Briefly Noted: What Would A Less Heroic Nashville Response Have Looked Like?

A less heroic--but probably more effective--response might have involved investigating Anthony "Tony" Warner before he set off his huge bomb. Red State has an article this morning, citing seemingly reliable public sources, in which the claim is made that the state and local police had been warned a year ago that Warner was building bombs in his RV:

Nashville Bomber’s Girlfriend Warned Police He Was Making Bombs Last Year

Despite the F.B.I.’s claims to the contrary, law enforcement was warned about Anthony Q. Warner’s disturbing activities more than a year before he set off a bomb in downtown Nashville. The new information might shed light on the alleged bomber’s motive.

The Tennessean reported that “sixteen months before Anthony Quinn Warner’s RV exploded in downtown Nashville on Christmas morning, officers visited his home in Antioch after his girlfriend reported that he was making bombs in the vehicle.”

Shortly after the bombing, the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation stated that Warner was “not on our radar” before the attack. However, a Metro Nashville Police Department report from August of last year shows that “local and federal authorities were aware of alleged threats he had made,” according to The Tennessean.

It does not appear that law enforcement took any action against Warner despite the warning. On Aug. 21, 2019, his girlfriend told Nashville police that he “was building bombs in the RV trailer at his residence.” The officer then sent the information to the F.B.I.

Weird, isn't it? One wonders what local, state, and federal LE officials were so busy with that they had no time to do a bit of digging into complaints of a tech savvy guy building bombs.

In fairness to the FBI, they did take action when the information was relayed to them:

A Guide To Spygate, Informants, FISA

What follows is a reworked version of So, What's A "Threat To National Security"? which contains a difference in emphasis.


Kim Strassel raised an interesting question, Friday, in her regular weekly column--The Curious Case of Mr. Downer: His story about the Papadopoulos meeting calls the FBI’s into question. Alexander Downer was the Australian ambassador to the UK in 2016. As the title indicates, Strassel finds the FBI's claim that their probe of the Trump campaign was based on Downer's contact with George Papadopoulos to be ... less than credible. Strassel concludes by raising some very pointed questions:

For months we’ve been told the FBI acted because it was alarmed that Mr. Papadopoulos knew about those hacked Democratic emails in May, before they became public in June. But according to the tipster himself, Mr. Papadopoulos said nothing about emails. The FBI instead received a report that a far-removed campaign adviser, over drinks, said the Russians had something that might be “damaging” to Hillary. Did this vague statement justify a counterintelligence probe into a presidential campaign, featuring a spy and secret surveillance warrants?

Unlikely. Which leads us back to what did inspire the FBI to act, and when? The Papadopoulos pretext is getting thinner.

Indeed--since when does ​"something that might be 'damaging' to Hillary ... justify a counterintelligence probe into a presidential campaign, featuring a spy and secret surveillance warrants?"

The fact is, there is an answer to Strassel's question, and I think we'll find--in fact, recent talking points floated by James Clapper and others point in this direction--that the justification will rely on provisions of the Attorney General Guidelines. To understand ​and evaluate ​this​ defense​, however, and to avoid the pitfalls of speculating with a firm grasp of the controlling guidelines and statutes, we'll need to explore the nature of FBI investigations, because the type of investigation controls, to some extent, the type of investigative techniques that are authorized. All this is set out in detail in the Attorney General Guidelines For Domestic FBI Operations (AGG) and the FBI Domestic Investigations And Operations Guide (DIOG).

Basically, there are three types of FBI investigations that involve opening a​n investigative​ case file: 1) Assessments, 2) Preliminary Investigations, and 3) Full Investigations. The latter two are grouped as "Predicated Investigations" because, unlike in the case of an Assessent, an agent will need to present some degree of factual predication before he can open one of these types of investigation. The type of investigation that is opened will depend upon the factual situation, and if additional facts are developed in the course of the investigation the type of investigation may be upgraded.

As far as investigative techniques go, the Assessment ​serves as a baseline--any technique that can be used in an Assessment can ​also ​be used in a Preliminary or Full ​I​nvestigation. For our purposes, the important point is that the use of existing informants (Confidential Human Sources/CHS) or the recruitment of new informants is authorized for ALL three types of investigations. There has been some confusion recently regarding the use of informants before a "formal" case has been opened. The confusion arises because Assessments are sometimes confused with​ the​ informal initial checking of investigative leads conducted to determine whether or not to open an investigative case file. That type of informal checking can only be conducted using public information, not through the use of informants.