Do retired and former FBI agents really have anything relevant to say about the current weaponization of our federal institutions? Shouldn’t we all just take a seat and let the chips fall where they may? The answer to these questions may seem self-evident to you. At least I hope they seem like easy answers.
But, some seem to struggle with this question, positing that if you’re not a current FBI employee, you have nothing relevant to say. Things have changed, they’ll say. You’re out of touch — these are the thoughts of a feeble mind.
Now, I’m not talking about whistleblowers. Their contribution to public discourse and policy decisions is beyond debate. (At least for any but the most militantly partisan.) The efficacy of whistleblower information rises and falls on the quality and manner of their disclosures. It doesn’t necessarily follow that they’re good and decent people — some are, some aren’t. But, it’s not primarily about who they are, it’s about the relevance and strength of their information and argument.
However, some are so radioactive the House Judiciary Committee won’t risk their presence — knowing their poor character and shameless pandering for social media accolades make them vulnerable to Democrat criticism. That’s a smart, tactical decision. The Judiciary Committee didn’t execute perfectly, but close enough.
But, for the truly toxic personality, a thousand podcast episodes won’t be enough to bury the open cesspool of a failed career, nor slake a clinical obsession with adulation. If you know, you know. There’s no amount of media dry-cleaning that will get rid of that stink.
This may be breaking news to many, but the retired FBI agent community is a robust and professional body of men and women who have served their country for at least twenty years. For many, that time was spent on the street investigating cases, pursuing ancillary duties, or later in leadership. They are intimately familiar not just with stated policy, contained in documents like the DIOG (the seminal corpus of FBI policy and procedure), but more importantly, how policy is actually implemented in real time, when lives are on the line, or when merely administrative matters are implicated.
It’s become fashionable to denigrate retired, and to some degree former, FBI agents as sellouts, or beholden to their pensions. The veritable “golden handcuffs” as some have whined. I suspect that imprecation is really a thinly veiled jealously, spoken by someone who bungled a career. Beware…some who wear the sheep’s skin of whistleblower are really just wolves who hope to transmute failure in one profession to success in something else — you still can’t make gold out of lead.
The truth is, the retired agent community is composed primarily of men and women who have served their country honorably for decades, spending that time as professional investigators, deftly constructing complex structures of analysis, and honing their powers of logical induction and deduction. They are intimately familiar with FBI practices and policies that aren’t subject to rapid amendment or redaction.
For most, the passing of time doesn’t blunt analytical capability, but continues to enhance it with the addition of the rarest of qualities — wisdom. Many retired agents go on to occupy positions of great responsibility and continue to apply the lessons of success or failure acquired by hard experience.
In terms of education, many retired and former agents came to the FBI with advanced degrees from the best institutions higher education has to offer. That academic knowledge has had decades to mature in the arena of real-world consequence. In that contest between ideas and practical application, liberalism tends to become a casualty.
If you want the ground truth about the current weaponization of the FBI, the best place to start is with a retired street agent who pounded out cases from the beginning to the most rigorous end — swearing an oath before judge and jury to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth. These are the old school agents who cut their teeth under the tutelage of a generation of G-men and women who conducted investigations, counterintelligence or otherwise, under the rubric of criminal prosecution.
What we see in the headlines today implicates the timeless principles enshrined in our Declaration of Independence and in our Constitution. This debate can never be allowed to be the purview of a sanctioned few.
Arguing that retired and former FBI agents aren’t relevant is, at its core, the assertion of a logical fallacy. It’s a postmodern corruption of Argumentum ad Hominem, or The Identity Fallacy. Instead of evaluating an argument on its own merit, the person is attacked. In this instance, it’s an attack on a person’s inclusion or exclusion from a group. In other words, it’s a stupid thing to say.
FBI agents — retired, former, whistleblowers, or otherwise — are only human. This has become painfully obvious recently. Character is relevant, but only in determining whether someone should be lionized or labeled as heroic. This is too fine a distinction for many dull minds.
Retired agents should speak their conscience, unfettered from Hatch Act concerns that muzzle currently employed agents. After all, don’t we need good men and women behind the wire, tugging at the levers of power in favor of our civil liberties? Those of us who are now outside the FBI, private citizens, owe an obligation to stand up for the truth, liberty, and our brothers and sisters who have their portraits hung on The Wall of Honor at Quantico.
History teaches us that tyranny and atrocity can be thwarted by a small minority who speak out. As former and retired agents, we still have a job to do even if our gold badge is now mounted on a plaque.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member