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.
NYT adds important context for reporting on Kash Patel and Susie Wiles (plus oddity of Patel being Reuters' source for his own grievance).
[1] "Requests for phone records are common in complex criminal investigations to establish timelines and provide proof of communication."
[2] "It has been known for years that Mr. Patel was closely scrutinized by investigators under the special counsel Jack Smith and was compelled to testify in front of a grand jury."
My add/reminder: Kash invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.
[3] "The fact that investigators obtained some of Ms. Wiles’s phone records was made public during the inquiry into Mr. Trump’s mishandling of classified documents."
Five days after Jeffrey Epstein’s arrest, federal authorities “directed” NY law enforcement authorities to “stand down” their investigations related to Epstein, new documents released by DOJ show.
Part of new Timeline on NY and Epstein.
2/ source
FBI’s “Stand Down” Directive to NYPD on Jeffrey Epstein Investigations, and More
A Timeline of NY Law Enforcement and Epstein Investigations
"An FBI search warrant affidavit ... shows that a criminal investigation into 2020 election results in Fulton County, Ga., was set off by a leading election denier in the Trump administration and relied heavily on claims ... widely debunked."
Affidavit "noted that if any of the alleged deficiencies in ballots 'were the result of intentional action,' ... would constitute evidence of a crime. Yet the affidavit also cites multiple instances of witnesses insisting that any discrepancies were the result of human error."
Devastating first-hand witness to Alex Pretti's killing
Declaration filed in federal court:
"I don't know why they shot him. He was only helping. I was five feet from him and they just shot him."
2/ "The agents pulled the man on the ground. I didn't see him touch any of them-he wasn't even turned toward them. It didn't look like he was trying to resist, just trying to help the woman up. I didn't see him with a gun."
"I have read the statement from DHS about what happened and it is wrong. The man did not approach the agents with a gun. He approached them with a camera. He was just trying to help a woman get up and they took him to the ground."
Here's what the Justice Department actually told the Supreme Court, and how DOJ defends ICE's use of racially profiling.
Full analysis on my YouTube and Substack
🧵
2/ Shareable link to full analysis⤵️
A close look at what the DOJ left undisputed.
And how DOJ admitted to the courts that stopping racial profiling would “upend immigration enforcement efforts” in the way ICE currently carries it out.
3/ Document
U.S. Solicitor General to the Supreme Court arguing to allow racially profiling as a factor supporting ICE's "reasonable suspicion."