The New York Times has reported that the FBI had an undercover informant amid the protestors that entered the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 who had related to them his knowledge of the demonstrators' plans beforehand and his observations of events in the building in real time.
According to the Times, the informant told the FBI in advance that there was no plan by his colleagues to disrupt the government.
The presence of the informant as a de facto federal agent at the scene before, during and after the commission of what the government considers to be serious felonies raises serious constitutional questions about the FBI's behavior.
Can the government insert a person into a group under criminal investigation - or "Flip" a person who is already in the group - and use him for surveillance without a search warrant? And, when they do this, must prosecutors tell defense attorneys about their informant, particularly if his knowledge and observations are inconsistent with the government's version of events? Here is the backstory.
The Fourth Amendment was ratified to force the government to focus its searches on evidence of crimes for which the government had probable cause, and to protect the privacy and security of "Persons, houses, papers, and effects" by requiring search warrants before the government could invade any of them.
The Department of Justice requires approval by FBI management before an agent can engage an informant.
Who knows what the FBI knew of Jan. 6 ahead of time - and did nothing about - or why it conveniently looked the other way during the events in the Capitol? We do know that every FBI agent and federal prosecutor has taken an oath to uphold the Constitution, whether convenient or not.
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2022/03/andrew-p-napolitano/what-did-the-fbi-know/
No comments:
Post a Comment