Get real time updates directly on you device, subscribe now.
Last week Merrick Garland announced the arrest of 18-year-old Idaho resident Alexander Scott Mercurio. Mercurio is accused of being a loyal follower of ISIS and preparing to attack Idaho churches. I’m a resident of Idaho. It is my community that the feds supposedly protected with Mercurio’s arrest. But given recent events, this arrest arouses as much curiosity as gratitude. Mercurio might be a terrorist, or he might be a useful idiot used by the DoJ to juice up their “homegrown domestic threat” narrative. That my mind went to that question is an indication of the DoJ’s lost trust.
Given that I live in the same state as Mercurio, I’m among the defendant’s supposed “peers.” Under normal circumstances, I would be an ideal disinterested juror. If I were to find myself on the jury, I would have questions that the prosecution would need to answer. It should not escape prosecution lawyers that a single person like myself could prevent a guilty verdict if these questions are left unanswered.
How many federal agents and confidential human sources (CHSs) were used to take down this teenager? Did federal assets outnumber the number of people under investigation? Did federal assets encourage any criminal behavior — as was the case in the Whitmer kidnapping case?
Were CHSs paid by the FBI? Did they have a financial interest in an arrest?
Were Mercurio’s threats and plans made before or after contact with agents or CHSs? Were any federal assets involved in the planning of his attack — as was the case in the Whitmer kidnapping plot?
By what means did Mercurio pledge allegiance to ISIS? Did his pledge happen before or after contact with federal assets? Did federal assets encourage the pledge? Did anyone other than federal assets witness the pledge?
What affidavits were used to get warrants for the case? Who swore to their veracity? We’ve all heard about Kevin Clinesmith.
What forensic evidence of Mercurio’s guilt does the prosecution have? Is there something scientifically objective, or is the only evidence the testimony of people on the federal payroll?
Was anyone other than the FBI involved in the chain of custody for evidence? Can any other law enforcement entity attest to the validity of the evidence?
If video or audio recordings are entered into evidence, what editing was done? Was any exculpatory video excluded from evidence — as many believe was done in the January 6 trials?
Greg Dillon) that the FBI has a reputation for misquoting local law enforcement officers in sworn statements.
Were interviews done as part of the investigation recorded, or merely documented via FBI agent notes (i.e., FD-302 forms)? How soon after each interview were the FD-302s completed? Did anyone other than the interviewing agents request or make changes to the FD-302s — as was done in the Michael Flynn case?
What involvement did FBI headquarters have in guiding or directing the investigation? Were agents prohibited from following any investigative leads — as was done in the Hunter Biden case?
It’s not that I’m reluctant to convict a possible terrorist. The image of airliners flying into buildings and people jumping to their death to avoid the flames changed my worldview forever. I would mercilessly convict anyone threatening my country with such violence.
But we must also be aware that:
- The DoJ and FBI continued the investigation of a sitting President for three years — after they had learned that no crime had been committed.
- A crew of useful idiots were goaded (by FBI agents) into planning the kidnapping of a Democrat governor to affect the political mood of the country prior to the 2020 election.
- The FBI conducted unnecessary armed raids at the homes of Donald Trump, James O’Keefe, Mark Houck, and Roger Stone — with camera crews invited along for the fabulism.
- FBI Director Christopher Wray perjured himself before Congress concerning the Seth Rich laptop, and refuses to answer questions about how many federal assets were involved in the activities of January 6.
To be blunt, prosecutors in the Mercurio case need more than the “fidelity, bravery, and integrity” of federal agents upon which to base their case.
Over half of American citizens believe that our premier law enforcement agency has morphed into a premier political enforcement agency. For a jury to convict Alexander Scott Mercurio it would need more than a pinky swear by FBI agents or DoJ attorney’s that he’s guilty.
If the case comes down to the word of the defendant vs. the word of federal agents, it would be fair to judge him a useful idiot, but not otherwise proven guilty. That’s an unfortunate state of affairs, because he might really be guilty. But when a man’s freedom is at stake, the fidelity of the evidence, and the integrity of the collectors of evidence matters.
This is the new reality that the FBI has wrought by squandering its credibility. It’s a reality in which “beyond a reasonable doubt” includes beyond a reasonable suspicion of FBI malfeasance.
Chirstopher Wray and his merry band of political enforcers don’t seem to grasp that breaking one’s oath is an act of lying to the public in the worst possible way. Far too many in the bureau have done just that, and the entire agency has placed itself under suspicion by not holding them accountable. Now their integrity must be tested rather than accepted in every trial at which they give evidence. Welcome to the reality that “special agents” aren’t so special anymore.
John Green is a retired engineer and political refugee from Minnesota, now residing in Idaho. He spent his career designing complex defense systems, developing high performance organizations, and doing corporate strategic planning. He is a staff writer for the American Free News Network and can be reached at greenjeg@gmail.com.
Image: FBI
Comments are closed.