FBI Leadership Credibility Problem

DoJ's public corruption leadership has a credibilty problem.

Talk about (in my opinion) worthless leadership. Going by the way people under his command act, you might want to follow-up on what Burrus is saying. What's his plan to ensure this type of misconduct is resolved; and that the training, management problems within the FBI are addressed:

Ref: Agent problems -- use this as a reference; it's old, but still appropriate

Ref: Another old report, but still relevant.

Encourage the Judiciary Committee Chairman review the FBI misconduct reports; and ask Burrus what is plan is to adequately oversee, train, and supervise the SACs. Then compare his statements with the agent reports filed with DOJ OPR. There's a discipline problem, and Burrus appears to be part of the problem, not the solution.

* * *

FBI units claim they'll move on evidence related to public corruption. Don't believe them. They're known for rebuffing information, and being arrogant toward informants.

Here's a sample raid in Illinois.

* * *

Seems fairly foolish, if they really wanted to catch people, to announce they're going to do something. Then again, if you don't have the competent resources or leadership, make people believe you do. Hope nobody makes inquiries into how much information has been rebuffed; or the incompetence of the FBI agent senior leadership in effectively managing cases.

FBI has a bad habit of publicly saying one thing, but doing something else. If they were serious about gathering evidence and providing leadership, why do they spend so much time worrying about public perceptions, but stifling agents who attempt to lawfully prosecute those within their ranks who are not able to effectively manage evidence?

James "Chip" Burrus, formerly with Tampa's Office of Professional Responsibility, doesn't have a stellar reputation in the FBI. Rather than look into things, he's got a reputation for shutting down problems, making things going away, and encouraging others to slam people. He may say he's investigating something, but it would be best to check the records and find out whether the agents he's overseeing really know what they're doing; or whether they like to make excuses not to take information.

The personnel under his command need more no-notice visits by the Congressional Judiciary Committees to evaluate their competence; ability to effectively manage cases; and competently work with those in the public sector who have material information related to public corruption cases.

Rather than simply accept information, his agents will run people through a gauntlet of accusations -- and Americans wonder why HUMINT sources are drying up. We've got a major war, and the intelligence community, working hand in glove with white collar, knows all about doing the most they can to most annoy those who might be in a position to provide them assistance. DoJ does an excellent job at targeting those who might be in a position to provide them assistance.

If you want to have a program to engage in domestic surveillance of the US Congress, then you need to have people in place who have a track record of competently demonstrating that the personnel under their command are able to lead, are professional, and can independently work without constant reminders, supervision, or training. All that information in the Intel Link system, and the FBI has buffoonery.

Someone needs to find out who's done the whitewash on the training, oversight, and supervisory records and helped make some inconvenient personnel problems go away. Watch your back around Burrus -- he works with bungling snakes who are on edge, and not all that bright. On a no-notice basis, send in some of the Congressional Auditors and DoJ Inspector General agents to the various offices Burrus oversees and review:

___ Presidential war crimes. What's the criminal division's plan to lawfully prosecute the President; or work with other prosecutors to end this President's war crimes; is there a plan; or does the Criminal Division plan to sit on their rear end, waiting for the pulbic to come forward, then blame the public for daring to have confidence in the FBI?

___ Review FBI standards of conduct, and do integrity testing. If you are concerned about combating public corruption, why does the public have to know the statutes, rules of evidence and DC House/Senate ethics standards better than the FBI agents working under your command?

___Compare the Intel Link policies for DoJ-FBI with procedures auditors observe. Is there a reason, despite the well promulgated policies and procedures on Intel Link related to DoJ policies and instructions on intelligence, that personnel under his command have a bad reputation for having trouble comprehending simple instructions, policies, and other well promulgated guidance?

___ Review timeliness of DOJ OPR complaint reviews; effectiveness of resolution with initial complaints filed with DoJ OPR. How are DoJ OPR reviews of the FBI standard of conduct: Why does the public have to know the FBI agent standards of conduct better than the SACs;

___ Continue off-hour monitoring. How effectively are the duty officers at the DC offices in translating their lessons learned, checklists, and Intel Link policies into effective practices to competently manage information?

___ Evaluate responsiveness to novel situations. Is there a reason that the off-duty personnel working for Burrus have a problem comprehending simple checklists; or fail to respond to simple instructions?

___ Evaluate effectiveness of assistance. Do the agents under his command in the DC office effectively respond to inquiries of the DC command office; or do they fumble around with checklists unable to handle simple problems.

___ Compare peer reports with agent discipline files. How effectively do the SACs resolve disciplinary issues.

___ Review the adequacy of the implemented management solution. How effectively does the DoJ OPR process information related to reported management problems?

___ Follow-up on initial issues. Is there a reason that discipline, personnel, and other management issues within the DC office have a problem getting resolved; or does Burrus have another explanation why the agents provide inconsistent stories about what is or isn't happening?

___ Competence of problem resolution and oversight. Does he really look into the problem, or make it go away?

___ Scope of management reviews. How much information does Chip have about an issue; or does he make a decision about a case management issue, and massage public perceptions to make everyone believe there's nothing to be concerned with?

___ Randomly, without notice evaluate agent conduct, effectiveness in responding to no notice walk ins. Is the public statement about a "concern" with corruption backed up by a training program that adequately trains agents on how to work with informants to receive, collect, and adequately manage incoming evidence?

___ Compare agent policies stated over the phone to (a) actual procedures used; and 9b) procedures trained; and (c) procedures in DoJ-Intel Link policies. Is there a demonstrated track record of the agents under his command competently accepting tips, information, and competently managing the evidence; or is the evidence regularly rebuffed on false declination claims that only a US Attorney can make?

___ Evaluate various agent’s ability to assess novel situations, and innocuous information. If you claim that you're interested in public corruption, why are your personnel not in a position to competently receive information?

___ Compare public statements with demonstrated agent conduct. If you claim that you really want to provide leadership to the FBI, why is your example not inspiring FBI agents to act with professionalism?