Posts

Kash Patel Yapped His Mouth with a REAL Feeb

/68 Comments/in /by

There’ll be a lot of good articles on this lawsuit that three recently fired senior FBI agents — Brian Driscoll, Steven Jensen, and Spencer Evans — have filed against Kash Patel, Pam Bondi, and the agencies that fired them. For example, NYT focuses on disclosures about Stephen Miller’s role in running DOJ. NPR focuses on Dan Bongino’s obsession with social media.

The complaint retells stories already reported in the press, such as how the Trump Administration intended to hire Robert Kissane as interim FBI Director but fucked up the announcement, so Driscoll served instead. There are descriptions designed to be embarrassing — if not debilitating to Kash’s ability to lead the agency — such as the revelation that Kash has a collection of whiskey and cigars in his office and  that Kash’s challenge coin that is unusually large. The audience for such disclosures goes beyond Judge Jia Cobb, who’ll preside over the case, to members of Congress who’ll hold hearings with Kash just days from now.

These details discrediting Kash’s leadership are matched by details describing how these men, especially Driscoll, were fired because of their efforts to treat FBI agents with respect and dignity, intervening to prevent firings or mitigate the impact of them. A long passage describes Driscoll’s efforts to undercut Emil Bove’s jihad against agents who–like Bove and Driscoll themselves–had participated in the January 6 investigation. This includes an anecdote about how Bove bolloxed an attempt to send an email to the entire FBI workforce to complain about Driscoll.

This is a speaking complaint written by people who’ve helped write their share of speaking indictments in their careers.

Which is why my favorite line is the one describing Kash acknowledging that these firings could lead to his deposition: “[Kash] again commented that he knew the nature of the summary firings were likely illegal and that he could be sued and later deposed.” [my emphasis]

The deposition comment, as it pertains to Kash, appears twice in the lawsuit: once at the beginning, to substantiate that Kash knew these firings were unlawful, which the complaint immediately contrasts with the sworn promises Kash made to the Senate not to politicize firings.

4. Patel openly acknowledged the unlawfulness of his actions. On or about August 5, 2025, in a conversation with Driscoll, Patel plainly stated the reasoning behind his firing of FBI employees that Mr. Driscoll sought to defend. In sum and substance, Patel admitted that his superiors, who he referred to as “they” and who Driscoll understood to include Defendant Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and the White House (which encompasses Defendant Executive Office of the President (“EOP”)), had directed him to fire anyone who they identified as having worked on a criminal investigation against President Donald J. Trump. Patel explained that he had to fire the people his superiors told him to fire, because his ability to keep his own job depended on the removal of the agents who worked on cases involving the President. Patel explained that there was nothing he or Driscoll could do to stop these or any other firings, because “the FBI tried to put the President in jail and he hasn’t forgotten it.” Driscoll indicated his belief that Patel’s reference to his superiors meant DOJ and the White House, and Patel did not deny it.

5. When Driscoll explained that firing employees based on case assignments would be in direct violation of internal FBI processes meant to adjudicate adverse actions and prevent retaliation based on case assignments, Patel said that he understood that and he knew the nature of the summary firings were likely illegal and that he could be sued and later deposed.

6. Patel’s actions stood in stark contrast to his sworn testimony during his confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee. There, he assured the Committee and the country that “all FBI employees will be protected against political retribution.” An exchange with Senator Richard Blumenthal on the topic of firing agents who worked on criminal investigations involving President Trump proceeded as follows:

Sen. Blumenthal: You’ve committed that the FBI will not be politicized. So here’s your first test. Will you commit that you will not tolerate the firing of the FBI agents who worked with the Special Counsel’s Office on these investigations? . . .

Patel: Senator. Every FBI employee will be held to the absolute same standard, and no one will be terminated for case assignments.

7. Likewise in his written responses to a Senate Questionnaire, Patel repeatedly emphasized his commitment that “personnel decisions should be based on performance and adherence to the law” and that “every FBI employee will be held to the absolute same standard, and no one will be terminated for case assignments.” He also asserted that he would “ensure that the appropriate processes are always followed” with respect to adverse actions against FBI personnel.

The lawsuit repeats the deposition comment twice in a longer passage where Driscoll describes how he was fired because he attempted to prevent the firing of another agent, Christopher Meyer, who had been assigned to pilot Kash’s frequent flights back to Las Vegas.

169. On or around August 1, 2025, FBI Supervisory Special Agent Chris Meyer became the subject of intense social media activity. Specifically, various social media posts claimed incorrectly that Meyer had been the signatory to the Mar-a-Lago search warrant affidavit and was now Patel’s personal pilot.

170. In fact, Meyer was not the signatory to the Mar-a-Lago search warrant affidavit. He was not the case agent for the investigation concerning President Trump’s handling of classified documents, nor did he participate in the search of Mar-a-Lago.

[snip]

173. On Saturday, August 2, 2025, the FBI’s Associate Deputy Director and Chief Operating Officer Will Rivers called Driscoll to ask him for details about Meyer. Meyer is a military veteran and a qualified pilot. As part of his duties with the FBI, he flew the FBI’s private jet, a Gulfstream G550, which means he served as the FBI Director’s pilot while on duty. Along with those duties, Meyer—and all of the G550 pilots—also flew HRT personnel to overseas missions and other mission-critical assignments. HRT is also responsible for flying “Foreign Transfer of Custody” missions, which detains and transports terrorists and criminals from overseas to the United States to face criminal prosecution. In short, each pilot in CIRG plays an essential role in critical FBI missions.

174. Rivers wanted to know Meyer’s current location and whether he was flying the Director on his current trip. He also asked Driscoll about Meyer’s tenure with the FBI, which was approximately 13 years. Rivers told Driscoll that Meyer was no longer permitted to fly the Director’s plane.

[snip]

179. At this point, Driscoll demanded an opportunity to speak with Patel in person, to which Rivers agreed. Driscoll scheduled a meeting with Patel for Tuesday, August 5, 2025.

180. Driscoll later spoke with Meyer over the phone and informed him that he would no longer be allowed to pilot Patel’s aircraft. Driscoll also told Meyer that he would be raising the issue with the Director and would challenge the decision.

181. On Monday, August 4, 2024, Driscoll received a call from Bongino. Bongino asked Driscoll if anybody would be able to “find anything” in his emails from the time he (Driscoll) was serving as Acting Director. Driscoll replied that there would be nothing incriminating to find in his emails during this time and took Bongino’s question to mean that somebody besides Bongino and Patel would be searching through his old emails in an attempt to find a basis for firing him. Bongino said that he would attempt to keep Driscoll in place.

182. On Tuesday, August 5, 2025, at 9:00 a.m., Driscoll again met with Rivers. This meeting included a status update on Meyer.

183. At 10:00 a.m. on August 5, 2025, Driscoll met directly with Patel to discuss Meyer. Specifically, Driscoll stated that summarily firing Meyer would be illegal based on his military veteran status and would also violate all established FBI policies for adverse actions against personnel.

184. Patel responded that Meyer would be fired by Friday, August 8, 2025, and that there was nothing either Patel or Driscoll could say or do that would stop it. Driscoll pointed out that Meyer had not committed any misconduct and that being assigned to cases could not be grounds for termination. Patel said he understood this, but that as Driscoll should know from “sitting in this seat,” meaning serving as the Director, that “you can’t save everyone.”

185. When Driscoll explained it, Patel acknowledged that the FBI would be sued and would lose in court. He also acknowledged that he would likely be deposed concerning his knowledge of the reasons for Meyer’s termination. He also acknowledged that the FBI workforce would likely respond negatively to Meyer’s termination.

186. Patel stated that all FBI employees who they identified who had worked on the cases against President Trump would be removed from their jobs, regardless of their retirement eligibility status. He then stated that Driscoll needed to understand that “the FBI tried to put the President in jail and he hasn’t forgotten it.” Patel then stated that his own job depended on the removal of the agents who worked on the cases against the President, regardless of whether the agents chose to work on those cases or not. Patel acknowledged that this would be in direct violation of internal FBI processes meant to adjudicate adverse actions and prevent retaliation based on case assignments. He again commented that he knew the nature of the summary firings were likely illegal and that he could be sued and later deposed. [my emphasis]

There’s even the equivalent passage where Steven Jensen staved off Walter Giardina’s firing for some months by warning Dan Bongino that he might face a deposition.

130. At some point in May 2025, Jensen received a phone call from Bongino, who was audibly upset. He asked Jensen whether he knew who SA Walter Giardina was and told Jensen that he has “got to go.” Giardina was an agent assigned to WFO. Jensen asked him to elaborate, but Bongino explained that he could not do so over the phone. Jensen met him at FBI Headquarters to continue the discussion. Jensen knew Giardina to be a dedicated and hardworking FBI agent who was assigned to high-profile investigations into members of both political parties because of these qualities.

131. Upon arriving at FBI Headquarters, Jensen found Bongino in his Chief of Staff’s office. Bongino looked as if he had not slept for several days. He seemed extremely anxious and agitated. Jensen asked him what was wrong. Bongino explained that he had found a room filled with classified documents and “burn bags” related to the now-closed Crossfire Hurricane investigation. He expressed shock at the existence of these burn bags.

132. By his comments, it seemed to Jensen that Bongino might not have been fully aware that the use of “burn bags” is a standard method across multiple federal agencies for preparing classified material for destruction when an investigation is deemed closed, or when physical copies of the materials are no longer necessary. He also appeared unaware that the FBI also stored digital copies of materials on the FBI’s classified computer system, and that this was likely the case with these materials. At the meeting, Bongino also made an unfounded additional allegation about Giardina’s handling of data, claiming that the allegation was “just out there.”

133. Bongino insisted that Jensen summarily fire Giardina. Jensen explained that Giardina was a military veteran and was entitled to certain rights which did not allow such a firing. He explained that if Bongino forced him to summarily fire Giardina, he would document in a report that the firing was at the direction of Bongino and had occurred after Jensen explained why the firing violated FBI procedures and Giardina’s rights. He explained that Bongino would likely be deposed in a lawsuit should Giardina choose to challenge his unlawful firing. Bongino did not pursue further his demand that Giardina be summarily fired in that meeting. In fact, Giardina was never assigned to work on Crossfire Hurricane. [my emphasis]

Note the similarity between these two conversations: in both, FBI’s top officials ordered their subordinates to fire someone based — at least partly — on false premises, shit floating around on social media (involvement in the Mar-a-Lago search in Meyer’s case, involvement in Crossfire Hurricane and mishandling data in Giardina’s case, both marked in blue). Both involve military veterans whose status prohibits certain kinds of firing (marked in red). In both, the subordinate gave warnings that such firings would be illegal (marked in green); Kash repeatedly acknowledged he knew those firings would be illegal.

Both of these exchanges, as described, were set up like witness interviews, where FBI agents know how to repeatedly get the core admission from the subject.

There’s some question whether Jensen and Driscoll documented these exchanges and if so how. Jensen said he would document the conversation if Bongino went ahead and fired Giardina in May, which he did not do. A footnote explains,

3 The facts alleged in this section are based primarily on the firsthand knowledge, best recollections, and/or communications of and involving Plaintiffs. Unless otherwise indicated with quotation marks, descriptions of conversations and other oral statements are reflected in sum and substance and to the best recollections of Plaintiffs.

That doesn’t explain what kind of documentation each man made of the conversations or when. Both men know well the lesson of Jim Comey, whose attempt to take official notes with him after he was fired was criminalized over the course of years. But both men were also trained, over decades, to write 302 reports after the fact that would be deemed reliable in court.

In any case, Driscoll makes sure to name the witnesses to various parts of this progression: The conversations with Will Rivers on August 2 and — just before the conversation with Kash — on August 5. The phone conversation with Bongino on August 4. Details of timing that would show up in phone records and official calendars.

These are men who know how to substantiate a case, and in the case of these crucial conversations, did so.

Which is why the warnings about the depositions are so delicious.

It actually is hard to demand that FBI Directors and their Deputies sit for a deposition. There’s a whole body of precedent that requires plaintiffs to work their way up to more senior officials. For example, Peter Strzok (the circumstances of whose firing and subsequent lawsuit, which made some of the very same First Amendment and Due Process claims, Driscoll and Jensen presumably also know well) had to fight hard to get Chris Wray to sit for a deposition, and even harder to get Trump to sit for one.

But here, the plaintiffs have the defendants on the record noting that they would have to sit for depositions.

The depositions themselves would be worse than embarrassing. They would record:

  • Both men’s rank ignorance of FBI processes
  • The erroneous social media conspiracies that dictated firings of highly qualified FBI agents
  • Acknowledgment — laid out elsewhere in the complaint — by both Bongino and Kash that these men were doing their jobs competently
  • As noted, the knowledge of all the reasons why the firings of Giardina and Meyer, as well as those of the plaintiffs, were illegal (note, at least per the biographies in the complaint, none of the plaintiffs are veterans entitled to special treatment on firings)

In that first instance, the warning about the deposition does something else.

The White House is a defendant in this lawsuit. The basis for that rests in part on Emil Bove’s repeated explanations that Stephen Miller was ordering up the FBI firings and specific references to White House involvement that both Bongino and Kash relayed to Jensen. But it also rests in that question — again, from a trained FBI agent — about who Kash meant by “they.” “Driscoll indicated his belief that Patel’s reference to his superiors meant DOJ and the White House, and Patel did not deny it.”

Again, this may help plaintiffs clear a hurdle that also proved onerous for Strzok and Andrew McCabe when they tried to pierce the orders the White House gave to politicize the FBI. Effectively, Driscoll already got the concession that he would have had to get in a deposition to start asking for details on — say — Stephen Miller’s role in all this, to say nothing of Kash’s understanding (and this is one of the few things put in quotation marks) that, “the FBI tried to put the President in jail and he hasn’t forgotten it.”

Kash, because he ran his mouth, may have made it easier to demand a deposition of President Trump in this case.

And finally, there’s the contrast between the concession that he might have to sit for a deposition with the sworn promises that Kash made to get confirmed. Kash already has a history of false claims that got him in legal trouble, with the grand jury testimony that he succeeded in burying during his confirmation. But here, the plaintiffs have dangled the threat of posing one set of sworn statements — that no agents would be fired for the cases they worked — with the admissions Kash already admitted he might have to make in a deposition.

To be sure, this case still faces the same hurdles and delays that both McCabe and Strzok faced (Strzok is still waiting to hear whether his case will go to trial). But because neither Bongino nor Kash could acquit themselves competently when interacting with men who had spent years doing certain FBI agent things, they’ve already backed themselves, and the people — “they” — who ordered these firings, into certain corners.

Share this entry

In Appointing a Babysitter, Todd Blanche Concedes Dan Bongino Can’t Match Andrew McCabe’s Competence

/13 Comments/in /by

Forty days after Dan Bongino had to take a day off from work because he was so emotional about the Jeffrey Epstein cover-up, Todd Blanche appointed a babysitter for the podcast host.

Missouri’s far right wing Attorney General, Andrew Bailey, will serve as co-Deputy Director, which before Blanche arrived and turned DOJ into a vehicle for sex trafficking cover-ups, was never a thing.

Here’s how WaPo reported the appointment.

“Thrilled to welcome Andrew Bailey as our new FBI Co-Deputy Director,” Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche said on social media Monday evening. “As Missouri’s Attorney General, he took on the swamp, fought weaponized government and defended the Constitution. Now he is bringing that fight to DOJ.”

Fox News Digital first reported on Bailey’s appointment. Both Attorney General Pam Bondi and Patel provided comments to the outlet celebrating the move.

Multiple news outlets reported that Bailey was considered for a top Justice Department or FBI position at the beginning of the administration, but the president opted not to nominate him.

The FBI deputy director position does not require Senate approval and it was unclear how Bongino and Bailey will split the responsibilities of the job.

Bailey arrives at the FBI at a time when the bureau is facing intense criticism from Trump supporters over its handling of the sex trafficking investigation into Jeffrey Epstein. Before their positions at the FBI, Patel and Bongino had spread conspiracy theories about the case, suggesting that the FBI during the Biden administration covered up key details of the investigation to protect powerful people who may have participated in sex crimes alongside Epstein.

The move comes just as the FBI announced it will miss the deadline for turning over Epstein files to Congress, the kind of moment that might require better cover-up skills than releasing an obviously altered video as “proof” that Epstein killed himself.

Now, on the one hand, it’s easy to laugh your ass off at this move, which is tacit confirmation that Bongino is nowhere near as competent as, say, Andrew McCabe.

Bongino has wailed about how hard this job is. So now, I guess, he has a job share, the kind of accommodation you might make for someone with inadequate qualifications for the job.

On the other hand, I have suspicions that this is not so much about the Jeffrey Epstein cover-up and Bongino’s manifest incompetence. The move comes shortly after Kash Patel fired two senior officials, along with the agent who had been flying his plane (who also played a role in the Mar-a-Lago search and the Peter Navarro arrest).

The FBI has forced out at least three senior officials who found themselves at odds with President Donald Trump’s administration, including a former acting director who resisted demands to fire agents involved in investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, according to people familiar with the dismissals.

Brian Driscoll, who briefly served as acting head of the bureau during the first weeks of Trump’s second term, was fired by senior leaders this week and will finish his last day Friday, said three people familiar with his departure, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the unannounced personnel move.

Driscoll was given no reason for his firing, the people said. But during his brief tenure at the top, he earned the respect of much of the FBI’s rank and file after he resisted orders from Trump Justice Department appointees to identify hundreds of agents who had been involved in the Capitol riot investigations, which agents feared could signal a wider purge.

“I regret nothing,” Driscoll wrote in a farewell message to colleagues obtained by The Washington Post. He added, “Our collective sacrifices for those we serve is, and will always be, worth it.”

Also dismissed this week were Steven Jensen, assistant director in charge of the FBI’s Washington field office, and Walter Giardina, an agent involved in the investigation that sent Trump’s former trade adviser Peter Navarro to prison, the people familiar with the matter said.

The firing of Driscoll and Jensen would already have required a new organizational structure, from the reorganization that Kash pushed through in March.

But I can’t help but thinking about the number of sensitive investigative steps at FBI that require high level approval — most famously, FISA warrants.

Everything at FBI runs according to the Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide (one, two), a big unwieldy guide meant to prevent the abuses of J Edgar Hoover. Not only do certain sensitive investigations — say, of journalists or members of Congress — require high level approval, in some cases from the Deputy. But the Deputy owns the document.

If you get a competently corrupt Deputy (Bongino certainly doesn’t have the competence) you could dismantle those protections in order to make the FBI a far more politicized entity.

Perhaps most notably, the appointment of Bailey comes the day after DOJ appealed a judge’s ruling that the FTC’s investigation of Media Matters repeats past attempts to infringe on the NGO’s First Amendment rights — a ruling in which Bailey’s own politicized investigation of Media Matters figured prominently.

Mr. Musk responded on November 18, 2023, by promising to file “a thermonuclear lawsuit against Media Matters.” Id. ¶ 38 (quoting Elon Musk (@elonmusk), X (Nov. 18, 2023, 2:01 am), https://perma.cc/X4HN-PLJ4). He claimed that “activist groups like Media Matters . . . try to use their influence to attack our revenue streams by deceiving advertisers on X.” Id. ¶ 39 (quoting Elon Musk (@elonmusk), X (Nov. 18, 2023, 2:01 am), https://perma.cc/X4HN-PLJ4). As he saw it, Media Matters had “‘manipulate[d]’ advertisers and the public by ‘curat[ing]’ and ‘contriv[ing]’ in order to ‘find a rare instance of ads serving next to the content they chose to follow.’” Id. ¶ 39.

The next day, on November 19, 2023, Stephen Miller, the current White House Deputy Chief of Staff, in response to a post on X about the Media Matters article, stated that “[f]raud is both a civil and criminal violation” and that “[t]here are 2 dozen+ conservative state Attorneys General.” Id. ¶ 40 (quoting Stephen Miller (@StephenM), X (May 17, 2022, 11:12 am), https://perma.cc/5X5H-5QLN). Just a few hours later, Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey replied to Mr. Miller’s post: “My team is looking into this matter.” Id. ¶ 41 (quoting Attorney General Andrew Bailey (@AGAndrewBailey), X (Nov. 19, 2023, 4:46pm), https://perma.cc/J463- 656K). And the next day, on November 20, 2023, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton “announced that he was launching an investigation into Media Matters, purportedly under Texas’s Deceptive Trade Practices Act.” Id. ¶ 42. That same day, Mr. Musk’s X Corp. sued Media Matters and Mr. Hananoki in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. See id. ¶ 45 (citing X Corp. v. Media Matters for Am., No. 4:23-cv-1175 (N.D. Tex Nov. 20, 2023), ECF No. 1).1 And in the “weeks and months” that followed, “X Corp., through its international subsidiaries, filed suits in Ireland and Singapore.” Id. ¶ 46

[snip]

And the Court again granted a preliminary injunction on August 23, 2024, concluding that the Missouri CID likely amounted to First Amendment retaliation. See Media Matters for Am. v. Bailey, No. 24-cv-147, 2024 WL 3924573 (D.D.C. Aug. 23, 2024). Media Matters and the Missouri Attorney General ultimately settled their dispute in February 2025.

We know that Bailey likes to use the power of government to infringe on Democrats’ constitutional rights.

Which makes his appointment as FBI Deputy exceedingly dangerous.

Share this entry

Trump’s Deep State Can’t Even Deep State Competently

/39 Comments/in /by

I was and still intend to write a post arguing that all of the coverage of this comment from Trump is wrong. As I rant on Nicole Sandler’s show today, what we saw in these few moments was Trump, whose super power is in being able to command attention, not only failing that, but flubbing his lines when he tried to reassert his command over attention focused on Jeffrey Epstein.

The conspiracy theorists who put Trump in office will not let him take ahold of this conspiracy.

What we see in this exchange is — more than at any time in the last ten years, I argue — Trump’s super power of commanding where people focus their attention failing him.

So I want to write about how everyone is getting this wrong.

But first, I want to talk about how Trump’s Deep State can’t even Deep State competently.

Trump’s attempt to tamp this down, predictably, had the opposite effect, both because infighting over who fucked up the incompetent attempt to tamp it down, and the conspiracy theories that have arisen in the void.

Conspiracy theorist Laura Loomer is at the pivot of both worlds, and she’s playing her part to perfection. She started things today by revealing that Dan Bongino — who actually doesn’t like how hard he has to work at FBI anyway — complaining about how the memo that attempted but failed to tamp all this down happened.

That led Todd Blanche, fresh off his efforts to make the Erez Reuveni disclosures worse, to weigh in, claiming there was no dispute about how to release the Epstein memo.

Meanwhile, Marc Caputo — who has close ties with Susie Wiles from way back — debunks Blanche’s claim of harmony,  describing that Wiles and Taylor Budowich witnessed anything but.

The intrigue: MAGA influencer Laura Loomer, a Bondi critic, first reported Friday on X that Bongino left work and that he and Patel were “furious” with the way Bondi had handled the case.

  • Some Trump advisers have criticized Bondi, but Trump “loves Pam and thinks she’s great,” a senior White House official said.
  • Those witnessing the Wednesday clash between Bondi and Bongino in the White House were Patel, White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles and Deputy Chief of Staff Taylor Budowich.

The more important part of Caputo’s report, though, is that insiders blame Bongino for the “missing minute,” which provided the nutters reason to doubt the entire effort to tamp all this down.

Zoom in: At the center of the argument: a surveillance video from outside Epstein’s cell that the administration released, saying it was proof no one had entered the room before he killed himself.

  • The 10-hour video had what has widely been called a “missing minute,” fueling conspiracy theories in MAGA’s online world about a cover-up involving Epstein’s death.
  • The “missing minute,” authorities say, stemmed from an old surveillance recording system that goes down each day at midnight to reset and record anew. It takes a minute for that process to occur, which effectively means that 60 seconds of every day aren’t recorded.
  • Bongino — who had pushed Epstein conspiracy theories as a MAGA-friendly podcast host before President Trump appointed him to help lead the FBI — had found the video and touted it publicly and privately as proof that Epstein hadn’t been murdered.

That conclusion — shared by FBI Director Kash Patel, another conspiracy theorist-turned-insider — angered many in Trump’s MAGA base, criticism that increased after Axios first reported the release of the video and a related memo.

  • After the video’s “missing minute” was discovered, Bongino was blamed internally for the oversight, according to three sources.

Only, complaints about the video are only going to get worse. Wired describes that the metadata shows the video has been altered.

The “raw” file shows clear signs of having been processed using an Adobe product, most likely Premiere, based on metadata that specifically references file extensions used by the video editing software. According to experts, Adobe software, including Premiere and Photoshop, leaves traces in exported files, often embedding metadata that logs which assets were used and what actions were taken during editing. In this case, the metadata indicates the file was saved at least four times over a 23-minute span on May 23, 2025, by a Windows user account called “MJCOLE~1.” The metadata does not show whether the footage was modified before each time it was saved.

The embedded data suggest the video is not a continuous, unaltered export from a surveillance system, but a composite assembled from at least two separate MP4 files. The metadata includes references to Premiere project files and two specific source clips—2025-05-22 21-12-48.mp4 and 2025-05-22 16-35-21.mp4. These entries appear under a metadata section labeled “Ingredients,” part of Adobe’s internal schema for tracking source material used in edited exports. The metadata does not make clear where in the video the two clips were spliced together.

Hany Farid, a professor at UC Berkeley whose research focuses on digital forensics and misinformation, reviewed the metadata at WIRED’s request. Farid is a recognized expert in the analysis of digital images and the detection of manipulated media, including deepfakes. He has testified in numerous court cases involving digital evidence.

Farid says the metadata raises immediate concerns about chain of custody—the documented handling of digital evidence from collection to presentation in a courtroom. Just like physical evidence, he explains, digital evidence must be handled in a way that preserves its integrity; metadata, while not always precise, can provide important clues about whether that integrity has been compromised.

“If a lawyer brought me this file and asked if it was suitable for court, I’d say no. Go back to the source. Do it right,” Farid says. “Do a direct export from the original system—no monkey business.”

Farid points to another anomaly: The video’s aspect ratio shifts noticeably at several points. “Why am I suddenly seeing a different aspect ratio?” he asks.

It is abundantly likely that all of this is easily explained. I noted in my first post that the missing minute probably comes from MCC’s ancient surveillance equipment. And it sounds like someone packaged this up for Bongino.

Of course, none of that is going to matter if and when people confirm that the video doesn’t even show Epstein’s cell, as multiple people claim.

Every single wrinkle will only serve to feed the conspiracy theorists whose attention Trump cannot manage to command.

Here’s the thing, though. I think Bondi probably did shut down these investigations because they are inconvenient to Trump. Maybe it stems from nothing more than Trump’s demand to command attention; maybe it has to do with the known connections between Trump and the abuser looking damning no matter how close or far Trump is to the rape.

But because the Deputy Director of the FBI, an agency with thousands of people with expertise on this kind of thing, couldn’t manage to find someone who could hold his hand and explain basic things like chain of custody, they have all made it far, far worse.

Trump’s Deep State can’t even Deep State competently.

Update: The date of the saved video (May 23) was between the date when Bongino and Kash told Bartiromo that Epstein killed himself and the date when Bongino told Fox the FBI was going to release the video but first was, “taking time to clean up and enhance the video.”

Share this entry

Pam Bondi Admits She Must Fire Kash Patel and Dan Bongino

/68 Comments/in /by

Even before Trump was inaugurated, I had great fun boosting expectations that Trump would release the Jeffrey Epstein files.

I didn’t do so because I believed there would be a massive Epstein release (partly because some of the conspiracy theories about Jeffrey Epstein are not true and partly because what is true is that Trump is among the powerful men who are implicated). I didn’t do so because I believed any files would ever come out.

I did so because beliefs about Epstein are non-falsifiable. I did so because even if there were no damning materials tying Trump to Epstein, the President would still never be able to satisfy the expectations of his mob.

I did so because the promise (from Kash Patel, long before he was confirmed, and then from Pam Bondi) and expectation that Trump would release the files was an expectation that Trump’s supporters should expect to have fulfilled — after all he ordered DOJ to do just that, with the JFK, RFK, and MLK files.

But there’s no chance their expectations can ever been fulfilled. It was a way, I knew, where Trump was going to disappoint some of his most rabid fans.

Trump promised to release the secret files the continued secrecy of which have fueled decades of conspiracy theories, so why wouldn’t he release files about pedophilia, the legitimate concern that has fueled the Trump-supporting QAnoners?

I fueled such expectations on Xitter because if the demand to see the Epstein files ever took hold, Bondi would be stuck.

Then Bondi made things worse when she told Fox News that Epstein’s client file was on her desk for review. She made things worse when she orchestrated the re-release of the already-released files to a select group of right wing propagandists, all packaged up to look special, a spectacle that stoked divisions among MAGAts but also raised concerns that she was covering stuff up. She made things still worse when — responding to James Comer’s role in making things worse, when he claimed the Epstein files had been disappeared — she said there were tens of thousands of videos involving Epstein.

Kash Patel, who promised to release the files, and Dan Bongino, who begged his readers never to let go of this scandal? They fed the fever too with their years of spreading conspiracy theories about the Epstein files. And when FBI’s conspiracy theorists in chief tried to reverse course a month ago, it only further fueled suspicions.

Then Elon joined the fun, accusing Trump of being in the Epstein files as part of his tantrum against Trump (but then deleting that file). As someone who was also close to Ghislaine Maxwell, Elon might know!

Dan Goldman joined in, expressing, “grave concern about what appears to be a concerted effort by you to delay and even prevent the release of the Jeffrey Epstein Files,” and asking whether Trump’s identity was being redacted from any of the files. Robert Garcia and Stephen Lynch joined in, writing Pam Bondi a letter, asking Bondi to formally answer whether the Epstein files are being withheld — as Elon Musk alleged — because Trump is in them, and further asking (among other questions) whether Trump had a role in the delay of their release.

Bondi’s stonewalling, after both she and Kash promised everything would come quickly, was becoming the story.

So yesterday, DOJ and FBI released (or rather, made available to Axios without yet, apparently, releasing it via normal channels) a two-page unsigned notice (which may be on letterhead created for the purpose).

It included two main, credible conclusions:

  • Much of the material that FBI has depicts victims and any release of that material would retraumatize the victims.
  • FBI concluded (and Trump’s flunkies agree) that Jeffrey Epstein killed himself. DOJ released two files (one unaltered, one enhanced, both with titles that do not even mention Epstein) showing that no one entered his cell the night he killed himself.

But there’s also a short, broader conclusion that is less sound.

This systematic review revealed no incriminating “client list.” There was also no credible evidence found that Epstein blackmailed prominent individuals as part of his actions. We did not uncover evidence that could predicate an investigation against uncharged third parties. [my emphasis]

Emphasis on credible?

Of course there’s a client list; one version of it was already released. There are also the names or descriptions shared by victims of the men who abused them. And while there may be no evidence in the FBI files that Epstein did blackmail Trump or anyone else, he had blackmail material on them. There’s certainly credible reason to believe that information is one of the reasons he was allowed to persist so long; it was useful for other powerful people, possibly even spooks in one or another country. That FBI didn’t uncover evidence confirming that others were involved in trafficking young people is dramatically different from saying that there’s no damning information implicating Epstein’s Johns.

But let’s assume for the moment that these conclusions are impeccable (and as I said, the decision not to release videos showing victims and the conclusion about the suicide are sound), that means that the people who’ve been claiming to have inside knowledge who promised to release the files — starting with FBI Director Kash Patel and FBI Deputy Direct Dan Bongino — are braying conspiracy theorists who cannot be trusted in any position of authority.

If it’s true that all this was a conspiracy theory, Kash and Bongino must leave the FBI, because they’ve just confessed they will endorse any kind of conspiracy theory to spin up Trump’s rubes. Pam Bondi must call for their resignations immediately, and while she’s at it, she should leave herself, because her original stunt release created the very expectations that she’s now trying to squelch.

They all promised to fulfill conspiracy theories and are now claiming they were lying about their certainty there was some there there.

Honestly, they’d be doing themselves a favor by doing so. But that won’t happen, and because these conspiracy theories are non-falsifiable, this attempt to make the entire promised reveal go away will simply fuel further conspiracy theories. Indeed, it already is.

Kash Patel, Dan Bongino, and Pam Bondi have now confirmed they are raging conspiracy theorists. And yet even that will not be enough to tamp down further conspiracy theories.

Update: I’m laughing my ass off. Doocy quoted Pam Bondi’s claim from an old interview, stating she had the client list on her desk. Karoline Leavitt spun it, with Doocy making big faces.

In addition, Unusual Whale notes that the last minute of the day (these may be PT time), from 11:58:59 to 11:59:59, missing from the video. Oh, and it turns out it’s not even the right cell.

Share this entry

Three Data Points from the Padilla Assault

/66 Comments/in /by

I want to call out three data points regarding the assault of Senator Alex Padilla yesterday.

First, in media appearances and on this video, Senator Padilla explained that he was in the Federal building for a scheduled briefing on the Federal response in Los Angeles. There was a delay so he asked to go to the presser. As he describes it, a Guard and an FBI Agent escorted him to the presser.

While I was waiting for the briefing, I learned that just down the hall from where I was, Secretary Noem from the Department of Homeland Security was having a press conference, Now Secretary Noem and the Department — we have been calling on and we have been sending letters to since the beginning of the year requesting more information as to what and why they are doing, with little to no response. And so I thought let me go over there, listen in on the press conference, maybe they’re sharing some important information. And while I did that, escorted over there by a National Guardsman and an FBI agent, …

This makes Dan Bongino’s description of the event entirely deceptive.

If the FBI brought him to the presser, it doesn’t matter whether he had his Senate pin. The FBI knew his identity. And yet an FBI agent was involved in the assault on Padilla regardless.

Secondly, in a presser, Gavin Newsom returned to comments about his call, last Friday night, with Donald Trump.

Oh, I would love to share the readout but I revere the office of presidency so I’ll keep it in confidence. He has quite literally made up components of that conversation. Um, he’s been a stone cold liar about what he said we talked about. He never discussed the National Guard, period, full stop. I would love to share with you what we actually talked about. That would send shivers up your spine.

[snip]

We discussed for a nanosecond Los Angeles and he immediately zigged and zagged to seven or eight other topics. Some extraordinarily familiar. And some extraordinarily remarkable considering the world we’re living in.

Again, after a hearing before Charles Breyer on the lawsuit, at which the substance of that call — whether Trump actually raised the Guard — was an issue, Newsom accused Trump of making up components of the conversation and then said the actual content of the call “would send shivers up your spine” but he wasn’t sharing it because “I revere the office of the presidency.”

I don’t doubt that some deference to the Office of the President is one reason Newsom hasn’t told us what Trump said. After all, he no doubt still harbors ambitions to one day occupy that office. The tenor of the lawsuit challenging Trump adopts a sober legal approach, avoiding some things — like Whiskey Pete’s apparent ignorance of basic facts about the deployment (such as whether the Marines would come from Camp Pendleton or, as is the case, Twentynine Palms and when they finished training for the deployment) — that would be great politically but shift the focus away from Trump and onto Hegseth’s incompetence. In the lawsuit (as distinct from his public messaging, including this presser) Newsom has been making a constitutional argument, not a political one.

The government seems to understand it is vulnerable to Newsom’s claim that Trump fabricated parts of the conversation. As I noted, in their response to the lawsuit they relied on an erroneous Fox News report on the timing of the call, not the readout of the call that the White House presumably has.

At approximately 10:23pm PT that night, President Trump called Governor Newsom. The President informed Governor Newsom of the dangers that federal personnel and property were being subjected to and directed him to take action to stop the violence.4

4
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-brings-receipts-he-called-newsom-amid-la-riots-california-gov-claims-wasnt-even-voicemail.amp; see also https://www.gov.ca.gov/2025/06/09/watch-governor-newsom-discusses-donald-trumps-mess-inlos-angeles/ (Governor Newsom concurring that the call took place)

They do not include any other source to substantiate the claim that “the President informed Governor Newsom,” and in the hearing yesterday DOJ did not back the specific claims Trump and Steve Cheung made to Fox (though Brett Shumate did claim that something about the call led Trump to conclude the laws were not being executed, one basis DOJ relied on to claim the usurpation was legal).

And so, Newsom hinted at more, but claimed he couldn’t share it — as if threatening to share the real content of the call would damage Trump (or make his depravity clear).

I mean, it’s clear Trump said something. After all, before the call, Trump threatened to cut off all funding to CA (a threat that has not yet manifested, even though it was presented as imminent). After the call, Newsom came out with two messages: Trump is a “Stone cold liar” and “there’s no working with the President. There’s only working for him. And I will never work for Donald Trump.”

I suspect Newsom is daring Trump to make him share the content of the call (and, likely, testing to see what kind of records Trump is willing to show). I suspect Newsom that call is important not just because of what Trump didn’t say, about the Guard deployment, but what he did say before he invaded California.

I suspect Trump tried to make a deal. Trump tried to get Newsom to work for him. And when Newsom refused, Trump invaded.

Which brings me to the last data point. In one clip of the NBC footage from the Padilla assault — which, of course, came just as Kristi Noem claimed she was going to liberate Los Angeles  from government by their duly elected Governor and Mayor — Peter Hamby spied Corey Lewandowski overseeing the aftermath of the assault.

Lewandowski, of course, has a history of assaulting people as he removed them from Trump events.

What gets made of the Padilla assault remains very much contested. Right wing propagandists — from Noem and her staffers to Bongino to members of Congress — are trying to claim that a Latino man obviously couldn’t be assumed to be a Senator elected by 6.6 million Californians, not even if an FBI agent escorted him into that room. That response gives up the game, of course: this was Trump’s racist Administration treating one of the most powerful Latino’s in the country just like they’re treating the day laborers and farmworkers they’re chasing down fields.

But it comes amid a larger context — the context in which Gavin Newsom and Donald Trump are directly combatting whether Trump may be king.

Update: Corrected the timing of Newsom’s comment. It happened after Breyer issued his ruling.

Update: NYT quotes Padilla claiming Lewandowski came running down the hall telling people to let him go.

On the videos, Mr. Padilla appeared stunned but repeatedly said he was a U.S. senator. In an interview hours later, Mr. Padilla said that he had demanded to know why he had been detained and where he was being escorted “when of all people, Corey Lewandowski” — a combative former Trump campaign aide and adviser to Ms. Noem — “comes running down the hall and he starts yelling, ‘Let him go! Let him go!’”

Update: In response to James Comer and Clay Higgins’ excitement about targeting Newsom and Karen Bass for investigation, Newsom’s office promises, “some highly unusual communications from the White House” and then, in the next tweet, highlighs Newsom’s comment.

So, yeah, he was hoping someone would force him to turn this over and two of the dumbest members of Congress complied.

Share this entry