u.s. Department of Justice

Office of the Inspector General
A REVIEW OF THE FBI'S RESPONSE TO JOHN ROBERTS'

STATEMENTS ON 60 MINUTES

I. INTRODUCTION

This report describes the Office of the Inspector General's (OIG)

investigation of allegations that officials in the Federal Bureau of Investigation

(FBI) retaliated against John Roberts, a Unit Chief in the FBI's Office of

Professional Responsibility (OPR), for comments he made on the television

program 60 Minutes. On the October 27, 2002, 60 Minutes broadcast, Roberts

made statements critical of the FBI's investigation and adjudication of employee

misconduct, suggesting that there was a continuing double standard of discipline in

the FBI. After the broadcast, allegations arose that senior FBI officials, including

Robert Jordan, the newly appointed Assistant Director (AD) in charge of FBI OPR,

engaged in a course of retaliatory conduct against Roberts. Allegedly, Jordan

angrily confronted Roberts and chastised him for his statements on 60 Minutes,

referred Roberts to the OIG for investigation because of his appearance on

60 Minutes, criticized Roberts during an FBI OPR all-employees meeting at which

Roberts was not present, and selected another FBI OPR Unit Chief who had less

experience than Roberts to be the FBI OPR Acting Deputy Assistant Director

(DAD). Jordan and other FBI officials denied that they engaged in any retaliatory

actions against Roberts for his statements on 60 Minutes.

On November 8, 2002, Senators Patrick Leahy and Charles Grassley wrote

to FBI Director Robert Mueller expressing their concern about the alleged

retaliation against Roberts and seeking the FBI's response to a series of questions

about the matter. (See Attachment 1.) In response, the FBI referred the allegations

to the OIG and requested an investigation of them. We agreed to investigate the

matter.

During the course of our investigation, the OIG interviewed more than 20

FBI employees, including Roberts, his wife Brenda Roberts (who works as

Jordan's secretary in FBI OPR), Jordan, FBI Director Mueller, FBI Deputy

Director Bruce Gebhardt, and FBI Executive Assistant Director (EAD) for

Administration W. Wilson Lowery. The OIG also interviewed many of the FBI

OPR Unit Chiefs, special agents, and administrative employees who were present

at the FBI OPR all-employees meeting. In addition, we obtained FBI documents

relating to the allegations of retaliation and the 60 Minutes broadcast, including

e-mails and notes taken during the all-employees meeting.
This report describes the results of our investigation. The report first

provides a timeline of relevant events. It then discusses the background to the

allegations, including the structure of FBI OPR, what was aired on the 60 Minutes

program, and the reaction by FBI employees. The report then describes in detail

several meetings among FBI managers and two meetings between Roberts and

Jordan after the broadcast. It also describes what was said at the FBI OPR allemployees meeting on November 6. The report next examines the decision by

Jordan to appoint an Acting DAD ofOPR. The final section of the report provides

our analysis and conclusions regarding the allegations.

2
TIMELINE OF KEY EVENTS

2001

July 18, 2001 Roberts testifies before Congress about a double standard

of discipline in the FBI

2002

September 2, 2002 Jordan becomes Assistant Director in charge of OPR

September 25 Roberts' attorney requests permission for Roberts to be

interviewed by 60 Minutes

October 8 FBI gives Roberts permission to be interviewed by 60 Minutes, with

certain restrictions

Roberts is interviewed by 60 Minutes

October 27 60 Minutes broadcast

October 28 Jordan meets with FBI Director Mueller about 60 Minutes broadcast

October 29 Jordan and Lowery meet to discuss letter referring Roberts'

allegations to the Inspector General

Lowery, Gebhardt, and Mueller meet to discuss referral letter

Jordan and Lowery meet with Roberts in Lowery's office

October 30 Jordan gives Roberts a copy of the referral letter to the

Inspector General

November 1 FBI sends letter to 60 Minutes responding to the broadcast; FBI

posts letter on FBI Intranet

November 5 Jordan changes OPR all-employees meeting from November 7 to

November 6

November 6 Roberts is out of the office on sick leave

In the morning, OPR Unit Chiefs' meeting is held

In the afternoon, OPR all-employees meeting is held

FBI posts position for OPR Deputy Assistant Director

November 8 Senators Leahy and Grassley write to FBI Director Mueller expressing

concern about treatment of Roberts

November 12 Jordan appoints OPR Unit Chief Brian Fortin to serve as OPR

Acting Deputy Assistant Director

3
II. BACKGROUND

A OPR's Structure

FBI OPR investigates and adjudicates allegations of misconduct against FBI

employees. OPR is composed of six units: two Internal Investigative Units, two

Adjudication Units, one Administrative Unit, and one Law Enforcement Ethics

Unit (LEEU). The two Internal Investigative Units review allegations of

misconduct, investigate and determine the relevant facts, and send the results of the

investigations to the two Adjudication Units, which evaluate the evidence and

recommend appropriate discipline. The recommended discipline has to be

approved by the FBI OPR Assistant Director. The two Internal Investigative Units

have approximately 20 employees in total, and the two Adjudication Units have

approximately 20 employees in total.

The FBI OPR Administrative Unit provides administrative support to FBI

OPR and consists of approximately 14 employees. The FBI OPR LEEU, located at

the FBI's training academy in Quantico, Virginia, was established in 1995. Its

mission is to teach ethics to FBI personnel and monitor the overall integrity of the

FBI's components. At the time of the 60 Minutes broadcast, the LEEU had four

employees.

A Unit Chief heads each OPR unit. All Unit Chiefs report to Jordan, the

Assistant Director in charge of OPR. Prior to March 2002, OPR also had a Deputy

Assistant Director. That position has been vacant since March 2002 when the

former Deputy Assistant Director, John O'Connor, retired.

Before July 200 I, the FBI had sole jurisdiction to investigate allegations of

misconduct by FBI employees; the GIG could not investigate misconduct in the

FBI without the express pennission of the Attorney General or the Deputy

Attorney General. In July 200 I, the Attorney General expanded the jurisdiction of

the GIG to allow it to investigate misconduct throughout the Department of Justice

(Department), including in the FBI.1 As a result, the GIG now reviews all

allegations of misconduct in the FBI and detennines which ones it will investigate

and which ones FBI GPR should investigate. Normally, the GIG investigates

1 ~ Attorney General Order 2492-2001 and 28 C.F.R. § 0.29. In November 2002, this

expansion of the OIG's jurisdiction was codified in statute by the 21 st Century Department of

Justice Appropriation Authorization Act (Pub. L. 107-273).

4
allegations of misconduct against high-level FBI officials, allegations that would

likely result in criminal prosecution if proved, and allegations that present the FBI

with a conflict of interest or that the OIG believes should be investigated by an

entity outside the FBI. Currently, the OIG is conducting approximately 40

investigations of misconduct against FBI employees. The majority of

investigations of misconduct against FBI employees, however, are still investigated

by FBI OPR. Each year, OPR receives approximately 3000 allegations of

misconduct against FBI employees and opens approximately 700 cases.

Although the FBI organization chart indicates that OPR reports to the EAD

for Administration, Jordan told the OIG that he reports to FBI Deputy Director

Gebhardt on substantive matters and to EAD Lowery on administrative matters.2

B. Roberts' FBI Career

Roberts has worked for the FBI since 1984. He initially served as a special

agent in the FBI's Paducah, Kentucky, Resident Office and then in the FBI's

Miami Division. In 1990, he was assigned to FBI OPR as a supervisory special

agent to investigate misconduct cases. In 1993, he was assigned to the FBI's

Inspection Division as an Assistant Inspector. In 1994, he transferred to the

Boston Division of the FBI. In 1995, he was assigned to work on the internal

investigation of the FBI's actions in the Ruby Ridge case. Roberts was one of two

FBI Inspectors in Charge of that investigation, working with the Department Task

Force and then with the Acting United States Attorney for the District of

Columbia, who led the Department's investigation of the handling of the Ruby

Ridge matter. 3 In 1997, Roberts was transferred to FBI OPR and made the Unit

Chief of Internal Investigative Unit II, his current position.

During his time in CPR, and during his work on the Ruby Ridge matter,

Roberts investigated various allegations of misconduct against high-level FBI

officials. As a result of his work, Roberts has raised allegations to the FBI, the

Department, and Congress that a double standard of discipline exists in the FBI.

For example, on July 18,2001, he testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee

2 In late January 2003, Director Mueller decided to change the reporting structure to make

OPR report directly to the FBI Director and Deputy Director.

3 For a detailed description of the investigation of the FBI's actions in the Ruby Ridge

matter, see the OIG's report entitled "A Review of Allegations of a Double Standard of

Discipline at the FBI," November 15,2002.

5
about investigations of misconduct within the FBI, including the Ruby Ridge case,

and the perception of a double standard of discipline in the FBI.

Roberts is married to Brenda Roberts, who has served as the secretary to the

FBI OPR Assistant Director since January 2001. She is currently Jordan's

secretary.

c.

Jordan's FBI Career

Jordan has been employed by the FBI since 1980. Prior to joining the FBI,

he was an Assistant District Attorney in Philadelphia. During his career at the FBI,

he was assigned to the FBI's Boston Field Division to work on public corruption

cases; the Public Corruption Unit at FBI Headquarters; the FBI's San Diego Field

Division, where he worked on a large-scale judicial corruption case; and the

Newark Field Division, where he served as an Assistant Special Agent in Charge

(ASAC) of that office. In 2000, he was transferred to FBI Headquarters to become

the chief of the FBI's Integrity in Government/Civil Rights Unit, where he had

oversight of public corruption, government fraud, and civil rights investigations.

On August 19,2002, Jordan was appointed to be the Assistant Director in

charge of FBI OPR. Jordan assumed that office on September 2,2002.4

D. Roberts' and Jordan's Relationship

According to many accounts, prior to the 60 Minutes broadcast on

October 27, Jordan and Roberts had a positive and professional relationship. For

example, Roberts told others in OPR after Jordan arrived that Jordan was an asset

to OPR and credited him with good work. Roberts also told the OIG that he made

many complimentary statements about Jordan during his 60 Minutes interview,

none of which was broadcast. Several OPR employees also informed the OIG that

Roberts had commented to them that Jordan seemed to represent a positive change

for OPR. For example, one OPR employee said that after meeting Jordan, Roberts

4 Michael DeFeo, the former Assistant Director, served as the head of FBI OPR from

June 1996 until he retired in September 2002.

6
had said that Jordan was a nice change of pace, open to opinions, and willing to

listen.s

When Jordan was away from the office on two occasions before the

60 Minutes broadcast, he appointed Roberts, who was the most senior Unit Chief

in OPR, as the Acting Assistant Director in his place. These two times occurred

when Jordan attended a conference for two days in early October and when he

went on annual leave from October 14 to October 23. During his absences, Jordan

authorized Roberts to attend all meetings and exercise all authority on Jordan's

behalf.

III. THE 60 MINUTES BROADCAST

A.

The 60 Minutes Interview

According to Roberts, in late September 2002, 60 Minutes contacted his

attorney and requested an interview of Roberts by correspondent Ed Bradley.

Roberts' attorney sought permission from the FBI for Roberts to be interviewed.

In a letter dated October 8, 2002, Michael Kortan, the Chief of the Public Affairs

Section in the FBI's Office of Public and Congressional Affairs, gave Roberts

permission to be interviewed. Kortan' s letter stated that he understood Roberts

would be asked to address general issues regarding the FBI's culture but would not

be asked to comment on confidential FBI matters or open investigations. The

letter reminded Roberts that he was restricted from discussing any official FBI

information in 12 broad categories. (A copy of Kortan's letter is Attachment 2.)

Jordan also was given a copy of the letter.

Roberts said that he believed that 60 Minutes would interview him about the

subject of his testimony to Congress in July 2001, which concerned investigations

of misconduct in the FBI and the alleged double standard of discipline. Roberts

told us that he did not receive any instructions from the FBI, other than Kortan' s

letter, about the 60 Minutes interview. Neither Jordan nor Lowery talked to

Roberts about the interview in advance. Roberts said that one official from the

FBI's Office of Public and Congressional Affairs spoke to him before the

interview and was critical of 60 Minutes, and how it had portrayed the FBI in the

5 Several employees also said that Brenda Roberts expressed a positive reaction to Jordan

when he took office, and that she said she thought Jordan was going to be a breath of fresh air for

aPR.

7
past, but the official did not instruct Roberts not to do the interview or tell him

what to say during the interview.

On October 8, Roberts was interviewed for about 50 minutes by 60 Minutes

correspondent Ed Bradley. Roberts' attorney was present during the interview to

ensure that Roberts followed the restrictions in the FBI letter. Roberts told the

OIG that during the interview he made numerous complimentary statements about

Jordan. He also said that although he knew that Sibel Edmonds, a former FBI

contract employee who had made various allegations about misconduct in the

FBI's translation program, was going to be interviewed by 60 Minutes, Roberts

thought that 60 Minutes was going to broadcast separate segments about Edmonds

and him.

B. The Broadcast

The 60 Minutes broadcast containing excerpts of Roberts' interview aired on

Sunday, October 27. The program mainly concerned allegations by Edmonds that

the FBI had not translated thousands of foreign language documents and that the

FBI's foreign language program was riddled with incompetence and corruption.6

(A transcript of the 60 Minutes broadcast is Attachment 3.)

The 60 Minutes segment also included an interview of Senator Grassley,

who stated that he believed Edmonds was credible because people within the FBI

had corroborated much of her story. Ed Bradley stated on the program that critical

shortages of Middle Eastern translators had plagued the FBI for years and that the

FBI had hired more foreign language translators after the terrorist attacks on

September 11, 2001, but the FBI admitted that it had difficulty perfom1ing

background checks on the translators. Edmonds said that an FBI contract

translator had tried to recruit her into an organization that was the subject of an FBI

investigation. Edmonds said she complained repeatedly about this other translator,

but no one in the FBI wanted to hear it. Senator Grassley stated that the Edmonds

case fell into a pattern of behavior by the FBI to sweep embarrassing information

under the rug, then "eventually they shoot the messenger."

The 60 Minutes segment then aired the following excerpts from its interview

of Roberts:

6 The OIG is currently investigating Edmonds' claims.

8
BRADLEY: Special Agent John Roberts, a chief of the FBI's Internal Affairs

Department, agrees. And while he is not permitted to discuss the Sibel

Edmonds case, for the last 10 years, he has been investigating misconduct

by FBI employees and says he is outraged by how little is ever done about

it.

ROBERTS:

BRADLEY:

ROBERTS:

I don't know of another person in the FBI who has done the internal

investigations that I have and has seen what I have and that knows what

has occurred and what has been glossed over and what has, frankly, just

disappeared, just vaporized and no one disciplined for it.

Despite a pledge from FBI Director Robert Mueller to overhaul the culture

of the FBI in light of9/11, and encourage Bureau employees to come

forward to report wrongdoing, Roberts says that in the rare instances when

employees are disciplined, it's usually low-level employees like Sibel

Edmonds who get punished and not their bosses. (Clip of FBI Director

Robert Mueller)

I think the double standard of discipline will continue no matter who

comes in, no matter who tries to change. You --you have a certain --

certain group that --that will continue to protect itself. That's just how it

IS.

BRADLEY:

ROBERTS:

BRADLEY:

No matter what happens?

I would say no matter what happens.

Have you found cases since 9/11 where people were involved in

misconduct and were not, let alone reprimanded, but were even promoted?

ROBERTS:

BRADLEY:

Oh, yes, absolutely.

That's astonishing.

ROBERTS: Why?

BRADLEY: Because you --would think that after 9/11, that's a big slap on the face.

'Hello! This is a wake up call here.'

ROBERTS: Depends on who you are. If you're in the Senior Executive level, it may

not hurt you. You will be promoted.

BRADLEY: In fact, the supervisor who Sibel Edmonds says told her to slow down her

translations was recently promoted. Edmonds has filed a whistle-blower

suit to get her job back, but last week, US Attorney General Ashcroft

asked the court to dismiss it on grounds it would compromise national

security. And also on the grounds of national security, the FBI declined to

discuss the specifics of her charges, but it says it takes all such charges

seriously and investigates them.

9
IV. 

REACTION TO THE 60 MINUTES BROADCAST

A.

Monday, October 28

On the morning of October 28, several FBI OPR employees watched a tape

of the program in the office. A few told us that they thought Roberts' statements

were factual or that they were not surprised by what he had said. Several,

however, told us that they were troubled that Roberts' statements appeared to give

credibility to Edmonds's claims, and some said they wondered why Roberts was

raising old cases related to the alleged double standard. Others said they did not

understand what Roberts was referring to when he claimed that cases disappeared

or that nothing would change in the FBI, no matter who "comes in."

Throughout the FBI, many employees and managers expressed their

opinions about the 60 Minutes broadcast and Roberts' statements. For example, in

an e-mail to Jordan, FBI Deputy Director Gebhardt stated, "If we have internal

problems then I would rather find solutions and fix them, rather than tell the world

on 60 Minutes. In my opinion, Roberts brought discredit to the FBI Badge, and the

27,000 employees of the FBI. I can't remember when I've been this

disappointed."? Jordan's response to Gebhardt's e-mail started with "I could not

agree with you more. There was the obvious direct shot at the Director (and

myself) with the quote, 'I think the double standard of discipline will continue no

matter who comes in, no matter who tries to change. ",

Jordan was clearly upset by what Roberts said on the show. Jordan told the

OIG that he first learned the show was going to be aired when Brenda Roberts told

him the segment would be shown on Sunday, October 27. Jordan said he watched

the show on Sunday night, but that the portion with Roberts went by so quickly

that he was not certain what Roberts had said until the next day, when Jordan

obtained a transcript of the broadcast. According to Jordan, after reading the

transcript, his initial reaction was that Roberts had either "lied or misstated

7 In our interview with him, Gebhardt stated that when he saw the show he was extremely

disappointed with Roberts' comments. Gebhardt said that the FBI has been working hard to fix

internal problems and striving to make changes, and that Roberts' statements were one person's

opinion that cast a negative light on the FBI as a whole, not just one unit or Division. Gebhardt

also said that to his knowledge Roberts had not brought any of his present concerns to FBI

management prior to airing them on 60 Minutes. Gebhardt said that when he wrote the e-mail he

thought that Roberts had brought discredit to the FBI and its 27,000 employees, and he believes

that today.

10
material fact" when he claimed that cases "disappeared" or "just vaporized."

Jordan also said that he thought that Roberts was either not telling the truth or was

commenting on his own behavior, because as the Unit Chief of an Internal

Investigations Unit, Roberts was responsible for reporting all allegations of

misconduct to the OIG. As a result, Jordan questioned how cases could have

disappeared or vaporized. Jordan said it seemed incredible that Roberts would

claim that cases were not being reported or pursued when it was his responsibility

to do just that. Jordan also said that he did not know which cases Roberts was

referring to and Roberts had never reported such misconduct to him.

Jordan said he also was startled by Roberts' comment that things would

remain the same no matter who was in charge at the FBI. Jordan took that as a

criticism of him despite the fact that he had been the Assistant Director ofOPR for

less than two months. Jordan said that when he was appointed to be the Assistant

Director, Director Mueller had instructed him to make changes, which Jordan was

in the process of doing, and that he had discussed with Roberts many of the

changes planned or under way.

B. Meeting with Director Mueller on October 28

According to Jordan, on Monday morning, October 28, he was asked to

come to the Director's office, where he met briefly with Director Mueller about the

60 Minutes program.s Jordan said Director Mueller asked if Jordan had seen the

program and if Jordan knew to what Roberts was referring, and Jordan said he had

seen the program but did not know what Roberts was referring to. Director

Mueller then asked if it was true that cases vanished or disappeared. Jordan replied

he had no information or facts to back up Roberts' statements that cases were

vaporizing or disappearing, and that Roberts either misspoke or was misquoted.

Jordan also mentioned that Roberts himself was responsible for reporting cases to

the OIG. He said the Director then asked Jordan to discuss the matter with EAD

Lowery and get back to him on what to do.

8 In our interviews with FBI managers, we found some confusion as to the exact dates,

times, and persons who attended the meetings from October 28-30. We believe, based on the

evidence and the recollections of the participants, that the following description reflects the dates

of the meetings and the persons who attended.
c.

Meetings on October 29

1. Jordan and Lowery Meeting

.Lowery was out of town on October 28 and returned to the office on

October 29. He met with Jordan on the morning of October 29 to discuss the

60 Minutes broadcast and Roberts' allegations. Lowery said that he and Jordan

reviewed the transcript of the show and were troubled by Roberts' implication that

things were not done correctly at OPR, no matter who was in charge. Lowery said

he asked Jordan if he knew of any basis for Roberts' allegations, and Jordan

responded that he did not. Lowery said that Jordan told him they should refer the

allegations raised by Roberts to the OIG. Lowery further stated that Jordan

suggested they meet with Roberts and advise him of their intention to refer his

allegations to the OIG.

Jordan also said that he and Lowery discussed Roberts' responsibility, and

the responsibility of any FBI employee, to report any allegations of misconduct to

OPR or the OIG, and that if Roberts was aware of misconduct, as he proclaimed on

60 Minutes, he should report it to the OIG. Jordan said they decided to draft a

letter to the OIG describing the 60 Minutes interview and referring Roberts'

allegations of misconduct to the OIG. In addition, Jordan said he wanted to write a

letter of rebuttal to 60 Minutes to correct the statements made by Roberts.

2. Meeting with Director Mueller

Lowery and Deputy Director Gebhardt met with Director Mueller later that

same day. Lowery said the meeting was brief, and that they advised the Director

that they intended to send Roberts' allegations to the OIG and that Lowery and

Jordan would meet with Roberts to advise him of this action. Lowery said the

Director agreed with the proposed referral to the OIG.9

Gebhardt also confirmed that he and Lowery went into the Director's office

to inform him of their intention to refer Roberts' allegations to the OIG. Gebhardt

said that at no time did they ever discuss referring Roberts' actions to the OIG,

only his allegations.

9 Gebhardt, Lowery, and Director Mueller all thought that Jordan also attended this meeting,

but Jordan said he remembered clearly that he was not present.

2
Director Mueller told us he strongly believed that two allegations raised by

Roberts in the 60 Minutes broadcast -that a double standard continued to exist and

that cases were "disappearing" or "vaporizing" -needed to be investigated by an

independent party. Director Mueller said that after he had read the 60 Minutes

transcript, it appeared that the allegations raised by Roberts were current, ongoing

allegations and not historical, and that these allegations should be referred to the

OIG for investigation. He said he understood that Jordan and Lowery were going

to meet with Roberts to inform him of this course of action and that a formal

referral letter was going to be sent to the OIG requesting an investigation. Director

Mueller said that he never was involved in any discussion about referring Roberts

to the OIG for investigation. Director Mueller said that it was his belief that

referring the matter to the OIG would resolve the issues raised by Roberts. He said

that sometime after Lowery and Jordan had spoken with Roberts, Lowery informed

the Director, in a very brief meeting, that everything was fine.1o

3. Meeting among Jordan, Lowery, and Roberts

At 5:00 p.m. on October 29, Jordan, Lowery, and Roberts met in Lowery's

office.11 Their versions of what was said during this meeting, and the tone of the

meeting, differed markedly.

According to Roberts, he was contacted at about 4:00 that afternoon and told

to meet with Jordan at 5:00. Roberts said his initial thought was that they would

discuss how to make improvements in OPR. Roberts said that when he went to

Jordan's office at 5:00, Jordan appeared very cold and stoic, and they walked

across the hallway to Lowery's office.

According to Roberts, in Lowery's office Jordan read the portion of the

10 Director Mueller said he did not instruct Jordan to have a meeting with OPR staff to

discuss Roberts or the 60 Minutes program, and that he was unaware that such a meeting was

planned. Director Mueller said he was next informed that he had received a letter from Senators

Grassleyand Leahy (dated November 8) asking why the FBI was referring Roberts to the OIG.

Director Mueller said the FBI forwarded a copy of the FBI's referral letter to the Senators' staff,

which showed that the FBI was referring Roberts' allegations to the OIG, not Roberts himself.

11 Lowery and Jordan both stated that prior to this meeting they did not seek guidance from

anyone else on the matter, including the FBI Office of General Counsel, as to how to proceed or

what to say when meeting with Roberts.

3
60 Minutes transcript with Roberts' statements and asked what he had meant by the

comments. Roberts said it was clear that Jordan was very angry and was taking the

comments personally. Roberts said Jordan specifically asked about Roberts'

comments that the double standard problem continued to exist after September 11.

Roberts said he had been restricted from talking about specific cases on

60 Minutes. He said he mentioned the Ruby Ridge and the Potts retirement party

cases. He said he did not go into detail about those cases during his interview, but

raised them to illustrate the double standard. He said Jordan responded that

Roberts had not been clear on 60 Minutes and asked about the comments referring

to current double standard problems. Roberts said he told Jordan about a case

involving an FBI agent who was being disciplined more harshly for making

improper comments than an FBI Special Agent in Charge (SAC) who had made

comparable offensive comments in a public forum. Roberts believed the harsher

discipline for the agent reflected a double standard. Jordan responded that this

case was not on his watch, and Roberts replied that the agent had just received the

letter of censure at the end of September, after Jordan started as the Assistant

Director of aPR. Roberts said that Lowery asked him to repeat what had occurred

in the SAC case, and Roberts did. 12

According to Roberts, Jordan then stated that he was "referring this to the

OIG." Roberts said that when Jordan made this statement he was holding the

60 Minutes transcript in his hand. Roberts interpreted Jordan's statement to mean

that Jordan was referring Roberts to the GIG and that Jordan was accusing him of

misconduct. Roberts said he replied that he had done nothing wrong, that he had

approval to appear on 60 Minutes, and that he had been instructed not to mention

specific cases on the program, which he had not done. According to Roberts,

Jordan again said that he was referring "this" to the GIG, and Roberts replied,

"You have to do what you have to do. I have done nothing wrong." At that point,

according to Roberts, Lowery said "we have work to do," which indicated that the

meeting was over.

12 Roberts had infonned Jordan of his concerns about this case previously. On October 17,

2002, Roberts had sent a routing slip to Jordan, which attached a copy of the letter of censure for

the agent who was being disciplined for the improper remarks. The routing slip stated "Bob, I

think we are causing OPR unnecessary problems. If you check the [SAC] case you will find his

actions more egregious than the [agent's] actions. [The SAC] gets counseling and [the agent]

gets a letter [of censure]. It just does not make sense and we are leaving OPR open to criticism.

We have to fix this. Your thoughts?" Roberts said Jordan never responded to the note.

4
Roberts said no pleasantries were exchanged at the meeting, and that he

believed Jordan and Lowery were angry. He said he left the meeting with a clear

message that he had done something wrong, and that Jordan and Lowery were

going to refer him to the OIG. Roberts told a colleague in CPR that he had been

"read the riot act" in the meeting. Roberts also told the colleague that Jordan had a

copy of the 60 Minutes transcript and was angry about the statements Roberts had

made.

Jordan's and Lowery's accounts of the meeting differed significantly from

Roberts' version. Jordan said that at the meeting he reviewed with Roberts the

60 Minutes transcript and Roberts' statements that cases were disappearing from

OPR and that senior employees have gone unpunished. He said he asked Roberts

what he was talking about and that Roberts responded that he was talking about

Ruby Ridge and Waco.i3 Jordan said he replied that this was not part of the

transcript. Jordan told us he did not recall Roberts mentioning the SAC case in this

meeting, although Jordan acknowledged that he was familiar with the issue.i4

Jordan said he told Roberts that his allegations would be referred to the OIG

and a letter was being written to that effect. Jordan said that he recalled Roberts

saying near the end of the meeting that he had done nothing wrong and that they

must do what they had to do.

Jordan described the meeting as "very businesslike." Jordan stated that

Roberts "seemed fine with the GIG referral," although Jordan said that Roberts

"seemed puzzled as to what this was all about."

13 Jordan acknowledged to us that Roberts may have also mentioned the Potts retirement

party case.

14 Jordan said he recalled the routing slip from Roberts that discussed the SAC matter and

the difference in discipline between the SAC and the special agent. Jordan stated to us that by

the time he received the routing slip, the matter was "a done deal." He said that the issue raised

by Roberts about the difference in penalties was not that clear-cut, and that the agent's comments

were more egregious than the SAC's comments. Jordan added that OPR adjudicates 700 cases in

one form or another annually, and someone could pick out one case and find fine points of law or

fact to contest. Jordan also added that the SAC case had been completed and was not pending.

Finally, he stated that the routing slip was sent by Roberts on October 17, when Jordan was on

leave and Roberts was the Acting AD for OPR, and that Roberts had full authority during that

time to take steps to correct what he saw as anything wrong with the discipline imposed in the

agent's case.

15
Lowery told the OIG that the purpose of the meeting was to communicate

with Roberts, not to criticize or discipline him. Lowery said the meeting was short,

lasting approximately six to seven minutes. Lowery said that Jordan read Roberts'

portion of the 60 Minutes transcript and that Lowery and Jordan "asserted [their]

concerns about his allegations and statements." Lowery said that they explained

their intention to send a letter requesting that the OIG investigate the allegations

made by Roberts during the program, and they asked Roberts to give the OIG his

full cooperation. Lowery said that Roberts stated to them that he had positive

things to say about Jordan during the 60 Minutes interview, but those statements

were not aired on the broadcast. According to Lowery, Jordan thanked Roberts for

those statements, but stressed that they must go by what aired on the program.

Lowery said that they advised Roberts that they would provide him a copy of the

letter to the OIG, and Roberts responded that we should get on with what we need

to do. Lowery said that "not a cross word was spoken, no criticism was issued, and

no one raised his voice."15

D. October 30 Referral Letter to the Inspector General

Jordan drafted a referral letter to the Inspector General on October 29. He

gave a copy of the draft to Lowery, who forwarded it to Kenneth Wain stein, the

FBI General Counsel. Wainstein suggested specifying in the letter the actual

statements Roberts made in the 60 Minutes broadcast, and those quotations were

added. 16

The letter, signed by Jordan and addressed to the Inspector General, referred

to Roberts' appearance on 60 Minutes and his statements regarding disparate

treatment for different levels of FBI employees. It quoted Roberts' comments

about cases disappearing and that the double standard of discipline would continue.

The letter stated that Roberts' comments indicated a lack of confidence in the

ability of FBI OPR to address these issues and concluded:

These remarks raise serious issues of concern to us. Given the gravity

of [Roberts'] remarks, and his lack of confidence in this office to

address these issues, we have directed Unit Chief Roberts to contact

15 Lowery said he did not recall any discussion of the SAC case.

16 The letter that was sent to the Inspector General, dated October 30, 2002, and signed by

Jordan, added additional quotes from the transcript. (A copy of the letter is Attachment 4.)

16
your office to provide additional details. Please contact me if I can be

of further assistance in this matter.

Jordan said that on October 30, following an OPR Unit Chiefs meeting, he

gave Roberts a copy of the letter. According to Jordan, when Roberts looked at the

letter he asked, "What's this?" Jordan said Roberts appeared surprised by the

content of the letter and must have misunderstood what was said at the meeting the

day before. Roberts told Jordan he thought Jordan was going to report his conduct

to the OIG. Roberts also stated that during his interview with 60 Minutes he had

said some wonderful things about the Director, Lowery, and Jordan. Jordan said

Roberts stated that in his 60 Minutes remarks he had been referring to old cases

that he was prohibited from discussing on the program.

Jordan said he told Roberts that even though a handful of people at CBS

heard him say that he was referring to old cases, millions of people who watched

the broadcast were given a different message. Jordan said he told Roberts that "he

who creates ambiguity shall have that ambiguity resolved against him," and that

Roberts had created the ambiguity, not Jordan. Jordan said he also mentioned that

his 82-year-old mother, who was in a nursing home, had contacted him after the

program and told Jordan that she had thought the FBI was "on the level," and

asked if Jordan would ever be able to change the FBI.

According to Roberts, he received the letter on the morning of October 30,

when he went into Jordan's office to discuss with Jordan the assignment ofOPR

cases. Roberts said he told Jordan that his unit had twice as many investigations

pending (with three fewer supervisors) than the other Internal Investigative Unit,

and that he intended to assign his cases to supervisors in the other OPR

Investigative Unit. Roberts said he had discussed this with the other Unit Chief,

who had concurred, and Jordan agreed with this proposal.

Roberts said that Jordan then raised the 60 Minutes broadcast. According to

Roberts, Jordan stated that he had received calls about the program from FBI

SACs, and they had informed Jordan "I had better check my shorts, because I may

be bleeding from my own guy." Roberts said he clearly remembered this comment

and found it very disturbing. He said that Jordan then commented about his

mother seeing the 60 Minutes show from a hospital bed, and that Roberts

responded that, as he had told Jordan before, "[I] had sung your praises and I

couldn't be more specific. I had permission to be on that show." Roberts said he

17
also raised the SAC case again and the fact that he had previously informed Jordan

about the matter. Roberts said he told Jordan he had put a routing slip in Jordan's

box that discussed the case and "how bad that makes us look."!7

According to Roberts, Jordan then said that Roberts had "dissed" Jordan and

the FBI Director on 60 Minutes, and that Roberts "must have been naive to go

before 60 Minutes and expect them to put everything on. You are my senior guy

and millions of people heard what you said." Roberts said he asked Jordan ifhe

was "thinking about getting rid of me," and Jordan responded "no." Roberts said

that Jordan then provided him with a copy of his referral letter to the OIG. Roberts

said he was surprised by the contents of the letter, because he had understood from

the meeting the afternoon before that he was going to be referred to the OIG.

Jordan told the OIG that he did not recall ever using the term "dis" in any

conversation with Roberts, and that he doubted he did because it is not a term he

typically uses. However, he said that he could not say with certainty that he did

not use this phrase in a conversation that had occurred weeks earlier. Jordan added

that he has used the phrase about "bleeding internally" in other conversations as a

reference to someone who is unaware that something is wrong, but he did not

recall using the specific phrase "bleeding from my shorts" in this meeting with

Roberts. Jordan said he questioned Roberts about why he had made the comments

about the Director and Jordan on 60 Minutes. Jordan said he definitely told

Roberts that he thought Roberts' comments created a reasonable inference that the

Director and Jordan were not honest in their handling ofOPR cases. Jordan said

he believed he told Roberts that his inference that the OPR process was corrupt or

that neither the Director nor Jordan would ever change the process was a "slap in

the face."

E. FBI's Response to 60 Minutes

The FBI drafted a response to the 60 Minutes broadcast, which it sent to

60 Minutes on November 1, 2002, and also posted on its Intranet website.18 This

letter, signed by Michael Kortan, Chief of the FBI's Public Affairs Section, first

17 Jordan said he did not recall Roberts mentioning the SAC case again, but he could not

recall for certain.

18 The letter is Attachment 5 to this report.

18
discussed the FBI's foreign language program and the FBI's security program. It

then stated:

Finally, contrary to allegations in your story, reports of employee

misconduct are given high priority and exhaustively investigated, ,and

punishment is imposed in an equal manner. While allegations of

disparate treatment were raised in the early and mid 1990' s, the FBI

has implemented policies to protect against actual or perceived

unfairness in the disciplinary process. Importantly, under Director

Robert S. Mueller, any serious allegation of wrongdoing made against

an FBI employee is reviewed by the Department of Justice, Office of

the Inspector General -making it impossible for misconduct to be

ignored, much less rewarded, as alleged in Sunday's report.

v. NOVEMBER 6 MEETINGS

Jordan said that in the next several days, the 60 Minutes broadcast continued

to be discussed in OPR and throughout the FBI. For example, on November 4,

Jordan received an e-mail from an OPR employee complaining about Roberts'

statements on 60 Minutes and questioning whether Roberts had received approval

to be on the show.19 In addition, Jordan said that during a meeting of FBI Assistant

Directors, Lowery discussed the 60 Minutes broadcast and stated that Roberts had

been asked to report his knowledge of misconduct to the OIG.

Jordan said that after these two events, he realized he needed to address OPR

employees about the 60 Minutes broadcast. He said he believed he needed to

reassure them about their work and mission. He said that OPR employees were

questioning if Roberts' statements were true or false, and Jordan believed that this

uncertainty warranted a management response. He added that from his legal

education he recalled case law suggesting that failure to reply to a direct accusation

of misconduct can be perceived as evidence of an admission.

19 The e-mail also stated, "I'm surprised that someone with so little faith in the OPR process

can be allowed to continue to have such an instrumental role. Testifying before Congress was

one thing, but airing our dirty laundry on national TV is wrong. Years ago, the Bureau either

promoted an employee and got them out of a particular area, or gave them a loss of effectiveness

transfer. Don't we do either anymore?" Jordan's response to the e-mail stated, "Your

observations are accurate and probably reflect the opinions of others.. ."

19
He said he therefore decided to discuss the 60 Minutes interview at OPR's

monthly all-employees meeting. He e-mailed Lowery on November 4, stating "I

will probably have to address this matter with OPR as a whole."2O

OPR's regular monthly all-employees meeting was scheduled for Thursday,

November 7. Jordan said that because he was going to be on annual leave on

November 7 and 8, he asked his secretary, Brenda Roberts, to change the meeting

to the afternoon of Wednesday, November 6.21

A.

Unit Chiefs' Meeting

On the morning of Wednesday, November 6, Jordan held the weekly

meeting of OPR Unit Chiefs, which is regularly scheduled on Wednesday

mornings. Attending this meeting were Thomas Monroe (the Unit Chief of

Internal Investigative Unit I); Brian Fortin (the Unit Chief of Adjudication Unit I);

Daniel Dubree (the Unit Chief of Adjudication Unit II); Dennis Franko (the Unit

Chief of the Administrative Unit); and Patrick Kiernan from the LEEU (attending

on behalfofLEEU Unit Chief Belinda Johns).

Roberts was on sick leave on November 6 and had a doctor's appointment

that afternoon. Attending the meeting in his place was Supervisory Special Agent

Judith Chilen, who worked under Roberts in Internal Investigative Unit II, and was

the Acting Unit Chief in Roberts' absence.

According to our interviews of the participants in the meeting and our

review of their notes, Jordan began the meeting with routine business. One of the

topics he mentioned was the fact that a vacancy announcement for the OPR Deputy Assistant Director position would be posted that afternoon. .

Also on the meeting agenda was an item described as the "Monthly OPR

Meeting Agenda." Toward the end of the Unit Chiefs' meeting, Jordan addressed

this issue, discussing his intent to raise Roberts' 60 Minutes interview at the allemployees meeting. Jordan stated that he had received many inquiries about the

Roberts interview and was concerned about how the show affected OPR. Jordan

reported that Roberts had pennission to appear on 60 Minutes. Jordan then said he

20 Lowery did not respond to the e-mail.

21 Brenda Roberts said that on November 5 Jordan changed the date of the meeting. Jordan

said he could not remember exactly when he decided to change the date of the meeting, but he

would not dispute Brenda Roberts' recollection that it was changed on November 5.

20
intended to read quotes from the transcript at the meeting, and Jordan then read

Roberts' statements from the transcript of the 60 Minutes program to the group.

Jordan discussed two quotes from the transcript: the "vaporization" quote and the

statement about things not changing no matter who comes in to the FBI. Jordan

stated that he had directed Roberts to report the disappearing cases to the Inspector

General. Jordan also said that other positive comments made by Roberts about the

FBI did not make it on the show. Jordan said that the show left a negative

impression about the FBI, that "we're not on the level," and he said that he was not

going to let that happen on his watch. Jordan stated that he was being asked a lot

of questions about the interview, both inside and outside OPR, and that as a

manager he could not ignore the issue, but needed to address it with OPR.

According to several participants at the meeting, someone mentioned that

Roberts was not going to be in the office that day. Jordan responded that he

wished Roberts could be at the all-employees meeting, but that Jordan was

scheduled to be out of the office for the rest of the week and that he did not want to

put off the discussion for another month until the next scheduled all-employees

meeting. According to several participants, Unit Chief Daniel Dubree suggested

that Roberts be allowed to participate by speakerphone. Jordan asked Judith

Chilen to contact Roberts and advise him about the availability of coming into the

office for the meeting or participating by speakerphone.

Jordan told us that he asked Chilen and Dubree to take notes at the allemployees meeting, because he believed that whatever he said would be

controversial or misquoted.

According to Jordan, after the Unit Chiefs' meeting he privately told Brenda

Roberts, his secretary, that he was going to discuss the 60 Minutes interview at the

all-employees meeting and that she might be uncomfortable. Although normally

attendance at these all-employee meetings is mandatory, Jordan told Brenda her

presence at this meeting was optional. Jordan said that Brenda did not respond.

He said he asked her if she understood what he was saying, and she responded that

she could not talk to him.22

22 Brenda Roberts reported to us that when Jordan told her she might be uncomfortable at

the meeting, she replied that she would be okay, and that when he tried to engage her in

conversation, she said she would rather not comment.

21
Patrick Kiernan told us that when he returned to the LEEU at Quantico

following the Unit Chiefs' meeting that morning, he wished that he had spoken up

during the meeting about Jordan's intention to address OPR without Roberts being

present.23 Kiernan stated that he believed the issues from the 60 Minutes broadcast

needed to be addressed, but he believed there was a better way to do it than what

Jordan was intending. Kiernan therefore called Jordan and suggested that if he

intended to talk about Roberts and 60 Minutes at the all-employees meeting, Jordan

needed to choose his words very carefully. Kiernan told Jordan this was a

sensitive situation, and with one wrong word it could be perceived as retaliatory or

derogatory against Roberts. Kiernan also suggested to Jordan that he should

consider waiting to have the meeting until Roberts was back in the office, stating

that the issue had already gone on for a couple of weeks (from the October 27

broadcast to November 6), so why not wait for Roberts to be present. Kiernan said

that even having Roberts on the speakerphone was not the same as Roberts being

present at the meeting. Kiernan also said to Jordan he thought it would be a good

idea for Jordan to call Roberts and give him a choice of how to attend the meeting,

by speakerphone or in person, and give Roberts a heads-up as to Jordan's intended

remarks.

Kiernan said that in response to these suggestions, Jordan stated that he

understood what Kiernan was saying but felt he could not ignore the issues at hand

and would give Roberts an opportunity to address the group or respond to Jordan's

comments. Jordan also stated that he did not want to call a special meeting to

address this issue because then all the focus would be on Roberts.

Jordan acknowledged to us that Kiernan called him after the Unit Chiefs'

meeting, stated that Roberts was a whistleblower, and expressed concerns about

Jordan's plan to address the 60 Minutes issue at the all-employees meeting. ~ ordan

said he told Kiernan he was aware of what Kiernan was saying but that he saw no

reason not to discuss the issues with OPR personnel. Jordan said he therefore

decided to continue with the meeting as planned.

Chilen called Roberts that morning, as Jordan asked, to discuss the allemployees meeting. Chilen told us that when she began to tell Roberts about the

23 Kiernan has worked in the LEEU since 1998 and was the primary author of the LEEU's

report examining whether a double standard of discipline existed in the FBI. ~ the aIG Report

discussed in footnote 3, entitled "A Review of Allegations of a Double Standard of Discipline at

the FBI."

22
Unit Chiefs' meeting and Jordan's planned discussion of the 60 Minutes broadcast

at the all-employees meeting that afternoon, Roberts seemed upset and wanted to

know why Jordan had not called him about it. Roberts questioned Chilen why she

was put in the middle of the matter. Chilen asked Roberts whether he wanted to

attend the meeting via speakerphone, but Roberts declined, stating that he had a

doctor's appointment that precluded him from participating in the meeting.

Roberts told us that he was on sick leave November 6, and that he had a prearranged doctor's visit during the time Jordan had scheduled the all-employees

meeting. Roberts said he told Chilen that he would inform Jordan there was no

need to have him on a conference call during the meeting. Roberts told us that he

had never heard of someone participating in an all-employees meeting via

speakerphone and saw no need to participate. Roberts said he spoke with his wife,

Brenda, and told her to leave Jordan a message that it was not necessary for him to

participate by telephone.

B. All-Employees Meeting

We interviewed approximately 20 people who attended the all-employees

meeting on November 6, and also reviewed notes from the meeting taken by

several participants. While the attendees did not remember in identical detail what

was said, there was little substantive difference on many details among most

people we interviewed, and the notes from the meeting were generally similar.

However, several people differed in their recollection about the tone of the meeting

and their interpretation of what was said. The following is our best reconstruction

of what was said at the meeting, based upon notes taken during the meeting and the

recollections of participants.

The meeting began with Jordan making standard announcements, including

birthdays, anniversaries, and awards. Among the substantive topics he then

discussed, Jordan announced that the FBI Director had given him permission to fill

the OPR Deputy Assistant Director slot.

Jordan next discussed the 60 Minutes broadcast. Jordan began by stating

that he had heard from FBI employees who asked him about the 60 Minutes show.

Jordan said that a lot of people say the FBI is a family, and he believed that to be

true. He added, "We bond together because our work doesn't make any friends."

Jordan said that there are disagreements in any family. He said that it was difficult

for him to talk about those disagreements. He said that it would be easier to do and

say nothing about the disagreements, but he was not that kind of manager.

23
Jordan said that Roberts had been offered the chance to participate in the

meeting by speakerphone but that he had declined. Jordan reported that he

(Jordan) was going to be on leave for the rest of the week, and he did not want to

wait another month to address the issue. Jordan said he would have preferred to

keep the matter private, but 80 million people had seen the 60 Minutes broadcast.

Jordan said that there might be some misperceptions about what had

happened and what was said, so he wanted to put some facts on the table. He said

that through an attorney Roberts had asked pennission to be interviewed by

60 Minutes, and that the FBI's Office of Public and Congressional Affairs had

given Roberts pennission in writing, as long as he did not discuss specific cases.

Jordan explained that the 60 Minutes segment focused on a contract linguist

at the FBI. Jordan read portions of the transcript, including Roberts' statements.

Several participants at the meeting provided us varying perceptions about how he

read the transcript. Brenda Roberts stated to us that when Jordan read the

transcript, his voice and expression showed his distaste for what Roberts had said.

Brenda Roberts also said that when Jordan read Senator Grassley's statements, his

voice changed, and he read Senator Grassley's remarks in disgust.

Most others we interviewed stated that Jordan read the transcript in a

conversational tone, without inflection, in a strong tone, confident, or emphatic.

No one other than Brenda Roberts indicated that Jordan read Senator Grassley's

comments in disgust.24

However, several attendees said it was clear that Jordan was upset by the

broadcast. For example, one employee stated to us it seemed that Jordan had taken

personally Roberts' comments that nothing would change no matter who was in

charge; another said it was her belief that Jordan took Roberts' comments as a slap

to his leadership.

After reading from the transcript, Jordan said that he believed that what was

aired on the broadcast was not the totality of what Roberts had told 60 Minutes.

24 The notes of the meeting and the participants' recollections are unclear as to exactly

which portions of the transcript Jordan read. It is undisputed that he read Roberts' statements.

Jordan stated that he did not recall mentioning Senator Grassley's name at all, and most other

attendees did not remember Jordan discussing Senator Grassley. However, two sets of notes

indicate that Jordan either read Senator Grassley's statements from the broadcast or mentioned

his name.

24
He said the portion of Roberts' remarks that 60 Minutes decided to use would lead

a reasonable person to believe that there are "ongoing cover-ups of misconduct in

the FBI." Jordan said that this was not true, and that every FBI employee has an

obligation to report misconduct in the FBI. Jordan said he was uncertain what

Roberts was referring to when he stated that cases were disappearing or vaporizing,

and that he had directed Roberts to contact the Inspector General and provide the

specific allegations to him. Jordan said that he had written a letter to the Inspector

General, quoting the transcript, and that he had asked Roberts to provide to the

Inspector General whatever information he was referring to.

Jordan repeated that Roberts told him that he had said a lot of favorable

things about OPR that were not broadcast, but that in reality CBS airs what it

wants. Jordan said that in Roberts' defense, what was aired was probably quoted

in the most unfavorable light. He said 5 CBS executives probably heard the entire

interview, but 80 million viewers heard only what was broadcast.

Jordan then stated "he who creates ambiguity will have that ambiguity

resolved against him." He did not explain what he meant by that statement.

Regarding Roberts' statement in the broadcast that nothing is going to

change in the FBI, Jordan said that to the extent that it was a reflection on him,

Roberts was wrong. Jordan said he had told the FBI Director that he would "play

this job straight up, like every other job I've ever had." Jordan added that no one

in the organization could make him "cover up," and anybody who saw Jordan

cover up anything had an obligation to go to the Inspector General.

Jordan stated that it was difficult to talk about the 60 Minutes broadcast. He

said he thought highly of Roberts, that he had faith in his integrity, but that the best

of families have issues and problems, and that the most dysfunctional family is the

one that doesn't talk about things.

At that point, Jordan opened the meeting to questions. One OPR employee

asked what the FBI Director's response was to the 60 Minutes interview. Jordan

said he did not want to speak for the Director but he believed the Director's

response would be the same as his.

A second OPR employee stated that Roberts' comments had stigmatized all

of OPR and had given all of OPR a bad name, and asked what they were supposed

to say when asked questions about Roberts' comments. Jordan responded that he

had no answer for that question. He said that many FBI employees were

wondering about "our integrity." Jordan said he had asked the Director if he could

25
issue a rebuttal to 60 Minutes. Jordan said that 60 Minutes was not in the business

of telling "both sides," but the FBI had sent a letter to 60 Minutes.

A third employee asked if there had been any discussion about how to

remove people from their job who had been in it too long and had lost their

effectiveness. According to most attendees, Jordan gave no response to this

question.25

A fourth employee stated that OPR now had a double responsibility to prove

its integrity, and related this situation to the ongoing crisis within the Catholic

Church.

Jordan ended the meeting by saying that it was not true that he and the

Director could not fix things, that he had only been here for two months, and he

asked the OPR employees to give him a chance to make things better. He then

stated he loved being their boss.

c. Brenda Roberts

Roberts' wife, Brenda, said that at the all-employees meeting, she became

upset by what Jordan was saying and began feeling very warm and very sick. She

stated that she could not believe that Jordan was "destroying" her husband in front

of everyone. She said she did not think she would physically make it through the

meeting and thought she would pass out. Another employee, who saw her hand

shaking, held her hand during the meeting. Brenda Roberts said that everyone kept

looking over to her and she tried to maintain her composure.

She said there was a solemn atmosphere after the meeting, and another

employee asked her if she was okay. She replied that not one person came to

Roberts' defense during the meeting. She said she then collapsed at a desk while

leaving the meeting, and began sobbing. Another employee brought her cold

towels. Brenda Roberts said that she began walking back to her office, but she

started breathing rapidly and her head was hot. She then went t9 the FBI's Health

Services Unit. She said her blood pressure was very high, and she remained at the

Health Services Unit until her blood pressure went down. She said she then

returned to work, but she found herself crying repeatedly.

25 Brenda Roberts stated that Jordan responded, "Good point, let me think about that." One

other person said he responded something to the effect of "good question." No one else told us

they recalled Jordan responding at all. Jordan stated he was non-responsive to the question.

26
D.

Both Brenda Roberts and John Roberts told us that after the all-employees

meeting they believed there was a change in attitude towards them by CPR staff.

John Roberts stated that he believed his professional standing was severely

damaged by J qrdan ' s comments, which were relayed to him by other employees.

He said people looked away or down when he passed them, and there was no small

talk. He said that it appeared to him that CPR employees were uncomfortable with

him, and that the mood in the office toward him was very cold.

Brenda Roberts also stated that since the all-employees meeting there has

been a chilled atmosphere toward her and employees avoid looking at her. She

said that since the meeting she found herself looking at the floor when walking in

the halls, and other employees who normally spoke to her now avoided her.

Others we interviewed, however, denied that they have treated Roberts or his

wife differently. They said that Roberts continued to handle his responsibilities the

same as before the 60 Minutes broadcast, and he was treated by other staff

similarly to before the broadcast. Many said that Roberts remained upbeat and

positive in the office, and that they did not witness any changes in his demeanor or

how others treated him. Some said that Brenda Roberts talked less to others. One

said that after the 60 Minutes interview, Brenda Roberts seemed more withdrawn

and that people have not ignored her but have respected her desire not to talk.

VI. APPOINTMENT OF AN ACTING DEPUTY ASSISTANT

DIRECTOR IN OPR

As noted above, the FBI OPR Deputy Assistant Director (DAD) position

had been vacant since the former DAD retired in March 2002. Shortly after

assuming office, Jordan requested permission to fill the position. He received

permission to advertise for the position, and the position was posted on

November 6, the day of the all-employees meeting. At that meeting, Jordan

announced the posting of the DAD position. However, he did not disclose or

discuss with any employee that he intended to fill the position on an acting basis.

On November 12,2002, in an electronic communication to all OPR staff,

Jordan announced that he was appointing Brian Fortin to be the Acting DAD until

27
the position was filled pennanently.26 Fortin said he was unaware that an Acting

DAD would be appointed until Jordan named him to the position.

Jordan told the OIG that until the pennanent DAD position was posted, he

could not appoint an Acting DAD, since the position did not "exist" according to

the FBI's Administrative Services Division. He said that when he received

permission to post the pennanent position, he decided to appoint an Acting DAD,

because he thought it would take 90 to 120 days to get a pennanent DAD in place.

He said that he chose Fortin to be the Acting DAD because he was well respected,

was an attorney, and was actively seeking promotions, including positions outside

ofOPR, and that Fortin's having the Acting DAD position could help him further

his career. Jordan said one of his critical rating elements is to support the

development of subordinates. Jordan said he advised Fortin that he would not look

to appoint him to the pennanent position, but that this temporary appointment

would provide Fortin with invaluable experience in being considered for a

promotion.

We asked Jordan why he did not select Roberts to fill the Acting DAD

position, since Roberts was the most senior Unit Chief in OPR and had been

assigned to be the Acting Assistant Director when Jordan had gone on leave two

times before the 60 Minutes broadcast. Jordan responded that he knew that

Roberts was not seeking promotion. Jordan told us that in approximately late

September or early October 2002, he had briefed Director Mueller about various

issues in OPR, including Jordan's naming Roberts as an Acting AD in Jordan's

absence. Jordan told Director Mueller that Roberts had previously informed him

that he had been passed over for transfers and promotions, and that because of

historical events Roberts believed he would not be given a fair opportunity for

advancement. Director Mueller informed Jordan that he wanted to see Roberts'

name in a "package" for promotional opportunities and asked Jordan to relate that

to Roberts on the Director's behalf. Jordan said he told Roberts about the

Director's comments, stating that although Jordan was not looking for Roberts to

26 Fortin has been employed by the FBI since 1989. From 1990 to 1997, he worked as a

special agent primarily on domestic terrorism and international terrorism cases in the New York

Field Office. From August 1996 through February 1997, he served as an Acting Supervisory

Special Agent in the New York Field Office. In April 1997, he was transferred to FBI

Headquarters to work cases in the International Terrorism Section. In January 2000, he became

an Assistant Inspector in the Inspection Division. In December 2000, Fortin became the Unit

Chief of OPR' s Adjudication Unit I.

28
leave OPR, the Director had opened the door for him to seek promotions, ifhe

wanted. Jordan said that since that time, however, he was not aware of Roberts

applying for any promotions.

Jordan acknowledged to us that the 60 Minutes interview had an impact on

his decision to select Fortin as the Acting DAD. Jordan told us that he believed if

he selected Roberts for the Acting DAD position "during this post-60 Minutes

environment, it could have a negative impact on OPR." Jordan also stated,that

Roberts had been the Acting AD for several weeks during Jordan's absence and

had the opportunity to open cases, but Roberts "chose not to do that"; rather

Roberts went on television and said "we're corrupt." Jordan said he felt that

Roberts "had his shot at being promoted," but that Roberts diminished the ability

of OPR to do its job by his statements on 60 Minutes.

Jordan said he did not consult anyone regarding his choice of Fortin for the

Acting DAD position. He said he did not believe this was a "big call," and was an

easy managerial decision. He said he did not consult with his supervisors,

Gebhardt and Lowery, who were busy handling important FBI matters. Jordan

also said he did not discuss with any of his Unit Chiefs why they were not picked.

Roberts told us that he considered it significant that he was not made the

Acting DAD. He noted that prior to the 60 Minutes broadcast, he had been

appointed Acting Assistant Director on two occasions and was never criticized for

his performance in that position and, in fact, understood that Jordan was pleased

with his performance.

Roberts said that no one talked to him about the position before Fortin's

selection. Roberts said that he had no idea that Jordan planned to fill the position

on a temporary basis. He said that the information he had received from Jordan

prior to Fortin's appointment led him to believe that this position would not be

filled with an Acting DAD. Roberts also noted that Fortin was junior to him both

in tenure within the FBI and time within OPR, and that unlike Roberts, Fortin had

not had field supervisory experience. Roberts said that he believed being named

Acting DAD would have been significant because it would have enhanced his

credibility and his ability to obtain a promotion.

Roberts said that he had last applied for a promotion a couple of years ago.

He said because of his age and his ability to retire in a year, he thought there was

no benefit in applying for ASAC positions now. He said that an ASAC position

would be a lateral move with no increase in pay and he would have to remain in

that position for a couple of years before he could realistically be promoted again.

29
He said he had considered applying for DAD positions at FBI Headquarters, but he

did not specifically mention this to Jordan during any of their conversations. He

added that he did not apply for the permanent FBI OPR DAD position because he

thought that would be a fruitless exercise on his part, in light of the reaction to the

60 Minutes interview, his not being named Acting DAD, and his involvement in

the Ruby Ridge and Potts investigations.

No one in FBI OPR to whom we spoke had been consulted or was aware

that an Acting DAD would be appointed. Fortin said Jordan did not tell him why

he was selected. Many people we interviewed in OPR were surprised that Fortin,

rather than Roberts, was selected to be the Acting DAD. They stated that they

thought that Roberts, as the most senior OPR Unit Chief and the person who

served as the Assistant Director in Jordan's absence, would have been selected for

the position.27

VII. OIG ANALYSIS

Based on the evidence we found, we do not conclude that Jordan or other

FBI officials intended to harass or threaten Roberts for his statements on

60 Minutes. We also do not conclude that the evidence supports many of the

allegations about Jordan's and the FBI's actions towards Roberts after the

60 Minutes broadcast. However, we conclude that some of the allegations were

substantiated and we believe that Jordan exhibited poor judgment in several

instances, particularly several of his statements at the OPR all-employees meeting.

In addition, we believe that Jordan passed over Roberts for the Acting DAD

position in large part because of Roberts' statements on 60 Minutes, an action that

left the clear appearance of retaliation.

With regard to the meeting between Roberts, Jordan, and Lowery on

October 29, we have little doubt that the meeting was tense and that it was

apparent that Jordan was angry about Roberts' statements on 60 Minutes. We

believe that Jordan clearly communicated his belief that the statements were a

"slap" at him (and the FBI Director). Jordan objected to the broadcast's

implication that cases continued to "disappear" and "vaporize," that a double

standard of discipline would continue no matter who was in charge, and that there

27 Several OPR employees mentioned that Roberts' unit had a backlog of cases, and they

thought it would be counterproductive for Jordan to select Roberts to be the Acting DAD in light

of the backlog.

30
were cases since September 11 where FBI employees who had committed

misconduct "were not reprimanded and were even promoted." Jordan told us that

he thought that Roberts had either lied or deliberately misstated facts on the

60 Minutes broadcast. Although the October 29 meeting may have been

"businesslike" (as Jordan d~scribed it), and no one may have raised his voice or

uttered a "cross word" (as Lowery described it), we have no doubt that Roberts

understood Jordan was upset with him.28

However, we do not believe that Jordan or Lowery threatened Roberts, and

we do not conclude that Jordan stated in the meeting that he was referring Roberts

to the OIG on misconduct charges, as Roberts believed at the time. Roberts told us

that at the October 29 meeting, after Jordan read from the transcript of the

broadcast and while holding the transcript in his hand, Jordan said he was referring

"this" to the OIG. We think there was a miscommunication between Roberts and

Jordan about the "this" that Jordan was referring to the OIG. Roberts interpreted

Jordan's statement as accusing him of misconduct and that his actions were being

referred to the OIG; Roberts therefore responded that he had done nothing wrong.

In fact, Jordan and Lowery intended to, and did, refer Roberts' allegations that

cases disappeared or vaporized to the OIG for review; they were not referring

Roberts to the OIG for misconduct.

When Roberts received the referral letter the next day, he was surprised to

learn that he was not being referred to the GIG for misconduct, and that the GIG

was being asked to review Roberts' allegations. Roberts then told Jordan that he

had thought Jordan was going to report him to the GIG. This was a

misunderstanding on Roberts' part.

We also believe that there was a difference in what Roberts intended by his

statements aired on 60 Minutes and the implication they left. Roberts told us that

with regard to his statement that he knew "what has been glossed over and what

has, frankly, just disappeared, just vaporized and no one disciplined for it," he was

28 Roberts also contended that animus directed at him from Jordan and Lowery would not

have occurred without the concurrence of Director Mueller. For example, Roberts stated he

doubted that Jordan would have told him that the Director had been "dissed" by his comments

unless Jordan had first-hand knowledge of the Director's opinion. Roberts also noted that Jordan

invoked the Director's name in response to a question at the all-employees meeting. However,

we found no evidence to substantiate the claim that Director Mueller had any animus towards

Roberts or communicated to Jordan that he agreed with Jordan's position about Roberts'

statements on 60 Minutes.

3
referring not to the actual investigations of cases by OPR, but rather to the

adjudication of discipline. He cited Ruby Ridge and the Potts retirement party as

prime examples of cases where he believed discipline in a case had "disappeared."

However, both of these cases occurred before Jordan was appointed to head the

FBI OPR and before Director Mueller joined the FBI.29

Roberts then was asked on the 60 Minutes broadcast about a double standard

of discipline, which Roberts believes to be a continuing and intractable problem.

Roberts stated on the broadcast that he thought that the double standard of

discipline would continue "no matter who comes in." Then, when asked whether

"people were involved in misconduct and were not, let alone reprimanded, but

were even promoted," Roberts responded "absolutely." However, Roberts told us

he did not mean to imply that investigations of cases continued to "vaporize," but

he does believe that within the FBI there still exists a "club atmosphere" that does

not seem to allow for change. He said that there was a continuing difference

between higher level and lower level FBI employees in how cases were

adjudicated by the FBI and how people were promoted, even when under

investigation or after being disciplined. He cited as examples of this the SAC case

mentioned earlier in this report and several other recent cases. He told us that he

did not believe that Director Mueller, Jordan, or FBI upper management could

change that double standard. 30

However, the juxtaposition of Roberts' comments on 60 Minutes that he

knew of cases that "disappeared" with his claims about a continuing double

standard of discipline left the clear impression that he believed investigations of

misconduct continued to disappear and that he was implicating Jordan and Director

29 The OIG currently is reviewing cases cited by Roberts to the OIG as showing a continuing

double standard of discipline in the FBI.

30 We reviewed whether Roberts had informed Jordan before the 60 Minutes broadcast about

his concerns regarding the handling of the SAC case. As discussed above, we found that Roberts

had sent a routing slip to Jordan on October 17 describing Roberts' concerns about what he

perceived as a difference in treatment between the SAC's discipline and the discipline for an

agent who Roberts believed had made similar comments. Roberts also mentioned this issue to

Jordan during their discussions on October 29 and 30, and Jordan responded something to the

effect that this had not occurred on his watch. Jordan acknowledged to us that he had seen the

routing slip previously, but he stated that the SAC case was not pending and that he thought the

agent's comments were more egregious than the SAC's comments. This case is one of the cases

the OIG is in the process of reviewing.

32
Mueller in continuing cover-ups. We can understand Jordan's concern about the

implication left by the 60 Minutes broadcast that he and OPR were complicit in

allowing cases to disappear, particularly since Jordan was new to OPR.

We believe it was not improper for the FBI to refer to the OIG the

allegations Roberts made on 60 Minutes, given the seriousness of the charges. In

fact, this was a prudent step for the FBI to take, in light of the conflict it would

present for the FBI to investigate those claims itself.

With regard to the FBI's rebuttal letter to 60 Minutes that it posted on the

FBI Intranet site, we do not believe there was anything improper about the letter or

the posting. In the letter, the FBI responded to the program without attacking

Roberts. We do not criticize the FBI for making its position known, either to FBI

employees or to 60 Minutes.

With regard to the November 6 all-employees meeting, we do not believe

that Jordan intended to retaliate against Roberts or attempted to threaten or

undercut him by discussing the 60 Minutes program at the meeting. Nor do we

fault Jordan for discussing statements from the program with OPR staff, who were

understandably concerned about the implication of the program. As to Jordan's

remarks at the meeting, we think most of them were not inappropriate. By and

large, we think Jordan did not cross the line in what he said or make retaliatory

statements towards Roberts. Most of the OPR staff we interviewed did not

interpret Jordan's remarks as retaliatory to Roberts, and most appreciated that

Jordan addressed the 60 Minutes broadcast with them.

For example, we do not conclude that Jordan's reference to the FBI as a

"family" was intended to send a message that no employee should raise allegations

of misconduct or criticize the FBI to outsiders. Almost everyone we interviewed

stated that this phrase is commonly used throughout the FBI, and they read no

sinister meaning from Jordan's use of the term. The FBI employees we

interviewed did not believe he was using the phrase to warn them not to go outside

the FBI or that he was threatening those who did. We also did not substantiate, as

was alleged, that Jordan read the 60 Minutes transcript in a disgusted tone, or that

he showed distaste for Senator Grassley when referring to him.

However, we concluded that Jordan exhibited poor judgment with regard to

several aspects of the November 6 meeting. First, with regard to the timing of the

meeting, Jordan learned that Roberts could not attend the meeting on November 6

because he was on sick leave that day. The meeting had been scheduled originally

for Thursday, November 7, but because Jordan was scheduled to be on leave on

33
November 7 and 8, he moved the meeting up one day. At the Unit Chiefs' meeting

on the morning of November 6, Jordan disclosed that he intended to discuss the

60 Minutes program at the all-employees meeting later that day. At that time, he

learned that Roberts was not in the office that day. In response to a suggestion

from a Unit Chief, Jordan asked a subordinate in Roberts' unit to notify Roberts of

the meeting and offer him the opportunity to participate by speakerphone.

We believe that Jordan should have talked to Roberts personally about what

he planned to discuss at the all-employees meeting.3l We also think Jordan should

not have discussed this topic at a meeting that Roberts could not attend. While

Jordan said he did not want to wait another month to address the issue, and he did

not want to call a special all-employees meeting to address the 60 Minutes issue by

itself, he could have rescheduled the all-employees meeting for a few days laterthe following week -when both he and Roberts would be in the office.32 We agree

with Kiernan's suggestions to Jordan that he wait until Roberts was back in the

office to have the meeting, and that offering Roberts a chance to participate by

speakerphone, even ifhe were available, was not the same as him being there.

Second, we believe that it would have been prudent for Jordan to consult

with FBI officials before the all-employees meeting to seek guidance on what he

could and should say. The meeting presented a sensitive situation and Jordan

needed to choose his words carefully. We believe that Jordan would have been

wise to seek guidance from the FBI Office of General Counsel. Although Jordan

informed his supervisor, Lowery, that he intended to address the broadcast at the

meeting, he sought no guidance or legal advice on what he planned to say. While

we do not suggest that a manager must always seek legal guidance before

addressing his staff, this situation was particularly sensitive and presented unusual

issues, and Jordan would have been well advised to seek legal guidance.

Third, we are concerned about a statement Jordan made -both to Roberts on

October 29 and during the all-employees meeting on November 6 -that "he who

creates ambiguity shall have that ambiguity resolved against him." It is not clear

what Jordan meant by this statement, or what Jordan was implying about what the

31 Jordan told us he did not call Roberts because he thought that further conversation with

Roberts about the 60 Minutes broadcast "would add fuel to the fire."

32 Jordan told us that he considered putting off the meeting until the following week, but that

concern in OPR about the program was "mounting." He said he did not want to have a staff

meeting that talked about anniversaries and birthdays but "ignore[ d] the elephant in the room."

34
"resolution" against Roberts would or should be. Jordan told us that Roberts'

inference that OPR was not "on the level" was an ambiguous statement that could

not be supported. Jordan said his quote was not a threatening statement, but a

comment that "the one who creates language is responsible for the conclusions or

reasonable inferences drawn from that language." Jordan said his anticipated

"resolution is that the truth will come out and that John Roberts will have to

answer in some forum for what he said to millions of CBS viewers. Simply, the

resolution is the truth."

Yet, Jordan's statement implied that Roberts would have some action

resolved against him. Although Jordan stated that he meant that the resolution of

Roberts' statements on 60 Minutes was simply that the truth would ultimately

prevail, that inference is not at all clear. Rather, a reasonable inference from

Jordan's statement was that some action would be taken against Roberts for his

comments on 60 Minutes. We question Jordan's use of this statement, which itself

was ambiguous.

Fourth and even more troubling was Jordan's lack of response to a question

at the all-employees meeting about whether there had been any discussion about

how to remove people from their job who had been in it too long and had lost their

effectiveness. Clearly, this question referred to Roberts. According to multiple

witnesses, Jordan did not respond to the question. In our view, this lack of

response left the impression that Jordan agreed with the statement or, at a

minimum, did not repudiate it. Instead of saying he had no intention of forcing

Roberts to leave OPR, Jordan said nothing.33

Finally, we believe Jordan's selection of Fortin to be the Acting DAD, and

particularly the time and manner in which Jordan made the selection, left the clear

appearance of retaliation against Roberts for his statements on 60 Minutes ,34

jj Jordan also had not repudiated an OPR employee's e-mail earlier in the week expressing a

similar sentiment. The employee's e-mail suggested surprise that someone with so little faith in

the OPR process could be allowed to continue to play such an instrumental role in OPR. Jordan

responded to the e-mail with a vague statement that the writer's observations were accurate and

probably reflected the opinions of others. ~ footnote 19.

34 As a First Amendment issue and under the Whistleblower Protection Act, courts and the

Merit System Protection Board have analyzed cases in which public employees have suffered

adverse consequences for critical statements they made about their employers. ~,~,

Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (1968); Oliver v. D~'t of Health and Human

~, 34 M.S.P .R. 465 (1987). (The Whistleblower Protection Act does not apply to most FBI

(continued)

35
Before the broadcast, Jordan had selected Roberts twice to be the Acting AD in his

absence. Roberts also was the most senior Unit Chief in OPR. However, shortly

after the 60 Minutes appearance, and just after the all-employees meeting, Jordan

selected Fortin to be the Acting DAD while the permanent position was being

filled. Jordan said he selected Fortin because he was an attorney, was well

respected, and was seeking promotions.

Yet, Jordan acknowledged that Roberts' 60 Minutes interview affected his

choice. For example, Jordan stated to us that he believed that if he selected

Roberts for the Acting DAD position "during this post-60 Minutes environment, it

could have a negative impact on OPR." Jordan added that Roberts had been the

Acting AD for several weeks during Jordan's absence and had "a shot at being

promoted" and had the "opportunity to open cases," but Roberts "chose not to do

that" and instead went on 60 Minutes and said "we're corrupt."

Before making his selection of Fortin, Jordan did not detemrine whether

Roberts, or anyone else in OPR, was interested in the position. After the selection,

Jordan did not discuss with Roberts, or anyone else, why he selected Fortin instead

of Roberts. Many of the OPR employees we interviewed told us they were

surprised that Jordan had selected Fortin for the Acting DAD position, not Roberts,

the most senior Unit Chief and the person who had filled in as the Acting Assistant

Director for Jordan in his absence. Several told us it appeared to them the

selection was in retaliation for the 60 Minutes interview.

(continued)

employees, but there are similar regulations addressing alleged retaliation in the FBI. ~ 28

C.F.R. Part 27.) According to this case law, the interests of the employee in speaking out about

matters of public concern are balanced againsthe employer's interest in promoting the

efficiency of the public agency. As described by the Supreme Court, pertinent considerations in

conducting this balancing include "whether the statement impairs discipline by superiors or

harmony among co-workers, has a detrimental impact on close working relationships for which

personal loyalty and confidence are necessary, or impedes the performance of the speaker's

duties or interferes with the regular operation of the enterprise." Rankin v. McPherson, 483 U.S.

378,388 (1987). Roberts' statements clearly addressed amatter of public concern, since the

issue of the FBI's investigation and adjudication of allegations of misconduct has received

significant public attention. On the other side of the equation is the consideration of the FBI in

promoting the efficiency of its operation. We believe the balance in this case would be a close

question. However, whether or not Jordan's selection of Fortin rather than Roberts would be

deemed to constitute retaliation in a legal sense, we believe the way Jordan handled the

appointment left the clear appearance of retaliation against Roberts.

36
In sum, we recognize that the statements by Roberts on 60 Minutes

complicated Jordan's selection of someone to fill the Acting DAD position.

However, we believe Jordan's selection of Fortin, including the timing of it and the

way it was handled, left the clear appearance of retaliation against Roberts.

VIII. CONCLUSION

We do not believe that Jordan intended to threaten or harass Roberts for his

statements on 60 Minutes. We also do not believe that it was improper for Jordan

and Lowery to refer the allegations Roberts made on 60 Minutes to the OIG for

review. Nor do we conclude it was improper for Jordan to address the 60 Minutes

interview at the all-employees meeting.

Yet, while most of Jordan's statements at the meeting were not

inappropriate, we believe he exhibited poor judgment in several respects. We

believe that he should have attempted to schedule the meeting when Roberts could

attend or at least personally told Roberts about the meeting and what he intended to

say. We also believe he would have been wise to seek guidance about the meeting

and what he could and should say about the 60 Minutes broadcast. We question

the appropriateness of Jordan's statement at the meeting that "he who creates

ambiguity shall have that ambiguity resolved against him." Even more troubling

was his lack of response to a question that suggested that Roberts should be

removed from OPR. Finally, we believe Jordan's selection of another Unit Chief

to be the Acting DAD, including the timing of it and the way it was handled, left

the appearance of retaliation against Roberts for his statements on 60 Minutes.

1 ill fO) )It- a ~

Date Glenn A. Fine

Inspector General

37

PAip,IC~ J. LEAHY. VEI\MCNT. CH_;R"'.!.~J

ED\",...~D rw1. ~ENNED'f. MA~SA::HUSE1T.. CPR/I'! G. hAiCH. UTAH

JCSE:'H R eIDEN. JR., DELAWARE S'iRCIt1 THUMr";vND. SOUt}i CAROLlr:A

Hefi2~RT ,<.':104\., V.lISCO~S!N C1'!AflLES E. GRASSLE¥,IOV..A

~IAt-jN= FE;1\;5TEIN. CAL:F,::R~IA AFiLEN SPErnH. P£I~NSYl.VANIA

FL:SSELL D. FeINGOLD, WI$CONSIN JC~I :<Vt.. A~rz.ONA

C~.ARU:S E. SCHUMEJI. NEW YORK f.'IKE CEWINE. OHIO

RIC~ARD J. DURBIN.ILUNOIS JEFF SESSIONS, ALABAMA

MARIA CANi'NELI. WAS~INGTON $.\f.1 5;,OWNBACI<, ~NSAS

JOHN EDWAROS. NORTH CAROLINA "'iITC~ MCCONIJELL. KENTUCKY,

November 8, 2002

The Honorable Robert S. Mueller, ill

Director

Federal Bureau of Investigation

935 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Room 7142

Washington, D.C. 20535

Dear Dire-;tor Mueller:

We write to alert you of allegations that seDior officials at t..~e Federal Bureau of mvestigation

(FBI) have taken retaliatory actions againsfUnit Chi:f ("UC") John Roberts, of the FBI's Office

of Professional Responsibility (OPR) and his wife after his FBI approved appearance on the CBS

ne~.s show "60 Minutes," "\vhich was broadcast Sunday, October 27.

The salient allegations are that Robert J. Jordan, Assistant Director ("AD") of the Office of

Professional Responsibility and Executive Assistant Director ("EAD") W. Wilson Lowery, Jr.,

two members of your new management team, engaged in a course of retiliatory action against

UC Roberts in the ten days since his televised appearance, in which he discussed continuing

problems at the FBI.

As you know, UC Roberts has a record of decades of distinguished and unblemished service at

the FBI, including testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee regarding some oftl1e issues

that you agreed needed attention at your confimlation hearings as FBI DiIector. Among tl1e most

disturbing aspects of the recent allegations, then, is that these senior FBI officials invoked your

name in expressing displeasure at Roberts' recent criticisms of the Bureau in a public forum.

Among other actions, we have been told that AD Jordan angrily confronted UC Roberts after the

""60 Minutes" show aired and told him during a meeting that his appearance was a personal insult

("a dis") to both he and to you. Then, on a day when UC Roberts was out sick, AD Jordan held

an all hands staff meeting (including UC Roberts' colleagues, subordinates, and his \'sire, who is

an employee in CPR) at which the transcript oftbe "60 lvIinutes" program was read aloud. After

reading the transcript, AD Jordan stated that the FBI ,vas a "family" (and by implication that

problems should be handled h: private) and allegedly facilitated negative comments about UC

Roberts by his colleagues, including at least one comment indicating, in effect, that UC Roberts

be transferred from his post or fired, which AD Jordan said should be considered. We

understand that AD Jordan also said at the meeting that you agree with his assessment ofUC

Roberts and his comments. UC Roberts'Wife was so ~lpset by the incident that she required brief

medical assistaDce immediately after the meeting ended.

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

WASHINGTON. DC 2051~2i5
T~e Honorable Robert S. Mueller, ill

N cvember 8, 2002

Page 2

In addition, EAD Lowery called UC Roberts to his office. \"";here he and AD Jordan initiated an

aggressive and hostile conversation about his broadcast remarks. EAD Lowery and AD Jordan

angrily challenged UC Roberts to support his allegations \vith specific examples -an ironic

request since the FBI had approved Mr. Roberts public appearance on the condition tllat he

refrain from discussing many oithe specific cases that he knows of as the longtime head of tile

FBI's own Office o'fProfessional Responsibility. They then told UC Roberts that they were'

asking the Justice Department's Office of the Inspector General (OIG) to look into the matter and

\vrote the OIG a terse letter to that effect.

Although it might be possible in other cases to argue that a refelTa11etter based on such

allegations to the IG is an appropriate course of action, it seems difficult to make that case in this

matter. UC's Roberts' comments were made in the public dom~ "With prior FBI approval, and

neither UC Robcrts nor the DIG needed a formal letter of referral to follow up on matters within

DIG jurisdiction already. Viewed in light of the simultaneous informal efforts that FBI officials

\vere making to encourage a negative reaction to UC Roberts' actions, the refeualletter appears

to be an effort to sidestep responsibility for FBI missteps and to send a discouraging message to

future employees Vv"ho consider public criticism of the FBI.

The FBI also is trying to discredit UC Roberts by posting on the FBI's intranet a letter that

disputes UC Roberts' comments. The letter, from Michael Kortan in the Office of Public and

Congressional Affairs to "60 Minutes," is available for every employee in the nation to read a.,.d

observe how senior officials in headquarters react to wmstleblowers and public criticism.

These actions have humiliated UC Roberts and his v.ire in front of their colle3gues and caused

him to fear for his job. Moreover, the reprisals potentially undernlinc UC Roberts' authority as

head of CPR's Internal Investigative Unit ll. Finally, and of equ3l importance for the future of

the FBI, these types of actions have a chilling effect on others who might make \vhistleblower

disclosures or truthftll yet critical comments to the media.

We urge you in the strongest possible terms to ensure any retaliation ceases immediately, and

that appropriate corrective action is tal<en against any responsible officials. UC Roberts'

comments were certainly not flattering to the FBI, but they did not violate any ~tten code of

conduct. Indeed, his remarks were quite similar to his testimony before the Senate Judiciary

Con1Inittee in July 2001, and you have also ackno\vledged (in public settings) that such reporting

should be encouraged within the FBI.

UC Roberts' recent comments also echoed the conclusions of the September I, 1999 study

entitled "FBI Senior Executive Service Accountability -A Higher Standard Or A Double

Standard?" This study, prepared by the Law Enforcement Ethics Unit of the FBI Academy,

concluded that: "The effects of disp~te disciplinarf action in tlle FBI bet'.veen lower-level

employees and senior m2Ilagement has had and will continue-to have a SCVCl"C dotrimental
The Honorable Robert S. Mueller, ill

November 8, 2002

Page 3

Impact."

We also note that your office is in possession of a draft report from tile OIG that is critical of the

FBI for its double-standard in discipline, where senior bureaucrats get away with violations that

rank-and-fi1e agents are severely punished for. As you know, this GIG investigation has its

origins, in part, in internal investigations that UC Roberts has conducted. Of course UC Robe11s'

contributions to this repol1 make him a target for further retaliation.

You have repeatedly pledged -bofu in public and personally to us in private -that you will not

tolerate retaliation against FBI wbistleblowel"S. hldeed, in sever~ response letters to us, you have

cited the November 7, 2001 memo that you sent to all FBI employees stating that you will not

tolerate retaliation against whistleblowers. We urge you to follo".v through on these ~'ords ~ith

actions and take the appropriate corrective action against EAD Lowery and AD Jordan.

We hope that your actions in thjs and other critical matters in the FBI at tins time, including an

allegation ofretaliation against an agent who reported thefts from Ground Zero by FBI agents,

will bear out your prior pledges.

In light of these 211egatio~. please answer the following questions:

1. \Vbat role, ifany, did you have in the actions described above?

2. Did AD Jordan in fact read from the "60 Minutes" transcript in front of all OPR employees?

Did EAD Lowery or any of Jordan's superiors instruct him to do that in any way?

3. Did AD J ord3n disclose that Roberts was represented by co\lnsel? Did E.A.D Lowery or any of

Jordan's sup eriors in any way instruct him to do that?

4. Do you believ~ the actions ofE_W Lowery and AD Jordan are consistent with the letter and

spirit of your November 7, 2001 memo that states you do not tolerate reprisals against those who

expose wrongdoing inside the FBI?

5. We also requesthat you make EAD Lower;y and AD Jordan available as soon as possible to

answer questions from our staff and other interested staff of oversight committees about this

matter.
The Honorable Robert S. Mueller, ill

November 8, 2002

Page 4

We look forward to your prc.mpt response to these questions and any oth~r additional

infonnation you \;ish to provide in this matter.

Sincerely,

--- - ~

p ..A_TRICK LEAHY

ChaiIman

cc:

Special Agent John Roberts

Unit Chief, Office of Professional Responsibility

Federal Bureau of Investigation .

The Honorable Glerm A. Fine

Inspector General

Department of Justice

The Honorable Onin Hatch

Ranking Member

Senate Judiciary Committee

The Honorable Frank Wolf

Chairm2n

House Appropriations Subcommittee on Commf..ce, Justice. State and the Judiciary

The Honorable F. Ja.'nes Sensenbrenner, Jr.

Chainnan

House Judiciary Committee

u "::'. D~parnnent of JU3t1ce

Federal Bureau of Investigation

Washington. D.C. 20SJS

October 8. 2002

VIA TELECOPY

202/342-6980

Stephen M. Kohn

Kohn, Kohn & Colapinto

3233 P Street, N. W.

Washington, D.C. 20007-2756

Re Request from 60 Minutes to Interview SoecialAQ:ent John E. Roberts

Dear Mr. Kohn

This is in response to correspondence from your office dated October 4, 2002, indicating

that, based upon your advice, Special Agent John E. Roberts will be interviewed by 60 Minutes.

We understand Mr. Roberts will be asked to address general issues regarding FBI culture and

will not be asked to comment upon confidential FBI matters or open and pending investigations.

As you know, your client executed an employment agreement when he entered on duty

with the FBI that applies to the disclosure of official FBI information. That agreement prohibits

disclosure (without prior approval from the Director or his delegate) of infoffi1ation obtained in

an employee's official capacity concerning the following:

Information protected from agency disclosure by the Privacy Act;

Information that is classified or the disclosure of which could otherwise harm national

security;

Infonnation that reveals sensitive law enforcement, intelligence, or counter-intelligence

teclmiques, sources or methods; or that reveals the sensitive, confidential, or proprietal"y

techniques, sources, or methods of other agencies or governmental entities;

Information that would reveal grand jury material protected from disclosure by Rule 6( e)

of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure;

iuforrnation that would reveal the identity of a confidential source or inforn1ant;
Stephen M. Kahn

Information that relates to any sensitive operational details or the merits of any ongoing

or open investigation, inquest, probe, prosecution, appeal, or case;

Information that consists of the proprietary information of another, including trade

secrets. ,

Information pertaining to wiretaps or intercepts protected or regulated by Title III (18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2520); .

Information pertaining to currency transaction reports regulated or protected by 31 U.S.C

§ 5319;

Tax return information regulated or protected by 26 V.S.C. § 6103;

Information protected from disclosure by any other Federal statute or regulation; and,

Information exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Infonnation Act (5 V.S.C. §

552) unless the material is clearly already in the public domain.

Your client, therefore, may be interviewed as long as he complies with the abovenoted restrictions. Any request for further information should be respectfully declined.

Sincerel'A- L,

/8 -Koftan (/ I

Section Chief,

Public Affairs Section

Office of Public and Congressional Affairs

-John E. Roberts

Unit Chief, Internal Investigative Unit II

Office of Professional Responsibility

Federal Bureau of Investigation

-l{o ~rt J. Jordan

Assistant Director

Office of P~.'"'fessiol1al Responsibility

Federal Bureau of Investigation

-2-

SHOW: 60 Minutes

DATE: October 27. 2002

LOST IN TRANSLATION

ED BRADLEY. host:

Lost in Translation is the story of hundreds, if not thousands, of foreign

language documents that the FBI neglected to translate before and after

September 11 th because of problems in its language department, documents that

detailed what the FBI heard on wiretaps and learned during interrogations of

suspected terrorists. Sibel Edmonds, a translator who worked at the FBI's

language division, says the documents weren't translated because the division

is riddled with incompetence and corruption. Edmonds was fired after reporting

her concerns to FBI officials. She recently told her story behind closed doors

to investigators in Congress and to the Justice Department. Tonight she tells

her story to us.

(Footage of Edmonds and Bradley; FBI agents car.rying boxes out of house;

Edmonds and Bradley)

BRADLEY: (Voiceover) Because she is fluent in Turkish and other Middle Eastern

languages, Edmonds, a 32-year-old Turkish-American, was hired by the FBI soon

after September 11 th and given top-secret security clearance to translate some

of the reams of documents seized by FBI agents who, for the past year, have

been rounding up suspected terrorists across the United States and abroad.

Ms. SIBEL EDMONDS: The first two months after the September 11 event, we--the

agents out there in--in--in New York, LA, other field offices, they were

working around the clock. And I would receive calls from these people saying,

'Would you please prioritize this and--and translate it?'

-

(Footage of Edmonds sitting at desk; Edmonds and Bradley)

BRADLEY: (Voiceover) But Edmonds says that to her amazement, from the day she

started the job, she was told repeatedly by one of her supervisors that there

was no urgency; that she should ta~;e longer to translate documents so that the

department would appear overworked and understaffed. That way. it would

receive a 'arger budget for the next year.

Ms. ECi~.10NDS: We were told by our supervisors that this was the great
opportunity for asking for increased budget and asking for more translators.

And in order to do that, don't do the work and let the documents pile up so we

can show it and say that we need more translators and expand the department.

BRADLEY: So you--you have FBI agents who are in the field relying on your

translation work in order to move their cases forward, and your supervisor is

saying, 'Slow down. Let the cases pile up'?

Ms. EDMONDS: Correct.

BRADLEY: I mean, how is it possible that the focus wasn't on terrorism,

particularly after 9/11?

Ms. EDMONDS: It was not. At least in that department, it was not.

(Footage of Bradley and Edmonds)

BRADLEY: (Voiceover) Edmonds says that the supervisor, in an effort to slow her

down, went so far as to erase completed translations from her FBI computer

after she'd left work for the day.

Ms. EDMONDS: The next day, I would come to work, turn on my computer and the

work would be gone. The translation would be gone. Then I had to start all

over again and retranslate the same document. And I went to my supervisor and

he said, 'Consider it a lesson and don't talk about it to anybody else and

don't mention it.'

BRADLEY: What's the lesson?

Ms. EDMONDS: The lesson was don't work, don't do the translations. Go out and

spend two hours lunch breaks, you know. Go and--don't go and get coffee

downstairs. Go eight blocks away. Just chat with your friends. But don't do

the work because--and this is our chance to increase the number of people here

in this department.

(Footage of Edmonds sitting at desk; Grassley speaking at podium; Grassley and

Bradley)

BRADLEY: (Voiceover) Sibel Edmonds put her concerns about the FBI's language

department in writing to her immediate superiors and to a top official at the

FBI. Edmonds says for months, she got no response. She then turned for help

to the Justice Department's inspector general, which is investigating her

claims, and to Senator Charles Grassley because his committee, the Judiciary

Committee, has direct oversight of the FBI.

Did she seem credible to you? Did her story seem credible?

Senator CHARLES GRASSLEY (Republican, Iowa): Absolutely, she's credible. And

the reason I feel she's very credible is because people within the FBI have

corroborated a lot of her story.

(Footage of woman working at computer; Kevin Taskasen speaking with woman;

prisoners at Guantanamo Bay; Taskasen; Edmonds and Bradley)

BRADLEY: (Voiceover) The FBI h&s conceded that some people in the language

department are una.ble to adequately speak English or the la..guage they're
supposed to be translating. Kevin Taskasen was assigned to Guantanamo Bay in

Cuba to translate interrogations of Turkish-speaking al-Qaida members who had

been captured after September 11th. The FBI admits that he was not fully

qualified to do the job.

Ms. EDMONDS: He neither passed the English nor the Turkish side of this

language proficiency test.

BRADLEY: So that means if, for example, you had a--a terrorist detained at--at

Guantanamo who had information about an attack being planned in the future

against the United States, that person would not have been in a position to

translate that?

Ms. EDMONDS: Correct. He wouldn't.

BRADLEY: mean, that's hard to imagine.

Ms. EDMONDS: But that's the case.

(Footage of exterior of J. Edgar Hoover FBI Building; recovery effort at World

Trade Centerpombing in 1993; exterior of FBI Building; recovery effort at

World Trade Center bombing in 2001; GAO documents on foreign languages;

Grassley and Bradley)

BRADLEY: (Voiceover) Critical shortages of experienced Middle Eastern language

translators have plagued the FBI and the rest of the US intelligence community

for years. Months before the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993, one of

the plotters of the attack was heard on tape having a discussion in Arabic that

no one at the time knew was about how to make explosives, and he had a manual

that no one at the time knew was about how to blow up buildings. None of it

was translated until well after the bombing, and while the FBI has hired more

translators since then, officials concede that problems in ttie language

division have hampered the country's efforts to battle terrorism, and according

to congressional investigators, may have played a role in the inability to

prevent the September 11 th attacks. Earlier this year, the General Accounting

Office reported that the FBI had expressed concern over the thousands of hours

of audiotapes and pages of written material that have not been reviewed or

translated because of a lack of qualified linguists.

Sen. GRASSLEY: If--lf they got word today that within--in a little while, the

Hoover Dam was going to be blown up, and it takes a week or two to get it

translated, as was one of the problems in this department, you know, you

couldn't intervene to prevent that from happening.

BRADLEY: So you think that this place does need an overhaul essentially?

Sen. GRASSLEY: It needs to be turned upside down.,

(Footage of exterior of FBI Building; FBI agent; foreign flags; Bradley)

BRADLEY: (Voiceover) In its rush to hire more foreign language translators

after September 11 th, the FBI admits it has had difficulty performing

background checks to detect translators who ri:ay have loyalties to other

governments, which could pose a threat to US national security.

Take the case of Jan Dickerson, a Turkish translator who worked with Sibel
(Footage of Turkish Embassy; Edmonds and Bradley)

BRADLEY: (Voiceover) ...she'd had a relationship with a Turkish intelligence

officer stationed in Washington who was the target of that investigation.

According to Sibel Edmonds, Jan Dickerson tried to recruit her into that

organization, and insisted that Dickerson be the only one to translate the

FBI's wiretaps of that Turkish official.

What was her reaction when you didn't go along with--with her plan?

BRADLEY: Threatened you?

Ms. EDMONDS: Correct.

BRADLEY: Did--did you take her threat seriously?

BRADLEY: (Voiceover) Edmonds says that when she reviewed Dickerson's

translations of those tapes, she found that Dickerson had left out information

crucial to the FBI's investigation; information that Edmonds says would have

revealed that the Turkish intelligence officer had spies working for him inside

the US State Department and at the Pentagon.

BRADLEY: And she had not translated these--these--this information?

Ms. EDMONDS: No, she had marked it as 'not important to be translated.'

(Edmonds working; Edmonds and Bradley)

BRADLEY: (Voiceover) Edmonds says she complained repeatedly to her bosses about

what she'd found on the wiretaps and about Jan Dickerson's conduct, but that

nobody at the FBI wanted to hear about it. She says not even the assistant

special agent in charge.
Ms. EDMONDS: He said, 'Do you realize what you are saying here in your

allegations? Are you telling me that our security people are not doing their

jobs? Is that what you're telling me? If you insist on this investigation,

I'll make sure in no time it will turn around and become an investigation about

you.' These were his exact words.

(Footage of FBI letter to Edmonds; Bradley)

BRADLEY: (Voiceover) Sibel Edmonds was fired this past March. The FBI offered

no explanation, saying in the letter only that her contract was terminated

completely for the government's convenience.

But three months later, the FBI conceded that on at least two occasions, Jan

Dickerson had, in fact, left out significant information from her translations.

They say it was due to a lack of experience and was not malicious.

(Footage of exterior of home; Chicago Tribune article; Grassley and Bradley)

BRADLEY: (Voiceover) Dickerson recently quit the FBI and now lives in Belgium

She declined to be interviewed, but two months ago, she told the Chicago

Tribune that the allegations against her are preposterous and ludicrous.

Senator Charles Grassley says he's disturbed by what the Dickerson incident

says about internal security at the FBI.

Sen. GRASSLEY: You shouldn't have somebody in your organization that's

compromising our national security by not doing the job right, whether it's a

lack of skills or whether it's intentional.

BRADLEY: Based on your experience, does the Sibel Edmonds case fall into any

pattern of behavior. pattern of conduct on--on the part of the FBI?

Sen. GRASSLEY: The usual pattern. Let me tell you, first of all, the

embarrassing information comes out, the FBI reaction is to sweep it under the

rug, and then eventually they shoot the messenger.

(Footage of John Roberts leaving building; Roberts and Bradley)

BRADLEY: (Voiceover) Special agent John Roberts, a chief of the FBI's Internal

Affairs Department, agrees. And while he is not permitted to discuss the Sibel

Edmonds case, for the last 10 years, he has been investigating misconduct by

FBI employees and says he is outraged by how little is ever done about it.

Mr. JOHN ROBERTS: I don't know of another person in the FBI who has done the

internal investigations that I have and has seen what I have and that knows

what has occurred and what has been glossed over and what has, frankly, just

disappeared, just vaporized, and no one disciplined for it.

(Footage of Robert Mueller speaking at podium; Roberts; Edmonds working;

Roberts and Bradley)

BRADLEY: (Voiceover) Despite a pledge from FBI director Robert Mueller to

overhaul the culture of the FBI in light of 9/11, and encourage bureau

employees to come forward to report wrongdoing, Roberts says that in the rare

instances when employees are disciplined, it's usually low-level employees like

Sibel Edmonds who get punished and not their bosses.
Mr. ROBERTS: I think the double standard of discipline will continue no matter

who comes in, no matter who tries to change. You--you have a certain--certain

group that--that will continue to protect itself. That's just how it is.

BRADLEY: No matter what happens?

Mr. ROBERTS: I would say no matter what happens.

BRADLEY: Have you found cases since 9/11 where people were involved in

misconduct and were not, let alone reprimanded, but were even promoted?

Mr. ROBERTS: Oh, yes. Absolutely.

BRADLEY: That's astonishing.

Mr. ROBERTS: Why?

BRADLEY: Because you--you would think that after 9/11, that's a big slap on the

face. 'Hello! This is a wake-up call here.'

Mr. ROBERTS: Depends on who you are. If you're in the senior executive level,

it may not hurt you. You will be promoted.

BRADLEY: In fact, the supervisor who Sibel Edmonds says told her to slow down

her translations was recently promoted. Edmonds has filed a whistle-blower

suit to get her job back, but last week, US Attorney General Ashcroft asked the

court to dismiss it on grounds it would compromise national security. And also

on the grounds of national security, the FBI declined to discuss the specifics

of her charges, but it says it takes all such charges seriously and

investigates them.

(Announcements)

u.s. Dcpartmcl1t of Justice

Federal Bureau of In\Oestigation

\\:l5hillgtOIl, D. C. 205_'5-(1001

October 30, 2002

Honorable Glenn A. Fine

Inspector General

Department of JusticeWashington, 

D.C.

Dear Mr. Fine

On October 27, 2002, John Roberts, a Unit Chief in

our Office of Professional Responsibility appeared in a broadcast

of the CBS News program "60 Minutes." During the broadcast,

Unit Chief Roberts was interviewed regarding disparate

disciplinary treatment for different levels of FBI employees.

A full transcript of his comments is attached; however, he is

quoted as saying that:

"I don't know of another person in the FBI who has done

the internal investigations that I have. and seen what I have and

that knows what has occurred and what has been glossed over and

what has, frankly, just disappeared, just vaporized, and no'one

disciplined for it."

"I think the double standard of discipline will

continue no matter who comes in, ho matter who tries to change.

You--you have a certain--certain group that--that will continue

to protect itself. That's just how it is."

"Depends on who you are.

executive level, it may not hurt you

If 

you're in the senior

.You will be promoted

Other comments later in the interview (also attached)

indicate his lack of confidence in the ability of this office to

address these issues. There is an implication that improprieties

have continued since September 11, 2001. Further, these

allegations relate to your draft report concerning an alleged

double standard of discipline in the FBI.
Honorable Glenn A Fine

These remarks raise serious issues of concern to us.

Given the gravity of his remarks, and his lack of confidence in

this office to address these issues, we have directed Unit Chief

Roberts to contact your office to provide aqditional details.

Please contact me if I can be of further assistance in this

matter.

Sincerely yours,

" /1 6.., t.,' ;:hk' 

!-"./ [l. c,LL'=' i"~ ~1.--

Rcb'bert J. Jordan

Assistant Director

Office of Professional

Responsibility

Enclosure

u.s. Department of Justice

Federal Bureau of Investigation

Washing/"n. D.C. 205.15

Novemher l. 2002

Mr. Donllewltt

Executive Direetor

"60 Minutes"

525 W. 57'" St.

New York, N\' 10019-2901

Dear Mr. Hewitt

I am concerned that Sunday's report on the FBI's foreign language translation program

may have left viewers with wrong impressions in several important areas.

First, preventing terrorism is the top priority of the FBI. There is no greater locus or

urgency. Over the past two years, the FBI has doubled its linguist workforce and has

dramatically reduced or eliminated existing backlogs. Since 9/11, we've continued to

aggressively recruit and hire translators to keep pace with a workload increase of more than

50%. Moreover, the same January, 2002, General Accounting Office report referenced in the

story actually commended the FBI's foreign language program's management and strategic

planning as a model worthy of imitation throughout the government.

Second, the FBI's security program for all employees and for employees and contractors

in the language services program, in particular, is robust, and we are confident that safeguards

are in place in the program to protect national security.

Finally, contrary to allegations in your story, reports of employee misconduct are given

high priority and exhaustively investigated, and punishment is imposed in an equal manner.

While allegations of disparate treatment were raised in the early and mid-1990's, the FBI has

implemented policies to protect against actual or perceived unfairness in the disciplinary process.

Importantly, under Director Robert S. Mueller, any serious allegation of wrongdoing made

.against an FBI employee is reviewed by the Department of Justice, Office of Inspector General -

making it impossible for misconduct to be ignored, much less rewarded, as alleged in Sunday's

report.

I apprecIate thIs opportunity to clarIty some possible misconceptions and hopc that thIs

can be brought to the attention of your viewers as soon as possible.

, f'- J;L~

P. Kartan

Chief. Public Affairs Section