By Greg Stejskal

I have previously written, “When FBI agents are sworn in, they take a sacred oath to support and defend the Constitution. We do not profess loyalty to anyone, only the rule of law. Agents are trained when investigating to follow the facts and the law. Agents are not political eunuchs. They have political opinions and beliefs, but in my experience those opinions and beliefs do not interfere with the search for the truth.”

I may have been too sanguine in making that statement. In my 31+ years in the bureau, I believe my statement was accurate, but my tenure in the bureau did not encompass the Trump presidency nor its aftermath.

With the advent of the House Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government, I have come to realize some in the FBI are influenced by their political beliefs. 

The weaponization subcommittee’s purpose is “searching for an anti-Trump deep state,” according to the subcommittee chair Rep. Jim Jordan. One of Jordan’s preconceived deep state concerns is the investigation of the Russian efforts to influence the 2016 presidential election. Jordan has stated that the investigation was an example of the weaponization of the DOJ/FBI to undermine the legitimacy of the Trump presidency. Jordan has stated that the investigation was premised on illegitimate allegations and falsehoods perpetrated by attorneys and agents in the DOJ/FBI. A view that was, at least at one time, shared by Trump’s Attorney General William Barr. (A bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee report reached the opposite conclusion, that being, the FBI had ample probable cause to open an investigation and would have been derelict had they not pursued the investigation.)  

In 2019, Barr appointed special counsel, John Durham, to investigate misconduct in the initiation and pursuit of the Russian investigation. Durham concluded his investigation last December and apparently couldn’t find any significant misconduct in the initiation or pursuit of the Russian investigation beyond what had already been divulged in the Mueller investigation. The Mueller investigation also concluded that the Russians did interfere in the 2016 election in an effort to influence the election in favor of Donald Trump. (The Mueller investigation resulted in 34 indictments including 12 members of the Russian military intelligence service, the GRU, seven guilty pleas or convictions and compelling evidence that Trump obstructed justice.)

The weaponization subcommittee has begun taking private testimony from witnesses. Three of those witnesses are former FBI employees who have been characterized by Jordan as “whistleblowers” despite none of them meeting the legal definition of a whistleblower. But rather these witnesses appear to be aggrieved former FBI agents and an analyst all of whom have espoused right-wing conspiracy theories including debunked or baseless theories regarding the January 6^th attack on the Capital, the Covid vaccine and the results of the 2020 presidential election. In addition, these witnesses were compensated monetarily by former President Trump allies among them Kash Patel, an unabashed Trump supporter. 

Rep. Jordan is a graduate of law school but has never taken a bar exam. I’m not aware of Jordan having any prosecutorial or investigative experience before coming to Congress.

This is important for two reasons: I’m not sure how valid his personal criticisms are regarding investigations and prosecutions of complicated criminal violations. (He characterized Cassidy Hutchinson’s testimony before the January 6^th subcommittee as being mostly hearsay which by definition of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, it was not.) And he is chairing a subcommittee that is in effect conducting an investigation. If the witnesses that have so far been interviewed by the subcommittee are representative, it indicates a lack of any direct knowledge of prosecutorial or investigative misconduct by DOJ/FBI. Based on what has been reported, their testimony would be substantially hearsay and opinion rather than fact.

It is disheartening to know that there are FBI agents and an analyst that have been so beguiled by the falsehoods or “alternative facts” espoused by former President Trump that they ignore their sacred oath to “support and defend” the Constitution and the tenets of basic training to follow the facts (true facts) and the law not political beliefs.

I do believe that the vast majority of people in DOJ/FBI will remain true to their oath and the mission, to seek the truth and justice. This is evidenced by the over 1,000 people who have been charged in connection with January 6^th insurrection, and more than half of those have pleaded guilty or been convicted after trials.

If the witnesses who have testified so far are indicative of the testimonial evidence to be presented by the Weaponization Subcommittee, then no prima facie case for a deep state anti-Trump conspiracy will be established. In my experience, you don’t make allegations you can’t prove in court. The end result of the “weaponization” investigation may not be a deep state conspiracy, but rather a “shallow state” effort to disparage the DOJ/FBI. 

The author served as an FBI agent for 31 years and retired as resident agent in charge of the Ann Arbor office. He has a law degree from the University of Nebraska and is the author of “FBI Case Files Michigan: Tales of a G-Man,” published by The History Press.

By Greg Stejskal

I have previously written, “When FBI agents are sworn in, they take a sacred oath to support and defend the Constitution. We do not profess loyalty to anyone, only the rule of law. Agents are trained when investigating to follow the facts and the law. Agents are not political eunuchs. They have political opinions and beliefs, but in my experience those opinions and beliefs do not interfere with the search for the truth.”

I may have been too sanguine in making that statement. In my 31+ years in the bureau, I believe my statement was accurate, but my tenure in the bureau did not encompass the Trump presidency nor its aftermath.

With the advent of the House Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government, I have come to realize some in the FBI are influenced by their political beliefs. 

The weaponization subcommittee’s purpose is “searching for an anti-Trump deep state,” according to the subcommittee chair Rep. Jim Jordan. One of Jordan’s preconceived deep state concerns is the investigation of the Russian efforts to influence the 2016 presidential election. Jordan has stated that the investigation was an example of the weaponization of the DOJ/FBI to undermine the legitimacy of the Trump presidency. Jordan has stated that the investigation was premised on illegitimate allegations and falsehoods perpetrated by attorneys and agents in the DOJ/FBI. A view that was, at least at one time, shared by Trump’s Attorney General William Barr. (A bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee report reached the opposite conclusion, that being, the FBI had ample probable cause to open an investigation and would have been derelict had they not pursued the investigation.)  

In 2019, Barr appointed special counsel, John Durham, to investigate misconduct in the initiation and pursuit of the Russian investigation. Durham concluded his investigation last December and apparently couldn’t find any significant misconduct in the initiation or pursuit of the Russian investigation beyond what had already been divulged in the Mueller investigation. The Mueller investigation also concluded that the Russians did interfere in the 2016 election in an effort to influence the election in favor of Donald Trump. (The Mueller investigation resulted in 34 indictments including 12 members of the Russian military intelligence service, the GRU, seven guilty pleas or convictions and compelling evidence that Trump obstructed justice.)

The weaponization subcommittee has begun taking private testimony from witnesses. Three of those witnesses are former FBI employees who have been characterized by Jordan as “whistleblowers” despite none of them meeting the legal definition of a whistleblower. But rather these witnesses appear to be aggrieved former FBI agents and an analyst all of whom have espoused right-wing conspiracy theories including debunked or baseless theories regarding the January 6^th attack on the Capital, the Covid vaccine and the results of the 2020 presidential election. In addition, these witnesses were compensated monetarily by former President Trump allies among them Kash Patel, an unabashed Trump supporter. 

Rep. Jordan is a graduate of law school but has never taken a bar exam. I’m not aware of Jordan having any prosecutorial or investigative experience before coming to Congress.

This is important for two reasons: I’m not sure how valid his personal criticisms are regarding investigations and prosecutions of complicated criminal violations. (He characterized Cassidy Hutchinson’s testimony before the January 6^th subcommittee as being mostly hearsay which by definition of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, it was not.) And he is chairing a subcommittee that is in effect conducting an investigation. If the witnesses that have so far been interviewed by the subcommittee are representative, it indicates a lack of any direct knowledge of prosecutorial or investigative misconduct by DOJ/FBI. Based on what has been reported, their testimony would be substantially hearsay and opinion rather than fact.

It is disheartening to know that there are FBI agents and an analyst that have been so beguiled by the falsehoods or “alternative facts” espoused by former President Trump that they ignore their sacred oath to “support and defend” the Constitution and the tenets of basic training to follow the facts (true facts) and the law not political beliefs.

I do believe that the vast majority of people in DOJ/FBI will remain true to their oath and the mission, to seek the truth and justice. This is evidenced by the over 1,000 people who have been charged in connection with January 6^th insurrection, and more than half of those have pleaded guilty or been convicted after trials.

If the witnesses who have testified so far are indicative of the testimonial evidence to be presented by the Weaponization Subcommittee, then no prima facie case for a deep state anti-Trump conspiracy will be established. In my experience, you don’t make allegations you can’t prove in court. The end result of the “weaponization” investigation may not be a deep state conspiracy, but rather a “shallow state” effort to disparage the DOJ/FBI. 

By Allan Lengel

More often than not you expect federal agents to opt for more aggressive tactics than prosecutors.

That apparently was not the case when it came to the secret documents at Mar-a-Lago, at least according to a report in the Washington Post that cites multiple unnamed sources.

Apparently, the differences between the FBI and federal prosecutors resulted in an intense showdown last July.

The Post writes:

Prosecutors argued that new evidence suggested Trump was knowingly concealing secret documents at his Palm Beach, Fla., home and urged the FBI to conduct a surprise raid at the property. But two senior FBI officials who would be in charge of leading the search resisted the plan as too combative and proposed instead to seek Trump’s permission to search his property, according to the four people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe a sensitive investigation.

Prosecutors eventually prevailed.

By Allan Lengel

It was no secret as Donald Trump and son-in-law Jared Kushner exited the White House in 2021, their businesses faced financial challenges.

That being said, the day after leaving the White House, Kushner created a company he transformed months later into a private equity firm with $2 billion from a sovereign wealth fund chaired by Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, the Washington Post reports. It adds that Kushner’s firm structured those funds to hide the source.

A year after his presidency, Trump’s golf courses began hosting tournaments for the Saudi fund-backed LIV Golf. Separately, the former president’s family company, the Trump Organization, secured an agreement with a Saudi real estate company that plans to build a Trump hotel as part of a $4 billion golf resort in Oman, writes Michael Kranish of the Washington Post.

The financial benefits came a result of cultivating close ties with Mohammed while Trump was in office, the Post reports.

Read the full report.

By Allan Lengel

Rep. Jamie Raskin, the ranking Democrat on the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability, wants Secret Service to provide a list of people who visited the homes of Donald Trump and Mike Pence after they left office, NBC News reports.

The request, which pertains to secret documents found at their homes, echoes a similar ask made by House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., in regards to President Joe Biden’s home where top secret documents were found.

“Given that the U.S. Secret Service provided protection for Mr. Trump and Mr. Pence during the time they stored classified materials at their respective residences, the committee is seeking information from your agency regarding who had access to former President Trump’s Mar-a-Lago Club and former Vice President Pence’s personal residence since leaving office,” Raskin wrote.

Raskin set a Feb. 14 deadline.

By Allan Lengel

The discovery of classified documents at the homes of Donald Trump, Joe Biden and Mike Pence has exposed a problem far bigger than initially thought.

Weighing in on the matter Thursday, FBI Director Christopher Wray told reporters at a Justice Department press conference that people with access to those materials need to be far more careful, according to CNN.

“Obviously I can’t comment on any specific investigation, but we have had, for quite a number of years, any number of mishandling investigations,” Wray said.

“That is, unfortunately, a regular part of our counterintelligence division, counterintelligence programs work,” Wray added. “And people need to be conscious of the rules for classified information and appropriate handling of it. Those rules are there for a reason.”

By Allan Lengel

The special grand jury in Fulton County, Georgia investigating whether ex-President Donald Trump and his associates violated election laws following the 2020 election, has finished its work, CNN reports.

“Given the special purpose grand jury’s delivery of its final report, the undersigned’s recommendation, and the Superior Court bench’s vote, it is the ORDER of this court that the special purpose grand jury now stands DISSOLVED,” Judge Robert McBurney, who oversaw the special grand jury investigation, wrote in Monday’s short court order, the network reports.

CNN notes that special grand juries in Georgia can’t issue indictments. However, the report can be used by the prosecutor to decide whether to seek charges from a regularly empaneled grand jury.

The state released a recorded phone call from Trump after the election in which he pressured Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to “find” the votes for him to win. Raffensperger assured Trump that there were no irregularities in the voting.

The special grand jury report could also be made public.

Last July I wrote a column about the testimony of Cassidy Hutchinson before the Jan. 6 Committee. I thought her testimony was consistent and credible.

We now know based on recently released transcripts that Hutchinson was encouraged by an attorney hired by Trump loyalists to provide as little information as possible to the committee and to feign little or no memory of relevant events in her initial testimony. The fact that she went back to the committee and corrected her previous testimony makes it all the more laudable and credible. It would have been easier to take the path of least resistance, but she chose to do the right thing, and for that we should all be grateful. 

Below is my column from July.

The writer, an FBI agent for 31 years, retired as resident agent in charge of the Ann Arbor office in 2006. He is the author of “FBI Case Files Michigan: Tales of a G-Man.”

By Greg Stejskal

During my FBI career, I was involved in the investigation and prosecution of many criminal conspiracies. It was often a challenge to find witnesses with direct knowledge of the machinations of the conspiracy.

Sometimes witnesses were people within the conspiracy, co-conspirators. They might be people who were recruited for the conspiracy but chose not to participate or they dropped out before the conspiracy came to fruition. And sometimes it was people on the periphery with some knowledge of the conspiracy.

As prosecutors say, conspiracies hatched in hell can’t have angels for witnesses. Most of the time, these potential witnesses weren’t the most upstanding or credible people. So we had to figure out ways to corroborate their testimony.

If the criminal activity were ongoing, we could try to have the witnesses record conversations with the conspirators or obtain written or digital communications like texts or emails. In trial, we knew they would be subject to very aggressive cross examination.

In the case of the multi-faceted “Big Lie” conspiracy, it wasn’t hatched in hell. It was hatched in large part in the West Wing of the White House. One of the seemingly big obstacles to determine whether this conspiracy was criminal was to show whether the conspirators had criminal intent. Did they believe that Trump had actually won the election, and did they intend to interfere with the Congressional certification of the counting of the electoral votes by a mob of Trump supporters that had been summoned to Washington and incited to march to the Capitol? Was there an expectation by the then president that there might be violence?

Angels as Witnesses

Going back to that adage about angels not being witnesses to criminal conspiracies – like all adages it isn’t always true. On June 28th, a 25-year-old woman, Cassidy Hutchinson, an aide to former White House Chief of Staff, Mark Meadows, looking suitably angelic, but resolute, testified to the January 6th Committee.

Like Jimmy Stewart’s character, Jefferson Smith, in the 1939 movie, “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington,” she displayed the idealism of youth and an understanding that her loyalty is to the country and the Constitution not an individual or party. In the movie, Smith does a one-man filibuster until he collapses from exhaustion to expose the corruption of one senator – not an existential threat to our constitutional republic.

I have considerable experience assessing witnesses. I found Hutchinson’s testimony to be compelling and credible. She has not yet been subject to cross examination, but I believe it would be difficult to cast doubt on her testimony.

Some have criticized Hutchinson’s testimony as primarily hearsay. The definition of what constitutes hearsay can be a little confusing. But the Federal Rules of Evidence specifically says that out-of-court statements by a “party-opponent,” such as a defendant in a criminal trial, and testified to by a another is not hearsay. Neither are statements made by an agent or employee of the party-opponent made within the scope of their employment. Nor are statements made by co-conspirators in furtherance of the conspiracy.

So, when Hutchinson testified to a statement that she heard the then president say (something to the effect) “I don’t f-ing care that they have weapons. They’re not here to hurt me. … They can march to the Capitol from here.” It was not hearsay and indicated that Trump was aware the crowd was armed when he extorted them to go to the Capital and “fight like hell.”

Hutchinson also testified that Anthony Ornato, Deputy White House Chief of Staff for Operations, told her that following the January 6th rally on the ellipse, Trump became irate when his Secret Service detail told him they wouldn’t take him to the Capital. Ornato said in addition to a verbal tirade, Trump reached for the steering wheel and lunged at one of the agents as though he was going to grab his throat. This also would most probably not be hearsay.

Hutchinson did not claim to have witnessed this incident, but rather that it was related to her by Ornato. Apparently, there are some anonymous people in the Secret Service who are saying Trump didn’t physically assault an agent, but that he was irate and did demand to be driven to the Capitol. This has been used to try to discredit Hutchinson’s credibility.

Stop Certification

The most important aspect of this incident is that Trump wanted to go to the Capitol to lead his supporters and to somehow stop the Congressional certification of the electoral votes. Like Julius Caesar, Trump had summoned his motley army to cross not the Rubicon but the Potomac to march on the Capitol. In Roman times, what Caesar did was treason, and he did take over the government.

Cassidy Hutchinson testified four times under oath to the January 6th Committee. By all accounts her testimony was consistent. If she were to lie, she could be charged with perjury. She isn’t promoting a book and doesn’t seem to have an interest in notoriety. Because she has breached the Trump code of loyalty, she has been castigated by Trump and his minions. After testifying the first time to the committee, Hutchinson was concerned about questions that weren’t asked and information she had that was relevant to the committee’s investigation.  She would testify three more times. The last time was televised.

The country owes her gratitude for standing up, swearing to tell the truth, and doing so. It would have been far easier for her to provide minimal information, but she chose to tell the whole truth. Many of the older, primarily males she worked with in the West Wing have chosen to not testify claiming some kind of spurious privilege.

She courageously chose to do the right thing. She characterized the insurrection on January 6th as un-American. Something was stolen on January 6th – our tradition of a peaceful transition of power. We came close to losing much more.