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.
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."
After outrageous letter by Blanche and Bondi, Judge Novak (Trump appointee) wrote:
“The Court finds it inconceivable that the Department of Justice, which holds a duty to faithfully execute the laws of the United States — even those with which it may have disagreement — would repeatedly ignore court orders, while simultaneously prosecuting citizens for breaking the law."
3/ After Blanche's chief of staff violated a court order in Mangioni case, federal judge wrote:
“The Government is also directed to advise the Deputy Attorney General, for dissemination within the Department as appropriate, that future violations may result in sanctions, which could include personal financial penalties, contempt of court findings, or relief specific to the prosecution.”
DOJ admits repeatedly made "material mistaken" representations to judge. ICE never had authority (under 2025 Guidance) to conduct arrests at immigration courthouses!
"This error, however, is not caused by a lack of diligence and care by the undersigned attorneys. The undersigned were specifically informed by ICE that the 2025 ICE Guidance applied to immigration courthouse arrests."
"... agency attorney error ..."
3/ You can be assured that we'll add this to 5th edition of Presumption of Regularity study.
Currently tracks 90+ cases in which either court determined the Trump administration submitted false information or the administration admitted it.
If Hegseth et al got this wrong, think what else is happening with the drug boat strikes and much more.
The U.S. Said It Helped Bomb a Drug Camp. It Was a Dairy Farm.
Gets worse as you read it.
1/
2/ "Workers on the farm told The Times that Ecuadorean soldiers .. doused several shelters and sheds with gasoline and ignited them after interrogating workers and beating four of them with the butts of their guns ... later choked and subjected them to electrical shocks."
3/ "The Ecuadorean government said in the news release that it had relied on U.S. 'intelligence and support' to target the farm, which it said was a camp used to train 'about 50 drug traffickers.'”
"Plaintiffs have made a clear showing that Defendants have adopted a POLICY authorizing federal immigration officers to conduct investigatory stops based on ethnicity or race without reasonable suspicion." 1/
2/ With a team, I had provided a graphic representation of some of the key declarants in the plaintiffs' case here:
"These witnesses’ accounts and related evidence show these witnesses were detained by DHS officers and questioned about their immigration status based solely on their race or ethnicity."