Can we celebrate an idea while taking it with a very large grain of salt?
Last night, CNN reported that six FBI executives have been warned to ready their resignations by Monday or get pink slips. It sounds consonant with the intent that Donald Trump and Kask Patel often expressed to clear out the bureau’s politicized leadership. CNN’s anonymous sources have relayed this at a particularly interesting moment, however (via VIP member A.W. Guerra):
At least six senior FBI leaders have been ordered to retire, resign or be fired by Monday, according to sources briefed on the matter, extending a purge that began last week at the Justice Department across the street from the FBI headquarters.
The senior officials are at the executive assistant director level or special agent in charge level and include those who oversee cyber, national security and criminal investigations, the sources told CNN. Some were notified while Kash Patel, President Donald Trump’s pick to lead the agency, sat answering questions from senators for his confirmation hearing Thursday.
Great news, right? Well, perhaps, but were these positions weaponized in the first place? CNN’s Anonymice say no, although no one goes on the record to discuss it either. CNN then breaks out the “some experts say” device later, only replacing the noun:
Some agents say the criticism belies the fact that FBI agents and supervisors can’t choose which assignments they are given as part of their job. The FBI workforce is broadly conservative, and many agents initially had qualms about being assigned to the Capitol attack and Trump cases, viewing the prosecutions as heavy-handed, people familiar with the matter say. Some Justice Department lawyers leading January 6 cases complained that they believed agents sometimes slow-walked some of their work.
“Some,” eh? How many is “some”? How many of “some” did CNN’s reporters actually contact to discuss it? Is this hearsay, or does “some” reflect the same Anonymice on which CNN relies on as the basis of this report?
This sounds suspicious, if for no other reason than there’s no rush to do this before Patel gets confirmed. Why make massive personnel changes before Patel even gets a floor vote in the Senate? Doesn’t that seem deliberately provocative? That’s not to say that the White House might not make that particular mistake, but a mistake it would be nonetheless.
Reading further into the report shows us another reason to be skeptical. This plan emerged just after Patel told the Senate that no such plan exists:
During the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Thursday on his nomination, Patel said he doesn’t know of any upcoming personnel plans.
“Are you aware of any plans or discussions to punish in any way, including termination, FBI agents or personnel associated with Trump investigations?” asked Democratic Sen. Cory Booker.
“I am not aware of that, senator,” Patel replied.
Is it possible that the interim AG and the interim FBI Director have decided to make these steps on their own before the actual nominees get confirmed a few days later? I suppose, but it seems pretty unlikely and would be foolish nonetheless. What would be the point? It won’t make any difference to wait a couple of weeks and let Patel and Pam Bondi make these moves with their own authority. It might not even make a difference in payroll.
This looks more like an attempt to float out a rumor in combination with questions that got raised in the confirmation hearing. It even smells a bit like a set-up, although no one needed to coordinate that question from Booker beforehand, since it was an obvious line of questioning in the confirmation hearing.
However, even if it’s on the level, it may not be the worst move anyway. CNN wants its readers to think that these areas had nothing to do with politicization at the bureau, but Wray and Merrick Garland exploited national-security and criminal investigations to attack the Biden administration’s political opponents. It was the nat-sec team that developed the idea that “rad trad” Catholics were insurrectionists and terrorists, as well as parents who protested against CRT curricula at school-board meetings. It was the criminal investigations division that sent armed squads to raid the homes of pro-life protesters under the auspices of the FACE Act. And so on. The best way to make clear that this will not be tolerate is to clean house of those who participated in those weaponized exercises of power.
Still, that should wait until the team is in place, and the new appointees can set the table for themselves. I suspect that’s what will actually happen, and this is nothing more than “some agents” trying to pre-empt such moves once Patel wins a confirmation vote.
