/1🚨BREAKING — Our investigation has revealed that Senate staff appear to have shared sensitive FBI background investigation reports on nominees for Senate confirmation in beach of security protocols.
The background investigation process is broken and corrupted:
/2 Based on newly obtained documents from an investigation into the DOJ, we released a report for the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate concerning explosive new discoveries about the FBI’s flawed and unlawful background investigation (BI) process for nominees to positions that require Senate confirmation.
/3‼️Today’s investigative report reveals that Senate Judiciary Committee staff appear to have shared FBI background reports and personal financial information in breach of Senate security protocols. Worse, the Department of Justice appears to have shared encrypted information electronically, breaching privacy protections subject to its agreement with the White House.
/4 The improper handling of BI investigation materials is of critical importance because BIs can be weaponized against future nominees of any administration. The current practice violates the Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) between the White House and the Senate Judiciary Committee, the MOU between the White House and DOJ, as well as plain federal law prohibiting the breach of executive branch orders through the disclosure of sensitive information.
/5 The documents we obtained reveal that DOJ officials — who are not signatories to any agreement with the Senate Judiciary Committee — appear to have repeatedly shared BI and personal financial information with Senate Judiciary Committee staffers:
/6 At the same time as Senate majority staff were sending protected BI information to the executive branch, executive branch officials from the Justice Department disclosed BI information via email to Senate majority staff, thus appearing to violate the security protocols of the MOU (see e.g., the last redacted sentence below referring to an “FBI interview”):
/7 Justice Department officials also disclosed confidential financial information of nominees to Senate staff:
/8 Documents reveal that a DOJ official submitted encrypted “additional serials” regarding two nominees’ BIs:
/9 According to these new disturbing findings from our investigation, we have sent a letter to the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee @Jim_Jordan, Chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability @RepJamesComer, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee @SenatorDurbin, and Chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee @SenGaryPeters demanding action by their respective Congressional committees to reform this flawed process immediately.
/10 In summary, discoveries from AFL’s investigation include the following highlights:
🚨Senate Judiciary Committee staff appear to have disclosed sensitive information outside the security process mandated in the MOU. For example, staff used non-secure Senate email systems to share FBI and financial information of nominees;
🚨Two Senate staff members appear to have electronically disclosed to executive branch officials FBI background reports, which constitute the confidential business of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, in violation of the MOU;
🚨Background investigation reports appear to have been removed from the custody of the Security Manager by non-designated Staff Members and sent electronically, in violation of the MOU’s security provisions, to executive branch officials;
🚨Senate Judiciary Committee staff appear to have failed to heed the command that “Designated Staff Members will maintain strict control of FBI background reports in their custody.”
@Jim_Jordan @RepJamesComer /11 AFL is committed to fighting this unacceptable abuse of the BI process, which has been and will be weaponized against nominees in any future administration, including the Trump Administration. aflegal.org/america-first-…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
🏛️⚖️ NEW — The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia has AFFIRMED the President’s Article II authority to remove appointed officials.
AFL filed an amicus brief in this case defending that presidential power.
/2 AFL, with Boyden Gray PLLC and Givens Purley LLP, filed an amicus brief in Robert P. Storch v. Pete Hegseth supporting former U.S. Department of Transportation Inspector General Eric J. Soskin.
Soskin was removed by President Trump — yet defended presidential removal power even in his own case.
/3 Eric Soskin is a longtime practicing constitutional lawyer with decades of experience in public service, including in the U.S. Department of Justice and as Inspector General of the Department of Transportation.
AFL filed an amicus brief on behalf of six U.S. Senators led by @SenMikeLee urging the U.S. Supreme Court to rein in the Fifth Circuit’s blatant defiance of federal law and defend federal employees and contractors from hostile state lawsuits.
/2 This case, Chevron v. Plaquemines Parish, deals with whether federal employees and contractors can transfer court cases into federal court when the underlying facts relate to their federal responsibilities.
/3 It’s simple: to keep America safe, federal officers must know they won’t be dragged into hostile state courts for carrying out their federal duties.
Because federal law enforcement often relies on private partners, contractors must also have this protection.
🚨BREAKING — AFL is taking Alvin Bragg back to court.
We just filed a new petition in the New York Supreme Court to EXPOSE his politically motivated prosecution of President Trump.
🧵👇
/2 Last year, AFL filed a lawsuit against District Attorney Alvin Bragg over records requested from his office related to the prosecution of President Trump.
Bragg’s office has refused to provide the records and issued sweeping exemptions to keep the truth hidden.
🚨BREAKING — AFL has filed a federal lawsuit against Shell USA, Inc. for allegedly orchestrating a racially discriminatory reorganization targeting white employees.
This is a major fight against DEI mandates gone wrong.
/2 The suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, claims Shell’s radical diversity, equity, and inclusion policies violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
Experienced security professionals with top credentials were pushed out to meet “diversity” quotas.
/3 AFL’s clients — loyal, high-performing employees — were forced to reapply for their own jobs, undergo in-person assessments, and compete against less qualified candidates just to “diversify” the workforce.
/3 Our brief argued that the entire case against President Trump should be dismissed, warning that James’s lawsuit was wholly political, undermined the rule of law, and served as yet another example of weaponized lawfare against President Trump.