DOJ Inspector General Tells Congress That FBI Isn't Letting His Office Do Its Job... Again

from the Fight-Block-Impede dept

The FBI is still actively thwarting its oversight. Last fall, DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz informed the House Judiciary Committee that the FBI was routinely denying his office documents it needed to perform investigations. The withheld documents included everything from electronic surveillance information to organizational charts. Not only did the FBI refuse to hand over requested documents, but it also stonewalled OIG investigations for so long that "officials under review [had] retired or left the agencies before the report [was] complete."

Nearly six months later, the situation remains unchanged. Horowitz is again informing the House Judiciary Committee that the FBI is still less than interested in assisting his office. The same stonewalling tactics and withholding of information continues, preventing the IG from fully examining the DEA's use of administrative subpoenas.

The unfulfilled information request that causes the OIG to make this report was sent to the FBI on November 20,2014. Since that time, the FBI has made a partial production in this matter, and there have been multiple discussions between the OIG and the FBI about this request, resulting in the OIG setting a final deadline for production of all material of February 13,2015.
Both words in the phrase "final deadline" were quickly rendered meaningless by the FBI.
On February 12, 2015, the FBI informed the OIG that it would not be able to produce the remaining records by the deadline.
The FBI's fluid definition of "final deadline" apparently includes a shrugged "We don't really know when -- or if -- these documents will be produced."
The FBI gave an estimate of 1-2 weeks to complete the production but did not commit to do so by a date certain.
The FBI claims it still needs to review the requested document list to ensure nothing that's being asked for falls into its multitudinous exceptions -- like information related to grand juries, Title III electronic surveillance and, oddly, the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Horowitz's letter points out two things, the latter of which may prompt more immediate action than the first.

In the first place, the exceptions raised by the FBI do not apply to OIG investigations. Secondly, the (apparently continual) stonewalling of OIG investigations is, at best, a misuse of taxpayer funds.
Section 218 of the Appropriations Act does not permit the use of funds appropriated to the Department of Justice to deny the OIG access to records in the custody of the Department unless in accordance with an express limitation of Section 6(a) of the IG Act. The IG Act, Section 6(a), does not expressly or otherwise limit the OIG's access to the categories of information the FBI maintains it must review before providing records to the OIG. For this reason, we are reporting this matter to the Appropriations Committees in conformity with Section 218.
We'll see if the the FBI suddenly becomes a bit more helpful now that Horowitz has made a move for its wallet. But once again, this sort of activity completely undermines the arguments of those defending these agencies by pointing to the "rigorous oversight" supposedly keeping domestic surveillance in check and abuses of power to a minimum.

Filed Under: congress, doj, fbi, inspector general


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    That One Guy (profile), 27 Feb 2015 @ 4:08am

    If you're asking, not demanding, you're not the one in charge

    Any system of 'oversight' which does not include the ability for those providing the oversight to order those that they are investigating to provide the required information, with hefty, real penalties for refusal, is in the end utterly useless oversight.

    If the ones you're supposedly providing 'oversight' over can respond to your requests with 'Eh, we'll maybe get around to it at some point', and there's nothing you can do about it other than ask again, then they're the ones in charge, not you.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      nasch (profile), 27 Feb 2015 @ 4:44pm

      Re: If you're asking, not demanding, you're not the one in charge

      Absolutely, the OIG should have its own police force that can seize evidence or arrest people for contempt.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2015 @ 4:34am

    The correct response to this...

    ...is to assume malfeasance by those being investigated, and charge them to the fullest extent of the law.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2015 @ 4:46am

    If the doj refuses to prosecute banksters, what makes you think they will prosecute the fbi?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    JWW (profile), 27 Feb 2015 @ 5:33am

    It makes more sense

    It makes more sense if you always realize that the truth is 180 degrees opposite from what the administration is saying.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2015 @ 5:39am

    To big to fail

    So now in addition to banking companies that are too large to allow to be prosecuted, we have agencies that are following the same pattern?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2015 @ 5:45am

      Re: To big to fail

      More like all three letter agencies are now officially rouge and acting of their own accord and giving zero fucks.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2015 @ 8:32am

        Re: Re: To big to fail

        that's "rogue" ... unless you really intended to imply that they are all "red" ('cuz implying that they are all "makeup" makes no sense !)

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Padpaw (profile), 27 Feb 2015 @ 5:44am

    Maybe I have an uneducated view on how these sort of things are supposed to work in America, being as I am not an American.

    But how is this not illegal or at worst treason?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2015 @ 5:51am

      Re:

      Because the DOJ is supposed to be the enforcement arm and it currently is covering for the FBI to make sure certain blackmail doesn't come out.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Jeremy2020 (profile), 27 Feb 2015 @ 10:35am

      Re:

      because the US (and most countries) have laws that only apply to those not connected or wealthy enough to avoid prosecution.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Bamboo Harvester (profile), 27 Feb 2015 @ 5:59am

    Easy fix

    Retaliate in kind. No Warrants to be signed for the FBI until this matter is resolved.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2015 @ 6:40am

      Re: Easy fix

      Why help the FBI move to its new modus operandi, given that they appears to ignore them as much as possible?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Bamboo Harvester (profile), 27 Feb 2015 @ 7:05am

        Re: Re: Easy fix

        How do they present evidence seized in an illegal warrantless search in court?

        Bust a few field agents, you're never going to get to the real problem, the guys at the top, anyway.

        But jail enough low-level guys and the rest of them will think twice about kicking in a door without a warrant.

        And NSL's don't cover that kind of thing.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2015 @ 8:30am

          Re: Re: Re: Easy fix

          How do they present evidence seized in an illegal warrantless search in court?

          Simple: persuade the judge one of the numerous exceptions to requiring a warrant apply to this case. Or, hide the fact you never got a warrant.

          Bust a few field agents, you're never going to get to the real problem, the guys at the top, anyway.

          You had better get a lot of them... Otherwise they'd be more scarred of being fired than facing charges.

          But jail enough low-level guys and the rest of them will think twice about kicking in a door without a warrant.

          See above: most would probably be more worried about what their bosses can do to them.

          And NSL's don't cover that kind of thing.

          NSLs are interpreted by a secret law. It very well could cover these situations and we just have yet to be informed it does. And if they don't, Congress can pass a new law. After all, eroding civil liberties has bipartisan support in the US.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2015 @ 2:50pm

          Re: Re: Re: Easy fix

          How do they present evidence seized in an illegal warrantless search in court?

          Get the local cop to make an arrest and "I thought my life was in danger" solves the problem with presenting evidence.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          nasch (profile), 27 Feb 2015 @ 4:46pm

          Re: Re: Re: Easy fix

          How do they present evidence seized in an illegal warrantless search in court?

          "Parallel construction", aka lying about the source of the evidence.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2015 @ 11:06am

      Re: Easy fix

      And the lack of warrants for the FBI would affect them how? After all, they don't bother to get 'em already. From what I can see, the absolute worse that would happen is they would contact local law enforcement and give them enough information so that local law enforcement could engage in "parallel construction" and carry on regular business from there.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Winston Smith, 27 Feb 2015 @ 9:16am

    Numb and Dumb

    The entire system is broken and has been since a major coup some decades past, which most seem to ignore. Now it is "Let's Pretend," punctuated periodically by Dog & Pony shows called elections as a diversion from professional sports (another diversion).

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      nasch (profile), 27 Feb 2015 @ 4:48pm

      Re: Numb and Dumb

      The entire system is broken and has been since a major coup some decades past, which most seem to ignore.

      What made you conclude it was a specific event, rather than a gradual slide (or that it's always been this way and we just know more now)?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), 27 Feb 2015 @ 2:33pm

    If only there was a department created to deal with making sure justice was... oh...

    Seriously, we need to demand that Congress stop just throwing money into the pit and ignoring the obviously serious problems in "their" house.

    These are the people who are the first to say if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear, yet they are doing everything (and then some) possible to hide stuff. Americans have lost faith in the government (and even many of the people who put all of their blind faith behind them are starting to ask WTF).

    It is high time that they start doing what is required or start removing those who block it from happening. Refusal to do your job is grounds from firing for every other job (outside of Congress) in the country... start taking heads and remind them they can & will be held accountable.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Close

Add A Reply

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Insider Shop - Show Your Support!

Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.