By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Authorities announced 30 arrests in a prostitution sting operation in Bloomington, Minnesota, which police chief Booker T. Hodges described as a record for their department. Among those arrested was Brashad Johnson, identified by police as a background checker for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). However, a Department of Homeland Security spokesperson has denied any affiliation, stating Johnson is not an ICE employee or contractor, and calling the claim a “smear.” The operation reportedly encountered interference due to confusion with ongoing Department of Homeland Security immigration enforcement efforts in Minnesota.
Read the original article here
The news that an individual involved in background checking, tasked with vetting others for security clearances, was himself arrested in a prostitution sting, naturally raises a considerable amount of questions and, for many, a distinct lack of surprise. It’s a situation that, on its face, feels almost designed to elicit that particular reaction, prompting a collective, almost weary, “Who’s surprised here?” followed by a pregnant pause. The irony of the situation is, of course, palpable: the very person responsible for scrutinizing the backgrounds of others, for determining their suitability for sensitive roles, was found to be engaged in illicit activities himself, leading to his apprehension by law enforcement.
This scenario presents a deeply unsettling paradox, especially considering the stated responsibilities of such an individual. When you’re in a position where your job is to conduct the rigorous background checks necessary for security clearances, the implication is that you are a person of unimpeachable integrity, someone who upholds the very standards you are meant to enforce. The notion that someone in that crucial gatekeeping role could be arrested in a prostitution sting is, to put it mildly, quite scary. It forces a re-evaluation of the entire vetting process and, more broadly, the systems that are supposed to ensure that individuals in positions of trust are indeed trustworthy.
The immediate response from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in this specific instance was to firmly disassociate themselves from the arrested individual. A spokesperson was quoted as stating, unequivocally, that the individual was “NOT an ICE employee or contractor” and had “no affiliation with ICE.” This statement aims to draw a clear line, suggesting that the arrest is not indicative of any systemic failure within ICE itself. The spokesperson further characterized the narrative as a “smear peddled by sanctuary politicians and the media,” even going so far as to claim it contributed to a significant increase in assaults against ICE law enforcement. This response highlights a broader tension, portraying the arrest as an attempt to tarnish their agency’s reputation.
However, the commentary surrounding this incident also veers into dark humor and cynical observations about the quality of individuals being employed in sensitive roles. Remarks about someone being hired as a “back checker” rather than a “background checker” and the sarcastic observation that “only the cream of the crop” are allowed, underscore a prevailing sentiment that perhaps the selection process for these positions isn’t as robust as it should be. The rather unflattering description of the arrested individual in the context of prostitution also elicited some rather blunt reactions, suggesting that perhaps even in illicit circles, certain standards might be expected.
The sheer improbability of the circumstances, the almost surreal nature of a background checker being caught in such a sting, led some to speculate about the fabricated nature of the events, questioning how it could all be so perfectly aligned to create such a potent narrative. The recurring question, “Who background-checked the background checker?” echoes the fundamental concern: if the systems designed to ensure suitability can be bypassed or fail so spectacularly, how can we trust any of the outcomes? This points to a deeper unease about the broader implications for security and accountability within governmental agencies.
The characterization of such individuals as “predator president” and “predator stooges” reflects a deep-seated distrust and a perception of widespread corruption or malfeasance within positions of power. The question of “What’s this maggot doing to approve a background check?” reveals an anger and disbelief at the possibility that someone perceived as morally compromised could be in a position to make such critical judgments. This sentiment extends to a concern about what this incident might mean for the future standards and integrity of the agencies involved, with people wondering, “What’s going to happen to their standards now?”
Interestingly, while many found the arrest itself surprising, the nature of the arrest in this particular case also elicited a degree of astonishment. Some expressed genuine surprise that the individual was indeed arrested, and even more so, that the story involved a “live consenting adult human, a woman even,” suggesting an expectation that such individuals might be involved in less conventional or more disturbing activities. This commentary, while perhaps crude, points to a broader societal awareness or assumption about certain illicit behaviors.
The notion of who might have been surprised, or rather, who *wasn’t*, is a recurring theme. The lack of surprise among many regarding the arrest itself speaks volumes about a perceived cynicism towards those in power and the systems they represent. There’s a sentiment that perhaps this is just another example of what many have come to expect. However, for some, the surprise was directed elsewhere. For instance, a few expressed surprise that local police were willing to arrest their “friend,” hinting at potential internal conflicts or a reluctance to implicate colleagues. There was also a peculiar surprise that the arrest wasn’t for child-related offenses, which, while dark, highlights a perception of the severity of potential transgressions by individuals in these circles.
Another point of surprise, for some, was that ICE still employs background checkers, implying a doubt about the agency’s vetting processes. The cynical observation that perhaps such individuals weren’t involved in the infamous Epstein files, which was jokingly suggested as a “necessary qualification,” points to a grim understanding of the alleged connections and failings of prominent figures. The shock expressed at an “exception” being made or similar skill sets being accepted without the “actual” qualifications underscores a belief that standards have been compromised.
The “brave guys that hide their faces and tear gas kids” versus these arrested individuals is a stark contrast, highlighting a perceived hypocrisy or double standard in how different types of “bravery” or enforcement are viewed. The individual being compared to “Sir Mix-up-a-lot” adds another layer of playful, albeit critical, commentary, suggesting a rather unconventional persona. The specific mention of local police being happy to bust him, especially in Minnesota, adds a geographical context that some believe might explain the willingness of local authorities to proceed with the arrest.
A significant point of surprise for some was the apparent inability of federal authorities to intervene and prevent the arrest. The question, “I am surprised the feds weren’t able to block it somehow,” suggests an expectation of a high level of federal protection or influence over cases involving individuals connected to sensitive government functions. While it’s noted that charges can be blocked, the act of police action itself is harder to impede without direct interference. The implied willingness of local police to “be happy for them to try” to interfere suggests a robust stance on their part, even in the face of potential federal pressure. The cynical prediction of a “Presidential pardon incoming” reflects a deep-seated belief that powerful individuals often escape consequences through political intervention.