Two of Jim Jordan’s So-Called Whistleblowers Are Under Investigation for Improper Treatment of FBI Files

As a number of outlets have covered (Rolling Stone did a particularly good story), Democrats on the Insurrection Protection Committee released a report on the only three witnesses — whom Jim Jordan dubiously claims are whistleblowers — who have yet to be formally deposed by the committee. Not only does the report seriously question their claims to be whistleblowers (in part because they have little, if any, firsthand knowledge of the issues about which they claim to be reporting), but the report shows that all three are pro-insurrection conspiracy theorists.

I’ve already written about one, Stephen Friend, who balked that some Three Percenters with ties to the Oath Keepers and Kremers were being treated as a domestic terror threat.

The other two are George Hill, a recently retired Supervisory Intelligence Analyst whose embrace of false flag theories around January 6 should invite defendants in the Boston area to ask for discovery on his potential involvement in any cases, and Garret O’Boyle, an anti-vaxer who refused to take an investigative step against two apparent January 6 leads but suffered no consequences as a result.

I’d like to point out two functional details of the report: as the report describes, two witnesses are under investigation for mishandling FBI files, and those same two witnesses received payments from Trump-related funds, funds that are likely part of the larger January 6 investigation.

Jim Jordan’s witnesses are alleged to be accessing or sharing information not necessary for their job

First, the substance of this testimony involves records that were either improperly accessed or outside the witnesses’ job description.

Friend, for example, admitted that he was suspended, in part, for improperly removing parts of the FBI’s Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide and other internal documents from the FBI system.

Friend has publicly stated that his security clearance was suspended because he improperly accessed material on FBI computer systems, 220 and during his testimony, he admitted that while a Special Agent at the Daytona Beach Resident Agency, he accessed and removed documents marked “For Official Use Only” from a classified FBI system.221 Specifically, he admitted that in September 2022, he accessed the classified system to get “information about the employee handbook and disciplinary processes,” “a flow chart of the way the Inspection Division works and the OPR [Office of Professional Responsibility] process works,” and “copies of the last five OPR quarterlies as a go by for precedent for punishment for my situation.”222 He also accessed and removed elements of the then-current version of the FBI Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide.223

Remember that Intercept source Terry Albury did prison time, in part, for taking and leaking the DIOG; so any complaint that Friend is disciplined for this amounts to a complaint that he’s being subjected to the same standard as Albury was.

Similarly, O’Boyle was suspended  last year based on allegations he was leaking to the press.

He applied for and was accepted to a new unit in Virginia and was scheduled to begin work there on September 26, 2022.90 His security clearance was suspended that day.91

O’Boyle told the Committee that his suspension notice stated that “an unidentified person … made an allegation that [he] had been making unprotected disclosures to the media,” and that because of this he was “no longer deemed fit to hold a security clearance.”92 He denied having made such disclosures, and he explained that instead he believed that he had been retaliated against because he “had been coming to Congress… for nearly a year.”93 He described this as being a “weaponization of the [security] clearance” process.94 He has appealed that suspension and, to his knowledge, the appeal process is still ongoing.95


O’Boyle did confirm that he corresponded with staff of both Rep. Ron Estes and then-Ranking Member Jim Jordan probably “more than 20” times in 2022 and produced “maybe around” 50 documents to them.104 O’Boyle’s attorney advised him “not to talk about specifics of any of his disclosures to Congress … because those are confidential” and in fact prohibited him from describing the substance of any of his communications with the offices of Rep. Estes or then-Ranking Member Jordan.105

O’Boyle has some unspecified role in material that got forwarded from an eGuardian tip, possibly via Jim Jordan, to Project Veritas. PV’s coverage falsely claimed that the FBI had labeled a group called American Contingency a Domestic Violent Extremism group. In reality, the FBI investigated the group’s founder, Mike Glover, and concluded he did not present a threat.

Nevertheless, Jordan cited PV’s coverage in a complaint to Christopher Wray.

O’Boyle admitted that, even though he had no role in this investigation, he was involved somehow in the dissemination of information about it.

Q Did you know anything about the investigation or what has been described as an investigation into him [Mike Glover] prior to having this letter put in front of you today?

A I did.

Q And what did you know?

A Pretty much mostly what’s in here.

Q And that – how did you learn that information?

BINNALL: Prior to our previous instructions, you can answer to the extent it’s appropriate.

A This is one of the protected disclosures that I made.

Q Okay. And it involves Mr. Glover?

A Uh-huh.

Q But you … were not personally involved in any matters involving Mr. Glover in your capacity as an FBI employee?

A Right. I never investigated him.

Q Okay. And what about American Contingency?

A Correct. No.

Q Okay. So you don’t have firsthand knowledge of anything that the FBI may have – may or may not have done?

BINNALL: You can answer to the extent that it doesn’t violate my previous instructions.

A I mean, I guess, in accordance with my work and my protected disclosure, I had some knowledge of what the FBI had done.

BINNALL: And don’t go any further than that.135

It’s unclear whether this is the leak investigation that led him to lose his security clearance. When asked about it, O’Boyle claimed he was set up by someone irked that he was feeding information to Congress for the prior year, but he did not take that complaint through proper channels, to the DOJ IG or Inspection Division. He refused to tell Democrats on the committee what the allegations about leaking pertain to.

Instead, he went to Donald Trump’s lawyer, Jesse Binnell.

Among the claimed whistleblower complaints O’Boyle shared (the other involves vaccine denialism) is that a WFO Special Agent sent him two leads, one based on an anonymous tip, apparently of January 6 suspects.

But I received a lead about someone based on an anonymous tip, and in law enforcement anonymous tips don’t hold very much weight, especially without evidence that you can corroborate pretty easily.

I wasn’t able to corroborate anything they said, even after speaking with the person they alleged potential criminal behavior of.

While I’m trying to figure all that out, I get another lead from the same agent who sent me that lead.108

He explained that he decided to call the agent who had sent him the lead:

Q [A]fter talking to her, my mind was blown that she was still trying to get me to do some legal process on the guy that I got the anonymous tip on. … And so I ended up writing that all up and denying it. …

When we got off the phone, I was like, “I’m just going to close this.” She still wanted me to do what she wanted me to do in the lead, and I was like, no. I can’t…

Q So, to your knowledge, that case was closed?

A To my knowledge, yeah.109

To suggest that anonymous tips related to January 6 were particular unreliable does not hold up against the record of the investigation. This exchange makes him sound just like Friend — someone who refused to investigate suspected perpetrators of January 6, and is trying to launch a career as a far right celebrity as a result.

Finally, there’s Hill, the retired Supervisory Intelligence Analyst who adheres to conspiracy theories about Ray Epps. He reported to the committee on matters he was not personally involved — what sounds like a tip or Suspicious Activity Report from a financial institution pertaining to January 6.

Hill claimed that a financial institution provided a self-generated customer list to the FBI of its own volition, that the Boston Field Office had been asked to conduct seven preliminary investigations based on that list, and that FBI field offices around the country were also asked to open preliminary investigations—according to Hill, the “least-intrusive method” of investigation—based on that list. 32

As noted, Hill explained that he himself did not handle any cases, so his knowledge of the investigations was limited by his role. Moreover, he revealed that he had no information about the origins of the list, he did not recall which entity uploaded the list to the FBI’s system, and, while he viewed an electronic communication referencing the list in the FBI’s case management system, he never opened or viewed the actual list itself. 33

To the committee, attempting to weigh whether there’s merit to Hill’s allegations, this simply reeks of someone reporting on an investigation he was not part of. But it raises real questions why he was monitoring an investigation he was not part of.

In all three cases, people tangentially involved with the January 6 investigation balked at pretty minor investigative steps. And all three at least accessed information outside their job to do so — and in two cases, there are allegations of improper access.

Trump-related organizations paid two of these witnesses

The allegations that at least some of these men may have improperly accessed investigative information to which they were not privy is all the more alarming given the detail that two of them — Friend and O’Boyle, the two under more formal investigation by the FBI — have received financial benefits from Trump-related organizations.

Witnesses Garret O’Boyle and Stephen Friend both testified that they have received financial support from Patel, with Friend explaining that Patel sent him $5,000 almost immediately after they connected in November 2022. Patel has also promoted Friend’s forthcoming book on social media.

But Patel’s assistance has not just been financial. He arranged for attorney Jesse Binnall, who served as Donald Trump’s “top election-fraud lawyer” when Trump falsely claimed the 2020 election was stolen, to serve as counsel for Garret O’Boyle. When Committee Democrats asked O’Boyle about this financial connection, Binnall appeared to surprise his client with an announcement that he was now representing O’Boyle pro bono. Committee Democrats infer that Binnall hoped to distance his connection to Patel and others.

Patel also found Friend his next job. Friend now works as a fellow on domestic intelligence and security services with the Center for Renewing America, which is run by former Trump official Russell Vought and is largely funded by the Conservative Partnership Institute, which itself is run by former Trump chief of staff Mark Meadows and former Senator Jim DeMint.

This is where the Insurrection Protection Committee more directly ties into Trump’s own defense against charges for his coup attempt.

Jesse Binnall is Trump’s lawyer; he was even interviewed as part of obstruction inquiry related to the stolen document investigation. His firm has been receiving hundreds of thousands in payments from Trump’s two PACs, over $130,000 in both November and December. This is some of the spending that Jack Smith is reportedly investigating for misuse of campaign funds. So there’s the real prospect that O’Boyle, under investigation for leaking details of FBI investigations against January 6 and other right wing figures, is being paid from funds raised by lying about voter fraud.

Similarly, Trump’s Save America PAC gave $1 million to the Conservative Partnership Institute. Again, that payment is almost certainly part of the Jack Smith investigation. As the Democratic report notes, Vought’s organization has been focusing on precisely this false weaponization claim.

CRA’s President, former Trump administration official Russ Vought, has embraced many of the themes laid out by the witnesses George Hill, Garret O’Boyle, and Stephen Friend, and Vought reportedly pushed Republican leadership to establish the Weaponization Subcommittee at the start of the 118th Congress.397 In the forward to CRA’s 2023 budget proposal for the federal government, entitled “A Commitment to End Woke and Weaponized Government,” Vought wrote,

On the heels of this wrenching national experience is the growing awareness that the national security apparatus itself is arrayed against that half of the country not willing to bend the knee to the people, institutions, and elite worldview that make up the current governing regime. Instead of fulfilling their intended purpose of keeping the American people safe, they are hard-wired now to keep the regime in power. And that includes the emergence of political prisoners, a weaponized, SWAT-swaggering FBI, the charges of “domestic terrorism” and “disinformation” in relation to adversaries’ exercise of free speech, and the reality that the NSA is running a surveillance state behind the protective curtain of “national security.” The immediate threat facing the nation is the fact that the people no longer govern the country; instead, the government itself is increasingly weaponized against the people it is meant to serve.398

Committee Democrats find the connections between Patel, CRA, and CPI deeply concerning. Evidence suggests that these entities were not just a driving force for creating the Weaponization Subcommittee, but are actively propelling its efforts to advance baseless, biased claims for political purposes. This evidence seriously discredits the work done by Committee Republicans and casts further doubt on the reliability of the witnesses they have put forth.

That suggests the prospect that Trump-related figures are violation campaign finance law to fund an NGO to, in turn, pay for FBI agents under investigation for improperly accessing FBI files to spread conspiracy theories about the investigation into Trump and his supporters.

Jordan’s imaginary friends

The combination of alleged leaks with payments from funds raised using false claims of vote fraud makes me even more worried about the witnesses that Jordan won’t let be questioned by the Democrats on the committee.

As the Democratic report notes, Jordan says he has spoken to — and received materials from — dozens of other people claiming tobe whistleblowers.

This partisan investigation, such as it is, rests in large part on what Chairman Jordan has described as “dozens and dozens of whistleblowers… coming to us, talking about what is going on, the political nature at the Justice Department.”1 To date, the House Judiciary Committee has held transcribed interviews with three of these individuals. Chairman Jordan has, of course, refused to name any of the other “dozens and dozens” who may have spoken with him. He has also refused to share any of the documents which these individuals may have provided to the Committee.

Jordan recently sent Christopher Wray a list of 16 Special Agents he demands to interview.

Our need to obtain testimony from FBI employees is vital for carrying out our oversight and for informing potential legislative reforms to the operations and activities of the FBI. From the documentary and testimonial information that we have obtained to date, we have identified several FBI employees who we believe possess information that is necessary for our oversight. Accordingly, we ask that you initially make the following FBI employees available for transcribed interviews with the Committee in the near future:

[16 names redacted]

We anticipate that we may require testimony from additional FBI employees as our oversight continues, and we expect your cooperation in facilitating these future interviews as well.

We are aware that the Justice Department has preemptively indicated that it intends to limit the scope and nature of information available to the Committee as part of our oversight.3
You should know, however, that despite the Department’s assertions to the contrary, congressional committees have regularly received testimony from non-Senate-confirmed and line-level Justice Department employees, including FBI employes [sic], in the past. We expect this past precedent to apply to our oversight as well.

Jordan’s list includes 17 names, including Jack Smith. Eleven of those — including Lisa Page — appear to be related to Mark Meadows’ own investigation of the Russian investigation. Jordan is effectively saying he has the right to interview line agents because Jeff Sessions and Bill Barr let him do so, to undermine the last investigation into Donald Trump.

Jordan provides no basis for needing to interview these people. He doesn’t provide any explanation about how they might provide evidence of improper FBI activity.

According to Breitbart, which claimed to have seen transcripts of the Jordan witnesses interviews, said the 16 people “had been named by the three witnesses in the closed-door interviews.” In other words, three disgruntled FBI agents, two under investigation for wrong-doing, are leading Jim Jordan by the nose to make life hell for their former colleagues.

But those two other details make this different.

These people are being given financial benefits from Trump-related sources, financial benefits that may themselves be part of the crime under investigation.

And at least two of these people — the same two on the grift train — are under investigation for inappropriately removing or leaking sensitive FBI documents.

47 replies
  1. Buzzkill Stickinthemud says:

    An added benefit of interviewing (badgering?) the FBI employees is that it takes them away from whatever they’re working on. It’s one big distraction.

    It’d be interesting to see that list of names and what cases they’re working on. Weaponization indeed.

  2. Ben Soares says:

    I remember the term …. “even the appearance of inpropreity ” . I always got a kick out of the term. It seemed like a way to instantly kick out the folks who were giving up the game therby de -valuing the total grift. US , oligarch’s seem to teaming up with their new found cohorts around the world.

    DOJ is either a puppet or an organization that might not be ready for such depravity. I guess time will tell.

    As I type this women are considered second class citizen’s in much of the country.

    Crazy times.

    • bmaz says:

      “Appearance of impropriety” is an incredibly important concept in American law, and not something to be laughed at. DOJ is not a “puppet”.

      • Rugger_9 says:

        I think Ben is saying that a politicized DoJ is a puppet of its administration, think about the history during the Joseph McCarthy era, under Ed Meese, under 45’s administration as he cycled through several contestants. AG Barr finally did what Individual-1 wanted done after auditioning for the part with that op-ed.

        With that noted, the appearance of impropriety is exactly why the acts of AG Barr (for example) during both stints are suspect just now being fleshed out with the facts.

        As for these ‘whistleblowers’, it would appear to me that any payment to a witness that is not an expert witness (like a doctor) would be damaging to any testimony they might give. So, I would think Gym Jordan will try to paint these three as experts to gloss over that payment problem.

        As for the ‘dozens’ of concerned agents, this is an old item from red-baiting playbooks all the way back even to the Palmer raids a hundred years ago. During Ike’s administration, Herbert Block wrote several cartoons on this topic in the mid 50’s, including one where Joe Public was put into a maze promising the evidence of commies everywhere only to reach the end with none in sight. Make Jordan name names, and if he won’t do it in committee, then hold as many press conferences as needed to get them out.

        The GOP only has a limited amount of baling wire, duct tape, smoke and mirrors to hide all of this stuff, and if they are forced to prove every point like the Ds had to do (looking at you, NYT) they’ll slip up.

        • P J Evans says:

          The “dozens” of concerned agents sounds a lot like the “many people are saying” that the former guy used so often. (Or like “the lurkers support me in e-mails”, which we’ve all heard.)

        • Dark Phoenix says:

          This IS an old Roy Cohn trick; anyone remember the empty list of “suspected communists” Joe McCarthy liked to wave around?

      • Joeff53 says:

        At the risk of a dressing down, permit me to opine that a lot of deeds that go well beyond “the appearance of impropriety” and in fact sink to high Heaven get whitewashed, while peccadilloes such as Franken’s dumb joke get the guillotine. IOW it’s a malleable standard.

        • theartistvvv says:

          FWIW, “the appearance of impropriety” is a phrase that appears in many states’ attorney and judicial codes of ethics – it does in mine.

          I need to add that I do not think any of the said witnesses can be credibly characterized as “experts” who are being paid for their “expert” testimony … they are certainly not *independent* “experts”, and seem to be more like *fact* (however accurate) witnesses than “experts”.

  3. Alan_OrbitalMechanic says:

    Reading this article causes me to think about just how hard it is to distinguish between a real whistleblower and a pretender/phony that is pushing conspiracy bunk and outright lies. They have too many traits in common.

    They both tend to get slurred as poor employees with “performance” issues or someone doing something inappropriate. Or maybe just an attitude.

    They both have to answer for their political agendas. The problem is that being a true whistleblower is in itself a political act, and as such will attract patrons from one political side. That is true of phony whistleblower as well, the difference being how their patrons are regarded. That shouldn’t be relevant, but it is.

    They will also both be accused, without fail, of having some direct personal fiduciary interest in doing what they are doing. In this case it was pretty easy to prove in at least two instances.

    Being a true whistleblower is something that I would never want to do.

    • emptywheel says:

      That’s all true.

      If you read the report, they’re very careful to try to assess the claim to being a whistleblower. Two whistleblower reviews, one by OSC and another by DOJ IG, said that Friend was not one. As noted, O’Boyle didn’t even attempt to use proper channels.

    • Tom R. says:

      Being a whistleblower is not necessarily bad. You tend to read about the cases that went horribly wrong.

      I have blown whistles on a number of occasions, including once on a guy who outranked me by several layers. World-famous guy. He got fired, remarkably quickly.

      One word of advice: Don’t think your role will remain secret. The whistle metaphor is apt: It attracts attention. Your protection comes not from secrecy but rather from consensus that you did the right thing. My reputation went up (not down) on account of such escapades.

      For me it’s easy calculation: If I get fired for doing the right thing, then I don’t want to work here anyway.

      Also keep in mind that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. It’s better to fix problems while they are still small, before they escalate to the whistle-blowing level of severity.

    • esqTJE@23 says:

      If you are ever placed in the situation where there is an urgent need for a whistleblower, I hope you may prayerfully reconsider. Many businesses and agencies are in need of course correction now and then; sometimes when others’ lives are at stake. And courageous, thoughtful, attentive-to-detail, types of people must step forward on occasion to make credible allegations known to others.

      What distinguishes whistleblowers to those pretending: 1) pursuing allegations within proper channels first, if available, and 2) continuing to press if things are not resolved, despite certain PERSONAL DESTRUCTION to their self-interest, including job loss, reputation decline, family separation, threats to personal safety, etc. MOTIVE is the most easily distinguishable characteristic. True whistleblowers repeatedly assess their motives, and often continue to drive forward after setbacks, even when personal risk escalates — because they evaluate the potential cost to others to be too high. Unsurprising, this ‘cost’ or potential harm that OTHERS face, that whistleblowers feel compelled to expose, is often completely unknown to those who have proximity to it and it is this unknown which makes the situation particularly dangerous or untenable. Others’ proximity to the harm is most often something they can control, if informed, as the level of harm-to-others face is often based on their role or physical position in time ( e.g., consumers, travellers, voters, neighborhood dwellers). And, of course, there are potential stakeholders doing their best to keep this a secret from those in harm’s way. Earnest whistleblowers are COMPELLED to act, despite the cost to themselves, until the risk-of-harm-to-OTHERS is lessened, or until their voice is taken from them.

      When you find no logical self-interest by a person who has tried to work within the system but who is now blowing the whistle to a wider domain, and, in fact, that person is facing mostly only negative consequences personally and professionally, and severe harm or death TO OTHERS could escalate without intervention in the matter, you’ve got a sincere person who cares about making things right — an earnest whistleblower. And being a “showboat” or “craving the spotlight” allegations made by others, alone, is not a valid ‘self-interest’ to weigh against the truth teller. It is often a made-up allegation by the powerful to cleave the voice of the powerless.

      Without earnest whistleblowers in the US, we quite possibly might still have nuclear waste sites irradiating toxic, lethal material, poorly maintained commercial planes crashing on a weekly (or daily?) basis, tanks on military bases leaking benzene into drinking water, military contractors charging DOD $300 for toilet seats, young female gymnasts being sexually molested by their team doctor, and the US government leading covert ops to send weapons to Central American rebels in exchange for the release of American hostages in the Middle East. Thank God for whistleblowers!

      Being an earnest whistleblower is a calling that you can only be recruited into by the shouting Higher Power you pray to nightly, or the moral code apart from any faith or religion that has grounded you since your earliest days that compels you to act… no matter the devastating cost to yourself or your family. It is NOT a calling that can be made by a false prophet, made of human flesh, living lavishly in West Palm Beach, inviting his ‘truth-tellers’ to live in a self-defined version of ‘luxury’ he’ll reward if they expose the fictional agenda attributed to their media-prescribed ‘political enemies.’

      The fact that you read or comment on this Empty Wheel site might suggest you do have compassion for, or a small proclivity toward, the exposure of corruption, bad behavior, or unjust or illegal circumstances. . . but certainly it’s understandable that taking on any sort of personal risk, like whistleblowing would cause, is generally viewed as undesirable. Consumers here crave to learn the information Marcy gives us– the inferences that only she can make by her bibliotheca-brain and its genius dot-linking matrix. I pray she never face personal risk for her reporting, but feel it essential to recognize her bravery for attempting to educate, inform, and occasionally alarm us on such a public forum. I am quite greatful she has heeded her calling!

      • Rayne says:

        Please strive for concision. 692 words for a comment is a bit excessive, especially when comments here ziggurat making it difficult to read on mobile devices.

      • Fanch Chicken says:

        This may seem trivial, but authentic whistleblowers regardless of political stripe tend to use a select few law firms in the DC area. My memory is for shite these days but I know one of the more prominent lawyers that represents whistleblowers name begins with a Z. And the National Security Counselors that Marcy worked with have also represented whistleblowers.

        Having a Trump attorney by your side when you’re claiming to be a whistleblower is such a huuuuge red flag that these folks are not what they claim to be.

  4. soundgood2 says:

    Im thinking that the FBI agents Jordan wants to interview could backfire on him spectacularly.

    • emptywheel says:

      I’d be a lot more sanguine about that if I didn’t know well that EVERY SINGLE FBI person who investigated Trump had their career damaged, and Jordan (more so Meadows) had a role in that. That’s likely one reason Trump gave Jordan the medal of honor. To thank him for destroying the FBI. And now he has his sites set bigger.

      • Donnab says:

        And it has had the desired impact as seen in the recent reporting about why the FBI was reluctant to search MAL. Agents know their careers are over if Republicans win the White House again.

      • Shadowalker says:

        They can always ignore it like Jordan did the J6 committee subpoena. In which case, he could have a court enforce the subpoena or more likely contempt of congress, which doesn’t carry the same weight it used to. I’m beginning to wonder what exposure he has from J6.

        • Shadowalker says:

          Courts have always been hesitant to get involved in a branch dispute, instead, telling both parties to work it out on their own and even in the times they did get involved it often took years to resolve. He can forget about enforcement if it involves an active investigation in any way.

        • bmaz says:

          There is a huge difference between Congressional subpoenas and official district court ones. And, no, this is not one the district court would shy away from. You are conflating disparate things.

        • Shadowalker says:

          I think you are confused. There is no district court subpoena (that I’m aware of). I was referring to Jordan’s threat of subpoena should the DOJ not turn over documents and the 16 FBI agents for questioning to his committee..

        • earlofhuntingdon says:

          Straw man argument, weaker than a congressional subpoena. Bmaz was referring to the generic distinction between a relatively weak congressional subpoena and the kind of subpoena a trial-level federal court issues, which is virtually impossible to ignore. He was not saying one had already been issued.

        • Shadowalker says:

          I see, it was my mistake.

          Well contempt of court can be a great motivator. Whereas contempt of congress is referred to the DOJ for any legal action.

          To be clear. I’m not suggesting anybody ignore a subpoena from any authority, and talk to an attorney about it, because you can cause yourself a great deal more trouble in the end.

  5. soundgood2 says:

    The problem I see is that even when they fail spectacularly under smart questioning by Dems on committees, they don’t care. They just want to pull clips out of context to feed to their followers who will never see the other side. I see it with people I know who say, for example, they don’t bother to look at the revelations in the Dominion filing because it’s just lawsuit talk. Many of them get all their information from quick video clips curated for them and fed to them via social media. Taking down Fox News would be a start but I don’t know that that will happen, but it seems the only way to do it will be with monetary damages large enough for the corporation to take notice. Profit is all they care about. They have identified an audience of marks and there are a lot of people who are more than happy to jump on the bandwagon to pick their pockets. Trying to quantify what qualifies as a news operation is trickier than it might seem and not something you want the Government to be doing.

    • harpie says:

      soundgood2: They just want to pull clips out of context to feed to their followers who will never see the other side.

      Here’s an example of that:

      Wherein Rep. Matt Gaetz formally enters Chinese government propaganda into the congressional record. Followed by the Chair saying, “without objection, so ordered.” [link to Rupar VIDEO]

      In the VIDEO, Defense Under Secretary for Policy Colin Kahl says :

      [2/28/23] Kahl: As a general matter I don’t take Beijing’s propaganda at face value”

      3/1/23 Goodman continues his thread:

      2. Follow up: [WaPo link] “Gaetz has promoted his question-and-answer period from the hearing on Twitter, while cutting off the video before the above exchange.” via @AaronBlake with additional thoughtful analysis.

      • harpie says:

        CPI, Conservative Partnership Institute has a studio staffed with people who help members with their public relations.

    • Alan Charbonneau says:

      “Taking down Fox News would be a start but I don’t know that that will happen, but it seems the only way to do it will be with monetary damages large enough for the corporation to take notice”

      MSNBC had Yale Professor Jeffrey Sonnenfeld on to discuss “how Rupert Murdoch, who owns just 39% of Fox, could potentially face ‘devastating’ lawsuits brought by shareholders who have a ‘duty’ to fix Fox’s mismanagement when it knowingly ‘peddled false information’ about the 2020 election.”

      Institutional investors, including Vanguard, own a bunch of Fox and could push the Murdochs out. Will it come to that? I don’t know, but it’s a possibility and I can hope. 😁

      • theartistvvv says:

        Money is a serious thing to such people as invested in FOX, but I can’t help but wonder about even *that* as a motivation for such people as invested in FOX to sue for what they likely approved of FOX doing at the time it did it.

  6. Savage Librarian says:

    Does anyone know if Anastasiya Yani Friend is the wife of Stephen Friend? If so, does she have any connections to Russia or Ukraine or another country other than the US?

  7. greenbird says:

    seek verification:
    Insurrection Protection Committee is author’s nickname (which should be used by everyone) for H. Select Subcomm. on the Weaponization of the Fed. Gov’t.

    (Jordan, Chair, HJC)

    • emptywheel says:

      Hakeen Jeffries’ nickname.

      Most of my nicknames — save the ones for Glenn and Matty — I appropriated from others.

  8. e.a. foster says:

    Jim Jordan reminds me of one of those big frogs in a tiny pond, who hit the “big time” or their version of it. Jim Jordan tries to convey he knows what he is doing, when he isn’t that smart. People like him do develop an animal cunning to survive in politcs, but smart, not so much.

    Whether he truly believes what he is saying is debatable. Although some of the jim jordan types really do have an overly inflated view of themselves and their abilities. When reading, watching all of this attack on the F.B.I. and/or certain employees of the organization there doesn’t appear to be much solid ground behind it all. Its not smart to start using people under investigation for inappropriate activities as part of your argument.

    Having watched hearings here in Canada and the U.S.A. over the decades, what has amused me is politicians who think they are smarter than the federal or provincial/state employees they are trying to attack. Just because they give you the bright ribbon doesn’t make you smart nor does it make you right.

    At some point Jim Jordan is going to open his mouth and be very sorry he did because some witness is going to tell him the truth and then every one will know how out of his league he is.

    Thank you for this post.

    • Ravenous hoarde says:

      I feel the same way about McCarthy and Meadows. Firefighter and NC “developer”. Barr and McConnell are awful. But I’ve never thought I could beat them in a debate.

      They’re smart and cunning. The insurrection apologists are simply survivalists like you said; buoyed along by gerrymandering.

  9. tinao says:

    Ut oh…coming through
    I found a new pen!
    as to the crazy bubble
    can we say they are done for?
    Application of law
    should apply to new
    The second storming of
    Please Lord
    racists and the tabloid boy
    won’t win this time either.

Comments are closed.