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.
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).
"The Senate Armed Services Committee ... has asked Adm. Alvin Holsey ... to testify before the committee next week, according to Blumenthal and another person familiar with the matter."
3/ "A spokesperson for Rep. Adam Smith (Washington), the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, said that panel also requested briefings with U.S. Southern Command, though not with Holsey specifically."
How is U.S. military killing these 11 people keeping drugs (fentanyl) out of the United States?
DOD knew the drugs (cocaine) were headed to Suriname.
Yes, that's the OTHER DIRECTION.
Read what Bradley-Caine told lawmakers:
Scoop by @NatashaBertrand
🧵 1/
2/ Problems for Bradley's credibility.
On left:
Bradley argued to lawmakers "still a possibility" drugs could've made way to US.
On right:
Trump State Dept: "Suriname is a transit country for South American cocaine, the majority of which is likely destined for Europe."
3/ And, yes, the administration's attempted constitutional and other legal claims unravel if boats are delivering drugs (let alone, cocaine not fentanyl) to Europe instead.
The 2 survivors climbed atop wreckage and waved to overhead.
"Some of the people viewing the video thought ... could have been an attempt to surrender"
Others "said the most logical explanation was ... signaling for a rescue."
1/
2/ What Adm. Bradley and Gen. Caine told Congress raises credibility concerns.
"The military officers briefing Congress on Thursday said the survivors could have been trying to beckon to other alleged drug traffickers in a plane or boat to come get them...."
But get this ...
3/
"But some lawmakers viewing the video rejected that interpretation. There were no other unknown aircraft or boats in visual range, and no other boats involved in drug trafficking could have rescued them."
And even worse, if I am understanding this logic correctly, ...
🚨🚨🚨This collapses the one 'argument' Hegseth had against it being war crime:
"Two men killed as they floated holding onto their capsized boat .. DID NOT APPEAR TO HAVE RADIO OR OTHER COMMUNICATIONS DEVICES, the top military official overseeing the strike told lawmakers."
1/
2/ Secretary Hegseth bears ultimate responsibility as the designated Target Engagement Authority.
And recall how many times he has said Admiral Bradley acted within the authority Hegseth gave him, and that Bradley made "the correct" decision.
3/ It looks like DoD officials previously made false statements to Congress:
"As far back as September, defense officials have been quietly pushing back on criticism that killing the two survivors amounted to a war crime by arguing, in part, that they were legitimate targets because they appeared to be radioing for help or backup ... Defense officials made that claim in at least one briefing in September for congressional staff."
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.”