “would love for the coronavirus to be this deadly strain that wipes everybody out so they could blame Trump for it.” There are 2,800 dead worldwide and disturbing stories showing how federal criteria delayed the diagnosis of a California woman and how federal health employees interacted with Americans who had possibly been exposed to the virus in China without proper training or gear. Yet Trump seems more consumed with how the Democrats might blame him for a coronavirus recession than with the virus itself. Trump had tweet-shrieked at President Barack Obama about how he should handle Ebola. (“Obama should apologize to the American people & resign!”) Yet he was so relaxed about the coronavirus threat that he spent 45 minutes Thursday chatting in the Oval with the authors of a little play called “FBI Lovebirds: Undercovers,” inspired by the texts of Peter Strzok and Lisa Page. The play’s leads, Dean Cain of “Superman” fame and the “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” actress Kristy Swanson, were also in the meeting. Trump joked that he’d be willing to be Cain’s understudy, the actor said. The president got together the same day with a group that included his social media boosters Diamond and Silk. At the White House press conference, Trump preened: “Because of all we’ve done, the risk to the American people remains very low.” He later said that one day, like a miracle, the virus “will disappear.” His top economic adviser, Larry Kudlow, pushed the crisis as an opportunity: “Stocks look pretty cheap to me.” Trump won’t be able to deflect and project and create a daft alternative narrative. The virus won’t respond to conspiracy theories from Rush Limbaugh or nasty diatribes from Sean Hannity or nicknames from Donald Trump. This will be a deus ex machina test of Trump’s authoritarian behavior. Epidemics are not well suited to authoritarian regimes and propaganda, as we saw this week when Beijing’s use of propaganda tactics to suppress information about the outbreak failed spectacularly and when Iran tamped down news about the virus for political reasons even as it ravaged top officials. The reality of the coronavirus spreading will reflect poorly on Trump — his cavalier dismantling of vital government teams for health response and his disdain for experts and science. Trump tried to make federal agencies complicit on his fabulist hogwash about the size of his inaugural crowd and the path of Hurricane Dorian. It is unlikely that he will be able to keep his insatiable and insecure ego in check long enough to give the nation the facts, reassurance and guidance it needs about the infection. Trump is already doing his orange clown pufferfish routine, acting as though he knows more about viruses than anyone, just as he has bragged that he knows more about the military, taxes, trade, infrastructure, ISIS, renewables, visas, banking, debt and “the horror of nuclear.” He appointed Mike Pence to be point man, even though, as the famously homophobic governor of Indiana, Pence helped make the H.I.V. epidemic there worse by substituting moral pronouncements for scientific knowledge. Coronavirus Czar Pence spent Friday at a $25,000-a-plate dinner in sunny Sarasota raising money to try to win back the House, The Tampa Bay Times reported. Trump’s history in business — he makes people feel good for a while and then it ends badly — could presage a stock market crash before he exits. And it’s conceivable that a crash — along with hospitals being overwhelmed by the uninsured — could lead to the election of a real populist promising Medicare for All. And that would be a very Trumpian arc indeed.

Hall remembers Lee Oswald, life at Beckley Avenue rooming house https://www.hsvvoice.com/news/20200224/hall-remembers-lee-oswald-life-at-beckley-avenue-rooming-house

Disease X Meets Planet X Excerpt from The New York Times: We Knew Disease X Was Coming. It’s Here Now. We need to stop what drives mass epidemics rather than just respond to individual diseases. By Peter Daszak Mr. Daszak is a disease ecologist. Feb. 27, 2020 In early 2018, during a meeting at the World Health Organization in Geneva, a group of experts I belong to (the R&D Blueprint) coined the term “Disease X”: We were referring to the next pandemic, which would be caused by an unknown, novel pathogen that hadn’t yet entered the human population. As the world stands today on the edge of the pandemic precipice, it’s worth taking a moment to consider whether Covid-19 is the disease our group was warning about. Disease X, we said back then, would likely result from a virus originating in animals and would emerge somewhere on the planet where economic development drives people and wildlife together. Disease X would probably be confused with other diseases early in the outbreak and would spread quickly and silently; exploiting networks of human travel and trade, it would reach multiple countries and thwart containment. Disease X would have a mortality rate higher than a seasonal flu but would spread as easily as the flu. It would shake financial markets even before it achieved pandemic status. In a nutshell, Covid-19 is Disease X. From Robert Merritt’s third and final meeting with President Nixon in July 1972 as recounted in the original posting here on page 1: In essence, Nixon talked about “life as we do not know it.” He said that during the previous twenty years Knowledge had been obtained that could make the human race on Earth “the supreme beings in the universe.” This Knowledge came in part from helpful information provided from an extra-terrestrial being from Planet X, Nibiro, who was in a secure location in a building in the U.S. Nixon said the Knowledge came as the result of discovery made by scientists working at the Los Alamos Laboratories in New Mexico who studied the extraterrestrial being’s information. Nixon said, “This all important Knowledge that we possess came from our discovery.” Nixon declared whoever possessed this Knowledge could be the most important person in the world. All would bow down to whoever possessed this Knowledge. The Knowledge was “astronomical, nefarious and devastating.” Nixon said that possession of the Knowledge had to be structured so that it was used only for the good of mankind. His fear was that a small group seeking power would get hold of it and utilize it to the group’s evil benefit only….. .It was then at Nixon made a cryptic remark, apparently to emphasize the importance of the assignment that he had given Merritt. Nixon said, “I took my order from above and have followed it to the T.” Merritt was taken aback by the remark and asked Nixon what he meant. Nixon did not reply directly but instead declared that “the year 2020 would be cataclysmic not only for America but for the world.” Merritt asked Nixon how he knew this would happen. Nixon replied, “Think of me a prophet.” http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/25917-watergate-trump’s-space-force-and-2020/

Disease X Meets Planet X Excerpt from The New York Times: We Knew Disease X Was Coming. It’s Here Now. We need to stop what drives mass epidemics rather than just respond to individual diseases. By Peter Daszak Mr. Daszak is a disease ecologist. Feb. 27, 2020 In early 2018, during a meeting at the World Health Organization in Geneva, a group of experts I belong to (the R&D Blueprint) coined the term “Disease X”: We were referring to the next pandemic, which would be caused by an unknown, novel pathogen that hadn’t yet entered the human population. As the world stands today on the edge of the pandemic precipice, it’s worth taking a moment to consider whether Covid-19 is the disease our group was warning about. Disease X, we said back then, would likely result from a virus originating in animals and would emerge somewhere on the planet where economic development drives people and wildlife together. Disease X would probably be confused with other diseases early in the outbreak and would spread quickly and silently; exploiting networks of human travel and trade, it would reach multiple countries and thwart containment. Disease X would have a mortality rate higher than a seasonal flu but would spread as easily as the flu. It would shake financial markets even before it achieved pandemic status. In a nutshell, Covid-19 is Disease X. From Robert Merritt’s third and final meeting with President Nixon in July 1972 as recounted in the original posting here on page 1: In essence, Nixon talked about “life as we do not know it.” He said that during the previous twenty years Knowledge had been obtained that could make the human race on Earth “the supreme beings in the universe.” This Knowledge came in part from helpful information provided from an extra-terrestrial being from Planet X, Nibiro, who was in a secure location in a building in the U.S. Nixon said the Knowledge came as the result of discovery made by scientists working at the Los Alamos Laboratories in New Mexico who studied the extraterrestrial being’s information. Nixon said, “This all important Knowledge that we possess came from our discovery.” Nixon declared whoever possessed this Knowledge could be the most important person in the world. All would bow down to whoever possessed this Knowledge. The Knowledge was “astronomical, nefarious and devastating.” Nixon said that possession of the Knowledge had to be structured so that it was used only for the good of mankind. His fear was that a small group seeking power would get hold of it and utilize it to the group’s evil benefit only….. It was then at Nixon made a cryptic remark, apparently to emphasize the importance of the assignment that he had given Merritt. Nixon said, “I took my order from above and have followed it to the T.” Merritt was taken aback by the remark and asked Nixon what he meant. Nixon did not reply directly but instead declared that “the year 2020 would be cataclysmic not only for America but for the world.” Merritt asked Nixon how he knew this would happen. Nixon replied, “Think of me a prophet.”

Maddow guest predicts one-third of Congress will catch coronavirus — and Capitol Hill will close https://www.rawstory.com/2020/02/maddow-guest-predicts-one-third-of-congress-will-catch-coronavirus-and-capitol-hill-will-close/

Joe: Howard was in a position to know much about the planning and carrying out of the plot to assassinate JFK. As to whether he was telling the truth or not telling the truth in his confession I am not able to say. I should add that in a court of law a dying confession is normally given great credibility but in the case of the murder of President Kennedy it must be weighed very carefully because much essential information about the event is still unknown or unproven. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dying_declaration Doug

From the article: Nouriel Roubini, a New York University business professor and market prognosticator who foretold the housing bubble burst, told Yahoo Finance on Friday to expect "severe" consequences as the coronavirus continues to rattle markets. How severe? He told Der Spiegel it could be worse than investors even believe at this point, predicting "global equities to tank by 30 to 40 percent this year." https://theweek.com/speedreads/899110/stock-markets-are-headed-40-percent-plunge-says-economist-who-predicted-financial-crisis

When a Pandemic Meets a Personality Cult The Trump team confirms all of our worst fears. By Paul Krugman Opinion Columnist The New York Times Feb. 27, 2020 President Trump on Wednesday addressed the evils associated with the coronavirus. Among them: the reporters asking questions.Credit...Gabriella Demczuk for The New York Times So, here’s the response of the Trump team and its allies to the coronavirus, at least so far: It’s actually good for America. Also, it’s a hoax perpetrated by the news media and the Democrats. Besides, it’s no big deal, and people should buy stocks. Anyway, we’ll get it all under control under the leadership of a man who doesn’t believe in science. From the day Donald Trump was elected, some of us worried how his administration would deal with a crisis not of its own making. Remarkably, we’ve gone three years without finding out: Until now, every serious problem facing the Trump administration, from trade wars to confrontation with Iran, has been self-created. But the coronavirus is looking as if it might be the test we’ve been fearing. And the results aren’t looking good. The story of the Trump pandemic response actually began several years ago. Almost as soon as he took office, Trump began cutting funding for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, leading in turn to an 80 percent cut in the resources the agency devotes to global disease outbreaks. Trump also shut down the entire global-health-security unit of the National Security Council. Experts warned that these moves were exposing America to severe risks. “We’ll leave the field open to microbes,” declared Tom Frieden, a much-admired former head of the C.D.C., more than two years ago. But the Trump administration has a preconceived notion about where national security threats come from — basically, scary brown people — and is hostile to science in general. So we entered the current crisis in an already weakened condition. And the microbes came. The first reaction of the Trumpers was to see the coronavirus as a Chinese problem — and to see whatever is bad for China as being good for us. Wilbur Ross, the commerce secretary, cheered it on as a development that would “accelerate the return of jobs to North America.” The story changed once it became clear that the virus was spreading well beyond China. At that point it became a hoax perpetrated by the news media. Rush Limbaugh weighed in: “It looks like the coronavirus is being weaponized as yet another element to bring down Donald Trump. Now, I want to tell you the truth about the coronavirus. … The coronavirus is the common cold, folks.” Limbaugh was, you may not be surprised to hear, projecting. Back in 2014 right-wing politicians and media did indeed try to politically weaponize a disease outbreak, the Ebola virus, with Trump himself responsible for more than 100 tweets denouncing the Obama administration’s response (which was actually competent and effective). And in case you’re wondering, no, the coronavirus isn’t like the common cold. In fact, early indications are that the virus may be as lethal as the 1918 Spanish Flu, which killed as many as 50 million people. Financial markets evidently don’t agree that the virus is a hoax; by Thursday afternoon the Dow was off more than 3,000 points since last week. Falling markets appear to worry the administration more than the prospect of, you know, people dying. So Larry Kudlow, the administration’s top economist, made a point of declaring that the virus was “contained” — contradicting the C.D.C. — and suggested that Americans buy stocks. The market continued to drop. At that point the administration appears to have finally realized that it might need to do something beyond insisting that things were great. But according to The Washington Post’s Greg Sargent and Paul Waldman, it initially proposed paying for a virus response by cutting aid to the poor — specifically, low-income heating subsidies. Cruelty in all things. On Wednesday Trump held a news conference on the virus, much of it devoted to incoherent jabs at Democrats and the media. He did, however, announce the leader of the government response to the threat. Instead of putting a health care professional in charge, however, he handed the job to Vice President Mike Pence, who has an interesting relationship with both health policy and science. Early in his political career, Pence staked out a distinctive position on public health, declaring that smoking doesn’t kill people. He has also repeatedly insisted that evolution is just a theory. As governor of Indiana, he blocked a needle exchange program that could have prevented a significant H.I.V. outbreak, calling for prayer instead. And now, according to The Times, government scientists will need to get Pence’s approval before making public statements about the coronavirus. So the Trumpian response to crisis is completely self-centered, entirely focused on making Trump look good rather than protecting America. If the facts don’t make Trump look good, he and his allies attack the messengers, blaming the news media and the Democrats — while trying to prevent scientists from keeping us informed. And in choosing people to deal with a real crisis, Trump prizes loyalty rather than competence. Maybe Trump — and America — will be lucky, and this won’t be as bad as it might be. But anyone feeling confident right now isn’t paying attention.

Pat Buchanan: Will JFK's Party become Sanders' Party? https://www.lewrockwell.com/2020/02/patrick-j-buchanan/will-jfks-party-become-sanders-party/

National Security Wiretap System Was Long Plagued by Risk of Errors and Omissions The F.B.I.’s intelligence wiretap powers are at a crossroads after a damning report about the surveillance of a former Trump adviser. And the flaws may be systemic. The F.B.I. and the FISA court are working on an overhaul of the national security surveillance application system.Credit...Jason Andrew for The New York Times By Charlie Savage and Adam Goldman Feb. 23, 2020 The New York Times WASHINGTON — In the 1990s, F.B.I. agents hunting for a Russian mole zeroed in on a C.I.A. official as their main suspect as they tried to determine who had sold secrets that had led to the deaths of American spies. When they sought court permission to wiretap him, they kept quiet about facts that cast doubts on their theory. But the mole turned out to instead be one of the F.B.I.’s own, Robert P. Hanssen, and the agents were later exposed for cherry-picking evidence against the innocent C.I.A. official in their surveillance applications. That little-known aspect of the notorious Hanssen case illustrates the risk of dysfunction in national security wiretapping, one of counterintelligence agents’ most powerful tools in fighting terrorism and espionage. Now, that defect has surfaced again. The F.B.I.’s flawed applications to monitor a former Trump adviser in the Russia investigation, Carter Page, has prompted a new cycle of scandal revealed in a damning report from the Justice Department’s inspector general. The problems may be part of a broader pattern in other applications that never receive the same intense scrutiny, according to interviews with more than two dozen current and former F.B.I. agents and Justice Department officials who have worked with national security wiretaps. The system is vulnerable, they said, to lower-level agents suppressing or overlooking evidence that weakens their case when they seek permission to conduct surveillance. The F.B.I. and the court are already working on an overhaul, and lawmakers have vowed to fix the problems uncovered by the inspector general. But for Congress, agreeing on what needs fixing will be difficult. The F.B.I.’s misuse of its powers under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, has been politicized to a degree it never was in the Hanssen case, where an inspector general’s discovery of the failures attracted little notice. President Trump and his supporters have long embraced a theory that Mr. Page was a victim of a high-level political conspiracy. The inspector general report did not confirm that narrative, instead finding different — yet still serious — problems. Some of the president’s closest allies in Congress will influence any potential overhaul efforts, and whether they will act based on that narrative or instead focus on the systemic problems with surveillance is an open question. On Wednesday, the House Judiciary Committee, led by Representative Jerrold Nadler, Democrat of New York, will mark up a bill that is expected to become a vehicle for Congress to weigh in on broader surveillance issues. He has been negotiating with Representative Adam B. Schiff, Democrat of California, who leads the Intelligence Committee, and with Republicans on his own panel. The timing is driven by the pending expiration of three investigative powers unrelated to the Page wiretap issues, including the F.B.I.’s ability to collect business records for an espionage or terrorism case. The draft bill would extend those powers while ending legal authority for a defunct system that gave counterterrorism analysts with the National Security Agency access to logs of Americans’ phone calls. But the bill, according to people familiar with negotiations over the draft, would make other adjustments that dovetail with the inspector general report — like expanding when FISA judges should appoint outsiders to critique the government’s arguments. Lawmakers could also legally require the F.B.I. to be candid with the FISA court and to correct errors. By contrast, Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina and the close Trump ally who leads the Senate Judiciary Committee, is focused on further scrutinizing the Russia investigation. Recently, Mr. Graham requested interviews with 17 law-enforcement officials who were subjects of the inspector general investigation. “Somebody,” Mr. Graham said in an interview, “has to pay a price.” But similar flaws with surveillance have surfaced before, underscoring that the problems may be systemic rather than unique to the Page applications, current and former officials said. At the F.B.I., nobody gets credit for investigations that go nowhere, said Robert S. Litt, a former national security prosecutor and general counsel of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence during the Obama administration. That cultural reality creates the risk that investigators will slant FISA applications to more easily secure a judge’s approval. The bureaucratic problem is not limited to the FISA process, Mr. Litt said, pointing to a scandal years ago over F.B.I. forensics experts overstating their findings in courtroom testimony. Still, the extra secrecy surrounding surveillance shuts out potential checks. For example, defense lawyers get to scour criminal wiretap applications for problems, creating an incentive for investigators to be scrupulous. But defense lawyers do not get to see FISA applications. “Because the court operates in secret, you are lacking one of the levels to prevent a bad actor that otherwise exist,” Mr. Litt said. In addition, the C.I.A. tightly limits access to information about its sources. That means when evidence from those sources goes into a wiretap application, fewer law enforcement officials know details that might help evaluate their credibility. In the Russia investigation, the inspector general found, the C.I.A. told the F.B.I. that Mr. Page had talked with the agency about his contacts with Russian officials over the years. Those disclosures could have made his pattern of communication look less suspicious. But the F.B.I. agent who received a C.I.A. memo about the issue did not accurately pass along that information to his colleagues, so no one told the court. F.B.I. agents are also racing against a clock with FISA wiretaps — good for 90 days — which can also leave them open to confirmation bias, former officials said. Once a wiretap is in place, Justice Department lawyers charged with seeking its renewal begin nagging F.B.I. agents to identify new facts gleaned from the wiretap that could help justify continuing it. But the lawyers are less insistent on finding facts that might instead undercut their suspicion, former officials said. Congress enacted FISA in 1978 to regulate national security wiretapping after scandals from the J. Edgar Hoover era. The law created a special court that today oversees more than 1,000 such applications each year. But investigators have repeatedly misled judges over the years, documents and interviews show. When such episodes have come to light, the Justice Department has blamed errors by or miscommunication with lower-level officials. In 2000, the Justice Department confessed to errors about cooperation between criminal and national security investigators in F.B.I. affidavits submitted for 75 applications related to terrorism investigations, according to a declassified FISA court opinion. After a follow-up review uncovered even more mistakes, the FISA court’s presiding judge, Royce C. Lamberth, barred an F.B.I. agent who had signed some of the affidavits, Michael Resnick, from appearing in front of the court again. The Justice Department also imposed changes, including strengthening fact-checking for draft applications. But the damage to the career of Mr. Resnick, who died in 2011, may have been more effective than any policy response, said James A. Baker, who oversaw the FISA process for the Justice Department in that era and was general counsel at the F.B.I. at the time of the Page wiretap. “The thing that Lamberth did to Resnick put the fear of god in all these people,” Mr. Baker said. “They didn’t want this to happen to them.” In 2003, an inspector general report about the Russian mole case uncovered an additional bombshell. Examining why the F.B.I. had spent so long investigating the wrong suspect and failed to pursue alternative avenues, it found that agents suppressed “crucial” evidentiary weaknesses as they sought a court order to wiretap the innocent C.I.A. official, Brian J. Kelly. The inspector general at the time, Glenn A. Fine, said this cherry-picking kept other officials from being able to evaluate the mole investigation and make an earlier course correction. The Hanssen report called for Justice Department lawyers to more closely oversee F.B.I. agents preparing wiretap applications. Mr. Baker used that recommendation to push through a then-secret further tightening of the rules for preparing FISA applications in 2006, including requiring closer scrutiny of the credibility of confidential sources. The Page report criticized an F.B.I. agent for ignoring that very procedure as part of half a dozen personal failings that included not passing on the information from the C.I.A., singling the agent out as “primarily responsible for some of the most significant errors and omissions.” It identified this person only as Case Agent 1. But he is Stephen M. Somma, a counterintelligence investigator in the F.B.I.’s New York field office, people familiar with the Russia investigation said. The F.B.I. declined to comment. The report did not find evidence that Mr. Somma or his immediate supervisors, whom it also faulted, were politically biased — as opposed to apolitical explanations like incompetence or confirmation bias. (Voter registration records show that a 49-year-old New York man with Mr. Somma’s name and middle initial is a Republican.) But the inspector general, Michael E. Horowitz, rejected as unsatisfactory such officials’ explanation that they were busy and referred them for disciplinary review. He also referred one official for criminal investigation over a narrower but more egregious act: altering a C.I.A. email he showed to a colleague, during the third renewal of the Page wiretap, in a way that kept the previous failure to disclose the agency’s relationship with Mr. Page from coming to light. That official, Kevin Clinesmith, a lower-level F.B.I. lawyer who had written text messages expressing opposition to Mr. Trump’s policies and writing “viva le resistance,” has resigned. The F.B.I. has already begun making changes in response to the inspector general’s findings and subsequent demands from the head of the FISA court, Judge James E. Boasberg, like expanding forms and checklists to force agents to focus on mitigating evidence. A FISA expert appointed by Judge Boasberg to help him evaluate the bureau’s proposed changes, David Kris, has said they do not go far enough and recommended that a supervisor in the field, not a headquarters official, sign factual affidavits. Denis Brady, a retired F.B.I. senior agent who worked with FISA applications, went further, suggesting case agents themselves should have to sign the documents. “That makes you responsible,” Mr. Brady argued. “You bring it down to the field office, where the people doing the work are responsible for it long term. They are not just doing a job to check a box and move up the ladder. That’s the fundamental problem.” Many civil libertarians favor permitting defense lawyers with security clearances to go through case files to look for problems with FISA applications on the rare occasions a target is later prosecuted. The inspector general’s office has begun a broader audit of unrelated applications, but for now has said it is focused on looking for factual errors in wiretaps applications targeting Americans — not the harder-to-detect problem of omissions. Whatever adjustments are made, perfection may remain elusive. Last month, the F.B.I. promised Judge Boasberg to work harder to avoid errors. When the bureau’s general counsel, Dana Boente, signed the memo, he did not notice that whoever drafted it had misspelled his name. Kitty Bennett contributed research.