WASHINGTON, DC- Many observers who have looked at the two assassination attempts on former President Trump believe that those attempts were the result not only of incompetence by federal agencies tasked with his protection but may also be the result of deep-seated politicization of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the United States Secret Service (USSS).
According to sources and a recent House investigative report, the two attempts “were facilitated by unacceptable misconduct and unprofessional behavior by assets within those two agencies.
The politicization of federal government agencies has become an increasing concern since 2016 when the FBI engaged in a plot to undermine then-candidate Trump and throttle his run against Hillary Clinton. While the Russia collusion conspiracy was initially dismissed as a “conspiracy theory,” it has since been documented that the FBI, through the Crossfire Hurricane operation, was involved in the weaponization of the US government against a (then) private citizen, Trump.
In a September letter to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, Empower Oversight, an American civil rights watchdog, told Jordan and the Committee that the FBI had engaged in whistleblower retaliation by various senior FBI officials, including Jeffrey Veltri. Ironically, Veltri is Special Agent in Charge (SAC) of the FBI’s Miami Field Office, which is investigating the second assassination attempt on Trump. Veltri is overseeing that investigation.
Tristan Leavitt, President of Empower Oversight, and Marcus Allen, a former FBI employee and whistleblower, testified before the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government. In the September letter, Empower Oversight advised Jordan that the FBI retaliated by revoking Allen's security clearance, which was later restored based on an appeal by Empower Oversight.
In the letter, Leavitt wrote:
“Yesterday, Empower Oversight submitted to the Department of Justice Inspector General a detailed 29-page complaint with evidence that the FBI retaliated against at least four of its own SecD employees after they made internal protected disclosures. These SecD whistleblowers reported FBI abuses of the security clearance process involving Mr. Allen, as well as several other cases, some of which remain non-public.
“When Mr. Allen and I previously testified on May 18, 2023, alongside Special Agent O’Boyle and former SA Steve Friend, we had significantly less insight into what had happened behind the scenes in SecD than we do now–thanks to these whistleblowers from inside SecD itself. Empower Oversight is now representing several of the SecD employees who worked on the Allen case and has spoken to many other witnesses from inside the FBI. Through their disclosures, as well as the documents provided by the FBI, we have uncovered a more complete picture of the disturbing scope and breadth of the FBI’s illegal retaliation.”
The letter revealed several startling disclosures:
- Jeffrey Veltri’s appointment as the Miami SAC was delayed due to an investigation into his retaliation against whistleblowers.
- Veltri revoked the security clearance of an FBI employee who questioned the outcome of the 2020 election, claiming that by questioning the election, the employee wasn’t entitled to a security clearance because they didn’t believe in the Constitution.
- FBI contractors who used a printed outline with inappropriate questions about FBI employees’ personal political and medical views often spoke of their fear of displeasing FBI leadership.
- The FBI knew SA Garrett O’Boyle had made protected disclosures to Congress when it decided to suspend his security clearance.
- FBI officials pushed for the revocation of SA O’Boyle’s clearance to retroactively remedy a former FBI executive's false statement to Congress.
The FBI’s treatment of Marcus Allen, in particular, is very disturbing. Allen was described as “a highly professional and decorated FBI employee, who had his security clearance suspended and was later fired because of his conservative stance and doubts about whether the bureau acted properly during the Black Lives Matter and January 6 incidents.” Allen was deployed to Kuwait and Iraq as part of his service as a United States Marine and was awarded the Navy and Marine Corps Commendation and Achievement Medals. In other words, Allen is a hero.
Our source told us that “a dramatic change in the FBI leadership back in 2021 [after Biden was inaugurated] allowed some agents, specifically pro-Democrats, to experience a skyrocketing growth in their career.” The letter sent to Jordan said those agents were “deeply anti-conservative,” including Veltri, then the New Orleans field office's Assistant Special Agent in Charge (ASAC). Dena Perkins, Assistant Section Chief of SIIS from 2018, worked with Veltri “and played a significant role in Allen’s case.”
In his congressional testimony, Leavitt outlined the series of actions taken to undermine Allen. He said that every one of the line level employees who worked on Allen’s security clearance review recommended he retain it, including the initial investigator, a second investigator, the first adjudicator, and another adjudicator handling an appeal. The FBI’s Security Division retaliated against two of those who worked on Allen’s appeal. Moreover, the entire leadership of the Division’s Clearance Adjudication Unit was removed in September 2023, apparently in retaliation for defying FBI leadership.
Leavitt also told lawmakers that the Security Division forced employees to “rat out” their coworkers if they had ever “vocalize[d] support for President Trump” or “vocalize[d] objections to [the] COVID-19 vaccination.”
“We now understand that was just one manifestation of the FBI’s politicized climate. Former Security Division leaders like Jeffrey Veltri, who is now running the investigation into the second assassination attempt on former President Trump, has a documented history of encouraging security clearance decisions based on political views and personal medical decisions,” Leavitt told the subcommittee. “He and fellow manager Dena Perkins would often ask in staff meetings whether employees whose clearances were under investigation had received the vaccine. Veltri suggested Marcus [Allen] was delusional for being motivated by his religious beliefs.”
Leavitt continued, “And witnesses often heard Veltri say while FBI employees might have First Amendment rights, they had no right to a security clearance–suggesting his willingness to abuse the clearance process as a pretext for unconstitutionally targeting employees with whom he disagreed.”
Leavitt said he believes the “tone for this intolerance” came from the top, including Deputy Director Paul Abbate. In a February 2021 call with FBI managers, Abbate made what one observer called “a chilling and personal direct threat” that there would be consequences for anyone questioning his direction.
Abbate then called into question the USSS’s handling of former President Trump’s security detail, in particular the shooting in Butler, Pennsylvania, that saw Trump come within a quarter inch of his life and which took the life of retired firefighter Corey Comperatore. He noted that whistleblowers within the agency have proven how “critical” they have been in providing transparency to the American people.
Leavitt highlighted that USSS whistleblowers “have stronger protections than whistleblowers from the FBI.” He said he has been trying to fix that issue since his time as a congressional staffer but had been “repeatedly blocked” by the House Intelligence Committee. He further complained that there are statutory restrictions on most of the Justice Department, while the FBI is only overseen via its internal handbook.
“How could you not end up with poor management–and managers–in an agency like that?” Leavitt asked lawmakers. “Even the Justice Department’s National Security Division is subject to these statutory restrictions. So why shouldn’t the FBI be?”
This loophole places the FBI outside the auspices of the Office of Special Counsel (OSC). While the FBI does fall under the DOJ’s Office of Inspector General (OIG), that office doesn’t have the legal authorities the OSC does. The OIG, Leavitt testified, “can’t force the FBI to take any particular corrective or disciplinary action even if it finds wrongdoing.”
Our source said that the Empower Oversight investigation offered contradictions to testimonies made by FBI Director Christopher Wray before Congress, in which he said the agency had no “abuse and retaliation policies based on employees’ political views.” Empower also found that the so-called “Trump questionnaire” did exist and was used to determine FBI personnel’s loyalty to the FBI and, by extension, the Democratic Party.
How does this tie into the Trump assassination attempt in Butler, Pennsylvania, on July 13?
On Sept. 23, Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) presented a document, the Initial Findings Report, on the failures of the USSS regarding the Butler, PA., attempt on Trump’s life. First, it was found the USSS refused to deploy sniper units to protect the former president. Second, the assassination attempt could have been prevented if the USSS had deployed additional Counter-Unmanned Aerial Systems (C-UAS) assets as requested by Trum’s team. The device in the area only started operating 40 minutes after the would-be assassin flew a drone over the event.
More troublesome, three days before the assassination attempt, the USSS Pittsburgh office requested the FBI to report on any intelligence related to the July 13 rally in Butler, however, it received no response. Paul’s report noted that the “USSS Lead Advance Agent was told that ‘credible intelligence’ edited of a threat,” however she gave no notice in a security planning document. While it appears likely the FBI knew of a heightened threat risk, they didn’t say anything. Was it because of the anti-Trump, pro-Democrat views of its high-ranking agents? That appears to be a fair question.
That leads us to the second attempt to assassinate Trump in West Palm Beach, Florida. With Veltri, who is clearly politically motivated in charge of the investigation, does anyone have confidence that he will investigate in a professional and non-biased manner?
Comments