5 ms·

The cognitive dissonance here is at another level. Had FBI staff refused to work on these cases when the Bureau directed them to, would that not have been exact

by abeppu 2y ago

The cognitive dissonance here is at another level. Had FBI staff refused to work on these cases when the Bureau directed them to, would that not have been exactly the "deep state" behavior that the Trump conspiracy fringe complained about for years?

tacitusarc 2y ago
Or if the Justice Department directed the Bureau and the FBI refused, that would be a clear example of this sort of administrative power Trump’s coalition supposedly hates. The FBI also has a reputation as populated by generally very straight laced conservatives, so this is an odd situation to watch unfold.
apothegm 2y ago
The issue isn’t the compliance with the order. It’s the order being issued in the first place.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- abeppu 2y ago
  But - Responding to the agency-level decision to pursue these doesn't need the info on these 5k staff - The decision to investigate these is part of the FBIs job. Very obvious, visible crimes took place. It doesn't matter whether you agree with the perpetrators on some things; they broke the law as written. The outcome of investigations was convincing enough to get a lot of convictions (btw should we expect judges to be targeted next?). There have been times when the FBI pursued stuff where it wasn't clear that a crime occurred. I recall seeing stuff about the FBI tailing casual environmental activists going to some small peaceful protest. Those politically motivated wastes of resources when there was a lot of room for discretion are perhaps cause for concern. Jan 6 people who broke into a federal building, attacked police officers, and destroyed property are not such a case.
  - benmmurphy 2y ago
    Its difficult to gauge exactly what issue the current administration has with the FBIs handling of Jan6. However, there are some people from the conservative side of politics that believe crimes were committed on Jan6, the people deserved to be punished for those crimes but the prosecution went too far and used novel applications of the obstruction law that was wildly inappropriate. For example it can be entirely consistent to believe people should be punished for shop lifting but they should not be executed for shop lifting.
    - abeppu 2y ago
      - the FBI itself doesn't control prosecution right? The DOJ more broadly does, but the FBI doesn't pick the prosecution's legal strategy as I understand it. But if the prosecution attempts to overreach, we rely on courts to reject those arguments, not purges. - your analogy to shop-lifting seems like quite a stretch. Unlike shoplifting, assault is a violent crime. To my understanding, no Jan 6 convict was executed or sentenced to death. Prison sentences for assaulting an officer don't seem wildly out of line. The defendants had in some cases explicitly expressed their plan to e.g. abduct congressional representatives. This was not shop lifting.

by abeppu 2y ago

tacitusarc 2y ago

Or if the Justice Department directed the Bureau and the FBI refused, that would be a clear example of this sort of administrative power Trump’s coalition supposedly hates. The FBI also has a reputation as populated by generally very straight laced conservatives, so this is an odd situation to watch unfold.

apothegm 2y ago

The issue isn’t the compliance with the order. It’s the order being issued in the first place.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
abeppu 2y ago
But - Responding to the agency-level decision to pursue these doesn't need the info on these 5k staff - The decision to investigate these is part of the FBIs job. Very obvious, visible crimes took place. It doesn't matter whether you agree with the perpetrators on some things; they broke the law as written. The outcome of investigations was convincing enough to get a lot of convictions (btw should we expect judges to be targeted next?). There have been times when the FBI pursued stuff where it wasn't clear that a crime occurred. I recall seeing stuff about the FBI tailing casual environmental activists going to some small peaceful protest. Those politically motivated wastes of resources when there was a lot of room for discretion are perhaps cause for concern. Jan 6 people who broke into a federal building, attacked police officers, and destroyed property are not such a case.
- benmmurphy 2y ago
  Its difficult to gauge exactly what issue the current administration has with the FBIs handling of Jan6. However, there are some people from the conservative side of politics that believe crimes were committed on Jan6, the people deserved to be punished for those crimes but the prosecution went too far and used novel applications of the obstruction law that was wildly inappropriate. For example it can be entirely consistent to believe people should be punished for shop lifting but they should not be executed for shop lifting.
  - abeppu 2y ago
    - the FBI itself doesn't control prosecution right? The DOJ more broadly does, but the FBI doesn't pick the prosecution's legal strategy as I understand it. But if the prosecution attempts to overreach, we rely on courts to reject those arguments, not purges. - your analogy to shop-lifting seems like quite a stretch. Unlike shoplifting, assault is a violent crime. To my understanding, no Jan 6 convict was executed or sentenced to death. Prison sentences for assaulting an officer don't seem wildly out of line. The defendants had in some cases explicitly expressed their plan to e.g. abduct congressional representatives. This was not shop lifting.