The WSJ and Donald Trump are telling different versions of the genesis of the story on Trump’s birthday letter to Jeffrey Epstein. But both are hiding the timeline of how the story came together.

As Trump’s “Statement of Facts” in his frivolous lawsuit claims, Joe Palazzolo sent Karoline Leavitt an email alerting her WSJ was going to publish.

12. On July 15, 2025, Palazzolo sent an email to White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt advising of Dow Jones’ intent to publish an article which discussed a purported letter sent by President Trump to Epstein for Epstein’s fiftieth birthday.

WSJ says that one or both of them actually interviewed Trump during the evening on July 15 (it doesn’t describe the circumstances of the interview), and in that interview the President told [the Journal] he was going to sue.

In an interview with the Journal on Tuesday evening, Trump denied writing the letter or drawing the picture. “This is not me. This is a fake thing. It’s a fake Wall Street Journal story,” he said.

“I never wrote a picture in my life. I don’t draw pictures of women,” he said. “It’s not my language. It’s not my words.”

He told the Journal he was preparing to file a lawsuit if it published an article. “I’m gonna sue The Wall Street Journal just like I sued everyone else,” he said. [my emphasis]

In a Truth Social post published shortly after the story, Trump claimed (using the passive voice) that Murdoch “personally, [was] warned directly by President Donald J. Trump” and that Karoline Leavitt warned Emma Tucker.

The Wall Street Journal, and Rupert Murdoch, personally, were warned directly by President Donald J. Trump that the supposed letter they printed by President Trump to Epstein was a FAKE and, if they print it, they will be sued. Mr. Murdoch stated that he would take care of it but, obviously, did not have the power to do so. The Editor of The Wall Street Journal, Emma Tucker, was told directly by Karoline Leavitt, and by President Trump, that the letter was a FAKE, but Emma Tucker didn’t want to hear that.

None of those conversations appear in the lawsuit (nor is Tucker included in the suit, though CEO Robert Thomson, whom Trump claims was also “put on notice” is). It says that, seemingly in response to  in response to Palazzolo’s email and “that same afternoon,” some unnamed counsel (Alejandro Brito, who filed the suit? someone at the White House? he doesn’t say) sent an email warning that the “claim[] that President Trump authored the purported letter … was false.”

13. That same afternoon, counsel for President Trump sent an email to Defendants advising that the intended article was false in claiming that President Trump authored the purported letter, which he did not, and further warned Dow Jones to cease and desist from publishing, disseminating, or otherwise distributing such information, because it was false and defamatory.

14. None of the Defendants responded to the email. [my emphasis]

Trump doesn’t quote this email. But the claim the email refutes — that Trump “authored” the email — is not what the story says at all. It says this:

[Ghislaine Maxwell] turned to Epstein’s family and friends [for birthday emails]. One of them was Donald Trump.

[snip]

The letter [bears] Trump’s name

[snip]

It isn’t clear how the letter with Trump’s signature was prepared.

A non-existent claim that Trump authored the email is by no means the only thing in the lawsuit Trump makes up.

Mind you, this lawsuit, like the ones against CBS and ABC (the others that Trump boasted about having sued), is only ostensibly about factual claims. It’s really about power. As he said in a Truth Social post after filing the lawsuit, this is about “[holding] to account.”

We have proudly held to account ABC and George [Stephanopoulos], CBS and 60 Minutes, The Fake Pulitzer Prizes, and many others who deal in, and push, disgusting LIES, and even FRAUD, to the American People.

I have noted that Trump may be less interested in threatening News Corp with regulatory consequences than ABC and CBS; after all, he relies on the dominance of the Fox News bubble. But unless we’re misunderstanding this lawsuit (and we may well be), his goal is to force Rupert Murdoch to sit for a deposition or, in Murdoch’s attempt attempt to avoid that, to extort millions of dollars as tribute.

But to understand whether that would ever happen, it would help to know some more background that either side is revealing. Just as one example, was early reporting on this story the reason why Trump so feebly asked “Are you still talking about Jeffrey Epstein” on July 8, a full week before the Tuesday exchanges about the truth of the story.

WSJ takes credit for the panic Trump expressed on July 16 — the day when, we now know, he knew the story was coming but we only knew rumors.

Earlier this week, after the Journal sought comment from the president about the letter, Trump told reporters at the White House that he believed some Epstein files were “made up” by former Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden and former FBI Director James Comey.

He said that releasing any more Epstein files would be up to Attorney General Pam Bondi. “Whatever she thinks is credible, she should release,” Trump said.

But they don’t take credit for the very similar panic Trump expressed on July 12, the first time he attempted to slot the Epstein scandal in next to other things he falsely claims are hoaxes.

15. Instead, on July 17, 2025, Defendants published, or caused the publishing of, the article authored by Defendants Safdar and Palazzolo titled “Jeffrey Epstein’s Friends Sent Him Bawdy Letters for a 50th Birthday Album. One was from Donald Trump” (the “Article”).

Something put Trump entirely off his game before July 8 and it’s not yet clear whether he has resumed it with Tulsi’s conspiracy theories or not.

It’s not clear whether this story spooked him, or this story came about by the circumstances that spooked him a few weeks earlier (though it is clear that a story like this would take some time to fact check).

It’s not even clear whether Trump has a Jeffrey Epstein problem, or a far more pressing Ghislaine Maxwell problem.

Update: Ben Wittes’ thoughts about why Trump might be suing mirror my own. But as I said, I think the obvious answers may not be the correct ones.

A second possibility is that the story is true, but that Trump thinks—like Wilde and Hiss did—that it can’t be proven true. So he thinks he can use the litigation to intimidate the press and raise doubts about the truth of the allegations. This was a dangerous move for Wilde and Hiss, and it’s a dangerous move for Trump too. The discovery process never flatters a man like Trump; there are a lot of people who know things about his relationship with Epstein; and there are undoubtedly other documents out there as well that reflect on it. Creating a formal legal process in which Trump has to provide materials to an opposing litigant and answer questions about those materials is a profoundly risky game.

Possibility number three—which I suspect is the most likely one—is that the story is true and the litigation is just for show. Trump knows he can’t afford discovery. He also knows his suit has no merit. So while he gets a news splash out of filing the lawsuit, he will then—as he did with the Des Moines Register poll suit—quietly drop it sometime down the road, before the discovery can actually do him any harm. This way, he gets much of the intimidation benefit of the suit. He costs News Corp. some money. But he doesn’t put much at risk.

A final possibility is that Trump hasn’t really considered the risks at all; he’s just rage-suing. Rage-suing is somewhat like rage-tweeting, except that it involves lawyers. With rage-tweeting, public relations people and policy folks clean up the damage after the fact. In the case of rage-suing, lawyers do so—assuming they can. If this is what’s going on here, Trump could dig himself into a real hole. He could get a judge who doesn’t look kindly on this sort of thing. He could end up having to turn over a lot of documents. He could end up having to testify under oath, the very thing that got Clinton into trouble.

As I’ve mentioned, Todd Blanche was in such a rush to ask a judge to unseal Jeffrey Epstein grand jury files that he didn’t update his SDNY filing profile first. As a result, his request to unseal grand jury records was filed under the identity he had when formally serving as Donald Trump’s defense attorney: Todd Blanche, Blanche Law, a firm set up exclusively to serve Trump.

In his request to unseal the files, Blanche waves away the concern that unsealing these files should wait until Ghislaine Maxwell’s appeal has been exhausted.

While the Government recognizes that Maxwell’s case is currently pending before the Supreme Court on a petition for a writ of certiorari, it nonetheless moves this Court for relief due to the intense public scrutiny into this matter.

As Josh Gerstein noted, in a filing submitted in a FOIA lawsuit last year, Maurene Comey described at great length the risks posed by releasing files before Maxwell’s appeals are exhausted.

12. As noted above, the Maxwell criminal prosecution is still pending on appeal. If the Second Circuit grants Maxwell the relief she seeks, there could be a new trial. Therefore, public disclosure of the FBI’s records relating to the investigation and prosecution of Epstein that were withheld in full or in part under Exemption 7(A) could reasonably be expected to interfere with the pending prosecution of Maxwell.

[snip]

14. Public disclosure of the first category of records, identified in the First Seidel Declaration as Evidentiary/Investigative Materials, could reasonably be expected to interfere with the pending prosecution of Maxwell. As noted in paragraphs 61 through 63 of the First Seidel Declaration, this first category includes copies of records or evidence, analysis of that evidence, and derivative communications summarizing or otherwise referencing evidence. Those records or evidence include, among other things: business records (for example, phone records, travel records, financial records, and shipping records) gathered during criminal investigations, including through the service of grand jury subpoenas, and analysis of those records; documents and evidence provided by witnesses to law enforcement; documents regarding witness background information (for example, criminal history records, medical records, employment records, social media records, and educational records); reports, notes, or transcripts of witness statements; and communications with and about witnesses. The documents contained in this category include confidential witness statements from dozens of witnesses, and the discussion of evidence among members of law enforcement. The release of these records to the public risks the following harms to the pending prosecution of Maxwell:

a. Impact on Witness Testimony: Premature disclosure of the business records and witness statements within this category (including disclosure of analysis and summaries of those materials) could reasonably be expected to influence potential witnesses’ testimony at trial. These records include details that are not publicly known or known to other witnesses, and include information and documents authored by and about potential witnesses. Because the majority of the records in this category were not introduced as public exhibits during Maxwell’s first trial, they remain non-public, though the Government may still seek to introduce them should Maxwell be granted a retrial. The premature release of these materials could influence the testimony of witnesses by providing the opportunity for witnesses to shape their testimony to conform with other evidence gathered during the investigation, including both records and witness statements. For example, witnesses may shade their testimony to match the descriptions of events and places given by other witnesses about whom they might not otherwise know, or witnesses may shade their testimony to match the timing of travel, financial transactions, phone calls, and/or shipments reflected in the records. In order to preserve the independent integrity of its witnesses’ testimony, the Government has worked to ensure that its witnesses are not exposed to other parts of its investigative file, the accounts of other witnesses, or the full scope of exhibits it may offer at a retrial. The release of these materials would undermine the Government’s efforts to present witness testimony that is uninfluenced by exposure to other evidence in the case and can therefore be independently corroborated by other witness accounts and exhibits at trial. Additionally, premature release of witness statements and background materials in this category could prevent the Government from effectively questioning witnesses in a manner that would allow jurors to assess their credibility because the witnesses may have already viewed records that counsel may use for impeachment purposes, including witness background materials, witness statements, and business records that might contradict witnesses’ testimony.

b. Impact on Witnesses’ Willingness to Testify: The business records, witness statements, and witness background materials within this category (including summaries and analysis thereof) contain sensitive personal and private information about dozens of potential witnesses, including some witnesses who testified at Maxwell’s first trial and many witnesses who were not called at Maxwell’s first trial, but who may be called to testify if Maxwell is granted a retrial. By their very nature, all of the witness statements and witness background materials necessarily include identifying information and sensitive details regarding numerous witnesses. Similarly, the business records—including financial records, travel records, phone records, and shipping records—include the names, addresses, phone numbers, and other identifying information of numerous witnesses. The public release of this information could lead to the identification and intimidation of witnesses, who may decline to cooperate with the parties and be disinclined to testify if their personal information is released to the public. Indeed, multiple witnesses at Maxwell’s first trial testified under pseudonyms or just their first name to protect their privacy. Those same witnesses likely would not have agreed to testify if their identities or sensitive information about them were publicly revealed. The premature release of these records could reasonably be expected to interfere with a potential retrial of Maxwell by causing witnesses to be identified in the media and face embarrassment and potential harassment from members of the public as a result. Should these records be released, many witnesses, including some witnesses who agreed to testify at Maxwell’s first trial and others who did not testify at Maxwell’s first trial but may be called at a retrial, may decline to cooperate in trial preparation with the Government and may refuse to testify at a retrial. This outcome is likely because many witnesses only agreed to cooperate with the Government’s investigation because they understood that the Government would take every effort to protect their privacy.

c. Impact on Jury: Premature public disclosure of the records withheld under Exemption 7(A) within this first category, including those which the Government anticipates will be entered into evidence at trial, could reasonably be expected to further impair the Government’s pending prosecution of Maxwell by affecting its ability to present its case in court in any Maxwell retrial because it risks prejudicing the jury pool. As noted above, the majority of records in this category—including phone records, bank records, travel records, and shipping records—were not admitted into evidence at Maxwell’s first trial. Similarly, many witnesses whose statements and background information fall within this category did not testify at Maxwell’s first trial. The premature release of these materials risks prejudicing the jury pool so as to hinder the Government’s ability to present its case in court in two distinct respects. First, to the extent materials within this category are never admitted at a retrial, the jury may wonder why those materials were absent from the trial and may suspect the Government of trying to hide evidence from the jury, causing jurors to draw an unwarranted adverse inference against the Government. In this scenario, the jury may also improperly consider publicly released materials that were not introduced as evidence at the trial in their deliberations. The materials in this category, including business records and witness statements, may seem relevant to a layperson but may be inadmissible at trial for various reasons under the Federal Rules of Evidence. Potential jurors’ consideration of the records that are being withheld under Exemption 7(A) but will not be presented at trial may impact the consideration jurors give to the actual evidence presented by the Government. If some or all of this evidence is excluded at trial, pre-trial publication of these materials would risk exposing potential jurors to material they would otherwise not be shown during trial, which risks unduly influencing jurors’ views of the case and would impair the Government’s ability to effectively and fairly present its case in court. Second, if materials within this category are admitted at trial after being prematurely released, members of the jury could have preconceived notions of that evidence’s relevance or importance. This is especially concerning given the intense media scrutiny surrounding the Maxwell case and commentary that is likely to follow the release of any records of substance from the investigative file.

Of course, Ms. Comey was fired on Wednesday, as Trump waited for the WSJ story on his ties to Epstein to drop. So now Blanche can do whatever he wants with this case, without anyone to protect the equities of the prosecution.

And the grand jury request is not only completely unnecessary, but it represents a colossal waste of the time that Pam Bondi already invested when she ordered up to 1,000 people to spend reviewing the FBI case files in March.

Bondi could release those files without involving a judge. But she’s not. She’s going to instead meddle with grand jury records, a smaller subset of the whole, but one that could do more damage if Maxwell wins a retrial.

Donald Trump can’t pardon Maxwell, in spite of his past expression of well wishes for the sex trafficker, because his mob would go nuts.

But Todd Blanche could do something to intentionally fuck up her case.

Deep inside the story describing the letter hinting about sexual secrets that Trump wrote Jeffrey Epstein in 2003 — 26 paragraphs in — WSJ includes a seeming no comment from Ghislaine Maxwell.

Maxwell, a British socialite, was convicted in 2021 of helping Epstein’s sex-trafficking and sentenced to 20 years in prison. Maxwell didn’t respond to a letter requesting an interview sent to her in prison. Arthur Aidala, an attorney who represented Maxwell, said, “At this point, she is focused on her case before the Supreme Court of the United States.”

The reporters either had time to write Maxwell a posted letter or they are among the contacts Maxwell has listed to contact her via the prison email system (in any case, Trump would have no compunctions about tracking her communications in prison). Whichever means they used to contact her, they got got no response.

They also asked Arthur Aidala, who represented Maxwell — past tense — for comment. His response wasn’t so much a no comment, but was, instead, a claim that Maxwell is focused on her Supreme Court appeal — the appeal which she delayed until Trump was inaugurated, the appeal response to which John Sauer twice delayed, first from May until June, then from June until July, before finally submitting the response last Monday, July 14, just one day before WSJ interviewed Trump about the story. Aidala is not the attorney on that appeal; David Markus and Sara Kropf are the listed attorneys on her SCOTUS appeal. In fact, after Sauer submitted the response — indicating Trump’s DOJ would defend the prosecution after twice leaving open the possibility it might not — Markus told ABC that Trump probably didn’t know that Sauer — Trump’s one-time defense attorney — had done that, because Trump is the ultimate dealmaker.

In a statement Monday, an attorney for Maxwell hinted at the swirling controversy surrounding the Trump administration’s decision not to release any further records related to investigations of Epstein.

“I’d be surprised if President Trump knew his lawyers were asking the Supreme Court to let the government break a deal. He’s the ultimate dealmaker—and I’m sure he’d agree that when the United States gives its word, it should keep it. With all the talk about who’s being prosecuted and who isn’t, it’s especially unfair that Ghislaine Maxwell remains in prison based on a promise the government made and broke,” wrote David Oscar Markus.

The ultimate dealmaker wouldn’t break a promise, Markus said on Monday.

And then on Tuesday, the WSJ interviewed Trump for a story revealing that Trump had sent Epstein a letter boasting that “A pal is a wonderful thing” and referencing daily secrets and enigmas.

Aidala represented Maxwell in her Second Circuit Appeal but not her criminal case, which means that, like Markus, he’s not covered by the protective order in the case which, by the way, permits witnesses to use discovery for purposes other than their testimony, but not Maxwell’s own attorneys, and of course only covers Government attorneys (or former Government attorneys) if discovery is actually turned over to the defendants.

With all that in mind, let’s look closer at what WSJ — which doesn’t say whether it spoke with Markus or any of Maxwell’s attorneys from the criminal case — says about that letter and in the process, their sources for the story.

The first reference to the album — a bound book — describes documents that show Maxwell collected letters.

Maxwell collected letters from Trump and dozens of Epstein’s other associates for a 2003 birthday album, according to documents reviewed by The Wall Street Journal.

This is important: If Maxwell “collected” those letters, she might have not just the letters, but letters about the letters — the kind of thing that would provide further authentication for the chain of custody. Just as one example, during the Russian investigation, we learned some of what the Agalarovs and other well-connected Russians sent to Trump not from the Agalarovs themselves, but via the communications to Trump’s then Executive Assistant, Rhona Graff, passing them on.

There’s even an example of Rob Goldstone asking Graff to get Trump to contribute a note for a birthday book, precisely the same ask Maxwell would have made in 2003.

If Maxwell solicited a letter from Trump, she would have asked Trump’s assistant to get one for her, and Trump would have passed on the letter via the same assistant.

WSJ seems to have seen letters about letters. Which might explain why they’re not clear “how the letter with Trump’s signature was prepared,” but are sure that it came from him.

It isn’t clear how the letter with Trump’s signature was prepared.

Mind you, they’ve also seen the letters themselves — not just the Trump one, but letters from other famous people from whom WSJ solicited comment: Leslie Wexner and Alan Dershowitz.

The album had poems, photos and greetings from businesspeople, academics, Epstein’s former girlfriends and childhood pals, according to the documents reviewed by the Journal and people familiar with them. Among those who submitted letters were billionaire Leslie Wexner and attorney Alan Dershowitz.

[snip]

The longtime leader of Victoria’s Secret wrote a short message that said: “I wanted to get you what you want… so here it is….” After the text was a line drawing of what appeared to be a woman’s breasts. Wexner declined to comment through a spokesman. Wexner’s spokesman previously told the Journal that the retail mogul “severed all ties with Epstein in 2007 and never spoke with him again.”

Dershowitz’s letter included a mock-up of a “Vanity Unfair” magazine cover with mock headlines such as “Who was Jack the Ripper? Was it Jeffrey Epstein?” He joked that he had convinced the magazine to change the focus of an article from Epstein to Bill Clinton. Dershowitz, who represented Epstein after his first arrest, said, “It’s been a long time and I don’t recall the content of what I may have written.”

Wexner doesn’t want to talk about what documents might have once been in Epstein’s possession or might still be in Maxwell’s possession showing him joking about women with a sexual predator. Dershowitz, however, didn’t deny he sent a letter to Epstein laughing about framing Bill Clinton for something Epstein did, several years before Dershowitz would denigrate Epstein’s victims in a successful bid for a get out of jail free card for the abuser. He just claims not to remember that he was thinking of doing so before he actually had to help Epstein out of a terrible criminal jam.

I’ve read the WSJ article a bunch of times, and while they claim to have seen the letters (and possibly letters about letters), they don’t appear to claim they’ve seen the leather bound album itself. They are reporting on the existence of the album and the contents of the letters.

The existence of the album and the contents of the birthday letters haven’t previously been reported.

They know it was bound because several people involved in the process of getting it bound (this could be people both on Maxwell’s side and on Herbert Weitz’s team — he’s dead but his team might not be) told them who bound it.

The book was put together by a New York City bookbinder, Herbert Weitz, according to people who were involved in the process.

There’s one more thing about the album, something absolutely critical for understanding what is going on. Pages from the album were examined by DOJ officials back in 2019 and 2020, but WSJ has no idea whether they were part of the review Pam Bondi just did.

Pages from the leather-bound album—assembled before Epstein was first arrested in 2006—are among the documents examined by Justice Department officials who investigated Epstein and Maxwell years ago, according to people who have reviewed the pages. It’s unclear if any of the pages are part of the Trump administration’s recent review.

WSJ is certain they were in DOJ custody during the first Trump term. WSJ is not certain that those documents were among the ones Pam Bondi had 1,000 people review in 24-hour shifts before John Sauer kept delaying the decision about what to do about Maxwell’s appeal.

This doesn’t necessarily mean that WSJ has DOJ sources — or rather, former DOJ sources. It could be that witnesses were asked about the letters, which is how WSJ discovered they were in DOJ custody. But it’s worth noting that one of the prosecutors on both the Epstein and Maxwell prosecutions, Andrew Rohrbach, was among the people Emil Bove got fired for refusing to take part in Trump’s quid pro quo. Rohrbach isn’t the only one who’d be covered by that asymmetric protective order. Obviously, Maurene Comey, whom Trump fired the day after the interview with WSJ, would be too. But Rohrbach is one person who would know what prosecutors did in 2019, but probably not the review done in March. But then, so would a bunch of other people at SDNY if the Maxwell prosecution was one of the reasons Trump fired Geoffrey Berman.

With all that in mind, let me lay out something else.

This binder does not obviously show up in the inventory of things obtained in searches of Epstein’s various properties. Most of the binders included in the inventory contain CDs or photos, though item 1819 describes 10 binders, some of which may contain other things, and item 18140 is a bankers box with miscellaneous things. Nothing in the WSJ story says that DOJ had the binder itself.

It’s possible that DOJ obtained “pages from the leather-bound album” via email warrants targeting either Epstein or Maxwell, letters about letters.

But if those pages were obtained with a search warrant, they would not be covered by grand jury secrecy.

Moreover, nothing in either Epstein’s or Maxwell’s indictments would reflect testimony about the album. They rely on victim testimony, travel records, and phone records. And while Epstein’s indictment spans the same period — 2002 to 2005 — as the binder (which explains why DOJ would have obtained it), Maxwell’s indictment focuses on 1994 to 1997. If she got copies of the binder in discovery (and it’s not clear she would have), it would not have been central to her case.

The only other way this album would be covered by grand jury secrecy would be if it were subpoenaed. But wherever the album itself ended up by the time SDNY was investigating in 2018, it is extremely unlikely it was obtained via subpoena.

All of which is to say that it is virtually certain that Donald Trump instructed his defense attorney turned Deputy Attorney General, Todd Blanche (because Blanche has not updated his NY bar membership, he shows up in the docket under his firm identity, as if he’s a defense attorney who happens to represent the government in this issue), to go look for this letter in one place he’s pretty sure it never appeared, the grand jury.

When JD Vance tried to dispute the WSJ story by crying that WSJ hadn’t shown “us” the letter, there’s a decent chance he said that knowing that the signed copy of the letter remains safely in DOJ custody — precisely where Trump knows his attorneys won’t look for it.

Update: Added screencap of Rob Goldstone email.

Yesterday, I wrote about how utterly fucking ridiculous Tulsi Gabbard’s influence operation claiming a Deep State plot against Donald Trump because Barrack Obama knows the difference between a voting machine and the DNC server (which Tulsi claims not to know in her little project).

Her propaganda project is not without benefit. I mean, not only have I called on all the right wing members of Congress who’ve been duped by Tulsi to demand that Pam Bondi fire Kash Patel for covering this all up when he reviewed the same files in 2020. But Tulsi declassified a somewhat classified version of the 2017 ICA (there were two classified versions, a super classified version for President Obama, Trump, and the Gang of Eight, and a less-classified version for other members of Congress — this is the latter). So not only can we see what secrets about Russia’s 2016 interference Director Tulsi wants to keep from us, but we can compare the classified version with the publicly-released version to see what was sensitive in 2017 but no longer is.

There are a number of things that either did not exist in the public version or remain significantly redacted. For example:

• The classified version includes more discussion of the confidence levels. “We have high confidence in this assessment [that both SVR and GRU hacked political targets], the assessment described, “because it is based on a body of [redacted] intelligence reporting that reinforces and elaborates on publicly available commercial cyber analyses.” Elsewhere such language explains why some agencies were less certain.
• Speaking of Russian spooks targeting political targets, the classified ICA provided more details on the RNC hacks, which had been reported but never explained in detail. GRU hacked GOP targets in early July 2016, but (it appears) that server hadn’t been used for over six years. But that paragraph immediately precedes one of the only entirely redacted paragraphs in the assessment. A paragraph in a later section describing that “we saw Russian collection on some Republican-affiliated targets,” also includes three redacted lines.
• There’s a bit more detail on senior Russian officials, such as details about what hacked information was shared as intelligence, rather than used as an information operation.
• There’s an entire section on Russia’s targeting of state election infrastructure, including details on an Illinois hack that, I had been told by sources, was far more serious than publicly acknowledged. There’s one short paragraph addressing one of the several hacks revealed by Reality Winner. In general, the report was overly optimistic about Russian targeting of voting infrastructure, and simply didn’t imagine that Russia might steal registration data so it could conduct an attack like Cambridge Analytica.
• There’s a section explaining the ways that the attack could have been worse (though that claim is based, in part, on an assessment that “We did not detect extensive [redacted] influence operations as part of the Kremlin’s campaign.” Perhaps that part of the assessment would change as Robert Mueller investigated.
• There’s more detail on Russia’s past election interference (this section is worth comparing side by side), along with a map of operations spanning 2000 to 2016 (though the details remain classified). The ICA also predicted (in two still partly redacted paragraphs) that Germany’s fall 2017 election would be the next one targeted; it ended up being France’s May 2017 election.

Those are just interesting details, nothing really that (no matter how much Tulsi misrepresents all this) disrupts years of questions about the attributions.

There are just two passages I’m far more interested in.

In the section on the trolls, in the paragraph before one that addresses Yevgeniy Prigozhin’s role in funding it, there’s both a subheading and the first few lines of that section redacted.

I’m interested in that because, as I’ve gotten further from 2016, I’ve seen more reason to believe that the Russian effort to use trolls to make stuff go viral closely overlapped with the far right effort to do the same.

And finally — unsurprisingly — I’m interested in details about the Guccifer 2.0 attribution that wasn’t in the public report. The italicized language below is new in the classified report.

The Kremlin’s campaign aimed at the US election featured disclosures of data obtained through Russian cyber operations via WikiLeaks, as well as via the Guccifer 2.0 persona and DCLeaks.com, which are both likely GRU operations; GRU intrusions into US state electoral infrastructure; and overt propaganda. Russian foreign intelligence collection both informed and enabled the influence campaign, [redacted]

[snip]

Public Disclosures of Russian-Collected Data. We assess the GRU used both the Guccifer 2.0 persona and DCLeaks.com operationally to release US [victim] data obtained in GRU cyber operations publicly and in exclusives to media outlets. We have high confidence that Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks.com published GRU- hacked data, but moderate confidence that they were under direct GRU control [redacted]. We base our judgments on several factors: the information that was disclosed was information we assess the GRU accessed as part of its operations against US political targets; the initial data leak occurred the day after the US cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike publicized Russia’s intrusion into the DNC; and signals intelligence placed the operators of Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks.com in Russia. 

Guccifer 2.0, who claimed to be an independent Romanian hacker, made multiple contradictory statements and false claims about his identity throughout the election; [redacted] intelligence indicated the persona was controlled from Russia, and press reporting suggests more than one person claiming to be Guccifer 2.0 interacted with journalists, based on [redacted] and interactions with the press.

Content that we assess was taken from [redacted] e-mail accounts targeted in March 2016 by a GRU cyber espionage unit subsequently appeared on DCLeaks.com in June.

On several occasions, the administrators of Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks.com logged in to accounts associated with those personas using a Russia-based mobile broadband provider [redacted] although they generally attempted to obscure the source of their Internet traffic.

Of particular interest, to me especially: the IC was pretty sure that Russia was using Guccifer 2.0 to disseminate the stolen files, but was less sure what the relationship between the persona and the spooks running it was. The passage includes the allegedly accidental log-ins via a Russian provider, which was reported years ago. But in early 2017, anyway, all this was ambiguous.

Given the conspiracy theories Tulsi is spewing, all these questions seem quaint now.

But the ambiguity from the period did carry over for some time later.

Yesterday, 252 Venezuelan men who had been held in CECOT concentration camp were flown to Venezuela. Among the people who survived their detention in El Salvador are Andry José Hernández Romero (the gay stylist), Neri Alvarado Borges (the guy kidnapped because of his autism-solidarity tattoo), and Christian, who came to the US as an unaccompanied minor and should have been protected under a prior agreement. The government including this declaration in the latter docket explaining that Nicolás Maduro has agreed to send back any of the 252 returned men for legal proceedings (though as written that appears to cover only adverse proceedings).

In exchange for the return to Venezuela of those men, Maduro released dozens of political prisoners and 10 US citizens or permanent residents.

The successful prisoner swap comes just ten days after a NYT story describing how both Marco Rubio and Ric Grenell were attempting to negotiate that deal, but Grenell fucked it up by offering better (and unapproved) terms than Rubio was offering.

The Trump administration’s top diplomat, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, was overseeing a deal to free several Americans and dozens of political prisoners held in Venezuela in exchange for sending home about 250 Venezuelan migrants the United States had deported to El Salvador.

But the deal never happened.

Part of the reason: President Trump’s envoy to Venezuela was working on his own deal, one with terms that Venezuela deemed more attractive. In exchange for American prisoners, he was offering to allow Chevron to continue its oil operations in Venezuela, a vital source of revenue for its authoritarian government.

The discussions, which included the release of about 80 Venezuelan political prisoners, and the two different deals were described by two U.S. officials and two other people who are familiar with the talks and sought anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the issue.

That attempted deal has been public since at least April.

Which raises the question: Was a third-country swap always the plan? Was that part of the reason why Emil Bove ordered a bunch of people at a March 14 meeting that the planes carrying the Venezuelan men — plus some Salvadorans who could implicate Nayib Bukele in ties to MS-13 — must take off, no matter what?

I’ll return to this question — it’s one I’ve been puzzling as the Administration goes to ever more extreme lengths to cover up what happened here.

Those 252 men were used as bait.

Was that always the plan?

Suspected Russian asset Tulsi Gabbard has released a report of screen caps out of context and one 114-page collection of documents purportedly showing what she claims is a conspiracy against Donald Trump.

It serves its purpose — because a broad swath of very stupid people are currently frothing madly about it on Xitter.

What Tulsi purports to show is that the FBI didn’t back expansive claims of Russian involvement in election interference in September and October 2016, refused to participate in a assessment in December, only for Obama to order a new assessment, after which — Tulsi claims — the assessment changed to reflect more confidence in Putin’s involvement.

In general, Tulsi accomplishes the circus trick of getting stupid people to buy her narrative by conflating whether spooks thought Russia hacked the US voting tabulation infrastructure with Intelligence Community confidence that Russia was involved in the hack of the DNC and DCCC and then involved in the dissemination of files stolen from it.

So:

Voting infrastructure

Hack and leak

Not the same things

Tulsi assumes her rubes won’t notice she’s doing that and — lo and behold!! — she’s right!!

As one example of how transparently shoddy Tulsi’s “work” is, note how she misquotes a story (which she attributes to spooks but which might come from Congress) talking about the larger Russian intelligence operation in 2016, claiming it pertains exclusively to the “U.S. Election Hack.”

Tulsi doesn’t link the underlying story, for good reason, because reading the story gives away her game.

While it does use the word “hack” in the title, it includes two details that undermine Tulsi’s information operation.

U.S. Officials: Putin Personally Involved in U.S. Election Hack

New intelligence shows that Putin became personally involved in the computer breach, two senior U.S. officials say.

Two senior officials with direct access to the information say new intelligence shows that Putin personally directed how hacked material from Democrats was leaked and otherwise used. The intelligence came from diplomatic sources and spies working for U.S. allies, the officials said.

[snip]

The latest intelligence said to show Putin’s involvement goes much further than the information the U.S. was relying on in October, when all 17 intelligence agencies signed onto a statement attributing the Democratic National Committee hack to Russia.

Most importantly, the story describes that the Intelligence Community got new information. Wow! An explanation for why the assessment changed in December 2016!!!! All readily available if you just check Tulsi’s sources!!

Just as importantly, nothing in the article addresses tampering with the voting infrastructure, the topic of almost all the other screen caps in Tulsi’s propaganda, in her effort to conflate the voting infrastructure, the hack and leak, and the larger information operation.

There are a slew of other problems with Tulsi’s book report. It ignores:

• The Russian investigation into Trump didn’t arise out of this intelligence. It arose out of Mike Flynn’s efforts to undermine the Obama sanctions on Russia in response, and Trump’s efforts to undermine the investigation of Flynn.
• The Russian investigation discovered abundant new evidence, including proof that Trump’s campaign learned of Russia’s operation in advance. Trump’s Coffee Boy, Campaign Manager, National Security Advisor, personal lawyer, and rat-fucker were all eventually adjudged to have lied to cover up aspects of Trump’s involvement in the Russian investigation. And through their confessions, we learned that Russia dangled an impossibly lucrative real estate deal, told a Trump campaign official and his rat-fucker about their operation, got campaign data and strategy — possibly in exchange for millions of dollars and involvement in a plan to carve of Ukraine — and then undermined Obama’s foreign policy to help Russia.
• After all these 2016 assessments, the NSA later developed evidence — according to the document Reality Winner leaked — that showed Russia did attempt to and had some success in hacking voting infrastructure.

Which is to say, Tulsi’s entire little book report is unrelated to the Russian investigation into Trump and her claims about hacking the election infrastructure were eventually revised.

But her report is not without interest.

If her story is true — if there is a shred of truth to her claims that Obama tried to alter the intelligence in 2016 — then evidence to that fact was available in 2020, when Kash Patel was reviewing precisely the same intelligence while serving as Ric Grenell’s handler, and that evidence was available from 2019 through 2023, when John Durham reviewed it all and determined that the spooks did nothing wrong.

In other words, if Tulsi’s allegations are true, it means Kash Patel and John Durham are part of the Deep State plot against Donald Trump!!!!

It means Trump’s hand-picked FBI Director was part of a sustained effort to cover-up Obama’s devious intervention in 2016.

If Tulsi’s allegations have any merit, then Pam Bondi must fire Kash Patel and include him, right along with all the nefarious actors Tulsi targets, because Kash covered this up when he could have helped Trump win the 2020 election.

Update: Corrected how long the primary document collection is.

Listen on spotify (transcripts available)

Listen on Apple (transcripts available)

Dick Durbin wrote another of a slew of letters Democrats have sent to Pam Bondi and others about Jeffrey Epstein this year. This one provides details of the review of the Epstein file Bondi ordered:

According to information my office received, you then pressured the FBI to put approximately 1,000 personnel in its Information Management Division (IMD), including the Record/Information Dissemination Section (RIDS), which handles all requests submitted by the public under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and Privacy Act, on 24-hour shifts to review approximately 100,000 Epstein-related records in order to produce more documents that could be released on an arbitrarily short deadline. This effort, which reportedly took place from March 14 through the end of March, was haphazardly supplemented by hundreds of FBI New York Field Office personnel, many of whom lacked the expertise to identify statutorily-protected information regarding child victims and child witnesses or properly handle FOIA requests.

My office was told that these personnel were instructed to “flag” any records in which President Trump was mentioned.

[snip]

5. Aside from the negative backlash you received over the February 27 record release, what was the purpose of placing almost 1,000 FBI IMD personnel on 24-hour shifts to review Epstein-related records over the course of a two-week period in March?

6. Who made the decision to reassign hundreds of New York Field Office personnel to this March review of Epstein-related records?

7. Why were personnel told to flag records in which President Trump was mentioned?

a. Please list all political appointees and senior DOJ officials involved in the decision to flag records in which President Trump was mentioned.

b. What happened to the records mentioning President Trump once they were flagged?

c. Is there a log of the records mentioning President Trump? If yes, please transmit a copy of the log to the Committee and the OIG.

Remember: Trump’s appointees have fired two people who would know details of this: the head of the NY Field Office, James Dennehy, who was forced to retire amid allegations the NYFO was sitting on the files, and Maurene Comey, who has been involved in FOIA responses regarding these files.

Either could now give protected whistleblower statements to Durbin.

But they’re not the only ones.

In her bid to review these files, Bondi created one thousand witnesses to what is in the Epstein file — and Bondi’s attempt to politicize the search for Epstein files.

One thousand.

Update: Durbin’s staff has now posted the letter, plus letters he wrote to Kash Patel and Dan Bongino. Of both FBI men, Durbin asked why they said the video was “raw” when it had actually been altered.

13. Why does the July 7 memorandum describe the surveillance footage as “full raw” when it was modified?

a) Please describe in detail all of the modifications made to the “full raw” surveillance footage before its publication.

And of Kash, he asks what conspiracy theories Kash was chasing.

15. What are the conspiracy theories you are referring to in your July 12 tweet that “were never true?” If there are more than one, please explain each in detail.

He also asked why Bongino had to take a day for his fee fees.

15. Is this dispute between you and White House and DOJ officials the reason behind your July 11 absence from work?

Charlie Kirk and the President’s failson are very impressed with President Trump’s order that Pam Bondi seek to release grand jury transcripts.

Trump gave the order in response to a WSJ report describing a birthday letter, signed by Trump, included in a book that Ghislaine Maxwell made for Jeffrey Epstein’s 50th birthday in 2003.

It isn’t clear how the letter with Trump’s signature was prepared. Inside the outline of the naked woman was a typewritten note styled as an imaginary conversation between Trump and Epstein, written in the third person.

“Voice Over: There must be more to life than having everything,” the note began.

Donald: Yes, there is, but I won’t tell you what it is.

Jeffrey: Nor will I, since I also know what it is. 

Donald: We have certain things in common, Jeffrey. 

Jeffrey: Yes, we do, come to think of it. 

Donald: Enigmas never age, have you noticed that? 

Jeffrey: As a matter of fact, it was clear to me the last time I saw you. 

Donald: A pal is a wonderful thing. Happy Birthday — and may every day be another wonderful secret.

WSJ describes that this book was examined by Epstein and Maxwell investigators.

Pages from the leather-bound album—assembled before Epstein was first arrested in 2006—are among the documents examined by Justice Department officials who investigated Epstein and Maxwell years ago, according to people who have reviewed the pages. It’s unclear if any of the pages are part of the Trump administration’s recent review.

But while there are titillating allusions in the letter, such as the reference to a new secret every day, there’s is not any conceivable reason why this letter would be presented as evidence against either Epstein or Maxwell. It does not overtly describe trafficking minor women at all.

The order that Bondi unseal grand jury materials will do nothing but impress people like Kirk and Don Jr, designed to create a likely unsuccessful drawn out legal fight in which, even if the transcripts were released, would not include this book.

SQUIRREL! Trump yelled, when cornered.

And it worked not just for Charlie Kirk, but also for NYT’s Glenn Thrush, a politics reporter who survived a Me Too scandal repurposed to cover DOJ. It took him 11¶¶ before he explained that a judge was unlikely to release any transcripts, and another paragraph before he explained that the vast bulk of the evidence is in FBI custody.

Mr. Trump’s stated desire to address the “ridiculous” publicity around the case may not be enough to convince the judge to release the transcripts. Grand jury transcripts are, under federal guidelines, kept secret to protect crime victims and witnesses. They are typically released only under narrowly defined circumstances.

Even if the transcripts are made public, which might involve months of legal wrangling, the evidence represents a fraction of material collected in the investigation. Over the past several months, dozens of F.B.I. agents and prosecutors with the Justice Department’s national security division were diverted from other assignments to review thousands of documents and a vast trove of video evidence, including footage from video cameras in the prison. [my emphasis]

If the grand jury evidence is a subset of the larger FBI stash, Glenn, then Bondi could release the letter herself, on her own authority, today. At least tell your readers that, Glenn, even if you don’t make the entire story, “Cornered by WSJ story, Donald Trump attempts a limited hangout.”

Thrush quotes Goldman making a point that there’s more in FBI custody, but doesn’t explain the import of it–that Bondi could release whatever copy of this letter the FBI has immediately.

Donald Trump is sufficiently concerned about this that he’s attempting to distract dim-witted people.

Including, apparently, NYT reporters.

Update: On Xitter, Thrush claimed this, in the third paragraph, alerted readers that Trump was affirmatively chasing data that would not have the letter.

The president cited “the ridiculous amount of publicity given to Jeffrey Epstein” for his directive, which falls far short of demands from some congressional Republicans to make public all investigative files collected by the department and the F.B.I., not just testimony presented in federal court.

As I laid out the other day, Chuck Grassley made a bunch of transparent excuses so he could cover up how Emil Bove gave advice to DHS that resulted in them defying an order from Judge James Boasberg.

It’s not me saying it. It is senior DOJ official Yaakov Roth saying it.

On March 16, he told Erez Reuveni and others that Bove was the one who — falsely — told DHS they could deplane flights that Boasberg had ordered be turned around without violating the court’s order.

On March 14, Bove said you might have to tell a judge “fuck you” to ensure Stephen Miller could use the Alien Enemies Act to deport people with no oversight. On March 15, Bove provided affirmatively false information to DHS, resulting in them defying Boasberg’s order — and with their actions, stranding hundreds of men, some completely innocent, in a brutal concentration camp in El Salvador.

Grassley must have recognized his arguments were transparent bullshit. Because in today’s hearing on Bove’s nominate, Grassley broke parliamentary rules to prevent Cory Booker, the home Senator on this nomination, from arguing against it.

As Sheldon Whitehouse notes, there are two parliamentary arguments that Bove’s nomination was not properly advanced. First, that Grassley blew off Booker’s point of order, then that there was a quorum to vote through the nomination.

HuffPo has more.

Chuck Grassley broke the rules to try to rush through Emil Bove’s lifetime appointment before — as Whitehouse noted — his conduct is investigated as criminal contempt.

He is protecting a guy who unloaded dozens of innocent men into a concentration camp. Worse, he is breaking the rules to promote Emil Bove to a lifetime appointment to reward him for stranding innocent men in a concentration camp.