Given the malfeasance shown by FBI agents during the 2016 election, this story will not come as a surprise. But it is important nonetheless. A 2018 audit of the Bureau shows that at least some of its members have been up to no good over the past few years.
The Washington Times obtained the audit and reported that “FBI employees and informants authorized to break the law in hundreds of cases violated the agency’s rules dozens of times over nearly two years.”
From the report:
The FBI and attorney general’s rules allow FBI officials and informants to disregard the law in undercover work but prevent certain conduct such as violence and illegal wiretaps and searches. The government may approve illegal measures such as the movement of drugs, payment of bribes and selling of stolen goods.
The internal review showed 82 “compliance errors” in 466 open cases involving “otherwise illegal activity” for confidential human sources from Sept. 28, 2016, to July 22, 2018. “Otherwise illegal activity” refers to government-approved lawbreaking that would be a crime if the federal government does not authorize it.
Patrick Eddington, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, told The Washington Times that legalized lawbreaking is among the “most radical slippery slopes” in law enforcement. He was the one who revealed the audit as a part of litigation against the Bureau. He said:
“When you have the FBI essentially engaging in what amounts to the law enforcement version of covert action, which I think is a really pretty fair way to characterize it, I think everybody ought to be really concerned about that, especially since it’s just clearly not something that’s gotten anything remotely in the way of the kind of attention that it really deserves.”
The Times noted that five incidents involving law-breaking were instances in which individuals failed to obtain authorization to violate rules. At least one involved breaking the law in a way that fell outside the scope of the activity the government allowed.
Most of these incidents – 77 “errors” – were situations in which an employee failed to “document admonishments by special agents or other government officials regarding the FBI employees’ illegal actions,” according to The Times.
Naturally, the FBI claims it attempts to deal with errors uncovered in audits. They implement training and “programmatic changes” to reduce the number of errors. “While we strive to avoid any compliance errors, the review did not identify any intentional misconduct or activities undertaken for an improper purpose,” the Bureau explained.
However, “[n]one of the FBI employees’ or informants’ illegal conduct was revealed in the audit,” according to the report. This particular audit did not look at 35 other cases in which auditors identified rule-breaking.
The types of lawbreaking employees are allowed to engage in aren’t quite clear as the government does not seem to be forthcoming with these details. The rules on the type of laws individuals can break are “littered with redactions shielding the rules from public view” according to the report.
Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI), who happens to be a former FBI agent, said it is not as easy for employees to obtain permission to break the law as it might seem on television shows.
“You can get approval for a lot as long as it makes sense and it’s safe and no one gets hurt and there’s not a death, bodily harm involved,” he said. “There’s a lot you can do, which is why in some cases informants can move small amounts of drugs in order to facilitate a larger investigation and something like that.”
After a 2019 audit of the Bureau was reported by The Times Congress launched an inquiry into the matter. On Monday, the Senate Judiciary Committee requested that Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz look into rule-breaking in the FBI.
The fact that the Bureau can break laws and violate rules without the public having any insight into the guidelines they must follow should be concerning to any American. The fact that this information only recently came to light means there is likely a multitude of areas in which agents have abused their power.
We have already seen what can happen when the Bureau’s resources are weaponized for political purposes. Special counsel John Durham’s investigation might turn up more examples of wrongdoing on the part of agents than what has already been revealed. Perhaps if Horowitz’s investigation turns up more egregious “errors,” it might get more attention on this issue.
