Give us a break…. and by “us” I mean the current and former members of the FBI and DoJ that are facing the justified skepticism of the citizens we swore to protect. Due to the actions of a few, the overall trust of the American public, previously enjoyed by both agencies is arguably at an all-time low. Tinfoil hat folks excepted, the general public has always extended the benefit of the doubt to FBI agents in the performance of their duties. This deference was hard-earned by investigators and prosecutors who made the thousands of prominent cases that forged the Bureau’s reputation.

The misuse of their positions has already cost the malefactors their jobs. Whingeing over treatment at the hands of those that hurt their feelings only brings further discredit to the organization that once employed them.

To the recently fired/resigned employees most well known for their inappropriate personal relationship and ill-advised communication over government devices:

As FBI employees receiving assigned government phones, we were all asked to sign an acknowledgment that we had certain responsibilities with respect to usage of those devices. Along with the restrictions that one would expect; (primarily for official business, minimal personal use allowed, don’t discuss or transmit classified material, etc.) was the reminder that we had no expectation of privacy in using the device. We were further reminded that any digital communication over said devices, be it an email, text, instant message, dialed and/or received telephone numbers would be archived at FBIHQ. For an experienced investigator, the last tidbit is what’s known as a clue. The thinking agent understands, and is reminded annually, that any communication over the “Bu phone” is going to be captured, archived, and preserved for whatever use the owner of the device (the government, and by extension, the taxpayer) deems appropriate. The part about “no expectation of privacy” is a powerful hint that the government does not need a warrant to look at anything on your government issued device at any time for any reason.

Every agent who has worked a case of any significance understands the rules of the road in bringing that case for prosecution. The idea that “investigators” in the most senior positions were unaware that it was wildly inappropriate to have prejudicial and highly inflammatory text conversations about the subject of an investigation….over government devices, defies reason. The fact that these individuals were immediately dismissed from their roles in the Mueller investigation when this activity came to light, validates the assertion that their actions were unacceptable. Had these investigators been working a criminal case, all of their communications over these devices would have been discoverable by the defense. Any prosecuting attorney would have “had their heads” for effectively wrecking his or her case.

As background, the FBI entity responsible for enforcing policy and awarding discipline to wayward employees is known as the Office of Professional Responsibility or OPR.  The accepted rule of thumb among FBI Agents as it applies to OPR is as follows: you can survive (job intact) almost any misstep or rule violation as long as there are enough mitigating circumstances. There are really only two exceptions to that rule: unprofessional conduct and lack of candor. A guilty finding for one of these offenses almost universally results in firing. An agent found to be “lacking in candor” is effectively made useless as a witness in any future court proceeding. That agent is said to have a “Giglio issue” which means that every future defense attorney must be informed that the agent had previously been found to be dishonest. An example where a “lack of candor” finding would be appropriate would be if an FBI executive lied to OPR investigators about his or her knowledge of who leaked a particular story to a media outlet. A classic example of unprofessional conduct would be two senior employees hopelessly tainting the highest profile investigation in the history of the organization. The fact that both of those employees were engaged in an extramarital affair (in violation of agency policy and in conflict with their security clearances) is what’s known as an aggravating factor. Hundreds, if not thousands of FBI employees have been fired for far less.

Unsurprisingly, apologizing for your misconduct after you have already found to be lacking in candor doesn’t remove the stink of the lie, nor does it make you whole again with respect to your ability to effectively testify in the future. A documented history of unethical behavior may not preclude your service as a news commentator, but it certainly shuts the door on any usefulness as a law-enforcement officer. Also consider that being fired, or “forced to resign” does not automatically entitle the offender to recover either child-care expenses or psycho-therapy to alleviate the mental stress inflicted by unkind tweets. The American taxpayer has already shouldered enough of the burden of your misconduct by funding the fruitless investigations your actions have spawned.

To the former Director of the FBI who seems unable to refrain from embarrassing his former agency: By all appearances, you participated in an extralegal attempt to interfere in a national election and to facilitate the removal of the duly elected President. You should feel fortunate that, aside from termination, your only real consequence has been some “hurtful” tweets. Remember, you stood before the President of the United States and lied to his face regarding the status of an ongoing investigation. Despite the dissembling and Clintonian parsing of terms, your “leadership team” was investigating the President and you told him you were not. Regarding the “intimidation” you felt, I would point out that integrity is a digital character trait. It doesn’t wax and wane in the face of varying degrees of adversity. Having the “courage” to threaten President Bush with resignation over Solar Wind seems at odds with your inability to summon the “strength” to tell President Trump you were uncomfortable with the tone of a White House conversation

With regard to your removal as Director, please recall that you were recommended for dismissal by former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein due to your handling of the Midyear Exam investigation into Hillary Clinton's emails.  In DAG Rosenstein’s words: “On July 5, however, the Director announced his own conclusions about the nation's most sensitive criminal investigation, without the authorization of duly appointed Justice Department leaders.” He later adds, “Derogatory information sometimes is disclosed in the course of criminal investigations and prosecutions, but we never release it gratuitously. The Director laid out his version of the facts for the news media as if it were a closing argument, but without a trial. It is a textbook example of what federal prosecutors and agents are taught not to do.” In support of these and other charges,  DAG Rosenstein points to a short list of notables who support his conclusions. He  cites “the nearly unanimous opinions of former Department officials,” including names such as Silberman, Mukasey, Gonzales, Ayer, Gorelick, and Holder. These are former DAG Rosenstein’s own words. Until such time as he disavows them, perhaps the former director should direct his incessant op-eds at the former DAG and/or the legal authorities who supported his conclusions.  Or maybe just go through his “stages of grief’ in private.

As for the as yet unknown employees involved in fiascos like the arrest of Roger Stone, the “blanket immunization” of the potential Clinton email conspirators, the apparent ambush interview of General Michael Flynn, and any of the other assorted buffoonery recently hung around the neck of the FBI: please take your pending discipline like adults. Seriously! I’ve arrested serial killers, pedophiles, kidnappers, cop killers, terrorists, gang bangers, rapists and cannibals with less tactical fanfare than was used on white collar crime suspect Stone and his wife… and I treated them with more common courtesy once they were wearing my cuffs. If there’s a legitimate reason for any of this nonsense, please provide a coherent explanation. When and if you are called to account for a misstep, omission, or an accidental or intentional violation of your oath of office, please don’t add to the cacophony of mewling, sniveling, and  excuse-making currently on display on television, social media, and the op-ed pages.

To the general public wondering how this corruption was allowed to flourish: There are currently approximately 14,000 active FBI Agents. Of those, less than three-quarters of one percent were involved, either incidentally or directly in any of the aforementioned problem investigations. Of those agents/analysts, an even smaller number contributed work product to these cases, and a still tinier fraction had tactical decision-making authority. Those  involved, even peripherally, were reportedly compelled to sign secrecy agreements. The remaining 99 percent of agents have been busy upholding their respective oaths of office, trying to protect the public by just working their cases. Most, if not all, had absolutely no knowledge that any of these investigations even existed. Prior to the release of the Mueller and Horowitz reports, there was no hard information available to indicate the breadth of the misconduct that is now apparent. The clear misgivings many of us had as details began to leak out were not sufficient to call attention to what may have been perfectly legal and appropriate behavior. Any potential “whistleblower” needs actual firsthand knowledge in order to blow his or her whistle in good conscience. I understand that there will be a period of mistrust that follows the clear breaches committed by a small percentage of the organization. Please don’t let their deeds permanently undermine your faith in the FBI.