DOJ Declines to Prosecute FBI Senior Intelligence Analyst Who Admitted to Masturbating to Child Pornography Featuring Girls As Young as... 9

The Rulers =/= The Ruled.

An FBI Supervisory Intelligence Analyst admitted to viewing and downloading child pornography -- images of girls age 9 to 17 -- and was fired from his job earlier this year, but the agent was not prosecuted for the crime.

...

As a synopsis from the OIG states, "FBI Supervisory Intelligence Analyst [name redacted], during a post-polygraph interview, admitted to viewing and downloading child pornography (CP). Specifically, during an FBI five-year routine counterintelligence polygraph examination, [the FBI analyst] showed indications of countermeasures during the polygraph which led the examiner to conduct a post-polygraph interview."

"During the interview, [name redacted] admitted to viewing and downloading CP of girls ranging in age between 9 and 17 while searching the internet," states the synopsis. "Specifically, [the FBI analyst] admitted to searching on pornographic sites, and "undoubtedly" viewed CP [child pornography]."

"[The FBI analyst] stated that he preferred pornography depicting young females age 15-17, he then changed his preference during subsequent questioning, to females as young as 12 years old, and finally admitted to preferring females as young as 9 years old and just starting to show signs of maturation," reads the synopsis.

Fired -- but not prosecuted.

The only real impediment to prosecuting him -- apart from the Deep State protecting its own perverts -- is that there is only his word that he viewed child porn. I'm not sure they've got the actual child porn.

But 1, that is only a complication, not an insurmountable bar to prosecution and 2, he should be prosecuted just to get a plead guilty to being a sex predator.

Do you want Special Agent Short-Eyes over here showing up at your local school for Dirty Show and Tell?

Also: I don't get the sense that this guy's stash of child porn would remain hidden if a couple of experts spent a couple of hours searching his drives and dropboxes.

Argument from Commenters:

52 You can't be convicted of a crime solely on the basis of a confession. It's a legal principle called corpus delicti. There has to be some corroborating evidence. Posted by: Dilsin

Okay so maybe it is an insurmountable bar.

But how long do you think it would take to find his trove if they really wanted to?

54 As I said in the prior thread, it's really difficult to prosecute these cases. There needs to be proof, and that's not easy to get. Most of the models are unknown, and the global standard (right or wrong) is, any development means they can't "assume" the model is underage.

I could be wrong about this, but I think MOST prosecutions are made when there is transmitting, one way or the other, of images that CAN be traced through the internet. So even if you don't have proof the model is underaged, the fact that the guy is going to sites, downloading and/or uploading, that's a crime that can be prosecuted.
Posted by: BurtTC

Ah, okay, that would explain the article's reference for searching images for girls known to have been abused or trafficked. I guess just because they found pictures of very young looking girls, they can't prove the girls are underage.

So... lack of proof of intent spares the FBI again.

posted by Ace at 03:09 PM

| Access Comments