McCroskey Commentary: In Bundy Case, Ends Didn’t Justify the Means of the FBI

Posted

Back in 2014, there was an armed standoff between Cliven Bundy (and others) and the federal government near Burns, Oregon. 

It occurred largely because the federal government tried to seize his cattle over a permit and fee dispute, which had been going on for years. 

The federal government claimed he owed them a lot of money for grazing his cattle, and after many years, pursuant to a court order, they attempted to round them up.  

Bundy claimed he didn’t have a contract with the federal government, so he owed them nothing.

Bundy and many supporters objected, resisted, and outnumbered the federal agents, so they retreated from the round up attempt.

Later, a group including Bundy assembled on the Malheur National Wildlife refuge, essentially taking it over.  

More supporters gathered over time and a lengthy televised standoff began.

This didn’t even look like a close call. Even if there was some sympathy for Bundy, these guys were going to end up in the clink over this. 

But what happened since is a stinging rebuke of the FBI and Justice Department behavior. In what should have been a slam dunk, it was instead dismissed with prejudice for “outrageous” misconduct by the government.

The judge called the government abuse “flagrant” among many other unflattering terms during her nearly 30-minute rebuke of their conduct at the trial. 

Those are pretty serious charges and seem like they should have serious consequences.

Judge Navarro ruled government prosecutors engaged in a “deliberate attempt to mislead” during the trial and pretrial about evidence they had and failed to provide to the defense.

She went on to say she “seriously questions” on the FBI’s explanation and found “especially egregious” that they failed “to share documents the defendants specifically asked for in pretrial motions.” 

She said prosecution has “minimized the extent of prosecutorial misconduct” by hiding six kinds of evidence and 1,000 pages from the defense they had asked for during pre trial motions.

That hardly seems like an oversight.

So why with what had to be so much evidence, including a good deal of television video and several recorded statements by this group, would the Justice Department do that? 



Maybe for the same reasons the Justice Department ignores requests from congressional oversight committees — because they can, they do.

Whatever the reason, they made poor decisions (I hope it was incompetence and not deliberate) and the judge has embarrassed them very publicly. 

Will there be consequences to those involved? I doubt it.  

The judge is suggesting some of these people lied in court. Lying to the FBI is a crime and we’ve seen people punished for it— but so is lying in court, and if they did, they should be charged.

One article went on to say the Justice Department is sending out some investigators to see what happened and why.  

Based on the statements made by the judge hearing the case, it doesn’t seem all that much of a mystery.

I’m certain this judge didn’t want to dismiss this case or call the FBI agents and Justice Department attorneys out for their behavior. 

But it appears she has the right to.

Due process, fairness and blind justice are important to all of us, especially if we end up in court, and we have a right to expect it.

So did the Bundys.

I don’t support what happened back in 2014 or what the Bundys and others did. But I do support fairness, due process and the rule of law. 

And I expect our government to as well. 

I don’t know who coined the phrase “the ends do not justify the means,” but in this case it appears to apply.

•••

John McCroskey was Lewis County sheriff from 1995 to 2005. He lives outside Chehalis, and can be contacted at musingsonthemiddlefork@yahoo.com.