There is much to be said of the truly earth-shattering revelation that the Biden regime’s FBI had authorized the use of “deadly force” in its raid of President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate two years ago. But while it is important for exposing the truly evil lengths to which the enemies of freedom will go, it is just as important for exposing the true loyalties of those we thought we could count among the ranks of those who were on the side of freedom.
When even the so-called “whistleblowers,” whose claim to fame is positioning themselves as warriors of truth against a corrupt system, turn around and inexplicably defend that very same system, it proves one thing: The systematic rot goes far deeper than even the most cynical of skeptics could have ever imagined.
Rubicon Revisited
Shortly after the bombshell report from Julie Kelly revealing the cold, calculated decision to authorize “deadly force” on the raid of the home of a former Commander-in-Chief, many across the conservative media spectrum were righteously outraged.
Was the FBI prepared to gun down innocent civilians who happened to be at President Trump’s estate? Was the FBI ready for a shootout with Secret Service agents, whose mission is to protect their principals—that, of course, being President Trump and his family?
The raid on Mar-a-Lago in August of 2022 was already widely described as a “crossing the Rubicon” moment for the United States, and understandably so. It was a brazen weaponization of federal law enforcement against a popular former president and possible future president. The fact that deadly force was always on the table adds just another sinister layer to this already hideously authoritarian power play.
Anyone who claims that this is all a lot of noise about nothing, citing such buzz phrases as “standard operating procedure” to suggest that this otherwise unprecedented raid was just par for the course, is not to be trusted. Most simply, the fact is that there is absolutely nothing “standard” about a raid on a former president’s home—the home of a current presidential frontrunner and possible, if not likely, future president—a home that is protected around the clock by Secret Service agents. Those parameters right off the bat should demolish any notions of the raid being anything remotely comparable to “standard.”
(Whistle)-Blowing Hot Air
And yet, almost immediately after the report came out, several prominent figures on the right were rushing to dismiss these concerns and even to defend the FBI’s conduct. Namely, several of the most high-profile whistleblowers are from within the FBI itself.
The first of these was former Agent Garret O’Boyle, who first responded to an X post featuring a screenshot of President Trump’s reaction to the news on Truth Social. In the post, O’Boyle displayed a surprising nonchalance in his dismissal of the report as “a giant nothing-[burger],” insisting that the “deadly force policy is literally in EVERY FBI op order.” He even went so far as to blame President Trump for this scandal, claiming that if he had “picked a competent FBI director, he’d have known that.”
O’Boyle proceeded to attack several of the most prominent conservative figures, drawing attention to the severity of this scandal. He went after Kelly herself, along with former Secret Service agent Dan Bongino, and accused them of using “hyperbole and emotion” in their condemnation of this scandal.
When Charlie Kirk rightly pointed out that it is not normal for the FBI to be prepared to go to war with the Secret Service and raid the home of a former president and that anyone who believes this to be normal is “an enemy of America,” O’Boyle declared that Kirk had called him “an enemy of America.” Seeing as how Kirk did not explicitly name anyone in his original post, O’Boyle’s rush to take offense to Kirk’s comments is tantamount to a confession, confirming that he does indeed support the FBI in this matter, rather than an attempt to portray himself as a neutral, knowledgeable expert.
Aside from attacking a fellow former law enforcement officer in Dan Bongino, O’Boyle also set his sights on another former member of the intelligence community: former CIA officer Bryan Dean Wright, who said that his contacts within the FBI agreed that it was not “wise or prudent to have authorization of deadly force during the [Mar-a-Lago] raid.” In response, O’Boyle arrogantly dismissed the expertise of Wright and his FBI contacts, insisting that all of them must be wrong and that he alone is right.
In many other similar posts and replies on X, O’Boyle’s argument, sometimes dripping with arrogance and condescension, mostly boiled down to some variation of: “I have problems with the FBI (and I’m not going to say what they are), but this isn’t one of them. None of these people have any idea what they’re talking about. Standard operating procedure. Standard operating procedure!”
The Dismissables
O’Boyle was not alone in his repeated efforts to discredit the criticisms of the FBI and attempt to claim sole authority over knowledge of this particular topic.
Kyle Seraphin, who has built for himself perhaps the most public image of the FBI whistleblowers (complete with his very own self-titled podcast), also lobbed numerous criticisms at Kelly for her reporting. Similarly to O’Boyle, Seraphin dismissed her concerns as “nothing out of the ordinary” and “boilerplate.” He even went so far as to declare that if anyone should be consulted for “expertise” on this matter, it should only be himself and his fellow whistleblowers, who have nicknamed themselves “The Suspendables.” The group’s X account lists among its members, in addition to Seraphin himself, none other than O’Boyle.
Seraphin proceeded to criticize Kelly several more times in the same day, dismissing the fact that the FBI was even instructed to “engage with the Secret Service if necessary” as “standard stuff” and “not remarkable.” On the fact that the FBI even had a medic on standby for anyone who was “injured,” Seraphin hand-waved it away as something that “the FBI does for all times.”
But some folks couldn’t be bothered to leave well enough alone. The self-proclaimed “experts” resumed their attacks against Kelly in early June, with Seraphin calling Kelly “a liar,” who “has been in over her head for a long time.” O’Boyle dismissed Kelly as “someone who should have stuck to blogging about food,” accusing her followers of having “bought into her grift” and that she “doesn’t care about the truth and bears false witness.”
Not to be one-upped in the pile-on against Kelly, Seraphin replied to this post with the following: “The last woman who called us liars publicly just was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer.”
Although referring to Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas), Seraphin’s not-so-subtle purpose was to suggest that Kelly may one day suffer the same horrendous fate, all for the crime of simply questioning former federal agents who have consistently defended their former employer amidst perhaps the greatest scandal in the modern history of the bureau.
You Can Take the Man Out of the System…
Beyond the apparent about-face of the whistleblowers defending the bureau that they all claim destroyed their lives, and even beyond the vulgar insults and hasty generalizations thrown at anyone and everyone who dares to criticize the FBI, one question remains: Why?
Why would such men, who indeed threw away their law enforcement careers in the name of telling the truth, suddenly choose this particular hill on which to die? There is something to be said for the lengths these men went to in order to expose the truth of what they witnessed inside the FBI, which is precisely why they had built up so much good will on the right up until this moment. So then why would they go out of their way to suddenly blow up all of that good will by launching such petty insults, lashing out at anyone and everyone who dared to disagree with them, and assert with such arrogance that they alone are the only experts that can be trusted on this matter?
Their particularly vile and targeted attacks against Julie Kelly could possibly be boiled down to a matter of ego. After all, it was Kelly who broke the story in the first place; perhaps they saw this as a challenge to their authority as the premiere investigative force continuing to expose Deep State corruption?
Some have taken issue with one particular assertion made by Kelly in the midst of the heated back-and-forth, where she suggested that the whistleblowers and other “former feds and out-of-the-blue ‘influencers,’” are “involved in an op to make it look like pro-MAGA supporters in any way support the legal warfare against Trump.” To be fair, it is a rather extreme stretch to suggest that the whistleblowers’ unified defense of the FBI on this front is some sort of coordinated “op.” The answer is probably much simpler than that.
Assuming they have not suddenly learned to stop worrying and love the feds all over again, there must be a common denominator in their unanimous decision to defend the FBI’s raid of President Trump’s estate. Perhaps therein lies the answer.
Seraphin had previously admitted that there is only one political candidate whom he has ever supported for public office: Pro-life pastor Mark Houck. Although Houck unfortunately lost his primary in Pennsylvania’s 1st congressional district to RINO Brian Fitzpatrick, his candidacy was indeed one of the most important in the entire country, and for one major reason: he too was a victim of a horrendously weaponized FBI which raided his home with deadly force, arresting him at gunpoint in front of his screaming wife and children, all for the “crime” of peacefully protesting outside of an abortion clinic several years prior.
Rather than lecture Houck or his supporters about how such raids are “standard operating procedure” for the FBI, Seraphin instead offered up his endorsement of Houck’s campaign.
The Only Man for the Job
Perhaps, then, the issue isn’t the idea of an abusive and militarized FBI targeting Americans for their political beliefs or that any victims of such tyrannical abuse of law enforcement may turn around and use their story as a launching pad for a political career. Perhaps the issue for Seraphin, O’Boyle, and these other whistleblowers is the target of the one raid that has sparked this particular firestorm.
After all, Donald Trump has vowed that, if he is re-elected this November, he will all but dismantle the FBI in order to expose and ultimately destroy the corruption that has rotted it from the top down, from the inside out, and from front to back. Shouldn’t whistleblowers like Seraphin and O’Boyle support such a man and thus be all the more outraged at the use of deadly force against him in such an unprecedented and obviously political manner? Shouldn’t they be leading the charge to condemn this in support of the one man who could fix the system that wronged them? Even if they still firmly believed that they were in the right on this issue, wouldn’t they have been better served to just not say anything since their collective decision to initiate this conflict has yielded absolutely no benefits for them and has only served to weaken their newfound conservative status?
It is impossible to know their exact motivations, of course. Perhaps they hope that their bureau will still exist so that they may return in some capacity? Perhaps they too have become infected with the all-too-common conservative mindset that remaining in a perpetual minority is better for raising money than actually gaining power? Perhaps they can’t tolerate the idea of anyone else being seen as an expert in uncovering—or dealing with—FBI corruption other than themselves?
In any case, the silver lining to this unfortunate split within the right has once again demonstrated that you never know who you can really trust. And when it comes to the issue of clearing out Deep State corruption, only one man has proven that he is determined to do what needs to be done rather than squabble over the petty details within the fine print of our corrupt institutions.