FBI lawyers within the agency’s National Security and Cyber Law Branch (NSCLB) have “inappropriately” weighed in on matters typically reserved for federal prosecutors, according to a report released by the Department of Justice Inspector General’s Office on Sept. 29.
According to the report, officials in the DOJ’s National Security Division (NSD) informed the Inspector General’s Office of the alleged behavior.
However, the report notes that NSD personnel stressed they did not believe that the lawyer’s overzealous behavior regarding prosecutorial decisions was part of an “organizational effort to have greater influence on those decisions.”
The report states that NSD personnel believe that these issues may arise when “NSD attorneys and more aggressive NSCLB attorneys differ on certain legal judgments.”
In such instances, the “aggressive” attorneys were likely trying to influence prosecutorial decision-making, the report said.
“When we raised the issue of differing legal advice with FBI OGC leadership, they told us that different perspectives were part of the process and should not be surprising or necessarily be viewed as confrontational,” the report states.
“For instance, as it related to disagreements related to charging decisions, FBI OGC leadership recognized that in some circumstances NSCLB attorneys have expressed frustration with NSD’s decision not to bring certain cases under statutes like the Foreign Agents Registration Act.”
‘Probable Cause for Search Warrant’
“In contrast, one NSD senior official stated that trial attorneys who worked in this official’s section reported that NSCLB attorneys sometimes told agents ‘what they wanted to hear’ about what charges were reasonable. This NSD official believed that, in cases like this, it was likely that the evidence did not support such charges,” the report adds.The report provides examples of such incidents in which lawyers have “inappropriately opined” on matters.
In one example, an FBI lawyer stated that they believed there was “sufficient evidence” to charge a target with espionage, while DOJ prosecutors maintained the view that evidence supported lesser charges, such as unauthorized disclosure of national security information or retention or transmission of classified data.
“NSD stated that this type of advice from NSCLB may set unrealistic expectations for case agents on what charges can or should be brought,” the report states. “Such instances can negatively impact the working relationship between the agent and the prosecutor.”
In another incident, an FBI lawyer determined that there was “sufficient evidence” to establish “probable cause” to obtain a search warrant but DOJ prosecutors later disagreed.
“This official explained that in such circumstances case agents may initiate operational plans for a sensitive investigation based on the NSCLB advice only to learn later about NSD’s different assessment of the evidence to show probable cause, potentially disrupting the investigation,” the report states.
Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz said that overall, the DOJ concluded that the concerns raised in the report regarding “inappropriate influence on prosecutorial decisions” by FBI attorneys were “indicative of a systemic problem.”
Nevertheless, it believes that the examples discussed in the report, “strongly suggest that improvements can be made in the collaboration, coordination, and communication efforts between NSD and NSCLB attorneys.”
Despite the examples cited in the report, the Inspector General’s Office was “advised by an NSD senior official that, in their view, FBI OGC leadership has set the correct tone and that FBI OGC leadership would agree that NSCLB attorneys should be focused on FBI policy and investigative matters,” the report also states.
The report comes after FBI agents seized documents from former President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home in August following a search warrant that was approved by Judge Bruce Reinhart on Aug. 5.
Mar-a-Lago Raid
The 45th president and the DOJ have been locked in a legal dispute over the DOJ’s claims that hundreds of documents have classified markings.A special master has been assigned to the case to determine whether any materials are protected by executive privilege or attorney-client privilege, as Trump has stated, and should thus be shielded from the DOJ probe.
Lawyers for Lindell have argued that the phone seizure violated his First, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment rights. He told The Epoch Times, “We can’t have the FBI weaponized against our people in the United States.”
The FBI concurred with the recommendations made in the latest report, adding that it will implement actions based on the recommendations within the coming weeks.
When contacted for comment, the FBI referred The Epoch Times to its response in the report.
