Amy Berman Jackson: “Michael Fanone’s heroism will never be moot”

/19 Comments/in , , /by

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.

Republicans Continue to Cover Up Why Kash Patel Pled the Fifth

/29 Comments/in , , /by

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.

Telling the Story of January 6 to the Judges Who Know It Best: The Two FBI Lawsuits

/87 Comments/in , , /by

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.

Stephen Miller Claimed Elon Musk Was the One Elected in November

/142 Comments/in , /by

Yesterday, Stephen Miller RTed a propagandist’s attack on Jamie Raskin, in which he reframed Raskin’s legal points — that Congress has the power of the purse, that Elon Musk cannot eliminate agencies created by Congress — by suggesting they were an attack on DOGE’s [sic] efforts to “eliminat[e] waste and fraud.”

Miller suggested Democrats — defending the Constitution — hate democracy, because (Miller said) “voters have the right to elect a president to drain the permanent unelected DC swamp.”

With his RT, the Deputy Chief of Staff of Donald Trump’s White House suggested Elon had been elected.

Elon. Not Trump.

According to Politico, propagandists were posting this argument on Xitter, with Elon RTing them to assert his own legitimacy.

On X, Musk reposted accounts arguing Americans voted for Musk to play a major role in the Trump administration.

But there’s a big difference between Draino and Eric Daugherty suggesting that Elon, not Trump, was elected, and Stephen Miller doing so.

Meanwhile, this NYT article suggests that the White House isn’t in control of what Elon is doing.

Senior White House staff members have at times also found themselves in the dark, according to two officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe sensitive discussions. One Trump official, who was not authorized to speak publicly, said Mr. Musk was widely seen as operating with a level of autonomy that almost no one can control.

[snip]

This time, however, he carries the authority of the president, who has bristled at some of Mr. Musk’s ready-fire-aim impulses but has praised him publicly.

“He’s a big cost-cutter,” Mr. Trump told reporters on Sunday. “Sometimes we won’t agree with it and we’ll not go where he wants to go. But I think he’s doing a great job. He’s a smart guy.”

[snip]

Several former and current senior government officials — even those who like what he is doing — expressed a sense of helplessness about how to handle Mr. Musk’s level of unaccountability. At one point after another, Trump officials have generally relented rather than try to slow him down. Some hoped Congress would choose to reassert itself.

Mr. Trump himself sounded a notably cautionary note on Monday, telling reporters: “Elon can’t do and won’t do anything without our approval. And we’ll give him the approval where appropriate, where not appropriate, we won’t.”

“If there’s a conflict,” he added, “then we won’t let him get near it.”

It depicts a fight that — last week — was pitched as proof that Chief of Staff Susie Wiles had managed to limit Elon’s access to Trump by denying him an office in the West Wing as instead, at least as Elon tells it, a concession about office size.

At one point, Mr. Musk sought to sleep over in the White House residence. He sought and was granted an office in the West Wing but told people that it was too small. Since then, he has told friends he is reveling in the trappings of the opulent Secretary of War Suite in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, where he has worked some days.

And amid all that, it notes Elon’s ties to Miller, linking a story that focuses on immigration, not destroying government.

He has a close working relationship with Mr. Trump’s top policy adviser, Stephen Miller, who shares Mr. Musk’s contempt for much of the federal work force.

Now, for all its star power, this is not the article you should read to find out what’s going on in the agencies. Wired has, generally, been leading the pack on that front, having IDed the boys Elon has installed, confirmed one of those boys has control over Treasury’s payment systems, recorded the Musk boys’ platitudes about AI, and found that even after PEPFAR was exempted from USAID cuts, it remains unfunded. And if you want to understand where access by these boys to the government’s HR records will lead, read Mike Masnick.

But I want to compare the impotence portrayed by NYT — the refashioning of the office space fight, the anonymous confirmation that few if anyone in the White House know what Elon’s doing, the on the record quotes from a clueless Trump, a lying Karoline Leavitt, and … from Stephen Miller’s spouse, Katie, who has been installed in Elon’s group, that nothing will go wrong here — with the relative success of the two billionaires’ days yesterday.

Trump got his ass handed to him.

After promising big tariffs on our closest trading partners yesterday, he twice announced one month delays on the tariffs, tied to concessions that “Sleepy Joe Biden” actually negotiated, in one case four years ago. Worse still, both Claudia Sheinbaum and Justin Trudeau beat Trump to the microphone, and in Canada’s case, their Ambassador showed up on Fox News to make it clear Canada already agreed to the things Trump was hailing as a big concession, while Biden was still President. Better yet, some journalists have learned the lesson of the Colombia “negotiation,” in which the same thing happened. Leavitt’s lies about concessions may get less and less effective, moving forward, each time she tries to claim that Trump is some great dealmaker.

I suspect that between the time Trump announced tariffs and the time he capitulated, Senators and possibly even Rupert Murdoch told him how insane the tariffs were. I further suspect that these discussions involved a quid pro quo, perhaps tying a Susan Collins vote for Tulsi Gabbard, for example, in exchange for a reversal on tariffs that might affect Maine.

However Trump was talked off that cliff, he got his ass handed to him.

He didn’t even entirely succeed at claiming this was a fight over immigration and fentanyl trafficking, when that excuse was obvious bullshit as it pertains to Canada.

The one bright spot of his day was making a big announcement about a Sovereign Wealth Fund, yet another piece of paper Stephen Miller handed him to sign, probably, but a promise that, like the plan to annex Canada and purchase Greenland, remains unfunded and undiscussed in heated talks in the House and Senate about how to do reconciliation.

As I suggested Friday, so long as Stephen Miller keeps handing Trump papers to sign, he seems content to imagine he’s the President.

Meanwhile, Elon did succeed in getting the Trump-whisperers at NYT to accept that his attack on bureaucracy, which started with an agency with a $40 billion budget, 1% of government expenditures, and has never glanced at the agency with an $800 billion budget that has never passed an audit.

Mr. Musk has told Trump administration officials that to fulfill their mission of radically reducing the size of the federal government, they need to gain access to the computers — the systems that house the data and the details of government personnel, and the pipes that distribute money on behalf of the federal government.

Mr. Musk has been thinking radically about ways to sharply reduce federal spending for the entire presidential transition. After canvassing budget experts, he eventually became fixated on a critical part of the country’s infrastructure: the Treasury Department payment system that disburses trillions of dollars a year on behalf of the federal government.

Mr. Musk has told administration officials that he thinks they could balance the budget if they eliminate the fraudulent payments leaving the system, according to an official who discussed the matter with him. It is unclear what he is basing that statement on. The federal deficit for 2024 was $1.8 trillion. The Government Accountability Office estimated in a report that the government made $236 billion in improper payments — three-quarters of which were overpayments — across 71 federal programs during the 2023 fiscal year.

[snip]

In private conversations, Mr. Musk has told friends that he considers the ultimate metric for his success to be the number of dollars saved per day, and he is sorting ideas based on that ranking.

“The more I have gotten to know President Trump, the more I like him. Frankly, I love the guy,” Mr. Musk said in a live audio conversation on X early Monday morning. “This is our shot. This is the best hand of cards we’re ever going to have.”

This is ridiculous garbage, as are Elon’s daily claims of money he has saved (which NYT accedes elsewhere). You’re not going to eliminate the deficit by shutting down USAID. You will, however, cut off a lot of funding to Ukraine, with Russia laughing gleefully as it watches. As Elon moves onto reviewing individual employees, you’ll cut off employees who’ll have to be replaced by more expensive contractors.

You won’t cut spending appreciably.

Nothing Elon is doing will balance the budget. Nothing Elon is doing will make government more efficient. Hell, his AI boys can’t even tell the difference between a condom and a hospital, and as a direct result, Trump keeps making transparently bogus claims about Gaza funding.

But as we try to get a sense of where the attacks on democracy are coming from, it’s worth noting that the first thing that happened — before the Senate installed one after another of Trumps’ wildly unqualified nominees, and before Congressional Republicans have decided how to defund government themselves — Elon has gone in and started changing code at government agencies, and done so with feeble claims of approval from the White House.

Meanwhile, people who seem to answer to Miller — people like Acting DC US Attorney Ed Martin, one of three January 6 insurrectionists salted through government so far — appear to be working for Elon, not Trump.

Update, February 5: Both NBC and Atlantic are reporting that Susie Wiles claims to be in charge of what Elon is doing.

Who Needs Intelligence Sharing?

/26 Comments/in , , , , , /by

On January 27th, an AP story appeared on the news website Military.com with the headline “Intelligence Sharing by the US and Its Allies Has Saved Lives. Trump Could Test Those Ties.” On the surface, it reads like one of those analysis pieces that come out when the White House changes from one party to the next, with the added twist of knowing what the first Trump administration was like.

The Associated Press spoke with 18 current and former senior European and U.S. officials who worked in NATO, defense, diplomacy or intelligence. Many raised questions and concerns about Trump’s past relationship with America’s spies and their ability to share information at a time of heightened terror threats and signs of greater cooperation between U.S. adversaries.

The importance of trust

The U.S. and its allies routinely share top-secret information, be it about potential terror threats, Chinese cyberattacks or Russian troop movements. America’s closest intelligence partners are New Zealand, Australia, Canada and Britain, and it often shares with other nations or sometimes even adversaries when lives are at stake.

[snip]

Cooperation particularly between the U.S. and the U.K. is “strong and robust enough to withstand some turbulence at the political level,” said Lord Peter Ricketts, former U.K. national security adviser and current chair of the European Affairs Committee of the upper chamber of the British Parliament.

However, any strong intelligence relationship is underpinned by trust, and what if “trust isn’t there?” Ricketts said.

Ricketts’ question is no longer a hypothetical. This is the reality faced by intelligence services who in the past have been friendly with the US intelligence community. The AP put out their story on January 27th, and that seems like years ago. Today this reads like a warning.

The takeover of USAID that has played out this past week is *not* just a battle over who runs offices in DC. The bulk of USAID’s staff work overseas, alongside their local partners. When phone calls from these overseas missions back to DC go unanswered, and when US staffers abroad are told to stand down, all those local partners are going to get very, very nervous, and not just because their paychecks stop. They’re going to talk to others in their government, trying to find out what it going on. At the same time, they will be providing input (either directly or indirectly) to their own country’s intelligence service, as their spooks add it to whatever they are learning from elsewhere. In the US, folks worry about those who are losing their jobs; overseas, these fights will result in people dying, like those who don’t get the clean water, medical care, or disease prevention measures like malaria nets. Those other countries are watching with horror the stories of Musk’s minions breaking into sensitive databases, over the objections of trusted career people, and wonder what of their own information is now in the hands of a privateer, and if the same this is (or will be) going on at the CIA, DIA, and other US intelligence agencies.

I guarantee you that all these other countries are watching the battle over USAID much more carefully than folks in the US.

Or look at the targeting of General Mark Milley, widely respected by his counterparts among our allies and within their intelligence services. OK, Biden pardoned him to protect him, but Trump withdrew his security clearance, and also his personal security detail. On January 29th, newly confirmed Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth launched a process to investigate Milley, seeking to strip him of at least one star, cut his retirement pay, and punish him further. Given what the US attorney for DC is doing by going after DOJ attorneys for investigating the rather noticeable break-in of the US Capitol on January 6, 2021, it’s not hard to imagine that Hegseth’s henchmen will be rather thorough in their work and ruthlessly push aside anyone who gets in their way.

Now imagine you are a member of a foreign intelligence service — perhaps the head, or perhaps a mid-level staffer whose specialty is the US. You see the USAID invasion. You see the public decapitation of the FBI. You see the targeting of career DOJ officials. You see Hegseth paint a target on the back of Milley (and others, like John Bolton and John Brennan). You see all this, much of it in the bright light of public reporting. You hear more from your contacts, who paint more detailed pictures of these purges and fights. You see all this, and you ask yourself two questions, over and over again.

1) Are the things we shared with the US intelligence community in the past safe from being revealed in public, and thus causing us harm?
2) Can we trust the US intelligence community with information we might share with them in the future?

Given what we’ve seen over the last week, the answers to these questions are becoming more and more clear: 1) no and 2) no.

I haven’t talked to those “18 current and former senior European and U.S. officials who worked in NATO, defense, diplomacy or intelligence” to whom the AP spoke. The AP headline was hypothetical – “Trump could test those ties” – but now on February 3rd, it’s real. Trump has been f’ing around with those intelligence service ties, and he’s about to find out what happens.

The short answer is becoming clear, as Trump’s vision of America First becomes America Alone.

 

 

Some of the Ways Trump’s Immigrant Invader Damaged America in Just Two Weeks

/101 Comments/in , , /by

I think one effect of Trump’s attempt to wow journalists with the appearance of action is to hide how many major fuck-ups and failed promises Trump has had in his first two weeks (like the serial confession that Trump and Stephen Miller lied to voters about how many criminal aliens there are and Trump’s equivocations about multiple of the tariffs he will set).

But one locus of many of the worst failures comes from this unelected immigrant.

Among the things that African immigrant Elon Musk has done in the last few weeks was:

Forced FAA’s head, Michael Whitaker, out days before a fatal crash. As the Verge explained, Elon took Whitaker out because he deigned to regulate Musk’s companies.

But Musk’s efforts to get Whitaker were well known even before Trump’s victory in November. He has complained many times about the FAA, lashing out in September after the agency levied a $633,000 fine for launching missions with unapproved changes. (Musk is worth over $400 billion, making him the richest man in the world.)

The FAA has also fined Starlink, after the SpaceX subsidiary failed to submit safety data before launching satellites in 2022. In a House hearing, Whitaker explained that the FAA’s civil penalties were “the only tool we have to get compliance on safety matters.”

On X, Musk complained that the FAA was “harassing SpaceX about nonsense that doesn’t affect safety while giving a free pass to Boeing even after NASA concluded that their spacecraft was not safe enough to bring back the astronauts.” He also claimed that humans would never land on Mars without “radical reform at the FAA.” In September, he wrote “he needs to resign” about Whitaker.

Elon also pushed out the guy who manages America’s checkbook, David Lebryk, in whom a lot of the confidence of investors and businessmen is invested.

The highest-ranking career official at the Treasury Department is departing after a clash with allies of billionaire Elon Musk over access to sensitive payment systems, according to three people with knowledge of the matter, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe private talks.

David A. Lebryk, who served in nonpolitical roles at Treasury for several decades, announced his retirement Friday in an email to colleagues obtained by The Washington Post. President Donald Trump named Lebryk as acting secretary upon taking office last week. Lebryk had a dispute with Musk’s surrogates over access to the payment system the U.S. government uses to disburse trillions of dollars every year, the people said. The exact nature of the disagreement was not immediately clear, they said.

Officials affiliated with Musk’s “Department of Government Efficiency” have been asking since after the election for access to the system, the people said — requests that were reiterated more recently, including after Trump’s inauguration.

[snip]

Typically only a small number of career officials control Treasury’s payment systems. Run by the Bureau of the Fiscal Service, the sensitive systems control the flow of more than $6 trillion annually to households, businesses and more nationwide. Tens, if not hundreds, of millions of people across the country rely on the systems, which are responsible for distributing Social Security and Medicare benefits, salaries for federal personnel, payments to government contractors and grant recipients and tax refunds, among tens of thousands of other functions.

Musk’s flunkies, including one 18-year old with only a high school diploma, have also been installed in the Office of Personnel Management [corrected] — the government’s HR department.

Sources within the federal government tell WIRED that the highest ranks of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM)—essentially the human resources function for the entire federal government—are now controlled by people with connections to Musk and to the tech industry. Among them is a person who, according to an online résumé, was set to start college last fall.

Scott Kupor, a managing partner at the powerful investment firm Andreessen Horowitz, stands as Trump’s nominee to run the OPM. But already in place, according to sources, are a variety of people who seem ready to carry out Musk’s mission of cutting staff and disrupting the government.

Amanda Scales is, as has been reported, the new chief of staff at the OPM. She formerly worked in talent for xAI, Musk’s artificial intelligence company, according to her LinkedIn. Before that, she was part of the talent and operations team at Human Capital, a venture firm with investments in the defense tech startup Anduril and the political betting platform Kalshi; before that, she worked for years at Uber. Her placement in this key role, experts believe, seems part of a broader pattern of the traditionally apolitical OPM being converted to use as a political tool.

Sources say that Riccardo Biasini, formerly an engineer at Tesla and most recently director of operations for the Las Vegas Loop at the Boring Company, Musk’s tunnel-building operation, is also at the OPM as a senior adviser to the director. (Steve Davis, the CEO of the Boring Company, is rumored to be advising Musk on cuts to be made via DOGE and was integral in Musk’s gutting of Twitter, now X, after his takeover of the company in 2022.)

According to the same sources, other people at the top of the new OPM food chain include two people with apparent software engineering backgrounds, whom WIRED is not naming because of their ages.

One thing they’ve done is set up a government-wide email function.

Last week, many federal workers received test emails from the email address [email protected]. In a lawsuit filed last night, plaintiffs allege that a new email list started by the Trump administration may be compromising the data of federal employees.

In their attempts to set up agency- and government-wide emails, Elon’s unelected bureaucrats seem to have taken security filters off at least NOAA’s email system, resulting in noxious spam being sent.

After setting up the government-wide email, someone sent out an email similar to the one Elon sent out when he gutted Xitter, attempting to fool government workers into accepting something misleadingly labeled a buy-out, one not authorized by statute or appropriation.

In a separate email sent on Tuesday entitled “Fork in the Road,” most federal workers were effectively offered an eight-month severance package to leave their jobs, simply by sending [email protected] a message with the word “Resign” in the subject line between now and February 6. Military personnel, postal workers, and national-security and immigration officials are not eligible.

The executive branch has no authority from Congress to offer a mass buyout to federal workers. In fact, the OPM website clearly states that the limit for incentive packages for voluntary resignations is $25,000, far less than eight months’ pay for the average federal worker. Some employees can’t even be offered that.

The way OPM purports to get around this is by defining this as “deferred resignation.” The resignation of the federal worker would be set at September 30, and they will retain full pay and benefits until then and be exempt from return-to-office requirements that are part of one of the Trump executive orders. (This is also a way to not unlawfully reduce salary outlays in federal appropriations for the current fiscal year.) “I understand my employing agency will likely make adjustments in response to my resignation including moving, eliminating, consolidating, reassigning my position and tasks, reducing my official duties, and/or placing me on paid administrative leave until my resignation date,” reads the sample resignation letter. In this sense it is just a future setting of an end date of employment, though the strong implication is that those employees will have nothing to do for the next eight months.

[snip]

This was an Elon Musk operation, through and through. In fact, the “Fork in the Road” email had the same title as one that Elon Musk sent to Twitter when he took over there, informing workers to be “extremely hardcore” or take the resignation offer. The Twitter emails even included the same ask of workers to reply with their decision.

All this access — and almost certainly, some shitty AI — is where the big lie Karoline Leavitt told in her first presser came from.

MS. LEAVITT: There was notice. It was the executive order that the president signed.

There’s also a freeze on hiring, as you know; a regulatory freeze; and there’s also a freeze on foreign aid. And this is a — again, incredibly important to ensure that this administration is taking into consideration how hard the American people are working. And their tax dollars actually matter to this administration.

You know, just during this pause, DOGE and OMB have actually found that there was $37 million that was about to go out the door to the World Health Organization, which is an organization, as you all know, that President Trump, with the swipe of his pen in that executive order, is — no longer wants the United States to be a part of. So, that wouldn’t be in line with the president’s agenda.

DOGE and OMB also found that there was about to be 50 million taxpayer dollars that went out the door to fund condoms in Gaza. That is a preposterous waste of taxpayer money.

Jesse Watters picked up Leavitt’s lie, which in turn led Trump to parrott Watters’ expanded version of it.

It’s possible flunkies installed by African immigrant Elon Musk mistook Africa for the Middle East (of which only Jordan gets contraceptives), because Africa receives condoms from the US (as part of the important PEPFAR anti-AIDS program that even Republican Senators were demanding be resumed when it got shut down).

And this is just what we already know! While it hasn’t been confirmed, I’d bet a good deal of money that Elon’s flunkies were behind shutting down the Medicaid portals early in the week, something that affected health care for people throughout the country.

It has been spectacular failure after failure.

And many of them were directly caused by the immigrant demanding that we get rid of unelected bureaucrats taking democracy away.

How Senate Judiciary Committee Dems Fucked Up the Kash Patel Nomination Hearing

/30 Comments/in , , /by

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.

Mark Zuckerberg Agrees to Turn Meta [Back] into a Pogrom Machine

/44 Comments/in , , /by

According to WSJ, Meta has agreed to pay $25 million to lose the frivolous lawsuit Trump launched after Facebook exercised its prerogative under the First Amendment not to platform Trump’s insurrection anymore in 2021.

Meta Platforms has agreed to pay roughly $25 million to settle a 2021 lawsuit that President Trump brought against the company and its CEO after the social-media platform suspended his accounts following the attack on the U.S. Capitol that year, according to people familiar with the agreement.

Of that, $22 million will go toward a fund for Trump’s presidential library, with the rest going to legal fees and the other plaintiffs who signed on to the case. Meta won’t admit wrongdoing, the people said. Trump signed the settlement agreement Wednesday in the Oval Office.

A Meta spokesman confirmed the settlement.

[snip]

Trump’s Facebook and Instagram accounts were suspended in 2021 because of posts he made around Jan. 6, 2021, when a mob stormed the Capitol building. In the days leading up to the attack and on Jan. 6, he repeatedly used the platforms to make false claims that he won the 2020 election and alleged widespread election fraud that was denied by the administration’s top election-security experts and attorneys.

Zuckerberg, at the time, said the risks of the president’s using the social-media platforms during that period “are simply too great” and then paused the president’s accounts for two weeks. The pause was subsequently lengthened.

Most people — including Elizabeth Warren, in the WSJ story — are focusing on how this is effectively a bribe, a $22 million donation (on top of the earlier $1 million one) trading for regulatory favors. It is. Trump continues to engage in unprecedented corruption in plain sight.

But it is more than that. The concession of the settlement implies that Facebook should not have banned Trump for using their platform to incite an insurrection, though it admits no wrong-doing.

I have repeatedly argued that if Twitter, along with Facebook, had not shut down Trump’s account after January 6, there was a good chance that Joe Biden would never have been inaugurated.

Mark Zuckerberg’s capitulation makes it far less likely Meta will do the same thing — take action against Trump’s account to prevent him from stoking ongoing violence — again. It makes it virtually certain that Meta will not police inciteful content involving Trump without buy-in from the top, from Zuck.

And that, along with Meta’s earlier capitulations to Stephen Miller to rejigger its algorithms to allow transphobic and other dehumanizing speech — which experts predicted would lead to the kind of violence Facebook fostered in Myanmar — means that when Trump next uses these platforms to incite violence, he’s far less likely to be shut down.

Heck, John Roberts has even provided guidelines to Trump on how to ensure such incitement will be an official act and therefore immune from any future prosecution. Trump simply needs to involve his top aides — someone like Stephen Miller — in crafting a post, and Trump will be able to say that John Roberts told him that Trump never goes to prison for it.

Stephen Miller has, for some time, been laser focused on re-weaponizing social media. He is suspected to be the one who pitched Musk on bringing “the boss himself, if you’re up for that!” back onto Xitter.

Then, last summer, Miller attempted to intervene in Trump’s document case when Jack Smith asked Aileen Cannon to prevent Trump from falsely claiming the FBI tried to assassinate him because it issued routine use of force guidelines for the search of Mar-a-Lago. Miller argued that Trump’s false claims on social media about the FBI — earlier ones of which had already led to a violent attack on the FBI — were not incitement and constituted important speech for the election.

The only possible constitutional exception to free speech the government has identified is incitement. But it cannot rely on that exception to justify infringing President Trump’s rights. President Trump has not engaged in speech that “prepare[s] a group for violent action [or] steel[s] it to such action.” Brandenburg, 395 U.S. at 448. It cannot be said that by merely criticizing—or, even as some may argue, mischaracterizing—the government’s actions and intentions in executing a search warrant at his residence, President Trump is advocating for violence or lawlessness, let alone inciting imminent action. The government’s own exhibits prove the point. See generally ECF Nos. 592-1, 592-2. 592-3, 592-5. The government presents no evidence that President Trump advocated a violent attack or other lawless action against the Department of Justice, the FBI, President Biden, this Court, any witness, or any other person. Much less has the government proved a call to arms or any request, demand, instruction, or implication that supporters should violate any law.

And all this is happening after Trump pulled the security detail from several people — most notably Anthony Fauci and Mark Milley — who’ve long been targeted, the latter by Iranian terrorists as well as Trump’s people. Indeed, one of the attacks Smith focused on in his successful DC bid for a gag was Trump’s attack suggesting Milley should be executed.

This is not just about eliciting a bribe for regulatory favors. It is not just about winning an argument about actions taken four years ago to halt an insurrection in process.

The entire lawsuit is about an ongoing chilling effect. And Zuck’s capitulation is a capitulation to that chill, a soft commitment that the next time Trump uses social media to launch his mob against vulnerable targets like trans people or legal Haitian immigrants, against co-equal branches of government in Congress or the courts, or against his select targets like Milley, Meta will do nothing to slow the mob.

For years, Stephen Miller has been perfecting the use of social media to sow fascism. And he just cowed one of the richest men in the world to make it a more effective tool for fascism.

A Summary of Kash Patel’s Disqualifications to Lead FBI

/54 Comments/in , , , , /by

I expect Kash Patel will be confirmed; I even expect that Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee will be utterly feckless in Kash’s confirmation hearing tomorrow.

Nevertheless I wanted to summarize his disqualifications.

Kash got where he is by substituting the Steele dossier for the real Russian investigation, which was instrumental in Trump’s success at minimizing the damage of one after another Trump associate lying about what really happened in 2016.

Kash gets a lot of credit for the Nunes Memo, with many right wingers claiming that the Horowitz Report vindicated it.

It didn’t. As I showed, both the Nunes Memo and the Schiff Memo got things right and got things wrong; mostly they just spoke past each other, which was fundamentally based on that substitution of the Steele dossier for the real Russian investigation.

Nevertheless, one of Kash’s lasting gripes (against Robert Hur) has to do with efforts to limit how much Kash was releasing at the time.

Kash did more than that as a House staffer, though. He continued to chase his conspiracy theories as Congress turned to criminalizing Hillary Clinton. He’s actually the staffer who asked the question that set up Michael Sussmann for a failed prosecution years later. He set up what would later become the Durham investigation — a four year effort to criminalize being victimized by a hostile nation-state.

And then, after Durham filed a wildly misleading court filing misrepresenting the discovery by some Georgia Tech researchers that someone was using a YotaPhone inside the Executive Office of the Presidency during the Obama term, Kash sent out a letter outright lying about the claims.

The whole thing is riddled with lies, but ultimately it amounts to a conflation of the Obama-era discovery with the discovery of the ties between a marketing server, Alfa Bank, and a Spectrum Health server. Kash’s letter was the final step before Trump jumped on the lies and called for Sussmann’s execution. Kash is a key cog in the way Trump has elicited threats against others.

Kash also paid a lot of former FBI agents who were disgruntled about having to investigate Trump supporters.

And when news of the discovery that boxes of documents that Trump had returned had classified documents in them, Kash invented a claim that Trump had declassified all those documents.

At least one Jack Smith witness — someone with the potty mouth of Eric Herschmann — disputes any claim there was a standing order to declassify documents. That witness described someone “unhinged” and “crazy” who first got access to the White House through the Member of Congress he worked for, who started the “declassified everything” claim when it first started appearing in the media, which is when Kash Patel made the claim.

Jack Smith described what happened next. When investigators subpoenaed Kash to test his claims that Trump had this standing order, Kash tried to delay compliance indefinitely by hiring a lawyer already busy defending a January 6 seditionist. When the aspiring FBI Director did first testify, Kash pled the Fifth repeatedly.

On Monday, September 19, 2022, the FBI personally served witness Kashyap “Kash” Patel with a grand jury subpoena, commanding him to appear on September 29, 2022. Prior to engaging with counsel, Patel contacted government counsel on Friday, September 23, 2022, to request a two-week extension. The government agreed to that extension and set his appearance for October 13, 2022. Thereafter, [Stan] Woodward contacted government counsel on September 27, 2022, explaining that he had just begun a lengthy jury trial–United States v. Rhodes et a., No. 22-cr-15 (D.D.C.)–but that Patel had retained him. On September 30, 2022, Woodward request an addition indefinite extension of Patel’s grand jury appearance until some point after the Rhodes trial concluded. (Ultimately, the verdict in the trial was not returned until November 29, 2022, approximately six weeks after Patel’s already-postponed appearance date of October 13, 2022.) The government was unwilling to consent to the indefinite extension that Woodward sought. Woodward, for his part, declined various alternatives offered by the government, including scheduling Patel’s grand jury appearance for Friday afternoons, when the Rhodes trial was not sitting, and a voluntary interview by prosecutors and agents over a weekend.

On October 7, 2022, Patel (through Woodward) filed a motion to quash his grand jury appearance, arguing that requiring Patel to appeal pursuant to the grand jury’s subpoena would violate his constitutional rights by depriving him of his counsel of choice, i.e., Woodward, who was occupied with a jury trial elsewhere in the courthouse. The Court denied the motion to quash on October 11, 2022, see In re Grand Jury No. 22-03 Subpoena 63-13, No. 22-gj-41, Minute Order (Oct. 11, 2022), and required Patel to appear as scheduled on October 13. See id. (“Mr Patel requests a delay of some unspecified time period in his testimony because his counsel, Stanley Woodward, will be engaged in the United States v. Rhodes trial, Case No. 22-cr-15, scheduled to last several weeks, with no promises as to when his counsel will still have time available. Mr. Patel retained Mr. Woodward on the attorney’s first day of jury selection in Rhodes when such circumstance made fully apparent that counsel would be unavailable during Mr. Patel’s scheduled grand jury testimony. In addition, the government has already demonstrated flexibility in meeting Patel’s scheduling needs . . . . Testifying before a grand jury is not a game of find-or-seek-a-better-time or catch-me-if-you-can, and a witness cannot indefinitely delay a proceeding based on his counsel’s convenience. . . .”).

Patel appeared before the grand jury on October 13, 2022, where he repeatedly declined to answer questions on the basis of the rights afforded to him by the Fifth Amendment. Thereafter, the government moved to compel Patel’s testimony. The Court granted the government’s motion to compel, contingent on the government offering statutory immunity. [my emphasis]

Aileen Cannon has buried any description of what Kash said when compelled to testify. This nomination should be held until any discussion of Patel in the Jack Smith report is released (but thus far Dick Durbin has shown no interest in doing so; DOJ just dropped their appeal).

But it should never be passed, because Kash is a menace. In his repeated efforts to falsely claim that January 6 defendants were treated any worse than any other mostly-violent pretrial detainees during the COVID period, he suggested that the people detained for assaulting cops were being mistreated.

As I have shown (and Bulwark did before me) Kash’s cheerleading for January 6 defendants amounts to arguing that someone accused of assaulting cops who grabs a gun when his probation officers show up should not then be jailed, nor should someone who directly threatened members of Congress, called on a mob to grab their weapons, and then assaulted cops.

Kash Patel will do and say anything to protect Trump and his flunkies — up to and including risking the safety of members of Congress.

Such a person would not serve as Director of FBI. He would serve as a means to turn government against Trump’s adversaries.