Posts
Barry Loudermilk Provides Proof of Kash Patel’s Incompetence Wrapped Up inside His Liz Cheney Referral
As you’ve no doubt heard, Congressman Barry Loudermilk released a report that, beneath what seems to be an appendix, refers Liz Cheney for investigation because she made sure that Cassidy Hutchinson had a lawyer who represented the former Mark Meadows aide’s interests when testifying before the Committee.
Loudermilk claims obtaining witness testimony for a proceeding amounts to obstructing it and also claims Cheney — and not those who provided testimony inconsistent with other sworn documents — suborned perjury.
Based on the evidence obtained by this Subcommittee, numerous federal laws were likely broken by Liz Cheney, the former Vice Chair of the January 6 Select Committee, and these violations should be investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Evidence uncovered by the Subcommittee revealed that former Congresswoman Liz Cheney tampered with at least one witness, Cassidy Hutchinson, by secretly communicating with Hutchinson without Hutchinson’s attorney’s knowledge. This secret communication with a witness is improper and likely violates 18 U.S.C. 1512. Such action is outside the due functioning of the legislative process and therefore not protected by the Speech and Debate clause.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation must also investigate Representative Cheney for violating 18 U.S.C. 1622, which prohibits any person from procuring another person to commit perjury. Based on the evidence obtained by this Subcommittee, Hutchinson committed perjury when she lied under oath to the Select Committee. Additionally, Hutchinson was interviewed by the FBI as part of its investigation into President Trump. This Subcommittee sought a copy of the FBI report 302, documenting this interview and Hutchinson’s statements, but the FBI has refused to produce this vital document. The FBI must immediately review the testimony given by Hutchinson in this interview to determine if she also lied in her FBI interview, and, if so, the role former Representative Cheney played in instigating Hutchinson to radically change her testimony.
Loudermilk’s tribute to Kash Patel’s leadership
Before Loudermilk delivers his welcome wagon for aspiring FBI Director Kash Patel, however, he provides solid evidence that Kash Patel is not fit to be FBI Director.
It turns out that the longest section of his report — 39 pages as compared to 36 for the Cassidy and Liz section — lays out how top DOD officials misrepresented their decisions regarding the National Guard leading up to and on January 6.
Just five pages of that pertain to Christopher Miller’s inaction on what Loudermilk treats as a legitimate request from Trump to have 10,000 National Guard in DC (Loudermilk doesn’t lay out the testimony from top Trump aides nixing that idea, based in part on a fear that Trump wanted an armed guard to accompany him to the Capitol).
But the rest has to do with delays created in deploying the Guard after the riot started. It has long been clear that DOD was blowing smoke about their claimed actions that day. On its face, this part of Loudermilk’s report is fair pushback to DOD’s past unpersuasive claims. He even sneaks some quasi-referrals — whether to aspiring FBI Director Kash Patel or aspiring Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, it’s not clear — for Miller and Ryan McCarthy into his report.
To date, no investigation or disciplinary action has taken place against Acting Secretary of
Defense Miller for his failure to follow directives from the sitting Commander-in-Chief on
January 3, 2021.[snip]
To date, no investigation or disciplinary action has taken place against Secretary of the Army Ryan McCarthy for his failure to relay the Acting Secretary of Defense’s lawful deployment order at 3:04 PM on January 6, 2021.
[snip]
To date, no investigation or disciplinary action has taken place against Secretary of the Army Ryan McCarthy for deceiving congressional leadership with false statements regarding the delay in deployment of the D.C. National Guard to the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021.
The referrals are kind of interesting because McCarthy, at least, is on Kash’s dated and disorderly enemies list.
Mind you, if McCarthy was at fault for his January 6 response, it suggests there was something real to be at fault for. Maybe that’s why these referrals are snuck into the longest section of the report?
What’s most interesting, however, is Loudermilk’s picture of the DOD leadership that failed.
Someone — DOD’s then Acting Chief of Staff at the time — is missing.
Indeed, Kash’s name doesn’t show up anywhere in the 128-page report. Kash is a no-show even though, in the immediate wake of the insurrection, he had a great deal to say to Vanity Fair about his personal involvement in the two issues for which Loudermilk faults DOD.
On the evening of January 5—the night before a white supremacist mob stormed Capitol Hill in a siege that would leave five dead—the acting secretary of defense, Christopher Miller, was at the White House with his chief of staff, Kash Patel. They were meeting with President Trump on “an Iran issue,” Miller told me. But then the conversation switched gears. The president, Miller recalled, asked how many troops the Pentagon planned to turn out the following day. “We’re like, ‘We’re going to provide any National Guard support that the District requests,’” Miller responded. “And [Trump] goes, ‘You’re going to need 10,000 people.’ No, I’m not talking bullshit. He said that. And we’re like, ‘Maybe. But you know, someone’s going to have to ask for it.’” At that point Miller remembered the president telling him, “‘You do what you need to do. You do what you need to do.’ He said, ‘You’re going to need 10,000.’ That’s what he said. Swear to God.”
[snip]
On the morning of January 6, as Miller recounted, he was hopeful that the day would prove uneventful. But decades in special operations and intelligence had honed his senses. “It was the first day I brought an overnight bag to work. My wife was like, ‘What are you doing there?’ I’m like, ‘I don’t know when I’m going to be home.’” To hear Patel tell it, they were on autopilot for most of the day: “We had talked to [the president] in person the day before, on the phone the day before, and two days before that. We were given clear instructions. We had all our authorizations. We didn’t need to talk to the president. I was talking to [Trump’s chief of staff, Mark] Meadows, nonstop that day.”
[snip]
Miller and Patel both insisted, in separate conversations, that they neither tried nor needed to contact the president on January 6; they had already gotten approval to deploy forces. However, another senior defense official remembered things quite differently, “They couldn’t get through. They tried to call him”—meaning the president.The implication: Either Trump was shell-shocked, effectively abdicating his role as commander in chief, or he was deliberately stiff-arming some of his top officials because he was, in effect, siding with the insurrectionists and their cause of denying Biden’s victory.
As for Mike Pence, Miller disputed reports that the vice president was calling the shots or was the one who sent in the Guard. The SECDEF stated that he did speak with Pence—then in a secure location on the Hill—and provided a situation report. Referring to the Electoral College certification that had been paused when the mob stormed the building, Miller recalled Pence telling him, “We got to get this thing going again,” to which the defense secretary replied, “Roger. We’re moving.” Patel, for his part, said that those assembled in Miller’s office also spoke with congressional leaders Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, and Mitch McConnell. “We were called upon to do our job, and we executed because we had the reps and sets built into our process to get the troops where they were requested, to put up a fence, to secure a perimeter, and to help clear the Capitol compound. I mean, that’s just what we do.”
Some of what Kash said to Vanity Fair somewhat resembles Kash’s testimony to the January 6 Committee.
Although look forward to discussing these events in detail, I would like to make three things clear at the outset — excuse me — at the outset:
One, the actions the DOD took before January 6, 2021, to prepare for the planned protest in Washington, D.C., on January 5th and 6th, 2021, were appropriate, supported by requirements, consistent with the DOD’s roles and responsibilities, and compliant with laws, regulations, and other applicable guidance; two, the DOD’s actions to respond to the United States Capitol Police request for assistance on January 6th, 2021, were appropriate, supported by requirements, consistent with the DOD’s roles and responsibilities, and compliant with the laws, regulations, and other applicable guidance; and, three, DOD officials did not delay or obstruct the DOD’s response to the United States Capitol Police request for assistance on January 6th, 2021.
These are not just my words but, in fact, the findings of the DOD’s independent inspector general under President Biden’s administration. The IG’s November 16, 2021, report has marked has been marked as exhibit 3, I think.
But when January 6 Committee staffers asked the now-aspiring FBI Director about the Vanity Fair article itself he got … squirmy. His testimony to J6C was inconsistent with both what he told Vanity Fair and what Loudermilk lays out in his report.
A Oh, so you remember stuff like that. So, going off just the memory, and we can go back to the article when you bring it up, there was a meeting with the President of the United States, Acting Secretary Miller, and some others — I can’t recall off the top of my head where we were discussing, as the article states, something related to Iran.
And, in that same meeting, I believe it was on or around January 4th, 3rd, 4th, or 5th, the -as I stated earlier, in order for the Department of Defense’s National Guard to 11 be activated in any way we needed Presidential authorization. And President Trump at that
[Discussion off the record.]
Q sure. Go ahead.
A Okay. And so this question appears to implicate core executive privilege concems. I’m prepared to answer it, but I want the record to reflect my serious concerns about congressional overreaching of this matter.
So what I remember is that we knew, in order to get the National Guard even mobilized, we needed the President to at least say yes first. So what — my recollection of that meeting is the President preemptively authorized 10 to 20 National Guardsmen and-women around the country sorry? 10- to 20,000.
[snip]
Q Do you remember if the President mentioned anything that he may need these 19 troops to protect the Trump people?
A don’t recall him ever saying that.
Whichever Kash story you believe, however, both stories put Kash in the center of everything. Both stories claim he had the ability to directly affect all of the failures Loudermilk lays out (which might also explain why DOD’s story about January 6 is so unpersuasive).
If Kash was right there at the center of the story of DOD’s failures leading up to and on January 6, as told by Barry Loudermilk, then Loudermilk would have to include him, the aspiring FBI Director, among the referrals for investigation.
Perhaps that’s why Loudermilk instead just disappears the aspiring FBI Director: to avoid referring him to the aspiring FBI Director for accountability for his failures on that day?
How Barry Loudermilk covers up his own coverup
Which brings us to Loudermilk’s own coverup.
Loudermilk has been fluffing Trump’s non-response for some time as in this report, when he shows no interest in the Commander in Chief’s inaction that day.
Rather than dwelling on Trump’s demonstrable inaction, including in accelerating the Guard deployment, Loudermilk claims there was a witness present that day who would have heard if (as Hutchinson testified) Trump had cheered the taunts of “Hang Mike Pence,” rather than (as Jack Smith described) Nick Luna testifying that Trump simply said, “So what” when told Pence was evacuated.
Loudermilk puts great stock in this witness being better situated than Hutchinson to hear what Trump was saying.
This individual was within earshot of President Trump the entire time the President was in the President’s Dining Room. Additionally, in its investigation, the Subcommittee spoke with numerous individuals who worked closely with Meadows in the White House, and they confirmed that Meadows would not react apathetically to calls for violence, nor repeat an incident like the one alleged by Hutchinson so carelessly in a public space.
Only, this appears to be the area where Loudermilk was dealing with incomplete information. As Kyle Cheney first pointed out, Loudermilk released a redacted copy of what appears to be this person’s transcript.
But Jack Smith released an unredacted fragment of that transcript.
The transcript suggests Trump was far more entranced with the mob than Loudermilk wants to admit.
Loudermilk excuses his own gaps in knowledge by accusing Jack Smith of … collusion.
Chairman Loudermilk and the Subcommittee have uncovered evidence of collusion between the Special Counsel Jack Smith—the prosecutor appointed by Attorney General Merick Garland to conduct two separate criminal investigations into President Trump207—and either the White House or the Select Committee. On October 18, 2024, Special Counsel Smith released some of the documents used in his filing against President Trump.208
Among the released documents was an unredacted version of the transcript of a Select Committee interview with a certain White House employee. 209 Given that the Select Committee did not archive, or otherwise destroyed this transcript, and that the White House refused to provide an unredacted version to the Subcommittee, the only remaining explanation is that Special Counsel Smith received the unredacted version from one of the two institutions which did not cooperate fully with the Subcommittee.
207 Press Release, U.S. DEP’T OF JUST., Appointment of a Special Counsel (Nov. 18, 2022).
208 April Ruben, More docs unsealed in Jack Smith’s Jan. 6 case against Trump, AXIOS (Oct. 18, 2024).
209 Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney), X (Oct. 18, 2024, 11:45 AM).
We may find out soon enough how Jack Smith got an unredacted transcript that Loudermilk did not get. But he’s wrong that they’re the same transcript. They’re paginated differently (what is page 38 on Loudermilk’s copy is page 30 on Smith’s). Which ought to be a hint to Loudermilk’s crack team: the transcript is sourced differently, which may prove that January 6 committee didn’t destroy evidence he accuses them of destroying.
Plus, the point remains: Loudermilk’s own excuses for Trump’s inaction look different in light of more fulsome evidence, which shows Trump was entranced by the riot as soon as he returned to his office.
Loudermilk’s sketchy evidence
As to Loudermilk’s referral of Liz Cheney to an aspiring FBI Director whom Loudermilk would have to refer as well if not for his utter silence about the aspiring FBI Director’s centrality to what Loudermilk describes as insubordination and misconduct?
I hope, for Loudermilk’s sake, that it is intentionally half-hearted, an effort to do what he knows Trump is demanding, to simply give the aspiring FBI Director an excuse to predicate an investigation into Liz Cheney (if not himself).
Because key parts of his argument don’t say what he claims they do.
For example, a footnote in Loudermilk’s report appears to claim that texts between Cassidy Hutchinson and Alyssa Farrah apparently dated May 2 (by context, this would be 2022) are instead from June 6 (2021, the footnote says; my annotations, but Loudermilk appears to have mixed up two sets of texts he has).
Even assuming the footnote meant June 6, 2022, not 2021, the difference matters, because as Loudermilk notes, Hutchinson appeared a third time before the committee represented by Stefan Passantino on May 17, 2022, so her continued satisfaction with Passantino on May 2, 2022 is inconsistent with Loudermilk’s story and consistent with Cheney’s.
Loudermilk makes much of the fact that Passantino was not disciplined after a complaint in which Hutchinson refused to cooperate. Except the source he relies on for that claim, this NYT story, describes (in addition to the fact that Hutchinson refused to cooperate) that Passantino was ordered to do training about written conflict disclosure to his clients.
In a Feb. 2 letter, the office said that while Ms. Hutchinson had consented to having Mr. Passantino’s fees paid by the political action committee aligned with Mr. Trump, putting the arrangement in writing is mandatory under Rule l. 5(b) of the District of Columbia Rules of Professional Conduct. It required him to take legal ethics training classes during a probation period.
But, citing Ms. Hutchinson’s unwillingness to talk to investigators, the office said there was insufficient evidence on the larger matter.
“Ms. Hutchinson made some allegations about your conduct to the committee, but she refused to cooperate in our investigation,” it said. “Accordingly, except for the Rule l. 5(b) allegation, which you admit, we are not proceeding on her other allegations at this time. We are unable to prove those allegations by clear and convincing evidence, as we must.”
Elsewhere, Loudermilk claims that Hutchinson’s own House testimony supports his claim that Hutchinson selected Alston & Bird “at the recommendation of Representative Cheney” (he doesn’t provide a page number). But that section of Hutchinson’s testimony doesn’t support his contention about Cheney’s role in it.
Which brings us to the biggest problem with all this. Loudermilk’s conspiracy theory that Liz Cheney went out and got Hutchinson a lawyer who would support a propaganda line that Committee was seeking gets very close to claiming that Hutchinson’s new legal team, including former top DOJ official Jody Hunt, was himself engaged in unethical conduct.
I would bet a good deal of money that if Hunt were ever asked if he acted ethically when he represented Hutchinson’s later appearances before the committee, he would say he did.
And even if everything Loudermilk claimed were true, even if Cheney were acting as a lawyer and not a Committee member, she’d still be guilty of no more than unethical — not illegal — conduct.
Especially when by focusing on Cheney but ignoring aspiring FBI Director Kash Patel, Loudermilk gives up the game.
This report does more to cover up what Loudermilk himself suggests is potential misconduct from aspiring FBI Director than it exposes real crimes by Liz Cheney.
And he provides this evidence of either incompetence or (Loudermilk claims) misconduct in the black hole where Kash Patel should be just in time for Kash’s confirmation hearings before the Senate.
Kash Patel Also Lied about Trump’s Personalization of US Intelligence
First Mother Jones and then NYT had stories this week laying out a bunch of false claims that Kash Patel made about his experience at DOJ.
The headline lie in both is that, in his Government Gangsters book and interviews since, Kash lied about how significant a role he played in the Benghazi investigation, as MoJo lays out here.
“I was leading the prosecution’s efforts at Main Justice in Washington, DC,” Patel writes.
Several FBI and Justice Department officials who worked the Benghazi case say this description is an exaggeration. Asked about Patel’s characterization, a former FBI special agent who was on that investigation for years exclaimed, “Oh my god, no. Not on that case. Not on Benghazi.”
[snip]
This former agent said that the counterterrorism section had a small role in the Benghazi probe. Primarily, the FBI and the US attorney’s office in Washington, DC, handled the case. “I don’t recall Patel having any influence on it,” he said. He recounted one meeting during the investigation that Patel attended in which Patel was not taken seriously by the main attorneys on the investigation. “The issue was whether or not we had the information needed to make a charge,” the former agent said. “He wasn’t a very experienced attorney and was dismissed by some of the attorneys at the table. The message was, we’re not paying attention to you.”
NYT adds a second, perhaps more important reason why Kash’s lies matter: Because he lied in an attempt to claim Democrats went soft on terrorism.
“Despite the fact that we had reams of evidence against dozens of terrorists in the Benghazi attack, Eric Holder’s Justice Department decided to only prosecute one of the attackers.”
— “Government Gangsters”“I remember this meeting with then-A.G. Holder. And we had a deck of like 19 guys we wanted to prosecute. You know, JSOC had them rolled up and we wanted to get them all. They killed four Americans. You know, it’s a legit terrorist attack. And the basic general response from the F.B.I. and D.O.J. leadership was ‘it’s only politically convenient to get one guy.’”
— “The Shawn Ryan Show”Mr. Patel’s statements suggest that the Justice Department under the Obama administration decided to initiate criminal proceedings against only one of the attackers, Mr. Khattala.
But as early as late 2013, the department had already filed sealed complaints against about a dozen militants, officials said at the time. Criminal complaints initiate prosecutions, but are often kept under seal if the charged person remains at large.
And prosecutors filed more secret complaints as the investigation identified additional suspects. A complaint filed against a Libyan man, Mustafa al-Imam, in May 2015, for example, became public only after his capture in 2017. (He was convicted in 2019 and sentenced to more than 19 years in prison.)
Other Benghazi suspects have since died.
Mr. Patel’s statement that the military had already “rolled up” as many as 19 attackers implied that they were already in American custody, raising the seemingly inexplicable question of why they did not get sent to trial.
In fact, to date, only Mr. Khatalla and Mr. al-Imam have been tried because the military has not captured any others — including on Mr. Patel’s watch as the Trump White House’s senior director for counterterrorism.
Capturing a specific person in a war-torn country where the military has scant ground presence is costly, risky and difficult. The operation to find and grab Mr. Khatalla required months of complex planning, including recruiting an informant to befriend and then lure Mr. Khattala to an oceanside villa, where an F.B.I. agent and American commandoes captured him and took him to an American warship waiting off the coast.
These fact checks will make for some interesting questions at Kash’s confirmation hearing. With some unspecified exceptions, these stories are primarily sourced to former officials:
- Former agent
- Former official in counterterrorism section
- Andy McCabe
- A former FBI agent who worked for years on the Uganda investigation
- Robert D’Amico, a former F.B.I. agent
- Public documents and interviews with several current and former law enforcement officials
That has the upside of allowing people to talk without fear. It means these people are no longer inside the bureaucracy, able to push back from within.
In any case, none of this will prevent Kash from being confirmed. Like Kash, John Ratcliffe fluffed his counterterrorism experience, in Ratcliffe’s case, to get elected. That led Trump to ditch his nomination a first time, but not in 2020 when he was confirmed on a largely partyline vote; the second vote was successful in significant part because then Acting Director of National Intelligence Ric Grenell, who was being babysat by Kash, was such a shitshow that Ratcliffe was a less-awful alternative.
But Kash has lied about more than his own inexperience. As NYT noted, he also likes to lie for partisan gain. That’s how he has convinced Republicans to support his nomination.
It’s a third kind of lie that hasn’t factored much in discussions of his tenure at FBI. Kash Patel has been absolutely central to Trump’s efforts to personalize intelligence obtained by US officials. And there is abundant reason to believe he lied about that, at least publicly, when he claimed, in May 2022, that Trump had declassified all the documents found at Mar-a-Lago. There’s a bunch about Kash’s role in the classified documents investigation — for example, why Kash and John Solomon suddenly got status as Trump’s representatives to the archives when prosecutors asked for surveillance video, or what Kash told prosecutors in November 2022 when he sat for immunized testimony — that is not yet public.
But it may become public, possibly as early as this week and presumably well before his confirmation hearing. Indeed, if (for example) one of the things the FBI found during the August 8, 2022 search of Mar-a-Lago but did not charge was some version of the Crossfire Hurricane binder, that may show up in Jack Smith’s closing report.
Another thing that might show up in Jack Smith’s report is what someone whose potty mouth resembles that of Eric Herschmann (person 16 here) had to say, in an interview days before Kash testified, about the claims that Trump “declassified everything” made by some “unhinged” person who exactly matches Kash (person 24).
As MoJo and NYT lay out, Kash Patel has lied to inflate his own resumé. He has lied to attack Democrats. According to Olivia Troye (whom Kash did not sue after threatening to do so).
But he was also a key player in Trump’s effort to take home classified documents and put them to his own personal use.
That, too, is unlikely to give Republican Senators pause before putting him in charge of FBI’s signals collection (often with NSA involvement) and informant programs. But it is likely to be far more important than fluffing his resumé going forward.
Chuck Grassley Says the FBI Must Combat Sexual Misconduct But the Senate Can Whitewash It
In a piece billed as “analysis” describing why Kash Patel likely faces little Republican opposition, the NYT’s Catie Edmondson chose to quote one after another Republican making false claims about bias from the Bureau:
- Thom Tillis falsely claiming Patel’s nomination fulfilled Trump’s promise to “enforce our laws equally and fairly”
- Chuck Grassley lying that the “unprecedented raid of President Trump’s home in Florida” was “to serve a warrant for records” and not conduct a search necessitated by Trump’s earlier obstruction
- Joni Ernst imagining that Kash’s nomination would “create much-needed transparency at the F.B.I”
- John Cornyn asserting that “no one should have to go through what President Trump went through by a partisan Department of Justice and F.B.I.,” which he falsely portrayed as a retribution tour launched by Jim Comey
- Markwayne Mullin imagining that Kash might “actually get them focused on mission, rather than politics”
What the NYT describes but does not factually label is that most of the Republican party either parrots or truly believes Donald Trump’s manufactured claims of victimhood. But unless you describe that those claims that poor Donald Trump has been targeted are false, then you simply participate in the propaganda, blindly performing the same ritual of obeisance the Republican Senators are.
NYT quotes, but does not link, the letter in which Grassley issued his rant. Fact checking the letter (sent the day before Chris Wray announced he would resign, as Grassley demanded) might have provided a way to demonstrate the pile of false claims on which this impression of the FBI was built.
Oh sure, this particular journalist might not have had time to point out that on December 10, Alexander Smirnov answered any questions about the bribery claim he made up against Joe Biden by signing a plea deal (which the NYT wrote up yesterday, but buried), which Grassley complained about this way:
Consistent with that FBI failure, yet another glaring example of FBI’s broken promises under your leadership is its inexcusable failure to investigate bribery allegations against former Vice President Joe Biden, while strictly scrutinizing former President Trump. You’ve repeatedly claimed you would ensure the FBI does justice, “free of fear, favor, or partisan influence.”25 The FBI under your watch, however, had possession of incriminating information against President Biden for three years until I exposed the existence of the record outlining those allegations, but did nothing to investigate it.26 This record, known as an FD-1023, documented allegations of bribery between and among then-Vice President Biden, Hunter Biden, and Ukrainian officials.27 The FBI confidential human source (CHS) behind this FD-1023 was on the FBI’s payroll during the Obama administration, paid hundreds of thousands of dollars, was given permission to violate the law, and the information he provided was used in prosecutions. The FBI called this CHS “highly credible,” and Deputy Director Abbate publicly testified in response to the FBI’s refusal to remove obstructive redactions from that document that “[w]e often redact documents to protect sources and methods…the document was redacted to protect the source as everyone knows, and this is a question of life and death, potentially.” 28 Then after the FD-1023 was made public – which didn’t include the source’s name – DOJ not only publicly named him, but indicted him, calling into question the truthfulness of Deputy Director Abbate’s testimony and his refusal to be transparent.29 Still, to-date, the DOJ and FBI have neither answered whether they investigated the substance of the FD-1023, nor have they provided an explanation for any effort undertaken to obtain the financial records and other pieces of evidence referenced within the document. This sounds a lot like Director Comey’s leadership of the FBI, which was nothing short of shameful.
As I noted on the Senate floor on February 27, 2024, if a highly regarded source had alleged President Trump accepted a bribe, the FBI would pursue this information without keeping it stored away in one of its dusty closets for three years.30
Even before Smirnov’s plea agreement, though, there was plenty in the indictment (like reference to all the travel records that disprove Smirnov’s claims) that not just debunk Grassley’s claims, but make clear that the scandal here was that Scott Brady falsely insinuated to Congress that Smirnov’s travel records corroborated his claims, when they did the opposite.
There’s a far, far bigger problem though: Grassley’s claims about how FBI would respond to a claim of bribery if one implicated Trump are ridiculous.
When FBI (in reality, the decisions here were repeatedly made by DOJ, not FBI, which returning SJC Chair Grassley should be expected to know) got credible claims Trump had been paid by Egyptian spooks, first Robert Mueller (probably Rod Rosenstein), then Bill Barr prevented investigators from obtaining the financial records to pursue the case, a version of which story NYT published in August.
There’s the tip that — the NYT described — the Italians gave Barr and John Durham in 2019 about “suspicious financial dealings related to Mr. Trump,” a detail Durham chose to exclude from his final report.
There’s the $2 billion investment that Saudis made with Jared Kushner after Trump’s son-in-law finished his nepotistic service in the White House; as the NYT laid out, even the Saudis had doubts that Kushner had the expertise to invest that money. A NYT follow-up showed that Kushner’s firm has pocketed $112 million in fees without showing any profit from investments. Democrats have called for a Special Counsel to investigate that, but the Special Counsel-happy Merrick Garland has not done so.
And since the election, a Chinese national whom the SEC has accused of fraud, Justin Sun, effectively just sent Donald Trump $18 million (here’s a less direct NYT story on the how cryptocurrency creates real opportunity for corruption). Where’s your call for fairness, Chuck?
But there were alternative ways to debunk Grassley’s lies other than pointing to the six NYT stories that disproved his claims that FBI ignored a bribery allegation about Biden but chased them with Trump. Consider his most justified complaint, the one with which he begins his rant: The FBI has not explained whether it has pursued allegations of sexual misconduct within its own ranks fairly.
One of the most egregious examples is the FBI’s failure to provide basic information I requested more than two years ago related to the FBI’s ongoing mishandling of sexual harassment claims made by the FBI’s female employees. This request was not pulled out of a hat. It was based on credible whistleblower disclosures alleging hundreds of FBI employees had retired or resigned to avoid accountability for sexual misconduct. 5 Whistleblowers also alleged the FBI had disciplined senior officials less severely than their subordinates for this misconduct.6 In November 2022, I released internal FBI documents corroborating these disclosures.7 I and my staff ever since have asked repeatedly for information sufficient to determine how FBI handled these serious claims and how widespread the problem really is. The FBI, for its part, told the media it would provide the information to me.8 You personally told me at a December 5, 2023, Judiciary Committee hearing, when I confronted you with the FBI’s blatant inaction, that you would check with your team and then follow up with me.9 Your Deputy Director, Paul Abbate, also publicly stated the FBI is serious about removing officials for sexual misconduct. 10 After a year since you made that pledge, over three years since Deputy Director Abbate’s public comments, and after many more requests to FBI to provide this information, neither of you have followed up or followed through. This inexcusable delay and obstruction by you and Deputy Director Abbate has prevented Congress and the Judiciary Committee from addressing the shocking sexual misconduct at the FBI. This is a promise made and broken, on an issue of utmost importance.
Chuck Grassley says FBI’s failure to deal with credible claims of sexual misconduct is “an issue of utmost importance.”
Huh.
Grassley has not yet weighed in on the nominations of Pete Hegseth, Linda McMahon, or Kimberly Guilfoyle — all of whom have been implicated in sexual harassment or assault, but his comments about RFK Jr thus far have focused on, “educating him about agriculture,” rather than the assault of a nanny RFK admitted to. Other Senators, though, have suggested that Hegseth’s accusers should not enjoy the same protections that Grassley has fiercely defended for FBI whistleblowers, and have brushed off how Hegseth’s accuser could testify publicly given the nondisclosure agreement he paid her to sign.
More curiously, when he was asked about the sexual misconduct allegations against Matt Gaetz, Grassley falsely claimed his committee, “did a very thorough job following up on every accusation made against (Supreme Court) Justice Kavanaugh and nothing ever materialized.” Grassley said that after Sheldon Whitehouse issued a report showing that the FBI had forwarded all tips to the White House, rather than chasing them down.
On instructions from the White House, the FBI did not investigate thousands of tips that came in through the FBI’s tip line. Instead, all tips related to Kavanaugh were forwarded to the White House without investigation. If anything, the White House may have used the tip line to steer FBI investigators away from derogatory or damaging information.
Whitehouse’s report describing the whitewash FBI did quotes now-debunked claims Grassley made about the thoroughness of the investigation several times.
“These uncorroborated accusations have been unequivocally and repeatedly rejected by Judge Kavanaugh, and neither the Judiciary Committee nor the FBI could locate any third parties who can attest to any of the allegations.”
[snip]
Then-Chairman Grassley said that the FBI “decided” which individuals to contact,98 that the FBI’s investigation was being conducted “in accordance with the agency’s standard operating procedures,” that “the career public servants and professionals at the FBI know what they’re doing and how best to conduct a background investigation,” and that the FBI’s investigation “should be carried out independent of political or partisan considerations.”
If you want to talk about FBI’s inadequate response to sexual misconduct allegations, then surely its whitewash of allegations against Brett Kavanaugh should be included? Want to complain about the FBI? Complain about how they deprived you, Chuck Grassley, of treating misconduct claims against Brett Kavanaugh as “an issue of utmost importance.”
But doing so would expose Grassley’s crass double standard, refusing to exercise the same due diligence with sexual misconduct allegations that, he complains, the FBI has not done in his own job, exercising advice and consent with Donald Trump’s nominees.
The Lessons of Zero Accountability for a Kash Patel Bureau
This is not your Chris Wray resignation post.
That’ll come later.
This post is a lessons learned about how Republicans — not just at FBI — exploited efforts to share fabricated evidence about Hunter Biden with Wray’s FBI.
In this post, I laid out the five different examples of fabricated evidence FBI or DOJ dealt with in the Hunter Biden case, along with four more instances where we can’t assess the rat-fuckery.
- After sharing a debunked Fox News meme, Alexander Smirnov makes false claims of bribery
- Derek Hines narratively plants a crack pipe in Wilmington
- The gun shop also lied on the gun form
- Tony Bobulinski[‘s FBI report] claims he saw a diamond pass hands
- Gal Luft claims Joe Biden met directly with CEFC Chairman Ye in 2016
- FBI enthusiastically welcomes “The Economist’s” claims
- The Scott Brady side channel launders dirt Rudy Giuliani obtained from Russian agents
- FBI makes Peter Schweizer their special Hunter Biden informant
- Judge Maryellen Noreika admits a laptop that has never been indexed
I argued that several examples of that fabricated evidence directly harmed Hunter Biden’s due process. The pressure to chase Alexander Smirnov’s alleged attempt to frame Joe Biden with bribery seems to have played a significant role in the collapse of Hunter’s plea deal and the ratcheting up of charges afterwards. At least as early as Hunter’s bid to defeat a vindictive prosecution claim, AUSA Derek Hines misrepresented Hunter’s own memoir to claim the book helped prove Hunter was doing drugs when he owned a gun, a misrepresentation Hines sustained before the jury that convicted Hunter. While evidence that others lied on gun purchase forms, as the gun shop owner had done by doctoring the very gun form on which Hunter was convicted of lying, is routinely excluded at trials, doing so in this case prevented Hunter from arguing his lie was not material.
Fabricated evidence was allowed to infringe on the due process rights of the son of the President. And the dick pic sniffing media didn’t make a squeak.
But in other of the attempts to politicize Hunter’s case that I laid out, things worked the way it is supposed to. Other examples of fabricated or potentially fabricated evidence were excluded by diligent prosecutors or FBI agents. AUSA Lesley Wolf attempted to keep dirt funneled from Russian spies, Smirnov, and Rudy Giuliani through the Brady side channel from infecting the case. At the request of case agents, FBI supervisory agent Tim Thibault shut down Peter Schweizer as an informant … again, out of an interest to preserve the integrity of the case. Someone in that same vicinity deemed Tony Bobulinski’s claims to be suspect, so investigators didn’t rely on his testimony, but continued to investigate Hunter’s payments from CEFC via other means.
But this is the important lesson, especially going forward: those efforts to maintain the integrity of the investigation were punished, severely. House Republicans (assisted by the disgruntled IRS Agents, in the case of Wolf), treated Wolf and Thibault like villains, eliciting threats against them and leading to their retirement. Because they attempted to prevent the case against Hunter from being deliberately politicized, Trump’s allies in the House made them pariahs and chased them out of government.
This is what already happened to people who tried to uphold rule of law. This is what will happen more going forward. Congress will work in tandem with a politicized DOJ to ensure that the good guys get targeted and chased out.
Often, House Republicans efforts to demonize people who had upheld the integrity of evidence relied on “whistleblowers” who (with just a few exceptions) had themselves been caught politicizing law enforcement themselves, and to retaliate, ran to Jim Jordan to complain.
Aspiring FBI Director Kash Patel funded some of these people telling stories to undermine FBI’s efforts to uphold its integrity.
That’s not the only role the House GOP played in this process.
Congressman like Jim Jordan and James Comer are protected by Speech and Debate even if they lie. And they did lie — or perhaps were too stupid to realize the claims they made were baseless. They lied on right wing propaganda outlets. They lied in reports and hearings.
Whereas the legal prosecution against Hunter generally relied on actual facts (even if Derek Hines moved them around to where he wanted them to be), the House did not. They platformed Bobulinski (and then thought better of it), they championed Luft and Smirnov (and then thought better of it), they championed the Brady side channel. They made Matt Taibbi’s mistaken misrepresentations about the FBI a repeat feature. They turned loan repayments and daily check-in calls into international spy scandals. They guaranteed that the claims discarded by the Bureau because they didn’t meet evidentiary standards would be magnified in the public sphere.
In the Republican House, you don’t need facts to make a case in the court of public opinion. And such false claims played a key role in persecuting even the people who had done nothing more than exercise their First Amendment rights, people like disinformation experts and former spooks honestly expressing concerns about Russian influence operations.
As Kash Patel likely assumes control over an agency that is supposed to be bound by facts — but that even under Wray had begun to be corrupted by Trump’s politicization — remember how Congress has served as a annex to the presumptively evidence-bound investigations as to matters of law, an annex spun free of such bounds. Even before Patel dismantles those bounds, there’s always the alternative of having the loudmouths in Congress do Trump’s dirty work.
Importantly, the loudmouths can do so only as long as a supine press plays along.
But play along they have.
With Hunter Biden, two things facilitated that. For the political and DOJ beat journalists, the existence of the laptop seemingly melted their brain, making them incapable of seeing details through the dick pics.
But for Hill journalists, process was the hook. Jordan and Comer guaranteed breathless coverage by delivering bullshit disguised as events that Hill journalists treated as normal — a stern letter, a subpoena (issued, at first, without the authority to enforce it, which went widely unnoticed and unreported), a formal impeachment inquiry. Never mind that the thing underlying those events was a naked political stunt. Few ever got around to stepping back and observing that the House GOP blew almost their entire two year majority on making enemies. Few ever reported that the House GOP had spent millions of taxpayer dollars, not in paying the bills or funding highways, but in creating enemies. And by treating that process as normal legislative process, journalists normalized it all.
As we move forward to an even more politicized DOJ, keep in mind that with this kind of symbiosis already in place, with the House GOP already prepared to blow up stuff that gets thrown out by the FBI, much of Patel’s work — chasing out honest people trying to protect the integrity of investigations, manufacturing more bullshit claims — will be done for him.
There is one thing that Kash can and undoubtedly will do: recruit more allies — people like Schweizer, or the Proud Boys Bill Barr deputized to try to turn Antifa into a thing — to inform against Republican adversaries. With Pam Bondi’s help, Kash can trade immunity for fabricated claims against his targets, just as Rudy Giuliani was selling in search of dirt on Hunter Biden.
Otherwise, though, Kash can instead focus on ensuring that none of Trump’s people face consequences for their actions.
In Advance of the KashTastrophe, DOJ IG Raises the Stakes on Investigations of Congress
Yesterday, DOJ’s Inspector General released its long-awaited report on some subpoenas DOJ used in 2017, 2018, and 2020 to target, first, people in Congress, and then in the later round, journalists, including WaPo’s Ellen Nakashima, Greg Miller, Adam Entous, NYT’s Matt Apuzzo, Adam Goldman, Eric Lichtblau, Michael Schmidt, and CNN’s Barbara Starr. The purported goal was to solve some leak investigations; with the exception of convicting James Wolfe for false statements to the FBI (the investigation into him arose out of the first congressional subpoenas discussed here), none were solved via these subpoenas.
Little of the narrative on the subpoenas targeting journalists is entirely new. It was covered in these stories in real time:
May 7, 2021: Trump Justice Department secretly obtained Post reporters’ phone records
May 7, 2021: Justice Dept. Seized Washington Post’s Phone Records
May 20, 2021: Trump Justice Dept. Seized CNN Reporter’s Email and Phone Records
June 2, 2021: Trump Administration Secretly Seized Phone Records of Times Reporters
June 4, 2021: U.S. Waged Secret Legal Battle to Obtain Emails of 4 Times Reporters
June 10, 2021: Hunting Leaks, Trump Officials Focused on Democrats in Congress
June 11, 2021: Justice Dept. Watchdog to Investigate Seizure of Democrats’ Data
June 11, 2021: In Leak Investigation, Tech Giants Are Caught Between Courts and Customers
The findings on the journalist side of the report were that Bill Barr properly approved the subpoenas, but didn’t do a mandated review from a committee on media first (though Kerri Kupec bought off on the subpoenas), and didn’t fully comply with a DNI statement saying the spooks still wanted to solve the leak for a few. The biggest controversy was how DOJ approved Non-Disclosure Orders to prevent journalists from learning of the investigation, but with the exception of the leak to Barbara Starr, those too followed the approach at the time, which was to issue knee-jerk NDOs.
One of the few new details is that Barr brought an AUSA from some field office into Main DOJ for a six month temporary assignment to renew focus on the leak, but the IG concluded that person wasn’t brought in for partisan purposes.
The findings on the Congressional side of the report are somewhat more interesting, not least because the policy on third party subpoenas to phone companies, Google, and Apple implicating people (including staffers and Members, throughout this discussion) in Congress were nowhere as formalized as the media guidelines were.
Particularly given that House Intelligence Chair, Republican Mike Turner, issued the loudest response to this report, it could have interesting repercussions in a second Trump term.
The report actually describes that the congressional subpoenas were an interim step between investigating the Executive Branch people who had access to the classified information (in 2017) and the journalists (in 2020, for the WaPo and NYT). The reason it appeared that there were more Democrats targeted — including Adam Schiff and Eric Swalwell — was because a Democratic HPSCI staffer had suggested they had leaked (and also implicated a senior staffers whose actual emails were collected).
The IG Report found that, aside from Schiff and Swalwell and a top Dem staffer, there was a fairly even balance of Democrats and Republicans targeted (including Kash Patel, though it doesn’t name him); it does say that FBI was preparing to serve legal process on a Republican Member of Congress until the James Wolfe investigation proceeded to the point where they had one and only one perpetrator for the Carter Page FISA leak, so that person was not subpoenaed.
It’s the recommendations where this report, issued after Patel already sued and lost over being subpoenaed, and in advance of Patel’s likely confirmation as FBI Director whose activities will be overseen by whatever trash heap Trump makes of DOJ IG by then, that are of interest.
The Report reasons that since Congress is a co-equal branch of government protected by Speech and Debate privileges enshrined in the Constitution, it should have a similar kind of protocol that journalists benefit from (a protocol which has since been strengthened, but which Patel and Pam Bondi are sure to torch).
It made three recommendations to that effect.
Currently, DOJ’s policy requires that a US Attorney and Public Integrity approve a third party subpoena implicating someone from Congress, with an Urgent notice (the kind of warning they have to give before indicting someone prominent) provided to top DOJ leadership. The current practice would allow a US Attorney’s Office to rely primarily on the advice of career officials before investigating someone (whether a staffer or a Member) in Congress.
DOJ IG recommends instead more formal notice from the AG.
First, in order for senior leadership to be able to consider and decide matters potentially raising constitutional separation of powers issues, we recommend that the Department evaluate when advance notification to a senior Department official, such as the Deputy Attorney General or Attorney General, should be required before compulsory process is issued, and any corresponding NDOs are sought, for records of a Member of Congress or congressional staffer and establish, as necessary, implementing policies and guidance.
In a Pam Bondi DOJ, this would virtually guarantee that no Republicans would be investigated, because she would have advance veto.
DOJ IG also recommended that when DOJ requests Non-Disclosure Orders implicating people from Congress, they tell the judge approving the NDO that it is someone from Congress.
Second, we recommend that the Department consider the circumstances in which NDO applications and renewals should identify for the reviewing judge that the records covered by a proposed NDO are records of Members of Congress or congressional staffers.
This is uncontroversial and would stop the kind of knee-jerk NDO requests that hid these subpoenas for five years.
The last entirely justified recommendation that nevertheless could have the most intriguing implications is that DOJ adopt the same kind of exhaustion requirement that the media policy has. That is, you can only start getting legal process on people in Congress after you’ve exhausted other investigative approaches.
Third, we recommend that the Department consider whether there are circumstances in which an exhaustion requirement should be a prerequisite for issuing compulsory process to obtain records of Members of Congress and congressional staffers.
That is, in principle, what happened here: DOJ first checked Executive branch personnel and only then started investigating in Congress after stories started closely following Congressional briefings on the topics. But taken to its logical outcome, it would get interesting.
On the one hand, it would make it much harder to get even subpoenas on people in Congress than it already is (the one Democratic staffer and Wolfe were the only Congressional staffers whose content was collected).
This would make it easier for whistleblowers to leak to members of Congress and for them to leak to the press.
Such leaks might be one of the last failsafes going forward.
Except by rooting the notion of exhaustion in the constitutional protections afforded Congress, it might actually flip the current structure on its head. The reason why you would investigate a member of Congress before a journalist is because under the current approach, the congressional staffer with clearance is the only one who would be prosecuted (the of Wolfe example notwithstanding, that is exceedingly rare in any case; in the Jeffrey Sterling case the Senate protected a key Republican staffer who was suspected).
But if you decide Congress should have more protection, then an FBI Director who has already threatened to go after journalists might first choose to exhaust investigative remedies against journalists before turning to Congress.
That is, there’s a chance these policy recommendations would be used as an excuse to prosecute journalists but not their sources.
None of this may matter anyway, because there’s a high likelihood that Kash and Bondi will simply torch all the guidelines discussed as it is. They’re not statutorily mandated. And if Trump does start firing Inspectors General as he has promised to do, then it’s not clear we’d ever find out about all this. It took over three years to get this report.
Mike Turner says he wants to codify some of this. That might protect leaks about Republican adversaries as much as anything (the leaks investigated here mostly pertained to Carter Page and other Trump associates). But it might be one of the few means of transparency left.
Kash Patel’s Bullets
Since Tim Miller posted it, I haven’t been able to stop looking at Kash Patel’s enemies list.
It’s not that Kash has an enemies list — though that’s an alarming accessory in an FBI nominee.
It’s the nature of the list, both the physical nature of it, but also its composition (the latter of which Philip Bump also discussed).
First, it’s dated — even more dated than it probably had to be for its September 2023 publication date. The most recent villain on the list may be Cassidy Hutchinson, who became a villain in June 2022. Jay Bratt, who became a personal villain to Kash when compelling his testimony in Trump’s stolen documents case no later than November 2022, is not on the list. Nina Jankowicz is on the list. She became a villain around the same time Hutchinson did: when the Biden Administration briefly tried to do something about disinformation until right wingers misrepresented some things she had said about Christopher Steele and the Hunter Biden laptop, which led her to resign and the effort to crash by July 2022. The description of James Baker as the former Deputy General Counsel of Twitter reflects Elon Musk’s firing of him for trying to maintain the privacy of records from Matt Taibbi et al; but Baker may be there as one of Kash’s Durham villains, because other Twitter File villains — most notably Yoel Roth — don’t appear on the list, nor any of the other disinformation experts who’ve been targeted non-stop since the Twitter Files.
Then there are the organizational characteristics. Hutchinson, like Michael Atkinson and Joe Biden, above, as well as Jim Comey, Crossfire Hurricane FBI Agent Curtis Heide, have bullets betraying some formatting problem, as if Kash added a bunch of people to an existing list. “Oh, and that Joe Biden guy! He’s a villain too!” as if he had to delay admitting that Biden was actually President (though Kamala Harris’ bullet is formatted like everyone else’s).
That’s not Kash’s most serious organizational problem. He claims the list is “alphabetical by last name.” But Joe Biden, with his funny bullet, comes after Stephen Boyd. Heide, another funny bullet, comes after Fiona Hill. Charles Kupperman comes after Loretta Lynch. And Alexander Vindman appears between Andrew Weissmann and Christopher Wray.
How are you going to systematically work through your enemies list if you can’t even alphabetize them properly?
Finally, Kash notes that his list is not exhaustive:
It does not include other corrupt actors of the first order such as … members of Fusion GPS or Perkins Coie…
But he’s wrong about that. The list includes Nellie Ohr primarily because she was an “Independent Contract [sic] for Fusion GPS.” And it includes Michael Sussmann as a “former partner at Perkins Coie.” The only other worthy villain for someone like Kash who had been at Perkins Coie — Republican nemesis Marc Elias — left Perkins Coie even before Sussmann did.
This list evinces a mind that struggles with basic structures, not an evil mastermind ready to hit the ground running.
That doesn’t mean it’s not dangerous.
The fact that this sloppily organized list is two years old suggests one of the problems with attempting to forestall Trump and Kash’s vengeance by pardoning the people on the existing enemies list. These are yesterday’s enemies, and Trump’s minions have no limit on their ability to find new ones.
Just yesterday, after all, Kash demonstrated the point. Jesse Binnall threatened to sue Olivia Troye for calling Kash a liar.
On December 2, 2024, you appeared as a live guest on MSNBC and made several false and defamatory statements about Mr. Patel. These comments include that Mr. Patel would “lie about intelligence” and would “lie about making things up on operations” to the point where Mr. Patel “put the lives of Navy Seals at risk when it came to Nigeria,” and that Mr. Patel was even misinforming Vice President Mike Pence.
This is a complete fabrication, and you know it is false by virtue of your former position in the White House.
Mark Zaid, who is already representing Troye in a lawsuit filed by Ric Grenell, has a fundraiser to support what is no doubt going to be booming business going ahead.
On the one hand, this demonstrates that Kash will simply add new enemies to an ever evolving mis-alphabetized list, targeting each new person who tells the truth about him. Like the campaigns targeting disinformation that didn’t make Kash’s book, this assault on enemies is an assault on the truth.
Those not on a list focused on Crossfire Hurricane and Trump’s first impeachment are not safe.
Nor can criminal pardons protect targets (and in some ways would be counterproductive) in the face of efforts to harass critics, because these people will sue make-believe cows just to harass a critic.
At the same time, consider how stupid it is to target Troye in this way if you’re an aspiring J Edgar Hoover. In two months, Kash may well have the ability to target Troye with government sanction. Instead of waiting, Troye’s comments will benefit from the Streisand Effect. Since she stands by her claims, Troye may get more opportunities to explain how Kash lied to Mike Pence, to the press, and possibly even to the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Plus, there are at least a few Republican Senators who likely know and trust Troye more than they do Kash, so he has added surface area for attack in his own confirmation process.
And if Kash tries to target Troye if and when he does have the power to do so legally, it’ll be an immediate red flag for judges that the FBI — the entire FBI — is not to be trusted.
Don’t get me wrong. If Kash can get confirmed, he’ll supervise 35,000 people, almost all of whom would be able to alphabetize his enemies list and a good chunk of whom would be able — even with FBI’s notoriously archaic computer systems — to automate them. That’s what they do. That’s the danger of putting a guy with an enemies list in charge of the Bureau.
But there’s so much about this list that betrays a guy obsessed with reliving his best moment, a guy who used Congress’ oversight infrastructure to trick the world into supplanting the real Russian investigation with the Steele dossier.
Back in his heyday, Kash’s Nunes memo served simply to project, to obscure the legitimate basis for the Russian investigation. Kash succeeded in telling the origin myth Trump needed from which he has spun all the polarization that followed.
But now, he’s just playing a frantic whack-a-mole, striking at anything or anyone that might speak the truth.
That’s incredibly dangerous. The arbitrary nature is, itself, part of the intended terror.
But it’s also the cry of a guy who doesn’t understand what he’s looking at.
Update: This description of Kash’s book (which I’m hoping to avoid reading) is utterly consistent with this enemies list.
But a truth starts to dawn as Patel unleashes on the FBI: He doesn’t know a lot about it. He hasn’t worked in it, experiencing it only at arms length as an aide of Nunes’s, and viewing it through a prism of deceit of his own choosing.
That is, Kash has to invent a Deep State, but it bears little resemblance to the real thing.
Update: After standing by her comments, Troye offers to testify at Kash’s confirmation hearing.
How Jeff Bezos Smothered Pete Hegseth News because Hunter Biden Was Pardoned of Already Declined Charges
When I went to bed last night, the WaPo was feeding me the following stories at the top of its digital front page.
WaPo has since added a story about Biden’s attempt to surge weapons to Ukraine before Trump cuts them off.
There was not and is not any story dedicated to Kash Patel’s promises to target Trump’s enemies at FBI — a story that not only is more urgent than any of the seven Hunter Biden pardon stories, but is fundamentally tied to the how and why of the Hunter Biden pardon.
There was not and is not any story on Jane Mayer’s report about how Pete Hegseth,
was forced to step down by both of the two nonprofit advocacy groups that he ran—Veterans for Freedom and Concerned Veterans for America—in the face of serious allegations of financial mismanagement, sexual impropriety, and personal misconduct.
Even as Hegseth made visits with the Senators whose vote he would need to be confirmed (definitely watch this video), the rag owned by defense contractor Jeff Bezos chose to litter its front page with seven stories and columns about Hunter Biden’s pardon rather than report out that Hegseth has a history of failing to manage the budgets of even just two medium-sized non-profits.
And it’s not just that Bezos’ rag buried far more urgent news about Trump’s nominees.
It’s that (with the exception of this column explaining the risks and difficulty of seizing weapons from addicts) the Hunter Biden stories were not all that useful.
Will Lewis has again chosen to platform Matt Viser’s dick pic sniffing about Joe Biden, this time trying to drive the controversy about the pardon; as far as I’m aware, Viser still has not disclosed to WaPo’s readers that an error in his own reporting caused a false scandal about Hunter’s art sales.
Viser’s 1800-word post includes 22 words that address, with no specifics, Pam Bondi and Kash Patel’s promise to persecute Trump’s enemies: “His picks for attorney general, Pam Bondi, and for FBI director, Kash Patel, have urged retribution against Trump’s political adversaries and critics.” It does, however, float an inaccurate quote also included in this Aaron Blake piece (as well as these Betsy Woodruff and Ken Vogel stories), claiming that Hunter’s pardon is broader than any since Nixon’s pardon.
Former Pardon Attorney Margaret Love hates this pardon and she’s not afraid to mislead reporters to criticize it, as when she told Woodruff that Nixon was the only precedent.
“I have never seen language like this in a pardon document that purports to pardon offenses that have not apparently even been charged, with the exception of the Nixon pardon,” said Margaret Love, who served from 1990 to 1997 as the U.S. pardon attorney, a Justice Department position devoted to assisting the president on clemency issues.
“Even the broadest Trump pardons were specific as to what was being pardoned,” Love added.
Love’s claim conflicts with what she herself laid out to Politico, the very same outlet, when Mike Flynn was pardoned four years ago.
“Pardons are typically directed at specific convictions or at a minimum at specific charges,” said Margaret Love, former pardon attorney for Presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton, who now leads the Collateral Consequences Resource Center. “I can think of only one other pardon as broad as this one, extending as it does to conduct that has not yet been charged, and that is the one that President Ford granted to Richard Nixon.”
“In fact, you might say that this pardon is even broader than the Nixon pardon, which was strictly cabined by his time as president,“ Love said. “In contrast, the pardon granted to Flynn appears to extend to conduct that took place prior to Trump‘s election to the presidency, and to bear no relationship to his service to the president, before or after the election.“ [my emphasis]
And I believe even then, Love misstated the intended scope of Flynn’s pardon.
Like Hunter’s pardon, Flynn’s pardon excused the crimes included in his charging documents (false statements, including false statements about being an unregistered agent of Turkey). While Hunter’s pardon specifically invoked the conduct in his Delaware and Los Angeles dockets, Flynn’s pardon excused conduct reviewed in two jurisdictions, DC and EDVA. Like Hunter’s pardon, which would cover the false statements referral from Congress, Flynn’s pardon would have covered the contradictory sworn statements he made as he tried to renege on his plea deal. But Flynn’s pardon also covered,
any and all possible offenses arising out of facts and circumstances known to, identified by, or in any manner related to the investigation of the Special Counsel,
This pardon attempted to excuse any crime based on a fact that once lived in Robert Mueller’s brain or case files.
As I laid out here, that certainly would have covered referrals from Mueller elsewhere (including to DOD), it might have attempted to pardon crimes in process, if (for example) Flynn’s relationship with Russia developed into something more in the future. Flynn’s pardon, unlike Hunter’s didn’t have an end date, and as a result, if Congress wants to continue to harass Hunter about stuff he just accepted a pardon for, he’ll have less protection than Trump intended Flynn to have.
And while Republicans might argue that Hunter’s allegedly false claim to Congress — regarding how he cut Tony Bobulinski out of a deal with CEFC to protect his family’s name — served to protect his father, even the most feverish Republican fantasies would amount to three Biden men profiting from a Chinese company after Biden left the Obama Administration and before he decided to run again. Flynn’s conflicting claims about whether “The Boss is aware” of his conversations with Sergey Kislyak, including regarding undermining sanctions, served to protect Trump’s actions as incoming President. (Another thing WaPo decided was less important than seven pieces about Hunter’s pardon was that Chinese national Justin Sun, who has been charged with fraud by the SEC, just sent Donald Trump $18 million.) That is, you can measure the pardon in terms of familial closeness to the President granting it (none of these stories mention Charles Kushner, much less his nomination to be Ambassador to France); you can also measure the pardon in terms of the silence or lies about the guy giving the pardon it buys. And any one of about ten pardons from Trump, including the Flynn one, were far more corrupt by that measure.
But here’s the other reason why Blake’s piece, one of the seven pieces littering the front page instead of stories about Kash Patel or Hegseth’s unfitness, is not useful. Here’s how Blake introduces the scope of Hunter’s pardon.
Biden didn’t just pardon his son for his convictions on tax and gun charges, but for any “offenses against the United States which he has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 1, 2014, through December 1, 2024.”
That’s a nearly 11-year period during which any federal crime Hunter Biden might have committed — and there are none we are aware of beyond what has already been adjudicated — can’t be prosecuted. It notably covers when he was appointed to the board of the Ukrainian energy company Burisma in 2014 all the way through Sunday, well after the crimes for which he was prosecuted.
Hunter Biden hasn’t been charged for his activities with regard to Burisma or anything beyond his convictions, and nothing in the public record suggests criminal charges could be around the bend. Congressional Republicans have probed the Burisma matter and Hunter Biden extensively and could seemingly have uncovered chargeable crimes if they existed, but haven’t done so.
Blake glosses over a great deal with his reference to things that have “already been adjudicated,” and in doing so, ignores the problem. Yes, both prosecutors and Republicans in Congress looked long and hard for something to hang a Burisma charge onto; yes, none of them found it. But — here’s the important bit — they still want to pursue one anyway.
The investigation into Hunter Biden started six years ago, based off a Suspicious Activity Report tied to a payment to a sex worker. Investigators tried to turn that into a criminal investigation based on the same Burisma focus that Rudy Giuliani was chasing; in fact, investigators first got data from Apple on the day Trump released the Perfect Phone Call, a transcript that may or may not have expunged a specific reference to Burisma. According to Joseph Ziegler, his supervisor at the time documented the problem of chasing a tax investigation that tracked Trump’s public demands for dirt on the Bidens related to Burisma.
You can actually trace how investigators cycled through one or another potential FARA violation — Burisma, Romania, CEFC — each time, with even the disgruntled IRS agents conceding they couldn’t substantiate those FARA cases (not least because Hunter was pretty diligent about not doing influence peddling himself, at bringing in others to do any of that kind of lobbying). Tips from Gal Luft — awaiting extradition on foreign agent charges — and Alexander Smirnov — awaiting trial on false statements — were key elements of that investigation.
But we know that in the precise period when someone was leaking to try to pressure prosecutors to bring certain charges, David Weiss had decided not to charge 2014 and 2015. Here’s how Gary Shapley wrote up the October 7, 2022 meeting that set him off.
In 2022, David Weiss told Shapley he would not charge 2014 and 2015, which is one thing that led Shapley to start reaching out to Congress to complain.
Prosecutors included more detail in Hunter’s tax indictment.
a. The Defendant timely filed, after requesting an extension, his 2014 individual income tax return on IRS Form 1040 on October 9, 2015. The Defendant reported owing $239,076 in taxes, and having already paid $246,996 to the IRS, the Defendant claimed he was entitled to a refund of $7,920. The Defendant did not report his income from Burisma on his 2014 Form 1040. All the money the Defendant received from Burisma in 2014 went to a company, hereafter “ABC”, and was deposited into its bank account. ABC and its bank account were owned and controlled by a business partner of the Defendant’s, Business Associate 5. Business Associate 5 was also a member of Burisma’s Board of Directors. The Defendant received transfers of funds from the ABC bank account and funds from the ABC bank account were used to make investments on the Defendant’s behalf. Because he owned ABC, Business Associate 5 paid taxes on income that he and the Defendant received from Burisma. Starting in November 2015, the Defendant directed his Burisma Board fees to an Owasco, PC bank account that he controlled.
One reason Hunter wasn’t charged for 2014 and 2015 is because Devon Archer was paying taxes in that period.
But the point is (as reflected in Blake’s note this was all adjudicated), a prosecutor made that decision. And Republicans in Congress and, specifically, Kash Patel, squealed about the injustice of not charging Hunter because the evidence didn’t merit charges.
This decision and the backlash with those dissatisfied by it dictates the lengthy period of Hunter’s pardon. Not just because they want to charge Burisma whether or not there’s evidence of a crime. But because the five year statute of limitations for FARA and the six year SOL on tax crimes, to charge anything related to Burisma, they’d have to apply crimes — like Espionage or certain kinds of Wire Fraud — that have ten year statutes of limitation.
Kash Patel and Republicans in Congress have already said they want to charge Hunter Biden regardless of whether there’s evidence to do so. When David Weiss first offered a plea deal, Trump posted that Hunter should instead have gotten a death sentence.
These people have made it clear they want to prosecute Hunter regardless of what the evidence supports. They have said that over and over. That’s what dictates the pardon, not any corruption by Biden. And to flip that on its head — to flip Trump and Kash Patel’s demand for prosecutions regardless of evidence — on its head is to cooperate in Trump’s assault on rule of law.
This is a point reflected by experts quoted in Vogel’s piece (and expanded by Kim Wehle in her own post).
Mr. Morison, who worked for years in the Office of the Pardon Attorney before going into private practice, added that the Bidens may have seen risk in crafting the pardon grant more narrowly.
“I assume that Hunter’s lawyers were worried that an especially vindictive Trump DOJ would have looked for something to charge him with if they were too specific, so they asked for a blanket pardon, subject only to a fairly broad date range,” he wrote in an email.
Kimberly Wehle, a law professor at the University of Baltimore, predicted that if Mr. Trump’s Justice Department were to charge Hunter Biden, he would raise the pardon in a motion to dismiss the case.
Ms. Wehle, the author of a recent book detailing how the lack of constraints on presidential clemency powers invite abuse, said in an email that it was Mr. Trump — not President Biden — who initiated “the norm-violating behavior” by pledging to use the Justice Department to prosecute his enemies.
“This is not a corrupt pardon,” she said in an email. “It’s about taking care of a family member knowing what Trump will do otherwise.”
The reason you have to pardon broadly is because Trump has demanded an outcome divorced from evidence. And to get to his desired outcome, he would have to do something expansive, something that could not be foreseen by the scope of the existing investigation that (as Blake notes) has already been adjudicated.
You can tell this story about how broad the pardon is — structured very similarly to the Mike Flynn one.
But if you leave out the story of how this investigation from the start paralleled Trump’s extra-legal effort to gin up dirt on Joe Biden’s son, if you leave out the fact that even in his first term, Trump’s DOJ solicited information from at least one Russian spy and a Chinese agent to pursue dirt on Hunter Biden, then you are flipping the matter of justice on its head. That’s what Trump did already, in his desperation to find something to hang on Hunter Biden. And particularly given his picks of Bondi and Patel (the latter of whom played a role in extorting a foreign country for such dirt, too), there’s no telling what Trump will do in a second term.
That’s what dictates the terms of this pardon. A prosecutor issued a declination for charges related to 2014 and 2015, and almost the entire Republican party said, we’re going to find something anyway. And if you hide that detail, you’re burying the most crucial information, just like you’re burying detrimental information about Hegseth and Patel below a seventh post on Hunter Biden.
This is what a captive oligarch press looks like: Burying detrimental information on the guy who might oversee Jeff Bezos’ defense contracts, while hiding the reasons why the Hunter Biden pardon looks like it does.
America Just Failed the Test of Responding to Trump’s Politicized Prosecutions
Let’s imagine that, two years from now, Pam Bondi rolls out charges against some onetime adversary of Donald Trump. To the extent that journalists will still be employed and reading court filings, to the extent that prosecutors under Emil Bove (who at SDNY oversaw a team sanctioned for discovery violations) comply with discovery requirements, the adversary in question learns the following about his prosecution:
- The case started when an investigator started looking into a transnational trafficking network
- The investigator discovered that the prominent adversary had paid one of the sex workers trafficked in the network
- Rather than pursuing the traffickers, the investigator used the payment for sex as cause to open an investigation
- Of course, no one is going to charge a John … so the investigator starts pulling divorce records and four year old tax returns to try to move from that payment for sex work to something that can be charged
- Then the investigator started incorporating oppo research from Peter Schweizer into his investigation
- Kash Patel’s FBI set up protected ways to accept tips from Trump supporters who’ve doctored documents to create a crime
- Trump called up Bondi and told her to take more aggressive steps
- Trump called up foreign leaders asking for help on this prosecution
- Bondi then set up a way to launder that information from foreign sources, including known spies, into the investigation of the adversary
- Patel’s FBI asked a partisan informant to fabricate claims against the adversary
- Trump publicly called out prosecutors — resulting in them and their children being followed — because they had not yet charged his adversary
- Ultimately, the adversary got charged on 5-year old dirt, and only then, after charging, did prosecutors quickly do the investigative work to win the case at trial
Now, as I’ve described it, you surely imagine you’d say, wow, that looks like a thoroughly corrupt prosecution, a clear case of Trump using DOJ to punish his adversaries.
Right?
It’s not so much that investigators didn’t, after the fact, find a crime to charge. They did. If you investigate most high profile people long enough, you’ll find something to charge, particularly if multiple people come to DOJ with doctored evidence to help create that crime.
It’s that someone found the name of an adversary in the digital records of crimes that were more important to investigate, and instead of pursuing that crime, used the electronic record as an excuse to keep looking until they found some evidence of a crime against Trump’s adversary.
Everyone would recognize that’s what happened, right?
Of course not. Of course no one would recognize that that was a political prosecution.
We need no further proof than the fact that none of those very same details showed up in any of the coverage of the Hunter Biden investigation. Not now that he has been pardoned. Not when all these details came out last year. Not in any of the retrospectives of the times Trump demanded investigations on his adversaries.
What will happen instead is that a bunch of self-important DC scribes will chase the most salacious allegations, provide endless headlines about sex workers and wild parties. The DC scribes will ignore every detail about the legal investigation — every one!! — and instead use the prosecution as an opportunity to sell political scandal. And also, they will point to their Tiger Beat coverage as proof, they say, they are not politically biased.
Rather than diligently rooting out the obviously politicized prosecution, the press will be complicit in it.
And rather than deciding that the adversary was the target of an obviously politicized prosecution, American public opinion would instead decide that the adversary was icky, and because he is icky, his statements about Trump cannot be credited.
That is what political prosecutions look like. That is, of course, precisely what the Hunter Biden prosecution was (ignoring the assurances from prosecutors who say no one with the fact set Hunter faced would be charged). Every single bullet has an analogue in the Hunter Biden case. That obviously political prosecution is what happened.
Once the GOP got the House majority, they did nothing else but platform these claims, which a different set of self-important scribes treated as an interesting process story, not an obvious case of a great abuse of government power.
And now that Biden has pardoned his son, the very same self important scribes who ignored all the signs this was a political prosecution, are giving non-stop coverage to a pardon that — unlike those of Trump’s Coffee Boy, National Security Adviser, campaign manager, personal lawyer, and rat-fucker — are not about self-protection, most with no mention of all the evidence Trump ordered up this prosecution to target Joe Biden.
The question is, what are we going to do about this, now that we have rock solid proof the press establishment is not only incapable, but wildly uninterested, in rooting out this kind of politicized prosecution — at least not when they can instead sell scandal?
In the face of seeing Pam Bondi and Kash Patel preparing to redouble efforts to find politicized prosecutions against Donald Trump’s adversaries, Joe Biden chose to end the process, with his son, at least.
I’m actually on the record opposing the pardon — but not for the reasons everyone else is. I don’t think pardoning Hunter in this circumstance is corrupt. I take Biden at his word that he changed his mind about pardoning Hunter. I’m far more interested in Trump admitting he was lying about his plans to implement Project 2025 than that Biden reneged on assurances no one much believed anyway.
I oppose the pardon because it eliminates Hunter’s standing to appeal and with those appeals to begin telling the story that the media chose to ignore. I oppose the pardon because if we don’t start laying out how Trump already politicized DOJ while there’s a good base of legitimate judges in place, it’ll be far too late.
And don’t get me wrong. I think Biden fucked this one up. Not just for saying he wouldn’t pardon Hunter, but for not taking action far earlier — like firing David Weiss the day he was inaugurated, citing Trump’s first impeachment, or pardoning Hunter and firing Weiss on November 6 — to do something about this. I think Merrick Garland shouldn’t have given Weiss himself SCO status (not least, because Weiss continues to investigate crimes — the alleged attempted framing of Joe Biden by Alexander Smirnov — to which he is a witness). I think Garland’s supervision of Special Counsels allowed the abuse of the system, repeatedly.
I’ve never, as far as I’m aware, spoken with Hunter Biden. I have, however, spoken to a good number of the people who were and who would be politically prosecuted in Trump’s second term (not including myself, of course). And the thing I’ve learned from them is because the press is complicit in their politicized prosecution, it guarantees they’ll be isolated, regardless of guilt or innocence. Because the press has unquenchable thirst for lazy dick pic sniffing, they don’t do the work of reading the court filings. Because the press thirsts for a false appearance of both sides neutrality, they’re always on the hunt for something to fit into their both sides scandal box.
And meanwhile, those very same self-important scribes were largely silent in 2020 when Trump pardoned his way out of Russian trouble, and even more silent in 2024 when they could have explained to voters that he had done so.
Whatever else you think about the Hunter Biden case and the way Joe Biden pardoned him, it is crystal clear proof that the thing defenders of democracy swear they’ll do in a second Trump term — rise to the defense of those targeted for political prosecution — they already failed to do. Whatever you think about the Hunter Biden case, the vast majority of people talking about it have absolutely no clue that it is precisely what people fear in Trump’s second term, not (just) because Hunter was charged in two indictments when others would not be, but because Trump and his people repeatedly ordered up this prosecution.
Update: Peter Baker, who wrote an otherwise thorough piece during the election about Trump’s corruption which ignored Hunter, claims to be unable to tell whether Biden’s claim that Hunter’s prosecution was politicized is true or not.
Update: Here’s a copy of a white paper Hunter’s attorneys released to describe the politicization of the case. It adds the Parnas and Scott Brady allegations to the stuff in the selective prosecution motions.
How Trump Rolled Out this Kash Patel Pick Is Part of Spinning False Claims about Rule of Law
I was busy serving Thanksgiving Dinner and watching Irish election returns yesterday when Trump announced Kash Patel as his pick to be FBI Director. I’ve long been assuming that, wherever Patel ended up, he would have access to any files at FBI (look to John Solomon and Catherine Herridge to have a lot of inside tracks on propaganda). So the question was just a matter of how Trump gave Patel access to politicize FBI. By picking Patel as the Director rather than Deputy Director (only the former of which requires confirmation), Trump did so in the maximally confrontational way.
Here are four thoughts on how that confrontation plays out.
First, by picking Kash and including false claims about the Deep State in his announcement, Trump forces journalists to address his false claims. Here’s how Devlin Barrett and Maggie Haberman chose to replicate Trump’s false claims with no correction, for example.
Mr. Patel has been closely aligned with Mr. Trump’s belief that much of the nation’s law enforcement and national security establishment needs to be purged of bias and held accountable for what they see as unjustified investigations and prosecutions of Mr. Trump and his allies.
Mr. Patel “played a pivotal role in uncovering the Russia, Russia, Russia Hoax, standing as an advocate for truth, accountability and the Constitution,” Mr. Trump said in announcing his choice in a social media post.
He called Mr. Patel “a brilliant lawyer, investigator and ‘America First’ fighter who has spent his career exposing corruption, defending Justice, and protecting the American people.”
Mr. Patel, a favorite of Mr. Trump’s political base, has worked as a federal prosecutor and a public defender, but has little of the law enforcement and management experience typical of F.B.I. directors.
It is provably false that the investigations into Trump were partisan. There were three investigations of Hillary during the 2016 election (the server investigation, the Clinton Foundation investigation predicated off of right wing oppo research, and a third that was probably the Emirates’ effort to cozy up to her campaign). Joe Biden was investigated for retaining classified documents, just like Trump was. Thousands of other people were investigated for January 6.
Your choice to describe Trump’s false claim (and describing it as a belief, which you cannot know) without correction is simply participation in propaganda. (Politico at least called out Patel for “perpetuating conspiracy theories about the 2020 election.”)
And what Trump calls a hoax resulted in judgments that Trump’s Coffee Boy, National Security Adviser, campaign manager, personal lawyer, and rat-fucker all lied to cover up what really happened with Russia in the 2016 election. Journalists could choose to state that every time Trump calls it a hoax. NYT has almost never chosen to do that, which is how Trump’s propaganda works so well.
But longtime FBI journalists like Barrett will offer some other reason why Patel is a terrible pick — here, insinuating he doesn’t have the experience to do the job. I don’t know: After babysitting Ric Grenell at ODNI, Kash babysat Christopher Miller at DOD. That’s high level — if brief — experience.
Others — like CNN — look to the 10-year term set by statute to suggest Patel’s appointment is problematic.
FBI directors serve 10-year terms in part to shield the bureau’s leader from political pressure. FBI directors serve decadelong terms as the result of a post-Watergate law passed in response to J. Edgar Hoover’s controversial 48-year leadership of the agency.
The breaking of this norm is not new for Trump, who fired Comey shortly after taking office in 2017. Comey, who helmed the FBI during the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election as well as the Hillary Clinton email controversy, was fired by Trump in May 2017 after serving in the position for over three years.
It’s true there’s a 10-year term. But I looked: Only William Webster served 10 and only 10 years. Robert Mueller was kept overtime, in part because he had authorized surveillance programs that were under fire. Louis Freeh resigned in the midst of scandals, leaving the seat open in advance of 9/11. Comey, of course, was fired because he wouldn’t kill the investigation into Mike Flynn before Mike Flynn confessed to lying to cover up his calls with Russia’s ambassador.
I raise that point because the question of whether Kash’s politicization of the Bureau would be so detrimental that it would lead to threats against the US going undisturbed should be the key issue in this confirmation fight. Undoubtedly, corruption (including in the form of Jared’s father being appointed to be Ambassador to France, which Trump also announced yesterday) will start to erode US remaining integrity, up and down government and the economy. It’s certainly possible that counterintelligence and hacking threats will go ignored; already in the first Trump Administration, people with expertise on Russia were driven out, and that would presumably continue. Mis- and disinformation would be protected.
Are those who oppose a Kash appointment able to explain those risks, which is what has really driven Director’s terms?
The Kash appointment heightens my interest in what DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz will do going forward. Trump has threatened to fire the Inspectors General and Horowitz is the most prominent — but Chuck Grassley has pushed back. That said, Horowitz has survived where he is by catering to Republican demands. So I’m wondering not just whether Horowitz could survive in the job, which would serve as a strong check on Patel. But also whether we’ll get two reports that will expose Trump’s past politicization in ways important to a potential Patel pick.
The report on January 6, for example, will lay out how Jeffrey Clark tried to take over DOJ to make it into an object of Trump’s reelection. It will also describe how FBI’s treatment of right wing extremists as informants undermined DOJ’s ability to anticipate January 6. Horowitz has committed to try to release this report by inauguration, but if he does, it could precipitate his firing.
There’s also a report on the investigation of journalists and Members of Congress to find sources for anti-Trump coverage in the first Trump term. This is precisely the kind of politicized investigation that Kash has promised (he has specifically promised to go after people who accurately report on things like the Hunter Biden laptop). The report is badly overdue, but it also threatens to trigger a backlash.
Finally, consider two aspects of the timing of this pick. First, by announcing it now, Trump has made Chris Wray a lame duck. Anyone investigating something that might implicate Trump — such as those investigating Polymarket CEO Shane Coplan — will know that they will have no top cover in a matter of weeks. That was already true, mind you: Pam Bondi would see to that. Plus, it was already clear that Trump was going to replace Wray. Still, this could have a chilling effect on ongoing investigations — or it could create very interesting martyrs at the beginning of Trump’s term.
Then there’s another aspect to the timing. Trump announced this pick — as he did the decision implanting all his defense attorneys at DOJ — while Jack Smith’s prosecutors are working on their report. And Kash should show up in that report, at least to lay out his false public claims that Trump had declassified all the documents he took with him (and possibly even his demand that he got immunity before giving that testimony). I’m not sure how central that will be to a report. But Trump had a choice about how confrontational to be with how he installed Kash in a place to dismantle the so-called Deep State, and his choice to be maximally confrontational may have a tie to this report.
People are currently thinking of all the other ways Kash has helped serve Trump’s false claims in the past — the false claim that the Russian investigation was predicated on the Steele dossier, efforts to override Ukraine experts during that impeachment, attempts to misrepresent the Russian investigation. But the Smith report may well explain that Trump’s FBI Director nominee played a more central role in Trump’s effort to spin Trump’s efforts to take hundreds of classified documents home. So when Kash gets a confirmation hearing, it will put the veracity of the Smith report centrally at issue. If Senators find the report convincing, they should have renewed cause to reject Patel’s nomination, but Trump has almost without exception forced GOP Senators to believe his false claims to avoid scary confrontations with him, so I wouldn’t bet against Trump and Kash.
Trump has spent eight years sowing propaganda about his own corruption and crimes. Not just Patel’s nomination to a position in which he could thoroughly politicize rule of law, but also the means by which Trump made that nomination, is part of that same project.
We have a brief two months to try to reverse eight years of propaganda, propaganda often assisted by journalists playing data mule for Trump’s Truth Social propaganda or exhibiting laziness about correcting his false claims. If Trump succeeds, it will grow far more difficult to sort out truth from crime anymore.
That was always going to be true. But the means by which Trump is conducting his effort is all part of the propaganda campaign.
Update: Roger Parloff linked the 302 interview with someone who is likely Eric Herschmann describing someone who is almost certainly Kash Patel lying about having a standing declassification order.
Also, LOLGOP re-released our Ball of Thread episode that focuses closely on Patel’s propaganda about Crossfire Hurricane.