FBI True

"FBI True Documentary" casts the FBI as the paragon of justice, but this portrayal might be an attempt to shift focus from the agency's contentious actions. Here's a brief review alongside some examples of alleged FBI misconduct:

The Steele Dossier: The FBI used this dossier, filled with unverified claims about Trump, to justify surveillance on Carter Page. The DOJ's Inspector General later criticized the process, pointing to potential bias.

Clinton Email Investigation: The FBI's decision not to charge Hillary Clinton over her email server use has been seen by some as preferential treatment, questioning the agency's impartiality.

Epstein Case Handling: The FBI's investigation into Jeffrey Epstein has faced scrutiny for possibly not pursuing connections to influential figures as aggressively as might be expected.

Use of Informants: The FBI's tactics in cases like the Michigan Governor kidnapping plot have led to accusations of entrapment, where the FBI might be seen as manufacturing crimes.

Historical Context: COINTELPRO's legacy reminds us of the FBI's past in overstepping legal and ethical boundaries.

"FBI True Documentary" offers a sanitized view, potentially serving as a counter-narrative to these controversies, which raises questions about the documentary's role in shaping public perception of the FBI.

A whole lot of justifying to exonerate oversteps of the law. The branch davidvian story still sets wrong with alot of America , a shady search warrant, leads to stand off and eventual mass killing because Government would not change there narrative. This was one of the first nationwide, televised by the media day by day that captured the publics sympathy. IT made a lot of us look at what is sacred, are our homes s!fe from Government control. Are we nothing, do we have no real rights? Can the government produce a warrent on suspicion without real proof, burst into your house on hearsay? No in retrospect Janet Reno and company fouled up with no admission of wrong and it is further justified by these characters with there self pity.

Just the usual propaganda tales from the FBI. Nothing new or interesting if you already know about this stuff.

Not bad to watch if you are interested in the sick justifications that the FBI uses to do what they do.

Even these stories, sanitized by the FBI, still show why The FBI should be abolished entirely. It's the most corrupt, sinister, and tyrannical government agency ever created.

Maybe if they just stuck with missing persons, then people might think they are ok, but no one likes the FBI except for corrupt Presidents like Biden and Obama. When the FBI shows up at your door, you know they aren't there to help you; even cops don't like the FBI.

As much as I try to watch this series, I become frustrated with how the stories are shared. The first setback for me involves the hubris attitude that surfaces when the agents share the information. Most of the dominate speakers seem to seek recognition for fulfilling the very job they are hired and trained to do, so that prideful arrogance really isn't necessary.

Another obvious fact is the homogeneous culture that the bureau employs or prefers to interview. Those who share seem to reflect one who boast of their experiences as if theirs is paramount in professionalism. Again, an FBI agent is hired and trained to deal with terror threats and terror suspects; boasting about it seems a bit embarrassing. Some episodes do convey a retelling of a popular case. But for some reason, many of the episodes I have watched caused me to grow weary of the arrogance that comes across very strongly.

And lastly, if there are two or three agents involved in the retelling of the case, PLEASE LET THEM ALL SHARE THEIR EXPERIENCE!!! Gosh!!! I just stopped "Part 1" of season three's episode one. In that episode, ONE GUY WILL NOT STOP TALKING!!! Why have three guest if only one dominates the entire retelling of the event??? We are ONLY hearing HIS EXPERIENCE. That is ONE SIDED!

So, PLEASE, make adjustments to this interesting series. A few adjustments might make it more enjoyable. But remember, not all people like hearing barroom stories, some of us don't drink alcohol when watching this show. That means we are not under any alcoholic influence to tolerate the long winded speaker. So, the setting of this show could also benefit from a new setting.

This show shares a very shallow retelling of famous FBI cases. It would have been much more interesting and compelling to dive deeper into these cases from the perspective of the investigating FBI agents. A huge opportunity was missed here. We really don't find out anything about the agents other than a ten second bio line in an early 2000's Dateline-like interview structure which feels very manufactured and superficial. I already knew the majority of the details covered in these cases already. Any other viewer could find out more about these cases by reading a few Wikipedia pages. Again, this could've been such an impactful series. I'm pretty disappointed.