[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]