Leaking Leakers
The FBI accused me of leaking information to the media. That never happened. Now my name and information about me has been leaked to the media.
Yesterday, two articles, one by Fox News and one by CNN were published. Both used my name. Neither of them sought comment from me. I learned late last night that Rolling Stone and the New York Times also published articles to that similar of CNN’s. If you’ve been following the Substack you likely know what I’ll say next, “Why?” Why would alleged news agencies publish information about someone without even seeking comment from the person they are writing about? Why would they publish anything about someone like me who is, by and large, unknown to the world and the country? Why would they publish information about a deposition of which I was told not to speak about? Why would they publish inaccurate, obfuscated or outright false information? You will have to make those determinations on your own. I can’t make them for you, and even if I could, I obviously have zero detachment from this particular topic so likely wouldn’t be able to provide you with the most precise assessment as to why they would do these things.
On November 16, 2022 I requested permission from the FBI to speak to the media. That email stated the following:
“Dear Sir or Madam:
From my client, Mr. O’Boyle, we respectfully request authorization for him to publicly speak about the facts and circumstances surrounding his indefinite suspension. We have attached the proposed press release and documents to be released with the media advisory. Our firm is also attaching the list of reporters to whom I wish to send the initial advisory.
Background information may be had at:
Our client’s statement is:
“An allegation lodged against me, by an unknown FBI employee, indicated that I had made unauthorized disclosures to the media. As I have attested to numerous times now, this is false. I have made protected disclosures to Congress, alone.
Those protected disclosures covered various instances where a reasonable belief existed that the FBI and/or DOJ were violating law, rule, or regulation, abusing their authority, engaging in gross mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, and/or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety. Although not every protected disclosure I made resulted in a Letter or other information from Congress, those that did result in Letters are included in the following Congressional Report:
(1) https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23261499-house-judiciary-republicans-fbi-politicization-report
Members of Congress may have published letters, as indicated above, and otherwise realeased information taken from protected disclosures I have made to the Congress. Therefore, much of this request is already public knowledge.
Furthermore, additional information regarding the facts and circumstances surrounding my protected disclosures, as well as surrounding what has led to my indefinite suspension are certainly relevant to the overall public interest. The public has a vested interest in a lawfully functioning federal law enforcement agency; including how that agency punishes its employees who have made protected disclosures to Congress.
Other information of which I will publicly speak regarding these circumstances includes the negative effects the agency’s actions have had on my family, including but not limited to, my children falling behind in school, a newborn not having a crib to sleep in, all of us O’Boyles being homeless while on duty with the FBI, the FBI retaining our household goods for over a month, and other negative familial impact.”
The FBI’s response on November 17, 2022 was, “Thank you for contacting the Prepublication Review Office (PRO). Your request has been received and is assigned PPR # [redacted]. Please allow for a minimum of 30 days for our review.”
We’re at about 105 days now and there has been no further information. Seems like my request was relatively straight forward, yet no response from the mighty federal government on if I have their “permission” to exercise my First Amendment right to speak about their malfeasance. Then again, why would they willingly “allow” an alleged employee to openly speak about their wanton corruption? I say “alleged employee” because they have suspended my duty, pay, status, refused to reimburse me for expenditures related to official business, and other reasons. Is that what an employer does to its employees? If you work for the government, clearly the answer is yes.
A few days ago I received an email with a request to this Substack. To my surprise, the email was @rollingstone. I found this odd so did a quick search and found that Kara Voght, who writes for Rolling Stone, was the likely requestor. Strange. I didn’t approve. But perhaps I’ll make this public again and she’ll read it. Kara, if I do and you are reading this, please consider becoming a founding member. The FBI stopped paying me months ago so every little bit helps. Thanks!
Wednesday, I learned that CNN was snooping around seeking comment about me, and other FBI whistleblowers. I wasn’t surprised after Kara’s recent attempt to get into my Substack. You may recall how a few weeks ago I mentioned that I had been traveling. I did not explain why because I was under the impression that the closed door interview/deposition I had participated in was at least somewhat confidential. I was as wrong about that as I have been about the FBI’s alleged dedication to protecting whistleblowers. I’ve never said this experience hasn’t been a steep learning curve. I quickly ascertained that Jerry Nadler’s staff attorney’s, who participated in my deposition, had to be the source of the leak to Rolling Stone and CNN. It certainly wasn't me; remember, the FBI hadn’t given me permission to speak yet; the tyrannical notion that is. If it wasn't them, it was someone in the FBI. Those are the only two logical explanations at this point.
Yesterday I learned that Fox News published a story with my name in it and some details from my deposition on February 10, 2023. I don’t know exactly why this story was published or what events led to it, however, based on what has happened thus far, I believe it is because Rolling Stone, CNN and NYT were about to come out with a full court press on me and other whistleblowers. So be it. Fox published a story in anticipation of the other outlets publishing theirs. Those outlets received information from Nadler’s staff and ran with it; because that is what they do. They run with what they get without seeking to get as close to the truth as possible. It’s easier to parrot, and probably results in more clicks, if they just regurgitate what they were told from their “sources close to the matter” or variants of that phrase. Real journalism is dead.
Last week I wrote a brief synopsis on Seymour Hersh. One topic I didn't touch on regarding him and his most recent report about the Nord Stream 2 pipeline was, how since his report, countless “news” agencies have come out against Hersh for citing an “unnamed source.” Yet, that is exactly what these outlets do. I will focus on CNN’s piece going forward as the articles from them Rolling Stone and NYT are similar enough. That being said, read all three on your own so you can make your own assessment. That is something I hope I have conveyed in this Substack; do your own research and deep dives to get as close to the truth as you can, and then decide what is worthy of belief.
Let’s carry on. CNN’s piece uses phrases like, “sources familiar with their testimony said,” “according to multiple sources familiar with the committee’s work,” “sources familiar with his testimony told CNN,” “according to sources familiar with his testimony,” etc. So based on the media’s own standard of discounting Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Seymour Hersh, we can immediately discount CNN’s article because they are relying on anonymous claims right? That would go for Rolling Stone and NYT too. OK. That’s it then. End… But, I’ll give you more. Journalism relies on anonymous sources. I don’t fault any of these outlets for using unnamed sources. So be it. It goes with the territory. I’d be lying if I said I wasn't at least a little bit annoyed that they leaked my name without my consent and have propagated lies, myths, inaccuracies and obfuscations about me and what has transpired in my life over the last year or so, but again, so be it.
Quoted and italicized text will be quotes from the CNN article. Bold text will be my response.
“None of them appear to have had their claims validated by government entities that grant federal whistleblower protection, sources familiar with their testimony said. One who alleged there was FBI wrongdoing had their claims rejected. Another is retired and it’s unclear whether he has first-hand knowledge of the violations he alleges. The third has not revealed his direct disclosures or FBI suspension notice to House Democrats, according to transcripts reviewed by CNN.”
Validated by what government entities? 5 USC 2303 lays out the “designated authorities” for whistleblowers. Those designated authorities include the employee’s direct chain of command. As I testified, I initially started with my direct chain of command, however my initial concerns fell on deaf ears. The statute also includes the Inspector General, the Office of Professional Responsibility of the Department of Justice, the Office of Professional Responsibility of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Inspection Division of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, AS DESCRIBED IN SECTION 7211, the Office of Special Counsel, or to an employee designated by any officer, employee, office, or division described in subparagraphs (A) through (G) for the purpose of receiving such disclosures.
5 USC 7211 provides “The right of employees, individually or collectively, to petition Congress or a Member of Congress, or to furnish information to either House of Congress, or to a committee or Member thereof, may not be interfered with or denied.” The Democrats who leaked my name to the media outlets asked me about the other listed entities and if I had gone to them. Other than my direct chain of command, I did not. Once my initial complaints to my chain of command fell on deaf ears, it became clear that none of the designated authorities, except for maybe Congress would address them. It is beyond clear that the FBI is more concerned with protecting the “brand” than they are about exposing malfeasance. For CNN, or anyone else, including the leaking leakers from Nadler, to suggest that whistleblower complaints haven’t been “validated by government entities that grant federal whistleblower protection” is an outright lie based on the statutes.
There is no requirement that I reveal my “direct disclosures or FBI suspension notice” to the Democrats. Those protected disclosures had already been provided to Congress as protected by statute (5 USC 7211 listed above). For them to infer that they are entitled to those disclosures is obfuscation on their part that was gobbled up by CNN and others.
“Jordan added in the letter that he had been told none of these whistleblowers were inside the US Capitol, charged with any crime or contacted by law enforcement about their actions.”
This is not entirely accurate. Those whistleblowers have been contacted by law enforcement about their actions, and one of them continues to get harassed by FBI agents. ⬇
“Russell Dye, a spokesperson for Jordan, said in a statement to CNN, “It is beyond disappointing, but sadly not surprising, that Democrats would leak cherry-picked excerpts of testimony to attack the brave whistleblowers who risked their careers to speak out on abuses at the Justice Department and FBI.””
Agreed. This is not, or at least should not be viewed as, a partisan issue. It isn’t. No matter one’s political beliefs, everyone should be able to see that the weaponization of the most powerful law enforcement agency in the world is a problem. It’s easy to say, “well, my side is in charge now.” If that is where you are at, like it seems the Democrats who leaked my name are, go back and read COINTELPRO 2.023.
“The third whistleblower interviewed by the subcommittee is suspended FBI agent Garret O’Boyle, who says he was suspended for making an unauthorized media disclosure. During his interview with subcommittee staff, O’Boyle, who worked out of the FBI’s Wichita field office, would not elaborate on the claim or provide his suspension notice. When asked about his allegations against the FBI, O’Boyle said they were confidential and that he would not turn them over to House Democrats, according to sources familiar with his testimony.”
I didn't say I was suspended for making an unauthorized media disclosure. I said that the FBI suspended me based on an allegation that I made an unauthorized media disclosure; an allegation that has been false from the start. There is a major difference here, clearly lost on the Democrat staff and “reporters” publishing it. But CNN, the leaking leakers, and any others running with this lie don’t actually care about the truth. That’s expected from the government and Mockingbird media though.
There is no such thing as “the FBI’s Wichita field office.” If there is one thing that shows how amateur these “journalists” and Naddler’s staff are, it is this. It is impossible that I worked for the FBI’s Wichita field office, since no such field office exists. I couldn’t have been clearer when I was deposed. I was assigned to the Kansas City Field Office and worked in the Kansas City Division’s Wichita Resident Agency. Might seem like nuance to those unfamiliar, but to me, as the person who was being deposed, and anyone who is claiming to be professional about any of these proceedings, that nuance matters. This is another ripe example of how and why CNN and the leaking leakers are in over their heads.
I don’t recall ever saying that my “allegations against the FBI were confidential.” I do recall my counsel and I saying that providing them is something that we could discuss. To my knowledge, Nadler’s staff never sought that conversation. Instead, they provided my name and limited excerpts of my testimony to the media. But of course, since that is more conducive to their narrative than even attempting to determine the validity of my protected disclosures. This is to be expected though, unfortunately. Furthermore, I did discuss a number of the protected disclosures I had made, yet the leaking leakers again failed to report that to their media shills since it is counter to their narrative.
“When pressed by Democrats, O’Boyle said he did not know that the FBI had arrested two individuals associated with attacks on pregnancy centers set up by abortion-rights opponents, but he was aware that it had offered a $25,000 reward for information regarding these pregnancy centers being vandalized, the transcript read.”
Correct. I did not know that two individuals had been arrested. Two. TWO. When there have been at least 230 attacks on churches and pro-life groups in recent months.
“O’Boyle also said he had a domestic terrorism case that the FBI instructed him to treat as four different cases, a move O’Boyle claimed was made in order to inflate the number of domestic terrorism cases, according to the transcript.”
False. Shocking, I know. I testified that the FBI policy for Domestic Terrorism (DT) cases was to open an individual case on anyone in an alleged DT group and how this was the mechanism by which the FBI inflates the number of DT cases. For instance, if there was a case opened on a gang, so a regular Criminal matter, there would be one case. Then, individuals would be included in that case. Whereas in DT cases, an individual case is open on each person. Therefore, you could have a gang (Criminal) that has 30 individuals (or more, or less for that matter) yet only one case, or you could have a militia (DT) that has thirty individuals (or more, or less for that matter) and you would have thirty cases. In the incidence I testified about, I had 4 cases open, when in reality it was one case.
“In response to O’Boyle’s claim about treating four cases as one, the FBI said “any assertion that the FBI manipulates statistics on domestic terrorism cases is categorically false.””
Ok. They can claim that all they want, yet the facts are the facts. The FBI’s DT policy is that a separate case is opened on each individual. They can claim that this makes manipulation on statistics of DT cases “categorically false,” but does it? You will have to decide. To me it is clear. If you have one case open on 4 gang members, but 4 cases open on 4 militia members, this seems like manipulation, and that a reasonably minded person would see this as manipulation.
“O’Boyle told subcommittee staff that the Washington, DC, office had pressured him to take steps on a case pertaining to January 6, and that they had backed off when he said he didn’t want to, sources familiar with his testimony told CNN.”
This is so watered down from what I actually testified to, another one of my protected disclosures; which remember, earlier in the article they claimed I refused to provide. I won’t get into all the details, but I’ll pose a question. If the FBI had a picture of you from 25 years ago and used that as “evidence” to verify, via facial recognition, that you were at the scene of a crime, would that be OK with you, or would that be a reasonable belief of wrongdoing?
“O’Boyle also claimed during his subcommittee interview that former Trump national security and defense official Kash Patel had been helping with his legal fees, according to the transcript reviewed by CNN.”
I mistakenly thought that Kash Patel’s non-profit foundation, Fight With Kash, was helping with my legal fees. I was wrong to assume that. I am grateful to Fight With Kash for sending my family money at Christmas time and I am grateful to Jesse Binnall and the Binnall Law Group for representing me. CNN, the leaking leakers and others fail to report that I have been unpaid for months, yet this is clearly a circumstance where legal counsel is recommended, if not absolutely needed. The process is the punishment. Now, that process includes my name being given, with much false information or otherwise distorted information regarding what I have reported as wrongdoing by the government, to a majority of media outlets that have an agenda that is aligned with the leaking leakers themselves.
The truth always wins. Keep fighting to unveil the truth. Lots of love and support for you brother man.
Hang Tough Brother 💪 🇺🇸 ♠️