> Wouldn't the actual power be with the courts who would be the people convicting anyone accused of a crime by either FBI or CIA
Now let's think about how this would work.
The CIA obtains some information on a US citizen who is suspected of a crime, using methods that would be a violation of their constitutional rights, and therefore not be admissible as evidence against them in court.
The CIA can then (a) not share the information with the FBI; (b) share it with them, but they are not allowed to use it for anything because of how it was obtained; or (c) share it with them, and then they use it via parallel construction, in violation of the constitutional rights of the accused, and without revealing where they actually got it, causing "public trials" to become mendacious and opaque.
But (b) and (c) are the same thing, because the only use of (b) is to let (c) happen in secret.
Now let's think about how this would work.
The CIA obtains some information on a US citizen who is suspected of a crime, using methods that would be a violation of their constitutional rights, and therefore not be admissible as evidence against them in court.
The CIA can then (a) not share the information with the FBI; (b) share it with them, but they are not allowed to use it for anything because of how it was obtained; or (c) share it with them, and then they use it via parallel construction, in violation of the constitutional rights of the accused, and without revealing where they actually got it, causing "public trials" to become mendacious and opaque.
But (b) and (c) are the same thing, because the only use of (b) is to let (c) happen in secret.