reSee.it - Related Video Feed

I'm sharing an email from James Dennehy, the assistant director in charge of the New York field office, that highlights resistance within the FBI. Dennehy sent a very direct email to his staff, challenging the Trump administration, stating that the FBI is currently in an internal battle. He notes that good people are being forced out, while others are being targeted simply for doing their jobs according to the law and FBI policy.

Intel didn't appreciate Musk's behavior and leaked information to CNN as a warning. The CIA leadership is concerned that mass firings and buyouts could lead disgruntled former employees to sell secrets. The CIA is implying to CNN that funding cuts will result in them selling state secrets to Russia. I question the loyalty of these individuals within the CIA. The FBI is also under scrutiny, with reports from Michael Schellenberger indicating a source within the bureau claims they are destroying evidence. It seems the FBI is getting rid of the evidence as quickly as possible.

The speaker states that dozens of people have already left, with the civil division down 30% as of a week ago, and likely more now. While some may see opportunity amidst the departures, there is peril because there will be an accounting for lawyers who violated their ethical obligations and rules of professional responsibility. Many things Trump's attorneys are promising would violate those responsibilities. Many arguments being made in court, seemingly directed by the administration, are close to violating ethical lines because they don't appear fact-based. The speaker uses the example of being told to say Elon Musk has no authority. Judges are recognizing these arguments as shams. The speaker expresses being torn, having spent decades at the department.

Alarm is rising among Justice Department and FBI officials over potential revenge prosecutions from the incoming Trump administration. Some civil servants have sought legal counsel due to concerns about lengthy and costly legal battles. The selection of Matt Gaetz has intensified these fears. While officials anticipated congressional investigations, Gaetz's appointment surprised many at the DOJ. He lacks prosecutorial experience but is a staunch Trump loyalist, which raises concerns about possible criminal investigations against career DOJ and FBI officials. His appointment is viewed as a way for Trump to protect Gaetz amid ongoing ethics investigations, further escalating anxiety within the department.

Joe Biden has sent FBI agents to the homes of Trump supporters without warning. They are supposed to have a conversation, but people are not intimidated. They believe in their right to vote for Trump in 2024 and are united against this action.

After three weeks of training, the speaker received a litigation hold and a memo granting permission to fire probationary employees from the capital c section who had been moved within the office. The memo referenced people but lacked specific names, causing confusion. Upon returning to the office, the speaker and colleagues were met with confusion and heartbreak. Two hours later, termination letters began to arrive. Ultimately, 15 assistant US attorneys were fired. The speaker's termination letter cited actions and prosecutions related to the events at or near the US Capitol on 01/06/2021. It referenced an executive order characterizing the work as a grave national injustice and stated that the speaker's hiring hindered the acting US attorney's ability to implement President Trump's agenda. The speaker believes the US attorneys represent the United States, not the president. The speaker believes that firing 15 qualified attorneys created a problem.

As a former 18-year veteran of the Department of Justice, I now lead a group called Justice Connection, aiding current DOJ employees facing demotions, firings, and threats from various sources, including January 6th rioters and those believing in the "deep state" narrative. These individuals are terrified for their careers and personal safety due to increased doxxing and harassment. The current environment within the FBI and DOJ is destabilized, impacting morale and daily functions, making it harder to focus on critical tasks like counterterrorism. While the administration defends personnel moves as aligning with its priorities, the safety and security of dedicated DOJ employees is at risk, especially with doxxing and harassment being criminal offenses.

FBI agents and analysts, who handle investigations and execute warrants, are facing unprecedented challenges due to political pressures. These dedicated professionals, who typically commit to long careers, are now worried about potential job loss and its repercussions on their families and futures. Many are concerned about losing their reputations, pensions, and health insurance if they are terminated. The current atmosphere within the FBI is one of fear and uncertainty, as employees feel targeted for simply doing their jobs on significant national security cases. This situation is seen as disgraceful and unjust, reflecting a troubling trend of political retribution affecting those who serve in the agency.

The conversation centers on the Epstein file controversy, the DOJ's handling of it, and what the speakers see as systemic failures and political risk for Donald Trump and allied figures. - The Epstein/file issue is framed as predictable and frustrating. Alex Jones notes a “slow drip of nothing” and calls the initial promise of full file disclosure a pattern of “promise something, deliver nothing.” Pam Bondi’s statement that “the files were on my desk” is discussed as an apparent misstep or staged moment, but the core point is that large amounts of material are not being released despite public promises. - The discourse questions where the files actually reside and who controls access. The claim that a “truckload of files” existed and was hidden at DOJ is rejected as a mischaracterization; the speakers emphasize that the FBI and DOJ have files, but access and disclosure have been hampered by internal political dynamics. They highlight the tension between the Southern District of New York and the DOJ, noting that SDNY answers to the DOJ and the Attorney General, thereby questioning the premise that one regional office is independently sabotaging access. - There is a persistent critique of DOJ leadership and governance. The argument is that DOJ has not been “rooted out of corruption,” with mid-level and high-level managers and appointees still in place, propagating practices that the speakers deem contrary to transparency and accountability. They point to supposed failures by individuals such as Cash Patel and Pam Bondi in relying on FBI briefings rather than verifiable records, suggesting that power in intelligence agencies is still too dependent on information control. - The Epstein files are treated as emblematic of a broader issue: a two-tier or selective justice system. The speakers argue that there’s a pattern whereby powerful individuals have access to information and protection, while the public lacks full visibility. They mention that Trump’s response and the way the files have been handled have become a larger “Russiagate-like” narrative, with Epstein serving as a lightning rod for accusations of corruption and cover-up. - The political dynamic is central. Several participants emphasize that Trump’s stance and the responses of his allies are under intense scrutiny. They discuss the risk that Trump’s association with the Epstein disclosures could become a political liability if the files aren’t released. Marjorie Taylor Greene and Tom Massey are mentioned as consistent voices pushing for full disclosure, while Roger Stone’s warnings about CIA and foreign involvement in the Epstein nexus are cited as supporting the view that a larger, international financial/transnational network may be implicated. - There is criticism of how the media and political opponents handle the issue. The speakers claim Democrats are using hearings to turn the Epstein matter into a broader political weapon and to portray Trump as obstructive or complicit, regardless of the factual state of file disclosure. They argue that the public is being led by a PR war, with “photoshopped” or redacted material used to frame narratives rather than to reveal truth. - The discussion turns toward accountability and remedies. The speakers insist that federal law requires the release of the Epstein files by a deadline, and that failing to comply constitutes a constitutional or institutional crisis. They argue that Congress lacks direct enforcement power and must consider funding or other leverage to compel compliance, noting the apparent reluctance of Congress to act decisively. - There are predictions about personnel changes and institutional reform. Dan Bongino is discussed as likely to depart from his DOJ-related role, with Todd Blanche as the lead prosecutor taking heat for not meeting deadlines. Andrew Bailey is floated as a potential replacement. The broader implication is that there will be a shake-up in DOJ and possibly FBI leadership in the near term, though the speakers acknowledge uncertainty about how far reforms will go or whether entrenched interests will impede real change. - The Epstein matter is used to illustrate how compromises and cover-ups operate across power structures. The speakers argue that the problem isn’t just the existence of the files but how the system treats those files—how access is controlled, how redactions are justified, and how political narratives are constructed around high-profile investigations. Harmony Dillon and Liz Harrington are cited as voices who underscore the need for mid-level reform and more transparency, suggesting that the deepest issues lie in organizational culture and incentives rather than in isolated acts by a few individuals. - A broader reflection on American governance finishes the discussion. The speakers warn that a failure to release the Epstein files or to purge corrupt practices could deepen distrust in federal institutions and threaten the legitimacy of the government. They suggest that if reform stalls, the country might devolve into a state-by-state dynamic or other less cohesive arrangements, as confidence in a functioning central government erodes. In summary, the transcript frames the Epstein file disclosures as a litmus test for DOJ integrity and political accountability. It portrays a pattern of delayed or selective disclosure, questions about who controls information within the FBI/DOJ, and a risk that political calculations are interfering with lawful obligations. It also foresees significant leadership changes and intensified scrutiny of the department in the near future, with Epstein serving as a focal point for broader critiques of how power and information are managed in the United States.

The situation is concerning, with those who prosecuted criminals becoming targets, while convicted criminals or those awaiting trial are potentially free to seek revenge. However, there is good news: resistance is growing within the FBI, and there is strong public and court support for democracy and the rule of law. The courts have shown promise in standing up for these principles, and there is an expectation of further developments over the weekend.

The Department of Justice is facing significant concerns, particularly regarding its handling of Donald Trump. Many within the DOJ are apprehensive about his potential return to power, recalling the intense scrutiny and legal battles he faced during his presidency, especially related to the Russia investigation. There’s a perception that the Democrats, through internal conflicts, orchestrated a coup against Biden, leaving him surprised about his political future. The discussion highlights Trump's criticism of the DOJ's National Security Division, which he believes fabricated the Russia allegations. The narrative suggests that dismissing his grievances about the DOJ's actions is unreasonable.

A recent memo from the acting FBI director, Brian Driscoll, revealed a list of FBI agents involved in the January 6th investigation, ordered by the deputy attorney general. This situation is unprecedented, as incoming administrations typically do not exert political control over the FBI. The memo indicates a potential purge of experienced agents, including those overseeing national security and criminal investigations, many of whom have been linked to cases that Donald Trump opposed. Additionally, political operatives have been placed in the FBI director's office, raising concerns about their influence on ongoing decisions. The implications of these changes could significantly impact the FBI's operations and integrity.

Why isn't FBI Director Chris Wray publicly defending his department's actions regarding the January 6th investigation? His resignation implies a lack of apolitical integrity within the FBI, suggesting that each presidential administration dictates priorities, rather than upholding a consistent, unbiased approach. This leaves the impression that wrongdoing occurred. The prioritization of the January 6th investigation over other crucial cases, like those involving child sex trafficking and serial killers, has negatively impacted agents' morale. However, some pushback exists; DC judges, including those appointed by both Republican and Democratic presidents, have openly criticized the Department of Justice's actions, refusing to allow these cases to be dismissed. Their outspokenness provides a counterpoint to the perceived silence from other quarters.

After three weeks of training, the speaker saw a litigation hold on their phone with a memo giving Mr. Martin permission to fire probationary employees from the capital c section. The memo referenced people but didn't have a list of names. The speaker headed back to the office and was met by colleagues who shared their confusion. Two hours later, letters terminating them started rolling in. At the end of the night, 15 assistant U. S. Attorneys had been fired. The termination letter stated the decision was based on actions and the prosecution of persons relating to the events that occurred at or near The U. S. Capitol on 01/06/2021. An executive order characterized that work as having involved a grave national injustice. The speaker's hiring hindered the ability of the acting US attorney Martin to staff his office in furtherance of his obligation to faithfully implement the agenda that the American people elected president Trump to SCU. The termination letter made it clear that mister Martin does not understand the role of a prosecutor. Firing 15 qualified attorneys created an immediate deficit in the office to appropriately prosecute cases.

The FBI is being accused of corruption and targeting politicians, parents, and ordinary citizens. Whistleblowers have bravely come forward, facing retaliation and being blocked from working both inside and outside the FBI. This is a troubling time for the American people.

The FBI allegedly maintains a list of over 5,000 employees involved in the January 6 investigation, though US Attorneys are reportedly not included. Some individuals are purportedly being treated poorly for performing their assigned duties related to the investigation. These duties involved investigating facts and applying them to legal standards as guided by prosecutors. This work is described as non-political.

The speaker states that dozens of people have already left, with the civil division down 30% as of a week ago, and likely more now. While some may see opportunity amidst the departures, there's peril because there will be an accounting for lawyers who violated their ethical obligations and rules of professional responsibility. Many things Trump's attorneys are promising would violate those responsibilities. Many arguments being made in court, seemingly directed by the administration, are close to violating ethical lines because they don't appear fact-based. The speaker uses the example of being told to say Elon Musk has no authority. Judges are recognizing these arguments as shams. The speaker expresses being torn, having spent decades at the department.

FBI agents and analysts, who are essential to investigations and operations, are facing unprecedented threats to their jobs due to political pressures. These professionals, committed to their work for many years, are now worried about their livelihoods and futures. If they lose their positions, it could end their careers, jeopardizing their reputations, pensions, and health insurance. The current atmosphere within the FBI is one of fear and uncertainty, as many employees are concerned about how they will support their families. This situation, driven by political gamesmanship, is seen as disgraceful and unlawful, leaving dedicated agents feeling targeted for simply doing their jobs.

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.

After three weeks of training, the speaker received a litigation hold and a memo granting permission to fire probationary employees from the capital c section who had been moved within the office. The speaker was unsure if they were on the list. Upon returning to the office, colleagues shared their confusion. Two hours later, termination letters arrived, dismissing 15 assistant U.S. Attorneys. The speaker's letter cited their actions in prosecuting individuals involved in the events at or near the U.S. Capitol on 01/06/2021. It referenced an executive order from 01/20/2025 characterizing that work as a grave national injustice. The letter stated that the speaker's hiring hindered the acting U.S. attorney's ability to implement President Trump's agenda. The speaker believes Mr. Martin doesn't understand that U.S. attorneys represent the United States, not the president, and that firing 15 attorneys created a deficit in the office's ability to prosecute cases.

The Trump administration has executed a significant purge at the FBI, dismissing all six senior executives and multiple heads of field offices. This includes the leader of the Washington DC office, which was involved in prosecuting Trump, and several federal prosecutors linked to the January 6 investigations. These officials are career law enforcement professionals, not political appointees, and their removal could severely impact the FBI's ability to address terrorism and crime nationwide. Additionally, the acting deputy attorney general has requested a list of FBI employees involved in January 6 cases, affecting personnel across various field offices. This upheaval leaves local offices in disarray and raises concerns about the future of federal law enforcement.

I'm Norm Eisen, publisher of The Contrarian, and I'm joined by Jen Rubin, editor in chief. We have Andrew Weissman with us, who discussed the troubling termination of FBI agents involved in the January 6 investigations. Emil Bove, the acting deputy attorney general, has ordered the disclosure of names of all FBI personnel associated with these cases, potentially affecting thousands. This raises concerns about public safety for those involved in prosecutions. The FBI leadership is reportedly resisting this order, with some special agents standing up for their colleagues. The situation echoes past injustices, and it's crucial for the Department of Justice to uphold the law rather than compromise it. FBI agents are trained in the law and are committed to their mission, demonstrating loyalty to justice over political pressures.

President Trump was almost jailed by his own Justice Department in his first term, due to figures like Jack Smith and Lisa Monaco. There should be a grand jury investigating the entire apparatus, as the problem is systemic, not just personnel-related. The FBI should be taken apart brick by brick, and its headquarters should be up for sale. The FBI's culture rewards corruption and cowardice in ethics and morality. The FBI has the best PR operation in Washington, D.C., making them untouchable, with no one in Congress willing to defang or cut their funding. Members of Congress are intimidated.

FBI agents and analysts, who handle investigations and surveillance, are not influenced by political changes and are dedicated to their work. Most intend to stay for their entire careers, often facing potential termination or retribution for doing their jobs on significant national security cases. This situation has created a sense of fear and uncertainty among them, as losing their jobs would jeopardize their reputations, financial stability, pensions, and health insurance. The current environment within the FBI is chaotic, with employees worried about their futures due to political maneuvering. It is unjust and unacceptable for them to endure such treatment.