So, the Federal Bureau of Investigation has been caught lying to the American people again. Yes, I know you are just as shocked as I am, dear reader, but it’s true. Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), who has been spearheading House Republicans’ efforts to get to the bottom of the Bureau’s endeavor to pressure Facebook and other social media companies to censor dissenting views online, released the latest iteration of the “Facebook Files” which details how agents tried to deceive the public on the Hunter Biden laptop issue.
Jordan on Monday posted more information on the issue on X, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter. In this episode, he detailed how FBI agent Elvis Chan allegedly lied under oath about the extent of the discussions he had with social media companies that suppressed the spread of the New York Post’s bombshell story revealing the existence of the laptop from hell.
The House Judiciary Committee’s investigation showed that a Facebook employee indicated on October 15, 2020, that he had spoken with Chan about the laptop. He said the agent was “up to speed” on the matter and that “there was no current evidence to suggest any foreign connection or direction of the leak.”
The day before, FBI agents sat down with Twitter’s leadership, who asked if the laptop was genuine. “An FBI agent said ‘yes.’ But a second FBI agent–a lawyer–jumped in, cut him off, and said ‘no further comment.”
When Facebook asked the same question the next day, it appears the agents were better prepared. They answered simply, “No comment.”
So, what does this mean? Here’s Jordan’s take:
So, just weeks before the 2020 election, most Americans either did not hear about the story or were misled to believe that it was the product of Russian disinformation.
But wait, it gets even worse.
In November 2022, Agent Chan was deposed on the laptop issue. When asked if he was present at any other meetings with social media companies about the laptop, Chan indicated that he was “confident” that he was not.
Jordan noted that the committee had “obtained an internal Facebook document PROVING that Agent Chan had a secret ‘follow up’ call with Facebook about the Hunter Biden laptop story on October 15, just one day after the [New York Post] story and the first Facebook meeting!”
The lawmaker detailed other inconsistencies in Chan’s statements. To put it simply, the agent appears to be about as honest as a used car salesman on April Fool’s Day.
Unfortunately, this has become par for the course for the FBI and other federal agencies. Its officials have had a tenuous relationship with the truth for decades, and it does not appear these entities are concerned about being upfront with the American people. The question is: What can be done about it?
If you have read my work for any length of time, you know my answer is to abolish the FBI and most, if not all, other federal law enforcement agencies.
But I’m in the minority there, and even if I wasn’t, I don’t trust that any presidential candidate would actually do this.
So, what can Congress possibly do to rein in the Bureau and root out corruption within its ranks? There is a slew of options.
The legislature could establish clear guidelines that would force the FBI to report all communications with Big Tech companies. Agents would have to give details on the purpose, frequency, and resolution of each interaction. The idea is to have more transparency and oversight over the Bureau’s actions.
Speaking of oversight, Congress could pass legislation that would mandate judicial approval for certain types of actions that could affect free speech in the digital space. Doing so would establish more layers of oversight and safeguards to prevent overreach and violations of constitutional rights.
Another option is to create an independent Civil Liberties Board tasked with assessing the FBI’s impact on privacy rights and speech. It could function as a watchdog of sorts, ensuring that the Bureau does not run afoul of the Constitution.
Lastly, Congress should withhold funding or make it conditional. Next to getting rid of the agency altogether, this is my favorite option. Lawmakers could grow a pair and use the power of the purse as leverage, ensuring that the Bureau does not get out of line when it comes to our rights.
They could use the threat of losing funding to prompt the agency to implement policies, procedures, and oversight mechanisms to deter corruption and promote some much-needed accountability. The FBI has no incentive to curb tyrannical behaviors if its agents know they will never face consequences for taking such a cavalier approach to adhering to the Constitution.
Of course, some would likely point out some risks involved with holding back funding. Detractors might say this could have a deleterious impact on national security and overall law enforcement. They would argue that it would make it harder for agents to investigate actual crimes.
Another potential issue is that such a move might be used in a partisan fashion. Right now, Republicans want to defund the FBI because it has targeted former President Donald Trump and those with conservative beliefs. But the tables can easily be turned, can’t they? What happens when the Democrats want to defund the Bureau when it targets folks on the left as it did when it sent “informants” to infiltrate groups protesting against police brutality after George Floyd to try to push activists into carrying out violent acts?
From where I sit, defunding the FBI is a net positive regardless of the party doing it. However, the partisan nature could cause more controversies.
Unfortunately, I have to go the black pilled route on this. Yes, Congress could implement these measures, along with others I did not mention. But is this even realistic? Even as I’m writing this, I’m wondering if I’m living in a fantasy land. We all know that the FBI is corrupt. Right now, Republican lawmakers and presidential candidates are calling for reform. But we have all seen this movie before, haven’t we?
I would love to be wrong about this, but I don’t think either party wants to do anything to curb the corruption in the agency. This is a swamp that nobody in D.C. wishes to drain. No matter how much the agency abuses its authority, it still remains even though public trust in the institution has been flushed down the toilet. As I’ve stated before, the FBI is here to stay for the foreseeable future. But perhaps one day, we the people will get so pissed off that our politicians won’t be able to ignore the issue anymore. One can only dream, right?