Shorter DOJ: It’s No Big Deal if DEA Agents Destroy Evidence
DOJ’s Inspector General wrote Senators Collins and Lieberman a letter summarizing its investigation into DEA Agents involved in the Secret Service sex scandal in Cartagena, Colombia.
What’s getting attention is that the DEA agents arranged a prostitute for a SS Agent. All three engaged sex workers the night in question.
But what should be getting attention is that the DEA agents, when they learned about the scope of the investigation, deleted incriminating information from their Blackberries. And DOJ–in part because it conducted compelled interviews it knew couldn’t be used in a prosecution–won’t charge them.
The OIG investigation found further that all three DEA agents had deleted data from their DEA issued Blackberry devices, and that DEA agents #1 and #2 did so after learning of the scope and nature of the OIG’s investigation. DEA agent #1 admitted to the OIG that he deleted relevant data from his Blackberry after being requested to surrender his device to the OIG. DEA agent #2 stated that he “wiped” all data from his Blackberry before providing it to the OIG, but denied that he intended to obstruct the OIG investigation. He stated that he wiped all data from his Blackberry in an effort to conceal embarrassing communications between him and his wife.
The investigation was an administrative review and all of the interviews of the DEA agents were compelled. Given all of those facts and circumstances, we did not view the matter to warrant criminal prosecution.
By compelling the interviews, the IG effectively immunized the DEA Agents, ensuring they could not be charged with obstruction. Not to mention, the Scott Bloch precedent–in which he deleted evidence and now DOJ is bending over backward to make sure he doesn’t pay any price for lying about doing so–makes it clear that DOJ will never prosecute one of its own for the kind of crime they prosecute others for all the time.
Still, let it be know that DOJ doesn’t give a shit that its DEA Agents obstruct justice and delete evidence.
Swore I wasn’t going to do this. But this report, the “official” reaction and EW’s recognition of what’s being ignored is, well, too perfect not to dust off Mel Brooks’ summation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTmfwklFM-M
If they’re saying that laws only apply to other people, why are they bothering to enforce any laws?
/pissed citizen
@P J Evans: I think they’re saying the laws are in place to use as an excuse to keep the little people away from the government and the banks.
@emptywheel:
Works for a while. But at some point they have to choose which side of the law they want to be on, and future administrations may, if we’re lucky, have better ethics.
@P J Evans: You forgot the /snark tag.
Eric Holder may be the most damaging AG in US history before he is done.
@JTMinIA:
I’m not entirely sure that’s snark. But I don’t think it’s really likely to happen.
@Tom in AZ:
It’s hard to believe someone who appears to be that qualified could be worse than Alberto. But then it’s hard to believe that someone who taught con law would cheerfully shred the Constitution.