It’s Still Not Clear Whether Elon’s DOGE Boys Are Reviewing, Taking, or Altering Government Networks

/54 Comments/in , /by

The big news overnight in the legal fight to rein in DOGE is that SDNY Judge Paul Engelmayer has ordered Treasury to stop letting Elon Musk’s DOGE [sic] boys to snoop in Treasury’s payment system and destroy any copies of records already made from it. [docket]

the defendants are (i) restrained from granting access to any Treasury Department payment record, payment systems, or any other data systems maintained by the Treasury Department containing personally identifiable information and/or confidential financial information of payees, other than to civil servants with a need for access to perform their job duties within the Bureau of Fiscal Services who have passed all background checks and security clearances and taken all information security training called for in federal statutes and Treasury Department regulations; (ii) restrained from granting access to all political appointees, special government employees, and government employees detailed from an agency outside the Treasury Department, to any Treasury Department payment record, payment systems, or any other data systems maintained by the Treasury Department containing personally identifiable information and/or confidential financial information of payees; and (iii) ordered to direct any person prohibited above from having access to such information, records and systems but who has had access to such information, records, and systems since January 20, 2025, to immediately destroy any and all copies of material downloaded from the Treasury Department’s records and systems, if any;

This order comes on top of Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly’s order limiting access to Treasury’s payment system to normal employees and two DOGE [sic] employees, but the latter for read-only access [docket]:

Mr. Tom Krause, a Special Government Employee in the Department of the Treasury, as needed for the performance of his duties, provided that such access to payment records will be “read only”;

Mr. Marko Elez, a Special Government Employee in the Department of the Treasury, as needed for the performance of his duties, provided that such access to payment records will be “read only”;

Anna Bower parsed how DOJ substantiated (or not) that this was really “read only” access. Which was part of what a bunch of Democratic Attorneys General, led by Tish James, pointed to to claim they still needed a TRO, over and above the one issued by Kollar-Kotelly.

The temporary restraining order entered yesterday by the D.C. District Court in Alliance for Retired Americans v. Bessent, No. 1:25-cv-313 (D.D.C.) (“ARA”), does not change this conclusion. That order continues to permit two SGEs affiliated with DOGE to have access to the BFS payment records and payment systems, restricts their access to “read only” just for payment records and not payment systems, and does not direct that any copies of data from the systems made since the Agency Action took effect be destroyed. ARA, Dkt No. 13.

Now, I’m somewhat skeptical that Engelmeyer’s order, as issued, is sustainable. He issued the order in advance of the assigned judge on the case, Jeannette Vargas, and before the government had a chance to respond to the lawsuit.

But the lawsuits to enjoin DOGE [sic] are playing catch-up to the known facts.

And the known facts get us much closer to the being able to prove that Elon and his DOGE [sic] boys are altering code, if not hacking it, rather than simply reviewing its data.

The suit and TRO before Judge Kollar-Kotelly, filed by several unions, is entirely privacy focused.

The state AGs’ suit and TRO, which establish standing by pointing to the billions of dollars of payments they get from the Feds, argues that Elon is attempting to intercept payments to entities Trump doesn’t like. It asserts a claim repeatedly backed in public reporting, but affirmatively denied before Kollar-Kotelly: that the DOGE boys — here, self-proclaimed eugenicist Mark Elez, have altered code.

5. As of February 2, 2025, the President and Treasury Secretary, directed Treasury to grant expanded access to BFS payment systems to political appointees and “special government employees” for reasons that have yet to be provided, although one apparent purpose, upon information and belief. Upon information and belief, one purpose is to allow DOGE to advance a stated goal to block federal funds from reaching beneficiaries who do not align with the President’s political agenda. For example, DOGE was tasked with freezing payments issued by the U.S. Agency for International Development (“USAID”) and sought access to BFS payment systems to accomplish that goal.5 Virtually unfettered access to BFS payment systems was granted to at least one 25-year-old DOGE associate, Mark Elez, who, on information and belief, had the authority to view or modify numerous critical files.6 Indeed, reports indicate that Elez had administrative privileges over the BFS payment system’s code, giving him the ability to alter user permissions and “read and write” code—even if the associate had “read-only” access to the system’s data.7 Elez has since resigned from DOGE after being linked to racist social media posts.8

6. Around the same time that DOGE associates were unlawfully granted access to BFS systems, Mr. Musk began publicly stating his intention to recklessly freeze streams of federal funding without warning. On February 2, 2024, Mr. Musk posted on X (formerly Twitter), an online social media platform, that DOGE is “rapidly shutting down” various “illegal payments” made by the government to grant recipients, including payments to Lutheran Family Services to provide services to migrant children.9 That same day, Mr. Musk posted that his team “spent the weekend feeding USAID into the wood chipper.” Since then, Mr. Musk has unambiguously called for the cancellation of various streams of federal funding. For instance, on February 6, 2025, he alleged: “Billions of taxpayer dollars to known FRAUDULENT entities are STILL being APPROVED by Treasury. This needs to STOP NOW!”10 Mr. Musk has also made wild, unsubstantiated claims about the BFS payment system and suggested putting it on the blockchain.11

6 A 25-Year-Old With Elon Musk Ties Has Direct Access to the Federal Payment System | WIRED

7 https://www.wired.com/story/elon-musk-associate-bfs-federal-payment-system/

8 DOGE Staffer Resigns Over Racist Posts

9 Elon Musk on X: “The @DOGE team is rapidly shutting down these illegal payments” / X

10 Elon Musk on X: “Billions of taxpayer dollars to known FRAUDULENT entities are STILL being APPROVED by Treasury. This needs to STOP NOW!” / X

11 Fatima Hussein, “Elon Musk’s task force has gained access to sensitive Treasury payment systems, sources say,” PBS News, Feb. 2, 2025, https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/elon-musks-task-force-hasgained-access-to-sensitive-treasury-payment-systems-sources-say; Billy Bambrough, “‘This Needs To Stop Now’—Elon Musk Confirms Radical Doge U.S. Treasury Plan,” Forbes, Feb. 2, 2025, https://www.forbes.com/sites/digital-assets/2025/02/02/this-needs-to-stop-now-elon-musk-confirmsradical-doge-us-treasury-plan/.

It cites Elon’s insane rants on Xitter as well.

In addition to the privacy concerns addressed in the union lawsuit, the AGs’ lawsuit raises concerns about appropriations (and separation of powers), but also cybersecurity, something not included in the union lawsuit.

139. The conduct of DOGE members presents a unique security risk to States and State residents whose data is held by BFS, given that DOGE employees have already reportedly set up an unauthorized commercial server at another federal agency without a privacy impact assessment as required by the 2002 E-Government Act. Access by DOGE employees to BFS is likely to present even greater risks to the security and privacy of States’ and their residents’ data.

140. Unsecure data is susceptible to cyber attacks and identity theft. Identity theft has a significant impact on States, beyond the financial well-being of its residents. It strains law enforcement resources, damages state economies through lost productivity and consumer confidence, and raises costs for the state to redress fraudulent claims made from stolen identities for unemployment and healthcare benefits. [my emphasis]

The AGs’ suit actually doesn’t cite a source for the claim that DOGE set up a commercial server at another agency. But I think the claim comes from a lawsuit Kel McClanahan filed against Office of Personnel Management, aiming to require it to stop the all-government email DOGE [sic] set up to offer its “Fork in the Road” severance offer. McClanahan first sued, with two plaintiffs who worked at government agencies, on January 27, for a violation of the E-Government Act. [docket]

In response, the government claimed that the main theory of injury, that the government had set up the all-government email without first doing a privacy assessment didn’t apply for employees, and was moot because it had since done one, which it included here. The privacy assessment claimed this was just a Office365 account.

1.3. Has a system security plan been completed for the information system(s) supporting the project? The Office 365 mailbox has been granted an Authorization to Operate (ATO) that includes a system security plan. The government computer storing the data is subject to standard security requirements, including limited PIV access.

And it claimed that the account included only employee data.

2.1. Identify the information the project collects, uses, disseminates, or maintains. GWES collects, maintains, and uses the names and government email addresses of federal government employees. GWES also collects and redistributes responses to emails sent to those addresses, which are limited to short, voluntary, non-identifying information. Specifically, GWES contains the following:

  • Employee Contact Data: GWES collects, maintains, and uses the names and government email addresses of federal government employees. Other identifying information is not used.
  • Employee Response Data: After an email is sent using Employee Contact Data, GWES collects, maintains, and redistributes short, voluntary responses.

It largely ignored McClenahan’s claim (based largely on Reddit posts) that DOGE had installed a separate server.

But other than speculation on social media, Plaintiffs provide no evidence that OPM took any of the actions that would trigger the PIA requirement under sections 208(b)(1)(A)(i)-(ii) of the E-Government Act. Moreover, Plaintiffs disregard entirely the fact that the E-Government Act does not require a PIA when an agency is seeking to collect information about “agencies, instrumentalities, or employees of the Federal Government.”

Since then, McClanahan filed an amended complaint, which added five more plaintiffs, none of whom are Executive Branch employees (for example, one works for the Library of Congress; another is a contractor), substantiating that some of the DOGE emails went to people outside the Executive Branch, and provided additional substantiation of the Reddit claims (including raising questions about whether this could even be Microsoft365).

30. Furthermore, prior to 20 January 2025, OPM lacked the technical capacity to send direct communications to all Executive Branch employees: But just days before President Donald Trump’s inauguration, OPM did not have the capability to send a mass email of that scale, according to a person familiar with the matter. To send mass emails, the agency had used govDelivery, a cloud communications service provided by public sector IT company Granicus, a different person familiar said. The govDelivery contract had restrictions on the volume of emails available to send without incurring added costs, and the agency would not have been able to reach 2.3 million people, the approximate number of all civilian federal employees, the second person added. David DiMolfetta, OPM’s new email system sparks questions about cyber compliance Nextgov/FCW (Jan. 28, 2025), available at https://www.nextgov.com/digitalgovernment/2025/01/opms-new-email-system-sparks-questions-about-cybercompliance/402555/ (last accessed Feb. 3, 2025).

31. Additionally, OPM has used Microsoft Office 365 since at least 2021, including Outlook 365 for email. OPM, Privacy Impact Assessment for OPM – Microsoft Office 365 (May 13, 2021), available at https://www.opm.gov/information-management/privacy-policy/privacypolicy/office-365-pia.pdf (last accessed Feb. 3, 2025). Outlook 365 cannot send more than ten thousand emails per day. See Microsoft, Exchange Online limits (Dec. 11, 2024), at https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/office365/servicedescriptions/exchange-online-servicedescription/exchange-online-limits#sending-limits-1 (last accessed Feb. 3, 2025).

32. According to the FedNews Message, “Instead [of using the normal channels], an on-prem (on-site) email server was setup [sic]. Someone literally walked into our building and plugged in an email server to our network to make it appear that emails were coming from OPM. It’s been the one sending those various ‘test’ message[s] [discussed below].” FedNews Message.

33. This statement is supported by recent reporting:

A new server being used to control these [OPM] databases has been placed in a conference room that Musk’s team is using as their command center, according to an OPM staffer. The staffer described the server as a piece of commercial hardware they believed was not obtained through the proper federal procurement process.

Caleb Ecarma & Judd Legum, Musk associates given unfettered access to private data of government employees Musk Watch (Feb. 3, 2025), at https://www.muskwatch.com/p/muskassociates-given-unfettered (last accessed Feb. 3, 2025).

34. Upon information and belief, this server and/or other systems linked to it are retaining information about every individual with a Government email address.

The amended complaint argues that the privacy impact was factually and legally insufficient.

39. Neither Biasini nor Hogan were OPM employees prior to 20 January.

40. Biasini worked at the Boring Company prior to 20 January. It is not currently known if he still works there.

41. Hogan worked at Comma.ai prior to 20 January. It is not currently known if he still works there.

42. The GWES PIA was both factually inaccurate and legally inadequate.

[snip]

54. Upon information and belief, OPM has not ensured review of a PIA for any of these systems by any legally sufficient Chief Information Officer or equivalent official.

55. OPM has not published a legally sufficient PIA or made such an assessment available for public inspection for any of these systems.

In other words, as these twin lawsuits against Treasury get closer to arguing that Elon is not looking for savings but instead altering the payment system, McClanahan continues to chase proof that Elon’s DOGE [sic] boys have added their own server which, by dint of sending emails to everyone (including people not employed by the Executive branch) with a .gov address, is collecting information on everyone with a .gov address.

Meanwhile, several other developments get closer to showing that Elon is hacking the government, not assessing it.

First, late this week, OPM removed access by some DOGE [sic] boys to more sensitive OPM systems.

Directives from the agency’s interim leadership issued late this week indicated that DOGE representatives should be withdrawn from two principal systems containing personally identifiable information for millions of federal employees, according to communications reviewed by The Post and people familiar with the developments who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the matter’s sensitivity.

Those systems are called Enterprise Human Resources Integration and Electronic Official Personnel Folder. They hold sensitive information about employees of most federal agencies, including addresses, demographic profiles, salary details and disciplinary histories.

The Post reported Thursday morning that DOGE agents had gained access to those systems along with “administrative” access to OPM computer systems. That allowed them sweeping authority to install and modify software on government-supplied equipment and, according to two OPM officials, to alter internal documentation of their own activities.

Meanwhile, both Wired and WaPo have stories describing how a Booz Allen analyst described the DOGE [sic] access as an ““unprecedented insider threat risk;” the analyst was promptly fired.

The review, delivered Monday to Treasury officials by a contractor that runs a threat intelligence center for Treasury’s Bureau of the Fiscal Service, said that DOGE’s access to the payment network should be “immediately” suspended. It also urged Treasury to scour the payments system for any changes approved by affiliates of DOGE, which is overseen by billionaire Elon Musk, the correspondence shows. DOGE stands for Department of Government Efficiency.

A Treasury employee told The Post that the threat center is run by Booz Allen Hamilton, a large federal contractor. The company confirmed it runs the threat center, which it said is embedded within Treasury.

Late Friday, after this article appeared, Booz Allen said it had “removed” a subcontractor who wrote the warning and would seek to retract or amend it. “The draft report was prepared by a subcontractor to Booz Allen and contained unauthorized personal opinions that are not factual or consistent with our standards,” company spokesperson Jessica Klenk said. Booz Allen won more than $1 billion in multiyear U.S. government contracts last year.

In a separate communication a week ago, a high-ranking career official at Treasury also raised the issue of risks from DOGE access in a memo to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, including the potential breach of information that could lead to exposure of U.S. spies abroad, according to five people with knowledge of the matter, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to reflect government deliberations. The memo included recommendations to mitigate risks, which Bessent approved, said another person familiar with the matter, who also spoke on the condition of anonymity.

And while the focus at Treasury has been on eugenicist Marko Elez, whom Elon has pushed to be reinstated, closer scrutiny into Edward “Big Balls” Coristine — who is at OPM and possibly HHS — has described he has ties to hackers. Brian Krebs, who was targeted by some people in that crowd, described screen shots that suggest Coristine may have been fired for leaking internal documents to a competitor.

Wired noted that Coristine only worked at Path for a few months in 2022, but the story didn’t mention why his tenure was so short. A screenshot shared on the website pathtruths.com includes a snippet of conversations in June 2022 between Path employees discussing Coristine’s firing.

According to that record, Path founder Marshal Webb dismissed Coristine for leaking internal documents to a competitor. Not long after Coristine’s termination, someone leaked an abundance of internal Path documents and conversations. Among other things, those chats revealed that one of Path’s technicians was a Canadian man named Curtis Gervais who was convicted in 2017 of perpetrating dozens of swatting attacks and fake bomb threats — including at least two attempts against our home in 2014.

And Krebs provides chatlogs showing some of Coristine’s former associates are taking notice.

The Com is the English-language cybercriminal hacking equivalent of a violent street gang. KrebsOnSecurity has published numerous stories detailing how feuds within the community periodically spill over into real-world violence.

When Coristine’s name surfaced in Wired‘s report this week, members of The Com immediately took notice. In the following segment from a February 5, 2025 chat in a Com-affiliated hosting provider, members criticized Rivage’s skills, and discussed harassing his family and notifying authorities about incriminating accusations that may or may not be true.

Bloomberg matched Krebs’ reporting on the reason for Coristine’s firing from Path.

“Edward has been terminated for leaking internal information to the competitors,” said a June 2022 message from an executive of the firm, Path Network, which was seen by Bloomberg News. “This is unacceptable and there is zero tolerance for this.”

A spokesperson for the Arizona-based hosting and data-security firm said Thursday: “I can confirm that Edward Coristine’s brief contract was terminated after the conclusion of an internal investigation into the leaking of proprietary company information that coincided with his tenure.”

Afterward, Coristine wrote that he’d retained access to the cybersecurity company’s computers, though he said he hadn’t taken advantage of it.

“I had access to every single machine,” he wrote on Discord in late 2022, weeks after he was dismissed from Path Network, according to messages seen by Bloomberg. Posting under the name “Rivage,” which six people who know him said was his alias, Coristine said he could have wiped Path’s customer-supporting servers if he’d wished. He added, “I never exploited it because it’s just not me.”

Bloomberg tied Coristine’s past even more closely to organized abuse campaigns.

JoeyCrafter was a member of Telegram groups called “Kiwi Farms Christmas Chat” and “Kiwi Farms 100% Real No Fake No Virus,” both referencing an online forum known for harassment campaigns. Typically, the site has been used to share the personal information of a target, encouraging others to harass them online, in-person, over the phone or by falsely alerting police to a violent crime or active shooter incident at their home.

This is the kind of DOGE boy Elon has thrown at government networks — and thus far, Republicans don’t seem to give a damn that Trump has given these DOGE [sic] boys access to data on virtually all Americans, employee or no.

One thing is clear, however: There’s not a shred of evidence these boys are doing what Elon claims they’re doing.

Most of these new facts — the seeming proof that OPM isn’t doing what it claimed, the insider threat warning, the ties to hackers — are not in the AGs’ suit. And by the time the suits catch up to the facts, the complaints may look quite different.

Update: Corrected that none of the OPM plaintiffs are employees of US Courts (though they did get an email).

Share this entry

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

/101 Comments/in , , /by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[snip]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[snip]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It has been spectacular failure after failure.

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

Share this entry

Confirming Kash Patel Will Get Senators “Drug through the Streets”

/6 Comments/in , , /by

When Kash Patel boosted the J6 Choir claiming the video of those housed in DC Jail in March 2023 was proof of a two-tier system of justice, he was suggesting that someone who brought a crowbar — which he called a “weapon” — to the Capitol while promising to drag members of Congress through the streets, then assaulted cops protecting Congress, should not be detained while awaiting trial for assaulting cops.

That’s the significance of Ryan Nichols’ inclusion in the footnote Jack Smith put in his report, listing the identities of some of the J6 Choir members Trump had endorsed.

Nichols was in jail because of the threats he posed to members of Congress.

I’m hearing that Pence just caved. I’m hearing reports that Pence caved. I’m telling you if Pence caved, we’re gonna drag motherfuckers through the streets. You fucking politicians are going to get fucking drug through the streets. Because we’re not going to have our fucking shit stolen. We’re not going to have our election or our country stolen. If we find out you politicians voted for it, we’re going to drag your fucking ass through the streets. Because it’s the second fucking revolution and we’re fucking done. I’m telling you right now, Ryan Nichols said it. If you voted for fucking treason, we’re going to drag your fucking ass through the streets. So let us find out, let the patriots find out that you fucking treasoned this country. We’re gonna drag your fucking ass through the street. You think we’re here for no reason? You think we patriots are here for no reason? You think we came just to fucking watch you run over us? No. You want to take it from us, motherfucker we’ll take it back from you.

And even then, he didn’t remain in prison for the period before he pled guilty.

Nichols challenged his treatment in the DC jail, complaining about the seizure of his discovery and claiming that his incarceration was exacerbating his known PTSD diagnosis. He was further involved in an altercation in September 2022, after which he was segregated, then moved to another facility. He had repeated diagnosis issues with his health care. So in November 2022, Judge Thomas Hogan released Nichols from custody, and he remained out until he pled guilty on November 7, 2023.

But ultimately, Reagan appointee Royce Lamberth sentenced Nichols to what would have been three more years in prison — a total of 63 months and (because Nichols refused to cooperate with Probation on his finances) a record $200,000 fine, one the pardon will presumably wipe away entirely.

Nichols blamed his untreated PTSD for his actions. But Nichols’ sentencing memo revealed a 2019 arrest for assault causing bodily harm that resulted in diversion, one that belies his defense attorney claim he had never been violent before January 6. And prosecutors’ sentencing memo raised all the conspiracy claims Nichols made — many of the same claims that Kash Patel has made about him and others — raising some question about his remorse for his actions.

In addition, although Nichols “agreed with the conduct described in the Statement of Offense” in his presentence interview, PSR ¶ 50, in a post circulated after the plea hearing, members of Nichols’ defense team refers to him as a “political prisoner.” Exhibit J (Substack blog post authored by defense team law clerk present at counsel table for the plea hearing titled “Ryan Nichols: Political Prisoner Of His Own Country”); see also Exhibit K (GiveSendGo page titled “Free My Patriot Prisoner” with messages attributed to Nichols, his wife, and his father prior to the defendant’s plea). Even prior to Nichols entering his plea, his attorney was tweeting statements that directly contradicted the statement of offense in this case. See Exhibit M (October 30, 2023, twitter post from Nichols’ lead counsel).12 These statements threaten “public trust in the rule of law and the criminal justice system [, which] is paramount in the context of January 6 cases.” United States v. Nester, 22-cr-183 (TSC), ECF No. 113 at 6 (internal citation omitted). While the government does not attribute counsel’s statements to the defendant himself (nor does it base its recommendation on such bombastic rhetoric), this Court must appropriately assess whether the defendant has independently accepted responsibility for his criminal conduct. Pleading guilty is not simply the same as accepting the consequences and showcasing remorse under these trying and unique circumstances.

12 The government also notes that, in the months leading up to his plea, Nichols was claiming in public court filings that, in effect, “shadowy teams of plainclothes government agents orchestrated the attack [on the Capitol], leaving a far larger number of innocent Americans to take the fall.” ECF 266 (Order Denying Defendant’s Motion for Disclosure) at 13; see also ECF 244 (Motion for Disclosure), 245 (Supp. Motion for Disclosure), and ECF 251 (Reply to Government’s Opposition to Motion for Disclosure)

The sentence Judge Lamberth imposed in May 2022, 63 months, was about 75% of the government ask of 83 months. While Nichols had a lot of heartfelt things to say about his actions, Judge Lamberth noted that Jan6ers had repeatedly reneged on their statements of remorse, which the recent statements laid out in the government sentencing motion addressed.

Importantly, Nichols himself noted that the solitary confinement to which he was subjected was a COVID protocol, not anything specifically targeting Jan6ers.

I spent months in solitary confinement for 23 to 32-plus hours at a time due to COVID protocols, only allowed out for one hour to shower or make a phone call just to be locked in that 10-by-7-foot cell for another 23 to 32-plus hours at a time. Mental torture is an understatement. I heard grown men screaming and crying out for their mothers, me included. Many nights, I cried myself to sleep. With no court dates, no discovery, and no ending in sight, I felt hopeless and my mental health spiraled out of control. Eventually, I decided that, maybe, I needed to seek professional help. I put in a mental health request, and two weeks later I was back on Zoloft. Though this certainly helped control my mind and get my emotional imbalance in alignment, the solitary confinement was still overwhelming.

And he expressed empathy with the incarceration of people of color.

Your Honor, I know, after almost two-and-a-half years of incarceration, how terrible jail and prison is. The entire atmosphere is violent, dark, and unforgiving. For the majority of my life, I’ve heard, but never been able to empathize with, people of color when they testified to the harsh environment and treatment within the jail and the prison system. Make no mistake, I am now a witness to their testimony. Being in jail and prison is a living hell of eternal separation from the light. Sometimes it feels like not even God himself can penetrate those walls.

Nichols’ PTSD and other maladies did make incarceration onerous. The DC jail treated him just as shitty as it treats everyone else. And he was released because of it.

But that’s not a proof of a two-tier system of justice. That’s proof that America’s prisons suck, and that Jan6ers had more success in using that to get released than others.

Ultimately, though, Patel is claiming that one can get in your truck with guns in the back, drive to DC, threaten to drag people like Lindsey Graham and Chuck Grassley through the streets because they certified Joe Biden’s win, spray cops with toxic chemicals, and then call on the mob to grab more weapons to break into the Capitol, and not be assigned to pre-trial detention. That’s what Nichols did: He directly threatened Senators, both Republicans and Democrats. The notion that Nichols was improperly detained suggests one can assault cops after threatening the members of Congress they’re protecting with impunity.

And that’s what the aspiring FBI Director has said: that people can threaten to assault the very people who are rushing to confirm him with impunity.

Share this entry

Trump’s Slop and Ouch First Week

/102 Comments/in , , /by

Trump’s failson practically wet himself with a Tweet bragging about what CIA Director John Ratcliffe accomplished on his first day at the office.

Given John Brennan’s 2023 testimony that stood by the opinion expressed in the letter, Jr’s claim he “lied” may well be legally actionable (and Brennan said then, as he did the other day, that the only reason he retained his clearance was for intelligence officials to be able to consult with him). Plus, many if not most of the people from whom Ratcliffe “strip[ped] security clearances” didn’t have them; the most impotent kind of signaling possible. But it worked for Trump’s failson!

Jr also makes a big deal of the fact that John Ratcliffe, without explaining the meaning of a “low confidence” assessment, released a report that his predecessor, William Burns, ordered up.

Jr was, like mediocre men are wont to do, grading Ratcliffe on a curve. And that was his idea of a big win.

Trump has overtly pitched a claim he’s engaged in Shock and Awe (and, given the widespread adoption of the term, seems to be pushing a similar campaign to the press). While the attention on Trump’s attack on rule of law and marginalized people is absolutely merited, in addition to wowing a captive press, Trump’s declaration of Shock and Awe has shifted the focus away from ways that Trump has affirmatively hurt Americans, including, undoubtedly, a great number of his own supporters, what I’m dubbing his Slop and Ouch campaign.

Trump halt on NIH funding literally shut down cancer treatment already in process (ironically, since Trump claimed he was attacking Joe Biden’s “cancer” when signing many of his Executive Orders). Cancer doesn’t doesn’t discriminate against MAGAts. Shutting down cancer trials may literally be taking away a Trump’s supporter’s latest hope of a cure.

Trump’s attacks on Biden’s efforts to lower drug prices may lead to higher costs for generic prices and could even lead to higher prices for diabetes drugs (setting aside any impact threatened tariffs on Denmark would have on Ozempic prices).

Trump reversed access to wind power, which has become cheaper than fossil fuels. This will force American consumers to pay more for dirtier fuel. Foreign competitors are already licking their lips about the competitive advantage it gives them.

Trump’s attack on programs focused on environmental justice will harm poor rural communities.

And after spending four years declaring one after another infrastructure week only to have Joe Biden deliver it right away, Trump is threatening the funding for bridge and road projects already underway. He’s taking away what he promised — but failed to deliver — during his first term.

His rescission of job offers throughout government (though Veterans groups were able to get a reversal on VA care) has left thousands stuck with their lives in limbo, with movers arriving but no job to move to on the other end.

Trump’s attack on public health even as Avian Flu threatens to snowball will exacerbate the already increasing price of eggs — which Trump himself made a key campaign plank.

And because he is choosing to pursue his deportation policy in the stupidest way possible, it is creating problems. HCI detained three people in a Newark raid with out a warrant, reportedly including a Puerto Rican and a veteran. And Mexico refused a landing request for a deportation flight on a military plane (it accepted four others that were on chartered flights, which cost less to run and may have greater capacity; also, Colombia has since blocked a military transport flight); military flights to Guatemala avoided Mexican airspace, suggesting Mexico refused overflight requests as well. Trump is also claiming repatriation flights are instead deportation flights in false claims that he’s delivering on his promise of mass deportation. And the single stay stats many are boasting about aren’t higher than some days during 2022. Despite his claims of Shock and Awe, Trump has had to lie to support his claims he succeeded in doing the one thing he has prioritized most.

And all that’s before the inflationary effect of deporting those who pick America’s food and build her homes.

None of this takes away from the grave damage Trump did in his first week, particularly to those like Trans people and migrants he is trying to treat as unpersons.

I don’t mean to minimize the ways this is going to get far worse. It will get far worse. It will devastate the lives of a lot of vulnerable people.

There’s nothing good about the fact that, in addition to all the people Trump has deliberately targeted for cruelty, Trump has also inflicted real damage on his own supporters. But it’s a sign of one direction where this could head, particularly as a dumbing down of government hires in favor of sycophants starts degrading efficacy.

An ideology that places grievance above all else — an ideology that is willing to hurt America if that’s what it takes to reverse the successes of the Biden Administration — is an ideology guaranteed to impose pain far beyond those targeted for spectacle and cruelty.

Underneath Trump’s Shock and Awe that is doing grave damage to the Constitution and Trump’s marginalized targets, there’s a Slop and Ouch that targets everyone this side of his billionaire friends. And that needs to remain visible, too.

Share this entry

The Stephen Miller EOs

/74 Comments/in , , /by

At least in response to questioning from journalists yesterday, Trump had — or feigned — a very limited understanding of some of the Executive Orders he has signed in the last two days. For example, he couldn’t explain why he had pardoned Danny Rodriguez, who nearly killed Michael Fanone. And he explained the Enrique Tarrio pardon by pointing to the Proud Boy leader’s burning of a BLM flag, which (along with his attempted possession in DC of unlawful weapons) was punished separately from Tarrio’s seditious attack on the Capitol.

With Trump, one should always start with the assumption he’s engaged in a con, but it really is possible he only vaguely understands some of what he just signed.

That, plus the number of typos and other sloppy errors commentators have noted in the EOs, makes me wonder whether Stephen Miller drafted everything and decided, in real time, which Executive Orders to hand to Trump to sign, like a gamer might deploy his favorite Magic Card deck. In a piece on Vivek Ramaswamy’s purge from DOGE [sic], for example, WaPo reveals that, “Draft executive orders favored by Musk were implemented, and those put forward by Ramaswamy’s team that Musk had ignored in recent weeks are unlikely to be issued.” Who knows? Maybe there’s even an EO with all the January 6 pardons that only commuted the sentences of those who assaulted cops or were deemed to be terrorists, rather than granting (in many cases) full pardons.

There are at least two Executive Orders that have Stephen Miller’s name all over them which deserve closer scrutiny: One claiming to “restor[e] freedom of speech and end[] federal censorship,” and another claiming to end[] the weaponization of the federal government.”

Both have the same structure. They order the Attorney General (and the Director of National Intelligence, in the weaponizing EO) to go chase down conspiracy theories spawned by Jim Jordan: that the Federal government is infringing on free speech and weapon or targeting Joe Biden’s opponents. Here’s how it looks in the latter case:

The Department of Justice even jailed an individual for posting a political meme. And while the Department of Justice has ruthlessly prosecuted more than 1,500 individuals associated with January 6, and simultaneously dropped nearly all cases against BLM rioters.

[snip]

(a) The Attorney General, in consultation with the heads of all departments and agencies of the United States, shall take appropriate action to review the activities of all departments and agencies exercising civil or criminal enforcement authority of the United States, including, but not limited to, the Department of Justice, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the Federal Trade Commission, over the last 4 years and identify any instances where a department’s or agency’s conduct appears to have been contrary to the purposes and policies of this order, and prepare a report to be submitted to the President, through the Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy and the Counsel to the President, with recommendations for appropriate remedial actions to be taken to fulfill the purposes and policies of this order.

(b) The Director of National Intelligence, in consultation with the heads of the appropriate departments and agencies within the Intelligence Community, shall take all appropriate action to review the activities of the Intelligence Community over the last 4 years and identify any instances where the Intelligence Community’s conduct appears to have been contrary to the purposes and policies of this order, and prepare a report to be submitted to the President, through the Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy and the National Security Advisor, with recommendations for appropriate remedial actions to be taken to fulfill the purposes and policies of this order. The term “Intelligence Community” has the meaning given the term in section 3003 of title 50, United States Code. [my emphasis]

These orders will give Pam Bondi cover to conduct an investigation without the predicate otherwise required, and do so outside the normal institutions (like DOJ’s Inspector General and DOJ and FBI’s Offices of Professional Responsibility; to say nothing of Trump-appointed judges who already debunked the EO’s claim about selective prosecution of January 6ers) that afford targets some due process.

The scope of this review is very strictly the last four years. Thus, it will exclude a great deal of weaponization Bill Barr engaged in (including the Brady side channel via which Joe Biden was criminally framed) and even every single one of the notices regarding misstatements about voting means, time, or location that Barr’s DOJ authorized in the 2020 election, which were one main focus of the Twitter Files. It will ignore that the investigation into Douglass Mackey — the reference to an individual who posted a political meme, above — in chatrooms to which Stephen Miller was, at the very least, adjacent (and Don Jr was in), was almost entirely conducted during the first Trump Administration.

It will likewise exclude the far greater threats to free speech going forward. Donald Trump’s threat to send Mark Zuckerberg to prison for the rest of his life? Issued before Trump returned to government. Brendan Carr demanding that CBS platform right wingers, while ignoring Fox’s production of exclusively right wing content? Officially government, as of Monday, but therefore outside the scope of the four year review. And Stephen Miller coaxing Zuckerberg to making his platforms amenable to genocide again? Not yet a government action.

Take special notice, too, that the SEC and FTC are included among the agencies where Bondi is instructed to go find weaponization. Again, that picks up a Jim Jordan crusade, one targeted at regulatory agencies holding Elon Musk accountable for agreements the company he bought had already entered into, to say nothing of Elon’s efforts to tank Xitter’s own stock. Sure, some of this is Miller’s means to undermine the legitimacy of the January 6 investigation, but it’s also a personal sop to the richest man in the world.

And after Pam Bondi conducts an investigation into things that aren’t crimes via means that evade normal due process? She writes a report and gives it to … Stephen Miller, who among other things has been cultivating first Elon and then Zuck to platform Nazis.

When Jim Jordan conducted these crusades, he was shielded by Speech and Debate from adhering to basic facts. These EOs are an attempt to create space for Bondi to similarly escape the kinds of evidentiary rules and basic due process that limited Trump’s prior attempts to target his enemies.

If they find something, Miller will feed them to Trump to make issue of. If they don’t (there are few real complaints about the January 6 investigation, aside from the shitty DC jail and difficulties created by COVID; and for much of Biden’s term, the agencies of interest to Miller for engaging in government speech were constrained by lawsuits by Miller’s allies), then Miller can just burn the report in the same fireplace Mark Meadows use to use.

In other words, these two EOs (I’m sure there are other similar ones) claim to attack the politicization of government by ordering Pam Bondi to politicize DOJ.

Share this entry

Trump Puts Violent Criminals Back on the Streets

/71 Comments/in /by

Somehow, the headlines describing that Trump pardoned most of those convicted or charged for January 6 forgot to mention hundreds of them were convicted of violent assaults on cops.

The grant of clemency is actually somewhat interesting. Contrary to reports, almost everyone got pardoned. The exceptions — those whose sentences were commuted, rather than pardoned, are many of the top Oath Keepers and Proud Boys.

  • Stewart Rhodes
  • Kelly Meggs
  • Kenneth Harrelson
  • Thomas Caldwell
  • Jessica Watkins
  • Roberto Minuta
  • Edward Vallejo
  • David Moerschel
  • Joseph Hackett
  • Ethan Nordean
  • Joseph Biggs
  • Zachary Rehl
  • Dominic Pezzola
  • Jeremy Bertino

But the list is inconsistent. For example, Jeremy Bertino cooperated against the others (but has not yet been sentenced). He got a pardon with everyone else. But others (like Joshua James, who pled guilty to sedition) who cooperated are not on this list, and as a result will get a full pardon.

If this were reported correctly, it would exacerbate the anger a good number of Trump allies must feel right now: A number of Republicans, including even Mike Johnson, spoke out against pardoning the violent cop assailants. Trump ignored them all.

Ah well, I know it was a busy day, but you’d think you could get the headline right. Most of the people freed are not pre-trial defendants. They’re convicted criminals, hundreds for assaults on cops, many who pled guilty, just let out the door as one of Trump’s first acts as President.

Update: Trump put Ed Martin, someone involved in Stop the Steal, in charge of the DC US Attorney’s Office.

Update: In an Executive Order prioritizing the death penalty, Trump called for the death penalty for those who succeed in murdering cops.

(b) In addition to pursuing the death penalty where possible, the Attorney General shall, where consistent with applicable law, pursue Federal jurisdiction and seek the death penalty regardless of other factors for every federal capital crime involving:

(i) The murder of a law-enforcement officer; or

Yesterday, Danny Rodriguez was freed for nearly murdering Michael Fanone.

Trump also ordered DOJ to prioritize violent crime, like those committed by hundreds of the people he freed yesterday.

Sec. 6. Prosecuting Crime to Protect Communities. (a) The Attorney General shall appropriately prioritize public safety and the prosecution of violent crime, and take all appropriate action necessary to dismantle transnational criminal activity in the United States. [my empahsis]

Meanwhile, DOJ is issuing orders to halt the prosecution of people accused of violent crime.

I further direct the Attorney General to pursue dismissal with prejudice to the government of all pending indictments against individuals for their conduct related to the events at or near the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021.  The Bureau of Prisons shall immediately implement all instructions from the Department of Justice regarding this directive. [my emphasis]

Update: Via Harry Dunn, here’s all the automated notices that Aquilino Gonell has gotten telling him that people he testified against — all of whom assaulted him — have been released.

Update: Elevating Critter7’s link to the most recent update from DC USAO on the investigation. It says 174 people were charged with using a deadly weapon or causing serious bodily harm to a cop.

  • Approximately 608 charged with assaulting, resisting, or impeding law enforcement agents or officers or obstructing those officers during a civil disorder, including approximately 174 defendants charged with using a deadly or dangerous weapon or causing serious bodily injury to an officer;

[snip]

Of those who pled guilty to felonies, 172 pleaded guilty to assaulting law enforcement; 130 pleaded guilty to obstructing law enforcement during a civil disorder (riot); 69 pleaded guilty to assaulting law enforcement with a dangerous or deadly weapon; and 4 pleaded guilty to seditious conspiracy– conspiring to use force against the United States. Some of these defendants pled guilty to one or multiple felony charges related to their conduct.

Share this entry

Found! Dozens of Damning Documents about Trump’s Hoarding of Classified Documents!

/27 Comments/in , , , /by

In an interview with Marc Elias the other day, Dan Goldman made a number of alarming claims. He said that before the release of Jack Smith’s January 6 report, “we didn’t really know about … the extensive litigation that the Special Counsel had to go through just to get this evidence.” That is, Goldman admitted that he missed the unsealing, in October, of the very documents Jack Smith cited to describe that process (which I wrote about at the time). Goldman missed the opportunity to make a stink about this before the election.

Goldman also wondered “if Elon Musk and X, while he has owned it, has ever not cooperated in the same way [as they did in response to a warrant for Trump’s Twitter account] in a different case.” We know the answer to that: according to an opinion Chief Judge Boasberg unsealed (and first spotted by Kyle Cheney, who played a key role in liberating the Executive Privilege dispute), from January to March of last year, Xitter refused to turn over mere subscriber records in what sounds like a leak investigation.

Much later in the interview (after 19:00), Goldman said,

Volume Two of the report is going to provide a lot more information that we don’t know. The litigation in the January 6 case, including the memo outlining all of the evidence, has been so extensive that, as we see from Volume One, there really isn’t that much that we didn’t know. There was also an entire Congressional Committee that did this investigation. This has been exhaustively investigated. And yes they did get more evidence because they had grand jury power. They got more witnesses to speak than the January 6 Committee did. But we’ve known about that.

We know very little about what the back-and-forth was with the National Archives, the FBI, Donald Trump and his team, others. And one of the things that has jumped out at me in that case is that in one of the filings, the Department of Justice, Special Counsel, said, that there evidence includes why Donald Trump retained the information illegally, and what he was planning to do with it. [my emphasis]

From there, Goldman went on to call for Merrick Garland to dismiss the case, which I’m not sure Garland can do without some judge going along (which was the hold up in the Mike Flynn case).

Now, as I have laid out, Jack Smith eschewed the opportunity to make new information available in Volume One of the report. For example, he didn’t explain why an investigation into Trump’s fundraising and spending ended without charges. Based on what we’ve seen in Volume One, I doubt we’d get the kinds of details Robert Hur provided in his 388-page report, describing every document that wasn’t charged and why not. I doubt we’d learn why the FBI believed there was a tie between a grant of clemency for Roger Stone and a document, classified Secret, about Emmanuel Macron, both found in Donald Trump’s own desk drawer. I doubt we’d learn why Trump compiled low-level classified information into a document with messages from a book author, a religious leader, and a pollster.

And I doubt we’d learn what Trump was planning to do with those classified documents.

I want to see the report. But I doubt it’ll include what Goldman hopes it will.

But it is also the case that we have already gotten a great deal of additional information about the investigation.

It’s not the case, for example, that “we know very little about what the back-and-forth was with the National Archives, the FBI, Donald Trump and his team, others.” This filing describes that process at length, relying on both dozens of documents that Trump himself liberated and 302s from those involved, including a key White House Office of Records Management official and Mark Meadows. This section describes Meadows’ involvement, which (along with actions taken by a former Trump White House Counsel, probably Pat Philbin) led to the involvement of Biden White House Counsel Jonathan Su, the basis of Trump’s bogus claim that Biden’s White House pushed the investigation into Trump.

A succession of Trump PRA representatives corresponded with NARA without ever resolving any of NARA’s concerns about the boxes of Presidential records that had been identified as missing in January 2021. By the end of June 2021, NARA had still received no update on the boxes, despite repeated inquiries, and it informed the PRA representatives that the Archivist had directed NARA personnel to seek assistance from the Department of Justice (“DOJ”), “which is the necessary recourse when we are unable to obtain the return of improperly removed government records that belong in our custody.” Exhibit B at USA-00383980; see 44 U.S.C. § 2905(a) (providing for the Archivist to request the Attorney General to institute an action for the recovery of records). That message precipitated the involvement of Trump’s former White House Chief of Staff, who engaged the Archivist directly at the end of July. See Exhibit 4 Additional weeks passed with no results, and by the end of August 2021, NARA still had received nothing from Trump or his PRA representatives. Id. Independently, the House of Representatives had requested Presidential records from NARA, further heightening the urgency of NARA obtaining access to the missing boxes. Id. On August 30, the Archivist notified Trump’s former Chief of Staff that he would assume the boxes had been destroyed and would be obligated to report that fact to Congress, DOJ, and the White House. Id. The former Chief of Staff promptly requested a phone call with the Archivist. Id.

[snip]

Fall passes with little progress in retrieving the missing records. In September 2021, one of Trump’s PRA representatives expressed puzzlement over the suggestion that there were 24 boxes missing, asserting that only 12 boxes had been found in Florida. Exhibit 7 at USA00383682, USA-00383684. In an effort to resolve “the dispute over whether there are 12 or 24 boxes,” NARA officials discussed with Su the possibility of convening a meeting with two of Trump’s PRA representatives—the former Chief of Staff and the former Deputy White House Counsel—and “possibly” Trump’s former White House Staff Secretary. Id. at USA-00383682. On October 19, 2021, a call took place among WHORM Official 1, another WHORM employee, Trump’s former Chief of Staff, the former Deputy White House Counsel, and Su about the continued failure to produce Presidential records, but the call did not lead to a resolution. See Exhibit A at USA-00815672. Again, there was no complaint from either of Trump’s PRA representatives about Su’s participation in the call. Later in October, the former Chief of Staff traveled to the Mar-a-Lago Club to meet with Trump for another reason, but while there brought up the missing records to Trump and offered to help look for or review any that were there. Exhibit C at USA-00820510. Trump, however, was not interested in any assistance. Id. On November 21, 2021, another former member of Trump’s Administration traveled to Mar-a-Lago to speak with him about the boxes. Exhibit D at USA-00818227–USA-00818228. That individual warned Trump that he faced possible criminal exposure if he failed to return his records to NARA. Id

[my emphasis, links added]

Exhibit D, cited to support a description of a former Trump official who warned that Trump faced criminal exposure, links to this complete 302, from someone whose potty mouth resembles Eric Herschmann. It describes a bunch of things:

  • How on November 21, 2021, he warned Trump to give the documents back: “Don’t give them a noble reason to indict you, because they will.”
  • How a “total moron” who resembles Boris Epshteyn insinuated himself with Trump with claims of voter fraud and subsequently tried to use something, perhaps claims fed to credulous reporters that he was serving a legal function, to cover for his past activities ( a document Trump himself liberated shows call records between this person resembling Epshteyn and a person resembling Chief of Staff designate Susie Wiles).
  • A February 2022 call in which someone resembling Tom Fitton told Trump he didn’t have to send documents back because of Fitton’s “Clinton Socks” ruling,
  • A prediction that Walt Nauta would be pardoned if he were charged with lying to the FBI.

But it also describes an extended description of someone “unhinged” and “crazy” who first got access to the White House through the Member of Congress he worked for, who started the “declassified everything” claim when it first started appearing in the media, which is when Kash Patel made the claim.

Another dispute — about whether Jay Bratt threatened to retaliate against Stanley Woodward if he didn’t get Walt Nauta to cooperate — includes a long discussion about Kash’s testimony. It revealed how Kash tried to delay compliance with a grand jury subpoena indefinitely by hiring a lawyer already busy defending a January 6 seditionist, and when Kash did first testify, the aspiring FBI Director pled the Fifth repeatedly.

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

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

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

This is the same kind of extended discussion of the delays that Trump and his flunkies created that Goldman claimed, incorrectly, first became available in Volume One of Smith’s report.  And it (plus details of Tim Parlatore’s efforts to stall ongoing searches) has been public since April.

Other disputes provided a bunch more information, including pictures, of where and how Trump stored the documents he withheld, including one of this box, in which Trump was storing a document classified Formerly Restricted (that is, a document pertaining to nuclear weapons), along with nine other documents, underneath a Christmas pillow and some bubble wrap (I annotated the photo to show that the documents charged in Counts 12 through 21 were found in it).

Here are discussions of what was hidden under the bubble wrap.

I tried to put these pictures in context in this post and this post.

A passage in the 193-page 302 transcript from Chamberlain Harris (focusing on how she scanned documents including sensitive White House schedules) describes that the door to the storage closet had only the kind of lock you’d find in a residential bathroom — a pinhole they’d open with a tiny flat screwdriver.

Person 10 [Harris]: They used to unlock it for me, because you could lock it from the inside.

Mr. Thakur: Okay. This is obviously after a lock was placed there, they would unlock it for you?

Person 10: No, this was before.

Mr. Thakur: Okay. So are you talking about a lock to another door, or?

Person 10: It’s a door with a pinhole in it.

Mr. Thakur: A door with a pinhole?

Person 10: Like, I don’t know, a circle doorknob?

SA 41: Kind of like what you would find on residential door inside of a home? So it might have a lock like that one on one side of it then other side, rather than an actual place for a key, it’s sort of like a —

Person 10: Yeah.

SA 41: — very tiny screwdriver?

Person 10: Um-hmm.

SA 51: I see. But that was only on the inside of the door. So you — reasonably couldn’t lock it from the outside unless they used that little pin to reengage the lock from the outside?

Person 10: You would just lock it when you left.

Finally, also in April, we got both the interview transcript and grand jury transcript from Walt Nauta.

In other words, there’s far, far more that got released as part of litigation in the documents case than the January 6 case.

And Dan Goldman, whose job it is to oversee such investigations, seemingly knows about none of that: Not the description of how the aspiring FBI Director stalled the investigation. Not the document claiming that the “declassify everything” claim Kash first made was a lie. And not the description of the back-and-forth with NARA that Goldman says he wants.

It’s all there in the docket. And has been (for the most part) since April.

If you want to know how Democrats failed to make more of a political case against Trump during the election, you can start with the fact that Dan Goldman — one of the Democrats’ most forceful voices on rule of law, a former TV personality, and a member of the House Judiciary Committee — knows almost nothing about what was made public in either of the federal cases against Donald Trump and as a result did little to make a big deal of that before the election.

Share this entry

The Inadequate Declination Discussions in Both Special Counsel Reports

/25 Comments/in , , /by

In a post in November and a podcast appearance with Harry Litman, I argued that the Special Counsel regulations mandating that prosecutors describe declination decisions, as well as prosecution decisions, might produce the most interesting part of Jack Smith’s report.

Closing documentation. At the conclusion of the Special Counsel’s work, he or she shall provide the Attorney General with a confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination decisions reached by the Special Counsel.

After all, Robert Hur wrote a humdinger of a 388-page report that was nothing but declination decisions.

But in my opinion, neither Jack Smith nor David Weiss adequately fulfilled the terms of that mandate.

To be sure, Jack Smith did include several important sections describing declination decisions. As I laid out here, Smith described why prosecutors had not charged Trump with insurrection, the sole charge that could have disqualified him from returning to the presidency. A footnote explained that prosecutors had considered charging Trump under the Anti-Riot Act, but courts have struck down parts of it. The footnote also explained that because prosecutors  “did not develop proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the conspirators specifically agreed to threaten force or intimidation against federal officers,” (presumably including Mike Pence), they did not charge Trump with conspiracy to injure an officer of the United States.

In a separate paragraph, Smith provided an unsatisfying answer about why he didn’t charge any of Trump’s co-conspirators.

Before the Department concluded that this case must be dismissed, the Office had made a preliminary determination that the admissible evidence could justify seeking charges against certain co-conspirators. The Office had also begun to evaluate how to proceed, including whether any potential charged case should be joined with Mr. Trump’s or brought separately. Because the Office reached no final conclusions and did not seek indictments against anyone other than Mr. Trump–the head of the criminal conspiracies and their intended beneficiary–this Report does not elaborate further on the investigation and preliminary assessment of uncharged individuals. This Report should not be read to allege that any particular person other than Mr. Trump committed a crime, nor should it be read to exonerate any particular person.

My suspicion is that the prosecution, which included two prosecutors who dealt with the aftermath of Trump pardoning his way out of criminal exposure in the Russian investigation, recognized it was not worth charging others until such time as Trump couldn’t pardon their silence. That is consistent with the seeming late addition of a Ken Chesebro interview, which seems to reflect his troubled efforts to cooperate in state cases. But if this investigation looked like it did because of Trump’s past success at pardoning his way out of criminal exposure, it would be really useful to explain that.

It would have been useful, too, to point out that the same Speech and Debate protections that created a 16-month delay in obtaining texts from Scott Perry’s phone also made it impossible to charge any of the Members of Congress who facilitated Trump’s coup attempt. Those who don’t understand the breadth of Speech and Debate need to be told that.

So Smith did include some of his declination decisions, but some of those discussions are less than satisfying.

But there are two areas where more might have been useful. For example, for some time, prosecutors investigated whether Trump used funds raised for election integrity on other things, like providing big contracts to people who had remained loyal to him. If Trump defrauded his rubes but for some reason prosecutors couldn’t charge him for it, it would be useful to lay that out. That prong of the investigation is unmentioned in the report, which in many respects appears designed to avoid antagonizing Trump.

There’s a more important discussion that does appear in the report, but which is not treated as a prosecutorial decision. In the section on Litigation Challenges, Smith includes a long discussion titled, “Threats and Intimidation of Witnesses.”

A significant challenge that the Office faced after Mr. Trump’s indictment was his ability and willingness to use his influence and following on social media to target witnesses, courts, and Department employees, which required the Office to engage in time-consuming litigation to protect witnesses from threats and harassment.

Mr. Trump’s resort to intimidation and harassment during the investigation was not new, as demonstrated by his actions during the charged conspiracies. A fundamental component of Mr. Trump’s conduct underlying the charges in the Election Case was his pattern of using social media-at the time, Twitter-to publicly attack and seek to influence state and federal officials, judges, and election workers who refused to support false claims that the election had been stolen or who otherwise resisted complicity in Mr. Trump’s scheme. After Mr. Trump publicly assailed these individuals, threats and harassment from his followers inevitably followed. See ECF No. 57 at 3 (one witness identifying Mr. Trump’s Tweets about him as the cause of specific and graphic threats about his family, and a public official providing testimony that after Mr. Trump’s Tweets, he required additional police protection). In the context of the attack on the Capitol on January 6, Mr. Trump acknowledged that his supporters “listen to [him] like no one else.” 260

The same pattern transpired after Mr. Trump’s indictment in the Election Case. As the D.C. Circuit later found, Mr. Trump “repeatedly attacked those involved in th[e] case through threatening public statements, as well as messaging daggered at likely witnesses and their testimony,” Trump, 88 F.4th at 1010. Those attacks had “real-time, real-world consequences,” exposing “those on the receiving end” to “a torrent of threats and intimidation” and turning their lives “upside down.” Id. at 1011-1012. The day after his arraignment, for example, Mr. Trump posted on the social media application Truth Social, “IF YOU GO AFTER ME, I’M COMING AFTER YOU!” Id. at 998. The next day, “one of his supporters called the district court judge’s chambers and said: ‘Hey you stupid slave n[****]r[.] * * * If Trump doesn’t get elected in 2024, we are coming to kill you, so tread lightly b[***]h. * * * You will be targeted personally, publicly, your family, all of it.'” Id. 26 l Mr. Trump also “took aim at potential witnesses named in the indictment,” id. at 998-999, and “lashed out at government officials closely involved in the criminal proceeding,” as well as members of their families, id. at 1010-1011.

To protect the integrity of the proceedings, on September 5, 2023, the Office filed a motion seeking an order pursuant to the district court’s rules restricting certain out-of-court statements by either party. See ECF No. 57; D.D.C. LCrR 57.7(c). The district court heard argument and granted the Office’s motion, finding that Mr. Trump’s public attacks “pose a significant and immediate risk that (1) witnesses will be intimidated or otherwise unduly influenced by the prospect of being themselves targeted for harassment or threats; and (2) attorneys, public servants, and other court staff will themselves become targets for threats and harassment.” ECF No. 105 at 2. Because no “alternative means” could adequately address these “grave threats to the integrity of these proceedings,” the court prohibited the parties and their counsel from making public statements that “target (1) the Special Counsel prosecuting this case or his staff; (2) defense counsel or their staff; (3) any of this court’s staff or other supporting personnel; or (4) any reasonably foreseeable witness or the substance of their testimony.” Id at 3. The court emphasized, however, that Mr. Trump remained free to make “statements criticizing the government generally, including the current administration or the Department of Justice; statements asserting that [he] is innocent of the charges against him, or that his prosecution is politically motivated; or statements criticizing the campaign platforms or policies of[his] current political rivals.” Id. at 3.

Mr. Trump appealed, and the D.C. Circuit affirmed in large part, finding that Mr. Trump’s attacks on witnesses in this case posed “a significant and imminent threat to individuals’ willingness to participate fully and candidly in the process, to the content of their testimony and evidence, and to the trial’s essential truth-finding function,” with “the undertow generated by such statements” likely to “influence other witnesses” and deter those “not yet publicly identified” out of “fear that, if they come forward, they may well be the next target.” Trump, 88 F.4th at 1012-1013. Likewise, “certain speech about counsel and staff working on the case poses a significant and imminent risk of impeding the adjudication of th[e] case,” since “[m]essages designed to generate alarm and dread; and to trigger extraordinary safety precautions, will necessarily hinder the trial process and slow the administration of justice.” Id at 1014. [snip]

Sure, this was treated as a litigation issue. But, in theory, there were alternative means to prevent Trump from attacking witnesses. When Jan6er Brandon Fellows — like Trump accused of obstruction — made similar threats, but without the big mouthpiece that makes it so dangerous, Trump appointee Trevor McFadden put him in an extended pretrial detention. You were never going to be able to treat Trump like a normal pretrial defendant, but shouldn’t you make that point?

More importantly, witness intimidation is also a crime. It’s the same statute, 18 USC 1512, under which Trump was charged. In fact, when Trump challenged his gag before the DC Circuit, Patricia Millett asked John Sauer where criminal witness tampering ended and the kinds of threatening language he was using began (and she treated the means by which Trump makes threats at length in her opinion upholding much of the gag).

Judge Millett then tries a different tack. She wants to know if Sauer concedes that a trial judge can constitutionally limit a criminal defendant’s speech in any way beyond what’s already limited by criminal laws, like the witness tampering statute. She notes that  the Supreme Court’s conception of even the clear and present danger test is still that it is a balancing test that requires consideration of the weighty constitutional interest in protecting the integrity of a criminal trial as well as the First Amendment interests of the defendant.

Sauer responds that Brown guarantees the defendant “absolute freedom” on core political speech.

“So there is no balance,” says Judge Millett. She adds that calling it “core political speech” begs the question of whether it is in fact political speech or whether it is speech “aimed at derailing or corrupting the criminal justice process.” Sauer responds that Trump’s campaign speech is “inextricably entwined” with freely responding to the entire election interference prosecution.

Trump’s ability and willingness to sic mobs on all his enemies is the core of his conduct, both on January 6, during this litigation, and going forward. And the incoming Solicitor General argued that such threats and intimidation is “core political speech.”

It is the reason he threatens democracy in America.

Yet in discussing his thinking about how to deal with the threat posed by Trump’s threats, Smith didn’t even discuss why Trump could threaten Mike Pence in advance of a trial in which Pence would be expected to testify about how Trump almost got him assassinated without being charged with witness tampering.

With no awareness, Trump’s witness tampering became a litigation challenge, rather than the crime it might be treated as for anyone else.

Which brings me to David Weiss’ report, which is nothing short of pee my pants hysterical. It is riddled with procedural and evidentiary problems, and wild refashionings of the public record. Though I commend Derek Hines for finally ending his practice of fabricating what Hunter Biden’s memoir says, fabrications he relied on repeatedly to convince Judge Noreika there was no selective prosecution and to convince the jury of Hunter’s guilt; I hope to return to this to show that, by abandoning his fabrications, Hines actually proves he didn’t have the evidence to prosecute Hunter he claimed to have.

Much of the report is a “doth protest too much” effort to claim that the investigation wasn’t riddled with political influence. But tellingly and fucking hilariously, all those complaints are directed to Joe Biden, including this accusation:

Politicians who attack the decisions of career prosecutors as politically motivated when they disagree with the outcome of a case undermine the public’s confidence in our criminal justice system.

Weiss blames Joe Biden for undermining the public’s confidence in our criminal justice system even though his discussions of Hunter Biden’s claims of selective prosecution, Weiss made no mention of the very specific references Hunter made to Trump’s interventions in the case, including Trump’s public attack on the outcome of the original plea deal that contributed, according to Weiss’ own sworn testimony, to threats that led him to worry for the safety of his family.

“Wow! The corrupt Biden DOJ just cleared up hundreds of years of criminal liability by giving Hunter Biden a mere ‘traffic ticket.’ Our system is BROKEN!”67

“A ‘SWEETHEART’ DEAL FOR HUNTER (AND JOE), AS THEY CONTINUE THEIR QUEST TO ‘GET’ TRUMP, JOE’S POLITICAL OPPONENT. WE ARE NOW A THIRD WORLD COUNTRY!”68

“The Hunter/Joe Biden settlement is a massive COVERUP & FULL SCALE ELECTION INTERFERENCE ‘SCAM’ THE LIKES OF WHICH HAS NEVER BEEN SEEN IN OUR COUNTRY BEFORE. A ‘TRAFFIC TICKET,’ & JOE IS ALL CLEANED UP & READY TO GO INTO THE 2024 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. . . .” 69

[snip]

“Weiss is a COWARD, a smaller version of Bill Barr, who never had the courage to do what everyone knows should have been done. He gave out a traffic ticket instead of a death sentence. . . . ”

After spending much of his report attacking Joe Biden, Weiss claimed, “when politicians expressed opinions about my conduct, I ignored them because they were irrelevant.”

I hope to lay out all the other hilarity before such time as Weiss gets dragged before Congress.

Weiss’ charging decisions have flaws. My favorite is how, after dutifully laying out that Principles of Federal Prosecution require considering whether the suspect “is subject to effective prosecution in another jurisdiction,”

Even when a prosecutor determines that the person has committed a federal offense and that the evidence is sufficient to obtain a conviction, the Principles require that he also assess whether three other factors exist that may counsel against prosecution:

[snip]

(2) the person is subject to effective prosecution in another jurisdiction; or

Weiss then ignores the fact that Hunter was subject to charges in Delaware, which declined to prosecute.

It’s in the declinations, though, where David Weiss proves he’s falsely disclaiming selective prosecution. Several times, Weiss plays coy rather than explaining why he didn’t charge things, like tax crimes associated with 2014 and 2015, even though he stated under oath in November 2023 that he would have the “opportunity in the submission of a report to address such matters.”

19 26 U.S.C. § 6103(a) prohibits the disclosure of “return information,” which includes information disclosing “whether the taxpayer’s return was, is being, or will be examined or subject to other investigation or processing.” Id. § 6103(b)(2)(A). Accordingly, I cannot publicly discuss any other tax years that may have been under investigation. See Snider u. United States, 468 F.3d 500, 508 (8th Cir. 2006).

I assume Biden is happy that Weiss didn’t lay out how Weiss was still pursuing Kevin Morris’ support for Hunter even after the guilty verdicts (but as I’ll show one of his temporal games involves just that),

President Biden has chosen to issue a “Full and Unconditional Pardon” for Mr. Biden covering “those offenses against the United States which he has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 1, 2014 through December 1, 2024, including but not limited to all offenses charged or prosecuted (including any that have resulted in convictions) by Special Counsel David C. Weiss in Docket No. 1:23-cr-00061-MN in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware and Docket No. 2:23-CR-00599-MCS-1 in the United States District Court for the Central District of California.” 152 Accordingly, I cannot make any additional charging decisions as to Mr. Biden’s conduct during that time period. It would be inappropriate to discuss whether additional charges are warranted.

But Weiss didn’t have the integrity, as Jack Smith did, to admonish, “This Report should not be read to allege that any particular person other than Mr. Trump committed a crime, nor should it be read to exonerate any particular person.” He lets the rabid mobs believe they are.

It’s in how Weiss buries his own selective prosecution where his declinations are most corrupt. In his letter conveying the report to Merrick Garland, he describes that he is adhering to Department policy by not identifying uncharged third parties.

Therefore, in drafting this report, I was mindful of Department policies that caution restraint when publicly revealing information about uncharged third parties. Specifically, with respect to “public filings and proceedings,” Justice Manual § 9-27.760 provides that prosecutors “should remain sensitive to the privacy and reputation interests of uncharged parties,” and that it is generally “not appropriate to identify . . . a party unless that party has been publicly charged with the misconduct at issue.” 7 The Justice Manual also sets forth factors to guide the disclosure of information about uncharged individuals, such as their privacy, safety, and reputational interests; the potential effect of any statements on ongoing criminal investigations or prosecutions; whether public disclosure may advance significant law enforcement interests; and other legitimate and compelling governmental interests.

As a result, David Weiss doesn’t explain why he prosecuted Hunter Biden for lying on a gun form and he prosecuted Biden nut Alexander Smirnov for lying to his FBI handler in an attempt to frame Joe Biden, but he didn’t prosecute anyone from the gun store who allegedly engaged in the same kind of conduct that Hunter Biden and Alexander Smirnov did: make a false statement on a gun form and also coordinate a story in an effort to … create a political attack on Joe Biden during an election year.

The reasonable reasons why Weiss decided to immunize Ron Palimere yet charge Hunter all debunk much of the rest of his report, specifically with regards to deciding there was plenty of evidence to charge a gun crime in 2023, before entering into the failed plea deal. Either prosecutors knew Palimere had doctored the form when Weiss made that supposed prosecutorial decision, or (as he implied in court filings) he only discovered it when Hunter’s lawyers raised it, and he gave Palimere immunity so he could still win conviction against Hunter, in which case he never looked at the evidence before charging Hunter (which is consistent with virtually every other fact in the case).

Still, it’s selective prosecution. Prosecute the gun crime that Republicans — including Palimere — demanded be prosecuted, but immunize Palimere, who testified to treating other VIP customers similarly.

And Smith demonstrates that, contra Weiss, one can adhere to Justice Manual requirements yet still admit there was another suspected crime. In his section explaining why he didn’t charge Trump’s co-conspirators, he revealed that he did refer a subject of the investigation to another US Attorneys office.

In addition, the Office referred to a United States Attorney’s Office for further investigation evidence that an investigative subject may have committed unrelated crimes.

Weiss could have used a similar approach to describe that he immunized someone — someone who would pose an ongoing risk to the public if he continues to engage in the same behavior — for effectively the same crime for which he prosecuted Hunter Biden.

But that would give up his entire game.

Whatever else these Special Counsel reports reveal about our justice system, the blind spots both Special Counsels use to coddle Trump confirm that Special Counsels will never be able to hold Trump accountable for the existential threat he poses to democracy.

Share this entry

What Jack Smith Didn’t Say about the January 6 Investigation

/19 Comments/in , , /by

As part of Kyle Cheney and Josh Gerstein’s summary of the Jack Smith report, they argued that “Smith [came] to Garland’s defense” regarding his conduct of the January 6 investigation before Smith was appointed, pointing to Smith’s review of certain legal fights, to include the Executive Privilege fight.

Smith comes to Garland’s defense

A common sentiment on the left is that Garland was too deferential to Trump after Joe Biden took office and failed to unleash the full might of the department on the former president for nearly two years. The delay, critics say, made it much more difficult for Smith — once he was appointed in November 2022 — to bring Trump to trial before the 2024 election.

But Smith’s report emphasized that the Justice Department was aggressively investigating leads related to Trump long before the special counsel’s tenure began. Litigation tactics by Trump and his allies, Smith argued, were the key factors that slowed the process to a crawl.

For example, Twitter, newly purchased by Elon Musk, delayed Smith’s effort to access Trump’s account data for weeks despite a court order that ultimately resulted in the company being held in contempt and fined $350,000.

It took Smith more than a year to obtain text messages between Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.) and Trump DOJ official Jeffrey Clark. And the department spent months fighting to access communications of John Eastman, a lawyer who helped devise Trump’s last-ditch efforts to remain in power.

The most protracted battles of all stemmed from Trump’s “broad invocation of executive privilege to try to prevent witnesses from providing evidence,” Smith wrote. It took months of secretive legal proceedings to secure testimony from Trump White House aides such as Mark Meadows, Dan Scavino and Pat Cipollone. Former Vice President Mike Pence also resisted testifying until a court ordered him to reveal some — but not all — details about his interactions with Trump. Smith noted that judges broadly rejected Trump’s privilege claims, with one holding that he was engaged in an “obvious” effort to delay the investigation.

That led to Garland whingers like Ryan Goodman to imagine he knows better than Cheney and Gerstein, who between them have been among the most aggressive in liberating and reporting on documentation pertaining to the investigation. Goodman pointed to a misleading passage in Smith’s report which dates the Executive Privilege fight to August 2022, which describes when “executive privilege litigation” occurred (my emphasis).

Most of the executive privilege litigation in this case took place in five sealed proceedings between August 2022 and March 2023 concerning the testimony of fourteen witnesses in total. See Media Access ECF No. 32 (notice attaching district court orders and memorandum opinions). In August 2022, before the Special Counsel was appointed, the Government began to seek evidence from two former Executive Branch employees of Mr. Trump’s, including by issuing subpoenas for testimony before the grand jury.

Goodman complained that it took “nineteen months” after January 6 before DOJ “‘began to seek’ former USG officials testimony.”

“In August 2022, before the Special Counsel was appointed, the Government began to seek evidence from two former Executive Branch employees of Mr. Trump’s.” Nineteen months after Jan. 6: DOJ “began to seek” former USG officials testimony.

For added context: August 2022 is after the House Select Committee had already completed its summer 2022 public hearings.

Other data show the slow start.

George Conway, piggybacking off Goodman’s error, claimed this started “*after* the House Jan. 6 Committee had held eight of its nine televised evidentiary hearings.”

Only, Goodman was misreading the Smith report and in the process demonstrating that he had not read the underlying documents.

The first opinion listed in Jack Smith’s appendix on the Executive Privilege fight, 22-gj-25, describes that the fight actually started in June, when prosecutors got approval to disclose grand jury materials and used it to write subpoenas, almost certainly sent to Marc Short and Greg Jacob. That passage makes clear that prosecutors got the White House Counsel to waive Executive Privilege (thereby adhering to the DOJ contacts policy), but Trump stalled for several weeks, and then got the witnesses’ attorneys to start asserting privilege.

So, contrary to Conway’s mistaken claim, this started no later than the first televised January 6 Committee hearing on June 9 (and probably, because prosecutors had already gotten approval to share grand jury information, even before that one).

Smith’s representation of these legal fights pertained to “litigation” — the actual legal filings — and only to the extent they continued into his own work. That’s evident from his appendix, which excludes some known legal fights. Indeed, Cheney and Gerstein actually themselves overstate what Smith includes in his report: While he included the relevant docket in his appendix, Smith barely addressed the 16-month fight (starting in August 2022) over the content in Scott Perry’s phone in the text of his report (his Speech and Debate discussion mostly pertained to Mike Pence’s fight in early 2023). And Cheney and Gerstein suggest that Smith addressed the fight over content from John Eastman, which Smith did not (nor did he include those filings in the report). That fight began sometime before May 26, 2022, by which point Beryl Howell had had hearings on a filter protocol for email accounts including Eastman and others (Cheney wrote more about that fight here).

To be clear: as far as is known, Goodman is only off by two months in his claim that DOJ did not try to speak to White House personnel until August 2022; it was June. But both he and Conway are wrong that the J6C hearings preceded this fight. You can certainly believe, as Goodman obviously does, that the best way to conduct the investigation was to start with White House personnel who would and did loop in Trump (and, as it happened, hasten the time he declared his candidacy), rather than starting with Co-Conspirator #1 and then #2, as DOJ proceeded. Goodman had no way of knowing when he started this complaint that SCOTUS would throw out much of the testimony from White House officials anyway, but he does now. If we’re engaging in counterfactuals, we can say with some confidence that approach would have been stymied even more effectively by SCOTUS.

Goodman also complained today that DOJ pursued the money trail and suspected communications with the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers immediately, both of which theories had solid evidence (likely arising from the mishandled Brandon Straka prosecution and the Owen Shroyer arrest) behind them. The money trail ended up being a dry hole; the comms angle ended up being inconclusive. But that’s the kind of thing Goodman and his ilk were demanding in real time — multiple prongs to pursue the case. Follow the money!

Instead, prosecutors’ most productive 2021 efforts appears to be getting an SDNY judge to allow DOJ to use the existing Special Master review for phones seized from Rudy Giuliani in April 2021 to prioritize obtaining the January 6 content. DOJ started with Co-Conspirator #1, and did so in a way that Trump had limited ability to obstruct. And from there, they seized one after another phone: John Eastman and Jeffrey Clark in June 2022, Scott Perry in August 2022, Boris Epshteyn and Mike Roman in September 2022, all of which would have had delays (not reflected in Jack Smith’s report because none of those have been unsealed) because of attorney-client, Speech and Debate, or technical exploitation issues, yet all of which would have been necessary given their reliance on encrypted apps. (This post argues that Smith likely didn’t get the content of Roman and Epshteyn’s phones until after he first indicted Trump.) You were never going to avoid getting the co-conspirator phones, because this coup was planned on encrypted apps and all of them fought disclosure. It appears that DOJ opportunistically seized the first of those on the first day there was a confirmed DAG to approve doing so. It is also clear that that wasn’t enough.

But if you’re going to make these complaints about what you read in Jack Smith’s report, you should note what else Smith said. The January 6 Committee work “comprised a small part of the Office’s investigative record,” but before Smith could use anything from J6C, prosecutors first had to “develop[] or verif[y those facts] through independent interviews and other investigative steps.”

The Office’s investigation included consideration of the report issued on December 22, 2022, by the U.S. House of Representatives’ Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol, as well as certain materials received from the Committee. Those materials comprised a small part of the Office’s investigative record, and any facts on which the Office relied to make a prosecution decision were developed or verified through independent interviews and other investigative steps. During the prosecution of the Election Case, Mr. Trump alleged that the Select Committee and Special Counsel’s Office were one and the same and sought additional discovery about the Select Committee’s work. The district court rejected the claim. See ECF No. 263 at 47 (concluding that Mr. Trump has “not supplied an adequate basis to consider the January 6 Select Committee part of the prosecution team”). Regardless, the Office provided or otherwise made available to Mr. Trump in discovery all materials received from the Select Committee. See ECF No. 263 at 47 (“the Government states that it has already produced all the records it received from the Committee”).

We know from the immunity appendix that Jack Smith had productive follow-up interviews with Bill Barr, Ronna McDaniel, and Jason Miller, among others, to say nothing about more extensive cooperation with Eric Herschmann and Mike Pence’s privilege-waived interview(s).

But validating what J6C did could not start until J6C released transcripts in December 2022, after a 3-7 month delay.

The timeline below reflects the delay, from April to December 2022, in getting J6C transcripts (in part for good reasons; once DOJ got them, they were going to have to share with all January 6 defendants). The important delay, however, came in June, when prosecutors realized they had pending events, most obviously the Proud Boys trial, which for discovery reasons and to validate their most important cooperating witness, Jeremy Bertino, they needed to delay (and did, from August to December 2022) until those transcripts were released. At that point they believed those transcripts would come out in early September, which is what drove their trial schedule; but they didn’t come out until December.

This post and this post describes the predictable damage that that delay did to the Proud Boys case (which guilty verdict would be necessary to implicate Trump in insurrection). This post describes how prosecutors were able to use J6C transcripts that were done by June 2022 to identify the single most direct ask from Trump via Rudy Giuliani to overturn votes (one which likely relied on having exploited Rudy’s phone). Again, that clarification was delayed by 6 months. If you want to complain about delays — and there definitely appears to have been a delay from February to May 2022 when (per that famous WaPo story) FBI resisted that prong of the investigation — then you need to complain as well about the J6C delay of the same length.

But it’s not clear any of this would matter. SCOTUS had the ability, which they exercised, to stall all of this; had Trump lost, SCOTUS still would have gotten at least a second chance to weigh in before trial. And unless Smith superseded to add insurrection charges, Trump still would not be disqualified from running for office.

Barring Mitch McConnell or John Roberts doing the right thing, this battle was lost politically. And no amount of second guessing strategic decisions that ended up being auspicious given SCOTUS’ subsequent rewriting of the Constitution can change that. Indeed, the second guessing distracts from effective efforts to minimize Trump’s damage going forward.

Update: I’ve changed the language regarding prosecutors’ search of comms showing ties between the militias and Trump. I’ve added the Oath Keepers, whose ties to Stone were a subject of the investigation even before Garland was confirmed. I’ve deemed the comms angle inconclusive rather than a dry hole. Roger Stone was ultimately implicated in the Proud Boys’ obstruction of the vote certification via his actions at a January 3 rally in Florida (though not via the Proud Boy leaders). In December 2023, prosecutors took steps to more concretely lay out how Trump had sparked Proud Boy organizing.

Timeline

January 4, 2021: DC authorities seize Enrique Tarrio’s phone

January 25, 2021: Stop the Steal VIP Brandon Straka arrested; DOJ IG opens probe into Jeff Clark and others

February 17, 2021: First allegedly cooperative interview with Straka (Straka ultimately provided details on Ali Alexander’s Stop the Steal list, among other things, but the FBI almost certainly mishandled the entire Straka case, including by not probing his role at TCF Center in Michigan)

March 5, 2021: Second allegedly cooperative interview with Straka

March 11, 2021: Merrick Garland sworn in; in first meeting with investigators he encourages them to follow suspected money laundering behind payment for the rally

March 17, 2021: DOJ makes first tie between Oath Keepers investigation and Roger Stone

April 21, 2021 (Lisa Monaco’s first day on the job): DOJ obtains warrant targeting Rudy Giuliani’s cell phones in Ukraine investigation

April 28, 2021: DOJ seizes multiple devices from Rudy, including the phone he used leading up to January 6

June 23, 2021: First Oath Keeper who interacted with Stone enters into cooperation agreement

August 19, 2021: Alex Jones sidekick Owen Shroyer, who participated in Friends of Stone list and served as a communication hub between Proud Boys and others, arrested

September 2021: DOJ subpoenas records from Sidney Powell grift

September 3, 2021: SDNY makes an ultimately successful bid to review all content on Rudy’s devices for privilege (making such content immediately available if and when DOJ obtains January 6 warrant targeting Rudy)

Fall 2021: Thomas Windom appointed to form fake elector team

October 28, 2021: Merrick Garland tells Sheldon Whitehouse DOJ is following the money of January 6

November 2, 2021: Special Master Barbara Jones releases first tranche of materials (through date of seizure in April 2021) from Rudy’s phones, including device containing many of Rudy’s January 6 communications

November 22, 2021: Trump appointee Carl Nichols asks James Pearce whether 18 USC 1512(c)(2) might be applied to someone like Trump (he would go on to issue an outlier opinion rejecting the application)

December 2021: NARA and Mark Meadows begin process of completing his record of PRA-covered communications

December 10, 2021: Judge Dabney Friedrich (a Trump appointee) upholds application of 18 USC 1512(c)(2) to January 6

January 5, 2022: Merrick Garland reiterates that DOJ is investigating the financial side of January 6

Mid-January 2022: DOJ finally obtains contents of Tarrio’s phone

January 19, 2022: Jones releases remaining content from Rudy’s phones; SCOTUS declines to review DC Circuit rejection of Trump’s Executive Privilege claims with respect to January 6 subpoenas

January 25, 2022: Lisa Monaco confirms DOJ is investigating fake electors plot

January 31, 2022: DOJ opens grand jury investigation

February 18, 2022: In civil cases, Judge Amit Mehta rules it plausible that Trump and militias conspired to obstruct vote certification, as well that he aided and abetted assaults and also that it is plausible Trump used incitement not protected by the First Amendment

March 2, 2022: Oath Keeper in charge of Stone security on January 6, Joshua James, enters into cooperation agreement

March 7, 2022: Carl Nichols first requires implication of documentary evidence for 18 USC 1512(c)(2)

March 28, 2022: Judge David Carter issues crime-fraud ruling covering John Eastman’s communications with and on behalf of Trump

April 13, 2022: After two month stall, FBI finally approves their side of investigation

Probable April 2022 (based on how long it took for filter protocols elsewhere): Warrant for Jeffrey Clark, John Eastman, Ken Klukowski, and one non-lawyer emails

April 2022: DOJ requests transcripts from J6C

May 2022: DOJ subpoenas all NARA records provided to J6C

May 26, 2022: Subpoenas for fake electors plot including Rudy, John Eastman, Boris Epshteyn, Bernie Kerik, and Jenna Ellis, among others; filter protocol for email accounts of Jeffrey Clark, John Eastman, Ken Klukowski, and one non-lawyer

June 6, 2022: DOJ charges Proud Boy leaders with seditious conspiracy

June 9, 2022: In Proud Boys hearing, prosecutors say they expect to get J6C transcripts in September

June 15, 2022: Subpoena to Marc Short and Greg Jacob; letter to J6C renewing request for transcripts

June 16, 2022: DOJ agrees to delay Proud Boys trial from August 9 to December 12 because of the transcripts

June 21, 2022: Second set of fake electors subpoenas, adding Mike Roman and others, warrants for NV GOP officials and GA official

June 22, 2022: DOJ searches Jeffrey Clark’s home and seizes his phone

June 23, 2022: DOJ completes exploitation (but not scoping) of Shroyer’s phone;

June 24, 2022: Ali Alexander grand jury appearance; Warrant approved for Clark Gmail account

June 27, 2022: Then Chief Judge Beryl Howell permits prosecutors to obtain emails between Scott Perry and Clark and Eastman

June 28, 2022: DOJ seizes John Eastman’s phone

July 22, 2022: Marc Short appears before grand jury

August 9, 2022: DOJ seizes Scott Perry’s phone

August 17, 2022: Filter team notifies Clark of auto-biography dispute

August 2022: Mark Meadows provides previously withheld PRA covered materials to NARA

Early September, 2022: Pre-election legal process includes seizure of Boris Epshteyn and Mike Roman’s phones, subpoenas to key aides including Dan Scavino, Bernie Kerik, Stephen Miller, Mark Meadows, subpoenas pertaining to Trump’s PAC spending

September 27, 2022: Howell approves sharing of memoir

October 13, 2022: Marc Short and Greg Jacob make second, privilege-waived grand jury appearance

November 18, 2022: Merrick Garland appoints Jack Smith

December 2, 2022: Pats Cipollone and Philbin make second, privilege-waived grand jury appearance

~December 7, 2022: J6C provides at least some transcripts to DOJ (which are turned over to Proud Boys the following day)

December 21, 2022: J6C publicly releases transcripts promised in September

December 2022: Rudy Giuliani subpoena asks for information on his payment

January 17, 2023: Warrant for Trump’s Xitter account

February 9, 2023: Mike Pence subpoenaed; Xitter complies with Trump warrant

February 23, 2023: DC Circuit hears Scott Perry’s challenge to order providing access to his phone content

March 9, 2023: Judge Kollar-Kotelly orders Peter Navarro to turn over PRA-covered contents from Proton Mail account

March 28, 2023: Chief Judge Jeb Boasberg rules Mike Pence must testify (though protects some areas on Speech and Debate grounds)

April 4, 2023: DC Circuit declines to stay Beryl Howell ruling ordering testimony from Mark Meadows and others

April 7, 2023: DC Circuit upholds 1512(c)(2)

April 27, 2023: Mike Pence testifies before grand jury

August 1, 2023: Jack Smith indicts Trump

December 1, 2023: DC Circuit issues Blassingame and Tanya Chutkan rules against Trump on immunity

December 11, 2023: Jack Smith asks SCOTUS to expedite appeal

December 13, 2023: SCOTUS grants cert to Fischer’s 1512(c)(2) appeal

December 19, 2023: Boasberg orders Perry to turn over non-Speech and Debate privileged comms

December 2023 to August 7, 2024: SCOTUS delays January 6 case

January 9, 2024: DC Circuit argument

February 6, 2024: DC Circuit Immunity decision

May 2024: Original trial date

June 28, 2024: SCOTUS narrows application of 18 USC 1512(c)(2)

July 1, 2024: SCOTUS immunity decision

August 7, 2024: Chutkan receives mandate from immunity decision

August 27, 2024: Jack Smith supersedes Trump to accommodate SCOTUS immunity and obstruction rulings

January 7, 2025: Jack Smith report

Share this entry

Calvinball

/43 Comments/in , , , /by

Yesterday at 7:39PM, the 11th Circuit denied Walt Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira’s bid to enjoin the Jack Smith report. But the unsigned order did not tell Aileen Cannon to fuck off. Instead, it invited DOJ to appeal her decision.

ORDER:

Appellees’ “Emergency Motion for Injunction with Relief Requested by January 10, 2025” is DENIED.

To the extent that Appellant seeks relief from the district court’s January 7, 2025, order temporarily enjoining Appellant, Appellant may file a notice of appeal from that order.

DAVID J. SMITH Clerk of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

ENTERED FOR THE COURT – BY DIRECTION

DOJ did appeal; their appeal hit Judge Cannon’s docket around 11:04PM.

NOTICE OF APPEAL by USA as to Donald J. Trump, Waltine Nauta, Carlos De Oliveira Re: 682 Order. Filing fee $ 605.00. USA/FPD Filer – No Filing Fee Required.

Just after midnight, DOJ filed a notice of appeal to the existing 11th Circuit docket.

Earlier this evening, January 9, this Court denied defendants’ emergency motion to enjoin the Attorney General from publicly releasing any portion of the Final Report of the Special Counsel. The Court further indicated that, “[t]o the extent that Appellant seeks relief from the district court’s January 7, 2025, order temporarily enjoining Appellant, Appellant may file a notice of appeal from that order.”

We write to notify the Court that the United States has tonight filed a notice of appeal from the district court’s order of January 7, 2025. See Dkt 686. As the Court knows, that order temporarily enjoined the Department of Justice, the Attorney General, the Special Counsel, and others from releasing or sharing the Special Counsel’s Final Report “outside the Department of Justice” pending this Court’s ruling on defendants’ emergency motion. Dkt. 682 at 2. The district court specified that this prohibition would “remain[] in effect until three days after” this Court’s resolution of defendants’ motion in this Court. Id

[snip]

Given the unusual exigencies of this case, as illustrated by the emergency motions practice in both the district court and this Court, the United States respectfully renews its request that this Court promptly vacate the district court’s temporary injunction.1

1 The government’s notice of appeal, filed tonight, squarely invokes this Court’s appellate jurisdiction. As soon as the new appeal is docketed in this Court, the United States intends to move to have that appeal consolidated with this one. To the extent there is any doubt concerning the Court’s authority to review the temporary injunction, furthermore, we respectfully request that the Court construe our appeal as a petition for a writ of mandamus. See Suarez-Valdez v. Shearson Leahman/American Express, Inc., 858 F.2d 648, 649 (11th Cir. 1988) (holding that appeal can be construed as a petition for mandamus if the Court harbors doubts as to its appellate jurisdiction).

They renewed their request to tell Cannon to fuck off, and asked them to treat this as a writ of mandamus in the meantime.

Because the 11th Circuit order is unsigned, it’s really difficult to understand what whatever judges involved intend by this muddle — besides giving Nauta and De Oliveira a shot at appealing to SCOTUS on the very narrowed question before the 11th Circuit: whether they can prohibit Merrick Garland from doing anything given it will cause them no harm.

By inviting DOJ to appeal, they have squarely invoked the 11th Circuit’s appellate jurisdiction, meaning Cannon should be barred from meddling any more (not like that ever stopped her).

And if SCOTUS does nothing before 7:39PM on Sunday, then Garland can do what he says he wants: release the January 6 report and share the documents report with the Chairs and Ranking members of the Judiciary Committees.

But if DOJ files their appeal, then the 11th Circuit can weigh in on Cannon’s far more expansive demands.

There are at least hints here that DOJ is going to take steps to share the reports one way or another.

Until then, we’re waiting to learn how this game of Calvinball will turn out.

Update: Here’s DOJ’s motion to reverse Aileen Cannon.

Share this entry