Judicial Watch Lawsuits and Investigations Seek To Hold Him Accountable for National Security Lapses

Freeh Asks Supreme Court to Intervene In Judicial Watch Case Against Him

(Washington, DC) Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, predicted today that former FBI Director Louis Freeh’s attempt to evade responsibility for the FBI’s failures in the national security arena will fail. Freeh has finally been called to testify publicly in the congressional September 11 intelligence failure probe. In his remarks to Congress, Freeh reportedly takes no blame for any failure by the FBI to follow up on information it had concerning the activities of the September 11 hijackers and related clues to the terrorist attacks.

This evasion of responsibility may work with Congress, but it has not thus far worked with the courts. Notra Trulock, the former head of intelligence for the Energy Department, is alleging that his First Amendment rights were violated by Freeh and other FBI officials when, after Trulock wrote an article critical of the FBI, they ordered his personal computer files by seized by FBI agents. The FBI neither had a warrant nor the consent of Trulock or his landlord to conduct the illegal search and seizure. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld key aspects of Trulock’s claim against Freeh and now Freeh is asking the Supreme Court to overturn the decision. Trulock is represented by Judicial Watch.

“Whether it be the Ruby Ridge cover-up, the FBI files scandal, or his vendetta against Notra Trulock, Louis Freeh has acted as if he were immune from the law. And now he seeks to avoid responsibility for any failures of the FBI in preventing the Sept. 11 attacks, despite his heading the FBI for nearly seven years in the run up to the attacks. If anyone wonders what Louis Freeh was doing while terrorists were planning their attack on America, see our case for Notra Trulock. Freeh has played both Republicans and Democrats like fiddles over the years. We are confident that the Supreme Court will not be played nor, in the end, will a jury,