THE POLITICIZATION OF THE FBI AND JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
FBI WHISTLEBLOWERS: WHAT THEIR DISCLOSURES INDICATE ABOUT THE POLITICIZATION OF THE FBI AND JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
Executive Summary
The Federal Bureau of Investigation, under the stewardship of Director Christopher Wray and Attorney General Merrick Garland, is broken. The problem lies not with the majority of front-line agents who serve our country, but with the FBI’s politicized bureaucracy. The problem lies, for example, with the FBI hierarchy that spied on President Trump’s campaign and ridiculed conservative Americans. The problem lies with FBI bureaucrats who altered and mischaracterized evidence to federal courts, circumvented safeguards, and exploited weaknesses in policies governing investigations and informants to target politically disfavored subjects and to protect favored ones. The problem lies with the FBI structure that centralizes high-profile cases in D.C., in the hands of politicized actors with politicized incentives. Quite simply, the problem—the rot within the FBI—festers in and proceeds from Washington. Over the last year, a multitude of whistleblowers have approached Judiciary Committee Republicans with allegations of political bias by the FBI’s senior leadership and misuses of the agency’s federal law-enforcement powers. These whistleblowers have risked their careers out of fidelity to principle and a commitment to restoring public trust in the FBI. This report begins to tell their stories. Even at this early stage, one startling conclusion is clear: the FBI and its parent agency, the Justice Department, have become political institutions. This report details the problems, as recounted in whistleblower disclosures and other forms, that undermine the FBI’s fundamental law-enforcement mission. Whistleblowers describe the FBI’s Washington hierarchy as “rotted at its core,” maintaining a “systemic culture of unaccountability,” and full of “rampant corruption, manipulation, and abuse.” Whistleblowers describe how the FBI has abused its law-enforcement authorities for political purposes, and how actions by FBI leadership show a political bias against conservatives. For example: • The FBI is artificially inflating statistics about domestic violent extremism in the nation. Whistleblowers have described how FBI leadership is pressuring line agents to reclassify cases as domestic violent extremism even if the matter does not meet the criteria. They also explained how the FBI is misrepresenting the scale of domestic violent extremism nationwide by categorizing January 6th-related investigations as organic cases stemming from local field offices, instead of all related to one single incident. In both ways, the FBI is fueling the Biden Administration’s narrative that domestic violent extremism is the biggest threat to our nation. • The FBI is abusing its counterterrorism authorities to investigate parents who spoke at school board meetings. Whistleblowers disclosed how, shortly after the National School Boards Association urged President Biden to use the Patriot Act against American parents, the FBI Counterterrorism Division set up a special “threat tag” to track school board-related cases. Whistleblowers provided evidence of how the FBI opened investigations into one mom for allegedly telling a local school board “we are coming for you” and a dad simply because he “rails against the government” and “has a lot of guns.”
The FBI has abused its foreign intelligence authorities to spy on American citizens, including people associated with the campaign of President Trump in 2016. These facts have been documented in Inspector General reports and Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court opinions, but there is little indication the FBI has changed—or is willing to change—course. • The FBI is clearing the Bureau of employees who dissent from its woke, leftist agenda. The FBI is actively seeking to “purge” FBI employees holding conservative views—or, in President Biden’s view, those who are a “threat to American democracy”1 — because they hold conservative views. The FBI has even taken retaliatory actions against at least one whistleblower who has spoken out. • Whistleblowers have explained how the FBI’s “political meddling” “is dragging the criminal side [of the Bureau] down” as resources are “pulled away” from real lawenforcement duties. As a prime example, one whistleblower described how he was “told that child sexual abuse material investigations were no longer an FBI priority and should be referred to local law enforcement agencies” so that he could work a Washingtondirected politically charged case instead. Such a mis-prioritization is not only a dereliction of duty, but it is a grave disservice to the victims of crimes that do not advance the FBI’s political agenda. The examples outlined in this report concern FBI abuses and misconduct primarily, due to the experiences of the whistleblowers and the conduct to which they are exposed. But because the FBI is a component of the Justice Department, it is virtually impossible to examine the FBI’s actions without also examining those of the Justice Department. For example, in creating a threat tag to track investigations into concerned parents, the FBI was executing on a directive from Attorney General Garland and the Justice Department. In addition, the recent examples of misconduct must properly be examined in the context of years of serious abuses from the FBI and Justice Department. As such, where necessary for context and explanation, this report includes a discussion of misconduct and abuses apparent in the Justice Department in addition to the FBI. The FBI has a troubling history of using its authorities to advance political goals. Under J. Edgar Hoover, the Bureau surveilled Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., engaging in “an intense campaign” to discredit the civil rights leader.2 Following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, then-FBI Director Robert Mueller sought to change the FBI’s “culture” to produce a “centraliz[ed]” and “intelligence driven” organization.3 With its new centralized structure, FBI leadership began running investigations out of headquarters rather than the originating field offices—something that had been standard practice for nearly a century.4 Mueller started the trend of filling leadership positions with Washington bureaucrats “who lacked the institutional knowledge of career agents.”5 From information provided by whistleblowers, these cultural and structural problems continue to this day. Director Wray began at the FBI in the wake of James Comey’s disastrous tenure, when the Bureau’s Washington leadership used the power of federal law enforcement to attack President Donald Trump and his campaign. Wray had an opportunity to clean up the leadership culture at the FBI, to end the politicization, and to restore trust and integrity in the FBI’s mission. By any objective measure, Wray has failed. Americans deserve to have confidence that the enormous power and reach of federal law enforcement will be used fairly and free of any indication of politicization. The FBI has the power, quite literally, to ruin a person’s life—to invade their residence, to take their property, and even to deprive them of their liberty. The potential abuse of this power, or even the appearance of abuse, erodes the fundamental principle of equality under the law and confidence in the rule of law. The FBI’s tremendous power is precisely why the people’s elected representatives in Congress must conduct vigorous oversight, particularly in light of allegations of abuse and misconduct made to date. This issue transcends partisan politics, and the information contained in this report should concern all policymakers. This report presents what is known so far about the extent of problems festering within the FBI’s Washington bureaucracy. There is likely much more to be uncovered in the months ahead. But from what is known, it is clear the FBI needs repair. Too many whistleblowers have said that they are “saddened” by what they see happening at the Bureau. Too much is at stake to sacrifice the trust and accountability in our federal law-enforcement apparatus. The necessary first step in fixing the FBI’s broken culture and out-of-control hierarchy is to identify and understand the problem. This report begins to do just that.
I. FBI Leadership Is Abusing its Law-Enforcement Authorities for Political Reasons
The law-enforcement authorities of the FBI are extensive and powerful. Justice—and the exertion of this law-enforcement power—should be blind to and unaffected by politics. Under the malevolent leadership of Merrick Garland, however, the FBI and Justice Department has been a willing participant of the Biden Administration’s weaponization of law enforcement. President Biden has shown no problem in labeling his political opponents as racists, fascists, and domestic terrorists. The FBI under Director Wray has been willing to exert its lawenforcement tools in a manner guided by political calculations. Whistleblowers allege that the FBI is manipulating data about domestic violent extremism to support the Biden Administration’s political agenda. Other information suggests the FBI prioritizes investigations and uses differing tactics based on political considerations—using aggressive tactics against political opponents of the Biden Administration while going softer on, or outright ignoring, allegations against the Administration’s political allies. Perhaps the best case study of the FBI’s and Justice Department’s abuse of authorities for political purposes is the FBI’s use of counterterrorism resources to target moms and dads who spoke out at school board meetings in the fall of 2021. As a result, there emerges an apparent double standard in the enforcement of federal law. On the one hand, for example, the FBI has aggressively and rapidly exercised its vast powers to enforce federal law to protect pro-abortion facilities while failing to enforce the same law to protect pro-life centers. The same selective enforcement of federal law is evident in how the Justice Department has aggressively pursued prosecutions related to January 6, 2021, while virtually ignoring federal crimes stemming from left-wing riots in the summer of 2020. Similarly, the FBI and Justice Department has used aggressive tactics in matters concerning conservative elected officials while giving kid-glove treatment to prominent left-wing officials. This section highlights several ways in which the FBI—and by extension, the Justice Department—has abused its law-enforcement authorities for apparently political purposes. These examples, garnered from whistleblowers’ disclosures and other sources, are not exhaustive. But they provide a current assessment of the “rot” that has festered within the FBI’s Washington leadership. A. The FBI is artificially inflating and manipulating domestic violent extremism statistics for political purposes. Whistleblowers have disclosed to the Committee that the FBI is pressuring agents to reclassify cases as domestic violent extremism (DVE), but it appears the FBI is also manufacturing DVE cases where they may not otherwise exist and even manipulating its case categorization system to feign a national problem. At a time when the Biden Administration maintains that DVE is the “greatest threat” facing the United States, the FBI appears to be complicit in artificially creating the Administration’s political narrative.6
i. The FBI is artificially padding domestic violent extremism statistics by pressuring agents to reclassify investigations.
The FBI defines a domestic violent extremist as “an individual based and operating primarily within the United States or its territories without direction or inspiration from a foreign terrorist group or other foreign power who seeks to further political or social goals wholly or in part through unlawful acts of force or violence.”7 According to the Biden Administration, investigations into DVEs have increased “significantly.”8 In June 2021, FBI Director Wray testified before the House Judiciary Committee that the FBI has a “very, very active domestic terrorism investigation program” and that the FBI had “doubled the amount of domestic terrorism investigations.”9 Attorney General Garland has repeated this talking point, publicly stating that “[t]he number of open FBI domestic terrorism investigations this year has increased significantly.”10 Whistleblower disclosures made by multiple FBI employees from different field offices indicate that the Biden Administration’s narrative is misleading. On July 27, 2022, Committee Republicans wrote to Director Wray in response to whistleblower disclosures that FBI agents are pressured to bolster the number of cases of DVEs to satisfy their superiors.11 One whistleblower explained that because agents are not finding enough DVE cases, they are encouraged and incentivized to reclassify matters as DVE cases even though there is minimal, circumstantial evidence to support the reclassification. Another whistleblower, who led at least one high profile domestic terrorism investigation, stated that Washington Field Office’s Assistant Special Agent in Charge (ASAC) Timothy Thibault and the FBI’s former Assistant Director of the Counterterrorism Division Jill Sanborn pressured agents to move cases into the DVE category to hit self-created performance metrics.12 According to whistleblowers, the FBI uses these metrics to dispense awards and promotions. Whistleblowers have described this scheme as an environment of “pressure” within the FBI. Recently, Sanborn, through her attorneys, agreed to appear for a transcribed interview with the Committee on December 2, 2022.13
ii. The Washington Field Office is manipulating its case filing system to feign a nationwide rise in domestic terrorism.
The FBI is abusing its counterterrorism authorities to investigate parents who spoke at school board meetings. Whistleblowers disclosed how, shortly after the National School Boards Association urged President Biden to use the Patriot Act against American parents, the FBI Counterterrorism Division set up a special “threat tag” to track school board-related cases. Whistleblowers provided evidence of how the FBI opened investigations into one mom for allegedly telling a local school board “we are coming for you” and a dad simply because he “rails against the government” and “has a lot of guns.”
• The FBI has abused its foreign intelligence authorities to spy on American citizens, including people associated with the campaign of President Trump in 2016. These facts have been documented in Inspector General reports and Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court opinions, but there is little indication the FBI has changed—or is willing to change—course. • The FBI is clearing the Bureau of employees who dissent from its woke, leftist agenda. The FBI is actively seeking to “purge” FBI employees holding conservative views—or, in President Biden’s view, those who are a “threat to American democracy”1 — because they hold conservative views. The FBI has even taken retaliatory actions against at least one whistleblower who has spoken out. • Whistleblowers have explained how the FBI’s “political meddling” “is dragging the criminal side [of the Bureau] down” as resources are “pulled away” from real lawenforcement duties. As a prime example, one whistleblower described how he was “told that child sexual abuse material investigations were no longer an FBI priority and should be referred to local law enforcement agencies” so that he could work a Washingtondirected politically charged case instead. Such a mis-prioritization is not only a dereliction of duty, but it is a grave disservice to the victims of crimes that do not advance the FBI’s political agenda. The examples outlined in this report concern FBI abuses and misconduct primarily, due to the experiences of the whistleblowers and the conduct to which they are exposed. But because the FBI is a component of the Justice Department, it is virtually impossible to examine the FBI’s actions without also examining those of the Justice Department. For example, in creating a threat tag to track investigations into concerned parents, the FBI was executing on a directive from Attorney General Garland and the Justice Department. In addition, the recent examples of misconduct must properly be examined in the context of years of serious abuses from the FBI and Justice Department. As such, where necessary for context and explanation, this report includes a discussion of misconduct and abuses apparent in the Justice Department in addition to the FBI. The FBI has a troubling history of using its authorities to advance political goals. Under J. Edgar Hoover, the Bureau surveilled Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., engaging in “an intense campaign” to discredit the civil rights leader.2 Following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, then-FBI Director Robert Mueller sought to change the FBI’s “culture” to produce a “centraliz[ed]” and “intelligence driven” organization.3 With its new centralized structure, FBI leadership began running investigations out of headquarters rather than the originating field offices—something that had been standard practice for nearly a century.4 Mueller started the trend of filling leadership positions with Washington bureaucrats “who lacked the institutional knowledge of career agents.”5 From information provided by whistleblowers, these cultural and structural problems continue to this day. Director Wray began at the FBI in the wake of James Comey’s disastrous tenure, when the Bureau’s Washington leadership used the power of federal law enforcement to attack President Donald Trump and his campaign. Wray had an opportunity to clean up the leadership culture at the FBI, to end the politicization, and to restore trust and integrity in the FBI’s mission. By any objective measure, Wray has failed. Americans deserve to have confidence that the enormous power and reach of federal law enforcement will be used fairly and free of any indication of politicization. The FBI has the power, quite literally, to ruin a person’s life—to invade their residence, to take their property, and even to deprive them of their liberty. The potential abuse of this power, or even the appearance of abuse, erodes the fundamental principle of equality under the law and confidence in the rule of law. The FBI’s tremendous power is precisely why the people’s elected representatives in Congress must conduct vigorous oversight, particularly in light of allegations of abuse and misconduct made to date. This issue transcends partisan politics, and the information contained in this report should concern all policymakers. This report presents what is known so far about the extent of problems festering within the FBI’s Washington bureaucracy. There is likely much more to be uncovered in the months ahead. But from what is known, it is clear the FBI needs repair. Too many whistleblowers have said that they are “saddened” by what they see happening at the Bureau. Too much is at stake to sacrifice the trust and accountability in our federal law-enforcement apparatus. The necessary first step in fixing the FBI’s broken culture and out-of-control hierarchy is to identify and understand the problem. This report begins to do just that.
I. FBI Leadership Is Abusing its Law-Enforcement Authorities for Political Reason
The law-enforcement authorities of the FBI are extensive and powerful. Justice—and the exertion of this law-enforcement power—should be blind to and unaffected by politics. Under the malevolent leadership of Merrick Garland, however, the FBI and Justice Department has been a willing participant of the Biden Administration’s weaponization of law enforcement. President Biden has shown no problem in labeling his political opponents as racists, fascists, and domestic terrorists. The FBI under Director Wray has been willing to exert its lawenforcement tools in a manner guided by political calculations. Whistleblowers allege that the FBI is manipulating data about domestic violent extremism to support the Biden Administration’s political agenda. Other information suggests the FBI prioritizes investigations and uses differing tactics based on political considerations—using aggressive tactics against political opponents of the Biden Administration while going softer on, or outright ignoring, allegations against the Administration’s political allies. Perhaps the best case study of the FBI’s and Justice Department’s abuse of authorities for political purposes is the FBI’s use of counterterrorism resources to target moms and dads who spoke out at school board meetings in the fall of 2021. As a result, there emerges an apparent double standard in the enforcement of federal law. On the one hand, for example, the FBI has aggressively and rapidly exercised its vast powers to enforce federal law to protect pro-abortion facilities while failing to enforce the same law to protect pro-life centers. The same selective enforcement of federal law is evident in how the Justice Department has aggressively pursued prosecutions related to January 6, 2021, while virtually ignoring federal crimes stemming from left-wing riots in the summer of 2020. Similarly, the FBI and Justice Department has used aggressive tactics in matters concerning conservative elected officials while giving kid-glove treatment to prominent left-wing officials. This section highlights several ways in which the FBI—and by extension, the Justice Department—has abused its law-enforcement authorities for apparently political purposes. These examples, garnered from whistleblowers’ disclosures and other sources, are not exhaustive. But they provide a current assessment of the “rot” that has festered within the FBI’s Washington leadership. A. The FBI is artificially inflating and manipulating domestic violent extremism statistics for political purposes. Whistleblowers have disclosed to the Committee that the FBI is pressuring agents to reclassify cases as domestic violent extremism (DVE), but it appears the FBI is also manufacturing DVE cases where they may not otherwise exist and even manipulating its case categorization system to feign a national problem. At a time when the Biden Administration maintains that DVE is the “greatest threat” facing the United States, the FBI appears to be complicit in artificially creating the Administration’s political narrative.6
i. The FBI is artificially padding domestic violent extremism statistics by pressuring agents to reclassify investigations.
The FBI defines a domestic violent extremist as “an individual based and operating primarily within the United States or its territories without direction or inspiration from a foreign terrorist group or other foreign power who seeks to further political or social goals wholly or in part through unlawful acts of force or violence.”7 According to the Biden Administration, investigations into DVEs have increased “significantly.”8 In June 2021, FBI Director Wray testified before the House Judiciary Committee that the FBI has a “very, very active domestic terrorism investigation program” and that the FBI had “doubled the amount of domestic terrorism investigations.”9 Attorney General Garland has repeated this talking point, publicly stating that “[t]he number of open FBI domestic terrorism investigations this year has increased significantly.”10 Whistleblower disclosures made by multiple FBI employees from different field offices indicate that the Biden Administration’s narrative is misleading. On July 27, 2022, Committee Republicans wrote to Director Wray in response to whistleblower disclosures that FBI agents are pressured to bolster the number of cases of DVEs to satisfy their superiors.11 One whistleblower explained that because agents are not finding enough DVE cases, they are encouraged and incentivized to reclassify matters as DVE cases even though there is minimal, circumstantial evidence to support the reclassification. Another whistleblower, who led at least one high profile domestic terrorism investigation, stated that Washington Field Office’s Assistant Special Agent in Charge (ASAC) Timothy Thibault and the FBI’s former Assistant Director of the Counterterrorism Division Jill Sanborn pressured agents to move cases into the DVE category to hit self-created performance metrics.12 According to whistleblowers, the FBI uses these metrics to dispense awards and promotions. Whistleblowers have described this scheme as an environment of “pressure” within the FBI. Recently, Sanborn, through her attorneys, agreed to appear for a transcribed interview with the Committee on December 2, 2022.13
ii. The Washington Field Office is manipulating its case filing system to feign a nationwide rise in domestic terrorism.
Following Committee Republicans’ July 27, 2022 letter to Director Wray, 14 new whistleblowers came forward with information about how the FBI manipulated the manner in which it categorized January 6-related investigations to create a misleading narrative that domestic terrorism is organically surging around the country. These new whistleblower disclosures indicate that the Washington Field Office’s (WFO) handling of DVE investigations relating to January 6 “diverge[s]” from established practice in a way that overstates the national DVE threat. One whistleblower described how FBI agents ordinarily characterize and label cases according to the originating field office, with leads “cut” to other field offices for specific assistance in that geographic location.15 The whistleblower alleged that “the FBI has not followed regular procedure” with respect to January 6 cases, which should all be officially led by the WFO and categorized as WFO cases. The whistleblower explained: Instead, task force members in Washington D.C. identify “potential subjects” and possible locations where these individuals reside. The task force disseminates information packets with instructions to open full investigations to [local] Field Offices around the country. As such, if a subject lives in Dallas, the Dallas Field Office is expected to open the case . . . . Although the local field offices therefore appear to be running the cases on paper, the WFO is directing the field office special agents to just “open the case” in their geographic area and the WFO is performing and approving “all of the investigative work and paperwork for the casefile.” The whistleblower described how “there are active criminal investigations of January 6th subjects in which I am listed as the ‘Case Agent,’ but have not done any investigative work” and the whistleblower’s supervisor “has not approved any paperwork within” those investigative files. This scheme gives the FBI a pretense to support Director Wray’s assertion that “[t]he FBI is a field-based law enforcement organization, and the vast majority of our investigations should continue to be worked by our field offices,” while actually running the investigation from Washington.16 The whistleblower explained how the WFO’s deviation from established practice misrepresents the DVE threat nationwide: The manipulative casefile practice creates false and misleading crime statistics. Instead of hundreds of investigations stemming from a single, black swan incident at the Capitol, FBI and DOJ officials point to significant increases in domestic violent extremism and terrorism around the United States. In other words, the FBI’s case categorization creates the illusion that FBI field offices around the country are investigating a groundswell of domestic terrorism cases, giving the impression that the threat of DVE is present in jurisdictions across the nation. In reality, however, the cases all stem from the same related investigation concerning the actions at the Capitol on January 6. Such an artificial case categorization scheme allows FBI leadership to misleadingly point to “significant” increases in DVE threats nationwide.17 In addition, the whistleblower disclosed that the FBI is sacrificing its other important federal law-enforcement duties to pursue these January 6 investigations. The whistleblower recalled, for example, being “told that child sexual abuse material investigations were no longer an FBI priority and should be referred to local law enforcement agencies.” This decision to ignore such serious crimes is a dereliction of the FBI’s mission to investigate violations of federal laws and a disservice to the victims of child sexual abuse crimes.
iii. A senior FBI official responsible for pushing DVE investigations has an alleged history of impropriety and political bias.
Not only have Committee Republicans learned that the FBI is artificially padding DVE statistics and manipulating case categorization at the WFO, but the official responsible for pressuring agents to reclassify cases as DVE cases at the WFO has a history of impropriety and political bias. This official, Timothy Thibault, worked as an ASAC in the FBI’s WFO, which has traditionally handled the nation’s “most politically charged investigations.”18 According to whistleblowers and other information, Thibault has allowed his political bias to infect and steer his decision-making at the FBI. In a letter to Director Wray, Senate Judiciary Ranking Member Chuck Grassley revealed how Thibault had made partisan social media posts that suggest a bias against conservatives.19 Thibault allegedly used his official title in these posts. According to Senator Grassley, “Thibault’s social media postings, comments, and ‘likes’ demonstrate a pattern of improper commentary related to, for example, ongoing FBI investigations including those under his purview.”20 Following a letter from Senator Grassley, Thibault “suppressed” his accounts from public view.21 In addition, Thibault has apparently allowed partisanship to affect his decisions to open and pursue public corruption investigations, including an investigation involving electors and the Trump campaign.22 FBI whistleblowers disclosed to Senator Grassley that there is a “double standard in the application of Justice Department and FBI policies [that] has resulted in investigations opened in a manner appearing to benefit the political aims and objectives of a select few Justice Department and FBI officials.”23 Whistleblowers disclosed that Thibault, along with Richard Pilger of the Justice Department’s Election Crimes Branch, “were deeply involved in the decisions to open and pursue” an investigation into the Trump campaign and individuals linked to 2020 electors.24 Contrary to FBI protocol, the predicating document—used to get approvals for opening a full investigation from the FBI Director and Attorney General— contained “selective assertions created in large part by Thibault” and from liberal organizations”25 According to whistleblowers, Thibault and Pilger “did not support” and “marginalized” FBI agents seeking to uniformly apply Department and FBI policies on approving and opening election crime investigations.26 Thibault and Pilger allegedly fostered an environment in which political bias infects “the process and procedure to open and pursue investigations.”27 Pilger, too, has a sordid history of using federal law-enforcement powers to target conservatives. In 2010, responding to a public appeal from Senator Sheldon Whitehouse about so-called “dark money” in politics, Pilger pushed the idea to notorious Internal Revenue Service official Lois Lerner that the Obama Justice Department could criminally prosecute conservative nonprofit groups.28 This pressure campaign ultimately resulted in the IRS targeting scandal, in which the IRS systematically delayed and overly scrutinized the tax-exempt applications filed by conservative groups. Pilger quit the Justice Department following the 2020 election because he believed that he—not the Attorney General—had authority to dictate investigative steps relating to election fraud.29 Pilger quickly rejoined the Justice Department in his former role at the outset of the Biden Administration.
Thibault was also allegedly part of the effort to suppress evidence damaging to the Biden family in the weeks before the 2020 presidential election. Senator Grassley revealed how Thibault was part of a “scheme” to discredit derogatory Hunter Biden information and how he ordered the closure of an additional avenue for reporting damaging information about Hunter Biden.30 Whistleblowers who contacted Senator Grassley alleged that “there was a scheme in place among certain FBI officials to undermine derogatory information connected to Hunter Biden by falsely suggesting it was disinformation.”31 In August 2020, FBI Supervisory Intelligence Analyst Brian Auten created an assessment that caused “derogatory information on Hunter Biden” to be “falsely labeled as disinformation.”32 Additionally, whistleblowers disclosed that investigators from FBI Headquarters “placed their findings” regarding whether Hunter Biden information was disinformation “in a restricted access sub-file reviewable only by the particular agents responsible for uncovering the specific information,” closing the door to proper oversight of the investigation.33 In October 2020, Thibault ordered the closure of another avenue for additional derogatory Hunter Biden reporting “without providing a valid reason as required by FBI guidelines.” Thibault “attempted to improperly mark the matter in FBI systems so that it could not be opened in the future.”34 At an August 2022 hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Director Wray disclosed that “until relatively recently” Thibault was an ASAC at the WFO. When pressed about Thibault’s impropriety, Director Wray declined to answer, alluding to “specific ongoing personnel matters.”35 In late August 2022, Thibault reportedly resigned and “was walked out of the FBI.”36 On September 23, 2022, Committee Republicans wrote to Thibault noting that “whistleblowers have come to Congress alleging that you were part of a scheme to undermine and discredit allegations of criminal wrongdoing by members of the Biden family.”37 The letter requested that Thibault submit to a transcribed interview before the House Committee on the Judiciary and preserve all records related to the matter.38 On October 7, 2022, Thibault, through his attorney, declined to appear for a transcribed interview.39 Thibault’s refusal to testify contravened his earlier public statement that he “welcome[d] any investigation” into these matters.40 Committee Republicans reiterated the request for a transcribed interview in a second letter on October 14, 2022, noting that Thibault’s baseless assertion that “sensitive law enforcement information and/or pending investigations”41 prevents his cooperation with the inquiry ignores the importance of congressional oversight, as well as the Committee’s past practice in examining allegations of misconduct at the FBI.42
iv. The FBI appears to have manufactured at least one DVE case: the attempted kidnapping of Governor Gretchen Whitmer.
Not only is the FBI apparently exaggerating the number of actual DVE cases, it appears to have manufactured at least one DVE case. Weeks before the November 2020 presidential election, the Justice Department filed a criminal complaint against six men for allegedly conspiring to kidnap Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer. Evidence presented at trial suggests that FBI assets were directly involved in the kidnapping plot. Defense attorneys argued that the FBI set up their clients. Evidence presented in the trial revealed an extravagant taxpayer-funded FBI entrapment scheme that involved at least twelve confidential human sources (CHS) and undercover agents who assembled a group of men over a half-year period “with unstable personal histories (that left them extraordinarily susceptible to persuasion) and injected into the mix the kind of father-figure, military-hero role models the men craved in their lives.”43 At the time of their recruitment by FBI assets, multiple defendants were allegedly destitute.44 The FBI’s involvement in the scheme was substantial. According to defense attorneys, “[t]he government’s agents actively planned and coordinated its efforts to induce the defendants to engage in incriminating behavior and statements, even going so far as designing the objective and structural components of the conspiracy alleged in the indictment.”45 Court documents detailed text communications between FBI CHSs and their FBI handlers that show the FBI pushed for the defendants’ alleged criminal behavior. For instance, “surveillance trips were planned and orchestrated entirely by FBI agents supporting undercover informants.”46 Text messages revealed that someone called “Big Dan,” an FBI CHS revealed to be Dan Chappel, “suggested the recons, invited the participants, provided transportation, gas, food, and direction, and largely determined where [the group] went and when and how they got there.”47 According to one court document, “Big Dan” was paid “in cash for his expenses and time, including purchasing a phone, a smart watch, and a $4,307.00 laptop computer.”48 In total, the FBI paid “Big Dan” over $54,000 between March 2020 to October 2020.49 Text messages produced to the defense also revealed that “Big Dan” allegedly suggested a separate plot targeting former Virginia Governor Ralph Northam. In a text message, “Big Dan” told FBI Special Agent Jayson Chambers, his FBI handler, that he intended to contact his target, a man named “Frank” in Virginia. Chambers, an FBI Special Agent, directed Big Dan: “The mission is to kill the governor specifically.”50 According to defense attorneys, “[t]he objective of the [alleged Virginia] plot is clearly being derived and advanced by Special Agent Chambers. By issuing this edict, ‘Big Dan’ has been charged to develop that [Virginia] plot specifically. The plot in this case shared the same objective: the governor.”51 The FBI also used a longtime CHS and convicted felon, Stephen Robeson, to assist in the alleged Michigan plot. Robeson worked as a CHS since the early 2000s.52 According to one court document, between the end of 2019 and May 2020, Robeson worked as a CHS with the Milwaukee, Norfolk, Baltimore, and Detroit FBI field offices.53 Working for the FBI, Robeson organized field and “training” exercises drawing the defendants into the alleged plot.54 According to a court document, Robeson’s actions “ranged from arranging meetings and providing conference rooms to coordinate FTXs [Field Training Exercises] for the defendants to attend and transporting weapons, defendants and explosives across the country.”55 Defense lawyers asserted that Robeson’s “handling [FBI] agents knew of his role within the group and acquiesced in his actions under the guise of maintaining access and credibility within the group.”56 On July 28, 2022, Representative Dan Bishop questioned Assistant Attorney General Matthew Olsen about the case during a Judiciary Committee oversight hearing of the Justice Department’s National Security Division. 57 Olsen refused to answer any questions about the Id. Defendants.
B. The FBI downplayed and sought to reduce the spread of the serious allegations of wrongdoing leveled against Hunter Biden
Mounting evidence from the last two years shows that Hunter Biden, son of President Biden, has received preferential treatment from federal law enforcement, who seem to have turned a blind eye to the potential national security threats presented by his business dealings with Chinese, Russian, and other foreign nationals. Other evidence suggests that the FBI may have even colluded with social media platform Facebook to suppress information on these allegations from the public in the weeks before the 2020 presidential election. 59 The way the FBI has approached the allegations concerning Hunter Biden and the Biden family is especially striking when considered alongside public information about how the FBI leadership has aggressively used law-enforcement authorities against conservatives. In September 2020, then-Senate Chairmen Ron Johnson and Chuck Grassley released an explosive report detailing “potential criminal activity relating to transactions among and between Hunter Biden, his family, and his associates with Ukrainian, Russian, Kazakh, and Chinese nationals.”60 The Chairmen detailed how Hunter Biden allegedly received $3.5 million from the wife of the former mayor of Moscow61 and paid “thousands of dollars” to individuals involved in human trafficking and organized prostitution.62 In addition, the report detailed Hunter Biden’s questionable associations with people affiliated with the Chinese communist regime: Hunter Biden and his family, to include James Biden and Sara Biden, associated with other Chinese nationals such as Gongwen Dong. In one case, the three of them went on a $100,000 global spending spree after Gongwen Dong and Hunter Biden opened a joint account. In addition, Hunter Biden received millions of dollars over a period of years from Gongwen Dong’s companies. According to records acquired by the Committees, many of these transactions involved potential criminal financial activity.
Mounting evidence from the last two years shows that Hunter Biden, son of President Biden, has received preferential treatment from federal law enforcement, who seem to have turned a blind eye to the potential national security threats presented by his business dealings with Chinese, Russian, and other foreign nationals. Other evidence suggests that the FBI may have even colluded with social media platform Facebook to suppress information on these allegations from the public in the weeks before the 2020 presidential election. 59 The way the FBI has approached the allegations concerning Hunter Biden and the Biden family is especially striking when considered alongside public information about how the FBI leadership has aggressively used law-enforcement authorities against conservatives. In September 2020, then-Senate Chairmen Ron Johnson and Chuck Grassley released an explosive report detailing “potential criminal activity relating to transactions among and between Hunter Biden, his family, and his associates with Ukrainian, Russian, Kazakh, and Chinese nationals.”60 The Chairmen detailed how Hunter Biden allegedly received $3.5 million from the wife of the former mayor of Moscow61 and paid “thousands of dollars” to individuals involved in human trafficking and organized prostitution.62 In addition, the report detailed Hunter Biden’s questionable associations with people affiliated with the Chinese communist regime: Hunter Biden and his family, to include James Biden and Sara Biden, associated with other Chinese nationals such as Gongwen Dong. In one case, the three of them went on a $100,000 global spending spree after Gongwen Dong and Hunter Biden opened a joint account. In addition, Hunter Biden received millions of dollars over a period of years from Gongwen Dong’s companies. According to records acquired by the Committees, many of these transactions involved potential criminal financial activity.
ged the terms of Biden’s three-year consulting agreement with CEFC China Energy, a company that is essentially an arm of the Chinese government, to a “much more lasting and lucrative arrangement” that was “much more interesting to me and my family.”73 Under the terms of the agreement, Hunter Biden wrote that he would receive $10 million a year “for introductions alone.”74 The Post’s reports cast doubts on now-President Biden’s denial of ever speaking to Hunter Biden about his international business dealings.75 On April 5, 2022, Committee Republicans sent a letter to Hunter Biden requesting that he immediately preserve all records and materials relating to his international business dealings during the Obama-Biden Administration, his abandoned laptop and its contents, and media inquiries and communications related to these topics.76 Hunter Biden and his attorneys have failed to respond to the Committee. Whistleblower information suggests that FBI leadership in Washington may be the reason why the FBI seems to have provided Hunter Biden with special treatment. In July 2022, Senator Grassley sent a letter to Director Wray reporting allegations that FBI ASAC Thibault of the WFO shut down the investigation into Hunter Biden.77 Ranking Member Grassley wrote: My office has been made aware that FBI agents responsible for this information were interviewed by the FBI HQ team . . . . It’s been alleged that the FBI HQ team suggested to the FBI agents that the information was at risk of disinformation; however, according to allegations, all of the reporting was either verified or verifiable via criminal search warrants. In addition, ASAC Thibault allegedly ordered the matter closed without providing a valid reason as required by FBI guidelines. Despite the matter being closed in such a way that the investigative avenue might be opened later, it’s alleged that FBI officials, including ASAC Thibault, subsequently attempted to improperly mark the matter in FBI systems so that it could not be opened in the future.78 In addition to shutting down federal investigations into criminal wrongdoing by Hunter Biden, FBI leadership may have similarly prevented the widespread dissemination of the allegations. On August 25, 2022, while speaking on a podcast with Joe Rogan, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg admitted that Facebook took “meaningful” steps to censor articles related to Hunter Biden’s laptop on the social media platform following a warning by the FBI.79 Zuckerberg said: “Basically the background here is the FBI, I think basically came to us—some folks on our team—and was like, ‘Hey, just so you know, you should be on high alert. We thought that there was a lot of Russian propaganda in the 2016 election. We have it on notice that basically there’s about to be some kind of dump that’s similar to that.”
So just be vigilant.’80 Congress is continuing to investigate the role the FBI may be playing in protecting Hunter Biden.
C. The Justice Department and FBI is using counterterrorism resources to target parents resisting a far-left educational curriculum.
As the radical left continued to push a woke agenda on America’s children, parents across the country started to speak out at school board meetings against critical race theory, mask mandates, and controversial curricula. As more parents spoke out, the National School Boards Association (NSBA) and the Biden Administration colluded to create a justification, articulated in an October 4 memorandum from Attorney General Garland, to use federal law-enforcement tools to silence parents. Committee Republicans have repeatedly called on Attorney General Garland to rescind his ill-conceived memorandum that brought the heavy hand of federal law enforcement down upon America’s parents. It is unacceptable for the Biden Administration to use federal domestic terrorism resources to target American parents. The use of these resources chills protected First Amendment activity as parents rightfully fear that their passionate advocacy for their children could result in a visit from federal law enforcement.
i. Attorney General Garland issued a memorandum that inserted federal law enforcement into local school board meetings.
On September 29, 2021, the NSBA sent a letter to President Biden equating concerned parents voicing their opinion at school board meetings with domestic terrorists and urging the Biden Administration to exercise its authorities under the Patriot Act.82 The NSBA letter stated that “malice, violence, and threats” against school officials “could be the equivalent of a form of domestic terrorism and hate crimes.”83 The letter cited a number of interactions at school board meetings, the vast majority of which did not involve violence or threats.84 Notably, as one “example” of alleged domestic terrorism, the NSBA cited an instance in Loudoun County, Virginia, where a father angrily confronted members at a school board meeting about the heinous sexual assault of his daughter.85 On October 4, 2021, just five days after the NSBA letter, Attorney General Garland issued a memorandum that directed the FBI and U.S. Attorneys’ Offices to address a purported “disturbing spike in harassment, intimidation, and threats of violence” at school board meetings.86 The memorandum explained that the Department would be “using its authority and resources to discourage these threats, identify them when they occur, and prosecute them when appropriate.”87 In a press release announcing the Attorney General’s memorandum, the Justice Department announced that the National Security Division would be part of a Department-wide task force “to determine how federal enforcement tools can be used to prosecute these crimes.”88 The press release also announced the existence of “open dedicated lines of communication for threat reporting, assessment and response by law enforcement”—in other words, a snitch line for complaints about concerned parents.89 On October 21, 2021, Attorney General Garland testified before the House Judiciary Committee that the Department and its components were not using counterterrorism statutes and resources to target concerned parents at school board meetings.90 Specifically, he testified that he could not “imagine any circumstance in which the Patriot Act would be used in the circumstances of parents complaining about their children, nor . . . a circumstance where they would be labeled as domestic terrorists.”91 He also testified: “I do not think that parents getting angry at school boards for whatever reason constitute domestic terrorism. It’s not even a close question.”
Following the Attorney General’s testimony, the NSBA Board of Directors issued a new memorandum to its members apologizing for the letter, stating: “On behalf of NSBA, we regret and apologize for the letter.”93 (emphasis in original). Although Attorney General Garland testified that the NSBA letter was the basis for his October 4 directive to insert federal law enforcement into local school board matters, the Attorney General has yet to rescind his memorandum.
ii. The Biden Administration colluded with the NSBA to create a justification to use federal law enforcement against parents.
The NSBA letter and ensuing Biden Administration action was the product of weeks of discussions between the Justice Department, the White House, and the NSBA. On May 20, 2022, the NSBA released a report it had commissioned to examine the events surrounding its September 29 letter to President Biden.94 This report offered new evidence of how the Justice Department coordinated with the White House to target parents. The report found that the first communications between the NSBA and the White House occurred on September 9, and that the Biden White House closely coordinated with the NSBA on its letter to President Biden.95 On September 21—eight days before the NSBA letter—Mary Wall, a Senior Policy Advisor to President Biden, emailed NSBA’s Interim CEO and Executive Director Chip Slaven, asking: Is there any way we can take a look at the letter in advance of release? In specific, I’m meeting w colleagues from other WH offices and DOJ tomorrow morning to see if there might be any options we can pursue here, so if you have concrete recommendations in your letter (e.g., the threat assessment you mentioned), would be good to know so I can include in discussions.96 In response, Slaven emailed Wall a detailed summary of the contents of the letter, which included specific language about the Patriot Act and the use of domestic terrorism tools.97 The NSBA-commissioned report concluded that “White House officials discussed the existence of the [NSBA] Letter, its requests, and the contents of the Letter with Department of Justice officials more than a week before the Letter was finalized and sent to President Biden.”98 In other words, Justice Department officials knew that the NSBA would encourage President Biden to invoke the Patriot Act and domestic terrorism resources against parents, and the Justice Department apparently raised no concern about this effort. The report also noted how President Biden telephoned the then-NSBA president to say he was “appreciative” of the September 29 letter and to invite her to the Oval Office.99 The NSBA-commissioned report also uncovered communications between Justice Department employees and NSBA staff prior to the release of the Attorney General’s October 4 memorandum. The report found that on October 4, a Justice Department employee contacted Slaven “about steps the Department could take to address the threats referenced in Letter.”100 Justice Department officials and Slaven had a call that afternoon, after which Alivia Roberts, Special Assistant to the Director of Public Affairs, followed uup with an email to Slaven that included an advance copy of Garland’s memorandum'.
iii. The Justice Department is using criminal and counterterrorism resources to tag and investigate parents.
Contrary to Attorney General Garland’s testimony to the Committee, whistleblower information shows that the Justice Department and the FBI quickly operationalized Attorney General Garland’s directive. On October 20, 2021—the day before Attorney General Garland’s testimony to the House Judiciary Committee—the FBI’s Assistant Director for the Counterterrorism Division and the Assistant Director for the Criminal Division sent an email referencing Garland’s October 4 directive and notifying FBI personnel about a new “threat tag” created to apply to school board investigations.102 The email directed FBI personnel to apply this new EDUOFFICIALS threat tag to all “investigations and assessments of threats specifically directed against school board administrators, board members, teachers, and staff.”103 The email articulated the purpose as “scop[ing] this threat on a national level and provid[ing] an opportunity for comprehensive analysis of the threat picture for effective engagement with law enforcement partners at all levels.”104 Information from whistleblowers show that the FBI has opened investigations with the EDUOFFICIALS threat tag in almost every region of the country and relating to all types of educational settings. The information received shows how, as a direct result of Attorney General Garland’s October 4 directive, federal law enforcement is using counterterrorism resources to investigate protected First Amendment activity. For example: • In one investigation, an FBI Field Office interviewed a mom for allegedly telling a local school board “we are coming for you.” The complaint, which came into the FBI through the National Threat Operations Center snitch-line, alleged that the mom was a threat because she belonged to a “right wing mom’s group” known as “Moms for Liberty” and because she “is a gun owner.” When an FBI agent interviewed the mom, she told the agent that she was upset about the school board’s mask mandates and that her statement was a warning that her organization would seek to replace the school board with new members through the electoral process. • An FBI Field Office opened an investigation into a dad opposed to mask mandates. The complaint came in through the National Threat Operations Center snitch-line and alleged that the dad “fit the profile of an insurrectionist” because he “rails against the government,” “believes all conspiracy theories,” and “has a lot of guns and threatens to use them.” When an FBI agent interviewed the complainant, the complainant admitted they had “no specific information or observations of . . . any crimes or threats,” but they contacted the FBI after learning the Justice Department had a website “to submit tips to the FBI in regards to any concerning behavior directed toward school boards.” • In another case, an FBI Field Office opened an investigation into Republican state elected officials after a state Democrat party official accused them of making an “online terroristic threat by politicians against school board members.” This complaint also came into the FBI through the National Threat Operations Center snitch-line. It alleged that one Republican official “incited violence” against school board members by expressing displeasure with school districts’ vaccine mandates. These investigations into concerned parents were the direct result of Attorney General Garland’s October 4 directive. Each of the cases was initiated following the directive, the complaints came into the FBI through the same snitch-line—the National Threat Operations Center—highlighted in the press release accompanying the October 4 memorandum. One complainant even told an FBI agent that they reported the tip to the FBI because of the snitchline, despite having “no specific information” about any actual threat. The Justice Department has subjected these moms and dads to the opening of an FBI investigation about them, the establishment of an FBI case file that includes their political views, and the application of a “threat tag” to their names as a direct result of their exercise of their fundamental constitutional right to speak and advocate for their children. This information is just more evidence of how the FBI is a willing partner of the Biden Administration’s use of federal law enforcement, including counterterrorism resources, to investigate concerned parents for protected First Amendment activity. Committee Republicans have repeatedly called on Attorney General Garland to rescind his memorandum and have sought information and documents in over 100 letters to Departmental components.105 To date, the Justice Department and FBI have only responded with two dismissive half-page letters, and with no requested documents or substantive information. Every day that passes while the Garland memorandum remains in effect, the Biden Administration and the FBI continue to use criminal and counterterrorism resources against America’s moms and dads.
D. The FBI is abusing its foreign surveillance authorities.
The FBI has continually violated its Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) authorities,106 a pattern of abuses that have been well-documented by the Justice Department Office of Inspector General (OIG) and the FISA Court. Evidence available to the Committee shows the FBI’s leadership has failed to implement meaningful reforms to prevent the abuse of such an awesome power. Over the years, the OIG has issued numerous reports where it has critiqued the FBI’s handling of surveillance authorities. In December 2019, the OIG issued a 478-page report finding the FBI had abused the FISA authority to illegally surveil former Trump campaign associate Carter Page.107 That report found 17 significant “errors or omissions” and 51 wrong or unsupported factual assertions in the applications to surveil Page.108 The OIG found that the FBI downplayed the significance of the Democrat National Committee-financed opposition research document prepared by Christopher Steele (so-called “Steele dossier”) in the applications, intentionally misstated Steele’s reliability as a source, and failed to disclose Steele’s biases.109 The OIG also noted how the FBI cherry-picked facts to support its applications—ignoring exculpatory evidence—and how one FBI lawyer even doctored evidence presented to a judge to support surveillance against Page.110 The FBI’s misconduct was so bad that the Justice Department was later forced to admit that “there was insufficient predication to establish probable cause to believe that [Carter] Page was acting as an agent of a foreign power.”111 Despite these troubling OIG findings, FBI leadership sought to peddle a narrative that the FISA abuses were not too serious. In the 116th Congress, on February 5, 2020, Director Wray testified before the Committee. During the hearing, Director Wray indicated that the FBI was taking the FISA abuses seriously and working to address them.112 At that hearing, Director Wray testified that Americans should not “lose any sleep over” the “vast majority” of FISA applications.113 Similarly, during a transcribed interview with the Committee in December 2018, former FBI Director Comey heralded the FBI’s FISA operations as a “labor-intensive and supervision heavy” process with an emphasis on high standards.114 Comey labeled it a “top tier” FBI program.115 Only a month after Wray’s assurances, the OIG again disclosed serious problems with the FBI’s FISA processes in a March 2020 management advisory. This management advisory noted extensive noncompliance with Woods Procedures—an internal FBI process to minimize factual inaccuracies in FISA applications by requiring the FBI to maintain supporting documentation for each factual assertion in the application.116 The OIG wrote that it “do[es] not have confidence that the FBI has executed its Woods Procedures in compliance with FBI policy, or that the process is working as it was intended to help achieve the ‘scrupulously accurate’ standard for FISA applications.”117 In its management advisory, the OIG alerted Director Wray to unsupported, uncorroborated, or inconsistent information in the Woods Files of all 25 surveillance applications on U.S. persons examined by the OIG.118 The FBI was unable to even locate the Woods Files for four additional files that the OIG requested—meaning the OIG could not review those applications.119 The OIG “identified an average of about 20 issues per application reviewed,” with 65 issues found in one FISA application alone.120 These OIG findings undercut the FBI leaderships’ stated confidence in the FISA process. This March 2020 management advisory was only an early warning notice that alerted Director Wray to extensive noncompliance with Woods Procedures. In September 2021, the OIG issued a more detailed report that confirmed its initial finding of widespread non-compliance with the Woods Procedures.121 This report revealed that there “were over 400 instances of noncompliance with the Woods Procedures in connection with those 29 FISA applications” (four of which were not located).122 The OIG identified instances where Woods Files did not include sufficient supporting documentation for statements in the application.123 The OIG found four errors that the DOJ and the FBI admitted were “material”—that could have possibly altered the FISA court’s determination of “probable cause” to grant a warrant.124 The OIG stated there is a “need for the FBI and DOJ to ensure rigorous supervisory review and robust oversight to help reduce the risk of erroneous information being included in FISA applications.”125 Additionally, according to information from the Office of the Director for National Intelligence (ODNI), the FBI has misused FISA-collected information to surveil Americans without a warrant.126 Under existing law, the FBI receives a portion of the information the government collects under Section 702 of FISA, and is authorized to conduct queries of this information that are reasonably likely to return foreign intelligence information, or evidence of a crime. 127 Queries that involve U.S. persons should raise oversight sensitivities to ensure rights are protected. However, ODNI data revealed that the FBI conducted an estimated 3,394,053 U.S. person queries in 2021 compared to approximately 1,324,057 U.S. person queries in 2020.128 ODNI stated that more than half of the queries, or about 1.9 million, were related to attempts to compromise U.S. critical infrastructure by foreign cyber actors, which the Biden Administration has attributed to Russian hackers.129 The ODNI report also noted that, on at least four occasions, the FBI failed to obtain an order from the FISC before accessing the contents of Section 702- acquired information.130 The FISC has also raised alarm about the FBI’s actions in using FISA-acquired data for domestic criminal and other non-intelligence purposes. In November 2020, the FISC disclosed that “the government ha[d] reported numerous incidents” in which the FBI queried Section 702- acquired information for criminal investigations and reviewed content results without first obtaining court permission.131 The FISC noted the discovery of 40 queries in which the FBI accessed information for investigations involving “health-care fraud, transnational organized crime, violent gangs, domestic terrorism involving racially motivated violent extremists, as well as investigations relating to public corruption and bribery,” all of which were unrelated to foreign surveillance.132 According to the FISC, “[n]one of these queries was related to national security, and they returned numerous Section 702-acquired products in response.” Judge James E. Boasberg, the then-presiding judge of the FISC, concluded that “the Court is concerned about the apparent widespread violations . . . .”134 The FISC ultimately issued an order expanding the FBI’s FISA reporting requirements to include “the number of U.S.-Person queries run by the FBI against Section-702 acquired information.”135 This incident was not the first time that the FISC reported about the FBI’s “apparent widespread violations” of privacy rules in conducting surveillance under Section 702 of FISA.136 In October 2018, Judge Boasberg disclosed that “the FBI, against the advice of its general counsel, queried the Section 702 data using more than 70,000 email addresses or phone numbers.”137 Similarly, in December 2019, Judge Boasberg “found that the FBI again transgressed the privacy rules by searching for information on a job candidate, potential sources and a crime victim.”138 These are just a few examples of the FBI’s compliance failures, which both the OIG and the FISC have substantiated in other reports.139 Committee Republicans have conducted oversight of the FBI’s rampant abuses of FISA authorities and its associated provisions.140 To date, the FBI has not provided data or information to fully satisfy oversight requests or even to begin to alleviate concerns. The FBI’s misuse of its FISA authorities is a prominent example of how the FBI is abusing the existing authorities under federal law. Separately, Committee Republicans have examined the FBI’s acquisition and testing of software that allows it to infiltrate private cellphones. The NSO Group, an Israeli software company, gained widespread notoriety in 2021 after several media organizations published allegations that one of its products—named “Pegasus”—had been used by foreign governments to surveil dissidents, journalists, U.S. officials, and others.141 Pegasus is a spyware tool that allows an operator to compromise a target’s mobile device without requiring any input from the target.142 After compromising a device, the operator can retrieve data on the device, track the device’s location, and commandeer the device’s camera and microphone.143 The FBI has reportedly investigated whether Pegasus has been used against targets within the U.S. in recent years.144 As part of the allegations, media outlets reported that Pegasus was incapable of compromising mobile devices with U.S. phone numbers.145 However, on January 28, 2022, the New York Times reported that the NSO Group has made a version of Pegasus capable of targeting U.S. mobile devices, called “Phantom.”146 This same report alleged that the FBI had acquired access to NSO Group spyware in 2019, tested it, and retains the hardware necessary to use it.147 The FBI has since acknowledged that it acquired and tested NSO Group spyware.148 On March 3, 2022, Committee Republicans wrote to FBI Director Wray seeking documents and information relating to the FBI’s acquisition, testing, and any other uses of NSO Group’s spyware.149 Committee Members on both sides of the aisle similarly raised this issue with FBI Assistant Director Bryan Vorndran in a March 29, 2022 hearing.150 Although the FBI provided a classified briefing on June 16, and offered limited written responses to three questions posed at the briefing,151 Committee Republicans have received none of the requested documents or communications, or sufficient information to evaluate the FBI’s involvement with the NSO Group or Pegasus software. Subsequent reporting about the possible purchase of NSO Group by an American defense contractor also raises additional questions about the FBI’s actions and plans to acquire a sophisticated spyware tool that could be used against American citizens.152 The June 16, 2022 briefing did not touch on the FBI’s reported involvement in the contemplated sale of NSO Group to the American defense contractor.
E. The Justice Department and FBI conducted an unprecedented raid on a former president’s home.
On August 8, 2022, the FBI raided President Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence in Palm Beach, Florida, purportedly to seize government and presidential records.153 In the process, the FBI seized numerous other materials such as books, magazines, newspapers, clothing, gifts, and privileged documents.154 This unprecedented raid comes after months of ongoing discussions and negotiations between President Trump and the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) regarding records from his time in office.155 The FBI’s use of such aggressive law-enforcement tactics against a political opponent of the Biden Administration is another indication of how the FBI is guided by political considerations. Former Justice Department and White House officials David Rivkin and Lee Casey criticized the FBI’s aggressive tactics, explaining that the FBI “could and should have sought a less intrusive judicial remedy than a search warrant—a restraining order allowing the materials to be moved to a location with the proper storage facilities, but also ensuring Mr. Trump continuing access.”156 The Biden Justice Department has provided limited justification for this unprecedented action through a heavily redacted warrant affidavit and selective leaks to favored media outlets. The affidavit alleged probable cause to suspect three federal crimes relating to federal records— misuse of national defense information; obstruction of justice by destroying, altering, or falsifying records related to a federal probe; and concealing, removing, or destroying protected federal documents.157 The affidavit also alleged probable cause to suspect evidence of obstruction.158 However, the unredacted portions of the affidavit provide little support for these allegations and the unprecedented action. The Biden Justice Department has hidden behind a formal policy of not commenting on the investigation, while it engaged in selective leaks of salacious accusations without context. On August 11, 2022, Attorney General Garland publicly addressed the search for the first time, stating, “I have made clear that the Department of Justice will speak through its court filings and its work.”159 On the same day as Attorney General Garland’s promise, however, the Washington Post reported that FBI agents were seeking “classified documents relating to nuclear weapons” according to leaks from “people familiar with the investigation.”160 The New York Times later reported details about the material seized, citing leaks from “people briefed on the matter.”161 The Justice Department’s affidavit and subsequent media leaks do not explain why a raid was necessary despite President Trump’s cooperation and the availability of other process. In January 2022, President Trump transferred 15 boxes of documents from Mar-a-Lago to NARA.162 In February 2022, NARA issued a public statement noting the cooperation of President Trump in the identification and submission of certain records.163 In fact, his submission of records was over-inclusive. According to NARA, this submission included personal and post-presidential records, along with presidential correspondence and documents with classification markings.164 Subsequently, in May 2022, President Trump voluntarily accepted service of a grand jury subpoena that sought documents bearing classification markings.165 Throughout June 2022, the Department and President Trump’s lawyers engaged in discussions about the matter.166 On June 3, the FBI visited Mar-a-largo and President Trump allowed them to inspect his storage room.167 President Trump also provided responsive documents during the visit.168 On June 8, the FBI requested that President Trump further secure the storage room, which he did.169 President Trump also made staff available for voluntary interviews.170 On June 22, the FBI subpoenaed surveillance footage from cameras at Mar-a-Largo.171 The Trump Organization voluntarily accepted the subpoena and provided the footage.172 On September 13, a federal judge unsealed additional portions of the affidavit—although still largely redacted—that showed President Trump had returned even more documents to the Department than previously known.
Despite the publicly available evidence of cooperation, Attorney General Garland personally approved the decision to seek a warrant for excessive and unprecedented access to President Trump’s private residence.174 FBI agents spent approximately nine hours rummaging through President Trump’s personal belongings.175 They collected more than 11,000 documents, more than 1,600 press articles and printed materials, 19 items of clothing or gifts, and 33 books.176 They also collected about 100 documents with classification markings.177 The way that the FBI and Justice Department used their law-enforcement authorities to raid President Trump’s residence differed drastically from the kid-glove treatment it gave former Secretary Hillary Clinton. Unlike President Trump, Secretary Clinton was not commander-inchief and therefore the ultimate arbiter of national security information. The FBI never raided her private residence to recover classified information on her personal server, executed a search warrant or served a subpoena. Instead, the Justice Department allowed her lawyers to sort through Secretary Clinton’s emails and determine which emails to preserve and which to delete. In fact, during the Clinton investigation, the FBI granted her senior aides blanket immunity and even allowed one—Cheryl Mills—to sit in on Clinton’s interview as her attorney, even though Mills was a fact witness herself.178 Despite Secretary Clinton’s mishandling of classified information on her private server,179 then-Director Comey exonerated her conduct.180 Director Comey read into the “gross negligence” standard of 18 U.S.C. § 793(f) an intent element and he concluded that Secretary Clinton lacked the intent to mishandle classified information.181 Director Comey did so even though the FBI found that 110 emails in 52 separate email chains on Clinton’s server contained classified information at the time the emails were transmitted or received. Eight email chains contained Top Secret information, 36 email chains contained Secret information, and eight email chains contained Confidential information.183 Moreover, another 2,000 emails were later found to contain classified information.184 According to the FBI, Clinton “used her personal e-mail extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related emails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries.”185 The FBI initially determined it was “reasonably likely” that hostile actors gained access to [former] Secretary Clinton’s private email account, but it later changed this determination to “possible.”186 Moreover, after discovery of her misuse of classified emails, Clinton allowed her representatives to use “BleachBit” to permanently wipe her emails.187 According to Clinton, her lawyers deleted over 30,000 emails that she determined to be unrelated to her official duties, without any review of the records by government lawyers.188 According to Constitutional professor Jonathan Turley, “the FBI’s handling of her [Hillary Clinton’s] case will cast a long shadow over any potential prosecution of the former president [Trump], including the recent focus on an obstruction charge. There likely would be an assortment of ‘but her emails’ objections to a charge that could have been made as readily against Clinton or her associates.”189 Professor Turley further noted that “the transfer of topsecret and other classified documents to her private server, Clinton and her staff did not fully cooperate with investigators. During the investigations of her conduct, some of us marveled at the temerity of the Clinton staff in refusing to turn over her laptop and other evidence to State Department and DOJ investigators. The FBI had to cut deals with her aides to secure their cooperation.”190 On August 15, 2022, Committee Republicans wrote Attorney General Garland, FBI Director Wray, and White House Chief of Staff Ronald Klain requesting documents and communications related to the FBI’s raid of President Trump’s residence.191 The Department and FBI have failed to sufficiently comply with this request to date. The White House has not responded at all. Additionally, on September 14, 2022, the Committee considered a resolution, H. Res. 1325, which requests that President Biden—and directs Attorney General Garland to— provide an unredacted copy of the affidavit to the House of Representatives related to the extraordinary and unprecedented FBI raid of a former president’s private residence. Democrats declined to join Republicans in the Committee’s constitutional duty to conduct oversight of theExecutive Branch and obtain access to the unredacted affidavit. Chairman Nadler misleadingly argued that “the affidavit has now been made public,”192 ignoring that the publicly available version of the affidavit remains heavily redacted. Rather than receive more facts and information about the FBI’s unprecedented raid of President Trump’s former residence, Democrats voted to report H. Res. 1325 unfavorably to the House of Representatives. Committee Republicans disagreed with that action.
And some of these liberal wackos on quora are claiming that Donald Trump has usurped the FBI and turned it against Democrats I'm guessing this is just to confuse the truth because we know that Democrats blame Republicans for what Democrats are doing
Since inception FBI has been political. I suspect Justice as well. The continual corruption simply is the cancer spread. When the host dies the cancer dies too.