PrintThe FBI may have just made the best case for dismantling itself
I can't imagine there are really that many Americans left — outside the FBI — who actually believe that the agency is impartial, reverent to blind justice, or even adherent to the limits of their own stated mission, which is to "protect the American people and uphold the Constitution of the United States."
At this point, those notions would be laughable, especially after what we saw happen at Mar-a-Lago.
To add to all of that, Tucker Carlson recently covered some highly disturbing allegations, from what we're being told, is an FBI whistleblower. If you missed the segment, watch the clip below:
If this turns out to be true, the FBI will have unknowingly provided two fantastic defenses for the ever-growing argument to splinter the derelict Bureau into a thousand pieces.
"Child sexual abuse material [pornography] investigations" are no longer a ranking concern.
The first, and the most obvious and uncomplicated, is that if this federal law enforcement agency won't even prioritize the most heinous crimes committed against the most innocent and defenseless, of which child pornography most certainly is one, what good is it?
For the 2022 fiscal year, the FBI budget request was well over $10 billion — hilariously, the FBI chooses to write its numbers in the tens of thousands of millions (yes, you read that right), presumably in an effort to mislead any prying citizens. It's not $10.3 billion; it's "$10,275.8 million." Aside from the fact that the FBI lacks the constitutional merit to exist (which I will address shortly), one could argue that bringing creators and voyeurs of child pornography to justice is paramount over any other injustice and deserving of every dollar. If the FBI chooses to disregard the created role of protector, then no doubt it forfeits any legitimacy or usefulness.
Secondly, there is a more nuanced defense that arises from the whistleblower's statement. According to the gentleman in question, when he was told about the policy change, the higher-ups then expressed that any alleged crimes involving "child sexual abuse material" "should be referred to local law enforcement agencies [emphasis added]" — ergo, state-level or lower law enforcement.
I find this quite cosmic. In 1789, Congress passed the Judiciary Act, which created the position of attorney general, which was intended to be a part-time. According to the act, the attorney general was simply a retained lawyer, and the duties were:
[T]o prosecute and conduct all suits in the Supreme Court in which the United States shall be concerned, and to give his advice and opinion upon questions of law when required by the President of the United States, or when requested by the heads of any departments[.]
But then, in 1870, Congress passed legislation that created the Department of Justice and placed the attorney general at the helm, and in 1908, we saw the quiet addition of armed federal agents:
From its beginning as a one-man, part-time position, the Department of Justice has evolved into the world's largest law office and the chief enforcer of federal laws.
Such is life.
However, if we refer to the supreme governing document, the Founders explicitly laid out who was responsible to "execute the Laws of the Union" (in layman's terms, federal laws), and it certainly wasn't a federal bureaucratic agency. It was "the Militia."
Article I, Section 8 enumerates Congress's authority and dictates that enforcement of federal laws is to be done at the hands of the Militia. So what is a militia? Well, in Federalist 46, James Madison wrote that it is composed of "citizens with arms in their hands[.]"
We see the Constitution expressly defined the party responsible for law enforcement (armed citizens dispatched at the behest of Congress), but furthermore, it failed to delegate authority to Congress to create a federal agency to usurp these duties — and per the Tenth Amendment, "powers not delegated" to the federal government "are reserved to the States" or "to the people."
Constitutional law enforcement has always been a local obligation.
If the statement is accurate, and the FBI brass themselves expressly rejected their pseudo-authority, they just unwittingly acknowledged the fact their existence is unnecessary — it's a disposable agency, and apparently its leadership agrees.
Can we blame them, though, for wanting to avoid investigating sex crimes against children? If they didn't shy away, they'd be forced to investigate Hunter and Joe Biden and fellow federal agents. The left would actually go nuclear.
Image: Public domain via Wikimedia Commons.
