Whistleblower drops incriminating testimony that’s bringing down the FBI

The rot in Washington, D.C. runs deeper than many know. Even the biggest bureaus and agencies are infected.

And now a whistleblower dropped an incriminating testimony that’s bringing down the FBI.

According to whistleblower disclosures recently filed to the Department of Justice’s Office of Inspector General, FBI Security Division officers investigated an FBI employee and asked inquiries about the employee’s political and personal beliefs.

The disclosure cited Security Division questionnaires given to the agent’s co-workers that asked if the employee under investigation had: “Vocalize[d] support for President Trump” or “Vocalized objection to COVID-19 vaccination” or “Vocalized intent to attend 1/6/2021.”

Empower Oversight, a watchdog group, released a copy of the whistleblower disclosure letter made to DOJ Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz on June 8.

It is the latest in a string of whistleblower charges that have triggered congressional oversight of the FBI’s top leadership for discriminatory treatment of agents and other bureau workers, including their political beliefs.

This time, the whistleblower is an unknown, now-retired FBI agent who worked for the agency for twelve years.

The Security Division, often known as SecD, inquired on the paper whether the employee under investigation had attended Richmond Lobby Day, an annual Second Amendment rally at the Virginia State Capitol.

The FBI did not return a request for comment.

SecD approached the FBI workers and informed them that the Clearance Investigations Unit was conducting an administrative investigation into their ability to maintain a top-secret security clearance.

According to the disclosure, the coworkers were given a paper reminding them that FBI employees had an obligation to respond to the inquiries, and any refusal to do so fully and truthfully could result in SecD taking action against their security clearances.

In the letter to Mr. Horowitz, Tristan Leavitt, president of Empower Oversight, stated that based on these documents, it is plausible to conclude that SecD has been doing this more extensively to “purge employees with disfavored views from the FBI.”

“The three pre-printed questions that SecD asked our client’s fellow employees show that the FBI systematically compelled them to report on our client’s personal political beliefs and views of the COVID-19 vaccine.”

Mr. Leavitt stated that the information SecD authorities required FBI workers to submit was “completely irrelevant” to any “legitimate security risk determination [and] violates the First Amendment.”

He further claimed that the FBI’s “purge” was successful because the agency’s “Kafkaesque, never-ending internal appeal process and procedural limits” persuaded their client to retire early.

Mr. Leavitt stated that by retiring early, the former employee forfeited years of further retirement credits, health benefits, and employment prospects.

The letter stated that although the FBI employee was present at the protest on January 6, 2021, at the U.S. Capitol, he did not enter the building or violate any laws, and he “quickly and voluntarily self-disclosed attendance at the protest after it descended into a riot.”

“SecD had a legitimate reason to investigate whether our client committed any crimes, advocated any illegal acts, or did anything else that raised a legitimate security concern. The FBI also has legitimate reasons to revoke the security clearances of employees who engage in or support unlawful acts, particularly those designed to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power,” he wrote.

“But our client did not do any of those things. Revoking a security clearance for being near those who did or merely sharing some similar political views as others who acted unlawfully is pure guilt by association.”

Stay tuned to the DC Daily Journal.

Email Newsletter

Sign Up for our Newsletter

Enter your best address below to receive the latest cartoons and breaking news in your email inbox:
Please wait...
You are successfully subscribed!
There was an error with subscription attempt.
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments