Whistleblower: FBI Targeted Innocent Rally-Goers Just For Being In D.C. On Jan. 6 

According to the Federalist’s whistleblower testimony, the FBI’s D.C. office ordered the Boston office open an investigation into over 100 Americans who attended the Jan. 6, rally. However, there was no evidence that these individuals were guilty of any crime. This is the second time that the D.C. office has attempted to investigate. sic the FBI on innocent Americans — in this case, people who were exercising their First Amendment right to free speech.

The D.C. Field Office pressured Boston’s FBI to open criminal investigation into around 140 bus passengers who traveled between Massachusetts and D.C. from Jan. 6. According to George Hill’s testimony (a whistleblower, former FBI supervisory Intelligence analyst) reviewed by The Federalist. Hill claimed that the D.C. office put pressure on Boston’s FBI to open criminal investigations into 140 people who took buses from Massachusetts to D.C. on Jan. 6. However, there was no evidence that these travelers entered restricted areas at Capitol.

Hill is a veteran of the military and a former FBI and NSA analyst. identified When he spoke to John Solomon, Just the News’ John Solomon revealed that he was one of many whistleblowers who had been cooperating with House Judiciary Committee investigators. Hill’s testimony was confirmed by the Federalist, who also exposed troubling details.

Hill claims that the D.C. office which had been leading the investigation presented the Boston branch after protesters broke into the Capitol, Jan. 6, 2021. “definitive evidence” It was discovered that two people within its control had entered certain areas of Capitol. Boston launched investigations against those two people. 

Hill testified to Congress that two individuals had organized for rally-goers from Washington to be taken by buses. The D.C. office instructed the Boston office, in deposition, to investigate all 140 passengers. 

The whistleblower claims that a Boston supervisory agent or SSA told the D.C. office. “Happy to do it. Show us where they were inside the Capitol, and we’ll look into it.” 

Hill’s testimony indicated that D.C.’s field office denied it access to the 11,000 hours of video because it didn’t know the specific time or location at the Capitol where they were found. Hill revealed that when Boston requested access to 11,000 hours video so it could review the footage and decide whether or not to open an investigation into rally-goers at the Capitol, D.C. refused. According to the whistleblower, the bureau suggested that the footage could reveal confidential human sources or covert agents.

The D.C. Field office insisted on its demands that Boston open an investigation into all passengers of the bus. If the agent at the bottom refused, the D.C. special agent would be called. However, the supervisory special agent was firm. Hill explained that the SSA informed the D.C. office about the 140 individuals. “were going to a political rally, which is First Amendment protected activity.” 

This move by the bureau represents its second such attempt — just from Hill’s testimony — to target innocent Americans. According to The Federalist reported Hill told the House Judiciary Committee Monday that D.C. had pressured FBI local field offices to investigate innocent gun-owner Americans. This was based upon data mining provided by Bank of America to the bureau. 

The Federalist reviewed the testimony and found that Hill claimed the Bank of America’s list contained people who had used their debit or credit cards in D.C. or surrounding Maryland or Virginia on January 5, 6, or 7. 2021. Additionally, those who were able to have their credit or debit cards in D.C. on Jan. 5, 6, and 7, 2021. Ever The top of this list was reached by Bank of America products purchased from January 6, 2021. 

In both instances, Boston’s special agent in charge, Joseph Bonavolonta, withstood the outside pressure — something Hill commended in his testimony.

Bonavolonta, the Boston office and others refused to conduct investigations into Americans solely on First Amendment activity or credit card receipts that placed them in greater D.C. Hill didn’t know the answer, according to Hill’s witness. 

Open-source reporting, however, reveals that in at least one instance, the FBI questioned an individual who organized buses for rally-goers — apparently without any evidence of potentially illegal conduct. FBI agents interviewed a person who organized buses for rally-goers in January 2021. appeared Jim Worthington, a suburban Philadelphia resident was quizzed about January 6, 2021. Worthington did not arrive home but spoke later with investigators to confirm that he had been there for the rally. “helped bring busloads of people to the event,” However, it had “never went to the Capitol.” 

Given that Worthington, who also led the People4Trump PAC, never entered the Capitol, one must wonder what legitimate basis the FBI claimed it had to target him. 

Was it possible that the D.C. Field Office pressured Philadelphia’s field office into opening an investigation into Worthington. Was Worthington responsible for the transportation of some 200 passengers to D.C. by the bus Worthington organized? Is the local field office opening investigations to find out more about those individuals? Did the local field office open investigations into those people? Were they also targeting individuals because of their First Amendment protected activities? You can find them here stories This is buses Starting at across America traveling To D.C. This is an improbable possibility for the rally on Jan. 6. 

Although it is well-known that the House’s Jan.6 Committee as well as the legacy media promoted a narrative that conjured the rally-goers from the rioters in a false narrative, now the whistleblower claims that the FBI’s D.C. branch treated Americans exercising free speech right with suspicion criminals. There was no evidence that this could be true. 

Mollie Hemingway was a contributor to this article.

Margot Cleveland, The Federalist’s senior law correspondent is Margot. Her work has also been featured in National Review Online and Townhall.com. Cleveland is a lawyer and a graduate of the Notre Dame Law School, where she earned the Hoynes Prize—the law school’s highest honor. Later, she served as a seven-year term law clerk on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals for almost 25 years. Cleveland, a former university professor and adjunct teacher, is now an ex-full-time faculty member. Cleveland, a mother of a child with cystic-fibrosis and a homeschooling stay-at-home mom writes frequently about culture. Cleveland can be found on Twitter as @ProfMJCleveland These views are hers in private.