Internal Investigations Lead To FBI Firing Of Supervisory Intel Analyst For Child Porn

easyt65

Diamond Member
Aug 4, 2015
90,307
61,132
2,645
"The FBI has fired a supervisory intelligence analyst (SIA) after an internal watchdog investigation concluded that the official had knowingly possessed and viewed child pornography..."

..and another FBI scumbag escapes prosecution:

"Prosecution of the SIA was declined."

Lack of 'Equal Justice' continues as Deep State / Criminal Org scumbags are still protected.




.
 
If it were an average Joe like you or I, they would throw the fucking book at us. There still remains ONE standard for non-government people and ANOTHER for government assholes.

Noah Webster's 1828 Dictionary - Tyranny

1. Arbitrary or despotic exercise of power; the exercise of power over subjects and others with a rigor not authorized by law or justice, or not requisite for the purposes of government. Hence tyranny is often synonymous with cruelty and oppression.

Arbitrary

1. Depending on will or discretion; not governed by any fixed rules; as, an arbitrary decision; an arbitrary punishment. [.] Arbitrary power is most easily established on the ruins of liberty abused to licentiousness.

.
 
"The FBI has fired a supervisory intelligence analyst (SIA) after an internal watchdog investigation concluded that the official had knowingly possessed and viewed child pornography..."

..and another FBI scumbag escapes prosecution:

"Prosecution of the SIA was declined."

Lack of 'Equal Justice' continues as Deep State / Criminal Org scumbags are still protected.




.
So Horowitz (the OIG at Justice Dept) said the senior intelligence agent at the FBI was "in violation of federal law and FBI policy,". And "The OIG has completed its investigation and provided its report to the FBI,". Who at Justice turned down prosecution and for what reason? Sounds like the pictures (when analyzed) showed the crime. Do they give reason whenever they decline prosecution or are we just to assume favoritism?
 
Devils advocate here -- enough evidence to justify firing, but not enough to convict criminally.

I don't trust the devils advocate by the way!
 
Devils advocate here -- enough evidence to justify firing, but not enough to convict criminally.


So is the FBI ... or someone in the DOJ ... saying 'Child Porn' is enough justification for firing someone....but is not illegal and therefore should not result in indictment / prosecution? Or just not for FBI ? Deep State 'team members'...?
 
Devils advocate here -- enough evidence to justify firing, but not enough to convict criminally.


So is the FBI ... or someone in the DOJ ... saying 'Child Porn' is enough justification for firing someone....but is not illegal and therefore should not result in indictment / prosecution? Or just not for FBI ? Deep State 'team members'...?
The devil's advocate did not say that.
 

Forum List

Back
Top