Pam Bondi Archives - emptywheel

Posts

MAGAts Outraged Comey Indictment Dismissed on Same “Technicality” Trump’s Was!

November 25, 2025/29 Comments/in 2016 Presidential Election, emptywheel, Jim Comey prosecution, Letitia James Investigation, Weaponized DOJ /by emptywheel

In the wake of Judge Cameron Currie’s order dismissing the Jim Comey and Letitia James’ indictments, right wing Trump supporters have contorted themselves into knots trying to claim that Comey and James got special treatment, rather than simply the application of clear precedent to their case.

A technicality!!!!!!

The funniest wail from these MAGAts is their claim that Comey and James only got off on a “technicality,” so we can go ahead and consider them guilty.

In point of fact, Comey pointed out in a filing last week that the Loaner AUSAs have yet to point to any instance that fits the terms of their claimed alleged lie.

Here, the government has repeatedly failed to provide a coherent factual basis for its theory that Mr. Comey authorized Mr. Richman to be an “anonymous source” in news reports regarding the Midyear Exam investigation while Mr. Richman was “at the FBI.” Of the communications following Mr. Comey’s October 28, 2016 letter that the government cites in both briefs, none reflect Mr. Comey authorizing Mr. Richman to be an anonymous source. For instance, the communications show Mr. Richman discussed materials that were already public, like Mr. Comey’s letter to Congress. See, e.g., Opp. at 3 (“Wittes and I are spending a lot of time saying your letter means exactly, and only what it says.” (emphasis added)); id. at 3-4 (quoting the defendant as telling Mr. Richman that Richman’s contributing to a New York Times Opinion piece “would [be] shouting into the wind,” and “that they would ‘figure it out’” without Richman’s contributions). And even where the government alleges that Mr. Comey encouraged Mr. Richman to speak to the press in late October and early November 2016, there is no indication that Mr. Richman did so anonymously; to the contrary, one of the exhibits the government cites references Mr. Richman’s televised interview with Anderson Cooper. Opp. at 4 (citing ECF No. 138-6, 138- 7). The remaining communications cited by the government in its Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Indictment Based on Vindictive and Selective Prosecution suffer from numerous defects, but most critically, all occurred after February 7, 2017, when Mr. Richman left the FBI. This alone makes the government’s theory that Mr. Richman was “at the FBI” when these communications occurred incomprehensible.

And exhibits another Loaner AUSA submitted in the government’s response to James’ vindictive prosecution claim show that Lindsey the Insurance Lawyer was gaslighting Anna Bower when she was stalking her.

More astonishing, though, is that these indictments were dismissed on the very same “technicality” — that the prosecutor was unlawfully appointed — that Judge Aileen Cannon invoked to dismiss Trump’s far better substantiated stolen document case (though Cannon was a newbie judge departing from decades of precedent, while Currie is a senior judge simply following existing precedent).

Indeed, Judge Currie even cites Cannon’s opinion dismissing Trump’s indictment for the principle that everything had to be unwound.

In such a case, “the proper remedy is invalidation of the ultra vires action[s]” taken by the actor. United States v. Trump, 740 F. Supp. 3d 1245, 1302 (S.D. Fla. 2024). “Invalidation ‘follows directly from the government actor’s lack of authority to take the challenged action in the first place. That is, winning the merits of the constitutional challenge is enough.’” Id. (quoting Consumer Fin. Prot. Bureau v. All Am. Check Cashing, Inc., 33 F.4th 218, 241 (5th Cir. 2022) (Jones, J., concurring)).

To make things more awkward, in the hearing on this, Judge Currie asked Pam Bondi’s Counselor, Henry Whitaker, about that precedent and he partly disavowed it, and in doing so, noted that Bondi had other means she could have put Lindsey the Insurance Lawyer in place to indict Comey and James, means she did not take.

THE COURT: Mr. Whitaker, let me ask you one last question. Do you believe that U.S. v. Trump, decided by Judge Cannon, in, I believe, 2021, was wrongly decided?

MR. WHITAKER: Well, I think it’s certainly not controlling here, Your Honor, because in United States v. Trump, Judge Cannon held that various statutes that existed, some of which I’ve cited here today, did not authorize the appointment of a special counsel. But here, in a very important distinction between this case and Trump, is that we have available to us a number of statutes that the United States did not have available in making those arguments. For example, you know, you couldn’t have appointed Jack Smith as an AUSA under 542. I mean, we could have — we certainly could have done that with Ms. Halligan. You couldn’t have appointed Jack Smith as an assistant to a United States attorney under 543. We certainly could have done that with regard to Ms. Halligan.

But, I mean, look, to the extent that — and I do think that mostly what was driving Judge Cannon’s decision in that case was sort of the unique and broad authority that the special counsel possessed sort of free of supervision, which, of course, is an element that we do not have here. But I will say this: Like, look, to the extent you can read Judge Cannon’s decision as suggesting that the Department of Justice does not have authority under, for example, 28 U.S.C. Section 510 to appoint Main Justice attorneys, which would basically knock out most of the Department of Justice as it existed for the past, like, 50 years, yes, we certainly do disagree with that, and we agree that the attorney general has full authority to make appointments under statutes like 28 U.S.C. Section 510 and 509, and that source of authority would fully support Ms. Halligan being an authorized attorney to the government even though there may have been a paperwork error, a citation error in her appointment order.

A Clinton appointee swooping in to steal the case

Which brings us to the second complaint: that it was somehow improper for Currie, a Clinton appointed senior judge from South Carolina, to swoop into EDVA and end the case.

But that is precisely the process used in the three other districts where judges have ruled similar interim appointments unlawful, with a fourth (also involving Tish James) still in process.

When Julien Giraud, father and son, and Cesar Humberto Pino challenged Alina Habba the Parking Garage Lawyer’s involvement in their cases, the Chief Judge from the Third Circuit appointed an out of District judge to preside, Matthew Brann, a Republican appointed by Obama.

Shortly thereafter, the Honorable Michael A. Chagares, Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, designated me for service in the District of New Jersey pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 292(b) and reassigned this matter “and all related cases” to me.36

When a bunch of defendants in Nevada challenged Sigal Chattah the election denier lawyer’s involvement in their cases, the Chief Judge from the Ninth Circuit appointed an out of District judge to preside, David Campbell, a George W Bush appointee.

The Nevada District Court Judges recused from hearing these motions to dismiss, presumably because the motions implicate their own power to appoint an Acting U.S. Attorney. See 28 U.S.C. § 546(d). Exercising her authority under 28 U.S.C. § 292(b), Ninth Circuit Chief Judge Mary Murguia designated the undersigned judge to hear and decide these motions. Doc. 21.

When some Los Angeles defendants challenged liar for ICE goons Bill Essayli’s involvement in their cases, the Chief Judge from the Ninth Circuit appointed a different out of District judge, Michael Seabright, another George W Bush appointee, to preside over their challenges.

ORDER (U.S.C. § 292(b)) by Chief Circuit Judge Mary H. Murguia as to Defendant Jaime Hector Ramirez: Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 292(b), I hereby designate the Honorable Michael Seabright, United States Senior District Judge for the District of Hawaii, to temporarily perform the duties of United States District Judge on an as-needed basis for the Central District of California beginning on 9/8/2025, and ending on 12/31/2025, and for such additional time required in advance to prepare or thereafter to complete unfinished business.

And when Letitia James challenged subpoenas issued by John Sarcone after he falsely claimed NDNY judges had named him as US Attorney, the Chief Judge from the Second Circuit appointed an out of District judge to preside over that challenge, Lorna Schofield, another Obama appointee.

Of note, all these challenges to Pam Bondi’s playacting US Attorneys had started before Bondi installed Lindsey the Insurance Lawyer on September 22, and Judge Brann had already ruled Alina Habba’s appointment to be unlawful.

Bondi was on notice that what she was doing with Lindsey the Insurance Lawyer was going to be challenged and had been successfully challenged. And she didn’t even attempt any of the gimmicks she is using elsewhere to keep Trump hacks in place, those means cited by her own Counselor in court — in part because she couldn’t. She had already used one of those tricks, installing Maggie Cleary as First AUSA, when Trump insisted it had to be Lindsey the Insurance Lawyer.

These cases might have been dismissed on other grounds. But the unlawful appointment dismissals are entirely of Bondi’s doing.

Stop blaming judges appointed by whichever President when Bondi is 100% to blame.

The Blue Slip gaslight special

Finally, there are even right wing dumbasses claiming that this is about Blue Slips, the Senate tradition that US Attorneys and Judges must have the support of both Senators before being confirmed.

To be fair, Todd Blanche did go on Fox News and falsely claim that is what this is about.

The way you know Blanche is lying is because Trump told us himself, when he ordered Bondi to install Halligan.

“[W]e almost put in a Democrat [sic] supported U.S. Attorney, in Virginia, with a really bad Republican past. A Woke RINO, who was never going to do his job.”

What he’s talking about is that Trump himself nominated Siebert with the support of both Mark Warner and Tim Kaine.

Siebert was someone everyone agreed on — Trump installed him, EDVA’s judges reinstalled him, Trump nominated him — until Siebert concluded, apparently with Blanche’s concurrence, that there was not probable cause to indict Jim Comey.

All this whining is nothing other than cope.

If you complain that Democrats aren’t supporting qualified nominees, you should be outraged that Trump pulled Siebert.

If you complain that unconflicted judges decide these issues, you’ve got one.

If you really had a problem with appointments clause dismissals, you should be demanding that Trump stand trial for stealing nuclear documents and stashing them in a bathroom.

But what you shouldn’t do is blame anyone other than the person responsible, Attorney General Pam Bondi.

Share this entry

Loaner AUSA Gabriel Diaz: Why Do You Think There Are Two Indictments Signed by Lindsey Halligan?

November 17, 2025/43 Comments/in 2016 Presidential Election, Weaponized DOJ /by emptywheel

Did Lindsey Halligan sign and docket two indictments — nay, one indictment plus two copies (fucked and fixed) of a no-billed indictment?

Why yes Lindsey Halligan did.

“So this has never happened before. I’ve been handed two documents that are in the Mr. Comey case that are inconsistent with one another,” Vaala said to Halligan. “There seems to be a discrepancy. They’re both signed by the (grand jury) foreperson.”

And she noted that one document did not clearly indicate what the grand jury had decided.

“The one that says it’s a failure to concur in an indictment, it doesn’t say with respect to one count,” Vaala said. “It looks like they failed to concur across all three counts, so I’m a little confused as to why I was handed two things with the same case number that are inconsistent.”

Halligan initially responded that she hadn’t seen that version of the indictment.

“So I only reviewed the one with the two counts that our office redrafted when we found out about the two — two counts that were true billed, and I signed that one. I did not see the other one. I don’t know where that came from,” Halligan told the judge.

Vaala responded, “You didn’t see it?” And Halligan again told her, “I did not see that one.”

Vaala seemed surprised: “So your office didn’t prepare the indictment that they —”

Halligan then replied, “No, no, no — I — no, I prepared three counts. I only signed the one — the two-count (indictment). I don’t know which one with three counts you have in your hands.”

“Okay. It has your signature on it,” Vaala told Halligan, who responded, “Okay. Well.”

Except now that Lindsey the Insurance Lawyer can’t explain how she spent her day on September 25, Gabriel Diaz fronting for James Hayes under the name of Lindsey Halligan says maybe there wasn’t a second indictment.

The government’s position is that disclosure of grand jury materials is not warranted under the facts presented to the Magistrate Judge. Indeed, the government believes the Magistrate Judge may have misinterpreted some facts he found when issuing the latest order to release the grand jury materials to the defendant. For instance, (1) whether the defendant has any standing to challenge the Richman materials, (2) the full context of the statements made by the prosecutor to the grand jury, (3) that Agent-3 was exposed to potentially privileged material, and (4) that two indictments were presented to the grand jury. Additionally, the Magistrate Judge acknowledges he “did not immediately recognize any overtly privileged communications.” Dkt. No. 192 at 14. The possible exposure of privileged materials to the grand jury was the primary focus of the Magistrate Judge’s inquiry. Having seemingly settled that issue, the Magistrate Judge turns to premature issues such as suppression that have not even been briefed by the parties.

Literally items (2), (3), and (4) came from the government!

But now, in a desperate bid to buy a week of time to try to find a way to delay Jim Comey’s discovery that Lindsey the Insurance Lawyer and the Attorney General of the United States think he’s not entitled to Fifth Amendment rights.

If two indictments weren’t presented, then Lindsey the Insurance Lawyer has submitted a fabrication to the court and we should start criminal contempt proceedings.

Judge Fitzpatrick rattled off eleven problems with this indictment. And you want to stall for time?

All the evidence suggests there is no indictment, because the foreperson no-billed the only one presented to the grand jury.

And they want to stall for time?

Update: From Comey’s response. Holy hell these people are way more moderated than I would be.

Moreover, with respect to the presentment, the affidavit Ms. Halligan voluntarily presented raised significant concerns about whether the operative indictment was actually presented to the grand jury, and if so, by whom. The logical conclusion from Ms. Halligan’s declaration is that no one from the government presented a new indictment to the grand jury after it issued a no bill. Ms. Halligan’s declaration attests that she did not reappear before the grand jury upon learning of the grand jury’s vote to no bill the indictment she presented between 2:18PM and 4:28PM. See ECF No. 188-1 at 2 (“During the intermediary time, between concluding my presentation and being notified of the grand jury’s return, I had no interaction whatsoever with any members of the grand jury.”). And, importantly, she asserts that “the transcript accurately reflects the entirety of the government’s presentation and presence in front of the grand jury. There was no additional presentation, interaction, or discussion with the grand jury outside of what is reflected in the transcript.” ECF No. 188-1 at 1 (emphasis added). If no one from the government presented the operative indictment, as logically follows from Ms. Halligan’s own assertions and her ultimate handing up of a purported indictment that differs from the one partially no true billed, then the grand jury did not vote on it. See ECF No. 193 at 17-18.

Update: Here’s the colloquy between Magistrate Judge Lindsey Vaala and the Foreperson.

THE FOREPERSON: So the three counts should be just one count. It was the very first count that we did not agree on, and the Count Two and Three were then put in a different package, which we agreed on.

THE COURT: So you —

THE FOREPERSON: So they separated it.

THE COURT: Sorry, I didn’t mean to interrupt you. So you voted on the one that has the two counts?

THE FOREPERSON: Yes.

THE COURT: Okay. And you’re just giving me the other one for what reason?

THE FOREPERSON: That we could not agree on.

THE COURT: Okay. But just for one count?

Update: Judge Nachmanoff has given the government two days to bitch. Comey has a reply due on his broader grand jury request on Thursday, so Comey might file early.

ORDERED that the Motion (ECF 195) is GRANTED IN PART; and it is further ORDERED that the government will file any objections to Judge Fitzpatrick’s Order by 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, November 19, 2025. Thereafter, the defense will file any response to any objection by the government by 5:00 p.m. on Friday, November 21, 2025; and it is further ORDERED that Judge Fitzpatrick’s Order (ECF 193) is STAYED pending the resolution of any objections filed by the government, which this Court will consider on the papers as to James B. Comey Jr. Signed by District Judge Michael S. Nachmanoff on 11/17/2025.

There’s also a hearing on Comey’s vindictive and selective prosecution on Wednesday.

Share this entry

Might Pam Bondi’s Latest Prosecutorial Abuse Give Us Ponies and Puppies?

November 16, 2025/44 Comments/in 2016 Presidential Election, Weaponized DOJ /by emptywheel

The media’s response to this exchange (remember, timezone reflects Irish time) between Donald Trump and Pam Bondi has been procedural.

At the NYT yesterday, for example, first Erica Green, Glenn Thrush, and Alan Feuer described it (competently) in procedural terms. It was a tired Trump strategy of projection, it might stall release of files to Congress, gosh it’ll make things hard for Jay Clayton. 30-some ¶¶ in, it briefly turned to politics, in the form of quotes from Robert Garcia (Ranking Member of Oversight) and Don Bacon. Tom Massie, Ro Khanna, and Marjorie Taylor Greene are not quoted, to say nothing of Epstein’s victims.

Then the NYT today turned to its SDNY reporters — Jonah Bromwich, Benjamin Weiser and William Rashbaum — to focus more closely on just how much trouble this could cause SDNY US Attorney Jay Clayton. That story mentions Maurene Comey’s firing in passing twice, but days ago, Bromwich and Rashbaum described how everyone in the New York Metro area dodged defending Ms. Comey’s wrongful termination lawsuit which, after some delay, NDNY, led by a corrupt Trump flunkie, will now take on.

Both stories make Trump the agent of the narrative. He made an order and as Bondi executes it, this is what will happen.

As I suggested in this video, I look at Bondi’s public haste to bow to Trump’s demands differently.

Pam Bondi doubled down on ratifying Lindsey Halligan’s indictment of Jim Comey, after having been caught in failing to exercise the least due diligence the last time she tried to do so. One reason she did so, no doubt, is that DOJ literally told Judge Currie that the unlawful means Bondi used to turn Lindsey the Insurance Lawyer into US Attorney was a mere “paperwork error,” Pam Bondi’s fuck-up. And so, in an attempt to salvage the fuck-up DOJ is attributing to the Attorney General, she may have inserted herself into what appear to be serious Fourth Amendment violations, among other things.

And, that very same day, she publicly bowed to the President’s demand that she pursue clearly political prosecutions just months after DOJ had publicly issued an (unsigned) declination decision in the same investigation (after reportedly having shut down an ongoing investigation into Epstein co-conspirators, presumably led by Jim Comey’s daughter, months earlier).

Even in July, it was crystal clear that Pam Bondi kept making things worse.

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

By the end of that week, Todd Blanche would announce he’d spend some quiet time with Ghislaine Maxwell, which I imagine he thought was clever but has resulted in further questions, starting with why he’s not charging Maxwell for the lies she told to his face and why the sexual predator got a puppy.

Pam Bondi has been trying to make the Epstein problem she made worse go away. It hasn’t worked. Nothing has worked. All the pressure she and Blanche and Kash Patel could apply failed to force Lauren Boebert to make it go away. And having failed so far, she very publicly and very quickly agreed to do something stupid, reopen an investigation that she already said could not be pursued.

She did so the week before Judge Michael Nachmanoff (on Wednesday) will preside over Jim Comey’s vindictive and selective prosecution claim, which will be followed by Letitia James’ motion in a few weeks, assuming one or both of those prosecutions are not preempted by some other dismissal before then. (Comey Motion; DOJ Response; Comey Reply; James Motion; there are a slew of Amici filing in both)

In Comey’s reply, he responded to Lindsey Halligan and her Loaner AUSAs’ attempt to claim only Halligan’s motive can be scrutinized in this prosecutorial decision by citing one of the most troubling passages in the Supreme Court’s ruling in Trump v. USA:

Imputation of President Trump’s vindictive motive to Ms. Halligan is particularly warranted because the President has “exclusive authority over the investigative and prosecutorial functions of the Justice Department and its officials.” Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. 593, 621 (2024). As the government itself describes, U.S. Attorneys are subordinate aides to the President, “help[ing the President] discharge” his “responsibility” to prosecute crimes. ECF No. 138 at 17. And President Trump’s authority is not merely formal or abstract: he has exercised an unprecedented and extraordinary degree of control over the DOJ, installing his personal allies to key positions and inserting himself into prosecutorial decisions that, in previous Administrations, would have been left to the DOJ’s independent judgment. See ECF No. 59 at 8-11. [my emphasis]

That’s the language John Roberts used to excuse Trump’s efforts, via Jeffrey Clark, to use DOJ to steal the election.

The Government does not dispute that the indictment’s allegations regarding the Justice Department involve Trump’s use of official power. The allegations in fact plainly implicate Trump’s “conclusive and preclusive” authority. The Executive Branch has “exclusive authority and absolute discretion” to decide which crimes to investigate and prosecute, including with respect to allegations of election crime. Nixon, 418 U. S., at 693. And the President’s “management of the Executive Branch” requires him to have “unrestricted power to remove the most important of his subordinates”—such as the Attorney General—“in their most important duties.” Fitzgerald, 457 U. S., at 750. The indictment’s allegations that the requested investigations were shams or proposed for an improper purpose do not divest the President of exclusive authority over the investigative and prosecutorial functions of the Justice Department and its officials. Because the President cannot be prosecuted for conduct within his exclusive constitutional authority, Trump is absolutely immune from prosecution for the alleged conduct involving his discussions with Justice Department officials. Pp. 19–21.

Trump seemed to echo this license when asked about ordering Bondi to investigate Democrats on Friday.

Reporter: Do you believe a President should be able to order investigations?

Trump: Sure. I’m the chief law enforcement officer of the country. Not that I want to use that. But I am considered the chief law enforcement agent in the country. And I’m allowed to do it.

Effectively, Comey argued that because of the monstrosity Roberts created, his vindictive prosecution claim must be judged according to different rules. And then Trump just reaffirmed his responsiblity.

If these things happened in a vacuum, I’d say that Bondi’s quick and public acquiescence to Trump’s demand that she investigate his enemies as a way to avoid scrutiny himself would be nothing more than a truly epic Constitutional confrontation.

A display of what happens when, as John Roberts did, you give the President literal immunity to hunt down his enemies for unrelated reasons, such as that the President’s one-time best friend “stole” his former spa girl and turned her into a sex slave a quarter century ago.

But it’s not happening in a vacuum.

The week before Trump’s defense attorney will sit mutely in a court room as Loaner AUSAs try to put lipstick on the pig of this prosecution, Trump made his abuse even more plain than he did when he accidentally ordered up this very investigation (and that of James) in September, a tweet prosecutors have already had to invent bullshit excuses for.

How interesting, Judge Nachmanoff might think, that Pam Bondi just performed her utter obeisance to Trump, just the thing prosecutors insist didn’t happen with Comey. How interesting, that the lady who claimed to ratify this prosecution did that.

As I said in the video, there are up to ten ways that the Comey prosecution might go away, and I’m already greedily hoping that those ten things things not just fall into place, but fall into place in an order that will result in far more trouble for DOJ.

Certainly, the fact that Judge Cameron Currie started her hearing last week on the most obvious thing that might make this prosecution go away, Halligan’s unlawful appointment, by raising another, the declination memos reported in the press, makes me hope I might get a pony.

THE COURT: Mr. [Ephraim] McDowell, are you aware of any evidence of whether there was a declination memo prepared in the Comey matter?

MR. MCDOWELL: We are not aware of that at the moment. I think, you know, that would be something that could potentially come out in discovery, but we don’t have that as of yet.

Another thing we’ve been promised this week is Jim Comey’s explanation of the multiple ways Kash Patel’s FBI violated his Fourth Amendment rights by sniffing through everything Bill Barr’s hyper-aggressive DOJ seized four years ago. Then there are the parallel requests Comey has made for grand jury transcripts that Judge Currie certainly seems to think are improper — but Pam Bondi claimed, both the first time, and the second time — are not.

Bondi demonstrated her willingness to conduct political prosecutions the week before the wheels may start to come off the Comey prosecution.

And if they don’t, Maurene Comey may get to force the issue. Attorney General James may get to force the issue.

That’s all legal though, and the law never works as quickly or decisively as you’d like, particularly not with Donald Trump.

But it happens in the very same week that — reportedly — up to a hundred Republicans are prepared to vote to release the Epstein files to stave off lasting damage from Trump’s sex trafficker scandal, something that — if it happens — will make this referral to Jay Clayton a problem, not a solution.

One reason Pam Bondi was so quick to bow to Trump’s demands, sacrificing her very last shreds of credibility with courts, was because she’s in real political trouble, and has been since she thought she’d get cute by handing out binders of already-released Epstein files.

Trump’s effort, Bondi’s effort, to make all this go away by handing it to Jay Clayton on a steaming-shit platter reflect desperation, not the agency NYT portrays it as.

Sure, it’s certainly possible all this will go away, as it always does for Trump. Maybe the dog that didn’t bark can wag one in Venezuela to make his troubles go away.

It’s still a good bet that Ghislaine will be the only one who gets a puppy.

But both Trump and Bondi are operating reactively. And in a desperate attempt to reclaim agency over the Epstein scandal — something Trump has been struggling to do since July — he may well have handed Jim Comey a gift pony.

Update: After I wrote this Todd Blanche made an appearance on Fox to lie about both these issues and Trump claimed that he had encouraged “House Republicans” (but not Republicans generally) to vote to release the files. There are a number of caveats built into that — the focus on the House (when Bondi could release these files herself), the attendant call to investigate Democrats, and the focus on giving “the House Oversight Committee can have whatever they are legally entitled to,” which they’ve already gotten. Whether this works depends both on the willful stupidity of the GOP (Tom Massie has already pointed out holes in this proposal) and Bondi’s ability to sustain the illusion of an investigation. In his comment, Trump explicitly spoke, as he has from the start, in terms of attention, and his demand that he control it. But the last time he tried this, it turned into a welcome-watch for Adelita Grijalva.

Share this entry

Pam Bondi Replaces Her Embarrassing Reading Comprehension Failure with a 4A Violation

November 15, 2025/33 Comments/in Surveillance, Weaponized DOJ /by emptywheel

When Judge Cameron Currie surprised Pam Bondi’s Counselor, Henry Whitaker, on Thursday with a question about whether DOJ believes Aileen Cannon wrongly dismissed Trump’s stolen documents case, Whitaker claimed what distinguished Jack Smith from Lindsey Halligan is that Halligan is closely supervised.

I do think that mostly what was driving Judge Cannon’s decision in that case was sort of the unique and broad authority that the special counsel possessed sort of free of supervision, which, of course, is an element that we do not have here.

He said that, mind you, even while conceding that Pam Bondi had claimed to ratify the Comey indictment even though the transcripts didn’t show how Halligan instructed the grand jury, yet.

MR. WHITAKER: Well, it’s true that — it is true, Your Honor, you’re right, that we didn’t have the intro and back end of the grand jury transcripts when we presented that.

Between that day, on October 31, when Pam Bondi claimed to ratify Lindsey’s work without noticing she couldn’t see that work, and yesterday, several things have happened.

We’ve gotten a lot more details about the suspected Fourth Amendment and Attorney-Client privilege violations Jim Comey’s investigators committed. First, Rebekah Donaleski told Magistrate Judge William Fitzpatrick that Jim Comey’s team believed investigators had worked off material seized from Dan Richman that was not responsive to the four warrants used to investigate him. Effectively, a general warrant.

[D]id the agents preserve nonresponsive copies or nonresponsive materials for five years? Because the Fourth Circuit has said that’s not reasonable. Did that happen? Because the prolonged retention of nonresponsive electronic data can render an initially lawful search unconstitutional. The Fourth Circuit has said that. That’s what appears to have happened here.

[snip]

We need to know was this a narrowly tailored responsive set or did they just mark the entire iCloud responsive, thus rendering it a general warrant. We don’t know the answers to those questions.

Then, the FBI agent who realized he was reading privileged material described that he had been given the “full Cellebrite extraction” of Dan Richman’s phone to review, precisely that general warrant Donaleski feared. His supervisor said that the original agent had prepped the grand jury team with “a two-page document containing limited text message content only from May 11, 2017,” designed to avoid any taint. But Miles Starr appears to have presented eight pages of those texts to the grand jury; the Bates stamp for those texts include only a number, nothing to indicate they post-dated a privilege review by Richman.

After that, the Loaner AUSAs confessed that they had no fucking clue whether the material used to investigate Jim Comey had been scoped for responsiveness (though Comey’s team described that it looked like these were “raw returns for the search warrants at issue, unscoped for responsiveness and filtered for Mr. Richman’s privileges”).

The Order also required the government to provide, in writing, by the same deadline: “Confirmation of whether the Government has divided the materials searched pursuant to the four 2019 and 2020 warrants at issue into materials that are responsive and non-responsive to those warrants, and, if so, a detailed explanation of the methodology used to make that determination; A detailed explanation of whether, and for what period of time, the Government has preserved any materials identified as non-responsive to the four search warrants; A description identifying which materials have been identified as responsive, if any; and A description identifying which materials have previously been designated as privileged.” ECF No. 161 at 1-2.

Despite certifying on November 6 that it had complied with the Court’s Order, ECF No. 163, the government did not provide this information until the evening of November 9, 2025, in response to a defense inquiry. The government told the defense that it “does not know” whether there are responsive sets for the first, third, and fourth warrants, or whether it has produced those to the defense, and said that in that regard, “we are still pulling prior emails” and the “agent reviewed the filtered material through relativity but there appears to be a loss of data that we are currently trying to restore.”

Then, in one of their response briefs, the government effectively threw out half their evidence, including all the texts from Richman’s phone.

At the earlier hearing, Fitzpatrick warned the government not to use any violative material.

THE COURT: The Court authorized you to search and to seize, or to seize primarily, a very specific subset of information; that’s it. It’s the government’s burden to comply with that court order. You need to confidently explain to me how you have done that. You need to confidently explain how you have complied strictly with the Court’s order. If you can do that, then I suspect that that narrow window of time, you probably still can review, at least pending the outcome of the other motions.

He even ordered them not to review any materials seized from those search warrants until further order of the Court.

ORDERED that the Government, including any of its agents or employees, shall not review any of the materials seized pursuant to the four 2019 and 2020 search warrants at issue until further order of the Court;

In the middle of this, Comey argued that if Halligan presented unlawfully seized material to the grand jury, then Pam Bondi’s review of the grand jury materials — the first one, on October 31 — might also constitute a violation of Comey’s Fourth Amendment.

2 Concerns about taint arising from the improper use of potentially privileged and unconstitutionally-obtained materials are heightened because of the government’s continued use of the materials obtained pursuant to the warrants and grand jury transcripts. On October 31, 2025, the Attorney General purported to ratify the indictment based on her review of the grand jury proceedings. ECF No. 137-1 at 2-3. If that review entailed further improper use of privileged or unconstitutionally-obtained materials insofar as they were presented to the grand jury, it casts further doubt on the propriety of the government’s conduct of this case. The government produced the grand jury materials on November 5, 2025 to Judge Currie for in camera review, and thus could quickly produce the same materials to the defense. See ECF No. 158.

So to sum up so far: Jim Comey said, you violated my Attorney-Client privilege and my Fourth Amendment rights. And it’s likely that when Pam Bondi reviewed that transcript where unlawfully seized materials were presented, she did too.

And then Pam Bondi — after her Counselor assured Judge Currie that Halligan is closely supervised — reviewed the grand jury transcripts again.

The ones that likely rely on unlawfully seized materials.

Share this entry

Lindsey the Insurance Lawyer’s Story Gets Stupider

November 14, 2025/43 Comments/in 2016 Presidential Election, Weaponized DOJ /by emptywheel

In an attempt to unfuck Pam Bondi’s Halloween attempt to ratify Lindsey Halligan’s attempt to indict Jim Comey, the blondes from Florida have fucked things worse.

Bondi submitted a declaration effectively saying, never mind that the last time I claimed to ratify Lindsey the Insurance Lawyer’s work, I didn’t read closely enough to notice that the transcripts were incomplete. This time, I have read “the entirety of the record now available to the government” and I re-ratify what Lindsey did almost two months ago.

The district court has subsequently raised questions about the completeness of the record of the grand jury proceedings presented to me at the time of the initial ratification. For the avoidance of doubt, I have reviewed the entirety of the record now available to the government and confirm my knowledge of the material facts associated with the grand jury proceedings.

Lindsey, for her part, claims there was no gap and confessed she did not re-present the charges after getting no-billed. There was only one presentment.

1. Accordingly, I, Lindsey Halligan, submit this declaration to clarify the precise sequence of events on September 25, 2025, to confirm that the grand jury transcript accurately reflects the full extent of my appearance before the grand jury, and to explain that the period in question consisted solely of the grand jury’s private deliberations, during which no prosecutor, court reporter, or other person may be present pursuant to Rule 6(d) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. There are no missing minutes, contrary to the suggestion raised by the court.

2. On September 25, 2025, I presented the case of the United States v. James B. Comey, Jr., to a federal grand jury in the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division. I have reviewed the full transcript of the grand jury proceedings, and the transcript accurately reflects the entirety of the government’s presentation and presence in front of the grand jury. There was no additional presentation, interaction, or discussion with the grand jury outside of what is reflected in the transcript. Below is a brief timeline of the events that day.

3. On September 25, 2025, I appeared before the grand jury. After introducing myself and the case proposed for indictment, the case was presented through testimony. At the conclusion of the presentment, I provided a brief summation to the grand jury and then departed along with the court reporter. The process of presenting the indictment took place from approximately 02:18 PM to 04:28 PM.

4. Approximately two hours later, at 06:40 PM, I was notified by then-First Assistant United States Attorney Maggie Cleary that the grand jury had returned a true bill as to the presented Count Two and Count Three of the indictment and that the grand jury had not returned a true bill as to the presented Count One. I then proceeded to the courtroom for the return of the indictment in front of the magistrate judge.

There are a slew of problems with that.

First, there are two indictments — or rather, three:

The no-billed indictment as Lindsey first presented it, with the signature page from the real indictment, which starts in blue ink and ends in black.
The no-billed indictment as it subsequently got corrected, with both a (claimed) signature from herself and the foreperson, all in blue ink.
The indictment purportedly supported by the grand jury, signed in black.

Lindsey now claims she only presented the case once, yet there are — or purport to be — two indictments.

For what it’s worth, when Amicus12 first pointed this out, I called the clerk to find out WTF, but have gotten no response.

Also of interest, right wing propagandist Julie Kelly (who is quite chummy with Pam Bondi’s corrupt DOJ) claims that yesterday morning, the Chief Judge in EDVA, Leonie Brinkema, restricted Lindsey the Insurance Lawyer’s US Marshal detail from the courthouse.

But even if there’s not the colossal paperwork error there appears to be, there’s another problem.

The Loaner AUSAs confirmed … yesterday, that they plan to include Comey’s “Clinton Plan” statements — the stuff no-billed in original Count One — in the obstruction charge.

But, as provided in discovery and via the indictment, the government intends to seek the admission of evidence at trial on this count regarding the defendant’s statements to senators during the September 30, 2020, committee hearing. For instance, the defendant’s statements to Senators Grassley and Cruz regarding his use of Richman as an anonymous source concerning the Clinton email investigation and his statements to Senators Graham and Hawley regarding his alleged lack of memory concerning the so-called Clinton plan to “tie Trump” to Russia.

Comey attorney Pat Fitzgerald had already promised some challenge to this, in the halcyon days when everyone believed there were two presentments.

I think there’s another motion coming from us, in light of some disclosures that were made Monday, where we think that the government is expanding its case, we believe, to include the conduct that was no true billed in Count One as part of its proof of Count Two, which raises serious issues for us. So we’ll do everything we can, but to do all that while getting Mr. Comey access to materials…

But now Lindsey the Insurance Lawyer is claiming that she can rely on Count One even though grand jurors in the very same vote she’s claiming to rely on rejected that claim.

And Pam Bondi is signing on willingly to that claim.

Whatever else has happened, Lindsey the Insurance Lawyer has guaranteed that Comey will get to review what went down. The only remaining question, I suspect, is when he gets that — whether it is soon enough to help him throw out the evidence against him. But it seems like Judge Currie is not the only one alarmed by what she saw in these transcripts.

Update: I should add, given my continued obsession with the authors who have not noticed their appearance, Gabriel Diaz authored the document submitted today.

Meanwhile, Gabriel Cohen is the author of the digitally signed but unsworn declaration from Lindsey the Insurance Lawyer.

Someone named lheim authored Pam Bondi’s signed but unsworn declaration.

Update: Holy hell.

Lindsey the Insurance Lawyer appears to have resubmitted the entire package, not to fix her stupid story, but instead to fix her signature line (which Josh Gerstein first noted).

Update: Here’s the specific exchange about the missing stuff.

THE COURT: Let me ask you this. I was involved in receiving in camera provisions of the grand jury transcripts and tapes, and it became obvious to me that the attorney general could not have reviewed those portions of the transcript of the Comey presentation by Ms. Halligan which preceded and came after her presentation of the witness testimony in the case. There also is a missing section of what occurred between 4:28 and the return of the grand jury indictment, and it appears to me that there was no court reporter present, or if he or she was present, did not take down what happened during that time period.

So how does the attorney general ratify and say that she has reviewed the grand jury transcripts when they did not exist in the records of the Justice Department at that time?

MR. WHITAKER: Well, it’s true that — it is true, Your Honor, you’re right, that we didn’t have the intro and back end of the grand jury transcripts when we presented that.

Share this entry

The Halloween Special Attorney’s Loaner AUSAs’ Loaner AUSA Forgot to Describe Jim Comey’s Imaginary Crime

November 3, 2025/19 Comments/in emptywheel /by emptywheel

Lindsey Halligan’s Loaner AUSAs have submitted their responses to Jim Comey’s initial motions, which I’ve laid out below.

The Tl;dr of the response to the observation that Lindsey was not lawfully appointed (DOJ submitted the same motion in both Comey and Tish James’ case) is that Lindsey was lawfully appointed even though two judges had said she wouldn’t be by the time she was appointed, and if not, then the indictments are still valid because Pam Bondi retroactively appointed Halligan to be a very Special Attorney on Halloween.

No.

Really.

The response to the vindictive and selective prosecution spends a lot of time saying that Lindsey didn’t vindictively prosecute Trump, and Donald Trump’s animus to Jim Comey wasn’t about his First Amendment speech, but about Trump’s claim that Comey leaked information, when the filing doesn’t actually show that Comey did that at all.

Not only that, the filing makes clear the problems with DOJ’s case that Comey lied about authorizing Dan Richman to share information.

None of the times Richman served as a source fit the criteria of Ted Cruz’ question (that is, from when Richman was at FBI, speaking about the Clinton investigation, anonymously, with Jim Comey’s involvement ahead of time). The closest was for this flowchart regarding Jim Comey’s decision to announce he had reopened the investigation into Hillary’s emails — the act that cost Hillary the election.

The next day, Mr. Richman sent the defendant an email regarding an op-ed he had been asked to write for The New York Times about the defendant’s letter. Gov. Ex. 5 (Oct. 30, 2016 emails). Mr. Richman stated that he was “not inclined” to “write something,” but that he would “do it” if the defendant thought it would “help things to explain that [the defendant] owed cong absolute candor,” and that the defendant’s “credibility w cong w[ould] be particularly important in the coming years of threatened cong investigations.” See id. The defendant responded: “No need. At this point it would [be] shouting into the wind. Some day they will figure it out. And as [Individual 1 and Individual 2] point out, my decision will be one a president elect Clinton will be very grateful for (although that wasn’t why I did it).” See id. The defendant appears to have reconsidered that view shortly thereafter. On November 1, 2016, he emailed Mr. Richman, stating:

When I read the times coverage involving [Reporter 1], I am left with the sense that they don’t understand the significance of my having spoke about the case in July. It changes the entire analysis. Perhaps you can make him smarter.

Let’s imagine the Times had a policy against writing new articles close to elections if the articles might influence the election. Consistent with that policy they would avoid writing this week if sources told them that the FBI was looking at Huma Abedin’s emails.

But let’s imagine that they wrote a very high profile piece in July that sources lead them to now conclude was materially inaccurate. Would they correct it or stay silent because they have a policy to avoid action near elections?

I suspect they would quickly conclude that either course is an “action” and the choices are either reporting or concealing but there is no longer a “neutral” option because of the reporting in July. I also suspect they would resolve very quickly to choose the action of disclosing because to remain silent is to actively mislead, which has a wide range of very bad consequences.

Why is this so hard for them to grasp? All the stuff about how we were allegedly careful not to take actions on cases involving other allegations about which we have never spoken is irrelevant. I love our practice of being inactive near elections. But inactivity was not an option here. The choices were act to reveal or act to conceal.

See Gov. Ex. 6 (Nov. 1–2, 2016 emails) (emphases added).

Mr. Richman responded the next day, stating: “This is precisely the case I made to them and thought they understood. I was quite wrong. Indeed I went further and said mindless allegiance to the policy (and recognition that more evidence could come in) would have counseled silence in july to let hrc twist in the wind.” See id. Mr. Richman emailed the defendant shortly thereafter, writing, “Just got the point home to [Reporter 1]. Probably was rougher than u would have been.” See id.

The defendant emailed Mr. Richman shortly thereafter, entitling the message “Pretty good” and sending a link to a New York Times piece regarding the defendant’s purported options in late October 2016 concerning the Clinton email investigation (Midyear Exam). See Gov. Ex. 7 (Nov. 2, 2016 email chain); Matt Apuzzo and Sergio Peçanha, These Are the Bad (and Worse) Options James Comey Faced, N.Y. Times (Nov. 2, 2016). 4 The defendant wrote: “Someone showed some logic. I would paint the cons more darkly but not bad.” See Gov. Ex. 7 (emphasis added). Mr. Richman responded: “See I *can* teach.” See id. The defendant replied: “Well done my friend. Who knew this would. E so uh fun.”5 See id. (emphasis added).

But the conversation between Richman and Comey is about logistics, not Hillary. Moreover, since it’s a flowchart, it’s not like Richman could be an anonymous source (and the conversation took place in context of doing an overt op-ed).

Additionally, it’s not even clear whether Richman was formally at FBI on that date. His “reappointment,” which had expired in June 2016, was pending as of October 27.

The other examples regarding Hillary postdate the date — February 7, 2017 — Richman left FBI (in the first case, only by four days, but not in a way that reflected Comey’s foreknowledge).

The Loaner AUSAs obscure that this happened after Richman left by not mentioning the date.

For example, in February 2017, Richman emailed Individual 3, a then-government official who had served in high-ranking positions at the FBI and DOJ. Mr. Richman wrote: “Hi [Individual 3] – my pal at the NYT, [Reporter 1] is (along with [Reporter 2], [Reporter 3], and (gag me) [Reporter 4]) is doing a huge piece on the HRC emails. He’s had a ton of background conversations with players and non-players (like me). [Reporter 1] very much would like to talk to you exclusively on background as he tries to understand[] Jim’s decision making to the extent possible. [Reporter 1] asked me to reach out to you. Hence this email. Would you be willing to chat with him?” See Gov. Ex. 9 (Feb. 11, 2017 email chain) (emphasis added). Individual 3 replied in the affirmative and stated that he would “reach out” to the reporter. See id.

The memos’ attempt to prove Comey lied about having received this memo is even sillier.

It claims that an investigative team that included Jack Eckenrode found the memo that Jack Eckenrode could never prove that FBI received as part of the Durham investigation in the storage unit in ~~WDVA~~ FBI Headquarters.

Among the records found were many related to the FBI’s Mar-a-Lago search, the January 06 capitol breach, the Crossfire Hurricane investigation, as well as a copy of the Classified Appendix to the John Durham Special Counsel investigation. Moreover, an additional record discovered as part of this management review process was an original referral by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to former FBI Director James Comey, known as a Counterintelligence Operational Lead (CIOL). This CIOL, believed to have been missing for several years, was dated September 07, 2016 and contained certain intelligence related to the 2016 U.S. presidential election campaign. The CIOL was found in a storage closet adjacent to the Director’s office and was subsequently transported to the 9582 SCIF. Former Director Comey previously testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that he was unfamiliar with this CIOL as well as its related intelligence.

On top of the wildly inappropriate notion of putting the guy who conducted a witch hunt in charge of validating when evidence supporting his witch hunt happened, this memo doesn’t describe when the memo was moved (and therefore whether it ended up in the FBI Director’s closet under Wray’s tenure), and it sounds like the original from the CIA, still doing nothing to prove it was ever sent to the FBI.

Crazier still, the filing presents Jim Comey’s notes recording (probably) John Brennan briefing Comey on something that might be the content of the CIOL or might be something else entirely … 19 days after FBI allegedly received the CIOL, on September 26, 2016.

In other words, they make a better affirmative case that Comey didn’t receive the CIOL on September 7 than that he did, because if the Brennan briefing on September 26 is about the same topic, why would Brennan have to brief Comey? And we know Brennan believed this was about hacking Hillary, not about a nefarious plot Hillary had.

The Loaner AUSAs obscure that Lindsey’s question was not about that information, but about the CIOL dated September 7, this way:

The discovery of the handwritten notes is relevant considering the defendant’s prior testimony on September 30, 2020. Of note, during that hearing, the defendant was questioned by Senator Graham of South Carolina and Senator Hawley of Missouri. See Gov. Ex. 14. The questions focused on whether the defendant remembered “being taught” of “U.S. presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s approval of a plan concerning U.S. presidential candidate Donald Trump and Russian hackers hampering U.S. elections as a means of distracting the public from her use of a private email server.” See id. The defendant responded by stating that “it doesn’t ring any bells with me” and “I don’t know what that refers to” and “I don’t remember receiving anything that is described in that letter.” See id. at 1 and 5. Despite this testimony, the defendant’s handwritten notes dated September 26, 2016, read: “HRC plan to tie Trump.” See Gov. Ex. 13 (Defendant’s handwritten notes).

The actual vindictive and selective prosecution language — the entire filing is attributed to a Loaner AUSA from South Carolina, Kathleen Stoughton, who I guess is on loan to the Loaner AUSAs who signed it — is fine.

If you ignore that the Attorney General of the United States believes she can salvage Lindsey’s appointment and this prosecution by making her into a pumpkin on Halloween Day.

Update: I’ve corrected where the burn bags were found. They were found in FBI HQ in DC, which makes the predication of an investigation in WDVA even weirder.

How Kash Patel and Pam Bondi became Slaves to Stephen Miller

October 8, 2025/52 Comments/in emptywheel /by emptywheel

When Pam Bondi and Kash Patel had Jim Comey charged two weeks ago, they may have signed their own arrest warrants.

The media focus, since the indictment, has been on the ominous chilling effect this would have on Trump’s opponents — though as always, journalists ignored the politicized prosecutions that have gone before.

The damage done to rule of law by replacing career prosecutors with Trump defense attorneys for the sole purpose of charging a political target is enormous. No doubt about it.

But charging former FBI Director Jim Comey on flimsy false statements charges crosses a rubicon in a different way, one that may be just as disastrous for American democracy.

Charging made it easy to charge top law enforcement officials — any former law enforcement officers — whom Trump ousted for political reasons.

Indeed, almost immediately after the Comey indictment, Kash turned towards manufacturing the very same basis — alleged lies to Congress — to charge Chris Wray, his immediate predecessor.

Kash released after action reports from January 6 to HJC which in turn shared them, complete with warnings that the documents were not for external dissemination, with John Solomon, who turned complaints including a heavy handed focus from the US Attorney’s office on misdemeanors into a story about “274 agents deployed to the Capitol in plainclothes and with guns after the violence started but with no clear safety gear,” which in turn led to conspiracy theories about “Fedsurrection,” which Donald Trump blew up in a lie-ridden post on Truth Social that explicitly drew a connection between Comey and Chris Wray.

Even when Kash tried to tamp down the conspiracy theories he had sown and his boss had accelerated, he still included several lies: that Wray lied, that this was about crowd control, that running to the scene of a terrorist attack in progress would violate FBI rules.

The FBI responded on Saturday to a report that 274 plainclothes agents were at the U.S. Capitol riot on Jan. 6, 2021, clarifying the role of bureau personnel while still blasting former Director Christopher Wray.

While the agents were on hand, they were sent in after the riot had begun to try to control the unruly crowd, officials told Fox News Digital. That is not the proper role of FBI agents, and Wray was not forthcoming about what happened when he testified numerous times on Capitol Hill, Director Kash Patel said.

“Agents were sent into a crowd control mission after the riot was declared by Metro Police – something that goes against FBI standards,” Patel told Fox News Digital. “This was the failure of a corrupt leadership that lied to Congress and to the American people about what really happened.”

And so Kash, in a desperate bid to feed conspiracies like those that got him where he is, colluded (heh) in the framing of charges against a second FBI Director.

He did so, as Pam Bondi did, under a great deal of pressure to deliver.

The pressure against Bondi erupted in public, in the post Trump sent addressing her directly.

Two things suggest the text was meant to be private. It had far fewer lies than Trump’s public posts. And he also alluded to the pressure he was under — the 30 statements and posts complaining about “all talk, no action” — a testament to the impatience of his own mob. Other reports describe the pressure applied to Bondi in private.

The pressure on Kash — and its source — has been just as real. The lawsuit filed by top FBI agents describes how Stephen Miller demanded politicization at FBI to match that Emil Bove was pursuing at DOJ.

On or about January 27, 2025, Bove requested that Driscoll and Kissane “stay behind” following their daily morning briefing. At that “stay behind” meeting, Bove stated that he was receiving pressure from White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller to see “symmetrical action at the FBI as had been happening at DOJ.” Bove made clear that he and Miller wanted to see personnel action like reassignment, removals, and terminations at the FBI, similar to the firings and reassignments of senior attorneys at DOJ that had occurred since January 20, 2025.

It tracks how Patel and Dan Bongino attempted to protect the plaintiffs (both, of course, desperately want to be accepted within the fraternity of FBI officers), even defending Steve Jensen on Maria Bartiromo’s show.

125. Both Patel and Bongino lamented to Jensen that they were spending “a lot of political capital” to keep him in the ADIC position, a position that Jensen had not sought in the first place.

[snip]

I want the American public to realize what we did. That man was in a position where he literally fought back against the machine who was saying, “we want to politicize this event, we want to politicize this event.” And at the end of the day, remember, Maria, there’s a chain of command here. So you can fight back your chain of command to a certain degree before they fire you. And Steven Jensen and other folks were promoted because they embody what the American public demands of FBI agents.

The whole time, FBI’s leaders were terrified the White House would learn Jensen still had power.

143. Approximately two days into his leave, on July 16, 2025, at approximately 7:20 a.m., Jensen received a call from Bongino. Bongino began the call by sternly telling Jensen that he had to “use better judgment,” explaining that the SAC of the Philadelphia Field Office had sent out an email to various other SACs about the SAC Advisory Committee indicating that Jensen would assume the vice chair position that had been left vacant by the recent departure of the Richmond SAC. The SAC Advisory Committee is an organizational structure within the FBI that SACs from across the country rely on to channel communication and concerns to FBI leadership. It is not a formal organization and is, in effect, an additional duty for those who volunteer for the position. The Philadelphia SAC had asked Jensen to fill the vacancy left by the Richmond SAC and, apparently, Bongino had learned of an email announcing this.

144. During this phone call, Bongino warned him that if the White House learned that Jensen was on an advisory committee, it would be “problem” for Jensen.

After months of refusing to fire the Agents, Kash ultimately did, in August, explaining that his own job depended on doing so.

Patel explained that there was nothing he or Driscoll could do to stop these or any other firings, because “the FBI tried to put the President in jail and he hasn’t forgotten it.” Driscoll indicated his belief that Patel’s reference to his superiors meant DOJ and the White House, and Patel did not deny it.

More recently, a story about Signal texts sent between a top Pete Hegseth aide and Stephen Miller’s included the commentary of the latter, Miller deputy Anthony Salisbury, describing that Kash’s firing of FBI agents who had taken a knee to deescalate during the George Floyd protests was “how Kash survives.”

In a separate exchange, Salisbury celebrated FBI Director Kash Patel’s decision to fire several agents who were photographed kneeling during a 2020 protest. He suggested Trump would approve of the action, then insulted Patel.

“This is how Kash survives,” Salisbury wrote. “He will do this stuff for the man but day to day giant douche canoe.”

To survive, Kash the giant douche canoe has to “do this stuff for the man.”

The pressure on Kash is particularly intense. The indictment of Comey, Kash’s more aggressive purges, his effort to perp walk Comey — they all come in the wake of the installation of former Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey as babysitter for Kash and Dan Bongino, a constant threat that he would be fired.

[A]llies of President Trump and Patel’s harshest critics have begun to circulate word that contingency plans for Patel’s ouster are forming. They also claim his hopeful successor, Andrew Bailey, made clear that he would not leave his post as Missouri’s AG – or abandon his aspirations to run for state governor – only to serve as Patel’s number two.

Under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998, Bailey, who starts at the bureau on September 15, would be eligible to fill the FBI director post – should it become vacant – after he has been employed by the FBI for at least 90 days.

Multiple sources close to Trump acknowledged the president was not thrilled with some past episodes of Patel’s performance – including a public feud with AG Bondi over the administration’s handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case. One senior White House official involved in personnel decisions also framed Patel’s botched communications during the manhunt for Charlie Kirk’s assassin as something Patel likely wished he could do differently, if he could do it all over again. Trump did not call for any action to be taken in response to it, the person said.

Patel’s purported off-ramp, which the White House denies, would not involve his firing but a reassignment to another administration role, according to multiple people who described it.

Sure, the plan now is to make Kash an ambassador to some faraway country once Bailey can become Director in December, as if he were Don Jr’s inconvenient ex. But the only thing that keeps Kash from becoming what Comey and Wray are — FBI Directors that Trump chose to put or retain at the Bureau but then fell out of favor and so were ousted — is his continued ability to feed the insatiable viciousness of Trump, the Wormtongue who increasingly controls access to him Stephen Miller, and Trump’s rabid mob.

And when that moment comes, it will be child’s play for the next guy to prove his loyalty by charging Kash and/or Bondi, citing the precedent of Comey (and Wray, if he’s indicted by then).

I’ve already noted that, by charging Comey, Kash provided evidence that this statement to Mazie Hirono was false.

Senator Hirono (02:18:49):

Do you plan to investigate James Comey, who’s on your list?

Kash Patel (02:18:54):

I have no intentions of going backwards-

Kash has been doing Trump’s dirty work for so long there are a slew of other potential charges, starting with both January 6 and the stolen documents case.

The same is true of Pam Bondi, who got her start with Trump by taking campaign donations and then shuttering an investigation into Trump’s fraudulent university.

But like Kash, her slavering performance in front of Senate Judiciary Committee also provided fodder for charges on the same standard as Comey. Not only did she tell gratuitous lies — such as that Alex Padilla had stormed Kristi Noem’s press conference — but she made more material statements, such as that the decisions on the Tom Homan bribery investigation (which she seemed to attribute to Todd Blanche, who was confirmed a month after she was) predated her confirmation.

That’s is the thing about corruption. It is the price of admission and the reward for loyalty.

But it also a double-edged sword when you fall out of favor.

I don’t know whether Kash and Bondi are kidding themselves about what a bad precedent this is for their own future. I don’t know whether they believe their past loyalty — something Comey and Wray never performed — will exempt them from the treatment to which they’re subjecting Comey. But the thing about irrational, increasingly unfit authoritarians guarded by an even more ruthless henchman is that demands for loyalty only keep going up.

Ah, but look on the bright side, Kash, Bondi!

Disfavored Trump aides have not — yet — started falling out of windows, like they do in Vladimir Putin’s Russia!

Update: Here’s how a WSJ story on the politicization of DOJ ends.

Privately, Trump has acknowledged that he believes Blanche is a solid lawyer and Bondi appears great on TV, but has continued to complain to aides about the pace of the cases, even after the Comey indictment. Aides have reminded him about work in progress.

“She’s moving too slow,” Trump has said about Bondi, according to administration officials.

Share this entry

Don’t Be Distracted from Trump’s Filth

August 12, 2025/61 Comments/in emptywheel /by emptywheel

I had been wondering what the Sydney Sweeney thing was … in truth, this old lady was wondering who Sydney Sweeney is, mostly for the reason Rob Flaherty addresses in this column. In recent days, the right wing had used some dumb dogwhistle to distract from the thing — Russia Russia Russia — they had used to distract from Trump’s Epstein scandal.

Whatever it was, whoever she is, I knew, it was another demonstration of how well the right can distract and focus attention.

You might be wondering why anybody cares about this. But here’s the thing: The fact that this moment became a thing at all — that a stupid pun could metastasize into a full-blown political moment — says something real about the media ecosystem we’re all trapped in. And it says even more about why Democrats keep losing the culture war, and with it, the narrative war that inevitably shapes who wins elections.

The Sweeney thing is an example of how memes can arise from some randos and filter up to elected politicians, including Trump and JD Vance, and once they do, dominate the online ecosystem.

On the left, we start with a set of messages we’d like for people to believe. We then test (like, wow, do we test) messages for their persuasive impact. We use paid media to get those messages in front of people, at which point we meet public perception for the first time, and fight against it. We treat politics as the slicing and dicing of issues, not the formation of perceptions.

The right understands that virality is as much of a barometer for success as whether an argument is seen as persuasive. Conservatives use the internet as a testing ground for what has heat, and they work it up the ladder. Organic media wags the dog. Campaigns simply add kerosene to what people are already telling them they find resonant. In a world where voters don’t trust institutions, messaging that feels native to their own conversations will be significantly more effective than what’s being pushed to them in ads.

This isn’t to say that campaigns don’t matter, or that ads don’t work (in fact, another lesson from 2024 ought to be that they do). But they’re the last mile. If all you’ve got are ads after years of withering cultural definition, you’re going to be playing from behind. Our space is just optimized for return on campaign investment, not shaping the narrative terrain on which they’re fought. Republicans have an always-on machine that shows — not tells — people a story about cultural values. And that’s where real political resonance comes from.

Caroline Orr Bueno had a great piece on the danger posed because of the left’s inability to do this — in significant part because the right has stacked the algorithmic deck against them.

[T]he left typically uses this tactic reactively — responding to narratives that the right has already established. Trump’s ecosystem uses it proactively, often launching narratives from scratch to get ahead of potential negative stories coming down the pipeline.

This is what LOLGOP and I have tried to address in our Cat Turd Deficit videos.

The left, giddy with the brief (but very real) success of their recent focus on Epstein (which piggybacked on that right wing ecosystem and required cooperation with Thomas Massie), often thinks of this solely in terms of attention, and as a result does little more than claim one after another thing is a distraction of the thing.

But it’s not. It’s more than that. It’s the ability to test and reinforce on the fly.

Yesterday was an example of the stakes. There were several Epstein developments:

A judge called out Todd Blanche’s obvious diversion in his request for grand jury materials
After Sheldon Whitehouse focused some attention on the Ghislaine Maxwell transfer to comfier digs by sending a letter, Allison Gill published actual details of it, including that the sex predator may have the same privilege to leave the facility to “work” that Jeffrey Epstein had
Ghislaine’s former cellmate revealed that Ghislaine had tried to pitch the Biden Administration on dirt she had on Trump, but they ignored her

All that was drowned out by Trump’s announcement he will invade DC because a boy named Big Balls was assaulted by unarmed teenagers. That happened, by chance or perhaps not (because Trump is really more tactical on these legal assaults than people credit), on the first day of the California trial over Trump’s invasion of Los Angeles. Indeed, during the trial, the two DOD witnesses admitted they had absolutely no advance notice of the DC deployment or Whiskey Pete Hegseth’s public comments on it, and DOJ desperately tried to keep the comments Hegseth made at the presser out of evidence, even though he is a named defendant. (Politico has a good report on the trial and the split screen it created with the DC announcement, including how a major general was accused of disloyalty for objecting to a stunt in MacArthur Park.)

A lot of Dems responded by claiming that the invasion of DC was an intentional distraction from Epstein. That gets things entirely reversed: the invasion of a second blue city is another step in a mostly pre-planned map for fascism, and Trump’s brief inability to redirect his online mob’s focus on Epstein merely created a speed bump in that march of fascism, one Sydney Sweeney seems to have corrected.

I don’t mind if people claim that the invasion of DC is the distraction, because the Epstein thing still has salience, but let’s at least aspire to do that effectively!

I spent much of the day on Xitter, watching and trying to contest what Flaherty and Orr Bueno describe. Over the course of several hours, the right tried several different messaging strategies.

Responding to journalists and Democrats’ factual observation that crime in DC is actually falling quickly by pointing to the suspension of an officer last month over claims about whether MPD was bringing crime rates down by misclassifying crimes. Given how the police union — which initiated the complaint that led to the suspension — loudly backed Trump’s invasion, I don’t rule out the fight over stats being a set-up in anticipation of this invasion. In any case, this dispute ignored that Eagle Ed Martin had claimed credit for lowering crime in DC by 25% in April.
Having women talk about their fear of walking in DC and others talk about how they’ve moved out of it.
Accusing Democrats of being pro crime, repeating Stephen Miller’s fascist othering language, and then, ultimately, repeating Trump’s racist dogwhistle that DC and Democrats are filthy. This is eliminationist language and must be contested.

I tried a bunch of things to respond (I make no claims about whether I had any success). Even before the announcement, I did this post on how Eagle Ed, now in charge of weaponizing DOJ, had not signed a domestic violence arrest warrant MPD drew up for Cory Mills, allowing Mills to allegedly threaten a second woman with revenge porn. When elected Republicans, including Jim Jordan, spoke out in favor of the DC invasion, I RTed them, noting that then they of course would demand that Pam Bondi arrest Mills in one of the first things she does.

During the presser, I posted one after another image from the January 6 assault cases, covering just a fraction of the ones on this list. After the presser and my bleg, someone put Trump’s comments from the presser, talking about how people disrespect cops, to video from January 6.

Both of these things made me realize that the January 6 archive has degraded in searches; until I remembered my own post of the assault arrests, I was struggling to find spectacular images of Trump’s criminals. But once I had this video, I used it as a rebuttal to all the people who claimed Democrats support crime. It must have had some effect, because one of the main far right January 6 propagandists — who made her grift on January 6 — complained that Dems will never stop talking about it.

I also tried to respond to Chuck Grassley’s (and that of Senate Judiciary Committee Republicans, generally) enthusiastic boosting for this invasion by pointing out that many of their states are more dangerous than DC.

This is a problematic response, I now recognize. All it serves to do is highlight how majority minority cities around the country have been neglected. Indeed, Marsha Blackburn will likely run for Governor by demonizing one of Tennessee’s great cities, Memphis. Plus, Missouri already did invade St. Louis in an effort to reverse criminal justice reforms.

Through all of this, almost no one (including me) mentioned that Congress had cut funding for DC, creating the problems Trump claims to want to fix.

But ultimately (just before bedtime my time, which is totally not a healthy use of my time), it came down to those claims of filth.

A man just moved the woman who “stole” his spa girls and turned one into a sex slave into comfier prison digs to prevent her from revealing the dirt she has on him, and we’re losing the battle over who is filth.

It is my belief that this failure of messaging — the left’s inability to remain laser-focused on not just Trump’s crimes, but the impact of them — is the real reason Trump got reelected in spite of the fact that he’s a thuggish criminal (though the fact that most lefties wanted to spread conspiracy theories about Merrick Garland instead of focusing on Trump’s crimes didn’t help). I mean, some of the voices who were most focused on Trump’s crimes — Dan Goldman and. Ryan Goodman — confessed during the transition not only that they didn’t know what had been made public before the election, much less hammer Trump on those public details, but were misinforming people about key details.

People got bored and that created a vacuum Trump exploited.

Voters didn’t factor Trump’s history of sex crimes, fraud, and fascism into their vote because Trump’s opponents failed to prosecute the issue in the public sphere on a daily basis even as Trump spun a tale of grievance that actually attracted younger voters. And unless we fix this — unless we find a message that a President who pardoned cop assailants, freed terrorists, and may soon free the sex predator who “stole” his girls is filth — we will not defeat this fascist onslaught.

Update: Fixed the description of the dispute over crime classification in DC.

Share this entry

Trump Might Pardon the Sex Trafficker Who “Stole” His Spa Girls and Other Details of the Cover-Up

July 30, 2025/43 Comments/in emptywheel /by emptywheel

Much of the traditional press (though not Chris Hayes) has missed the significance of Trump’s confession yesterday that Virginia Giuffre — recruited from Trump’s spa when she was 16 or 17 — was one of the girls that he says Jeffrey Epstein “stole.”

Reporter 1: I’m just curious. Were some of the workers that were taken from you — were some of them young women?

Trump: Were some of them?

Reporter 1: Were some of them young women?

Trump: Well, I don’t wanna say, but everyone knows the people that were taken. It was, the concept of taking people that work for me is bad. But that story’s been pretty well out there. And the answer is, yes, they were.

[inaudible]

Trump: In the spa. People that work in the spa. I have a great spa, one of the best spas in the world at Mar-a-Lago. And people were taken out of the spa. Hired. By him. In other words, gone. And um, other people would come and complain. This guy is taking people from the spa. I didn’t know that. And then when I heard about it I told him, I said, listen, we don’t want you taking our people, whether they were spa or not spa. I don’t want him taking people. And he was fine and then not too long after that he did it again and I said Out of here.

Reporter 2: Mr. President, did one of those stolen persons, did that include Virginia Giuffre?

Trump: Uh, I don’t know. I think she worked at the spa. I think so. I think that was one of the people, yeah. He stole her. And by the way, she had no complaints about us, as you know. None whatsoever.

Many, for example are forgetting what Trump said the day before: Epstein “stole” one of Trump’s girls, Trump told him to stop, and Epstein did it again.

What caused the breach with him? Very easy to explain. But I don’t want to waste your time by explaining it. But for years I wouldn’t talk to Jeffrey Epstein. I wouldn’t talk. Because he did something that was inappropriate. He hired help. And I said, don’t ever do that again. He stole people that worked for me. I said, don’t ever do that again. He did it again. And I threw him out of the place. Persona non grata. I threw him out. And that was it.

To tell Epstein to stop doing something, Trump would have had to have known he was doing something.

And the “it” is made much more clear by what “the Mar-a-Lago” told Page Six in 2007, even before Epstein had signed the sweetheart non-prosecution agreement.

Meanwhile, the Mar-a-Lago Club in Palm Beach last night confirmed a Web site report that Epstein has been banned there. “He would use the spa to try to procure girls. But one of them, a masseuse about 18 years old, he tried to get her to do things,” a source told us. “Her father found out about it and went absolutely ape-[bleep]. Epstein’s not allowed back.” Epstein denies he is banned from Mar-a-Lago and says, in fact, he was recently invited to an event there.

Before the full extent of Epstein’s abuse was public, someone at Mar-a-Lago wanted to make it clear that when Epstein did “procure girls … he tried to get her to do things.”

This member’s daughter who was “about 18,” was at least the second girl Trump learned about.

The first (or who knows? maybe she wasn’t the first!) was Giuffre.

The second (at least) was the member’s daughter.

Having now confirmed that Giuffre was among the “girls” Epstein would try to “procure” from Trump’s spa, it makes both Trump’s public acknowledgement to New York Magazine (two years after Ghislaine Maxwell “stole” Giuffre) that Epstein liked his so-called women “on the younger side” and the smutty letter sent a few months later reflected knowledge that Epstein was fucking girls.

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

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

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

Donald: We have certain things in common, Jeffrey.

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

Donald: Enigmas never age, have you noticed that?

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

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

Not just any girls, but his girls. Trump’s girls, from his spa.

And Trump is so furious that Ghislaine Maxwell stole girls from his spa that he’s saying the same thing about a pardon for her that he said about pardons for Paul Manafort and Roger Stone before he rewarded for their lies about him, that he won’t rule it out.

By all appearances, Trump will pardon the woman who stole his girls. That’s how furious he is that she groomed at least two of his girls and tried — successfully in Giuffre’s case — to turn her into a sex slave.

Meanwhile, now that Trump has placated much of the press, the cover-up continues apace. In a letter David Markus sent to James Comer (but not Oversight Ranking Member Robert Garcia — Markus was leaving nothing to chance) he said that Ghislaine would only testify to the House Oversight Committee if she:

Got formal immunity
Got the questions in advance
After she tests her luck with SCOTUS (in which case she won’t need to spill secrets to get out of prison)
If she gets clemency for the things she’ll say

In other words, she’ll only testify if that’s the only way she can leverage what she knows.

Comer immediately declined, meaning Trump faces no risk that Ghislaine’s silence will disrupt the cover-up.

Meanwhile, Pam Bondi, Todd Blanche, and Jay Clayton (but not even the AUSA who filed an appearance) have confessed that they are engaged in a headfake. Their response to Richard Berman and Paul Engelmeyer falsely claims that the interest in these transcripts arose from the memo Pam Bondi released and not the inflammatory comments and promises Bondi, Kash Patel, and Dan Bongino made.

Attention given to the Epstein and Maxwell cases has recently intensified in the wake of the July 6, 2025 Memorandum announcing the conclusions of the Government’s review into the investigation

They minimize the concerns about victim testimony because just two people testified.

Here, there was one witness—an FBI agent—during the Epstein grand jury proceedings. There were two witnesses—the same FBI agent from the Epstein grand jury proceedings and a detective with the NYPD who was a Task Force Officer with the FBI’s Child Exploitation and Human Trafficking Task Force—during the Maxwell grand jury proceedings.

Both witnesses are still alive; the FBI agent continues to be an agent with the FBI, and the Detective continues to be a Detective with the NYPD as well as a Task Force Officer.

Consistent with applicable rules concerning the admissibility of hearsay testimony, the grand jury witnesses described statements of others, including statements of and concerning victims, many of whom are still alive.

They admit they’ll redact the names of the third parties who enabled Epstein (which they wouldn’t necessarily have to do if they released the files in their custody).

[T]he grand jury transcripts contain victim-related and other personal identifying information related to third parties who neither have been charged or alleged to be involved in the crimes with which Epstein and Maxwell were charged, to which the Government is sensitive, and which is why the Government proposes redacting the transcripts before releasing them.

But they are providing notice to those people.

In addition, the Government is in the process of providing notice to any other individuals identified in the transcripts.

They appear to suggest that they’re not providing all the grand jury transcripts to the judges — just the underlying material.

The Court directed the Government to submit: (1) indices of Epstein and Maxwell grand jury materials, including a brief summary, the number of pages, and dates; (2) a complete set of the Epstein and Maxwell grand jury transcripts; (3) a complete proposed redacted set of the Epstein and Maxwell grand jury transcripts; and (4) a description of any other Epstein and Maxwell grand jury materials, including, but not limited to, exhibits. (Epstein Dkt. 63 at 3; Maxwell Dkt. 789 at 3). As to the final category, the Government provides a description of all of the underlying materials presented to the grand jury as well as copies of, and proposed redactions to, certain materials presented to the grand jury. [my emphasis]

They definitely don’t answer a question both judges asked: whether DOJ had asked the victims before filing this response.

The Court also directed the Government to state whether, “before filing the instant motion, counsel for the Government reviewed the Maxwell grand jury transcripts and whether the Government provided notice to the victims of the motion to unseal,”

[snip]

In addition, the Government has now provided notice to all but one of the victims who are referenced in the grand jury transcripts at issue in this motion. The Government has attempted to contact the remaining victim, but such efforts have been unsuccessful. In addition, the Government is in the process of providing notice to any other individuals identified in the transcripts.

Having not done that (and not yet spoken to one of the victims), they ask for a chance to respond to the victims’ comments about this ploy — which they should have asked about before they started it — after they file sealed responses.

[T]he Government also respectfully requests leave to file a supplemental submission once the Government and the Court have received any filings from the victims or others referenced in the transcripts.

The only thing this exercise is “transparency” has done so far is to share grand jury information with people implicated, but not charged, in Epstein’s actions.

Note, one person specifically implicated in Epstein’s crimes is Prince Andrew. To the extent he was investigated and possibly even charged under seal — which is the most obvious explanation for why he wouldn’t travel — the DOJ letter would create the appearance of a clean bill of health. But it could be buried in a different grand jury and we’d never even know.

Update: This is a very good CNN piece, including a long focus on how hard this is on the victims.

Share this entry

DOJ Denied Jeffrey Epstein Blackmail … But Not Ghislaine Maxwell Blackmail

July 23, 2025/49 Comments/in emptywheel /by emptywheel

WSJ has confirmed not only that Donald Trump’s name is in the Epstein files — and that Pam Bondi told him that on some unidentified date in May.

When Justice Department officials reviewed what Attorney General Pam Bondi called a “truckload” of documents related to Jeffrey Epstein earlier this year, they discovered that Donald Trump’s name appeared multiple times, according to senior administration officials.

In May, Bondi and her deputy informed the president at a meeting in the White House that his name was in the Epstein files, the officials said. Many other high-profile figures were also named, Trump was told. Being mentioned in the records isn’t a sign of wrongdoing.

The officials said it was a routine briefing that covered a number of topics and that Trump’s appearance in the documents wasn’t the focus.

They told the president at the meeting that the files contained what officials felt was unverified hearsay about many people, including Trump, who had socialized with Epstein in the past, some of the officials said.

The detail that Trump was told means that Trump lied when ABC asked him about it on July 15 (as you watch the video, watch how Karoline Leavitt’s head swings around as Trump is asked).

On July 15, an ABC News journalist asked Trump, as he took questions from reporters at the White House, what Bondi told him about the Epstein files: “Specifically, did she tell you at all that your name appeared in the files?”

“No, no, she’s—she’s given us just a very quick briefing,” Trump responded. He also said Bondi had “really done a very good job” on the Epstein review.

DOJ, FBI, and the White House have now all issued statements that don’t address the issue. The Bondi/Blanche one that appears in this ABC piece emphasizes that there was nothing left to investigate — something totally contradictory from Blanche’s plans to do a proffer with Maxwell.

In a statement, Bondi and Blanche said, “The DOJ and FBI reviewed the Epstein Files and reached the conclusion set out in the July 6 memo. Nothing in the files warranted further investigation or prosecution, and we have filed a motion in court to unseal the underlying grand jury transcripts. As part of our routine briefing, we made the President aware of the findings.” [my emphasis]

Consider how that emphasis compares with the full, most tortured paragraph, in the July 7 release.

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

As I wrote at the time, this very short paragraph was sandwiched between two actually credible sections stating that much of the material would implicate the victims and that Epstein killed himself (was allowed to kill himself) in prison.

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

It included two main, credible conclusions:

Much of the material that FBI has depicts victims and any release of that material would retraumatize the victims.

FBI concluded (and Trump’s flunkies agree) that Jeffrey Epstein killed himself. DOJ released two files (one unaltered, one enhanced, both with titles that do not even mention Epstein) showing that no one entered his cell the night he killed himself.

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

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

Emphasis on credible?

Of course there’s a client list; one version of it was already released. There are also the names or descriptions shared by victims of the men who abused them. And while there may be no evidence in the FBI files that Epstein did blackmail Trump or anyone else, he had blackmail material on them.

DOJ’s current story emphasizes the third sentence: There wasn’t enough to open an investigation against uncharged third parties (whom we now know to include Trump). DOJ is less interested in talking about what was always clearly a dodge: no, there’s no client list, but there are people who, the evidence shows, raped one or some of Epstein’s victims, and that list could be released.

The second sentence looks a lot different, just a few weeks later.

There may be no credible evidence that Epstein blackmailed people.

But all this has been proceeding as Ghislaine Maxwell seeks a way out of prison. All this has been proceeding as the WSJ gets stories about Trump using his signature as pubic hair. All this has been proceeding as Trump’s defense attorney claims to be representing the interest of the country by meeting with Ghislaine — all while ignoring the victims.

That paragraph always looked like misdirection.

But now DOJ is misdirecting even from two of the three sentences in that paragraph.

Timeline

February 16, 2017: Alex Acosta nominated Secretary of Labor.

July 2, 2019: Jeffrey Epstein indicted.

July 12, 2019: Alex Acosta resigns.

August 10, 2019: Epstein dies by suicide.

June 20, 2020: Geoffrey Berman fired.

June 29, 2020: Ghislaine Maxwell indicted.

March 29, 2021: Superseding indictment.

November 16, 2021: Jury selection begins.

December 29, 2021: Maxwell convicted on 5 of 6 counts.

February 28, 2023: Maxwell appeals.

September 17, 2024: Second Circuit rejects appeal.

January 15, 2025: Maxwell delays appeal.

February 10, 2025: Dan Bongino promises he’ll never let Epstein story go.

February 21, 2025: Pam Bondi claims Epstein client list is on her desk.

February 27, 2025: Bondi orchestrates re-release of previously released Epstein files.

March 4, 2025: James Dennehy forced to retire.

March 14, 2025: Pam Bondi conducts emergency review of Epstein and Maxwell documents.

April 10, 2025: Maxwell files cert petition.

April 25, 2025: Virginia Giuffre dies by suicide.

Sometime in May: Bondi tells Trump he’s in the Epstein files.

May 7, 2025: John Sauer delays response; Bondi claims there are thousands of videos.

May 18, 2025: Kash Patel and Dan Bongino affirm that Epstein killed himself.

May 22, 2025: Epstein prison video created.

June 5, 2025: Elon Musk claims Trump is in the Epstein files.

June 6, 2025: John Sauer delays response.

July 7, 2025: Pam Bondi claims there’s no there there.

July 8, 2025: Trump loses it over questions about Epstein.

July 9, 2025: Undefined ABC query about Epstein leads to spat at DOJ.

July 12, 2025: Trump attempts to claim Epstein is a Democratic plot.

July 14, 2025: DOJ defends Maxwell prosecution; David Markus suggests Trump is reneging on a deal.

July 15, 2025: WSJ interviews Trump about Epstein book; Trump falsely tells ABC he has not been told.

July 16, 2025: Pam Bondi fires Maurene Comey, on Trump’s personal authority.

July 17, 2025: Trump yells at supporters who won’t move on from Epstein. WSJ publishes story.

July 18, 2025: Todd Blanche files to unseal grand jury materials; Trump sues WSJ.

July 21, 2025: Mike Johnson dodges week of work to give Trump “space” to fix his Epstein problem.

July 22, 2025: Blanche announces he’ll meet with Maxwell; Oversight votes to subpoena Maxwell for deposition.

Share this entry

Posts

MAGAts Outraged Comey Indictment Dismissed on Same “Technicality” Trump’s Was!

A technicality!!!!!!

A Clinton appointee swooping in to steal the case

The Blue Slip gaslight special

Loaner AUSA Gabriel Diaz: Why Do You Think There Are Two Indictments Signed by Lindsey Halligan?

Might Pam Bondi’s Latest Prosecutorial Abuse Give Us Ponies and Puppies?

Pam Bondi Replaces Her Embarrassing Reading Comprehension Failure with a 4A Violation

Lindsey the Insurance Lawyer’s Story Gets Stupider

The Halloween Special Attorney’s Loaner AUSAs’ Loaner AUSA Forgot to Describe Jim Comey’s Imaginary Crime

Links

How Kash Patel and Pam Bondi became Slaves to Stephen Miller

Don’t Be Distracted from Trump’s Filth

Trump Might Pardon the Sex Trafficker Who “Stole” His Spa Girls and Other Details of the Cover-Up

DOJ Denied Jeffrey Epstein Blackmail … But Not Ghislaine Maxwell Blackmail

Timeline

Interesting links

Pages