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.
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.
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.