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.
Many nuggets in these #Project2025 Secret Training Videos
One is the nexus to Trump world.
Karoline Leavitt - Trump Campaign's 2024 National Press Secretary - features in video training those who would occupy positions in a new Trump administration.
"A review of the training videos shows that 29 of the 36 speakers have worked for Trump in some capacity —on his 2016-17 transition team, in the administration or on his 2024 reelection campaign."
That's 81%.
3/ In #Project2025 secret video titled, "Hidden Meanings," former Trump administration official Bethany Kozma scorns U.S. intelligence agencies' warnings of #ClimateChange.
Says climate change is a conspiracy to limit population growth. 🤯
Color-coded indictment of former president Trump for trying to overturn 2020 election.
The vast majority - green, yellow, orange - is Trump’s conduct for which he is likely not immune, and district court will likely find he can be prosecuted for it.
1/
2/ The color-coded January 6th indictment and accompanying analysis is in this @just_security article:
After Immunity: The Path Forward for the January 6th Case
By @NormEisen @Matt_Seligman @JoshuaGKolb
Very rare to get behind-scenes look at SCOTUS deliberations⤵️
Makes clear - as @charlie_savage anticipated in his 2007 book - that CJ Roberts saw #PresidentialImmunity opinion as opportunity to create maximalist presidential powers. With no compromise 1/ cnn.com/2024/07/30/pol…
2/ @CNN exclusive reporting:
"There was an immediate and clear 6-3 split."
"In their private session on the case the next day...the votes on the core issue lacked any ambiguity and Roberts was ready to write with bold strokes."
2/ A premise of SCOTUS opinion is that POTUS has "conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority" over the Justice Department.
This should unsettle Americans, regardless of party.
Take a gander at what that means in Chief Justice Roberts' own words.⤵️
3/ Potential effects for aggrandizement of power in executive branch.
Listen to @marty_lederman spell out potential implications for congressional legislation for DOJ (Roberts having sub rosa overruled/cast aside Morrison v. Olson, a 7-1 decision by Chief Justice Rehnquist).
2/ Report by Director of Economics at Yale's @The_Budget_Lab @ernietedeschi:
Analyzes the risk of a "‘black swan’ event outside of the realm of US experience, such as ... military intervention in domestic politics" with profound impact on US safe harbor investment premium.
@The_Budget_Lab @ernietedeschi 3/ "It is also reasonable to assume mass deportation of millions of migrants, the demolition of departments and agencies, and many other planned autocratic-leaning policies risk producing similar [black swan] results."