🧵2. The @FBI has forced Marcus Allen's family to deplete their retirement savings by suspending him without pay for the last two years while it delays any resolution with every trick in the book.
Yanking his clearance violates PPD-19.
Yanking his paycheck violates 5 USC 2303.
🧵3. After the @FBI yanked his paycheck with no due process, Marcus asked to take another job while waiting for the FBI's security review.
@FBI ignored his request until it was too late and has also asserted the authority to stop his family from accepting charity.
🧵4. Why? It all starts with the @FBI Director Wray's testimony to the U.S. Senate, where he left the impression that the FBI had not infiltrated groups involved in the J6 Capitol riot.
🧵5. Mainstream outlets like the @nytimes raised doubts. So did @DarrenJBeattie, @RevolverNewsUSA. Marcus forwarded all these articles to his superiors @FBI and raised the issue to their attention, which was part of his job.
🧵6. His bosses called Marcus on the carpet. But one of them later admitted to @FBI Security Division (SecD) that Marcus "was likely influenced by his knowledge [Charlotte Field Office] did have a source at the Capitol, who was reporting as the events unfolded on January 6."
🧵7. Marcus is a decorated Marine combat veteran with excellent evaluations and a spotless record.
His bosses admitted his Qs were reasonable and raised no questions about his loyalty to the U.S.
Still, @FBI grasped at straws to smear him as "hostile" to the U.S. govt.
🧵8. @FBI thinks it can do whatever it wants as long as it uses the security clearance process as the pretext.
But, in this complaint, we are not challenging the security clearance decision itself (which still isn't final) but rather yanking his pay to pressure him financially.
🧵9. By denying his right to take other work and preventing from accepting charitable donations, the @FBI has put him in a box.
It's perfectly designed to force a resignation, so that the @FBI's unlawful retaliation gets swept under the rug.
Here's the full response to Abbe Lowell's request to throw out the $20 million defamation lawsuit against him by the IRS agents who blew the whistle on Biden's DOJ tanking the Hunter Biden case....
Here's what it's all about. If whistleblowers can be defamed w/o consequence, there will be no whistleblowers.
That's the reason this case is necessary. Here's why it's possible: Lowell admitted in a letter to Congress that he was republishing his allegations to the public—which makes them actionable in court when they are knowingly false and defamatory:
“Mr. McCabe lied about his own leaking and should have been prosecuted for it, according to the Obama-appointed Justice IG [Horowitz], but wasn’t. …Now that this fishing expedition into the communications of congressional attorneys has been confirmed by the same IG, the new administration needs to finally hold people accountable.”
“And [Foster] said agents and prosecutors withheld from the DC magistrate judge who approved the subpoenas and non-disclosure orders the fact that the targets were congressional attorneys.”
“They misled the court,” he said. “They left out the key fact we were all congressional attorneys. They claimed over and over, with no basis, that we were flight risks or would ‘destroy evidence.’”
You learned that Hillary Clinton & the DNC funded the phony Steele Dossier b/c @ChuckGrassley, me, @DevinNunes, and Kash Patel did our jobs.
Fired-@FBI Dir. Comey later pretended not to know while somehow keeping a straight face. Here's the story... [long tweet]
Many in the press suspected it all along, and some provided me with tidbits suggesting it, but no one could report it—not until a House subpoena forced the information onto the public record.
At the Senate Judiciary Cmte, we received a tip that #FusionGPS was an alias for "Bean, LLC" which actually held bank accounts under that legal entity name. We also received the account number and the bank name for at least one of the accounts.
Senate Judiciary cmte rules were designed to enhance bipartisan cooperation and Minority party rights. But, there was no hope of bipartisanship on this.
After all, the true source of the money was a secret that only one political party in DC desperately wanted to keep.
The rules required either agreement from Ranking Member Feinstein or a full committee vote, which would mean public notice and weeks of debate before issuing a subpoena. We could not share our basis for the subpoena with the other side without betraying the confidential whistleblower and press sources who had tipped us off.
However, the House had granted its Chairmen, including Intel Cmte Chairman Nunes, unilateral subpoena authority.
So, Chairman Nunes issued the subpoena, and after some court battles, Kash Patel got to go through #FusionGPS's bank records.
In the process, the world learned the democrats involved had "lied about it, and with sanctimony, for a year" as even a @nytimes reporter put it.
So, no doubt that many institutionalists at the @FBI hate the thought of Kash Patel as Director b/c far too many of them put loyalty to the Bureau ahead of loyalty to the Constitution—which requires being accountable to democratically elected oversight authorities in both the Legislative and Executive Branches.
The @FBI is not and should never be "independent" of answering to the people's duly elected leaders. Just as the military must submit to civilian control in our constitutional system, so must federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies.
Anyone who suggests otherwise is an imminent threat to your liberty—and definitely not at all into "preserving our democracy."
Kash Patel was a key part of an epic pantsing of the @FBI.
He helped Congress expose the @FBI's shameful abuse of the FISA process to spy on an outsider political campaign for the party in power.
We did our jobs, methodically and professionally, through classified letters and aggressive, independent oversight. They called us crazy conspiracy theorists. They launched hit pieces trying to discredit Members and staffers like Kash Patel and me.
Eventually, enough was declassified that everyone could see what we had seen—what their government had been hiding from them.
An Obama-appointed Inspector General verified all of it and Mueller shuffled away, leaving the scene not with a bang, but a whimper.
We think he was wrong to treat it as a grand jury secrecy issue. These are court filings required by statute and should be public under the First Amendment—especially in a closed case.
"...the Court need not concern itself with
common law or constitutional rights of access."
Well, that's a disturbing sentence from a judge in the United States of America.
Gag orders are required by statute to only be granted when justified by specific facts.
The public has a First Amendment right—and Congress has a constitutional need—to know what it's government is claiming in federal court to justify gag orders to hide its seizing comms records of Cong oversight cmte attys.
W/o those facts, no one knows if DOJ followed the law.
New Lawsuit: Last fall, @Google told me @TheJusticeDept forced it to secretly turn over my comms records in 2017. Since then, @empowr_us filed 5 demands for related docs under FOIA. DOJ ignored all 5. So today, we sued.
In 2017, I led the Sen. Judiciary Cmte oversight and investigations unit through the height of the #Russiagate hysteria for then-Chairman @ChuckGrassley.
After @Google notified me in October 2023, I confirmed that DOJ/@FBI had also targeted a dozen or so other Capitol Hill attorneys’ personal accounts—from both political parties.
Explains why the IRS's #wierd position is wrong—opposing #whistleblowers help to defend their actions at issue in Hunter Biden's frivolous lawsuit against the IRS.
Normally a defendant in a baseless civil suit wants it dismissed as soon as possible. Not the IRS. Not in this case, according to @TheJusticeDept.
Very odd. 🤔
It makes perfect sense for Biden to oppose. His lawyer, Abbe Lowell, has been hurling personal insults and false accusations at the #IRSWhistleblowers (and their attorneys) with reckless abandon.
But the IRS? Why block us & lay out the red carpet for plaintiffs suing the IRS?