US Rep reports that FBI has essentially threatened the life of whistleblower

I guess there may be more than one way to interpret this, but that's how I see it.

Rep. Ana Paulina Luna (R, FL) tweeted the following this afternoon:

Just left meeting for House Oversight. The @FBI is afraid their informant will be killed if unmasked, based on the info he has brought forward about the Biden family.

People are commenting about how the FBI can't protect one man, but I don't think that was the intent at all.

The FBI could protect anybody they want to protect. Unless they don't want to protect them.

Not to mention, this is like when they kept saying that Hunter's laptop was fake until Hunter decided to sue the guy who turned it in. And Ashley's diary was fake until they arrested the folks who found it. This is essentially an admission that what the whislteblower is saying is true.

Man, things are f'ed up.

It seems the thread title doesnt match what Luna tweeted?

Kevin McCarthy said (during a FoxNews Interview yesterday), President Trump's family members have been threatened by the FBI.

a reply to: carewemust

What kind of threats? Subpoenas, investigations, bodily harm?

Since the start of this scenario almost every source has had some variation on this

“Justice [Department] policy strictly limits when and how confidential human source information can be provided outside of the FBI,” Dunham said in the letter obtained by The Hill.

thehill.com...

"Often, even confirming the fact of the existence (or nonexistence) of an investigation or a particular piece of investigative information can risk these serious harms," Dunham wrote, adding that it was "standard practice" for law enforcement agencies to decline to confirm or deny such facts.

www.nbcnews.com...


Essentially they are saying that by revealing the unsubstantiated human intelligence information they have in those forms could put those CI's at risk. If that CI is active still as a resource then it becomes even more paramount to minimize exposure on them.

That is common sense and is exactly how it does and should go. Unless of course you believe that these forms have the smoking gun that will bring Biden down.

originally posted by: CoyoteAngels
It seems the thread title doesnt match what Luna tweeted?

How does it not?

She says that "The @FBI is afraid their informant will be killed if unmasked, based on the info he has brought forward about the Biden family."

The FBI cannot protect an American citizen's life? The resources at their command are insufficient to keep one person alive?

This can only mean a handful of things.

First, it means that the accusations that the whilstelblower is leveling are true. If they were not, who'd care? They'd just prove them false.

Second, it means that either somebody much more powerful than the FBI is after this person, or the FBI itself is complicit. Is it that the FBI can't ... or won't protect this person.

Nope, I think the thread title is accurate.

No one can threaten these people. I never thought that the USA would get to this point, but here we are. What can be done to resolve these issues? I have no idea. It is so depressing.

I used to love my country, now I am embarrassed by it.


City on a shining hill? NO, we are just an ugly turd in a toilet.

originally posted by: CoyoteAngels
a reply to: carewemust

What kind of threats? Subpoenas, investigations, bodily harm?

Does it matter? It's not the place of the executive branch to treaten anybody in any way.

To even ask that question denudes an ignorance of how the US gov't is supposed to work. I say supposed to work. THe only branch from which any threat should come is the judicial branch, and that only in the case of one proven guilty beyond any shadow of a doubt.

:

Having watched how blatantly corrupt and putrid the FBI has become, it's current top brass all spiritually compromised, ethically challenged, and protectors of molesters of children is what the FBI is, so it is no surprise that they threaten people. They have been threatening people for years. Now it is just public and blatant.

a reply to: opethPA

I ask again:

1. Why is there danger? Obviously, it's a threat to someone powerful. If it is something so potent, it needs to be made public.
2. You're telling me that with all the resources that the FBI has at it's hands, it cannot protect an individual or a small group of individuals?

This stinks to the sky.

What stinks even more is people making excuses for it.

USNEWS.COM is reporting on it.

:

originally posted by: incoserv
a reply to: opethPA

I ask again:

1. Why is there danger? Obviously, it's a threat to someone powerful. If it is something so potent, it needs to be made public.
2. You're telling me that with all the resources that the FBI has at it's hands, it cannot protect an individual or a small group of individuals?

This stinks to the sky.

It's not like this is new or unique to this scenario. That has been a common practice when dealing with active CI's for a long time. It's not the first time the FBI has not listened to a subpoena around unsubstantiated CI information. I'll track down the other cases and link them when I am home later.

This answer does a good job of giving info. I am sure that it will go over poorly with those that that think this is some smoking gun but for anyone that is interested.

How is it that the FBI can ignore congressional subpoenas? What actions can congress take when they ignore a subpoena?

Sr. Tech Mgr 35 yrs;Triple Nine Society; USAF 1969-73 May 23
Congress can go to Federal Court to make the case that they have the right to the information and that there is no law or regulation that prohibits its being supplied. They will ask the court to enforce the subpoena nd the courts can decide to order the subpoena enforced or can quash the subpoena. This is not uncommon. Legislative hearings and information gathering are legitimate but they are done with different rationale and consequences than executive branch investigations.

The FBI doesn’t ignore a subpoena but it does not necessarily have to comply with just any subpoena from Congress. The FBI as part of the Executive Branch handles information used in investigations and criminal prosecutions that are confidential and are not to be made public until the time in a legal action where they are appropriately revealed.

To release some information would compromise investigations, let people know what evidence they have, allow them to make up cover stories and to destroy evidence. It could also damage the reputation of people who end up not being charged. So the FBI has always, along with other agencies, reserved the right to refuse to provide information to other branches of government under some circumstances. SCOTUS has upheld their right to do this in specific situations.

www.quora.com...

Wait a second. Dementia riddled Joe is actually like a mafia Don and going go plan a murder? Umm ok. Also, all these past years? He didn't know about this? I mean Barr investigated this already under Trump.

I think it may be the opposite. Comer wants to out this guy formally. The feds have a recording of his interview. He told the feds the info when Rudy put it forth, but he also told them that he couldn't corroborate the info, nor could he really put any weight behind what they said. The informant himself did not claim any of this info, but merely reported it from other people on the behest of Rudy. Raskin gave a bit more info than Comer regarding the discussion they both had with the FBI.

I have no doubt he would put this guy's life at risk to score points with Magadolians as Trump calls them. Why hasn't he had Rudy come talk about it? I expect this week will be heavy hitting to try to distract from the indictments we hear will be coming. The GOP is a mess right now. MTG flipped and now doesn't want J6 video released. Santos just filed a motion stating he'd rather go to jail than release the names of the people who paid his bail. The radical fringe is very very nervous it seems. Jordan and the rest of the pardon seekers seem scared.

a reply to: frogs453

OH, no doubt that D.C. is just one big, ginormous fustercluck.

Remember what creepy joe said, nobody f*cks with a biden. The fbi has become the demoncrats version of the stasi or the kgb!!

a reply to: incoserv

The title says the FBI threatened the whistleblower.

Rep. Luna says the FBI is afraid FOR the whistleblower.

Very big difference!

a reply to: frogs453

Raskin flat out lied to reporters after the meeting today and got called out on it. Then he shifted to talking about policy...not surprised you are trying to pass off his lies here.

a reply to: incoserv

There is a BIG difference between a threat of legal action and a death threat. If you don't know the difference, I can't help you.

originally posted by: CoyoteAngels
a reply to: carewemust

What kind of threats? Subpoenas, investigations, bodily harm?

He didn't elaborate. McCarthy was describing the extraordinary protection Whistleblowers against the FBI must get, because the FBI has elements with zero conscience. He then mentioned how Trump family members have been threatened by these same elements. But, like most so-called journalists, Maria Bartilomo (or whatever her name is) just went to her next question, without following up on the bombshell revelation that just entered her ears.

a reply to: incoserv

Maybe its just the standard nut case death threats whistleblowers and informants get all the time. How many informants are in witness protection?

I don't see the difference in the FBI being more afraid for this witness against a high ranking politician and any other.

a reply to: RickyD

Yes sure, Barr lied, the rest of the investigators lied. Trump's DOJ lied. Comer must have lied when he stated they only found things that "should be illegal" but not actually anything illegal. Jordan asked Trump for a pardon and refused a subpoena because he is a truth teller and Rudy who cavorted around the Ukraine with actual convicted criminals is also the only truth teller.
Comedy gold.