FBI Director Chris Wray was again the House Republicans’ favorite punching bag. Hunter as a major influence seller abroad, including China, in daily revelations from Senate Chairman James Comer (R, Kentucky) and Charles Grassley (R, Iowa) Biden’s role is virtually solidified, and Republicans want answers from the FBI. Evidence about Hunter seems to implicate the president.
Wray’s interrogators pursued a series of allegations that the FBI had violated its own policies and procedures. durham report, and gross violations of the Constitution against the rights of the people. Wray’s evasiveness has infuriated Republican lawmakers who, among other things, want answers to their concerns:
Did the FBI use an undercover agent, or direct a source to presumably join the January 6th riots, and what is the alleged connection between Ray Epps and the FBI agency everywhere? ? In another oddly timed development, Epp’s lawyer The government has now indicated it intends to bill clients in connection with the Jan. 6 events.
what is the status of Suspected pipe bomber who left equipment in both RNC and DNC on Jan. 6? The whistleblower reported that investigators identified a vehicle associated with the suspect but did not pursue the culprit.
Don’t even let me talk about the FBI and DOJ’s response (or not) to the infamous case. FD-1023or that Ray’s absurd claim that the bureau did not engage in social media censorship and merely offered suggestions was completely betrayed by Judge Terry Doughty’s persuasion. the opinion of Missouri vs. Biden.
But to me, the FBI Director’s most surprising confession was his reaction to the FBI’s collection of transaction records from US financial institutions. When Ray appears Kentucky Republican Thomas Massey advised Ray:“Former FBI Superintendent Intelligence Analyst George Hill of the Boston Field Office said Bank of America could open gun purchase records without legal process and without geographical boundaries if it’s a Bank of America customer. to the FBI. Really?”
“Many partners in the business community, including financial institutions, are constantly sharing information with us about possible criminal activity, and it is my understanding that it is perfectly legal.” Ray replied. oh.
Therefore, established processes exist for private financial institutions to provide customer records to governments, such as regulators and law enforcement agencies, based on narrowly crafted regulations. criminal act. The appropriate term here is “criminal activity”.
according to the Ministry of Finance bank secrecy lawfinancial institutions and banks must make a formal introduction. Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), If, as a result of conducting due diligence, the bank determines that a crime such as fraud or money laundering may have occurred at the bank. These periodic referrals are called SARs or Suspicious Activity Reports.
you may have heard SAR at the beginning of the year This is related to a financial exodus in which the Biden family received millions of dollars from a foreign company and caused the production of about 150 SARs.
of FinCEN website situation, “The system designates FinCEN as the single point of contact for suspicious activity reports and is responsible for distributing information within the government.”
According to the FBI, “FinCEN to maintain and supervise BSA” [Bank Secrecy Act] We also have strict controls in place to control access to such information so that it is not misused and remains confidential. ”
However, the circumstances surrounding the alleged conduct of Bank of America are quite different and alarming. Whistleblower George Hill told Congressional investigators: The FBI’s Washington DC field office relied on other offices to launch investigations against U.S. citizens based solely on transaction records Bank of America provided to the FBI. In addition, Bank of America emphasized a customer transaction of apparently legal firearms purchases by Americans, Hill said.
There are all sorts of mistakes in this. First, Bank of America’s voluntary provision of confidential customer information appears to be a violation of its obligations to its customers’ privacy rights.
Right to Financial Privacy Act of 1978, “It protects the confidentiality of personal financial records by creating statutory Fourth Amendment protections for banking records. It requires federal agencies to provide individuals with notice and an opportunity to challenge before disclosing an individual’s financial information, often for law enforcement purposes.”
There is nothing to indicate that Bank of America’s clients consented to or were informed that their transaction records were provided to the FBI.
Second, the FBI’s acceptance of this information without the customer’s notice or consent amounts to an unauthorized collection or illegal search. If the whistleblower’s testimony is accurate, Bank of America and the FBI simply circumvented the reporting requirements of the Bank Secrecy Act and violated the protections of the RFPA’s Fourth Amendment.
Finally, during my time at the FBI, the liberal exercise of the Second Amendment to purchase and own firearms did not justify the widespread collection or even the liberal acceptance of personal records as evidence. It wasn’t even a prerequisite for an FBI investigation. Relevance to criminal activity.
In fact, whistleblower George Hill said the Washington, D.C. FBI demanded the Boston FBI file a case based on Bank of America information. From Squad Supervisor to Special Agent in Charge (SAC), The Boston office justifiably refused.
Ray is in an impossible position. He heads an organization that has lost the trust and confidence of most Americans. He claims to have taken internal corrective actions to correct errors that occurred prior to his appointment. But problems with the station’s management continued to surface during Mr. Ray’s tenure, and he would ultimately be held responsible.
But he must defend the organization and its people who remain effective in many other ways, including fighting crime, supporting local law enforcement, and defending national security against relentless foreign enemies. must be The FBI’s successes happen every day, mostly in areas beyond the flyover bubble.
But he’s trying to defend what he can’t defend. The deluge of information uncovered by Comer and Grassley, the ever-growing exposure of credible whistleblowers, Twitter files, various IG reports, and coverage by genuine investigative journalists, is an ongoing investigation not only within the FBI and the Department of Justice, but also within the Department of Justice. It paints a stark picture of wrongdoing and illegality. , but across the institutions of the Biden administration.
To say that FBI policy prohibits discussion of “ongoing investigations” or other official deviations would not be enough to convince Mr. Wray. Fumbles and dropped balls by the FBI and Department of Justice are too many for many Americans. Maybe it’s time to make a deal.
Mark D. Farbrasche spent 27 years as an FBI special agent specializing in white-collar criminal investigations. Later, he worked for the agency’s National Security Agency and the CIA’s Counterterrorism Center, and served on diplomatic missions in Prague, London, and Bucharest, as well as field office assignments at FBI headquarters in Seattle, New York, and Washington. He is currently employed as a contract employee for the United States Intelligence Service.
The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of The Daily Caller.
