More whistleblowers have stepped forward to tell Congress that
high-ranking FBI officials are targeting agents, specifically former
military members, for their political beliefs and trying to force
them out of the bureau.

A Marine and other military veterans at the FBI have been accused of
disloyalty to the U.S. because they fit the profile of a supporter
of former President Donald Trump, according to two disclosures sent
to lawmakers on the House Judiciary Committee.

The Washington Times obtained copies of the disclosures.

The whistleblowers said Jeffrey Veltri, deputy assistant director of
the bureau’s security division, and Dena Perkins, assistant section
chief, specifically pursued employees who served in the Marine Corps
or other military branches.

They stripped the agents of security clearances, which sidelined
them on the job and pushed them toward the exit, according to the
disclosures.

The whistleblower disclosures say Mr. Veltri and Ms. Perkins either
declared or attempted to declare the Marine and other veterans as
“disloyal to the United States of America.”

“In these cases there was no indication that any of the individuals
had any affiliation to a foreign power or held any belief against
the United States,” it said.

Other signs that an employee was a “right-wing radical and disloyal
to the United States,” according to Ms. Perkins and Mr. Veltri, were
failure to wear a face mask, refusing to take the COVID-19
vaccination and participating in religious activities.

In another instance, Ms. Perkins attempted to revoke the security
clearance of a bureau employee she knew was a Marine veteran, but
information showed that the initial allegations against the employee
were unfounded, the disclosure says.

This did not stop Ms. Perkins from ordering her investigators to
canvass at least 10 police departments where the employee lived for
any allegations or violations of law.

“During the process, Perkins was attempting to provide evidence so
she could terminate this employee because he was ‘Disloyal to the
United States,’” the disclosure states.

“An employee advised that at least two of the publicly known FBI
whistleblowers were former members of the military, specifically …
Kyle Seraphin and Garret[t] O’Boyle,” according to one of the
disclosures.

Another FBI whistleblower disclosure sent to the Judiciary Committee
included an accusation from a security division employee who said
the security clearance investigation of Mr. Seraphin did not follow
the policy guidelines of the Office of the Director of National
Intelligence.

The FBI initially declined to comment. A day after this article was
posted online, the FBI provided a statement rebuking The Times for
reporting on the disclosures to Congress.

“It is wholly irresponsible of The Washington Times, and this
reporter, to include outrageous and demonstrably false allegations
that the FBI singled out former military employees. It is offensive
that The Washington Times chose to publish, on Veteran’s Day, such
baseless, unsubstantiated claims and include the names of FBI
employees, one of which is a veteran. The FBI has not and will not
retaliate against individuals who make protected whistleblower
disclosures. We do not target or take adverse action against
employees for exercising their First Amendment rights or for their
political views. The FBI is proud to have many veterans in our
workforce and we thank all veterans for their service,” the FBI
said.

Mr. Seraphin was subjected to a security clearance investigation,
according to the disclosure, after his field office notified Ms.
Perkins that a police officer out of his jurisdiction confronted him
about practicing with his gun at a shooting range.

Mr. O’Boyle lost his security clearance after he testified before
the House Judiciary Committee panel investigating the weaponization
of the federal government. His security clearance was suspended in
September 2022 over allegations that he leaked information about a
criminal investigation to Project Veritas that FBI officials said
“compromised the case.”

Mr. O’Boyle ended up homeless after he lost his security clearance
and was suspended without pay, according to the disclosures.

Officials in the FBI’s security division, or SecD in bureau lingo,
suspended Mr. O’Boyle’s security clearance after his transfer to
another field office. He and his family became financially stranded
and homeless in their new city, it said.

The disclosure said FBI supervisor Sean Clark and Ms. Perkins were
behind the scheme to punish Mr. O’Boyle. They allegedly transferred
him across the country with the intent to suspend and financially
devastate him.

“Clark bragged to at least one other FBI employee in SecD that he
was going to really ‘screw’ O’Boyle,” the disclosure said.

In an interview with The Times, Mr. O’Boyle said he never met or
knew Mr. Clark or Ms. Perkins. He said he learned about them only
when The Times shared the information from the whistleblower
disclosure with him.

“I didn’t even know these people, but they came after me anyway
because that’s what tyrants do. They come after the people who
they’re afraid of,” Mr. O’Boyle said. “They come after the people
who speak the truth.”

He has sued the FBI. His security clearance has been suspended for
14 months, and the FBI forbids him to accept donations or find
another job while suspended without pay, he said.

“My attorneys have advised me that if I quit, then the FBI will
simply file a motion to dismiss the suit [and] my lawsuit would have
no standing,” Mr. O’Boyle said.

Mr. Clark and Ms. Perkins likely knew Mr. O’Boyle did not pass the
information to Project Veritas or other news media, according to the
disclosure.

“At the time, the Security Division suspended FBI employee Garret
O’Boyle, the supervisor in charge of O’Boyle’s Case, Sean Clark, had
already determined that O’Boyle did not provide any information to
either Project Veritas or the press,” the disclosure said.

“SecD was operating under the theory that O’Boyle had provided the
information to another FBI employee who then passed it on to an
entity outside the FBI,” it said. “However, SecD did not
conclusively know how the information was passed to Project Veritas
or the press.”

Mr. Clark and Ms. Perkins allowed Mr. O’Boyle, who was unaware he
was under an internal investigation, to sell his home and move to
the other office. Upon entering the doors of his new office, he was
suspended immediately, the disclosure said.

“O’Boyle and his family were left homeless. The FBI had possession
of all of Mr. O’Boyle’s and his family’s personal effects, including
clothes and furniture,” the disclosure said. “No one in SecD took
any steps to assist O’Boyle from the desperate predicament that SecD
created. SecD caused O’Boyle, who was still an FBI employee, to be
left destitute in a city [where] he had no family or support.”

Mr. O’Boyle told lawmakers in his public testimony in June that he
never had an opportunity to defend himself and had only one
interview with the bureau — one year earlier after apparent
prompting from Congress.

“It has been more than a year since the FBI took my paycheck from
me, and we’re getting financially crushed. My family and I have been
surviving on early withdrawals from our retirement accounts,” he
told lawmakers.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2023/nov/10/whistleblowers-
fbi-officials-singled-out-agents-wh/?
utm_source=newsshowcase&utm_medium=gnews&utm_campaign=CDAQu4i5mYXI3v
_NARi0rbXN4cy1yJcBKioIACIQXBEbMEZz5y5Gid_4CzfDmioUCAoiEFwRGzBGc-
cuRonf-As3w5o&utm_content=rundown

>
>More whistleblowers have stepped forward to tell Congress that
>high-ranking FBI officials are targeting agents, specifically former
>military members, for their political beliefs and trying to force
>them out of the bureau.
>

Biden will use the power of the US government to crush doddering old fool
Trump and his gaggle of America hating extremist followers because they are
all subversives. It will be a great day for freedom when word comes that
Trump has died behind bars like the common criminal he's always been.

On 11/13/2023 12:16 PM, Deep State wrote:
> More whistleblowers have stepped forward to tell Congress that
> high-ranking FBI officials are targeting agents, specifically former
> military members, for their political beliefs and trying to force
> them out of the bureau.

These people are all lying Trumpswabs. What they're describing is not happening
and has not happened. They are lying.

>These people are all lying Trumpswabs. What they're describing is not
>happening and has not happened. They are lying.
>
>

641 years behind bars? No, but Trump�s risk of prison is real.

Of the more than six dozen felonies that Trump is accused of, many often
result in harsh sentences.
The indictment against former President Donald Trump charging him by the
Justice Department for his efforts to overturn the results of the 2020
presidential election is photographed.

The indictment against former President Donald Trump charging him by the
Justice Department for his efforts to overturn the results of the 2020
presidential election, pictured. | Jon Elswick/AP Photo

By Erica Orden

08/02/2023 06:37 PM EDT

Donald Trump now faces 78 felony charges across three criminal cases �
many of them carrying the potential for hefty prison time.

If Trump were convicted on all counts and given the maximum statutory
penalty for each one, he would face a whopping 641 years in prison. And
that�s not counting additional criminal charges he may face in Georgia,
where the district attorney in Fulton County may be on the verge of
indicting him this month.

But the reality of any prison term that Trump could plausibly receive is
far more complicated.

In both state and federal courts, judges have wide latitude in sentencing.
None of the crimes Trump has been charged with carry a mandatory minimum
sentence, and defendants with no prior criminal record � a status that, at
least for now, applies to Trump � rarely receive the maximum. And if the
77-year-old former president were convicted of multiple counts within the
same case, any sentences for those counts might run simultaneously, rather
than being stacked on top of each other.

More broadly, sending Trump to prison could raise unprecedented practical
and legal issues that would be on any judge�s mind. For one thing, there
is the extraordinary logistical challenge of jailing a former president
who is entitled to around-the-clock Secret Service protection. For
another, there is the potential constitutional crisis that could ensue if
Trump were reelected to the White House in 2024 and then ordered by a
judge to serve out a prison term.

Those concerns aside, some of the felonies Trump is accused of �
particularly in the two federal cases brought by special counsel Jack
Smith � routinely entail significant sentences. Legal experts anticipate
that Smith�s team, if they obtain convictions against Trump, will seek
substantial prison time in both cases they have brought, one involving his
retention of classified documents and the other involving his bid to
overturn the 2020 election.

Trump himself has even touted the threat of a significant prison sentence
in recent fundraising emails, with his campaign and a PAC saying in late
July, �While my primary opponents continue to take cheap swipes at me as
the Department of Justice plots ways to throw me in JAIL for up to 561
YEARS, I am asking YOU to stand with me at this pivotal moment in the
election.�

The charges that might carry the most severe penalties for Trump involve
obstruction of justice. In both federal cases, Smith has accused him of
violating various provisions of the federal statutes that prohibit
obstructing official proceedings or obstructing investigations. All of the
obstruction charges � which include allegedly impeding the government�s
attempts to retrieve the classified documents and disrupting the Jan. 6,
2021, session of Congress � have a 20-year maximum sentence.

While Trump�s lack of a criminal record could weigh in favor of a sentence
much lower than that, prosecutors might argue that so-called aggravating
factors � like Trump�s alleged efforts, in both cases, to pressure others
to commit crimes � support a stiffer term.

Trump�s willingness, or lack thereof, to accept responsibility if
convicted also would play a role in a judge�s sentence.
Politicians react to Trump�s Jan. 6 indictment

The core charges in the classified documents case � 32 counts of willful
retention of national defense information in violation of the Espionage
Act � also routinely entail significant sentences for people found guilty.
Earlier this year, a former Air Force intelligence officer was sentenced
to three years for retaining various classified documents. In 2021, a West
Virginia woman was sentenced to eight years for retaining a single
National Security Agency record.

Additional charges in the election-interference case � alleging a
conspiracy to defraud the United States and a conspiracy to deprive people
of the right to vote � are less common in this context, so a potential
sentence is more difficult to predict.

The case that appears least likely to put Trump away is the prosecution by
the Manhattan district attorney�s office, which charged Trump with
falsifying business records in connection with a hush money payment to
cover up an alleged affair with a porn star.

In that case, Trump is charged with 34 felony counts under New York law,
and each count carries a maximum sentence of four years. But legal experts
say judges seldom sentence first-time offenders to any prison time for
that crime.

Trump is set to be arraigned in the election case on Thursday in
Washington, D.C. He has pleaded not guilty in the other two cases.

Scout <me4gunzzzzz@centurylink.removeme.this2.net> wrote:
> On 11/13/2023 12:16 PM, Deep State wrote:
>> More whistleblowers have stepped forward to tell Congress that
>> high-ranking FBI officials are targeting agents, specifically former
>> military members, for their political beliefs and trying to force
>> them out of the bureau.
>
> These people are all lying Trumpswabs. What they're describing is not happening
> and has not happened. They are lying.

“Believe all whistleblowers, except the ones that are saying bad things
about my beloved Zionist government!”

“The willingness with which our young people are likely to serve in any war, no matter how justified, shall be directly proportional as to how they perceive the veterans of earlier wars were treated and appreciated by their nation.” George Washington
>