Edition

The Federal Bureau of Investigation is one of the finest law enforcement agencies on earth—perhaps the finest. While no sprawling bureaucracy of tens of thousands of special agents, analysts and support personnel, scattered around 56 field offices nationwide, is without its malcontents and missteps, the FBI’s overall reputation is one of honesty, dedication and professionalism, deservedly so.
Given its role as America’s top law enforcement agency, the Bureau has been a lightning rod for criticism since its founding 110 years ago, and the astonishingly long tenure of J. Edgar Hoover as its director from 1924 to 1972 remains a touchy topic, not always fairly. Historically, most of the criticism of the FBI has come from civil libertarians and the Left, whereas more recently attacks on the Bureau have shifted to stemming from the Right, specifically fans of the Trump administration, who in an unhinged fashion have compared the FBI to Nazis and the KGB.
The Bureau’s top critic today is President Donald Trump himself, who ever since his inauguration has waged an ugly public campaign against the FBI, regularly accusing it of irregularities and worse in its investigation of his secret Kremlin connections. Today, Trump took to Twitter, as he so often does, and raged at the FBI again, accusing it of having a “representative implanted, for political purposes, into my campaign for president. It took place very early on, and long before the phony Russia Hoax became a ‘hot’ Fake News story. If true—all time biggest political scandal!”
If true, indeed. This is a grave accusation, and it’s false on its face. In the first place, the FBI is forbidden from engaging in any overtly political investigations. Moreover, there’s as yet no public evidence of any FBI-controlled person inside the Trump campaign in 2016 (to say nothing of the fact that moles are “planted” while fake breasts are “implanted”). Lastly, the president seems not to understand that if anyone connected to him went to the FBI to report his or her concerns about ties to Russia, that’s a very different story than the Bureau planting someone inside the Trump campaign. This matter needs resolution. Indeed, the president could settle the matter immediately by picking up the phone and asking Attorney General Jeff Sessions if these rumors are true—that’s his right as the current resident of the White House. That Trump prefers to tweet angrily about what’s alleged on Fox News speaks volumes.
Nevertheless, Trump’s public anger at the FBI is something that’s unhealthy in any law-based democracy, and it may have long-lasting effects, all of them negative. That said, the remarkable thing is that it took this long for a White House to declare open war on the Bureau. Richard Nixon came close as the walls of Watergate closed in on him—and he certainly would have if he had known that the main leaker to the media about the whole affair was the FBI’s associate director, Mark Felt, who hated the president for not appointing him director—but even Nixon’s attacks on the Bureau appear tame next to Trump’s scorched-earth campaign.
As both the leading federal law enforcement agency and our top domestic intelligence agency, the FBI occupies a uniquely powerful position in our country. This situation is frankly anomalous, an accident of American history, and may not be healthy or conducive to good governance in the 21^st century. There’s a reason that most Western democracies split law enforcement duties and spying on their own citizens between different agencies. Both those missions include a great deal of bureaucratic power, and placing them under one roof seems like an invitation to abuse if the institution is not monitored very carefully.
Although few Americans realize it, the FBI is replicated in few of our close security partners. Looking at the so-called Five Eyes espionage alliance, the Anglosphere intelligence network that’s been the world’s most powerful spy system since World War II, illustrates the difference. In Britain, the domestic intelligence mission is handled by the Security Service (popularly called MI5)—that means counterintelligence and counterterrorism, watching for foreign spies and terrorists—while the job of arresting bad guys falls to Metropolitan Police Special Branch, cops who are cleared to know state secrets, but who are not themselves spies.
Canada replicates this system, with the Canadian Security Intelligence Service as MI5 and the storied Mounties acting as Police Special Branch. It’s the same in Australia and New Zealand, with only the agencies’ names changed. Israel models its spy services on Britain and possesses its Security Agency (SHABAK in Hebrew) for domestic intelligence, which cooperates with the national police if cases lead to arrests. Germany, too, follows this model with the mouthful Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV) to monitor spies, terrorists, and extremists inside the country, while the Federal Criminal Police Office (BKA) makes arrests when needed.
In many ways, this is a better arrangement, and not just because it provides an added layer of protection to civil liberties. Americans seldom ponder it, but it may not be a wise idea to blend the spy-cop mission as the FBI does and always has. Moreover, allowing your domestic intelligence agency to focus solely on spying, instead of working as police simultaneously, may lead to more efficient counterintelligence and counterterrorism operations. Contrary to TV and movies, most domestic spy operations stop short of arrest, for good reason.
This became an issue in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, when it was apparent that the FBI had dropped some balls in counterterrorism. This had something to do with the fact that in the 1990s, its fast-track agents went into catching bank robbers and other criminals, not domestic intelligence, which after the Cold War became a career backwater. Arrests, especially high-profile ones, led to Bureau awards and promotions, while hush-hush successes in domestic intelligence—which may not lead to any arrests—didn’t necessarily.
After 9/11, the FBI’s national security work got a big boost in money, people and prestige, and for more than a decade, catching terrorists is where the Bureau’s fast-movers gravitated. However, counterintelligence suffered, as was demonstrated by the FBI’s lackluster performance in its inquiry into the Trump campaign’s links to Russia. Contrary to Trumpian complaints about an overly aggressive Bureau trampling on civil liberties, the FBI’s slow-moving 2016 counterintelligence investigation of Team Trump, memorably termed CROSSFIRE HURRICANE, in fact was stymied by insufficient resources, bureaucratic dysfunction and excessive caution.
In the early-aughts, when Congress investigated our Intelligence Community to ensure the painful lessons of 9/11 were learned, taking the domestic intelligence mission away from the FBI was briefly pondered, but the idea never got much traction inside the Beltway. The creation of a stand-alone domestic spy agency was resisted mightily by the FBI for turf reasons. Suggestions, particularly by some in American counterintelligence, to remake our spy system more like our Five Eyes partners’, thus faded by the end of George W. Bush’s first term. This is regrettable, since had the FBI been taken out of the espionage business, and left to focus on federal law enforcement, we would not have the awkward mess that is causing so much chaos in Washington, D.C. right now, and Trump would not have the FBI as his Twitter whipping boy.
In the aftermath of KremlinGate, there will surely be post-mortems and perhaps full-fledged Congressional investigations of what went wrong—and how not to repeat the events of 2016, when Russian spies and lies subverted our democracy. Without any insult to the men and women of the FBI, the overwhelming majority of whom are hard-working patriots, recasting American domestic intelligence along the lines of our closest security partners needs to be on the table for serious consideration.
John Schindler is a security expert and former National Security Agency analyst.

Once again, Americans are facing a tragedy involving guns. This time, at least 10 people were killed during an attack at a Texas high school Friday.

More than five years have passed since the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School, where 20 children and six adults were killed. In that time, dozens of gun safety proposals have been introduced in Congress attempting to fix glaring issues with gun safety and regulation. More than 1,600 mass shootings have taken place in America since then.

Here is a guide to what Congress has — or, more accurately, has not — accomplished during this time.

El exespecialista en inteligencia de la Fiscalía Federal, Francisco Reyes siguió los canales administrativos para tramitar un permiso para realizar un viaje personal a Rusia, el cual le levantó preocupación al gobierno federal.
Así lo reconoció Jim Kirder, de la Oficina del Inspector General (OIG), testigo del Departamento de Justicia estadounidense a preguntas de la abogada de Reyes Caparros Bamily López, en la continuación del juicio que se sigue por alegadas represalias y hostigamiento laboral contra la fiscal federal Rosa Emilia Rodríguez Vélez.
La fiscal no estuvo presente durante el proceso judicial que preside el juez visitante de New Hampshire, Joseph Laplante.

Reyes Caparros le envió un correo electrónico a su supervisora Lisa Western, oficial administrativa de la fiscalía federal en el que le comunicó sobre su intención de efectuar el viaje a ese país de Europa Oriental.
La invitación al viaje le fue extendida por un amigo de la infancia, identificado como Kaleb Rodríguez Cruz. La actividad era uno cultural, era denominada “Forum 2013 Rusia”.
El Negociado de Investigaciones Especiales (FBI) y la OIG, efectuaron sendas investigaciones a Reyes Caparros por el referido viaje. Ambas pesquisas tuvieron resultados negativas sobre la comisión de delitos. Las mismas se iniciaron en octubre de 2013. La investigación del OIG culminó el 3 de septiembre de 2014 y la del FBI el 22 de diciembre de 2015.

El demandante nunca efectuó el viaje.
A preguntas de López sobre por qué se exacerbó la preocupación del viaje a Rusia, Kirder respondió porque era la primera vez que la OIG recibía este tipo de referido y porque el demandante era un empleado federal y les preocupaba que este pudiera recibir influencia del gobierno ruso.
Señaló que la pesquisa de la OIG se inició como una criminal. Posteriormente, se determinó que no había evidencia suficiente para que sostuviera una violación criminal como para la radiación de cargos.

Empero, el testigo manifestó que se continuó una pesquisa administrativa.
Durante el directo a cargo del abogado del gobierno federal, Jason Weida, Kirder indicó que a su oficina le preocupó el hecho de que Reyes Caparros, utilizó el correo electrónico oficial para enviarle una foto de su pasaporte a Rodríguez Cruz.
Posteriormente, López le notificó al testigo que Rodríguez Cruz es el esposo de la cónsul de Rusia en Puerto Rico, Anastasia Kitsul.
El informe del OIG contiene dos hallazgos: que Reyes Caparros violó la prohibición de utilizar su correo electrónico para un asunto personal y que tuvo un “pobre juicio” al aceptar un viaje a Rusia, siendo un especialista en inteligencia, cuyo puesto le da acceso a información secreta.
Ante cuestionamientos de López, Kirder insistía en que el demandante debió haber llenado un formulario sobre el viaje a países extranjeros. Empero, reconoció que esa política solo aplica a los viajes oficiales.
Durante el directo del abogado de Weida, se presentó en sala un correo electrónico que le envió a Jay Macklin, del “General Counsel Office”, a Kirder en el que se le informó que el FBI corroboró que el ruso que le hizo la invitación a Reyes Caparros y a su amigo era en efecto un espía ruso.
Kirder manifestó a preguntas del letrado que la entidad rusa era un blanco del gobierno estadounidense.
Luego, a preguntas de López sobre si Reyes Caparros debía ser una persona sospechosa por recibir una invitación de un amigo de la infancia para viajar a un país extranjero, Kirder le contestó en un principio que no estaba capacitado para responder a su pregunta porque no estuvo a cargo de la pesquisa.
Entonces, la abogada insistió en la pregunta y el testigo le contestó “eso era irrelevante a nuestra investigación”.
“¿Sabe que el demandante no fue al viaje?”, preguntó López. El testigo le respondió en la afirmativa.

With the testimonies of prosecutors Jacqueline Novas and José Capó, yesterday the trial against federal prosecutor Rosa Emilia Rodríguez Vélez continued for alleged reprisals and labor harassment against former intelligence specialist Francisco Reyes Caparrós.
When plaintiff Francisco Reyes Caparros filed the legal appeal against Rosa Emilia Rodriguez.
The trial is held before the visiting judge of the New Hampshire district, Joseph Laplante. Rodriguez Velez was not present because in civil cases there is no requirement to be.

The lawsuit, filed in 2015, alleges among other points that in the summer of 2013 the plaintiff received an invitation to attend a conference in Russia, for which he was implicated with a Russian spy.
Novas and Capó reported that on October 2, 2013 agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) appeared at the offices of the Federal Prosecutor’s Office to notify Rodríguez Vélez that Reyes Caparrós was the target of a probe.
According to Capó, the agents indicated that they were worried about the referred trip, which was for young entrepreneurs and that it was going to be paid for by the entity that had invited him. The organization was not mentioned.

Capó señaló que los agentes le explicaron que su preocupación era porque Reyes Caparrós tenía acceso a información. “Tenían preocupación de que fuera reclutado por entes para sacarle información”, afirmó Capó.
Dijo que los agentes acudieron a la oficina del demandante, pero que este no se encontraba.
Mientras, Novas testificó que la oficina de Reyes Caparrós fue sellada posteriormente. Sus equipos fueron ocupados por el FBI.

Declaró que fue su oficina la que contactó a la Oficina del Inspector General y al “Special Counsel Office” para notificar lo sucedido.
La abogada del demandante, Bamily López, mostró en sala una misiva del 3 de octubre de 2013 del entonces director del FBI en la Isla, Carlos Cases, en la que le comunicó a la Fiscalía que a Reyes Caparrós se le había suspendido el acceso a información de inteligencia mientras durara la investigación. La pesquisa tuvo una duración de más de dos años.
Le asignaron nuevas tareas
Novas manifestó a preguntas de López que debido a la carta de Cases y a la pesquisa se determinó asignarle otras tareas al demandante. A este se le asignó trabajar como paralegal y a cargo de las estadísticas de la Iniciativa de Armas de Fuego.
“¿El director del FBI tenía la autoridad para determinar si un empleado podía o no tener acceso de seguridad?”, cuestionó López. Novas respondió que “la Fiscalía recibió una comunicación del FBI de que Francisco no podía tener acceso (a información) de seguridad temporalmente”.
“¿Necesitaban una carta de retractación de Cases?”, cuestionó López. Novas contestó que sería especular.
López presentó una carta del FBI con fecha del 22 de diciembre de 2015 en la que se evidenció que la pesquisa contra Reyes Caparrós se había cerrado debido a que se encontró que este no había cometido ningún acto criminal, ni representaba una amenaza.
Durante el receso de la tarde, y sin la presencia del jurado y de Novas, el juez le preguntó a López si su alegación era que el FBI también había participado de las supuestas represalias. La letrada respondió que la pesquisa del FBI se intensificó porque la Fiscalía la había impulsado.
Reyes Caparrós alega en la demanda que fue humillado por sus supervisores. El demandante señaló que el 30 de septiembre de 2013, Rodríguez Vélez convocó una reunión con todo el personal de la oficina para informarle que a consecuencia del tranque en el Congreso por el presupuesto del nuevo año fiscal solo un pequeño grupo de empleados “necesarios” iba a continuar trabajando durante el cierre del gobierno federal.
“Humor ligero”
Reyes Caparrós sostiene que durante la reunión Rodríguez Vélez dijo a los empleados que él “no le caía bien a nadie”.
Novas confirmó el incidente a preguntas de López. La testigo catalogó el comentario de Rodríguez Vélez como uno de “humor ligero” debido a que el ambiente estaba tenso ante el tranque del Congreso y las consecuencias que esto tendría en el empleo del personal de la Fiscalía.
Dijo que al escuchar el comentario pensó que el mismo no había sonado bien.
Inicialmente, Reyes Caparrós había sido incluido en la lista de los empleados que iban a permanecer trabajando, ya que era un especialista de inteligencia.
Posteriormente, fue incluido en el listado de empleados que iban a estar fuera de la oficina hasta que se resolviera la situación en el Congreso.
En un momento dado, Reyes Caparrós tuvo a su cargo las estadísticas de la Iniciativa de Armas de Fuego, la cual dirigía Capó.
En su demanda, Reyes Caparrós alegó que las estadísticas de la Fiscalía estaban incorrectas y que los casos habían sido duplicados.
Capó declaró que inicialmente le pareció una buena idea que el demandante hiciera esta labor porque era un analista de información.
Manifestó que Reyes Caparrós no llenó sus expectativas, que ponía excusas para realizar su labor a cabalidad y que incumplió las fechas límites para entregar sus informes. Capó mencionó que según el demandante, los fiscales no le entregaban las estadísticas
El abogado de Rodríguez Vélez, Jason Weida, presentó en sala correos electrónicos en los que varios fiscales le comunicaron a Capó que sí le habían entregado la información al demandante.
Meanwhile, the ex-specialist’s lawyer showed several emails addressed to Capó in the room, which reflected that Reyes Caparrós sent him tables with statistics.
Against Rodriguez Velez there are two other lawsuits filed by prosecutors Carmen Márquez and Nelson Pérez, separately.

SAN JUAN – The President of the Panel of the Independent Special Prosecutor (PFEI), Nydia Cotto Vives informed on Thursday that it was determined that the former Secretary of the Interior, William Villafañe will not be investigated by this agency, in the case of the WhatsApp conversation in the former president of the State Elections Commission (EEC), Rafael Ramos Sáenz, consulted about an electoral controversy in the last elections.
This, after evaluating the preliminary investigation report submitted recently by the Secretary of the Department of Justice (DJ), Wanda Vázquez.
“As for Mr. William Villafañe Ramos, from the Department of Justice’s own investigation report, there is no evidence or recommendation that requires further investigation,” Cotto Vives said in written statements.
However, the official explained that it was determined that a thorough investigation was conducted in the case of Ramos Sáenz. “From the report of the Department of Justice it appears that Ramos Sáenz may have incurred in violations of several articles of the Penal Code, the Electoral Code of the 21st Century, as well as the Government Ethics Law,” he said.
I have indicated that Mr. Ramón M. Mendoza Rosario was appointed as FEI and the Iris Meléndez Vega license as deputy prosecutor. These will have 90 days to carry out the investigation.
On the other hand, the president of the PFEI also reported that they accepted the recommendation of the DJ to analyze the evidence in conjunction with the collected evidence, to determine if the undersecretary of the government, Itza García; The administration of the Administration for the Support of Minors (ASUME), Waleska Maldonado and Yoniel and Yesenia Díaz Román, could have infringed the law in relation to this case.

Comments