◆ SpookStack

Hf what the FRI did was done by a private-sector individual, wouldn't the FBI be arresting them? Wouldn't the U.S. attorneys be prosecuting people who played fast and ‘loose with these rules? FINE: It depends on the intents involved and what happened. ISSA: OK. Let me back up. If there was a pattern over time, as there is, of abuses piling up to where if was clear that people knew it was happening, even some people clearly made comments that it shouldn't be happening, that it was inconsistent with the law, but it continued, isn't that a poster child for the FBI and the U.S. Attorney's Office criminally prosecuting people who do these things? FINE: Again, if there was an intent to do that, as opposed to a pattern of negligence, and also a knowledge of this. And we went in and Jooked at it after the fact and found all sorts of problems and compiled a 126-page report which lays it out in pretty black and white. And it is a serious, Serious abuse. But at the time, were they aware of it, did they know about that, and what their intent was -- that's much harder to say. We did not tind evidence of criminal misconduct, but we certainly found evidence... ISSA: Well, wait a second, Wait a second. Piling up evidence that crosses the guidance we allow to pile up that evidence, and you're saying that it's not criminal. FINE: Well, you have to look at the individual allegations as well. We looked ai the files. We found in many files that there were no abuses. We found in others that there were problems with them. ISSA: But there are no prosecutions and no dismissals, is that correct? FINE: Well, there are no prosecutions. The FBI is looking at the evidence right now to see what people knew and what they did. Whether it was because of any intentional conduct that they knew they were doing wrong, we didn't see that. But we didn't do a review where we asked each individual, “What did you do and why?” we did a review of an audit of this to lay out the problems for the Congress.