The recent news about Oakland Mayor Sheng Thao getting raided by the FBI has sort of raised this question for me. Obviously there’s a lot to speculate about here. But in general I would like to understand better what systems are in place to prevent FBI raids to be abused for political gain by those in power in the federal government.
Regardless of the outcome and especially if the investigation doesn’t come to a close before her re-election we could all agree it’s likely a dark mark for her political career.
The scary thing to me as a citizen is how this could be abused in a theoretical situation especially since citizens may not for a long time, if ever, know what investigation prompted the raid. I don’t know if we can even reasonably expect the FBI to ever come out with a “they’re innocent” if their investigation was not incriminating. Even if they did, it might be too late.
If the only check is citizens to vote for their re-election regardless then the people are at a strong disadvantage. Their opponent could speculate publicly with official details on the investigation sparse.
So the question sort of is, if an administration intent on increasing the power of the federal government and or destroying the reputations of specific mayors, governors, senators wanted to, what is stopping them from ruining a politician's election chances with a raid near an election?
Presumably some judge signs onto the warrant just like any other situation, but what level of judge? How is it decided which judge will need to agree on it? Can the FBI approach a different judge until one agrees?
Does the level of court judge the warrant must be signed off from vary depending on what branch and level of government the politician is in?
Even though in theory the judicial branch is supposed to be independent, most federal and higher court judges are appointed by the president. And when it comes to accountability I am not sure where I as a citizen could even go to figure out which judge signed off on this warrant. In the case of the Oakland Mayor I can’t find a news station reporting which specific federal judicial officials were involved.
As for the FBI, they are fairly tight lipped and certainly can’t be expected to operate with perfect ethics, especially with their lack of transparency. I can’t imagine we’d see specific FBI agents whistleblowing to the public here. As for internal governmental whistleblowing, the DOJ (which normally protects whistleblowers) is very linked to the FBI and the current federal administration.
Which section of law does this even fall into? I understand the FBI's creation is backed by constitutional law, but I don’t see it explaining this situation in any detail.
Or perhaps there are other checks to prevent the power of the federal government to ruin a politician's career via a raid. But what are they? Are there not extra hoops if the FBI wanted to, say, investigate the minority party leader or a state governor?
I'm also curious how long these checks would take to apply. Can these checks take action quickly enough to prevent a bad acting federal administration?