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.
A time for choosing, from main street to wall street.
"This new threat is not about my testimony last June or about the renovation of the Federal Reserve buildings. It is not about Congress’s oversight role. .... Those are pretexts."
2/ "I have served at the Federal Reserve under four administrations, Republicans and Democrats alike. ... Public service sometimes requires standing firm in the face of threats."
3/ "I will continue to do the job the Senate confirmed me to do, with integrity and a commitment to serving the American people."
An initially-secret report for Customs and Border Patrol in 2013 found:
In many cases, the “driver was attempting to flee from the agents who intentionally put themselves into the exit path of the vehicle, thereby … creating justification for the use of deadly force.”
🧵
2/ I discuss this report at greater length on my YouTube channel and Substack
3/ "Applying even the OLC’s expansive view from its recent opinions to Operation Absolute Resolve, the Executive action clearly crosses the threshold for requiring congressional authorization."
WSJ report is extraordinary in implicating Mar-a-Lago in Epstein systematic sexual abuse.
It takes a close read, but looks like WSJ is reporting Trump was informed and told Mar-a-Lago manager to "kick out" Epstein in 2003 not from Mar-a-Lago, but from the Mar-a-Lago Spa.
With Admiral Bradley's lawyer speaking to Congress this upcoming week.
Threshold question is how ANY of these strikes are legal.
On Sept 2 strike: Q is whether they applied standard Collateral Damage Estimation Methodology.
Because look what it says (declassified 2012)⤵️ 1/
2/ The Collateral Damage Estimation Methodology goes to the heart of the latest DoD claims about the strike.
The claim is that the second strike was targeting the (possible) cocaine, not the shipwrecked.
I do not see how that could have possibly complied with the Methodology.
3/ As shown in the screen shot, the Methodology states:
The laws of war (LOW) require anticipated "noncombatant" deaths must not be excessive in relation to expected military advantage to be gained (the possible cocaine).