reSee.it - Related Post Feed
@2012BNEWS - "B"... Editor-in-Chief of WTFQ 2012BNEWS
If you're #Catholic and you vote democrat - reconsider! Biden's FBI sees you as the enemy! Jim Jordan: FBI Is Infiltrating Catholic Parishes – https://thegatewaypundit.com/2023/04/jim-jordan-fbi-is-infiltrating-catholic-parishes-agents-engaging-in-outreach-with-catholic-clergy-to-inform-on-americans-practicing-christian-faith/ #gatewaypundit via @gatewaypundit https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/04/jim-jordan-fbi-is-infiltrating-catholic-parishes-agents-engaging-in-outreach-with-catholic-clergy-to-inform-on-americans-practicing-christian-faith/
Jim Jordan: FBI Is Infiltrating Catholic Parishes - Agents Engaging in Outreach with Catholic Clergy to Inform on Americans Practicing Christian Faith
thegatewaypundit.com
@nypost - New York Post
FBI refuses to give Congress informant file alleging Biden took bribes as vice president https://trib.al/nld2yYr
FBI refuses to give Congress informant file alleging Biden took bribes as vice president
The FBI has refused to hand over an informant file alleging that President Biden took bribes while he was vice president, The Post has learned.
nypost.com
@gatewaypundit - The Gateway Pundit
BREAKING: FBI Hiding Key Document Detailing Bribery Scheme Involving Joe Biden and Foreign National via @gatewaypundit https://ift.tt/7fmkIQE
BREAKING: FBI Hiding Key Document Detailing Bribery Scheme Involving Joe Biden and Foreign National | The Gateway Pundit | by Cristina Laila
The FBI and DOJ are hiding a key document from the GOP House Oversight Committee.
thegatewaypundit.com
@Rob1865_ - Rob/1865
Sorry it’s Fox News, but McCarthy has had enough with the FBI! https://t.co/4tCDhY3Qz2
Video Transcript AI Summary
I will contact Director Ray today to address the issue of FBI oversight. It is concerning that foreign countries are giving large sums of money to various LLCs connected to the Biden family, including grandchildren. We need to uncover the reasons behind this hidden money and understand why foreign funds are being received while Biden is in office.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: That's unacceptable. I'm gonna call, director Ray today because we have oversight of the FBI. We have the right. Comer is simply following information that he has found. We should find all the information.
Isn't it quite interesting that foreign countries Give 1,000,000 of dollars to different LLCs that trace down to the entire Biden family, to grandchildren. What are they doing? Why are you hiding money that direction? And why is Foreign money coming from other countries while he's in office.
@FemalesForTrump - FFT™ 👠 America First
This DOJ won’t do a damn thing! 🚨BREAKING: FBI Altered Crime Data to Align With Biden's Agenda, Whistleblowers Claim https://trendingpoliticsnews.com/breaking-fbi-altered-crime-data-to-align-with-bidens-agenda-whistleblowers-claim-mace/?utm_source=sheri&utm_medium=twitter
BREAKING: FBI Altered Crime Data to Align With Biden’s Agenda, Whistleblowers Claim
Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) has successfully arranged for the testimony of former FBI officials Garret O'Boyle, Steve Friend, and Marcus Allen, all of whom were
trendingpoliticsnews.com
@disclosetv - Disclose.tv
NOW - Durham report finds the FBI failed in its responsibility to the public and never should have launched the Trump-Russia probe. https://t.co/uIIQJYVrOS
Video Transcript AI Summary
After a 4-year investigation, the justice department released a 300-page report on the FBI's failures. Members of Congress will bring in John Durham to review the findings. The investigation confirms what we already knew from a previous inspector general report: the FBI did not uphold their duty to follow the law in certain events and activities related to the crossfire hurricane and intelligence operations.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Now an investigation that's 4 years in the making. And, we finally have the conclusions, more than 300 pages, released by the justice department now. It has now been transmitted to members of Congress who also are gonna wanna bring John Durham in, to, to review some of the findings. But the bottom line is this. The, the investigation found, that the FBI failed in many, many ways.
Things that we already new from a previous, inspector general report. And I'll read you just a part of it, of John Durham's conclusion. He says, based on the review of cross fire hurricane and related intelligence activities, we conclude that the department and the FBI failed to uphold their important mission of strict fidelity to the law in connection with certain events and activities described in this report.
@NickAdamsinUSA - Nick Adams (Alpha Male)
Top people at the FBI are admitting they didn't even bother to read the Durham report! https://conservativebrief.com/counterintel-73577/?utm_source=CB&utm_medium=813
'I’m Just Without Words': Senior FBI Counterintel Official Stuns Lawmakers with Admission - Says Durham Report Has Not Been Read By Her Yet
The lawmakers couldn't believe it.
conservativebrief.com
@ConservBrief - Conservative Brief
FBI informant claims Joe Biden illegally accepted a five million dollar bribe from a foreign nation. Where’s the FBI raid?? https://conservativebrief.com/obama-official-73594/
'Biden Is A Criminal': Ex-Obama Staffer FLIPS - Reveals Biden 'Kickback Scheme' After Hunter Was Given a Seat On Burisma
The Biden crime family caught.
conservativebrief.com
@DC_Draino - DC_Draino
BREAKING: FBI Director Wray confirms Joe Biden is under criminal investigation for Ukrainian bribes by the US Attorney in Delaware then tries to backpedal after realizing what he disclosed How is this not front page news?! https://t.co/lLjY1zr5h8
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 asks if Joe Biden received payments from Burisma or any other foreign companies while he was vice president, president, or a private citizen. Speaker 1 mentions an ongoing investigation led by the US attorney in Delaware, appointed by President Trump. Speaker 1 suggests referring to the US attorney for any information that can be shared. Speaker 0 then asks if the president is under investigation, to which Speaker 1 refuses to confirm or deny, following department policy. The conversation ends without a clear answer regarding Biden's involvement with foreign payments or the president's investigation.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Did Joe Biden take, payments from Burisma or any other foreign companies as vice president, president, or private citizen Biden?
Speaker 1: As you may know there is an ongoing investigation being led by the US attorney in Delaware, mister Weiss appointed, by president Trump in the last administration that our Baltimore field office is working with, and I would refer you to to him as to what, if anything, can be shared.
Speaker 0: So the president is under, he is under, investigation.
Speaker 1: I'm not going to confirm Or speak to who is or isn't under investigation for what. I'm simply gonna
Speaker 0: So he's not under investigation? I didn't
Speaker 1: say that either, by long standing department policy and practice. I'm not going to be confirming or denying who is or isn't under
@ChuckCallesto - Chuck Callesto
JUST IN: IRS Whistleblowers Confirm Joe Biden is the “Big Guy”.. https://t.co/ey3z4AKbIR
Video Transcript AI Summary
During the interview, they discussed an email mentioning "10 held by H for the big guy." They inferred that the "big guy" referred to President Biden. The AUSA interjected and said she didn't want to ask about the "big guy" or dad, implying that Joe Biden may be involved in Hunter Biden's transactions.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: In the day of action, you guys were intending to interview 12 people, one of whom was Rob Walker, a business associate of Hunter Biden. And in particular, you wanted to talk about, I think the quote is 10 held by H for the big guy. Yes. Right? So what who is the big who did you infer that the big guy may be?
Speaker 1: So all I can do is speak to the evidence there. What I can say is I I think I know what you're referring to is when we're preparing for that we're preparing for that interview and we're referencing that email, 10 held by H for the big guy, and From what I understand, that to be president his dad, President Biden
Speaker 0: Okay. So I'm sorry. I just want to ask Mr. Schapley a similar the question because the AUSA AUSA Wolf interjected, and I'm reading from your transcript now, and said she did not want to ask about the big guy and stated she did not want to ask questions about dad, quote in quotes. Who did you who did you take dad to be when she refers to dead
Speaker 1: The father of the subject is President Biden.
Speaker 0: President Biden. And so even by her response, she's inferring that Joe Biden may be involved in Hunter Biden's transactions
@JesseBWatters - Jesse Watters
The FBI has had 40 informants inside the Biden family for years. https://t.co/sRz6xScYs8
Video Transcript AI Summary
The FBI's alleged involvement with the Biden family has been confirmed by Senator Chuck Grassley. He stated that the FBI had 40 informants within the Biden family for the past 15 years, providing criminal information to field offices nationwide. This suggests that the FBI has been aware of the Bidens' activities, including alleged blackmail and corruption. Grassley also revealed that the FBI headquarters blocked attempts to investigate this criminal activity, labeling it as foreign disinformation. Meanwhile, the FBI has been accused of planting information against Donald Trump and manipulating evidence. This situation has led to a compromised president and negative consequences for the American people, such as rising prices, an open border, increased crime, and difficulties in managing proxy wars.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Fox News alert. Everything prime time has been saying about the FBI and the Biden family has just been confirmed. For years, we've told you the FBI knew everything the Bidens were up to, the cash, the Chinese diamonds, American policy for sale. Not only was Biden blackmailing other countries and other countries blackmailing him, but the FBI was blackmailing Biden. Senator Chuck Grassley just announced that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has had 40 informants inside the Biden family for the last 15 years.
What does that mean? It's exactly what you think. 40 FBI informants going back to the time Joe Biden was vice president have been providing Criminal information to FBI field offices throughout the country. 40 FBI informants have been feeding the bureau exactly what Joe Biden, James Biden, and Hunter Biden have been doing all over the world. Primetime isn't sure the FBI had this many informants working on the Trump campaign.
So what does it mean that the FBI has had the Biden family wired? And What does it mean that the FBI hasn't done a thing? Well, it tells me that the FBI knows all of the president's dirty laundry and is blackmailing them. Because senator Grassley also revealed that multiple FBI field offices tried to run this criminal information back to headquarters and we're blocked at every corner. This criminal activity was shut down during the Trump impeachment, shut down before the last election, and it's still being shut down today.
Grassley says FBI headquarters deliberately smeared Criminal information coming from FBI informants about the Biden family as foreign disinformation, when in fact, after an exhaustive examination, there's never been any information that any of this has been foreign. Even the FBI informant that said the Bidens shook down Ukraine for a $10,000,000 bribe, That was vetted and found not to be foreign disinformation. But it gets worse. The FBI's attempt to follow-up On the $10,000,000 Ukrainian Biden bribe was shut down. The FBI informant who said there's 17 tapes Of Biden talking about bribes, that too has been shut down despite that there's no evidence that this is foreign disinformation.
And while all of this is going on, the FBI has been actively planting information against Donald Trump, doctoring emails and disseminating fake dossiers. The FBI used Biden to get revenge on Trump. They got a dirty politician elected so they could defeat a politician who caught them trying to frame him and fire their director. And now we have a compromised president in the White House being protected by a rogue gang of sick agents. And the American people are the real victims of this stupid inside game.
You're paying more for everything. The border's wide open and crime is sky high. And we have 2 proxy wars that Biden can't manage. All because the FBI believes it's more powerful than democracy.
@SenRonJohnson - Senator Ron Johnson
Evidence mounting that the @FBI implemented a scheme to label any derogatory information on the Bidens as foreign disinformation. Director Wray has an obligation to be transparent and restore integrity to his agency. https://t.co/8ot5zVPkKd
Video Transcript AI Summary
Senator Grassley wrote a letter to the speaker, discussing the FBI's use of confidential human sources to provide criminal information on Joe Biden and his family. The letter questions whether the FBI tried to shut down the investigation. It alleges that an assessment by an FBI analyst was used to discredit negative information on Hunter Biden and halt the investigation. The letter suggests that there is political bias within the Justice Department and FBI, impacting decision-making at all levels. Senator Grassley urges the speaker to address this issue for the sake of our democracy.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I'm assuming you've seen and read the letter that senator Grassley wrote to you and attorney general Garland on October 24th? I'm generally aware of it. Oh, you ought to read it. Let me read some segments to you. The FBI maintained over 40 confidential human sources They provided criminal information related to Joe Biden, James Biden, and Hunter Biden.
An essential question that must be answered in this, did the FBI investigate the information or shut it down. Certainly, there's a host of reasons to conclude that they attempted to shut it down. It goes on. It's been alleged that the basis for shutting down the investigative activity, shutting it down was an August 2020 assessment Created by FBI supervisory intelligence analyst, Brian Auton. That assessment was used by FBI headquarters team To improperly discredit negative Hunter Biden information is disinformation caused investigative activity to cease.
It goes on. Analyst Brian Oden opened the aforementioned assessment, which was used by the foreign influence task force to seek out CHS holdings at FBI field offices across the country relating to the Biden Biden family and falsely discredit them as foreign Disinformation. My my staff caused that catch and kill. And by the way, it was that same task force that gave senator Grassley and I our unsolicited briefing It was later leaked to the media to smear me and impact, my 2022 election. Senator Grassley concludes, there appears to be an effort Within the justice department, FBI to shut down investigative activity relating to the Biden family.
Such decisions point to significant political bias Infecting the decision making of not only the attorney general and FBI director, but also line agents and prosecutors. Our republic cannot survive such a political infection, and you have an obligation in this country to clear the air.
@JudicialWatch - Judicial Watch ⚖️
.@TomFitton: ELECTION INTERFERENCE: The FBI knew Biden was compromised -- and acted to cover it up from voters! https://t.co/8yYrqroS5G
Video Transcript AI Summary
Prior to the election, the FBI was aware of the Burisma scandals and the Hunter Biden laptop, which implicated them in a bribery scheme. Instead of properly investigating, the FBI attempted to hide the information, punish the senators involved, and censor American citizens by pressuring Twitter and other platforms to block reporting on the laptop.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Just before the election, they all knew that the Burisma issues, the scandals as it was disclosed in the Hunter Biden, laptop, and specifically, they had details with this confidential human source that they've been seriously implicated in a bribery scheme. All that was known by the FBI prior to the election. And rather than following it up adequately, they tried to bury it, punish the senators who were onto it and then censor you, dear Americans, by getting Twitter and company to shut down reporting on the related Hunter Biden laptop.
@MustangMan_TX - Texas
Joe Biden exposed as the real white supremacist! https://t.co/F12JMDWHs2
Video Transcript AI Summary
White supremacy is identified as the most dangerous terrorist threat to the homeland. The speaker questions Joe Biden's stance on white supremacy and highlights his age and association with the KKK grand wizard, Robert Byrd. They mention Biden's past comments about corn pop and his role in the incarceration of young black men for crack cocaine possession. The speaker contrasts this with the lack of consequences for Hunter Biden's drug-related activities. They challenge the perception of who is truly racist or a white supremacist.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: As the most dangerous terrorist threat to our homeland is white supremacy. Yeah. White supremacy, that's the biggest threat to our homeland right now. Benny, your reaction. Joe Biden's white supremacy?
Like, that's my question. Like, Joe Biden was you having to use, like, a pocket catheter in the declaration of independence. Like, he's so old. He's a a literal political fossil in America that has sided with the KKK grand wizard. His name was Robert Byrd.
He held he eulogized Robert Byrd. Joe Biden's the man who, like, talks about going after corn pot. Joe Biden wanted to kill a black guy because he had too much pomade in his hair. I will say finally that Joe Biden is also a man who put hundreds of thousands of young black men in jail for having A satilla amount of crack cocaine in their pockets, yet you have like a mount Everest style pile of cocaine crack rocks in Hunter Biden's boudoir, yet nothing happens to him. So tell me who's a real racist?
Who's a real white supremacist? And you ain't black.
@TuckerCarlson - Tucker Carlson
New whistleblower documents show the FBI is every bit the politicized secret police force you feared it was. https://t.co/hFEUvjrNSL
Video Transcript AI Summary
The FBI whistleblower has revealed evidence that suggests the FBI now has an internal political litmus test. The whistleblower, who remains anonymous, had his security clearance suspended after supporting the vaxx regime, Donald Trump, and the Second Amendment. The FBI checked his loyalty before denying his security clearance and suspending him without pay. The documents uncovered show that the FBI asked intrusive questions about political views and vaccine hesitancy during security clearance interviews. This case raises concerns about the FBI's political bias and lack of oversight. The whistleblower remains anonymous due to privacy and hopes for the possibility of having their clearance reinstated. The revelations may lead to investigations and reforms within the FBI.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: So the FBI is the most powerful law enforcement organization in the world, certainly in the free world or what we've referred to for our lifetimes as the free world. So the nightmare scenario is that it becomes perverted, subverted into a secret police force, a Tonton Macoute accountable to politicians and used to punish the adversaries of the regime. That's the one thing you can't have happen or your country will no longer be a free country. Well, there's some evidence, unfortunately, that that is happening, and the latest comes from an FBI whistleblower. The documents that he's handed over to John Solomon of just the news suggests that the FBI now has an internal political litmus test.
In his case, in order to get a security clearance after 12 years working for the agency, the FBI checks whether he supported the vaxx regime, Donald Trump, the second amendment to the US constitution. And afterwards, determined he supported all of these things, which at least half the country does support, he was denied his security clearance. Again, this comes from documents newly unearthed that confirmed the FBI checked his loyalty before allowing him a security clearance. And when denied that, he was suspended indefinitely without pay. So the FBI has not provided any comment to John Solomon, who broke the story and got these documents, but Tristan Levitt, who's the president of the group Empower Oversight, is representing him in court and joins us right now with an overview of this case.
Tristan, thank you very much for coming on. So My pleasure. It was is that a fair characterization? Or why don't instead you start at the beginning and tell us what you have uncovered and what this employee underwent at the FBI?
Speaker 1: So what makes this a little bit different from your average FBI employee is that this employee who who has chosen to remain anonymous did get swept up into the funnel of folks being investigated after January 6th. So the FBI cast a very wide net because of that. There was frankly some hysteria within the bureau, almost McCarthyism, searching out anybody that had, views with any tie you know, after searching anybody who had any ties to events of that day, then examining their views. So this client particularly is someone who had decided on the day of January 6th to go down and hear President Trump's speech. After attending the rally, he walked down to the Capitol and stayed outside on the grounds.
He never went inside the Capitol. He was never involved in any violence. He was never involved in any conflict. Eventually, the FBI became aware that he had been, at the Capitol, which is ironic because the day after it, he self reported his attendance. But that went, you know, that didn't attract any notice within the FBI, until a year later.
And at that point, the hysteria was in full force. And so there were a number of FBI whistleblowers, several of whom we have represented, people like Steve Friend, Marcus Allen, Garrett O'Boyle, who were objecting in various ways to how the FBI was approaching its investigations of those, related to January 6th. But this particular individual had his security clearance suspended, and that's when all of this hit. And so 1 year ago, I testified alongside 3 of those other whistleblowers, Steve Friend, Mark Sall, and Gary O'Boyle, in front of the weaponization committee. And at the time, the FBI had just released information that they had all had their security occurrences suspended.
A couple of them revoked. And so as we started that hearing, delegate Stacey Plaskett opened by saying, you know, chairman Jordan, you've invited these people here who are a threat to our national security. How dare you? And now, a year later, we've been able to pull back the curtain and see the FBI's documentation for why it did what it did with their clearances. And that's the context in which we've seen this sort of questioning going on, asking people if they ever supported president Trump.
And mind you, it wasn't just that they asked these individuals. These were interviews by the security clearance division of their fellow employees. So people who are compelled to answer, who had to either answer these questions from the security division or have their own security clearance called into question. And they were asked, did you ever socialize with these individuals? What was your association with them?
And then ask these extremely intrusive questions. And so that's the context in which this very problematic set of questions came up. And what we are hearing is that this may be just the tip of the iceberg. That there were many, you know, that certainly there have been allegations out there that once people got swept into that security funnel, that there was a purge of FBI employees that had conservative views or had skepticism of the vaccine or just hesitancy to receive it. And now, in black and white, we've uncovered those documents because of our client's security appeal where we've been able to see the basis on which his colleagues were questioned, and this is extremely problematic.
Speaker 0: It was pretty clear, from the beginning. I mean, there are different threads here, but on the vax specifically, that the vaccine mandates were designed, and certainly their effect was, to winnow out people with high testosterone levels, independent thinking, commitment to liberty, common sense out of positions in the federal government, and that would definitely include the military, but also at the agencies including the FBI. So did they they found out this guy didn't take the vax and that was one of the factors?
Speaker 1: Yeah. It clearly was one of the factors, and it's ironic because this came 3 months after a court had put an injunction on the, federal employee vaccine mandate. And so this was not even a live issue. Right. It it this was not a matter of you're currently required to and you're not.
Months after that, they're asking his colleagues, did he ever express any hesitancy about the COVID 19 vaccine?
Speaker 0: Have a hesitancy. Did he pause before allowing an injection? Okay.
Speaker 1: Yes. And, of course, the the reverse of this, right, I think no every American would agree. It would not be appropriate in the future for the FBI to ask employees, did they ever express any support for receiving an abortion. You know, these this is this this idea that that's any of the FBI's business whatsoever is really, really outrageous.
Speaker 0: Support for Donald Trump, support for the second amendment to the constitution of the United States, our founding document, So these are disqualifying positions?
Speaker 1: Well, it's that's clearly seems to be the case behind the scenes. Now again, keep in mind, this is not what was put into the security clearance suspension letter that our client received or that other whistleblowers we have represented or received. It's not what went into their revocation letters. So it's only now, like I said, pulling back the curtain that we see that it's behind closed doors. Right?
So it's within this black box of secrecy and it's really this secret process that has no oversight from the outside. No generally no oversight from the inspector general, no oversight from Congress, that's an environment that allowed this to flourish because otherwise, we never would have known about this had we not seen those backing documents. Because, again, the sis the proposals themselves didn't reference any of these things that we would consider illegitimate. They just talked about whether someone engaged in violence, whether they broke laws on January 6th, and, you know, the things that stretched beyond that into personal political views or, again, even feelings about one's own bodily autonomy, all of that was hidden in these documents. And now that we've ripped the mask off the FBI, again, we're we are certainly going to push the inspector general to see whether this happened in other cases, and we strongly expect that they will find that it did.
Speaker 0: So for those who don't work in or around government, it it may be hard to appreciate how central a security clearance is if you're working in an agency like the FBI. I mean, you can't can't do your job without a clearance, but the criteria for getting and holding a clearance are sometimes muddy. In other words, there's a lot of subjective judgment, and it's particularly vulnerable to political interference. Right? Because there isn't, you know, character, for example, is is one of the, you know, one of the the criteria, person of good character.
So, like, how much do we know, not just about this case, but about all security clearances across the millions of federal employees about how these clearances are awarded?
Speaker 1: Well, there are criteria that are supposed to be consistent across the board. So there are executive orders. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence, you know, puts out guidance on these. It is subjective agency by agency. Several years ago, when I worked on Capitol Hill investigator, we did a very in-depth, investigation into the Secret Service and how they issued clearances, and, you know, it was clear that there it does change from agency to agency.
You know, and what's ironic about this is that, again, as a credential, if you will, if someone gets pushed out of the FBI, you know, because they say, you know, didn't show up for work on time or something else. Right? That looks bad if you're fired. If you have your security clearance revoked, you're not in a position to go to another agency. Exactly.
Right? You can't you can't say, I don't I wanna go to Immigration and Customs Enforcement because I think that they need some help over there. No. You have you have been deemed disloyal to the United States. And so lacking a security clearance, that's a huge, huge issue.
And this came up as we, you know, we recently obtained total vindication for one of those individuals I mentioned, Marcus Allen, who had been an FBI employee. And, just last week, we're able to get his clearance reinstated. We're able to get him full back pay for 27 months to use without work. But during that whole entire time, you know, it's not just this future idea of a credential. During that whole entire time, he was not paid while he was held in limbo.
And so, again, it seemed designed to squeeze him to leaving the FBI, which is what this anonymous client, in the current case that we're talking about did. And so but again, if you if you leave while your clearance is suspended or while it is revoked, you don't have a future hope of getting a job with another, law enforcement agency or anywhere that would require clearance or access to secure classified information.
Speaker 0: What's so baffling is that, Republicans hold the majority in the house. There's a Republican speaker. We now know you've proven with these documents that supporting a Republican for president is enough to get your security clearance revoked. So the FBI is, by definition, a political secret police organization, and that's antithetical to freedom. And yet the Republicans in the Congress, even though this is all very obvious, just refunded the FBI and allocated 100 of 1,000,000 of dollars to build them a new headquarters.
They're rewarding the FBI. So at what point do Republicans say, I'm sorry. We're not gonna pay for a secret police organization dedicated to destroying us.
Speaker 1: I think these documents are going to be the tipping point, frankly. I think that the inspector general we expect that, an investigation by an inspector general will open up. We expect that Congress is going to be doing oversight of that. And along with some of these other instances of vindication, I think this summer, we're going to see exposed quite a bit how the FBI has has had made shown such political bias in what they do. And so I think Congress has a unique opportunity here, a unique opportunity to overhaul the FBI, the personnel that are in it at the moment, to reform that and also to to pursue broader reforms, you know, from a legal front.
And so to your point about funding, I think this is the time. I think this is the thing that, more than anything else these documents demonstrate in black and white what individuals like chairman Jim Jordan have been alleging for 2 years, and now we have the definitive proof of that. So we expect there's going to be a lot of attention given to these and not just from Congress, but from places like the inspector general Michael Horowitz and the press and others. Because now you cannot deny that these political considerations, you know, weren't just tossed around in a general sense. They weren't just, you know, possible considerations.
They were there in black and white for individuals in their security clearance determinations.
Speaker 0: I mean, it it just becomes clear every day that January 6th was, well, a hoax, on one level, but the response to it was one of the most corrupt things that's ever happened in our lifetimes in this country. I mean, that's the conclusion I'm coming to.
Speaker 1: It's difficult. Clearly, that's a that's a touch point for a lot of people. And I will tell you as a former congressional staffer, it was difficult for me to see where there was violence on January 6th. Right? And so those that broke laws
Speaker 0: Right. You know,
Speaker 1: I don't have any objection to those people, you know, suffering the consequences for that. Right? And I think most Americans, that's the case. But, again, within the FBI you know, for people to have just been on the grounds and the FBI to have gone after those individuals, for for that to become and, again, that was the tipping point within the FBI for this sort of hysteria where anybody that came to the attention of the security division, all of these other factors then got wrapped in. Right?
It wasn't a question of were you present and then did you go inside the Capitol or did you engage in violence? It's do you have any views that we don't favor? And so for that to lead to a purge of conservative employees, again, is just is just totally inappropriate and wrong, but, you know, it's a it's a sign of how polarizing January 6th was to our country, I think. One of the things that we brought to the attention of the inspector general a year ago was that less than a month after January 6th, the new deputy director of the FBI, a guy named Paula Bate, spoke up in a call with all special agents in charge around the country for the FBI and said, if you don't like our response to January 6th and how we're going after this, the FBI is not the place for you. You can come and talk to me, but we don't need agents like that in the FBI.
And it's just not healthy or fair for the FBI to push out, say, roughly half of its employees just because they have differing political views, who weren't there on January 6th, didn't engage in violence, none of those things, but for the FBI to use that as a pretext to say, well, we we don't need you, and we don't want you here right now.
Speaker 0: Well, it's well, I I would go farther and say that's tyranny. Right? I mean, this is a this is an agency that's allowed to kill you if they deem it justified. They can use lethal force against American citizens. So you they cannot be a political instrument, or else it's it's tyrannical.
No?
Speaker 1: It's extremely important that they be, you know, both perceived and and be neutral perceived as and be neutral. Yes. That they are not they're not just hiring people based on one political view or the other. Yes. It raises major, major concerns about because of their ability to use force and the role that they play in American society.
Speaker 0: Last question. Why is your client, the whistleblower, not coming forward by name?
Speaker 1: Multiple reasons. I think, for starters, there is the fact that they are not a public individual. This is not someone that sought out attention and, you know, the the the to the extent that this is the whistleblower disclosures that are involved here are us raising to the inspector general and others the misuse of this security clearance process. So this was not somewhere the whole process started with, you know, disclosures or something like that. But in in this is someone who's a very private individual, and doesn't want to see all this strewn out to the world.
Another reason that I think is significant is that, you know, in this instance, they are still hopeful that they can, you know, after an inspector general examination, have the possibility of getting their clearance back. That if the inspector general realizes how tainted this whole process was, you know, that that the inspector general can help to set things right. That's what happened in Marcus Allen's case, that the inspector general did a very lengthy investigation, we believe that played a big role. And the FBI is saying, maybe we better reinstate this person. So if there's a possibility like that, I think it means more to this client to have the possibility of their economic livelihood restored than to to make some splashy headlines.
But, you know, this is significant, and they recognize this is significant, and that's why they're okay with this being shared with the American public.
Speaker 0: Sure appreciate you explaining that for us. Thank you very much.
Speaker 1: Tristan Lars. It's Tucker.
Speaker 0: Free speech is bigger than any one person or any one organization. Societies are defined by what they will not commit. What we're watching is the total inversion of virtue.
@janninereid1 - Jannine.. #MagaMemeQueen ™️ 👑🇺🇸
Kamala caught in another lie! https://t.co/PYq6XoyNfd
@827js - Jeff pontz
Biden is corrupt https://t.co/MnLVQ912j7
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker discusses evidence of corruption within the Biden family, including extortion, bribery, influence peddling, and tax fraud. They claim that executive branch agencies are involved in covering up these crimes. The speaker emphasizes the seriousness of the situation and states that it is not a conspiracy theory, but evidence-based. The purpose of the hearing is to expose government corruption and cover-ups.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Panic because it's impossible to cover up the inescapable conclusions of the last few weeks. Let me give you 2 of them. 1st, 1, the hard evidence, mister Goldman and everybody else, now proves that the Biden family is hopelessly corrupt and has apparently engaged in a long pattern of extortion, bribery, influence peddling, and tax fraud, and staggering abuses of power. And number 2, we're highlighting here today that we now know that a growing list of the most important executive branch agencies of the Biden administration are in on it. They've also been corrupted.
They've been weaponized to help cover all this up. First family's crimes. When we summarize all this stuff, it sounds like a premise of a dystopian novel or something that's actually happening right now on our watch. This is not conspiracy theories. This is evidence.
Our hearing today is to put a spotlight on one more of these incredible avenues as of unprecedented corruption and government cover up. And here again, a federal court has just affirmed all that hard evidence. It proves that the White House, the Department of Justice, and the FBI among other agents
@kylenabecker - Kyle Becker
BREAKING: CNN just found out that Kamala Harris is a LIAR. This is simply hilarious 🤣 https://t.co/PJ1NLtZk9w
Video Transcript AI Summary
KFILE investigated Kamala Harris's past statements and found over 50 instances of her criticizing Trump's border wall. These criticisms included calling the wall "wasteful," "useless," a "vanity project," and "stupid." Harris also stated in her 2019 book that the wall went against everything America stood for and called it a "distraction."
Despite this, Harris's new campaign ads showcase the border wall. The specific section of the wall featured in the ad is located in Sasabe, Arizona, and was built by Donald Trump in an area where no wall previously existed. Other images of the wall in the ads also show an anti-climbing plate, a feature popularized during the Trump administration.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Tonight, KFILE investigates. In a new report, you'll see first out front. The KFILE team scoured Kamala Harris's tweets and statements going all the way back to 2017. And what they found was more than 50 instances of Harris slamming Trump's border wall. But now, new Paris campaign ads actually showcase that very wall.
Speaker 1: As a border state prosecutor, she took on drug cartels and jailed gang members for smuggling weapons and drugs across the border.
Speaker 0: And on top of critical tweets, Harris also wrote in her 2019 book, quote, there was a bigger reason to oppose the border wall. A useless wall on the southern border message, keep out? Well, KFILE's Andrew Kaczynski, hard message, keep out. Well, KFILE's Andrew Kaczynski joins me now. So Andrew, I mean, you you and you you all have gone through, I mean, scoured an incredible amount of material.
Tell me more about what you found.
Speaker 2: Yeah. That's right. We found more than 50 of those those tweets criticizing the border wall before she used that in her ad. And I want people to take a look at just a few, of what she said here. She called it wasteful, useless, a waste of taxpayer money, a vanity wall project, a wasteful border wall, a stupid wall, a medieval vanity project, and an unnecessary wall.
And those are really just I mean, there were more of this. It's like 10 or like 50. But there was really there was really a lot of this was the common refrain during the campaign. You read that quote where she said it was against everything that not only she stood for, everything, America stood for, but and she brought this up a lot. Take a listen to just one instance of that in 2019.
Speaker 0: It's the president's vanity project.
Speaker 3: His multibillion dollar vanity project called a wall is nothing more than a distraction from the fact that he actually hasn't focused on working people in America. He contrived a national crisis around his big distraction.
Speaker 0: Alright. So you go through all of that. You've got all the tweets, and yet all of a sudden in the ads, there's pictures of the wall. And then you went through to look at that wall. Like, what is that specific wall that's in her her campaign ads now?
And you found something very interesting about this specific portion of the wall.
Speaker 2: And what's I think what's also really remarkable of this is, like, I mean, you heard her talking about it there. The Trump's wall in his campaign, during his presidency, there was really no greater symbol of Trump's presidency than the wall in the way that Democrats were attacking him over the wall and his restrictive immigration policies. So we looked in that ad and if you look at it, that exact area of wall is in, Sasebe or or Sasebe, Arizona, and that is a portion of wall that was actually built by Donald Trump. It was built in an area, where there was not previous wall. It was actually pretty controversial when they were building it, at the time.
So just to see that, and then there are other She was using his wall that he built to say, look
Speaker 0: at what I did, basically. And the other images of the wall, we weren't
Speaker 2: able to pinpoint, but there's there's telltale signs that that was a Trump wall because there's an anti climbing plate on top that became popularized during the Trump years.
Speaker 0: It's really incredible reporting and and important. Alright? Andrew Kucinski and k File, thank you very much.
@its_The_Dr - Johnny Midnight ⚡️
All of these people out right lies in the Biden Laptop with no Re processions! https://t.co/MVVx4NqLWV
@Jim_Jordan - Rep. Jim Jordan
“@JudiciaryGOP wants to hear from FBI analyst who told Twitter Hunter Biden laptop was ‘real’” https://nypost.com/2024/09/26/us-news/house-judiciary-wants-to-hear-from-fbi-analyst-who-told-twitter-hunter-biden-laptop-was-real/
Exclusive | House Judiciary panel wants to hear from FBI analyst who told Twitter Hunter Biden laptop was ‘real’
The House Judiciary Committee is seeking testimony from a FBI analyst who confirmed to Twitter content moderators that first son Hunter Biden's "laptop from hell" was genuine -- on the same day that The Post's bombshell report on the hard drive's contents was censored by the social media giant.
nypost.com
@EndWokeness - End Wokeness
The 51 intel agents who lied about Hunter Biden's laptop. Time for accountability. https://t.co/0fz1CojBoJ
@JackPosobiec - Jack Poso 🇺🇸
THE DIRECTOR OF THE FBI RESIGNED JUST 1 DAY AFTER THE IG REPORT SHOWED THEY WERE SPYING ON KASH PATEL WE CAN ALL SEE WHAT IS GOING ON HERE https://t.co/Bnsi7QYjnB
@EndWokeness - End Wokeness
Trump just revoked security clearance for the 51 intel agents who lied about Hunter Biden's laptop https://t.co/vfKvyBKM1a
@OwenShroyer1776 - Owen Shroyer
WATCH: James Comey Gets Confronted To His Face For Illegally Spying On Donald Trump https://t.co/CXVeom4WY3
Video Transcript AI Summary
Okay, here's the shortened transcript:
There he is, James Comey. The fired FBI director, some call him a deep state hero. I'm so excited to see him, I don't know why others aren't as excited as I am. They're going to screen questions, I wonder if anyone will ask who killed Epstein? It's an honor to see the disgraced and fired FBI director in person.
Wait, are you asking me to leave? But Comey can stay, right? We love James Comey. Sure, he didn't disrupt the library, but he disrupted the whole country. James Comey disrupted an entire country, a presidential election, and a presidential term. Still, my heart is fluttering that I got to see him.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Yeah. James Comey. James Comey. The fired FBI director, James Comey. The deep state hero, James Comey.
Speaker 1: Oh, man. I'm so I'm so excited. I don't know why these people aren't as excited as me. Sorry. My excitement, officer.
I'm because screen. They're gonna screen your questions. Who killed Epstein? My heart is beating out of my chest.
Speaker 0: Have several moments. Have Laura Carlton and you have Lauren Garcia. Wow. What
Speaker 1: an honor, guys. I'll tell you. To get to actually see the disgraced and fired FBI director in person was truly a magnanimous occasion for me.
Speaker 2: We'd like you to leave.
Speaker 1: And, oh, you'd like me to leave? Oh, she'd like me to leave. She'd like me to leave. Comey can stay, though. Right?
Comey's cool.
Speaker 0: Right? We
Speaker 1: love Jamie Comey.
Speaker 2: He didn't disrupt the library.
Speaker 1: James Comey. He just disrupted the whole he just disrupted the whole country. Yeah. He didn't disrupt the library. James Comey just disrupted the entire country and a presidential election and a presidential, term for Donald Trump.
So but wow. I mean, my heart is just fluttering that I got to see James Comey.
@its_The_Dr - Johnny Midnight ⚡️
Hillary Paid Fusion for the lie, She is a Guilty Party in Treason! https://t.co/iEi51wQc1E
@TuckerCarlson - Tucker Carlson
New whistleblower documents show the FBI is every bit the politicized secret police force you feared it was. https://t.co/hFEUvjrNSL
Video Transcript AI Summary
The FBI is facing allegations of internal political bias and a secret process for security clearances, according to an FBI whistleblower. The whistleblower claims that the FBI checks employees' loyalty by examining their support for the COVID-19 vaccine, Donald Trump, and the Second Amendment. Those who express conservative views or hesitancy towards the vaccine allegedly faced consequences, including suspension without pay. The FBI has not commented on the matter, but the whistleblower's representative suggests that this may be just the tip of the iceberg. The documents have raised concerns about the FBI's neutrality and the need for reform within the organization.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: So the FBI is the most powerful law enforcement organization in the world, certainly in the free world or what we've referred to for our lifetimes as the free world. So the nightmare scenario is that it becomes perverted, subverted into a secret police force, a Tonton Macoute accountable to politicians and used to punish the adversaries of the regime. That's the one thing you can't have happen or your country will no longer be a free country. Well, there's some evidence, unfortunately, that that is happening, and the latest comes from an FBI whistleblower. The documents that he's handed over to John Solomon of just the news suggests that the FBI now has an internal political litmus test.
In his case, in order to get a security clearance after 12 years working for the agency, the FBI checks whether he supported the vaxx regime, Donald Trump, the second amendment to the US constitution. And afterwards, determined he supported all of these things, which at least half the country does support, he was denied his security clearance. Again, this comes from documents newly unearthed that confirmed the FBI checked his loyalty before allowing him a security clearance. And when denied that, he was suspended indefinitely without pay. So the FBI has not provided any comment to John Solomon, who broke the story and got these documents, but Tristan Levitt, who's the president of the group Empower Oversight, is representing him in court and joins us right now with an overview of this case.
Tristan, thank you very much for coming on. So My pleasure. It was is that a fair characterization? Or why don't instead you start at the beginning and tell us what you have uncovered and what this employee underwent at the FBI?
Speaker 1: So what makes this a little bit different from your average FBI employee is that this employee who who has chosen to remain anonymous did get swept up into the funnel of folks being investigated after January 6th. So the FBI cast a very wide net because of that. There was frankly some hysteria within the bureau, almost McCarthyism, searching out anybody that had, views with any tie you know, after searching anybody who had any ties to events of that day, then examining their views. So this client particularly is someone who had decided on the day of January 6th to go down and hear President Trump's speech. After attending the rally, he walked down to the Capitol and stayed outside on the grounds.
He never went inside the Capitol. He was never involved in any violence. He was never involved in any conflict. Eventually, the FBI became aware that he had been, at the Capitol, which is ironic because the day after it, he self reported his attendance. But that went, you know, that didn't attract any notice within the FBI, until a year later.
And at that point, the hysteria was in full force. And so there were a number of FBI whistleblowers, several of whom we have represented, people like Steve Friend, Marcus Allen, Garrett O'Boyle, who were objecting in various ways to how the FBI was approaching its investigations of those, related to January 6th. But this particular individual had his security clearance suspended, and that's when all of this hit. And so 1 year ago, I testified alongside 3 of those other whistleblowers, Steve Friend, Mark Sall, and Gary O'Boyle, in front of the weaponization committee. And at the time, the FBI had just released information that they had all had their security occurrences suspended.
A couple of them revoked. And so as we started that hearing, delegate Stacey Plaskett opened by saying, you know, chairman Jordan, you've invited these people here who are a threat to our national security. How dare you? And now, a year later, we've been able to pull back the curtain and see the FBI's documentation for why it did what it did with their clearances. And that's the context in which we've seen this sort of questioning going on, asking people if they ever supported president Trump.
And mind you, it wasn't just that they asked these individuals. These were interviews by the security clearance division of their fellow employees. So people who are compelled to answer, who had to either answer these questions from the security division or have their own security clearance called into question. And they were asked, did you ever socialize with these individuals? What was your association with them?
And then ask these extremely intrusive questions. And so that's the context in which this very problematic set of questions came up. And what we are hearing is that this may be just the tip of the iceberg. That there were many, you know, that certainly there have been allegations out there that once people got swept into that security funnel, that there was a purge of FBI employees that had conservative views or had skepticism of the vaccine or just hesitancy to receive it. And now, in black and white, we've uncovered those documents because of our client's security appeal where we've been able to see the basis on which his colleagues were questioned, and this is extremely problematic.
Speaker 0: It was pretty clear, from the beginning. I mean, there are different threads here, but on the vax specifically, that the vaccine mandates were designed, and certainly their effect was, to winnow out people with high testosterone levels, independent thinking, commitment to liberty, common sense out of positions in the federal government, and that would definitely include the military, but also at the agencies including the FBI. So did they they found out this guy didn't take the vax and that was one of the factors?
Speaker 1: Yeah. It clearly was one of the factors, and it's ironic because this came 3 months after a court had put an injunction on the, federal employee vaccine mandate. And so this was not even a live issue. Right. It it this was not a matter of you're currently required to and you're not.
Months after that, they're asking his colleagues, did he ever express any hesitancy about the COVID 19 vaccine?
Speaker 0: Have a hesitancy. Did he pause before allowing an injection? Okay.
Speaker 1: Yes. And, of course, the the reverse of this, right, I think no every American would agree. It would not be appropriate in the future for the FBI to ask employees, did they ever express any support for receiving an abortion. You know, these this is this this idea that that's any of the FBI's business whatsoever is really, really outrageous.
Speaker 0: Support for Donald Trump, support for the second amendment to the constitution of the United States, our founding document, So these are disqualifying positions?
Speaker 1: Well, it's that's clearly seems to be the case behind the scenes. Now again, keep in mind, this is not what was put into the security clearance suspension letter that our client received or that other whistleblowers we have represented or received. It's not what went into their revocation letters. So it's only now, like I said, pulling back the curtain that we see that it's behind closed doors. Right?
So it's within this black box of secrecy and it's really this secret process that has no oversight from the outside. No generally no oversight from the inspector general, no oversight from Congress, that's an environment that allowed this to flourish because otherwise, we never would have known about this had we not seen those backing documents. Because, again, the sis the proposals themselves didn't reference any of these things that we would consider illegitimate. They just talked about whether someone engaged in violence, whether they broke laws on January 6th, and, you know, the things that stretched beyond that into personal political views or, again, even feelings about one's own bodily autonomy, all of that was hidden in these documents. And now that we've ripped the mask off the FBI, again, we're we are certainly going to push the inspector general to see whether this happened in other cases, and we strongly expect that they will find that it did.
Speaker 0: So for those who don't work in or around government, it it may be hard to appreciate how central a security clearance is if you're working in an agency like the FBI. I mean, you can't can't do your job without a clearance, but the criteria for getting and holding a clearance are sometimes muddy. In other words, there's a lot of subjective judgment, and it's particularly vulnerable to political interference. Right? Because there isn't, you know, character, for example, is is one of the, you know, one of the the criteria, person of good character.
So, like, how much do we know, not just about this case, but about all security clearances across the millions of federal employees about how these clearances are awarded?
Speaker 1: Well, there are criteria that are supposed to be consistent across the board. So there are executive orders. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence, you know, puts out guidance on these. It is subjective agency by agency. Several years ago, when I worked on Capitol Hill investigator, we did a very in-depth, investigation into the Secret Service and how they issued clearances, and, you know, it was clear that there it does change from agency to agency.
You know, and what's ironic about this is that, again, as a credential, if you will, if someone gets pushed out of the FBI, you know, because they say, you know, didn't show up for work on time or something else. Right? That looks bad if you're fired. If you have your security clearance revoked, you're not in a position to go to another agency. Exactly.
Right? You can't you can't say, I don't I wanna go to Immigration and Customs Enforcement because I think that they need some help over there. No. You have you have been deemed disloyal to the United States. And so lacking a security clearance, that's a huge, huge issue.
And this came up as we, you know, we recently obtained total vindication for one of those individuals I mentioned, Marcus Allen, who had been an FBI employee. And, just last week, we're able to get his clearance reinstated. We're able to get him full back pay for 27 months to use without work. But during that whole entire time, you know, it's not just this future idea of a credential. During that whole entire time, he was not paid while he was held in limbo.
And so, again, it seemed designed to squeeze him to leaving the FBI, which is what this anonymous client, in the current case that we're talking about did. And so but again, if you if you leave while your clearance is suspended or while it is revoked, you don't have a future hope of getting a job with another, law enforcement agency or anywhere that would require clearance or access to secure classified information.
Speaker 0: What's so baffling is that, Republicans hold the majority in the house. There's a Republican speaker. We now know you've proven with these documents that supporting a Republican for president is enough to get your security clearance revoked. So the FBI is, by definition, a political secret police organization, and that's antithetical to freedom. And yet the Republicans in the Congress, even though this is all very obvious, just refunded the FBI and allocated 100 of 1,000,000 of dollars to build them a new headquarters.
They're rewarding the FBI. So at what point do Republicans say, I'm sorry. We're not gonna pay for a secret police organization dedicated to destroying us.
Speaker 1: I think these documents are going to be the tipping point, frankly. I think that the inspector general we expect that, an investigation by an inspector general will open up. We expect that Congress is going to be doing oversight of that. And along with some of these other instances of vindication, I think this summer, we're going to see exposed quite a bit how the FBI has has had made shown such political bias in what they do. And so I think Congress has a unique opportunity here, a unique opportunity to overhaul the FBI, the personnel that are in it at the moment, to reform that and also to to pursue broader reforms, you know, from a legal front.
And so to your point about funding, I think this is the time. I think this is the thing that, more than anything else these documents demonstrate in black and white what individuals like chairman Jim Jordan have been alleging for 2 years, and now we have the definitive proof of that. So we expect there's going to be a lot of attention given to these and not just from Congress, but from places like the inspector general Michael Horowitz and the press and others. Because now you cannot deny that these political considerations, you know, weren't just tossed around in a general sense. They weren't just, you know, possible considerations.
They were there in black and white for individuals in their security clearance determinations.
Speaker 0: I mean, it it just becomes clear every day that January 6th was, well, a hoax, on one level, but the response to it was one of the most corrupt things that's ever happened in our lifetimes in this country. I mean, that's the conclusion I'm coming to.
Speaker 1: It's difficult. Clearly, that's a that's a touch point for a lot of people. And I will tell you as a former congressional staffer, it was difficult for me to see where there was violence on January 6th. Right? And so those that broke laws
Speaker 0: Right. You know,
Speaker 1: I don't have any objection to those people, you know, suffering the consequences for that. Right? And I think most Americans, that's the case. But, again, within the FBI you know, for people to have just been on the grounds and the FBI to have gone after those individuals, for for that to become and, again, that was the tipping point within the FBI for this sort of hysteria where anybody that came to the attention of the security division, all of these other factors then got wrapped in. Right?
It wasn't a question of were you present and then did you go inside the Capitol or did you engage in violence? It's do you have any views that we don't favor? And so for that to lead to a purge of conservative employees, again, is just is just totally inappropriate and wrong, but, you know, it's a it's a sign of how polarizing January 6th was to our country, I think. One of the things that we brought to the attention of the inspector general a year ago was that less than a month after January 6th, the new deputy director of the FBI, a guy named Paula Bate, spoke up in a call with all special agents in charge around the country for the FBI and said, if you don't like our response to January 6th and how we're going after this, the FBI is not the place for you. You can come and talk to me, but we don't need agents like that in the FBI.
And it's just not healthy or fair for the FBI to push out, say, roughly half of its employees just because they have differing political views, who weren't there on January 6th, didn't engage in violence, none of those things, but for the FBI to use that as a pretext to say, well, we we don't need you, and we don't want you here right now.
Speaker 0: Well, it's well, I I would go farther and say that's tyranny. Right? I mean, this is a this is an agency that's allowed to kill you if they deem it justified. They can use lethal force against American citizens. So you they cannot be a political instrument, or else it's it's tyrannical.
No?
Speaker 1: It's extremely important that they be, you know, both perceived and and be neutral perceived as and be neutral. Yes. That they are not they're not just hiring people based on one political view or the other. Yes. It raises major, major concerns about because of their ability to use force and the role that they play in American society.
Speaker 0: Last question. Why is your client, the whistleblower, not coming forward by name?
Speaker 1: Multiple reasons. I think, for starters, there is the fact that they are not a public individual. This is not someone that sought out attention and, you know, the the the to the extent that this is the whistleblower disclosures that are involved here are us raising to the inspector general and others the misuse of this security clearance process. So this was not somewhere the whole process started with, you know, disclosures or something like that. But in in this is someone who's a very private individual, and doesn't want to see all this strewn out to the world.
Another reason that I think is significant is that, you know, in this instance, they are still hopeful that they can, you know, after an inspector general examination, have the possibility of getting their clearance back. That if the inspector general realizes how tainted this whole process was, you know, that that the inspector general can help to set things right. That's what happened in Marcus Allen's case, that the inspector general did a very lengthy investigation, we believe that played a big role. And the FBI is saying, maybe we better reinstate this person. So if there's a possibility like that, I think it means more to this client to have the possibility of their economic livelihood restored than to to make some splashy headlines.
But, you know, this is significant, and they recognize this is significant, and that's why they're okay with this being shared with the American public.
Speaker 0: Sure appreciate you explaining that for us. Thank you very much.
Speaker 1: Tristan Lars. It's Tucker.
Speaker 0: Free speech is bigger than any one person or any one organization. Societies are defined by what they will not commit. What we're watching is the total inversion of virtue.