More stories

  • in

    FBI broke own rules in January 6 and BLM intelligence search, court finds

    FBI officials repeatedly violated their own standards when they searched a vast repository of foreign intelligence for information related to the January 6 insurrection and racial justice protests in 2020, according court order released Friday.FBI officials said the thousands of violations, which also include improper searches of donors to a congressional campaign, predated a series of corrective measures that started in the summer of 2021 and continued last year. But the problems could nonetheless complicate FBI and justice department efforts to receive congressional reauthorization of a warrantless surveillance program that law enforcement officials say is needed to counter terrorism, espionage and international cybercrime.The violations were detailed in a secret court order issued last year by the foreign intelligence surveillance (Fisa) court, which has legal oversight of the US government’s spy powers. The Office of the Director of the National Intelligence released a heavily redacted version on Friday in what officials said was the interest of transparency.“Today’s disclosures underscore the need for Congress to rein in the FBI’s egregious abuses of this law, including warrantless searches using the names of people who donated to a congressional candidate,” said Patrick Toomey, deputy director of the ACLU’s National Security Project.“These unlawful searches undermine our core constitutional rights and threaten the bedrock of our democracy. It’s clear the FBI can’t be left to police itself.”At issue are improper queries of foreign intelligence information collected under section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which enables the government to gather the communications of targeted foreigners outside the US.That program, which is set to expire at the end of the year, creates a database of intelligence that US agencies can search. FBI searches must have a foreign intelligence purpose or be aimed at finding evidence of a crime. But congressional critics of the program have long raised alarm about what they say are unjustified searches of the database for information about Americans, along with more general concerns about surveillance abuses.Such criticism has aligned staunch liberal defenders of civil liberties with supporters of Donald Trump, who have seized on FBI surveillance errors during an investigation into his 2016 campaign. The issue has flared as the Republican-led House has been targeting the FBI, creating a committee to investigate the “weaponization” of government.In repeated episodes disclosed on Friday, the FBI’s own standards were not followed. The April 2022 order, for instances, details how the FBI queried the section 702 repository using the name of someone who was believed to have been at the Capitol during the January 6 6 riot. Officials obtained the information despite it not having any “analytical, investigative or evidentiary purpose”, the order said.The court order also says that an FBI analyst ran 13 queries of people suspected of being involved in the Capitol riot to determine if they had any foreign ties, but the justice department later determined that the searches were not likely to find foreign intelligence information or evidence of a crime.Other violations occurred when FBI officials in June 2020 ran searches related to more than 100 people arrested in connection with civil unrest and racial justice protests that had occurred in the US over the preceding weeks. The order says the FBI had maintained that the queries were likely to return foreign intelligence, though the reasons given for that assessment are mostly redacted.In addition, the FBI conducted what’s known as a batch query for 19,000 donors to an unnamed congressional campaign. An analyst doing the search cited concern that the campaign was a target of foreign influence, but the justice department said only “eight identifiers used in the query had sufficient ties to foreign influence activities to comply with the querying standard”.Officials said the case involved a candidate who ran unsuccessfully and is not a sitting member of Congress, and is unrelated to an episode described in March by congressman Darin LaHood, an Illinois Republican, who accused the FBI of wrongly searching for his name in foreign surveillance data.Senior FBI officials, speaking on condition of anonymity to reporters under ground rules set by the government, attributed the majority of the violations to confusion among the workforce and a lack of common understanding about the querying standards.They said the bureau has made significant changes since then, including mandating training and overhauling its computer system so that FBI officials must now enter a justification for the search in their own words than relying on a drop-down menu with pre-populated options.One of the officials said an internal audit of a representative sample of searches showed an increased compliance rate from 82% before the reforms were implemented to 96% afterward. More

  • in

    Conspiracy theorists to address US House subcommittee, watchdog warns

    Witnesses set to testify to Congress about the “weaponisation” of the US government on Thursday have links to far-right groups and a history of supporting conspiracy theories about coronavirus vaccines and the January 6 insurrection, a congressional watchdog has warned.In February, Republicans in the House of Representatives created a panel on what they say is the politicisation of the FBI and justice department against conservatives. Critics saw it as an attempt to entangle Joe Biden in spurious investigations ahead of next year’s election.On Thursday the judiciary subcommittee, chaired by Representative Jim Jordan of Ohio, an ally of former US president Donald Trump, will hold its latest hearing on Capitol Hill. Research by the Congressional Integrity Project, a group that monitors the Republican investigations, suggests that its witnesses will come armed with political grudges.Among them is Stephen Friend, a former FBI special agent who claims to be an FBI “whistleblower” despite failing to receive federal whistleblower protections.Last September, the project notes, Friend was suspended from the FBI after filing an official complaint alleging that the “politicised” bureau was using “overzealous” January 6 investigations to “harass conservative Americans”. He had already been declared absent without leave for refusing to participate in Swat raids against insurrection suspects.The project adds: “Friend has a record of collaborating with Trump’s closest allies. He received payments and legal counsel, and even received a job, from a Maga group affiliated with former senior Trump administration official Russ Vought. Kash Patel sent Friend $5,000 almost immediately after they connected in November 2022, and gave Friend a job at a far-right thinktank.“Friend has been celebrated in rightwing circles, especially among Maga pundits, and is poised to release a book with an introduction and foreword by two rightwing figures.”Friend is also a regular contributor to an exposé-style blog run by “an early and prominent promoter” of the QAnon conspiracy theory and has suggested that Covid-19 vaccines were ineffective, with public health restrictions designed to engineer “societal changes”.Witness Garret O’Boyle is a former FBI special agent who last year filed a complaint alleging that the FBI was exaggerating the threat of domestic terrorism. Soon after, he alleged that the FBI suspended him, claiming, “The FBI retaliated against me for being a whistleblower.”O’Boyle is a prolific Covid-19 vaccine conspiracy theorist, and once compared Covid-19 vaccine mandates to the Nazi regime. He signed on to a major federal lawsuit against the Biden administration’s vaccine mandate for federal employees and once referred to a subset of vaccinated individuals involved in an FBI investigation as “blind sheep”.The project says O’Boyle has supported and publicly engaged with an “early and prominent” QAnon influencer known as Tracy Diaz, who has been banned from Patreon, Facebook and Twitter and is labeled as an extremist by the Southern Poverty Law Center.O’Boyle is an election denier who has liked tweets claiming “two blatantly stolen elections”. He claims the FBI has retaliated against him for resisting investigations into the January 6 insurrection, writing: “The government has an obsession with ‘Insurrectionists.’ They hate them. They [want to] round them up, hold them in perpetuity.”Another witness is Marcus Oryan Allen, a staff operations specialist for the FBI who was suspended and had his security clearance revoked after the bureau found he “espoused conspiratorial views … which indicates support for the events of January 6th”.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionLast December, Allen filed a lawsuit claiming that his suspension violated his first amendment rights, arguing that the FBI’s rules “regarding loyalty to the United States is overbroad”. The FBI called these claims “meritless”, pointing out that Allen’s complaint “identifie[d] no speech” that was being violated.The project says Allen is represented by Judicial Watch, a far-right group that has spread false claims of voter fraud in the 2020 election, warned of attempts to “rig the 2024 election” against Trump, and condemned Trump’s recent indictment as a “hoax” and “bunk”.Witnesses also include Tristan Leavitt, president of Empower Oversight, which describes itself as a “legal watchdog” and, the project says, has downplayed the seriousness of the January 6 riot or sought to shift the blame elsewhere.Leavitt represents a number of suspended or retired FBI employees who claim to be “whistleblowers” and helped congressional Republicans’ highly politicised investigation targeting Hillary Clinton during the 2016 presidential election.Kyle Herrig, executive director of the Congressional Integrity Project, said: “These witnesses are extreme for even Jim Jordan’s standards, but we shouldn’t be surprised he’s continuing to hand-pick conspiracy theorists and insurrection supporters to appear before the so-called ‘weaponisation’ subcommittee.“The witnesses are Trump loyalists who will go to any lengths to defend the former president’s lies, just like Jordan himself.” More

  • in

    ‘America is broken’: FBI criticized for mass-shooting survival video

    A newly resurfaced FBI video purportedly training Americans to give themselves their best chance of surviving a deadly mass shooting is drawing scorn across the US and abroad.In the video, released in 2020 by the US’s top law enforcement agency, actors portraying everyday Americans explain to viewers ways in which they could at least survive – or, preferably, even stop – a mass shooting once the bullets start flying.“If European countries want to deter brain drain to the US they should just play this FBI video to their soon-to-be graduates,” the European tech investor Michael Jackson said on his LinkedIn profile, which has more than 134,000 followers.Jackson, who shared a link to the video, added that the well-documented gun problem in the US – where rates of mass gun violence are much higher than they are in Europe and in many other parts of the world – was hurting its standing with tourists and its companies’ prospects of hiring talented employees from overseas.Another typical reaction to the video was on Twitter from an Oklahoma scholarship foundation leader who wrote: “America is broken. Instead of addressing the cause of the carnage, we’re talking about how to survive a massacre like it’s a damn tornado.”The video begins with a scene of a bustling bar filled with people. A fight breaks out and then the sudden eruption of gunshots sends the crowd into a panic, with people rushing to find an exit or a hiding spot.A waitress spots a neon red exit sign and proceeds to explain to viewers techniques to avoid getting shot.“Running makes you harder to hit and improves your chances of survival,” she says as she runs down a stairway with a group of people.When she makes it downstairs and out the door, she is confronted by police pointing a gun at her. Still out of breath and distressed, the waitress reminds the camera to always keep “empty hands up” and “follow their instructions” when faced with law enforcement.Another woman hiding under a table then says to find another room and barricade the door if it’s not possible to escape. She ushers every person around her into a nearby closet and reminds viewers to turn their phones off.She then says to find anything that could be wielded as if it were a weapon – a fire extinguisher or a flower vase would do – and prepare to attack if the shooter breaks down the door.“Lock and barricade the door,” she instructs viewers as the gunshots can be heard firing in the background.It doesn’t address what to do if the attacker has a high-powered rifle and can fire through the door and walls enclosing the room.Someone is later shown not having a tourniquet but still properly applying pressure to a woman with a bleeding gunshot wound.Toward the end of the video, a man is shown trapped behind the bar with all exits blocked. He tells his audience: “I gotta stay hidden. But I’m no victim. I’m ready for this.”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionHe lays out an elaborate plan that ends with him seizing the shooter’s gun, which occasionally happens but can cost people their lives if attempted unsuccessfully.The video ends with a narrator offering a word of encouragement – “you can survive a mass shooting if you’re prepared” – and directs viewers to the website fbi.gov/survive.The video resurfaced recently as the US is on pace this year to set the record for the highest number of mass killings in recent memory, according to data from the Gun Violence Archive.The online reference site’s data recently showed the country in 2023 was likely to see 60 mass killings, which involve four or more victims who are slain.There were 31 mass killings in 2019, 21 in 2020, 28 in 2021 and 36 in 2022.As of Monday morning, there had been at least 224 mass shootings in the US so far this year, according to the Gun Violence Archive, which defines a mass shooting as one in which four or more victims are injured or killed.Congress has been unable to meaningfully restrict access to guns despite the accelerated pace of mass shootings in the US this year.Actually stopping a mass shooter as a civilian is exceptionally rare, according to Texas State University’s Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response Training Center. Less than 3% of more than 430 active attacks in the US ended with a civilian firing back from 2000 to 2021.A bystander who confronted and disarmed an attacker during a mass shooting that left five people dead and 17 others wounded at a Colorado LGBTQ+ club last year was a US army veteran who had previously gone to war. Richard Fierro had served three tours in Iraq and one in Afghanistan. More

  • in

    The Last Honest Man: Frank Church and the fight to restrain US power

    Frank Forrester Church sat in the US Senate for 24 years. His tenure was consequential. A Democrat, he battled for civil rights and came to oppose the Vietnam war. He believed Americans were citizens, not subjects. Chairing the intelligence select committee was his most enduring accomplishment. James Risen, a Pulitzer-winning reporter now with the Intercept, sees him as a hero. The Last Honest Man is both paean and lament.“For decades … the CIA’s operations faced only glancing scrutiny from the White House, and virtually none from Congress,” Risen writes. “True oversight would have to wait until 1975, and the arrival on the national stage of a senator from Idaho, Frank Church.”For 16 months, Church and his committee scrutinized the CIA, FBI and National Security Agency and their many abuses. Amid the cold war, in the aftermath of Vietnam and Watergate, Congress grappled with the balance between civil liberties and national security, executive prerogative and congressional authority.Political assassinations, covert operations and domestic surveillance finally received scrutiny and oversight. A plot to kill Fidel Castro, with an assist from organized crime, made headlines. So did the personal ties that bound John F Kennedy, mob boss Sam Giancana and their shared mistress, Judith Campbell Exner.Giancana was murdered before he testified. Before John Rosselli, another mobster, could make a third appearance, his decomposed body turned up in a steel fuel drum near Miami.One subheading in the Church committee’s interim report bears the title: “The Question of Whether the Assassination Operation Involving Underworld Figures Was Known About by Attorney General Kennedy or President Kennedy as Revealed by Investigations of Giancana and Rosselli”.Against this grizzly but intriguing backdrop, Risen’s book is aptly subtitled: The CIA, the FBI, the Mafia, and the Kennedys – And One Senator’s Fight to Save Democracy. The Last Honest Man is a gem, marbled with scoop, laden with interviews.In 2006, Risen won the Pulitzer prize for his coverage of George W Bush’s warrantless wiretapping program. Risen was also part of the New York Times team that snagged a Pulitzer in the aftermath of September 11. He endured a seven-year legal battle with the Bush and Obama justice departments, for refusing to name a source. Eric Holder, Barack Obama’s attorney general, backed off. But he earned Risen’s lasting ire.In 2015, Risen called the Obama administration “the greatest enemy of press freedom in a generation”. Holder, he said, “has done the bidding of the intelligence community and the White House to damage press freedom in the United States”.And then came Donald Trump.Risen now describes Dick Cheney’s efforts to block Church’s committee, as chief of staff to Gerald Ford. To Cheney’s consternation, the president “refused to engage in an all-out war”. So Cheney nursed a grudge and bided his time.In 1987, Cheney and congressional Republicans issued a dissent on Iran-Contra, blaming the Church committee for the concept of “all but unlimited congressional power”. Later, as vice-president to George W Bush, Cheney zestily embraced the theory of the unitary executive, the global “war on terror” and the invasion of Iraq.The Last Honest Man also doubles as a guide to high-stakes politics. Risen captures Gary Hart and the late Walter Mondale on the record. Both Democratic presidential hopefuls – Mondale the candidate in 1984, Hart the frontrunner, briefly, in the 1988 race – after sitting on Church’s committee. The three senators were competitors and colleagues. Paths and ambitions intersected.Church entered the 1976 Democratic presidential primary late – and lost to Jimmy Carter. Carter weighed picking Church as his running mate but opted for Mondale instead.“I think he had seen me on a Sunday news talk show, talking about the Church committee, and he liked how I looked and sounded,” Mondale told Risen.It was for the best. Church never cottoned to Carter, failing hide his disdain. Carter and his aides returned the favor. They “hated Church right back”. David Aaron, a Church aide and later deputy to Zbigniew Brzezinski, Carter’s national security adviser, recalls: “I know that whenever Church’s name came up, Brzezinski would grimace.”In 1980, Ronald Reagan and George HW Bush beat Carter and Mondale in a landslide. The election also cost Church his seat and the Democrats control of the Senate. Four years later, Mondale bested Hart for the Democratic nomination, only to be shellacked by Reagan-Bush again.Daniel Ellsberg, the Pentagon Papers whistleblower, leaves his mark on Risen’s pages too. He played a “previously undisclosed role in the Church committee’s investigation of the assassinations of foreign leaders”, Risen reports in a lengthy footnote.In an interview, Ellsberg says he “met privately” with Church in 1975, as the committee investigated assassination plots. In Risen’s telling, Ellsberg cops to handing Church “a manilla envelope containing copies of a series of top-secret cables” between the US embassy in South Vietnam and “the Kennedy White House”.The messages purportedly pertained to the “US role in the planning of the 1963 coup against South Vietnamese president [Ngô Đình] Diệm that resulted in his assassination”. The Church committee interim report referred to cable traffic between the embassy in Saigon and the White House but contained no mention of Ellsberg.In other words, assassinations and coups carry a bipartisan legacy. It wasn’t just Eisenhower and Nixon, Iran and Chile.Risen hails Church as “an American Cicero” who “offered the United States a brief glimpse of what it would be like to turn away from its imperialistic ambitions … and return to its roots as a republic”.He overstates, but not by much. Iraq and its aftermath still reverberate. But for that debacle, it is unlikely Trumpism would have attained the purchase it still possesses. Our national divide would not be as deep – or intractable. Church died in April 1984, aged just 59.
    The Last Honest Man: The CIA, the FBI, the Mafia, and the Kennedys – And One Senator’s Fight to Save Democracy is published in the US by Hachette More

  • in

    Fugitive former aide to ex-Maryland governor dies in confrontation with FBI

    An ex-Maryland governor’s former political aide – who was wanted on corruption charges – died on Monday after he was wounded while being confronted by law enforcement agents, his lawyer said, following a manhunt that was launched when the man failed to appear for trial.Roy McGrath’s death was confirmed by the FBI to attorney Joseph Murtha. Murtha added that it was not immediately clear if McGrath’s wound was self-inflicted or came during an exchange of gunfire with agents.The FBI had said earlier that McGrath, once a top aide to ex-Maryland governor Larry Hogan, had been hospitalized after an agent-involved shooting. The FBI typically uses the term “agent-involved shooting” to describe cases where agents shoot someone in the line of duty, but the bureau declined to elaborate.An attorney for McGrath’s wife, William Brennan, also confirmed the death. Brennan said his client, Laura Bruner, was “absolutely distraught” about her husband’s death.According to an email earlier from Shayne Buchwald of the FBI in Maryland, McGrath was wounded during “an agent-involved shooting” at about 6.30pm in a commercial area on the south-western outskirts of Knoxville, Tennessee. Buchwald said McGrath was taken to a hospital.Additional details, including how McGrath was wounded and what led up to it, were not immediately released. The shooting was under investigation late on Monday.“The FBI takes all shooting incidents involving our agents or taskforce members seriously,” said Buchwald, who declined to confirm that McGrath had died.McGrath, 53, served as chief of staff to Hogan. He was declared a wanted fugitive after failing to show up at a scheduled fraud trial last month, and the FBI has said he was considered an international flight risk.In a statement, Hogan said he and his wife, Yumi, “are deeply saddened by this tragic situation. We are praying for Mr McGrath’s family and loved ones.”Murtha called the death “a tragic ending to the past three weeks of uncertainty” and said his client always maintained his innocence.After McGrath failed to appear at Baltimore’s federal courthouse on 13 March, Murtha said he believed McGrath, who had moved to Naples, Florida, was planning to fly to Maryland the night before. Instead of beginning jury selection, a judge issued an arrest warrant and dismissed prospective jurors.McGrath was indicted in 2021 on accusations he fraudulently secured a $233,648 severance payment, equal to one year of salary as the head of Maryland’s environmental service, by falsely telling the agency’s board the governor had approved it. He was also accused of fraud and embezzlement connected to roughly $170,000 in expenses. McGrath pleaded not guilty.McGrath resigned just 11 weeks into the job as Hogan’s chief of staff in 2020 after the payments became public.If convicted of the federal charges, he would have faced a maximum sentence of 20 years for each of four counts of wire fraud, plus a maximum of 10 years for each of two counts of embezzling funds from an organization receiving more than $10,000 in federal benefits. More

  • in

    FBI searched University of Delaware in Biden documents investigation

    FBI searched University of Delaware in Biden documents investigationThe justice department is looking into how classified documents came to be found in Joe Biden’s home and former office The FBI searched the University of Delaware in recent weeks for classified documents as part of its investigation into the potential mishandling of sensitive government records by Joe Biden.The search, first reported by CNN, was confirmed to the Associated Press by a person familiar with the matter who was not authorized to discuss it publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity. The person would not say whether anything was found.Why prosecutors might get Trump – and not Biden – for classified documentsRead moreA justice department special counsel is investigating how classified documents from Biden’s time as vice-president and senator came to end up in his home and former office – and whether any mishandling involved criminal intent or was unintentional. Biden’s personal lawyers disclosed in January that a small batch of documents with classified markings had been found weeks earlier in his former Washington office, and they have since allowed FBI searches of multiple properties.The university is Biden’s alma mater. In 2011, Biden donated his records from his 36 years serving in the US Senate to the school. The documents arrived on 6 June 2012, according to the university, which released photos of the numbered boxes being unloaded at the university alongside blue and gold balloons.Under the terms of Biden’s gift, the records are to remain sealed until two years after he retires from public life.Biden’s Senate records would not be covered by the Presidential Records Act, though prohibitions on mishandling classified information would still apply.The White House referred questions to the justice department, which declined to comment. The University of Delaware also referred questions to the justice department.The university is the fourth known entity to be searched by the FBI following inspections of Biden’s former office at the Penn Biden Center in Washington DC, where records with classified markings were initially found in a locked closet by Biden’s personal lawyers in November, and more recently of his Delaware homes in Wilmington and Rehoboth Beach.Those searches were all done voluntarily and with the consent of Biden’s legal team.The FBI took six items that contained documents with classified markings during its January search of the Wilmington home, Biden’s personal lawyer said. Agents did not find classified documents at the Rehoboth Beach property but did take some handwritten notes and other materials relating to Biden’s time as vice-president for review.The justice department is separately investigating the retention by former president Donald Trump of roughly 300 documents marked as classified at his Florida estate, Mar-a-Lago. The FBI served a search warrant at the home last August after months of resistance by Trump and his representatives to returning the documents to the government.The FBI also searched the Indiana home of former vice-president Mike Pence last week after his lawyers came forward to say they had found a small number of documents with classified markings. A Pence adviser said one additional document with classified markings was found during that search.TopicsJoe BidenFBIUS politicsDelawareBiden administrationnewsReuse this content More

  • in

    FBI search of Pence’s Indiana residence finds new classified document

    FBI search of Pence’s Indiana residence finds new classified documentLawyer for Trump’s former vice-president reportedly present for search, which followed discovery of documents there last month FBI agents searched an Indiana property belonging to Mike Pence on Friday and found new official papers, including one with classified markings. The search was the latest step in a saga over the improper retention of classified documents by Pence, Donald Trump and Joe Biden.The Washington Post reported that Pence, Trump’s former vice-president, was in California while the search was carried out at his home in Carmel, north of Indianapolis. A Pence lawyer was present, the paper said.Biden and Pence documents reveal US crisis of ‘overclassification’, expert saysRead moreThe US justice department did not immediately comment. Pence issued a statement.Since the discovery of classified records at the Carmel property last month, a spokesperson said, Pence and his lawyers had “fully cooperated with the appropriate authorities and agreed to a consensual search of his residence that took place today.“The Department of Justice completed a thorough and unrestricted search of five hours and removed one document with classified markings and six additional pages without such markings that were not discovered in the initial review by the vice-president’s counsel.”Similar discoveries were made at Delaware properties owned by Biden and an office in Washington DC the president used after his time as VP to Barack Obama.Last August, a much larger number of documents were discovered at Mar-a-Lago, Trump’s Florida residence.Amid strenuous attempts by Trump to obstruct authorities seeking retrieval, the Mar-a-Lago search was carried out via a search warrant. Trump and his supporters have since characterised the search as a “raid”, part of supposed victimisation by the former president’s political enemies.In stark contrast, Biden and Pence have cooperated with authorities.A lawyer for Pence, Greg Jacob, previously told the National Archives a “small number of documents” were “inadvertently boxed and transported” to Pence’s home after the end of the Trump administration in January 2021.“Vice-President Pence immediately secured those documents in a locked safe pending further direction on proper handling,” Jacob wrote.In Florida recently, Pence said: “Let me be clear: those classified documents should not have been in my personal residence.“Mistakes were made, and I take full responsibility. We acted above politics and put national interests first.”For the attorney general, Merrick Garland, cooperation and eager mea culpas do not lessen the political danger of the documents issue.Biden, who nominated Garland, is expected to run for re-election in 2024. Trump is still the only declared candidate for the Republican nomination, but Pence is thought likely to run.Special counsels appointed by Garland but operating independently of him are investigating Biden and Trump.Robert Hur is investigating Biden’s retention of classified records. Jack Smith is investigating Trump’s retention of records and other matters, including his attempt to overturn the 2020 election.Garland has not commented on the Pence document discoveries.But it emerged this week that Smith has served Pence a subpoena in relation to the investigation of Trump’s incitement of the deadly attack on Congress on 6 January 2021.That was the day Pence presided over the certification of Biden’s victory over Trump, having rejected pleas to block it from Trump and his advisers.In November, in an interview with NBC, Pence was asked if by fomenting an insurrection, Trump had committed a criminal act.Pence said he did not “know if it is criminal to listen to bad advice from lawyers”, alleged malpractice at the justice department in its investigations of Trump, criticised the FBI search at Mar-a-Lago and said: “I think the American people join me in hoping we can move past this.”Pressed on the matter, he conceded: “No one’s above the law.”On Friday, commenting on the former vice-president’s extreme predicament, Joe Walsh, a former Republican congressman turned anti-Trump conservative, said: “Mike Pence did this to himself. For six years, he encouraged, enabled and fed the monster.“Then for one day he did his job, and the monster got really angry. And now, nobody wants him. The monster’s fans don’t want him, and the monster’s opponents don’t want him. He did this to himself.”TopicsMike PenceUS politicsFBInewsReuse this content More

  • in

    How the Durham inquiry backfired to show weaponization of Trump DoJ

    How the Durham inquiry backfired to show weaponization of Trump DoJ Investigation into origin of FBI Trump-Russia inquiry is ending with little to show but questions over its own political bias When the Trump justice department tapped a US attorney to examine the origins of the FBI inquiry into Russian meddling in the 2016 election, conservatives and many Republicans hoped it would end the idea Donald Trump’s campaign was boosted by Moscow and back his charges that some FBI officials and others had conspired against him.Trump documents: Congress offered briefing on records kept at Mar-a-LagoRead moreBut instead, as the multi-year investigation winds down, it is ending with accusations that unethical actions by that special counsel – John Durham – and ex-attorney general William Barr “weaponized” the US Department of Justice (DoJ) to help Trump.Former DoJ officials and top Democrats are voicing strong criticism that Durham and Barr acted improperly in the almost four-year-old inquiry, citing an in-depth New York Times story that added to other evidence the inquiry looked politically driven to placate Trump’s anger at an investigation he deemed a “witch-hunt”.The Times report provided disturbing new details, for instance, about how a key prosecutor, Nora Dannehy, quit Durham’s team in 2020 over “ethical” concerns, including his close dealings with Barr, and discussions about releasing an unorthodox interim report before the 2020 election that might have helped Trump, but which didn’t come to fruition.Critics of the Durham inquiry also noted early on that Barr on several occasions, and contrary to longtime DoJ policies, suggested publicly that Durham’s inquiry would yield significant results, which in effect would help validate Trump’s charges that some officials at the FBI and CIA had led a political witch-hunt.Further, Barr and Durham, in highly unusual public statements early in their investigation, tried to undermine a chief conclusion of a report by the DoJ inspector general, Michael Horowitz, that the Russia investigation was based on sufficient facts to warrant opening the investigation in 2016.Ex-DoJ officials say the Durham inquiry seemed aimed from the start at boosting Trump’s political fortunes.“It was clear to people following the Durham investigation as it unfolded that it was highly irregular from the start,” said former deputy AG Donald Ayer who served in the George HW Bush administration “Indeed there’s good reason to believe that its purpose and primary function was to create fodder to advance Trump’s election prospects.”Critics note that Barr tapped Durham to lead the investigation just a month after special counsel Robert Mueller issued a large report documenting substantial ties between Trump’s campaign and Russia, and concluded that Moscow tried to sway the election to help Trump in “sweeping” and “systematic” ways, a conclusion Barr and Trump worked to downplay.Despite Trump’s pressures and Durham’s sprawling investigation, including unusual overseas trips with Barr to interview officials in Italy and England about potential flaws in the Russia investigation, the inquiry notched just one minor conviction of a mid-level ex-FBI official for falsifying a document. There were also two embarrassing acquittals.The Times report revealed too that Durham had uncovered evidence during his Italy trip of possible criminal misconduct by Trump, but it’s unknown what that entailed and how much he pursued that element of the inquiry.Durham also reportedly spent time investigating a conspiratorial and dubious lead that seemed aimed at connecting an aide to billionaire George Soros, a leading Democratic donor, to the early Russian meddling investigation and the campaign of Trump’s opponent Hillary Clinton.Besides Nora Dannehy, who left Durham’s office in 2020, two other prosecutors on Durham’s team reportedly left later after raising concerns about the wisdom of pursuing a prosecution against a lawyer with ties to Clinton’s campaign that ultimately led to an acquittal.For ex-DoJ leaders and top Democrats, the latest allegations about the political motives that drove Durham and Barr underscore earlier signs that the ‘investigation into the investigators” was handled improperly.“The Durham special counsel investigation was tainted from the outset by the excessive involvement of attorney general Barr and its reaching significant conclusions before it had done any significant investigation,” said the ex-DoJ inspector general Michael Bromwich.Bromwich added: “From the outset, there was no pretense that this was an independent investigation in which the facts would determine the outcome. The scorecard: an interminable, four-year investigation; a single conviction based on a case handed over by the IG on a silver platter; and two humiliating acquittals. There has never been a record like that in the half-century history of independent counsels and special counsels.”Top Democrats too are incensed by the conduct of the Durham investigation and Barr’s role in the inquiry.Congressman Jamie Raskin, the top Democrat on the House oversight committee who served on the House January 6 select committee that investigated the Capitol insurrection, said:“The whole course of the Durham investigation suggests the heights of prosecutorial misconduct. It’s hard to imagine a better case study of the weaponization of Justice than what Barr was doing with the Durham inquiry.”The Senate judiciary committee chairman, Richard Durbin, said: “These reports about abuses in special counsel Durham’s investigation – so outrageous that even his longtime colleagues quit in protest – are but one of many instances where former President Trump and his allies weaponized the justice department. The justice department should work on behalf of the American people, not for the personal benefit of any president.”Durbin added that the Senate judiciary committee would “take a hard look at these repeated episodes, and the regulations and policies that enabled them, to ensure such abuses of power cannot happen again”.Last September, Durbin notified DoJ that the judiciary panel planned to look into explosive details in a book by Geoffrey Berman, the ex-chief of DoJ’s southern district office in Manhattan, about political interference by Barr and Trump loyalists in several investigations.Trump attorney general Barr a liar, bully and thug, says fired US attorney in bookRead moreBerman wrote that Barr in 2019 sought unsuccessfully to pressure him to reverse the conviction of Trump’s ex-lawyer Michael Cohen on campaign finance violations, and to block related investigations into potential campaign finance violations.Barr also pressured Berman to resign with an eye to replacing him with a Trump loyalist, but after Berman refused to step down Trump fired him.Together, the charges by Berman, and the evidence amassed by the Times, paint a troubling picture of how Barr seemed to lean over backwards to boost Trump politically, until after the 2020 election when Barr eventually publicly rejected Trump’s claims of fraud.The justice department did not respond to requests from the Guardian seeking a comment from Durham who is expected to write a final report about his inquiry later this year. Dannehy also did not reply to phone messages asking for comment.Barr last week told the Los Angeles Times: “The idea that there was a thin basis for doing [the Durham investigation] doesn’t hold water.” Barr added that “one of the duties of the attorney general is to protect against the abuse of criminal and intelligence powers, that they’re not abused to impinge on political activity, so I felt it was my duty to find out what happened there”.Critics note that Barr’s defense is weak since Durham was tapped just a month after special counsel Robert Mueller issued an extensive report documenting substantial ties between Trump’s campaign and Russia, and concluded that Moscow tried to sway the election to help Trump in “sweeping” and “systematic” ways.Barr’s defense of the Durham investigation’s launch looks shaky too, given public comments Barr made in congressional testimony at a Senate committee hearing in 2019. Barr was asked several times by then senator Kamala Harris if Trump or any White House officials had suggested or pressured him to launch his sweeping review. Barr was evasive, but acknowledged some “discussions” of the matter had occurred, adding “they have not asked me to open an investigation”.For Raskin, the growing evidence of misconduct in the Durham investigation comes at an ironic moment, as the House Republican majority has created a special panel on the judiciary committee to look into the “weaponization of the government” that’s expected to focus heavily on the Biden administration and the Department of Justice and the FBI.The Republican majority “created a weaponization committee which is a precise and accurate description of their own activities in transforming the government to be a political weapon for Donald Trump and his inner circle”, Raskin said. “Of course, they don’t have any interest in looking at the corruption of the justice system under Trump.”TopicsDonald TrumpFBICIAUS politicsTrump administrationRussiafeaturesReuse this content More