There are two parts to this article. Part one was written before the recent wave of Mueller-FBI demotion, retirement, and reassignment among key personnel. Part one is a kind of roadmap for whistleblower groups. A way to succeed.
Part two comments on the extraordinary “downsizing” of Mueller-FBI personnel, and its possible connection to FBI whistleblowers within the Bureau.
To paraphrase the Ben Bradlee character in the film, All the President’s Men, nothing much is riding on the Mueller investigation, except the presidency; the role of the mainstream press in politicizing and editorializing its coverage of the White House; the immediate future of US-Russia relations; the future of the Clintons in politics; and the intervention of the Surveillance State in the day-to-day activities of a president and his team.
Did the gunslinger Trump collude with Putin in a secret underground cave, thus placing Hillary on a cross of pain? Did the Clinton Foundation make slimy palm-greasing deals all over the world with high-level crooks and launder their money? Will the knight-puppet Robert Mueller uncover any part of the truth? Will His Excellency, Jeff Sessions, stir from his self-induced narcosis, look around, and find out what’s going on?
—We’ve heard a certain tune before: Honorable government employees will soon expose the crimes of such-and-so, they’ll present the evidence and testimony, and they’ll bring down the house on the heads of corrupt agencies. And then…it doesn’t happen.
At infowars, Paul Watson reports on what former FBI Assistant Director James Kallstrom has told Fox Business: “…patriots within the FBI are about to go public with huge new revelations that could sink the credibility of the ‘Russian collusion’ investigation.”
Against these patriots, “Kallstrom said that a ‘5th estate’ [within the FBI] has been working to sabotage President Trump, led by ‘a bunch of sycophants in the FBI’ who are guilty of ‘obstruction of justice’.”
“He [Kallstrom] added that the goal from the outset was to ‘destroy the presidency of the United States,’ a claim backed up by the revelation that top anti-Trump FBI agents had settled on an ‘insurance policy,’ namely the ‘Russian collusion’ investigation, to topple Trump if he defeated Hillary.”
“The former assistant director [Kallstrom] then dropped a bombshell, suggesting that insiders within the FBI are about to go public with new revelations about Mueller and Comey.”
“’I think recent events, that I’m aware of, are going to improve that, because there’s going to be something actually something that’s going to happen in my view,’ he said.”
“’I think there’s a lot of patriots [within the FBI] that have just had it up to here, with what’s going on. And they’re to step forward and tell people what the shenanigans have been, how they shut down the Clinton Foundation investigation, how other things, you know, were done that are so anti what the FBI and United States is all about,’ Kallstrom added.”
If Kallstrom is correct in his prediction, and this isn’t just another dud, certain tactics will need to be deployed. Because there is no guarantee that major news media will cover the revelations of “disgruntled FBI agents.” In fact, major media will do everything possible to ignore, downplay, and discredit these whistleblowers.
One: The FBI whistleblowers will need to produce documents wherever possible. Memos, emails, reports, recordings.
Two: The FBI whistleblowers will need to step out into the light and reveal themselves. They will need to do this as a group.
Three: They will need to do as many press interviews as possible, and also hold their own press conferences.
Four: In all these actions, their personal security and protection will have to be very capable.
Five: They must make reference to specifics, revealing FBI actions to: 1) squash investigations into the Clintons, and 2) promote a fake hypothesis that Trump and the Russians colluded to steal the election of 2016.
Six: Generalities won’t do. They can be shot down in minute as “unfounded opinions.”
Seven: The whistleblowers must compose and build their case in honest and compelling fashion.
Eight: They must be relentless. Despite hostile criticisms and other efforts to silence them, they must persist and weather the storms. They must create enough pressure to force a breakthrough—meaning the mainstream press can no longer resist covering their revelations.
Nine: Once they go public, they must acquire support from as many members of Congress as possible.
Ten: I re-emphasize security and protection. The whistleblowers must assume they are under surveillance—with all that implies.
Eleven: They must assume their own backgrounds and personal and professional histories will come under extreme scrutiny—and lead to accusations and defamation—including fake stories.
Twelve: They should obtain the service of an excellent whistleblower attorney, who will file a lawsuit against the FBI on their behalf—even if the suit never gets off the ground.
Thirteen: By the sheer number of their press interviews (with all levels of media), they need to garner as much support as possible from the American people. This is crucial.
Fourteen: They must be able to refer the American people to the specific crimes created by this “fifth column of traitors” inside the FBI, in order to reject the notion that mere “mistakes were made,” or there were simple “errors of judgment,” or different agents “have honest differences of opinion.”
Fifteen: The one or two busiest spokespeople from the whistleblower group must be able to connect with the public. They can’t be cold fish and they can’t be blowhards slinging charges like hash in a diner.
Sixteen: The whistleblowers must insist on testifying before Congress under oath—whether or not this comes to pass. On the other hand, they can’t put all their eggs in that basket. Relying on Congress would be a huge miscalculation.
Seventeen: The whistleblowers must, wherever possible, present evidence that—in addition to squashing investigations into Clinton crimes—the specifics of these crimes were known to the FBI. And “here those specifics are.”
Eighteen: Do whatever is possible to ensure the whistleblower group isn’t infiltrated by an agent(s) from “the other side.”
As you can see, these points are applicable to many situations, where whistleblowers would step out of the shadows and level charges against their employers and colleagues.
Many of the points loosely fall under the heading of “public relations”—in the authentic, not the fake meaning of that term.
Some whistleblowers unfortunately assume that, because “they have the goods,” the truth will carry the day. This is a serious misreading of the way things work.
In a different arena—attempts to pass state measures mandating the labeling of GMO food—I wrote articles criticizing the “label-it” leaders. They were, in a general sense, “whistleblowers,” who were exposing Monsanto and other biotech firms. But their pro-labeling public relations campaigns were poorly executed, and as it turned out, they had been infiltrated at the highest levels. The truth about GMOs was never communicated with any power. The label-it forces had the goods; they just didn’t know how to use them.
You can be an expert at putting the truth together, but if you’re an amateur at putting it across to the public, things fall apart in the blink of an eye.
FBI “patriots” should take a page from the playbook of the reluctant CDC whistleblower, Dr. William Thompson, who, in 2014, stated that he and his research colleagues falsified a key study on the effects of the MMR vaccine, thus hiding its connection to autism. Thompson acquired legal representation from a whistleblower attorney, Rick Morgan, and posted his confession on Morgan’s web page. That was step one. It gave Thompson a certain level of protection.
These FBI agents, by positioning themselves as whistleblowers, with an aggressive attorney (better yet, a large team of attorneys), can create the best possible situation for themselves.
—Press conference, a lawyer steps to the podium: “Today, our firm, representing the men and women behind me, all agents of the FBI, are filing several whistleblower suits against the FBI, the Justice Department, and members of the Mueller special probe…these honorable and courageous agents are putting their careers and their lives on the line to serve their country, as their oath demands. The American people must know what is being done in their name, what crimes have been committed against their interests…we call on the people to rally with us as we seek justice…we also call on the Attorney General of the United States, Mr. Sessions, to support us and protect these lawsuits as they move forward…”
There is a 1960s technical term for this strategy: Heavy Shit.
You might wonder whether the FBI and various players at the Justice Department would let things get to this point. We could make all sorts of guesses and predictions.
Regardless, when whistleblowers exist, if they have vital information, they plan how to go public. If the former Assistant Director of the FBI, Mr. Kallstrom, was doing more than blowing smoke the other day when he spoke with FOX, such whistleblowers exist now inside the FBI. Whatever truth they have, they are thinking about how to proceed.
Truth, Justice, and the American Way, right?
Wherever it leads.
“Sir, what do you know and when did you first know it?”
“In my case, it was when we, at the Bureau, were looking into the Clinton Foundation and when the initial charge was made that the Russians were trying to get Mr. Trump elected. Would you like me to tell the whole story and present my documents?”
“Yes, I would.”
“All right, here we go. Get ready for a few surprises.”
Sheer fantasy? It’s always fantasy until individuals turn it into reality.
We’ve heard stories before about brave patriots working within major institutions of government—groups of patriots, not lone individuals—who are fed up with corruption and lies and cover-ups—who have proof of major crimes, and who are ready to step forward.
Is this FBI scenario just another story, a wishful hope?
Or is it something more?
Working as a reporter for the past 35 years, I’ve had occasional contact with whistleblowers—individuals and groups. The lone individuals tend to be smarter. The groups often come up with a strategy that is unworkable and foolish. That’s the liability of having a group. People lend to sink to the lowest common denominator. What they manage to agree on is a function of “what they believe they’re supposed to do”—a template snatched from various fantasies which will have very little PENETRATING AND LASTING IMPACT.
Among the Mueller-FBI personnel, a rather remarkable downsizing is occurring.
Peter Strzok: This FBI agent was a key figure in investigations of the Hillary Clinton email server, and the purported Russian influence in the 2016 US presidential election. Strzok was the lead FBI agent on Muller’s team probing the Russian-influence theory. Muller fired Strzok from his team, when Strzok’s anti-Trump text messages surfaced.
Andrew McCabe: The deputy director of the FBI has just announced he will retire. He has been under fire, amid charges he was biased in favor of Hillary Clinton during the FBI investigation of her private email server. McCabe’s wife, in her run for a seat in the Virginia State Senate, received a donation of $675,000 from “the Virginia Democratic Party and Common Good VA, the political action committee of [Terry] McAuliffe, a longtime friend and supporter of both Hillary and Bill Clinton who is now the outgoing governor of Virginia,” the Washington Examiner reported.
Jim Baker: He has been “reassigned.” The Examiner: “Baker, who became general [FBI] counsel under [FBI Director James] Comey, has come under scrutiny by congressional Republicans investigating whether he leaked information [to the media] from the infamous Trump dossier, which contains unverified claims about Trump’s deep ties to Russia.”
Bruce Ohr: FOX: “A senior Justice Department official was demoted…amid an ongoing investigation into his contacts with the opposition research firm responsible for the anti-Trump ‘dossier,’ the department confirmed to Fox News.”
There is increasing pressure on other FBI-DOJ-Mueller officials—including Mueller himself—because of conflicts of interest and/or concealment of the roles they’ve played in the Clinton email and Trump-Russia investigations, as well as the Uranium One deal.
It is possible that FBI insiders/agents, who are fed up with political bias inside the FBI-DOJ-Mueller nexus, have assisted in the effort to downsize the Mueller forces.
If so, this would be another whistleblower strategy, a covert one. Instead of stepping out of the shadows as a group, these agents would leak information to loyal Trump appointees, who in turn would take action.
An internal struggle is taking place.
However, covert insider actions, such as these, are only valuable in the short run. If the corruption within the FBI and the DOJ are going to be exposed at a deeper level (and there may be no bottom, when all cards are laid on the table), whistleblowers will have to come out into the open, with a large and coherent case.
The Trump, anti-Trump situation is but the latest in a long line of clues about federal law-enforcement bias. For example, here is one thread among many:
In 2014-15, stories appeared in the press about the phenomenal corruption of the FBI evidence lab. But since then, there has been very little follow-up. I find no compelling evidence that the federal government has fixed the problem.
April 20, 2015, The Atlantic: “…the Washington Post made clear Saturday in an article that begins with a punch to the gut… ‘Nearly every examiner in an elite FBI forensic unit gave flawed testimony in almost all trials in which they offered evidence against criminal defendants over more than a two-decade period before 2000,’ the newspaper reported, adding that ‘the cases include those of 32 defendants sentenced to death’.”
August 12, 2014, New Scientist: “…the initial results were released of an ongoing review of thousands of criminal cases in which FBI scientists’ testimony may have led to wrongful convictions – including for some people now on death row…[an FBI source states] ’we teach these people [lab techs in training] for two weeks, and they would go back to their laboratories with a certificate of completion and be told: Great you’re qualified to do this [analysis of evidence] – here’s your caseload.’”
Two years after the Oklahoma City Bombing bombing, on March 22, 1997, we had this from CNN: “The Justice Department inspector general’s office has determined that the FBI crime laboratory working on the Oklahoma City bombing case made ‘scientifically unsound’ conclusions that were ‘biased in favor of the prosecution,’ The Los Angeles Times reported Saturday.”
“…[FBI] supervisors approved lab reports that they ‘cannot support’ and…FBI lab officials may have erred about the size of the blast, the amount of explosives involved and the type of explosives used in the bombing[!].”
“…harshest criticism was of David Williams, a supervisory agent in the [FBI] explosives unit, the paper [LA Times] said. Those flaws reportedly include the basis of his determination that the main charge of the explosion was ammonium nitrate. The inspector general called such a determination ‘inappropriate,’ the Times said.”
“…FBI officials found a receipt for ammonium nitrate at defendant [Terry] Nichols’ home and, because of that discovery, Williams slanted his conclusion to match the evidence.”
Let that one sink in.
The deeper you go, the more crimes you find.