The U.S. Mint has removed the bronze medal commemorating law enforcement officers who defended the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, from its website. The removal appears to have been done without prior notice or explanation, leaving collectors and observers speculating about the reason behind the decision.
The medal was originally created as part of a congressional initiative to honor the U.S. Capitol Police, the District of Columbia Metropolitan Police, and other first responders who helped secure the Capitol during the events of January 6. Congress authorized gold medals to be awarded for their service, with bronze replicas made available to the public for purchase through the U.S. Mint.
[snip]
While the medal has been available for purchase for some time, its product page on the U.S. Mint’s website now returns an error message indicating it has been removed.
Former Capitol Police Sgt. Aquilino Gonell, who was injured by the mob on Jan. 6, told NBC News that he tried to purchase a number of the replica medals this week, planning to hand them out as gifts, and was surprised to see they were no longer available.
Justice Department webpages that listed the cases and featured summaries of the work of the federal prosecutors who brought Jan. 6 cases were also removed from the web after Trump took office.
“Not only do Republican members of Congress refuse to put up the plaque, but they are even erasing and removing the ability to purchase the coin for the Congressional Gold Medal,” Gonell said.
Before the listing was erased from the Mint’s website, a description noted that the medal was struck under the authority of Public Law 117-32, an act passed in August 2021 to honor the “sacrifice of heroes including Capitol Police Officers Brian Sicknick and Howard Liebengood, Metropolitan Police Department Officer Jeffrey Smith, and those who sustained injuries, and the courage of Capitol Police Officer Eugene Goodman.”
Tonight, Donald Trump will enter the US Capitol to address a joint session of Congress, entering the House chamber through the same door that Ashli Babbitt tried to climb through before being shot by US Capitol Police on January 6th.
George Orwell wrote 1984 as a warning, and Ray Bradbury did the same with Fahrenheit 451; Trump is using them both as instruction manuals. Trump and his minions are going after the FBI agents who played a part in the January 6th investigation, and also the DOJ lawyers who prosecuted the hundreds of the January 6th insurrectionists, declaring them to be workers of injustice. Trump has pardoned those hundreds – some who had pleaded guilty and others who were found guilty by a judge and/or jury – and declared them to be innocent victims of a political plot against him. Trump launched primary challenges against members of Congress who voted to impeach him, and threatens to do the same to any who stand in his way today. Up is down, declares the leader, and woe to any who dare to disagree.
And in this context, reports emerged last Friday that the US Mint has joined the effort to “disappear” the January 6th insurrection. We don’t know whether they were ordered to stop selling these medals by the White House or whether they decided this on their own as a way of trying to keep their heads down during the Trump/Musk purge of the government. Either way, the result is the same: the history of January 6th is being slowly erased.
The wording on those January 6, 2021 commemorative medals is simple and direct: “Honoring the service and sacrifice of those who protected the US Capitol.” The US Mint may have stopped selling the medals, and Trump may have pardoned those who stormed the Capitol, but the service and sacrifice which the medals recognize cannot be erased.
It can be forgotten, though – and nothing would please Trump more than that.
https://www.emptywheel.net/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/US-Mint-Jan-6-Commemorative-Medal.webp394700Peterrhttps://www.emptywheel.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Logo-Web.pngPeterr2025-03-04 04:00:092025-03-03 23:34:32The Erasure of January 6th Continues, US Mint Edition
As multiple outlets have reported, the woman appointed to lead the DC US Attorney’s Office Criminal Division, Denise Cheung, resigned yesterday after refusing orders from Ed Martin and Emil Bove to order a bank to freeze appropriated EPA funds based on probable cause (as opposed to just the possibility) that a crime was committed.
As Reuters reported, Cheung was asked to open a criminal investigation, and then asked to freeze funds based on probable cause that a crime was committed. When she refused, she was ordered to resign.
Denise Cheung, who supervised criminal cases at the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Washington, said she had been ordered to open a probe into a contract that she did not identify and that she believed the request was not supported by evidence, in a letter reviewed by Reuters.
When she declined to launch a grand jury investigation citing a lack of evidence, she said she was ordered instead to pursue an asset seizure to prevent the recipient of the contract from drawing down the government funds.
[snip]
“When I explained that the quantum of evidence did not support that action, you stated that you believed that there was sufficient evidence,” she wrote.
“Based upon the evidence I have reviewed, I still do not believe there is sufficient evidence to issue the letter you described, including sufficient evidence to tell the bank there is probable cause to seize the particular accounts identified.”
Cheung said in her letter she was ordered to resign. She announced her departure early Tuesday.
Effectively, she was ordered to chase Lee Zeldin’s conspiracy theories, in turn based on a Project Veritas video of a single staffer who was almost certain inebriated (even before you consider PV’s practice of misleadingly editing videos).
Politico’s trade outlet (subscriptions to which are being cut everywhere as a purported cost-savings) explains what really happened, including that Zeldin may be the one violating the law in attempting to clawback appropriated funds.
[I]f Zeldin tries to claw back money from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund without cause, it could put the government at risk of breaching its contracts with some or all the green bank participants, experts say. And that could cost taxpayers more in damages than the sum Zeldin hopes to recover.
“If the government abrogates the contract without legal justification, then it will eventually owe damages to these people when they sue, but will not be getting the services that are under contract here,” said David Super, a professor of law and economics at Georgetown University Law Center.
During the Biden administration, EPA officials worked with the Treasury Department to contract Citibank as the financial agent for two grant programs — the $14 billion National Clean Investment Fund, or green bank, and the $6 billion Clean Communities Investment Accelerator program, which seeks to build green lending capacity at institutions that serve low-income communities.
That means the money is in accounts at Citibank in the names of the eight awardees for those two programs. The money and income from any interest belongs to the grantees to be used for purposes consistent with their award agreements with EPA. But Citibank reports extensively to Treasury and EPA on any transactions.
People familiar with the contract between Citibank and Treasury and granted anonymity to discuss a private contract say it has provisions to allow EPA and Treasury to exercise a security interest on those accounts if it discovers the awardees have engaged in conduct that meets official definitions of waste, fraud and abuse.
In those instances, the federal government could freeze accounts or recover funds. But Zeldin did not reference any specific instances of misconduct when he announced his plans for the green bank program Wednesday on the social media site X. He also stated that EPA had found no evidence of “any wrongdoing” on the part of Citibank.
Click through for further explanation that there is oversight in place — or would be, if not for Trump’s firing spree.
In a functioning bureaucracy, DOJ would tell Zeldin that he’s the one out of order, unless and until more evidence than a Project Veritas video is developed.
But that’s not what happened. In her resignation letter, Cheung describes that she first reached out to the FBI and then spent much of a day engaged in a good faith effort to assess the allegations.
Earlier yesterday. I was asked to review documentation supplied by the Office of the Deputy Attorney General (ODAG) to open a criminal investigation into whether a contract had been unlawfully awarded by an executive agency before the change in Administration and to issue grand jury subpoenas pursuant to this investigation. I was told that there was time sensitivity and action had to be taken that day because there was concern that contract awardees could continue to draw down on accounts handled by the bank handling the disbursements. I conferred with others in the Office, all of whom have substantial white collar criminal prosecution experience, and reviewed documentation provided by ODAG, in determining whether the predicate for opening such a grand jury investigation existed. Despite assessing that the existing documents on their face did not seem to meet this threshold, an ODAG representative stated that he believed sufficient predication existed, including in the form of a video where statements were made by a former political appointee of the executive agency in question.
After eight years of Republican insistence that one should never predicate an investigation solely on oppo research, and less than two weeks after SDNY closed a criminal investigation into Project Veritas based on suspicion they committed crimes in pursuit of political hit jobs, DOJ was pressuring prosecutors to open an investigation relying primarily on a Project Veritas video.
I contacted a supervisor at the Washington Field Office (WFO) of the FBI and provided him with the materials received from ODAG and also referenced the possible existence of the video and statements made by the head of the executive agency. I further conveyed ODAG’s desire to send out the freeze letter to the bank as soon as possible as to avoid subsequent payouts. The FBI-WFO supervisor forwarded links of these statements and the video, which I also reviewed. Despite the federal holiday yesterday, the FBI-WFO supervisor, as well as other FBI-WFO managers, spoke frequently throughout the day yesterday with me to discuss the matter, including what, if any, possible criminal charges might be applicable, as well as the sufficiency of the evidence of any criminal offense or the connection of any alleged crime to the accounts at issue.
During this period, I sent a draft freeze letter provided by the FBI-WFO supervisor to the PAUSA at 4:31 p.m. In an email sent at 4:46 p.m., the PAUSA conveyed suggested language “in case it [was] helpful” from the ODAG representative, which included language represented to be from the Second Circuit, including the phrase “the government has probable cause to believe that the funds on deposit in the above-referenced account(s) at [named bank] are subject to seizure and forfeiture to the United States based upon violations…” I subsequently informed the PAUSA that the suggested language was not appropriate to the matter at hand.
Despite expressing some concern about the current lack of evidence of any apparent crime and the need to send out any such freeze letter, FBI-WFO personnel were able to consult with necessary individuals, including legal counsel, at their office. I was told that if FBI-WFO was unwilling to send out such a freeze letter, that you would direct someone from USAO-DC to send out such a correspondence to the bank. However, that contingency did not come to pass, as FBI-WFO determined that they were willing to send out the freeze letter, but asked that I first send them an email stating that, based on the evidence, there was possible evidence of certain criminal violations. I emailed them the following statement: “Based upon the information we received from ODAG and public-source materials, including a video of statements by a former [executive agency] official, USAO-DC believes that there may be conduct that constitutes potential violations of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 371 (conspiracy to defraud the United States) and 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1343 (wire fraud) that merits additional investigation.”
After they received this email, FBI-WFO subsequently issued a letter to the bank recommending a thirty-day administrative freeze on certain assets. After this letter was issued at approximately 7:28 p.m. yesterday night, I received a call from the PAUSA and you shortly thereafter. You expressed your dissatisfaction about the adequacy of the FBI-WFO letter and criticized that the language merely “recommended” that a freeze of the accounts take place, notwithstanding that the same language was used in the draft I sent to the PAUSA earlier in the day. You also directed that a second letter be immediately issued to the bank under your and my name ordering the bank not to release any funds in the subject accounts pursuant to a criminal investigation being run out of USAO-DC. When I explained that the quantum of evidence did not support that action, you stated that you believed that there was sufficient evidence. You also accused me about wasting five hours of the day “doing nothing” except trying to get what the FBI and I wanted, but not what you wanted. As I shared with you, at this juncture, based upon the evidence I have reviewed, I still do not believe that there is sufficient evidence to issue the letter you described, including sufficient evidence to tell the bank that there is probable cause to seize the particular accounts identified. Because I believed that I lacked the legal authority to issue such a letter, I told you that I would not do so. You then asked for my resignation.
By going public like this, Cheung alerts the magistrates who might approve such orders and Judge James Boasberg who would oversee any grand jury investigation that this investigation is being predicated without probable cause.
But she also makes clear that Martin and Bove are going to predicate criminal investigations off the flimsiest propaganda, perhaps, in part, as cover that Trump is the one breaking the law by violating the Impoundment Act. And if they need to get rid of career prosecutors with over two decades of experience to do that — the gold bars of the Department of Justice — they won’t hesitate.
https://www.emptywheel.net/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Screenshot-2025-02-19-at-10.01.42.png5481112emptywheelhttps://www.emptywheel.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Logo-Web.pngemptywheel2025-02-19 05:05:292025-02-19 05:10:27Emil Bove Throwing Gold Bars Off the Titanic
In the last few days, Trump has started doing a better job of messaging with his responses to lawsuits. I’ll attempt to explain that going forward. But one instance is the Thomas Krause declaration filed in the Attorneys General challenge to the DOGE access to Treasury systems (which I also wrote about in this post). Krause — still serving as the hatchet manCEO of Citrix (which probably creates a serious conflict) — uses his declaration to claim that he is attempting to “improve the accuracy of financial reporting.”
I am responsible, among other duties, for reducing and eliminating improper and fraudulent payments; waste, fraud, and abuse; and improving the accuracy of financial reporting. To that end, I am focused on improving the controls, processes, and systems that facilitate payments and enable consolidated financial reporting.
Later in the declaration, he provides a notably different explanation for his job.
My role on the Treasury DOGE Team is to find ways to use technology to make the Treasury Department more effective, more efficient, and more responsive to the policy goals of this Administration.
To justify the focus of DOGE, Krause cites several Biden-era GAO reports.
7. As illustrated by several reports released by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), we have our work cut out for us. On January 16, 2025, GAO released a report entitled “Financial Audit: FY2024 and FY2023 Consolidated Financial Statements of the U.S. Government.” In the report, GAO summarizes that they were not able to determine if the Financial Report of the U.S. Government is fairly presented. Among other reasons, GAO highlighted “problems in accounting for transactions between federal agencies.” GAO found many material weaknesses including “the federal government’s inability to determine the full extent to which improper payments, including fraud, occur and reasonably assure that appropriate actions are taken to reduce them.” GAO also reported that Treasury and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) officials expressed their continuing commitment to addressing the problems this report outlines. In short, the GAO report identifies the Federal government’s inability to account for all of the improper payments including waste, fraud and abuse across federal agencies.
8. On September 10, 2024, the GAO released a report entitled “Payment Integrity: Significant Improvements are Needed to Address Improper Payments and Fraud.” The report found that since 2003, cumulative improper payments1 by executive branch agencies have totaled about $2.7 trillion dollars. Some of GAO’s top concerns [1] included fraudulent or improper Earned Income Tax Credit refunds, Social Security payments, unemployment and Medicare and Medicaid payments. In fiscal year 2023 alone, federal agencies estimated $236 billion in improper payments across more than 70 federal programs. In addition, GAO estimated that the total annual financial losses across the government from fraud are between $233 and $521 billion. These numbers are truly staggering—billions and billions in hardearned American taxpayer dollars are being misspent every year. GAO highlighted a number of steps that Congress and federal agencies could take to help reduce fraud and improper payments, including that “[a]gencies should improve oversight to ensure that funds aren’t paid to ineligible recipients” [2] and that “[a]gencies should improve their collection and use of data for preventing and detecting fraud.” [3]
9. Similarly, GAO has identified areas for improvement in BFS’s systems related to identifying and tracing transactions to determine whether they were complete and properly recorded in the correct general ledger accounts and line items within the Schedules of the General Fund. See GAO Report, “Financial Statement Audit: Bureau of the Fiscal Service’s FY22 Schedules of the General Fund” (March 30, 2023). Specifically, GAO has found inconsistent reporting, lack of traceability, and need for improved controls with the Treasury’s Central Accounting and Reporting System (CARS), which federal agencies use to track their spending for budgetary and accounting purposes. These kinds of improvements and others can enhance BFS’s ability to ensure accountability in the spending of taxpayer dollars.
1 Improper payments and fraudulent payments are related but distinct concepts. An improper payment is a payment that should not have been made, or that was made with an incorrect amount; fraudulent payments occur due to willful misrepresentation. All fraudulent payments are improper, but not all improper payments are fraudulent. [emphasis and links added]
Elon Musk parroted a lot of this language at his presser at the White House yesterday (which is one reason I say they’re beginning to coordinate this better).
If you don’t look too closely, the declaration almost makes DOGE look smart. Except I decided to look at one of the reports — the second one — more closely.
And once I did, I realized that Thomas Krause is, in part, using Trump’s management failures during COVID as an excuse to start shutting down government. Start with the fact that the first agency Krause focused on after arriving at Treasury was USAID — pursuing his goal of making Treasury, “more responsive to the policy goals of this Administration.” But that’s not one of the high risk agencies, all of which have to do with direct payments.
Since 2003, which is when they first tracked the data, the amount of improper payments has steadily increased. But it has declined in recent years, under Biden.
There’s a reason for that. Look more closely at the estimated improper payments, their sources, and their timing.
For longstanding programs — Medicare and Social Security, the ones Krause mentions in his declaration — the number of improper payments in recent years is about what it was under Trump. What has spiked in recent years (and then receded) are programs that expanded under COVID: Expanded Medicaid and unemployment access, and the PPP program rolled out under Trump, something Krause neglects to mention at [1]. A key thing this report measures is COVID mispayments — that is, improper payments made under programs set up under President Donald Trump, 1.0.
The quotes at [2] and [3] are not actually from the report. They’re from this website (which links to this report).
Many of the recommendations and data used in this report pertain to COVID or lessons learned from it. For example, the report recommends making the payment tracking center set up in response to COVID permanent.
Establish a permanent analytics center of excellence to aid the oversight community in identifying improper payments and fraud.28 This could be achieved by building upon and expanding PACE and making it permanent.
And it recommended building in such collection in case of any future emergency response — in part, to avoid the two to three year delay in finding these payments reflected in the table above.
Require OMB to (1) provide guidance for agencies to proactively develop internal control plans that would be ready for use in, or adaptation for, future emergencies or crises and (2) require agencies to report these plans to OMB and Congress.
Amend PIIA. Quickly reporting improper payment estimates for emergency relief programs is critical for agency accountability and transparency over whether appropriated funds were spent for their intended purposes. In addition, estimating improper payments and identifying root causes help ensure that agencies develop and implement corrective actions to reduce them.
In November 2020, we recommended that Congress consider, in any future legislation appropriating COVID-19 relief funds, designating all executive agency programs and activities that made more than $100 million in payments from COVID-19 relief funds as “susceptible to significant improper payments.31 Such a designation would require, among other things, agencies to report improper payment estimates for such a program and develop corrective actions to reduce improper payments. In March 2022, we recommended that Congress amend PIIA to apply this criterion to all new federal programs for their initial years of operation.32 The current approach resulted in 2-to-3 year delays in reporting improper payment estimates for short-term and emergency spending COVID relief programs.
Much of the fraud, too, pertains to COVID relief.
When it is discovered, the Department of Justice (DOJ) can bring charges of fraud against the alleged fraudsters. For example, DOJ has prosecuted over 2,000 COVID-19 fraud-related cases, and hundreds of additional cases are pending. We analyzed the department’s public statements and court documentation and found that, from March 2020 through March 2024, at least 1,998 individuals or entities facing fraud-related charges were found guilty or liable.16 This includes charges in cases involving SBA’s loan programs, DOL’s Unemployment Insurance (UI) programs, and Treasury’s economic impact payments. Of the individuals found guilty, at least 1,596 had been sentenced as of March 31, 2024, and many have also been ordered to pay restitution and fines. There were also federal fraud-related charges pending against at least 632 other individuals or entities involving federal COVID-19 relief programs, as of March 31, 2024.17 We expect the number to continue to increase as investigations take time to develop and given the significant number of investigative leads. For instance, SBA’s IG office reported that its actionable leads represent more than 100 years of investigative case work.18 The government has 10 years to prosecute individuals who committed fraud related to the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) and the COVID-19 Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) program.19 DOL’s IG has requested Congress similarly extend the statute of limitations for the pandemic relief UI programs as well.20 Additionally, in a June 2024 press release, the Internal Revenue Service requested to Congress that the statute of limitations for fraud be extended for the Employee Retention Credit.21 We support their requests.
Now, to be fair, there was likely to be overpayments and fraud regardless of who was in charge when COVID hit (or when avian flu and measles become pandemics in months ahead).
This is not all attributable to Trump’s COVID failures.
But one other thing about this report deserves mention: It is full of discussion of the role of Inspectors General in finding this fraud, including a bunch of the people Trump fired four days into his term — six of whom just filed suit today (which I’ll turn to shortly). Indeed, one of them — Mike Ware — is cited in the report Krause invoked.
Thomas Krause says we need to fix the errors created by Trump’s poor management of COVID. But one of the first things Trump in his second term did was to fire the people who’ve done the most to do so.
Update: Corrected Mike Ware’s last name.
Update: I’ve linked Ware’s testimony, above. Among other things, he estimated that SBC IG identified up to $200 billion in fraudulent COVID relief.
Using OIG’s investigative casework, prior OIG reporting, advanced data analytics, and additional review procedures, we estimate SBA disbursed more than $200 billion in potentially fraudulent COVID-19 EIDLs and PPP loans. This estimate represents approximately 17 percent of disbursed COVID-19 EIDLs and PPP funds — specifically, more than $136 billion COVID-19 EIDLs and $64 billion in PPP funds. Since SBA did not have an established strong internal control environment for approving and disbursing program funds, there was an insufficient barrier against fraudsters accessing funds that should have been available for eligible business owners adversely affected by the pandemic.
In other words, a huge chunk of the fraud Krause says he is looking for was IDed by one of the guys Trump fired on day four.
https://www.emptywheel.net/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Screenshot-2025-02-12-at-12.50.46 PM.png5121486emptywheelhttps://www.emptywheel.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Logo-Web.pngemptywheel2025-02-12 12:33:342025-02-13 08:15:03Thomas Krause Says Trump Had to Close USAID because of Trump’s Poor COVID Management
Reuters was the first to track the travails of Ed Martin, the Jan6 riot attendee turned US Attorney for DC who moved to dismiss the prosecution of one of his clients on January 21, and only two weeks later, on February 4, moved to withdraw from the case.
On January 6, 2021, Martin posted on X, then called Twitter, that he was at the Capitol himself, describing the day as “Like Mardi Gras in DC today: love, faith and joy.”
Before becoming Washington’s top prosecutor, he appeared as an attorney for three people convicted of participating in the riot, according to court records. Two of those cases ended before Trump took office; the third, against Joseph Padilla, was still ongoing on January 21 when Martin’s office filed a motion bearing his name asking a court to drop the charges.
State rules in Missouri, where Martin is licensed, bar government lawyers from handling cases involving their clients without written consent.
A spokesperson for the U.S. Attorney’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment. A private spokesperson for Martin said he is in complete compliance with the requirements for his position.
On Wednesday, Martin sent an office-wide email seen by Reuters in which he said he had “stopped all involvement” in the cases more than a year and a half ago, that he had handled them pro bono, and said he was “under the impression that I was off the cases.”
He said the U.S. Attorney’s career ethics lawyer asked him about the cases last week and complained that it “immediately leaked to the media.” This leak, he said, was both “personally insulting” and professionally “unacceptable.”
When Martin did finally move to drop off the case he had gotten dismissed weeks earlier, he offered the kind of dumb excuse you expect from a Trump flunkie.
Undersigned counsel respectfully moves the Court to withdraw as a counsel of record in this matter.
Mr. Padilla noticed his appeal in this case in September 2023. ECF No. 108. From that point forward, he was represented by an attorney working with the Office of the Federal Public Defender in New Mexico. That defender entered her appearance in this case on November 1, 2024. ECF No. 122. Although undersigned counsel has not represented Mr. Padilla in connection with postconviction litigation, counsel remains listed as counsel of record on the docket. Accordingly, as the case has now been dismissed, and as the undersigned does not currently represent Mr. Padilla, counsel requests that the Court grant this motion so the docket may accurately reflect this fact. This motion has been served upon the defendant personally. LCrR 44.5(d). Mr. Padilla has no objection to this motion.
It turns out the DC Bar membership for the Acting US Attorney for DC lapsed. His Bar membership is not in good standing.
Case Name: USA v. PADILLA
Case Number: 1:21-cr-00214-JDB
Filer:
Document Number: No document attached
Docket Text:
NOTICE of Provisional/Government Not Certified Status re [126] Proposed MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney Edward Martin by Edward Martin. by JOSEPH LINO PADILLA. (Martin, Edward).
Your attorney renewal/government certification has not been received. As a result, your membership with the U.S. District & Bankruptcy Courts for the District of Columbia is not in good standing, and you are not permitted to file. Pursuant to Local Criminal Rule 57.21.1, you must immediately correct your membership status by following the appropriate instructions on this page of our website: https://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/attorney-renewal.
Please be advised that the presiding judge in this case has been notified that you are currently not in good standing to file in this court. Renewal Due by 2/12/2025. (zhcn)
It further turns out that when Martin wrote a very angry letter to Judge Amit Mehta telling him the Oath Keeper seditionists whose sentences Trump commuted, but did not pardon, should have no release conditions, he signed that letter over his DC Bar Membership, which we’ve now learned was not in good standing a few weeks later.
It’s a big mess. The activist group that has gotten some of Trump’s other January 6 lawyers sanctioned is trying to make it a bigger mess, at least in Missouri, which specifically prohibits playing both sides of a legal issue.
Activist legal group the 65 Project filed a bar complaint on Thursday against Edward Martin, interim U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, in Missouri, where he is licensed to practice law, a day after Reuters reported the potential conflict.
Martin last month asked a judge to drop charges against a man who took part in the January 6, 2021, Capitol assault whom he also represented as a defense attorney, after Trump on his first day in office granted clemency to all the nearly 1,600 people charged with playing a role in the riot.
Lawyers generally are prohibited from taking both sides in the same case and U.S. Justice Department regulations require lawyers to step aside from cases involving their former clients for at least a year.
State rules in Missouri, where Martin is licensed, also bar government lawyers from handling cases involving their clients without written consent.
“When President Trump appointed Mr. Martin to serve as interim U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, Mr. Martin became duty-bound under the rules of professional conduct to abstain from any role in his former clients’ criminal cases,” said Michael Teter, managing director of the 65 Project, which has brought bar complaints against Trump-affiliated lawyers, in a statement.
The complaint also notes that Martin filed the motion to dismiss for Timothy Hale-Cusanelli, after doing fundraisers for the Hitler cosplayer.
In addition, Rule 4-1.7 also prohibited Mr. Martin from appearing on behalf of his client, the United States, in Mr. Hale-Cusanelli’s criminal matter after he held a fundraiser for Mr. Hale-Cusanelli and spoke glowingly of the convicted felon.
Still, two days into Pam Bondi’s tenure as AG, things are only getting started. Consider this paragraph of Bondi’s memo entitled, “RESTORING THE INTEGRITY AND CREDIBILITY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,” which attempts to comply with Trump’s Executive Order purporting that DOJ has been weaponized. (See this Lawfare post for links and analysis of all of Bondi’s memos.)
I hereby establish the Weaponization Working Group, which will be led by the Office of the Attorney General and supported by the Office of the Deputy Attorney General, the Office of Legal Policy, the Civil Rights Division, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia, and other personnel as necessary to achieve the objectives set forth herein. The Weaponization Working Group will conduct a review the activities of all departments and agencies exercising civil or criminal enforcement authority of the United States over the last four years, in consultation with the heads of such departments and agencies and consistent with applicable law, to identify instances where a department’s or agency’s conduct appears to have been designed to achieve political objectives or other improper aims rather than pursuing justice or legitimate governmental objectives. The Department of Justice will provide quarterly reports to the White House regarding the progress of the review.
It puts the following people in charge of reviewing whether investigations into Donald Trump were weaponized:
Bondi’s own office, barely three months after she signed an amicus in the appeal of his documents case and who also perpetuated some of Trump’s false voter fraud claims
The Office of Deputy Attorney General, currently run by Trump’s defense attorney Emil Bove, soon to be run by Trump’s defense attorney Todd Blanche
Office of Legal Policy, which will be led by Ken Paxton’s former deputy
Civil Rights Division, to which Trump has nominated Harmeet Dillon, who worked for Trump’s campaign in both 2020 and 2024; she also represented the RNC in a Voting Rights lawsuit filed by a Michigan Civil Rights Group
The DC US Attorney’s Office, run by Martin, who’s already struggling to contain his conflicts (and who was almost certainly among the 1,000 or so people investigated, but not charged, for January 6)
Literally every one of the people overseeing this review has a major conflict. If they were ever to file criminal or civil charges against a competent judge, it’d be laughed out of court for all the conflicts. Plus, Bove and Blanche have already made claims about these investigations that have been rejected by judges.
Remember, Bondi promised to consult with career attorneys about such conflicts — but they’ve already reassigned the senior most of them, Brad Weinsheimer.
And this is what Bondi does in a memo claiming to “restore the integrity and credibility of DOJ.”
https://www.emptywheel.net/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Screenshot-2025-02-07-at-3.43.48 PM.png390874emptywheelhttps://www.emptywheel.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Logo-Web.pngemptywheel2025-02-07 11:33:122025-02-07 11:39:46Two Days In, Pam Bondi’s DOJ Is Already an Ethical Swamp
Yesterday, Judge Amy Berman Jackson dismissed Danny Rodriguez’ case (which was still live based on his appeal of his sentence) as moot, per instructions from the DC Circuit.
But she used the opportunity to reiterate a number of things from the court record.
In accordance with these instructions, the Court will dismiss this case as moot.
In the interest of completeness, in fairness to the victim of this brutal offense, and in furtherance of the truth, the Court also states the following.
First, she reminded that Danny Rodriguez pled guilty to tasing Michael Fanone, which nearly killed him.
On February 14, 2023, defendant Daniel Joseph Rodriguez pled guilty to four of the crimes with which he had been charged in the superseding indictment in this case. He was represented by a highly experienced team from a Federal Public Defender’s office. When Rodriguez entered his plea, he swore that the Statement of Offense the parties had jointly submitted to the Court was truthful, including the paragraph in which he admitted, “knowingly and voluntarily,” that he “forcibly assaulted, resisted, opposed, impeded, intimidated, or interfered with Officer Michael Fanone,” and that he knew at the time of the assault “that the officer was engaged in the performance of their official duties,” or was assaulted “on account of their performance of their official duties.” Statement of Offense [Dkt. # 160] ¶ 20. See also id. ¶ 15 (“The defendant applied the electroshock weapon to the back of Officer Fanone’s neck.”). Thus, there was no trial and no jury involved in the finding that he was guilty.
She included excerpts from Rodriguez’ apology to Fanone.
My name is Daniel Joseph Rodriguez and I write this in hopes that you accept my apology. I do not write this as an excuse for my actions on January 6th, I am not writing this to the Judge, prosecution or media. I am looking at serving a long prison sentence and no letter I write is getting me out of that. Sir, I only want to apologize from the heart.
* * *
Let me start by telling you I’ve been in jail doing lots of thinking, finding God and changing. I never should have been in Washington, D.C. I came from the Los Angeles area of California and I had no business at the Capitol. . . . I should have protected you because I have deep respect for law enforcement, and I have always stood up for police officers. You are a brave man and I wish for good things for you in the future. I want to apologize to your children as well. If I could go back and change what I did, I would.
She described how, as Officer Fanone was protecting members of congress, Rodriguez took the opportunity of his capture to tase him, repeatedly.
The ragged, exhausted, outnumbered line of Capitol Police officers, with Metropolitan Police officers slowly arriving to reinforce them, is trying to keep the mob from gaining access to the inside of the Capitol through the double doors at the end of the tunnel.
Members of Congress and their staff were huddling in fear for their lives nearby. They can hear the chants. They can hear the struggle. The mob turns every possible object into a weapon.
[snip]
Officer Fanone is still thinking about how he can help: Let’s get some fresh guys up front. Let the people who are hurt move back to get assistance. He moves forward, towards the mouth of the tunnel. And another member of the mob, Albuquerque Head, takes it upon himself to put his arm around Fanone’s neck, claiming he’s there to help him. “Hey, I’m going to try to help you out of here. You hear me?” And Officer Fanone actually says, “Thank you.”
But then Mr. Head drags him down the steps and into the crowd, shouting “Hey, I’ve got one.” You can see many other protestors reacting in horror, backing away, yelling, “No,” waving, signaling with their arms to stop. But not you. Who answers Mr. Head’s call? You. You move towards the officer who is being restrained. You are then pressing the electric weapon against side of his neck below his ear. And you can hear him, because we hear it on the video, screaming in pain. He tries to pull back. He tries to get away. But you weren’t done.
You placed the weapon again at the back of his neck and begin pressing again, and the officer screams again.
And ABJ compares what Fanone said after he was revived with what Rodriguez said.
With the help of some other protestors still equipped with their own humanity, Officer Fanone manages to make his way back to the mouth of the tunnel where he collapses. He was unconscious. Sergeant Mastony had to drag him back inside. It takes about two and a half minutes to revive him. And the first thing he says when he comes to is, “Did we take back the door?”
[snip]
What does the defendant do next? While Officer Fanone is undergoing emergency treatment for potential damage to his heart, the defendant is crowing about his exploits. That afternoon, while still on the Capitol grounds, he messages the others, “Oh, my God. I did so much fucking shit and got away.” And then he says, “I tased the fuck out of the blue.”
[snip]
Some people have tried to vilify Officer Fanone, including in my courtroom, but he did nothing that day but show up to support the Capitol Police who were fighting against impossible odds, and he put his life on the line to protect the men and women of the United States Congress, the United States Capitol building, and democracy itself, against a mob. His courage and bravery were met with an assault that almost took his life, and left him unable to perform his job again. Yet his character was revealed when he came to and all he could say was, “Did we hold the line?” Meanwhile, you chose to sum yourself up with an immature, sickening boast.
And so, in dismissing the case as moot, Amy Berman Jackson reiterated the justice of the sentences against Fanone’s attackers.
Michael Fanone’s heroism will never be moot. And no proclamation or order vacating a conviction can erase the truth: that all of the individuals charged with attacking him on January 6 came into court and voluntarily swore that they were guilty, and justice was served.
Justice was served with the sentence, ABJ asserted while debunking the very premise of the pardon Trump issued.
Michael Fanone’s heroism will never be moot.
This is the reality that Republicans in Congress — the very members whom Fanone nearly died protecting — Attorney General Pam Bondi, and their boss, are all trying to rewrite.
https://www.emptywheel.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Screen-Shot-2021-07-27-at-3.25.50-PM.png11302030emptywheelhttps://www.emptywheel.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Logo-Web.pngemptywheel2025-02-07 04:42:012025-02-07 04:42:01Amy Berman Jackson: “Michael Fanone’s heroism will never be moot”
Today, the Senate Judiciary Committee stalled the vote on Kash Patel’s nomination another week.
A bunch of Republicans are wailing that Democrats are afraid of something.
But it’s clear Chuck Grassley is.
A week ago, he released a bunch of documents he read in Kash Patel’s confirmation hearing. They show that DOJ first opened a grand jury to investigate the fake electors plot on January 31, 2022. But FBI delayed two months, from February 12, 2022, at which point they had a draft opening Electronic Communication, to April 13, when they finally approved it. (I’ve included those dates in this timeline.)
The documentation shows that on both the FBI and DOJ side, top executives approved the investigation, as required by DIOG.
Grassley claims blah blah blah it’s not clear what about politicization, based on his debunked claims about Tim Thibault (claims that Jim Jordan’s committee debunked).
Remember: Tim Thibault is one of the three FBI Agents who opened an investigation targeting Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation during the 2016 election cycle, based substantially on Peter Schweizer’s book. That’s the guy the right wingers have spun up as a raging lefty. That’s the guy who was involved in stalling the investigation of Trump for two months.
But the reason Chuck Grassley is sharing this is … mostly hot air, to justify Pam Bondi’s witch hunts.
And also to justify refusing to find out what Kash Patel is covering up about his 2022 grand jury testimony. Chuck Grassley appears to be using his own misrepresentations of Tim Thibault’s role in all this to refuse to support any inquiry into Kash’s grand jury testimony, apparently claiming that the entire Jack Smith investigation — both prongs of which were predicated long before he was hired — was thereby tainted. In a letter following up on that, Sheldon Whitehouse, Cory Booker, and Adam Schiff (but no one else, up to and including Dick Durbin) urge Grassley to reconsider his refusal to demand Kash’s grand jury testimony.
We write to object to Kash Patel’s continued refusal to provide members of the Senate Judiciary Committee information essential to our consideration of his nomination to be Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Mr. Patel has repeatedly refused to discuss the testimony he provided to a federal grand jury investigating Donald Trump’s unlawful retention of classified documents, as well as his invocation of his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. We regret that you have rejected our efforts to inquire into the first-ever invocation of Fifth Amendment protection by a nominee seeking to lead the FBI.
Democrats are trying to figure out what Kash Patel believed, in October 2022, that he had criminal exposure in an Espionage Act investigation.
And Chuck Grassley wants to use the fact that the FBI stalled the January 6 investigation into Donald Trump for two months as an excuse to refuse that.
https://www.emptywheel.net/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Kash.jpg462682emptywheelhttps://www.emptywheel.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Logo-Web.pngemptywheel2025-02-06 14:38:432025-02-06 15:00:36Republicans Continue to Cover Up Why Kash Patel Pled the Fifth
There are a number of outlets tracking every legal challenge to Trump and Elon Musk’s power grabs. For example, JustSecurity has this litigation tracker, including the multiple suits (one, two, three, four, five, six, seven) that attempt to stop Elon’s invasion. Some may well succeed in enjoining Elon’s actions — but they’ll lead to a confrontation over who will enforce the orders.
Two lawsuits filed yesterday by FBI agents may be better vehicles both legally and in generating stories that might lead to pushback from Republicans. The first represents nine Jane and John Doe FBI personnel, fashions itself as a class action, and demands a jury trial; it has been assigned to Biden appointee Jia Cobb. It makes claims under the First Amendment, Fifth Amendment (and Fifth Amendment Privacy), and Privacy Act. It provides these details about how much the government spends to obtain the expertise of FBI agents.
13. FBI agents are chosen through a highly selective process, and are carefully screened for aptitude and trustworthiness.
14. FBI agents go through more than four months of intensive training at the FBI academy before beginning their duties, and attend numerous training sessions throughout their careers to adapt to new technologies and emerging threats.
15. Many FBI agents are multi-lingual and routinely interface with intelligence agencies from allied nations.
16. The training FBI agents receive is comprehensive, and in some instances, extremely expensive.
17. On information and belief, Plaintiffs assert that each agent of the FBI receives more than 3 million dollars-worth of training in a twenty (20) year career.
18. FBI agents also develop specific expertise from their assignments and field duties, much of which cannot be replicated solely by training.
The second represents seven Jane and John Doe FBI personnel, and the FBI Agent’s Association, which represents most active duty Agents; it has been assigned to the Trump appointee who presided over the Proud Boy leaders’ trial, Tim Kelly. Mark Zaid, a highly experienced lawyer in this field, is leading this suit. [Update: This case has been reassigned to Judge Cobb.]
This FBIAA suit makes two claims under the Privacy Act, a First Amendment, two Due Process claims, and this mandamus claim.
64. The provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1361 provide a statutory basis for jurisdiction in cases seeking relief in the nature of mandamus against federal officers, employees, and agencies, and they provide for an independent cause of action in the absence of any other available remedies.
65. Defendants’ actions, as set forth above, constitute unlawful, intimidating, and threatening behavior towards Plaintiffs in response to Plaintiffs’ lawful actions of executing lawful search and arrest warrants and participating in lawful investigations of crimes committed by January 6 perpetrators.
66. Defendants do not have discretion to redefine the truth of January 6, 2021. Nor do Defendants have any discretion to recast the lawful actions taken by the FBI and the previous leaders within the Department of Justice as illegal, let alone any discretion to retaliate and disclose names.
67. Defendants have no discretion when it comes to ensuring the safety of the American people from extremist violence, let alone the safety of their own employees.
68. If no other remedy is available through which the unlawful termination orders may be rescinded, then Plaintiffs are entitled to relief in the nature of mandamus compelling Defendants to recognize Plaintiff to rescind the unlawful termination orders.
Both tell stories about Trump’s personal involvement in January 6 and describe a fear that lists of FBI Agents who worked on the January 6 cases will be used by those they investigated for retribution. The second also cites multiple cases of Jan6ers — including Enrique Tarrio, over whose prosecution Judge Kelly presided — promising retribution. [Update: As noted, this case has been reassigned to Judge Cobb.]
The second suit — the FBIAA one — substantiates its description of the events of January 6 far better, relying on opinions written by the judges who’ll preside over this case, as in these two citations to the DC Circuit opinion in the January 6 Committee’s lawsuit to access Archives documents.
13. The events of January 6, 2021, and the activities leading up to the violence that ensued on the U.S. Capitol on that day, have been well documented by courts in this circuit. Specifically, “[o]n January 6, 2021, a mob professing support for then-President Trump violently attacked the United States Capitol in an effort to prevent a Joint Session of Congress from certifying the electoral college votes designating Joseph R. Biden the 46th President of the United States. The rampage left multiple people dead, injured more than 140 people, and inflicted millions of dollars in damage to the Capitol. Then-Vice President Pence, Senators, and Representatives were all forced to halt their constitutional duties and flee the House and Senate chambers for safety.” Trump v. Thompson, 20 F.4th 10, at 15-16 (D.C. Cir. 2021).
[snip]
19. “The events of January 6, 2021 marked the most significant assault on the Capitol since the War of 1812. The building was desecrated, blood was shed, and several individuals lost their lives. Approximately 140 law enforcement officers were injured, and one officer who had been attacked died the next day. In the aftermath, workers labored to sweep up broken glass, wipe away blood, and clean feces off the walls. Portions of the building’s historic architecture were damaged or destroyed.” Thompson, 20 F.4th at 19.
That’s not the only way the FBIAA suit foregrounds the way judges have approved of the January 6 investigation. It also describes how everything happened with the involvement of judges and much of the legal process for that went through DC.
21. Investigative efforts were centralized out of the District of Columbia federal district (“DDC”). Functionally, this meant that FBI agents swore out arrest warrant affidavits in front of DDC magistrate judges. Upon receipt and review of the sworn affidavit, DDC magistrate judges approved the FBI’s arrest warrant applications and provided a signed, lawful arrest warrant to the arresting FBI agent or FBI task force officer (local law enforcement detailed to the FBI) for execution.
22. In some instances, individuals were arrested pursuant to a grand jury indictment. In these cases, FBI agents testified in front of a federal grand jury under Fed. R. Crim P. 6. If the grand jury found probable cause based on the evidence presented, a supervising court would then issue a lawful arrest warrant for execution
23. Many of the perpetrators of the January 6 riots fled Washington, D.C., immediately after the carnage. Because of this, the FBI had to coordinate efforts across the country in order to amass evidence. This frequently entailed applying for search warrants under Fed. R. Crim. P. 41 in the district where the evidence was to be located. Again, the FBI applied for warrants via sworn affidavits presented to neutral and detached magistrate judges. In the context of search warrants for physical property (e.g., phones, clothes, stolen property), these lawful warrants were issued by a multitude of magistrate judges outside of DDC.
Every DC Judge has affirmed the import of these cases and the danger of the January 6 attack (though some have questioned the prosecution of so many trespassers). They’re all likely facing the same threats that these FBI agents are.
And they are being asked to preside over suits that pit the FBI agents who carried out this investigation against a DOJ led by Trump’s defense attorneys (including Pam Bondi, who was confirmed with the help of John Fetterman but no other Democrats yesterday).
The Mandamus requested by the FBIAA suit is a big ask — the Privacy Act violations in both suits are more likely to work. But the judges in question are likely to agree that, “Defendants do not have discretion to redefine the truth of January 6, 2021.”
According to Ken Dilanian, the FBI did turn over a list of the people involved in the January 6 investigation, though provided employee ID numbers in lieu of names.
https://www.emptywheel.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Screen-Shot-2017-11-27-at-11.07.29-AM.png590610emptywheelhttps://www.emptywheel.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Logo-Web.pngemptywheel2025-02-05 06:34:152025-02-05 09:56:09Telling the Story of January 6 to the Judges Who Know It Best: The Two FBI Lawsuits
Emil Bove, the Trump defense attorney who is serving as the Acting Deputy Attorney General until Trump installs another of his defense attorneys in the post, is preparing to purge up to 6,000 FBI Agents who participated in the investigation into the crime scene on January 6.
Emil Bove, Trump’s former defense lawyer, who is now acting deputy attorney general and in charge of the Justice Department, ordered the removal of at least six top FBI career executives. Bove also requested the names of all FBI agents who worked on January 6th cases.
[snip]
Over the weekend, in a blizzard of activity (helpful reporting can be found here, and here, and here), FBI officials moved to resist the attempted coup.
Though he had carried out the order to decapitate the bureau’s top executives the day before, on Friday acting FBI Director Brian Driscoll reportedly refused to agree to fire certain agents involved with January 6th cases, and was trying to block a mass purge of such agents. In a message to staff Saturday, Driscoll reminded FBI agents of their rights to “due process and review in accordance with existing policy and law,” and emphasized “That process and our intent to follow it have not changed.”
The FBI Agents Association sent a memo to employees over the weekend to remind them of their civil service protections. The memo urged them not to resign or to offer to resign, and recommended that agents respond to one question in the survey they’ve been instructed to answer: “I have been told I am ‘required to respond’ to this survey, without being afforded appropriate time to research my answers, speak with others, speak with counsel or other representation.”
And in a remarkable letter, obtained by The Bulwark, the president of the Society of Former FBI Agents—a group that seeks to stay out of politics—said the following:
The obvious disruption to FBI operations cannot be overstated with the forced retirement of the Director, Deputy Director, and now all five Executive Assistant Directors. Add in the immediate removal of a number of SACs [Special Agents in Charge] and the requests for lists of investigative personnel assigned to specific investigations and you know from your experience that extreme disruption is occurring to the FBI—at a time when the terrorist threat around the world has never been greater.
Then on Sunday the top agent at the FBI’s New York field office, James Dennehy, wrote in an email to his staff: “Today, we find ourselves in the middle of a battle of our own, as good people are being walked out of the F.B.I. and others are being targeted because they did their jobs in accordance with the law and F.B.I. policy. . . . Time for me to dig in.”
What no one is saying in their coverage, however, is that Trump — through Bove — is effectively trying to remove thousands of FBI Agents because they treated a violent attack on the Capitol, one that put Members of Congress at real risk (as the video of Chuck Grassley fleeing, which Kyle Cheney first discovered, shows).
This mob wasn’t just coming after Mike Pence and Nancy Pelosi (and AOC) by name. They were also coming after Mitch McConnell by name. As I’ve shown, Ryan Nichols was calling to drag every member of Congress who certified Joe Biden’s win, which includes Grassley, Lindsey Graham, and John Cornyn.
Trump is trying to make it a firing offense for the FBI to investigate people — including some adjudged terrorists — who attacked a co-equal branch of government.
And thus far, Senators who could stop it have done nothing.
Purging these agents will not just devastate the FBI workforce, throwing away decades of expertise. But it will also send a message that Trump can sic a mob on Congress with no response from law enforcement.
https://www.emptywheel.net/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Screenshot-2025-02-03-at-14.33.15.png432560emptywheelhttps://www.emptywheel.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Logo-Web.pngemptywheel2025-02-03 09:46:472025-02-03 09:46:47Trump Preparing to Fire FBI Agents Who Treated a Violent Attack on Congress as a Crime
I have always said I think it likely Kash Patel will be confirmed. But that shouldn’t have made yesterday’s confirmation hearing pointless. Democrats did that on their own, though a combination of inadequate preparation and absence of leadership.
Dems tried to demonstrate Kash’s manifest lack of fitness for the job in three ways:
Pointing to all the attacks on law enforcement he made on random podcasts
Probing his role in disseminating the January 6 choir
Dancing around his invocation of the Fifth in the Jack Smith investigation
Pointing to all the attacks on law enforcement he made on random podcasts
Kash dealt with the first line of attack — his incendiary comments on social media — by claiming that his comments were taken out of context.
The only time such claims made any sense, when he tried to spin his complaints about the January 6 response, should have led to detailed follow-up of all the ways his testimony conflicts with every other witness on January 6. Kash even, yesterday, doubled the number of National Guard he claims Trump authorized, a claim that is debunked by the testimony of multiple pro-Trump witnesses. And even if his claims were true (he blames and blamed Ryan McCarthy for the delay in Guard response on January 6) means that his own leadership was faulty. At the very least, committee Democrats should have asked whether he was implicated in Barry Loudermilk’s insinuation that the failure to deploy the Guard was contemptuous.
Similarly, when Kash disclaimed remembering far right podcast host Stew Peters and Dick Durbin noted that Kash had appeared on the show eight times, Durbin should have followed up and asked what kind of compromise such promiscuity could cause an FBI Director.
Probing his role in disseminating the January 6 choir
There were many questions about Kash’s role in promoting the January 6 choir — but in spite of a conflict with Adam Schiff over the meaning of “we,” no one ever got Kash explain who did do the rest (though Adam Schiff did state that Kash had done no due diligence before pushing the video).
This matters, because some of Kash’s buddies (including conspiracy theorist Julie Kelly) routinely make false claims about rioters, and finding the source of Kash’s false claims is important to his warped reality going forward.
But the entire thrust of these questions was hampered by the point I made here and here: they relied on a superficial understanding, based off press releases rather than court dockets, of who these people were.
Schiff asked Kash if he promoted a video showing assailants attacking FBI agents, would it make him unfit to be Director. Why not, then, focus directly on the gun that Barton Shively grabbed when probation officers showed up, precisely the kind of thing that has gotten FBI agents killed in recent years.
And if you want to persuade — or at least, embarrass — your Republican colleagues, why not make it clear that the violent rioters under discussion didn’t just attack cops, but they threatened to drag people like Chuck Grassley and Lindsey Graham through the streets? Kash didn’t just promote people who attacked cops, he promoted people who wanted to attack members of the Committee.
Dancing around his invocation of the Fifth in the Jack Smith investigation
It’s on Kash’s invocation of the Fifth that I’m most upset, because Democrats may have forfeited the opportunity to make this a scandal going forward.
It started strongly enough. Cory Booker first raised it, and got Kash to claim he wanted his grand jury testimony released, after which Booker tried — but failed — to get Kash to elaborate on his testimony. Later, Schiff returned to the question and asked whether he supported getting both his grand jury transcripts and any mention of him in Volume Two, which led to what were probably Kash’s angriest looks of the hearing.
But after that, in the second round, a number of senators returned to the issue, mangling the grand jury standard by falsely saying that if Kash consents to the release of the transcript it can be released, and focusing primarily on the transcript and not the report (the latter of which made his eyes bug out when Schiff raised it).
This is the kind of thing you need to coordinate! This is the kind of thing where the actual grand jury rules matter! This is the kind of thing where the McGann precedent matters!
And this is the kind of thing that demanded a coordinated set of yes or no questions about Kash’s testimony, because yesterday’s hearing was the one opportunity Dems will ever have to force him to answer question about what he told the grand jury.
All the more so because, it appears, Dems haven’t done what they should have to make an issue of the report (I first described the import of it to this confirmation on January 13).
On Wednesday — literally the day before the hearing — Dems wrote a letter to Acting Attorney General James McHenry asking for the report. While the letter referenced Dick Durbin asking Pam Bondi about it buried on page 41 of her Questions for the Record, that question did not tie the request to the need to advise and consent on confirmations. Tuesday’s letter nevertheless pointed to that question to claim that Aileen Cannon should have known about it.
On January 23, 2025, the Committee issued a “Notice of Committee Nomination Hearing” for Mr. Patel, which is now scheduled for January 30, 2025. The Ranking Member of the Committee submitted on January 16, 2025, Questions for the Record (QFR) to Attorney General nominee Pamela Jo Bondi following her confirmation hearing, requesting that she commit to making Volume Two of the Special Counsel’s report available immediately for review to the Senate Judiciary Committee Chair, Ranking Member, or their designees.2
This formal request preceded an order issued several days later by a judge in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida that enjoined the Department from releasing or otherwise making available a redacted version of Volume Two of the Special Counsel’s report to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees. In the order, the judge erroneously stated that “[t]here is no record of an official request by members of Congress for in camera review of Volume II as proposed by the Department in this case,” despite the prior request which her order omits. The judge also concludes wrongly that the Department “identified no pending legislation on the subject or any legislative activity that could be aided, even indirectly, by dissemination of Volume II to the four specified members whom the Department believes should review Volume II now,” notwithstanding the Committee’s ongoing consideration of Mr. Patel and others’ nominations.3
2 Senate Judiciary Committee, Questions for the Record the Honorable Pamela Jo Bondi Nominee to be Attorney General of the United States, (Jan. 16, 2025), https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2025-01-15_- _qfr_responses_-_bondi.pdf
3 United States v. Trump, No. 9:23-cr-80101, (S.D. Fla. Jan. 21, 2025) ECF No. 714 at 7; In addition, on January 13, 2025, Senator Dick Durbin, Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee and the other Democratic members of the Committee submitted a letter to then-Attorney General Merrick Garland “recogniz[ing[ the current injunction against the release of Special Counsel Smith’s report and related materials and reserv[ing] its right to request production of the report and relevant records at an appropriate future date.” Senate Judiciary Committee Letter Requesting Preservation of DOJ documents (Jan. 13, 2025), https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Letter%20to%20DOJ%20on%20Records%20Preservation.pdf
This falls short of informing Cannon, however, and submitting an urgent request for the report in conjunction with this confirmation the day before the hearing is rather late, particularly since Grassley might try to push through the confirmation before the stated due date for the report, February 10 (which is still before Cannon’s injunction runs out).
Given Kash’s glare, I’m pretty confident that the report will suggest Kash prevaricated before the grand jury. I even suspect we’ll eventually get some semblance of the report (I also think DOJ’s efforts to fire everyone who might have a copy, on Friday, before they moved to dismiss the case against Walt Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira, on Monday, while a transparent attempt to prevent its release, may be inadequate to that effort).
I think that if the report comes out, it will become clear that the delay in releasing it served primarily to preserve Kash’s nomination chances. I think that it’s likely not to happen before he is confirmed, but I think if that happens after Kash’s confirmation, it can be made a key demonstration of the corruption inherent to Trump’s DOJ.
But Democrats have not done the things they needed to do to to make that a scandal.
Trump’s DOJ is involved in a cover-up as we speak, a cover-up designed to hide how the aspiring FBI Director was complicit in Trump’s efforts to retain classified documents in his insecure basement. But Democrats have not done what they need to do to impose a cost for that cover-up.
Kash disclaims the purge in process
Cory Booker was perhaps the bright spot of the day. In addition to first raising Kash’s role in the documents investigation, he got Kash to disclaim knowledge of a purge in process, in which at least six senior FBI agents were pushed out, during the hearing.
This is another thing that may be turned into a scandal going forward.
Compile this video
As this post makes clear, most of these Senators are quite proud of their testy confrontations with Kash. They’ve sent them out individually.
It’s not too late to make use of them. Democrats can and should put together three videos focused on each of these topics. Intersperse Kash’s claim to stand by cops with video of those he celebrated attacking them. Intersperse Kash’s disavowal of the Neo-Nazis he has been sidling up to with what he said on their shows. And make a video of all the times Kash claimed to want to release his testimony with a focus on the effort to cover it up.
Kash Patel is almost certainly going to be confirmed. And he will almost certainly be a catastrophic appointee. So Dems need to do far more than they did yesterday to impose a cost going forward on his pick — one that, especially, will make it easier to demonstrate the corruption of his installation.
https://www.emptywheel.net/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Kash.jpg462682emptywheelhttps://www.emptywheel.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Logo-Web.pngemptywheel2025-01-31 07:09:322025-01-31 07:09:32How Senate Judiciary Committee Dems Fucked Up the Kash Patel Nomination Hearing
