On June 20, House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) wrote FBI Director Christopher Wray requesting documents that may show that the law enforcement agency may be vetting agents based on their political ideologies. Jordan also sent a separate letter to DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz requesting that he open an investigation into the matter.
Jordan’s interest in the FBI appears to stem from its treatment of Staff Operations Specialist Marcus Allen, a former Marine the agency accused of being disloyal to the United States. Allen called the accusation “insulting” and “outrageous,” and claimed the FBI accused him of promoting “conspiratorial views” and “unreliable information” about the events of January 6, 2021.
Allen was suspended without pay and had his security clearance revoked.
“As the FBI ought to well know, the First Amendment protects political expression and retaliating against employees for expressing disfavored political views is a cut and dried violation of the First Amendment,” Jordan’s letter to Wray said. “By tying an employee’s security clearance to their political views, the FBI appears to be purging itself of employees who do not share its preferred political views.”
Adding fuel to the fire was a report from Just the News saying that, in conducting a security-clearance review of a longtime FBI employee, the agency’s Security Division asked at least three employees whether the employee had been known to “vocalize support for President Trump” or “vocalize objections to Covid-19 vaccination.”
The interlocutors also asked if the employee in question had “attended the Richmond Lobby Day event,” which was a rally in favor of the 2nd Amendment.
The above issues raise questions about whether the FBI is attempting to intimidate whistleblowers in the agency, which would obviously be concerning.
“Particularly when they’re asking about fundamental liberties, your constitutional rights, I mean, that is frightening stuff,” Jordan told podcaster John Solomon on June 20. “And then you couple that with the retaliation, so they’re asking these questions that determine whether you get a security clearance. And then, if we have a whistleblower who comes forward and tells us,” they “get retaliated against.”
“So you put all that together, and you talk about politics driving what happens there,” Jordan concluded.
And the political nature of the FBI’s disclosures appears to go one in only one direction — in favor of Democrats. Jordan mentioned this in his letter to Horowitz:
Documents appear to show how an FBI official disclosed nonpublic information about FBI whistleblowers to a Democrat Member of the Select Subcommittee in advance of a Select Subcommittee hearing at which the whistleblowers were scheduled to testify publicly about FBI misconduct. It appears from the documents that the FBI sought to selectively disclose this nonpublic information so that it would be used to impugn the credibility of the whistleblowers.
So, possibly, the FBI is colluding with Democrats, especially if it means that they can look good in public hearings while making whistleblowers look bad.
Some wondered if shedding light on the FBI’s new “Democrats Only” policies would do any good. “I’m sure we’ll get some distraction and noise from Chris Wray and a reaffirmation that the FBI never does anything wrong, even when it’s caught red handed,” said Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch.
The obvious political nature of these incidents leads to a frightening conclusion: The Biden administration has apparently created its own secret police with the code name “FBI.” How are an agent’s political leanings or his opinion on the Covid vaccine relevant to a security clearance? Unless those leanings are in favor of criminal behavior, they shouldn’t be. However, in reality, they’re the only things a politically motivated agency would be concerned about.
