"FBI Misled Judge in Obtaining Warrant To Seize Hundreds of Safe Deposit Boxes"

I missed this post by Eric Boehm when it went up last month, and, embarrassingly, just found it because the L.A. Times wrote about it Friday. Better later than never, though, I suppose; here's an excerpt, though you should read the whole thing:

The FBI told a federal magistrate judge that it intended to open hundreds of safe deposit boxes seized during a March 2021 raid in order to inventory the items inside—but new evidence shows that federal agents were plotting all along to use the operation as an opportunity to forfeit cash and other valuables.

Federal agents failed to disclose those plans to the federal magistrate judge who issued the warrant for the high-profile raid of U.S. Private Vaults, a private business in Beverly Hills, California, that had been the subject of an FBI investigation since at least 2019. When the raid took place, the FBI also seems to have ignored limitations imposed by the warrant, including an explicit prohibition against using the safe deposit boxes as the basis for further criminal investigations.

Those details regarding the planning and execution of the FBI's raid of U.S. Private Vaults are now out in the open after a different federal judge ruled this week that the government could not keep those details out of the public record.

As Reason has extensively reported, the raid on U.S. Private Vaults resulted in federal agents seizing and attempting to forfeit more than $86 million in cash as well as gold, jewelry, and other valuables from property owners who were suspected of no crimes. Attorneys representing some plaintiffs who are trying to recover their possessions interviewed the FBI agents who planned the raid, but federal prosecutors tried to keep some details of those depositions redacted….

The FBI had been investigating U.S. Private Vaults for more than five years and had previously targeted individuals suspected of using the business to stash the proceeds of criminal activity. In 2019, according to some of the newly unredacted depositions, federal agents shifted their approach and began building a case against the company as a whole.

But the raid that targeted the businesses also swept up the private property of hundreds of people suspected of no crime….

Comments

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You will have problems like this when a federal agency is led exclusively by Republicans for more than a century.

[Currentsitguy]

Congress has had ample opportunity to put a stop to Civil Asset Forfeiture.

[John F. Carr]

Congress improved the process around 2000. In those days of paper mail I got a letter from Barney Frank responding to my letter saying that reform did not go far enough. (I don't know who really wrote the letter. It was in his name and it was a response to my letter, not a form letter.) Evidently he did not have the votes to stop "equitable sharing".

[Kleppe]

Denial ain't just a river in Egypt, Revarino.

[MK Ultra]

Thought this was OBL for a moment.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

The Federals are such disgusting and vile subhumans.

Nothing will happen to these monsters either.

[Eugene Volokh]

I blogged this because the alleged behavior by federal prosecutors indeed sounds quite wrong, and even criminal. But "disgusting and vile subhumans" and "monsters"? Are there any gradations on your disgust-o-meter, from, say, shoplifters to lying prosecutors to rapists and child molesters to murderers to mass murderers? Or are they all in the same box for you as, say, Hitler and Stalin?

[Bored Lawyer]

Both Hitler and Stalin are reviled as monsters. (Stalin not enough, but still).

What will happen to these FBI agents? Any consequences? That is where the rubber hits the road, as far as I am concerned.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

We all know nothing at all will happen to these people.

[Bruce Hayden]

Not just FBI agents, but their attorneys too. Kevin Clinesmith stipulated to having blatantly lied to the FISC on FISA applications on Carter Page. Slap on the hand, and since the target was Trump, his boss as President, a good cause according to the FBI, he only lost his law license for a de minimis period of time.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Bruce continues his campaign of lies, thinking that nobody would ever bother to fact-check his bullshit.

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/01/29/fbi-lawyer-trump-russia-probe-email-463750

[Creekan]

It isn't clear what fact you're checking. Are you Kevin Clinesmith, the FBI lawyer convicted of felony forgery who "admitted that in June 2017 he sent an altered email to an FBI agent" and can practice law again after a one-year suspension?
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ex-fbi-lawyer-clinesmith-gets-law-license-back-despite-conviction/ar-AARVVSf

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Indeed, he sent an altered email to an FBI agent.

He did not 'blatantly lie(d) to the FISC on FISA applications.'

His criminal sentence was within federal guidelines, and his DC license suspension is also within standard guidelines.

Are you Creekan, the 12 year old who can't make an argument without sounding like he's trying to land himself in google search results? That Creekan?

Read a few more of Bruce's posts and you'll quickly find out that all he ever does is lie.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Was that it, just an altered email? Of no consequence? Just some trivial little edit that didn't really make a difference?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Your reading comprehension has not improved over the years. I suppose it's too much to ask someone like you to pay attention to the fact he was convicted of a crime and punished for it. It was evidently too difficult for you to notice that Creekan used the exact same phrase, yet you only bothered to open your idiotbox to complain about my use of it.

Perhaps if you spent more time educating yourself, and less time complaining about whether some people have sex in ways that you don't agree with, you'd be able to follow a simple conversation.

You are deservedly going back on the mute list. I was a fool to think that you might have had something useful to say.

[Toranth]

Punished?
What was his punishment?

Did he pay a fine?
Did he go to jail?
Did he lose his law license?
Did he lose his pension or retirement benefits?

[Nelson]

So your complaint is that he was punished according to normal convention, but that isn't enough for you? Because that's what it sounds like.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, that's his complaint: That the 'normal convention' is a slap on the wrist for very serious offenses.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

lol what a baby.

An American citizen was unconstitutionally spied upon based upon this intentional lie and you think it's totally okay that the lawyer got the minimalist of sentences.

Meanwhile you also applaud Granny GoGo rotting away in a Democrar Gulag because she took a selfish during the Fedsurrection.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Toranth, perhaps you should read the linked article, which clearly states what his punishment was, or you can ask stupid rhetorical questions and pretend that nobody has a good answer to them.

BCD, I stupidly gave you one last chance:

The Page warrant had been approved THREE TIMES before he sent the email. It MIGHT not have been approved the 4th time without the email, but you don't know that. Yet here you are claiming your opinion is fact.

You don't bother dealing in facts, and you offer nothing of substance to any discussion. Permanent mute now. I'll never again have to see your homosexual complaints, bigotry, and ignorance.

Good riddance (again).

[Toranth]

Fascinating, the responses to my questions. Not one actually answered them. Perhaps it is because if you list the answers, it would show your claim that he was appropriately punished to be the BS that it is.

But to answer my own questions, since no one else did:
Clinesmith paid no fine.
He served no jail time.
He did not lose his law license, and is currently a lawyer in "good standing" with the DC Bar.
He did not lose his pension or benefits.

That's not punishment for deliberately forging evidence, and lying about it to the court - and repeatedly concealing other information and other contacts by the CIA on behalf on Page.
If you think that zero punishment is typical, I suggest you go try it yourself. When you get released, we'll be able to hear your opinion again.

[Bruce Hayden]

It was actually far worse. The DOJ IG found at least 17 major issues with the Carter Page FISA warrant applications, and that at least the latter two warrants were illegal based on these issues. And those FISA warrants were utilized to electronically surveillance probably hundreds, if not more, people associated with President Trump. And of all of the lying by omission encountered by the IG, only the submission of the email altered by Clinesmith, was ever prosecuted, and he is already practicing law again. And, yes, it was lying, and it was material. The original email essentially said that Page had been a CIA asset. That would have negated evidence that he was working for Russian Intelligence. Clinesmith changed it so that it said Page was not. Indeed, Page, a former Navy officer, routinely briefed the CIA on all of his international travels and interactions with foreign officials. Not the actions of a closet Russian spy.

We have learned more since then. The OIG report pointed out that the primary basis for the Page FISA warrants was the Steele Dossier. By the first renewal, the FBI knew that much of it was rubbish and that it came from Steele’s primary subsource, Igor “Iggy” Danchenko, who had made much of it up sitting around a bar with Russian friends in Georgetown. By the second renewal, Danchenko had been hired by the FBI as a confidential source, putting him off limits for the next three years to the IG and Congressional investigations. None of this was ever disclosed to the FISC judges approving the FISA warrants. Moreover, the FBI knew all along that the Steele Dossier was funded by the Clinton Campaign and the DNC, President Trump’s political enemies. This is the lying by omission that the DOJ never really pursued. Again, it was material, since if the FISC judges knew what the FBI did about the Steele Dossier, they likely would have denied the applications.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

It is interesting that Prof. Volokh -- who is generally silent with respect to comments that call for liberal judges to be gassed, liberals to be placed face-down in landfills, liberals to be raped, liberals to be shot in the face when opening doors, liberals to be sent to Zyklon showers, liberals to be shoved into woodchippers, and the like, and who consistently refrains from censoring such comments despite censoring other comments for violation of ostensible civility standards -- rises to defend federal prosecutors accused of being disgusting, vile, subhuman monsters.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

That comment sounds like the opening to an old joke whose punchline goes something along the lines of “A good start.”

[Curle]

Says the guy with an worldview where he defames groups of people with claims of guilt for the poor outcomes of certain other groups of people through the device of ‘forces’ he’s editorialized into both existence and consequence. The form of his beliefs are indistinguishable from an Scientologist’s belief in the power of engrams but that commitment to error never slows him down.

The lack of self-awareness remains stunning, as always.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think I'd at least go so far as saying that, at this point, the FBI is no longer a law enforcement agency that's merely corrupt within a normal range for government agencies. Functionally, it's a crime gang that does law enforcement on the side. Probably beyond any realistic chance of redemption, the agency needs to be dissolved, and anybody who hadn't previously already turned whistle blower presumed unfit for law enforcement.

I wouldn't embrace "sub-human" only because humans can get pretty bad, so calling bad people "sub-human" is white-washing humanity. And, of course, bad as the FBI has gotten, they've got room left to fall. As I expect we'll see in coming years.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Eugene Volokh: Do you think you might be overreacting a bit?

Brett Bellmore: You call that overreaction?

[bevis the lumberjack]

The FBI and the IRS have always been the two most dishonest agencies in our government.

The FBI was infused with the integrity of J Edgar Hoover, which is to say none. And that character remains to this day. They pull shit like the safety deposit box thing and we’re supposed to trust them about anything, especially something so politically loaded as the Trump thing? No way. And before Sarcastro the Magnificent misreads my mind again, I AM NOT SAYING TRUMP DIDN’T COMMIT A CRIME. I just don’t trust the FBI to tell me.

Meanwhile, the IRS has been used by presidents as diverse as Nixon and Obama to mess with their political opponents. Lately as woke has taken over the media the private information of innocent citizens has been smeared all over the media. And Biden is proud that he’s made them 3x as powerful. What a champion of liberty and justice.

And in both the deposit box thing and the tax info leak thing not a single person has suffered a consequence. Hell, those actions are consistent with the character of the agencies, so those responsible probably got promoted.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Don’t forget when those Federals at the VA literally killed vets by denying them care by hiding them on secret waitlists for greedy money bonuses.

Those civil servants got caught, kept their jobs and their bonuses.

What does anyone expect will happen when people have so much power over others and so little accountability?

Of course the people at the FBI are going to oppress political enemies.

Of course the people at the IRS are going to violate the rights of and oppress their political enemies.

Of course the people at the NSA and other members of the IC are going to violate the rights of citizens

Of course the people at the ATF, NARA, DOJ, US Treasury, Secret Service are going to hide evidence, commit crimes, or terrorize citizens.

Of course they will. There is zero chance they will ever be held accountable and evil is what happens when people have unaccountable power over others. It will always devolve to evil. Every time.

[JSinAZ]

There is most definitely a dependence on Gell-Mann amnesia in terms of continued assumptions of credibility from the agencies of the second and institutions of the forth estates.

[Randal]

I AM NOT SAYING TRUMP DIDN’T COMMIT A CRIME. I just don’t trust the FBI to tell me.

Uh huh. Well, you don't have to trust the FBI to tell you that. In fact, you're not even supposed to trust the FBI to tell you that. We have an entirely separate branch of government for answering that question.

For all your lot's braying about the constitution, you don't seem to understand it much.

[bevis the lumberjack]

You don’t even know what my lot is, imbecile.

[mulched]

This dude reads through a whole long post about the problems of unaccountable government power and finds the one part where he can say:

"BUT TRUMP!"

[Nige]

Finally a bit of solidarity with all the left wing groups, activists and politicians the FBI have targeted since its creation.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

While this article is in one particular context, my judgement of them is not.

The totality of their actions, especially as of late, shows these people are as ruthless as they are lawless. Vile and evil.

[Creekan]

Children are monsters because they're so much like their parents. As for subhumans, I'm not a biologist.

[Mr. Bumble]

Certainly not all Prof. V. But when they have a long history of fucking with people's lives under the color of law and doing so by lies and utter disregard for the law they are sworn to uphold strong words don't seem so inappropriate.

[Nelson]

I’ve never understood these sorts of arguments. The FBI works thousands of cases every day. The vast majority of their work consists of plain vanilla efforts that are completely unremarkable but catch offenders and enforce the law.

Painting the FBI (or IRS or local police or government, writ large) as corrupt based on a few high-profile cases, never mind those that have been intentionally distorted and weaponized to stoke partisan outrage, is dishonest framing.

Something like asset forfeiture is a terrible thing, but it is allowed by Congress. Complaining that the FBI is corrupt because they use legally-available actions is like complaining that wealthy people who take advantage of tax loopholes are corrupt. If Congress eliminated civil asset forfeiture, the FBI would, as an institution, stop doing it. The problem with civil asset forfeiture is that it is legal and the framework is too loose to limit it to those who are found guilty.

This is why issues like civil asset forfeiture need to be continuously commented on. It’s not as sexy as serial killers or as divisive (at least recently) as protecting national security, but that’s why it is so hard to capture public attention. It’s as boring as the details of the tax code, so it requires constant reminders to penetrate public awareness.

Politicians have created a system where they don’t have to address important, but boring, issues like that. They can manufacture outrage about abortion or income inequality or transgender people and never have to deal (or even understand) nuanced or complex issues like civil asset forfeiture or occupational licensing.

[Brett Bellmore]

The problem isn't just a few high profile crimes. The problem is that the high profile crimes don't get punished. The people who expose them get punished. Which reasonably leads to the conclusion that the high profile crimes are just the ones that got noticed.

In an organization with a few corrupt people, the non-corrupt are still in charge, and can clean things up.

But once the corrupt people are in charge, it's too late for that. It's the honest people who are in trouble. So the honest people who want to keep their jobs start turning a blind eye to crimes, and the people who can't bring themselves to do that leave, or get kicked out.

That's where the FBI is now. It is still going after criminals, but it has itself a criminal internal culture, and fixing that sort of thing is basically impossible.

[Nelson]

I feel like you just described 99% of the police departments in the country. The tragedy of the corruption of police departments is that 90%+ of the officers are good and decent people who want to uphold the law and protect citizens, but the other 10% are bad cops. And when the good cops try to hold the bad cops accountable, they get screwed over professionally.

[Bubba Jones]

Depends on whether the shop lifters and child molesters have co opted federal police powers to execute their plans.

[Harvey Mosley]

I equate lying prosecutors and cops with child molesters and mass murderers. I also believe any cop or prosecutor who breaks the rules trying to convict someone should be sentenced to the maximum term they were trying to get for the person they lied about. If it's a death penalty case they should be taken in front of the courthouse and shot. These are the people that society gives the power of life and death to. If they violate that trust they should be punished as severely as possible.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Who decides whether they broke the rules or not?

[Squirrelloid]

A jury.

[Michael P]

Most non-humans I am familiar with behave more honestly than these bureaucrats. Rather than subhuman, I would suggest they behaved in an antisocial or outlaw way. When applying such adjectives, one should remember that they conspired in this; it was not the act of a single rogue agent or lawyer.

[Noscitur a sociis]

How do you evaluate dishonesty in non-humans, exactly?

[Bored Lawyer]

Any affection from a cat is dishonest. Cat is looking for something, probably food.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Our family had a cat that was genuinely affectionate. But when it wanted food, it would tackle by the ankle anyone who tried to walk past its empty food bowl.

[Brett Bellmore]

People keep dogs as pets. Cats keep humans as pets. You might be affectionate towards your pets, but you still try to keep them in their place.

[Michael P]

Much like politicians: If their lips move, they're lying.

[Sarcastr0]

Talking animals are all liars now?

[Curle]

Interesting question aside from making a point about hyperbole. The more developed the animal the greater capacity for behavior we would label dishonesty I’d venture. The difference between a collie who fakes a limp only when walking in front of an home where he once received an sympathy treat from the homeowner (when he actually had an injury) may not be that far off from the prosecutor who associates judges with people who never give him problems. Neither appears to be driven by an internal framework that would moderate their actions against their advantage.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

How do you evaluate dishonesty in non-humans, exactly?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAmUSPbDNxk

[Snorkle]

Always amusing when Republicans start shouting Defund-the-Police.

Eugene was even pushing that one recently, pretending it was more than a chant on the left. (Certainly, unlike Republicans, no congressional Democrats are calling for it.)

No, this is him doing his Republican duty, lightly casting shade to signal while maintaining his "serious" image. Good thing no recent comments insulted people near the SCOTUS to give him a bad look with them, right?

[AmosArch]

Always amusing when Republicans start shouting Defund-the-Police.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Who is saying that outside of Dems and your fevered imagination? lol.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
pretending it was more than a chant on the left. (Certainly, unlike Republicans, no congressional Democrats are calling for it.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

really? how many congressional republicans are calling for defunding the police? Is it anything like this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9OZMBuVL5U&t=3s

have they gone as far as the Dems have in literally already implementing policies nationwide that have in fact drawn down and restricted police forces leading to higher crime rates acting on their rhetoric like shown here

https://www.npr.org/2021/11/02/1051617581/minneapolis-police-vote

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
No, this is him doing his Republican duty, lightly casting shade to signal while maintaining his “serious” imag
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I'm not sure what the point of your post is. So if you are against literally defunding local police departments and getting rid of them entirely you should be for a political party coopting a law enforcement agency and using it as its own personal secret police against its political opponents?

[Nige]

'Who is saying that outside of Dems and your fevered imagination? lol.'

We have right-wing commenters denouncing the FBI and other federal agencies as hopelessly corrupt and beyond saving, seems like a moment for bipartisan overhaul of policing!

Either that or they're just mad that after decades of being more or less on their side they're showing disloyalty by going after people like Trump, and once that sort of misbehaviour has been corrected they can carry on as normal.

[AmosArch]

I personally know some dems who are outspoken against feminism. Does that mean overall Dems are as antifeminist as Wahabi muslims?

[Nige]

Get 'em to comment here and we'll see.

[F.D. Wolf]

At Reason, the FBI is inherently untrustworthy, its actions and motives always suspect. Except, of course, when it acts against Trump and his associates. In those cases, it is dangerous sedition to even hint that it might have acted improperly in any respect.

[TwelveInchPianist]

“the FBI also seems to have ignored limitations imposed by the warrant, including an explicit prohibition against using the safe deposit boxes as the basis for further criminal investigations.”

Are these sorts of limitations binding? I’m too lazy to research right now, but I seem to remember some past blogging suggesting they might not be.

[Bubba Jones]

Are they eligible for qualified immunity when they deliberately defy written instructions from a magistrate?

[bevis the lumberjack]

For all you trying to excuse the FBI here note that they’ve admitted that in the safe deposit box case they did ignore the search warrant explicitly prohibited what they did

I know y’all want Trump’s pelt on the wall, and I don’t really care and have no idea if he committed a crime or not, but how the holy fuck could you ever believe the FBI about anything given its lifelong track record of illegal behavior?

[Mr. Bumble]

So who is to blame for this massive attempt at "civil forfeiture" on a massive scale? Who drafted the warrant? Who mislead the magistrate judge? I guess the agents who conducted the raid were "just following orders", but will anybody be held to account?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Of course not. Even the USPS was spying on citizens and got away with it.

Why would they ever think they'll be held accountable for stealing $86M?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Hitler, Stalin, nor Mao killled anyone after taking power.

Their State agencies did.

Biden is being added to that list.

[bevis the lumberjack]

How much outrage from the left over Richard Jewel? A guy who saved a bunch of lives but the FBI mis-characterized him as a white supremacist and ultimately the bullshit killed. So support for a white supremacist from the left.

Vicki Weaver? Nope. The Branch Dividians? Nope, they liked guns so fuck them.

The left historically has been tougher on the FBI than the right that’s true. But you accuse the right of flip flopping because it’s Trump, but the left is also the FBIs strongest supporters because it’s Trump. Look in a fucking mirror.

[Sarcastr0]

No the left is not pro FBI Ali a sudden.

It’s just they haven’t gone to your nuclear always assume they’re lying take.

[Krychek_2]

There's a simple, straightforward solution so obvious I'm surprised no one else has thought of it.

If I were a judge, I would have a hard and fast policy that anybody caught lying to me gets held in contempt and jailed for six months. Prosecution, police officer, witness, defendant, defendant's lawyer, doesn't matter. I would consider perjury a contempt of court and jail people for it.

And I'll bet you stunts like this one would stop. At least in my courtroom.

[John F. Carr]

Warrants go to magistrates. Can magistrates hold affiants in contempt?

In 1988 some Boston police officers lied to get a warrant and an officer was killed in the resulting raid. One judge handling the fallout reportedly said the officers involved should not bother testifying in his court ever again. (I don't have the article about the judge's statement. For more information about the case, the key players' names are Carlos Luna, Hugo Amate, and Albert Lewin.)

[Lasciata]

Disband the agency. Burn the building. Salt the ground.

[M L]

“We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office.” - Aesop

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Read the fucking article for once, you boob.

[Curle]

Which is why the world at large is filled with dead victims of white conservatives or whites that haven’t been reported missing or never found? Because: your theory? Is that about right?

And that white suburbs are filled with robberies that were never reported and insurance claims never filed because: white conservative solidarity per your theory?

That’s some theory you have there.

[F.D. Wolf]

You caught me. I confess. I lie to federal judges to get warrants.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

You act like your original comment was some hypothetical and not an observable fact.

Read entry number 1, you ignoramus.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/boob

[BravoCharlieDelta]

https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2022/september/fbi-raids-home-of-pro-life-christian-with-guns-drawn-as-family-watches-in-horror

Eat shit you bootlicker.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Sudden vitriol? So nobody is mad at them for, say, spying on the SCLC for a decade plus? Or murdering a mother holding a child in Idaho? We’re gonna ignore their long-established record of totally unethical behavior because they’re going after someone that hardly anyone liked.

This leopard has had its spots for a very very long time and isn’t going change. Ever. I don’t trust a single fucking thing they say about anyone, including Trump.

[Curle]

Is it your impression that EV’s format is driven first and foremost by ‘red meat’ issues or on issues where he thinks his opinion can illuminate interesting angles?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

lol you didn't know that boob had other meanings and that a dumbass was the main one?

lol wow, no wonder you're a Democrat, you're dumb af

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Do you think the raid was appropriate and necessary for the safety of the FBI officers?

[Curle]

Environmentalists aren’t part of the FBI in group but whites generally are? Whites like those at Ruby Ridge? Richard Jewell?

Your theory seems to have an meandering ‘in group’.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Yes, I think “The FBI used a major show of force to arrest pro-life Christian Mark Houck, 48, with dozens of agents reportedly descending on his home with guns drawn as Houck’s wife and children looked on in horror.”

...is not the FBI’s typical approach when handling minor sidewalk altercations.

Maybe you think 30 heavily armed FBI agents with guns drawn is the appropriate way to approach a non-violent sidewalk preacher at home with his 8 children.

You surely think so because you’re a bootlicker and support tyranny by evil monsters.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Where are the Democrat leaders calling for them to be held accountable?

[PeteRR]

Nobody reads the Grauniad.

[damikesc]

That raid sounded awful, no?

[Curle]

You seem to believe there is an endless cache of unprosecuted crimes committed by FBI in-groups that go uninvestigated. Were that the case there would be an equally large amount of evidence of said crimes never reported and allowed to grow stale somewhere. You believe that?

[AmosArch]

Yeah just like the Dems are totally defending the FBI out of principle and not because of craven political circumstance. Like when lockdowns were cool except when protesting for BLM.

[Brett Bellmore]

I've been badmouthing the FBI for approaching 30 years now.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Yeah dude sending helicopters, boats and several teams of FBI agents with CNN in tow to arrest Roger Stone is totally "standard arrest procedure".

Get fucked, you're not a serious person, you're a lying bootlicker on par with Sarcastr0.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

My argument is that these people are bad actors because there is no accountability.

You're argument is to cry and shit your pants like Biden did.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

"Law enforcement does this all the time but with people from what you consider out-groups so you ignore it."

Prove the FBI does this all the time.,

[BravoCharlieDelta]

No offense, but I don't think anyone has ever called you "smart".

[Curle]

“Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition …There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.”

Above is what you said. Care to elaborate as to the ‘groups’ that are protected against prosecution? Conservatives surely given the way you phrased your rule. How about explaining exactly how you intended the ‘not bound’ part of your rule to work if you are conceding, I guess, that it doesn’t apply to the prosecution of crimes committed by conservatives.

[Currentsitguy]

I think it's an unfair comparison. When people say they "Back the Blue" they are generally referring to actual local police, the people who come when you call 911 to report a robbery, domestic violence, noisy neighbor, etc. You know, people who are sworn to protect, and are in the local community, not some huge Federal Agency who couldn't give two f***s through a rolling doughnut about incidents like that, because it's obviously not part of their mission.

Now we can talk about the bad acts of the local boys in blue, and there are plenty to chose from, but to accuse people of selective outrage is way off the mark.

[Currentsitguy]

What's the legal principle behind "What comes around goes around"?

[Currentsitguy]

This is what the Patriot Act has given us. Didn't like it then, don't like it now no matter who's ox is being gored.

[Curle]

“Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition …There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.”

You posit this partisan reductionism as some sort of general rule the pseudo profundity being that your political opponents are hypocrites and that this hypocrisy is particular to conservatives but rather than state it as “conservatives are hypocrites” you instead feel the need to state it as some all encompassing general rule while apparently ignoring the fact that it reflects, at best, a few high profile media driven cases and stands in stark contrast to the way most cases involving ‘conservative’ criminals are processed by police and treated by conservatives.

I’m gobsmacked.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Really? Is Biden reigning in the FBI related to the safe deposit defiance of the court? Hell no, his federal prosecutors tried to hide it from a new judge.

You’re a partisan clown just making shit up. You’re exactly like those you hate.

[Drewski]

It's a funny thing: "Reign in federal law enforcement abuse" would suggest ruling by abusing the power of federal law enforcement, whereas "rein in federal law enforcement abuse" would be to limit abuse by federal law enforcement. It's similar to how "free reign" would suggest ruling capriciously, but "free rein" means you're allowed by your ruler to act independently.

On a similar topic apropos of the article, using the word "forfeit" to mean claiming someone else's property is the stupidest fucking trend in legal writing today. That's the opposite of what "forfeit" means.

[Mr. Bumble]

Of course you mean "rein in", right?

[Sarcastr0]

Why isn’t Biden micromanaging based in this one case? That is not how you do good policy and you know it,

The FBI has sucked for a long time. I’d love to see them and federal prosecutions reigned in some.
But I also understand why it’s not the current priority. And it’s not due to a sudden leftist love for them,

[Curle]

No. You don’t understand the meaning of 1) reductionism; and 2) hypocrisy. You think your opponents are some special type of hypocrite. Period. End stop.

It’s an particularly unenlightening form of partisanship but at least you’ve outed yourself. It will save me the trouble of bothering with your ‘insights’ in the future.

[bevis the lumberjack]

“The FBI has sucked for a long time”.

Thank you. That’s the one and only point that I’m here to make. And that the long term suckage renders them untrustworthy.

That guy is trying to turn the thing into a right wing hypocrisy thing because they change their opinion of the FBI depending on who is getting pursued, while ignoring the fact that the left does the same damn thing. And trying to say that the rights out people into groups and ignoring the tendency of the progressive left to put us all into buckets.

He’s an idiot and I took him off of ignore to try again, but I’ve corrected that mistake.

[Nige]

'Which is why the world at large is filled with dead victims of white conservatives'

Yes, Iraq and Afghanistan are full of them.

[Nige]

It's not hypocrisy to approve of the FBI going after criminals while deploring them for going after non-criminals or violating the rights of people whether they are or aren't criminals.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Look at this pair of boobies!

https://static01.nyt.com/images/2017/03/07/science/07sci-boobies-social/07sci-boobies-social-superJumbo.jpg

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Obama is/was a white conservative?

[damikesc]

The same people supporting Democrats (the Cheneys are certainly not fond of modern Republicans)? Those guys?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

That's an excuse not support for your beliefs.

[damikesc]

"If you don’t know about the prevalence of aggressive no knock raids and other similar tactics by now I don’t know what I can do for you."

I'll note the lack of evidence that the FBI does this is similar cases to this.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

That's not what militarization means.

And you're gonna be shocked when you find out what they did when arresting Epstein.

[damikesc]

Conservatives have had little use for federal law enforcement for going on 30 years.

I do not care how bad a guy Randy Weaver may have been, the ATF was grossly negligent and nobody was punished for it.

[damikesc]

Perhaps disarming the populace is a stupid idea, since only criminals and cops will be armed afterwards.

[David Nieporent]

His comment wasn't about the FBI. It was about conservatives. Conservatives view law enforcement as something to be done to other people, for the benefit of conservatives.

[David Nieporent]

…is not the FBI’s typical approach when handling minor sidewalk altercations.

And… there it is. Assault is a "minor sidewalk altercation." Trying to overthrow the government is "tourism." Because the culprits are white right wingers.

[David Nieporent]

I think it’s an unfair comparison. When people say they “Back the Blue” they are generally referring to actual local police, the people who come when you call 911 to report a robbery, domestic violence, noisy neighbor, etc. You know, people who are sworn to protect, and are in the local community, not some huge Federal Agency who couldn’t give two f***s through a rolling doughnut about incidents like that, because it’s obviously not part of their mission.

I think that makes the point. When conservatives talk about “back the blue,” they mean “People who rough up black people are fine; people who arrest conservatives are evil."

(Hint: local cops are not “sworn to protect.” In fact, they pretty much do no protecting. Even your example isn't about protecting! Showing up to take a report after you call them to report a burglary isn't protecting; it's paperwork. When there's actual protecting to be done, they cower in fear.)

[David Nieporent]

This doesn't have much of anything to do with the Patriot Act.

[David Nieporent]

That’s the opposite of what “forfeit” means.

I mean, that pretty much depends which perspective you're looking at it from. The property owner is forfeiting his property.

[Absaroka]

My experience has been different. Before age 30 I called 911 exactly once, for a (literal) dumpster fire. At age 30 we moved to a pretty high crime area, and lived there for the next 25 years. High crime not just because the stats said so, but because, for example, we learned to only call in shots fired if they were within a couple hundred yards. Past that, you can't localize them well enough to be useful. We called 911 maybe a couple of times a year in that period for assaults in progress in front of our house, shots fired nearby, etc. Not counting when we were burgled.

My sense of the police I encountered in those times is that they were professional, courageous, and trying their best to protect the majority of the population that, even in a high crime area, are obeying the law from the crooks who prey on them.

That's not to say that there aren't bad policemen - one can just watch the news or endless youtube videos to find examples of disgraceful cops. But I didn't personally encounter any, and I had enough interactions to have a reasonably large sample size.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's worse than that: People got promoted for it. Small wonder that Ruby Ridge was followed by worse. Horiuchi got sent to Waco and ended up sniping Davidians, too.