A House Judiciary Committee report on FBI whistleblowers found that Bank of America provided the FBI a list of anyone who used their services in the D.C. area regardless of if they participated in the events of the January 6 protests.
The House Judiciary Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government released an interim report on the government’s abuse, misallocation of resources, and retaliation.
Among the Judiciary Committee’s many revelations, FBI whistleblowers Garret O’Boyle, and retired FBI supervisory Intelligence George Hill testified about how Bank of America (BoA) gave the FBI’s Washington Field Office a list of individuals who had made transactions in the D.C., Maryland, and Virginia area with a BoA credit or debit card between January 5 and 7, 2021.
Hill also testified that individuals who had previously purchased a firearm with a BoA product were elevated to the top of the list provided to the FBI Washington Field Office, which was reported by Breitbart News’s Ashley Oliver.
Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY), a member of the weaponization subcommittee, emphasized during the subcommittee’s Thursday hearing that Hill testified that there was no geolocation fencing regarding the datamining of Americans’ purchasing of firearms:
It remains unclear if Bank of America voluntarily provided Americans’ transaction data to the FBI Washington Field Office or if they complied with the bulk subpoena.
However, Hill testified to the committee there “was no legal process … asking for it … from the Bureau or from DOJ or anybody.”
The Judiciary report stated, “On these facts, it is clear that Hill had a reasonable belief that there was a violation of law.”
Rep. Dan Bishop (R-NC) said that the BoA’s alleged turning over of Americans’ transactions amounts to “victimization at scale” of Americans:
Bishop wrote, “Bank of America gave a list to the FBI of anyone who used BofA credit/debit cards in the DC area between Jan 5-7th, 2021 – regardless of whether they participated in the events of Jan. 6th.”
This is the latest revelation about the FBI’s surveillance of those that might have been involved in the January 6 protests.
A recent FBI audit found that the agency had “insufficient justification” for two FISA searches relating to “January 6th Capitol Violence.”
FBI Suddenly Dropped Four Investigations Into Hillary and Bill Clinton Ahead of 2016 Election: Durham Report
The FBI suddenly dropped FOUR investigations into Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation ahead of the 2016 election, according to the Durham report.
Special Counsel John Durham on Monday released his final report concluding the FBI had no verified intel when it opened the Crossfire Hurricane investigation into Trump in 2016.
Durham blasted Hillary Clinton for her “plan to stir up a scandal against US Presidential candidate Donald Trump by tying him to Putin and the Russians’ hacking of the Democratic National Committee.”
The FBI dropped four investigations into Hillary and Bill Clinton ahead of the 2016 while the Bureau and the entire might of the US government was bearing down on Trump.
The FBI was investigating claims the Clinton Foundation was a hub of “criminal activity,” according to a review by The New York Post.
It turns out the FBI investigations into the Clintons were all for show.
According to Durham, the FBI never got wiretapping warrants for their “well-placed” informant who penetrated the Clintons’ inner circle.
The FBI eventually told the informant to walk away from the Clintons and cut ties.
Meanwhile, the feds were busy wiretapping Donald Trump and illegally spying on his campaign.
Of course the Clinton Foundation denied any wrongdoing.
“None of the Clintons have ever taken any money from the Clinton Foundation — in fact, the Clintons themselves are major donors to the Clinton Foundation,” a Clinton Foundation spokesperson said in a statement to the Daily Mail.
All four investigations were dropped by FBI officials with ties to the Clintons.
The New York Post reported on the four investigations:
The Little Rock and New York offices were investigating a claim that an outside commercial industry “likely engaged a federal public official in a flow of benefits scheme, namely, large monetary contributions were made to a non-profit, under both direct and indirect control of the federal public official, in exchange for favorable government action and/or influence,” according to the Durham report.
The DC investigation was based on allegations that the Clintons accepted millions in donations from foreign governments — as well as massive Russian corporations — in an attempt to influence US foreign policy dating back to Hillary’s days as Secretary of State, as outlined by political consultant Peter Schweizer in his book “Clinton Cash.”
The fourth investigation looked into allegations made by a “well-placed” source that Hillary continued accepting those illegal donations throughout her presidential campaign.
“Beginning in late 2014, before Clinton formally declared her presidential candidacy, the FBI learned from a well-placed [source] that a foreign government was planning to send an individual to contribute to Clinton’s anticipated presidential campaign, as a way to gain influence with Clinton should she win the presidency,” the report said.
The foreign “individual” reportedly made a $2,700 contribution ahead of a campaign event, which led to another “contribution of a significant sum of money.”
All four probes were dropped ahead of the 2016 election — several of which at the direction of senior FBI officials who had close ties to the Clintons.
FBI won’t allow 11,000+ hours of J6 footage to be released because ‘there may be undercover officers’ identities on those videos we may need to protect’
FBI Searched Jan. 6 Rioters and George Floyd Demonstrators in Spy Database
WASHINGTON—The Federal Bureau of Investigation improperly searched a trove of intelligence gathered through a foreign spying law for information on people suspected of participating in the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol and the George Floyd protests, a court opinion released Friday showed.
Despite a lack of evidence, the FBI performed more than a dozen searches of raw foreign intelligence data related to people believed to be involved in the Capitol riot to hunt for foreign ties, the court said. Separately, three Jan. 6 searches were conducted that used more than 23,000 search terms such as an email account to look for evidence of foreign influence in relation to an unidentified group involved in the riot. The Justice Department later determined there was insufficient factual support for the searches.
FBI analysts also searched for information related to 133 people arrested in the aftermath of the protests prompted by the killing of Floyd, a Black man who died pleading for his life while a white Minneapolis police officer knelt on his neck for more than nine minutes. Due to redactions in the opinion, it wasn’t clear whether the searches related to individuals protesting racism and police brutality or counterprotesters. A senior FBI official declined to clarify. Four Minneapolis police officers have been convicted of crimes in connection with Floyd’s death, including Derek Chauvin, found guilty of second-degree murder and sentenced to 22 and a half years in prison.
In a separate incident, the bureau ran the names of 19,000 American donors to an unnamed congressional campaign through the foreign intelligence database. An official said the search involved a congressional candidate and not a current member of Congress. A later review by Justice Department lawyers concluded that only eight of the thousands of individuals had a plausible connection to foreign government activity.
FBI officials also ran more than 400 U.S. defense contractors and holders of security clearances through the foreign intelligence database despite no evidence they were being targeted by a foreign power. And between 2016 and 2020, the FBI routinely ran names of people who appeared in police homicide reports, “including victims, next-of-kin, witnesses and suspects.”
The revelations were contained in a heavily redacted opinion of the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which said the violations were significant and often due to analysts not understanding existing search rules. The names were searched in a vast database of phone calls, text messages, emails and more gathered under a foreign eavesdropping law known as Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Intelligence and surveillance activities under the law are supposed to be limited to targeting foreign nationals located abroad who are believed to be agents of a foreign power or members of an international terrorist group.
But because of the nature of modern, globally linked digital communications, U.S. spy agencies collect a great deal of information about Americans through the program, such as when an American is talking to someone abroad. Under existing law, the FBI may search its data about Americans in some instances, without having to obtain a warrant.
Biden administration officials say the law is one of the government’s most vital national security tools, but privacy advocates from both ends of the political spectrum have pushed for changes in part due to how it has been used to search data belonging to Americans.
The revelations are the latest examples to demonstrate what critics say are inappropriate uses of the spying powers at issue. They underscore many of the concerns that privacy advocates have raised about U.S. intelligence programs after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks: that the vast troves of internet data collected by the federal government ostensibly for intelligence gathering are being routinely used in domestic criminal matters.
New Senate Bill Would Create Federal Agency to Police Americans for ‘Misinformation’ and ‘Hate Speech’
A new Senate bill would create a federal agency to police Americans’ speech for “misinformation” and “hate speech” if passed by the Congress.
The bill was brought forth by Colorado U.S. Senator Michael Bennet and is dubbed the Digital Platform Commission Act (DPCA). As the senator announced, the legislation would “create an expert federal body empowered to provide comprehensive, sector-specific regulation of digital platforms to protect consumers, promote competition, and defend the public interest.”
“The new Federal Digital Platform Commission would have the mandate, jurisdiction, and broad set of tools to develop and enforce thoughtful guardrails for a sector that has been left for too long to write its own rules, with serious consequences for everything from teen mental health to disinformation to anticompetitve practices that have hurt small businesses,” the senator argued.
“As a country, we should take pride that most of the world’s leading tech companies were founded in America. But they aren’t start-ups anymore. Today they rank among the most powerful companies in human history. It’s past time for a thoughtful and comprehensive approach to regulating digital platforms that have amassed extraordinary power over our economy, society, and democracy,” said Bennet. “We don’t have to choose between letting digital platforms write their own rules, allowing competitors like China and the E.U. write those rules, or leaving it to politicians in Congress. We should follow the long precedent in American history of empowering an expert body to protect the public interest through common sense rules and oversight for complex and powerful sectors of the economy.”
The new Federal Digital Platform Commission would have five commissioners appointed by the president and confirmed by the U.S. Senate. It would be “staffed by experts with a background in areas such as computer science, software development, and technology policy.”
The Commission would have “a broad mandate to promote the public interest, with specific directives to protect consumers, promote competition, and assure the fairness and safety of algorithms on digital platforms, among other areas,” the senator’s statement added. “To fulfill its mandate, the Commission would have the authority to promulgate rules, impose civil penalties, hold hearings, conduct investigations, and support research. It could also designate ‘systemically important digital platforms’ subject to additional oversight, regulation, and merger review.”
As Reclaim the Net noted on Twitter, the bill would “empower a new federal agency to create a council that establishes ‘enforceable behavioral codes’ on social media platforms and AI. The council will include ‘disinformation’ experts.”
“The bill also has age verification requirements,” Reclaim the Net added.
“This is unconstitutional, also evil and stupid,” Constitutional attorney Harmeet Dhillon bluntly remarked.
The bill currently lacks specific safeguards to protect free speech and ensure that regulations implemented by the commission do not unduly infringe upon individuals’ constitutional rights. Instead, it relies upon government-appointed “experts” who would doubtless act to police state-approved narratives and policies. Without robust protections for free expression, there is a risk of chilling effects on online discourse, as well as stifling innovation and creativity.
The Twitter Files, meanwhile, continue to document the many abuses of free speech committed by the “misinformation” and “hate speech” moderators at Big Tech companies.