I agree that critics are far more shrill than they should be. However, there is some basis for their fears of an authoritarian push: significantly high proport

I agree that critics are far more shrill than they should be. However, there is some basis for their fears of an authoritarian push: significantly high proportions of his campaign speeches used authoritarian imagery and themes. His closest advisors were outspoken for advocating authoritarian viewpoints. In hindsight, he was using that rhetoric aspirationally with no intention of doing the intensely hard work and dedication involved in actually bringing about an authoritarian state. Indeed, almost nothing authoritarian has emerged; he uses executive orders to implement policies because he doesn't have the votes to legislate it. As for the lack of zeal for investigating the CIA, the reason should be obvious: very few Americans were the direct victims of it. That scandal would only be zealously pursued if there were no other noteworthy events happening. It is "whataboutism" for me to point out the lack of Republican interest in the CIA case is similar to the lack of Republican interest in the Russian election interference investigation. I only make that point to underscore the lack of lawmaker interest in pursuing a mostly "suspicious foreigner" set of victims, not to claim some difference of virtue between the two political parties. I agree with you that the CIA scandal is shocking and unacceptable. It is 1) morally wrong; 2) directly results in terrorist organization recruitment; 3) disrupts trade and political cooperation with other countries.