Scott Ritter Addresses The FBI Investigation
First of all, please understand that the FBI is an investigative agency. It doesn’t actually make “accusations” or prosecute. It investigates. In order for the FBI to continue its investigation, to obtain subpoenas for documents, or search warrants or arrest warrants, the agents need to present their case to the DoJ—usually working with a local US Attorney’s office. If the DoJ, through its representatives, says that the FBI investigation is not based on facts that would establish a criminal offense even if true, the investigation is ended. If DoJ says that the investigation could possibly establish a criminal violation but has not reached the level of probable cause, the investigation continues, but without the use of search warrants. Only if DoJ agrees that the investigation has established probable cause of a crime (better than a 50/50 chance) and that probable cause for the location of evidence of that crime is at a particular place will a search warrant issue.
Well, that’s the theory. I refer you to the FBI’s raid on Mar-a-Lago for a real world example that theory and practice may be two different things. Nevertheless, that’s the framework, described above, of how things are supposed to work. Please note that DoJ is very much a driver in the process. Perhaps “gatekeeper” is a term closer to the theoretical framework, but “driver” may often be closer to the reality. My point is, we don’t actually know for sure who’s really driving this investigation. It could be the FBI, but it could be DoJ, or State, or other entities in the Intel Community. Just be aware as you read that there may be more and more influential players behind this than just the FBI. My own view is that if the situation is as Scott describes, there is no violation of FARA.
Finally, I’m not sure how Scott obtained the information regarding the focus of the FBI investigation. I take what he says at face value.
The FBI has accused me of behaving as a foreign agent operating in violation of the Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA). They focused on an article I published on my Substack on February 28, 2023. They claim I was directed by Russia to publish this article.
This is absurd. I did meet with Russian officials at the Russian Embassy on February 20, where I briefed them on travel I was planning conducting in Russia in the coming months. The purpose of this briefing was to make sure the Russian government did not misconstrue my trip as a cover for espionage—I was, after all, a former intelligence officer with a history of work in the former Soviet Union.
I also spoke in depth about the importance of this trip as a means to empower myself with the knowledge and information necessary to combat the problem of Russophobia in America today.
I informed the Russian officials that I planned on addressing Russophobia in my writing and talks.
The FBI is under the impression that, in pursuing this topic, I was somehow being directed and/or controlled by the Russian government.
I would direct their, and the broader audience, direction to an article I published in Consortium News on February 14, 2023–six days before the Russian Embassy meeting.
Read my admonitions about the dangers of Russophobia as it relates to the possibility of nuclear war.
And decide for yourself whether my feelings came from the heart of a patriotic American concerned about the direction the country he loves was taking, or an agent of the Russian government, acting on their instructions to unduly influence the minds of an unwitting American public.
https://consortiumnews.com/2023/02/14/scott-ritter-the-best-speech-i-never-gave/…
I would say that Scott’s final paragraph, above, presents the issue exactly as it should be for purposes of FARA. I would also add that, from a 1A Freedom of Speech perspective, the federal government should not be using FARA to conduct investigations of speech related activity unless it has specific evidence of a FARA violation—to avoid any chilling effect on 1A rights of Free Speech. Of course I’m not privy to the details of the investigation. Nevertheless, if what Scott is saying is correct—which I believe it is just based on the overall circumstances—then it appears that the case is based almost entirely—and maybe flat out entirely—on circumstantial “evidence”, which really are mere suppositions.
This is what I meant earlier when I wrote that FARA has always had a somewhat uneasy relationship with the First Amendment. No doubt the government will seek to draw a connection between Ritter’s conversations with Russian officials and his subsequent payments from Russia Times for the journalistic work performed. However, absent either a writing or a transcribable conversation between Ritter and the Russian officials which makes an explicit connection between the payments and the Russian officials, there is no FARA problem. Only if something like this happened would there be a problem:
Russian official: Scott, if you write XYZ, or include XYZ in your article, I will make sure it gets published by Russia Times and that you will get paid for it.
Scott: Wow! If you can make sure I get paid, I’ll write it!
Ritter provides two examples of articles that apparently roused FBI interest—or maybe the interest of other influential players:
This is the article the FBI claims I was directed to write on behalf of the Russians:
This is an article I wrote shortly after attending the Defender of the Fatherland Day celebration at the Russian Embassy on February 23. Again, judge for yourself: American patriot, or controlled Russian agent?
Give Peace a Chance. Scott Ritter Goes to Washington - Global Research
Now, you can get Scott’s oral account of his encounter with the FBI here:
Here’s what jumped out at me—something that was discussed previously:
The search warrant allowed them to come in and see my electronic devices. It's very specific about what they can and can't do. So they they they could see electronic devices cell phones, computer storage, things of that nature.
…
It's my opinion, and people agree with me, that they're looking for covert communications, that they seized my electronics because they believe embedded in my electronics are some sort of covert communications capability.
This is where I’d really like to see the affidavit. Obviously, the government wants to show that Ritter has been engaged in what the FISA statute terms “clandestine intelligence activity”, which would indicate an agent relationship. Concealed secure means of communication—not your everyday encrypted email account—would go a long way to proving that. Nevertheless, using secure or covert means of communication is not illegal per se. It’s simply a circumstance that the government would argue was typical behavior of a clandestine agent. That’s an argument, not a fact. By itself, it’s not really probative, absent strong supporting facts.
The problem is, the 4th amendment requires that the government present probable cause to believe that the property to be seized exists and is present on the premises to be searched. For starters, I’d like to know exactly what probable cause the government presented to show that these covert means of communication actually existed. I’d be willing to bet that the probable cause that was constructed was most likely highly speculative and circumstantial and not based, for example, on physical observation, by the testimony of a 3rd party that Ritter had shown them the device(s) or told them about it, or anything similarly substantive.
A “belief” in the existence of covert means of communication isn’t good enough unless the belief is based on specific facts that can be clearly articulated. I’ll go out on a limb and state my belief that 1) there are no such specific facts, only tendentious argumentation that, when closely examined, presumes what needs to be proven—that Ritter is a Russian agent, and 2) that no such device will be located or, if located, will provide no evidence of an agent relationship involving direction and control.
We shall see.
The FBI out of Washington are a law unto themselves , they can and will , do as they choose , knowing that the Judiciary ,with very few exceptions has their respective backs .
The Mar - a - Lago debacle being a classic example.
Yes the FBI is investigative. The problem is when they act as an investigative “arm” of a cabal of sister agencies. When they engage in collusion with political campaigns for eg. And then when they are led by those who believe they can be Investigator, Prosecutor, Judge and Jury. You know like Comey!