3 ms·

Yes, it's unheard of for agents in a "different investigative team" (that, BTW, happens to be involved in shaking down suspects) to, say, provide illegally obt

Yes, it's unheard of for agents in a "different investigative team" (that, BTW, happens to be involved in shaking down suspects) to, say, provide illegally obtained evidence to their coworkers. The government is very strict about tracking the source of evidence so it can be turned over to the defense; otherwise it'd be a clear Brady violation. They could face as much as a light chastizement from a federal judge! http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/epidemic_of_brady_violations_decried_in_kozinski_opinion http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/epidemic_of_brady_vio...

tptacek 12y ago
Is there some link you can point us to suggesting that that's happened in this case? There are 113,000 employees at DOJ, so, statistically, every case is always going to be one or two hops away from some kind of malfeasance somewhere, right?
- woah 12y ago
  Your comment is disingenuous. The case was not "one or two hops away" from malfeasance, it was the subject of said malfeasance. The fact that neither of the bad actors testified in court, and that they may have been working in a separate office does not change this.
  - tptacek 12y ago
    It's disingenuous to ask if the "tainted" investigation is actually linked to the one that produced Ulbricht's conviction?
- venomsnake 12y ago
  In that case we talk about very close investigations. So the chances of cross contamination are higher, IMO. And IIRC we still have no idea how the server was found in the first place.
- fiatmoney 12y ago
  If the complaint is "the DOJ routinely hides evidence and engages in corrupt behavior", it isn't exactly a counterargument to say "but you're always near some corruption at the DOJ, and besides, the DOJ hasn't released any evidence that they're not to be trusted". It is entirely likely, a priori, that there will be abuses in a system where violations of the law are, to a close approximation, unpunished, it is to their great professional benefit to violate the law, and it is to their great professional benefit to ignore violations of the law by their coworkers. Nothing in this indictment makes me revise that opinion downwards. Besides which, these agents in particular have a pattern (according to the indictment) of initiating investigations against targets who had become obstacles to their corruption.
  - tptacek 12y ago
    There are over 100,000 employees at DOJ, and it would be an extraordinary claim to suggest that enough of them are corrupt to make this kind of corruption routine. It might be true, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Note that because of selection bias, links to Brady stories probably don't constitute "extraordinary" evidence.

tptacek 12y ago

Is there some link you can point us to suggesting that that's happened in this case? There are 113,000 employees at DOJ, so, statistically, every case is always going to be one or two hops away from some kind of malfeasance somewhere, right?

woah 12y ago
Your comment is disingenuous. The case was not "one or two hops away" from malfeasance, it was the subject of said malfeasance. The fact that neither of the bad actors testified in court, and that they may have been working in a separate office does not change this.
- tptacek 12y ago
  It's disingenuous to ask if the "tainted" investigation is actually linked to the one that produced Ulbricht's conviction?
venomsnake 12y ago
In that case we talk about very close investigations. So the chances of cross contamination are higher, IMO. And IIRC we still have no idea how the server was found in the first place.
fiatmoney 12y ago
If the complaint is "the DOJ routinely hides evidence and engages in corrupt behavior", it isn't exactly a counterargument to say "but you're always near some corruption at the DOJ, and besides, the DOJ hasn't released any evidence that they're not to be trusted". It is entirely likely, a priori, that there will be abuses in a system where violations of the law are, to a close approximation, unpunished, it is to their great professional benefit to violate the law, and it is to their great professional benefit to ignore violations of the law by their coworkers. Nothing in this indictment makes me revise that opinion downwards. Besides which, these agents in particular have a pattern (according to the indictment) of initiating investigations against targets who had become obstacles to their corruption.
- tptacek 12y ago
  There are over 100,000 employees at DOJ, and it would be an extraordinary claim to suggest that enough of them are corrupt to make this kind of corruption routine. It might be true, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Note that because of selection bias, links to Brady stories probably don't constitute "extraordinary" evidence.