Leo Wise Buries Bill Barr with Six Year Sentencing Recommendation

/17 Comments/in , , , /by

To be absolutely clear, David Weiss’s lead prosecutor Leo Wise did not bury Bill Barr with a recommendation that Bill Barr be sentenced to six years in prison for framing Joe Biden.

No.

Leo Wise argued that Alexander Smirmov should be sentenced to six years in prison for (in addition to cheating on his taxes over three years) providing a false claim that Mykola Zlochevsky had bribed Joe Biden via the side channel that Bill Barr set up in the wake of Trump’s search for bribery allegations against Joe Biden.

In 2020, Smirnov and his willingness to make false claims about Donald Trump’s opponent were magically discovered by a team Barr ordered Pittsburgh US Attorney Scott Brady to convene. After that team magically discovered Smirnov, the FBI magically failed basic vetting, such that they took travel records showing no evidence Smirnov took trips he claimed to have taken and, from those, declared his travel records corroborated his claims.

Remember, vetting was, if you believe in magic, the entire point of the Brady side channel!

That would have been the end of things. Except then, one after another Republican kept magically rediscovering Smirnov’s false claim, each time using it as an excuse to ratchet up further investigation into Hunter and Joe Biden.

That happened in October 2020 after Donald Trump yelled at Bill Barr. That happened in May 2023. That happened in June 2023. And that happened when Leo Wise decided to chase the allegation in July 2023.

And in his sentencing memo, Leo Wise has argued that Smirnov should be punished with six years in prison because of Scott Brady and Bill Barr and Jamie Comer and Jim Jordan and Donald Trump and Leo Wise’s lust to pursue a claim that Joe Biden took a bribe.

Before I get into the story Wise tells to get there, check out how his sentencing recommendation compares to Charles McGonigal’s, who in addition to lying on FBI disclosure forms in order to hide that he had a side foreign partner paying him $225,000, like Smirnov, caused a false investigation to be filed against someone (the rival of McGonigal’s Albanian partner).

The left column is sentencing guidelines mumbo jumbo, but what you need to know is that prosecutors were arguing sentences for the same base level crime, 18 USC 1519 (altering a document) with a baseline of 14 points. Both were slapped with enhancements because their false claims led the government to take investigative steps (more on that below). Leo Wise argued that non-employee FBI informant Smirnov should get the same penalty for abusing his position of trust, 2 points, as a NY Field Office Special Agent in Charge (though that may be the only available enhancement). Then on top of the enhancements McGonigal got for hiding his side business from the FBI and investigating his partner’s rival, Wise argued Smirnov should get 2 points for how important the document is, and then first 3 and then another 2 points for framing a former Vice President during a Presidential election and also because his document was used again while Biden was President, including when Leo Wise decided to chase it.

One way you can tell this whole sentencing process — likely this whole plea deal — is a sham, is that Smirnov’s excellent attorneys didn’t do the analysis I just did (to say nothing of comparing Smirnov to Kevin Clinesmith, who altered an FBI email and whose victim was a former Trump campaign aide, yet got probation), showing that Leo Wise wants to punish Smirnov more aggressively than a guy who sold out the FBI and also caused a false investigation to be opened. The comparators Smirnov’s excellent attorneys invoked all involve people who got probation for conduct similar to Smirnov’s (but again, mysteriously not Clinesmith). Even if you assume Smirnov should go to prison for framing Joe Biden, though, it’s hard to see how his betrayal is worse than McGonigal’s.

Another way we can tell the whole sentencing process is a sham is that, as I speculated, the 4-6 year sentencing included in the deal was totally arbitrary, probably intended to serve some other purpose, maybe frame Joe Biden? Turns out even with all those enhancements, Leo Wise still only got to a 57 to 71 month range, but that didn’t stop him from asking for 72 months anyway. The range was, indeed, not based on guidelines, nor is it yet.

Which is where we finally get to the story Leo Wise told about all this, and ultimately to where he has hidden Bill Barr, the guy who ordered up the side channel that magically found a way to frame Joe Biden and then, in 2023, who made claims about the process with the result that the same Smirnov claim ended up framing Joe Biden a second time.

Leo Wise tells the story of how this all went down twice. The first time (in the section laying out Smirnov’s crime), he mostly stuck to what Wise put in the indictment, starting with the Brady side channel, to which Wise adds the letter to Jerry Nadler intended for public consumption, attributing the side channel to Jeffrey Rosen, not the guy mentioned in Trump’s perfect phone call who ordered Brady to open the side channel and to whom Brady personally reported on it.

In June 2020, the Handler reached out to the Defendant concerning the 2017 1023. Obstruction of Justice Indictment (Exhibit 2) ¶ 22. This was done at the request of the FBI’s Pittsburgh Field Office (hereafter “FBI Pittsburgh”). Id. In the first half of 2020, the United States Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Pennsylvania (hereafter “USAO WDPA”) had been tasked by the Deputy Attorney General of the United States to assist in the “receipt, processing, and preliminary analysis of new information provided by the public that may be relevant to matters relating to Ukraine.” Id.; see also February 18, 2020 Letter to The Honorable Jerrold Nadler (Exhibit 8). As part of that process, FBI Pittsburgh opened an assessment, 58A-PG-3250958, and in the course of that assessment identified the 2017 1023 in FBI holdings and shared it with USAO WDPA. Id. USAO WDPA then asked FBI Pittsburgh to reach out to the Handler to ask for any further information about the reference in his 2017 1023 that stated, “During this call, there was a brief, non-relevant discussion about former [Public Official1]’s son, [Businessperson 1], who is currently on the Board of Directors for Burisma Holdings [No Further Information]”. Id.

From there, Wise vaguely describes how, in July 2023, the FBI asked the people who were already investigating Hunter Biden to look into the Smirnov allegation, mentioning as well that, having magically gotten a copy of the 1023, Charles Grassley released it on a date Leo Wise chooses not to include: July 20, 2023.

In July 2023, the FBI requested that the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Delaware assist the FBI in an investigation of allegations related to the 2020 1023. Obstruction of Justice Indictment (Exhibit 2) ¶ 41. At that time, the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Delaware was handling an investigation and prosecution of Businessperson 1. Id.

Also in July 2023, a member of the United States Senate posted the 2020 1023 on his official website, making the Defendant’s false allegations against Public Official 1 public. https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-obtains-andreleases-fbi-record-alleging-vp-biden-foreign-bribery-scheme (Exhibit 5).

On August 11, 2023, the Attorney General appointed David C. Weiss, the United States Attorney for the District of Delaware, as Special Counsel. Obstruction of Justice Indictment (Exhibit 2) ¶ at 42. The Special Counsel was authorized to conduct the investigation and prosecution of Businessperson 1, as well as “any matters that arose from that investigation, may arise from the Special Counsel’s investigation, or that are within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a).” Id

On August 29, 2023, FBI investigators spoke with the Handler in reference to the 2020 1023. Id. at ¶ 43. During that conversation, the Handler indicated that he and the Defendant had reviewed the 2020 1023 following its public release by members of Congress in July 2023, and the Defendant reaffirmed the accuracy of the statements contained in it. Id.

No need to tell Judge Otis Wright about how sometime before July 10 — and probably as early as June 19, when Leo Wise came in and David Weiss started to renege on a signed plea deal — David Weiss was already investigating the allegation. Blame it on Chuck.

In this telling, Wise buries Barr’s personal role in setting up the side channel in January 2020, as well as Barr’s personal role in inflaming things in June 2023 — about the time that Weiss started reneging on a plea deal — by telling Margot Cleveland that he had told David Weiss to investigate this in 2020.

It’s not true. It wasn’t closed down,” William Barr told The Federalist on Tuesday in response to Democrat Rep. Jamie Raskin’s claim that the former attorney general and his “handpicked prosecutor” had ended an investigation into a confidential human source’s allegation that Joe Biden had agreed to a $5 million bribe. “On the contrary,” Barr stressed, “it was sent to Delaware for further investigation.”

[snip]

But that’s just not true, according to the former attorney general. Instead, the confidential human source’s claims detailed in the FD-1023 were sent to the Delaware U.S. attorney’s office for further investigation, according to Barr.

Wise then tells the story again later, when he tries to lard on how much work Smirnov caused because he had the bad luck of having his willingness to make shit up about Joe Biden discovered by people who were hoping to make shit up about Joe Biden.

Wise doesn’t explain how Brady’s folks would even come across Smirnov’s allegation if all they were doing was vetting open source tips. It’s Smirnov’s fault Brady magically started searching on Burisma and Hunter Biden and discovered a guy who started offering to make shit up about Joe Biden a month earlier.

In 2020, the FBI, through the Pittsburgh Field Office, and the U.S. Department of Justice, through the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Pennsylvania, assigned investigators and prosecutors to pursue the false allegations that the Defendant made that were memorialized in the 2020 1023. For example, the document titled “Open Items for Completion by PG” shows various investigative steps that FBI Pittsburgh and FBI Seattle, where the Defendant’s Handler was located, took in an attempt to assess the credibility of the allegations the Defendant first reported in 2020 that were memorialized in the 2020 1023. Exhibit 6

In 2023, the FBI assigned a second team of investigators, through the FBI’s Wilmington RA and the U.S. Department of Justice, through the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Delaware and later the Special Counsel’s Office, to investigate the Defendant’s allegations. This second group of FBI agents and prosecutors took investigative steps that caused them to conclude that the Defendant was lying and that he should be prosecuted himself for these lies.

In any event, significant Justice Department resources were expended determining that the Defendant’s false allegations were lies

Then it blames Smirnov — and not the GOPers seeking to frame Joe Biden — for the efforts FBI had to take in an effort to tamp down GOP efforts to find a way to frame Joe Biden.

In addition, the 1023 caused the substantial expenditure of government resources by the U.S. Congress and the FBI and Department of Justice in the Congressional oversight process. The following is a summary by FBI Director Wray of the actions taken by the Congress and the FBI and Justice Department specifically related to the 2020 1023

Most remarkably, given the way Leo Wise obscures that, after Barr publicly declared that David Weiss had been ordered to investigate the Smirnov allegation, a claim backed by multiple public records, David Weiss had publicly confirmed he was looking at the Smirnov allegations before someone magically gave Chuck Grassley a copy to leak, to argue for the extra two point enhancement for a super duper victim, the President of the United States!, Wise complains that Smirnov retold his lie when Wise (and Weiss) came calling, or maybe it’s that Comer and Jordan were trying to frame Joe Biden while he was President, or maybe it was all an election interference stunt.

The upward departure contemplated in Application Note 5 differs from Section 3A1.2 in two important ways. First, it uses the present tense “if the official victim is an exceptionally high-level official …” (emphasis added). When the Defendant was interviewed in September 2023 and repeated his false accusations against Joseph R. Biden, which is described in the indictment and is relevant conduct, Joseph R. Biden was the President of the United States. So that requirement is met. Second, the last phrase in the application note refers to “potential disruption of the governmental function,” which is an additional requirement that must be met to justify an additional upward departure. Congressional oversight is a “governmental function.” At the time the Defendant repeated his false accusations in September 2023, the Congress was actively involved in examining the Defendant’s false claims in the 2020 1023. The 2020 1023 was released publicly in July and, as described above, the Congress and the Executive Branch had taken numerous steps to address its claims. The Defendant’s choice to repeat his false claims when he was interviewed by the FBI in September 2023 had the potential to further disrupt the oversight process, which is a governmental function.

Further, at the time the Defendant was interviewed President Biden was a candidate for re-election. The Supreme Court has long recognized a state’s compelling interest in regulating elections, i.e. in securing the right to vote freely and effectively. Burson v. Freeman, 504 U.S. 191 (1992); see also Mills v. Alabama, 384 U.S. 214 (1966); Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112 (1970). The Defendant’s false statements had the potential to disrupt the conduct of federal elections by spreading misinformation about the presumptive nominee of one of the two major American political parties in the 2024 elections.

This all gets to be a bit much.

The truth of the matter is Donald Trump ordered his people to frame Joe Biden, Bill Barr set up a way to facilitate that process, they magically found a way to do that, and after Lesley Wolf tried to save David Weiss from all this in 2020, Leo Wise came along and — goaded on by an entire Congress trying to frame Joe Biden — decided he knew better and would pursue the same allegations that didn’t make sense three years earlier.

And here we are and all of this is the fault of Alexander Smirnov, and — according to Leo Wise — he should face the kind of obstruction sentence never before seen because the entire Republican party facilitated his effort to frame Joe Biden.

Alexander Smirnov was willing to frame Joe Biden and he got caught. But he got caught because the entire GOP renewed the effort to frame Joe Biden, over and over and over again.

Yet for that, only Alexander Smirnov should face a six year sentence, Leo Wise says.

Alexander Smirnov’s Vetting

/8 Comments/in , , /by

David Weiss submitted his sentencing memorandum for Alexander Smirnov last night; it was a splendid exercise in comedy, well worthy of the sawdust-as-cocaine team. Congrats, gents, and thanks for kicking off an insane year in fine style!

But you’re going to have to wait on the comedy.

First, I want to review a vetting document submitted with the sentencing, completed sometime in July 2020 (per the indictment, on August 12, David Bowdich and Richard Donoghue recommended the assessment be closed, a claim that conflicts with known documentary evidence and Bill Barr’s public comments).

The most important detail in the assessment is a bullet explaining that the current reporting (probably on a Smirnov associate central to his story) “does not reveal the 2015/2016 introduction.” Contrary to what Scott Brady led Congress to believe in testimony given under oath, they already had good reason to doubt Smirnov’s story, yet DOJ resuscitated it anyway in the days after Trump yelled at Bill Barr in October 2020. And then again when Congress was looking to frame Joe Biden.

Another detail that David Weiss’ team has thus far obscured pertains to the date when, Smirnov claimed, he had a follow-up conversation about bribery with Mykola Zlochevsky. The call purportedly happened on a 2019 trip to London. This vetting document describes that Smirnov was in London working with the British National Crime Agency [!!!], after which Smirnov stayed behind. If the call happened in that time, it would have happened between October 7 and 11, 2019 — precisely the period when Lev Parnas was trying to board a plane to swap legal assistance for a laptop from Mykola Zlochevsky, only to be arrested at the airport. There’s no reason to believe the call did happen, but if it did, it would have been directly tied to impeachment and Rudy’s thwarted effort to get dirt from Burisma in that same time period. To believe it happened, you’d have to believe that Lev Parnas was supposed to fly to Vienna for an in-person meeting, while at the same time, Zlochevsky fed Smirnov the dirt Rudy was seeking via another channel. It could happen!! Other aspects of this story look just like that!! But if you ever remotely entertained this theory — as David Weiss did — it would suggest all the allegations about Hunter being set up were true, not the reverse.

No wonder all the documentation in this case thus far left that detail out.

Finally, there’s a long response to a question about whether Smirnov knew a guy named Michael Guralnik or any of the people he reported on. Guralnik is where Rudy’s Ukrainian dalliance started, in 2018, as reported by Daily Beast (though there’s plenty of other reporting on him).

The letters, which The Daily Beast reviewed, claim that an eclectic mix of Ukrainian political figures and businesspeople were part of an alleged “organized crime syndicate.” The letters claim that the individuals were “actively involved in the siphoning of funds appropriated by the American government for aid to Ukraine.” And they claim that the alleged crime syndicate used those funds to buy black-market military parts from a Russian company under U.S. sanctions. All the while, they say, Ukraine’s then-prosecutor general (Giuliani ally Yuriy Lutsenko) couldn’t fight the crime because then President Petro Poroshenko wouldn’t let him take the case to court.

“It concerns me, as should any fellow American, that a taxpayer’s money is rudely been stolen in Ukraine [sic],” reads the letter to Mandelker.

The letter-writer introduces himself in the letter addressed to Mandelker as a Ukraine-born U.S. citizen named Michael Guralnik who graduated from the Soviet Military Academy and was “a 10-year veteran of the Soviet Army.” The letter to Graham, meanwhile, also bears Guralnik’s name but contains no introduction. It arrived a month before Giuliani tried to help former Ukrainian top prosecutor Viktor Shokin travel to the U.S. and meet with Graham, Bondy said. A few weeks before the date of the Guralnik letter, Giuliani sent Graham a letter of his own asking his staff to help three unnamed Ukrainians get visas so they could come to the U.S. and share information about the Bidens. The State Department did not give Shokin a visa.

The letters say that the “only way” to “stop this syndicate” is to sanction the individuals involved. Both letters list 12 people, along with phone numbers for some of them. Included on the list are Mykola Zlochevskiy, the head of the scandal-plagued Ukrainian company where Joe Biden’s son Hunter Biden was a board member; Valeriya Gontareva, the head of the National Bank of Ukraine from mid-2014 to mid-2017; and Kateryna Rozhkova, who was her deputy.

Graham and Giuliani did not respond to repeated requests for comment, and it was not immediately clear if lawmakers ever even considered the sanctions. A spokesperson for Graham did not respond to a request for comment. Mandelker did not comment on the record for this report. When contacted, Guralnik hung up the phone and texted, “Do not call any more.”

The people in the letters Daily Beast describes appear to be different than the people FBI was chasing 18 months later. But there are several references in this document that suggest Brady got the claim that Biden had been bribed from Guralnik via Rudy first, and then chased down Smirnov, who was all too willing to say something that corroborated it. That’s a bit different than what members of Congress claimed last year; they insisted there was no tie to any of the dirt that Rudy had obtained.

Assessment content

Those are the big takeaways.

I’ve reproduced the outline used in the assessment, below (hopefully in more usable format than the Bureau managed), summarizing what is in there. It is probably done by the Pittsburgh FBI office (PG in the document).

The assessment appears to be split into two parts, the stuff Pittsburgh FBI could do and the stuff they claimed (not always credibly) they needed to have a predicated investigation to chase. I’m actually a bit sympathetic to the bullshit here. Scott Brady’s transcript is rife with discussion of a fight between him and the FBI about how much they could do without a preliminary investigation. These claims that FBI couldn’t do some of this at an assessment level may have just been the FBI’s effort to say, we’re not going to do this anymore unless you give us top cover, which is exactly what the fight sounds like as described by Brady. So the assessment ended, it got sent to David Weiss (which, again, doesn’t show up in the sentencing memo), and Lesley Wolf did nothing, leaving it there for Bill Barr to reflate in time for an election.

In each of those two parts, there may be three subcategories: Smirnov, and two others. The two others are completely redacted.

There are three Smirnov-related bullets in the assessment section. The first, is the question that elicited the response about Smirnov’s travel (there’s no context to the other two, bullets e and f). Given that Brady misled Congress on precisely this issue, I’m skeptical about that first redaction.

The items left for a predicated investigation — things like interviewing the Smirnov colleague through whom he said he met Zlochevsky and reviewing his travel — are all things Weiss’ team appears to have done, based on the indictment (though there’s no mention of the CIA). Perhaps the most obvious of those was to review Smirnov’s texts with his handler (you’d think you could do this at the assessment level, but testimony in the Oleg Danchenko trial suggests that may not be the case). That’s pretty telling. As those disclosed, Smirnov was sending his handler rewarmed Fox News propaganda, debunked months earlier, which if Smirnov had been competently handled at all, should have set off alarm bells.

More importantly, those texts showed that Smirnov offered up a bribery fabrication in May 2020, and then in June 2020, Scott Brady magically came looking for it.

As we’ll see in the sentencing memo, short of sentencing Smirnov on the fly as he is so he could get some follow-on indictment before Trump comes in, David Weiss has thus far exhibited not the remotest curiosity how that happened, how out of all the gin joints in all of the world, Scott Brady just happened to walk into Smirnov’s, the guy who a month earlier was offering up a fabricated Joe Biden bribery allegation.

And so, because a witness to this scheme is in charge of investigating it, we may never get an explanation of how that happened.

Update: In the sentencing memo, Leo Wise claims that Alexander Smirnov didn’t tell any lies pertaining to the period after Biden was Vice President.

In 2020, Joseph R. Biden was a former government officer, namely, the former Vice President of the United States. The Defendant’s text exchanges with his handler and others also evidence that he was motivated by Joseph R. Biden’s status as the former Vice President of the United States. The Defendant’s false statements all involved conduct that occurred when Joseph R. Biden was Vice President of the United States and the Obama Biden Administration lead on Ukraine policy.

For the reasons I laid out above, that appears to be false: it appears the claimed 2019 call with Zlochevsky could not exist. It seems that Wise may have dodged that in an attempt to distance his own effort from Trump’s efforts to find a way to frame Joe Biden.

 

Open Items for Completion by Pittsburgh FBI

1 [redacted]

2 Corroborating [Smirnov]

a. [redacted]

b. FBI PG/HQ PCU Response regarding travel

i. Photos of Smirnov’s passports sent on July 2, 2020

ii. CBP details about Smirnov’s travel provided on July 2, 2020 showing trips to Vienna from October 8 to 19, 2016, October 21 to 26, 2016, and December 8 to 10, 2016

iii. Smirnov’s trip to London from October 7 to 11, 2019

iv. A follow-up to confirm Smirnov’s travel, to which Smirnov’s handler offered pablum: “CHS travels very frequently and had traveled to Ukraine and London on multiple occasions during the relevant time periods, so it would be difficult to pinpoint the meeting.”

c. Does Smirnov know people named by Rudy Giuliani source Michael Guralnik?

d. How does Smirnov communicate with [redacted]? Via WhatsApp.

e. [redacted]

f. [redacted]

g. Further information

i. Someone else’s passport requested from NDOH on July 7, 2020, provided to serial on July 9, 2020

ii. Smirnov’s first references to [someone] while reporting on Transnational Criminal enterprises in November 2014

iii. Smirnov was introduced by Igor Fridman in 2013/2014

iv. Smirnov first reported on Burisma in March 2017

v. Smirnov handler provides phone number for other person

vi. This person had a B1/B2 visa in 2017, with an address in Kyiv

vii. Someone related is the subject of numerous SARS amounting to $200,610

h. An instruction to review the case file for all references to the alleged $5 million bribe to Hunter or Joe Biden, including a 302 from Guralnik

i. FBI PG say there’s nothing additional but “this is an ongoing process”

i. How would Mykola communicate with the Bidens?

i. Smirnov didn’t know

[2-3 other items, apparently first level title]

Items for consideration (likely necessitating a predicated investigation)

1. Further Smirnov corroboration

a. Validation of CHS and information provided ongoing

b. Further assess Smirnov colleague through third party FBI interview

c. Review CHS’ travel with CHS to determine estimated timing of in-person meetings with Mykola Zlochevsky

d. Further details on Guralnik

e. Cellebrite information on text messages with handler

f. Determine overlap with another case

i. PG recommends this happen with HQ validation [seems to be a deconfliction issue]

g. Coordinate with OGA [CIA] partners on reporting relating to dates, places, and persons of interest

2. Something else probably not Smirnov related

3. Something else probably not Smirnov related

Artificial Frameworks about Elon: On Adrian Dittmann and Tommy Robinson

/27 Comments/in , /by

I was alarmed by the response yesterday to Elon Musk’s full-throated propaganda campaign for Tommy Robinson.

In a formula not far off QAnon, Elon has used a child sexual abuse scandal magnified by the Tories to suggest that Robinson has been unfairly jailed for contempt.

He posted and reposted multiple calls for Robinson, whose real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, to be released from prison.

The activist was jailed for 18 months in October after pleading guilty to showing a defamatory video of a Syrian refugee during a protest last year.

Judges previously heard that he fled the UK hours after being bailed last summer, following an alleged breach of the terms of a 2021 court order.

The order was imposed when he was successfully sued by refugee Jamal Hijazi for making false claims about him, preventing Robinson from repeating any of the allegations.

Pictures later showed him on a sun lounger at a holiday resort in Cyprus while violent riots erupted across the UK in the wake of the attack in Southport.

Posts promoted by Musk suggested Robinson was ‘smeared as a “far-right racist” for exposing the mass betrayal of English girls by the state’, an apparent reference to the grooming gang scandal.

This is fairly transparent effort at projection: to do damage to Labour even while delegitimizing the earned jailing of Robinson, a tactic right wing extremists always use (still are using with January 6) to turn the foot soldiers of political violence into heroes and martyrs. The intent, here, is to cause problems for Labour, sure, but more importantly to undermine rule of law and put Robinson above it.

I’m not alarmed that experts in radicalization are finding Musk’s efforts to turn Robinson into a martyr serving sexually abused children repulsive. Nor am I alarmed that experts in radicalization — and, really, anyone who supports democracy or has a smattering of history — are repulsed by Elon’s endorsement of Germany’s neo-Nazi AfD party.

I’m alarmed by the nature of the alarm, which the Tommy Robinson full circle demonstrates.

Endorsements are the least of our worries, in my opinion.

To put it simply. Elon Musk’s endorsement of Donald Trump was, by itself, not all that valuable. Endorsements, themselves, don’t often sway voters.

Elon’s endorsement of Robinson is just the beginning of the damage he can do … and, importantly, has already done. Endorsement is the least of our worries.

It makes a difference if, as he has promised to do for Nigel Farage and as he did do for Trump, Elon drops some pocket cash — say, a quarter of a billion dollars — to get a far right candidate elected.

But where Elon was likely most valuable in the November election was in deploying both his own proprietary social media disinformation and that of others to depress Harris voters and mobilize the low turnout voters who consume no news who made the difference for Trump. We know, for example, that Musk was a big funder of a front group that sought to exacerbate negativity around Gaza (though I’ve seen no one assess the import of it to depress Democratic turnout anywhere but Michigan’s heavily Arab cities). I’ve seen no one revisit the observations that Elon shifted the entire algorithm of Xitter on the day he endorsed Trump to boost his own and other Republican content supporting Trump. (Of course, Elon deliberately made such analysis prohibitively expensive to do.) We’ve spent two months fighting about what Dems could do better but, as far as I’m aware, have never assessed the import of Elon’s technical contribution.

It’s the $44 billion donation, as much as the $250 million one.

In other words, Elon’s value to AfD may lie more in the viral and microtargeted promotion he can offer than simply his famous name normalizing Nazism or even cash dollars.

But back to Tommy Robinson, and the real reason for my alarm by the newfound concern, in the US, about Elon’s bromance with the far right provocateur.

It shouldn’t be newfound, and Elon has already done more than vocally endorse Robinson.

Tommy Robinson is a kind of gateway drug for US transnational support for British and Irish extremism, with Alex Jones solidly in the mix. This piece, from shortly after the UK riots, describes how Robinson’s reach exploded on Xitter after Elon reinstated him.

Robinson, who has been accused of stoking the anti-immigration riots, owes his huge platform to Musk. The billionaire owner of X rescued Robinson from the digital wilderness by restoring his account last November. In the past few days Musk has:

  • responded to a post by Robinson criticising Keir Starmer’s response to the widespread disorder – amplifying it to Musk’s 193 million followers;
  • questioned Robinson’s recent arrest under anti-terror laws, asking what he did that was “considered terrorism”; and
  • allowed Robinson’s banned documentary, which repeats false claims about a Syrian refugee against a UK high court order, to rack up over 33 million views on X.

It was the screening of this documentary at a demonstration in London last month that prompted Robinson’s arrest under counter-terrorism powers. Robinson left the UK the day before he was due in court, and is currently believed to be staying at a five-star hotel in Ayia Napa. He is due in court for a full contempt hearing in October.

None of this has stopped Robinson incessantly tweeting about the riots, where far-right groups have regularly chanted his name. He has:

  • falsely claimed that people were stabbed by Muslims in Stoke-on-Trent and Stirling;
  • called for mass deportations, shared demonstration posters, and described violent protests in Southport as “justified”; and
  • shared a video that speculated that the suspect in the Southport stabbings was Muslim, a widespread piece of disinformation that helped trigger the riots across the country.

Making the weather. The far-right activist has nearly 900,000 followers on X, but reaches a much larger number of people. Tortoise calculated that Robinson’s 268 posts over the weekend had been seen over 160 million times by late Monday afternoon.

Elon gives Tommy Robinson a vast platform and Robinson uses it to stoke racist hatred. Robinson was the key pivot point in July, and was a key pivot point in Irish anti-migrant mobilization. All this happened, already, in July. All this already translated into right wing violence. All this, already, created a crisis for Labour.

Elon Musk is all at once a vector for attention, enormous financial resources, disinformation, and (the UK argues about Xitter), incitement.

I worry that we’re not understanding the multiple vectors of risk Elon poses.

Which brings me to Adrian Dittmann, on its face an Elon fanboy who often speaks of Musk — and did, during the brief spat between Laura Loomer and the oligarch — in the First Person. Conspiracy theorist Loomer suggested that Dittmann is no more than an avatar for Musk, a burner account Musk uses like his another named after his son to boost his own ego.

Meanwhile, the account that supposedly convinced Loomer to concede the fight has some otherwise inexplicable ties to the Tesla CEO. Dittmann also purports to be a South African billionaire with identical beliefs to Musk. The account frequently responds to Musk’s posts, supporting his decisions related to his forthcoming government positions and the way in which the tech leader is raising his children. But the account also, at times, goes so far as to speak on behalf of Musk, organizing events with Musk’s friends while continuing to claim that the two aren’t affiliated.

X users felt that the illusion was completely shattered over the weekend, when Dittman participated in an X space using his actual voice—and, suspiciously, had the exact same cadence, accent, and vocal intonations as Musk himself.

Conspiracy theorist Charles Johnson, in his inimitable self promotion, claims to have proven the case (you’ll have to click thru for the link because I refuse to link him directly).

Right wing influencer and notorious troll Charles Johnson also claims to have uncovered “proof” that Dittmann is Musk.

He writes in his Substack article: “I recently attended a Twitter Space where I exposed Elon Musk’s alt account and Elon Musk as a fraud to his face. Take a listen. It was pretty great. Part of the reason I was as aggressive as I was with Adrian/Elon was to get him agitated so he would speak faster than his voice modulator could work and we could make a positive match using software some friends of mine use for this sort of thing. I can confirm it’s Elon. Even if it isn’t physically Elon in the flesh, it’s an account controlled and operated by Elon/X that represents him in every way shape and form. But of course, it’s actually Elon.”

I’ll let the conspiracy theorists argue about whether Dittmann is Musk.

I’m more interested in an underlying premise about Elon we seem to adopt.

After Elon Musk bought Xitter, he retconned his purpose, in part, as an AI product. After the election, Xitter officially updated its Terms of Service to include consent for AI training on your content.

You agree that this license includes the right for us to (i) analyze text and other information you provide and to otherwise provide, promote, and improve the Services, including, for example, for use with and training of our machine learning and artificial intelligence models, whether generative or another type;

Xitter is unabashedly an AI project. Musk’s views on AI are closely aligned with his far right ideology and his plans to destroy government.

With other tech oligarchs, we can make certain assumptions about their investment in AI: The necessity to always lead technology, a goal of eliminating human workers, cash. Particularly given Elon’s subordination of the profit motive to his ideological whims with his Xitter purchase, that $44 billion donation he made to Trump, I don’t know that we can make such assumptions about Elon.

So why do we assume that everything Xitter’s owner posts, who tweets prolifically even while babysitting the incoming US President, boosting fascists around the world, and occasionally sending a rocket to space, is his own primary work? Most of Elon’s tweets are so facile they could easily be replaced by a bot. How hard would it be to include a “Concerning” tweet that responds to certain kinds of far right virality? Indeed, what is Elon really doing with his posting except to hone his machine for fascism?

I’m not primarily concerned about whether Adrian Dittmann is a burner account for Elon Musk. Rather, I think that simplifies the question. Why would the next Elon burner account be his human person hiding behind a burner account, and not an AI avatar trained on his own likeness?

Beware South African oligarchs pitching fascists and technological fixes. Because you may often overlook the technological underbelly.

Update: I should have noted Meta’s announcement that they plan to create imaginary friends to try to keep users on their social media platforms entertained.

“We expect these AIs to actually, over time, exist on our platforms, kind of in the same way that accounts do,” Meta vice-president of product for generative AI Connor Hayes told the Financial Times Thursday.

“They’ll have bios and profile pictures and be able to generate and share content powered by AI on the platform… that’s where we see all of this going,” he added.

Hayes said AI investment will be a “priority” for Meta over the next two years to help make its platforms “more entertaining and engaging” for users.

Update: Nicole Perloth links the analysis who did what Charles Johnson claimed to do: match the voices of Elon and Dittmann. They believe it’s highly likely to be a match.

Update: Some OSINT journalists have tracked down a real Dittmann in Fiji. Then Jacqueline Sweet wrote it up at the Spectator, all the while blaming the left for this, when it was pushed by people on the right. None of this addresses Elon’s play with the ID (he claimed he is Dittmann in the wake of Sweet’s piece).

Live this New Year with Considered Agency

/37 Comments/in /by

Well, 2025 begins.

I’ve been fighting what may be the flu (once again, I tested negative for COVID, meaning I’ve still never tested positive!), so I’ll forgo any big celebratory posts. Plus, the passage into 2025 doesn’t feel all that happy.

So I wish that, in your own personal and professional life, you have a wonderful 2025.

I wish that in your political life, you find a way to be the most effective, healthiest defender of democracy you can be.

Peace and best wishes!

The Opportunity Costs of Conspiracy Theories about Merrick Garland

/144 Comments/in , , , /by

You have a choice.

You can spend the next few weeks laying the groundwork for making a big stink about the fact that the aspiring FBI Director tried to help Trump steal classified documents.

Or you can spend it clinging to false claims about Merrick Garland so you can blame him for the fact that Trump won reelection rather than blaming the guy directly responsible for preventing a trial (and the guy who’ll remain responsible for Trump’s license going forward), John Roberts, to say nothing of the failed Democratic consultants and voters themselves.

Sadly, Democrats and lefties — from random people on Bluesky to TV lawyers to the President himself — are choosing the latter path, the path that will guarantee they remain maximally ineffective.

They’re rolling out all the tired false claims: Merrick Garland waited before investigating people close to Trump, they claim. According to NYT, Garland approved an effort to follow the money in his first meeting with prosecutors — an effort that turned out to be a dry hole, but nevertheless was precisely the approach that people like Sheldon Whitehouse and Andrew Weissmann demanded.

After being sworn in as attorney general in March 2021, Merrick B. Garland gathered his closest aides to discuss a topic too sensitive to broach in bigger groups: the possibility that evidence from the far-ranging Jan. 6 investigation could quickly lead to former President Donald J. Trump and his inner circle.

At the time, some in the Justice Department were pushing for the chance to look at ties between pro-Trump rioters who assaulted the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, his allies who had camped out at the Willard Hotel, and possibly Mr. Trump himself.

Mr. Garland said he would place no restrictions on their work, even if the “evidence leads to Trump,” according to people with knowledge of several conversations held over his first months in office.

“Follow the connective tissue upward,” said Mr. Garland, adding a directive that would eventually lead to a dead end: “Follow the money.”

In June 2021, they focused on the Willard, precisely the people everyone wanted investigated.

In late June, Mr. Garland, Ms. Monaco and several aides decided they needed to take a dramatic step: creating an independent team, separate from Mr. Cooney’s original group, tasked with investigating the Willard plotters, with no restriction on moving up the ladder to Mr. Trump if the evidence justified it.

They did not want too many people knowing about it. So they gave it a vanilla name: the “Investigations Unit.”

NYT misses — as everyone else has, too — one of the most opportunistic things DOJ did to accelerate the investigation. It used the existing warrant for Rudy’s devices obtained on Lisa Monaco’s first day on the job, April 21, 2021, to do a privilege review of the January 6 content at the same time. The Special Master prioritized the phone Rudy used on January 6 — 1b05A, which appears throughout Rudy’s privilege log for January 6 related material — and started turning over that material to DOJ starting on November 11, 2021. That effort yielded at least one key document that shows up in Trump’s January 6 indictment but not the January 6 Report, as well as encrypted content not available anywhere else.

DOJ started with Rudy, Co-Conspirator 1, the guy through whom the entire fake elector plot got pitched to Trump, and people are whining that DOJ didn’t start at the top of the conspiracy. They did. You just didn’t notice.

Those are not the only things DOJ was doing in 2021. The plodding DOJ IG started investigating Jeffrey Clark on January 25, 2021. DOJ appears to have figured out a way to solve a difficult problem — how to get waivers of Executive Privilege without violating White House contact policies — in July 2021. DOJ sent overt subpoenas pertaining to Co-Conspirator 3, Sidney Powell, in September 2021. DOJ was also working to fill out the encrypted communications the militias exchanged with people like Roger Stone (who first showed up in a court filing in March 2021) and Alex Jones, but it took even longer, over a year, to exploit Enrique Tarrio’s phone, than it did Rudy’s, nine months, and that process necessarily requires working phone by phone.

You can complain that investigations take too much time. You can gripe that investigators did precisely what everyone wanted them to do — follow the money and investigate the Willard. But they were pursuing precisely the angles people were demanding, and long before virtually everyone understands.

That 2021 focus is inconsistent with other conspiracy theories people are floating, too: None of this started until Jack Smith was appointed (or that Jack Smith gave it new life), they say. Nothing happened for two years, they say.

As far as I know, every phone that went into the indictment and immunity brief (which added information from Boris Ephsteyn and Mike Roman’s phone) was seized before Smith’s appointment. The onerous 10-month process of obtaining Executive Privilege waivers for testimony from Trump’s top aides, without which you couldn’t prove that Trump held the murder weapon — the phone used to send a tweet targeting Mike Pence during the riot — started on June 15, 2022, five months before Smith’s appointment. Jack Smith looks prolific to those who don’t know those details, because 10 months of hard work finally came to fruition in the months after he was appointed.

The claim nothing happened for two years? The only major investigative step that happened after the two-year anniversary of Merrick Garland’s confirmation was Mike Pence’s testimony.

The claims people are using to blame Merrick Garland that Trump was reelected — all of them!!! — are easily falsifiable. (I’m happy to entertain arguments that Garland’s grant of Special Counsel status to David Weiss affected the election, but the decision to keep Weiss was one Biden made.) The single possible action from DOJ (likely either Brad Weinsheimer or Public Integrity) that could have created a delay would be pre-election limits on what prosecutors could including the August 2024 superseding indictment. But it’s just as likely that prosecutors believed a narrow superseding indictment was tactically smart.

This is the point, though. This is not about Merrick Garland. I’m happy to criticize him for things he did. I’ve written more critical of his picks and handling of Special Counsels than anyone.

I could give a flying fuck about Merrick Garland.

What I care about is that at a time when we need to start establishing means of accountability for a second Trump term, much of the Democratic world has chosen instead to wallow in false claims about the Trump investigation in order to make Garland a scapegoat, rather than the guy directly responsible, John Roberts. It’s classical conspiracy thinking. Something really bad happened (Trump got elected), it’s not entirely clear why (because almost no one bothers to learn the details I’ve laid out here, to say nothing of considering the political work that didn’t happen to make Trump own this), and so people simply invent explanations. Every time those explanations get debunked, people double down on the theory — it’s Garland’s fault — rather than reconsidering their chosen explanation.

And those explanations have the effect of distracting attention from Roberts. Rather than talking about how six partisan Justices rewrote the Constitution to give the leader of the GOP a pass on egregious crimes, Democrats are choosing to blame a guy who encouraged prosecutors to follow the money in March 2021.

It’s a choice. And it’s a choice that guarantees maximal impotence. It’s a choice that eschews actual facts (and therefore the means to actually learn what happened). It’s a choice that embraces irrational conspiracy thinking (which makes people weak and ripe for manipulation by authoritarians). It’s a choice that distracts from Roberts’ role.

And there is a better, more urgent, option.

We have every reason to believe we’ll get a report from Jack Smith (though I would be unsurprised if Trump tried to enjoin its release). Given David Weiss’ great rush to sentence Alexander Smirnov on January 8, I suspect we’ll get a report from Weiss too. My guess (given Weiss’ January 8 sentencing day) is we may get both reports at the same time — maybe January 10 or so. That’s a wildarse guess.

And so rather than in wallowing in conspiracy theories, Democrats would do well to prepare a messaging plan for those reports.

I expect David Weiss’ report to smear up not just Hunter but also Joe Biden, for pardoning Hunter. I expect he’ll suggest that Kevin Morris’ support of Hunter (a loan Hunter would have had to pay back after the election, but which he had no means to pay) has amounted to a massive campaign contribution to Joe. I wouldn’t even rule out Weiss pushing for Republicans to impeach Biden over that.

I spoke with Harry Litman back in November about what a Jack Smith report might have. Remember, his mandate is to describe both charging decisions (the two indictments he filed) but also declination decisions (the people and crimes he didn’t charge).

That means the report — if Trump doesn’t thwart its release — should answer a lot of questions that have people spun into conspiracy theories. Why didn’t Smith charge all of Trump’s co-conspirators (probably because the Mueller investigation showed how futile it would be to charge anyone before Trump, which the Florida prosecution seems to confirm)? Why didn’t Smith charge any members of Congress (undoubtedly because their actions would be covered by Speech and Debate, as confirmed by a DC Circuit opinion written about the exploitation of Scott Perry’s phone)? It likely will even provide more fulsome descriptions of the documents Trump refused to give back.

But there are three possible or likely aspects to the report that may become important for the confirmation of Trump’s appointees (which is one reason he might try to enjoin the release) and the pardons he plans shortly thereafter.

First, prosecutors had investigated how Trump used money raised on a promise to spend on election integrity to instead pay everyone off. That’s how he paid Deputy Attorney General nominee Todd Blanche, Solicitor General nominee John Sauer, and PADAG Emil Bove (Bove does not need Senate confirmation). Trump’s incoming Chief of Staff (who also does not need Senate confirmation), Susie Wiles, managed much of that process. DOJ did not charge this scheme, but we may get an explanation for what it entailed and why Smith didn’t charge it. While Blanche, et al, have no legal exposure themselves in the way Trump paid them, if we learned more about it, it would further highlight the wildly inappropriate conflicts all these men would have in running DOJ. That is, there’s the distinct possibility that a report would provide tangible explanation for why Blanche and Sauer have grave conflicts.

Far more important is the point I made here. FBI Director nominee Kash Patel may figure in both sides of Jack Smith’s report, the January 6 and the documents side. With Christopher Miller, Kash engaged in what Barry Loudermilk treated as insubordination by refusing Trump’s order to get him 10,000 troops for January 6; this post talked about how that might be a more productive way to make Loudermilk’s Liz Cheney referral a problem for Kash. That’s a way to raise distrust of Kash among Republicans.

But Kash’s involvement in the other side of the investigation (which appears at 19:00 in the video above) is more important. A key prong of the investigation into Trump’s treatment of the documents found at Mar-a-Lago involve disproving Kash’s public claim — made just before DOJ subpoenaed the documents — that Trump had declassified everything.

Patel did not want to get into what the specific documents were, predicting claims from the left that he was disclosing “classified” material, but said, “It’s information that Trump felt spoke to matters regarding everything from Russiagate to the Ukraine impeachment fiasco to major national security matters of great public importance — anything the president felt the American people had a right to know is in there and more.”

Someone whose potty mouth resembles Eric Herschmann (Person 16) debunked this claim just before Patel (Person 24) testified.

What Kash said in his immunized November 2022 testimony didn’t show up in either of the Florida indictments (and we only got reports of what he thought he’d say beforehand). We don’t know whether he backed off his unsworn comments. We don’t know whether he gave testimony debunked by five other people. We don’t know how much Kash had to say about efforts to take the Crossfire Hurricane binder home.

But all that is highly likely to show up in a report.

If we get the report, it is highly likely that we’ll get evidence that the aspiring FBI Director lied to help Trump take classified documents home from the White House.

If we get the report, it is highly likely that, shortly before his confirmation process, we’ll get evidence that the aspiring FBI Director helped Trump commit a crime.

Now, the Republicans don’t care. That’s not going to affect their willingness to rubber stamp Kash’s nomination. But if Democrats do their job well, then they can use this information to dramatically raise the costs of the Kash confirmation.

Or Democrats can continue to wallow in conspiracy theories about Merrick Garland.

Finally, I think it highly like a report — if we get one — will talk about how Trump’s call to the rally motivated certain key rioters to conspire to obstruct the election. We’ll learn about how his exhortation to Stand Back and Stand By had an immediate effect on Proud Boy membership. We’re likely to learn about how Danny Rodriguez immediately responded to Trump’s targeting of Mike Pence in his January 6 speech to make slitting motion at his throat, naming Joe Biden, and then proceeded to almost murder Michael Fanone, pretty close to meeting the Brandenberg definition of incitement. We’re likely to learn how the guys who helped breach the East door, then broke into the Senate gallery, then rappelled down to the Senate floor and let others in believed that Trump ordered them to come to DC on December 19, 2020. Trump has been desperate to prevent just this evidence from being submitted at trial.

But it will also raise the stakes of his pardons. If this information comes out, then it will make it clear that Trump isn’t just pardoning his fans, he’s pardoning people who believed they were responding to his orders to attack Congress.

Democrats can spend the time between now and confirmation hearings making ever-evolving conspiracy theories about Merrick Garland, something that makes them as weak as possible, something that makes them more susceptible to authoritarian manipulation.

Or they can spend the time making it clear just how corrupt Trump’s appointments and pardons are.

Democrats seem to be struggling even to chew gum without faceplanting. They can’t do both.

It’s just my opinion. But I think Democrats would be far better served focusing on the facts that we do know from the twin investigations of Trump rather than inventing false claims about why they didn’t go to trial. This is the work Democrats didn’t do in 2023, when Trump was making unchallenged false claims that these investigations were witch hunts. The failure to do that work is a more direct explanation why the indictments didn’t disqualify him with voters than anything Merrick Garland did or didn’t do. And until Democrats do this work, they’ll be politically sunk.

The Two Smear Attacks against Jeff Bezos and His Partner

/26 Comments/in , , , /by

Jeff Bezos doesn’t tweet much.

On July 14, he proclaimed that, “Our former President showed tremendous grace and courage” after being shot.

On November 6, shortly after spiking a WaPo editorial describing how unfit Trump is to be President, Bezos congratulated “our 45th and now 47th President on an extraordinary political comeback and decisive victory.”

On November 21, Bezos debunked Elon Musk’s claim that Bezos, “was telling everyone that @realDonaldTrump would lose for sure, so they should sell all their Tesla and SpaceX stock.” “100% not true,” Bezos replied, without noting how Elon had conflated Trump’s success with his own, including the rocket company that directly competes with Bezos’ own spaceship project.

By December 20, Bezos had found common cause with his rival. Both shifting people from the “low productivity” government sector to the “high productivity” private sector and deregulation “results in greatly increased prosperity,” the richest man in the world said. “Both of these are correct and the first is widely under appreciated,” the second richest man replied. Neither clarified whether the “greatly increased prosperity” in question was their own, or that of the people out o f their secure government job.

When Bezos RTed Bill Ackman’s explanation of why a New York Post story claiming” Jeff Bezos to marry fiancée Lauren Sanchez in lavish $600M Aspen wedding next weekend” was not credible. “Unless you are buying each of your guests a house, you can’t spend this much money,” then, it was just his fifth tweet since February.

 

The owner of the Washington Post engaged in a bit of press criticism in that tweet, apparently denying not just that he’s dropping $600M on a party, but that the party would happen this week at all (I believe the date of the purported wedding has now passed with no wedding).

Furthermore, this whole thing is completely false — none of this is happening. The old adage “don’t believe everything you read” is even more true today than it ever has been. Now lies can get ALL the way around the world before the truth can get its pants on. So be careful out there folks and don’t be gullible.

Will be interesting to see if all the outlets that “covered” and re-reported on this issue a correction when it comes and goes and doesn’t happen.

Bezos — whose rag (according to a Will Lewis interview with Ben Smith) specifically pointed to brainless dick pic sniffing about Hunter Biden that didn’t correct WaPo’s past errors to rebut claims of bias — believed he’d get “corrections” to salacious stories from Daily Mail and NY Post of the kind that made Hunter Biden dick pics A Thing.

Let me state that more clearly. A man whose newspaper chose to respond to political pressure by letting the Daily Mail and NYPost and Fox News serve as assignment editors for his journalists demanded that the Daily Mail and NYPost adhere to a higher standard than the still-uncorrected WaPo.

That’s why I decided to revisit this incident after watching this exchange, about the problems with traditional journalistic efforts to achieve objectivity in the face of asymmetric approaches to truth.

Bezos, of course, tried to explain his decision to intervene in the content of his rag (by spiking the Kamala Harris endorsement) by suggesting WaPo simply isn’t being realistic about perceptions of bias, then adding to perceptions of bias by failing to disclose all the conflicts that might have led him to curry favor with Trump.

In the annual public surveys about trust and reputation, journalists and the media have regularly fallen near the very bottom, often just above Congress. But in this year’s Gallup poll, we have managed to fall below Congress. Our profession is now the least trusted of all. Something we are doing is clearly not working.

[snip]

Likewise with newspapers. We must be accurate, and we must be believed to be accurate. It’s a bitter pill to swallow, but we are failing on the second requirement. Most people believe the media is biased. Anyone who doesn’t see this is paying scant attention to reality, and those who fight reality lose. Reality is an undefeated champion. It would be easy to blame others for our long and continuing fall in credibility (and, therefore, decline in impact), but a victim mentality will not help. Complaining is not a strategy. We must work harder to control what we can control to increase our credibility.

Weeks later, after sucking up to Trump post-election, Bezos’ rag buried news of the unfitness of Trump’s nominees behind 7 pieces on the Hunter Biden pardon.

The continued reliance on dick pic sniffing to convince right wingers the WaPo is not biased is particularly rich [cough] coming from Bezos, newly targeted by gossip from the Daily Mail picked up by NYP.

Bezos, of all people, should have known better than to exploit a guy targeted with revenge porn by hostile nation-states and political partisans. In 2019, the NY Enquirer, while under Non-Prosecution Agreement for its past Kill and Capture activities, tried to extort him with … dick pics. As a Dylan Howard email described when trying to get Bezos to call off an investigation into Saudi ties in all this, the rag that had intervened in 2016 to help elect Trump had ten damning pictures disclosing what was then an affair with Lauren Sanchez while Bezos was still married.

In addition to the “below the belt selfie — otherwise colloquially known as a ‘d*ck pick’” — The Enquirer obtained a further nine images. These include:

· Mr. Bezos face selfie at what appears to be a business meeting.

· Ms. Sanchez response — a photograph of her smoking a cigar in what appears to be a simulated oral sex scene.

· A shirtless Mr. Bezos holding his phone in his left hand — while wearing his wedding ring. He’s wearing either tight black cargo pants or shorts — and his semi-erect manhood is penetrating the zipper of said garment.

When Bezos preemptively exposed that effort (an effort that mysteriously didn’t turn into charges for a violation of National Enquirer’s past NPA), he attributed the attack to his ownership of the WaPo. But, the same guy spiking endorsements of Trump’s opponent and relying on dick pic sniffing to stave off claims of bias said then, his stewardship of the WaPo would remain unswerving.

Here’s a piece of context: My ownership of the Washington Post is a complexifier for me. It’s unavoidable that certain powerful people who experience Washington Post news coverage will wrongly conclude I am their enemy.

President Trump is one of those people, obvious by his many tweets. Also, The Post’s essential and unrelenting coverage of the murder of its columnist Jamal Khashoggi is undoubtedly unpopular in certain circles.

(Even though The Post is a complexifier for me, I do not at all regret my investment. The Post is a critical institution with a critical mission. My stewardship of The Post and my support of its mission, which will remain unswerving, is something I will be most proud of when I’m 90 and reviewing my life, if I’m lucky enough to live that long, regardless of any complexities it creates for me.)

It turns out, as happened the last time someone tried to start a scandal about Bezos’ relationship with Sanchez, the second richest man in the world didn’t have to rely on journalistic ethics to combat the dick pic sniffing.

Both the Daily Mail and the NYP prominently (including in a blurb added to the NYP video, above) added Bezos’ denial to their original stories.

Sources told the DailyMail.com that the billionaire Amazon founder, 60, and his ex-TV news anchor fiancée, 55, had bought out ritzy sushi restaurant Matsuhisa in the Colorado ski town for December 26 or 27, and have their nuptials planned for Saturday 28.

Three sources told DailyMail.com they had been made aware of the Bezos wedding taking place on December 28.

However, after the Daily Mail published the story, Bezos’s team, denied the wedding was going ahead next weekend.

The billionaire took to X on Sunday to slam the wedding claims as ‘completely false’.

‘This whole thing is completely false – none of this is happening,’ he posted on X. ‘The old adage “don’t believe everything you read” is even more true today than it ever has been.’

And by the time I returned to this exchange on Xitter, the link Ackman had RTed had been disabled, as if Xitter had [gasp!] throttled a link to a NYP story!

It didn’t even take the date of the alleged marriage passing for everyone to have cleaned up a story about the second richest man in the world!

Must be nice not to have to rely on corrections.

The problem is so, so much worse than an asymmetric relationship with the truth.

But it has a happy ending for defense contractor Jeff Bezos, whose Blue Origin rocket company was the most obvious hint of payback for his sycophancy, launched yesterday. Bezos posted rocket launch porn on his account at rival rocket man Elon’s site, and accepted the congratulations of numerous people, including his rocket man rival.

We are so beyond the stratosphere of symmetrical relationships to the truth.

The Complications of Elon Musk

/79 Comments/in , /by

You might be forgiven for forgetting that, just over a week ago, Trump’s spox, Karoline Leavitt, issued a statement affirming that Trump — and not Elon Musk — leads the Republican party.

As soon as President Trump released his official stance on the CR, Republicans on Capitol Hill echoed his point of view. President Trump is the leader of the Republican Party. Full stop.

She was trying to sustain the illusion that Trump really did only learn about the contents of the Continuing Resolution that Elon Musk tanked after Elon did, rather than that Elon vetoed a bill Trump had already acquiesced to.

Read Robert Kuttner on the ways that Elon outplayed Trump in the CR negotiations (though I think Elon had several goals, not just to continue doing business in China unimpeded, but also defeating a measure that would have limited his ability to post Deep Fakes of AOC on Xitter).

You might be forgiven for forgetting Leavitt’s thin denial because Trump’s own comments, at Turning Point USA’s latest shindig, were even more striking.

Elon is going to have his DOGE [sic], Trump recommitted. But he’s not going to be President, Trump continued, because he is Constitutionally prohibited.

But I will order federal workers to get back to the office in person or be terminated from the job immediately. And we will create the new Department of Government Efficiency, headed by Elon Musk.

And no, he’s not taking the presidency. I like having smart people. You know, the — they’re on a new kick — Russia, Russia, Russia, Ukraine, Ukraine, Ukraine, all the different hoaxes. And the new one is, President Trump has ceded the presidency to Elon Musk. No, no, that’s not happening. But Elon’s done an amazing job. Isn’t it nice to have smart people that we can rely on, okay? Don’t we want that?

[snip]

But no, he’s not going to be president, that I can tell you. And I’m safe. You know why? He can’t be. He wasn’t born in this country. But the fake news knows that. No, he’s a great guy, and we want to have him, everybody.

Pretty rich [cough] for a guy like Trump to seek refuge in the Constitution.

The next day, Trump put Stephen Miller’s spouse, Katie on DOGE [sic], right alongside naming another billionaire, Stephen Feinberg, to serve as Deputy Secretary of Defense.

We learned during the campaign that the relationship between Stephen Miller and Musk is chummier than we knew, though we still can’t say whether Miller was the one who counseled Musk on bringing “the boss himself, if you’re up for that!” back onto Xitter.

But by picking even the spokesperson for DOGE [sic] — presumably a spox who would like to get paid — Trump provides NGOs like CREW a lever to demand transparency into DOGE [sic] that it is otherwise designed to evade.

It also puts a trusted insider inside.

All that was before the hilarious fight between Laura Loomer and Elon Musk (and Vivek Ramaswamy, who suggested American children don’t have the same work ethic that children of South Asian immigrants do) over H1Bs yesterday. After Loomer called Musk out for pushing immigration, Elon started shutting down her Xitter privileges.

Which led to Elon “censoring” Loomer’s account, after which she herself adopted the “President Musk” moniker.

Then someone with a manic South African accent using the name Adrian Dittman went into an Owen Shroyer chatroom and further antagonized Loomer.

Perhaps this is all some light-hearted amusement — something to do between the Beyoncé hafltime show and the New Years Eve ball drop.

But I do think it’s a testament to the complexity of the relationship between Trump and Elon. And that’s true for more reasons than the fundamental incompatibility of Trump’s populist nativism and Elon’s supranational aspirations. As it happened, the CR disappointed almost three dozen Republicans, who took Trump’s promise of backing Elon’s plans to cut government seriously. But it also disappointed Trump, who didn’t get Republicans to eliminate the debt ceiling. And those two incompatible stances — cutting government spending versus eliminating all limits to it — are simply two unpopular ways of giving the richest man in the world more tax cuts.

Many people predict, with good reason, that the two Malignant Narcissist problem will soon lead to a break between the men — that Trump will tire of questions about his own authority and lash out, cut off Elon, maybe even retaliate. The more people call Elon the President, the more likely that will happen.

But I’m not convinced that fully accounts for the complexity of this relationship. I don’t know whether that’s because Trump is awed by Elon’s shiny rockets and endless money. Or if there’s further complexity to the way Trump won the election.

It should be the case that Trump, through no more than inaction, a failure to order subordinates to shut down the various investigations and regulatory reviews that threaten Musk, could eliminate the problem Elon poses to his authority.

But Trump has already allowed Elon to chip away at the viability of his coalition.

The BezosPost Struggles with the Boundaries of Press Freedom

/29 Comments/in , /by

I’m the rare person who argues that ABC’s decision to settle Trump’s lawsuit has, at least, some legal explanation. The judge in the case seemed sympathetic to Trump’s argument. George Stephanopoulos did misstate what the jury–as distinct from Judge Lewis Kaplan–said. ABC would not be the first major media outlet to settle a lawsuit before one of its star personalities had to sit for a deposition; Fox always settles before Hannity gets deposed, for example.

This, from Andrew Torrez and Liz Dye, is a good write-up.

But — ironically — WaPo’s inclusion of the ABC settlement in a story billed in its subhead as a description of how Trump will “will ramp up pressure on journalists” betrays a larger, different problem.

Oh sure, it included that legal explanation.

Continuing with the case might have made public any damaging internal communications to and from Stephanopoulos. If the case made it to trial, it would face a jury in Florida — a red state that Trump carried by 13 points — that could side with the president-elect and award a penalty that could easily exceed the price of a settlement. Appeals to any decision would last for years and risk reaching the Supreme Court, where two sitting justices have already expressed their desire to weaken the court’s landmark decision that has protected the American media’s ability to report aggressively on public figures, especially officials, in the public interest.

But before it got there, it described a bunch of other vulnerabilities, most of which have little to do with journalism.

ABC News’s decision to settle has sent shudders through the media industry and the legal community that represents it. According to three people familiar with the company’s internal deliberations who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss legal strategy, ABC and Disney executives decided to settle not only because of the legal risks in the case but also because of Trump’s promises to take retribution [sic] against his enemies.

[snip]

Disney conducts business in more than 130 countries and employs roughly 225,000 employees — a virtual nation-state with corporate shareholders it is legally obligated to consider when making strategic decisions. The executives reasoned that being in active litigation with a sitting president could hamper the business.

Disney’s ABC operates more than 230 affiliate television stations nationwide, some relying on the Federal Communications Commission for license renewals. Trump has repeatedly talked about pulling the federal licenses from television stations that broadcast news about him he doesn’t like and said last year that he plans to bring the FCC under presidential authority.

Disney and many other media companies are already planning potential merger activity that executives hope passes muster with the antitrust division of the Justice Department, which is poised to be run by Trump loyalist Pam Bondi. Disney pumps out movies and television shows that it needs to appeal to the millions of people who voted for Trump and have already shown themselves willing to boycott products he attacks.

These are:

  • Disney’s obligations to shareholders require that it weigh the impact the lawsuit will have on the larger 225K person company.
  • Its 225 TV stations, and their periodical license renewals, make it vulnerable to the whims of the FCC.
  • Disney has other corporate acquisitions planned that might be subject to antitrust review.
  • Disney’s movies must not only appeal to Trump supporters, but withstand boycotts from them.

Some of this — the need to sell Disney movies and the past tussle with Ron DeSantis — appears in the NYT story that (as WaPo notes) first confirmed Bob Iger’s personal involvement. It is consistent with what others have said about how the lawsuit fits into ABC’s larger corporate perspective.

But it included more, such as the bit about how ABC caved because it has corporate acquisitions that could be vetoed by Pam Bondi’s DOJ.

It’s not the details of this that I find curious.

It’s that a media reporter and a democracy reporter working for Jeff Bezos did not distinguish the things that are journalism (at a stretch, the ABC licenses) from what is not (the action hero movies and other corporate acquisitions).

Indeed, the article generally does not maintain a distinction between its discussion of press freedoms and media corporations. The word “press” appears 13 times (including in the subhead, which the journalists would not have written, and four times in two quotes apiece from cited experts). The word “media” appears 15 times (including in the heading and a caption and several times as an adjective in a title). The word “journalist” shows up just four times, twice in a discussion of how past presidents (Nixon and Obama) cracked down on journalism, once referring to talking head Chuck Todd.

Without reflection, it treats the plight of giant media companies as the same as its impact on journalism.

The article adds a few new details about why a corporation built off nearly a century of Intellectual Property protection for a cartoon mouse settled a lawsuit. But it doesn’t lay out the obvious implication of the story it tells: that ABC was vulnerable to Trump’s attack not, primarily, because of its journalism — because of what Stephanopoulos said — but instead because the mouse company is not primarily interested in journalism.

That is, it is precisely Disney’s size and scope that rendered it vulnerable to Trump’s threats.

That’s not a novel discovery: that multinational corporations that happen to own journalistic outlets have interests that conflict and undermine their journalism. But as we discuss how to protect journalism while Trump tries to neuter it, it is an important reminder. Even Trump’s lawsuit against the Des Moines Register pits Gannett’s interests against Ann Selzer, though at least Gannett is primarily a journalistic outlet.

For a corporation like Disney — or an oligarch like Jeff Bezos — it’s the other competing interests that may doom the journalism. And journalists need to be clear about that dynamic.

Update: It turns out that Brendan Carr is going to intrude in ABC’s license renewals anyway. Carr wrote Bob Iger, citing the settlement, complaining about how ABC is negotiating its renewals.

The incoming chairman of the Federal Communications Commission is sending a stern message to the owners of television stations and networks. And he is using ABC’s recent settlement with President-elect Donald Trump as a news peg of sorts.

Brendan Carr, a Trump-appointed commissioner who will become chairman next month, wrote to Disney CEO Bob Iger over the weekend about the Disney-owned ABC network’s negotiations with its affiliated stations across the United States.

Brian Stelter posted the letter here.

Cotton Swabs and Grievance Myths: Do Not Invite Republicans to Express Support for Kash Patel’s Witch Hunts

/67 Comments/in , , , , , , /by

I want to elaborate on some points I made in a Bluesky exchange I had with Greg Sargent about his post on the Barry Loudermilk report referring Liz Cheney for investigation yesterday. It was, I hope, a civil and substantive exchange (multiple people have mentioned it since), and for that I want to thank Sargent.

But I wanted to explain some points I tried making at more length.

Sargent’s post noted — and he’s right — that Trump’s embrace of Loudermilk’s report discredits false assurances Senate Republicans have offered that Kash Patel won’t pursue political witch hunts if confirmed as FBI Director.

Barely moments after Donald Trump announced that he’d chosen loyalist Kash Patel as FBI director, Republicans stampeded forth to insist that this in no way means Trump will unleash law enforcement on his enemies, even though Trump himself has threatened to do so. Senator John Cornyn suggested such threats were only for “public consumption.” Senator Rick Scott said Trump is “not gonna do it.” And Representative Dan Meuser scoffed that the very idea is “nonsense.”

These lawmakers should take a moment to consult Trump’s Truth Social feed. At 3:11 a.m. on Wednesday, demonstrating characteristic emotional balance, Trump posted this reaction to a new report from a House subcommittee chaired by GOP Representative Barry Loudermilk, which recommends that the FBI investigate former GOP Representative Liz Cheney over her role in the House’s January 6 inquiry:

Liz Cheney could be in a lot of trouble based on the evidence obtained by the subcommittee, which states that “numerous federal laws were likely broken by Liz Cheney, and these violations should be investigated by the FBI.” Thank you to Congressman Barry Loudermilk on a job well done.

Note the trademark mobspeak here: Cheney could be in a lot of trouble for federal lawbreaking, Trump declares, as if he’s merely a passive observer remarking on the danger she faces, rather than someone who will control the nation’s sprawling federal law enforcement apparatus in just over a month. Trump has been raging at Cheney for years and has amplified suggestions that she should face televised military tribunals.

Now, in a dark turn in this whole farcical saga, Trump is pretending that House Republicans have given him a legitimate basis for prosecuting Cheney, when in fact their claims were cooked up in bad faith for precisely that purpose.

Sargent argues that the press should “hound[ GOP Senators] mercilessly” on whether they’ll still support Kash after Trump’s endorsement of Loudermilk’s report.

Trump’s veiled threat toward Cheney should prompt the press to revisit those reassurances from Republicans. GOP senators should be hounded mercilessly by reporters on whether they’ll knowingly support Patel now that Trump has made the corrupt reality of the situation so inescapably, alarmingly clear.

If we lived in a world where Republican hypocrisy could be shamed, where journalists had the skill to manage such an exchange, that would be worthwhile.

We don’t live in that world.

Trying to budge Republicans from their reassurances would backfire.

Here’s why.

First, consider the utter incompetence of most journalists this side of Mehdi Hasan to handle such an exchange.

I’ve been tracking a right wing technique I’ve dubbed “Cotton swabs” (because Tom Cotton is a skilled practitioner in the technique). In it, when Republicans get asked these kind of gotcha questions by Manu Raju in the hallway or by Kristen Welker on a Sunday show, they instead flip the gotcha on its head, using it as an opportunity to air unrebutted propaganda. And the journalist is left as a discredited prop in Trump’s assault on the press.

For example, when Welker recently asked Trump if he would, in the interest of unifying the country, concede he lost the 2020 election, Trump not only refused to concede he lost, but he used the question to blame Biden that the country was divided, and then — with absolutely no pushback from Welker — lied about Joe Biden weaponizing DOJ to go after him, Trump. (The exchange introduced precisely the same kind of false reassurance that Sargent called out.)

KRISTEN WELKER:

Yes. And sir, I don’t have to tell you this, because you’ve talked about it. It comes at a time when the country is deeply divided, and now you’re going to be leading this country for the next four years. For the sake of unifying this country, will you concede the 2020 election and turn the page on that chapter?

PRESIDENT-ELECT DONALD TRUMP:

No. No, why would I do that? But let me just tell you —

KRISTEN WELKER:

You won’t ever concede —

PRESIDENT-ELECT DONALD TRUMP:

– when you say the country is deeply divided, I’m not the president. Joe Biden is the president.

KRISTEN WELKER:

But you’re going to be the president.

PRESIDENT-ELECT DONALD TRUMP:

No, no. I’m not the president. So when you say it’s deeply divided, I agree. But Biden’s the president, I’m not. And he has been a divider. And you know where he divided it more than anything else, and it probably backfired on him. I think definitely is weaponization. When he weaponized the Justice Department and he went after his political opponent, me. He went after his political opponent violently because he knew he couldn’t beat him. And I think it really was a bad thing, and it really divided our country.

So instead of giving the harmless concession she invited, that Trump lost to Joe Biden in 2020, Trump instead hijacked Welker’s platform to lie about being a victim. She asked for something to support unity. He stoked division more, blaming the polarization of the country on Biden. Then he made false claims of grievance.

It had exactly opposite effect Welker imagined. And in the fact check NBC did after the interview? Trump’s lie about Biden weaponizing DOJ went unmentioned.

NBC treated it, a brazen lie, as if it were true.

If you want to know how Trump got elected even after being charged in two federal indictments, you might start with the way that every legacy media outlet lets lies like this go uncontested.* Always. Trump never gets fact checked on his false claims about the federal investigations into his attempted coup and stolen documents.

As a result, even newsies who watch mainstream Sunday shows might be forgiven for believing the cases against Trump were ginned up, to say nothing of the judges and lawyers, from Aileen Cannon to Bill Barr to Sam Alito, who instead pickle their brains with the propaganda on Fox News.

If journalists don’t fact check these false claims, where would voters learn differently? Where would your average voter learn that the investigations against Trump were just?

Sometimes Cotton swabs involve speaking over the questioner (a favorite technique of JD Vance [see update below for an example] and Marco Rubio). Sometimes it involves flipping the entire premise of the question. It always involves, first, a shameless refusal to disavow the outrageous Trump practice or statement. As such, these are performative moments of obeisance, reinforcing Trump’s power and the assault on truth he demands.

And on questions regarding Trump’s troubled relationship with rule of law, it always involves false claims about past DOJ practice, either denials he politicized DOJ or false claims it was politicized against him. Sometimes both!

Trump and his allies have used Cotton swabs to sneak hundreds — probably thousands — of false claims that he, and not his adversaries, was a victim of politicized prosecution onto purportedly factual news outlets with no pushback.

None.

Indeed, at least one of the underlying examples of Republicans giving reassurances about Kash that Sargent cited was itself a Cotton swab. Rick Scott didn’t just say that Trump wouldn’t launch investigations in his second term, the part Sargent quoted, he premised his answer on a false claim that Trump didn’t do so in his first term (a very common claim among Trump’s most loyal allies).

“He didn’t do it the first time. He’s not gonna do it this time,” Scott said. (Trump actually did press for prosecutions of his enemies during his first term, such as by publicly musing there should be probes of former Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, and he also pushed for a criminal investigation into a previous investigation of his 2016 campaign.)

Even with Arthur Delaney’s fact check (a rarity in the reporting of Cotton swabs), HuffPo didn’t note that Trump did more than simply demand investigations of his adversaries, he got them. A key prong of the John Durham investigation chased possible Russian disinformation exacerbated by Durham’s own fabrications to criminalize Hillary’s use of oppo research. And both Durham’s indictments presented dodgy false statement accusations as conspiracies extending to the Hillary campaign. Trump’s DOJ set up a side channel via which Biden was framed — a false allegation used to ratchet up felony charges against his son. And there’s a long line of investigations — IRS audits, DOJ IG investigations used to fire people without due process, US Attorneys ordered to pursue special investigations (including another one targeting Hillary) — that targeted Trump’s enemies.

Trump’s administration targeted his enemies all the time, via a variety of means. And yet that gets buried in the HuffPo report. What should have been an opportunity to debunk Scott’s premise was, even from a diligent journalist, an exchange that still obscured how systematically Trump politicized rule of law in his first term.

And these Cotton swabs are part of a larger process, the extended con via which Trump has gotten Republicans to hate rule of law that LOLGOP and I have been tracing in the Ball of Thread podcast. Rather than treating the Russian investigation as a welcome review of four associates all of whom were monetizing their access to Trump with foreign countries, he instead latched onto false claims he was wiretapped, making himself a victim. With the help of Kash Patel, Trump substituted the Steele dossier for the real substance of the Russian investigation, convincing most Republicans that the investigation started not from the Trump campaign’s foreknowledge of the Russian attack on Hillary, but instead from Hillary’s attempt to understand Trump’s unabashed Russian ties — that oppo research Durham would criminalize. Trump then turned on the FBI, claiming that a bunch of people who were just trying to protect the country from an attack by a hostile country were instead targeting him personally; the myth that FBI targeted him is precisely what John Cornyn internalized when he attributed his support for Kash because Kash planned, “to restore the FBI to its former reputation as a nonpartisan, no political institution, and he told me he agreed” (also part of the Delaney story). Via both his own propaganda and the Durham investigation designed to flip the script on Hillary, Bill Barr reinforced that myth of Trump grievance. And all that while the entire Republican party responded to Trump’s extortion of Ukraine by relentlessly pursuing Joe Biden’s kid to the exclusion of pursuing policy, using a fabricated bribery allegation to ratchet things up before their rematch. Think about that! Trump dodged his first impeachment by ginning up a politicized investigation of Biden and his kid, and that entire process has been memory holed!

Gone!

Poof!

And while LOLGOP and I still have several episodes to do, it is no accident that the same team that turned a hard drive of Hunter’s dick pics — a relentless campaign of revenge porn — into yet another claim that poor Donald Trump was the victim, it is no accident that that very same team turned immediately to using the Big Lie to attack the foundations of American democracy. And Trump did it again when he beat the second (impeachment) and third (criminal indictment) attempts to hold him accountable. The price of admission in today’s GOP is these moments of performed fealty, the willingness to use legitimate questions about the politicized justice Kash has promised to instead publicly adopt Trump’s false claims that he is a victim.

The entire GOP is currently built around this myth of grievance. It gets reinforced with every Cotton swab. It was Trump’s platform during the election. It was the lie he used to make a bunch of disaffected Americans believe they had something in common with a billionaire grifting off their vulnerabilities.

This is the core of Trump’s super power, the claims of grievance he manufactures to justify his assault on rule of law.

The last thing you should want is for journalists to rush out to give Republican Senators yet another opportunity to perform their obeisance to Trump and his false myths of grievance, because all it will do is reinforce the polarization Trump thrives on and do further damage to truth and rule of law.

If we’re going to break this spell, we need to go about it a different way, some of which Sargent and I also discussed with respect to Kash, some of which I laid out in an earlier post responding to something Sargent wrote.

You are not going to defeat a Kash Patel or Pam Bondi nomination by asking for promises about political investigations. As I noted in that earlier post, Democrats (and even Lindsey Graham) attempted that approach with Bill Barr, and he proceeded directly from his confirmation to turn DOJ into a propaganda factory, down to the fabricated bribery allegation against Joe Biden.

Leave the direct assault on Kash to Olivia Troye (if she remains willing), to whom Kash already provided opportunity to talk not about his past role in abusing rule of law for Trump, but instead about how he lied to the people who relied on him, up to and including Mike Pence. Troye gives Republicans reason to oppose Kash because he has harmed Republicans. If you instead focus on Kash’s past and promised politicization, you’ll just trigger more obeisance to Trump’s myth of grievance.

Luckily, with Kash, there are other ways to get at this.

The question that kicked off the entire exchange between Sargent and me, for example, was about Speech and Debate, which should protect Liz Cheney from any scrutiny even if the false claims alleged in the Loudermilk report were true. Raising the Loudermilk referral as a question about Speech and Debate has the advantage of addressing the one area that has gotten Republicans to stand up to Trump, their own prerogatives (for example, by defending advice and consent on nominations). Questions about Speech and Debate would provide cause to raise the opinion — written by Trump appointee Neomi Rao, with a concurrence from former Trump White House Counsel Greg Katsas — that extended Speech and Debate protection to Scott Perry’s plotting on the Big Lie and affirmed its application in less formal situations than Liz Cheney’s communication with Cassidy Hutchinson at the core of Loudermilk’s report.

The district court, however, incorrectly withheld the privilege from communications between Representative Perry and other Members about the 2020 election certification vote and a vote on proposed election reform legislation.

Does Kash know better than Neomi Rao about Liz Cheney’s immunity from this kind of investigation, he should be asked (whether Rao or Kash is a bigger nutball is admittedly a close question, but one that can sow some useful discomfort). Questions to Kash about whether Speech and Debate defeats Loudermilk’s referral would have a very different valence than questions about politicization, because they would carry with them the implication that if Kash can investigate Liz Cheney and Adam Schiff, Mitch McConnell will be next.

Plus, they provide cause to focus on something Senators should address anyway: Kash’s lawsuit against DOJ for his own subpoena. In addition to claiming that the subpoena targeting him and others (including Adam Schiff, though he neglected to mention that) was “a chilling attempt to surveil the person leading the Legislative Branch’s investigation into the Department of Justice’s conduct,” something also included in the scope of the January 6 Committee, Kash also made preposterous claims about the standard for subpoenas (which is why it was dismissed unceremoniously in September).

Even Kash’s legally illiterate claims won’t disqualify him with Republican Senators, but raising them gets him on the record as to his understanding of the law before he signs a bunch of orders adopting wildly different standards targeting Trump’s adversaries. Kash has made expansive claims about privacy rights and right of redress against the federal government. Fine. Let’s make aspiring FBI Director Kash Patel adhere to that standard.

But they also provide a way to point out that Kash’s targets actually aren’t Trump’s targets. Many of those on his enemies list, for example, are people, like Rod Rosenstein (the real target of Kash’s lawsuit) against whom he’s got a grudge. Trump and GOP Republicans don’t give a damn if Kash pursues Trump’s enemies. Either they’re too cynical to care, or they believe — or have to feign that they believe — that Trump’s enemies have it coming. But if Kash turns the FBI into his own personal fiefdom? Too many Republicans have been at odds with Kash to abide by that.

Finally, there’s the point I made about the Loudermilk report, after actually taking the time to read it (which no one else seems to have done). In the 39 pages of his report dedicated to DOD’s inaction, Loudermilk gets vanishingly close to accusing then Acting Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller of criminal insubordination for not deploying 10,000 members of the National Guard on January 6.

President Trump instructed the highest-ranking Pentagon official to use any and all military assets to ensure safety three days prior to January 6, 2021. The Acting Secretary of Defense concedes that external variables, such as the “Twitter sphere”, accusations of being a “Trump crony” and Representative Cheney’s Op-Ed, weighed on his mind as he determined how and whether to employ the National Guard on January 6, 2021. During this period of time, Acting Secretary Miller published his January 4 memo, with significant restrictions and control measures on the DCNG.

To date, no investigation or disciplinary action has taken place against Acting Secretary of Defense Miller for his failure to follow directives from the sitting Commander-in-Chief on January 3, 2021.

Loudermilk sources this accusation in DOD IG’s own investigation of their inaction for some very good reasons. First, the January 6 Committee revealed that what really happened is that a bunch of Trump loyalists, up to and including Mark Meadows, scoffed at the notion that Trump would march to the Capitol protected by 10,000 National Guard troops. More importantly, Kash Patel’s claims about his own involvement in this process put him right there at Miller’s side, part of the same insubordinate inaction. That’s a fiction Loudermilk needed to spin. It’s a fiction even more outrageous than his referral of Liz Cheney.

But it’s also a referral that implicates Trump’s pick for FBI Director personally. Did Kash fail the President? Or did he instead join everyone else in recognizing what it would mean for Trump to march to the Capitol?

A damn good question for a confirmation hearing.

Kash Patel’s own big mouth, past actions, and wacky legal claims provide ample material to create friction between him and Senate Republicans guarding their own prerogatives. That’s almost certainly not enough to sink his nomination, though it would be more effective than inviting Republicans to reaffirm their belief in Trump’s grievance myth. But questions about such topics may provide better material going forward to box him in.

About one thing I’m certain, though: you will get nowhere if you make this a loyalty contest. You will get nowhere if you keep framing this as an opportunity for Republicans to either reaffirm that loyalty oath, even if it entails a direct assault on rule of law, or invite an attack on themselves personally.

Virtually all GOP Senators will find a way to back Trump and his assault on rule of law. Every single time.

And given the inept media we’ve got right now, it will serve only to do more damage, reinforcing Trump’s conceit that the law is just a matter of political loyalty.

Do not give Republicans an opportunity to condemn or endorse Kash Patel’s witch hunt against Trump’s enemies. It’s the quickest way to ensure they remain unified in supporting him.

*The night after I wrote this, I woke up and remembered that CNN’s Daniel Dale had written a fairly extensive fact check about Trump going after his adversaries. The exchange with Martha Raddatz he responded to was a good example of how JD Vance talks over people to deliver his Cotton swabs, filibustering to prevent any rebuttal.

RADDATZ: Would Donald Trump go after his political opponents?

VANCE: No —

RADDATZ: He suggested that in the past.

VANCE: Martha, he was president for four years and he didn’t go after his political opponents.

You know who did go after her political opponents? Kamala Harris, who has tried to arrest everything from pro-life activists to her political opponents —

(CROSSTALK)

RADDATZ: He said those people who cheated would be prosecuted.

VANCE: — and used the Department of Justice as a weapon against people — well, he said that people who violated our election laws will be prosecuted. I think that’s the administration of law. He didn’t say people are going to go to jail because they disagree with me. That is, in fact, been the administration and the policy of Kamala Harris, Martha.

Look, under the last three-and-a-half years, we have seen politically-motivated after politically-motivated prosecution. I’d like us to just get back to a system of law and order where we try to arrest people when they break the law, not because they disagree with the prevailing opinion of the day, and there’s a fundamental difference here between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris. Donald Trump may agree — agree or disagree on a particular issue, but he will fight for your right to speak your mind without the government trying to silence you.

Kamala Harris is explicitly —

RADDATZ: Senator Vance, I —

(CROSSTALK)

VANCE: — censorship of folks who disagree with her.

RADDATZ: I want to go back to Donald Trump.

(CROSSTALK)

In response to Dale’s fact check, Trump’s campaign accused the media of a double standard because DOJ hadn’t indicted Biden or Hillary for their non-crimes.

Trump made extensive behind-the-scenes efforts to get his political opponents charged with crimes. But you don’t have to rely on investigative reporting or the memoirs of former administration officials to know that Trump went after political opponents as president.

He often went after them in public, too.

As CNN reporter Marshall Cohen has noted, there is a long list of political opponents whom Trump publicly called for the Justice Department and others to investigate or prosecute. The list includes not only 2016 election opponent Hillary Clinton and 2020 election opponent Joe Biden but also Biden’s son Hunter Biden, Democratic former Secretary of State John Kerry, Trump’s former national security advisor turned critic John Bolton, Democratic former President Barack Obama, unspecified Obama administration officials, the anonymous author of a New York Times op-ed by a Trump administration official critical of Trump, MSNBC host and Trump critic Joe Scarborough, former FBI director turned Trump critic James Comey, other former FBI officials, former British spy Christopher Steele (the author of a controversial dossier of allegations against Trump), and various congressional Democrats – including former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Rep. Adam Schiff of California, Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, and Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia.

Asked for comment for this article on Monday, Vance spokesperson Taylor Van Kirk accused the media of having a biased “double standard” and said “it is indisputable that under Kamala Harris and Joe Biden’s DOJ, the Republican nominee for president was targeted and indicted, while under President Trump, nothing like that ever transpired against either of the Democrats he faced off with in 2016 or 2020.”

But that wasn’t for a lack of Trump trying.

Trump repeatedly pressured the Justice Department as president to prosecute both Clinton and Biden, in addition to trying to get foreign countries to investigate Biden. That the Trump-era Justice Department declined to charge Clinton and Biden doesn’t mean it’s true that Trump didn’t “go after” them or others. (In fact, Trump literally said in 2017 that he wanted the department to be “going after” Clinton.) [my emphasis]

But even Dale, the best in the business, made no mention of how aggressively Durham investigated Hillary and her campaign and ignored that the Brady side channel led directly to the elevation of Alexander Smirnov’s attempt to frame Joe Biden, which had a role in David Weiss’ elevation as Special Counsel, which led to the felony conviction of Hunter [Dale relies heavily on CNN’s Marshall Cohen, who got the Durham investigation wildly wrong].

In 2019, Barr satisfied Trump’s investigate-the-investigators demand by tasking a federal prosecutor to help investigate the origins of the FBI’s probe related to Russia and the 2016 election. In late 2020, with about three months left in Trump’s presidency, Barr gave that prosecutor, John Durham, the status of special counsel.

And in early 2020, Barr tasked a different federal prosecutor with taking in information from members of the public, notably including then-Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani, related to allegations about the Bidens and Ukraine, which had been a subject of Trump’s public and private focus.