In @PostOpinions, former FBI General Counsel @AWeissmann_ and I assess FBI Director Wray's two days of testimony on #Jan6.
First, Wray failed to explain FBI policy on social media monitoring that may be "galling to lawmakers" when they find out. washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/…
2. Watch👇
@AOC: Does FBI monitor social media to combat violent extremism (such as threats to Capitol on social media pre-#Jan6)
Wray: DOJ policy prevents FBI without "proper predication"
DOJ policy: Can monitor social media WITHOUT predication for special events (like Jan 6)
3. Watch👇
@RepSwalwell: Does FBI have authority to monitor open source websites/social media where groups post about threats?
Wray: Att'y General Guidelines prevent FBI without "proper predication"
A.G. Guidelines: Can monitor WITHOUT predication for special events (eg #Jan6)
4. Here's a screenshot of those Attorney General Guidelines, which clearly state:
FBI Assessments are permitted for special events (obviously like certification of election at US Capitol).
Assessments authorize FBI scanning Internet for this content and, indeed, encourage it.
5. Note how closely Wray’s words in response to Swalwell (June 10) match Wray’s words in response to AOC (June 15).
Sounds like he carefully scripted his response in advance of the hearing.
Which would be extremely disappointing given how misleading the response is.
6. Wray vs. Wray
Watch👇
June 10: @RepSwalwell asks if social media company sent any tip to FBI warning of threat to Capitol.
Wray's response is VERY different when…
June 15: @RepMaloney reveals social media company Parler sent FBI tips of threats to Capitol. Wray admits it.
7. This by Wray is also galling
@RepCori questions how FBI action towards #Jan6 compare to FBI action towards #BLM in summer
Wray's response is basically: I came unprepared to recall what FBI did with BLM in summer
The question is foreseeable and hugely important to J6 inquiry
8. Wray must know answer to that specific Q.
Instead American public gets this:
“As far as the summer, sitting here right now, I know this is a hearing on Jan. 6, I just don't remember what products or intelligence assessments we did or didn't do over the course of the summer."
Wray's approach to Congress and to the public seems highly inconsistent with commitments #Garland made during his confirmation hearing. Commitments to transparency and responsiveness.
WaPo: @SecRubio, in step with Sebastian Gorka, is tripling down on bad idea.
Trying to enlist foreign states in bogus antifa fight at July 16 ministerial
WaPo: Rubio-Gorka alienating U.S. allies in true counterterrorism efforts
I wrote on threats to American civil liberties⬇️
2/
Rubio Tries to Enlist Other Nations in Antifa Fight, But Some Allies Recoil washingtonpost.com/national-secur…
(by @nakashimae @John_Hudson @mradamtaylor
@nakashimae @John_Hudson @mradamtaylor 3/ Gorka "has had discussions with colleagues about using foreign terrorism labels for antifa to justify going after Americans ....
A linkage to foreign terrorist groups 'can unlock certain investigative tools,' such as surveillance, said one U.S. counterterrorism official."
In this brief video, I put the prosecution of Davey Hearn, former Olympian, in the context of U.S. Attorney Pirro's pattern of abuse of power.
The arraignment (for reflecting pool felony charges) is on Thursday in DC.
1/🧵
2/ Judge Boasberg on Pirro's bid to criminally pursue Federal Reserve Chair:
DOJ "produced essentially zero evidence to suspect Chair Powell of a crime; indeed, its justifications are so thin and unsubstantiated that the Court can only conclude that they are pretextual."
3/ Magistrate Judge Faruqui:
"Given that there have been an unprecedented number of cases that the U.S. Attorney dismissed in the past ten days ... the Court is left to question if this principle [of DOJ Manual to prosecute only when more likely than not defendant will be found guilty] still applies."
"Katie Phang ... brings this action against Todd Blanche ... claiming that he has improperly withheld information and failed to comply with other requirements in violation of the Epstein Act."
"[T]he Court GRANTS Ms. Phang’s motion."
1/🧵
2/ "Ms. Phang identifies five categories of violations of the Epstein Act."
[See 5 in screenshot below.]
"The Attorney General does not respond substantively to any of these arguments."
"Accordingly, Ms. Phang is likely to succeed on the
merits."
3/ Corresponding to the five categories, Judge Sullivan states it is "ORDERED that by no later than July 2, 2026, the Attorney General shall" produce the documents or show cause.
3/ "Mr. Miller chairs a bimonthly meeting — called a 'wins' meeting — at which various government agencies report on recent successes, with the Pentagon’s death toll from boat strikes regularly highlighted as one of the biggest."
Hegseth's Defense Department's flat denial from March 31 (now appears to be provably false)⤵️
3/ BBC also fact checked the DoD's denial:
Six experts "all commented independently ... citing the missile's visual features, the way it exploded, its trajectory and the number of strikes in the area."