The Economist 14Dec2019

The EconomistDecember 14th 2019 United States 31

F

or threeyears, Donald Trump and his

supporters have insisted that the fbi’s

investigation into links between his cam-

paign and Russia was dishonestly predicat-

ed, and rooted in “deep state” contempt

and political bias. William Barr, Mr

Trump’s attorney-general, even con-

demned the fbifor “spying” on Mr Trump’s

campaign. They hoped that a report from

Michael Horowitz, the Justice Depart-

ment’s inspector-general, would bolster

those claims. Released on December 9th,

Mr Horowitz’s thorough 476-page report

showed serious problems with the investi-

gation, particularly regarding the surveil-

lance of Carter Page, an erratic member of

Mr Trump’s campaign, but no conspiracy

and no evidence of systemic bias.

Its most fundamental finding was un-

equivocal: Crossfire Hurricane, as the in-

vestigation was called, was amply justified.

It did not begin, as Mr Trump and his de-

fenders claimed, with a dossier created by

Christopher Steele, a former British spy.

The Crossfire Hurricane team did not even

see his work until two months after open-

ing their investigation, on July 31st 2016.

That was three days after the fbire-

ceived a tip from “a friendly foreign gov-

ernment” (Australia, though the report

does not name it) that George Papadopou-

los, a campaign foreign-policy adviser,

“suggested the Trump team had received

some kind of suggestion from Russia that it

could assist.” That was the only trigger, Mr

Horowitz’s report found, and it was both le-

gitimate and carefully considered.

Among Mr Trump’s accusations was

that Peter Strzok and Lisa Page—respec-

tively an fbiagent and lawyer who were

having an affair during the election—were

central to the “witch-hunt” against him.

The report found that Ms Page played no

role, and Mr Strzok just a minor one, in the

decision to open the investigation.

More broadly, it found no evidence that

“political bias or improper motivation in-

fluenced the decisions” to investigate Mr

Papadopoulos or the three other campaign

members with links to Russia: Mr Page; Mi-

chael Flynn, briefly Mr Trump’s national-

security adviser; and Paul Manafort, Mr

Trump’s former campaign chairman, now

imprisoned for a variety of financial

crimes. Crossfire Hurricane might more

accurately be considered an investigation

of these four men, each of whom had deal-

ings with Russia’s government, than of Mr

Trump’s campaign more generally.

The report did find multiple “signifi-

cant errors or omissions” in the fbi’s appli-

cations to wiretap Mr Page, however. These

errors “made it appear that the information

supporting probable cause was stronger

than was actually the case.” The fact that

there was no evidence of “intentional mis-

conduct” provides little comfort. If the pro-

cess for watching an American citizen was

so lax and error-ridden in such a politically

sensitive investigation, it may be worse in

less prominent cases. The investigators

“did not receive satisfactory explanations

for the errors or problems we identified.”

They also referred Bruce Ohr, a Justice De-

partment official whose wife worked for

the firm that contracted Mr Steele, to the

Office of Professional Responsibility for

“errors in judgment”.

This verdict will not end the partisan

bickering over the Russia investigation’s

origins. After the report’s release, Mr Barr

dismissed its findings, arguing that the fbi

may have acted in “bad faith”, and based its

investigation on “the thinnest of suspi-

cions”. John Durham, a prosecutor whom

Mr Barr has assigned to undertake yet an-

other investigation of the Russia probe’s

origins, also disagreed with “some of the

report’s conclusions as to predication.”

Steve Scalise, one of Mr Trump’s staunchest

defenders in Congress, said the report

“proves Obama officials abused their...

power to trigger an investigation,” when it

reaches the opposite conclusion. 7

WASHINGTON, DC

The inspector-general’s inquiry into an

inquiry finds problems, but no bias

The FBI

National inquirers

W

hen “sesame street”first aired on

November 10th, 1969, the first

indication that this was no ordinary

neighbourhood was when the eight-foot-

two-inch yellow-feathered Big Bird

appeared. At first he was depicted as a

country yokel, but by the end of that first

season the puppet’s operator, Carroll

Spinney, had changed tack. Mr Spinney,

who was Big Bird for five decades, played

him as a six-year-old child, with all the

wonder and sweetness that entails. (He

once told the New York Timesthat he

never got over being a child.) Big Bird

would become, if not always the star, the

soul of the Street.

“Sesame Street” uses skits and songs

to introduce little ones to letters and

numbers, and well as to concepts like

co-operation—and even death. A 2015

study showed that children who watched

the show were better prepared for school

and less likely to fall behind once there.

Big Bird was a large part of that hidden

curriculum. When he lost “my home, my

nest, my everything” in a hurricane, for

example, he learned to be optimistic.

Kermit the Frog often sang that “It’s

not easy being green”, but it wasn’t easy

being yellow, either. Big Bird’s suit, with

its 5,961 feathers, was burdensome. Mr

Spinney opened and shut Big Bird’s

eyelids by moving a 5lb (2.3kg) lever with

his little finger. His right arm was fully

extended to operate the heavy head and

neck. Since he could not see out of the

suit, a tiny monitor helped him manoeu-

vre. His understudy took over as Big

Bird’s puppeteer in 2015, but Mr Spinney

continued to be his voice until last year.

A puppeteer since childhood, he also

operated Oscar the Grouch, the sour to

Big Bird’s sweet. Oscar, who hoarded

junk and lived in a rubbish bin, gave

children permission to be cranky once in

a while. Mr Spinney’s own childhood was

tough. His father was exceedingly frugal

and sometimes violent. His mother

encouraged his love of puppets and art.

He spent a decade working in children’s

television, but wanted to do something

“more important”. A chance meeting

with Jim Henson, the Muppets’ creator,

gave him that opportunity.

Big Bird became ubiquitous, the man

inside remained unknown. In his mem-

oirs Mr Spinney wrote that it was only

the bird that was famous. But ensouling

him was instructive. Among the chapter

headings were “Find your inner bird”,

and “Don’t let your feathers get ruffled”.

Farewell feathered friend

Sesame Street

NEW YORK

Carroll Spinney, puppeteer, died on December 8th

Big legs to fill