3. Reprisal or retaliation means taking and adverse personnel action, or colloquially speaking, any other form of retribution in response to a protected disclosure.
4. The @HouseJudiciary Dems claimed that @RealStevefriend and others had merely stated personal opinions rather than reporting waste, wrongdoing, or safety concerns.
5. He testified about being pulled off of child exploitation cases to chase pointless #J6 leads.
[waste]
6. He testified about the @FBI's multiple methods of dishonestly manipulating case statistics, including failure to conduce #J6 case "by the book," the Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide (DIOG).
[wrongdoing]
7. He testified about the use of SWAT resources when the @FBI knew that subject had expressed willingness to voluntarily cooperate and knew that there were other, less risky options for the officers and public, requiring less use of force.
[safety]
8. Unfortunately, there is a bizarre exemption from the normal procedural remedies that agents at all other law enforcement agencies enjoy. The @US_OSC and the @USMSPB generally have little to no authority involving @FBI whistleblowers.
9. This should be fixed. But, right now, FBI agents rely only the @JusticeOIG to investigate and internal appeals within DOJ to hold FBI accountable for retaliation.
That doesn't work very well.
10. That's why vigorous congressional oversight is the all-important last resort.
Without getting too technical, in 2016, changes to the law clarified that FBI agents *can* make protected disclosures to Congress.
8.5 Recent changes allow FBI to eventually appeal to the @USMSPB after bouncing around the internal DOJ bureaucracy for 180 days if there is no final decision, or to appeal any final decision.
8.75 Although FBI agents can now (eventually) appeal to the @USMSPB, they *still* cannot get:
- the @US_OSC to apply to the the MSPB for a temporary stay of a suspension or other adverse personnel action, or
- to appeal to federal district court from the MSPB's decision.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Empower Oversight transmitted a letter to the DOJ-OIG seeking confirmation that former FBI Special Agent Steve Friend’s concerns have not been “rejected” by his office, contrary to mischaracterizations in widely trumpeted congressional leaks.
"The abuse of the security clearance process to retaliate and force [Friend] out of his job is also a broader concern, of which Friend’s case is only one prominent example" - @tristanleavitt
“[George] Hill and [Steve] Friend both are being advised by former Senate investigator Jason Foster, the head of Empower Oversight, a whistleblower support nonprofit.”
“[@JsnFostr], who worked for years under Sen. Chuck Grassley, said the whistleblowers have provided Congress with a portrait of the FBI that, ‘keeps feeding public suspicion that it's too focused on political narratives and not focused enough on fighting crime.’"
“After 9/11, everybody was upset that we didn't connect the dots. We didn't find a needle in the haystack, and what's happened since is we turned the FBI into a domestic surveillance organization, and now we collect tens of thousands of haystacks” - @JsnFostr
WATCH: @mirandadevine & @TuckerCarlson report on FBI Whistleblower Steve Friend’s protected disclosures about FBI misconduct in J6 cases. @EMPOWR_US has been helping him, but now that his identity is public, the retaliation will likely intensify.
We have been working with him and providing legal counsel. We can only help truthtellers like Steve Friend through your generous donations. If you would like to help, please consider supporting our efforts.
The FBI’s alleged violations include phony recordkeeping and excessive force. Friend was one of many field agents improperly listed as the “case agent” on J6 cases in the FBI’s system, contrary to reality and FBI regulations.
Empower Oversight secured important wins in its lawsuit against the National Institutes of Health (NIH) for its failure to respond to FOIA requests regarding COVID-19 genetic data deletion at the request of a Chinese researcher.
The judge ruled that because the names of the Chinese researcher and an NIH official had already been public, that they should no longer be under seal. This reverses a previous order that had prematurely granted the NIH request to seal the names.
Newly unredacted documents now reveal some of what the NIH has sought to prevent the public from knowing regarding its response to Members of Congress seeking information related to the origins of COVID-19.
Empower Oversight received an allegation that while Whitey Bulger was one of the FBI’s most wanted fugitives, the Bureau ignored a lead based on physical evidence reported by a local homicide detective in the area where Bulger was hiding.
Empower Oversight filed two FOIA requests, one request with the FBI and a second request with the DOJ-OIG seeking records related to the homicide detective’s tip to the FBI about a firearm that was allegedly connected to infamous crime boss Whitey Bulger.
On July 15, NIH requested that the name of a Chinese researcher and an NIH official be removed from filings, even though those names had been provided by NIH both in Empower Oversight’s litigation and in response to a previous FOIA request from another nonprofit years earlier.
On July 22, Empower Oversight filed its opposition to the NIH’s request within the permitted seven-day timeframe. But minutes earlier, a magistrate judge had entered an order prematurely granting the NIH request without having received or considered Empower Oversight’s arguments.