FBI whistleblowers testify at GOP-led House hearing — full video

[0:00] The chair now recognizes himself for an opening statement. [0:26] Politics is driving the agenda in federal agencies. [0:29] If you don't believe me, just read the Durham report from three days ago. [0:33] No probable cause, no predicate, no evidence whatsoever. [0:38] But the FBI opened a case, took a dossier, a dossier they knew was false, [0:44] from a political campaign, from the Clinton campaign, [0:47] to spy on a presidential candidate and American citizens. [0:52] Here was the key line from the Durham report. [0:54] Quote, the FBI failed to uphold their mission of fidelity to the law. [1:00] They didn't follow the law, didn't have probable cause or evidence to do what they did. [1:05] An agency focused on politics. [1:09] But I would argue today it's even worse. [1:12] Because today it's not just presidential campaigns. [1:15] Today it's the American people. [1:16] They're the target. [1:19] You're not politically correct. [1:20] You're not in line with what they think should be the political position, the proper position. [1:25] You're the target. [1:26] Parents attending a school board meeting, pro-lifers praying at a clinic, [1:30] or Catholics simply attending mass, you could be a target. [1:35] And maybe what's just as frightening is if you're one of the good employees in our government [1:41] who come forward to talk about the targeting, you then become a target. [1:47] You face retaliation. [1:48] If you're one of those, and I think there are thousands and thousands of good employees [1:52] working across our country in the FBI and other agencies, but if you're one of those good [1:56] employees driven by your commitment to the Constitution and your conscience and you come [2:00] forward, they're going to come after you. [2:04] If you come forward and tell us about the radical traditional Catholic memo, you come forward [2:09] and tell us about this idea that they're going to create some snitch line to report on parents [2:14] going to school board meetings. [2:15] As you do that, they will try to crush you, they will retaliate against you, they're coming [2:20] after you. [2:22] But these guys today, they were brave enough, they took their oath seriously, they believe [2:27] in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the rule of law, and they came forward. [2:33] And I want to thank them for doing it. [2:34] But because they did, man, oh man, if they face retaliation, Mr. O'Boyle was selected for [2:40] a new unit, moved his family from Kansas to Quantico, Virginia, and the first day he arrives [2:47] here, after being selected for this new unit, serving in our military, serving well in the [2:55] FBI, with the first day he arrives here, they tell him his clearance is suspended. [3:00] Can't get his belongings for his family. [3:02] Can't get his clothes, can't get his children's clothes, four kids, and a two-week-old newborn. [3:09] Mr. Friend raised concerns about using the SWAT team to arrest someone who was willing [3:15] to turn themselves in. [3:17] And the FBI takes his clearance, wouldn't even let him get access to his firearms training [3:23] records, which he needs to get employment. [3:28] Mr. O'Boyle went 200-some days without getting paid. [3:31] Mr. Allens went 450 days without getting paid. [3:34] This is the kind of retaliation they have faced for coming forward and telling us the truth. [3:38] For Mr. Allen, he lost his clearance for simply doing his job, compiling case-related research, [3:43] using open-source material, news and articles, and passing them on to the people working the [3:47] case. [3:48] And they didn't like some of the material he passed on 450 days without pay. [3:55] And the retaliation isn't limited to the FBI. [3:58] Democrats on this committee also engaged in it. [4:02] They leaked parts of these guys' interviews to the press. [4:05] The press reported on it, and then the press had to issue corrections. [4:10] The Post, the Washington Post, the New York Times, Rolling Stone, because what the Democrats [4:14] told him wasn't accurate, what they reported wasn't accurate. [4:19] That's why Mr. Allen would only let Republicans talk to him. [4:22] He said, I've seen what's going on. [4:25] I want to be interviewed by the Republicans. [4:28] We've talked to over two dozen whistleblowers. [4:31] People have come to us. [4:32] We've interviewed several of those, and today three of them. [4:34] Three of those brave whistleblowers and a lawyer who represents them will tell us their [4:40] story. [4:41] They will tell us what happened, what they saw, and then what happened to them because [4:45] they were courageous enough to report it to Congress. [4:49] And I just want to tell you guys, get ready. [4:52] Get ready, because these guys are going to come after you. [4:55] You know they are. [4:57] Last hearing we had, last hearing we had, we had two journalists, Democrats, two Democrat [5:03] journalists sat right where you guys did. [5:05] And these guys tried to get them to divulge their sources. [5:07] Someone needs to tell them how the First Amendment works. [5:11] And oh, while Mr. Taibbi, one of those award-winning journalists sitting right where you're sitting, [5:16] was testifying, guess what else was happening? [5:18] The IRS was knocking on his door. [5:21] So get ready. [5:23] But I know you're up to the task, because you came forward in the first place. [5:28] Thank you for your commitment to the Constitution, the First Amendment, the rule of law, and for [5:32] your willingness to come forward and tell Congress what you've seen, what you've witnessed. [5:38] Thank you for doing that. [5:38] Mr. Levitt, thank you for representing him. [5:41] We appreciate that. [5:42] Now I yield to the ranking member for an opening statement. [5:48] Thank you, Mr. Chair, and good morning. [5:51] Today is our fourth hearing in this select committee. [5:53] In our previous three hearings, we've heard my Republican colleagues and their witnesses [6:00] downplay the danger of extremism in America, suggesting that the 2020 election was stolen, [6:11] and claimed that January 6th was anything other than an attempted insurrection, [6:16] anything other than domestic terrorism. [6:20] From what I can glean about today's hearing, and I'm going to say glean because my Republican [6:26] colleagues don't really want us to work together. [6:29] They give us the bare minimum notice for hearings, no subject indicated. [6:35] We learn who the hearing witnesses is from British tabloids. [6:40] That's not normal in the House of Representatives. [6:43] None must wonder, are Republicans scared of giving us the information so that we can do our own [6:50] due diligence on these conspiracy theories, these ideas that they want to put forward? [6:57] Indeed, today's hearing will be more of the same. [7:01] Perhaps they're too far gone to realize that, in fact, this hearing is evidence, as if we need [7:06] it anymore, that MAGA Republicans are a threat to the rule of law in America. [7:13] Less than two months ago, former President Trump, facing mounting investigations into his many [7:19] alleged crimes, declared that, quote, Republicans in Congress should defund the DOJ and the FBI [7:28] until they can come to their senses. [7:30] And we all know that when Trump says, jump, the Republicans in the House say, how high? [7:38] So here we are, on Police Week, watching House Republicans jump to lay the foundation to defund [7:48] law enforcement. [7:50] My colleagues on the far right are on a mission to attack, discredit, and ultimately dismantle [7:56] the FBI. [7:57] This is defund the police on steroids. [8:00] As part of their mission, my colleagues have brought in these former agents, men who lost [8:07] their security clearances because they were a threat to our national security, who, out [8:13] of malice or ignorance or both, have put partisan agenda above the oath they swore to serve this [8:22] country and protect its national security. [8:25] It is everyday American taxpayer who is bearing the burden of this circus-like hearing. [8:32] A year ago, Republicans promised that if they won control of Congress, they would focus [8:37] on kitchen table issues like bringing down inflation. [8:43] Now we got a bait and switch. [8:45] Instead of trying to make their constituents' lives better, they're wasting time and taxpayer [8:50] dollars on endless, fruitless string of partisan investigations. [8:56] Instead of working to make America more secure, they're manufacturing opportunities to attack [9:03] law enforcement agencies, even and especially on the same week that we are remembering those [9:11] law enforcement personnel who lost their lives in the line of duty. [9:15] We are assembled today to hear conspiracy theories and speculations. [9:21] We're going to hear alternative facts, actions and events taken far out of context. [9:27] When they lack support for a baseless allegation, get this, my Republican friends will cite the [9:33] absence of evidence of evidence of a cover-up. [9:36] And any suggestion that Chairman Jordan's witnesses are anything but victims of an oppressive, dystopian [9:44] government will be met with mock outrage. [9:48] So we all know what we are about to see. [9:53] The real question, the real thing that Americans need to be focused on is why. [9:59] My Republican colleagues would like me and others to believe that they've suddenly found [10:03] religion when it comes to misconduct in law enforcement. [10:07] Give me a break. [10:10] When the FBI is rifling through personal correspondence of people of color, when law enforcement tries [10:16] to push policies to limit the freedom of people practicing a different religion, or unjustly pursuing [10:23] people in cars who look like Philando Castile or my children, or who are just going about their [10:29] business, or breaking down the doors of people's homes like Breonna Taylor, do you think my [10:35] Republican colleagues care about that? [10:38] They don't bat an eye. [10:40] But when the FBI investigates conservative Christian white men who are actually threatening violence, [10:47] suddenly my Republican colleagues are rushing to defund the police. [10:52] The reason we're here today is because Chairman Jordan wants to make America Trump again. [10:58] My Republican colleagues aren't here representing their constituents, not my constituents. [11:05] They're representing Donald Trump. [11:08] They're acting as his defense attorney, his campaign operative, and everything in between. [11:15] This committee, this select committee, is a clearinghouse for testing conspiracy theories [11:21] for Donald Trump to use in his 2024 presidential campaign. [11:26] What's clear from these hearings is that Donald Trump knows just as well as I do that the [11:32] danger to him and his MAGA movement is the rule of law. [11:38] That's why this committee is working so hard to undermine the rule of law. [11:43] That's why Donald Trump asked Jordan and others on this committee to waste our time and taxpayer [11:49] money asked the Speaker of the House to attack the Manhattan District Attorney, Alvin Bragg, [11:56] for having the audacity to indict the former president on 34 counts of fraud. [12:03] And that's why this committee hasn't given up its stolen election talking points. [12:10] And now, here we are today, going after the FBI on Donald Trump's behalf. [12:16] This is not a committee on the weaponization of government. [12:21] This is a committee for the weaponization of government. [12:25] This select committee is clearly focused on undermining law enforcement so extremists can [12:31] undermine our elections through corruption and control our government through threats of [12:37] political violence. [12:38] I hope Democrats, as well as Republicans, watch and listen this morning. [12:46] Because this hearing will demonstrate far better than any opening statement ever could [12:51] that outside of Washington, the real divide in America is not between Democrats and Republicans. [12:58] It's between people who love this country, who believe in the rule of law, who want to follow [13:04] the law, and those who will fight to make our union more perfect, and the people who want [13:10] to tear down the rule of law and betray our Constitution for personal, as well as political [13:18] gain. [13:19] I yield back. [13:21] The gentlewoman yields back. [13:23] Without objection, all other opening statements will be included in the record. [13:26] We will now introduce today's witnesses. [13:30] Mr. Garrett O'Boyle. [13:31] Mr. O'Boyle is a whistleblower, an FBI special agent, most recently in the Wichita Resident [13:36] Agency of the Kansas City Field Office. [13:39] Prior to becoming an FBI agent, Mr. O'Boyle served our nation as an infantryman in the [13:45] United States Army for six years. [13:46] In the Army, Mr. O'Boyle was deployed to both Iraq and Afghanistan. [13:50] He received numerous service awards, including the Combat Infantryman Badge. [13:55] Mr. O'Boyle received an honorable discharge from the Army. [13:58] Upon leaving, Mr. O'Boyle continued his commitment to public service, serving as a police officer [14:03] in Waukesha, Wisconsin for four years. [14:05] Mr. O'Boyle joined the FBI in 2018. [14:08] As an FBI agent, Mr. O'Boyle was selected to serve on the Joint Terrorism Task Force [14:12] and the SWAT team. [14:14] Mr. O'Boyle graduated cum laude from Marquette University with a degree in criminology and [14:19] law studies. [14:20] But the FBI questions his loyalty to the Constitution and to our country. [14:26] Mr. Friend is a whistleblower, an FBI special agent, most recently in the Daytona Beach [14:31] Resident Agency of the Jacksonville Field Office. [14:33] Prior to becoming an FBI agent in 2014, Mr. Friend served as a police officer in Savannah, [14:38] Georgia, in Pooler, Georgia. [14:40] And as an FBI agent, Mr. Friend spent seven years working human trafficking investigations [14:46] and investigating crimes against children. [14:48] Prior to blowing the whistle in 2022, Mr. Friend had received several awards from the [14:53] FBI for his performance. [14:54] Mr. Friend is a graduate of the University of Notre Dame. [14:57] And again, after this service to our country, the FBI questions his loyalty to the country. [15:02] Mr. Allen is a whistleblower and staff operations specialist with the FBI's Charlotte Field [15:09] Office. [15:09] Mr. Allen has 20 years of experience as an intelligence professional in the FBI and the United States [15:15] Armed Services. [15:17] Prior to joining the FBI, Mr. Allen served in the United States Marine Corps, including [15:21] service in Iraq, Kuwait, and Japan. [15:23] In the Marines, Mr. Allen received several awards, including the Navy and Marine Corps' Accommodation [15:28] Medal and the Navy and Marine Corps' Achievement Medal. [15:30] Mr. Allen received an honorable discharge from his Marine Corps duty. [15:34] And again, the letter we got from the FBI, they're questioning his commitment to our country. [15:40] I find that astounding. [15:41] Prior to blowing the whistle, Mr. Allen received several awards from the FBI, including being [15:44] selected as Employee of the Year for the Charlotte Field Office in 2019. [15:48] Mr. Allen holds a Bachelor of Arts degree from American Military University. [15:54] Mr. Tristan Levitt. [15:56] Mr. Levitt is an attorney and the president of Empower Oversight, an organization dedicated [16:00] to enhancing independent oversight of government and corporate wrongdoing. [16:04] Prior to joining Empower Oversight, Mr. Levitt was a Senate-confirmed member of the United [16:08] States Merit System Protection Board, which adjudicates whistleblower retaliation claims. [16:15] Mr. Levitt also served as the principal deputy special counsel at the Office of the Special [16:19] Counsel, which enforces federal whistleblower laws. [16:22] Earlier in his career, Mr. Levitt was a counsel for Senator Grassley on the Senate Judiciary [16:26] Committee and staffer on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. [16:29] He's a graduate of Brigham Young University and Georgetown University Law Center and is [16:35] considered an expert on the whistleblower law. [16:38] As far as I know, the FBI hasn't questioned his loyalty to the country. [16:41] We welcome our witnesses and thank them for appearing today. [16:46] We will begin by swearing you in. [16:48] Would you please stand and raise your right hand? [16:54] Do you swear or affirm under penalty or perjury that the testimony you are about to give is [16:59] true and correct to the best of your knowledge, information, and beliefs? [17:02] So help you, God. [17:05] Let the record show that each witness answered in the affirmative. [17:08] Thank you. [17:08] Please be seated. [17:10] Please know that your written testimony will be entered into the record in its entirety. [17:14] Accordingly, we ask that you summarize your testimony in approximately five, but we're [17:17] going to give you plenty of time. [17:18] But if you can keep it around five, great. [17:20] But if you go over, no worries there. [17:23] And we will start with Mr. O'Boyle. [17:25] Mr. O'Boyle, you're recognized for your opening statement. [17:30] Chairman Jordan, members of the committee, thank you for addressing FBI malfeasance and allowing [17:35] me to speak today. [17:36] Aside from that point of gratitude, I'm sad, I'm disappointed, and I'm angry that I have [17:42] to be here to testify about the weaponization of the FBI and DOJ. [17:47] Weaponization against not only its own employees, but against those institutions and individuals [17:51] that are supposed to protect the American people. [17:54] I'm here today because even though I'm wrongfully suspended from the FBI, I remain duty-bound [17:58] to the American people to play my small role in rectifying these issues. [18:02] After all, I never swore an oath to the FBI. [18:05] I swore an oath to the Constitution. [18:06] I've served my nation and community my entire adult life, first in the United States Army, [18:12] then as a police officer, and lastly as an FBI special agent. [18:17] Shortly after high school, I joined the United States Army where I served in the infantry, [18:20] and I was quickly promoted through the ranks. [18:22] I deployed to both Iraq and Afghanistan in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring [18:27] Freedom. [18:28] I served in the historic 101st Airborne Division. [18:31] I received the Combat Infantryman's Badge, which is awarded to those infantrymen who engage [18:35] in ground combat with our nation's enemies. [18:38] The Army's official motto is, this will defend. [18:41] Along with numerous others, I volunteered to serve this nation, risking my life in combat to [18:45] protect America and her values. [18:47] I know some of the best men and women this country has to offer. [18:50] They come from all backgrounds, races, and creeds. [18:54] They helped mold me into the person I am today. [18:56] Each was willing to sacrifice, and many did, to protect this great nation. [19:01] It is our duty to honor their sacrifices by standing up for what is right, regardless [19:05] of the difficulty. [19:07] After serving in the Army, I became a police officer. [19:10] Police officers, like me, are imperfect beings, but we strive to uphold the law and the Constitution. [19:15] People who go to work every day, trying to make their communities better, yet who nonetheless [19:20] are faced with budget cuts and calls for defunding as we continue spiraling away from law and [19:24] order as a nation. [19:27] While serving as a police officer, I finished my bachelor's degree graduating with honors [19:30] in criminology and law studies. [19:32] Shortly thereafter, I began the long road to becoming an FBI special agent, a position [19:36] I once understood to be the pinnacle of law enforcement, and a way to continue to serve [19:40] this nation and protect and defend the Constitution. [19:44] During my four years as a special agent, I received the highest annual review an employee [19:48] can receive. [19:49] I volunteered for, tried out for, and was selected for an FBI SWAT team. [19:52] I also volunteered for, tried out for, and was selected for a new unit the FBI created. [19:56] I also received an award for my work on an anti-abortion extremism case. [20:01] I've been smeared as a malcontent and subpar FBI employee. [20:04] This smear stands in stark contrast to my life in public service. [20:08] This smear campaign, disgusting as it is, is unsurprising. [20:12] Despite our oath to uphold the Constitution, too many in the FBI aren't willing to sacrifice [20:16] for the hard right over the easy wrong. [20:19] They see what becomes of whistleblowers. [20:20] How the FBI destroys their careers, suspends them under false pretenses, takes their security [20:26] clearances and pay with no true options for real recourse or remedy. [20:29] This is by design. [20:31] It creates an Orwellian atmosphere that silences opposition and discussion. [20:35] We know what is right to do, yet we too often refuse to do what is right because of the [20:39] difficulty and suffering it incurs. [20:41] I couldn't knowingly continue on this path silently without speaking out against the weaponization [20:45] I witnessed, even if it meant losing my job, my career, my livelihood, my family's home, [20:51] and now my anonymity. [20:54] It's up to members of this committee, current and former FBI employees, and indeed all Americans [20:58] to ensure that the weaponization of our own government against the people comes to an [21:02] end, no matter the personal cost. [21:03] As James Madison prudently opined, in framing a government which is to be administered by [21:10] men over men, the great difficulty lies in this. [21:13] You must first enable the government to control the governed, and the next place, oblige it [21:17] to control itself. [21:19] The safeguards currently in place at the FBI are clearly inadequate and must be reworked [21:23] to protect whistleblowers and others who are inappropriately targeted. [21:27] The FBI can extract whatever they want from me. [21:30] I'm willing to bear that burden. [21:32] I've sworn to defend this country from enemies, both foreign and domestic, even if that means [21:36] sacrificing my life. [21:37] I've lived that oath out since first enlisting in the Army, consistently saying, here am I, [21:42] send me. [21:43] My oath, however, did not include sacrificing the hopes, dreams, and livelihood of my family, [21:48] my strong, beautiful, and courageous wife, and our four sweet and beautiful daughters who [21:53] have endured this process along with me. [21:55] In weaponized fashion, the FBI allowed me to accept orders to a new position halfway across [21:59] the country. [22:00] They allowed us to sell my family's home. [22:02] They ordered me to report to the new unit when our youngest daughter was two weeks old. [22:06] Then, on my first day on the new assignment, they suspended me, rendering my family homeless. [22:12] They refused to release our goods, including our clothes, for weeks. [22:20] All I wanted to do was serve my country by stopping bad guys and protecting the innocent. [22:25] To my chagrin, bad guys have begun running parts of the government, making it difficult to [22:29] continue to serve this nation and protect the innocent. [22:32] But I, for one, will never stop trying, and I will never forget my oath. [22:36] Thank you. [22:37] Thank you, Mr. Boyle. [22:41] God bless you. [22:42] Mr. Friend, you're recognized for your opening statement. [22:47] Thank you, Chairman Jorman and members of the committee. [22:49] My name is Stephen Friend. [22:51] I'm a senior fellow for the Center for Renewing America. [22:54] Prior to assuming my current position, I was a special agent for the Federal Bureau of [22:57] Investigation for eight and a half years. [23:00] During that time, I investigated approximately 200 violent crimes, such as aggravated assaults, [23:04] murder, child abuse, rape, robbery, child molestation, child pornography, and human trafficking. [23:10] I also served five years on an FBI SWAT team and spent five years as a local law enforcement officer [23:15] in the state of Georgia. [23:17] In August 2022, I made protected whistleblower disclosures to my immediate supervisor, [23:22] assistant special agents in charge, and special agent in charge about my concerns regarding [23:26] January 6th investigations assigned to my office. [23:28] I believed our departures from case management rules established in the FBI's domestic investigations [23:34] and operations guide could have undermined potentially righteous prosecutions and may have been [23:39] part of an effort to inflate the FBI's statistics on domestic extremism. [23:43] I also voiced concerns that the FBI's use of SWAT and large-scale arrest operations to apprehend [23:48] suspects who were accused of nonviolent crimes and misdemeanors represented by counsel and who [23:53] pledged to cooperate with the federal authorities in the event of criminal charges created an unnecessary [23:57] risk to FBI personnel and public safety. [24:01] At each level of my chain of command, leadership cautioned that despite my exemplary work performance, [24:06] whistleblowing placed my otherwise bright future with the FBI at risk. [24:11] Special agents take an oath to protect the U.S. Constitution. [24:15] The dangers of federal law enforcement overreach were hammered home to me when I was required [24:19] to attend trainings at the Holocaust Memorial Museum and MLK Memorial. [24:24] I cited my oath and training in my conversations with my FBI supervisors. [24:27] Nevertheless, the FBI weaponized the security clearance processes to facilitate my removal [24:33] from active duty within one month of my disclosures. [24:37] In addition to an indefinite unpaid suspension, the FBI initiated a campaign of humiliation and [24:42] intimidation to punish and pressure me to resign. [24:46] In violation of HIPAA, individuals at the FBI leaked my private medical information to a reporter [24:50] at the New York Times. [24:52] In violation of the Privacy Act, the FBI refused to furnish my training records for several months. [24:56] To date, they only provided a portion of the records, which are essential to obtaining [25:00] private investigator and firearms licenses in the state of Florida. [25:04] Even after releasing some of the records, the FBI refuses to confirm their legitimacy [25:08] to the Florida Department of Agriculture, rendering the few documents they have provided [25:12] practically useless. [25:14] The FBI denied my request to seek outside employment in an obvious attempt to deprive me [25:18] of the ability to support my family. [25:20] Finally, the FBI inspection division imposed an illegal gag order in an attempt to prevent [25:25] me from communicating with my family and attorneys. [25:29] Working as an FBI special agent was my dream job. [25:32] My whistleblowing was apolitical and in the spirit of upholding my oath. [25:36] Nonetheless, the FBI cynically elected to close ranks and attack the messenger. [25:40] The FBI is incentivized to work against the American people and in dire need of drastic reform, [25:45] particularly in these areas. [25:46] The integrated program management system incentivizes the use of inappropriate investigatory processes [25:53] and tools to achieve arbitrary statistical accomplishments. [25:57] Mission creep within the national security branch has refocused counterterrorism from legitimate [26:02] foreign actors to political opponents within our borders. [26:06] The FBI weaponizes process crimes and reinterprets laws to initiate pretextual prosecutions and persecute [26:12] its political enemies. [26:14] Bureau intelligence analysis capability increasingly dictates operations, turning the FBI into the [26:19] intelligence agency with a law enforcement capability. [26:23] FBI collusion with big tech to gather intelligence on Americans, censor political speech, and target [26:28] citizens for malicious prosecution. [26:31] A dysfunctional promotion process fosters a revolving door of inexperienced, ambitious FBI supervisors [26:36] ascending the management ladder within the agency. [26:40] FBI informant protocols that are broken and abusive. [26:43] The FBI skirts the Whistleblower Protection Act and exploits a security clearance revocation process [26:48] to expel employees who make legally protected disclosures. [26:53] I am pleased to see the weaponization committee is taking testimony from FBI whistleblowers. [26:58] I would also like to take this opportunity to address correspondence recently received by the subcommittee. [27:03] Yesterday, May 17, 2023, FBI Acting Assistant Director Christopher Dunham submitted a letter to this subcommittee. [27:10] Portions of his letter concern the suspension and revocation of my security clearance. [27:15] Parenthetically, I also received a letter from the FBI Executive Assistant Director Jennifer Moore yesterday, notifying me that my security clearance was revoked. [27:24] I find the timing of these letters dubious, but leave that up to the subcommittee's determination. [27:30] Instead, I would like to address and add vital context to the portion of Mr. Dunham's letter pertaining to my alleged violation of adjudicative guideline J. [27:38] Mr. Dunham is referring to an audio recording I created of my August 23, 2022 meeting with Jacksonville Assistant Special Agents in Charge Colt Markovsky and Sean Ryan. [27:50] After making protective whistleblower disclosures to my immediate supervisor in August 19, 2022, [27:55] ASAC Markovsky summoned me to a meeting at the FBI Jacksonville office. [28:00] ASAC Markovsky told me the meeting was intended to be an opportunity to discuss my concerns. [28:03] I anticipated the meeting might ultimately lead to my executive managers attempting to compel me to participate in an activity which placed public safety at risk. [28:13] I was concerned ASAC Markovsky and ASAC Ryan may threaten adverse actions toward my career as a result of my whistleblower disclosure. [28:21] Prior to the meeting, I consulted Florida law to confirm that a law enforcement exemption exists for state two-party consent restriction. [28:28] I decided to record the meeting to memorialize our discussion and my concerns about the FBI's misconduct. [28:33] When I entered the FBI Jacksonville office building, ASAC Markovsky and ASAC Ryan were having a private meeting. [28:40] I waited for them in a conference room. [28:42] When they entered, all of us placed our cellular phones on the conference table. [28:45] As an experienced investigator who has conducted hundreds of recorded interviews, [28:50] I noted how both ASAC Markovsky and ASAC Ryan repeated themselves throughout our discussion [28:54] and continually insisted I agree to their premise that I was insubordinate and refusing to perform my job. [29:00] I rebuffed each allegation and repeated that I believed I was fulfilling my oath of office. [29:05] By making my disclosure about the FBI's rule of departures and the inappropriate risk to public safety via aggressive arrest tactics for January 6th subjects. [29:15] It was my sincere belief that my ASACs were also recording our conversations. [29:19] In January 2023, I participated in an interview with the FBI Security Division. [29:24] During that interview, I was asked if I recorded my August 23, 2022 meeting with ASAC Markovsky and ASAC Ryan. [29:31] I answered honestly that I had. [29:33] Although it would seem to be an obvious and natural follow-up, [29:36] the FBI Security Division interviewers did not request a copy of the recording. [29:41] FBI Security Division should be gravely concerned [29:43] if executive managers threaten subordinate whistleblowers with adverse action. [29:47] I submitted that this omission by the FBI Security Division solidifies my contention [29:53] that ASACs, Markovsky, and Ryan created their own recording of our meeting. [29:57] The FBI was not concerned about potential whistleblower retaliation. [30:01] The Bureau was only interested in learning if these actions were at risk of exposure. [30:07] I pray that all members consider the information I and my fellow whistleblowers present. [30:11] You may think I'm a political partisan. [30:14] You may think I am a grifter. [30:16] You may think I'm a conspiracy theorist. [30:18] It does not matter. [30:19] Now, simply put, this committee should avoid the temptation to impugn the character [30:24] and the motivations of the messengers seated before you. [30:28] I sacrifice my dream job to share this information with the American people. [30:32] I humbly ask all the members to do your jobs and consider the merit of what I have presented. [30:37] Thank you. [30:38] Thank you, Mr. Friend. [30:41] I appreciate your testimony. [30:42] Mr. Allen, you are now recognized for your opening statement. [30:47] Thank you, Chairman. [30:48] Hello. [30:49] My name is Marcus Allen. [30:50] I'm a staff operations specialist for the FBI and the Charlotte Field Office. [30:55] Due to whistleblower retaliation by the FBI, I have been suspended without pay for over a year. [31:00] Thank you to the committee for allowing me time today to convey my concerns about the current FBI. [31:05] In particular, I am concerned, and I believe this committee should also be concerned, about the FBI's use of the security clearance process to retaliate against whistleblowers. [31:16] First, though, just so you know a little bit about me, I served honorably in the United States Marine Corps from 2000 to 2005. [31:22] I was deployed to Kuwait and served two tours in Iraq and contributed to Operation Iraqi Freedom. [31:30] During my deployments, I was exposed to live enemy fire on numerous occasions, even though I served primarily in analytical and intelligence roles. [31:37] I was awarded the Navy and Marine Corps Commendation Medal and the Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Medal. [31:42] I eventually joined the FBI and was Employee of the Year in 2019 in the Charlotte Field Office. [31:48] As the holder of a top-secret security clearance since 2001, I've been trusted with the nation's greatest secrets. [31:55] So why am I here today? [31:56] Despite my history of unblemished service to the United States, the FBI suspended my security clearance, accusing me of actually being disloyal to my country. [32:06] This outrageous and insulting accusation is based on unsubstantiated accusations that I hold conspiratorial views regarding the events of January 6, 2021, [32:18] and that I allegedly sympathize with criminal conduct. [32:21] I do not. [32:22] I was not in Washington, D.C. on January 6th, played no part in the events of January 6th, and I condemn all criminal activity that occurred. [32:32] Instead, it appears that I was retaliated against because I forwarded information to my superiors and others that questioned the official narrative of the events of January 6th. [32:42] As a result, I was accused of promoting conspiratorial views and unreliable information. [32:48] Because I did this, the FBI questioned my allegiance to the United States. [32:52] Since I was suspended, there's been a dearth of communication from the FBI, with interactions seemingly only being forced by actions from my counsel or members of Congress. [33:03] For example, I was not even interviewed by anyone from the FBI until May of 2022. [33:10] I was suspended in January of 2022. [33:14] This interaction with the FBI happened on the heels of a public statement from a congressional member in early May of 2022. [33:21] The member made statements indicating the FBI was conducting a purge of employees with conservative viewpoints. [33:29] Within hours of the public statements, my counsel received a phone call from the FBI wanting to see if they could conduct an interview. [33:36] I promptly complied and did an interview with investigators within a week. [33:42] Throughout this ordeal, I and my counsel have responded quickly, whereas the FBI has only stonewalled. [33:47] I have filed a federal civil rights lawsuit, which is pending, seeking to recover my livelihood and restore my good name. [33:56] Recently, my counsel filed a whistleblower complaint with the Justice Department's Office of Inspector General. [34:02] The complaint set forth retaliation through misuse of the security clearance process, as well as reprisal against me for making a protected disclosure. [34:09] Interestingly enough, in the wake of filing the complaint, I received correspondence from the FBI indicating that my clearance had now been formally revoked. [34:22] This occurred after filing my complaint with the IG. [34:26] The new and baseless claims made in the letter had never been brought up prior to the issuance of the security clearance revocation letter. [34:33] I have never had the opportunity to defend myself. [34:37] I only had one interview with the FBI, which occurred a year ago after a parent prompting from Congress. [34:43] In that interview, the investigators, towards the end of the interview, uttered in response to my exasperation, don't sue us. [34:51] This has been a trying circumstance for me and my family. [34:56] It has been more than a year since the FBI took my paycheck from me, and we're getting financially crushed. [35:00] My family and I have been surviving on early withdrawals from our retirement accounts, while the FBI has ignored my request for approval to obtain outside employment during the review of my security clearance. [35:13] We have lost our federal health insurance coverage, and there's apparently no end in sight. [35:18] I'm hopeful scrutiny from Congress and from the Inspector General will deter the FBI from abusing the security clearance process to retaliate against others the way it's retaliated against me. [35:27] This is why I filed a whistleblower retaliation complaint with the IG and why I'm here today to answer your questions. [35:33] Thank you. [35:34] And I also have a rebuttal if the member will allow me to say thank you. [35:40] This is a rebuttal of the FBI correspondence just recently sent to the committee in reference to my clearance suspension and now revocation. [35:49] Calumny is not a word to be thrown around lightly. [35:52] In regards to the FBI's treatment of me, it is fitting. [35:56] This is conduct unbecoming of an organization given to public trust. [35:59] Think about that. [36:01] My treatment, without a doubt, has sent a chilling effect through what semblance remains of an analytical cadre. [36:08] This was not a thorough investigation in my regard. [36:11] I have not been afforded an opportunity to appropriately defend myself or confront the claims made against me. [36:18] Interestingly, the revocation language citing guideline E is the first instance I've ever seen referring to this specific guidance in my case. [36:26] The claim that I obstructed a lawful investigation is dubious, and I do not recall ever being admonished for such an infraction. [36:34] In regards to the paragraph in the letters highlighting an alleged incident with a special agent, I have no idea what it refers to. [36:41] This alleged incident did not come up at all during the alleged thorough investigation. [36:45] Again, as with guideline E, this is the first appearance of this allegation during this entire ordeal. [36:53] Next, I do not recall ever receiving a directive to stop sending information in regards to the sixth. [36:59] Why would you not want any more information sent to you? [37:01] Furthermore, the September 29th, 2021 email referred to in the letter is part of a protected disclosure, [37:08] and this correspondence represents documentary evidence of a protected disclosure as a source of retaliation and reprisal. [37:17] Alternative analysis and differing viewpoints should be welcomed, even though they may not be ultimately acted upon by the actual decision makers. [37:24] Groupthink should not be an ethos championed in an investigative organization. [37:28] To shut down differing viewpoints is the end of any analytical or investigative body. [37:34] It sends a chilling effect across the workforce and does not allow for intellectual freedom, [37:39] which is vital to any investigative body seeking out the truth. [37:43] It is possible the ire towards my perspective could have been due to folks wanting to maintain invincible ignorance [37:49] instead of consciously and mentally transferring over to willful ignorance. [37:54] This is the end of my statement, and thank you for my time. [37:57] Thank you, Mr. Allen. [37:58] Mr. Levitt. [37:59] Chairman Jordan, Ranking Member Plaskett, members of the subcommittee, [38:04] thank you so much for the invitation to testify today. [38:06] I currently serve as the president of Empower Oversight. [38:09] We're honored to represent Stephen Friend and Marcus Allen. [38:13] FBI whistleblowers have second-class status compared to those in most federal agencies. [38:18] When Congress adopted the modern system of whistleblower protections, [38:21] it prohibited retaliation against FBI whistleblowers. [38:23] But it gave them none of the process that other federal law enforcement agencies received, [38:29] like the DEA, the ATF, U.S. Marshals, and Secret Service. [38:34] Whistleblowers of those agencies can all file retaliation complaints with the U.S. Office of Special Counsel, an independent agency. [38:40] FBI whistleblowers cannot. [38:42] Whistleblowers at those agencies can all repeal retaliation to the Merit Systems Protection Board, on which I recently served. [38:48] Until just last year, FBI whistleblowers could not. [38:51] They finally got that right in last December's NDAA. [38:54] But Congress must ensure that this new jurisdiction applies as intended to all FBI retaliation cases. [39:01] Many have been wending their way for years through DOJ's long and extensive process. [39:08] But the laws prohibiting retaliation have been on the books that entire time. [39:12] The FBI cannot claim now that these are new rights just because they now have to justify their actions before the MSPB. [39:19] Time has demonstrated, in my opinion, that it was a mistake to exclude the FBI from the standard whistleblower protection process. [39:25] It discourages integrity and encourages deceit and even corruption. [39:29] Congress should treat the FBI the same as all other federal law enforcement agencies. [39:33] Eliminating a special exception and giving its employees access to OSC to investigate retaliation. [39:38] The hardworking employees of the FBI deserve equal protection of the law. [39:44] The FBI's latest troubling practice is suspending security clearances to retaliate against whistleblowers. [39:50] Mr. Friend and Mr. Allen, along with Mr. O'Boyle, are just several public examples of this trend. [39:55] When the FBI suspends a clearance, it also immediately suspends the employee indefinitely, without pay. [40:00] To make matters worse, it holds them and their families hostage by requiring them to get permission to take another job, permission the FBI routinely denies. [40:09] Congress needs to ensure the FBI stops this abuse. [40:13] In light of all these obstacles for FBI whistleblowers, you would think Congress would do everything that it could to welcome their disclosures here. [40:20] But FBI employees coming to Congress have unfortunately been shamefully treated by Democrats on this committee. [40:26] It's one thing to hear allegations and find them unpersuasive or even distasteful. [40:31] An office can even ignore those allegations if they choose. [40:33] That's their prerogative. [40:35] But to go out and actively smear the individuals making disclosures is far worse. [40:41] That's what the Democrats on this committee did when they released a March 2nd report entitled GOP Witnesses, [40:46] what their disclosures indicate about the state of the Republican investigations. [40:50] That report was inaccurate, both on the law and on the facts. [40:53] The law doesn't define the term whistleblower. [40:57] Instead, it protects from retaliation individuals who engage in protected activity. [41:02] For over a century, simply making disclosures of any information to Congress has been a protected activity. [41:08] Furthermore, an appropriations writer, in effect at this time, [41:11] prohibits money from paying the salary of any federal employee who prohibits or prevents any other federal employees, [41:16] such as FBI whistleblowers, from communicating with Congress. [41:19] The Democrats' report denied whistleblower status to individuals engaged in the precise activity the legislative branch has considered protected since 1912. [41:29] The report's reliance on evidence for whistleblower status is also misplaced. [41:34] Simply communicating a reasonable belief of misconduct is protected whistleblower activity under the law. [41:40] This applies regardless of whether the whistleblower produces evidence at that time backing up their allegations. [41:45] Only protecting whistleblower disclosures accompanied by conclusive evidence, as the Democrats seem to require, [41:52] would have disastrous consequences for retaliation throughout the federal government. [41:57] My experience working for Congress was that whistleblowers brought allegations, [42:00] and where the committees found those allegations worthy of further follow-up and congressional action, [42:05] we conducted investigations. [42:07] No one expects a private citizen to investigate a crime before going to the police, [42:12] and we didn't expect a whistleblower to investigate their own agency. [42:14] That's also essentially how the law for remedying retaliation through the MSPB is set up, [42:20] where making a non-frivolous allegation leads to discovery, interviews, and more. [42:26] Simply put, the burden isn't on the whistleblower to produce the evidence at the outset. [42:30] That's why there's an investigative process. [42:33] The Democrats' report also got the facts wrong. [42:35] For example, they claim DOJ IG declined to investigate Mr. Friend's claim, [42:39] when in fact DOJ IG will be interviewing Mr. Friend tomorrow and has an ongoing investigation. [42:42] DOJ IG says no one from the Democrat staff ever contacted their office to verify this claim [42:48] before issuing their report. [42:51] Inexcusably, a number of mainstream media sources simply repeated the Democrats' wrong information [42:55] uncritically without bothering to check the facts for themselves, [42:58] which is why there are multiple retractions. [43:01] FBI whistleblowers have traveled a hard road over the years. [43:03] They should be treated by Congress the same as other whistleblowers. [43:06] Issuing reports smearing those who come forward from the FBI [43:08] will unquestionably deter others from taking that same path. [43:13] Congress must have firsthand information about how federal agencies are operating [43:16] to perform its constitutional duty of oversight. [43:19] Why would future whistleblowers bring their disclosures to Congress [43:21] if they think they might be treated like this? [43:23] Attacking whistleblowers hurts this committee and others, [43:26] the House of Representatives as an institution, and Congress as a whole. [43:29] Thank you. [43:31] Thank you, Mr. Levitt. [43:31] The chair recognizes the gentlelady from Wyoming for five minutes. [43:35] Thank you, Chairman Jordan. [43:36] I want to thank our witnesses today for their service to our country, [43:42] service which includes their willingness to provide protected disclosures [43:45] to ensure that the federal government is held accountable for wrongdoing. [43:49] We've heard their testimony, and my colleagues will ask more questions [43:53] so we can further understand the wrongdoing they have exposed [43:56] and the retaliation that they have now suffered. [43:59] As this hearing gets underway, I want to focus on the cultural changes [44:03] that have occurred within the FBI over the last 20-plus years, [44:07] fundamental changes that have led to the political capture [44:10] of our flagship law enforcement agencies, [44:13] and with the Democrats using these agencies [44:15] as their own personal political hacks. [44:19] What happened that allowed for politicization [44:21] to permeate every facet of the FBI? [44:24] Well, there are many things. [44:26] But I think we must focus on the information [44:28] that was provided by retired FBI Special Agent Thomas Baker, [44:31] who testified before the Select Subcommittee earlier this year. [44:35] Mr. Baker explained that in the aftermath of 9-11, [44:40] and upon being embarrassed by being scolded by President Bush [44:43] for not being able to stop it from happening, [44:46] then-FBI Director Robert Mueller made the decision [44:49] to fundamentally change the FBI from a law enforcement body [44:54] to an intelligence-driven one. [44:57] Such a redirection of the very purpose of the FBI [45:00] resulted in centralizing its power in Washington, D.C., [45:03] while placing less emphasis on the field offices. [45:07] Changes that replaced agent executives in the headquarters [45:10] with so-called professionals from the outside, [45:13] and stockpiling more and more power in D.C. [45:15] and away from the country that it serves. [45:18] 9-11 was a watershed moment for many reasons. [45:21] It was a horrific terrorist attack [45:23] on the shores of the United States of America. [45:26] But our government's ultimate response is also tragic. [45:31] And by targeting, by eventually finding a way to target [45:35] not the terrorists, but American citizens, [45:39] which is where the FBI and DOJ are at this point in time. [45:45] Both the DOJ and the FBI, they've used the FISA court [45:48] to obtain illegitimate surveillance authority. [45:51] They've targeted political campaigns with which they disagree. [45:54] They have created a Russia, Russia, Russia hoax [45:59] to cripple a duly elected president. [46:02] They have targeted Catholics for exercising their faith. [46:06] They've targeted parents for wanting to protect their children. [46:10] And so what we can say, in short, [46:12] is that the eye of Sorin has turned inward, [46:15] and it is burning with a white-hot intensity [46:17] that ceased to destroy everything in its path. [46:21] What I think we can say is that as the DOJ and FBI [46:26] have become more political, [46:28] they have amassed more power. [46:31] And as they have amassed more power, [46:33] they have become more political. [46:35] This is a vicious cycle that must be stopped. [46:41] To be blunt, [46:42] the leadership of the FBI and the DOJ are corrupt. [46:47] I will name names. [46:49] Christopher Wray and Mary Garland are corrupt. [46:52] They know it, we know it, [46:56] and the American people know it. [46:59] Congress needs whistleblowers like you [47:02] so that we can conduct our oversight [47:04] and correct course on these abusive federal agencies. [47:09] And sadly, what we've already seen [47:10] and what we will continue to see today [47:12] is that the Democrats will not focus on the substance [47:15] of what these brave men are exposing [47:18] or engage in a discussion [47:21] about how to protect our constitutional rights [47:23] and institutions from the tyrants [47:25] that are running these agencies. [47:28] Instead, what we will see is that they will deflect. [47:31] They will call the witnesses' names. [47:33] They will scream MAGA, [47:35] an extremist at the top of their lungs. [47:38] They will attempt to impugn your integrity, [47:42] but make no mistake, [47:43] they are simply trying to cover up [47:45] the unforgivable and the indefensible, [47:47] which is the creation of a two-tiered justice system [47:51] based on political beliefs [47:53] and the corruption of our political elites. [47:57] I encourage the American people [47:59] to listen to these witnesses, [48:01] to read the Durham report, [48:03] to study what is happening with the FBI [48:06] and the DOJ, [48:09] and to listen and to sift through the lies [48:12] and recognize that this nonsense must stop [48:15] or we're going to lose the greatest republic [48:18] that's ever existed in the history of the world. [48:23] Thank you for your willingness to come here. [48:25] Thank you for your willingness to stand on the wall. [48:29] Thank you for your willingness to tell the truth [48:31] about what these agencies are doing. [48:34] America thanks you as well. [48:36] And with that, I yield back. [48:37] The gentlelady yields back. [48:38] The chair recognizes the gentlelady [48:39] from California, Ms. Sanchez. [48:41] Mr. Chair, just as a point of order, [48:43] I understand and we have been made aware [48:47] from what you stated in your opening statement [48:50] as well as in a press conference earlier [48:52] that Mr. Allen did meet with you all [48:56] and might have a testimony that was transcribed. [49:00] Neither, and I understand that he stated [49:03] that he did not feel comfortable [49:04] meeting with the Democrats. [49:05] He's comfortable being here today [49:07] in this open forum. [49:10] We will be questioning him. [49:11] Will you give us a copy of that testimony [49:14] that was transcribed of your discussions with him? [49:17] That'll be up to Mr. Allen. [49:19] But you are in possession of them, aren't you? [49:21] Sure are. [49:21] So why would you not give them to us? [49:23] Because Mr. Allen's a whistleblower [49:24] and he didn't want that to happen. [49:25] He didn't want, but he's comfortable here [49:28] in open discussion with us today? [49:30] Sure is, and you can ask him questions if you want. [49:31] You don't share your information with the minority? [49:36] Nope. [49:36] The whistleblower. [49:37] So you're not sharing information [49:39] that you've obtained with the minority? [49:40] The whistleblower saw what you did [49:42] with Mr. Friend and others, [49:44] the false information you gave the press [49:46] so much that they had issued corrections. [49:48] The whistleblower doesn't decide that. [49:49] The committee decides it. [49:50] And we've decided. [49:52] And you've decided that you're not going to share. [49:53] Mr. Allen is here. [49:54] You can ask him questions. [49:56] And we can talk about the testimony, [49:58] but right now you're not getting the testimony. [49:59] Mr. Allen's here to testify. [50:00] And you'll give us the testimony [50:01] when after he's left [50:02] or at no point in time [50:04] or when will we have that? [50:06] That's only for the Republicans. [50:07] Is that what you're saying? [50:08] Mr. Chairman, the General Lady [50:10] did not state a point of order. [50:11] The point of order was [50:12] will he be giving us the testimony [50:15] of the witness that is here before us [50:19] and that you have information of [50:21] that you are not sharing with the Democrats? [50:23] Mr. Chairman, I move that her... [50:24] I was indulging the ranking member. [50:26] The gentleman from California is right. [50:28] She's not stating a point of order [50:29] that five-minute questioning time... [50:31] So the point of order is [50:32] I would like the testimony. [50:33] I move that you give us the testimony [50:36] of the individual who is here. [50:37] Move to table. [50:39] There's a motion that has been moved to table. [50:41] Chair, we will call. [50:47] We don't, Mr. Chairman, [50:48] we don't have to table. [50:48] We asked for a recorded vote. [50:50] Mr. Chairman, can we have a recorded vote? [50:52] No, it's not a proper point of order. [50:54] You just did a motion to table. [50:56] No. [50:56] Your side just did a motion to table. [50:58] Not a proper motion. [51:00] The chair has recognized [51:01] the gentle lady from California, [51:03] Ms. Sanchez, [51:03] for her five minutes of questioning. [51:05] Point of inquiry. [51:06] Can I ask you a question? [51:08] Sure. [51:09] Mr. Chairman? [51:12] Oh, it is... [51:13] Yeah, it is Ms. Sanchez's time. [51:14] Can I ask the chairman a question? [51:16] After Ms. Sanchez, [51:17] I'll gladly take your question, Ms. Sanchez. [51:19] And we will restore the five minutes [51:20] for Ms. Sanchez. [51:22] I find it incredible [51:25] that evidence that one side has garnered [51:28] is not going to be shared [51:29] with the other side. [51:30] That is not how committees work. [51:33] Chairman Jordan, [51:34] Ranking Member Plaskett, [51:35] I think it's important [51:36] that we recognize [51:37] this hearing for what it actually is. [51:40] Make no mistake, [51:41] this hearing is a vehicle [51:42] to legitimize the events [51:44] of January 6th [51:46] and the people who perpetrated it. [51:48] And why? [51:48] Because Donald Trump [51:50] is running for president again. [51:51] And if you normalize [51:53] the events of January 6th, [51:54] if you repeat [51:55] his election fraud lies, [51:57] then maybe he doesn't seem [51:59] quite so extreme. [52:01] Maybe it will be easier [52:02] to overturn a free [52:03] and fair election [52:04] the next time. [52:05] For those of you [52:06] who have forgotten, [52:07] on January 6th, [52:08] a mob of people [52:10] who believe Donald Trump's lie [52:12] that the 2020 election [52:14] was stolen stormed the Capitol [52:16] seeking to stop [52:17] the certification [52:18] of the 2020 presidential election. [52:21] They erected a gallows [52:22] on the lawn [52:23] just outside this room [52:24] and they ran through the halls [52:26] looking to find and hang [52:28] the vice president [52:29] of the United States. [52:30] It was a shocking moment [52:32] of political violence [52:34] and many of us [52:35] on this dais, [52:36] including myself, [52:37] were there that day. [52:39] We all felt the fear [52:40] of knowing that there were people [52:41] roaming the Capitol [52:42] looking to kill us. [52:44] But clearly, [52:46] some of us [52:46] have quickly forgotten that. [52:49] I've heard my colleagues [52:50] on the other side [52:51] of the aisle [52:51] suggest that, quote, [52:53] the FBI was participating [52:54] in the insurrection. [52:56] They called the rioters [52:57] who attacked the Capitol [52:58] quote-unquote [53:00] peaceful patriots [53:01] and quote-unquote [53:02] political prisoners. [53:03] And they described [53:04] the violence on January 6th [53:07] as akin to a quote-unquote [53:09] normal tourist visit. [53:12] It was not. [53:14] Last year, [53:15] the Judiciary Committee [53:16] even had to entertain [53:17] a resolution [53:17] on the repeatedly discredited [53:20] Ray Earp's conspiracy theory. [53:23] Mr. Allen, [53:24] your security clearance [53:26] was first suspended [53:27] on January 10th, 2022. [53:30] Is that correct? [53:31] Yes or no will suffice. [53:34] And the FBI's reason [53:35] behind your suspension [53:36] was because it found you [53:39] to have, quote, [53:40] espoused conspiratorial views [53:42] both orally in writing [53:44] and promoted unreliable information [53:47] which indicates support [53:49] for the events of January 6th. [53:51] Is that correct? [53:52] Yes or no? [53:53] That is the language [53:54] that they placed on the line. [53:56] That's a yes then. [53:57] Do you believe it's important [53:58] for federal agents [53:59] to have allegiance [54:00] to the United States? [54:01] Yes or no? [54:03] It is absolutely important [54:05] that personnel [54:06] from the government [54:07] have allegiance [54:08] to the United States. [54:08] Do you believe [54:09] you should have allegiance [54:10] to the United States [54:11] to possess a security clearance? [54:13] Yes or no? [54:14] Absolutely. [54:15] Do you believe [54:16] your obligation [54:17] as a federal agent [54:18] should supersede [54:19] your First Amendment right? [54:20] Yes or no? [54:22] Can you please rephrase [54:24] the question, ma'am? [54:24] Do you believe [54:25] that your obligation [54:27] as a federal agent [54:28] should supersede [54:30] your First Amendment right? [54:32] Yes or no? [54:35] I don't know. [54:36] Can you please rephrase [54:37] the question again, ma'am? [54:37] Do you believe [54:38] that you have an obligation [54:40] to serve as a federal agent [54:42] regardless of what [54:43] your personal political beliefs are? [54:45] Yes, I have an obligation [54:47] to serve the United States. [54:48] Thank you. [54:48] Do you believe [54:48] that FBI agents [54:49] should be permitted [54:50] to express support [54:51] for individuals [54:52] who stormed the Capitol [54:54] on January 6th? [54:55] Yes or no? [54:56] I believe agents [54:58] have to do their jobs, ma'am. [55:00] Do you believe [55:00] that agents [55:01] should be permitted [55:02] to express their support [55:04] for individuals [55:04] who stormed the Capitol [55:06] on January 6th? [55:07] Yes or no? [55:08] It's a simple question. [55:09] No, you're supposed [55:10] to be apolitical, ma'am, [55:11] and do your job [55:12] as an FBI person. [55:12] So that is a no? [55:14] You're supposed [55:15] to be apolitical [55:16] and do your job. [55:17] I'm asking for a simple [55:18] yes or no. [55:20] Can you please [55:20] rephrase the question? [55:21] Not a difficult question. [55:22] Do you believe [55:23] that FBI agents [55:24] should be permitted [55:25] to express support [55:26] for individuals [55:27] who stormed the Capitol [55:28] on January 6th? [55:30] You should not be [55:31] voicing support [55:32] for criminal conduct. [55:33] Okay, thank you. [55:34] You have to do your job [55:34] apolitically, ma'am. [55:35] Thank you. [55:36] Mr. Allen, [55:36] have you ever used Twitter, [55:38] yes or no? [55:40] I have utilized Twitter, [55:41] yes, ma'am. [55:41] Okay, and is your account [55:43] at MarcusA97050645? [55:48] That is absolutely [55:49] not my account. [55:50] Okay, that's not your account. [55:51] Well, on December 5th, [55:52] 2022, an account [55:54] under the name [55:55] Marcus Allen [55:56] retweeted a tweet [55:57] that said, [55:58] That is not my account, ma'am. [56:00] You haven't let me [56:01] finish the question, sir. [56:02] I might have been [56:02] the football player. [56:03] You haven't let me [56:04] finish the question. [56:06] And the time is mine. [56:08] On December 5th, 2022, [56:10] an account under the name [56:11] of Marcus Allen [56:12] retweeted a tweet [56:13] that said, [56:14] Nancy Pelosi [56:15] staged January 6th. [56:18] Retweet if you agree. [56:19] End quote. [56:20] Do you agree [56:21] with that statement? [56:23] Yes or no? [56:25] That is, I don't, [56:27] no, ma'am. [56:28] That's not my account at all. [56:29] I have no idea. [56:30] I'm asking whether you agree [56:31] with that statement, [56:32] yes or no? [56:33] Can you please [56:33] rephrase the statement? [56:34] Yeah. [56:35] Do you think [56:35] that Nancy Pelosi [56:36] staged January 6th? [56:39] I just want him [56:39] to answer this last question. [56:41] Yeah, he'll answer. [56:41] I'm just telling you [56:42] your time's up. [56:43] Do you believe [56:44] that Nancy Pelosi, [56:45] do you agree [56:46] with the statement [56:46] that this person tweeted [56:48] that Nancy Pelosi [56:48] staged January 6th? [56:51] Yes or no? [56:51] No. [56:52] Thank you. [56:53] I yield back. [56:54] Chair, recognize [56:55] the gentlelady [56:55] from New York, [56:56] Ms. Stefani. [56:57] I yield to the chair. [56:59] Excuse me, Mr. Chair, [57:00] I think you were [57:01] going to indulge [57:01] the congresswoman [57:03] from Florida [57:03] and her point of inquiry. [57:05] The gentlelady [57:06] from Florida [57:06] is recognized. [57:07] Thank you. [57:07] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [57:08] It's my understanding [57:09] that... [57:09] What's your, [57:10] what are you, [57:11] are you making [57:11] a point of order? [57:12] No, I'm asking [57:13] you a question. [57:13] Okay. [57:14] A point of inquiry. [57:15] Okay. [57:15] It's my understanding [57:16] that the minority [57:17] in this committee [57:19] under the rules [57:19] is entitled [57:20] to the same testimony, [57:22] information, [57:23] documents [57:24] that the majority [57:25] is entitled to. [57:27] So, I mean, [57:28] I'm not aware [57:29] that you're able [57:30] to withhold [57:31] information [57:32] from the minority [57:33] that we would need [57:34] to use [57:34] to prepare for... [57:35] When it comes [57:36] to whistleblowers, [57:36] you're not. [57:37] And I would just, [57:37] I would just remind [57:38] the committee, [57:38] remind everyone, [57:39] look, [57:39] when it comes to whistleblowers, [57:40] you're not. [57:41] That's not right. [57:44] It's shocking [57:44] that the gentleman... [57:45] That's not right. [57:46] It's shocking [57:46] that the gentleman... [57:47] In fact, you talk so much [57:47] about the whistleblower [57:48] and the impeachment. [57:48] It's shocking [57:49] that the gentleman [57:49] from New York [57:50] would say that [57:51] when you were part [57:52] of an investigation [57:53] with an anonymous [57:54] whistleblower. [57:55] You had. [57:56] We had. [57:56] Mr. Chairman, [57:56] these individuals [57:57] haven't been declared [57:58] whistleblowers. [57:58] I can't hear five people [57:59] at once [58:00] because we have regular order. [58:01] Mr. Chairman, [58:01] I... [58:02] I'm inquiring [58:04] and I was not... [58:05] And I've told you [58:05] that when it comes [58:07] to whistleblowers, [58:08] you are not entitled [58:08] to it. [58:09] That's at the discretion [58:10] of Mr. Allen. [58:11] Mr. Chairman, [58:11] these individuals [58:12] have been determined [58:13] not to be whistleblowers. [58:15] These are not whistleblowers. [58:16] They've been determined [58:17] by the agency [58:17] not to be whistleblowers. [58:19] Are you deciding [58:20] that they're whistleblowers? [58:21] Yes, the law decides. [58:23] Did you not listen [58:23] to Mr. Levitt's testimony? [58:24] Did you not read the law? [58:25] The law decides [58:26] that they are whistleblowers. [58:27] His attorney is asserting... [58:27] His attorney is asserting... [58:28] The chair recognizes [58:29] the gentlelady from New York... [58:30] The law has not determined [58:31] that they are whistleblowers. [58:32] The gentlelady from New York [58:32] has been recognized. [58:33] The law has not determined [58:34] they are whistleblowers. [58:36] His attorney is just asserting that. [58:39] Gentlelady from New York. [58:40] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have lost my voice. I'm yielding to Mr. Gates. [58:44] I thank the gentlelady not only for yielding but for her extensive work on these issues, [58:49] not only during our hearings but during the many depositions we've taken to develop evidence [58:54] and to bring it forward for the majority, the minority, and all of the country. [58:59] Did you give us that evidence? [59:00] I know that if the gentlelady from the board was able to speak that she'd certainly be eager to do so. [59:10] Mr. Allen, we just astonishingly heard a Democrat on this committee question your allegiance to the United States. [59:17] How many tours in Iraq did you do? [59:21] I did two tours in Iraq, sir. [59:23] And for how many decades have you held a security clearance? [59:27] For two decades, sir. [59:29] Ever been called into question before? [59:31] No, sir. [59:32] And you also received the Employee of the Year Award for the Charlotte Field Office, is that right? [59:37] That is correct, sir. [59:38] Did you receive any medals during your service for the Marine Corps and the United States Navy? [59:42] I did, sir. [59:43] As a member of the Marine Corps, I received a Navy Commendation Medal and a Navy Achievement Medal. [59:49] It seems to me your allegiance to the United States is pretty well established over multiple decades, [59:54] wearing the uniform, fighting for our country. [59:56] And I am proud that you continue to fight for our country as a whistleblower here, [1:00:01] making a disclosure to the United States Congress. [1:00:03] And, Mr. Allen, is it your belief that you were retaliated against because you shared an email that questioned the truthfulness of FBI Director Christopher Wray? [1:00:16] Yes, sir. [1:00:16] And you believed that he wasn't truthful based on testimony he'd given to the United States Senate, isn't that right? [1:00:22] Yes, sir. [1:00:22] And in that testimony to the Senate, you believed that Christopher Wray indicated that there were no confidential informants [1:00:28] and no FBI assets that were present at the Capitol on January 6th that were part of the violent riot. [1:00:36] Isn't that right? [1:00:37] Yes, sir. [1:00:38] Please play the video. [1:00:39] We're now going to hear from George Hill, who worked at the Boston field office. [1:00:44] The SSA in Boston said they were going to a political rally, which is First Amendment protected activity. [1:00:56] No, we're not uploading. [1:00:58] We're not starting cases. [1:00:59] To which they said, well, we're going to call your SAC. [1:01:03] And the SSA said, go right ahead. [1:01:06] Because when you're pushing back, you know, you want to make sure that you have your six covered. [1:01:13] So the SAC and the ASAC were intimately aware of these kinds of exchanges that were going on. [1:01:21] And again, to his credit, Joe Bonavallanta said, no, we're not opening up cases on people who went to a rally. [1:01:30] And I forgot a key part. [1:01:33] The SSA for CT2 said, happy to do it. [1:01:37] Show us where they were inside the Capitol and we'll look into it. [1:01:41] To which WFO said, we can't show you those videos unless you can tell us the exact time and place those individuals were inside the Capitol. [1:01:50] To which the SSA responded back. [1:01:53] And I was privy to these conversations firsthand. [1:01:55] Why can't you show us? [1:01:58] Why can't you just send us, give us access to the 11,000 hours of video of this exam that's available? [1:02:03] Because there may be, may be UC's undercover officers or CHS's confidential human form, confidential human sources on those videos whose identity we need to protect. [1:02:19] So, Mr. Allen, you got retaliated against for the very thing, for saying the very thing that the Washington field office was telling Boston. [1:02:27] And when the Boston field office was saying, we're not going to go and investigate people that just showed up at a rally without sufficient criminal predicate. [1:02:36] The Washington field office told Boston, well, you know what? [1:02:39] We can't give you the evidence because it might disclose the very CIs and UCs that you are concerned about. [1:02:45] But that doesn't surprise you, Mr. O'Boyle, does it? [1:02:49] No, sir. [1:02:49] And the reason it doesn't surprise you is that in a different part of the country, you saw that same pressure from the Washington field office. [1:02:57] And did they ever try to get you to do something that was outside the normal order of law enforcement activity? [1:03:04] Yes, sir. [1:03:05] And what did the Washington field office try to get you to do that violated the law and regulations? [1:03:10] They tried to get me to serve a federal grand jury subpoena when there was no proper predicate to do so. [1:03:17] And the reason there was no predicate was because it was based on an anonymous tip, right? [1:03:20] That's correct. [1:03:21] And time and again, the Washington field office was trying to pressure you without corroboration to go start process on people. [1:03:28] Isn't that right? [1:03:30] Yes, sir. [1:03:31] And so while I agree that January 6th was a violent day, a bad day, a day that nobody wants to relive, [1:03:37] violence on January 6th doesn't justify weaponizing the government against people who were innocent and did nothing wrong. [1:03:45] Thank you for blowing the whistle on that. [1:03:47] I yield back. [1:03:47] Mr. Chairman, I have a sincere point of inquiry. [1:03:53] Rule 11, Clause 2. [1:03:55] The gentleman is not recognized. [1:03:57] I have a question about the rules. [1:03:59] Mr. Lentz for five minutes of questions. [1:04:00] The point of order, a question about the rules. [1:04:02] Point of order. [1:04:03] State your point of order. [1:04:04] The point of order is why does Rule 11, Clause 2, Subsection E1A not apply to this subcommittee? [1:04:13] I can read for you. [1:04:14] Each committee shall keep a complete record of all committee action which shall include, [1:04:18] in the case of a meeting or hearing transcript, a substantially verbatim account of remarks [1:04:24] actually made during the proceedings, subject only to some technical things. [1:04:29] Such records shall be the property of the House, and each member, delegate, and the resident commissioner [1:04:35] shall have access thereto. [1:04:37] Why does that not apply? [1:04:39] Where is the whistleblower exception in the rules of Congress that says that does not apply? [1:04:44] It's the prerogative of the committee to decide. [1:04:46] No, it's not. [1:04:47] We have the rules of the House. [1:04:49] We have the whistleblower testimony. [1:04:50] The whistleblower does not wish that to be made available to the Democrats at this time. [1:04:53] The whistleblower doesn't make committee rules, sir. [1:04:55] Mr. Lynch, Mr. Lynch, Mr. Lynch is recognized for five minutes of questioning. [1:05:00] Mr. Chairman, is the ruling of the chair always unquestioned, or do we have a vote on how [1:05:07] some of these issues are decided? [1:05:09] If you state a proper point of order and there's some kind of- [1:05:12] I just did state a proper point of order. [1:05:13] The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for five minutes of questioning. [1:05:22] Mr. Friend, I want to ask some questions about surrounding the circumstances of the [1:05:30] removal of your clearance by the FBI. [1:05:35] Mr. Friend, I'd like to ask you about your move to the domestic terrorism unit. [1:05:50] You were originally transferred to Daytona from the FBI's Omaha Field Office, Sioux City [1:05:58] residence agency in June 2021, is that correct? [1:06:01] Yes. [1:06:03] And you were assigned to the Joint Terrorism Task Force at the end of September 2021, correct? [1:06:08] Yes, I was reassigned. [1:06:10] And you had been exclusively working on child sex abuse material known as CSAM cases, is that [1:06:17] correct? [1:06:17] Prior to that point, yes. [1:06:19] And that was before you moved to the JTTF, isn't that right? [1:06:22] Yes. [1:06:23] Did you stop working on child abuse cases after October 1st, 2021? [1:06:29] No, I did not. [1:06:34] Well, in fact, the FBI planned to find a replacement for you when you moved from one position to the [1:06:50] other, is that correct? [1:06:53] Which office are you referring to? [1:06:55] So when you were moved from the child sexual abuse cases and moved to the JTTF, you were [1:07:08] informed that the FBI would find a replacement for your other position, was that correct? [1:07:12] No, that's not correct at all. [1:07:13] I was told that those cases were going to be considered a local matter going forward. [1:07:17] They would not be resourced. [1:07:19] And that I was going to be reassigned to work on domestic terrorism cases. [1:07:23] At the time, my supervisor retired and his interim told me there was not enough work to [1:07:29] do until a full-time replacement could come in to continue to work on the child pornography [1:07:33] investigations and make myself available for domestic terrorism cases. [1:07:37] And then when my new supervisor arrived early in 2022, I explained that arrangement to him, [1:07:43] and he agreed that that was the best use of my time, even though I was told to, on my [1:07:47] timesheet, account for my actions as being solely devoted to domestic terrorism. [1:07:52] I was in a situation where I was essentially only working child pornography in human trafficking [1:07:56] cases. [1:07:57] I just want to point out that in your interview with the committee, you stated that you were [1:08:01] told you could balance both until a permanent replacement arrived. [1:08:07] That was during your transcribed interview. [1:08:09] Are you restating that or disputing that now? [1:08:11] I'm not disputing that. [1:08:12] I was unofficially said, just keep doing what you're doing, but on paper and on your timesheet, [1:08:18] we're going to put you down as a domestic terrorism agent. [1:08:19] You said here that they told you you could balance both responsibilities until your replacement [1:08:25] arrived. [1:08:26] Are you disputing that now? [1:08:28] I'm disputing that there was no replacement that was going to be arriving, ever. [1:08:32] I was told that that violation was not going to be worked after I was moved over to the [1:08:37] Joint Terrorism Task Force. [1:08:39] And subsequently, while I... [1:08:40] But here you're saying that you were allowed to do both jobs until your replacement arrived, [1:08:45] so your assumption then was not that the replacement was not going to arrive, right? [1:08:50] Are you talking about a replacement for my supervisor or a replacement for me? [1:08:56] For the responsibilities that you were doing under the child sex abuse cases? [1:09:02] There was no replacement that was going to arrive in our office for that. [1:09:06] Those cases were going to be no longer worked. [1:09:08] That would be a conjecture on your part at that point, right? [1:09:10] No, I was told that. [1:09:12] Okay. [1:09:14] You continued to work the child abuse cases until you were suspended in 2022, correct? [1:09:19] Yes. [1:09:19] In fact, you even received an award for your CSAM work in July 2022, correct? [1:09:27] Yes. [1:09:28] Now, you got this award after you took on all the child exploitation cases for the local [1:09:32] sheriff's officer earlier that same year while also working your JTTF responsibilities, correct? [1:09:38] Yes. [1:09:39] You took on the role of a full-time employee assigned to work child abuse investigation cases, [1:09:45] correct? [1:09:47] I took on the role of whatever I was needed to work. [1:09:50] I made myself available to work domestic terrorism, but there was none of work to do. [1:09:53] So could you tell us that you were reassigned and told that the CSAM cases weren't a priority? [1:10:04] Then you tell us that not only did they plan on replacing you, they let you continue working [1:10:08] those cases until you were suspended. [1:10:11] Is that correct? [1:10:12] Yes. [1:10:13] It was no longer a priority on paper. [1:10:15] This is the way that the FBI allocates its manpower resources. [1:10:18] So on paper, I was not supposed to be recording my work on those cases. [1:10:23] But then within my office, which was not in the Jacksonville headquarters, my frontline supervisor [1:10:28] agreed that my time was better spent working on CSAM cases. [1:10:31] All right, Mr. Chairman, my time is expired. [1:10:35] The time has expired. [1:10:35] The chair recognizes the gentlelady from Florida for five minutes. [1:10:39] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:10:40] Thank you to all our gentlemen for appearing before us today and coming forward. [1:10:44] I want to thank you again for your courage today and also for your service to our nation. [1:10:49] And as we predicted, our Democrat colleagues have immediately opened up with claims of conspiracy [1:10:53] theories, MAGA extremism, mock outrage. [1:10:57] Seems the only ones displaying mock outrage up here today are, in fact, the Democrats. [1:11:02] Because according to them, journalists who appear before us aren't journalists and you [1:11:06] here today are not whistleblowers. [1:11:08] But we, in fact, know that you are. [1:11:10] But interesting times. [1:11:13] The line about Republicans defunding police, that one seems to be particularly special because [1:11:19] respectfully to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, as the wife of a SWAT [1:11:24] medic, as the wife of a first responder currently who has served our community for the last 16 [1:11:30] years, I can tell you with certainty that no one, no one hates a bad cop more than a good [1:11:36] cop. [1:11:37] No one. [1:11:38] And I see from you nodding your head that you agree with that sentiment. [1:11:41] It is inaccurate and wrong to make that assumption that Republicans want to defund police. [1:11:45] It is false. [1:11:46] Because forcing a political agenda down the throats of our hardworking men and women of [1:11:50] the FBI with the threat and that subsequent follow-through of retaliation because they [1:11:56] are whistleblowers, because they didn't want to break the law, because they knew that it [1:11:59] was wrong to target Americans without cause. [1:12:02] And they swore an oath to the United States Constitution, not to a political party. [1:12:08] That makes them whistleblowers. [1:12:10] That makes them courageous for coming forward and telling the truth. [1:12:13] Gentlemen, I'm going to ask you all to please turn on your microphones because we're going [1:12:16] to go really fast. [1:12:17] Mr. Friend, during your service with the FBI, you served on the FBI SWAT team, correct? [1:12:22] Yes. [1:12:23] As you heard, my husband is a SWAT medic and has been part of joint operations with the [1:12:27] FBI. [1:12:28] So I would like to know, what is the threshold for these call-outs? [1:12:32] And can you briefly detail the type of crimes warranted for an FBI SWAT team call-out? [1:12:37] There's a threat matrix, the SWAT matrix, in order to utilize the tactical team. [1:12:41] But it could be as easy as somebody being in possession of a firearm or a request from a local [1:12:46] agency just to use the FBI SWAT team. [1:12:48] Okay. [1:12:48] So, Mr. Friend, your security clearance was suspended by the FBI after raising concerns [1:12:52] for the use of excessive force with regard to the use of FBI SWAT teams to your direct [1:12:58] supervisor, correct? [1:12:59] Yes. [1:13:00] Would you consider this retaliation? [1:13:01] Yes. [1:13:03] Thank you. [1:13:04] Mr. O'Boyle, you were suspended without pay from the FBI on September 23rd, correct? [1:13:08] I was initially suspended on the 26th. [1:13:10] The suspension of pay came a little bit later. [1:13:12] Thank you for that clarification. [1:13:13] You had raised concerns to your chain of command when no action was taken that you reported [1:13:18] these concerns then to Congress, correct? [1:13:21] Correct. [1:13:21] Once you contacted Congress, you were then suspended. [1:13:24] Your top secret security clearance was then suspended for those protected disclosures to [1:13:30] Congress, correct? [1:13:31] Correct. [1:13:32] That seems like retaliation, no? [1:13:34] It was to me. [1:13:35] Okay. [1:13:35] Mr. Allen, you were suspended from the FBI without pay on January 10th, correct? [1:13:40] That is correct. [1:13:40] You were suspended because you sent links to your squad to provide situational awareness [1:13:45] about the FBI investigation on January 6th, correct? [1:13:48] Yes. [1:13:48] Yes or no, wasn't open source searches and sharing of information part of the duties of [1:13:55] your job? [1:13:55] Yes. [1:13:56] And subsequently, after doing your job and your supervisors not liking the tone of the [1:14:02] open source articles you provided because it didn't fit the FBI's narrative, your security [1:14:07] clearance was revoked, correct? [1:14:08] Yes. [1:14:09] To all our whistleblowers, yes or no, do you believe that the retaliation pattern has a cooling [1:14:14] effect on other agents from coming forward or speaking up? [1:14:18] Yes or no, Mr. O'Boyle? [1:14:20] Absolutely. [1:14:21] Yes. [1:14:21] Yes. [1:14:22] Do you believe that the FBI is purposefully hostile to you for that reason to keep agents [1:14:27] from speaking up? [1:14:28] Yes. [1:14:29] Yes. [1:14:30] Without question. [1:14:30] Yes. [1:14:31] So I think it's clear we have a pattern here. [1:14:33] If you speak up about the abuses you are seen as an agent or are sharing information that [1:14:39] may not fall in line with the FBI's political narrative, you will be suspended without pay, have [1:14:44] your security clearance revoked, and your life will be turned upside down. [1:14:48] It's pretty clear that the MO is if you don't comply, they will retaliate. [1:14:53] If you don't agree with the political agenda, you get suspended. [1:14:57] And they do it in such a way to deter others from speaking up and speaking out. [1:15:01] That, ladies and gentlemen, is the weaponization of government. [1:15:04] That is the weaponization of government. [1:15:07] And that is why we are here today. [1:15:09] Not because we have a political agenda. [1:15:12] Not because we are here to go over events of the past. [1:15:16] We want to fix it. [1:15:18] We have to expose it, stop it, and prevent it from happening again. [1:15:22] That is why we are here. [1:15:24] These men are whistleblowers. [1:15:25] The gentlemen who came before us in previous hearings, they were journalists. [1:15:30] And just because you don't address them as such does not mean that they are not who they say they are. [1:15:34] They have been retaliated against. [1:15:35] And regardless of your party affiliation, this behavior is unacceptable, and we need to stop it. [1:15:41] Republicans, Democrats, independents alike, this is a concern we should all share. [1:15:45] This is the weaponization of government, and it is our job, our constitutional duty to stop it. [1:15:52] With that, I yield back. [1:15:52] General A yields back. [1:15:53] The chair recognizes. [1:15:55] I'm so sorry. [1:16:00] The general aide from Florida has recognized Ms. Wasserman Schultz. [1:16:03] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:16:05] Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record this document that clearly indicates the questions of allegiance to the United States on the part of Mr. Allen, [1:16:15] and that were specifically the reasons for the revocation of his security clearance, in spite of the gentlelady from Florida's assertions to the contrary. [1:16:25] Thank you. [1:16:25] Mr. Friend, I find some humor in the irony of Republicans inviting you here the same week Congress is focused on honoring law enforcement. [1:16:32] You've repeatedly made calls to undermine our law enforcement agencies. [1:16:36] Since being rightly suspended, you've led Republican calls to defund law enforcement, recently describing the FBI as a feckless garbage institution. [1:16:43] Since joining Twitter in November, no less than 40 times you called for our brave law enforcement personnel to be defunded. [1:16:51] You even urged local police to sabotage criminal investigations by urging citizens to, and I quote, [1:16:56] pressure your sheriffs to refuse to cooperate with FBI investigations. [1:17:00] That is not only the reckless advice, it's a recipe for allowing more criminals to run loose in our neighborhoods. [1:17:06] Perhaps Chairman Jordan can explain why Republicans are promoting defunding law enforcement and increased crime before our subcommittee today. [1:17:12] But, Mr. Friend, your motivations appear to be, today, crystal clear. [1:17:18] For months, you pressured Republicans to call you to a hearing. [1:17:21] In fact, in December, you said Chairman Jordan and Republicans took your complaint of alleged FBI wrongdoing and, quote, [1:17:27] used it for campaign rocket fuel and four-minute appearances on Fox News. [1:17:31] And I'll admit, you're right. [1:17:32] Republicans are using you. [1:17:34] But it goes both ways. [1:17:36] You're engaging in the self-promotion of your new book that's about to be released. [1:17:39] And what great timing to be on TV and in Congress right before your book tour starts. [1:17:44] It's quite coincidental. [1:17:46] But let's try to move past your financial exploitations and talk about your objection to the use of a SWAT team to arrest a January 6th suspect in August of 2022. [1:17:54] You repeatedly stated that you objected to the use of a SWAT team for the arrest of Tyler Quinton Bench, a man who was involved in the January 6th attack on the Capitol. [1:18:04] Mr. Friend, you did not participate in any decisions about the use of the SWAT team, nor were you a member of that SWAT team, correct? [1:18:10] Just yes or no? [1:18:11] Please. [1:18:12] I was not a member of that SWAT team. [1:18:13] And you didn't participate in any decisions about the use of that SWAT team, correct? [1:18:17] Correct. [1:18:18] Thank you. [1:18:18] You also testified that being a gun owner is a reason why a SWAT team could be used to arrest a suspect, according to the SWAT team official protocols. [1:18:26] Mr. Friend, I'd like to ask you to take a look at the screen. [1:18:30] Those on the screen are two images of the only member of the Three Percenters arrested in your area that day. [1:18:35] For those who don't know, the Anti-Defamation League describes the Three Percenters as a militia movement with, quote, a track record of criminal activity ranging from weapons violations to terrorist plots and attacks. [1:18:46] As you can see in the pictures of Mr. Bench at the Capitol on January 6th, he's in full tactical gear, wearing chemical irritant canisters on his tactical vest and a black radio and antenna on his left with a GoPro-style camera mounted on his right shoulder. [1:19:00] The FBI knew Mr. Bench to be both armed and dangerous. [1:19:04] The good men and women within federal, state, and local law enforcement know that making the right decision on bringing qualified backup to dangerous situations has life-or-death consequences. [1:19:14] It's a decision that has particularly resonance for law enforcement in my own community. [1:19:19] A little over a year before Mr. Bench was arrested, two FBI agents in my district in Sunrise, Florida, were shot and killed on the front doorstep while trying to serve an arrest warrant on child pornographers. [1:19:29] They were just trying to do their jobs, protecting the American people, when the suspect opened fire and started shooting from inside. [1:19:36] In fact, these brave agents who work for what you call a feckless and garbage institution lost their life doing the very work you claim it neglects, chasing down people who exploit children. [1:19:45] So yes or no, Mr. Friend, knowing what you know now about Mr. Bench, that he was known to be heavily armed and a member of a terrorist group, [1:19:52] was it appropriate for the FBI to use a SWAT team as a precaution to protect FBI personnel and other law enforcement officers that day? [1:19:59] Yes or no? [1:20:00] I can't answer that with a yes or no. [1:20:01] I can give you a little bit of context. [1:20:03] I'd like to know whether you still think it was inappropriate. [1:20:06] I've arrested over 150 violent criminals in my career, never had to use a SWAT team to do it. [1:20:11] Okay. [1:20:11] The reason for that is because individuals were cooperating with us. [1:20:14] Reclaiming my time, can you give me a yes or no answer or even indicate whether you have changed your mind that using a SWAT team to arrest that gentleman was inappropriate? [1:20:25] My opinion remains to be anybody who's been cooperative and pledged to surrender in the case of law enforcement and carrying criminal charges. [1:20:31] So the answer is no. [1:20:32] A SWAT team is not necessary for that. [1:20:34] Reclaiming my time, you also claim that your top secret security clearance was improperly revoked. [1:20:39] Yet an independent investigation concluded that you demonstrated a number of security concerns, which included that you refused to execute a court-ordered arrest warrant and when you downloaded documents from intelligence systems to an unauthorized removable flash drive. [1:20:52] The cherry on top could be your unauthorized recording of executive management, which I'm sure you know violates Florida law, along with your unsanctioned interviews with Sputnik News, established by the Russian government in 2014 and fully owned by the Kremlin and Putin's cronies. [1:21:05] Time of the gentleman just expired. [1:21:07] I'm sure who is weaponizing government. [1:21:09] Gentleman from Florida is recognized for five minutes. [1:21:12] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:21:13] Mr. Friend, do you want to quickly respond to that because she cuts you off and let you respond to those questions? [1:21:17] Yeah, I can quickly respond to that. [1:21:19] So the – you'll have to bring up – so the – [1:21:24] Well, let me bring – let me help you. [1:21:26] Yeah, go ahead. [1:21:26] So – [1:21:27] Prompt me. [1:21:28] So instead of using a SWAT team, if a suspect is being cooperative and in your testimony and in your experience as an FBI agent and a law enforcement officer, [1:21:37] it's not necessary to use a SWAT team to go in with guns ablazing and pulled out and going after an individual when that individual is cooperating. [1:21:46] And that – wasn't that part of your testimony? [1:21:48] That's part of my testimony. [1:21:49] It's part of what I brought forward in my whistleblower disclosure. [1:21:52] And that's in your experience as – how many violent criminals have you arrested? [1:21:56] I've arrested over 150, and I have five years of SWAT experience. [1:21:59] And you didn't have to use – there wasn't necessity in some of those circumstances to use SWAT team because the individual was cooperating? [1:22:06] Never a single time. [1:22:07] And in your testimony, the individual that you were referring to that a SWAT team should not have been used on but was being used on for political purposes was somebody that was cooperating, correct? [1:22:16] Yes. [1:22:17] Because based on your testimony, everybody else's testimony, which, by the way, I want to thank you guys for being here. [1:22:22] I know it takes a lot of courage to do it. [1:22:23] I want to thank you for your service as a military veteran myself who served – I was probably in Iraq when some of you guys were there. [1:22:29] I want to thank you for that. [1:22:30] I want to thank you for standing up for the Constitution for America because I know that this is difficult to go through, what your families are going through, [1:22:37] being barricaded out of having your personal belongings, not being able to get pay, the FBI taking away your security clearances so you can't get a job. [1:22:48] I commend you for standing up for American values and commend you for standing up for what you believe are huge misgrievances that are going on at the FBI. [1:22:56] And based on y'all's testimony, the report that we have seen, the FBI has turned into the enforcement arm of the Democratic Party, going after pro-life individuals, [1:23:06] going after individuals who were not in restricted areas on January 6th, who were not violent on January 6th, using SWAT teams to go after them to try to intimidate them. [1:23:14] And then when officers like yourself, who have served our country, who have served the FBI, who have served in law enforcement, [1:23:21] suddenly want to raise concerns and use the whistleblower status to be able to, hey, you know, this isn't right. [1:23:28] This isn't the way that we should be treating these individuals. [1:23:31] This isn't fair. [1:23:32] Suddenly, the FBI is shutting you out, taking away your clearances, taking away your pay, shutting you down so that your families can't even survive financially. [1:23:40] So I want to thank you for your testimony here today, and I hope the American people will gloss over the lies that have been perpetrated on you today [1:23:48] for the truth that is underneath every single one of your statements. [1:23:52] Egregious abuse, misallocation of law enforcement resources, misconduct in leadership ranks of the FBI. [1:23:58] And I've been here five years, and during that period of time, Director Wray and A.G. Garland have both sat in desks just like that, [1:24:06] under oath and testified that they would not retaliate against whistleblowers. [1:24:10] And it's my understanding, Mr. Friend, that you went through all of the required regulations at the FBI in order to raise your concerns to your supervisors. [1:24:20] Is that correct? [1:24:21] Yes. [1:24:22] So you followed inside protocol for the FBI, utilizing whistleblower statute protection information regulations through the FBI to make your complaints and information be known? [1:24:34] Yes. [1:24:34] And you did that to your supervisors? [1:24:37] Three levels of supervisors. [1:24:38] Three levels of supervisors, and the response to that was losing your security clearance, shutting you out, losing your job, taking away your pay. [1:24:46] That's correct. [1:24:47] I'm so frustrated and angry, and I don't have, you know, only a minute and a half left to try to display the level of corruption, weaponization, politicization that has occurred at the highest levels of the FBI and the DOJ. [1:25:06] And both Director Wray and Merrick Garland have sat there and testified that there's no retribution for whistleblowers. [1:25:12] No, we don't retaliate against whistleblowers, but we have testimony, and I'm a lawyer too, and testimony is a fact and evidence that that exactly is what is going on in the FBI and the DOJ. [1:25:22] Just quickly talk about how the inflation, Mr. Friend, of the domestic violence or the statistics as it relates to January 6th, how they were inflating those statistics to make it look like there was a bunch more cases than there really was. [1:25:38] Well, typically you would investigate January 6th as one case with lots of subjects, but instead the decision was made to open up a separate case for every single individual there, and instead of on paper investigating them from the Washington field office, spreading and disseminating those to the field offices around the country, and if the individual lived in that area. [1:25:59] So it, in effect, made it look like there was domestic terrorism cases and activities that were going on around the 56 field offices, when in fact the cases were really all from Washington, D.C., and Washington field office had a task force that was responsible for calling the shots in all those cases. [1:26:15] Thank you guys for being here. My time's expired. [1:26:17] Gentleman yields back. We have votes on the floor to our witnesses, so we will take a break now. [1:26:21] We will stand in recess until 15 minutes after the close of the vote, the final vote on the floor. [1:26:27] And you guys are welcome to wait here in the back. The committee stands in recess. [1:27:17] You gave me his number. [1:55:46] We will come to order. The chair recognizes a lady from California, or Texas. [2:10:55] Mr. Chairman, could I make a point of order? [2:10:57] Mr. Chairman, may I be recognized? [2:10:59] Gentleman recognized Mr. Allen. [2:11:01] Yes, sir. I just want to make clear that what I wanted to avoid was the minority staff leaking portions of my transcript to the press. [2:11:08] Without me having the opportunity to respond, now that I'm here, I can respond and be judged in the court of public opinion. [2:11:15] I have no objection to both sides having access to read the transcript, and I look forward to reviewing it myself. [2:11:20] Well, it's not of much help when you give it to us during the hearing, but I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman, if I may be recognized. [2:11:27] The gentleman is recognized for a point of order. [2:11:29] I point the chairman to Rule 10, Clause 9G, which in conjunction to Rule 11, Clause 2E, which I read earlier, states that each staff member appointed pursuant to a request by minority party members [2:11:49] shall be accorded equitable treatment with respect to the accessibility of committee records. [2:11:58] Now, the chairman is correct in pointing out that there are restrictions on whistleblower disclosures. [2:12:04] However, those restrictions pertain to the House as a whole. [2:12:09] They do not mention any distinction between the majority and the minority. [2:12:13] Instead, what we have are two clear rules that require the majority to provide information to the minority that is committee property, [2:12:21] which would be any meetings between the committee members or staff with any potential witnesses. [2:12:26] So, I would move for the chairman to agree to order that all materials, notes, and otherwise related to these witnesses before us [2:12:39] be provided to the minority according to the rules of the House. [2:12:47] Overruled. [2:12:48] Mr. Allen, we thank you for your willingness to make that. [2:12:51] I move for a recorded – I appeal the ruling of the chair. [2:12:55] I move to table. [2:12:58] I'd ask for a recorded vote. [2:13:00] Gentlemen, Jess, we will – the committee will suspend while we have the clerks. [2:13:06] I think we have to have the clerks at the table to tally the vote. [2:13:10] Gentlemen, I'm afraid you're excused for a little while. [2:13:12] One second. [2:13:13] If we could just step back. [2:13:14] We'll have the clerk – be real quick. [2:13:16] The clerks will – we can probably let you just stay right there, the clerks. [2:13:22] So, I need to lend one a microphone. [2:13:32] Clerks will call the roll. [2:13:38] Mr. Jordan. [2:13:39] Yes. [2:13:40] Mr. Jordan votes yes. [2:13:41] Mr. Issa. [2:13:42] Yes. [2:13:42] Mr. Issa votes yes. [2:13:43] Mr. Massey. [2:13:44] Yes. [2:13:44] Mr. Massey votes yes. [2:13:46] Mr. Stewart. [2:13:46] Yes. [2:13:47] Mr. Stewart votes yes. [2:13:48] Ms. Stefanik. [2:13:50] Mr. Gates. [2:13:51] Yes. [2:13:52] Mr. Gates votes yes. [2:13:53] Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. [2:13:54] Yes. [2:13:54] Mr. Johnson of Louisiana votes yes. [2:13:56] Mr. Armstrong. [2:13:57] Yes. [2:13:58] Mr. Armstrong votes yes. [2:13:59] Mr. Steuby. [2:14:01] Mr. Bishop. [2:14:02] Yes. [2:14:03] Mr. Bishop votes yes. [2:14:04] Ms. Cammack. [2:14:06] Ms. Hageman. [2:14:08] Ms. Poskett. [2:14:09] No. [2:14:10] Ms. Poskett votes no. [2:14:11] Mr. Lynch. [2:14:13] Ms. Sanchez. [2:14:15] Ms. Wasserman-Schultz. [2:14:18] Mr. Connolly. [2:14:19] Mr. Garamendi. [2:14:20] Mr. Garamendi votes no. [2:14:25] Mr. Allred. [2:14:26] No. [2:14:26] Mr. Allred votes no. [2:14:28] Ms. Garcia. [2:14:29] No. [2:14:30] Ms. Garcia votes no. [2:14:31] Mr. Goldman. [2:14:32] No. [2:14:32] Mr. Goldman votes no. [2:14:33] Clerk will report. [2:14:46] Mr. Chairman, there are eight ayes and five noes. [2:14:48] Motion to the table is approved. [2:14:50] Chair recognizes the gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Garcia. [2:14:54] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [2:14:55] Mr. O'Boyle, have you publicly shared what you discussed with Chairman Jordan's staff before [2:15:02] today? [2:15:05] It says yes or no. [2:15:06] Did I publicly do what? [2:15:08] Share. [2:15:08] Share. [2:15:09] Like. [2:15:10] With whom? [2:15:11] With the public. [2:15:14] About which part of my testimony? [2:15:16] Any of your testimony, sir, that you shared with Jordan's staff, have you shared that with [2:15:21] the public or this committee? [2:15:26] It's a yes or no, sir. [2:15:27] It's really not that. [2:15:28] I don't believe so. [2:15:29] You don't believe that, so, okay. [2:15:31] And during your transcribed interview on February 10th, did you explain to the committee council [2:15:35] the content of what you had previously shared with Chairman Jordan's staff? [2:15:41] To some degree, regarding the questions that were asked on that day. [2:15:44] To some degree, is that a yes? [2:15:47] Yes, to some degree. [2:15:48] Okay, but you shared it only with the lawyers? [2:15:55] Mr. Gates was present for part of that testimony as well. [2:15:59] Okay. [2:15:59] So the only people who know the wrongdoing you claim to have uncovered the FBI, to your [2:16:04] knowledge, or Chairman Jordan's staff, Congressman Estes, and maybe now Congressman Gates? [2:16:12] I also shared some of my disclosures with my chain of command prior to coming to Congress. [2:16:17] No, I'm talking about your testimony here today in this committee. [2:16:22] Right. [2:16:23] That includes some of what I had provided to my chain of command as well. [2:16:28] Well, that's not the question. [2:16:29] So the FBI has said that it cannot come in on ongoing adjudication matters. [2:16:34] Do you know if your security clearance suspension decision is still under adjudication with the [2:16:37] FBI? [2:16:39] Oddly enough, I received an email last week from the FBI attempting to schedule an interview [2:16:45] with me for tomorrow, which I find is no coincidence heading into the hearing today. [2:16:50] But prior to that email... [2:16:51] So it's still being adjudicated? [2:16:52] The answer is yes. [2:16:53] Prior to that email, I had not... [2:16:55] All right, she's still being adjudicated, but in her April 24th transcribed interview, [2:17:00] Executive Assistant Director Morton told us that when Mr. Jordan's counsel asked you [2:17:04] about your case, that she, quote, is not allowed to discuss any ongoing security investigations. [2:17:09] So you're still being investigated. [2:17:13] So neither you nor the FBI can help us understand what information you shared and when you shared [2:17:17] it. [2:17:17] Well, I have provided that information to members of this subcommittee who I believe will take [2:17:23] it seriously. [2:17:24] Well, no, you've submitted it to the chairman and the committee's staff. [2:17:29] But as you've been hearing this morning, a lot of that, most of that, we have not seen [2:17:33] as Democrats. [2:17:34] It's not been shared. [2:17:36] It's not been shared pursuant to the laws. [2:17:38] Our rules has not been shared. [2:17:40] Just even in keeping with a notion of fairness, you know, in any proceeding like this... [2:17:48] Well, in notion of fairness, you claim that we aren't whistleblowers. [2:17:51] We don't know what was disclosed. [2:17:52] The committee counsel hasn't had the opportunity to assess the information you shared with Jim [2:17:56] Jordan's staff. [2:17:57] Yet here we are hearing on the matter. [2:17:59] There's been no transparency, no real effort to inform. [2:18:03] It's just a partisan political stunt that is more interested in attacking the FBI than helping [2:18:08] whistleblowers. [2:18:09] In Texas, we would just say that this is just a lot of hot air blowing here, and it ain't [2:18:15] a whistleblower. [2:18:16] By having this hearing before the majority, makes even basic information about your claims [2:18:21] available to us, Chairman Jordan is doing us all a disfavor. [2:18:25] We're meeting without knowing. [2:18:27] In his opening remarks, he said that he had brought you here to have you tell us what you [2:18:32] have seen and what you have witnessed. [2:18:36] Yet we really still don't know because you haven't told us anything. [2:18:39] I went through your whole witness statement, and there's nothing in there about what you [2:18:44] saw or what you heard. [2:18:45] That's not true. [2:18:46] That's not true. [2:18:46] It's just a bio and your political statements. [2:18:49] I read the whole thing, sir. [2:18:50] That's false. [2:18:51] So by having this hearing before us today, the majority makes even basic information about [2:18:56] your claims not available to us. [2:18:59] So Chairman Jordan is just doing us all a disservice. [2:19:02] He's doing the minority a disservice by not allowing us to vet your claims, to be able [2:19:07] to adequately ask you questions. [2:19:10] Frankly, he's doing you a disservice, sir, by all the lights and cameras before his claims [2:19:15] have even been examined. [2:19:16] More than that, this hearing is an insult to the brave whistleblowers out there who do [2:19:21] risk their careers for the good of their country. [2:19:23] This circus of embedded secret accusations puts at risk the critical role whistleblowers play [2:19:28] and hold them the powerful accountable. [2:19:31] Most whistleblowers aren't interested in being political pawns in congressional Republicans' [2:19:37] games. [2:19:37] Playing politics is holding up this scheme as whistleblowers will make other public servants [2:19:41] fearful of coming forward out of fear they'll just be used. [2:19:45] Whistleblowers serve an important purpose in this country. [2:19:48] They're often brave individuals who help root out corruption and make our democracy stronger. [2:19:53] In fact, just this last February, whistleblowers who have been fired by Texas Attorney General [2:19:59] Ken Paxton in retaliation for accusing him of crimes came to a settlement with the Attorney [2:20:03] General. [2:20:04] Time of the gentlelady has expired. [2:20:05] Mr. Chairman. [2:20:06] He had to settle for $3.3 million. [2:20:10] Chair now recognizes. [2:20:11] Because he wanted to make sure some information didn't get out. [2:20:13] Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California. [2:20:14] That's what his reports do. [2:20:15] The gentlelady, this is my time. [2:20:16] I've been recognized. [2:20:17] Thank you. [2:20:18] Mr. O'Boyle, is it true that you have 157 pages of questions that were asked you on [2:20:24] a bipartisan basis that are in the record? [2:20:28] To my knowledge, that's correct. [2:20:29] Mr. Friend, isn't it true that for those several hours you accumulated 198 pages of Q&A, [2:20:35] half of the time being yielded to the Democrats for your interview? [2:20:39] Yes. [2:20:39] I yield time to the chairman. [2:20:41] Someone needs to tell the Democrats, I think, gentlemen, for you, somebody tell the Democrats [2:20:44] you came and talked to this committee because you're a whistleblower. [2:20:47] Isn't that right, Mr. Levitt? [2:20:48] Yes, sir. [2:20:49] That's exactly how it works. [2:20:50] May I take a moment to address this idea that these aren't whistleblowers? [2:20:53] Sure. [2:20:54] The law. [2:20:54] You need to educate the members on the other side of the dais here. [2:20:57] I don't need educating. [2:20:58] The way that the law... [2:20:59] Mr. Chairman, I... [2:21:00] This is my time. [2:21:01] I do not need to be... [2:21:02] Would stop the clock. [2:21:03] ...be demeaned. [2:21:04] I am a lawyer just like this gentleman is. [2:21:06] I, too, have read the law. [2:21:08] We just have a big difference between... [2:21:09] Now your time. [2:21:10] The time belongs... [2:21:10] The time belongs to me, Mr. Levitt, as Mr. Levitt has been asking questions. [2:21:14] So the whistleblower statutes protect protected activity, right? [2:21:20] One doesn't have to be retaliated against in order to be a whistleblower, right? [2:21:24] We all agree that's not the way that it should happen. [2:21:26] And what's being discussed today is that you're not a whistleblower unless you both share this [2:21:30] engagement protected activity and then are retaliated against and then go through this process. [2:21:34] The Department of Justice Inspector General is currently investigating the claims of Mr. [2:21:37] Friend and Mr. Allen. [2:21:38] That's exactly what... [2:21:39] I don't know what perfect whistleblower there would be, but when you... [2:21:42] If they did that, these are the steps they would take. [2:21:44] And so by this definition, they're not considered a whistleblower for years... [2:21:47] Mr. Boyle, you went up your chain of command with your concerns. [2:21:49] Is that right? [2:21:51] Yes, sir. [2:21:51] I initially started with them and those initial complaints fell on deaf ears. [2:21:54] Then you came... [2:21:55] Then you came to the House Judiciary Committee with those concerns. [2:21:57] Is that right? [2:21:58] After going to my local congressman, then I came to the judiciary. [2:22:01] Exactly like the law prescribes for you to do when you see something that is wrong. [2:22:06] You did that. [2:22:07] So did Mr. Friend. [2:22:08] So did Mr. Allen. [2:22:10] I yield back to the gentleman from California. [2:22:11] Mr. Levin, briefly, am I correct that starting with the resolution in 1778, whistleblowers have [2:22:19] been recognized by our government, by our congress, and that that's been amended again in 78, in [2:22:25] 84, in 94, and the most recent one in 2012 passed unanimously in this House. [2:22:32] Is that correct? [2:22:33] Absolutely. [2:22:33] We recognize whistleblowers for their patriotic duty. [2:22:35] You know what's amazing is when I authored the 2012, along with Mr. Jordan and others, [2:22:42] there wasn't any question but that we wanted to better protect whistleblowers' ability to come [2:22:47] to us with what they believed was accurate information. [2:22:51] Isn't the belief of accurate information the basis? [2:22:54] Yes, reasonable belief. [2:22:56] So is there any question but that people can have a reasonable belief, for example, [2:23:01] that going after everyone who came in on January 6th on a bus and getting their financial records [2:23:08] from Bank of America would be inappropriate and getting their gun purchases for their entire [2:23:14] lives would be inappropriate? [2:23:16] Isn't there a reasonable belief that that might not be appropriate to do and necessary? [2:23:22] Yes, we believe disclosing that was protected. [2:23:24] So people have made appropriate statements, including about January 6th and some excesses [2:23:31] that occurred afterwards in the investigation that violated people's constitutional right [2:23:36] to privacy, correct? [2:23:37] Yes. [2:23:37] So here we have people who are talking about MAGA and January 6th, but in fact they're missing [2:23:47] the point. [2:23:48] Each of these whistleblowers came forward with what is clearly protected disclosure, and they've [2:23:56] had it systematically released, and they've been systematically treated in a way after they [2:24:03] came forward that looks like, smells like, and including so-called mistakes, represents retaliation. [2:24:12] Is that correct? [2:24:13] Yes, and that's why the Inspector General opened investigations into these disclosures. [2:24:17] So as we sit here today, we've missed one important point, haven't we, that each of these individuals [2:24:24] came to the committee with valid claims that at least need to be investigated of wrongdoing [2:24:30] by our premier law enforcement organization? [2:24:33] Yes, and Congress protects those disclosures. [2:24:36] And as we sit here today, each of these individuals has been stripped of his clearance, stripped of [2:24:42] his ability to work, and stripped of his pay. [2:24:47] In your background and history, have you ever seen as straightforward a retaliation as current [2:24:54] employees being denied their ability to work, their pay, and their benefits after they've [2:25:00] made these kinds of claims? [2:25:01] No. [2:25:02] And this is why there's a problem, because it's their clearance that was used as the [2:25:05] means of retaliation. [2:25:06] Well, but also in the case of Mr. Allen, he just, you know, and Mr. O'Boyle, they're [2:25:11] just also not getting any work. [2:25:13] I mean, they're... [2:25:14] That's the point, yeah. [2:25:15] Once they suspend your clearance, they also simultaneously put you on suspension. [2:25:18] But that's not something that's appealable to the MSPB like a normal firing or demotion [2:25:22] is. [2:25:23] If they were most other workers in government, they'd still have their jobs and be paid even if [2:25:28] they weren't working, correct? [2:25:29] This is uniquely a form of retribution they're able to do to law enforcement. [2:25:32] If you're suspended, yeah. [2:25:34] It gets nuanced, but certainly with the clearance, that's a surefire way they can just get them [2:25:38] out of the way when they want. [2:25:39] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [2:25:40] I yield back. [2:25:41] Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Conley. [2:25:45] Thank you. [2:25:46] And I just would point out, I think it's the first time we've been – our sympathies [2:25:49] are with your staff. [2:25:50] I know you had that terrible incident that happened, so you'll get your full five minutes. [2:25:53] Thank you, Mr. Jordan. [2:25:54] I really appreciate that. [2:25:58] I must say, my friend from California, I don't know where this concern for whistleblowers [2:26:04] and protecting whistleblowers was in the Ukraine episode in that perfect phone call Donald [2:26:10] Trump had with President Zelensky, in which a whistleblower, Colonel Vindman, was in fact [2:26:16] subsequently punished for reporting on that phone call, which led to the impeachment of [2:26:23] the President of the United States. [2:26:25] So, wouldn't it be nice if we were consistent on our concerns about whistleblowers? [2:26:29] Would the gentleman – [2:26:30] No, I will not. [2:26:31] Mr. Leavitt, I have five minutes, and I haven't got time. [2:26:34] Mr. Leavitt, you represent an organization – you're president of the organization called [2:26:37] Empower Oversight. [2:26:38] Is that correct? [2:26:39] Yes. [2:26:40] And Empower Oversight represents an FBI agent, or former FBI agent, Mr. George Hill, whom [2:26:45] we heard from a little earlier. [2:26:46] Well, no, actually. [2:26:48] Mr. Hill did not have counsel for his transcribed interview, so my partner, Jason Foster, agreed [2:26:53] to sit in on his interview just for procedural – [2:26:55] Okay, so you were sort of like a surrogate counsel, but not formally – you have no formal [2:26:59] relationship with Mr. Hill? [2:27:00] Correct. [2:27:01] And – but you – but why did you choose to help him in a deposition? [2:27:05] Well, I didn't. [2:27:06] Again, my partner, Jason Foster, yeah, was – we were informed that he didn't have [2:27:11] any counsel, and we – both of us have experience sitting in many congressional transcript interviews. [2:27:15] And your view is he is also a valid whistleblower? [2:27:19] Again, he's not my client. [2:27:21] I don't – I can't speak to his claims. [2:27:22] I do have the view that going out and, again, the idea – attacking someone, saying, [2:27:27] you haven't yet been given the magic wand of whistleblower status. [2:27:30] I believe that's inappropriate. [2:27:31] I don't – I'm not familiar with all of the substance of his personnel actions. [2:27:35] Huh. [2:27:36] Well, might it cause you some concern? [2:27:39] Let me show some tweets on the screen for Mr. Hill. [2:27:44] This one – he had theories about January 6th that it was instigated by the deep state, [2:27:52] not by insurrectionists who were up to no good seeking to hang the vice president – Republican [2:27:58] vice president, I might add, of the United States or other depredations. [2:28:03] It was the deep state that led to this. [2:28:06] Are you familiar with that tweet? [2:28:07] No. [2:28:09] Here's another one. [2:28:10] Are you familiar with this tweet in which he talks again that the deep state is real [2:28:20] on the January 6th insurrection? [2:28:22] Just to be clear, I'm not familiar with any of his tweets. [2:28:24] We just believe that it can be helpful for people to have counsel, and we were willing [2:28:27] to assist in that way. [2:28:28] Well, but isn't it also helpful to kind of know a little bit of background when you are [2:28:32] providing counsel? [2:28:33] We were just there for the procedural counsel of the interview, not to represent him in all [2:28:39] his interests. [2:28:40] I understand. [2:28:41] But wouldn't you want to be curious about his status and what led him to be? [2:28:47] I'm sure it's quite possible that my co-counsel, Jason Foster, is familiar with these. [2:28:52] I literally wasn't even an employee of Empower at that time. [2:28:54] I was still sitting on the Merit Systems Protection Board. [2:28:56] And what's your view? [2:28:57] Do you believe that January 6th was instigated by the deep state? [2:29:01] Define the deep state, sir. [2:29:04] I don't know. [2:29:05] I sure don't either. [2:29:06] Oh, good. [2:29:07] All right. [2:29:08] Great question. [2:29:09] Because it is a phrase frequently used by the former president of the United States. [2:29:13] So it's out there. [2:29:14] But you don't know what it means. [2:29:16] Obviously, at the Merit Systems Protection Board, we dealt with people at all layers of [2:29:20] bureaucracy. [2:29:21] Well, I actually kind of share that with you. [2:29:23] I don't know what it means either. [2:29:24] I think it's kind of made up, like a boogeyman, so that we can use it as a catch-all. [2:29:30] I must say, on this hearing, you know, you all have employment grievances. [2:29:39] That doesn't make you whistleblowers. [2:29:41] And maybe those grievances are legitimate, or maybe some aspects of it are legitimate, [2:29:44] and all of you have careers, and I'm sorry for the situation in which you find yourselves. [2:29:49] But this is not a forum for individual members of any agency, federal agency, unless there's [2:29:57] a broad pattern of discrimination or violation of law to air their grievances, their employment [2:30:03] grievances. [2:30:04] And I must say, listening to this hearing, I don't walk away convinced of anything other [2:30:12] than we're listening to sad tales of certain individuals about their situation. [2:30:19] And the enumeration of grievances does not constitute whistleblower status. [2:30:24] And I'm not quite sure why we had this hearing. [2:30:28] I certainly don't think it proves some consistent pattern of wrongdoing by the Federal Bureau of [2:30:34] investigation. [2:30:35] And I've heard some things here that run counter to the history of the FBI. [2:30:39] The gentlelady, I think, from Florida said, like, a new idea that they got in the intelligence [2:30:43] business, that would have come as news to J. Edgar Hoover, who loved intelligence and, [2:30:48] in fact, preferred it over some forms of law enforcement, had a whole network in South [2:30:52] America he had to dismantle when President Truman told him he had to get out of that business. [2:30:57] So thank you for being here. [2:31:01] But I must tell you, I leave more skeptical and with more questions about the nature of [2:31:06] this hearing than I began. [2:31:07] I yield back. [2:31:08] The gentleman yields back. [2:31:09] Mr. Chairman, if I could say a very short point of privilege. [2:31:14] For the record, I left Congress in 2019 and returned in 2021. [2:31:19] I believe the gentleman saw an absence of conduct by me when I wasn't in Congress. [2:31:24] I must say I'm so fond of my friend from California. [2:31:29] It was like he was still here. [2:31:31] And I think my good friend from Virginia yield back. [2:31:34] Yeah, and I would just point out before I recognize the gentleman from Louisiana that, [2:31:37] just for the committee's benefit, Mr. Vindman was not the whistleblower. [2:31:40] But he was retaliated against for testifying pursuant to a lawful subpoena. [2:31:46] The whistleblower remained anonymous. [2:31:47] And unlike Mr. Allen, we never saw Mr. Allen's willingness to give us the transcript. [2:31:51] We never saw the transcript from the anonymous whistleblower. [2:31:54] What are you talking about? [2:31:55] There was a complaint that was publicly disclosed. [2:31:57] Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry. [2:32:00] I've already recognized Mr. Johnson. [2:32:04] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [2:32:05] The Democrats, our friends on the other side of the aisle are trying their best to obscure [2:32:09] the purpose of this hearing and to pretend like they don't understand the meaning of it. [2:32:12] But here it is. [2:32:13] Activists in the FBI and the Department of Justice have weaponized the full weight of [2:32:18] their agencies against everyday Americans. [2:32:21] It's alarming. [2:32:22] The examples that have been highlighted by this committee are shocking to the sensibilities [2:32:27] of all the people that we represent. [2:32:28] And they want us to get action and answers and accountability. [2:32:32] The FBI – here's a couple of examples. [2:32:34] The FBI sought to label concerned parents at school board meetings domestic terrorists. [2:32:38] We know that they sought to recruit spies and informants inside the congregations of traditional [2:32:44] Catholic churches. [2:32:45] We know that they worked with the social media platforms hand-in-hand almost as partners over [2:32:50] the last two election cycles to censor and silence conservatives online that they disagreed [2:32:54] with. [2:32:55] Sometimes they were candidates. [2:32:56] And now the people at this table who were patriots, who this bothered their consciences, [2:33:01] who knew that this was against their oaths of service and their duty, spoke up and they're [2:33:06] being retaliated against. [2:33:07] Mr. O'Boyle, I wanted to just discuss one of these examples. [2:33:10] In your transcribed interview with committee members, you stated that federal law enforcement [2:33:13] involvement at school board meetings would, in your words, absolutely chill parents from [2:33:18] exercising their First Amendment rights. [2:33:20] Can you explain a little bit more about what you meant by that? [2:33:24] Yes. [2:33:25] So one of the examples given in the congressional letter included an example where a neighbor [2:33:32] or somehow someone knew a parent that they believed was extreme. [2:33:37] And so they called the FBI and reported that parent to the FBI. [2:33:43] When citizens in this country get to a point where they can call the most powerful law enforcement [2:33:48] agency in the world on their neighbor just because they disagree with them, that is chilling [2:33:55] to the First Amendment rights of the people who are getting the FBI called on them. [2:34:00] That is absolutely right. [2:34:01] The parents who are concerned about their kids' education have a right to come to the [2:34:06] school board meeting and express those sentiments, and they should not have fear of the federal [2:34:09] government investigating them or doing as you testified and explained to us that the [2:34:14] FBI counterterrorism and criminal divisions came together to create a unique threat tag to [2:34:19] label these parents domestic terrorists. [2:34:21] Mr. O'Boyle, is it accurate to say that you tried to fix all these issues within the FBI, through [2:34:26] the chain of command, and that it was only after no action was taken that then you came [2:34:31] forward to Congress to disclose this information? [2:34:33] It's accurate that we did discuss it at the squad level, but the FBI has set up in a way [2:34:39] where line agents like me or line supervisors even, they're not going to be able to accomplish [2:34:45] fixing such a vast problem from the inside of the FBI. [2:34:52] And what you've done is exactly what federal law requires of you. [2:34:59] We recognize, as was said here a moment ago, we recognize and protect whistleblowers for [2:35:04] their patriotic duty. [2:35:05] Why? [2:35:06] Because it's essential to maintain the rule of law and to make sure that corruption does [2:35:10] not fester throughout the government. [2:35:12] And isn't it true that once the FBI found out you spoke to Congress, your security clearance [2:35:17] was then suspended? [2:35:18] Yes, I believe that's what happened. [2:35:20] And what effect has this had on your ability to provide for your young family? [2:35:24] I've since had to rely on charity because the FBI stopped paying me and there's no other [2:35:32] way for me to make a living. [2:35:33] I know from other whistleblowers that the FBI routinely denies them the ability to get outside [2:35:38] employment. [2:35:39] And then as a special agent, you can only make $7,500 a year outside of your government salary. [2:35:45] So, you're really stuck between a rock and a hard place because on one hand, we want [2:35:51] to try to get our jobs back because we are trying to do our patriotic duty. [2:35:55] But on the other hand, we still have families to take care for. [2:35:58] It's essentially a death sentence in the modern era. [2:36:00] Yeah, talk about a chilling effect, right? [2:36:02] Not only have we chilled the rights of parents to go and express their views, any other whistleblower [2:36:07] better take note, right? [2:36:08] They better take note. [2:36:09] You may not be able to feed your family. [2:36:10] It's disgusting. [2:36:11] Your security clearance was wrongfully suspended. [2:36:13] You have no recourse, right? [2:36:14] Because here's the thing. [2:36:16] If you wrongfully strip clearances, the FBI is the one that you appeal to, right? [2:36:21] The FBI is supposed to investigate itself. [2:36:23] Is that right? [2:36:24] That's correct. [2:36:25] I just want everybody to understand. [2:36:26] We only got 40 seconds left. [2:36:28] The FBI investigated itself. [2:36:29] This is why we're here, folks. [2:36:32] This committee, we have jurisdiction over the Department of Justice, over the FBI. [2:36:36] We are the checks and balances in the system. [2:36:39] We have to draw attention to this because it's our oversight duty. [2:36:43] We're all trying to fulfill our responsibilities and our patriotic duties here. [2:36:47] I am grateful to you men for your willingness to stand forward and take the arrows as you [2:36:51] have, even from members of Congress over here who are trying to disparage you. [2:36:55] It's disgusting. [2:36:56] I thank you for your patriotic responsibility. [2:36:58] Look, the free speech of parents is chilled. [2:37:00] The speech and the duty of whistleblowers is chilled. [2:37:03] We got a problem, folks, and we're trying to fix it. [2:37:05] I'm out of time. [2:37:06] I yield back. [2:37:07] The gentleman yields back. [2:37:08] The committee will be in order. [2:37:09] Members of the audience should refrain from any type of applause or anything. [2:37:16] The chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia for a unanimous consent. [2:37:19] I thank the chair. [2:37:20] I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record the interview of George Hill dated February [2:37:26] 7th with the Judiciary Committee in which he explicitly identifies in power oversight, [2:37:33] Mr. Jason Foster, as his counsel, for the record. [2:37:37] I thank the chair. [2:37:38] Without objection, the chair now recognizes Mr. Garamendi for his five minutes. [2:37:43] Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry. [2:37:45] Mr. Garamendi is recognized. [2:37:46] Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry. [2:37:48] Mr. Garamendi is recognized. [2:37:50] Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry. [2:37:52] We can do this all day. [2:37:53] Mr. Garamendi is recognized. [2:37:54] Okay, let's do it all day. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry. [2:37:57] And you're not recognized. [2:37:59] Mr. Chairman, there's a member in the side of the dais who has not been waived in on [2:38:04] committee. Would like to know, is he asking to be waived in, or is he going to send the [2:38:10] audience, or has he joined somebody's staff since he's against the wall? [2:38:13] Mr. Garamendi is recognized. [2:38:16] Mr. Chairman, can I have an answer to my question, please? [2:38:19] He's a colleague. He's not been waived in. Mr. Garamendi is recognized. [2:38:23] Well, we'd be happy to wave him in if he wants to sit in, but he's up in the dais [2:38:28] area, but he's not in the audience. He's actually sitting where most times staff stands. [2:38:36] As is customary in the Congress. [2:38:38] Yeah, yeah. [2:38:41] Anything to obscure the facts, anything to stall the committee hearing. Unbelievable. [2:38:45] I'm not stalling. I think we need to follow procedures. [2:38:48] Mr. Garamendi is recognized for his five minutes. [2:38:52] Mr. Chairman, I ask that Mr. Garamendi's time be restored [2:38:55] since it was taken by inappropriate behavior. [2:38:57] The gentleman is recognized. [2:39:03] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This hearing, as similar hearings, tends to devolve into shouting back and [2:39:14] forth and accusations back and forth. I'm trying to understand the testimony by the witnesses [2:39:24] and their lawyer. I'm trying to find the issue that is pertinent to the committee. [2:39:34] Yes, we do investigations, presumably to write law to address problems. [2:39:46] I've listened as best I could as the conversations have gone back and forth. And I'm still trying to [2:39:54] really figure out why we are spending time here, if indeed our task is to address problems, in this case [2:40:04] in the FBI, and how we might find a solution to those problems. There appears to be but one issue, [2:40:14] as I can try to understand it, and that is that the use of the security issue makes it difficult [2:40:27] for the participant, whistleblower, to find satisfaction. Is that the case, Mr. Leavitt? [2:40:37] Yes, sir. There are limited protections. One of them came after the Whistleblower Protection [2:40:44] Enhancement Act in 2012. Just an executive... Your recommendation is a change in the whistleblower [2:40:50] law as it applies to, I suppose, all federal agencies. Yes, because as it is right now for [2:40:56] DOJ employees, they have to wait a year after being suspended before they can go anywhere to appeal [2:41:02] as a whistleblower, the suspension of their clearance. I see. Well, have you made a specific [2:41:08] recommendation to the committee as to the change of law that would address the problem that you have [2:41:14] identified? That's why I'm here right now. I just made it. So you believe you have other than... [2:41:24] I would appreciate inviting your specific change to the law. I would be happy to. And to the extent [2:41:28] that it's helpful... No, it's my time. There are other things going on here. Mr. Freed, [2:41:36] you have a very interesting background, obviously, in the FBI and beyond. But you've also had a very [2:41:46] interesting tour on Twitter. I find it most interesting during our break to go and vote. [2:41:56] The majority, including some Democrats, voted to express support for law enforcement officers [2:42:05] and condemning efforts to defund and dismantle local law enforcement agencies. Specifically condemning, [2:42:13] this is the joint resolution, House Committee Resolution 49, a concurrent resolution, condemns [2:42:24] and calls to defund, disband, dismantle and abolish the police. Mr. Freed, have you ever put a tweet out to [2:42:33] defund, disband, dismantle and abolish the FBI? I have. [2:42:39] And the FBI is a police agency? Yes. The FBI, is my contention that they're a domestic intelligence [2:42:47] agency with law enforcement capability? They are a police agency. Thank you. I suppose consistency is [2:42:56] the hobgoblin of a small mind. But nonetheless, at least one of the witnesses here wants to disband [2:43:05] the FBI, which would be counter to what we just voted on on the floor of the House of Representatives. [2:43:14] There are plenty of problems. There is a formal process for whistleblowers to have their issues [2:43:24] adjudicated. We've 2012 members of the committee voted for it. I certainly voted for it in 2012. [2:43:33] And there appears to be a glitch. It seemed to me that we would be useful to use our time to delve into [2:43:45] this glitch. If we determine that it is a problem, then the appropriate thing to do would be the chairman [2:43:55] of the appropriations, excuse me, of the Judiciary Committee to put forth a bill to address the [2:44:02] problem. The shouting back and forth has done little to illustrate or provide information on [2:44:13] the details of the problem. And definitely, I agree with those who say we ought not defund the police, [2:44:24] including the deal. Mr. Chairman, I ask for unanimous consent to allow Mr. Briggs to sit on [2:44:28] the diocese. [2:44:29] Without objection. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Bishop. [2:44:33] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will say I've sat struggling to figure out what I think the Americans [2:44:43] who may watch this hearing are to take from it. And it is troubling. An aspect of the ranking members' [2:44:51] opening statement was interesting. I heard this part of it that really stuck with me. It sort of [2:44:55] suggested — this is not what she said specifically, but it was sort of a paraphrase of what I heard her [2:45:00] saying — to you witnesses, especially the three who have been serving the country as FBI agents and [2:45:06] before. It was sort of like, so your lives have been turned upside down by the FBI in retaliation for [2:45:12] raising questions about abuses of the rights of Americans? Good. How do you like it? That's kind of [2:45:19] what I heard. It seemed that her perspective — she went on and talked about how people have been [2:45:23] victimized by police all across the country. ACAB is the idea. And it's almost like, since she thinks [2:45:30] there are victims aplenty, it's okay if you're victimized. There's a supreme irony in that, [2:45:38] isn't there? I mean, one of you was concerned about the improvident use of a SWAT team, [2:45:44] and that's been ridiculed. Another of you has been concerned about whether — about the investigation of [2:45:52] people by the preeminent law enforcement agency in the country for nothing more than being on a bus [2:45:57] to travel to a place where there was a speech by the president and so forth, [2:46:01] and a couple people on that bus or the subsequent we looked at, that your concern was whether the [2:46:07] investigation was adequately predicated for those people. And that's ridiculed. It's astonishing. [2:46:16] One of you was concerned about whether — about the FBI sending people out to interview [2:46:23] persons who were going to a school board meeting and expressing their views, because [2:46:30] all they were engaged in was First Amendment activity. That's not an adequate predication for [2:46:35] the attention — investigative attention — of law enforcement. And that's ridiculed. I don't quite [2:46:45] get it. I will say this. In this process, fair cross-examination and even the impeachment of the [2:46:52] credibility of witnesses is appropriate. Now, I will say, the things that have been attempted as [2:46:58] impeachment of credibility here, no court in the country would allow, because they are not fair [2:47:05] mechanisms for attempting to do that. But what has struck me is that these whistleblowers have [2:47:14] your comportment, your demeanor, your poise, your articulation, your discipline has been exemplary at [2:47:26] every point, even as the members on the dais beclown themselves. It's quite a testament. And it deepens [2:47:34] something. I worried, to be candid about this hearing, because many Americans — it is my [2:47:43] impression, and we're continuing to investigate — many Americans have been victimized by the [2:47:50] distortions that have occurred in the leadership of the FBI. And I worried that we might have that. [2:47:56] If you ever heard the quote — it's sort of used in athletics — never tell anyone your troubles, [2:48:00] half the people don't care, and the other half are glad it happened to. And that's a supremely [2:48:05] pessimistic worldview. I don't really subscribe to it, but you've heard that out there. [2:48:11] I think this is — but this is making a clear point, and I commend each of you for what you've done [2:48:18] here, coming here and demonstrating who you are, and letting yourself be attacked in this way, [2:48:23] because you've borne it really remarkably well. And I think Americans need to hear it, [2:48:28] because there are other glimpses of just how the victimization is going on and how it's victimization [2:48:32] at scale. This is one fact that struck me. The Bank of America record — the story that Bank of [2:48:39] America turned over the credit card transactions, whether for an aircraft or a lodging or the purchase [2:48:47] of a cup of coffee for everyone who decided to come to Washington, to be in Washington area, [2:48:53] the Northern Virginia area. That's one of the things that you asked questions about. [2:48:59] There are victims all over the place. All of the people who suffered when the FBI and the Department [2:49:07] of Homeland Security got involved in censorship with social media platforms. Millions and millions [2:49:12] of tweets and narratives being taken down. That is victimization at scale. It must be resolved. [2:49:21] And the fact that those who profess to be most concerned about victimization of people by law [2:49:27] enforcement in this country, join in the victimization of you, I think that's the takeaway, [2:49:34] at least for me, from this hearing, and my time has expired. [2:49:37] The gentleman's time has expired. The chair now recognizes Mr. Allred. The gentleman from Texas, [2:49:43] recognize me. I yield my time to Mr. Goldman. [2:49:46] Thank you. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I want to thank the — those of our witnesses here who [2:49:52] have served in the military for your military service. I want to thank you for coming in. [2:49:59] We on this side support whistleblowers. I certainly support whistleblowers. And you and the committee [2:50:04] majority can be certain that we will follow all House rules and to maintain the confidentiality of [2:50:12] whistleblowers until they have been publicly identified, as you all now have here. What our concern [2:50:18] with is not really at the bottom whether or not you are whistleblowers. That's something that [2:50:25] neither you can determine or Mr. Levitt can determine or we can determine. That's something that we [2:50:31] understand is being adjudicated and ultimately could end up in court where the ultimate determination [2:50:38] would be. Our concern is that you all have met with the committee majority perhaps several times. [2:50:45] You have provided information, documents, testimony, and we're in the dark. And that's not how Congress [2:50:55] works. That's not how committees work. And I'm sure, Mr. Levitt, you would agree with me that when [2:51:00] you were on the Hill, that's not how things work. And so that is — Dependent on the source. [2:51:04] That is what — sorry? I just said it depended on what was happening. I've seen examples of congressional [2:51:08] staff retaliating against whistleblowers, and I've also seen those whistleblowers then refuse to [2:51:12] engage with those congressional staff. Fair enough. And maybe that happens. But we [2:51:16] haven't even been given the opportunity to do that in violation of committee rules. [2:51:24] Ultimately, what we are here for is because these three individuals [2:51:31] are expressing in various degrees their objection to their treatment with the FBI. They have also, [2:51:38] in varying degrees, expressed support for the January 6th insurrection, and in some cases [2:51:43] have even allowed those personal views to influence their official duties. Now, the allegations that [2:51:52] we are dealing with here today, and the reason why, whether or not people are whistleblowers matters [2:51:56] or your credibility matters, is you're just the three individuals, three people in an organization of [2:52:01] tens of thousands who are making these allegations. And so credibility does matter. I was a federal [2:52:09] prosecutor for 10 years working alongside the good men and women of the FBI. I never once had a political [2:52:15] conversation. I never once had any politics interfere with the work that we were doing as part of our official duties. [2:52:23] And if I did, I would certainly call it out and report it up the chain. That is not appropriate. And I [2:52:30] I am alarmed on their behalf that so many of the good men and women of the FBI are being called out [2:52:38] for being, quote, what one of my colleagues said is a political arm of the Democratic Party. Now, [2:52:46] you all would agree real quick that credibility matters, right? You're all agents or current or former [2:52:52] agents of the FBI. Is that right, Mr. O'Boyle? Correct? Yeah. Mr. Friend? Yes. And Mr. Allen, right? [2:52:59] I'm a staff operations specialist, sir. So you don't believe credibility matters? [2:53:03] Credibility does matter, sir, but I'm a staff operations specialist, my official. [2:53:07] But let's take the chairman's opening statement for a second. He said in his opening statement about [2:53:12] the John Durham report that Mr. Durham found that there was no predicate and no basis to open the [2:53:19] investigation. I'm going to read you a paragraph from page 295 of the Durham report. It says, [2:53:25] under the FBI's guidelines, the investigation could have been opened more appropriately [2:53:31] as an assessment or preliminary investigation. FBI investigations opened as preliminary investigations, [2:53:38] short of full investigations, if necessary and appropriate, may be escalated under the [2:53:44] guidelines by converting to a full investigation with supervisory approval. Mr. O'Boyle, does that sound [2:53:51] like Mr. Durham determined that there was no basis at all to open an investigation, uh, as, as the [2:53:59] chairman said? I would have to have more information, but based on what you just read, it sounds to me [2:54:05] like based on FBI rules, a preliminary investigation ought to have been opened if anything was going to be [2:54:11] opened at all. And it sounds like it was opened straight as a full investigation, but I also don't. [2:54:18] And you understand there's the differences really just based on timelines and a slightly narrower range [2:54:23] of authorities, but that preliminary investigations are often escalated to full investigations after some [2:54:28] additional investigation, right? They're also often just shut down. Sure. Right. Of course. I see that, [2:54:35] that my time is, is about to expire and I look forward to my additional questions. Um, but I would [2:54:41] just note for all of us here that to use three individuals, personal experiences, um, including [2:54:50] determinations based on a number of different levels of review at the FBI that you no longer warrant [2:54:56] your, your security clearance is a very bold and unfounded statement to use to claim that the FBI [2:55:04] is a weapon of the Democratic Party and I yield back. Kentucky is recognized. Americans are upset [2:55:12] and they are angry that the government's been weaponized against them, but I think they're better [2:55:17] served if we remain dispassionate in reviewing this evidence. But I have to admit, I came here today [2:55:23] trying to be dispassionate, but I'm feeling emotion. I'm feeling disgust. Before us among these witnesses [2:55:31] has represented decades of exemplary service, the military and the FBI service to our country for [2:55:38] which your families have, have sacrificed for which you have sacrificed to give this service. [2:55:44] And now the other side of the aisle just wants to disparage you for bringing forth facts that the [2:55:49] American people need to know that we need to know if we're going to change these whistleblower laws [2:55:53] so that you're not punished for bringing us the truth. This is our fourth, or we've had four hearings, [2:56:00] and I'm noticing a disturbing trend here. Big business is working with the government to weaponize [2:56:09] against the American people. And, you know, the government says, well, this is okay because we're [2:56:15] not violating the Constitution. The big business is doing this voluntarily, and we saw this with the [2:56:23] social media companies. But I want to play a testimony from a whistleblower who's not here with [2:56:29] us today. If you could cue that up about how we've seen, in this instance, one of the biggest corporations [2:56:35] in America working with the FBI to violate civil liberties. I believe it was either on January 7th [2:56:46] or the Bank of America, know the FBI, data mined its customer, and data mined a date range of 5% of any VOA [2:57:06] who use a VOA product. And by VOA product, a debit card. They compiled that list, and then on top of that list, [2:57:18] they put anyone who had purchased a firearm during any date. [2:57:24] I find that testimony chilling. That was the retired FBI supervisory intelligence analyst, [2:57:32] George Hill, who gave us that testimony. And what he said there is the Bank of America [2:57:37] compiled a list of everybody who used a credit card or a debit card between January 5th and January 7th [2:57:43] inside of Washington, D.C., and gave that to the FBI. But before they did, they looked at anybody who [2:57:50] had ever purchased a firearm, according to their records, and elevated those people to the top of the list. [2:57:57] And they didn't geo-fence it to Washington, D.C. You could have, as Mr. Hill testified, [2:58:02] you could have bought a gun in 1999 in Iowa with a Bank of America card, and then you got [2:58:09] heightened attention, and it was given to the FBI. Now, whether the FBI asked for this, [2:58:14] or whether they did this voluntarily, is very chilling. Because Bank of America, you know, [2:58:20] they've got a lot of issues in front of the government. And this is where you get into this [2:58:25] unhealthy feedback loop. Bank of America spent a quarter million dollars lobbying [2:58:30] us on the American Rescue Plan, issues related to Paycheck Protection Program, general issues related [2:58:36] to data security, and general issues related to interchange, and general issues related to privacy. [2:58:44] The irony of it, Bank of America is violating your privacy, working hand in glove with the FBI. [2:58:51] Now, the FBI will say, we didn't ask for this. They just gave it to us. It doesn't matter. [2:58:56] It's a violation when you get to this level of cooperation. [2:58:59] Now, I want to turn to something else that's troubling me very much. The whistleblowers here [2:59:06] before us today have described incentive-based payments related to increasing the number of [2:59:11] criminal investigations. Mr. Friend and Mr. Allen, you've talked about this. Mr. Friend, [2:59:14] can you tell us what that's about and why that might be unhealthy? It's extremely unhealthy. It's [2:59:19] called Integrated Program Management. It's a process that the FBI uses annually to essentially [2:59:26] establish arbitrary metrics for itself to achieve as far as opening up a certain number of cases and [2:59:30] using certain tools and getting certain accomplishments. This, in football terms, [2:59:34] this sounds eerily similar to the Saints' Bounty Gate. If folks remember that. In that scandal, [2:59:40] coaches would pay players cash bonuses for hits that would result in injuries to other players. [2:59:45] Players would receive additional pay if their tackle resulted in an opposing player being taken out [2:59:51] of the game. These non-contract bonuses were part of an underground culture that incentivized dirty [2:59:57] behavior. When the activity was exposed, the Saints organization was widely condemned. The defensive [3:00:03] coach was initially suspended indefinitely, and the head coach was suspended for an entire season. [3:00:08] Somebody at the FBI needs to be suspended for the dirty tactics that they've used. If we recognize [3:00:14] it in sports, it's not hard to recognize it here in government. And I yield back to balance my time. [3:00:19] The gentleman yields back. The chair recognizes the gentleman from New York, Mr. Goldman. [3:00:23] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm going to move quickly through a couple different questions. We established [3:00:29] earlier credibility matters, certainly for witnesses who appear before us. Mr. Boyle, do you know who [3:00:36] Kash Patel is? I do. Have you received any money from Kash Patel or his organization? I have. When you [3:00:45] previously met with the majority members and or majority staff of this committee, was Kash Patel present [3:00:51] with for that meeting? No. To your knowledge, has Kash Patel ever spoken to the committee members on your [3:00:57] behalf? Not that I know of. Not that you know of. Was anyone present for your previous meetings with [3:01:05] committee members and staff on the majority that were not members of this committee or staff of this [3:01:12] committee? My counsel. Your counsel. Anyone else? I don't think so. Is Kash Patel helping you finance your [3:01:24] counsel? Not that I'm aware of. Mr. Friend, what about you? Do you know Kash Patel as well? Yes. And did you receive [3:01:33] any money from Kash Patel? Yes. He gave me a donation last November. A donation? Yes. Are you a charitable [3:01:40] organization? I was an unpaid, indefinitely suspended man trying to feed his family and his [3:01:46] reached out to me and said he wanted to give me a donation. Did he have any, was he present for any [3:01:52] of your meetings with committee members or staff? No. And how many times did you meet with the committee [3:01:58] members or staff prior to your transcribed interview? I never met with them prior to my transcribed interview. [3:02:03] Did you speak to them on the phone? Yes. Okay. All right. So you, you spoke to them on the phone? [3:02:09] Yes. I spoke to them on the phone, corresponded. Did you provide documents? Yes. I gave them my [3:02:15] written declaration. Did they ask you whether they could share that with the minority? I don't know. [3:02:24] At the time, I don't believe they were actually in the majority. Did they ask you whether they could [3:02:28] share the documents? I don't remember if they did or didn't. I want to focus a little bit on [3:02:35] that SWAT case that you mentioned, Mr. Friend, where the SWAT team was used to make an arrest [3:02:44] of someone associated with the domestic violent extremist group. That was not your case? It was, [3:02:50] that was a case that was within my office. The Joint Terrorism Task Force sort of ran all the cases [3:02:54] together. Okay. Well, did you work on that case? My name is on it. I did not perform work for it. [3:02:59] Got it. And what evidence did you have that this defendant had offered to surrender to the FBI? [3:03:05] The evidence I had was in his conversations with the individuals he, from my office, [3:03:09] who he spoke to, he said that he would cooperate. So he never said he would cooperate with the FBI, [3:03:15] but he never told you that he would surrender upon it to an arrest. Those are two different things. [3:03:20] You agree, right? No, I wouldn't. If somebody told me that if you need anything from me, [3:03:24] just let me know. I'll cooperate. I would interpret that to mean I could reach out to them if I had [3:03:29] criminal charge. Really? Yes. Interesting. All right. That's certainly not my experience. [3:03:36] Mr. Allen, you passed around information to other members of the FBI related to January 6th. Is that [3:03:49] right? Yes, sir. And you were admonished by your supervisor not to do that. Is that right? [3:03:54] I was not, sir. You were not. So when it says here in the FBI's letter to Mr. Jorman of yesterday [3:04:02] that your supervisor admonished you to stop circulating these materials on multiple occasions, [3:04:06] you're saying right now that the FBI is lying to this committee? That statement that they wrote is [3:04:11] inaccurate. Okay. Did you write a, did you write to your colleagues to, quote, exercise extreme [3:04:19] caution and discretion in pursuit of any investigative inquiries or leads pertaining to the events of [3:04:25] January 6th? Yes, I corresponded with my teammates. Did you write that? Yes, I wrote those words in [3:04:33] the correspondence. And that was, that was after you had been admonished not to send information about [3:04:40] January 6th, right? I was not admonished to not send information. But you do agree that your personal [3:04:45] opinion should not influence your official duties, don't you? No, you should be objective and analytical in [3:04:52] all the, you know, decisions and information. No, that was my, sorry, that was my question. Your personal [3:04:56] views should not influence your official duties. No, you should be objective in doing the conduct of [3:05:03] your job. And now, Mr. Friend and Mr. O'Boyle, I don't have much time, but you, you agree that you were [3:05:08] field agents, correct? Correct. And you understand chain of command, do you not, Mr. O'Boyle? I do. Right. [3:05:14] So that if you make a suggestion to a supervisor and your supervisor overrules you, [3:05:18] that's the nature of the business, isn't it? Not if it's a violation of a law. And you, [3:05:25] you make decisions about whether grand jury subpoenas should be served or not as a field [3:05:30] agent of the FBI? Tom and the gentleman is expired. If I have a reasonable belief, [3:05:33] I can make a protective disclosure, which is what I've done. Okay. But do you think you make those [3:05:38] decisions? Tom and the gentleman is expired. The gentleman yields back. The chair recognizes himself. [3:05:41] Mr. and Mr. O'Boyle, why do you think they came down on you so darn hard? Deep down, [3:05:46] what do you think their motivation is? I think they want to, the agency as a whole wants to [3:05:53] get rid of people who simply just don't toll the line that they want. They don't want critical [3:05:58] thinkers. They don't want people who raise valid questions to their chain of command. [3:06:04] They want to send a message, don't they? Absolutely. [3:06:06] They want to make you an example, don't they? Yes. [3:06:08] And they don't care. They want to send that message so hard, so strong. They don't care that [3:06:13] you'd served six years in the Army. A member of the 101st Airborne took enemy fire, was selected [3:06:20] for a special new unit they were putting in Quantico. They wanted to send such a message [3:06:26] that they said, if we can get this guy, we can get this guy to be quiet, we can get everybody to be [3:06:31] quiet. That's what they were doing, wasn't it? Yes, sir. Especially since I had just had [3:06:35] a baby who was two weeks old and we had just sold our house. Just to put the emphasis on it, [3:06:41] they said, we're going to do it the day he arrives. The day we've worked with him, we selected him, [3:06:47] he's done a great job in the FBI, he served our country, took an oath to the Constitution, [3:06:51] took an oath to defend this country. He's going to move. We're going to send all his stuff in this [3:06:55] van to this moving. We're going to do that when the day he arrives, we're going to suspend him. [3:06:59] We're not going to let his family get their belongings. We're not going to let him get his [3:07:03] clothes for his kids, his winter coats for his children. We're going to send a message. And they did. [3:07:09] They suspended you. They took your pay. They don't let you get health insurance. They made [3:07:14] life miserable for you to send a message. Because you know what? You reported on the first big screw [3:07:21] up they had in this administration. The first big one. You reported to us as a whistleblower [3:07:27] about the school board's issue. The Biden administration, they thought this was going [3:07:32] to be a win for them politically. They thought it was going to make Terry McAuliffe governor of Virginia. [3:07:36] Backfired on him. And you reported. Would it surprise you, Mr. O'Boyle, to know that the [3:07:40] FBI told us they looked at 25 parents who were reported on this snitch line that was set up [3:07:46] with this memorandum from the attorney general. They looked at 25 parents. How many do you think [3:07:50] of them were actually ever investigated and prosecuted? How many think were prosecuted, [3:07:54] Mr. O'Boyle? [3:07:55] If I had to guess, I'd say zero. [3:07:57] Zero. Zero. And you came to us because you say this is wrong. This is wrong to set up some federal snitch [3:08:03] line, some neighbor calling in because they don't like their neighbor's politics, reporting to the [3:08:08] FBI, go investigate these parents. They said, we got to get this guy. We got to get, we got to get [3:08:14] Garrett O'Boyle because you had the courage to step forward. And it's not just with this issue, [3:08:19] because we have the memorandum from the Richmond field office about Catholics, right? If you're pro-life, [3:08:27] pro-family, and you're Catholic, look out. The FBI wanted to put people inside the church, [3:08:32] inside the parish to spy on fellow citizens. Does that surprise you, Mr. O'Boyle? Did that [3:08:38] actually happen in the Richmond field office? It doesn't. Not anymore. [3:08:41] It's scary. And you know that memorandum, by the way? It was signed off by five people in that office. [3:08:48] One of them was the chief division counsel, a lawyer, a lawyer who supposedly went to law school and [3:08:53] probably had a course on the constitution, signed off on that memorandum. Scary stuff. Scary stuff. [3:09:01] Mr. Allen, you served 20 years. You had a security clearance for 20 years. You served our country as [3:09:06] well, right? Yes, sir. Honorably discharged. Yes, sir. Won medals from the Marine Corps. Yes, [3:09:10] sir. They came after you too, didn't they? And you simply did. Mr. Goldman just asked you a few [3:09:15] questions. You were simply doing your job. Your job as an analyst is to compile information, [3:09:20] open source information, present that to your colleagues so they're fully informed about the [3:09:25] case. Is that right? Yes, sir. And you did that job, didn't you? Yes, sir. You followed your oath, [3:09:29] right? Yes, sir. You adhered to the rule of law. Correct, sir. You were consistent with the constitution, [3:09:33] just like the oath you took when you signed both as a serve our country in the military and at the [3:09:38] FBI. Yes, sir. And you did the same thing, didn't you, Mr. Friend? Yes, sir. And yet you felt the [3:09:44] full weight of the federal government come down on you guys. And of course, they timed it perfectly. [3:09:48] They sent the letter to us yesterday. We knew they would. We knew it was going to happen that way. [3:09:53] And as Mr. Boyle said earlier, he's getting his hearing tomorrow, right, Mr. Boyle? That's when they [3:09:59] tried to schedule it. We've not heard back. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you for your service to the country. Mr. Bishop [3:10:07] was right. The poise, the way you've handled yourself, the gentleman way you've handled yourself [3:10:13] here, the way you've served our country, it does not go unnoticed. The American people appreciate [3:10:19] what you've done for our country and what you are doing for our country. God bless you. I yield back. [3:10:25] Now recognize the ranking member of the Virgin Islands. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. At least you got a [3:10:32] document from the FBI. We hear your colleagues in Congress. Don't get documents from you. Don't get [3:10:40] material from you. That document was sent to Chairman Adler or ranking member Adler. This is my five [3:10:44] minutes. This is my five minutes. I didn't yield to you. I'll give you the extra time, but it went to [3:10:47] Chairman Adler or ranking member Adler. I didn't yield to you. I didn't yield to you. Not Mr. [3:10:50] Allen's testimony. Not a lot of testimony. But, you know, I do and am concerned when I hear about [3:11:00] people not being able to provide for their families. That does upset me. As a parent, [3:11:06] as a daughter of law enforcement, a granddaughter of law enforcement, I don't come from a place where [3:11:12] I do not respect law enforcement. And I understand the sacrifices that they and their families make. [3:11:19] Mr. Allen, do you know who Brian Reagan is? Is the name Brian Reagan? Yes. Do you know who that is? [3:11:26] I'm not aware of. Okay. Brian Reagan was an Air Force [3:11:30] individual, an Air Force airman, who sold classified information to China, Iraq and Libya. [3:11:38] Mr. O'Boyle, do you know who Reality Winner is? I believe I have heard that name before. [3:11:44] Yes. Reality Winner was an Air Force also, an NSA contractor who in 2018 pleaded guilty to multiple [3:11:54] violations of Espionage Act as a contractor who leaked information about the Russian interference [3:12:00] in the 2016 elections. Do either any of you up here sitting there know who Jack Direxra is, right? We all [3:12:11] know who he is. He's the young man in the National Guardsmen in Massachusetts who leaked massive amounts [3:12:16] of classified information. So because someone served our country in the military and that they do work for [3:12:24] a federal agency does not exempt them immediately from being someone who could potentially commit [3:12:32] espionage or lose security clearances. We give everybody a pass just because they served our country. [3:12:39] We respect their service. But if they break the law, then that means that they have to face the [3:12:45] consequences. If individuals do things that they're in the process and it determines that they are in [3:12:52] fact have to have their security clearances removed, then that's what happens. So, you know, I'm my father [3:13:02] served, all of my uncle served, people in my family served in the military and we all respect that. But that [3:13:08] does not give individuals a pass and means that they cannot be questioned about their security clearances [3:13:15] and their allegiances later on to the country. You know, my colleague, Mr. Goldman asked questions about [3:13:25] Kash Patel, his engagement, his involvement with some of the witnesses here. You know, even another one [3:13:35] of my colleagues brought up a tweet, brought up a testimony from Mr. Hill. He was just in awe and could [3:13:44] not believe he was chilled by what he said about Bank of America. I'm chilled by that same individual [3:13:52] saying that the FBI are brown shirts, that they're Nazis, that the law enforcement agency are in fact [3:13:58] Nazis. That's a more chilling component to me. But, you know, this is more of the same that we see each and [3:14:08] every time that we're here. First, just as it was demonstrated in the process that we're in right now, [3:14:13] an unwillingness to follow precedent, follow the rules. The rules don't apply when it comes to the [3:14:20] Republicans. They want different set of rules for themselves and everyone else. They want a different set of rules for [3:14:26] their political beliefs than other individuals have. Individuals who are espousing their beliefs on the job where they're not [3:14:33] supposed to. It's okay when it's their beliefs, but if it were somebody else, then a different set of rules would apply to them. [3:14:40] Hiding information. It's all part and parcel of the Republicans' attempt to make Americans distrust our rule of law, [3:14:52] so that when 2024 comes around, and should their candidate not win, more and more people will not [3:15:00] believe the truth. The truth matters. The truth matters. And hiding information and stating a lie over [3:15:09] and over again does not make it true. And we will continue to, yes, be concerned. And, Mr. Chairman, [3:15:18] I continue to say that there are, I believe, areas that I think that we can work on. I have not had a [3:15:24] discussion with you. You know, I've sent you letters about what I believe those areas are. No response with [3:15:30] regard to that. But in their times... Time of the gentlelady has expired. [3:15:36] I'm happy to do that with you. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. [3:15:39] The gentleman recognizes the gentleman from Utah for five minutes. [3:15:41] Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and to the witnesses. I actually am missing another event, but I [3:15:46] could not leave until I had an opportunity to thank you. Thank you for your courage. Thank you for your [3:15:54] honesty. And honestly, I apologize for some of the behavior and the words of my colleagues. It reflects [3:16:00] poorly on Congress. It makes us appear childish and as if rudeness is intellect, as if accusations [3:16:09] is fact. But you all have done exactly the opposite in the face of accusations, in the face of [3:16:18] insinuations. I mean, comparing you as military members to known traitors and therefore we shouldn't [3:16:24] believe you. It's just simply outrageous. It's childish. But you haven't done that. You've done exactly the [3:16:30] opposite. And I want you to know that the American people have listened to you and they can see your [3:16:38] demeanor. They can see your sincerity. They can see and respect the service that you have rendered. [3:16:46] And that's what they will remember from this. They won't remember some objection about, well, [3:16:52] we weren't given this document. They won't remember, you know, who Kash Patel is, who even [3:16:58] knows what has anything to do with this. They're smart enough to know this isn't about January 6th. [3:17:04] This isn't about a previous election or the next election. They're smart enough to hear your words [3:17:10] and to measure your sincerity and to know whether you're telling the truth. And I'm telling you [3:17:15] that as someone who sat on the Intelligence Committee for years and used to be a defender of the FBI [3:17:20] and to watch their activity over the last few years, I completely believe you because I've seen it [3:17:27] again and again and again. And probably the most concerning thing I've seen in Congress [3:17:34] is this weaponization of federal agencies. We give them enormous power. You all had enormous power. [3:17:41] And we can't give agencies like the FBI incredible abilities to go surveil and to monitor and to read [3:17:48] and to observe American citizens and then just say, go do what you want. Don't come talk to us. [3:17:54] Don't tell us what you're doing. That is exactly the opposite. They should and they must be able to [3:18:01] have oversight by Congress and they simply don't. And that forces you as whistleblowers to come forward [3:18:08] through another vehicle. And I'd be curious to know, you had friends in the FBI. You were well [3:18:16] respected. I mean, Mr. Allen, you're the employee of the year for heaven's sakes. Have any of your friends [3:18:21] reached out and tried to support you in this? And my point in asking that is I wonder if they're too scared. [3:18:28] I wonder if they're scared to be associated with you. I wonder if the FBI tactics of isolating you [3:18:33] have worked. Mr. O'Boyle, have you had friends reach out and support? Very, very few. And why is [3:18:38] that, do you think? I think their First Amendment rights have been chilled as well. I know for a fact [3:18:42] that my former supervisor had a meeting with my squad shortly after I was suspended and he told them [3:18:48] that I was going to be arrested, fired and charged. So if that's not chilling, I don't know what is. [3:18:53] Mr. Friend. I echo what Mr. O'Boyle said. I've had very few reach out to me and those who have have [3:19:00] used encrypted ways to do it because they fear retribution. They're afraid to reach out to you. [3:19:06] Respected colleagues, people they've worked with for years and they're afraid to reach out to you. [3:19:12] It's very clear the FBI has been able to achieve that goal. Mr. Allen, your experience, former employee [3:19:18] of the year? I've had a few colleagues reach out who are no longer with with the office just to check in [3:19:28] periodically, which has been appreciated. But other than that, I've been pretty much like ghosted by [3:19:34] everybody. So and honestly, shame on those agents who respect you and know you and don't have the [3:19:42] courage to reach out and support you. There are members of my family who are FBI agents. I love [3:19:47] and respect them. But we have deep concerns about the agency used to work with. And I want to read [3:19:51] you something. This should frighten people. It should get their attention, I would hope, but it doesn't. [3:19:57] The East German Stasi, one of the most effective, suppressive agency in the history of the world. [3:20:03] This is what they would do. They devised a strategy and tactics to disintegrate a target's personal [3:20:09] circumstances. Surely that has happened to you. Their career, surely that has happened to you. Not [3:20:16] only your career as an FBI, but it precludes you from working anywhere, anywhere else. For him's sakes, [3:20:21] you have to ask others to help you to maintain just the food on the table for your families. How can [3:20:28] anyone on the other side of the aisle say, that's okay with me? Further Stasi tactics, ruin their [3:20:36] relationships and their reputation in the community. Tell me that hasn't happened to each [3:20:41] of you. I yield back. Thank you. The gentleman yields back. Appreciate that. The gentleman from [3:20:48] Florida is recognized. So which Americans were being targeted? Now, August 2, 2022, a media [3:20:57] organization attained a copy of a document which whistleblowers subsequently authenticated to the [3:21:01] committee that is styled the FBI's domestic terrorism symbols guide on militia, violent extremists. [3:21:09] Mr. Abwell, are you generally familiar with that guide? Yes. And that guide identified certain things [3:21:16] that made people more likely to be deemed a threat or terrorists, didn't it? Yes. And wasn't one of those [3:21:22] things just the number two and the letter A next to each other? Yes, it was. And in your experience as a [3:21:29] law enforcement official, does putting the letter 2 and A next to each other make someone more likely [3:21:35] to be violent or law-breaking? No. And if someone signified the right, that they support the right [3:21:41] to bear arms, was that also something in the symbol guide? Yes. And how about, this one really got me, [3:21:48] the Betsy Ross flag. Was the Betsy Ross flag in the terrorism symbol guide? It was. And what about the [3:21:57] Betsy Ross flag makes someone more likely to be a violent extremist? I wish there was a reasonable [3:22:04] explanation for that question. There isn't. And people blew the whistle and said, this stuff is [3:22:09] crazy. Americans are being targeted. Mr. Friend, you ever been to a school board meeting? Yes, I have. [3:22:14] FBI ever sent you to the parking lot of a school board meeting? Yes, they have. And in the parking lot [3:22:19] of a school board meeting where the FBI sent you, you were taking down information regarding people's [3:22:23] license plates. That's correct. Now, it wasn't the first time you'd been to a school board meeting, [3:22:28] was it? No, I went on my own as a private citizen. As a parent? Yes. And so, there you were. It must [3:22:33] have been quite an interesting perspective. There you were taking down the information of people, [3:22:39] parents attending school board meetings on behest of the FBI, and you had been one of those parents at [3:22:44] a school board meeting. How did that feel? Well, after I attended privately, my colleagues teased me [3:22:49] that they were probably going to start investigating me. You used to go after the worst of the worst, [3:22:55] didn't you? Yes, I believe so. You went after people who looked at child porn? Yes. People who [3:23:01] were sexually exploiting children? Yes. And then you were in the parking lot of a school board meeting, [3:23:07] taking down the information of parents. What happened to the cases that you were working [3:23:13] to protect our communities from the worst predators that exist? I was told they were not to be [3:23:18] resourced, and then after I was suspended, they were handed off to local law enforcement. Wow. So, [3:23:26] the FBI just decided it was more important to have you in that parking lot of that school board meeting [3:23:30] than getting the worst of the worst away from people that they could harm. That's correct. But [3:23:36] you deserve the consequences you are getting, according to the ranking member. Mr. O'Boyle, [3:23:44] the ranking member said that when people break the law, they deserve the consequences they get, [3:23:48] and it doesn't matter that they served in the military. So, what law did you break before the FBI [3:23:54] packed up all your stuff and moved it across the country to Virginia? No, true law. The only thing [3:24:00] I broke was not towing the line for the FBI. Like I said when I opened, my oath is to the Constitution, [3:24:08] not to the FBI. And our laws provide you avenues to talk to Congress, to talk to your supervisors [3:24:14] about those concerns, right? Correct. And so, you didn't deviate from that, did you? No. [3:24:19] You didn't go to the media first, did you? No. You used what the law provided, and your family has [3:24:27] paid an exquisite price for that, haven't they? They have. How old were your children when they [3:24:33] moved you across the country? Six, five, three, and two weeks. A two-week-old baby. Could you get your [3:24:44] stuff? Six weeks later. Oh, so for six weeks, almost every possession to your name, [3:24:51] the FBI had and wouldn't give back to you. How did you, what time of year was it? Was it winter, [3:24:58] summer? When I reported, it was in September. So, when we were traveling, it was summertime, [3:25:04] essentially. So, we had basically summer clothes, but then we were basically stranded in Wisconsin, [3:25:10] which is where we're from. It gets cold there pretty quick. Well, I'll take your word for it. I'm a [3:25:15] Florida man. But what was it like when you had to go and explain to your wife that you didn't have [3:25:21] coats for your children because the FBI wouldn't give them back to you? It was horrible. I mean, [3:25:26] we were asking family for clothes and, excuse me, it was a difficult time. Yeah. You were, [3:25:41] you became a charity case, didn't you? I did. And now I get derided for that. I never thought I'd have [3:25:47] to accept charity in my life. I thought I would be able to take care of my family, but I'm grateful [3:25:52] for everyone who has provided charity to me. That even includes a former colleague's church. I would [3:25:58] name the church to give them recognition, but I'm too worried that the FBI would send informants [3:26:03] to infiltrate that church as well. Yeah. Well, they've already done that [3:26:06] with the Catholics. I yield back. The gentleman yields back. The gentleman from North Dakota is [3:26:10] recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Durham report dropped this week and it's an absolute, [3:26:15] I mean, the politically motivated misconduct by the FBI and the DOJ is outlined in very, [3:26:21] very specific detail. And it's an absolutely damning indictment on the FISA court. And the [3:26:26] response from DOJ and director Ray continues to be that all of the people engaged in that conduct [3:26:32] are no longer with the DOJ or the FBI. And director Ray has emphasized the importance of doing things [3:26:37] the right way. Essentially, it's all in the past. Nothing to see here. Just trust us. Mr. Allen, [3:26:42] do you think the FBI leadership does things the right way? No, sir. Mr. Friend? No, sir. Mr. O'Boyle? No, [3:26:52] sir. And the Durham report detailed that submitted warrant applications to the FISA court without [3:26:57] interviewing witness, failed to correct warrants after learning more information about a witness's [3:27:02] reliability, failed to disclose exculpatory evidence to a secret court, omitted information that [3:27:08] contradicted what they had told the court previously when they were trying to get extensions. And in one [3:27:12] case, they actually fabricated an application for the warrant. And in a letter dated on May 15th, [3:27:18] the DOJ informed us that we don't have to worry about it anymore because they revised some forms, [3:27:24] issued a whole bunch of new guidance. They promised us that they have a better way to maintain files. [3:27:29] They implemented more training. The FBI loves training. The bureaucrats love training. [3:27:34] They have more internal oversight. They have a rigorous and robust oversight program. [3:27:39] They instituted technical updates and they automated workflow. You know, [3:27:43] it's not mentioned anywhere in that letter consequences. There are no consequences, no penalty, [3:27:49] no punishment. So if there's no consequences, there's no prosecutions, then there is no incentive [3:27:56] for the DOJ or the FBI to hold themselves accountable. And the single best way for the American [3:28:01] people to learn about the abuses carried out by our government is by whistleblower testimony. And so the [3:28:07] single most effective way to keep these things from coming to light is to make sure it is known that [3:28:13] dissent will not be tolerated and speaking out will be dealt with severely. And just this week, [3:28:19] the IRS whistleblower was removed from a case at the request of the DOJ in a clear case of retaliation [3:28:26] and violation of the law. So, Mr. Allen, when we're talking about this and what you all have gone [3:28:32] through and your families have gone through is just heart wrenching. And Congressman Gates just walked [3:28:37] through it. But what are the consequences moving forward for your colleagues on whistleblowing? [3:28:42] I mean, I think in light of what's happened to us and what's happened to all the people involved [3:28:50] with that investigation, I think it definitely has to send a chilling effect across the agency. And [3:29:00] there's just an incongruence in how personnel at a high level have been treated and how we've been treated. [3:29:09] Mr. Friend, this is a public setting, we're in testimony, but can you tell the American people [3:29:17] what has happened in your life since you have come forward and given this information? [3:29:22] Well, thank you for that. Beyond leaking my medical information to the New York Times and insinuating [3:29:28] that I was under disciplinary action for shooting a firearm in my backyard inappropriately, I was also [3:29:33] denied the opportunity to seek outside employment on two occasions, denied my training records, which in [3:29:38] essence is denying me outside employment. The inspector general is now aware of the illegal [3:29:44] and improper gaggler that was issued on me that basically told me that I was not allowed to speak [3:29:49] to my family or my attorney about the existence of an investigation. [3:29:52] So if somebody, if one of your former colleagues is looking at this and watching this and they have [3:29:57] information that they think is subject to being shed light on with the American people, do you think [3:30:03] this would, do you think how you've been treated would give them pause? It has and that's why they [3:30:08] laundered the information to me and that's how I've been able to expose more things now from the outside. [3:30:12] And Mr. O'Boyle, we just heard from you, your interaction with Mr. Gates and how all of this [3:30:18] occurred and all of the hardships you've gone through. If one of your really good friends, your former [3:30:23] colleagues came to you and said, I have this thing that is being covered up and I think the American [3:30:29] people need to know about it, what advice would you give them? I would tell them first to pray about [3:30:37] it, long and hard. And I would tell them I could take it to Congress for them or I could put them in [3:30:43] touch with Congress, but I would advise them not to do it. So you would legitimately try to protect [3:30:48] one of your colleagues from doing what you have done? Absolutely. And how do you think that solves [3:30:55] being able to shine light on corruption, weaponization, any kind of misconduct that exists [3:30:59] with the American people? It doesn't solve it. But the FBI will crush you. This government will [3:31:04] crush you and your family if you try to expose the truth about things that they are doing that are [3:31:10] wrong. And we are all examples of that. I can't think of a more sobering way to end the hearing. [3:31:16] I yield back. The gentleman yields back. I want to thank, you know, we say this every hearing that we [3:31:23] thank the witnesses, but and I mean it every time, but I really mean it. Thank you for coming forward, [3:31:31] sharing your story and standing up for the Constitution, doing your duty. We appreciate [3:31:37] it. Mr. Levitt, thank you for your representation of these individuals. We thank you for the powerful [3:31:43] testimony that you gave and the way you gave it and the way you've conducted yourselves. And with that, [3:31:48] without objection, all members will have five legislative days to submit additional written [3:31:51] questions for witnesses or additional materials for the record. Without objection, the hearing is adjourned. [3:31:57] Thank you, Mr. Levitt, thank you, Mr. Levitt. Thank you, Mr. Levitt. Thank you, Mr. Levitt.