The bureaucracy strikes back — and we’re striking harder



Old habits die hard. The Oversight Project filed another lawsuit against the FBI today. During the Biden years, we were in court constantly, suing the bureau more than a dozen times over weaponization and abuse. Many of the cases we fought then connect directly to the scandals now surfacing under the Trump administration. We were over the target back then — and Washington doesn’t do coincidences.

But this case is different.

We’re suing the FBI to force transparency — not for politics, but for accountability. Because if we don’t fix this now, we’ll look back and wish we had.

Monday’s lawsuit strikes at a deeper problem: the FBI’s claim that it has been “reformed” and is now “the most transparent in history.” That phrase is absurd on its face. Compared with the post-COINTELPRO reforms and the Church Committee era, today’s FBI is anything but transparent.

We’re suing because the bureau has built a system designed to violate the Freedom of Information Act. Over time, the FBI has developed a “pattern and practice” of breaking the law to hide information. Reporters across the political spectrum can tell you the same thing. The bureau stonewalls, delays, and hides behind boilerplate responses that make a mockery of the law.

Our case asks the federal judiciary to step in and force the FBI to fix this — to overhaul its FOIA process and follow the law it routinely ignores. This isn’t a step we took lightly. For nearly a year, we tried to resolve these problems through other channels. But the bureau’s “fixes” never came.

Bureaucratic shell game

The FBI has perfected a set of tricks to avoid scrutiny. It uses canned denials for well-defined requests, ignores the public-interest standard written into law, and buries documents under layers of redaction. Even by Washington’s anemic transparency standards, the FBI stands out as the worst offender.

This isn’t theoretical. In practice, the Oversight Project submitted requests naming specific agents — like the infamous Timothy Thibault — and identifying internal systems such as the Lync messaging platform. We asked for communications containing key terms like “Republican” or “Mar-a-Lago.” Those are precisely the requests the bureau continues to battle with gusto.

FBI Director Kash Patel deserves credit for some high-profile disclosures, but we can’t depend on him to keep discovering incriminating documents in “burn bags” or forgotten closets. That’s not transparency — that’s triage. The FBI cannot investigate itself or selectively release information without feeding public cynicism.

The point of FOIA is citizen oversight — not bureaucratic discretion. In a republic, the people are supposed to control government institutions, not the other way around.

A pattern of abuse

If the FBI had obeyed its own transparency standards all along, Americans would already know far more about the scandals that shook their confidence in government: Russiagate, the Mar-a-Lago raid, Operation Arctic Frost, the targeting of Catholic parishes and concerned parents, and the January 6 excesses. Each of these was compounded by secrecy and delay.

RELATED: Video sleuth challenges FBI Jan. 6 pipe-bomb narrative, unearths new evidence

filo via iStock/Getty Images

The bureau’s institutional resistance to disclosure doesn’t just protect bad actors — it perpetuates them. It allows corruption to metastasize under color of national security and procedure.

Time to clean house

At some point, the FBI will no longer be in Kash Patel’s hands. That’s why reform should happen now while the issue is in the public eye. The systems that enable secrecy and abuse must be dismantled before the next crisis hits.

We’re suing the FBI to force transparency — not for politics, but for accountability. Because if we don’t fix this now, we’ll look back and wish we had.

If it’s ‘worse than Watergate,’ then why the media blackout?



In a sense, this is old news. In December 2021, CNN reported that the House’s January 6 committee had subpoenaed phone records of more than 100 people.

But that was mostly Trump officials, including White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows. No surprise there. After all, the January 6 Select Committee was empaneled for the specific purpose of turning President Donald Trump into a criminal for supposedly aiding and abetting the Jan. 6, 2021, breach of the Capitol.

It is well past time for the Republican Congress to fulfill its promise to hold accountable those who weaponized the federal government against Trump and his allies.

But when this story resurfaced earlier this month, there was something new, too. For one thing, the scope of the investigation was almost unbelievable — it turns out those subpoenaed phone records consisted of a staggering 30 million lines of phone data.

And when the select committee’s investigation went nowhere, one of the members — GOP malcontent and former Rep. Adam Kinzinger (Ill.) — informed the FBI about the phone data in Dec. 2023 when it was becoming apparent that Trump was the favorite to win the Republican nomination in 2024.

Greater than Watergate

More revelatory than the numbers of the phone records hauled in by the J6 committee was the news that the FBI had gone after these same records — and possibly more — in an effort to target Trump and his conservative allies. Not only did the agency have its eyes on Trump, it also went after nine Republican members of Congress — eight senators and a stray congressman, in an obvious effort to sweep up accomplices in the coup that never was.

Whether the FBI obtained the same phone records as the J6 committee is unclear. Kinzinger’s tip may have been moot, because an FBI memo released by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) shows that by September 2023, the agency had already “conducted preliminary … analysis” on the call data of several members of Congress, including Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Bill Hagerty (R-Tenn.), Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), and Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.).

According to CNN, “The FBI, as part of special counsel Jack Smith’s Jan. 6 investigation, used court orders in 2023 to obtain the phone records of nine GOP lawmakers.” These were not actual phone calls or text messages, but rather information about who called or texted whom and when.

Grassley posted the memo to his X account, with the message:

This document shows the Biden FBI spied on 8 of my Republican Senate colleagues during its Arctic Frost investigation into "election conspiracy." Arctic Frost later became Jack Smith's elector case against Trump.

He concluded, in all caps: “BIDEN FBI WEAPONIZATION = WORSE THAN WATERGATE.”

Which raises the question: Why did the story turn out to be a one-day wonder? Here we have the discovery of a partisan investigation seeking to uncover dirt on fellow members of Congress (if the records did indeed start with the J6 committee), or at the very least a rogue element of the executive branch targeting political enemies in the legislative branch.

As Johnson said:

They’re casting this net, this fishing expedition against members of the Senate and the House. There is no predicate. There’s no reason for this other than a fishing expedition, which, again, should outrage and shock every American.

Once again, a member of Congress implied that we are witness to a political scandal (one of many in the Biden administration) that is among the worst in our history. Yet when you do a Google search for stories related to phone toll records being subpoenaed by either the J6 committee or the FBI, virtually nothing comes up beyond Oct. 7, the day after Grassley released the memo.

Crickets …

A few news outlets reported in the following days that FBI Director Kash Patel had fired agents involved in the Arctic Frost investigation. In addition, scattered reports surfaced on Hagerty questioning why Verizon released his phone records without informing him.

Verizon told Fox News Digital:

Federal law requires companies like Verizon to respond to grand jury subpoenas. We received a valid subpoena and a court order to keep it confidential. We weren't told why the information was requested or what the investigation was about.

Grassley and Johnson followed up with their own letter to Verizon and three other telecommunication companies demanding to be supplied with the same data that was provided to the FBI or special counsel Jack Smith. In addition, the senators expressed their belief that the records should have been privileged because they concerned the official constitutional duties of certifying the 2020 presidential election.

It seems like a real story — one that deserves the full attention of the press — but where are the special investigation teams at the New York Times and the Washington Post? What have you heard about this story on CBS, NBC, and ABC newscasts? Very little if anything. Certainly nothing in comparison to the coverage provided to Watergate.

Most recently, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), who chairs the House Judiciary Committee, sent a letter to Smith demanding a transcribed interview and documents along with communications related to his investigation of Trump. Well and good, but that interview will be conducted in secret, as were the interviews of Smith’s subordinates — one of whom, according to Jordan, “invoked the Fifth Amendment approximately 75 times.”

RELATED: Exclusive: House Republican seeks criminal investigation into Jack Smith's alleged surveillance scheme

Photo by Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call Inc. via Getty Images

Time for Congress to step up

It is well past time for the Republican Congress to fulfill its promise to hold accountable those who weaponized the federal government against Trump and his allies. Press releases and secret interviews won’t do the job. We need public televised hearings, with witnesses ranging from members of the J6 committee, including Kinzinger, former Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.), and now-Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), to former FBI Director Christopher Wray and Jack Smith.

Would the legacy media networks cover it? Probably not, because as we all know by now, those outfits are still after Trump’s scalp, and they will only seek to discredit Jordan and the other congressional investigators who want to know the truth. That doesn’t mean Republicans should give up.

Watergate started as a one-day story about a botched break-in. But even without Woodward and Bernstein, the famous team of reporters from the Washington Post, the story would never have been kept quiet unless Senate Democrats and congressmen didn’t do their job.

Now it’s time for Jordan, Grassley, and Patel to do theirs.

Editor’s note: This article was originally published by RealClearPolitics and made available via RealClearWire.

House GOP seeks criminal charges against ex-CIA chief over alleged Russiagate lies



The House Judiciary Committee officially referred former CIA Director John Brennan to the Department of Justice for allegedly lying to Congress about his involvement in the Russia collusion hoax.

Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) referred Brennan to the DOJ on Tuesday for allegedly making "false statements" during his transcribed testimony before the Judiciary Committee in 2023. During his testimony, Brennan made "numerous willfully and intentionally false statements," including that the CIA was not "involved at all" with the Steele dossier, according to Jordan.

'It indicates a pattern of Brennan's willingness to lie.'

"Congress cannot perform its oversight function if witnesses who appear before its committees do not provide truthful testimony," a letter from Jordan to Attorney General Pam Bondi reads. "Making false statements before Congress is a crime that undermines the integrity of the Committee's constitutional duty to conduct oversight."

In the letter, Jordan outlined every falsehood he claims Brennan stated during his 2023 testimony, testimony that Jordan said directly contradicted the Intelligence Community Assessment.

RELATED: 'Ultimate hypocrisy': Murkowski, now whining about Comey indictment, sang a different tune when Dems went after Trump

Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images

In 2017, several intelligence agencies published a report alleging that Russia had meddled in America's elections to elect President Donald Trump to his first term in 2016. This report, which was later debunked, was based on the Steele dossier, which was funded by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee through the law firm Perkins Coie and other opposition research firms like Fusion GPS.

After the Trump administration declassified documents showing that the report's claims were apparently fabricated by former President Barack Obama's administration, Brennan's testimony was called into question.

Brennan initially claimed in May 2023 that the "CIA was not involved at all with the [Steele] dossier," a statement that contradicted the findings "jointly made by the Directors of CIA and FBI," according to Jordan's letter. Jordan also claimed that Brennan "overruled senior CIA officers" who had objections about including the dossier material in the report.

"Brennan's assertion that the CIA was not 'involved at all' with the Steele dossier cannot be reconciled with the facts," the letter reads. "As the newly declassified documents show, a CIA officer drafted the annex containing a summary of the dossier; Brennan made the ultimate decision, along with then-FBI Director James Comey, to include information from the dossier in the ICA."

RELATED: Released FBI docs reveal Comey allegedly used media mole to plant info at New York Times for Russian collusion investigation

Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images

Brennan similarly testified that the CIA "very much opposed" including the Steele dossier in the report, despite declassified documents claiming he "refused to remove it" from the report regardless of its "many flaws."

Durin separate testimony in 2017, Brennan said the Steele dossier "was not in any way used as a basis for the Intelligence Community Assessment," despite contrary evidence found after the Trump administration declassified documents. Notably, this testimony was made beyond the five-year statute of limitations, but Jordan said that "it indicates a pattern of Brennan's willingness to lie to Congress about the Steele dossier."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Russia Hoax Conspirator James Comey Indicted For Obstruction, Lying To Congress

A grand jury indicted former FBI Director James Comey on Thursday on two counts: false statements within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch and obstruction of a congressional proceeding. The indictment, which was brought by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Virginia, centers on alleged false testimony Comey provided to Congress in […]

Former DOD Lawyer Admits Comey Displayed ‘Poor Judgment’ As FBI Director

'The inspector general of the Department of Justice has censured him essentially twice'

Disgraced Russiagate hoaxer Peter Strzok gets some bad news regarding his federal case



Peter Strzok, the former FBI agent who launched the bureau's Crossfire Hurricane investigation into the Trump campaign, was fired in 2018.

This termination took place several months after his removal from special counsel Robert Mueller's team over Strzok's damning text messages to then-FBI lawyer Lisa Page, which denigrated the very people the bureau was investigating, including President Donald Trump.

'The Court finds that there is no genuine dispute of material fact that would preclude the entry of summary judgment in the defendants' favor.'

When Page texted Strzok ahead of the 2016 election for assurance that Trump was "not ever going to become president," the FBI agent replied, "No. No he's not. We'll stop it."

The bureau noted at the time of his termination that Strzok, whom President Donald Trump has labeled a "fraud" and a "sick loser," "was subject to the standard FBI review and disciplinary process after conduct highlighted in the IG report was referred to the FBI’s Office of Professional Responsibility."

While his firing appeared to be justly deserved, Strzok nevertheless filed a lawsuit in August 2019, challenging his dismissal and claiming that the Department of Justice and FBI violated his rights to free speech and privacy — even though his damning messages were exchanged on his FBI-issued device.

An Obama judge just delivered Strzok some bad news.

U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia said in a ruling Tuesday that after a review of years-worth of evidence and testimony, "The Court finds that there is no genuine dispute of material fact that would preclude the entry of summary judgment in the defendants' favor and that [Strzok's] motion for summary judgment should be denied."

RELATED: Durham annex proves Russiagate was a coordinated smear

Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Jackson noted that it was not up to her to decide "whether it was unnecessarily harsh to end plaintiff's career after a long, unblemished record of outstanding service to the agency, or whether a severe sanction was necessary to address the lack of professionalism and appearance of bias in the messages."

The question before her was instead whether the bureau's firing of Strzok "comported with the Constitution."

When considering Strzok's First Amendment claim, Jackson noted that the Russiagate hoaxer's "interest in expressing his opinions about political candidates on his FBI phone at that time was outweighed by the FBI’s interest in avoiding the appearance of bias in its ongoing investigations of those very people, and in protecting against the disruption of its law enforcement operations under then-Director Wray's leadership."

Jackson noted further that Strzok proved unable to point to evidence that the DOJ and FBI treated him any "more harshly than they would have treated employees in similar circumstances because the viewpoint expressed in the texts was critical of President Trump."

Apparently, there was no point of comparison as the FBI officials deposed said the situation was unprecedented.

Jackson's full opinion was filed under seal "because it contains references to materials, such as deposition transcripts, that were filed under seal in an abundance of caution at the request of at least one of the parties at the time."

While Strzok lost this battle, the DOJ under former Attorney General Merrick Garland entered into a $1.2 million agreement with the Russiagate hoaxer in the final months of the Biden administration to settle his privacy-invasion claims.

FBI Director Kash Patel confirmed earlier this month that Garland and former FBI Director Christopher Wray decided to give Strzok the money.

Politico indicated that Strzok's attorney did not respond to its request for comment.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

EXCLUSIVE: Trump Has No Problem Seeing Comey, Brennan Behind Bars For Russiagate Hoax

EXCLUSIVE: Trump Has No Problem Seeing Comey, Brennan Behind Bars For Russiagate Hoax