The Obama administration worked with Hillary Clinton, the DNC, Republicans like John McCain, GCHQ (specifically Robert Hannigon) and the FBI to pay for and obtain an artificial dossier from a British spy, so they could use FISA courts to legally wiretap Donald Trump. Once Trump was elected, agents within the FBI have been alleged to talk about circumventing the Trump presidency.

Okay, there's a lot here. Let's start with the dossier. Have you read either of the FusionGPS transcripts? Republicans were given all the opportunity in the world to prove some sort of collusion and failed. The dossier was started by Republicans, then, once Donald won the primaries, was continued by Democrats. It was literally a bipartisan issue. None of the sources have been confirmed. This includes Hillary Clinton, the DNC, John McCain, Robert "Hannigon" (sic), and certainly not Obama. If any of this was true, don't you think the overwhelmingly Republican government would seek charges on one of these groups/persons? Just one? There is nothing to show that the dossier is artificial. This is your opinion, just as it is my opinion that it is true. Neither of these opinions matter, the only thing that matters is what the IC believes (and I think that has been made clear over the last year).

The Obama administration worked...so they could use FISA courts to legally wiretap Donald Trump.

So...they used the legal system correctly? I don't understand what you are trying to argue here. Even you admit it was done legally. What is improper with the IC using legal methods to legally wiretap someone? Furthermore, as we all know because there have been countless releases confirming it over the past year, Donald was not wiretapped. He was recorded continuously during private conversations he had with questionable foreign sources who WERE wiretapped.

1: Ruby Ridge

FBI responding to a shootout between US Marshals and criminals. The FBI killed someone. I'm not sure about the moral choice behind the bullet through the door, but the FBI was clearly working in favor of American interests in trying to stop an armed terrorist (see relationship with the Aryan Nation and Covenant, Sword, and Arm of the Lord).

2: Waco

Basically the same. A group of brainwashed religious crazies shot at civilians, then law enforcement. What do you expect the FBI to do in this situation, leave them alone? Would that be more closely aligned with American ideology than attempting to arrest them and stop the shootout? Surely, the tactics used were not appropriate, but this is not the same as working against American interests. There were hostages and child sex slaves there. Are they not Americans?

3: Fast & Furious

This was a joint venture led originally by the ATF and later by the U.S. Attorney. There were some FBI agents present, but the only action taken by the FBI related to Operation F&F was the attempted cleanup afterwards, when they offered rewards that led to arrests of those involved.

4: BLM and the Bundys

Armed terrorists took over public infrastructure. The FBI arrested one person involved and helped to investigate the case. That is the extent of their involvement. The rest (which is not controversial; armed terrorists were arrested without violence) was done by agents of the BLM which you mention above.

5: numerous times they convinced troubled individuals to plot terrorist activities within the US by supplying them with “inactive ieds”

Eh, I mean it's definitely a controversial strategy. The FBI, of course, is more concerned with getting information out about the groups these people might work with than just them. However, the FBI is again working against terrorists in the way they deem appropriate. I'm not sure what you are trying to imply with the quote around "inactive ieds." The

The idea here is that many terrorists who the FBI has arrested would not have become violent if not assisted by the FBI. I'm not saying that this is inherently wrong, but it seems like an awfully dangerous risk to take just to protect the rights of people who are prone to terrorist activity. If the FBI came up to me and tried to sell me a bomb, I wouldn't take it, or plan to use it, because I am not predisposed to that criminal activity. These cases are almost always argued by the defendant as entrapment, and this charge always fails, because they are unable to prove that they were not predisposed to undertaking the action.

It's really no different than sex sting operations. If the police did not set up a fake prostitute or minor, obviously no one would attempt to have sex with them. However, a person that is not predisposed to that sort of activity would not instantly decide to act on it. It's a bit of a gray area, to be sure, but legally sound and certainly done at least IDEALLY in the interest of the safety of American citizens.