My post yesterday regarding the DoJ/FBI investigation of two of Devin Nunes’ top lawyers sparked a response from a former FBI agent—as sometimes happens here.
"The eye sees only what the mind is prepared to comprehend." ~ Robertson Davies. The more I study and follow great sources like you, the better my "reality goggles" function. Excellent work.
Even noting (and daunted by) an insider's view of the FBI brass' shift toward a "devil may care" attitude on predication in light of an ever-expanding "national security" tack, I am curious why the Bureau would pursue a grand jury subpoena when National Security Letters would get them the info they sought. I recall a panel 15+ years ago when FBI's General Counsel advised that our clients should treat NSLs the same as they would a GJ subpoena in terms of breadth/scope. The subpoena step would just seem to raise additional, "unnecessary" predication questions of how developed facts applied to the essential elements for a specified federal crime. Don't do litigation or criminal, so I readily admit my limited understanding here.
I believe that in the first of these three posts I raised that issue and expressed my own puzzlement. All I can think of is that they couldn't think of a single thing to hang their hat on re a NS investigation. I'd really be curious to see the opening EC.
For sure on the EC. Come to think of it, in anything involving "Russia, Russia, Russia!," a DC-based grand jury was probably an even lesser path of resistance than simply whipping up and attesting to your own NS stuff.
I think what's also new/unique is the brazenness of it all, at the highest levels, without repercussions or even a need to justify or explain to the people--almost as if, by design, to undermine public faith in law enforcement.
Sure, there were always some black marks (my NYPD-heavy family had some crazy tales from the '50s-'90s) on an otherwise overwhelmingly-honorable profession, but that always involved money, drugs, sex or some kind of sadism (whether racial or just a power trip), making for not only a bad cop but a sh!tbag person, who at some point, was ultimately dealt with. This stuff is a whole 'nother ballgame.
Much respect for serving your community. Happy New Year.
Actually, I think those competing interests were very much on the minds of the founders. They knew that any given facet of government could be corrupted and they designed the system to resist succumbing all at once.
But, as famously noted, it depended on a good and religious people to keep the whole thing from falling apart. The system cannot survive the concerted, multi-generational effort to co-opt all of its parts towards corrupt ends if there is no countervailing movement from the people able or willing to obstruct and course correct.
"The eye sees only what the mind is prepared to comprehend." ~ Robertson Davies. The more I study and follow great sources like you, the better my "reality goggles" function. Excellent work.
Even noting (and daunted by) an insider's view of the FBI brass' shift toward a "devil may care" attitude on predication in light of an ever-expanding "national security" tack, I am curious why the Bureau would pursue a grand jury subpoena when National Security Letters would get them the info they sought. I recall a panel 15+ years ago when FBI's General Counsel advised that our clients should treat NSLs the same as they would a GJ subpoena in terms of breadth/scope. The subpoena step would just seem to raise additional, "unnecessary" predication questions of how developed facts applied to the essential elements for a specified federal crime. Don't do litigation or criminal, so I readily admit my limited understanding here.
I believe that in the first of these three posts I raised that issue and expressed my own puzzlement. All I can think of is that they couldn't think of a single thing to hang their hat on re a NS investigation. I'd really be curious to see the opening EC.
For sure on the EC. Come to think of it, in anything involving "Russia, Russia, Russia!," a DC-based grand jury was probably an even lesser path of resistance than simply whipping up and attesting to your own NS stuff.
I think what's also new/unique is the brazenness of it all, at the highest levels, without repercussions or even a need to justify or explain to the people--almost as if, by design, to undermine public faith in law enforcement.
Sure, there were always some black marks (my NYPD-heavy family had some crazy tales from the '50s-'90s) on an otherwise overwhelmingly-honorable profession, but that always involved money, drugs, sex or some kind of sadism (whether racial or just a power trip), making for not only a bad cop but a sh!tbag person, who at some point, was ultimately dealt with. This stuff is a whole 'nother ballgame.
Much respect for serving your community. Happy New Year.
Brazen--Yes!
Must reduce funding but that would take McCarthy exerting immense control over the House. I don't see that happening.
Actually, I think those competing interests were very much on the minds of the founders. They knew that any given facet of government could be corrupted and they designed the system to resist succumbing all at once.
But, as famously noted, it depended on a good and religious people to keep the whole thing from falling apart. The system cannot survive the concerted, multi-generational effort to co-opt all of its parts towards corrupt ends if there is no countervailing movement from the people able or willing to obstruct and course correct.