Several specific cases bring this point to light.

For example, did the FBI initiate preliminary or full inquiries into allegations of fraud against the government by ACORN? If so, were the fraud cases closed by the respective U.S. Attorneys, by the Department of Justice, or by the Attorney General himself? As one senior agent has described the matter, such cases seem to have “vaporized.” Will the pending “ethics” cases in Congress prompt FBI inquiries, or have they already? If not, why not? Did the FBI initiate inquiries into the White House bribery scheme that allegedly offered jobs to candidates if they dropped out of political races? Again, if not, why not?

Why was the investigative phase of the public corruption case of former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich terminated before possible bribers were identified? A hypothetical is making its way through the FBI grapevine in that Chicago United States Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald may be a contender to replace outgoing FBI Director Robert Mueller. Few who claim to know Mr. Fitzgerald, or who peruse his resume, would say this in itself would be bad for the Bureau and federal law enforcement. But it must be asked: what impact did Mr. Fitzgerald have in pulling the plug on the Blagojevich inquiry, or at what level was it pulled? Title III (wiretap) cases, such as Blagojevich’s, are difficult to develop within the FBI, requiring additional approval at “Main Justice”, and then authorization by a federal judge. Once begun, “overhear cases” require the bugging of phones, offices, cars, and even homes and are therefore extremely labor-intensive.

If there is enough evidence or credible informant information to warrant the installation and maintenance of a wiretap, then the case must be followed through to its evidentiary or logical conclusion. Bribees have bribers in mind, and in the Blagojevich matter it is alleged that the bribee was “trolling” for or soliciting bribes. Why was the wiretap stopped – if indeed it was – before the evidentiary leads were exhausted? Were the solicitations and courting by the former Illinois Governor getting too close to politically sensitive persons? Sadly, the curious nature of this public corruption case is not an anomaly of late. The well-worn, although accurate, description for following terrorism matters is “connecting the dots”. In all public corruption matters, agents and prosecutors must “close the circle”.

The reasons for not closing the circle in this and other recent corruption cases need to be uncovered and made public. We have to count on FBI agents professionally and faithfully doing their job, even if FBI leadership appears to choose not to stay above the fray. The Bureau must unconditionally resist becoming tainted by a Department of Justice that appears to have become politically compromised.

John Werner, Washington DC
FBI Special Agent (RET)
Board Member, Foundation for Ethics in Public Service

Frank L. Perry, PhD, Raleigh NC
FBI Special Agent (RET)
Co-Founder, Foundation for Ethics in Public Service

“It’s awfully easy not to manage it well. Some of it was shoveled out the door without the recipients having a firm understanding of what has to be done.”

Read more: http://www.newsobserver.com/2010/07/25/596627/economy-debate-alike-stimulated.html#storylink=misearch#ixzz0uuRz2qMe

The topic of discussion was the black eye North Carolina is getting from continuing ethics violations and potentially pending indictments. To listen to the interview, go to ‘The Big Talker’ Facebook page and look under the Music Player section on the left hand side. There are 2 parts so make sure to listen to them both.