House Republicans convened a hearing on FBI whistleblowers yesterday. The name of the committee is a mouthful — the House Judiciary Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government. Rep. Jim Jordan is chair of both the House Judiciary Committee and this House subcommittee and chaired the hearing. The hearing was a companion to the interim staff report released yesterday.
The subcommittee heard testimony from three FBI whistleblowers and one expert on the limited nature of the protections afforded FBI employees. The Democratic members of the subcommittee did their best to disrupt the hearing and defame the witnesses. Their approach is ad hominem. Donald Trump and January 6 are their motif.
In today’s New York Post James Bovard begins his column on the hearing with the performance of Democratic Rep. Linda Sanchez, straight from the Twilight Zone:
Congressional Democrats revealed a new federal crime Thursday: having the same name as anyone who tweeted derisively about the Jan. 6 Capitol Clash.
Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-Calif.), vice chair of the House Equality Caucus championing LGBTQI+, sought to demolish FBI whistleblower Marcus Allen for retweeting a post asserting “Nancy Pelosi staged January 6.”
When Allen repeatedly stated that wasn’t his Twitter account, Sanchez berated him for interrupting her tirade.
After she finally seemed to admit it wasn’t his account, she demanded to know if Allen agreed that Pelosi staged Jan. 6. Allen said no, and Sanchez’s time expired.
Bovard captures the Dems’ ad hominem approach in a few words: “It was unclear Thursday whether congressional Democrats consider FBI critics to be traitors or heretics or maybe both.”
The subcommittee heard from four witnesses at the hearing:
Garret O’Boyle, FBI Special Agent
Steve Friend, Whistleblower; former FBI Special Agent
Marcus Allen, Whistleblower; FBI Staff Operations Specialist
Tristan Leavitt, President, Empower Oversight; former Member of the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board
Leavitt’s organization represents Friend and Allen. His testimony explains the limited nature of protections available to FBI whistleblowers. The testimony of all four witnesses is accessible here.
I have posted video of the entire hearing below. It was a wild and wooly affair. Sanchez’s performance begins just before 52:00. Her cross-examination of Allen is a good specimen of the Democrats’ approach to the witnesses and the issues they raise concerning possible misuse of security clearance procedures. Democrats deny that they are whistleblowers.
Newsweek provides something resembling a news account of the rock and roll aspect of the hearing without getting into the testimony of the witnesses. Fox News also has a story on the hearing here and the AP here.
The Hill provides a fair account of the whole shebang. It makes for troubling reading. It goes into the testimony of the witnesses and their disciplinary issues. If you read one story, I recommend The Hill’s.
The Hill also procured a statement from the FBI: “The FBI’s mission is to uphold the Constitution and protect the American people. The FBI has not and will not retaliate against individuals who make protected whistleblower disclosures.” The FBI statement is a little tricky. It raises in acute form the limited nature of “protected whistleblower disclosures” for FBI employees.
Notice: All comments are subject to moderation. Our comments are intended to be a forum for civil discourse bearing on the subject under discussion. Commenters who stray beyond the bounds of civility or employ what we deem gratuitous vulgarity in a comment — including, but not limited to, “s***,” “f***,” “a*******,” or one of their many variants — will be banned without further notice in the sole discretion of the site moderator.