By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The DOJ’s failure to redact victims’ names from publicly released files cannot be attributed to mere error, negligence, or bureaucratic oversight. The process required a simple search of known victim names, with any resulting hits being redacted prior to publication; however, this was not adequately performed. As a result, numerous victims, including a minor whose name appeared 20 times in one document with only three redactions, faced renewed harassment, death threats, and media attention, as some files, including FBI forms, contained fully unredacted names.
Read the original article here
It seems there’s a recurring theme emerging, a sort of collective sigh or perhaps a grumble, from within the ranks of ICE agents who are apparently quite unhappy about not receiving the hefty bonuses they were promised. This situation has sparked quite a bit of commentary, and the general consensus among those discussing it is a rather unsurprised, and frankly, unsympathetic reaction.
Many are pointing out that the expectation of these massive bonuses might have been based on a misunderstanding of the terms and conditions. It’s frequently mentioned that the fine print likely stipulated these bonuses were to be paid out over an extended period, often stretching to five years. This detail, seemingly overlooked or perhaps conveniently ignored, appears to be a central point of contention and a source of disappointment for the agents.
The connection to a specific political figure is undeniable, and the narrative consistently frames this disappointment as a consequence of dealing with someone known for making promises that aren’t always kept. There’s a strong undercurrent suggesting that those who aligned themselves with this political entity, or who have done business with them, may have been naive to expect straightforward fulfillment of all stated intentions.
Several comments draw a stark parallel between this situation and the individual’s well-established history of not fulfilling financial obligations. The idea that this person is famous for reneging on payments, not just to contractors but to anyone in their orbit, is a recurring motif. Therefore, the notion that ICE agents are now lamenting unpaid bonuses seems, to many, an entirely predictable outcome.
Some are even suggesting that these agents were, in a sense, “tricked” or even engaged in a form of “indentured servitude.” The argument here is that the allure of these bonuses might have masked a more precarious employment reality, potentially involving unnecessary danger and an agenda that doesn’t necessarily benefit the agents themselves. The idea that their bosses might have been hoping for negative incidents to further a particular political goal is also raised.
The contractual details of these bonuses are a significant focus. The explanation that they are paid out over several years, and often require a minimum period of service, is frequently cited. The implication is that these aren’t simple sign-on payments, but rather a structured compensation tied to long-term commitment. Furthermore, there’s speculation about clauses related to furloughs or layoffs, which could lead to agents being obligated to repay bonuses already received, with interest, if they leave before fulfilling their contractual obligations.
The notion of being “screwed” or “grifted” is pervasive in the discussions. It’s suggested that individuals who continue to believe these promises are demonstrating a remarkable level of naivete, especially given the public track record of the political figure in question. The idea of expecting payment from someone notoriously known for not paying their debts is seen as almost comically optimistic.
There’s also a critique of the purpose behind needing such large bonuses to fill roles within ICE. The underlying sentiment is that if the job itself, or the policies it enforces, requires such significant financial incentives to attract personnel, then perhaps the fundamental nature or purpose of the agency’s work is the real issue, rather than the pay itself.
For some, the disappointment is framed as a consequence of not reading the fine print or understanding the contractual obligations. The analogy is drawn to military reenlistment bonuses, where failing to complete the agreed-upon service term often necessitates repayment. This perspective suggests a lack of due diligence on the part of the agents.
The phrase “the check is in the mail” is used as a sarcastic descriptor for the promise of these bonuses, highlighting the perceived unreliability of the situation. The expectation that these agents might never see a dime of the promised money is not just stated, but in some instances, expressed with a sense of satisfaction.
Ultimately, the prevailing sentiment is one of “I told you so.” The ICE agents’ current predicament regarding their promised bonuses appears to be viewed by many as an entirely foreseeable consequence of their decisions and their dealings with a political figure widely perceived as untrustworthy when it comes to financial commitments. The lack of sympathy stems from a belief that the agents should have been more aware of the risks involved.