Information Technology Subcommittee Chair Will Hurd (R-TX): “Do you feel that there is a clearly defined criterion within the DEA, 2 that the payment of money to a confidential source has been valuable or worthwhile?” The Justice Department`s Office of Inspector General (IG) report found serious flaws in the DEA`s Confidential Source program, including poor oversight that “exposes the DEA to an unacceptable potential for waste, fraud and abuse,” IG Michael Horowitz said. Michael J. Stanfill, deputy chief inspector of the DEA, defended the use of confidential informants. They “provide invaluable contributions and support to the DEA`s investigations,” he told the SdIg in a response printed in the report. “However, the DEA recognizes the inherent risk of using individuals whose motives may be suspicious. Measures have therefore been taken to reduce the risks identified. The DEA is surely better at shaking dealers than at keeping recordings. Their intelligence service was unable to provide the SdIG office with a disaggregated list of total payments to confidential sources. This contributed to the report`s conclusion that the Agency`s control “is not proportionate to the substantial amount it pays to confidential sources.” Consider this in a new report on the major issues with the Drug Enforcement Administration`s confidential informant program. DEA paid: The SdIG office said it was “deeply concerned about this failure to assess the reliability of the source that severely affects the DEA`s ability to monitor and manage the activity of these sources.” The DEA accepted the SDS`s seven recommendations, including “more frequent and rigorous training on the management and oversight of confidential sources.” Experts representing people who may be the target of confidential informants question their use even in the best of circumstances. “In one case, the DEA reactivated a confidential source who had previously made false statements during trials and depositions,” the report said. “During the approximately 5-year period of reactivation, this source was used by 13 DEA field offices and paid $469,158. More than US$61,000 of the US$469,158 was paid after this source was again deactivated for making false statements to a prosecutor. “In another example of mismanagement, the DEA continued to use and pay informants who had been `disabled` because they were suspected of committing serious crimes.
It turns out that some are also paid, sometimes very, very well. [ATF`s thorny operation: Operation Fearless or feckless?] Mark Meadows (R-NC), Chair of the Subcommittee on Government Operations: “Without the implementation of a legislative solution, the IG Empowerment Act, would you agree that it is up to a director to decide how and whether they would comply, and you would accept that there should be some continuity?” [FBI imitation of journalists can be dangerous to their health] One of them received most of the money, nearly $855,000 over 20 years. From 2011 to 2015, the DEA paid $1.5 million to at least 33 Amtrak informants. Eight TSA employees received US$94,000 “for information the screener was already required to provide” to law enforcement. Jason Chaffetz, chairman of the commission (R-UT): “Are there any metrics on convictions, drug seizures? What did we receive for $237 million? ». . .