[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


         HEARING ON THE WEAPONIZATION OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

   SELECT SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE WEAPONIZATION OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

                                 OF THE

                       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION
                               __________

                         THURSDAY, MAY 18, 2023
                               __________

                           Serial No. 118-21
                               __________

         Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
         
         
                  [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]         


               Available via: http://judiciary.house.gov
               
                               __________

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
                    
52-419                    WASHINGTON : 2023  



                       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                        JIM JORDAN, Ohio, Chair

DARRELL ISSA, California             JERROLD NADLER, New York, Ranking 
KEN BUCK, Colorado                       Member
MATT GAETZ, Florida                  ZOE LOFGREN, California
MIKE JOHNSON, Louisiana              SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
ANDY BIGGS, Arizona                  STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
TOM McCLINTOCK, California           HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr., 
TOM TIFFANY, Wisconsin                   Georgia
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky              ADAM SCHIFF, California
CHIP ROY, Texas                      DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island
DAN BISHOP, North Carolina           ERIC SWALWELL, California
VICTORIA SPARTZ, Indiana             TED LIEU, California
SCOTT FITZGERALD, Wisconsin          PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington
CLIFF BENTZ, Oregon                  J. LUIS CORREA, California
BEN CLINE, Virginia                  MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania
LANCE GOODEN, Texas                  JOE NEGUSE, Colorado
JEFF VAN DREW, New Jersey            LUCY McBATH, Georgia
TROY NEHLS, Texas                    MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania
BARRY MOORE, Alabama                 VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas
KEVIN KILEY, California              DEBORAH ROSS, North Carolina
HARRIET HAGEMAN, Wyoming             CORI BUSH, Missouri
NATHANIEL MORAN, Texas               GLENN IVEY, Maryland
LAUREL LEE, Florida
WESLEY HUNT, Texas
RUSSELL FRY, South Carolina

                                 ------                                

            SELECT SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE WEAPONIZATION OF THE
                           FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

                        JIM JORDAN, Ohio, Chair

DARRELL ISSA, California             STACEY PLASKETT, Virgin Islands, 
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky                  Ranking Member
CHRIS STEWART, Utah                  STEPHEN LYNCH, Massachusetts
ELISE M. STEFANIK, New York          LINDA SANCHEZ, California
MATT GAETZ, Florida                  DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida
MIKE JOHNSON, Louisiana              GERRY CONNOLLY, Virginia
KELLY ARMSTRONG, North Dakota        JOHN GARAMENDI, California
W. GREGORY STEUBE, Florida           COLIN ALLRED, Texas
DAN BISHOP, North Carolina           SYLVIA GARCIA, Texas
KAT CAMMACK, Florida                 DAN GOLDMAN, New York
HARRIET HAGEMAN, Wyoming

               CHRISTOPHER HIXON, Majority Staff Director
              CAROLINE NABITY, Chief Counsel for Oversight
          AMY RUTKIN, Minority Staff Director & Chief of Staff
           CHRISTINA CALCE, Minority Chief Oversight Counsel

                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              

                         Thursday, May 18, 2023

                                                                   Page

                           OPENING STATEMENTS

The Honorable Jim Jordan, Chair of the Select Subcommittee on the 
  Weaponization of the Federal Government from the State of Ohio.     1
The Honorable Stacey Plaskett, Ranking Member of the Select 
  Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government 
  from the Virgin Islands........................................     3

                               WITNESSES

Garrett O'Boyle, Former FBI Special Agent
  Oral Testimony.................................................     6
  Prepared Testimony.............................................     9
Stephen Friend, Former FBI Special Agent
  Oral Testimony.................................................    11
  Prepared Testimony.............................................    14
Marcus Allen, Staff Operations Specialist, FBI
  Oral Testimony.................................................    18
  Prepared Testimony.............................................    21
Tristan Leavitt, President, Empower Oversight
  Oral Testimony.................................................    24
  Prepared Testimony.............................................    27

          LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC. SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING

All materials submitted for the record by the Select Subcommittee 
  on the Weaponization of the Federal Government are listed below    79

A letter from the Honorable Christopher Dunham, Acting Assistant 
  Director, to the Honorable Jim Jordan, Chair of the Select 
  Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government 
  from the State of Ohio, submitted by the Honorable Wasserman-
  Schultz, a Member of the Select Subcommittee on the 
  Weaponization of the Federal Government from the State of 
  Florida, for the record
An excerpt from a transcribed interview of George J. Hill, 
  submitted by the Honorable Gerry Connolly, a Member of the 
  Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal 
  Government from the State of Virginia, for the record

                                  VOTE

RC #1--Motion to Table--passed 8-5

 
           HEARING ON WEAPONIZATION OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

                              ----------                              


                         Thursday, May 18, 2023

                        House of Representatives

   Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government

                       Committee on the Judiciary

                             Washington, DC

    The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m., in 
Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Jim Jordan 
[Chair of the Subcommittee] presiding.
    Present: Representatives Jordan, Issa, Massie, Stewart, 
Stefanik, Johnson of Louisiana, Gaetz, Armstrong, Steube, 
Bishop, Cammack, Hageman, Plaskett, Lynch, Sanchez, Wasserman 
Schultz, Connolly, Garamendi, Allred, Garcia, and Goldman.
    Also present: Representative Biggs.
    Chair Jordan. The Subcommittee will come to order.
    Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a 
recess at anytime.
    We welcome everyone to today's hearing on the Weaponization 
of the Federal Government.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from the great State 
of Utah to lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance.
    All. I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States 
of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one 
Nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for 
all.
    Chair Jordan. The Chair now recognizes himself for an 
opening statement.
    Politics is driving the addenda in Federal agencies. If you 
don't believe me, just read the Durham Report from three ago. 
No probable cause, no predicate, no evidence whatsoever, but 
the FBI opened a case, took a dossier, a dossier they knew was 
false, from a political campaign, from the Clinton campaign, to 
spy on a Presidential candidate and American citizens. Here's 
the key line from the Durham Report, ``The FBI failed to uphold 
their mission of fidelity to the law.''
    They didn't follow the law. Didn't have probable cause or 
evidence to do what they did, an agency focused on politics.
    I would argue today it's even worse, because today it's not 
just predial campaigns. Today it's the American people. They're 
the target. You're not politically correct, you're not in line 
with what they think should be the political position, the 
proper position, you're the target. Parents attending a school 
board meeting, pro-lifers praying at a clinic, or Catholics 
simply attending mass, you could be a target.
    Maybe what's just as frightening is if you're one of the 
good employees in our government who come forward to talk about 
the targeting, you then become a target. You face retaliation. 
If you're one of those--and I think there are thousands and 
thousands of good employees working across our country in the 
FBI and other agencies. If you're one of those good employees, 
driven by your commitment to the Constitution and your 
conscience and you come forward, they're going to come after 
you.
    If you come forward and tell us about the radical, 
traditional Catholic memo, you come forward and tell us about 
this idea they're going to create some snitch line to report on 
parents going to school board meetings, you do that, they will 
try to crush you. They will retaliate against you. They're 
coming after you.
    These guys today, they were brave enough. They took their 
oath seriously. They believe in the Constitution, the Bill of 
Rights, and the rule of law. They came forward and I want to 
thank them for doing it. Because they did, man, oh, man, have 
they faced retaliation.
    Mr. O'Boyle was selected for a new unit, moved his family 
from Kansas to Quantico, Virginia. The first day he arrives 
here, after being selected for this new unit, serving in our 
military, serving well in the FBI, the first day he arrives 
here, they tell him his clearance is suspended. He can't get 
his belongings for his family. Can't get his clothes. Can't get 
his children's clothes, four kids and a two-week-old newborn.
    Mr. Friend raised concerns about using the SWAT team to 
arrest someone who was willing to turn themselves in, and the 
FBI takes his clearance. Wouldn't even let him get access to 
his firearms training records, which he needs to get 
employment.
    Mr. O'Boyle's went 200-and-some days without getting paid. 
Mr. Allen's went 450 days without getting paid. This is the 
kind of retaliation they have faced for coming forward and 
telling us the truth.
    For Mr. Allen, he lost his clearance for simply doing his 
job, compiling case-related research, using open-source 
material, news, and articles and passing them on to people 
working the case. They didn't like some of the material he 
passed on--450 days without pay.
    The retaliation isn't limited to the FBI. Democrats on this 
Committee also engaged in it. They leaked parts of these guys' 
interviews to the press. The press reported on it. Then the 
press had to issue corrections, The Washington Post, The New 
York Times, and the Rolling Stone, because what the Democrats 
told them wasn't accurate. What they reported wasn't accurate.
    That's why Mr. Allen would only let Republicans talk to 
him. He said, ``I've seen what's going on. I want to be there 
to provide it to the Republicans.''
    We've talked to over two dozen whistleblowers. People have 
come to us. We've interviewed several of those. Today three of 
them, three of those brave whistleblowers and the lawyer who 
represents them will tell us their story. They will tell us 
what happened, what they saw, and then what happened to them 
because they were courageous enough to report it to Congress.
    I just want to tell you guys. Get ready. Get ready because 
these guys are going to come after you. You know they are. Last 
hearing we had, we had two journalists, Democrats. Two Democrat 
journalists sat right where you guys did, and these guys tried 
to get them to divulge their sources. Someone needs to tell 
them how the First Amendment works.
    Oh, while Mr. Taibbi, one of those award-winning 
journalists, sitting right where you were sitting, was 
testifying, guess what else was happening? The IRS was knocking 
on his door.
    So, get ready. I know you're up to the task, because you 
came forward in the first place.
    Thank you for your commitment to the Constitution, the 
First Amendment, the rule of law, and for your willingness to 
come forward and tell Congress what you've seen, what you've 
witnessed. Thank you for doing that.
    Mr. Leavitt, thank you for representing them. We appreciate 
that.
    Now, I yield to the Ranking Member for an opening 
statement.
    Ms. Plaskett. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good morning.
    Today is our fourth hearing in this Select Committee. In 
our previous three hearings, we've heard my Republican 
colleagues and their witnesses downplay the danger of extremism 
in America, suggesting that the 2020 election was stolen and 
claimed that January 6th was anything other than an attempted 
insurrection, anything other than domestic terrorism.
    From what I can glean about today's hearing--and I'm going 
to say ``glean,'' because my Republican colleagues don't really 
want to us work together. They give us the bare minimum notice 
for hearings, no subject indicated. We learn who the hearing 
witnesses is from British tabloids. That's not normal in the 
House of Representatives.
    One must wonder: Are Republicans scared of giving us the 
information so that we can do our own due diligence on these 
conspiracy theories, these ideas that they want to put forward? 
Indeed, today's hearing will be more of the same.
    Perhaps they're too far gone to realize that, in fact, this 
hearing is evidence, as if we needed anymore that MAGA 
Republicans are a threat to the rule of law in America.
    Less than two months ago, former President Trump, facing 
mounting investigations into his many alleged crimes, declared 
that, ``Republicans in Congress should defund the DOJ and the 
FBI until they can come to their senses.''
    We all know that when Trump says jump, the Republicans in 
the House say how high. So, here we are on Police Week, 
watching House Republicans jump to lay the foundation to defund 
law enforcement.
    My colleagues on the far right are on a mission to attack, 
discredit, and ultimately dismantle the FBI. This is defunding 
the police on steroids.
    As part of their mission, my colleagues have brought in 
these former agents, men who lost their security clearances 
because they were a threat to our national security, who out of 
malice or ignorance or both have put partisan agenda above the 
oath they swore to serve this country and protect its national 
security.
    It is everyday American taxpayer who's bearing the burden 
of this circus-like hearing. A year ago, Republicans promised 
that if they won control of Congress, they would focus on 
kitchen table issues like bringing down inflation. Now, we got 
a bait and switch.
    Instead of trying to make their constituents lives' better, 
they're wasting time and taxpayer dollars on an endless, 
fruitless string of partisan investigations.
    Instead of working to make America more secure, they're 
manufacturing opportunities to attack law enforcement agencies, 
even and especially on the same week that we are remembering 
those law enforcement personnel who lost their lives in the 
line of duty.
    We are assembled today to hear conspiracy theories and 
speculations. We're going to hear alternative facts, actions 
and events taken far out of context. When they lack support for 
a baseless allegation, get this. My Republican friends will 
cite the absence of evidence of evidence of a cover-up. Any 
suggestion that Chair Jordan's witnesses are anything but 
victims of an oppressive, dystopia government will be met with 
mock outrage.
    So, what we all know what we are about to see. The real 
question, the real thing that Americans need to be focused on 
is why.
    My Republican colleagues would like me and others to 
believe that they've suddenly found religion when it comes to 
misconduct in law enforcement. Give me a break.
    When the FBI is rifling through personal correspondence of 
people of color, when law enforcement tries to push policies to 
limit the freedom of people practicing a different religion, or 
unjustly pursuing people in cars who look like Philando Castile 
or my children or who are just going about their business or 
breaking down the doors of people's homes like Breonna Taylor, 
do you think my Republican colleagues care about that? They 
don't bat an eye.
    When the FBI investigates conservative Christian White, men 
who are actually threatening violence, suddenly my Republican 
colleagues are rushing to defund the police. The reason we're 
here today is because Chair Jordan wants to make America Trump 
again. My Republican colleagues aren't here, representing their 
constituents, not my constituents. They're representing Donald 
Trump. They're acting as his defense attorney, his campaign 
operative, and everything in between.
    This Committee, this Select Committee is a clearinghouse 
for testing conspiracy theories for Donald Trump to use in his 
2024 Presidential Campaign.
    What's clear from these hearings is that Donald Trump 
knows, just as well as I do, that the danger to him and his 
MAGA movement is the rule of law. That's why this Committee is 
working so hard to undermine the rule of law. That's why Donald 
Trump asked Jordan and others on this Committee to waste our 
time and taxpayer money, asked the Speaker of House to attack 
the Manhattan District Attorney, Alvin Bragg, for having the 
audacity to indict the former President on 34 counts of fraud. 
That's why this Committee hasn't given up its stolen election 
talking points.
    Now, here we are today, going after the FBI on Donald 
Trump's behalf. This is not a Committee on the Weaponization of 
Government. This is a Committee for the Weaponization of 
Government. This Select Committee is clearly focused on 
undermining law enforcement so extremists can undermine our 
elections through corruption and control our government through 
threats of political violence.
    I hope Democrats, as well as Republicans, watch and listen 
this morning, because this hearing will demonstrate far better 
than any opening statement ever could that outside of 
Washington, the real divide in America is not between Democrats 
and Republicans. It's between people who love this country, who 
believe in the rule of law, who want to follow the law, and 
those who will fight to make our union more perfect and the 
people who want to tear it down the rule of law and betray our 
Constitution for personal, as well as political gain.
    I yield back.
    Chair Jordan. The gentlewoman yields back.
    Without objection, all other opening statements will be 
included in the record.
    We will now introduce today's witnesses.
    Mr. Garrett O'Boyle. Mr. O'Boyle's a whistleblower, an FBI 
Special Agent, most recently in the Wichita Resident Agency of 
the Kansas City Field Office. Prior to becoming an FBI agent, 
Mr. O'Boyle served our Nation as an infantryman in the United 
States Army for six years.
    In the Army, Mr. O'Boyle was deployed to both Iraq and 
Afghanistan. He received numerous service wards include the 
Combat Infantryman Badge. Mr. O'Boyle received an Honorable 
Discharge from the Army.
    Upon leaving, Mr. O'Boyle continued his commitment to 
public service, serving as a police officer in Waukesha, 
Wisconsin, for four years.
    Mr. O'Boyle joined the FBI in 2018. As an FBI agent, Mr. 
O'Boyle was selected to serve on the Joint Terrorism Task Force 
and the SWAT team. Mr. O'Boyle graduated cum laude from 
Marquette University with a degree in criminology and law 
studies.
    The FBI questions his loyalty to the Constitution and to 
our country.
    Mr. Friend is a whistleblower and an FBI Special Agent, 
most recently in the Daytona Beach Resident Agency of the 
Jacksonville Field Office.
    Prior to becoming an FBI, in 2014, Mr. Friend served as a 
police officer in Savannah, Georgia, in Pooler, Georgia. As an 
FBI agent, Mr. Friend spent seven years working human 
trafficking investigations and investigating crimes against 
children. Prior to blowing the whistle in 2022, Mr. Friend had 
received several awards from the FBI for his performance. Mr. 
Friend is a graduate of the University of Notre Dame.
    Again, after this service to our country, the FBI questions 
his loyalty to the country.
    Mr. Allen is a whistleblower and Staff Operations 
Specialist with an FBI--with the FBI Charlotte Field Office. 
Mr. Allen served 20 years--has 20 years of experience as an 
Intelligence Professional in the FBI, in the United States 
Armed Services.
    Prior to joining the FBI, Mr. Allen served in the United 
States Marine Corps including service in Iraq, Kuwait, and 
Japan. In the Marines, Mr. Allen received several awards 
including the Navy and Marine Corps Commendation Medal and the 
Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Medal.
    Mr. Allen received an honorable discharge from his Marine 
Corps duty. Again, the letter we got from the FBI, they're 
questioning his commitment to our country. I find that 
astounding.
    Prior to blowing the whistle, Mr. Allen received several 
awards from the FBI including being selected as Employee of the 
Year for the Charlotte Field Office in 2019. Mr. Allen holds a 
Bachelor of Arts Degree from American Military University.
    Mr. Tristan Leavitt. Mr. Leavitt is an attorney and the 
President of Empower Oversight, an organization dedicated to 
enhancing independent oversight of government and corporate 
wrongdoing.
    Prior to joining Empower Oversight, Mr. Leavitt was a 
Senate-confirmed member of the United States Merit System 
Protection Board which adjudicates whistleblower retaliation 
claims.
    Mr. Leavitt also served as the Principal Deputy Special 
Counsel at the Office of the Special Counsel which enforces 
special whistleblower laws.
    Early in his career, Mr. Leavitt was a counsel for Senator 
Grassley on the Senate Judiciary Committee and staffer on the 
House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. He's graduate 
of Brigham Young University and Georgetown University Law 
Center and is considered an expert on the whistleblower law.
    As far as I know, the FBI hasn't questioned his loyalty to 
the country.
    We welcome our witnesses and thank them for appearing 
today. We will begin by swearing you in.
    Would you please stand and raise your right hand?
    Do you swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that the 
testimony you're about to give is true and correct to the best 
of your knowledge, information, and belief, so help you God?
    Let the record show that each witness answered in the 
affirmative.
    Thank you. Please be seated.
    Please know that your written testimony will be entered 
into the record in its entirety. Accordingly, we ask that you 
summarize your testimony in approximately five minutes. We're 
going to give you plenty of time. If you can keep it around 
five minutes, great. If you go over, no worries there.
    We will start with Mr. O'Boyle.
    Mr. O'Boyle, you're recognized for your opening statement.

                  STATEMENT OF GARRET O'BOYLE

    Mr. O'Boyle. Chair Jordan, Members of the Committee, thank 
you for addressing FBI malfeasance and allowing me to speak 
today.
    Aside from that point of gratitude, I am sad, I am 
disappointed, and I'm angry that I have to be here to testify 
about the weaponization of the FBI and DOJ, weaponization 
against not only its own employees, but against those 
institutions and individuals that are supposed to protect the 
American people.
    I am here today because, even though I am wrongfully 
suspended from the FBI, I remain duty bound to the American 
people to play my small role in rectifying these issues. After 
all, I never swore an oath to the FBI. I swore an oath to the 
Constitution.
    I've served my Nation and community my entire adult life, 
first in the United States Army, then as a police officer, and 
last as an FBI Special Agent.
    Shortly after high school, I joined The United States Army 
where I served in the infantry, and I was quickly promoted 
through the ranks. I deployed to both Iraq and Afghanistan in 
support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. I served in the historic 
101st Airborne Division.
    I received the Combat Infantryman Badge, which is awarded 
to those infantrymen who engage in ground combat with our 
Nation's enemies. The Army's official motto is, ``This we'll 
defend.''
    Along with numerous others, I volunteered to serve this 
Nation, risking my life in combat to protect America and her 
values. I know some of the best men and women this country has 
to offer. They come from all background, races, and creeds. 
They helped mod me into the person I am today. Each was willing 
to sacrifice, and many did to protect this great Nation. It is 
our duty to honor their sacrifices by standing up for what is 
right, regardless of the difficulty.
    After serving in the Army, I became a police officer. 
Police officers, like me, are imperfect beings. We strive to 
uphold the law and the Constitution, people who go to work 
every day, trying make their communities better, yet who 
nonetheless are faced with budgets cuts and calls for defunding 
as we continue spiraling away from law and order as a Nation.
    While serving as a police officer, I finished my Bachelor's 
Degree, graduating with honor in criminology and law studies. I 
began the long road to becoming an FBI Special Agent, a 
position I once understood to be the pinnacle of law 
enforcement and a way to continue to serve this Nation and 
protect and defend the Constitution.
    During my four years as a Special Agent, I received the 
highest annual review an employee can receive. I volunteered 
for, tried out for, and was select for an FBI SWAT team. I also 
volunteered for, tried out for, and was selected for a new unit 
the FBI created. I also received an award for my work on an 
antiabortion extremism case.
    I've been smeared as a malcontent and subpar FBI employee. 
This smear stands in stark contrast to my life in public 
service. This smear campaign, disgusting as it is, is 
unsurprising. Despite our oath to uphold the Constitution, too 
many in the FBI aren't willing to sacrifice for the hard right 
over the easy wrong. They see what becomes of whistleblowers, 
how the FBI destroys their careers, suspends them under false 
pretenses, takes their security clearances and pay with no true 
options for recourse or remedy. This is by design. It creates 
an Orwellian atmosphere that silences opposition and 
discussion.
    We know what is right to do, yet we too often refuse to do 
what is right because of the difficulty and suffering it 
incurs. I couldn't knowingly continue this path silently 
without speaking out against the weaponization I witnessed, 
even if it meant losing my job, my career, my livelihood, my 
family's home, and now my anonymity.
    It's up to the Members of this Committee, current and 
former FBI employees, and, indeed, all Americans to ensure the 
weaponization of our own government against the people comes to 
an end, no matter the personal cost.
    As James Madison prudently opined,

        In framing a government which is to be administered by men over 
        men, the great difficulty lies in this. You must first enable 
        the government to control the governed. In the next place, 
        oblige it to control itself.

    The safeguards currently in place at the FBI are clearly 
inadequate and must be reworked to protect whistleblowers and 
others who are inappropriately targeted. The FBI can extract 
whatever they want from me. I'm willing to bear that burden. 
I've sworn to defend this country from enemies, both foreign 
and domestic, even if that means sacrificing my life. I've 
lived that oath out since first enlisting in the Army, 
consistently saying, ``Here am I. Send me.''
    My oath, however, did not include sacrificing the hopes, 
dreams, and livelihood of my family--my strong, beautiful, and 
courageous wife and our four sweet and beautiful daughters who 
have endured this process along with me.
    In weaponized fashion, the FBI allowed me to accept orders 
to a new position halfway across the country. They allowed us 
to sell my family's home. They ordered me to report to the new 
unit when our youngest daughter was two weeks old. Then on my 
first day on the new assignment, they suspended me, rendering 
my family homeless. They refused to release our goods, 
including our clothes, for weeks.
    All I wanted to do was serve my country by stopping bad 
guys and protecting the innocent. To my chagrin, bad guys have 
begun running parts of the government, making it difficult to 
continue to serve this Nation and protect the innocent. I, for 
one, will never stop trying. I will never forget my oath.
    Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. O'Boyle follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Chair Jordan. Thank you, Mr. O'Boyle.
    God bless you.
    Mr. Friend, you're recognized for your opening statement.

                   STATEMENT OF STEVE FRIEND

    Mr. Friend. Thank you, Chair Jordan and the Members of the 
Committee.
    My name is Steven Friend. I'm a Senior Fellow for the 
Center for Renewing America. Prior to assuming my current 
position, I was a Special Agent for the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation for 8\1/2\ years.
    During that time, I investigated approximately 200 violent 
crimes such as aggravated assaults, murder, child abuse, rape, 
robbery, child molestation, child pornography, and human 
trafficking. I also served five years on an FBI SWAT team and 
spent five years as a local law enforcement officer in the 
State of Georgia.
    In August 2022, I made protective whistleblower disclosures 
to my immediate supervisor, Assistant Special Agents in Charge, 
and Special Agent in Charge about my concerns regarding January 
6th investigations assigned to my office. I believed our 
departures from case management rules established in the FBI's 
Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide could have 
undermined potentially righteous prosecutions and may have been 
part of an effort to inflate the FBI's statistics on domestic 
extremism.
    I also voiced concerns that the FBI's use of SWAT and 
large-scale arrest operations to apprehend suspects who were 
accused of nonviolent crimes and misdemeanors represented by 
counsel and who pledged to cooperate with the Federal 
authorities in the event of criminal charges created an 
unnecessary risk to FBI personnel and public safety.
    At each level of my chain of command, leadership cautioned 
that, despite my exemplary work performance, whistleblower 
placed my otherwise bright future with the FBI at risk.
    Special Agents take an oath to protect the U.S. 
Constitution. The dangers of Federal law enforcement overreach 
were hammered home to me when I was required to attend training 
at the Holocaust Memorial Museum and MLK Memorial. I cited my 
oath and training in my conversations with my FBI supervisors. 
Nevertheless, the FBI weaponized the security clearance 
processes to facilitate my removal from active duty within one 
month of my disclosures.
    In addition to indefinite unpaid suspense, the FBI initiate 
add campaign of humiliation and intimidation to punish and 
pressure me to resign. In violation of HIPAA, individuals at 
the FBI leaked my private medical information to a reporter at 
The New York Times.
    In violation of the Privacy Act, the FBI refused to furnish 
my training records for several months. To date, they only 
provided a portion of the records which are essential to 
obtaining private investigator and firearms licenses in the 
State of Florida.
    Even after releasing some of the records, the FBI refuses 
to confirm their legitimacy to the Florida Department of 
Agriculture, rendering the few documents they have provided 
practically useless. The FBI denied my request to seek outside 
employment in an obvious attempt to deprive me of the ability 
to support my family.
    Finally, the FBI Inspection Division imposed an illegal gag 
order in an attempt to prevent me from communicating with my 
family and attorneys.
    Working as an FBI Special Agent was my dream job. My 
whistleblowing was apolitical and in the spirit of upholding my 
oath. Nonetheless, the FBI cynically elected to close ranks and 
take the messenger.
    The FBI is incentivized to work against the American people 
and in dire need of drastic reform, particularly in these 
areas. The Integrated Program Management System incentivizes 
the use of inappropriate investigatory processes and tools to 
achieve arbitrary statistical accomplishments.
    Mission creep within the National Security Branch has 
refocused counterterrorism from legitimate foreign actors to 
political opponents within our borders.
    The FBI weaponizes process crimes and reinterprets laws to 
initiate pretextual prosecutions and persecute its political 
enemies.
    Bureau intelligence analysis capability increasingly 
dictates operations, turning the FBI into an intelligence 
agency with a law enforcement capability.
    FBI collusion with big tech to gather intelligence on 
Americans, censor political speech, and target citizens from 
malicious prosecution.
    A dysfunctional promotion process fosters a revolving door 
of inexperienced, ambitious FBI supervisors ascending the 
management ladder within the agency.
    FBI informant protocols that are broken and abusive.
    The FBI skirts the Whistleblower Protection Act and 
exploits the security clearance revocation process to expel 
employees who make legally protected disclosures.
    I am pleased to see the Weaponization Committee is taking 
testimony from FBI whistleblowers. I would also like to take 
this opportunity to address correspondence recently received by 
the Subcommittee. Yesterday, May 17, 2023, FBI Acting Assistant 
Director Christopher Dunham submitted a letter to this 
Subcommittee. Portions of his letter concerned the suspension 
and revocation of my security clearance.
    Parenthetically, I also received a letter from the FBI 
Executive Assistant Director Jennifer Moore yesterday, 
notifying me that my security clearance was revoked. I find the 
timing of these letters dubious, but leave that up to the 
Subcommittee's determination.
    Instead, I would like to address and add vital context to 
the portions of Mr. Dunham's letter pertaining my violation of 
Adjudicative Guideline J. Mr. Dunham is referring to an audio 
recording I created of my August 23, 2022, meeting with 
Jacksonville Assistant Special Agents in Charge, Coult 
Markovsky and Sean Ryan.
    After making protective whistleblower disclosures to my 
immediate supervisor on August 19, 2022, ASAC Markovsky 
summoned me to a meeting at the FBI Jacksonville office. ASAC 
Markovsky told me the meeting was intended to be an opportunity 
to discuss my concerns. I anticipated the meeting might 
ultimately lead to my executive managers attempting to compel 
me to participate in an activity which placed public safety at 
risk. I was concerned ASAC Markovsky and ASAC Ryan may threaten 
adverse actions toward my career, a result of my whistleblower 
disclosure.
    Prior to the meeting, I consulted Florida law to confirm 
that a law enforcement exemption exists for State two-party 
consent restriction. I decided to record the meeting to 
memorialize our discussion and my concerns about the FBI's 
misconduct.
    When I entered the FBI Jacksonville office building, ASAC 
Markovsky and ASAC Ryan were having a private meeting. I waited 
for them in the conference room. When they entered, all of us 
placed our cellular phones on the conference table. As an 
experienced investigator who has conducted hundreds of recorded 
interviews, I noted how both ASAC Markovsky and ASAC Ryan 
repeated themselves through our discussion and continually 
insisted I agree to their premise that I was insubordinate in 
refusing to perform my job.
    I rebuffed each allegation and repeated that I believed I 
was fulfilling my oath of office by making my disclosure about 
the FBI's rule departures and the inappropriate risk to public 
safety via aggressive arrest tactics for January 6th subjects. 
It was my sincere belief that my ASACs were also recording our 
conversations.
    In January 2023, I participated in an interview with the 
FBI Security Division. During that interview I was asked if I 
recorded my August 23, 2022, meeting with ASAC Markovsky and 
ASAC Ryan. I answered honestly that I had. Although it would 
seem to be an obvious and natural followup, the FBI Security 
Division interviewers did not request a copy of the recording.
    FBI Security Division should be gravely concerned if 
executive managers threaten subordinate whistleblowers with 
adverse action. I submitted that this omission by the FBI 
Security Division solidifies my contention that ASACs Markovsky 
and Ryan created their own recording of our meeting.
    The FBI was not concerned about potential whistleblower 
retaliation. The bureau was only interested in learning if 
these actions were at risk of exposure.
    I pray that all members consider the information I and my 
fellow whistleblowers present. You may think I am a political 
partisan. You may think I am a grifter. You may think I'm a 
conspiracy theorist. It does not matter. Simply put, this 
Committee should avoid the temptation to impugn the character 
and the motivations of the messengers seated before you.
    I sacrificed my dream job to share this information with 
the American people. I humbly ask all the Members to do your 
jobs and consider the merit of what I have presented.
    Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Friend follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Chair Jordan. Thank you, Mr. Friend. We appreciate your 
testimony.
    Mr. Allen, you're now recognized for your opening 
statement.

                   STATEMENT OF MARCUS ALLEN

    Mr. Allen. Thank you, Chair.
    Hello. My name is Marcus Allen. I'm a Staff Operations 
Specialist for the FBI in the Charlotte Field Office. Due to 
whistleblower retaliation by the FBI, I've been suspended 
without pay for over a year.
    Thank you to the Committee for allowing me time today to 
convey my concerns about the current FBI. In particular, I am 
concerned, and I believe this Committee should also be 
concerned about the FBI's use of the security clearance process 
to retaliate against whistleblowers.
    First, though, just so you know a little bit about me, I 
served honorably in the United States Marine Corps from 2000-
2005. I was deployed to Kuwait and served two tours in Iraq and 
contributed to Operation Iraqi Freedom.
    During my deployments, I was exposed to live enemy fire on 
numerous occasions, even though I served primarily in 
analytical and intelligence roles.
    I was awarded the Navy and Marine Corps Commendation Medal 
and the Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Medal. I eventually 
joined the FBI and was employee of the year in 2019 in the 
Charlotte Field Office. As the holder of a top-secret security 
clearance since 2001, I've been trusted with the Nation's 
greatest secrets.
    So, why am I here today? Despite my history of unblemished 
service to the United States, the FBI suspended my security 
clearance, accusing me of actually being disloyal to my 
country. This outrageous and insulting accusation is based on 
unsubstantiated accusations that I hold conspiratorial views 
regarding the events of January 6, 2021, and that I allegedly 
sympathize with criminal conduct. I do not.
    I was not in Washington, DC, on January 6th, played no part 
in the events of January 6th, and I condemn all criminal 
activity that occurred. Instead, it appears that I was 
retaliated against because I forwarded information to my 
superiors and others that questioned the official narrative of 
the events of January 6th. As a result, I was accused of 
promoting conspiratorial views and unreliable information. 
Because I did this, the FBI questioned my allegiance to the 
United States.
    Since I was suspended, there's been a dearth of 
communication from the FBI, with interactions seemingly only 
being forced by actions from my counsel or Members of Congress. 
For example, I was not even interviewed by anyone from the FBI 
until May 2022. I was suspended in January 2022. This 
interaction with the FBI happened on the heels of a public 
statement from a Congressional Member in early May 2022. The 
Member made statements, indicating the February was conducting 
a purge of employees with conservative viewpoints.
    Within hours of the public statements, my counsel received 
a phone call from the FBI, wanting to see if they could conduct 
an interview. I promptly complied and did an interview with 
investigators within a week. Throughout this ordeal, I and my 
counsel have responded quickly whereas the FBI has only 
stonewalled. I have filed a Federal civil rights lawsuit which 
is pending, seeking to recover my livelihood and restore my 
good name.
    Recently, my counsel filed a whistleblower complaint with 
the Justice Department's Office of Inspector General. The 
complaint set forth retaliation through misuse of the security 
clearance process, as well as reprisal against me for making a 
protected disclosure.
    Interestingly enough, in the wake of the filing, the 
complaint--in the wake of filing the complaint, I received 
correspondence from the FBI, indicating that my clearance had 
now been formally revoked. This occurred after filing my 
complaint with the Inspector General. The new and baseless 
claims made in the letter had never been brought up prior to 
the issuance of the security clearance revocation letter. I 
have never had the opportunity to defend myself.
    I only had one interview with the FBI which occurred a year 
ago after apparent prompting from Congress. In that interview 
the investigators toward the end of the interview uttered in 
response to my exasperation, ``Don't sue us.''
    This has been a trying circumstance for me and my family. 
It has been more than a year since the FBI took my paycheck 
from me, and we're getting financially crushed. My family and I 
have been surviving on early withdrawals from our retirement 
accounts, while the FBI's ignored my request for approval to 
obtain outside employment during the review of my security 
clearance. We have lost our Federal health insurance coverage, 
and there's apparently no end in sight.
    I'm hopeful scrutiny from Congress and from the Inspector 
General will deter the FBI from abusing the security clearance 
process to retaliate against others the way it's retaliated 
against me. This is why I filed the whistleblower retaliation 
complaint with the IG and why I'm here today to answer your 
questions.
    Thank you.
    I also have a rebuttal if the Member will allow me to--
thank you.
    This is a rebuttal of the FBI correspondence just recently 
sent to the Committee in reference to my clearance suspension 
and now revocation.
    Calumny is not a word to be thrown around lightly. In 
regard to the FBI's treatment of me, it is fitting. This is 
conduct unbecoming of an organization given the public trust. 
Think about that. My treatment without a doubt has sent the 
chilling effect to what semblance remains of an analytical 
cadre. This was not a thorough investigation in my regard. I've 
not been afforded an opportunity to appropriately defend myself 
or confront the claims made against me.
    Interestingly, the revocation language citing Guideline E 
is the first instance I've ever seen referring to the specific 
guidance in my case. The claim that I obstructed a lawful 
investigation is dubious, and I do not recall ever being 
admonished for such an infraction.
    In regard to the paragraph in the letters, highlighting an 
alleged incident with a Special Agent, I have no idea what it 
refers to. This alleged incident did not come up at all during 
the alleged thorough investigation. Again, as with Guideline E, 
this is the first appearance of this allegation during this 
entire ordeal.
    Next, I do not recall ever receiving a directive to stop 
sending information in regard to the 6th. Why would you not 
want anymore information sent to you?
    Furthermore, the September 29, 2021, email referred to in 
the letter is part of a protected disclosure. Its 
correspondence represents documentary evidence of a protected 
disclosure as a source of retaliation and reprisal.
    Alternative analysis and differing viewpoints should be 
welcomed, even though they may not be ultimately acted on by 
the actual decisionmakers. Group think should not be an ethos 
championed in an investigative organization. To shut down 
differing viewpoints is the end of any analytical or 
investigative body. It sends a chilling effect across the 
workforce and does not allow for intellectual freedom which is 
vital to any investigative body seeking out the truth.
    It is possible the ire toward my perspective could have 
been due to folks wanting to maintain vincible ignorance, 
instead of consciously and mentally transferring over to 
willful ignorance.
    This is the end of my statement and thank you for my time.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Allen follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Chair Jordan. Thank you, Mr. Allen.
    Mr. Leavitt.

                  STATEMENT OF TRISTAN LEAVITT

    Mr. Leavitt. Chair Jordan, Ranking Member Plaskett, Members 
of the Subcommittee, thank you so much for the invitation to 
testify today.
    I currently serve as the President of Empower Oversight. 
We're honored to represent Steven Friend and Marcus Allen.
    FBI whistleblowers have second-class status compared to 
those in most Federal agencies. When Congress adopted the 
modern system of whistleblower protections, it prohibited 
retaliation against FBI whistleblowers. It gave them none of 
the process other Federal law enforcement agencies received 
like the DEA, the ATF, U.S. Marshals, and Secret Service.
    Whistleblowers of those agencies can all file retaliation 
complaints with the U.S. Office of Special Counsel, an 
independent agency. FBI whistleblowers cannot.
    Whistleblowers at those agencies can all appeal retaliation 
to the Merit Systems Protection Board on which I recently 
served. Until just last year, FBI whistleblowers could not. 
They finally got that right in last December's NDAA, but 
Congress must ensure that this new jurisdiction applies as 
intended to all FBI retaliation cases.
    Many have been winding their way for years through DOJ's 
long and extensive process, but the laws prohibiting 
retaliation have been on the books that entire time. The FBI 
cannot claim now that these are new rights just because they 
now have to justify their actions before the MSPB.
    Time has demonstrated, in my opinion, that it was a mistake 
to exclude the FBI from the standard whistleblower protection 
process. It discourages integrity and encourages deceit and 
even corruption. Congress should treat the FBI the same as all 
other Federal law enforcement agencies, eliminating a special 
exception and giving its employees access to OSC to investigate 
retaliation. The hardworking employees of the FBI deserve equal 
protection of the law.
    The FBI's latest troubling practice is suspending security 
clearances to retaliate against whistleblower. Mr. Friend and 
Mr. Allen, along with Mr. O'Boyle, are just several public 
examples of this trend. When the FBI suspends a clearance, it 
also immediately suspends the employee indefinitely without 
pay. To make matters worse, it holds them and their families 
hostage by requiring them to get permission to take another 
job, permission the FBI routinely denies. Congress needs to 
ensure the FBI stops this abuse.
    In light of these obstacles for FBI whistleblowers, you 
would think Congress would do everything that it could to 
welcome their disclosures here. FBI employees coming to 
Congress have unfortunately been shamefully treated by 
Democrats on this Committee. It's one thing hear allegations 
and find them unpersuasive or even distasteful. An office can 
even ignore those allegations if they choose. That's their 
prerogative. To go out and actively smear the individuals 
making disclosures is far worse.
    That's what the Democrats on this Committee did when they 
released a March 2nd report entitled, ``GOP Witnesses: What 
Their Disclosures Indicate About the State of the Republicans 
Investigations.'' That report was inaccurate, both on the law 
and on the facts. The law doesn't define the term 
``whistleblower.'' Instead, it protects from retaliation 
individuals who engage in protected activity.
    For over a century, simply making disclosures of 
information to Congress has been a protected activity. 
Furthermore, an appropriations rider in effect at this time 
prohibits money from paying the salary of any Federal employee 
who prohibits or prevents any other Federal employee, such as 
FBI whistleblowers, from communicating with Congress.
    The Democrats' report denied whistleblower status to 
individuals engaged in the precise activity the Legislative 
Branch has considered protected since 1912. The report's 
reliance on evidence for whistleblower status is also 
misplaced. Simply communicating a reasonable belief of 
misconduct is protected whistleblower activity under the law. 
This applies regardless of whether the whistleblower produces 
evidence at that time backing up their allegations.
    Only protecting whistleblower disclosures accompanied by 
conclusive evidence, as the Democrats seem to require, would 
have disastrous consequences for retaliation throughout the 
Federal government.
    My experience working for Congress was that whistleblowers 
brought allegations. Where the committees found those 
allegations worthy of further followup and Congressional 
action, we conducted investigations. No one expects a private 
citizen to investigate a crime before going to the police, and 
we didn't expect a whistleblower to investigate their own 
agency.
    That's also essentially how the law for remedies 
retaliation through the MSPB is set up where making a 
nonfrivolous allegation leads to discovery, interviews, and 
more. Simply put, the burden isn't on the whistleblower to 
produce the evidence at the outset. That's why there's an 
investigative process.
    The Democrats' report also got the facts wrong. For 
example, they declaimed DOJ IG declined to investigate Mr. 
Friend's claim when, in fact, DOJ IG will be interviewing Mr. 
Friend tomorrow and has an ongoing investigation. DOJ IG says 
no one from the Democrat staff ever contacted their office to 
verify this claim before issuing their report. Inexcusably, a 
number of mainstream media stories simply repeated the 
Democrats' wrong information uncritically, without bothering to 
check the facts for themselves, which is why there are multiple 
retractions.
    FBI whistleblowers have traveled a hard road over the 
years. They should be treated by Congress the same as other 
whistleblowers. Issuing reports smearing those who come forward 
from the FBI will unquestionably deter others from taking that 
same path.
    Congress must have firsthand information about how Federal 
agencies are operating to perform its constitutional duty of 
oversight. Why would future whistleblowers bring their 
disclosures to Congress if they think they might be treated 
like this? Attacking whistleblowers hurts this Committee and 
others, the House of Representatives as an institution, and 
Congress as a whole.
    Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Leavitt follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Chair Jordan. Thank you, Mr. Leavitt.
    The recognizes the gentlelady from Wyoming for five 
minutes.
    Ms. Hageman. Thank you, Chair Jordan.
    I want to thank our witnesses today for their service to 
our country, service which includes their willingness to 
provide protected disclosures to ensure that the Federal 
government is held accountable for wrongdoing.
    We've heard their testimony, and my colleagues will ask 
more questions so we can further understand the wrongdoing they 
have exposed and the retaliation that they have now suffered.
    As this hearing gets underway, I want to focus on the 
cultural changes that have occurred within the FBI over the 
last 20-plus years, fundamental changes that have led to the 
political capture of our flagship law enforcement agencies and 
with the Democrats using these agencies as their own personal 
political hacks.
    What happened that allowed for politicization to permeate 
every facet of the FBI? Well, there are many things. I think we 
must focus on the information that was provided by retired FBI 
Special Agent Thomas Baker who testified before the Select 
Subcommittee earlier this year.
    Mr. Baker explained that in the aftermath of 9/11, and on 
being embarrassed by being scolded by President Bush for not 
being able to stop it from happening, then FBI Director Robert 
Mueller made the decision to fundamentally change the FBI from 
a law enforcement body to an intelligence-driven one.
    Such a redirection of the very purpose of the FBI resulted 
in centralizing its power in Washington, DC, while placing less 
emphasis on the field offices, changes that replaced agent 
executives in the headquarters with so-called professionals 
from the outside and stockpiling more and more power in D.C. 
and away from the country that it serves.
    On 9/11 was a watershed moment for many reasons. It was a 
horrific terrorist attack on the shores of the United States of 
America. Our government's ultimate response is also tragic and 
by targeting--by eventually finding a way to target not the 
terrorists but American citizens, which is where the FBI and 
DOJ are at this point in time.
    Both the DOJ and the FBI, they've used the FISA court to 
obtain illegitimate surveillance authority. They've targeted 
political campaigns with which they disagree. They have created 
a Russia, Russia, Russia hoax to cripple a duly elected 
President. They have targeted Catholics for exercising their 
faith. They've targeted parents for wanting to protect their 
children.
    So, what we can say, in short, is that the Eye of Sauron 
has turned inward, and it is burning with a white-hot intensity 
that seeks to destroy everything in its path. What I think we 
can say is that as the DOJ and FBI have become more political, 
they have amassed more power. As they have amassed more power, 
they have become more political. This is a vicious cycle that 
must be stopped.
    To be blunt, the leadership of the FBI and the DOJ are 
corrupt. I will name names. Christopher Wray and Merrick 
Garland are corrupt. They know it. We know it. The American 
people know it.
    Congress needs whistleblowers like you so that we can 
conduct our oversight and correct course on these abusive 
Federal agencies. Sadly, what we've already seen and what we 
will continue to see today is that the Democrats will not focus 
on the substance of what these brave men are exposing or engage 
in a discussion about how to protect our constitutional rights 
and institutions from the tyrants that are running these 
agencies.
    Instead, what we will see is that they will deflect, they 
will call the witnesses names, they will scream ``MAGA'' and 
``extremist'' at the top of their lungs. They will attempt to 
impugn your integrity. Make no mistake, they are simply trying 
to cover up the unforgivable and the indefensible, which is the 
creation of a two-tiered justice system based on political 
beliefs and the corruption of our political elites.
    I encourage the American people to listen to these 
witnesses, to read the Durham Report, to study what is 
happening with the FBI and the DOJ, and to listen and to sift 
through the lies and recognize that this nonsense must stop or 
we're going to lose the greatest republic that's ever existed 
in the history of the world.
    Thank you for your willingness to come here. Thank you for 
your willingness to stand on the wall. Thank you for your 
willingness to tell the truth about what these agencies are 
doing. America thanks you, as well.
    With that, I yield back.
    Chair Jordan. The gentlelady yields back.
    The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from California, Ms. 
Sanchez.
    Ms. Plaskett. Mr. Chair, just as a point of order, I 
understand, and we have been made aware from what you stated in 
your opening statement, as well as in a press conference 
earlier, that Mr. Allen did meet with you all and might have 
testimony that was transcribed.
    Neither--and understand that he stated that he did not feel 
comfortable meeting with the Democrats. He's comfortable being 
here today in this open forum. We will be questioning him.
    Will you give us a copy of that testimony that was 
described of your discussions with him?
    Chair Jordan. That will be up to Mr. Allen.
    Ms. Plaskett. You are in possession of them, aren't you?
    Chair Jordan. Sure yes.
    Ms. Plaskett. So, why would you not give them to us?
    Chair Jordan. Because Mr. Allen's a whistleblower, and he 
didn't want that to happen. We'll talk--
    Ms. Plaskett. He didn't want--but he's comfortable here in 
open discussion with us today?
    Chair Jordan. Sure is. You can ask him questions if you 
want.
    Mr. Goldman. You don't share your information with the 
minority?
    Chair Jordan. No.
    Mr. Goldman. The whistle--that's--
    Ms. Plaskett. You're not sharing information that you've 
obtained with the minority.
    Chair Jordan. The whistleblower was--the whistleblower--the 
whistleblower saw what you did with Mr. Friend and others, the 
false information you gave the press, so much so that they had 
to issue corrections.
    Ms. Plaskett. No. No. We've seen--
    Mr. Goldman. The whistleblower doesn't decide that. The 
Committee decides it.
    Chair Jordan. We've decided.
    Ms. Plaskett. You've decided that you're not going to 
share--
    Chair Jordan. Mr. Allen is here. You can ask him questions. 
We can talk about the testimony, but right now you're not 
getting the testimony. Mr. Allen's here to testify.
    Ms. Plaskett. You'll give us the testimony when? After he's 
left or at no point in time or when will we have that? That's 
only for the Republicans? Is that what you're saying?
    Mr. Issa. Mr. Chair, the gentlelady did not state a point 
of order.
    Ms. Plaskett. The point of order was will he be giving--
    Mr. Issa. The gentlelady out of order.
    Ms. Plaskett. --us the testimony of the witness that is 
here before us and that you have information of--
    Mr. Issa. Mr. Chair, I ask for a--
    Ms. Plaskett. --and that you are not sharing with the 
Democrats.
    Mr. Issa. Mr. Chair, I move that her--
    Chair Jordan. I was indulging the Ranking Member. The 
gentleman from California's right. She's not stated a point of 
order. That five-minute questioning, time belongs to Ms. 
Sanchez.
    Ms. Plaskett. So, the point of order is I would like the 
testimony. I move that you give us the testimony of the 
individuals.
    Mr. Gaetz. Move to table.
    Ms. Cammack. Second.
    Chair Jordan. There's a motion made to move to table. We 
will call--
    Mr. Issa. We don't, Mr. Chair, we don't have to table it.
    Ms. Garcia. We ask for a recorded vote. Mr. Chair, can we 
have a recorded vote?
    Chair Jordan. No, it's not a proper point of order.
    Ms. Plaskett. You just did a motion to table.
    Chair Jordan. No, it's not a motion to table.
    Ms. Plaskett. Your side just did a motion to table.
    Chair Jordan. It's not a proper motion.
    The Chair has recognized the gentlelady from California, 
Ms. Sanchez for her five minutes of questioning.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I have a point of inquiry. Can I ask 
you a question?
    Chair Jordan. Sure.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Mr. Chair?
    Chair Jordan. Oh, it is, yes. It's Ms. Sanchez's time.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Can I ask the Chair a question?
    Chair Jordan. After Ms. Sanchez, I'll gladly take your 
question.
    Ms. Sanchez. We will restore the five minutes for Ms. 
Sanchez.
    Ms. Sanchez. I find it incredible that evidence that one 
side has garnered is not going to be shared with the other 
side. That is not how committees work.
    Chair Jordan, Ranking Member Plaskett, I think it's 
important that we recognize this hearing for what it actually 
is. Make no mistake. This hearing is a vehicle to legitimize 
the events of January 6th and the people who perpetrated it. 
Why? Because Donald Trump is running for President again.
    If you normalize the events of January 6th, if you repeat 
his election fraud lies, then maybe he doesn't seem quite so 
extreme. Maybe it will be easier to overturn a free and fair 
election the next time.
    For those of you who have forgotten, on January 6th, a mob 
of people, who believed Donald Trump's lie that the 2020 
election was stolen, stormed the Capitol, seeking to stop the 
certification of the 2020 Presidential election. They erected 
some gallows on the lawn just outside this room. They ran 
through the halls, looking to find and hang the Vice President 
of the United States.
    It was a shocking moment of political violence, and many of 
us on this dais, including myself, were there that day. We all 
felt the fear of knowing that there were people roaming the 
Capitol, looking to kill us. Clearly some of have us quickly 
forgotten that.
    I've heard my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
suggest that, quote, ``the FBI was participating in the 
insurrection.'' They called the rioters who attacked the 
Capitol ``peaceful patriots'' and ``political prisoners.'' They 
described the violence on January 6th as akin to a, ``normal 
tourist visit.'' It was not.
    Last year, the Judiciary Committee even had to entertain a 
resolution on the repeatedly discredited Ray Epps conspiracy 
theory.
    Mr. Allen, your security clearance was first suspended on 
January 10, 2022. Is that correct? Yes or no will suffice.
    Mr. Allen. Yes.
    Ms. Sanchez. The FBI's reason to behind your suspension was 
that it found you to have, ``expelled conspiratorial views, 
both orally, in writing, and promoted unreliable information,'' 
which indicates support for the events of January 6th. Is that 
correct, yes or no?
    Mr. Allen. That is the language that they placed on the 
letter, ma'am.
    Ms. Garcia. That's a yes, then. Do you believe it's 
important for Federal agents to have allegiance to the United 
States, yes or no?
    Mr. Allen. It is absolutely important that personnel--
    Ms. Sanchez. I'll take that as a yes.
    Mr. Allen. --in the government have allegiance to the 
United States.
    Ms. Sanchez. Do you believe you should have allegiance to 
the United States to possess a security clearance, yes or no?
    Mr. Allen. Absolutely.
    Ms. Sanchez. Do you believe your obligation as a Federal 
agent should supersede your First Amendment right, yes or no?
    Mr. Allen. Can you please rephrase the question, ma'am?
    Ms. Sanchez. Do you believe that your obligation as a 
Federal agent should supersede your First Amendment right, yes 
or no?
    Mr. Allen. Can you please rephrase the question again, 
ma'am?
    Ms. Sanchez. Do you believe that you have an obligation to 
serve as a Federal agent, regardless of what your personal 
political beliefs are?
    Mr. Allen. Yes. I have an obligation to serve the United 
States of America.
    Ms. Sanchez. Thank you.
    Do you believe that FBI agents should be permitted to 
express support for individuals who stormed the Capitol on 
January 6th, yes or no?
    Mr. Allen. I believe agents have to do their jobs, ma'am.
    Ms. Sanchez. Do you believe that agents should be permitted 
to express their support for individuals who stormed the 
Capitol on January 6th, yes or no? It's a simple question.
    Mr. Allen. No. You're supposed to be apolitical, ma'am, and 
do your job--
    Ms. Sanchez. So, is that a no.
    Mr. Allen. --as a person. You're supposed to be apolitical 
and do your job--
    Ms. Sanchez. I'm asking you for a simple yes or no.
    Mr. Allen. Can you please restate the question?
    Ms. Sanchez. Not a difficult question.
    Do you believe that FBI agents should be permitted to 
express support for individuals who stormed the Capitol on 
January 6th?
    Mr. Allen. You should not be voicing support for criminal 
conduct.
    Ms. Sanchez. OK. Thank you.
    Mr. Allen. You have to do your job apolitically, ma'am.
    Ms. Sanchez. Thank you.
    Mr. Allen, have you ever used Twitter, yes or no?
    Mr. Allen. I have utilized Twitter, yes, ma'am.
    Ms. Sanchez. OK. Is your account @MarcusA97050645.
    Mr. Allen. That is absolutely not my account, ma'am.
    Ms. Sanchez. OK. That's not your account. Well, on December 
5, 2022, an account under the name Marcus Allen retweeted a 
tweet that said--
    Mr. Allen. That is not my account, ma'am.
    Ms. Sanchez. You haven't let me finish the question, sir.
    Mr. Gaetz. It might have been a football question.
    Ms. Sanchez. You haven't let me finish the question.
    On December--and the time is mine.
    On December 5, 2022, an account under the name of Marcus 
Allen retweeted a tweet that said, ``Nancy Pelosi staged 
January 6th Retweet if you agree .''
    Do you agree with that statement? Yes or no?
    Mr. Allen. That is--I don't--no, ma'am. That's not my 
account at all. I have no idea--
    Ms. Sanchez. I'm asking whether you agree with that 
statement, yes or no?
    Mr. Allen. Can you please rephrase the statement?
    Ms. Sanchez. Yes.
    Chair Jordan. The time of the gentlelady--
    Ms. Sanchez. Do you believe--
    Chair Jordan. The time of the gentlelady has expired.
    Ms. Sanchez. --Nancy Pelosi staged January 6th? I just want 
him to answer the question.
    Chair Jordan. He'll answer. He's answer. I'm just telling 
you your time's up.
    Ms. Sanchez. Do you believe that Nancy Pelosi--do you agree 
with the statement this person tweeted that Nancy Pelosi staged 
January 6th?
    Mr. Allen. I don't--
    Ms. Sanchez. Yes or no.
    Mr. Allen. No.
    Ms. Sanchez. Thank you. I yield back.
    Chair Jordan. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New 
York, Ms. Stefanik.
    Ms. Stefanik. I yield to the Chair.
    Ms. Plaskett. Mr. Chair, I think you were going to indulge 
the Congresswoman from Florida and her point of inquiry?
    Chair Jordan. The gentlelady from Florida's recognized.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    It's my understanding--
    Chair Jordan. What's your--are you making a point of order?
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. No, I'm asking you a question.
    Chair Jordan. OK.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. A point of inquiry.
    Chair Jordan. OK.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. It's my understanding that the 
minority in this Committee under the rules is entitled to the 
same testimony, information, and documents that the majority is 
entitled to. So, I'm not aware that you're able to withhold 
information from the minority that we would need to use to 
prepare for a--
    Chair Jordan. When it comes to whistleblowers, you're not. 
I would just remind the Committee, everyone, look, when it 
comes to whistleblower--
    Mr. Goldman. That's not right.
    Chair Jordan. You are not.
    Mr. Goldman. That's not right.
    Chair Jordan. It's shocking--
    Mr. Goldman. That's not right.
    Chair Jordan. It's shocking that the gentleman from--
    Mr. Goldman. We talked so much about the whistleblower in 
the impeachment--
    Chair Jordan. It's shocking that the gentleman from New 
York would say that--
    Mr. Goldman. --you knew all the information we had.
    Chair Jordan. --when you were part of the investigation 
with an anonymous whistleblower.
    Mr. Goldman. We gave you all the information we had.
    Mr. Issa. Mr. Chair, I can't hear five people at once. 
Could we have regular order?
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Mr. Chair, I--
    Chair Jordan. The Chair recognizes--
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I'm inquiring, and I was not in that 
hearing.
    Chair Jordan. I told that you when it comes to 
whistleblowers, you are not entitled to it. That is at the 
discretion of Mr. Allen.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Mr. Chair, these individuals been 
determined not to be whistleblowers.
    Chairman Jordan. He said he has not agreed with that.
    These are not whistleblowers. They've been determined by 
the agency not to be whistleblowers. Are you deciding that 
they're whistleblowers?
    Chair Jordan. Yes, the law decides. Did you not listen to 
Mr. Leavitt's testimony? Did you not read the law?
    Ms. Plaskett. His attorney--
    Chair Jordan. The law decides that they are whistleblowers.
    Ms. Plaskett. --is asserting--his attorney is asserting 
that they are whistleblowers.
    Chair Jordan. The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from New 
York.
    Ms. Plaskett. The law has not determined they are 
whistleblowers.
    Chair Jordan. The gentlelady from New York has witness 
recognized.
    Ms. Plaskett. The law has not determined they are 
whistleblowers.
    Ms. Stefanik. My time.
    Ms. Plaskett. His attorney is just asserting that.
    Chair Jordan. The gentlelady from New York.
    Ms. Stefanik. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have lost my voice. I 
am yielding to Mr. Gaetz.
    Mr. Gaetz. I thank the gentlelady not only for yielding, 
but for her extensive work on these issues, not only during our 
hearings, but during the many depositions we've taken to 
develop evidence and to bring it forward for the majority, the 
minority, and all of the country.
    Mr. Goldman. Did you give us that evidence?
    Mr. Gaetz. I know that if the gentlelady from New York--
    Mr. Goldman. Are you going to give us that evidence?
    Mr. Gaetz. --was able to speak that she'd certainly--
    Chair Jordan. The time belongs the gentleman from Florida.
    Mr. Gaetz. She'd certainly be here to do so.
    Mr. Allen, we just astonishingly heard a Democrat on this 
Committee question your allegiance to the United States. How 
many tours in Iraq did you do?
    Mr. Allen. I did two tours in Iraq, sir.
    Mr. Gaetz. For how many decades have you held a security 
clearance?
    Mr. Allen. For two decades, sir.
    Mr. Gaetz. Ever been called into question before?
    Mr. Allen. No, sir.
    Mr. Gaetz. You also received the Employee of the Year Award 
for the Charlotte Field Office. Is that right?
    Mr. Allen. That is correct, sir.
    Mr. Gaetz. Did you receive any medals during your Service 
for the Marine Corps and the United States Navy?
    Mr. Allen. I did, sir. As a member of the Marine Corps, I 
received two--a Navy Commendation Medal and a Navy Achievement 
Medal.
    Mr. Gaetz. Seems to me your allegiance to the United States 
is pretty well established over multiple decades wearing the 
uniform, fighting for our country. I am proud that you continue 
to fight for our country as a whistleblower here making a 
disclosure to the U.S. Congress.
    Mr. Allen, is it your belief that you were retaliated 
against because you shared an email that questioned the 
truthfulness of FBI Director Christopher Wray?
    Mr. Allen. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Gaetz. You believed that he wasn't truthful based on 
testimony he'd given to the U.S. Senate. Isn't that right?
    Mr. Allen. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Gaetz. In that testimony to the Senate, you believe 
that Christopher Wray indicated that there were no confidential 
informants and no FBI assets that were present at the Capitol 
on January 6th that were part of the violent riot. Isn't that 
right?
    Mr. Allen. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Gaetz. Please play the video.
    We're now going to hear from George Hill, who worked at the 
Boston Field Office.
    [Video shown.]
    Mr. Gaetz. So, Mr. Allen, you got retaliated against for 
the very thing--for saying the very thing that the Washington 
Field Office was telling Boston.
    When the Boston Field Office was saying, ``We're not going 
to go and investigate people that just showed up at a rally 
without sufficient criminal predicate,'' the Washington Field 
Office told Boston, ``Well, you know what? We can't give you 
the evidence because it might disclose the very CIs and UCs 
that you are concerned about.''
    That doesn't surprise you, Mr. O'Boyle, does it?
    Mr. O'Boyle. No, sir.
    Mr. Gaetz. The reason it doesn't surprise you is that in a 
different part of the country you saw that same pressure from 
the Washington Field Office. Did they ever try to get you to do 
something that was outside the normal order of law enforcement 
activity?
    Mr. O'Boyle. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Gaetz. What did the Washington Field Office try to get 
you to do that violated the law and regulations?
    Mr. O'Boyle. They tried to get me to serve a Federal grand 
jury subpoena when there was no proper predicate to do so.
    Mr. Gaetz. The reason there was no predicate was because it 
was based on an anonymous tip, right?
    Mr. O'Boyle. That's correct.
    Mr. Gaetz. Time and again the Washington Field Office was 
trying to pressure you without corroboration to go start 
process on people. Isn't that right?
    Mr. O'Boyle. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Gaetz. So, while I agree that January 6th was a violent 
day, a bad day, a day that nobody wants to relive, violence on 
January 6th doesn't justify weaponizing the government against 
people who were innocent and did nothing wrong.
    Thank you for blowing the whistle on that.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Goldman. Mr. Chair, I have a sincere point of inquiry.
    Rule XI, Clause 2--
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman is not recognized.
    The Chair now recognizes--
    Mr. Goldman. I have a question about the rules.
    Chair Jordan. --Mr. Lynch for five minutes of questions.
    Mr. Goldman. A point of order, a question about the rules.
    Ms. Sanchez. Parliamentary inquiry.
    Chair Jordan. Point of order. State your point of order.
    Mr. Goldman. The point of order is, why does Rule XI, 
Clause 2, Subsection (e)(1)(A), not apply to this Subcommittee? 
I can read for you:

        Each committee shall keep a complete record of all Committee 
        action which shall include--(i) in the case of a meeting or 
        hearing transcript, a substantially verbatim account of remarks 
        actually made during the proceedings, subject only to . . . . 
        Such records shall be the property of the House, and each 
        Member, Delegate, and the Resident Commissioner shall have 
        access thereto.

Why does that not apply? Where is the whistleblower exception 
in the rules of Congress--
    Chair Jordan. It's the prerogative--
    Mr. Goldman. --that says that does not apply?
    Chair Jordan. It's the prerogative of the Committee to 
decide. We have the--
    Mr. Goldman. No, it's not. It's the rules of the House.
    Chair Jordan. We have the whistleblower testimony. The 
whistleblower does not wish that to be made available to the 
Democrats at this time.
    Mr. Goldman. The whistleblower doesn't make Committee 
rules, sir.
    Chair Jordan. Mr. Lynch is recognized for five minutes of 
questioning.
    Mr. Connolly. You're making it up.
    Mr. Lynch. Mr. Chair, is the ruling of the Chair always 
unquestioned, or do we have a vote on how some of these issues 
are decided?
    Chair Jordan. If you state a proper point of order and 
there's some kind of--
    Mr. Goldman. I just did state a proper point of order.
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman from Massachusetts is 
recognized for five minutes of questions.
    Mr. Lynch. Mr. Friend, I want to ask some questions about--
surrounding the circumstances of the removal of your clearance 
by the FBI.
    Mr. Friend, I'd like to ask you about your move to the 
Domestic Terrorism Unit. You originally transferred to Daytona 
from the FBI's Omaha Field Office, Sioux City Resident Agency, 
in June 2021. Is that correct?
    Mr. Friend. Yes.
    Mr. Lynch. Were you assigned to the Joint Terrorism Task 
Force at the end of September 2021, correct?
    Mr. Friend. Yes. I was reassigned.
    Mr. Lynch. OK. You had been exclusively working on child 
sex abuse material, known as CSAM, cases. Is that correct?
    Mr. Friend. Prior to that point, yes.
    Mr. Lynch. That was before you moved to the JTTF. Isn't 
that right?
    Mr. Friend. Yes.
    Mr. Lynch. Did you stop working on child abuse cases after 
October 1, 2021?
    Mr. Friend. No, I did not.
    Mr. Lynch. Well, in fact, the FBI planned to find a 
replacement for you when you moved from one position to the 
other. Is that correct?
    Mr. Friend. Which office are you referring to?
    Mr. Lynch. So, when you were moved from the child sexual 
abuse cases and moved to the JTTF, you were informed that the 
FBI would find a replacement for your other position. Is that 
correct?
    Mr. Friend. No, that's not correct at all. I was told that 
those cases were going to be considered a local matter going 
forward, they would not be resourced, and that I was going to 
be reassigned to work on domestic terrorism cases.
    At the time, my supervisor retired, and his interim told me 
there was not enough work to do, so, until a full-time 
replacement could come in, to continue to work on the child 
pornography investigations and make myself available for 
domestic terrorism cases.
    Then when my new supervisor arrived early in 2022, I 
explained that arrangement to him, and he agreed that was the 
best use of my time.
    Even though I was told to, on my time sheet, account for my 
actions as being solely devoted to domestic terrorism, I was in 
a situation where I was essentially only working child 
pornography and human trafficking cases.
    Mr. Lynch. I just want to point out that in your interview 
with the Committee you stated that you were told you could 
balance both until a permanent replacement arrived. That was 
during your transcribed interview. Are you restating that or 
disputing that now?
    Mr. Friend. I'm not disputing that. It was unofficially 
said, ``Just keep doing what you're doing, but on paper and on 
your time sheet we're going to put you down as a domestic 
terrorism agent.''
    Mr. Lynch. You said here they told you that you could 
balance both responsibilities until your replacement arrived. 
Are you disputing that now?
    Mr. Friend. I'm disputing that there was no replacement 
that was going to be arriving, ever. I was told that violation 
was not going to be worked after I was moved over to the Joint 
Terrorism Task Force. Then, subsequently, while I--
    Mr. Lynch. Here you're saying that you were allowed to do 
both jobs until your replacement arrived. So, your assumption 
then was not that the replacement was not going to arrive, 
right?
    Mr. Friend. Are you talking about a replacement for my 
supervisor or a replacement for me?
    Mr. Lynch. For the responsibilities that you were doing 
under the child sex abuse cases.
    Mr. Friend. There was no replacement that was going to 
arrive in our office. Those cases were going to be no longer 
worked.
    Mr. Lynch. That would be conjecture on your part at that 
point, right?
    Mr. Friend. No, I was told that.
    Mr. Lynch. OK.
    You continued to work the child abuse cases until you were 
suspended in 2022, correct?
    Mr. Friend. Yes.
    Mr. Lynch. OK. In fact, you even received an award for your 
CSAM work in July 2022, correct?
    Mr. Friend. Yes.
    Mr. Lynch. Now, you got this award after you took on all 
the child exploitation cases for the local sheriff's office 
earlier that same year, while also working your JTTF 
responsibilities, correct?
    Mr. Friend. Yes.
    Mr. Lynch. OK. You took on the role of a full-time employee 
assigned to work child abuse investigation cases, correct?
    Mr. Friend. I took on the role of whatever I was needed to 
work. I made myself available to work domestic terrorism, but 
there was not enough work to do.
    Mr. Lynch. So, could you tell us that you were reassigned--
so first you tell us that you were reassigned and told that the 
CSAM cases weren't a priority. Then you tell us that not only 
did they plan on replacing you, but they also let you continue 
working those cases until you were suspended. Is that correct?
    Mr. Friend. Yes. It was no longer a priority on paper. This 
is the way that the FBI allocates its manpower resources. So, 
on paper, I was not supposed to be recording my work on those 
cases. Then, within my office, which was not in the 
Jacksonville headquarters, my frontline supervisor agreed that 
my time was better spent working on CSAM cases.
    Mr. Lynch. All right.
    Mr. Chair, my time has expired.
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman's time has expired.
    The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from Florida for five 
minutes.
    Ms. Cammack. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Thank you to all our gentlemen for appearing before us 
today and coming forward. I want to thank you again for your 
courage today and for your service to our Nation.
    As we predicted, our Democrat colleagues have immediately 
opened up with claims of conspiracy theories, MAGA extremism, 
and mock outrage. It seems the only ones displaying mock 
outrage up here today are, in fact, the Democrats, because, 
according to them, journalists who appear before us aren't 
journalists and you here today are not whistleblowers. We, in 
fact, know that you are. Interesting times.
    The line about Republicans defunding police, that one seems 
to be particularly special, because, respectfully, to my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle, as the wife of a 
SWAT medic, as the wife of a first responder, currently, who 
has served our community for the last 16 years, I can tell you 
with certainty that no one--no one--hates a bad cop more than a 
good cop. No one.
    I see, from you nodding your head, that you agree with that 
sentiment.
    It is inaccurate and wrong to make that assumption, that 
Republicans want to defund police. It is false.
    Because forcing a political agenda down the throats of our 
hardworking men and women of the FBI with the threat and then 
subsequent follow-through of retaliation because they are 
whistleblowers, because they didn't want to break the law, 
because they knew that it was wrong to target Americans without 
cause, and they swore an oath to the United States 
Constitution, not to a political party--that makes them 
whistleblowers. That makes them courageous for coming forward 
and telling the truth.
    Gentlemen, I'm going to ask you all to please turn on 
microphones because we're going to go really fast, OK?
    Mr. Friend, during your service with the FBI, you served on 
the FBI SWAT team, correct?
    Mr. Friend. Yes.
    Ms. Cammack. As you heard, my husband is a SWAT medic and 
has been part of joint operations with the FBI.
    So, I would like to know, what is the threshold for these 
call-outs? Can you briefly detail the type of crimes warranted 
for an FBI SWAT team call-out?
    Mr. Friend. There's a threat matrix, the SWAT matrix, to 
utilize a tactical team, but it could be as easy as somebody 
being in possession of a firearm or a request from a local 
agency just to use the FBI SWAT team.
    Ms. Cammack. OK. So, Mr. Friend, your security clearance 
was suspended by the FBI after raising concerns for the use of 
excessive force with regards to the use of FBI SWAT teams to 
your direct supervisor, correct?
    Mr. Friend. Yes.
    Ms. Cammack. Would you consider this retaliation?
    Mr. Friend. Yes.
    Ms. Cammack. Thank you.
    Mr. O'Boyle, you were suspended without pay from the FBI on 
September 23rd, correct?
    Mr. O'Boyle. I was initially suspended on the 26th. The 
suspension of pay came a little bit later.
    Ms. Cammack. Thank you for that clarification.
    You had raised concerns to your chain of command. When no 
action was taken, you reported these concerns then to Congress, 
Correct?
    Mr. O'Boyle. Correct.
    Ms. Cammack. Once you contacted Congress, you were then 
suspended. Your top-secret security clearance was then 
suspended for those protected disclosures to Congress, correct?
    Mr. O'Boyle. Correct.
    Ms. Cammack. That seems like retaliation, no?
    Mr. O'Boyle. It does to me.
    Ms. Cammack. OK.
    Mr. Allen, you were suspended from the FBI without pay on 
January 10th, correct?
    Mr. Allen. That is correct.
    Ms. Cammack. You were suspended because you sent links to 
your squad to provide situational awareness about the FBI 
investigation on January 6th, correct?
    Mr. Allen. Yes.
    Ms. Cammack. Yes or no, wasn't open-source searches and 
sharing of information part of the duties of your job?
    Mr. Allen. Yes.
    Ms. Cammack. Subsequently, after doing your job and your 
supervisors not liking the tone of the open-source articles you 
provided, because it didn't fit the FBI's narrative, your 
security clearance was revoked, correct?
    Mr. Allen. Yes.
    Ms. Cammack. To all our whistleblowers, yes or no: Do you 
believe that the retaliation pattern has a cooling effect on 
other agents from coming forward or speaking up? Yes or no?
    Mr. O'Boyle?
    Mr. O'Boyle. Absolutely.
    Mr. Friend. Yes.
    Mr. Allen. Yes.
    Ms. Cammack. Do you believe that the FBI is purposefully 
hostile to you for that reason, to keep agents from speaking 
up?
    Mr. O'Boyle. Yes.
    Mr. Friend. Yes, without question.
    Mr. Allen. Yes.
    Ms. Cammack. So, I think it's clear we have a pattern here. 
If you speak up about the abuses you are seeing as an agent or 
are sharing information that may not fall in line with the 
FBI's political narrative, you will be suspended without pay, 
have your security clearance revoked, and your life will be 
turned upside-down.
    It's pretty clear that the MO is: If you don't comply, they 
will retaliate. If you don't agree with the political agenda, 
you get suspended. They do it in such a way to deter others 
from speaking up and speaking out.
    That, ladies and gentlemen, is the weaponization of 
government. That is the weaponization of government. That is 
why we are here today. Not because we have a political agenda. 
Not because we are here to go over events of the past. We want 
to fix it. We have to expose it, stop it, and prevent it from 
happening again. That is why we are here.
    These men are whistleblowers. The gentlemen who came before 
us in previous hearings, they were journalists. Just because 
you don't address them as such does not mean that they are not 
who they say they are. They have been retaliated against.
    Regardless of your party affiliation, this behavior is 
unacceptable, and we need to stop it. Republicans, Democrats, 
independents alike, this is a concern we should all share. This 
is the weaponization of government. It is our job, our 
constitutional duty, to stop it.
    With that, I yield back.
    Chair Jordan. The gentlelady yields back.
    The Chair recognizes--
    Ms. Plaskett. Oh, I'm so sorry. Wasserman Schultz.
    Chair Jordan. The gentlelady from Florida is recognized, 
Ms. Wasserman Schultz.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record 
this document that clearly indicates the questions of 
allegiance to the United States on the part of Mr. Allen that 
were specifically the reasons for the revocation of his 
security clearance, in spite of the gentlelady from Florida's 
assertions to the contrary.
    Chair Jordan. Without objection.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you.
    Mr. Friend, I find some humor in the irony of Republicans 
inviting you here the same week Congress is focused on honoring 
law enforcement. You've repeatedly made calls to undermine our 
law enforcement agencies. Since being rightly suspended, you've 
led Republican calls to defund law enforcement, recently 
describing the FBI as a ``feckless, garbage institution.'' 
Since joining Twitter in November, no less than 40 times you've 
called for our brave law enforcement personnel to be defunded.
    You even urged local police to sabotage criminal 
investigations by urging citizens to, and I quote, ``pressure 
your sheriffs to refuse to cooperate with FBI investigations.'' 
That is not only reckless advice, it's a recipe for allowing 
more criminals to run loose in our neighborhoods. Perhaps Chair 
Jordan can explain why Republicans are promoting defunding law 
enforcement and increased crime before our Subcommittee today.
    Mr. Friend, your motivations appear to be, today, crystal-
clear. For months, you've pressured Republicans to call you to 
a hearing. In fact, in December, you said Chair Jordan and 
Republicans took your complaint of alleged FBI wrongdoing and, 
quote, ``used it for campaign rocket fuel and four-minute 
appearances on FOX News.''
    I'll admit, you're right; Republicans are using you. It 
goes both ways. You're engaging in the self-promotion of your 
new book that's about to be released. What great timing, to be 
on TV and in Congress right before your book tour starts. It's 
quite coincidental.
    Let's try to move past your financial exploitations and 
talk about your objection to the use of a SWAT team to arrest a 
January 6th suspect in August 2022. You repeatedly stated that 
you objected to the use of a SWAT team for the arrest of Tyler 
Quintin Bensch, a man who was involved in the January 6th 
attack on the Capitol.
    Mr. Friend, you did not participate in any decisions about 
the use of the SWAT team, nor were you a member of that SWAT 
team, correct? Just yes or no.
    Mr. Friend. I was not a member of that SWAT team.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. You didn't participate in any 
decisions about the use of that SWAT team, correct?
    Mr. Friend. Correct.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you.
    You also testified that being a gun owner is the reason why 
a SWAT team could be used to arrest a suspect according to the 
SWAT team official protocols.
    Mr. Friend, I'd like to ask you to take a look at the 
screen. Those are--on the screen are two images of the only 
member of the Three Percenters arrested in your area that day.
    For those who don't know, the Anti-Defamation League 
describes the Three Percenters as a militia movement with, 
quote, ``a track record of criminal activity ranging from 
weapons violations to terrorist plots and attacks.''
    As you can see in the pictures of Mr. Bensch at the Capitol 
on January 6th, he's in full tactical gear, wearing chemical-
irritant canisters on his tactical vest and a black radio and 
antenna on his left, with a GoPro-style camera mounted on his 
right shoulder.
    The FBI knew Mr. Bensch to be both armed and dangerous. The 
good men and women within Federal, State, and local law 
enforcement know that making the right decision on bringing 
qualified backup to dangerous situations has life-or-death 
consequences.
    It's a decision that has particular resonance for law 
enforcement in my own community. A little over a year before 
Mr. Bensch was arrested, two FBI agents in my district in 
Sunrise, Florida, were shot and killed on the front doorstep 
while trying to serve an arrest warrant on child pornographers. 
They were just trying to do their jobs protecting the American 
people when the suspect opened fire and started shooting from 
inside.
    In fact, these brave agents who work for what you call a 
feckless and garbage institution lost their life doing the very 
work you claim it neglects--chasing down people who exploit 
children.
    So, yes or no, Mr. Friend, knowing what you know now about 
Mr. Bensch, that he was known to be heavily armed and a member 
of a terrorist group, was it appropriate for the FBI to use a 
SWAT team as a precaution to protect FBI personnel and other 
law enforcement officers that day? Yes or no?
    Mr. Friend. I can't answer that with a yes or no. I can 
give you a little bit of context.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I'd like to--
    Mr. Friend. Anybody that's--
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. --know whether you--
    Mr. Friend. In my--
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. --still think it was inappropriate.
    Mr. Friend. I've arrested over 150 violent criminals in my 
career. Never had to use a SWAT team to do it.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. OK.
    Mr. Friend. The reason for that is because individuals--
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. On that day, yes or no--
    Mr. Friend. --were cooperative with us.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Reclaiming my time, can you give me 
a yes-or-no answer or even indicate whether you have changed 
your mind that using a SWAT team to arrest that gentleman was 
inappropriate?
    Mr. Friend. My opinion remains to be, anybody who is being 
cooperative and pledged to surrender in the case of--
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. OK.
    Mr. Friend. --law enforcement, incurring criminal charges--
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. So, the answer is no. You also 
claim--
    Mr. Friend. --a SWAT team is not necessary for that.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Reclaiming my time, you also claim 
that your top-secret security clearance was improperly revoked. 
Yet, an independent investigation concluded that you 
demonstrated a number of security concerns, which included that 
you refused to execute a court-ordered arrest warrant and when 
you downloaded documents from intelligence systems to an 
unauthorized removable flash drive.
    The cherry on top could be your unauthorized recording of 
executive management, which I'm sure you know violates Florida 
law, along with your unsanctioned interviews with Sputnik News, 
established by the Russian Government in 2014 and fully owned 
by the Kremlin and Putin's cronies.
    Chair Jordan. The time of the gentlelady--has expired.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I think it's clear who is 
weaponizing government.
    I yield back.
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 
five minutes.
    Mr. Steube. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Friend, do you want to quickly respond to that because 
she cut you off? I'm going to let you respond to those 
questions.
    Mr. Friend. Yes, I can quickly respond to that.
    So, the--bring up--so the--
    Mr. Steube. Well, let me help you.
    Mr. Friend. Yes, go ahead.
    Mr. Steube. So, instead of using a SWAT team, if a suspect 
is being cooperative--and in your testimony and in your 
experience as an FBI agent and law enforcement officer, it's 
not necessary to use a SWAT team to go in with guns ablazin' 
and pulled out and going after an individual when that 
individual is cooperating. Wasn't that part of your testimony?
    Mr. Friend. That's part of my testimony, and it's part of 
what I brought forward in my whistleblower disclosure.
    Mr. Steube. That's in your experience as--how many violent 
criminals have you arrested?
    Mr. Friend. I've arrested over 150, and I have five years 
of SWAT experience.
    Mr. Steube. You didn't have to use--there wasn't necessity 
in some of those circumstances to use a SWAT team because the 
individual was cooperating.
    Mr. Friend. Never a single time.
    Mr. Steube. In your testimony, the individual that you were 
referring to that a SWAT team should not have been used on, but 
was being used on for political purposes was somebody that was 
cooperating, correct?
    Mr. Friend. Yes.
    Mr. Steube. Based on your testimony, everybody else's 
testimony--which, by the way, I want to thank you guys for 
being here. I know it takes a lot of courage to do it. I want 
to thank you for your service. As a military veteran myself, 
who served probably--I was probably in Iraq when some of you 
guys were there, I want to thank you for that.
    I want to thank you for standing up for the Constitution 
and for America. Because I know that this is difficult to go 
through, what your families are going through, being barricaded 
out of having your personal belongings, not being able to get 
pay, the FBI taking away your security clearances so you can't 
get a job. I commend you for standing up for American values 
and commend you for standing up for what you believe are huge 
misgrievances that are going on at the FBI.
    Based on your testimony, the report that we have seen, the 
FBI has turned into the enforcement arm of the Democratic 
Party, going after pro-life individuals, going after 
individuals who were not in restricted areas on January 6th, 
who were not violent on January 6th, using SWAT teams to go 
after them to try to intimidate them.
    Then when officers like yourself, who have served our 
country, who have served the FBI, who have served in law 
enforcement, suddenly want to raise concerns and use the 
whistleblower status to be able to say, ``Hey, you know, this 
isn't right, this isn't the way that we should be treating any 
of these individuals, this isn't fair,'' suddenly, the FBI is 
shutting you out, taking away your clearances, taking away your 
pay, and shutting you down so that your families can't even 
survive financially.
    So, I want to thank you for your testimony here today. I 
hope the American people will gloss over the lies that have 
been perpetrated on you today for the truth that is underneath 
every single one of your statements: Egregious abuse, 
misallocation of law enforcement resources, and misconduct in 
leadership ranks of the FBI.
    I have been here five years, and during that period of time 
Director Wray and AG Garland have both sat at desks just like 
that, under oath, and testified that they would not retaliate 
against whistleblowers.
    It is my understanding, Mr. Friend, that you went through 
all the required regulations at the FBI to raise your concerns 
to your supervisors. Is that correct?
    Mr. Friend. Yes.
    Mr. Steube. So, you followed inside protocol for the FBI, 
utilizing whistleblower statute protection information 
regulations through the FBI, to make your complaints and 
information be known.
    Mr. Friend. Yes.
    Mr. Steube. You did that to your supervisors.
    Mr. Friend. Three levels of supervisors.
    Mr. Steube. Three levels of supervisors. The response to 
that was losing your security clearance, shutting you out, 
losing your job, and taking away your pay.
    Mr. Friend. That's correct.
    Mr. Steube. I'm so frustrated and angry. I don't have--only 
1\1/2\ minutes to try to display the level of corruption, 
weaponization, politicization that has occurred at the highest 
levels of the FBI and the DOJ.
    Both Director Wray and Merrick Garland have sat there and 
testified that there's no retribution for whistleblowers. ``No, 
we don't retaliate against whistleblowers.'' We have 
testimony--and I'm a lawyer, too, and testimony is a fact in 
evidence--that is exactly what is going on in the FBI and the 
DOJ.
    Just quickly, talk about how the inflation, Mr. Friend, of 
the domestic violence--or the statistics as it relates to 
January 6th, how they were inflating those statistics to make 
it look like there was a bunch more cases than there really 
was.
    Mr. Friend. Well, typically, you would investigate January 
6th as one case with lots of subjects. Instead, the decision 
was made to open up a separate case for every single individual 
there and, instead of on paper investigating them from the 
Washington Field Office, spreading and disseminating those to 
the field offices around the country if the individual lived in 
that area.
    So, in effect, made it look like there was domestic 
terrorism cases and activities that were going on around the 56 
field offices when, in fact, the cases were really all from 
Washington, DC, and Washington Field Office had a task force 
that was responsible for calling the shots in all those cases.
    Mr. Steube. Thank you guys for being here. My time's 
expired.
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back.
    We have votes on the floor, to our witnesses, so we will 
take a break now. We will stand in recess until five minutes 
after the close of the vote, the final vote, on the floor. You 
guys are welcome to wait here in the back.
    The Committee stands in recess.
    [Recess.]
    Chair Jordan. The Committee will come to order.
    The Chair recognizes the lady from Texas. Excuse me.
    Mr. Goldman. Mr. Chair, could I make a point of order?
    Chair Jordan. Yes.
    Mr. Allen. Mr. Chair, may I be recognized?
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman is recognized, Mr. Allen.
    Mr. Allen. Yes, sir. I just want to make clear that what I 
wanted to avoid was the minority staff leaking portions of my 
transcript to the press without me having the opportunity to 
respond. Now, that I'm here, I can respond and be judged in the 
court of public opinion. I have no objection to both sides 
having access to read the transcript, and I look forward to 
reviewing it myself.
    Mr. Goldman. Well, it's not of--
    Chair Jordan. All right. Thank you.
    Mr. Goldman. --much help when you give it to us during the 
hearing.
    I have a point of order, Mr. Chair, if I may be recognized.
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman's recognized for a point of 
order.
    Mr. Goldman. I point the Chair to Rule X, Clause 9(g), 
which, in conjunction to Rule XI, Clause 2(e), which I read 
earlier, states that:

         . . . each staff member appointed pursuant to a request by 
        minority party members . . . shall be accorded equitable 
        treatment with respect to . . . the accessibility of Committee 
        records.

    Now, the Chair is correct in pointing out that there are 
restrictions on whistleblower disclosures. However, those 
restrictions pertain to the House as a whole. They do not 
mention any distinction between the majority and the minority.
    Instead, what we have are two clear rules that require the 
majority to provide information to the minority that is 
Committee property, which would be any meetings between the 
Committee Members or staff with any potential witnesses.
    So, I would move for the Chair to agree to order that all 
materials, notes and otherwise, related to these witnesses 
before us be provided to the minority, according to the rules 
of the House.
    Chair Jordan. Overruled.
    Mr. Allen, we thank you for your willingness to make that--
    Mr. Goldman. I move for a recorded--appeal the ruling of 
the Chair.
    Mr. Issa. I move to table.
    Mr. Goldman. I'd ask for a recorded vote.
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman's asked--we will--the Committee 
will suspend while we have the clerks--I think we have to have 
the clerks at the table to tally the vote.
    Mr. Issa. Gentlemen, I'm afraid you're excused for a little 
while.
    Chair Jordan. Just one second. If you could just step back 
real--we'll have the clerk--it'll be really quick.
    The clerks will--
    Voice. You don't have to go.
    Chair Jordan. We can probably let you just stay right 
there. The clerks--you might need to lend one microphone.
    The clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Jordan?
    Chair Jordan. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Jordan votes yes.
    Mr. Issa?
    Mr. Issa. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Issa votes yes.
    Mr. Massie?
    Mr. Massie. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Massie votes yes.
    Mr. Stewart?
    Mr. Stewart. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Stewart votes yes.
    Ms. Stefanik?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Gaetz?
    Mr. Gaetz. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gaetz votes yes.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana?
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Johnson of Louisiana votes yes.
    Mr. Armstrong?
    Mr. Armstrong. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Armstrong votes yes.
    Mr. Steube?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Bishop?
    Mr. Bishop. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Bishop votes yes.
    Ms. Cammack?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Hageman?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Plaskett?
    Ms. Plaskett. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Plaskett votes no.
    Mr. Lynch?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Sanchez?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Wasserman Schultz?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Connolly?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Garamendi?
    Mr. Garamendi. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Garamendi votes no.
    Mr. Allred?
    Mr. Allred. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Allred votes no.
    Ms. Garcia?
    Ms. Garcia. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Garcia votes no.
    Mr. Goldman?
    Mr. Goldman. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Goldman votes no.
    Chair Jordan. The clerk will report.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chair, there are eight ayes and five noes.
    Chair Jordan. The motion to table is approved.
    The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Garcia.
    Ms. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. O'Boyle, have you publicly shared what you discussed 
with Chair Jordan's staff before today?
    It's a yes or no.
    Mr. O'Boyle. Did I publicly do what?
    Ms. Garcia. Share. Share. Like--
    Mr. O'Boyle. With whom?
    Ms. Garcia. With the public.
    Mr. O'Boyle. About which part of my testimony?
    Ms. Garcia. Any of your testimony, sir, that you shared 
with Jordan's staff, have you shared that with the public or 
this Committee?
    It's a yes or a no, sir. It's really not that hard.
    Mr. O'Boyle. I don't believe so.
    Ms. Garcia. You don't believe that's so. OK.
    During your transcribed interview on February 10th, did you 
explain to the Committee Counsel the content of what you had 
previously shared with Chair Jordan's staff?
    Mr. O'Boyle. To some degree, regarding the questions that 
were asked on that day.
    Ms. Garcia. To some degree. So that is a yes?
    Mr. O'Boyle. Yes, to some degree.
    Ms. Garcia. OK. You shared it only with the lawyers?
    Mr. O'Boyle. Mr. Gaetz was present for part of that 
testimony as well.
    Ms. Garcia. OK.
    So, the only people who know the wrongdoing you claim to 
have uncovered at the FBI, to your knowledge, are Chair 
Jordan's staff, Congressman Estes, and maybe now Congressman 
Gaetz?
    Mr. O'Boyle. I also shared some of my disclosures with my 
chain of command prior to coming to--
    Ms. Garcia. No, I'm talking about your testimony here today 
in this Committee.
    Mr. O'Boyle. Right. That includes some of what I had 
provided to my chain of command as well.
    Ms. Garcia. Well, that's not the question.
    So, the FBI has said that it cannot comment on ongoing 
adjudication matters. Do you know if your security clearance 
suspension decision is still under adjudication with the FBI?
    Mr. O'Boyle. Oddly enough, I received an email last week 
from the FBI attempting to schedule an interview with me for 
tomorrow, which I find as no coincidence heading into the 
hearing today. Prior to that email--
    Ms. Garcia. So, it's still being adjudicated; the answer is 
yes?
    Mr. O'Boyle. Prior to that email, I had not been aware.
    Ms. Garcia. All right. So, it's still being adjudicated.
    In her April 24th transcribed interview, Executive 
Assistant Director Moore told us when Mr. Jordan's counsel 
asked you about your case that she, quote, ``is not allowed to 
discuss any ongoing security investigations.''
    So, you're still being investigated. So, neither you nor 
the FBI can help us understand what information you shared and 
when you shared it.
    Mr. O'Boyle. Well, I have provided that information to 
Members of this Subcommittee who I believe will take it 
seriously.
    Ms. Garcia. Well, no, you've submitted it to the Chair and 
the Committee's staff. As you've been hearing this morning, a 
lot of that--most of that we have not seen, as Democrats. It's 
not been shared. It's not been shared pursuant to the laws, our 
rules. It's not been shared just even in keeping with a notion 
of fairness. In any proceeding like this--
    Mr. O'Boyle. Well, in notion of fairness, you claim that we 
aren't whistleblowers--
    Ms. Garcia. So, we don't know what was disclosed. The 
Committee counsel hasn't had the opportunity to assess the 
information you shared with Jim Jordan's staff. Yet, here we 
are hearing on the matter.
    There's been no transparency, no real effort to inform. 
It's just a partisan, political stunt that is more interested 
in attacking the FBI than helping whistleblowers. In Texas, we 
would just say that this is just a lot of hot air blowing here, 
and it ain't a whistleblower.
    By having this hearing before the majority makes even basic 
information about your claims available to us, Chair Jordan is 
doing us all a disfavor. We're meeting without knowing.
    In his opening remarks, he said that he had brought you 
here to have you tell us what you have seen and what you have 
witnessed. Yet, we really still don't know, because you haven't 
told us anything. I went through your whole witness statement, 
and there's nothing in there about what you saw or what you 
heard. It's just--
    Mr. O'Boyle. That's not true. That's not true.
    Ms. Garcia. It's just a bio and your political statements.
    Mr. O'Boyle. That's false.
    Ms. Garcia. I read the whole thing, sir.
    Mr. O'Boyle. That's false.
    Ms. Garcia. So, by having this hearing today before the 
majority makes even basic information about your claims 
available to us, Chair Jordan is just doing us all a 
disservice. He's doing the minority a disservice by not 
allowing us to vet your claims to be able to adequately ask you 
questions. Frankly, he's doing you a disservice, sir, by all 
the lights and cameras before his claims have even been 
examined.
    More than that, this hearing is an insult to the brave 
whistleblowers out there who do risk their careers for the good 
of their country. This circus of unvetted, secret accusations 
put at risk the critical role whistleblowers play in holding 
the powerful accountable.
    Most whistleblowers aren't interested in being political 
pawns in congressional Republicans' games. Playing politics and 
holding up this scheme as whistleblowers will make other public 
servants fearful of coming forward out of fear they'll just be 
used.
    Whistleblowers serve an important purpose in this country. 
They're often brave individuals who help root out corruption 
and make our democracy stronger.
    In fact, just this last February, whistleblowers who had 
been fired by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton in retaliation 
for accusing him of crimes came to a settlement with the 
attorney general.
    Chair Jordan. The time of the gentlelady has expired.
    Ms. Garcia. He had to settle--
    Chair Jordan. The time of the gentlelady has expired.
    Ms. Garcia. --for $3.3 million because--
    Chair Jordan. The Chair now recognizes the--
    Ms. Garcia. --he wanted to make sure some information 
didn't get out.
    Chair Jordan. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
California.
    Ms. Garcia. That's what whistleblowers do.
    Mr. Issa. Would the gentlelady--this is my time. I've been 
recognized. Thank you.
    Mr. O'Boyle, is it true that you have 157 pages of 
questions that were asked you on a bipartisan basis that are in 
the record?
    Mr. O'Boyle. To my knowledge, that's correct.
    Mr. Issa. Mr. Friend, isn't it true that for those several 
hours you accumulated 198 pages of Q&A, half of the time being 
yielded to the Democrats, for your interview?
    Mr. Friend. Yes.
    Mr. Issa. I yield time to the Chair.
    Chair Jordan. Someone needs to tell the Democrats--I thank 
the gentleman for yielding.
    Someone needs to tell the Democrats, you came and talked to 
this Committee because you're a whistleblower.
    Isn't that right, Mr. Leavitt?
    Mr. Leavitt. Yes, sir.
    Chair Jordan. That's exactly how it works.
    Mr. Leavitt. May I take a moment to address this idea that 
these aren't whistleblowers?
    Chair Jordan. Sure.
    Mr. Leavitt. The law--
    Chair Jordan. You need to educate the Members on the other 
side of the dais here.
    Ms. Plaskett. I don't need educating.
    Mr. Leavitt. The way that the law--
    Ms. Plaskett. I'm educated.
    Ms. Garcia. Mr. Chair? I do not need to be demeaned.
    Mr. Issa. This is my time. Stop the clock.
    Ms. Garcia. --I am a lawyer, just like this gentleman is. 
I, too, have read the law. We just have a big--
    Chair Jordan. It's not your time.
    Ms. Garcia. --difference of opinion on exactly--
    Chair Jordan. The time belongs to--
    Ms. Garcia. --what he says and what I say.
    Chair Jordan. The time belongs to me. Mr. Leavitt has been 
asked a question.
    Ms. Plaskett. You need to stop demeaning your colleagues.
    Mr. Leavitt. So, the whistleblower statutes protect 
protected activity, right? One doesn't have to be retaliated 
against to be a whistleblower, right? We all agree, that's not 
the way that it should happen.
    What's being discussed today is that you're not a 
whistleblower unless you both share this--engage in protected 
activity and then are retaliated against and then go through 
this process.
    The Department of Justice Inspector General is currently 
investigating the claims of Mr. Friend and Mr. Allen. That's 
exactly what--I don't know what perfect whistleblower there 
would be, but when you--if they did that, these are the steps 
they would take. So, by this definition, they're not considered 
a whistleblower for--
    Chair Jordan. Mr. O'Boyle, you went up your chain of 
command with your concerns. Is that right?
    Mr. O'Boyle. Yes, sir. I initially started with them, and 
those initial complaints fell on deaf ears.
    Chair Jordan. Then you came to the House Judiciary 
Committee with those concerns. Is that right?
    Mr. O'Boyle. After going to my local Congressman, then I 
came to the Judiciary Committee.
    Chair Jordan. Exactly like the law prescribes for you to do 
when you see something that is wrong. You did that, so did Mr. 
Friend, and so did Mr. Allen.
    I yield back to the gentleman from California.
    Mr. Issa. Mr. Leavitt, briefly, am I correct that, starting 
with a resolution in 1778, whistleblowers have been recognized 
by our government, by our Congress, and that's been amended 
again in 1978, 1984, and 1994? The most recent one, in 2012, 
passed unanimously in this House. Is that correct?
    Mr. Leavitt. Absolutely. We recognize whistleblowers for 
their patriotic duty.
    Mr. Issa. You know what's amazing is, when I authored the 
2012, along with Mr. Jordan and others, there wasn't any 
question, but that we wanted to better protect whistleblowers' 
ability to come to us with what they believed was accurate 
information.
    Isn't the belief of accurate information the basis?
    Mr. Leavitt. Yes. Reasonable belief.
    Mr. Issa. So, is there any question but that people can 
have a reasonable belief, for example, that going after 
everyone who came in on January 6th on a bus and getting their 
financial records from Bank of America would be inappropriate 
and getting their gun purchases for their entire lives would be 
inappropriate? Isn't there a reasonable belief that this might 
not be appropriate to do and necessary?
    Mr. Leavitt. Yes. We believe disclosing that was protected.
    Mr. Issa. So, people have made appropriate statements, 
including about January 6th and some excesses that occurred 
afterwards in the investigation that violated people's 
constitutional right to privacy, correct?
    Mr. Leavitt. Yes.
    Mr. Issa. So, here we have people who were talking about 
MAGA in 20--January 6th, but, in fact, they're missing the 
point. Each of these whistleblowers came forward with what is 
clearly protected disclosure and they've had it systemically 
released, and they've had it--they've been systemically treated 
in a way after they came forward that looks like, smells like, 
and including so-called mistakes, represents retaliation.
    Is that correct?
    Mr. Leavitt. Yes. That's why the Inspector General opened 
investigations into these disclosures.
    Mr. Issa. So, as we sit here today, we've missed one 
important point, haven't we? That each of these individuals 
came to the Committee with valid claims, that at least need to 
be investigated, of wrongdoing by our premier law enforcement 
organization.
    Mr. Leavitt. Yes. Congress protects those disclosures.
    Mr. Issa. As we sit here today, each of these individuals 
has been stripped of his clearance, stripped of his ability to 
work, and stripped of his pay.
    In your background and history, have you ever seen as 
straightforward a retaliation as current employees being denied 
their ability to work, their pay, and their benefits after 
they've made these kinds of claims?
    Mr. Leavitt. No. This is why there's a problem, because 
it's their clearance that was used as the means of retaliation.
    Mr. Issa. Well, but, also, in the case of Mr. Allen, he 
just--and Mr. O'Boyle--they're just also not getting any work. 
I mean, they're--
    Mr. Leavitt. That's the point, yes. Once they suspend your 
clearance, they also simultaneously put you on suspension. 
That's not something that's appealable to the MSPB, like a 
normal firing or demotion is.
    Mr. Issa. If they were most other workers in government, 
they'd still have their jobs and be paid even if they weren't 
working, correct? This is uniquely a form of retribution 
they're able to do to law enforcement?
    Mr. Leavitt. If you're suspended--yes, there--it gets 
nuanced, but certainly with a clearance, that's a surefire way 
they can just get them out of the way when they want.
    Mr. Issa. Thank you.
    Mr. Chair, I yield back.
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. 
Connolly.
    Mr. Connolly. Thank you.
    Chair Jordan. I just would point out, I think this is the 
first time we've been--our sympathies are with your staff. I 
know you had that terrible incident that happened, so--and 
you'll get your full five minutes.
    Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Mr. Jordan. I really appreciate 
that.
    I must say, my friend from California, I don't know where 
this concern for whistleblowers and protecting whistleblowers 
was in the Ukraine episode, in that perfect phone call Donald 
Trump had with President Zelensky, in which a whistleblower, 
Colonel Vindman, was, in fact, subsequently punished for 
reporting on that phone call, which led to the impeachment of 
the President of the United States.
    So, wouldn't it be nice if we were consistent on our 
concerns about whistleblowers?
    Mr. Issa. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Connolly. No, I will not.
    Mr. Leavitt--
    Mr. Leavitt. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Connolly. I have five minutes, and I haven't got time.
    Mr. Leavitt, you represent an organization--you're 
president of the organization called Empower Oversight. Is that 
correct?
    Mr. Leavitt. Yes.
    Mr. Connolly. Empower Oversight represents an FBI agent, or 
a former FBI agent, Mr. George Hill, whom we heard from a 
little earlier.
    Mr. Leavitt. Well, no, actually. Mr. Hill did not have 
counsel for his transcribed interview, so my partner, Jason 
Foster, agreed to sit in on his interview just for procedural--
    Mr. Connolly. OK. So, you were sort of like a surrogate 
counsel but not formally? You have no formal relationship with 
Mr. Hill?
    Mr. Leavitt. Correct.
    Mr. Connolly. Why did you choose to help him in a 
deposition?
    Mr. Leavitt. Well, I didn't. Again, my partner, Jason 
Foster--
    Mr. Connolly. Well, Empower Oversight.
    Mr. Leavitt. Yes. We were informed that he didn't have any 
counsel, and both of us have experience sitting in many 
congressional transcript interviews.
    Mr. Connolly. Your view is he is also a valid 
whistleblower?
    Mr. Leavitt. Again, he's not my client. I can't speak to 
his claims. I do have the view that going out and--again, the 
idea--attacking someone, saying, ``You haven't yet been given 
the magic wand of whistleblower status,'' I believe that's 
inappropriate. I'm not familiar with all the substance of his 
personnel actions.
    Mr. Connolly. Huh. Well, might it cause you some concern--
let me show some tweets on the screen from Mr. Hill.
    This one--he had theories about January 6th, that it was 
instigated by the deep state, not by insurrectionists who were 
up to no good, seeking to hang the Vice President--Republican 
Vice President, I might add--of the United States or other 
depredations; it was the deep state that led to this.
    Are you familiar with that tweet?
    Mr. Leavitt. No.
    Mr. Connolly. Here's another one. Are you familiar with 
this tweet--in which he talked, again, that the deep state is 
real--on the January 6th insurrection?
    Mr. Leavitt. Just to be clear, I'm not familiar with any of 
his tweets. We just believe that it can be helpful for people 
to have counsel, and we were willing to assist in that way.
    Mr. Connolly. Well, but isn't it also helpful to kind of 
know a little bit of background when you are providing counsel?
    Mr. Leavitt. We were there for the procedural counsel of 
the interview, not to represent him in all his interests.
    Mr. Connolly. I understand, but wouldn't you want to be 
curious about his status and what led him to be--
    Mr. Leavitt. I'm sure it's quite possible that my co-
counsel, Jason Foster, is familiar with these. I literally 
wasn't even an employee of Empower at that time. I was still 
sitting on the Merit Systems Protection Board.
    Mr. Connolly. What's your view? Do you believe that January 
6th was instigated by the deep state?
    Mr. Leavitt. Define the ``deep state,'' sir.
    Mr. Connolly. I don't know.
    Mr. Leavitt. I sure don't either.
    Mr. Connolly. Oh, good. All right.
    Mr. Issa. Great question.
    Mr. Connolly. Because it is a phrase frequently used by the 
former President of the United States, so it's out there. You 
don't know what it means.
    Mr. Leavitt. Obviously, at the Merit Systems Protection 
Board, we dealt with people at all layers of bureaucracy--
    Mr. Connolly. Yes. Well, I actually kind of share that with 
you. I don't know what it means either. I think it's kind of 
made up, like a bogeyman, so that we can use it as a catch-all.
    I must say, on this hearing, you have employment 
grievances. That doesn't make you whistleblowers. Maybe those 
grievances are legitimate, or maybe some aspects of it are 
legitimate. All of you have careers, and I'm sorry for the 
situation in which you find yourselves. This is not a forum for 
individual members of any agency, Federal agency, unless 
there's a broad pattern of discrimination or a violation of 
law, to air their grievances, their employment grievances.
    I must say, listening to this hearing, I don't walk away 
convinced of anything other than we're listening to sad tales 
of certain individuals about their situation. The enumeration 
of grievances does not constitute whistleblower status. I'm not 
quite sure why we had this hearing. I certainly don't think it 
proves some consistent pattern of wrongdoing by the Federal 
Bureau of Investigation.
    I've heard some things here that run counter to the history 
of the FBI. The gentlelady, I think, from Florida said, like, a 
new idea, that they got into the intelligence business. That 
would've come as news to J. Edgar Hoover, who loved 
intelligence and, in fact, preferred it over some forms of law 
enforcement. He had a whole network in South America he had to 
dismantle when President Truman told him he had to get out of 
that business.
    So, thank you for being here, but I must tell you, I leave 
more skeptical and with more questions about the nature of this 
hearing than I began.
    I yield back.
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back.
    Mr. Issa. Mr. Chair, if I could sink a very short point of 
privilege.
    For the record, I left Congress in 2019 and returned in 
2021. I believe the gentleman saw an absence of conduct by me 
when I wasn't in Congress.
    Mr. Connolly. I must say, I'm so fond of my friend from 
California it was like he was still here.
    Mr. Issa. I thank my good friend from Virginia.
    Yield back.
    Chair Jordan. Yes. I would just point out before I 
recognize the gentleman from Louisiana that, just for the 
Committee's benefit--
    Ms. Garcia. Mr. Chair?
    Chair Jordan. --Mr. Vindman was not the whistleblower.
    Ms. Garcia. Mr. Chair?
    Mr. Goldman. He was retaliated against--
    Chair Jordan. The whistleblower remained--
    Mr. Goldman. --for testifying pursuant to a lawful 
subpoena.
    Chair Jordan. The whistleblower remained anonymous. Unlike 
Mr. Allen, we never saw--Mr. Allen's willing to give us the 
transcript. We never saw the transcript from the anonymous 
whistleblower.
    Mr. Goldman. What are you talking about? There was a 
complaint that was publicly disclosed.
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman from Louisiana.
    Ms. Garcia. Mr. Chair, parliamentary inquiry.
    Chair Jordan. The gentlelady may state--well, I've already 
recognized Mr. Johnson.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Ms. Garcia. Mr. Chair?
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. The Democrats, our friends on the 
other side of the aisle, are trying their best to obscure the 
purpose of this hearing and to pretend like they don't 
understand the meaning of it.
    Here it is: Activists in the FBI and the Department of 
Justice have weaponized the full weight of their agencies 
against everyday Americans.
    It's alarming. The examples that have been highlighted by 
this Committee are shocking to the sensibilities of all the 
people that we represent, and they want us to get action, 
answers, and accountability.
    The FBI--here's a couple examples:

    The FBI sought to label concerned parents at school board 
meetings ``domestic terrorists.''
    We know that they sought to recruit spies and informants 
inside the congregations of traditional Catholic churches.
    We know that they worked with the social media platforms 
hand-in-hand, almost as partners, over the last two election 
cycles to censor and silence conservatives online that they 
disagreed with. Sometimes they were candidates.

    Now, the people at this table, who are patriots, who this 
bothered their consciences, who knew that this was against 
their oaths of service in their duty, spoke up, and they're 
being retaliated against.
    Mr. O'Boyle, I wanted to just discuss one of these 
examples. In your transcribed interview with Committee Members, 
you stated that Federal law enforcement involvement at school 
board meetings would, in your words, ``absolutely chill parents 
from exercising their First Amendment rights.''
    Can you explain a little bit more about what you mean by 
that?
    Mr. O'Boyle. Yes. So, one of the examples given in the 
congressional letter included an example where a neighbor--or, 
somehow, someone knew a parent that they believed was extreme 
and so they called the FBI and reported that parent to the FBI.
    When citizens in this country get to a point where they can 
call the most powerful law enforcement agency in the world on 
their neighbor just because they disagree with them, that is 
chilling to the First Amendment rights of the people who are 
getting the FBI called on them.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. That is absolutely right. The 
parents who are concerned about their kid's education have a 
right to come to the school board meeting and express those 
sentiments, and they should not have fear of the Federal 
government investigating them or doing as you testified and 
explained to us, that the FBI Counterterrorism and Criminal 
Divisions came together to create a unique threat tag to label 
these parents domestic terrorists.
    Mr. O'Boyle, is it accurate to say that you tried to fix 
all these issues within the FBI through the chain of command 
and that it was only after no action was taken that then you 
came forward to Congress to disclose this information?
    Mr. O'Boyle. It's accurate that we did discuss it at the 
squad level. The FBI is set up in a way where line agents, like 
me, or line supervisors even, they're not going to be able to 
accomplish fixing such a vast problem from the inside of the 
FBI.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. What you've done is exactly what 
Federal law requires of you. We recognize--as was said here a 
moment ago, we recognize and protect whistleblowers for their 
patriotic duty. Why? Because it's essential to maintain the 
rule of law and to make sure that corruption does not fester 
throughout the government.
    Isn't it true that once the FBI found out you spoke to 
Congress that your security clearance was then suspended?
    Mr. O'Boyle. Yes, I believe that's what happened.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. What effect has this had on your 
ability to provide for your young family?
    Mr. O'Boyle. I've since had to rely on charity, because the 
FBI stopped paying me and there's no other way for me to make a 
living. I know from other whistleblowers that the FBI routinely 
denies them the ability to get outside employment. Then, as a 
special agent, you can only make $7,500 a year outside of your 
government salary.
    So, you're really stuck between a rock and a hard place, 
because, on one hand, we want to try to get our jobs back 
because we are trying to do our patriotic duty, but, on the 
other hand, we still have families to take care of. It's 
essentially a death sentence in the modern era.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Yes. Talk about a chilling 
effect, right? Not only have we chilled the rights of parents 
to go and express their views, but any other whistleblower 
better take note, right? They better take note, you may not be 
able to feed your family. It's disgusting.
    Your security clearance was wrongfully suspended. You have 
no recourse, right? Because here's the thing: If you wrongfully 
strip clearances, the FBI is the one that you appeal to, right? 
The FBI is supposed to investigate itself? Is that right?
    Mr. O'Boyle. That's correct.
    Mr. Johnson. I just want everybody to understand--I've only 
got 40 seconds left--the FBI investigating itself.
    This is why we're here, folks. This Committee, we have 
jurisdiction over Department of Justice, over the FBI. We are 
the checks and balances in the system. We have to draw this 
attention to this because it's our oversight duty. We're all 
trying to fulfill our responsibilities and our patriotic duties 
here.
    I am grateful to you men for your willingness to stand 
forward and take the arrows as you have, even from Members of 
Congress over here who are trying to disparage you. It's 
disgusting.
    [Applause.]
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. I thank you for your patriotic 
responsibility.
    Look, the free speech of parents is chilled. The speech and 
the duty of whistleblowers is chilled. We've got a problem, 
folks, and we're trying to fix it.
    I'm out of time. I yield back.
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back.
    The Committee will--
    Ms. Garcia. Mr. Chair, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
    Chair Jordan. The Committee will be in order.
    Members of the audience should refrain from any type of 
applause or anything.
    Ms. Garcia. Parliamentary inquiry.
    Chair Jordan. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Virginia for a unanimous consent request.
    Mr. Connolly. I thank the Chair.
    Ms. Garcia. Mr. --
    Mr. Connolly. I ask unanimous consent to enter into the 
record the interview of George Hill, dated February 7th, with 
the Judiciary Committee, in which he explicitly identifies 
Empower Oversight, Mr. Jason Foster, as his counsel for the 
record.
    I thank the Chair.
    Chairman Jordan. Without objection.
    Chair Jordan. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Garamendi for 
his five minutes.
    Ms. Garcia. Mr. Chair, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
    Chair Jordan. Mr. Garamendi is recognized.
    Ms. Garcia. Mr. Chair, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
    Chair Jordan. Mr. Garamendi is recognized.
    Ms. Garcia. Mr. Chair, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
    Chair Jordan. We can do this all day.
    Mr. Garamendi is recognized.
    Ms. Garcia. OK, let's do it all day. Mr. Chair, I have a 
parliamentary inquiry.
    Chair Jordan. You're not recognized.
    Ms. Garcia. Mr. Chair, there's a Member on this side of the 
dais who has not been waived in on Committee. We'd like to 
know, is he asking to be waived in, or is he going to sit in 
the audience, or has he joined somebody's staff since he's 
against the wall?
    Chair Jordan. Mr. Garamendi is recognized.
    Ms. Garcia. Mr. Chair, can I have an answer to my question, 
please?
    Chair Jordan. He's a colleague. He's not been waived in.
    Mr. Garamendi is recognized.
    Ms. Garcia. Well, we'd be happy to waive him in if he wants 
to sit in, but he's up in the dais area, but he's not in the 
audience.
    Chair Jordan. If we waive him in--
    Ms. Garcia. He's actually standing where--he's actually 
sitting where, most times, staff stands.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. As is customary in the Congress.
    Chair Jordan. Yes. Yes.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Anything to obscure the facts. 
Anything to stall the Committee hearing. Unbelievable.
    Ms. Garcia. No, I'm not stalling. I think we need to follow 
procedures--
    Chair Jordan. Mr. Garamendi is recognized for his five 
minutes.
    Ms. Garcia. OK.
    Mr. Issa. Mr. Chair, I ask that Mr. Garamendi's time be 
restored, since it was taken by inappropriate behavior.
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman is recognized.
    Mr. Garamendi. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    This hearing, as similar hearings, tends to devolve into 
shouting back and forth and accusations back and forth.
    I'm trying to understand the testimony by the witnesses and 
their lawyer. I'm trying to find the issue that is pertinent to 
the Committee.
    Yes, we do investigations, presumably to write law to 
address problems.
    I've listened as best I could as the conversations have 
gone back and forth, and I'm still trying to really figure out 
why we are spending time here if, indeed, our task is to 
address problems, in this case in the FBI, and how we might 
find a solution to those problems.
    There appears to be but one issue, as I can try to 
understand it, and that is the use of the security issue makes 
it difficult for the participant, whistleblower, to find 
satisfaction.
    Is that the case, Mr. Leavitt?
    Mr. Leavitt. Yes, sir. There are limited protections. One 
of them came after the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act 
of 2012, just an executive--
    Mr. Garamendi. So, your recommendation is a change in the 
whistleblower law as it applies to, I suppose, all Federal 
agencies?
    Mr. Leavitt. Yes. Because, as it is right now, for DOJ 
employees, they have to wait a year after being suspended 
before they can go anywhere to appeal, as a whistleblower, the 
suspension of their clearance.
    Mr. Garamendi. I see. So, have you made a specific 
recommendation to the Committee as to the change of law that 
would address the problem that you have identified?
    Mr. Leavitt. That's why I'm here right now. I just made it.
    Mr. Garamendi. OK. So, you believe you have, other than--I 
would appreciate inviting your specific change to the law.
    Mr. Leavitt. I'd be happy to. To the extent that it's 
helpful--
    Mr. Garamendi. No, it's my time.
    There are other things going on here. Mr. Friend, you have 
a very interesting backgrounds obviously in the FBI and beyond. 
You've also had a very interesting tour on Twitter.
    I find it most interesting during our break to go and vote. 
The majority, including some Democrats, voted to express 
support for law enforcement officers and condemning efforts to 
defund and dismantle local law enforcement agencies.
    Specifically condemning, this is the joint resolution, 
House Resolution 49, concurrent resolution, condemns and calls 
to defund, disband, dismantle, and abolish the police.
    Mr. Friend, have you ever put a tweet out to defund, 
disband, dismantle, and abolish the FBI?
    Mr. Friend. I have.
    Mr. Garamendi. The FBI is a police agency. Yes?
    Mr. Friend. The FBI is--it's my understanding that they're 
a domestic intelligence agency with law enforcement capability.
    Mr. Garamendi. They are a police agency. Thank you.
    I suppose consistency is the hotgoblin of a small mind.
    Nonetheless, at least one of the witnesses here wants to 
disband the FBI, which would be counter to what we just voted 
on, on the floor of the House of Representatives.
    There are plenty of problems. There is a formal process for 
whistleblowers to have their issues adjudicated. In 2012, 
Members of this Committee voted for it. I certainly voted for 
it in 2012. There appears to be a glitch. It would seem to me 
that we would be useful to use our time to delve into this 
glitch.
    If we determine that it is a problem, then the appropriate 
thing to do would be the Chair of the Appropriations--excuse 
me--of the Judiciary Committee to put forth a bill to address 
the problem.
    The shouting back and forth has done little to illustrate 
or provide information on the details of the problem. 
Definitely, I agree with those who say we ought to not defund 
the police, including Democrats.
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Armstrong. Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent to allow 
Mr. Biggs to sit on the dais.
    Chair Jordan. Without objection.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina, 
Mr. Bishop.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    I will say I've sat, struggling to figure out what I think 
the Americans who may watch this hearing are to take from it. 
It is troubling.
    An aspect of the Ranking Member's opening statement was 
interesting. I heard part of that it really stuck with me. It 
suggested--this is not what she said, specifically, but it's 
sort of a paraphrase of what I heard her saying to you 
witnesses, especially the three who've been serving the country 
as FBI agents and before.
    It was sort of like: So, your lives have been turned up 
down by the FBI in retaliation for raising questions about 
abuses of the rights of Americans? Good. How do you like it?
    That's kind of what I heard. It seemed that her 
perspective, she went on and talked about how people had been 
victimized by police across the country. ACAB is the idea and 
it's almost like there--since she thinks there are victims 
aplenty, it's OK if you're victimized.
    There's a supreme irony in that, isn't there? One of you 
was concerned about the improvident use of a SWAT team. They--
that's been ridiculed.
    Another of you has been concerned about whether--about the 
investigation of people by the preeminent law enforcement 
agency in the country for nothing more than being on a bus, to 
travel to a place where there was a speech by the President and 
so forth. A a couple of people on that bus were subsequently 
looked at. Your concern was whether the investigation was 
adequately predicated for those people, and that's ridiculed. 
It's astonishing.
    One of you was concerned about whether the FBI sending 
people out to interview persons who are going to a school board 
meeting and expressing their views. Because all they were 
engaged in was First Amendment activity, that's not an adequate 
predication for the attention, investigative attention, of law 
enforcement. That's ridiculed. I don't quite get it.
    I will say this. In this process, fair cross-examination 
and even the impeachment of the credibility of witnesses is 
appropriate. Now, I will say the things that have been 
attempted as impeachment of credibility here, no court in the 
country would allow because they are not fair mechanisms for 
attempting to do that.
    What has struck me, is that these whistleblowers have, your 
comportment, your demeanor, your poise, your articulation, and 
your discipline has been exemplary at every point, even as the 
Members on the dais beclown themselves. It's quite a testament, 
and it deepens something.
    I worried, to be candid about this hearing, because many 
Americans, it is my impression--and we're continuing to 
investigate--many Americans have been victimized by the 
distortions that have occurred in the leadership of the FBI. I 
worried that we might have that. Have you ever heard the 
quote--it's sort of used in athletics--``never tell anyone your 
troubles. Half the people don't care, and the other half are 
glad it happened to you.''
    That's a supremely pessimistic world view. I don't really 
subscribe it to, but you've heard that out there. This is 
making a clear point and I commend each of you for what you've 
done here, coming here, and demonstrating who you are and 
letting yourself be attacked in this way, because you've borne 
it really remarkably well.
    I think Americans need to hear it because there are other 
glimpses of just how the victimization has gone on and how it's 
victimization at scale.
    This is one fact that's struck me. The Bank of America 
records, the story that Bank of America turned over the credit 
card transactions, whether for an aircraft or a lodging or the 
purchase after cup of coffee, for everyone who decided to come 
to Washington, to be in the Washington area, the six Northern 
Virginia area, that's one of the things that you asked 
questions about.
    There are victims all over the place. All the people who 
suffered when the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security 
got involved in censorship with social media platforms, 
millions and millions of tweets and narratives being taken 
down, that is victimization at scale. It must be resolved.
    The fact that those who profess to be most concerned about 
victimization of people by law enforcement in this country join 
in the victimization of you. I think that's the takeaway at 
least for me from this hearing.
    My time has expired.
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman's time has expired.
    The Chair now recognizes Mr. Allred. The gentleman from 
Texas is recognized.
    Mr. Allred. I yield my time to Mr. Goldman.
    Mr. Goldman. Thank you.
    I thank the gentleman for yielding.
    I want to thank those of our witnesses here who have served 
in the military, for your military service. I want to thank you 
for coming in. We on this side support whistleblowers. I 
certainly support whistleblowers, and you and the Committee 
majority can be certain that we will follow all House rules to 
maintain the confidentiality of whistleblowers until they have 
been publicly identified, as you all now have here.
    What our concern with is not really at the bottom whether 
or not you are whistleblowers. That's something that neither 
you can determine, or Mr. Leavitt can determine, or we can 
determine. That's something that we understand is being 
adjudicated and ultimately could end up in court where the 
ultimate determination would be.
    Our concern is that you have met with the Committee 
majority, perhaps several times. You have provided information, 
documents, and testimony. We're in the dark, and that's not how 
Congress work. That's not how Committees work.
    I'm sure, Mr. Leavitt, you would agree with me that when 
you were on the Hill, that's not how things work. So that is--
    Mr. Leavitt. Depending on the sorts.
    Mr. Goldman. That is what--sorry?
    Mr. Leavitt. I just said depending on what was happening. 
I've seen examples of congressional staff retaliate against 
whistleblowers, and I've also seen those whistleblowers then 
refuse to engage with those congressional staff.
    Mr. Goldman. Fair enough. Maybe that happens, but we even 
been given the opportunity to do that in violation of Committee 
rules.
    Ultimately, what we are here for is because these three 
individuals are expressing in various degrees their objection 
to their treatment with the FBI. They have also in varying 
degrees expressed support for the January 6th insurrection and 
in some cases have even allowed those personal views to 
influence their official duties.
    Now, the allegations that we are dealing with here today 
and the reason why whether or not people are whistleblowers 
matters or your credibility matters is you're just the three 
individuals, three people in an organization of tens of 
thousands who are making these allegations. So, credibility 
does matter.
    I was a Federal prosecutor for 10 years, working alongside 
the good men and women of the FBI. I never once had a political 
conversation. I never once had any politics interfere with the 
work that we were doing as part of our official duties. If I 
did, I would certainly call it out and report it up the chain. 
That is not appropriate.
    I am alarmed on their behalf that so many of the good men 
and women of the FBI are being called out for being, quote, 
``what one of my colleagues said is a political arm of the 
Democratic Party.''
    Now, you all would agree, really quick, that credibility 
matters. Right? You're all agents or current or former agents 
at the FBI.
    Is that right, Mr. O'Boyle? Correct?
    Mr. O'Boyle. Yes.
    Mr. Goldman. Mr. Friend?
    Mr. Friend. Yes.
    Mr. Goldman. Mr. Allen, right?
    Mr. Allen. I'm a Staff Operations Specialist, sir.
    Mr. Goldman. So, you don't believe credibility matters?
    Mr. Allen. Credibility does matter, sir. I'm a Staff 
Operations Specialist. That's my official role.
    Mr. Goldman. Let's take the Chair's opening statement for a 
second. He said in his opening statement about the John Durham 
Report that Mr. Durham found that there was no predicate and no 
basis to open the investigation. I'm going to read you a 
paragraph from page 295 of the Durham Report. It says:

        Under the FBI's guidelines, the investigation could have been 
        opened more appropriately as an assessment or preliminary 
        investigation. FBI investigations opened as preliminary 
        investigations, short of full investigations, if necessary and 
        appropriate, may be escalated under the guidelines by 
        converting to a full investigation with supervisory approval.

    Mr. O'Boyle, does that sound like Mr. Durham determined 
that there was no basis at all to open an investigation, as the 
Chair said?
    Mr. O'Boyle. I would have to have more information. Based 
on what you just read, it sounds to me like based on FBI rules, 
a preliminary investigation ought to have been opened, if 
anything was going to be opened at all. It sounds like it was 
opened straight as a full investigation.
    Mr. Goldman. Right.
    Mr. Allen. I also don't--
    Mr. Goldman. You understand that the difference is really 
just based on timelines and slightly narrower range of 
authorities, but that preliminary investigations are often 
escalated to full investigations after some additional 
investigation. Right?
    Mr. O'Boyle. They're also often just shut down.
    Mr. Goldman. Sure. Right. Of course.
    I see that my time is about to expire, and I look forward 
to my additional questions.
    I would just note for all of us here that to use three 
individuals' personal experiences, including determinations 
based on a number of different levels of review at the FBI that 
you no longer warrant your security clearance, is a very bold 
and unfounded statement--
    Chair Jordan. The time of the gentleman has expired.
    Mr. Goldman. --to use to claim that the FBI is a weapon of 
the Democratic Party.
    I yield back.
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized for 
five minutes.
    Mr. Massie. Americans are upset, and they are angry that 
the government's been weaponized against them. I think they're 
better served if we remain dispassionate in reviewing this 
evidence. I have to admit I came here today, trying to be 
dispassionate. I'm feeling emotion. I'm feeling disgust.
    Before us, among these witnesses, is represented decades of 
exemplary service in the military, in the FBI, service to our 
country for which your families have sacrificed, for which you 
have sacrificed to give this service.
    Now, the other side of the aisle just wants to disparage 
you for bringing forth facts that the American people need to 
know, that we need to know if we're going to change these 
whistleblower laws so that you are not punished for bringing us 
the truth.
    This is our fourth--or we've had four hearings and I'm 
noticing a disturbing trend here. Big business is working with 
the government to weaponize against the American people. The 
government says, well, this is OK because we're not violating 
the Constitution. The big business is doing this voluntarily. 
We saw this with the social media companies.
    I want to play testimony from a whistleblower who's not 
here with us today, if you could cue that up, about how we've 
seen in this instance one of the biggest corporations in 
America working with the FBI to violates civil liberties.
    [Video shown.]
    Mr. Massie. I find that testimony chilling. That was the 
retired FBI Supervisory Intelligence Analyst George Hill who 
gave us that testimony.
    What he said there is that Bank of America compiled a list 
of everybody who used a credit card or a debit card between 
January 5th-7th inside of Washington, DC, and gave that to the 
FBI.
    Before they did, they looked at anybody who'd ever 
purchased a firearm, according to their records, and elevated 
those people to the top of the list. They didn't geofence it to 
Washington, DC. You could have, as Mr. Hill testified, you 
could have bought a gun in 1999 in Iowa with a Bank of America 
card. Then you got heightened tension, and it was given to the 
FBI.
    Now, whether the FBI asked for this or whether they did 
this voluntarily is very chilling because Bank of America has a 
lot of issues in front of the government. This is where you get 
into this unhealthy feedback loop.
    Bank of America spent a quarter of million dollars lobbying 
us on the American Rescue Plan, issues related to Paycheck 
Protection Program, general issues related to data security, 
and general issues related to interchange, and general issues 
related to privacy, the irony of it. Bank of America is 
violating your privacy, working hand in glove with the FBI.
    Now, the FBI will say: We didn't ask for this. They just 
gave it to us. It doesn't matter. It's a violation when you get 
to this level of cooperation.
    Now, I want to turn to something else that's troubling me 
very much. The whistleblowers here before us today have 
described incentive-based payments related to increasing the 
number of criminal investigations.
    Mr. Friend and Mr. Allen, you've talked about this.
    Mr. Friend, can you tell us what that's about and why that 
might be unhealthy?
    Mr. Friend. It's extremely unhealthy. It's called 
Integrated Program Management. It's a process the FBI uses 
annually to essentially establish arbitrary metrics for itself 
to achieve as far as opening a certain number of cases and 
using certain tools and getting certain accomplishments.
    Mr. Massie. In football terms, this sound eerily similar to 
the Saints' Bounty-gate. You folks remember that. In that 
scandal, coaches would pay players cash bonuses for hits that 
would result in injuries to other players. Players would 
receive additional pay if their tackle resulted in an opposing 
player being taken out of the game. These noncontract bonuses 
were part of an underground culture that incentivized dirty 
behavior. When the activity was exposed, the Saints' 
organization was widely condemned. The defensive coach was 
initially suspended indefinitely. The head coach was suspended 
for an entire season.
    Somebody at the FBI needs to be suspended for the dirty 
tactics that they've used. If we recognize it in sports, it's 
not hard to recognize it here in government.
    I yield back the balance of my time.
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York, Mr. 
Goldman.
    Mr. Goldman. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    I'm going to move quickly through a couple of different 
questions. We established earlier credibility matters certainly 
for witnesses who appear before us.
    Mr. O'Boyle, do you know who Kash Patel is?
    Mr. O'Boyle. I do.
    Mr. Goldman. Have you received any money from Kash Patel or 
his organization?
    Mr. O'Boyle. I have.
    Mr. Goldman. When you previously met with the majority 
members and/or majority staff of this Committee, was Kash Patel 
present for that meeting?
    Mr. O'Boyle. No.
    Mr. Goldman. To your knowledge, has Kash Patel ever spoken 
to the Committee Members on your behalf?
    Mr. O'Boyle. Not that I know of.
    Mr. Goldman. Not that you know of?
    Was anyone present for your previous meetings with 
Committee Members and staff on the majority that were not 
Members of this Committee or staff of this Committee?
    Mr. O'Boyle. My counsel.
    Mr. Goldman. Your counsel? Anyone else?
    Mr. O'Boyle. I don't think so, no.
    Mr. Goldman. Is Kash Patel helping you finance your 
counsel?
    Mr. O'Boyle. Not that I'm aware of.
    Mr. Goldman. OK. Mr. Friend, what about you? Do you know 
Kash Patel, as well?
    Mr. Friend. Yes.
    Mr. Goldman. Did you receive any money from Kash Patel?
    Mr. Friend. Yes, he gave me a donation last November.
    Mr. Goldman. A donation.
    Mr. Goldman. Yes.
    Mr. Goldman. Are you a charitable organization?
    Mr. Friend. I was an unpaid, indefinitely suspended man 
trying to feed his family. He reached out to me and said he 
wanted to give me a donation.
    Mr. Goldman. Did he have any--was he present for any of 
your meetings with Committee Members or staff?
    Mr. Friend. No.
    Mr. Goldman. How many times did you meet with the Committee 
Members or staff prior to your transcribed interview?
    Mr. Friend. I never met with them prior to my transcribed 
interview.
    Mr. Goldman. Did you speak to them on the phone?
    Mr. Friend. Yes.
    Mr. Goldman. All right. So, you spoke to them on the phone.
    Mr. Friend. Yes. I spoke to them on the phone, 
corresponded.
    Mr. Goldman. Did you provide documents?
    Mr. Friend. Yes, I gave them my written declaration.
    Mr. Goldman. Did they ask you whether they could share that 
with the minority?
    Mr. Friend. I don't know. At the time I don't believe they 
were actually in the majority.
    Mr. Goldman. Did they ask you whether they could share the 
documents?
    Mr. Friend. I don't remember if they did or didn't.
    Mr. Goldman. I want to focus a little bit on that SWAT case 
that you mentioned, Mr. Friend, where the SWAT team was used to 
make an arrest of someone associated with the domestic violent 
extremist group.
    That was not your case?
    Mr. Friend. That was a case that was within my office. The 
Joint Terrorism Task Force sort of ran all the cases together.
    Mr. Goldman. OK. Did you work on that case?
    Mr. Friend. My name is on it. I did not perform work for 
it.
    Mr. Goldman. Got it. What evidence did you have that this 
defendant had offered to surrender to the FBI?
    Mr. Friend. The evidence I had was in his conversation with 
the individuals he--from my office who spoke to him. He said 
that he would cooperate.
    Mr. Goldman. So, he said he would cooperate with the FBI, 
but he never told you that he would surrender to an arrest. 
Those are two different things. You agree, right?
    Mr. Friend. No, I wouldn't. If somebody told me that if you 
need anything from me, just let me know, I'll cooperate and I 
would interpret that to mean I would reach out to them if I had 
a criminal charge.
    Mr. Goldman. Really?
    Mr. Friend. Yes.
    Mr. Goldman. Interesting. That's certainly not my 
experience.
    Mr. Allen, you passed around information to other members 
of the FBI related to January 6th. Is that right?
    Mr. Allen. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Goldman. You were admonished by your supervisor not to 
do that. Is that right?
    Mr. Allen. I was not, sir.
    Mr. Goldman. You were not.
    So, when it says here in the FBI's letter to Mr. Jordan of 
yesterday that your supervisor admonished you to stop 
circulating these materials on multiple occasions, you're 
saying right now that the FBI is lying to this Committee?
    Mr. Allen. That statement that they wrote is inaccurate.
    Mr. Goldman. OK. Did you write to your colleagues to, 
quote, ``exercise extreme caution and discretion in pursuit of 
any investigative inquiries or leads pertaining to the events 
of January 6th''?
    Mr. Allen. Yes, I corresponded with my team--
    Mr. Goldman. Did you write that?
    Mr. Allen. Yes, I wrote those words and the correspondence.
    Mr. Goldman. OK. That was after you had been admonished not 
to send information about January 6th, right?
    Mr. Allen. I was not admonished to not send information.
    Mr. Goldman. You do agree that your personal opinion should 
not influence your official duties, don't you?
    Mr. Allen. No, you should be objective and analytical in 
all the decisions and information.
    Mr. Goldman. No, that was--sorry. That was my question. 
Your personal views should not influence your official duties.
    Mr. Allen. No. You should be objective in doing the conduct 
of your job.
    Mr. Goldman. Now, Mr. Friend and Mr. O'Boyle, I don't have 
much time. You agree that you were field agents. Correct?
    Mr. O'Boyle. Correct.
    Mr. Goldman. You understand chain of command, do you not, 
Mr. O'Boyle?
    Mr. O'Boyle. I do.
    Mr. Goldman. Right. So that if you make a suggestion to a 
supervisor and your supervisor overrules you, that's the nature 
of the business, isn't it?
    Mr. O'Boyle. Not if it's a violation of a law or a rule.
    Mr. Goldman. You make decisions about whether grand jury 
subpoenas should be served or not as a field agent of the FBI?
    Chair Jordan. The time of the gentleman is expired.
    Mr. O'Boyle. If I have a reasonable belief, I can make a 
protected disclosure, which is what I've done.
    Mr. Goldman. OK. Do you think you make those decisions--
    Chair Jordan. The time of the gentleman is expired.
    The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair recognizes himself.
    Mr. O'Boyle, why do you think they came down on you so darn 
hard? Deep down, what do you think their motivation is?
    Mr. O'Boyle. I think they want to--the agency as a whole 
wants to get rid of people who simply just don't tow the line 
that they want. They don't want critical thinkers. They don't 
want people who raise valid questions to their chain of 
command.
    Chair Jordan. They want to send a message, don't they?
    Mr. O'Boyle. Absolutely.
    Chair Jordan. They want to make you an example, don't they?
    Mr. O'Boyle. Yes.
    Chair Jordan. They don't care. They want to send that 
message so hard, so strong. They don't care that you served six 
years in the Army, member of the 101st Airborne, took enemy 
fire, was selected for a special new unit they were putting in 
Quantico.
    They wanted to send such a message that they said: If we 
can get this guy, we can get this guy to be quiet, we can get 
everybody to be quiet. That's what they were doing, wasn't it?
    Mr. O'Boyle. Yes, sir, especially since I had just had a 
baby who was two weeks old and we had just sold our House.
    Chair Jordan. Just to put the emphasis on it, they said 
we're going to do it the day he arrives. The day we've worked 
with him, we've selected him, he's done a great job in the FBI, 
he served our country, took an oath to the Constitution, took 
an oath to defend this country, he's going to move. We're going 
to send all his stuff in this van. We're going to do that.
    When the day he arrives, we're going to suspend him. We're 
not going to let his family get their belongings. We're not 
going to let him get his clothes for his kids, his winter coats 
for his children. We're going to send a message.
    They did. They suspended you. They took your pay. They 
don't let you get health insurance. They made life miserable 
for you to send a message. Because you know what? You reported 
on the first big screw-up they had in this administration, the 
first big one. You reported to us as a whistleblower about the 
school boards issue. The Biden Administration, they thought 
this was going to be a win for them politically. They thought 
it was going to make Terry McAuliffe Governor of Virginia, and 
it back fired.
    They looked at 25 parents who were reported on the snitch 
line that was set up with this memorandum from the Attorney 
General. They looked at 25 parents. How many of them do you 
think were actually ever investigated and prosecuted? How many 
do you think were prosecuted, Mr. O'Boyle?
    Mr. O'Boyle. If I had to guess, I'd say zero.
    Chair Jordan. Zero. Zero.
    You came to us because you said this is wrong. This is 
wrong to set up some Federal snitch line. Some neighbor called 
in because they don't like their neighbor's politics, reporting 
to the FBI. Go and investigate these parents.
    They said we got to get this guy. We got to get Garrett 
O'Boyle because you had the courage to step forward.
    It's not just with this issue, because we have the 
memorandum from the Richmond Field Office about Catholics. 
Right? If you're pro-life, pro-family, and you're Catholic, 
look out. The FBI wanted to put people inside the church, 
inside the parish to spy on fellow citizens.
    Does that surprise you, Mr. O'Boyle, that this actually 
happened in the Richmond Field Office?
    Mr. O'Boyle. It doesn't, not anymore.
    Chair Jordan. Scary. You know that he memorandum, by the 
way? It was signed off by five people in that office. One of 
them was the Chief Division Counsel, a lawyer. A lawyer who 
supposedly went to law school and probably had a course on the 
Constitution signed off on that memorandum. Scary stuff. Scary 
stuff.
    Mr. Allen, you served 20 years. You had a security 
clearance for 20 years. You served our country as well. Right?
    Mr. Allen. Yes, sir.
    Chair Jordan. Honorably discharged?
    Mr. Allen. Yes, sir.
    Chair Jordan. Won medals from the Marine Corps?
    Mr. Allen. Yes, sir.
    Chair Jordan. They came after you, too, didn't they?
    You simply did--Mr. Goldman asked you a few questions. You 
were simply doing your job. Your job as an analyst is to 
compile information, open-source information, present that to 
your colleagues so they're fully informed about the case. Is 
that right?
    Mr. Allen. Yes, sir, that's right.
    Chair Jordan. You that job, didn't you?
    Mr. Allen. Yes, sir.
    Chair Jordan. You followed your oath, right?
    Mr. Allen. Yes, sir.
    Chair Jordan. You adhered to the rule of law.
    Mr. Allen. Correct, sir.
    Chair Jordan. You were consistent with the Constitution 
just like the oath you took when you signed both to serve our 
country in the military and at the FBI.
    Mr. Allen. Yes, sir.
    Chair Jordan. You did the same thing, didn't you, Mr. 
Friend?
    Mr. Friend. Yes, sir.
    Chair Jordan. Yet, you felt the full weight of the Federal 
government come down on you guys. Of course, they timed it 
perfectly. They sent the letter to us yesterday. We knew they 
would. We knew it was going to happen that way. As Mr. Boyle 
said earlier, he's getting his hearing tomorrow.
    Right, Mr. O'Boyle?
    Mr. O'Boyle. That's when they tried to schedule it. We've 
not heard back.
    Chair Jordan. Yes, thank you. Thank you for your service to 
the country. Mr. Bishop was right. The poise, the way you've 
handled yourself, the gentlemen way you've handled yourself, 
the way you've served our country, it does not go unnoticed. 
The American people appreciate what you've done for our country 
and what you are doing for our country. God bless you.
    I yield back.
    I now recognize the Ranking Member from the Virgin Islands.
    Ms. Plaskett. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    At least you got a document from the FBI. We here, your 
colleagues in Congress, don't get documents from you, don't get 
material from you.
    Chair Jordan. That document was sent to Chair Nadler--
    Ms. Plaskett. This is my--
    Chair Jordan. --Ranking Member Nadler.
    Ms. Plaskett. This is my five minutes. This is my five 
minutes.
    Chair Jordan. I understand.
    Ms. Plaskett. I didn't ask you--
    Chair Jordan. I'll give you extra time, but it went to 
Chair Nadler--
    Ms. Plaskett. I didn't yield to you.
    Chair Jordan. --or Ranking Member Nadler.
    Ms. Plaskett. I didn't yield to you.
    Not Mr. Allen's testimony, not a lot of testimony but, I do 
and am concerned when I hear about people not being able to 
provide for their families. That does upset me as a parent, as 
a daughter of law enforcement, a granddaughter of law 
enforcement.
    I don't come from a place where I do not respect law 
enforcement, and I understand the sacrifices that they and 
their families make.
    Mr. Allen, do you know who Brian Regan is?
    Mr. Allen. The name Brian Regan?
    Ms. Plaskett. Yes. Do you know who that is?
    Mr. Allen. I'm not aware of a--
    Ms. Plaskett. OK. Brian Regan was an Air Force individual, 
an Air Force Airman who sold classified information to China, 
Iraq, and Libya.
    Mr. O'Boyle do you know who Reality Winner is?
    Mr. O'Boyle. I believe I have heard that name before.
    Ms. Plaskett. Yes. Reality Winner was an Air Force also, an 
NSA contractor who in 2018 pleaded guilty to multiple 
violations of Espionage Act as a contractor who leaked 
information about the Russian interference the 2016 elections.
    Do either--any of you up here, sitting there know who Jack 
Teixeira is? Right? We all know who he is. He's the young man 
and the National Guardsman in Massachusetts who leaked massive 
amounts of classified information.
    So, because someone served our country in the military and 
that they do work for a Federal agency does not exempt them 
immediately from being someone who could potentially commit 
espionage or lose security clearances.
    We give everybody a pass just because they served our 
country? We respect their service. If they break the law, then 
that means that they have to face the consequences. If 
individuals do things that they're in the process and it 
determines that they are, in fact, have to have their security 
clearances removed, then that's what happens.
    So, my father served. All my uncles served. People in my 
family served in the military, and we all respect that. That 
does not give individuals a pass and means that they cannot be 
questioned about their security clearances and their 
allegiances later on to the country.
    My colleague, Mr. Goldman, asked questions about Kash 
Patel, his engagement, his involvement with some of the 
witnesses here. Even another one of my colleagues brought up a 
tweet, brought up testimony from Mr. Hill. He was just in awe 
and could not believe. He was chilled by what he said about 
Bank of America.
    I'm chilled by that same individual saying that the FBI are 
six brown shirts, that they're Nazis, that the law enforcement 
agency are, in fact, Nazis. That's a more chilling component to 
me.
    This is more of the same that we see each and every time 
that we're here. First, just it was demonstrated in the process 
that we're in right now, an unwillingness to follow precedent, 
follow the rules. The rules don't apply when it comes to the 
Republicans. They want a different set of rules for themselves 
than everyone else. They want a different set of rules for 
their political beliefs than other individuals have. 
Individuals who are espousing their beliefs on the job where 
they're not supposed to, it's OK when it's their beliefs. If it 
were somebody else, then a different set of rules would apply 
to them, hiding information.
    It's all part and parcel of the Republicans' attempt to 
make Americans distrust our rule of law, so that when 2024 
comes around and, should their candidate not win, more and more 
people will not believe the truth.
    The truth matters. The truth matters. Hiding information 
and stating a lie over and over again does not make it true. We 
will continue to, yes, be concerned.
    Mr. Chair, I continue to say that there are, I believe, 
areas that I think that we can work on. I have not had a 
discussion with you. I've sent you letters about what I believe 
those areas are. No response with regard to that, but in their 
time--
    Chair Jordan. The time of the gentlelady has expired.
    Ms. Plaskett. I'm happy to do that with you.
    Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman recognizes the gentleman from 
Utah for five minutes.
    Mr. Stewart. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    To the witnesses, I actually am missing another event. I 
could not leave until I had the opportunity to thank you. Thank 
you for your courage. Thank you for your honesty. Honestly, I 
apologize for some of the behavior and the words of my 
colleagues. It reflects poorly on Congress. It makes us appear 
childish and as if rudeness is intellect, as if accusations is 
fact.
    You all have done exactly the opposite in the face of 
accusations, in the face of insinuations. Comparing you as 
military members to known traitors and, therefore, we shouldn't 
believe you, it's just simply outrageous. It's childish. You 
haven't done that. You've done exactly the opposite.
    I want you to know that the American people have listened 
to you, and they can see your demeanor. They can see your 
sincerity. They can see and respect the service that you have 
rendered, and that's what they will remember from this. They 
won't remember some objection about, well, we weren't given 
this document. They won't remember who Kash Patel is. Who even 
knows what--has anything to do with this.
    They're smart enough to know this isn't about January 6th. 
This isn't about a previous election or the next election. 
They're smart enough to hear your words and to measure your 
sincerity and to know whether you're telling the truth. I'm 
telling you that as someone who sat on the Intelligence 
Committee for years and used to be a defender of the FBI and to 
watch their activity over the last few years, I completely 
believe you because I've seen it again and again and again.
    Probably the most concerning thing I've seen in Congress is 
this weaponization of Federal agencies. We give them enormous 
power. You had enormous power, and we can't give agencies like 
the FBI incredible abilities to go surveil, to monitor, to 
read, and to observe American citizens and then just say: Go do 
what you want. Don't come talk to us. Don't tell us what you're 
doing.
    That is exactly the opposite. They should and they must be 
able to have oversight by Congress and they simply don't. That 
forces you, as whistleblowers, to come forward through another 
vehicle.
    I'd be curious to know. You had friends in the FBI. You 
were well-respected.
    I mean, Mr. Allen, you're the employee of the year, for 
heaven's sake. Have any of your friends reached out and tried 
to support you in this? My point in asking that is, I wonder if 
they're too scared. I wonder if they're scared to be associated 
with you. I wonder if the FBI tactics of isolating you have 
worked.
    Mr. O'Boyle, have you had friends reach out in support?
    Mr. O'Boyle. Very, very few.
    Mr. Stewart. Why is that, do you think?
    Mr. O'Boyle. I think their First Amendment Rights have been 
chilled, as well. I know for a fact that my former supervisor 
had a meeting with my squad, shortly after I was suspended. He 
told them that I was going be arrested, fired, and charged. So, 
if that's not chilling, I don't know what is.
    Mr. Stewart. Mr. Friend?
    Mr. Friend. I echo what Mr. O'Boyle said. I've had very few 
reach out to me, and those who have, have used encrypted ways 
to do it because they fear retribution.
    Mr. Stewart. They're afraid to reach out to you, respected 
colleagues, people they've worked out for years. They're afraid 
to reach out to you. It's very clear the FBI has been able to 
achieve that goal.
    Mr. Allen, your experience, former employee of the year?
    Mr. Allen. I've had a few colleagues reach out who are no 
longer with the office just to check in periodically which has 
been appreciated. Other than that, I've been pretty much, like, 
ghosted by everybody.
    Mr. Stewart. Honestly, shame on those agents who respect 
you and know you and don't have the courage to reach out and 
support you.
    There are members of my family who are FBI agents. I love 
and respect them, but we have deep concerns about the agency 
used to work with.
    I want to read you something. This should frighten people. 
It should get their attention, I hope, if it doesn't. The East 
German Stasi, one of the most effective, oppressive agencies in 
the history of the world, this is what they would do. They 
devised a strategy and tactics to disintegrate a target's 
personal circumstances.
    Surely that has happened to you. Their career, surely that 
has happened to you. Not only your career as an FBI but they 
preclude you from working anywhere else. For heaven's sake, you 
have to ask others to help you to maintain just food on the 
table for your families.
    How can anyone on the other side of the aisle say that's OK 
with me? Further Stasi tactics, ruin their relationships and 
their reputation in the community. Tell me that hasn't happened 
to each of you.
    I yield back. Thank you.
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back.
    I appreciate that.
    The gentleman recognizes--the gentleman from Florida is 
recognized.
    Mr. Gaetz. So, which Americans were being targeted? Now, 
August 2, 2022, a media organization obtained a copy of a 
document, which whistleblowers subsequently authenticated to 
the Committee, that is styled, ``The FBI's Domestic Terrorism 
Symbols Guide on Militia Violent Extremists.''
    Mr. O'Boyle, are you generally familiar with that guide?
    Mr. O'Boyle. Yes.
    Mr. Gaetz. That guide identified certain things that made 
people more likely to be deemed a threat or terrorists, didn't 
it?
    Mr. O'Boyle. Yes.
    Mr. Gaetz. Wasn't one of those things just the number ``2'' 
and the letter ``A'' next to each other?
    Mr. O'Boyle. Yes, it was.
    Mr. Gaetz. In your experience as a law enforcement 
official, does putting the word--the letter ``2'' and ``A'' 
next to each other make someone more likely to be violent other 
lawbreaking?
    Mr. O'Boyle. No.
    Mr. Gaetz. If someone signified the right, that they 
support the right to bear arms, was that also something in the 
symbol guide?
    Mr. O'Boyle. Yes.
    Mr. Gaetz. How about this one? This one really got me. The 
Betsy Ross flag, was the Betsy Ross flag in the terrorism 
symbol guide?
    Mr. O'Boyle. It was.
    Mr. Gaetz. What about the Betsy Ross flag makes someone 
more likely to be a violent extremist?
    Mr. O'Boyle. I wish there was a reasonable explanation for 
that question.
    Mr. Gaetz. There isn't. People blew the whistle and said 
this stuff is crazy. Americans are being targeted.
    Mr. Friend, you ever been to a school board meeting?
    Mr. Friend. Yes, I have.
    Mr. Gaetz. The FBI ever sent to you the parking lot after 
school board meeting?
    Mr. Friend. Yes, they have.
    Mr. Gaetz. In the parking lot of the school board meeting, 
where the FBI sent you, you were taking down information 
regarding people's license plates.
    Mr. Friend. That's correct.
    Mr. Gaetz. Now, it wasn't the first time you'd been to a 
school board meeting, was it?
    Mr. Friend. No, I went on my own as a private citizen.
    Mr. Gaetz. As a parent.
    Mr. Friend. Yes.
    Mr. Gaetz. So, there you were. It must have been quite an 
interesting perspective. There you were, taking the down the 
information of people, parents attending school board meetings 
on behalf of the FBI. You had been one of those parent at a 
school board meeting.
    How did that feel?
    Mr. Friend. Well, after I attended privately, my colleagues 
teased me that they were probably going to start investigating 
me.
    Mr. Gaetz. You used to go after the worst of worst, didn't 
you?
    Mr. Friend. Yes, I believe so.
    Mr. Gaetz. You went after people who looked at child porn.
    Mr. Friend. Yes.
    Mr. Gaetz. People who were sexually exploiting children.
    Mr. Friend. Yes.
    Mr. Gaetz. Then you were in the parking lot of a school 
board meeting, taking down the information of parents.
    What happened to the cases that you were working to protect 
our communities from the worst predators that exist?
    Mr. Friend. I was told they were not to be resourced. Then, 
after I was suspended, they were handed off to local law 
enforcement.
    Mr. Gaetz. Wow. So, the FBI just decided it was more 
important to have you in that parking lot of that school board 
meeting than getting the worst of the worst away from people 
that they could harm.
    Mr. Friend. That's correct.
    Mr. Gaetz. You deserve the consequences you are getting, 
according to the Ranking Member.
    Mr. O'Boyle, the Ranking Member said that when people break 
the law, they deserve the consequences they get. It doesn't 
matter that they served in the military.
    So, what law did you break before the FBI packed up all 
your stuff and moved it across the country to Virginia?
    Mr. O'Boyle. No true law. The only thing I broke was not 
towing the line for the FBI. Like I said when I opened, my oath 
is to the Constitution, not to the FBI.
    Mr. Gaetz. Our laws provide you avenues to talk to 
Congress, to talk to your supervisors about those concerns. 
Right?
    Mr. O'Boyle. Correct.
    Mr. Gaetz. So, you didn't deviate from that, did you?
    Mr. O'Boyle. No.
    Mr. Gaetz. You didn't go to the media first, did you?
    Mr. O'Boyle. No.
    Mr. Gaetz. You used what the law provided. Your family has 
paid an exquisite price for that, haven't they?
    Mr. O'Boyle. They have.
    Mr. Gaetz. How old were your children when they moved you 
across the country?
    Mr. O'Boyle. Six, five, three, and two weeks.
    Mr. Gaetz. A two-week-old baby.
    Mr. Gaetz. A two-week-old baby.
    Could you get your stuff?
    Mr. O'Boyle. Six weeks later.
    Mr. Gaetz. Oh, so for six weeks almost every possession to 
your name, the FBI had and wouldn't give back to you. How did 
you--what time of year was it? Was it winter? Summer?
    Mr. O'Boyle. When I reported, it was in September. So, when 
we were traveling, it was summertime essentially. So, we had 
basically summer clothes. Then we were basically stranded in 
Wisconsin, which is where we're from. It gets cold there pretty 
quick.
    Mr. Gaetz. Well, I'll take your word for it. I'm a Florida 
man.
    What was it like when you had to go and explain to your 
wife that you didn't have coats for your children, because the 
FBI wouldn't give them back to you?
    Mr. O'Boyle. It was horrible. I mean, we were asking family 
for clothes and--excuse me. It was a difficult time.
    Mr. Gaetz. Yes. You became a charity case, didn't you?
    Mr. O'Boyle. I did. Now, I get derided for that. I never 
thought I'd have to accept charity in my life. I thought I 
would be able to take care of my family, but I'm grateful for 
everyone who has provided charity to me. That even includes a 
former colleague's church. I would name the church to give them 
recognition, but I'm too worried that the FBI would send 
informants to infiltrate that church, as well.
    Mr. Gaetz. Yes. Well, they've already done that with the 
Catholics.
    I yield back.
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back.
    The gentleman from North Dakota is recognized.
    Mr. Armstrong. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    The Mueller--or the Durham Report dropped this week and 
it's an absolute--I mean, the politically motivated misconduct 
by the FBI and the DOJ is outlined in very, very specific 
detail. It's an absolutely damning indictment on the FISA 
Court.
    The response from DOJ and Director Wray continues to be 
that all the people engaged in that conduct are no longer with 
the DOJ or the FBI, and Director Wray has emphasized the 
importance of doing things the right way. Essentially, it's all 
in the past. Nothing to see here. Just trust us.
    Mr. Allen, do you think the FBI leadership does things the 
right way?
    Mr. Allen. No, sir.
    Mr. Armstrong. Mr. Friend?
    Mr. Friend. No, sir.
    Mr. Armstrong. Mr. O'Boyle.
    Mr. O'Boyle. No, sir.
    Mr. Armstrong. The Durham Report detailed that submitted 
warrant applications to the FISA Court without interviewing 
witness, failed to correct warrants after learning more 
information about a witness's reliability, failed to disclose 
exculpatory testified a secret court, omitted information that 
contradicted what they had told the Court previously when they 
were trying to get extensions. In one case, they actually 
fabricated an application for the warrant.
    In a letter dated on May 15th, the DOJ informed us that we 
don't have to worry about it anymore because they revised some 
forms, issued a whole bunch of new guidance. They promised us 
that they have a better way to maintain files. They implemented 
more training. The FBI loves training. Bureaucrats love 
training. They have more internal oversight. They have a 
rigorous and robust oversight program. They instituted 
technical updates. They automated workflow.
    You know what's not mentioned anywhere in that letter? 
Consequences. There are no consequences, no penalty, and no 
punishment. So, if there's no consequences, there's no 
prosecutions, then there is no incentive for the DOJ or the FBI 
to hold themselves accountable.
    The single best way for the American people to learn about 
the abuses carried out by our government is by whistleblower 
testimony. So, the single most effective way to keep these 
things from coming to light is to make sure it is known that 
dissent will not be tolerated and speaking out will be dealt 
with severely.
    Just this week, the IRS whistleblower was removed from a 
case at the request of the DOJ in a clear case of retaliation 
and violation of the law.
    So, Mr. Allen, when we're talking about this and what you 
all have gone through, and your families have gone through is 
just heart-wrenching and Congressman Gaetz just walked through 
it.
    What are the consequences moving forward for your 
colleagues on whistleblowers?
    Mr. Allen. I think in light of what's happened to us and 
what's happened to all the people involved with that 
investigation, it definitely has to send a chilling effect 
across the agency. There's just an incongruence in how 
personnel at a high level have been treated and how we've been 
treated.
    Mr. Armstrong. Mr. Friend, with this public setting. We're 
in testimony. Can you tell the American people what has 
happened in your life since you have come forward and given 
this information?
    Mr. Friend. Well, thank you for that.
    Beyond leaking my medical information to The New York Times 
and insinuating that I was under disciplinary action for 
shooting a firearm in my back yard inappropriately, I was also 
denied the opportunity to seek outside employment on two 
occasions, denied my training records which, in essence, is 
denying me outside employment.
    The Inspector General is now aware of the illegal and 
improper gag order that was issued on me that basically told me 
that I was not allowed to speak to my family or my attorney 
about the existence of an investigation.
    Mr. Armstrong. So, somebody--if one of your former 
colleagues is looking at this and watching this and they have 
information that they think is subject to, being shed light on 
what the American people, do you think how you've been treated 
would give them pause?
    Mr. Friend. It has. That's why they launched the 
information to me, and that's how I've been able to expose more 
things now from the outside.
    Mr. Armstrong. Mr. O'Boyle, we just heard from your 
interaction with Mr. Gaetz and how all this occurred and all 
the hardships you've gone through.
    If one of your really good friends, your former colleagues, 
came to you and said, I have this thing that is being covered 
up and I think the American people need to know about it, what 
advice would you give them?
    Mr. O'Boyle. I'd tell them first to pray about it long and 
hard. I would tell them I could take it to Congress for them or 
I could put them in touch with Congress, but I would advise 
them not to do it.
    Mr. Armstrong. So, you would legitimately try to protect 
one of your colleagues from doing what you have done.
    Mr. O'Boyle. Absolutely.
    Mr. Armstrong. How do you think that solves being able to 
shed light on corruption, weaponization, any kind of misconduct 
that exists with the American people?
    Mr. O'Boyle. It doesn't solve it, but the FBI will crush 
you. This government will crush you and your family if you try 
expose the truth about things that they are doing that are 
wrong, and we are all examples of that.
    Mr. Armstrong. I can't think of a more sobering way to end 
a hearing.
    I yield back.
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back.
    I want to thank, I know we say this every hearing that we 
thank the witnesses and I mean it every time. I really mean it. 
Thank you for coming forward, sharing your story, and standing 
up for the Constitution, doing your duty. We appreciate it.
    Mr. Leavitt, thank you for your representation of these 
individuals.
    We thank you for the powerful testimony that you gave and 
the way you gave it and the way you've conducted yourselves.
    With that, without objection, all Members will have five 
legislative days to submit additional written questions for 
witnesses or additional materials for the record.
    Without objection, the hearing is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 12:39 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

    All materials submitted for the record by Members of the 
Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal 
Government can be found at: https://docs.house.gov/Committee/
Calendar/ByEvent.aspx?EventID=115972.

                                 [all]