[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
SECOND SESSION
__________
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 25, 2024
__________
Serial No. 118-100
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via: http://judiciary.house.gov
_______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
56-926 WASHINGTON : 2024
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
JIM JORDAN, Ohio, Chair
DARRELL ISSA, California JERROLD NADLER, New York, Ranking
MATT GAETZ, Florida Member
ANDY BIGGS, Arizona ZOE LOFGREN, California
TOM McCLINTOCK, California STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
TOM TIFFANY, Wisconsin HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky Georgia
CHIP ROY, Texas ADAM SCHIFF, California
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
KELLY ARMSTRONG, North Dakota JOE NEGUSE, Colorado
LANCE GOODEN, Texas LUCY McBATH, Georgia
JEFF VAN DREW, New Jersey MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania
TROY NEHLS, Texas VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas
BARRY MOORE, Alabama DEBORAH ROSS, North Carolina
KEVIN KILEY, California CORI BUSH, Missouri
HARRIET HAGEMAN, Wyoming GLENN IVEY, Maryland
NATHANIEL MORAN, Texas BECCA BALINT, Vermont
LAUREL LEE, Florida JESUS G. ``CHUY'' GARCIA, Illinois
WESLEY HUNT, Texas
RUSSELL FRY, South Carolina
MICHAEL RULLI, Ohio
------
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
ELISE M. STEFANIK, New York STEPHEN LYNCH, Massachusetts
MATT GAETZ, Florida LINDA SANCHEZ, California
KELLY ARMSTRONG, North Dakota DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida
W. GREGORY STEUBE, Florida GERRY CONNOLLY, Virginia
DAN BISHOP, North Carolina JOHN GARAMENDI, California
KAT CAMMACK, Florida SYLVIA GARCIA, Texas
HARRIET HAGEMAN, Wyoming DAN GOLDMAN, New York
WARREN DAVIDSON, Ohio JASMINE CROCKETT, Texas
RUSSELL FRY, South Carolina
CHRISTOPHER HIXON, Majority Staff Director
CAROLINE NABITY, Chief Counsel for Oversight
AARON HILLER, Minority Staff Director & Chief of Staff
CHRISTINA CALCE, Minority Chief Oversight Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
Wednesday, September 25, 2024
OPENING STATEMENTS
Page
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
The Hon. Michael E. Horowitz, Inspector General, United States
Department of Justice
Oral Testimony................................................. 7
Prepared Testimony............................................. 9
Tristan Leavitt, President, Empower Oversight
Oral Testimony................................................. 21
Prepared Testimony............................................. 23
Marcus Allen, Whistleblower, former Staff Operations Specialist,
FBI
Oral Testimony................................................. 27
Prepared Testimony............................................. 29
Glenn Kirschner, former Homicide Prosecutor, United States
Attorney's Office, District of Columbia
Oral Testimony................................................. 31
Prepared Testimony............................................. 33
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 71
A letter to the Honorable Thomas Massie, a Member of the Select
Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government
from the State of Kentucky, Sept. 20, 2024, from the Office of
the Inspector General, U.S. Department of Homeland Security,
submitted by the Honorable Thomas Massie, a Member of the
Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal
Government from the State of Kentucky, for the record
An article entitled, ``As President, Trump Demanded
Investigations of Foes. He Often Got Them.'' Sept. 21, 2024,
The New York Times, submitted by the Honorable Dan Goldman, a
Member of the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the
Federal Government from the State of New York, for the record
An article enitled, ``Agenda47: President Trump's Plan to
Dismantle the Deep State and Return Power to the American
People,'' Mar. 21, 2023, Trump Vance Campaign, submitted by the
Honorable Jasmine Crockett, a Member of the Select Subcommittee
on the Weaponization of the Federal Government from the State
of Texas, for the record
A letter to the Honorable Jim Jordan, Chair of the Select
Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government
from the State of Ohio, the Honorable James Comer, Chair of the
House Committee on Oversight and Reform from the State of
Kentucky, the Honorable Michael Turner, Chair of the House
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence from the State of
Ohio, the Honorable Jerrold Nadler, Ranking Member of the
Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal
Government from the State of New York, the Honorable Jamie
Raskin, Ranking Member of the House Committee on Oversight and
Reform from the State of Maryland, and the Honorable Jim Himes,
Ranking Member of the House Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence fronm the State of Connecticut, from the American
Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), Sept. 24, 2024, submitted by
the Honorable Jim Jordan, Chair of the Select Subcommittee on
the Weaponization of the Federal Government from the State of
Ohio, for the record
An article entitled, ``Trump claims not to know who is behind
Project 2025. A CNN review found at least 140 people who worked
for him are involved,'' Jul. 11, 2024, CNN, submitted by the
Honorable Stacey Plaskett, Ranking Member of the Select
Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government
from the Virgin Islands, for the record
APPENDIX
A statement by the Honorable Gerald E. Connolly, a Member of the
Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal
Government from the State of Virginia, for the record
HEARING ON THE WEAPONIZATION OF THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
----------
Wednesday, September 25, 2024
House of Representatives
Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government
Committee on the Judiciary
Washington, DC
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:06 a.m., in
Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Hon. Jim Jordan
[Chair of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Members present: Representatives Jordan, Issa, Massie,
Gaetz, Bishop, Hageman, Davidson, Fry, Plaskett, Lynch,
Sanchez, Wasserman Schultz, Connolly, Garamendi, Garcia,
Goldman, and Crockett.
Chair Jordan. The Subcommittee will come to order. Without
objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a recess at any
time. We welcome everyone to today's hearing. The Chair now
recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts 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. The FBI can't tell us who planted pipe bombs
on January 6th. They can't tell us who leaked the Dobbs
decision. They can't tell us who put cocaine at the White
House, but they were able to spy on the Presidential campaign,
lied to a FISA Court, investigate parents showing up at a
school board meeting, and of course, saying if you are a pro-
life Catholic, you are somehow an extremist. All that because I
think the FBI is driven by politics today.
In this Congress, this Subcommittee has been investigating
the political actions of the FBI and the double standards at
the Biden-Harris Justice Department. We have heard from
countless witnesses. We have heard from Government officials
and experts. We have heard from Americans targeted by their
Government, not just conservatives, but also Democrats. In
fact, we were in a hearing in this room over a year ago when
journalist Matt Taibbi was testifying. While he was testifying,
wasn't the FBI for Justice Department, but I think it makes a
point, while he was testifying, the IRS was knocking on his
door. Chilling impact, knocking on his door. It turned out they
actually owed him money, but they did it the very moment he was
testifying to us about the censorship going on in the Biden-
Harris Administration.
Most importantly, we have heard from whistleblowers. We
have him with us today and we look forward to hearing from Mr.
Allen. As we have seen you are not politically correct, you are
not in align with what the Government think sis the proper
position, you become the target.
Just as frightening, if you are one of the good employees
in our Government who came forward to talk about the targeting,
then you really become the target. If you are one of those good
employees driven by your commitment to the Constitution, your
conscience, and you come forward, they are coming after you.
The FBI has used the security clearance adjudication process to
purge its ranks of conservatives and whistleblowers, to
unlawfully punish those with views contrary to the FBI
leadership.
Mr. Leavitt has brought multiple whistleblower disclosures
to this Committee regarding the rampant politics within the
FBI's Security Division which is tasked with investigating and
adjudicating employees' eligibility for a security clearance.
Whistleblowers describe the Security Division of the FBI as ``a
toxic work environment.'' Investigators were asking employees
about their colleagues, questions like did they support
President Trump? Are they opposed to COVID vaccination? We know
they asked this because there is a questionnaire that they use,
an actual questionnaire that the FBI use to have colleagues
snitch on their fellow workers.
According to whistleblowers, the Security Division
leadership, under the command of Deputy Assistant Director
Jeffrey Veltri, created an environment where,
It was very common for investigators to ask inappropriate
questions of an employee's colleagues, the content of which
could never have been used to revoke a person's clearance.
By the way, what is Mr. Veltri up to now? The guy who
during his time at the Security Division was described to being
adamantly anti-Trump? He is leading the investigation into the
second assassination attempt on President Trump in Miami. He is
the Special Agent-in-Charge in Miami.
Whistleblowers reference specific cases where the FBI
circumvented due process and ignored key facts during clearance
investigations, including investigations on Marcus Allen, who
we will hear from, and Garret O'Boyle, both whistleblowers who
came to this Committee. Both men stood up and said this isn't
right. What the FBI is doing isn't right and they both had
their clearances suspended and then revoked. The FBI isn't
going to get away with it. On May 13, 2024, Inspector General
Horowitz released a memo finding that the Justice Department
and the FBI failed to comply with clear statutory and
regulatory whistleblower clearance protection.
On May 31, 2024, the FBI reinstated Mr. Allen's clearance
stating that the original security concerns had been
investigated and they were mitigated. All this after 27 months
where they harassed Mr. Allen. Remember, Mr. Allen came before
this Committee on May 18th of last year. The night before the
hearing, the FBI sent this Committee a letter filled with lies
about the whistleblowers that were going to testify that next
day. The FBI questioned Mr. Allen's allegiance to the United
States, a decorated Marine veteran, 20 years of having a
security clearance, and employee of the year at his Charlotte
Office. They questioned that.
During the hearing, Democrats attacked Mr. Allen, first, by
imputing someone else's Tweets to Mr. Allen; second, by
comparing him to individuals convicted of sharing classified
information with foreign governments, ridiculous; and finally,
by saying he wasn't a whistleblower, just had grievances. That
is not what the IG concluded, not at all. Mr. Allen was simply
doing his job, doing it well, and for that because he
questioned the leadership at the FBI, he was harassed, lost his
security clearance for 27 months, only to have it reinstated.
Again, I want to thank our witnesses for being here today
and with that, I would yield to the Ranking Member for an
opening statement.
Ms. Plaskett. Thank you and good morning to everyone here,
this Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal
Government. In 46 days, Americans will go to the polls for one
of the most consequential elections of our lifetimes. Americans
will decide the composition of Congress, as well as the next
President of the United States and then prayerfully, this
Select Committee will be over because the purpose of this
Committee will no longer be necessary. What was that purpose?
Well, it is what I said almost two years ago, to test out
conspiracy theories, prop up those stories that the far right
wishes to push into the American psyche and to lay the
groundwork for a dictatorial government led by Donald Trump.
Now, immediately you will hear moans of disapproval and X,
formerly called Twitter, is going to call me a racist. They are
going to call me a disrespectful Black bitch, because I have
said words against the Chair, my White male counterpart, on
this Committee. I am a tool of the woke agenda. I have heard
it. I have read it all, as well as so many of my colleagues
that are here. Our moderate individuals will say I am being an
alarmist and that there is no way America becomes a
dictatorship. We are just pointing out how the Federal
Government comes after conservatives.
In the two-years that we have been doing this Groundhog Day
over and over and over again, there has been no evidence to
show that the Federal Government and particularly the Federal
Bureau of Investigation, the FBI, or the Department of Justice
has been wholly weaponized against the right. The same way my
Republican colleagues have not been able to show that Joseph
Biden has committed impeachable offenses or that Secretary
Mayorkas committed any high crimes and misdemeanors. They knew
they never could because as Biggie says, ``it was just a
dream.''
We have had hearings over and over about the Federal
Government, again, the FBI and DOJ, in particular, and the
White House trying to stop free speech on social media
platforms. Other Committees along with this one, have spent
millions of taxpayer dollars interviewing senior social media
executives and, particularly, those that set the parameters of
content moderation to say that the sites unfairly come after
conservatives. When what we have learned is that those
executives have in the past tried to provide users with
corrections to disinformation and misinformation which may
create health risks, put people in danger, or may have placed
falsely by the enemies of our country to try to sow election
disinformation and false narratives to weaken our democratic
election system.
This Committee has been used to weaken that system
following the desires of far right conspiracy theorists and in
particular, Elon Musk, to allow them free rein on these
platforms. America civilians have been harassed, threatened,
and doxxed. Mr. Musk, since you think tweeting, X-ing, or
whatever it is you call you do on your platform about me is
going to scare me to be quiet you obviously don't know what I
am made of. Generations of individuals who have fought for me
to have the ability to say what I want to say, to speak the
truth. You forget that this is not pre-1990s apartheid South
Africa, the country of your birth. This is America and there
are more of us Americans that love our diversity, our rule of
law, than there are of you who would like us all to be
sycophants to your ego.
The outcome of hearings of this Committee has supported my
claim that from the very beginning of the creation of this
Select Subcommittee that his has been the gaslighting to the
ninth degree, a tremendous projection of the highest order,
that the evidence is the words of their leader, there would-be
Fuhrer Donald Trump and Project 2025, a 900-page manifesto of a
transformed America. Donald Trump has spoken his intentions out
loud, and his followers were so bold as to put it in a document
with his knowledge to outline how they would create a State to
serve the interests of a few at the expense of the many. Trump,
himself a convicted felon, has pledged that on day one, this is
a quote,
On day one of my new administration, I will direct the DOJ to
investigate every radical DA and attorney general for their
illegal, racist enforcement of the law.
He has said that undocumented immigrants are, ``poisoning the
blood of our country.'' Language echoing the rhetoric of Nazi
Germany. Has promised to invoke the Alien Enemies Act to
``carry out the largest domestic deportation operation in
American history.'' Who would defend his use of the law for
that purpose? The Department of Justice.
He has promised, Trump's words, ``to stop the Federal
Government, including the Department of Justice and FBI with
appointees loyal to him and only him.'' Not to the Constitution
which he has separately said could be revoked because it
doesn't do what he wants it to do, who will carry out his every
order without question. The how-to of do these threats have
been fleshed out by individuals absolutely loyal to Trump. How
do we know that? Because the vast majority of individuals who
worked on his cabinet have stated they look forward to working
with him again and instituting Project 2025.
Russ Vought, former Director of OMB and Policy Director for
the Republic National Convention, wrote the details for the
consolidation of Executive Power in Project 2025. Stephen
Miller, a former advisor to Trump, who has crafted the most
sweeping immigration agenda, has been an advisor of Project
2025 through the dark money group, American First Legal.
We remember Stephen Miller, the architect of Donald Trump's
most inhumane border policies and the champion of the racist
great replacement conspiracy theory. That is Stephen Miller.
In April 2022, Trump spoke with The Heritage Foundation
after meeting with its head, Kevin Roberts, and said that the
group would, ``lay the groundwork in detailed plan for exactly
what our movement will do.'' Voila, Project 2025, the
conservative blueprint for remaking the Federal Government if
Donald Trump is reelected. Trump's words, in Project 2025, are
exactly what the Democratic Members of this Committee said back
when this Committee started that their leader, Trump, was
trying to do, to mandate a Project 2025 for leadership, direct
the Department of Justice, which it seems to be the main focus
of so many of our hearings, along with the FBI, to fill the
Department with as many political appointees as opposed to
career civil servants as possible, especially in the Civil
Rights Division, the FBI, and the Executive Office of
Immigration Review. Initiate legal action against local
officials including district attorneys, who refuse to prosecute
criminal offenses in their jurisdiction specifically DAs in
liberal jurisdictions. Criminally punish abortion providers who
distribute abortion pills through the mail to patients in need
of reproductive healthcare. Shift responsibility for
prosecuting election-related offenses from DOJ's Civil Rights
Division to the Criminal Division, which according to the
Leadership Conference on Civil Rights and Human Rights will
open to the door to sham investigations and aggressive
prosecution of voters and election officials and serve to
intimidate State and local election workers already under
threat and could criminalize election administration disputes.
We could go on.
This is the true weaponization of the Federal Government
and this what we should be addressing today, but what are we
doing there today in a Subcommittee, 46 days before the most
consequential election, we are holding yet another hearing in
which my Republican colleagues will try to advance conspiracy
theories about the DOJ and the FBI.
Let me state plainly. Contrary to what you will hear from
my counterparts today, there is no conspiracy in the whole of
the FBI to root out conservatives in that agency. What we do
have is sustained campaign pushed forward by a single entity
and a group of disgruntled former FBI employees who are known
to have committed to attacking, smearing, and degrading career
civil servants.
So, why are we having the hearing? Why have we had all
these hearings? What is the point of this Subcommittee? Because
it is necessary for the public and the media to hear, to try
and provide cover for the eradication of the Department of
Justice and the FBI. We are having these hearings so that you
become immune, you become inured to the notion of removal of
the FBI and DOJ, so that those agencies are no longer there to
serve as a check against White nationalism, great replacement
theorists, Christian nationalists, White fragility, fascists,
and the twice impeached convicted felon, former President and
would-be dictator Donald Trump. I yield back.
Chair Jordan. The gentlelady yields back. I agree with one
statement she said that this is going to be a consequential
election. I agree with that. I would clarify for everyone just
in case people are confused, the election is in 41 days, not 46
days. Democrats may vote in 46 days, but Republicans will be
voting in 41 days. Without objection all other opening
statements will be included in the record.
We will now introduce today's witnesses. The Honorable
Michael Horowitz is the Inspector General of the Department of
Justice, a position he has held since April 2012. Mr. Horowitz
oversees a staff of more 500 special agents, auditors,
attorneys, and support staff tasked with detecting and
deterring waste, fraud, and abuse and misconduct in the
Department. From 2015-2020, he served as the Chair of the
Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency,
an oversight body for all 75 Inspectors General across the
Federal Government. He has testified many times. We welcome him
back to the Committee.
Mr. Tristan 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 Merit Systems Protection Board, which
adjudicates whistleblower retaliation claims. He also
previously served as the principal Deputy Special Counsel at
the Office of Special Counsel which enforces whistleblower
laws, among others. Mr. Leavitt, we welcome you back as well.
Mr. Marcus Allen is a whistleblower and former Staff
Operations Specialist with the FBI. He has served more than 20
years as an intelligence professional. Prior to joining the
FBI, Mr. Allen served in the United States Marine Corps
including in Iraq, Kuwait, and Japan. He received multiple
awards for his service and achievement in both the Marine Corps
and the FBI. Despite his track record of a commitment to his
country, the FBI retaliated against Mr. Allen for making
protected disclosures. After having his security clearance
suspended for more than two years, his retaliation claims were
vindicated, and he reached a settlement with the FBI.
Finally, Mr. Glenn Kirschner is a legal analyst and former
Federal prosecutor. He served 24 years as an Assistant U.S.
Attorney in the District of Columbia, and he served more than
six years as a prosecutor with the United States Army Judge
Advocate General.
We welcome our witnesses and thank them for appearing
today. We will begin by swearing you in. Would you please rise,
raise your right hand?
Do you swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that the
testimony you are about to give is true and correct to the best
of your knowledge, information, and belief so help you God?
Let the record reflect that the witnesses have answered in
the affirmative. Thank you and you may 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 five minutes. Again, you have all been in front of
the Committee before and you understand the rules. So, we will
start with Mr. Horowitz, go right down the line.
Mr. Horowitz, you are recognized for your opening
statement.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. MICHAEL E. HOROWITZ
Mr. Horowitz. Thank you, Chair Jordan, Ranking Member
Plaskett, and the Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for
inviting me to testify today. Whistleblowers perform an
important public service, and no employee should suffer
reprisal for bringing forward information that they reasonably
believe is evidence of waste, fraud, abuse, or a violation of
law.
As we have seen, employees with a security clearance are
particularly vulnerable to retaliation because of an employee's
due process protections and right to appeal his security
clearance suspension or revocation are more limited. Moreover,
such employees can remain suspended with pay for lengthy
periods of time for having an ability to contest the security
clearance action.
Federal law requires agencies to have an appeal process
that enables employees alleging reprisal due to a security
clearance revocation or suspension lasting more than one year
to seek an Inspector General review of the reprisal allegation.
The law also requires government agencies to establish a review
process that to the extent practicable permits individuals with
retaliation claims to retain their Government employment status
while the security clearance review is pending.
In May 2024, my office issued a management advisory
memorandum, or MAM, finding that the Department's then-existing
policy didn't include the required IG appeal process for
suspensions. As we noted in the MAM, placing an employee who
claims retaliation on unpaid suspension while a lengthy
security clearance investigation is conducted can make it
financially unrealistic for the employee to retain their
Government employee status. Moreover, it creates the risk that
the security process can be misused as part of an inappropriate
effort to encourage an employee to resign. I am pleased that
the Department has promptly responded to our MAM's
recommendations.
Separately, we have also received complaints about the
security clearance suspension and adjudication process that go
beyond the issues detailed in our MAM, including allegations of
inconsistent compliance with standard operating procedures on
the opening of security investigations, highly inappropriate
questions being asked of witnesses during the security
clearance investigations, inconsistent outcomes on security
clearance suspension determinations, the suspension and
revocation of an employee's eligibility to hold a clearance
based on race, and retaliation against employees for raising
concerns to management about security clearance suspensions'
investigations and adjudication. These allegations raise
serious issues, and I would note do not apply to only a subset
of employees with certain political views or ideologies.
During today's hearing for both investigative and privacy
reasons, the only whistleblower retaliation matter that I can
discuss is the one involving Mr. Allen. I am able to do so
because Mr. Allen recently settled his employment claims with
the FBI or against the FBI, with the FBI reinstating his
security clearance and agreeing to provide him back pay.
Following the settlement, Mr. Allen withdrew the retaliation
complaint he had filed with my office, resulting in the OIG
closing our retaliation investigation. Mr. Allen also waived
any privacy rights that might otherwise prohibit me from
discussing our investigation of the claims. As a result, I am
able to discuss with you today the factual details we learned
during our investigation, which will illustrate many of the
systemic issues that we have seen with the security clearance
process.
For example, in Mr. Allen's case, his unpaid security
clearance began in early 2022 and didn't end until the
settlement in June 2024. Most employees in Mr. Allen's
situation would find it unrealistic financially to retain their
Government employee status for over two years without pay which
is intention with the law's requirement that agencies allow
individuals claiming retaliation to retain their employment
status while the security review is ongoing.
There are a number of other particularly important policy
issues relating to protecting whistleblowers from retaliation
that I look forward to discussing today including potential
legislative issues and potential actions raised in the written
testimony and correspondence submitted for today's hearing. As
we seek, all of us I think, to ensure that the security
clearance investigation and adjudication process is never used
to retaliate against whistleblowers and people who bring
forward in good faith claims of waste, fraud, misconduct, and
abuse.
Thank you again for the Committee's support and I look
forward to answering your questions.
[The prepared statement of the Hon. Horowitz follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chair Jordan. Thank you, Inspector. We now recognize Mr.
Leavitt for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF TRISTAN LEAVITT
Mr. Leavitt. Chair Jordan, Ranking Member Plaskett, and the
Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the invitation to
testify today. When Marcus sat here 16 months ago, the FBI
smeared him with the lie that he was a threat to our national
security. That lie was repeated here in this hearing room. One
year later, the FBI reinstated his security clearance and
agreed to restore 27 months of back pay. This amounts to an
official admission by the FBI that claims about his disloyalty
to the U.S. were false. His clearance should never have been
revoked in the first place.
This year, a whistleblower inside the FBI's Security
Clearance Office has pulled back the curtain on the dysfunction
and political bias in the Security Division. Last week, I sent
a 22-page letter to the Committee outlining these problems. As
that letter details, each and every one of the line-level
employees who worked on the review believed Marcus should
retain his security clearance. The initial investigator
believed it, a second investigator believed it, the first
adjudicator believed it, and the second adjudicator believed
it.
So, how did his clearance still get suspended and revoked
contrary to both whistleblower retaliation and clearance
adjudication law? The high-level officials, at least one of
whom is still in the Security Division, overruled these line-
level staff and intimidated employees into doing what they
wanted. Division employees lived in fear of a stranger bring
the so-called Kelly Cart to their desk, to package up their
belongings while they are escorted out of the building and
fired. Sure enough, of the four-line level employees who worked
on Marcus' case, two of them also suffered reprisal from the
FBI for trying to treat him fairly. In fact, the entire
leadership of the Division's Clearance Adjudication Unit was
removed in September 2023, apparently in reprisal for standing
up to improper direction from leadership.
The Empower Oversight is now representing three current or
former Security Division employees retaliated against by their
managers. This summer, we disclosed to the public that the
Security Division forced FBI employees to rat out their
coworkers if they had ever heard them ''vocalize support for
President Trump'' or ``vocalize objection to the COVID-19
vaccination.'' We now understand that was just one
manifestation of the FBI's politicized climate.
Former Security Division leaders like Jeffrey Veltri, who
is now running the investigation into the second assassination
attempt on former President Trump, has a documented history of
encouraging security clearance decisions based on political
views and personal medical decisions. He and fellow manager,
Dena Perkins, would often ask in staff meetings whether
employees whose clearances were under investigation have
received a vaccine. Veltri also suggested Marcus was delusional
for being motivated by his sincerely held religious beliefs.
The tone for this intolerance seems to have been set at the
top. In a February 2021 call with FBI managers, Deputy Director
Paul Abbate made but one observer call a chilling and personal
direct threat that there would be consequences for anyone who
questioned his direction.
Given these statements, how is the American public supposed
to have any confidence the decisions are being made at the FBI
without personal bias or politicization? Over the past two
months since the former President was nearly assassinated and
one man was killed, the entire country has seen how critical
Secret Service whistleblowers have been to providing even the
smallest measure of transparency. Yet, those whistleblowers,
like all other Federal law enforcement whistleblowers, have
stronger protections than the whistleblowers at the FBI. As
some of you know, fixing this was one of my top goals as a
Congressional staffer a decade ago. The House Intelligence
Committee has repeatedly blocked reforms in this area.
Incredibly, the other prohibitive personnel practice laws
that applied to the rest of DOJ don't apply to the FBI either.
The FBI's internal handbook is the only prohibition on
political coercion, nepotism, rigged hiring, and various other
merit-based policies. How can you not end up with poor
management and managers at an agency like that?
OSC, my former agency, investigates the practices in these
other agencies with recourse to the MSPB, another former agency
of mine. For the FBI, Mr. Horowitz' office is tasked with these
investigations, but his office doesn't have the legal authority
OSC does to seek a stay of a personnel action from the MSPB
while it investigates. Unlike MSPB, Mr. Horowitz' office can't
force the FBI to take any particular corrective or disciplinary
action even if it finds wrongdoing. Congress should fix this
1970s relic of an exception for the FBI and empower OSC to
investigate FBI personnel actions with appeals to MSPB and the
courts.
As a broad, bipartisan coalition of groups has argued,
including in a letter that we submitted yesterday to the
Committee, it is also time for Congress to overturn or narrow
the 1988 Supreme Court case Navy v. Egan. Because of it,
neither OSC nor MSPB review whether a security clearance action
was taken as a form of whistleblower reprisal. That should
change, especially because it is becoming the FBI's primary
form of whistleblower retaliation.
Allowing FBI to operate by some playbook for so long has
also had other consequences. Just three weeks ago, MSPB issued
an order to show cause why it shouldn't impose sanctions
against the FBI in one case. The bipartisan three-person board
wrote it is difficult to escape the idea that they have no
intention of complying with the board's orders.
Through the reforms I have outlined, Congress can restore
the proper functioning of the Civil Service at the FBI. Both
parties should support these changes. They would strengthen
good government in the FBI no matter who sits in the White
House or Director's Office. While there is no way to erase the
suffering endured by Marcus and his family or Garret O'Boyle
and his family and others, the FBI can hold accountable those
who perpetrated it and Congress can turn it into something
meaningful by using it as the impetus to finally change these
laws. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Leavitt follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chair Jordan. Thank you, Mr. Leavitt. Mr. Allen, you are
recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF MARCUS ALLEN
Mr. Allen. Thank you, Mr. Chair and the Members of the
Committee, for the invitation to testify today. My name is
Marcus Allen. I'm here to speak with the Committee about how
the FBI weaponized the security clearance process to retaliate
against me for protected whistleblower activity.
In late 2021, I raised concerns about the FBI Director's
testimony about the January 6th Capitol riot, not out of
political motivation, but out of a duty to truth and integrity.
This act, which I believe to be in the spirit of transparency
and accountability, led to unexpected and severe consequences.
Almost exactly three years ago today, I forwarded news
articles to my superiors and others within the FBI about
January 6th. It was literally one of my job duties to keep my
colleagues informed about open source intelligence related to
their cases.
As a result of simply doing my job, the FBI accused me of
promoting conspiratorial views and unreliable information. The
FBI questioned my allegiance to the United States, suspended my
security clearance, suspended my pay, and refused to allow me
to obtain outside employment or even accept charity.
This once storied institution whose initials, ironically,
stand for fidelity, bravery, and integrity, was punishing me
for bravely challenging their integrity, while they questioned
my fidelity.
The suspension, ultimately, lasted for 27 months. During
that time, the FBI held my family and me in indefinite limbo,
awaiting a final decision. Determined to not lose our home, my
wife and I took early withdrawals from our retirement accounts
to survive.
It became clear that the FBI with endless resources, the
American people's money, was trying to destroy me financially,
so that I would give up. This is a fear of countless potential
whistleblowers who see the personal cost of integrity.
There are no words strong enough to describe the impact the
FBI's lies about me have had on me and my family. The stress
has taken a toll on our health and our children have suffered,
traumatized by the thought of our door getting kicked in or dad
not coming home. The battle for truth and justice will cost
you, but the arduous good is worth it.
The FBI's restoration of my clearance earlier this year,
thanks to the efforts of Empower Oversight, and the American
Center for Law and Justice, was absolute vindication. It's a
point I would not have reached without the prior help of Bigley
Ranish and Judicial Watch.
However, the experience is also a stark reminder of the
system's flaws. It took legal battles, public scrutiny, and
patience over three long years.
No other FBI whistleblower has ever had his clearance
restored as I did. Garret O'Boyle and his family are still
suffering in the same limbo we were with no access to due
process and no limit on the FBI's ability to delay and avoid
independent accountability. How many other whistleblowers
remain silent, fearing the same ordeal my family and Garret's
family faced with little hope of vindication at the end?
Despite the stress and uncertainty, I've never once
regretted standing up for truth. In fact, I'm grateful for the
experience. Indeed, my family and I persevered due to our
strength and faith, God's grace, and the sacraments.
If you do not worship God, then you will worship something
else. You can either serve God or you can serve mammon, but you
can't serve both. This has been a purification. While we lost
material items, we gained more important things. We've stored
up for ourselves treasures in heaven. What we have gained
spiritually has far outweighed what was lost materially.
John Adams noted that the framework of our country was
built for a moral, religious people, and unfit for the
governance of any other. James Madison notes the duty to honor
God is precedent, both in order of time and degree of
obligation to the claims of civil society. Before any man can
be considered as a member of civil society, he must be
considered as a ``subject of the Governor of the universe.''
I recently learned about comments made by Mr. Jeffrey
Veltri suggesting I was delusional for believing in and seeking
guidance from the Holy Spirit. Mr. Veltri currently serves as
Special Agent in Charge of the Miami field office, but at the
time he was an executive at Security Division, overseeing
security clearance decisions. To Mr. Veltri, I say, ``You can
insult me, but you should not mock God.'' It is an insult to
the infinite dignity of God, who is Father, Son, and Holy
Spirit, and is bad for the health of your soul.
This isn't about me. It's bigger. I am hopeful that the
truth of what happened will be fully revealed and deter the FBI
from doing the same injustice to others.
Though the path may be difficult, I must plead with other
employees who have witnessed wrongdoing that they find the
courage to speak up. You're not alone, nor will you ever be.
Psalm 139 says, ``Where can I go from your Spirit? Where can I
flee from your presence?''
I've been blessed to be supported by God's sanctifying
grace, the blessed sacrament, men and women of goodwill, other
whistleblowers, the charity of the American people, prayers,
and great attorneys along the way like Tristan and Jason of
Empower Oversight.
Potential whistleblowers: Please do not be silenced by the
FBI's mistreatment. We are all here to support you if you
choose to come forward. ``The only thing necessary for the
triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.'' Equally
important is the awareness and involvement of the American
people. This is your country.
While I feel vindicated now in getting back my security
clearance, it is sad that in the country for which I fought as
a Marine, the FBI was allowed to lie about my loyalty to the
United States for three years. Unless there is accountability,
it will keep happening to others. Better oversight and changes
to the security clearance laws are key to stopping the abuses
suffered by whistleblowers like me.
Thank you for the opportunity to be here today. Peace and
all good.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Allen follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chair Jordan. Thank you, Mr. Allen, and God bless.
Mr. Kirschner, you are recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF GLENN KIRSCHNER
Mr. Kirschner. Thank you Chair Jordan, Ranking Member
Plaskett, and the Members of the Committee, good morning.
My name is Glenn Kirschner, and for 30 years as a Federal
prosecutor, I enforced the rule of law without fear or favor
and without any political interference in the important
prosecutorial decisions I was entrusted to make as a career
civil servant and public servant.
The rule of law is one of the single most important
ingredients to a healthy democracy. Indeed, the rule of law
applied without fear or favor may be second in importance only
to a free, full, and unfettered ability of the people to
exercise their right to vote.
I served in the Federal Government continuously under every
President from Ronald Reagan to Donald Trump. Beginning in the
1980s, I served on active duty with the U.S. Army Judge
Advocate General's Corps, first, prosecuting court-martial
cases, then handling criminal appeals in all manner of cases,
including espionage and death penalty.
After 6\1/2\ years as an Army JAG, I left military service
and joined the Department of Justice, where I served 24 years
as an Assistant United States Attorney for the District of
Columbia.
The decisions prosecutors make day-in and day-out--whether
to open grand jury investigations, whether to seek indictments,
whether to proceed to trial--these decisions and virtually
every other prosecutorial decision must be made without any
political pressure from anyone. They must be made in an
entirely apolitical fashion based exclusively on the facts and
the law.
Unfortunately, that is not what Project 2025 has in mind
for the United States Department of Justice. When I look at the
goals and aspirations of Project 2025, I can't help but
evaluate them against the backdrop of what I saw happen to the
Department of Justice during the Trump administration.
As we sit here, one of Donald Trump's DOJ officials,
Jeffrey Clark, is a criminally indicted RICO coconspirator and
codefendant together with Donald Trump for trying to subvert
the 2020 Presidential election in the State of Georgia.
I think back to Donald Trump. After being told by his DOJ
officials that there was no systemic fraud undermining the
results of the 2020 Presidential election, telling those same
officials, ``Just say the election was corrupt and leave the
rest to me and the Republican Congressmen.'' That's a quote
from a Donald Trump Department of Justice official.
Thank goodness there were some DOJ officials who thwarted
Donald Trump's efforts in that regard--officials who remained
loyal to the Constitution, rather than loyal to a man who was
determined to retain the power of the presidency by
disregarding the expressed will of the American voters.
These honorable public servants would not exist in a future
Trump Administration that implements the rule-of-law-busting
principles of Project 2025. I fear that horrific conduct of
former President Donald Trump and his corrupt DOJ officials in
his first term will look like a government official fixing a
parking ticket for a friend, as compared to what Project 2025
holds in store.
Project 2025's overarching goal for impacting the way DOJ
goes about its work is to destroy the independence and
apolitical nature of the work done by thousands of honorable,
ethical, and dedicated civil servants, who in my experience in
24 years inside the Department of Justice go about their work
in an entirely apolitical fashion, and replace them with Trump
allies, loyalists, and sycophants. This is a so-called Schedule
F approach to weaponizing the Department of Justice.
Quoting from some of the truly despicable language that can
be found in Project 2025's pages, DOJ is alleged to be a,
quote,
Bloated bureaucracy with a critical core of personnel who are
infatuated with the perpetration of a radical liberal agenda
and the defeat of perceived political enemies.
I spent 24 years inside DOJ. That characterization is dead
wrong and untrue.
As one example of the dangers to law enforcement
independence represented by Project 2025, consider this
scenario: Once Donald Trump has his loyalists in place in the
Department of Justice, if a report of possible voter fraud is
referred to DOJ, Donald Trump's officials could screen or
evaluate that claim with just one simple question: Does the
alleged voter fraud work to the advantage of Republican
candidates--so, by extension, to the advantage of Donald Trump?
If the fraud benefits Trump, his Project 2025 officials can
simply decline to investigate, summarily claiming there's
insufficient evidence to open a criminal probe.
If the alleged voter fraud worked to Trump's disadvantage,
then the investigation could be initiated, regardless of
whether or not the evidence supported that decision. This is
simply a variation on the theme: I don't care if there was no
voter fraud undermining the elections results; just say there
was and leave the rest to me and my loyalists in the Department
of Justice.
If Project 2025 is implemented, there will be no need for a
corrupt President to recruit DOJ officials to join his criminal
endeavor, as the conspiracy will already be in place. Project
2025's determination to extinguish the independence of the
Department of Justice looks a lot like a blueprint for
autocracy.
I thank you for your invitation to appear today and look
forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kirschner follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chair Jordan. Thank you, Mr. Kirschner.
The gentleman yields back.
We will now proceed under the five-minute rule with
questions.
The gentlelady from Wyoming is recognized for five minutes.
Ms. Hageman. Well, in light of that ranting from Mr.
Kirschner, and the understanding that he has a long history
working in the Department of Justice, I can understand why
we're in the mess that we're in.
We now have the details on what the DOJ is required by law
to do and its intentional violation of the law and the impact
that this has on DOJ employees in the form of the loss of the
ability to earn a living and having their lives destroyed.
I want to take a step back and ask the question: Why did
they do it? I suppose for the same kind of reasons that Mr.
Kirschner was just outlining, because they have some obsession
of something that is actually not real.
They also didn't just violate the law for the sake of
violating the law. They did so with the explicit intent of
targeting a certain class of employees, and in this instance,
those they perceived to be conservatives.
One whistleblower stated, quote,
That if an FBI employee for a certain profile is a political
conservative, they were viewed as security concerns and
unworthy to work to the FBI.
I assume Mr. Kirschner has the same viewpoint.
Mr. Allen, does a person's political beliefs, and most
specifically, holding conservative views, disqualify someone
from serving in the FBI?
Mr. Allen. No, ma'am, they do not.
Ms. Hageman. Well, then, based on your experience as an FBI
veteran and target of the DOJ's unlawful acts, why do you think
this political purity campaign is ongoing inside the FBI?
Mr. Allen. I'm not fully aware of why they are getting rid
of people with more conservative views or potentially not
wanting people to speak out at this time, ma'am.
Ms. Hageman. Well, then, I think your testimony is that
they also are trying to get rid of anyone who holds Christian
values and Christian beliefs. Is that your experience as well?
Mr. Allen. That is my experience, especially when you see
the comments that were leveled against me in the findings
during the investigation.
Ms. Hageman. So, we have the gentleman sitting next to you
ranting and raving about this Project 2025--I doubt that he
really understands anything about it--but ranting and raving
about that but doesn't seem to be at all bothered by the fact
that you were targeted because you were a conservative and
Christian. Do you find that odd?
Mr. Allen. I do find it a bit surprising. We shouldn't be
targeting groups of people within our organizations because of
firmly held belief or any kind of political standpoint.
Ms. Hageman. Mr. Leavitt, beside the violation of
whistleblower protection laws, the FBI is also, for example,
using First Amendment protected speech and activity which
occurs outside of work to punish its employees. Were the
officials involved in this unlawful conduct, such as Acting
Assistant Section Chief Dena Perkins and Deputy Assistant
Director Jeffrey Veltri punished or in any way held accountable
for their violation of employees' First Amendment rights?
Mr. Leavitt. Not that I'm aware of. I know Ms. Perkins is
still in the same position and Mr. Veltri received a promotion
to the fifth-largest FBI office in the country, the Miami field
office. I do whistle--according to whistleblowers, that
promotion was delayed because he was under investigation for
whistleblower retaliation, but that wasn't for the targeting of
individuals for their First Amendment views.
Ms. Hageman. OK. So, in this administration--and again,
while ranting about Project 2025 in this administration--you
can actually violate employees' First Amendment rights and get
promoted? Is that what your testimony is?
Mr. Leavitt. I don't know why the FBI didn't look at this
closer. Because, again, it's clear that there was a widespread
understanding that these were issues being looked at; that
these were the considerations.
I know Mr. Horowitz has talked about them, not exclusively
only targeting conservatives, but all the individuals that have
come to us from these various whistleblowers, there's one
counter-example of somebody who wasn't conservative. All the
others that we've seen, there was a clear focus on these
individuals' vaccination status, their First Amendment views,
their political stances, and that seems to have been accepted
by leadership of the FBI.
Ms. Hageman. Boy, the FBI has really been weaponized
against not only the American public, but its own employees,
hasn't it?
Mr. Leavitt. It's sad. The term ``weaponization,''
obviously, can mean a lot of things to a lot of people, but
when you see the direct impact on someone's life like Marcus
and his family to go 27 months without pay, as of today, he
still has not received the 27 months of back pay that the FBI
committed to give him. Similarly, for Garret O'Boyle, the
amount of time they've gone--I think 23 months at this point--
it truly has ruined their lives.
Mr. Kirschner. Well, what does this actually say about the
Department of Justice, FBI, and their interest in actually
righting the wrongdoing and the unlawful acts that they've
engaged in?
Mr. Leavitt. It's hard to make those kinds of sweeping
conclusions, but I definitely would say that the way that you
help keep people--you help them abide by good things by having
good laws in place. I firmly believe there need to be stronger
laws to help prevent this kind of thing in the future. There
has to be changes to protect FBI whistleblowers, no matter what
administration or what political party is in power.
Ms. Hageman. Well, and I would agree with that.
Mr. Allen, I'm sorry for what the Federal Government did to
you. I think it's an absolute crime against humanity the way
that you were treated. I respect your faith; respect your
loyalty to this country, and we all recognize that what the FBI
did was wrong. Thank you for being here.
With that, I yield back.
Mr. Connolly. Mr. Chair?
Chair Jordan. The gentlelady yields back.
The gentleman from Virginia is recognized.
Mr. Connolly. I would just ask, Mr. Chair, if we could
stick to some decorum and not disparage witnesses or
characterize their testimony. They are here as guests of the
Committee, and we should treat all of them with respect.
Chair Jordan. The gentleman from Massachusetts is
recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Kirschner, the Project 2025 document which was drafted
by six of the former Cabinet Secretaries and about 140
individuals who worked in the Trump Administration, with regard
to the FBI, says that the FBI has been ``captured by an
unaccountable bureaucratic managerial class and radical left
ideologues.''
How long were you with the FBI? Your mic.
Mr. Kirschner. I was with the Department of Justice,
specifically, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of
Columbia just up the street here, for 24 years. I wasn't with
the FBI.
Mr. Lynch. OK. Are you aware of the close connection
between the United States military and the FBI?
Mr. Kirschner. The United States military and the FBI?
Mr. Lynch. Yes. Well, we've got a--yes, there's a--
Mr. Kirschner. I'm sorry, the ``close connection'' meaning?
Mr. Lynch. Well, there's a veterans' preference law,
military veterans--
Mr. Kirschner. In hiring?
Mr. Lynch. In hiring, going to the FBI.
Mr. Kirschner. Sure. I'm generally familiar with that.
Mr. Lynch. OK. Why don't I ask, why don't I ask Mr.
Horowitz?
Mr. Horowitz, anything in your experience indicate that the
FBI has been taken over by, as they say, a radical left
ideology?
Mr. Horowitz. We haven't found that, Congressman.
Mr. Lynch. OK. Mr. Kirschner--
Mr. Kirschner. Yes?
Mr. Lynch. --going back to Project 2025, the Project 2025
indicates that, to ensure the promotion of the President's
agenda the FBI should ``Ensure the assignment of sufficient
political appointees throughout the Department,'' and
throughout DOJ.
Mr. Kirschner. Representative, you must have read my mind
because that's the very page of Project 2025 I just opened to.
It's, specifically, page 569.
Mr. Lynch. Let's talk about that then.
Mr. Kirschner. Please.
Mr. Lynch. OK. So, right now, Mr. Horowitz, we don't allow
political appointees within the FBI, is that correct?
Mr. Horowitz. That, correct, other than the Director who's
confirmed by the Senate.
Mr. Lynch. Right, at the top. That's correct, right. I'll
come back to you on that.
So, this Project 2025 indicates that they're going to
ensure the assignment of sufficient political appointees
through the Department. Not simply replicating what was done
under previous administrations and reflected in the Plum Book,
this is right from Project 2025.
The number of appointees serving throughout the Department in
prior administrations, particularly during the Trump
Administration, has not been sufficient, either to stop bad
things from happening through proper management or to promote
the President's agenda.
Let's talk about that.
What would the impact be if we, all of a sudden, just
allowed the President to start putting political hacks, people
who were his henchmen, into the FBI to pursue his agenda?
Mr. Kirschner. If you populate the upper echelon of these
agencies with political appointees who have to pledge loyalty
to the President, and the very language you cited, ``Ensure the
assignment of sufficient political appointees throughout
department'' to do what? ``To stop bad things from happening.''
That's a quote. Who decides what bad things are? ``And to
promote the President's agenda.'' There's nothing there about
``and to make sure you're making decisions based on facts and
law, without fear of favor.'' This sounds to me to be the exact
opposite of what we want our civil servants and our appointees
to be doing.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you.
Back to Inspector General Horowitz, thank you for your good
work.
Can you talk about what the implications would be if the
next administration were to allow, ought to inject political
appointees throughout the FBI organization and throughout the
Department of Justice?
Mr. Horowitz. Well, I'll speak generally to why Congress
has in the past--
Mr. Lynch. Please.
Mr. Horowitz. --had only the FBI Director been the only
political appointee and that person has to go through the
Senate confirmation process.
Obviously, we want our law enforcement--whether it's
Federal, State, or local, to be people who may have--I've
testified about this before--wide-ranging views. There is no
problem with our law enforcement having deeply held political
views. In fact, for most of us, we would want our law
enforcement officers to be engaged with their communities and
understand their communities and be participants in it.
We shouldn't, certainly wouldn't want them to effectuate
the use of our laws to advance a political cause or an
ideology. Frankly, through our work, through my tenure as IG,
my predecessor's tenure as IG, as we all know, there have been
times when the FBI has strayed both ways.
You could talk about Dr. King and the illegal wiretapping
that occurred with him. We saw it in work we've done,
obviously, more recently. We have done investigations involving
the FBI's looking into, back in 2004, both the Democratic and
the Republican convention, issues around those.
So, we've seen this over the years. It's very important to
have hearings and have Congressional oversight and effective
internal reviews, like we do, to ensure that law enforcement
operates in an unbiased way and not based on ideology.
Mr. Lynch. The injection of political appointees,would that
help the cause of a more judicious FBI and Department of
Justice?
Mr. Horowitz. Well, it certainly would create risks of
that, Congressman, and I'm assuming that's why Congress over
the years has not authorized the Department or Federal law
enforcement to have more political appointees in their realm.
That's true, by the way, at the Department and the other law
enforcement agencies as well. I know we're talking about the
FBI, but that's true with DEA and others as well.
Mr. Lynch. Thanks for your courtesy, Mr. Chair, and I yield
back.
Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back.
Mr. Allen, September 29, 2021, you sent an email
questioning Director Wray's testimony in front of Congress. You
said in that email, ``There is good possibility the D.C.
elements of our organization are not being forthright about the
events of January 6th.'' Do you remember that email?
Mr. Allen. Yes, sir.
Chair Jordan. You didn't send that to anyone; you sent that
to the people you're supposed to send it to, members of the
Joint Terrorism Task Force, is that right?
Mr. Allen. That's correct.
Chair Jordan. Now, the very next day I find to be
interesting. On September 30, 2021, the next day, it just so
happened your 5-year reauthorization for your security
clearance came due and they said, no problem, Mr. Allen should
keep his security clearance; after all, he's had it for 20
years. Right?
Mr. Allen. Yes.
Chair Jordan. That happened the next day?
Mr. Allen. Correct, sir.
Chair Jordan. A decorated Marine veteran, Employee of the
Year at the Charlotte field office, had a security clearance
for 20 years. They reauthorized your security clearance.
Something else happened that next day. Your email got
forwarded to the Security Division and to Mr. Veltri, is that
right?
Mr. Allen. That's correct.
Chair Jordan. Then, 19 days later, Mr. Veltri opened an
investigation into your security clearance status.
Did I get all those facts right, Mr. Leavitt? Is that what
happened with Marcus in those two days, and then, 19 days
later?
Mr. Leavitt. Yes, except for we--it's, from what we can
tell, Veltri directed that day that it be opened. It's just
that the underlings under him didn't carry that out until 19
days later.
Chair Jordan. Yes. He directed they look into a guy, a
decorated Marine veteran, held a security clearance for 20--
they look into him because Mr. Allen said there's a chance the
FBI leadership hasn't been square with us. Right?
Mr. Leavitt. That's correct.
Chair Jordan. He cited The New York Times article; they
thought the same thing. Oh, by the way, there's the history
that we all know about. The FBI spied on the President's
campaign, lied to the FISA Court, investigated parents at
school board meetings; and said, ``if you're a pro-life
Catholic, you're an extremist.'' So, we got all that history,
and he gets investigated for that, because he simply questioned
the leadership. He went through the appropriate channels.
Mr. Horowitz, did Mr. Veltri and the people at the Security
Division follow the standard process?
Mr. Horowitz. They did not.
Chair Jordan. They did not. In fact, isn't it true that,
Mr. Leavitt, some of the people--I think you cited four of them
in your statement. Four people--the initial investigator, the
second investigator, the first adjudicator, and another
adjudicator--all got reassigned. They all agreed that Mr. Allen
should keep his security clearance; this investigation
shouldn't have happened. They get reassigned or something
happens to them?
Mr. Leavitt. Four of them, all did not recommend that there
be a negative action on it. Two of them were reassigned.
Chair Jordan. Two were reassigned. Some of them are
whistleblowers now, right?
Mr. Leavitt. Yes, absolutely.
Chair Jordan. Man, if that's not political, I don't know
what is.
Oh, and they didn't stop there. They piled on. They also
said that Mr. Allen, he questioned whether he should get the
vaccine or not. They came after him for that, is that right,
Mr. Leavitt?
Mr. Leavitt. Yes.
Chair Jordan. Then, they went after his faith, a direct
attack on the First Amendment. Because he's a Christian;
because he's a Catholic; because he takes his faith seriously,
oh, my goodness, we've got to take his security clearance away
from him, even though he served our country, a decorated
Marine, and held a security clearance for 20 years. That sure
looks political to me, Inspector General Horowitz. Does it look
political to you?
Mr. Horowitz. Well, Congressman, as I said earlier, we've
seen issues with the FBI and how it's treated whistleblowers,
frankly, across the spectrum. I agree with you it's very
concerning that would be done here, but--
Chair Jordan. Well, we know they're political because,
while all this is going on, they used the questionnaire, isn't
that right, Mr. Leavitt? Isn't that right, they used this
questionnaire? To people they wanted to snitch on folks like
Marcus Allen, they gave them a questionnaire?
Mr. Leavitt. Those were used in the case of a handful of
employees, and I know that Mr. Horowitz' office is looking at
that. I think it is important to note that the questionnaire
wasn't the only thing, right, that these questions were asked
across--
Chair Jordan. I understand that. I am talking about the way
they piled on to go after Mr. Allen--
Mr. Leavitt. Yes.
Chair Jordan. --and keep his security clearance and keep
his pay from him for 27 months. They did the same thing to
Garret O'Boyle. What that has meant--as you indicated in your
testimony, what that has meant to his family and Mr. O'Boyle's
family. This questionnaire said did anyone ever vocalize
support for President Trump? All right. You are allowed to say
things about the President of the United States when you work
in the FBI, aren't you, Mr. Horowitz?
Mr. Horowitz. I'm sorry?
Chair Jordan. You are allowed to say you support a
President? You are allowed to say that in the FBI?
Mr. Horowitz. Absolutely.
Chair Jordan. Yes.
Mr. Horowitz. Those questions are highly inappropriate.
Chair Jordan. You are allowed to decide what kind of health
decisions you are going to make with your own body, right?
Mr. Horowitz. Correct.
Chair Jordan. Those shouldn't be grounds for saying you are
somehow disloyal to the country. That is what they did. Highly
inappropriate questions being asked of witnesses during
security clearance investigations. That is your testimony,
right, Mr. Horowitz?
Mr. Horowitz. That's correct.
Chair Jordan. He got reinstated just recently.
You got reinstated, right, Marcus?
Mr. Allen. Yes, sir.
Chair Jordan. Why haven't they give you your money?
Mr. Allen. I am not aware of why it's taking them four
months to cut a check for all the back pay. I have no idea why
it's taking that long.
Chair Jordan. They put you through pure heck, pure hell for
27 months, falsely accused you. They go through the process.
Four people get reassigned because they agree with you, but the
politics of Mr. Veltri, who, oh, by the way, as Mr. Leavitt
pointed out, is now running the second assassination
investigation on President Trump in Miami. I find that just
astonishing. They won't pay you.
Mr. Allen. Right. We're still waiting for the pay out now.
Chair Jordan. When was the final agreement? When was the
final settlement with the FBI? What was the date, Mr. Leavitt?
Mr. Leavitt. June 1st.
Chair Jordan. Well, they have had time. Doesn't take that
long to write a check, for goodness sake. So, he is still
waiting. That is how our FBI treats a good man who has served
our country for 20-plus years. It is ridiculous. Yet, the
Democrats say there is no weaponization. You got to be kidding
me.
My time is expired. I now recognize the gentlelady from
California.
Ms. Sanchez. So, you want to talk about weaponization of
the Department of Justice? Let's talk about it. Because sadly
for Republicans weaponization tends to be in the eye of the
beholder, the delight in talking about false allegations of
politicized attacks on Republicans. I want to talk about the
real weaponization, the one that would come from a second
Trump-led Department of Justice.
We are already watching in horror as women across the
country lose their autonomy, their dignity, and even their
lives, because of draconian abortion bans in dozens of States
which Trump delights in his--he brags about choosing the
Supreme Court Justices that overturned Roe v. Wade. If we get
into a second Trump presidency, the weaponization we are
witnessing will be orchestrated by the DOJ at Trump's demand.
Trumps Project 2025 mandate for leadership calls for some
of the most restrictive abortion and healthcare bans
imaginable. In short, it lays out the path to eradicate
reproductive healthcare and women's privacy. It calls for the
CDC and HHS to closely monitor and report on individual women's
health and abortions, keeping track of when women travel across
State lines to seek reproductive healthcare and at what stage
of their pregnancy they are in when they do. Alarmingly it
calls for the DOJ to criminally punish abortion providers who
distribute abortion medication through the mail.
Mr. Kirschner, one of the proposals I mentioned is for the
CDC to track women's movements to access abortions across State
lines. The mandate also calls for the President to be able to
direct the investigations and litigation by the FBI and the
DOJ. So, hypothetically, even though that CDC-related part of
the proposal didn't mention DOJ prosecutions, there are risks
that a far-right government outlined in Trump's Project 2025,
collecting that data, could weaponize it against the women
seeking healthcare in a criminal context. Is that correct?
Mr. Kirschner. It is.
Ms. Sanchez. So, in other words, it would be possible to
take CDC data about women who have sought abortions and direct
the DOJ and the FBI to target those individuals. Is that
correct?
Mr. Kirschner. It is, yes. Tracking women who are
pregnant--horribly reminiscent of tracking and hunting animals.
It really endangers--
Ms. Sanchez. Like stalking?
Mr. Kirschner. It endangers people.
Ms. Sanchez. It is like stalking. Let's be honest. Tracking
the movements of women. The mandate also calls for the
enforcement of restrictions on DOJ grants to comply with
conservative ideology such as prohibiting sanctuary cities from
receiving Federal funding. Would it be possible then that DOJ
grants could be conditioned on jurisdictions limiting abortion
or other healthcare access?
Mr. Kirschner. Under Project 2025 it seems like the sky is
the limit.
Ms. Sanchez. Thank you. These extreme restrictions are far
from the only alarming agenda points in Trump's Project 2025.
The document also calls for dismantling the Department of
Education which Former President Trump claimed he would do
during a rally in Pennsylvania just this week. It calls for
allowing businesses to discriminate against protected classes.
It calls for reversal of the LGBTQ+ equity focus of the Biden
Administration. If any of these proposals were to be challenged
in a court, Trump's corrupt Justice Department, led by
loyalists, would defend these awful provisions.
Mr. Kirschner, if any of these offensive proposals are
challenged, they will be defended by the Department of Justice.
What could be the result if the DOJ is more loyal to President
Trump than to the Constitution?
Mr. Kirschner. They could decline to take up challenges or
they could decide to take up challenges not based on the rule
of law, not based on what is right for the American people, but
based on the whims and preferences of a President.
Ms. Sanchez. Mr. Horowitz, my final question is for you.
Would we want agents at the FBI or any other government agency
who would be seeking to promote any cause that might conflict
with the Constitution, whether that be religious or ideological
or loyalty to an individual rather than the Constitution?
Mr. Horowitz. We would not. We swear our employees in with
an oath to abide by the Constitution, the laws of this country.
Ms. Sanchez. So, does it seem like a great idea to scrap
our complete civil service and pack every Federal agency with
people that are loyal more to an individual than to the
Constitution, or more to religious ideology, or more to some
other kind of ideology?
Mr. Horowitz. I think over the years Congress has found
where the appropriate balance is between having noncareer
officials and political appointees leading agencies on policy
issues and having a career civil service.
Ms. Sanchez. Thank you.
Mr. Issa. The gentlelady's time is expired.
Ms. Sanchez. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Issa. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for five
minutes.
Mr. Gaetz. President Trump has never read Project 2025,
much less adopted it, unlike the viewpoint adopted by the
sitting Vice President, which is that we should have taxpayer-
funded sex change operations for illegal aliens in prison. I
try to be a little open-minded when I hear a provocative
argument and I just sort of wonder when would I be in favor of
taxpayer-funded sex change operations for the illegal aliens?
Maybe, if it was mandatory, maybe if it wasn't optional but
mandatory, it would be a pretty substantial deterrent at the
border.
To the matter at hand. Mr. Allen, it is good to see you
again. You came last year, and you told us about these terrible
things the Department of Justice was doing to you, and you have
testified today you still don't think the Department of Justice
has treated whistleblowers like yourself and others fairly. Is
that your testimony?
Mr. Allen. That's correct. The treatment is unfair.
Mr. Gaetz. Do you agree with that assessment, Mr. Horowitz?
Mr. Horowitz. As I said in my testimony, Congressman, I
think putting someone like Mr. Allen on unpaid leave for 20-
plus--for two-years is unfair while you are trying to
adjudicate.
Mr. Gaetz. OK. Yes. No, I get that.
Mr. Horowitz. There needs to be a process here that happens
promptly.
Mr. Gaetz. Well, the process was to punish these people and
to make an example of them. That is obvious to everyone. They
saw improper actions at the FBI and DOJ. They blew the whistle
on it. Then the process was the punishment. It was the point. I
think that is how Mr. Allen feels. Is it?
Mr. Allen. Correct. The process in this instance definitely
felt like the punishment.
Mr. Gaetz. Right. Yes, so they have done it to you; they
have done to others. Mr. Horowitz says it shouldn't have been
done. So, now I want to be a little reflective about this with
Congress.
Mr. Allen, you have seen since you have given us this
testimony us continue to pass continuing resolutions that put
no consequence on the DOJ or the FBI for what they have done to
you and your colleagues. Do you think Congress has
appropriately protected whistleblowers?
Mr. Allen. I do not, Congressman, and I think the policy
recommendations can be put forward that there can be bipartisan
support to protect whistleblowers going forward in the future.
Mr. Gaetz. Absolutely. I mean this in no way as a partisan
critique. Matter of fact, it is a bipartisan critique that we
all own.
Mr. Allen. Yes.
Mr. Gaetz. Because we see the evidence that you get
mistreated. We hear from the experts like Mr. Horowitz that
this is totally off-book. It is obvious to anyone with a brain
they are doing it to hurt you, and to make an example out of
you. What do we do? We just sign the check, and we just send it
over.
We should put in any continuing resolution that until you
get paid and until the rest of the whistleblowers get their
back pay maybe the FBI Director doesn't get his paycheck. Maybe
the Attorney General shouldn't get his paycheck. Maybe the FBI
Director shouldn't get the use of the private jet that he likes
to fly around the country on so much. They enjoy all the
accoutrements of their position, and you end up screwed. We are
OK with it apparently.
Any Member votes for these continuing resolutions is voting
to perpetuate the punishment that has been instituted on the
whistleblowers. While we want to talk about the weaponization
of the Justice Department, rightfully so, we write the check
for it, and we underwrite the debt for it. It sickening to me.
Mr. Horowitz, I have got a few questions for you since we
got you here. Now, the CIGIE is the Council of the Inspectors
General on Integrity and Efficiency, right?
Mr. Horowitz. That's right.
Mr. Gaetz. You are the past Chair?
Mr. Horowitz. I was the Chair from 2015-2020.
Mr. Gaetz. Does it have any binding legal authority?
Mr. Horowitz. In terms--I mean it was created by Congress
as an agency.
Mr. Gaetz. Yes, but does it have like legal authority to
issue subpoenas that it can compel?
Mr. Horowitz. It has not been given subpoena authority.
Mr. Gaetz. OK. So, what I wonder is where this group
CIGIE--
Mr. Horowitz. Yes.
Mr. Gaetz. --I will just call it the Integrity Committee--
what happens when they start interfering in the work of IGs to
expose corruption? Who adjudicates that?
Mr. Horowitz. So, Congress actually created the Integrity
Committee again back in 2008 and gave it's authorities. The
Integrity Committee puts forth a set of policies and
procedures. It's required to provide them to Congress. That's
the mechanism--
Mr. Gaetz. Yes, but in a State of conflict, right, where
you have got an IG. You are working to expose corruption and
then you have got the CIGIE hassling the IG. Who resolves that?
Mr. Horowitz. Well--
Mr. Gaetz. Because in the CIGIE is the head of it, is not
like confirmed by the Senate, but IGs are confirmed by the
Senate.
Mr. Horowitz. Yes, and it probably in part depends on--
there are two types of IGs. There's Presidentially nominated
and Senate-confirmed IGs. There's agency IGs. For
Presidentially nominated and Senate-confirmed IGs ultimately
it's up to the President to decide what it wants because the
report goes to the President--
Mr. Gaetz. The Presidential power, not to get into a
Constitutional--
Mr. Horowitz. Right.
Mr. Gaetz. --regression here, but the Presidential power is
vested in the IG, not in this Administrative Committee, right?
Mr. Horowitz. That's correct.
Mr. Gaetz. OK. Great. Thank you very much. I yield back.
Mr. Issa. Thank you. We now go to Mr. Connolly, but would
you indulge me to just clarify something?
Mr. Connolly. Certainly.
Mr. Issa. Inspector Horowitz, you are Senate-confirmed, and
you were the head of CIGIE, is that correct?
Mr. Horowitz. Correct.
Mr. Issa. I just wanted to make it clear.
Mr. Horowitz. Yes, I was Senate-confirmed for DOJ IG.
Mr. Issa. Right.
Mr. Horowitz. I think the point was that the Chair of CIGIE
doesn't have to be Senate-confirmed. I happened to be Senate-
confirmed sitting in that position.
Mr. Issa. Thank you. I just wanted to make that clear.
The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Connolly. I thank the Chair.
Mr. Kirschner--and by the way I apologize at least on
behalf of this side of the Committee for a disparagement
characterizing your testimony. I don't think we should ever do
that in a Committee. We don't have to agree.
Mr. Kirschner. Thank you, Representative Connolly. I'm from
New Jersey, so I've suffered worse.
Mr. Connolly. Yes, I am from Boston originally. We don't
like that.
Mr. Kirschner, Mr. Leavitt's client Garret O'Boyle posted
the names and personally identifying information including
parts of home addresses for four current or former FBI
officials. In August Kyle Seraphin, who has hosted multiple
podcasts with Mr. O'Boyle, tweeted, and I quote,
The people who left Garret O'Boyle's family and my family
homeless should experience what guys like us are prepared to do
to evil.
Mr. Kirschner, you have served in the FBI. What is wrong
with identifying FBI officials' partial addresses, hometowns,
personal information, and making a threat? You may justify it
because you think they are engaged in evil, but that is a
direct threat from the way I read it. What could go wrong with
that kind of thing and isn't that the kind of threat of
violence that I think ought to be examined by a Weaponization
Committee as opposed to what we are doing here today? Your
view?
Mr. Kirschner. Yes, sir. Thank you. So, I wasn't with the
FBI though. I was with the Department of Justice, the U.S.
Attorney's Office right up the street there, but I will tell
you I worked closely with the FBI, the Washington Field Office
directly across the street from my former office. We moved
heaven and earth to prevent personal information from getting
out about your witnesses, about people we were investigating,
so as they--to prevent them from being unfairly perhaps smeared
with an investigation that didn't result in an indictment.
I had my fair share of witnesses killed in Washington, DC,
because their information got out. They were labeled as
snitches. Then, I had to sit with the families of a witness and
talk about how very sorry I was for what happened to them
because that information got out.
Mr. Connolly. So, while we are bemoaning the alleged
mistreatment of certain individuals, including some here today,
which may or may not be true, we are escalating it with actual
threats that could lead to violence, even death. Is that
correct?
Mr. Kirschner. You endanger the lives of folks when you put
that kind of information out into the public square.
Mr. Connolly. Certain irony. Certain irony when we are
worked about weaponization while meanwhile some of the people
we purport to be advocating for are engaged in this kind of
activity, threatening FBI agents.
Mr. Horowitz, there have been allegations made that the FBI
has weaponized security clearance revocations to target a and
root out conservatives at the bureau. Have you any found any
such evidence of a broad pattern of trying to target
conservatives and revoking their security clearances?
Mr. Horowitz. We have not made such a finding.
Mr. Connolly. Have you made any findings that the FBI
security clearance process targets Christians?
Mr. Horowitz. We have not made such a finding.
Mr. Connolly. Have you made any findings that the FBI
leadership is targeting military veterans?
Mr. Horowitz. We've not made such a finding.
Mr. Connolly. Have you made any findings that Jeffrey
Veltri, now the special agent in charge of FBI's Miami Field
Office, was biased against conservatives?
Mr. Horowitz. We haven't made any findings with regard to
Mr. Veltri.
Mr. Connolly. Have made any findings that the FBI wrongly
revoked the clearance of former Special Agent Garret O'Boyle?
Mr. Horowitz. I'm not going to speak about any particular
case because we have matters ongoing. So, as I am answering
those questions, I'm talking about what we've done as of today.
Mr. Connolly. OK. We will stipulate that, but would it be
fair to summarize your answers to the previous questions? You
haven't found any pattern of ideological or religious bias by
the FBI with respect to those issues, is that correct?
Mr. Horowitz. That is correct. What we've found, as I
mentioned earlier in our past work, is frankly issues on
occasion with the FBI, and frankly other law enforcement
agencies in other parts of the Department acting
inappropriately with regard to whistleblowers--
Mr. Connolly. That is different than a pattern.
Mr. Horowitz. That's different than a pattern.
Mr. Connolly. That is different than a pattern.
Finally, Mr. Kirschner, as a child of the 1960s, I find it
almost humorous to hear characterizations of the FBI as this
hotbed of liberal, if not leftist ideology. I am going to give
you the last word on that. It seems to me the FBI has always
been a fairly conservative culture and certainly a right-of-
center political bent, if there was one. What is your view?
Mr. Kirschner. Yes, sir. I had a lot of knock-down, drag-
out discussions with lots of FBI agents over the course of an
investigation whether we should indict, who we should indict,
what we should indict, but I never believed any of it was born
of politics or their ideological beliefs or preferences. It
never was in my experience. That's why I find this topic a
little curious.
Mr. Issa. The gentleman's time is expired. I will now
recognize myself.
Inspector Horowitz, would it be fair to characterize you as
one of the institutionalists of the IG, long-serving, and a
career that, without patting yourself overly on the back--but,
deservedly that has been about promoting the responsible
behavior of the IG in the performance of their duty?
Mr. Horowitz. Congressman, that's certainly how I viewed
myself and my responsibilities through my time here as IG.
Mr. Issa. Well, that is how this Committee and other
Committees of the Congress view you for four years of service
and I want to thank you.
This is a difficult hearing because many people perhaps
would like to make this not about weaponization. In your many
years of experience the personal actions of individuals, for
whatever reason, including an unstated bias, leads to bad
conduct including H.R. wrongdoing. Is that correct?
Mr. Horowitz. That's correct. One of the hardest things--
jobs we have is, you know from the work you've worked on, I've
worked on, is understanding and figuring out motives.
Mr. Issa. You often never know the motive. You only know
that the action was inconsistent with policy, law, and the
like?
Mr. Horowitz. We do our--that's correct. We do our best,
for example, in the Fast and Furious work, the FISA work,
others, to look at as much email, text messages, instant
messages, et cetera, to try and understand whether there was
evidence of motive or what the evidence of motive was.
Mr. Issa. So, leaving motive out for a moment, in the case
of the way the pulling and withholding of these clearances was
done, is that clearly inconsistent with policy, procedures,
tradition, and the fair treatment of an employee?
Mr. Horowitz. Actually, let me just--it actually was
somewhat any ways consistent with the policies, practices, and
procedures, which is why I think there are several policy
issues that are important to talk about in terms of reforms. I
know the submissions here have raised some of them.
Mr. Issa. So, you are an attorney in addition to other
things. The law is not always about fairness.
Mr. Horowitz. Unfortunately, that's true.
Mr. Issa. Would you characterize that this is an example
where even if marginally supported by law and regulation it is
by no means a fair way to treat somebody?
Mr. Horowitz. As I've said, it was consistent with policy
to allow someone like Mr. Allen to be out of his job on unpaid
leave for more than two years and try and fight that process.
Mr. Issa. So, not only does Congress need to find a way to
prevent these--unfairness, but we also suffer from the fact
that this can be done for no reason or for an unknown reason.
Is that correct?
Mr. Horowitz. That's correct. I think that is some of the
key policy issues that are here before all of you, which is Mr.
Allen had an ability to challenge this, as limited as it was,
because he was alleging a whistleblower retaliation. He
wouldn't have that same opportunity, but for the fact he was
alleging retaliation for whistleblowing.
Mr. Leavitt. Mr. Issa, can I add to that?
Mr. Issa. Yes, please.
Mr. Leavitt. Mr. Horowitz is talking about the procedures
of protecting, so going through and appealing. It's important
to remember that substantively this whole process started
because Mr. Allen made a protected disclosure. Several of the
things in Mr. Horowitz'--
Mr. Issa. I want to get to that. Going back to
whistleblower retaliation, under the intent of our
whistleblower statute we intend to protect a whistleblower
normally from all retaliation including any loss of pay. Is
that correct?
Mr. Horowitz. That's correct.
Mr. Issa. So, the agency made what would have been a
finding of whistleblower on the front end, notwithstanding--
whistleblowers don't have to be right; they just have to be
whistleblowers. Had they made the finding it was clear, then he
would not have lost a day's pay because they would have treated
his--the pay in some way as a whistleblower.
Mr. Horowitz. Right. As long as they thought he had a
reasonable belief in what he said, they should not have taken a
personnel action against him.
Mr. Issa. OK. So, in a little bit of a circular item here--
and again, I am staying away from motive for a moment,
certainly, the tools were available to not deny him one day of
pay. Ultimately, the resolution is some day in the future, not
yet, not after four months, he will get made whole in theory in
pay, but in fact it never had to be that way and the judgment
used in this case is suspect.
Mr. Horowitz. Yes, and that is exactly why, Congressman, we
put out the management alert we did to point out the fact that
you don't need to put someone on unpaid leave while you review
an allegation against the person. You can find other
opportunities for them, other positions they can continue to
work in, even if you think they shouldn't have this clearance.
Mr. Issa. Thank you. Thanks for making that clear.
We now go to Congresswoman Garcia.
Ms. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to all the witnesses. So, once again MAGA
Republicans are here talking about something that quite frankly
seems to just be made up, and I think I want to just stick to
talking to, Mr. Kirschner, because I know you have already
talked some about Project 2025. We have talked about several
aspects of it, but one thing that has caught my eye, of course,
is that Project 2025 is filled with antiimmigrant proposals
that will continue to perpetuate cycles of racist policies,
unnecessary inhumane detentions of human beings, ineffective,
and dangerous border policies.
The project calls to dismantle asylum to militarize our
border; that is at page 555, and also to pursue the
promulgation of every rule related to immigration that was
issued during the Trump Administration; that is at page 568,
and to challenge any checks and balances against the
President's authority over immigration, page 568. So, once
again he want complete authority, and he being Donald Trump.
The project's mandate for leadership takes particular aim
at sanctuary cities. One of the things about sanctuary cities
that is always mentioned is that victims of crime that happen
to be immigrants feel comfortable in being able to complain, or
if they are witnesses to a crime.
So, Mr. Kirschner, you have served as a prosecutor for 30
years. I have been a lawyer and a judge. We understand the
importance of law and order and holding violent criminals
accountable. So, what would be the dangers if this mandate were
to go into effect and they would attempt to end sanctuary
cities? The bigger question is there is no definition of
sanctuary cities. It is all a label that has been used for
years. What would this do to the crime rate in some of our
cities?
Mr. Kirschner. I think it could potentially increase it. If
you deter people from reporting that they have been victims of
violent crime for fear of what will happen to them if they
report that victimization, all you're doing is creating an
enormous class of folk who are going to continue to be
victimized. That can grow. Maybe they will then commit crimes
themselves because the whole thing begins to operate outside
the rule of law. So, those approaches present real challenges
and could increase crime when it sounds like it's designed to
decrease crime.
Ms. Garcia. So, instead of getting rid of gangs they are
probably creating the formation of more gangs?
Mr. Kirschner. It could. I see also in Project 2025 on page
555, that it recommends that they use active duty military
personnel to enforce civilian law, which I remember being
taught in Army law school years ago that's a violation of the
Posse Comitatus Act. So, none of this seems to be all that well
thought out.
Ms. Garcia. Right. Then, another priority in the mandate's
proposal for the Department of Justice--my colleagues,
especially Representative Lynch, have already alluded to this.
The mandate reads--and I will read it again because it is worth
repeating. It is at page 569.
The next conservative administrative must make every effort to
obtain the resources to support a vast expansion of the number
of appointees in every office and component across the
Department especially in the Civil Rights Division, the FBI,
and the Executive Office for Immigration Review.
So, just a complete dismantling of those offices. So, in
essence this proposes to strip the Department, including the
immigration enforcement, of career civil servants who of course
would leave probably. If they are concerned about Mr. Allen not
having two years of pay, which of course I agree it is
concerning--but imagine people who are loyal not to the rule of
law, not loyal to the Constitution, have no guidelines because
it has all been dismantled, they could probably--anyone that
appears before them, they could probably suspend all of them
for two years and give them no pay because there would be no
rules. Wouldn't you agree?
Mr. Kirschner. Yes, if you have supervisors who are not
making decisions based on the rule of law, the facts and the
evidence, but political considerations--my supervisors could
tell me investigate this crime; don't investigate that crime.
If that determination is not based exclusively on the facts,
the law, the victim, and the protection of the community, we're
going to get in real trouble.
Ms. Garcia. So, a case like Mr. Allen's could be multiplied
into thousands if there are no rules and no regulation. There
wouldn't be an Inspector General to review anything.
Mr. Kirschner. It could be. Let me go on record of saying I
support whistleblowers--
Ms. Garcia. Absolutely.
Mr. Kirschner. --and retaliation against them needs to be
stamped out. So, I just--
Ms. Garcia. Absolutely.
Mr. Kirschner. We have this thing called an adoptive
admission. So, when somebody says I believe or don't believe
something, I just feel compelled to put on the record what I
actually believe.
Ms. Garcia. Right. Well, thank you.
I yield back, Mr. Chair.
Chair Jordan. The gentlelady yields back.
The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized.
Mr. Massie. I thank the Chair.
Inspector General Horowitz, over the past three years I
have questioned FBI Director Wray and Attorney General Merrick
Garland about the Federal assets such as confidential human
sources that were present on January 6th at the Capitol and
they have continuously stonewalled me. We have got no answers
whatsoever about this from them.
Now, you announced that you were going to a review of the
DOJ response in preparation, mainly preparation I think for
January 6th. When did you start that review? When did you
announce that review?
Mr. Horowitz. We announced it in 2021, but we ended up
pausing it because of the ongoing criminal cases, consistent
with how we perform our work. We reinitiated it last year, and
I am in the process of reviewing a draft of the report.
Mr. Massie. So, 3\1/2\ years ago it was announced that you
would be doing this review, and we still don't have the review,
do we?
Mr. Horowitz. No. As I said, the reason is we paused the
review because of the ongoing criminal work that would--
consistent with our practice, we don't interfere with ongoing
criminal investigations--
Mr. Massie. Now that you have restarted it, do you have
evidence of the number of confidential human sources that were
operating on the Capitol grounds on January 6th?
Mr. Horowitz. Our report will include the information in
that regard.
Mr. Massie. Can you tell us today how many there were? Were
there more than 100?
Mr. Horowitz. I am not in a position to say that, both
because it is draft form and we have not gone through the
classification reviews, and so I need to be careful on what I
say.
Mr. Massie. So, we are four years in. The reason to do
these reports is so we don't make the mistakes, if there were
any mistakes, not to make the same mistakes again. We are just
weeks away from an inauguration. We are four years, almost four
years into this report. When is it going to be released?
Mr. Horowitz. It is certainly my hope and expectation,
although I don't control this entirely because it has to go
through a classification review, but certainly in the next
couple of months is my estimate.
Mr. Massie. Do you think there is any consideration for the
election about the release of this report? Would you delay it
in to not release it right before the election?
Mr. Horowitz. At this point, given the process that has to
play out in terms of classification review and all that, I am
not making--I don(t have to make any judgment about that. We
are still--that is the last to go on. Just to give you a sense
of when I did the FISA--
Mr. Massie. You are saying it is not even going to be done
before the election.
Mr. Horowitz. It doesn't--I doubt it would be done in time
for the election.
Mr. Massie. Is it going to be done before the inauguration?
Mr. Horowitz. That is certainly my hope and my plan.
Mr. Massie. It is your hope. We are four years into it and
what we do know is, you are going to expose that there were
confidential human sources at the Capitol. Can you tell us
today how many went into the Capitol?
Mr. Horowitz. I will have that information in the report. I
am not able to speak to information in there, both because it
is in draft and we get a response from the Department and the
FBI, but also because I don't know yet what is classified and
not classified.
Mr. Massie. So, if they broke the law, if they went into
the Capitol, which we pretty much know there were confidential
human sources who went into the Capitol and right there
alongside of everybody else, wouldn't they need to follow DOJ
CHS protocols? Do you know if those were followed?
Mr. Horowitz. They should follow CHS protocols. Again, we
will include that information in the report.
Mr. Massie. Do you know how many were reimbursed for
travel?
Mr. Horowitz. As I sit here, I don't recall the numbers.
Mr. Massie. You don't recall or you won't tell us?
Mr. Horowitz. Well, and if I did know it, I wouldn't be in
a position to tell you because we still have to go through--
Mr. Massie. We are four years into this. You are supposed
to be the organization that goes and gets these answers when
the FBI and the DOJ stonewall Congress. I feel like we are four
years into this, we are not even going to get this information,
you are telling us now, before the election, and maybe not even
before the next inauguration. How would we make any
corrections, or without that information?
I want to move on to something else. We have got an FBI's
failed investigation of the January 6th pipe bomb. Are you
looking into that at all?
Mr. Horowitz. We have had discussion Congressman, about it.
We have followed up, and I can speak to you about that.
Mr. Massie. They keep saying it is ongoing investigation,
but they have got no leads and no suspects. They have lost
information, they have lost evidence or they can't find
evidence.
The Secret Service deleted all its texts on January 6th.
Steve D'Antuono, the guy in charge of Washington, DC, Field
Office says that the cell phone data that could have been used
to find the bomber was corrupted.
Now, we just found out, I found out from another Inspector
General, and I want to submit this for the record--
Chair Jordan. Without objection.
Mr. Massie. Yes, I asked him do you have the footage, the
video footage, does the FBI have the video footage of the DNC
on January 6th. He tells me when he asked the FBI for the video
footage, they don't even have video footage of the DNC that we
know was created on January. It is almost as if they don't want
to know.
Can you rule out that there were any confidential human
sources involved in the whole pipe bomb thing on January 6th?
Mr. Horowitz. I would have to go back, Congressman, and
refresh myself on what we have, information we have gathered to
date on that. I don't know, as I sit here. I don't recall.
Mr. Massie. OK, that would be a huge revelation--
Mr. Horowitz. I am happy to come--
Mr. Massie. I think we should get that and get it public
before the election. I yield back.
Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back. I am just struck
by the irony, the fact that the very email that they went after
Marcus Allen, Mr. Allen, about was on this subject. We are not
going to get an answer to it until after the election,
potentially after the inauguration. I find the irony
astounding.
It is not Mr. Horowitz's fault, it is the folks at the
Justice Department who are taking their time with this report.
I appreciate the gentleman's question.
Now, yield the gentleman from New York, or California?
California. New York, excuse me. I will do whatever Ms.
Plaskett says. OK, New York.
Mr. Goldman. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Here we are again for another hearing about the same topic.
I want to say I appreciate the concerns about how the FBI
addresses and investigates whistleblowers or retaliates against
whistleblowers. We have had a number of hearings on this in
this Committee.
Mr. Horowitz, I am glad you are looking into it. That is
your job, and that is what you should do.
Let's be real. This is the weaponization of the Federal
Government Subcommittee. Whistleblower retaliation is peanuts
compared to a future President using the power of his office to
imprison his political adversaries simply because they oppose
him. That is the ultimate weaponization of the Federal
Government.
We don't have to question whether or not Donald Trump will
do this in the future because we know how this story plays out.
We have seen it, and he has done it in the past.
I want to introduce an article from last Sunday's The New
York Times entitled, ``As President, Trump Demanded
Investigations of Foes. He Often Got Them. He has threatened to
target his perceived enemies if elected again. A look at his
time in the White House shows how readily he could do so.''
Let's just go through some of the things that Donald Trump
did when he was President the first time. James Comey testified
that Trump asked him for a pledge of loyalty and then requested
that Comey drop the investigation of former National Security
Advisor Michael Flynn. Comey refused; Trump fired him.
Trump also fired Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe because
he oversaw an investigation that Donald Trump didn't like, just
days before McCabe would have earned his full retirement
pension. Trump then demanded that the IRS investigate Comey and
McCabe, among others.
Well, that is not all. At Trump's direction, the Justice
Department dropped its case against former National Security
Advisor Flynn, who had pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI.
Mr. Kirschner, in your 30 years of experience, are you
aware of any other situation where the Department of Justice
withdrew a case after someone, a defendant, had admitted to the
conduct under oath in court?
Mr. Kirschner. I am not.
Mr. Goldman. Let's move on. Donald Trump pressured overtly
the DOJ to reverse its sentencing recommendation for Roger
Stone. After Stone threatened to cooperate against Donald
Trump, Trump granted him clemency. John Durham wasted millions
of dollars on a baseless and fruitless investigation into the
origins of the Russia investigation because Donald Trump
demanded it.
It got so bad that Mr. Durham's No. 2 resigned in protest
to Durham's plan, pressure by Bill Barr and Donald Trump to
publish an interim report on the investigation shortly before
the 2020 election in gross violation of DOJ policies.
That is not all. Trump tried to install Jeffery Clark as
Attorney General because he acknowledged to the President that
he would do his bidding and fraudulently try to help him
overturn the election.
This is the one that really, really gets to the nub of
this. Mr. Leavitt, we are talking about First Amendment,
infringement on First Amendment rights that you are alleging
has happened to these FBI agents. You would agree, would you
not, that writing a book is protected speech under the First
Amendment?
Mr. Leavitt. Sure.
Mr. Goldman. So, let me just give you a hypothetical
scenario. Somebody pleads guilty to a crime, he is sentenced
and designated to serve his sentence at home. He is asked by
the Department of Justice to sign an agreement saying that he
would not write a book. He refuses to do that.
As a result of his refusal, the Department of Justice
throws him back into jail in solitary confinement. Is that in
your mind the weaponization of the Department of Justice to
infringe on First Amendment rights?
Mr. Leavitt. I am not a First Amendment lawyer, Mr.
Goldman.
Mr. Kirschner. Well, you said this is all about a First
Amendment infringement.
Mr. Leavitt. Well, with reference--
Mr. Kirschner. Why are you testifying about that if you are
not an expert? The answer, because my time is running out--
Mr. Leavitt. Because Federal employees have the right to
talk about--
Mr. Kirschner. Excuse me, the answer, because my time is
running out, is that this actually happened by Donald Trump to
Michael Cohen. A judge intervened immediately, reversed the
decision because it is a gross violation of the First
Amendment. It is a gross abuse of the power of the Department
of Justice. Mr. Cohen was let out.
This is who now has complete immunity to do this as much as
he wants without the guardrails of Don McGahn or John Kelly to
stop him from doing it. This is going to be the danger of the
weaponization of the Federal Government.
I yield back.
Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back. The gentleman from
South Carolina is recognized.
Mr. Fry. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Horowitz, your office published an Advisory Memo, 24-
067, entitled ``The Justice Department's Compliance with
Whistleblower Protections for Employees with Security
Clearance.''
I noted how you found that the DOJ was not in compliance
with whistleblower protections for employees with a clearance.
Is that correct?
Mr. Horowitz. That is correct.
Mr. Fry. What policies exactly did the DOJ fail to follow?
Mr. Horowitz. So, the law requires for suspension and
revocations of security clearance that the Department have an
appeal process allowing after one year of suspension to come to
the Inspector General and appeal that process. That was not in
place at the time.
Mr. Fry. Does it concern you that the DOJ, that certain DOJ
components like the FBI indefinitely suspend employees without
pay for the duration of a security investigation and review
process?
Mr. Horowitz. It does, which is one of the issues we also
raised in that management memo.
Mr. Fry. What is the length, the average length of time for
one of those investigations?
Mr. Horowitz. So, we found in the report, for the 106
employees that we looked at over a five-year period who had
been suspended for more than six months, that the average was
527 days. So about 17\1/2\ months.
Mr. Fry. So, about a 1\1/2\ years, right?
Mr. Horowitz. For 1\1/2\ years.
Mr. Fry. So, in your work, have you seen similar delays or
similar lengths of time in other agencies?
Mr. Horowitz. We have within the Department in other
components, law enforcement components.
Mr. Fry. What concerns me too, at least with the pay issue,
the DOJ's and the FBI's current policy forces employees to
remain in an indefinite State of limbo without pay, right.
Mr. Horowitz. That is exactly right, and that is the
concern, Congressman, that goes actually beyond whistleblowers.
Mr. Allen ultimately was able to resolve, get a settlement
because he was a whistleblower alleging retaliation. That same
issue applies to people who don't have a whistleblower claim
but have nonetheless had their security clearance pulled.
Mr. Fry. I just think it is remarkable to me just to hear
Mr. Allen's testimony earlier about what he and his family went
through, pulling out retirement and life savings, things like
that just to stay afloat. Fortunately for him, he was able to
settle. He might be the exception and not the rule, is that
fair to say?
Mr. Horowitz. That is correct. Many people we have seen
have resigned or retired rather than wait two-plus years.
Mr. Leavitt. Can I add one clarification on the settlement?
It was not because of his whistleblower claim, or the
settlement is related to that, but the restoration of his
security clearance was because of just an appeal of the
revocation. So, that was not tied to the whistleblower claim or
to the settlement for the back pay.
The FBI explicitly said we are not giving you back this
clearance just because there is some settlement. They made an
independent security determination, and they determined he was
entitled to it.
Mr. Fry. Furthermore, the memo found that DOJ policy
doesn't hold that the leave requirement, to the extent
practical, permits an individual to retain their employment
status while their security clearance is in review. Is that
correct?
Mr. Horowitz. That is correct.
Mr. Fry. Does the DOJ's failure to follow this policy
concern you?
Mr. Horowitz. It does, which is what led us to issue the
management alert. The Department did respond and has since
changed its policies so that there is that one-year appeal.
The other thing that they have done, which is not required
currently, but is certainly something that I think Congress
should consider, is requiring components, the Department law
enforcement components, in particular, to consider whether
there are paid jobs people can be in without the clearances,
even if a clearance suspension is warranted.
So, that you don't have this situation where someone gets
put out on unpaid leave, or paid leave not working either.
Which has been another problem, by the way, at the Department
over the years, is putting people on paid leave for extended
periods of time so they are getting a paycheck without having
to work.
Mr. Fry. Based on your office's findings, do you think that
the senior leadership within the DOJ or the FBI were aware that
their policies did not follow Federal legal standards?
Mr. Horowitz. I actually, my sense is they were not aware.
Because when we started this process and went to them, they did
not seem to know about this issue. Weren't aware that their
policy fell short on that issue, I should say.
Mr. Fry. Your office made four recommendations to the DOJ
to address the concerns cited in your memo:
(1) What were those for the record?
(2) To your knowledge, what steps has the DOJ taken to
implement those recommendations?
Mr. Horowitz. So, the four recommendations were:
(1) To make sure there was this one-year appeal process.
(2) To notify employees of their right to this process,
because obviously you can have a process, but you shouldn't
have to have an employee rummage through a lot of policies to
find it.
(3) When there is a suspension, look to see if there are
positions they can go into where they can continue to maintain
their position while performing work, even without the
suspension if that is the plan.
(4) Put in place a review to make sure that these being
done timely.
So, because you don't want a situation either where if they
can find another job with a security clearance suspension hold,
that they somehow indefinitely stay in that other job.
You want them to have that resolved. If they shouldn't be
in the job, they should leave, right. If it was an unfair
suspension, they should be put back to their old job.
Mr. Fry. Have they taken those recommendations?
Mr. Horowitz. They have. Very importantly, is the
requirement that they report regularly to the Department
leadership as to why that hasn't occurred in a timely way.
Mr. Fry. Thank you, Mr. Chair, I yield back.
Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back. The gentleman from
California is recognized.
Mr. Garamendi. Thank you, Mr. Chair. For the witnesses,
thank you for your testimony.
I am going to take this in a slightly different direction.
Most of the focus has been on the Department of Justice, as is
appropriate. Most of this is history. My concern is tomorrow.
My concern is what might be in our future.
Project 2025 is a roadmap that the Republican
Administration may use should Trump win the election. In
Project 2025, there are many things to be concerned about, most
of which happen to do with the weaponization of the government,
the whole of government, to carry out an agenda.
I want to focus on one part of Project 2025, which really
hasn't been discussed much, but really should be paid attention
to. That is the redesign of our national security apparatus,
putting all senior military officers and career intelligence
officers through a loyalty test and what that might mean for
our Nation should that come to pass.
Now, we can debate whether it would come to pass or not.
The election will have something to do with that, but also the
willingness or the unwillingness of the new administration to
undertake that.
What would a loyalty test mean for the military? It
wouldn't be their ability to conduct the necessary programs for
our national defense, but rather their loyalty to the President
and the President's agenda, which may or may not have anything
to do with national security.
We have some history here that might be useful. For
example, the Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff would not carry
out President Trump's political agenda. Certainly, willing to
carry out the military national security agenda, but not the
military agenda. That earned Chief of Staff General Mark Milley
the opportunity for the President to call for his execution.
Now, if Project 2025 is the roadmap for the Trump
Administration, and the Trump Administration demands a loyalty
test for our senior military generals, colonels, and career
intelligence officers, what does that mean for the Nation?
Posse Comitatus is often used, but I believe this Committee has
from time to time taken a look at the emergency powers of the
President, which basically can waive nearly every law.
So, we may wind up, given Project 2025 and the loyalty
tests that seem to be embedded in it, with a military that is
capable of involvement in domestic affairs and an intelligence
community that is supposed to be looking outside of this Nation
involved domestically.
So, the combination of the current very long list of
emergency powers that the President has, together with a loyal
military hierarchy and a loyal career intelligence community,
that is, loyal to the President, not necessarily loyal to the
Constitution or to the history of our democracy. What could it
mean to our Nation?
A military that is used domestically for political
purposes. An intelligence community that is looking inward.
Project 2025 presents a very serious challenge.
Five seconds. I would like all of you to ponder what this
would mean. Is it a problem, Mr. Kirschner?
Mr. Bishop. The gentleman's--
Mr. Kirschner. It is. What I am reminded of,
Representative, is after I graduated law school and I was sent
to Army law school, to JAG school on the campus of the
University of Virginia, one thing that was drilled into our
heads is you must obey lawful orders. Equally important, I
would say more important, you must disobey unlawful orders.
Project 2025 would wipe out that second command, which is
more important than the first command. The danger can't be
overstated.
Mr. Garamendi. I appreciate the forbearance of the Chair
for that 25 seconds.
Mr. Bishop. The gentleman's time has--the gentleman yields
back, and the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio, Mr.
Davidson.
Mr. Davidson. I thank the Chair.
It is disappointing that we need this hearing. Mr. Allen, I
want to apologize for what has happened to you. Our country
should treat you better.
Mr. Allen. Thank you for the apology.
Mr. Davidson. Thank you for your long career of service to
our country. I just wanted to ask, your experience spans a
couple decades, and so over your time in service to our
country, just confined to the FBI, what kind of changes?
The perception back home is the rank-and-file people at the
FBI are people that we want to be there that we want to
support. Frankly, there is not a lot of trust in the current
leadership system.
When you ask questions, a lot of my constituents had the
exact same questions and others did. So, thank you for taking
the courage to just ask an honest question. The way that this
was treated is shameful. We are here today in part because of
that.
Frankly, Mr. Horowitz is continuing a three- or four-year-
long hopefully imminent report that answers the exact same
question. So, how have you seen the FBI change, as someone who
moved up through the ranks?
Mr. Allen. I would say that unfortunately in my experience
with the culture at the FBI, it is very easy for leaders there
to kind of impose their wills on their subordinates. It is a
culture where there are a lot of careerists and blue flamers
who will do what they need to climb up the charts and the
ladders.
If that includes burning other agents or subordinate
employees to get to where they want to get in the organization,
whether that is for power or money concerns, that is something
I have observed in the culture of the FBI since I started there
in 2008 as a contractor. Worked for a couple years. Then, I got
on officially with the Charlotte Field Office in late 2015.
So, I would like to say that this is a, from my personal
experience, sea change, but from what I have seen, there have
always been vain careerists within the organization who will
destroy people to climb the charts.
Mr. Davidson. Safe to say we are not always promoting the
best and brightest.
Mr. Allen. I would concur with that statement.
Mr. Davidson. How do we need to change the culture to get
it back on track?
Mr. Allen. I think there needs to be more accountability,
and there needs to be a high focus on moral and ethical
behavior within the organization.
Outside checks and balances via policy change where the
Bureau isn't allowed to simply just review their own conduct,
to truly have an external watchdog force that can actually
cause punitive change and enact measures in the organization. I
think that is a big part of it. That is what I would advocate
for.
I know a lot of folks that join the FBI, they get into it,
and it is not quite what they expected once they get on the
inside. So, there is a lot of cultural change just from the
historical culture of the place that has to change.
I would like to tell you that I am shocked that this is
where the FBI has come today, but frankly, I am not shocked at
all that this kind of lawless conduct could have occurred
within the walls of the organization.
Mr. Davidson. Yes, sad, but I have heard it from many other
people, and frankly, you felt the blunt end of it. Again,
hopefully we can make this right swiftly and you serve out a
good career there. Thank you for your service.
Mr. Allen. Thank you.
Mr. Davidson. Mr. Horowitz, in another way, you have done
things that my constituents appreciate. You have provided
oversight and accountability. The oversight and accountability
function of Congress seems to work. The public finds out about
all kinds of things.
They are just so frustrated because at the end of the day,
Congress just shuts up and cuts the check. We don't provide
reform, we don't provide accountability. Instead, you see
people like Mr. Veltri promoted, somewhat validating Mr.
Allen's observations. Trusted, as it turns out, with critical
investigations.
We saw the FBI, I hope there is an investigation underway
on the events in Butler, Pennsylvania, on July 13th. Is there
an active Inspector General overview of that?
Mr. Horowitz. I actually don't have jurisdiction over that.
My understanding is the DHS Inspector General--
Mr. Davidson. Inspector General Cuffari does. As CIGIE, the
Integrity Committee, you formerly directed that they have tried
to target people, even as inspector generals. Did you feel
sometimes limited or coerced because of how CIGIE has changed
their behavior over the years?
Mr. Horowitz. Yes, let me just say I was the Chair of
CIGIE, not the Chair of the Integrity Committee. By law, that
distinction, Congress has separated those two. I did, but the
integrity is part of CIGIE.
Look, I have dealt with issues at the Integrity Committee.
I think there are improvements that are certainly needed, and
can be made in both internally and through legislative action
that would improve the process. I do think, and I have worked
with folks there, that they have tried to exercise their
responsibilities to the Chair of the--as Members of the
Integrity Committee as best they could.
Mr. Davidson. Well, one thing we absolutely have to do is
we have to change the way it is funded. Right now, they are
harvesting cash from other agencies, including extra money. So,
Congress needs to take action, in particular with funding.
My time has expired, and I yield back.
Mr. Bishop. The gentleman yields back. The Chair recognizes
the gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Crockett, for five minutes.
Ms. Crockett. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.
I will pick up maybe a little bit where my colleague just
left off. The question was about Butler, Pennsylvania.
I am curious to know if any of you are aware as to whether
or not the FBI is involved at all in determining what is going
on in Springfield, Ohio. Because as far as I am concerned,
there is domestic terrorism afoot, and it is at the word of the
Republican nominee and his running mate.
So, do we know if anyone is checking into that on the
Federal level? I am just curious. Just say yes or no, anybody.
Mr. Horowitz. I don't know, Congresswoman.
Ms. Crockett. OK, perfect. Either way, I want to move on,
and I want to talk about, Mr. Kirschner, I am just curious, if
you were to define what weaponization of the Federal Government
looks like just in a quick, short definition, what would it be?
Mr. Kirschner. Using the Department of Justice to reward
your friends and your criminal associates by delivering pardons
after they have been convicted by juries, or before their case
was even concluded, or before their case was even charged.
Conversely, using the Department of Justice to punish your
perceived enemies, order investigations and prosecutions even
if they are not warranted by evidence.
I am sorry, that was not brief.
Ms. Crockett. That's OK. It was accurate. Because that's
how I see weaponization as well and it's something that we saw
a lot out of Trump, specifically, because all his friends were
going to prison and he's probably got more friends that are
headed to prison soon. If we are lucky, he will find him a
cellmate soon as well.
Nevertheless, as we talk about weaponization, because this
whole Committee feels as if it's projection, I want to go to
something that is pretty interesting, but I'm going to start
with Mr. Allen.
I wasn't on this Committee the first time you were here.
So, this is the first time we're interacting. I am caught up-
to-speed, and I have a simple question for you, yes or no. Do
you believe that career employees like yourself should have
your job taken away, even if you've done your job well and
followed agency rules? Do you think it's right to be fired just
because you have political disagreements with those above you?
Mr. Allen. No, it's not right to persecute anyone for their
political or religious beliefs, especially in an organization
where there's supposed to be the free flow of ideas.
Ms. Crockett. OK. I appreciate your answer and your
honesty, and I absolutely agree with you.
It is interesting, though, because that's exactly what
Trump and my Republican colleagues would do if they won the
election. It's spelled out in Project 2025. Trump would strip
due process rights of available to career civil servants and
remove, suspend, or reduce their pay in an all-out effort to
oust agency employees for partisan reasons, rather than because
of issues with merit or performance.
Before you say Trump and Project 2025 aren't affiliated,
I'd ask unanimous consent to submit into the record Trump's
campaign page where he claims,
On day one, I'd reissue a 2020 Executive Order restoring the
President's authority to fire rogue bureaucrats and I will
wield that power very aggressively.
The only reason democracy is standing strong today is
because we had public servants who pledged loyalty to the
Constitution and rule of law and not to Donald Trump.
Mr. Kirschner, your testimony today demonstrates you're
familiar with Project 2025. Is that a fair statement?
Mr. Kirschner. Particularly, as it pertains to the
Department of Justice.
Ms. Crockett. OK. You are aware, or maybe you're not--we'll
see--on page 547, that Project 2025 states its goal of
implementing a top-to-bottom overhaul of DOJ that, quote,
``must include the FBI,'' because anything less would, quote,
``guarantee the failure of the conservative administration's
agenda.'' Are you aware--
Mr. Kirschner. That does not make a lot of sense to me.
Ms. Crockett. OK, but that's in Project 2025?
Mr. Kirschner. It is, it is on--
Ms. Crockett. OK.
Mr. Kirschner. Yes, it is.
Ms. Crockett. All right. Just wanted to clarify that.
Also, this agenda includes, for example, enforcing Federal
criminal laws against providers and distributors of abortion
medication, as well as rescinding policies that hold that sex
discrimination includes discrimination on the basis of sexual
orientation, transgender identity, among other things. Is that
correct?
Mr. Kirschner. Yes, Representative, on page 562, they talk
about aggressively going after, prosecuting, quote, ``providers
and distributors of abortion pills that use the mail.'' So,
folks who are mailing abortion pills to women who need it. That
is really not what is endangering our country or inspiring
violent crime.
Ms. Crockett. I absolutely agree.
This week, The New York Times reported multiple instances
of Trump trying to weaponize the DOJ to retaliate against his
political enemies, finding that, quote,
Mr. Trump told Mr. McGahn that he wanted to order Mr. Sessions,
the Attorney General, to prosecute Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Comey,
and if Mr. Sessions refused, he would take matters into his own
hands.
I know my time is running out. So, I just have to ask, Mr.
Chair, given you've convened this hearing--theoretically, it's
you--given that you've convened this hearing on weaponizing
Federal agencies, will you commit to publicly condemning Trump
for attempting to weaponize the government and condemn Project
2025 for its efforts to do the same?
Mr. Bishop. The gentlelady's time has expired.
I recognize myself for five minutes.
Mr. Allen, I'm going to give you a little notice. You've
written some notes. As far as I'm concerned, you're the person
I'm most interested in hearing from.
I'm from Charlotte. I know people--I've been to the
Charlotte field office. I know some people there. I was
extraordinarily impressed by you and the other whistleblowers
when you previously appeared before this Subcommittee. I'm
impressed by you again. I haven't been able to be here the
whole time.
I'm going to yield you some time, just if you cared, if you
have things that you wish to say, in just a moment.
The first thing I'm going to say before I do that, and
then, I'm going to give Mr. Jordan the rest of my time, is I'm
just overwhelmingly troubled by the fact that no one seems to
be able to do much about what has happened to you.
You've got the Inspector General, a very respectable
person. You've done a lot of things that have been historic.
You issue a management alert. To me, it sounds ridiculous to
say you don't think these guys at the FBI, the senior managers,
understand that they shouldn't retaliate against somebody by
putting him under extreme personal hardship, while they engage
in a completely baseless persecution over their security
clearance, and they leave them in limbo for 27 months, and to
this moment, haven't paid what I understand to be the
consideration under the, under the settlement that has been
reached. That is astonishing.
If that's not astonishing enough, that all you can do is
issue an alert--Congress does absolutely nothing, in the
majority party, not one thing to impose on the Department of
Justice or the FBI an appropriate sanction for what they've
done.
We have a hearing about it and everybody in the Minority
party, there's some Trump--they're fearing what Donald Trump
would do in the next administration, while they sit here, and
they look at the guy who's been persecuted by the FBI.
Everybody in the room understands it.
Mr. Allen, do you have comments you wish to make? I will
give you about a minute, a minute and half, and then, I want to
turn the rest of my time to Mr. Jordan.
Mr. Allen. Yes, sir. I would just say that I've considered
the hearing today my last act of service as a public servant
for the United States of America. I'll give you my professional
opinion.
I was an intel professional for our country for many years
and I would give recommendations, and I would also look at
indications and warnings. So, I would offer this to the
American people as my warning to them. So, this is a warning.
To the American people, I say, I personally have no
confidence that the FBI will rein-in its own conduct. I have
been persecuted, along with Garret, Steve, and Kyle, and
countless other whistleblowers. It is my opinion that the
Bureau used reprisal and fear to control the workforce. It has
been a seemingly effective tactic.
I personally believe that there are no current effective
checks and balances against them conducting lawless action with
any type of correction in a legitimate timeframe. I welcome the
work of the IG, but I think any type of lawless action, there
is no legitimate timeframe to rein them back in, their ability
to overclassify information to allow them to stonewall forever.
To the American people, you have a duty as a citizen to
vote, and I strong urge you to do so. It's how you participate
in the American experience. I know people have doubts about
election integrity, but you must vote. It is your claim. State
your claim and don't forfeit it willingly. Have your voice
heard.
My other recommendations are in the natural order. First,
vote. The second is the Second Amendment. arm yourself, and
know how to defend yourself. Make three to four friends in your
neighborhood and promise to come to each other's mutual aid in
times of harm, hardship.
During the Great Depression, people stocked up a pantry.
So, I think that's a good practice, especially in our economic
times, and make sure you have three to four months of food.
As a person of faith, I'd say pray the rosary. Go to the
First Friday Devotions. That's for everybody, all my brothers
and sisters of all faiths, and I know I'm Catholic. Read the
gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and live it every
day.
That's all I have to say. Thank you for the time.
Mr. Bishop. Mr. Allen, the fact that there are servants
like you who have borne up under persecution that a lot of
political leaders in this country do not care about is the
thing that heartens the American people. I'm confident the
American people will resolve the situation, no matter how bad,
how weak Washington is in response.
Mr. Jordan, I'm sorry I didn't reserve much time for you,
but I yield to you.
Chair Jordan. Thank you, Mr. Allen, for those well-said
words.
Mr. Horowitz, did you ever request permission from the
Deputy Attorney General to investigate attorney misconduct in
Special Counsel Davis Weiss' office?
Mr. Horowitz. I have not at this point asked for that
authority. As we've engaged on this issue in the past, it's,
first, not clear whether we have that authority. I'd have to
have that discussion.
Second, while the prosecution was ongoing, it was my view,
consistent with our policy and practice, to let that
prosecution play out, and then--
Chair Jordan. Do you have concerns?
Mr. Horowitz. I think there have been a number of
legitimate concerns raised, yes, Congressman.
Chair Jordan. My time has expired.
Mr. Bishop. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from Florida, Ms.
Wasser-man Schultz.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Chair, Donald Trump's Project 2025 is a direct attack
on women's reproductive freedom and healthcare. One of its most
effective assaults on our rights comes from what's called to
criminally punish healthcare providers who distribute FDA-
approved abortion medication by mail. This would effectively
end access to a safe, legal procedure that two-thirds of
American women who seek an abortion rely on.
How would Trump's Project 2025 do that, Mr. Chair? By
weaponizing our Federal Government against women and doctors.
The most corrosive attack would direct the Justice Department
to ban the mailing of abortion pills by enforcing an obscure
1873 obscenity law called the Comstock Act. You heard that
right, a 150-year-old obscenity law.
Mr. Kirschner, could reviving this 19th century statute and
weaponizing DOJ to enforce it block a clinician from sending
abortion pills to patients?
Mr. Kirschner. It could.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Yes or no, could it stop the
manufacturers from even delivering mifepristone pills to
clinicians and pharmacies?
Mr. Kirschner. It seems it could.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Trump's Project 2025 directs the
Justice Department to start using its surveillance powers to
monitor these pill-makers and goes so far as to name them in
their Blueprint.
Mr. Kirschner, could that kind of shadowing result in
medicine companies being targeted and harassed?
Mr. Kirschner. Yes.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Could weaponizing the Justice
Department to enforce this Civil War era law, in fact, create a
de facto nationwide ban on mifepristone?
Mr. Kirschner. It could.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. This isn't about politics; this
about control. It's about denying women the ability to make
decisions about our own bodies. It's about putting Donald Trump
and JD Vance right in the exam rooms of doctors and millions of
women. It's about punishing and even jailing doctors who
provide compassionate care or loved ones who help you obtain
the healthcare that you seek.
Mr. Kirschner, I want to ask you about another way Trump's
Project 2025 would weaponize our government against millions of
women and doctors. The medicine we're talking about, mife-
pristone, has been deemed safe and effective by the FDA for
over 25 years. Women in nearly 100 countries have safely used
it for decades. Yet, Mr. Kirschner, Trump's Project 2025 would
require the FDA to, quote, ``revisit and withdraw'' its initial
approval of mifepristone, falsely claiming, without evidence,
these drugs are dangerous and should be illegal.
Would that Project 2025 agenda be based on sound medicine,
science, and facts, or would it be a blatant weaponization of
the FDA?
Mr. Kirschner. The latter, and it sounds like it's based on
politics, not on science, not on medicine, and not on what is
best for women and the decisions they have to make with their
doctors.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you.
The FDA recently allowed certified brick-and-mortar
pharmacies to dispense mifepristone and doctors to prescribe
mifepristone via telehealth, which expands abortion pill
access, avoids added cost, and avoids added cost or stigma.
Trump's Project 2025 calls for the FDA to reverse that
guidance, despite the Supreme Court recently rejecting that
argument. It goes even further by eroding the privacy
protections of abortion patients by promoting prosecution for
women who take the pills.
Could this weaponization of our government agencies
obliterate the privacy of those who obtain or dispense abortion
pills?
Mr. Kirschner. It could and it's dangerous.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Project 2025's assault on our basic
freedoms doesn't just stop at women's health. It undermines the
safety of whole regions of our Nation.
Before my time expires, I'll quickly note that Trump's
dangerous Project 2025 proposes to eliminate the National
Weather Service in its entirely. I'll remind everyone that we
have Hurricane Helene who is quickly approaching the shores of
my State. This is the very agency responsible for helping us
prepare for and respond to climate-change-driven natural
disasters. Right now, Hurricane Helene bears down on Florida
and it's the National Weather Service that provides critical
forecasts that help warn and keep our communities safe.
Let's be absolutely clear. Project 2025 is not about
reform; it's about control. Whether it's women's bodies or the
agencies that protect us from disaster, Trump's Project 2025
would erode the freedoms that we all take for granted. We
cannot allow Trump's dangerous agenda to strip away our rights
and leave millions more vulnerable than ever. Whether it's
criminalizing healthcare providers or dismantling the National
Weather Service, as more hurricanes threaten our coast, Project
2025 is an existential threat to our Nation's core values and
safety. We will not let this agenda undo everything we've
fought for because we will not go back.
Thank you. I yield back the balance of my time.
Chair Jordan. The gentlelady yields back.
The Chair asks unanimous consent to enter into the record a
coalition's letter on reforms that are needed. The letter is
addressed to Chair Comer, Chair Turner, and myself, Ranking
Member Nadler, Raskin, and Himes.
Without objection, that will be entered.
Chair Jordan. The Chair now will recognize, yes, I'll
recognize the Ranking Member for as much time as she would
like. I'll give you 6-8 minutes, if you would like, and then,
our closing statement after that. Then, I have a couple more
questions, and then, we'll be adjourned.
The gentlelady is recognized.
Ms. Plaskett. Thank you. I don't know what to do with all
that time. It kind of freaked me out when you said that. I
started, you know--
Chair Jordan. You can always yield it back to me.
Ms. Plaskett. Oh, no, I don't think--I'm not giving up
what's given to me, I'll tell you that much. You never know
when you can get that, but I appreciate it, Mr. Chair.
I want to thank our witnesses for being here, each one of
you. Thank you for expressing your ideas and your thoughts.
I did want to ask some followup questions, though, to some
of those.
Mr. Inspector General Horowitz, my colleagues across the
aisle have said that the Inspector General found that the FBI
intentionally weaponized the security clearance process to
purge conservatives from its ranks. Mr. Inspector General, did
your office find that the FBI has a pattern or practice of
misusing the security clearance adjudication process to purge
certain FBI employees?
Mr. Horowitz. We have not made such a finding.
Ms. Plaskett. OK. Also, there were allegations made that
the FBI has weaponized any findings, that it was related
specifically to individuals who might have expressed sentiments
with regard to January 6th. Did you find that?
Mr. Horowitz. We haven't made such a finding. We've
actually, Congresswoman, had complaints come in from both sides
on these issues--on one side, complaints about field offices
not taking action in January 6th cases, and on the other side,
complaints about offices that did take matters in January 6th--
Ms. Plaskett. So, as usual, it's across the board of the
political spectrum?
Mr. Horowitz. We have complaints from whistleblowers on
both sides on that issue.
Ms. Plaskett. That is par for the course? You've found in
the FBI and in your position over, hearing from your other
Inspector General officers, that complaints may come from both
sides of the political spectrum?
Mr. Horowitz. I've certainly seen, with regard to the DOJ
law enforcement components, issues coming from various
perspectives, I will say nonideological/ideological complaints
across the--
Ms. Plaskett. What about religious? Have you made any
findings that the FBI security clearance process targets
Christians?
Mr. Horowitz. We've not made such a finding.
Ms. Plaskett. Or targeting military veterans?
Mr. Horowitz. We've not made such a finding.
Ms. Plaskett. Thank you.
I understand my colleagues' concern that it would appear
that Democrats are not taking the issue of whistleblowers
seriously. I think we do. We have a Committee for that, the
Oversight Committee, for which I, when I was a Member of the
Oversight, that's when I first met Mr. Horowitz, was in having
oversight over different agencies and questioning you about
some of your findings there--some of which, when I first came
to Congress, were targeted against Democrats, a Democratic
Administration, at the time the Obama Administration. We've
gone through a Trump Administration. We are now in a Biden
Administration. So, the vagaries of political persuasion,
you've seen them all.
I think the reason that the Democratic Members have been
bringing up Project 2025 and President Trump is because it
presents a global threat, a true weaponization of offices and
of a position against the American people as a whole.
We see places like North Korea, Hungary, Iran, now
Venezuela, where those citizens could not have imagined 20-30
years before potentially that they are living under a
dictatorial rule.
I went to school with individuals--I'm dating myself--in
the early 1980s with students who had fled Iran. I have been
around young people in undergrad who have fled North Korea. The
notion that anything like that could happen in this country
seems so antithetical to our thinking. We cannot drop the ball
when we see an individual or a group of individuals who have
power trying to take that control.
It is our opinion, many of our opinions, that Trump, for
his own purposes, has now joined forces with individuals who
have offered Project 2025 as a means to an end for each one of
their own desires.
I would ask to submit to the record a CNN article, ``Trump
Claims Not to Know Who is Behind Project 2025.'' CNN review
found at least 140 people who worked for him are involved.
Chair Jordan. Without objection.
Ms. Plaskett. Thank you.
In this article, and in other places, we will see the nexus
of relationships between the President and individuals who have
written this--six of his former Cabinet Secretaries; four
individuals nominated by the former President as Ambassadors;
his first Deputy Chief of Staff, my former colleague, Mark
Meadows, and also, his long-time advisor Stephen Miller, who
are advising Project 2025.
The Federal Communications Commissioner under President
Trump, Brendan Carr; Lisa Correnti, who was a Delegate to the
United Nations Commission on the Status of Women--all wrote
components of Project 2025.
We have the American Accountability Foundation putting
together a roster of current Federal workers it suspects could
impede Trump's plan for a second term.
I would direct your attention to what we have up there on
the screen, which shows so many associates who have, in fact,
contributed to the transitional plan for a Presidential Trump
next term that are part of his orbit. Paul Dans, top official
in Trump's White House. We have Ben Carson, former HUD
Secretary; Christopher Miller, Acting Secretary of Defense.
Peter Navarro wrote a section defending the former President's
trade policies. This has been drafted as the next conservative
President's last opportunity.
The last opportunity for what? Not the America we know now;
a different form of America--one that meets the demands of
specific individuals, not all of us; one women that does not
include us having complete autonomy of our selves; one that
puts a form of Christianity that may not be my form of
Christianity. That's why we have a separation of church and
State, so that we can all worship our God as we wish.
That's not what Project 2025 is looking toward. Today, you
may be part of it; tomorrow, you may not be. Today, it may help
you; tomorrow, it may not.
I know I'm on the front line; I know my community is on the
front line, but tomorrow it may be yours. Next week, next
month, 180 days he's giving himself. Two years from now, it may
be your son, your daughter pointing, in the military, pointing
a weapon at their fellow citizen, at their brother, their
sister who are protesting on the streets of America.
Because, yes, in Project 2025, it allows the President to
direct the active military to come to the streets of the United
States against those that he deems as political rivals. That's
in Project 2025. Those are the things that are in there--
against us as Americans.
That's the reason why, Mr. Chair, we keep talking about
it--not because whistleblowers' issues are unimportant, but
because this is a clear and present threat right now to the
American people that we need to join forces with and stop.
So, I want to thank you for the additional time. While
we're on the recess, God bless you and your family.
Chair Jordan. You, too. You, too.
Ms. Plaskett. I pray safety for all of us as Members, all
the people who have spoken out, and individuals, we may not
agree with one another, but I pray that this election goes
safely and that we are all back here again to continue the
people's business.
Chair Jordan. I agree. Just a few more questions, if I
could.
Mr. Horowitz, you said you have not seen a pattern, but you
have found evidence--well, let's say, well, let me do it as a
question. Have you found any evidence of a focus on religion
and vaccination status playing a role in discussions about
clearance decisions?
Mr. Horowitz. We certainly did as to Mr. Allen.
Chair Jordan. Of course. That's the whole, the whole point.
I thought his email, questioning the leadership of the FBI, the
used that. They used his vaccination status. They used his
religion. I thought pretty soon they were going to accuse
Marcus Allen of writing Project 2025. I thought that might
happen.
You didn't write Project 2025, did you, Mr. Allen?
Mr. Allen. No, I never--
Chair Jordan. You had nothing to do with that.
Mr. Leavitt, you didn't, either, right? I know Mr. Horowitz
didn't have anything to do with that.
Let's go to this questionnaire. Because this questionnaire
that was used by the FBI in these clearance discussions, I find
very troubling. In the opening, in sort of the preamble before
they get to the questions, they say to--now, they're asking
colleagues to rat on fellow colleagues. They say,
You are being asked to provide information as a fact witness.
Should you refuse to answer or fail to reply, action against
your security clearance may be undertaken.
So, I find this amazing. Like they're going to a colleague,
in a security clearance investigation, they're asking a
colleague to talk about that individual, and if they don't,
they're going to lose their security clearance. I mean then,
when you look at the questions, do you find that a little
troubling, Mr. Horowitz?
Mr. Horowitz. I certainly find the--I'm not sure I find
necessarily the questioning of individuals about allegations
troubling. How you tell them about it and talk to them about it
is concerning, as you indicated, and certainly, the questions
were highly inappropriate.
Chair Jordan. Well, certainly, coupled together--hey, we're
doing a security investigation on Mr. Allen, as an example, and
if you don't, if you don't answer it, your security clearance
is in jeopardy. Oh, by the way, here's the question: ``Did Mr.
Allen ever voice support for President Trump?'' ``Did Mr. Allen
ever express concerns about the COVID-19 vaccination?'' ``Did
Mr. Allen ever attend a gun rally?'' That is as troubling as it
gets.
Right at the top of this questionnaire, ``FBI Security
Division, Security Integrity and Investigation Section,
Clearance Investigation Unit.''
Mr. Leavitt, have you ever seen anything like this?
Mr. Leavitt. Not before this last round of whistleblowers,
but I do think--the point I tried to make earlier is that, even
if this questionnaire was only typed up by a couple of
individuals--and to be clear, those are the same ones that were
worried about the Kelly Cart. So, they were the same ones that
were worried that their supervisors--
Chair Jordan. Right.
Mr. Leavitt. Even where, in cases where this questionnaire
wasn't used, we've heard from a number of whistleblowers that
these types of things were asked about, and, of course, we know
they factored into the decisions. So, I think it's not just
about the questionnaire.
Chair Jordan. Yes.
Mr. Leavitt. I hope that the Inspector General's Office
will look at how all these issues were focused on by
leadership.
Chair Jordan. That's the element of fear Mr. Allen just
talked about in his last response to Mr. Bishop--the fear that,
that environment of fear, and this is it in practice right
here. That is what is scary.
So, if that's not weaponization of government--earlier, Ms.
Crockett asked about, would the weaponization of government
include certain things? It would certainly include this in the
environment described by Mr. Allen, and it would certainly
include the 27 months that he had to live through and the 24
months now Garret O'Boyle has had to live through.
I just find that--again, I want to thank you all for being
here.
Oh, Mr. Kirschner, would the weaponization of government
include lying to the FISA Court to spy on a Presidential
campaign? You got asked a series of questions of ``Would it
include . . . ?'' I'm just curious if you thought that would be
the weaponization of government.
Mr. Kirschner. Lying to a court, any court, FISA Court or
otherwise, is deeply, deeply troubling.
Chair Jordan. That wasn't the question. Would the weapon-
ization of government include lying to a FISA Court to spy on a
Presidential campaign?
Mr. Kirschner. I would suppose it could.
Chair Jordan. Could?
Mr. Kirschner. Yes.
Chair Jordan. OK. Great. OK.
Would it include text messages written by people who were
involved in that effort to spy on a Presidential campaign? Text
messages like ``Don't worry, we'll stop Trump,'' would that be
the weaponization of government as well?
Mr. Kirschner. I think that's inappropriate language
because we're supposed to be doing our work apolitically,
without fear or favor. So, I think that's ill-advised.
Chair Jordan. It sure was. It's so ill-advised Mr. Mueller
kicked them off, kicked those individuals off his, his team.
So, it was so ill-advised that Kevin Clinesmith got prosecuted
for lying to the FISA Court to go spy on a Presidential
campaign. That seems to me to be the weaponization of
government as well.
I want to thank all of you for being here.
Mr. Allen, we really thank you. You're the one who's had to
endure this. Your testimony, too, the strength of your faith,
and your family, I think is just inspiring. We appreciate your
service to our country, your service to this Committee, and to
the country for telling your story and being willing to come
forward and work with Mr. Leavitt.
Mr. Horowitz, we appreciate the work you've done over the
years and in getting this information to us.
With that, the Committee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:31 p.m., the Select 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/By Event.aspx?EventID=117688.
[all]