Post

https://twitter.com/EMPOWR_us/status/1684539180020375553

More from @tristanleavitt

Tristan Leavitt

@tristanleavitt

Sep 26

https://x.com/EMPOWR_us/status/1839390485934166214

🚨 One thing that didn't receive much attention in connection with yesterday's @Weaponization hearing is that @JusticeOIG Michael Horowitz released several new pieces of information corroborating what @EMPOWR_us has previously disclosed to @Jim_Jordan and @JudiciaryGOP. (You can find a list of some here: .)

Based on that new info, below are the top questions I would have asked IG Horowitz at yesterday's hearing if it were me... 🧵

https://x.com/EMPOWR_us/status/1839390485934166214

➡️ Mr. Allen wrote to a coworker of the COVID-19 vaccine that he was "waiting until the opening rounds are finished and more data is available." But as you noted in your statement to the Committee, Mr. Allen's "hesitation about taking the COVID-19 vaccine" meant to the FBI's Insider Threat Office that Mr. Allen "may pose" an "insider threat" to the FBI. You found that focus on vaccination status played a role in suspending Mr. Allen's clearance, but many other employees whose security clearances were suspended by the FBI also expressed reservations about the COVID-19 vaccine, and the questionnaire asking FBI employees to rat out coworkers' views on the vaccine comes from another case than Mr. Allen's altogether.

❓ What kind of atmosphere existed in the FBI's Insider Threat Office such that "vaccine hesitancy" was viewed as making an FBI employee a possible "insider threat"?
❓ Have you examined how many other Insider Threat assessments referenced views on the COVID-19 vaccine? If not, why not?
❓ What kind of atmosphere existed in the FBI's Security Division such that vaccine views were taken into account when making security clearance decisions?
❓ Have you examined how many other security clearance suspension or revocation memos referenced views on the COVID-19 vaccine? If not, why not?

➡️ According to your statement to the Committee, Investigator 1 told your office that "edits made to the suspension memorandum 'grossly mischaracterized' Mr. Allen's communications."

❓Who made these edits? His supervisory special agent, Sean Clark? His assistant section chief, Dena Perkins? His section chief, Jeffrey Veltri?
❓ What was their motivation for mischaracterizing Mr. Allen's communications? Was it simply whistleblower animus, or was it also animus against Mr. Allen's political, religious, or medical views?

Read 7 tweets

Tristan Leavitt

@tristanleavitt

Sep 19

https://x.com/EMPOWR_us/status/1836903079100260536

🚨 This afternoon I transmitted a 22-page letter to @Jim_Jordan putting the lie to the FBI's claim that "[t]he FBI has not and will not retaliate against individuals who make protected whistleblower disclosures."

As our press release on the letter outlines, one of the key retaliators pushing the politicization of the FBI was Jeffrey Veltri, now SAC of the FBI's Miami Field Office and running the investigation into the second Trump assassination attempt: .

Highlight thread of the letter below... 🧵

https://x.com/EMPOWR_us/status/1836903079100260536

Not only did Veltri improperly politicize the FBI's Security Division, we've now learned he was under investigation for retaliating against whistleblowers who objected to his heavy-handed tactics and disregard of the law surrounding security clearance adjudications.

This investigation delayed his appointment as the Miami SAC.

These issues will be the subject of hearing next Wednesday @JusticeOIG Michael Horowitz will testify at along with me and FBI whistleblower Marcus Allen.

Yesterday @EMPOWR_us submitted a detailed 29-page retaliation complaint to the @JusticeOIG on behalf of a second whistleblower from within the FBI's Security Division, who saw firsthand the FBI's improper actions against FBI whistleblowers--and then suffered them herself.

She is the second Security Division employee we've filed a retaliation complaint with the OIG about.

Read 23 tweets

Tristan Leavitt

@tristanleavitt

Sep 15

https://twitter.com/tristanleavitt/status/1835451345744376261

This article details some of the whistleblower disclosures our client made about the political bias of FBI official Jeffrey Veltri, who is now the Special Agent in Charge of the FBI's Miami Field Office and spoke at today's press conference. nypost.com/2024/07/02/us-…

https://twitter.com/tristanleavitt/status/1835451345744376261

🧵 From our 7/2/24 complaint to @JusticeOIG:

@JusticeOIG More from the complaint...

Read 4 tweets

Tristan Leavitt

@tristanleavitt

Sep 9

Another fantastic @nypost column from @MirandaDevine. 🔥🔥🔥

“The nation owes the two whistleblowers an enormous debt of gratitude.” ❤️🇺🇸

Read 7 tweets

Tristan Leavitt

@tristanleavitt

Sep 3

🧵 @US_OSC is proposing a new process by which it will make disclosure referrals and retaliation findings public with the consent of the whistleblower, which is an excellent proposal.

But something OSC should do immediately is to stop requesting that the whistleblower keep disclosure referrals confidential.

Why should a whistleblower refrain from publicizing the referral of their own whistleblower disclosure, regardless of whether OSC chooses to?

govexec.com/management/202…

By using the very broad phrase "information...related to this matter," OSC's restraining language could even be misconstrued to constrain their communications about even the underlying information, and not just the fact of OSC's referral.

In other words, it could suggest to a whistleblower that they shouldn't make further protected disclosures--even to entities like Congress.

This could be interpreted as contradicting the spirit of the Grassley anti-gag rider which has restricted appropriations since FY 1989 (including today: ).

It was also codified in 2012 at 5 USC 2302(b)(13)--which OSC enforces.congress.gov/bill/118th-con…

Read 4 tweets

Tristan Leavitt

@tristanleavitt

Aug 7

🚨🧵 @EMPOWR_us has confirmed from whistleblowers that @TulsiGabbard was under Quiet Skies surveillance on not just one, or two, or even three flights... She has had Air Marshals there to monitor her on EIGHT FLIGHTS since her July 23 interview with @IngrahamAngle.

Furthermore, TSA is mobilizing a retaliatory investigation into who made these protected whistleblower disclosures. I wrote to @DHSOIG this morning asking him to ensure these whistleblowers are protected.

Our letter to IG Cuffari highlights that just because TSA considers some information "Sensitive Security Information," or SSI, does not trump the Whistleblower Protection Act.

The Supreme Court considered this exact issue in 2015 in DHS v. @rjmaclean. MacLean made disclosures to the media of information he reasonably believed was a "substantial and specific danger to public health or safety." TSA argued its regs on SSI prohibited the disclosures, but the Supreme Court ruled the whistleblower protections Congress established in law took priority over TSA regs. If an agency could simply erase statutory whistleblower protections by creating its own rules or regulations to circumvent them, every agency would do that.

Here, whistleblowers reasonably believed that assigning three Air Marshals and countless other in-airport resources to EIGHT FLIGHTS of @TulsiGabbard's is a gross waste of funds and an abuse of authority--especially after they surely realized after the first flight that she poses a threat to no one. (Except America's enemies--she is, after all, a colonel in the Army Reserves! 💪🏽)

The Whistleblower Protection Act doesn't limit who most federal employees can make their protected whistleblower disclosures to, so they can go to the OIG (as we have), to Congress, to a professional association like @FAMS_AMNC, or to the press (as @rjmaclean did).

Read 5 tweets

Share this page!

Enter URL or ID to Unroll

Tristan Leavitt

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

More from @tristanleavitt

Tristan Leavitt

Tristan Leavitt

Tristan Leavitt

Tristan Leavitt

Tristan Leavitt

Tristan Leavitt

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Send Email!