As we continue referencing the key staffing challenges and positions for Trump 2025, in part to frame a proactive outline and in part to highlight the challenges within several positions that have been corrupted by the administrative state; today we look at the FBI {Context Here}.
Arguably the FBI is the key agency within the U.S. government that has provided the most discussion since the agency first targeted presidential candidate Donald Trump in 2015/2016.
The FBI is without doubt the one agency I have spent the most time researching in the past decade; in part due to the researched corruption within it, and in part due to stunning revelations discovered about the way it operates.
With background context previously shared, today my goal is to outline an aspect within the silo that few really understand.
This outline is extremely challenging without context. Some of the questions people have about the agency will hopefully be answered, and my hope is everyone who reads will have new context.
Let’s start with a simple question: How is it the FBI can botch so many openly problematic investigative issues like terrorist attacks, and yet simultaneously spend so much time investigating issues that seemingly have little or no value?
In essence, how does the FBI miss so much, yet have time for things that seem openly political?
The answer to that question took a long time to understand, it’s much more than just institutional corruption.
The FBI as an institution has a modern operational mission that is different from what is commonly thought to exist. The reality of the modern FBI mission consists of prioritizing their work based on the interests of Washington DC, and ONLY the interests of Washington DC.
If a subject can be defined as a priority for the system of government in Washington DC, then that subject is the targeting priority for the FBI. It does not matter what priority is assigned by any outside interest on the issue; nor does it matter what level of importance exists from the actual threat itself.
Example. The FBI misses terrorist threats, because the FBI -as a totally siloed agency- is not informed of the threat from DC. If a citizen, group, or outside agency reports a potential risk it is not investigated. This surfaces in everything from the Boston Marathon bombers to the Parkland shooter, to U.S. gymnasts being sexually assaulted. If the “threat” defined is not a threat to DC interests, then the threat is not pursued by the FBI.
The FBI only investigates threats or subjects of interest that stem from origination in Washington DC. Meaning if the DC system is threatened by the subject, that subject gets investigated. If the DC system does not trigger the notification, the FBI does not investigate it.
In essence the FBI only investigates threats as they are defined by other agencies, or silos, within Washington DC. The FBI is the internal agency that protects the DC system. This is a bastardized concept, a completely screwed up institutional mission, that stems from within the term “the continuation of government.”
A local or state issue, is not a priority for the FBI, even if the issue is a major threat to the domestic tranquility…. UNLESS, that issue, person or group threatens the stakeholders within the DC political system. This manifests openly by the inability of citizens to provide information that triggers action by the FBI.
The FBI only responds to investigative actions requested by agencies within Washington DC. Typically, Main Justice or the DOJ is the source of those originating requests; however, sometimes the executive or legislative branch can trigger the FBI action, if the identified threat has the potential to upset political operations within Washington DC.
Armed with empirical, undeniable evidence of corrupt activity, I was prepared to engage the FBI when I was intercepted by a person who warned me about this operational mission. It was from that point that I really began to understand the FBI as a silo within the system that is entirely predicated on self-preservation.
If a person brings a federal corruption issue to the FBI (like evidence of corrupt activity), they will end up being a target of the FBI because the evidence itself is likely adverse to one or more interests within DC. There are many reference examples, but two you will likely know are James O’Keefe (Ashley Biden diary) and/or voter fraud (writ large, with Michigan as a great example).
Because the Biden Diary threatened the DC government interest, O’Keefe quickly became a target. Because voter fraud in Michigan threatened the DC government interest, the FBI stepped in to cover it up. You can say the same for the Awan brothers, the Huma Abedin laptop, the Clinton classified emails and many more.
The FBI has two ways to protect the interests of DC: (1) Defend by investigating the accuser, evidence holder, or person who raises the issue. (2) Defend by non-investigation of the subject matter (Olympic Gymnasts, Epstein, etc). Again, if the institutional interests within DC are threatened by the subject matter, the objective of the FBI is to defend those institutional interests.
The FBI is not a federal investigative agency with a mission to serve and protect the people of the United States. The FBI is a federal investigative agency with a mission to protect the institutional interests of Washington DC. Once you understand this process with clarity then everything the FBI does and does not investigate, makes sense.
This operational mission of the FBI explains why when a citizen brings an issue to the FBI, the citizen is more than likely going to end up as a target. This reality is key to understanding the disparity between what people perceive as the FBI mission, and what the ACTUAL mission is.
This is not some off-the-cuff disparagement or conspiracy theory; this is the fact-based reality of how the FBI works. Even in my own discussions with John Durham’s FBI investigators, they openly admitted how their operational mission does not permit them to entertain any evidence of corruption or wrongdoing within government.
When you understand how it works, then you start to realize the futility of expecting any investigative outcome from the FBI toward anything that does not threaten Washington DC. Protecting the DC system IS the goal, the priority, the operational mission; nothing more. Does the FBI inability to track the J6 pipe-bomber make more sense now? There are a tremendous number of examples.
The various FBI offices distributed around the nation are essentially interception venues, constantly on the lookout to protect the interests of DC. If an issue surfaces that could potentially put the administrative state, or any actor therein at risk, the FBI is far more likely to intercede, intercept and manage away the issue.
The FBI are essentially investigative managers; they are not concerned with fraud or criminal wrongdoing when/if that fraud or corruption might put a part of the DC system at risk. Instead, the FBI will take control of the problem and throw their investigative blanket over it (Ex. Hunter Biden laptop, as given by the computer repair shop). The non-pretending people within the FBI will admit this, as will just about anyone who has ever had experience reaching out to the FBI for investigative assistance.
Once you take this context and apply it to examples you can reference, then suddenly everything the FBI does and does not do, makes sense. Every contradiction, and I do mean each example that might be pulled into the conversation as a reference point, makes sense from the reality of this perspective. The raid on Mar-a-Lago and the targeting of President Trump is another brutally obvious example.
Many voices have recently started calling for the elimination of the FBI as a result of controversies that surround this factual mission priority. Those voices are not wrong; in fact, there is no way to reform the FBI as an investigative agency, because the mission of the agency is the opposite of what it should be.
The FSB is known to protect the interests of the Russian government; this is accepted and no longer arguable. However, the same purpose is true with the USA and the FBI relationship toward government. Unfortunately, the system of government that benefits from this protection is never going to willingly remove their guards.
The last point on this issue is even more alarming. Only a handful of people within Washington DC will admit the truth behind the FBI mission.
With this in mind, who should be the FBI Director, Deputy Director and Chief Legal Counsel for a President Trump administration.
If the goal is to begin the process to remove the institution, it is going to take a massive amount of public education to get this level of support in place. Removing this one agency silo is going to take up a lot of time by senior members of the Trump administration.
FBI Director: Clay Higgins
Deputy FBI Director: Kris Kobach
FBI Chief Legal Counsel: Tony Buzbee
RESOURCES:
