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.
Debrief of shipwreck attack by Ranking Member of House Armed Services Adam Smith:
"The idea is supposed to be that if they could get assistance, they could get back 'in the fight,' ...But Smith said the officials confirmed...they have no recording of these communications." 1/
2/ “Smith said the video shows two men, sitting without shirts, atop a portion of a capsized boat that was still above water. ...
... He called it a 'highly questionable decision that these two people on that obviously incapacitated vessel were still in any kind of fight.'”
3/ Rep. Smith:
“The broader assumption that they were operating off of was that the drugs could still conceivably be on that boat, even though you could not see them ... and it was still conceivable that these two people were going to continue on their mission.”
USG has a new explanation on why they (now admittedly) intentionally killed 2 shipwrecked men. It does not pass the laws-of-war smell test
Worse for Hegseth, NYT: "Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth approved contingency plans for what to do if an initial strike left survivors."
🧵
2/ The Hegseth-approved contingency plan:
US military could try to kill shipwrecked survivors if "they took what the United States deemed to be a hostile action, like communicating with suspected cartel members."
3/ First it's absurd on its face that communicating to be RESCUED is a hostile act.
That's the definition of being shipwrecked and helpless.
The whole point of a legal prohibition on killing people who are shipwrecked is that they must be rescued or left to be rescued instead.
"Two survivors were clinging to the smoldering wreck. The Special Operations commander overseeing the Sept. 2 attack ... ordered a second strike to comply with Hegseth’s instructions."
reporting by @AlexHortonTX @nakashimae
2/ "Killing any of the men in the boats 'amounts to murder,' said Todd Huntley, a former military lawyer who advised Special Operations forces for seven years at the height of the U.S. counterterrorism campaign."
3/ "Even if the U.S. were at war with the traffickers, an order to kill all the boat’s occupants if they were no longer able to fight 'would in essence be an order to show no quarter, which would be a war crime,' said Huntley."
Hard for USGs to claim ‘mistake of law’ or ‘advice of counsel’ – when they’re firing lawyers who wouldn't sign off on the strikes.
WaPo's new revelations on firing/removal:
CIA General Counsel
NSC Legal Adviser
CIA Mission Center’s lawyer
🧵
2/ CIA Acting General Counsel, career lawyer, "was among those who had raised questions about the legality of the agency’s use of lethal force."
What happened next?
CIA Deputy Director Ellis took over as acting GC and still held his policy position. He then approved the ops.
3/ The National Security Counsel's Legal Adviser Paul Ney (who earlier served loyally as Trump 1.0 Pentagon General Counsel) "had been among the lawyers who had raised concerns about the legality of lethal strikes."