[lbriner]

What I have constantly found confusing is the conflation of related but separate issues here:

1) The general morality of secret services and undercover work, whether or not it is related to known crime or suspected crimes 2) The morality of an undercover officer doing "whatever it takes" to get into an inner circle, although it is not clear whether the sex was done for business or personal reasons (whether or not that matters) 3) The disruption of a higher level "right" to political dissent etc. without undue interference from authorities 4) Whether there was a lack of supervision and what the effect of this was (was it just poor management of an important job or a more causual effect?)

How much of this is illegal and how much is just sad is not clear and the issues need considering separately, otherwise it sounds like somebody getting hurt by a dishonest person when it is potentially much more critical than that.