Judicial Watch Sues For Records on Social Media Posts Critical of Donald Trump by Top FBI Agent Investigating Trump Assassination Attempt

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that it filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Justice for messages among top leaders of the Federal Bureau of Investigation referencing social media posts of Special Agent Jeffrey Veltri, head of the Miami Field Office, which is investigating the September 15 assassination attempt against Donald Trump (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:24-cv-02740)).

The Washington Times reported in November 2023:

Top FBI officials ordered an agent to scrub his Facebook page to delete anti-Trump vitriol before they would promote him to head the bureau’s Miami field office, which covers former President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate, a whistleblower told Congress.

Judicial Watch sued after the Department of Justice refused to respond in full to a November 21, 2023, FOIA request for:

1. All emails and Lync system messages sent to and from the following

2. FBI officials referencing social media posts and/or Facebook posts generated by Miami Field Office Special Agent Jeffrey Veltri: Director Christopher Wray, Deputy Director Paul Abbate, and/or Executive Assistant Director Jennifer Moore.

3. All communications, whether by email, text message, or the FBI Lync system between Director Wray, Dep. Director Abbate and/or EAD Jennifer Moore on the one hand and Miami FO Special Agent Veltri related to Donald Trump, social media posts, Facebook and/or political opinions.

Veltri was reportedly “one of several officials that used litmus tests to ‘purge’ political conservatives” like whistleblower Marcus Allen from the FBI.

“The Biden-Harris FBI is engaged in a cover-up of a cover-up of one its top agents anti-Trump bias,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said. “This is why many Americans are concerned about the FBI’s dangerous political bias against Trump – and whether the FBI can be trusted to investigate the attempts on his life.”

Judicial Watch has frequently sued the FBI when it refused to release requested documents.

In June 2024 it released documents showing that the FBI Office of Congressional Affairs provided a Democrat staffer with information on FBI whistleblowers who detailed the bureau’s targeting of political opponents and retaliation for their testifying at a May 18, 2023, hearing of the House Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government.

Judicial Watch represented Marcus Allen, a decorated veteran, FBI analyst and witness before the Weaponization Subcommittee, in a lawsuit against FBI Director Christopher Wray for violating Allen’s constitutional rights by falsely accusing him of holding “conspiratorial views,” stripping his security clearance, and suspending him from duty without pay. On May 31, 2024, Allen’s security clearance was  reinstated.

In January 2024, Judicial Watch filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Defense for reports submitted by a military officer to his superiors regarding an alleged conversation around January 2017 between CIA analysts Eric Ciaramella and Sean Misko about trying to “get rid” of then-President Trump.

In November 2023, Judicial Watch released FBI records showing top officials rushing to craft a public response to the leaked FBI intelligence memo that revealed its targeting of Catholics who adhere to traditional beliefs on church issues.

In June 2023, Judicial Watch sued for all FBI communications from bureau officials using several systems and databases regarding investigations carried out after an October 4, 2021, memo from Attorney General Merrick Garland instructing investigators to target American parents due to an alleged “increase in harassment, intimidation and threats of violence against school board members, teachers and workers in our nation’s public schools” In a March 21, 2023, report on the Garland memo, the Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government cited FBI data which states that 25 inquiries under the threat tag “EDUOFFICIALS” had been opened since the bureau began tracking the alleged incidents.

In September 2022, Judicial Watch filed a FOIA lawsuit for all records in the possession of FBI Supervisory Intelligence Analyst Brian Auten regarding an August 6, 2020, briefing provided to members of the U.S. Senate. Ron Johnson (R-WI) and Chuck Grassley (R-IA) that raised concerns that the briefing was intended to undermine the senators’ investigation of Hunter Biden.

In May 2022, Judicial Watch announced a federal court ordered the FBI to disclose additional details about FBI and other officials “cc-ed” on the memo used to justify launching the “Crossfire Hurricane” spy operation against President Trump and his 2016 presidential campaign.  Judge Carl J. Nichols had given the FBI until June 16, 2022 to respond. The order came in a September 2019 FOIA lawsuit Judicial Watch filed after the FBI failed to respond to a request for the memo, known as an “Electronic Communication” or “EC.”

In August 2020, Judicial Watch released 323 pages of emails between former FBI official Peter Strzok and former FBI attorney Lisa Page. The records include an email from Strzok to other FBI officials about Trump’s tweets regarding them spying on him, as well as their interaction with other media outlets including CNN.

In December 2019, Judicial Watch sued the DOJ and CIA for communications between Ciaramella and former FBI agent Peter Strzok, former FBI Attorney Lisa Page, former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, and/or the Special Counsel’s Office. In both cases the government refused to produce records, “refusing to confirm or deny the existence or non-existence of responsive records” because “confirming or denying the existence or non-existence of responsive records would reveal information protected by the CIA Act, namely the existence or non-existence of an employment relationship between the Agency and Mr. Ciaramella.” And, would constitute an “unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.”

###