Lawyering, Politics

“Insubordination”: FBI Official Accused of Defying White House Reform Efforts

Last week, some of us discussed concerns over the demand of the Trump Administration for the names of all FBI agents involved in January 6th cases. While noting that we did not have all of the details, I wrote that this would be a critical test for the Administration between reform and revenge. Line FBI agents should not face punishment for carrying out the orders of their superiors or courts. Now, the Trump Administration has offered additional information, alleging an alarming defiance by a high-ranking official in sharing information. If true, the controversy involving Acting FBI Director Brian Driscoll is reminiscent of the entirely improper conduct of former acting Attorney General Sally Yates.

Acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove released a statement stating that FBI agents were never being rounded up or targeted for their work on the cases. A reported force of over 5,000 agents was assigned to these cases.

According to Bove, Driscoll refused to turn over the “core team” involved in Washington, D.C., in the cases as part of its review of the weaponization of the legal system under the Biden Administration. Bove’s memo stated that:

“That insubordination necessitated, among other things, the directive in my January 31, 2025 memo to identify all agents assigned to investigations relating to January 6, 2021. In light of acting leadership’s refusal to comply with the narrower request, the written directive was intended to obtain a complete data set that the Justice Department can reliably pare down to the core team that will be the focus of the weaponization review pursuant to the Executive Order.”

Bove dismissed allegations of a purging of the ranks:

“Let me be clear: No FBI employee who simply followed orders and carried out their duties in an ethical manner concerning January 6 investigations is at risk of termination or other penalties. The only individuals who should be concerned about the process initiated by my January 31, 2025 memo are those who acted with corrupt or partisan intent, who blatantly defied orders from Department leadership, or who exercised discretion in weaponizing the FBI.”

Again, we have not heard Driscoll’s side. Yet, I cannot understand the basis for an FBI official to refuse to share such information with his superiors in the Administration. One can raise concerns over the motivations or even the legality of measures taken against line agents. One can also object that there is no reason to collect the broader information after being allegedly denied the narrower request. However, the Administration has every right to such information, particularly as part of its long-promised review of the agency during the campaign.

The alleged defiance brought back memories from the start of the first Trump term. As previously discussed, Yates was lionized for her stance in the media. She was then selected as one of the featured speakers at the Democratic National Convention in 2020 and presented as the personification of a new Justice Department’s commitment to the rule of law. Yates declared: “I was fired for refusing to defend President Trump’s shameful and unlawful Muslim travel ban.” The problem is, she wasn’t. She was fired for telling an entire department not to defend a travel ban that ultimately was upheld as lawful.

I was critical of the initial memorandum supporting the travel ban, particularly its failure to exempt lawful residents. However, I also said Trump’s underlying authority would likely be found constitutional. Despite revisions tweaking its scope and affected countries, opponents insisted it remained unlawful and discriminatory. They continued to litigate on those same grounds all the way to the Supreme Court, where they lost two years ago.

The Supreme Court ruled in Trump v. Hawaii that the president had the authority to suspend entry of noncitizens into the country based on nationality and had a “sufficient national security justification” for his order. It also held that, despite most of the banned countries being Muslim-majority, the ban “does not support an inference of religious hostility.”

That is why Yates deserved to be fired. Yates issued her order shortly after learning of the travel ban and despite being told by Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel it was a lawful order. She never actually said it was unlawful, only that she was not sure and was not convinced it was “wise or just.” Rather than working to address clear errors in the original ban, she issued her categorical order as she prepared to leave the department in a matter of days. Yates maintained afterward that she believed the ban might still be discriminatory, even with revisions. The courts rejected those claims.

Yates was due to retire from Justice within days when she engineered her own firing. It made her an instant heroine and allowed her to denounce Trump at the convention for “trampl[ing] the rule of law, trying to weaponize our Justice Department.” But that’s precisely what she did when she ordered an entire department not to assist the recently elected president.

It is not clear what transpired between Bove and Driscoll, but I cannot imagine a basis for refusing to share personnel information and records with the Trump Administration.

The initial coverage of the request clearly omitted this context and led to the usual media stampede declaring a purging of the ranks by political commissars. The irony is that, once again, the true story may be even more interesting in an alleged defiance of the Trump Administration within the FBI. We have seen recently the actual locking out of Trump officials from agencies like US AID, leading to a security official being placed on leave.

As someone who covered the first Administration, this is a very different profile and approach. Trump learned in his first term how officials could stymie and delay reforms. That process has begun anew, including a plethora of lawsuits designed to slowdown such efforts. However, the Administration is moving far more aggressively in this second term. If Trump wanted to defibrillate the federal system and shock the status quo, he is succeeding in doing so.

I have no problem with officials raising concerns over possible personnel action against agents who were only carrying out their assigned tasks. These officials have a duty to advocate for their agents and insulate their institution from concerns over political retaliation. However, if the FBI refused to supply personnel information, it would move the matter from internal deliberation to outright defiance of a lawful order.

 

274 thoughts on ““Insubordination”: FBI Official Accused of Defying White House Reform Efforts”

  1. Q: How many DOJ employees does it take to unscrew a light bulb above Trump’s head?
    A: 5,000.

  2. FIRE THEM ALL. As Obama said, elections have consequences. It is despicable that an officer of justice decides to break the law and is applauded for it. But that is your Democrat Party folks. No one is above the law except them. One giant RICO.

    1. You do realize that you cannot fire on the basis of political affiliation, right?

  3. A major reform both Republicans and Democrats would support is Congress making the DOJ, FBI, IGs and CIA totally independent agencies designed to follow the U.S. Constitution and it’s circumscribing federal laws.

    Minimize partisan politics from these agencies altogether.

    One possible solution is since these agencies are more constitutional and don’t really provide an executive function – remove them from the Executive Branch and place their governance under the Judicial Branch or Legislative Branch (similar to CBO and GAO).

    A future president will be a Democrat and Trump has now created precedent that could be used against Republicans in the future. Make these agencies and IGs totally independent.

    1. How do you figure that DoJ and FBI don’t provide an executive function? To me they seem like the very definition of such a function under the Take Care clause of Article II, Section 3.

      1. Maybe change the name to the “Federal Prosecutor’s Office”.

        Justice implies following the U.S. Constitution and never violating anyone’s rights.

        For 20+ years DOJ has litigated against Americans blacklisted after 9/11 – litigated to defeat rights in court instead of protecting their rights.

    2. I don’t think a systems approach will work. Give it a few years, and the connected people would be right back in charge of things, and doing the same stuff they are now. Look at the illegal alien stuff. Millons come in, and what you hear is, “We need new laws!” Bullsh!t. Trump stopped it by simply enforcing current laws.

      If people in government want to do bad and stupid things, then they will. Maybe a better approach is to end all federal and state deficit spending. If the Democrats want to pass a Green New Deal, then fine. Here, American People, is your part of the bill. Payment within 30 days, please.

      Then, maybe, or maybe not, Americans would have to get more involved in what their government is You wanna up to. You want tranny operas in Columbia, then here is your part of the bill. You wanna give $50 million in condoms to Gazans then here is your bill for 14 cents for each member of your household. Which ain’t much, but suppose you get a 100 such bills per month – now it’s $14 for each member of your household. $200 billion to Ukraine? Fine. Here is your bill for $571 for each member of your household.

  4. “Line FBI agents should not face punishment for carrying out the orders of their superiors or courts.”
    *********************
    “Just following orders” had a much more persuasive ring to it when spoken in the original German. (h/t Georgie Anne Geyer). YThe G-men swore an oath to the Constitution and I didn’t see any exceptions in there for pension considerations. Maybe I missed that but harrasing conservative Catholics, sending in SWAT teams to arrest 70-year-olds while tipping off CNN and busting down doors of journalists whose crime was merely seeing but NOT reporting on a female Biden’s diary seems a little too gleeful to me and a tad bit closer to Rudolf Höss than Wilhelm Klink.

  5. OT; Trump calls for CBS and 60 minutes to be terminated. GASP! Will Turley chime in and pour cold water on Trump’s call for censorship because he didn’t like the Harris inteview? Doubt it. He will avoid it like the plague. Carry on.

    1. We all know what to expect from you now, georgie. But for those who don’t, take caution.
      What georgie left out was that FCC is investigating CBS/60 minutes for alleged editing/doctoring its interview with Harris just before the election. CBS resisted release of the UNEDITED transcript.

    2. You don’t need to worry yourself with the President putting the prime Networks out of business.
      They are doing a very good job of that themselves. With High Prices Anchors and Highly Paid Executives, along with soaring Rents, and Unionized Workers, the final hand is dealt. The Governmental Subsidies and Abatements have dried up and the Banks cometh* for the revolving line of credit for payroll and not extended. M&A’s, Divestitures. and Bankruptcies to come.

      “The Lord cometh” is a phrase that appears in the Bible in passages such as; Isaiah 13:9, Zechariah 14, and Jude 1:14

    3. This comment section has become a place where people with mental problems can come and make off-topic complaints about Trump, who lives in their heads rent free 24/7. The above comment is exhibit A.

    4. If CBS and 60 Minutes are terminated it won’t be because of anything President Trump does. CBS is in the process of terminating itself through partisanship, lies, and outright imcompetence. They have fail at the task of being a free press and watchdog for the people. F’em.

      1. ” CBS is in the process of terminating itself ”

        Is it though? It appears to be just one of the Paramount brands, and I don’t know anything about their corporate structure or financial statements, meaning what brands subsidize what other brands. I’m hoping that Paramount would choose to cut CBS loose to reduce massive losses, but I don’t know whether or not that is so. I suspect the same situation may be true of some of the other MSM outlets.

  6. I do not think the line agents should be punished. I think the senior leadership agents should be held accountable if there is in fact evidence of wrong doing or illegal activity. They then should be charged and have their day in court. If found guilty, sentenced accordingly. Let that serve as a warning to all others who might think of bringing politics into the work place.

    1. I tend to agree, but the degree of enthusiasm with which line agents followed those orders needs be examined. If, for example, they participated in no-knock raids on people who were peacefully sleeping and on whom no-knock raids would not be executed except for their alleged participation in J6, then those line agents should be punished. Fired? For some, sure. For others, retraining and demotion.

    2. Elon Musk needs to be charged and taken into custody. This dickhead is a threat to national and international security.

      1. OOPS!
        I’m sure you meant Joe Biden “needs to be charged and taken into custody.
        This dickhead is a threat to national and international security.”
        There. Fixed it for you!

        -Tom

    3. Upstate: please explain to me, because, according to you MAGAs, I’m both stupid and I lie. So, what about charging the January 6th insurrectionists was “political”? Did they have the right to beat up cops, smash doors and windows, enter the Capitol, defecate and urinate in the building? What legal right would that be? Does the First Amendment permit beating up cops and doing property damage in the name of trying to stop the certification of the victory of the presidential election? They did these things–so was it wrong to prosecute them? How about Trump stealing classified documents? He took classified documents, was politely asked to return ALL of them–returned some–retained others, lied about returning all of them, moved around boxes of them to prevent his lawyer from returning them as he had promised to do. So, how or why is it politically-motivated to charge him with a crime for this conduct?

      1. Actually Bill Maher said you were stupid and insane.
        There was no insurrection. Making the rest of you comment irrelevant and not worth reading.

        1. Upstate: let’s not play vocabulary games–did the losers beat up cops, smash doors and windows, and try to get to the floor of the House? Is that conduct legal? Should the DOJ just let it slide because these losers believed the Big Lie? Did Trump refuse to return classified documents after being politely asked to, return some, hide others and move around boxes to prevent their return? Is this conduct legal, and should the DOJ just let this conduct slide because it’s Trump? Aren’t those who work for the DOJ sworn to uphold the law?

  7. Perhaps some of the Resisteranti have failed to consider the logistical aspects of their actions. If an Andrew McCabe or one of the other bigwigs gets canned, they can go to MSNBC or do some other gig for the Left. Maybe a book deal, of a teaching gig at a college, whatever, life goes on for them. But what happens when there are 100s or 1000s of people losing their jobs?

    There is not a system big enough to take all of them in. MSNBC is on the auction block. CNN is practically bankrupt. Politico and the New York Times just got their government money supply cut off.

    A lot of these people who are going to be escorted out by security, are going to find out that they are on their own. I guess they can qualify to be Uber drivers.

    1. Floyd,
      They can do what all those people told coal mine workers to do when Obama forced coal operations to shut down, “learn to code.” Of course when certain MSM outlets had to lay off advocate journalists, telling them to “learn to code” was offensive and verboten. It is most certainly not my job or my tax dollars to fund the jobs of the DNC propaganda machine. Nor is it my job or my tax dollars to fund those at USAID who oversaw all those millions going to MSM.

      1. I agree, but there is going to be a lot of disruption to a lot of lives. Children will have to go to new schools, homes will have to be sold, divorces will happen, and suicides will occur. But what other choice do we have? The country can’t go on living on a credit card forever.

        Poorer people, who are used to being poor and having to cope, handle this sort of stuff better. But these are uppery-middle class white people, and having to move to a mobile home, or get a new job where you have to put in a hard, grueling 8 hours of work – that is going to be a sea change for them. Plus, if they continue to get paid for eight months, that is likely to keep them from getting unemployment benefits.

        On the bright side, I bet there will be a lot less enthusiasm for illegal aliens taking jobs, and perhaps less enthusiasm for off-shoring jobs.

        This same thing is going to happen if we ever wring out the mop of healthcare in the country. That will cause a brief Financial Depression

        1. Floyd,
          Oh, I am sure there will be a lot of sob stories on NPR about how terrible it was to lose their cushy, well paying job with benefits that they only worked a few hours a week doing from home. I dont seem to recall stories like that when Obama shutdown coal mines. Just “learn to code!”

    2. Most of the affected live in northern VA and in MD (income taxes in MD are much higher than VA so why live there). The unemployment lines will be long and real estate values will plummet. Who will employ them and what skill sets do they have that businesses want? It’s like a CA fires came East without the flames.

      1. Exactly! What does a former Assistant Director of Gender Impacts have to offer in the real world? Worse than nothing, because a potential employer has to wonder what kind of activist crap baggage they bring to the company.
        , I have always thought that companies, in addition to Accounting, Personnel, Accounts Receivable, Sales, etc., needed to have a Department of Masturbation – for all the employees who contribute nothing to the company except to take up space and soak up money. Which is what the DEI stuff really is – just narcissistic pleasure for the people doing it.

        1. “What does a former Assistant Director of Gender Impacts have to offer in the real world? Worse than nothing, because a potential employer has to wonder what kind of activist crap baggage they bring to the company.”

          If you listen very closely (assuming that your browsing device is capable of sound) you just might be able to hear the World’s Smallest Violin playing “My Heart Bleeds for You”…

    3. The bigwigs are being rewarded for doing their illicit jobs by their paymaster. Comey, McCabe, Brennan, Clapper, Obama, O’Biden’s, Clinton’s have, I’m sure, all been well compensated. We need to identify the source and location of the payments.

      TheJayhawker

  8. The Orange Retard continues to bring is late night sitting-on-the-toilet musings to the world and his Trumptards scurry around as if Jesus has spoken.

      1. You got me. I have no idea how to get millions of the most ignorant and stupid in the country to buy Bibles with my name on them made in China, get a pass for f*cking a gangbang porn star, or have them buy the idea of ethnic cleansing in the Middle East. Now, some would call what Trump does as not intelligence but sinister. But ya know what. I’m feeling generous today. I’m going to accept your assertion. Yes, Trump is vastly more intelligent than me.

  9. “A reported force of over 5,000 agents . . .”

    They couldn’t spare one or two to find the J6 bomber? Or to stop two assassination attempts *before* they happened? Or to stop a New Orleans massacre *before* it happened?

    1. “They couldn’t spare one or two to find the J6 bomber? ”

      I strongly suspect that “they” know VERY WELL the identity of the person who place the pipe bombs, and the people who authorized that action, and that knowledge, and the need to keep it concealed, is the very reason for the lack of investigation and the “corruption” of the data.
      Congressional Committee Wants Data FBI Claimed Was ‘Corrupted’ In Unsolved J6 Pipe Bomb Case
      https://thefederalist.com/2025/02/06/congressional-committee-wants-data-fbi-claimed-was-corrupted-in-unsolved-j6-pipe-bomb-case/
      “The FBI had thousands of employees aggressively investigating the happenings in the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, but it seems to have given up on finding out who planted two pipe bombs, one outside of the Democratic National Committee and the other outside the Republican National Committee. It has multiple videos of the would-be bomber, has identified the style of shoe worn (Nike Air Max Speed Turf sneakers), and the path the suspect walked through the city. But the FBI has made no arrest and appears to have given up on promising leads.”

  10. As I recall a young army Lt named Calley used the “I was just following orders” defense in the Mei Lai massacre trial. If the agents knew that they were violating the law, including obtaining identifying information without search warrants such as credit card transaction records then they should be held accountable. Prior to the Search Warrant at Mara Lago Trump told the FBI agents that they were free to search and could have anything they needed. They were present in the room where the boxes were stored and they did not do a search at that time. They only suggested a lock for the door. They should have searched at that time with permission and could have called in other agents if 15 boxes were too much for the team they had there at the time. Was the fact that he had given them permission to search recorded in the search warrant affidavit? Since permission was granted and not withdrawn the search warrant should never have been signed by a judge.

    1. wow…….you brought back memories. In 1970 (?) when I was a young school teacher in small town Okla, my friends and I had some “Free Callie” bumper stickers made, and held a small but meaningful demonstration downtown. There was an outpouring of sympathy for him in our little town.

  11. One statement in Professor Turley’s dissertation disturbed me. “Line FBI agents should not face punishment for carrying out the orders of their superiors or courts.” I cannot accept that. Much more explanation is required before that can be considered valid. Too many are quick to defend the “rank and file” of the FBI. There were many who knew that they were being used as pawns in a conspiracy to destroy Donald Trump. There were some who chose career and paycheck over honor and dedication to True Justice and the Constitution. Some were willing participants who happily expedited the weaponization of the FBI. I cannot let any of these off the hook for their actions. They deserve no quarter in the process of weeding them out of the FBI. None. Good riddance to all who participated. The American People deserve better. They deserve people they can trust.

  12. The smell in DC is disgusting yet the poop has yet to hit the fan! USAID appears to have been used by one political party to buy positive reviews from mainstream media, but the truth is out of the bag, oh my. With Bondi at DOJ many will justifiably be going to prison not from half baked schemes. No wonder one group was screaming and yelling about impeaching Trump. They are scared sleepless.

  13. Most civil libertarians – like Turley – used to be distressed that “national security” was a catch phrase to subvert constitutional due process. Want to bypass constitutional due process, simply call anything “national security”.

    Fast forward to 2025: members of Congress are voluntarily abdicating their Article One authority AND literally harming legitimate national security in the process. Breaking constitutional law while harming national security.

    Today’s justification: not national security nor constitutional due process, but for dictatorship. Especially Republican members of Congress abdicate their Article One authority to a dictator. Not your grandfather’s Republican Party!

    Why should Republicans care? Your 2nd Amendment gun rights only exist in a constitutional due process system. Trump enacted an Executive Order to overturn the 14th Amendment without a constitutional amendment. A future president could do the exactly the same EO to overturn the 2nd Amendment.

  14. Professor Turley,

    FBI Agents cannot be fired or suffer a another adverse employment action (such as demotion, denial of job opportunities, etc.) for an unconstitutional reason, or as punishment for their exercise of their constitutional rights. It is pretty clear that compilation of this list of agents – even if they aren’t terminated – will lead to adverse employment actions, including possibly termination. These adverse employment actions will be taken by Trump’s administration for an unconstitutional reason, namely retaliation based on perceived political affiliation. Trump cannot fire all Democrats in government, and this is essentially the same thing. The FBI Agents have filed a class action asserting this claim, and it seems like a pretty decent case.

    Additionally, there is reasonable basis for Driscoll’s refusal to share confidential personal information that has nothing to do with insubordination. Elon Musk and his team have recently gained access to government databases that house personal information, without regard to security protocols. The Agents legitimately fear that the information being compiled will be accessed by persons who are not authorized to have access to it, and who lack the requisite security clearances to handle such information. Trump just pardoned the criminals that these agents put behind bars, and the agents reasonably fear that all or parts of this list might be published by allies of Trump, placing themselves and their families in immediate danger of retribution by the now pardoned J6 convicted felons.

    1. DOGE operation as a temporary entity under a repurposed and relocated USDS (created by Obama to bail out Michelle’s ACA website buddies) has withstood legal scrutiny.
      Attempting to play victim after active participation feeding political mincemeat into a DC lawfare partisan grinder generates no sympathy from the informed.

      1. Can you identify the SORN which permits the disclosure under the Privacy Act of ’74?

  15. FBI bureaucrat Driscoll tells DoJ, who he works for, to in effect: Pound sand.

    USAID locks out executive branch officials, who are their superiors.

    Remind me, again, how the deep state and the swamp are merely “conspiracy theories.”

    I don’t recall a line in the Constitution that says: Departments and employees of the Executive Branch answer to the president. Unless they don’t feel like it.

    1. I believe that Driscoll is engaging in what they call ‘insubordination’.

      TheJayhawker

  16. “… it would move the matter from internal deliberation to outright defiance of a lawful order.” Defiance is now their only contribution to the job. All who do (FA) should be summarily dismissed (FO).

  17. The noise is deafening up in the FBI Hen House. The cross chatter of “”I Told You So!”” and “Go F- Yourself” is at Supreme levels. Meaning those that were assigned to the SCOTUS Justices as well as the J6.
    Those whom were opining “I Told You So” should at least make it known, that they did not indulge in the perversion, or face a plea bargain and a pink-slip, getting caught up in the sweeping up of the Swamp (come forward now or face the music later).

    This advice stands true for the; Secret Service, Langley, Treasury, and the rest of the D.C. complex.

    I just “I Told You So!”.

  18. The Acting FBI Director is depicted here in a manner that suggests irrational fear, which might be understandable from someone waiting to be replaced by the new FBI Director.

    But this story really needs to include Driscoll’s full argument for why this is not insubordination and is within his remit.

    1. What argument can Driscoll make to legitimize his refusal to comply? It looks to me like he had two options: 1) comply; 2) resign.

      The time for trying to persuade/negotiate the terms of the order was before it was issued. The President apparently did not seek his input.

      At this point his failure to comply, especially publicly, undermines the President’s authority. Truman fired a genuine 4-star WWII hero, MacArthur, for publicly undermining Truman’s policy.

      I suspect Trump will, or should, fire Driscoll now.

    2. # Shoe on the other foot- if such honest and good people in the FBI had only said no under the Biden admin these problems wouldn’t exist at all.

  19. Prof. Turley while you are correct about this. Your writing implies strongly that it is critical that Trump has proved RIGHT in all these prior instances.

    It is irrelevant whether Yates was correct about the constitutionality of the law she was expected to enforce.

    While she has the absolute right to her own views on the constitutionality of that order, and she can even publicly – and through the courts oppose it.
    She must do so as a private citizen, not as a member of the executive branch. As Acting AG she can advise the president of the constitutionality of the EO. But if she does not prevail in persuading the president she must enforce the EO or resign.

    YOU specifically cite that the Line Agents must be exempt from consequences for following orders – That is PRECISELY why they are exempt.

    No one in government is obligated to follow a direction they beleive to be unlawful or unconstitutional.

    But their choices when they believe that strongly are:
    Follow the order or resign.
    In some instances as we have seen – they also have the option of bringing the issue to the IG as a whistle blower.
    What they may not do is actively thwart the allegedly unlawful directive.

    They may not do so even if they should ultimately prove right.

    Speaking Truth to power makes you a hero, it does NOT guarantee you a job.

    The FACT that Yates proved Wrong – particularly given that she was told ahead of time by the OLC that she was wrong.
    Means that she is NOT a Hero.

    There is no moral reward for those who speak lies to power.

    But the truth or falsity of her claims is irrelevant to the moral error of chosing to defy the orders of the president and direct others to do so – rather than to resign.

    You constantly fixate on the fact that speach that was censored or supressed frequently proved to be true.

    There is actually good reason that the odds are something that is censored will likely prove to be all or partly true.

    But that is irrelevant to the violation of the free speech rights of those censored.

    What separates the proponents of freedom – the scottish enlightenment, the western social contract from everything that preceded is the irrelevance of being correct to the protection of your rights.

    There are many many reasons we do that.
    But the most important is that society works much better when no views are suppressed.

    1. Yates is indeed a hero of sorts. She had a duty to the Constitution, not to Trump. She did exactly what is expected of anyone who swears an oath to uphold the Constitution. Her refusal to follow Trump’s order does not require her to resign. As a government official, she can publicly refuse to carry out something she believes to be unlawful, and that involves accepting the consequences of her actions.

      Yates did not sacrifice her principles; instead, she chose to risk her career to highlight the fact that Trump’s first attempt at a Muslim ban was unlawful, and the courts initially agreed. The Supreme Court later determined Trump to be correct, but that decision came after they revised the memo to make it legally sound. The first version was not. This distinction is important and is something Turley fails to mention.

      Resigning is not the only option; it is just one of many choices.

  20. There’s an old saying in law enforcement that the boss may not always be right, but the boss is always the boss. Insubordination is a firing offense, and Bove, Bondi, or Patel should carry this out. The weaponization review is a serious matter requiring vigorous investigation. Anyone who stands in the way or obstructs the review should be placed on administrative leave, and termination proceedings should commence to remove the insubordinate employee from the public payroll.

    For those who think most FBI agents and prosecutors were just following orders and should not be prosecuted – i.e., the “Nuremberg defense” – it is well to remember that under the Nuremberg Charter which set down the rules for the trials of German (Nazi) war criminals, the so-called Nuremberg defense, that is, the argument that they were just following orders from above could not relieve a defendant of criminal liability but only act as a mitigating factor to potentially lessen the punishment. The United States wrote that rule.

    I certainly do not equate Nazi war criminals with FBI agents or prosecutors who carried out the J6 investigations, but if some think that invoking the same defense should shield them from culpability, let the record show otherwise. It may only lessen their punishment

    1. The applicability of the Nuremberg defense depends on the specifics of the order.
      The lowest ranking agent in the FBI is culpable if their actions – even at the direction of others are obviously criminal.

      As an example it appears that Kleinstein acted on his own when altering evidence presented tot he FISA court.
      But if he was directed to do so by others and then did it – he and they are guilty of a crime, and you have a criminal conspiracy.

      Just following orders does not protect you from culpability for a crime.

      Conversely interviewing witnesses or participating in an investigation where you do not personally beleive their is sufficient predicate, is “just following orders” and should not have criminal sanctions.

      Separately – the Weaponization investigation standards are only Criminal – when there is a decision to prosecute.

      The standards that must be met to fire or terminate an agent are significantly lower than those necescary to charge them with a crime.

      2. What did anyone who prosecuted the dipsticks who invaded the Capitol do that was “obviously criminal”? The big hole in your MAGA reasoning that that beating up cops, breaking doors, smashing windows, rifling offices, defecating and urinating in the Capitol are ILLEGAL–These losers were WRONG, and what they did IS ILLEGAL, even if they did it based on the Big Lie. They don’t get a free pass because King Donald says so. And, these people owe a duty to the American people to uphold our laws. Prosecuting this stupid trash was required–and was not politically-motivated, no matter how many times MAGA media says it was.

Comments are closed.