Whistleblower: FBI’s D.C. Office Tried To Sic Local Agents On Innocents After Bank Of America Volunteered Gun Records

According to The Federalist, testimony from the FBI whistleblower revealed that D.C.’s field office encouraged local police departments to launch criminal investigations against Americans. This was based on only financial transactions Bank of America had tracked and provided to them voluntarily.

“Bank of America, with no directive from the FBI, datamined its customer base,” George Hill, whistleblower and former FBI supervisory Intelligence analyst George Hill said that he told investigators about the House Judiciary Committee. Hill’s testimony is consistent with Hill’s. 

Hill identified When he spoke to John Solomon, Just the News’ John Solomon last month about the revelations he made in a deposition transcribed to the House Judiciary Committee, he was listed as one the whistleblowers. The testimony of Hill, a former FBI/NSA analyst who is a military veteran, confirms Solomon’s assertions. There are also troubling details. 

Hill, according to material, testified that Bank of America furnished the FBI’s D.C. office with a statement on Jan. 7, 2021 or 8. “huge list” The following list includes individuals who used Bank of America cards or credit in D.C. and the nearby Maryland and Virginia regions on Jan. 5, 6, 7, or 7. 2021. Bank of America increased the number of people who, between Jan. 6 and 2021, had used Bank of America products to buy a firearm. 

Hill stressed that there was no limit on the geographic and date-range search for firearm purchase. This meant the person would be flagged as a top priority if he had not purchased firearms. “purchased a shotgun in 1999” In Iowa, I used my Bank of America Credit Card to check out of an hotel in Northern Virginia on January 5, 2021. This was after a trip which could have been completely unrelated to Jan. 6’s Capitol Riot. 

Hill’s deposition revealed that Hill was told by Hill that his supervisor from the D.C. office who oversaw Jan. 6 investigations, had distributed the Bank of America lists internally to the various field offices in the country. Hill explained further that Hill’s supervisor in Boston refused to conduct an investigation into the people on the Boston list. “no predication.” “There’s no crime that was committed by using a [Bank of America] product in the District or around the District,” Hill presented the reasoning of his supervisor for why Hill was not present at trial. “further action” It was necessary. 

Hill claims that the D.C. office refused to open up, despite being told by Hill. According to Hill, the D.C. office informed Boston’s supervisory specialist agent (SSA) that he had to open these cases. Hill informed the congress committee that the D.C. office had threatened to contact the ASAC (assistant special agent in chief) of the local office if the SSA would not comply. Hill stated that the SSA refused to comply with Hill’s request, and the ASAC in the same office in the D.C. threatened to call the ASAC. 

D.C. Field office then asked the SAC at the office to launch investigations into the Americans being targeted. Hill noted that Hill was able to credit the SAC for refusing, and the Boston SAC responded. “No, we’re not going to open up cases based on credit card or debit card activity that took place.”

Hill said that although Boston’s FBI Office refused to open the cases requested, it was clear that Hill had. “what I don’t know and could not give accurate testimony to,” Was it whether there was a D.C. office? “took it upon themselves to open cases.”

Hill’s testimony in deposition raises another concern: one or more local FBI field offices may have refused to comply with the D.C.’s request for investigations into innocent Americans or capitulated after the D.C. office elevated the request up to the ASAC, then to the SAC. 

Only reason that the Boston FBI did not investigate the Bank of America customers flagged to them by the D.C. office was because the Boston office’s leadership resisted the pressure. We know nothing about the D.C.’s plot to harass innocent Americans using Bank of America data mining guns owners. This was because a whistleblower spoke out. 

Unknown is what other FBI 54 field offices did as a response to pressure from the D.C. office. Hill did not have any information about that question, according to Hill’s testimonies. It is also unknown whether other private companies have accessed financial data of customers like Bank of America and turned it over to the federal government. 

For the FBI to be able to expose its political targeting against innocent Americans, more congressional investigations are necessary.

The Federalist did not receive a response from Bank of America to its request for comment.

Mollie Hummingway also contributed to the report. 

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. After graduating from Notre Dame Law School, Cleveland served nearly 25 years in the capacity of a law clerk to a Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals federal appellate judge. Cleveland was a full-time professor at a university. She now teaches adjunct classes. 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 Cleveland’s private views may be expressed here.