In September, after weeks of digging into the surprise firing of a handful of senior aides, I published an article about allegations that Peltola had mistreated and verbally abused her staff over many years. One of the fired aides had been Peltola’s campaign manager. She ultimately shared key details with me about the Democratic effort to recruit candidates onto the Senate ballot, which leads us to where we are today.

That story relied on four former staffers, at least two of whom Peltola had just fired, including Elisa Rios, the most controversial source for the stacked ballot story.

September’s story was a misogynistic trope, depicting a female congressperson as abusive for doing things — like using objectionable language and yelling at staffers — that male congresspeople (and Presidents) get to do without criticism.

Crazier still, the key anecdote that McGinley seemed to think was his big hook, to which he dedicated 159 words in a 2500 word story, was fucking hilarious: During a period that included the aftermath of her spouse’s death, Peltola asked her staffers to feed her chameleon.

Her demands could be unusual, such as requiring aides to feed live crickets to her family’s pet chameleon, Meatball.

[snip]

For some on her staff, one task exemplified the disregard Ms. Peltola appeared to have for her employees: feeding her daughter’s pet chameleon, Meatball.

Meatball’s preferred diet consisted of live crickets, according to three staff members familiar with the demand, including two who fed the chameleon. Ms. Peltola instructed aides to purchase the insects at a pet store and then feed them to Meatball.

Aides initially went to Ms. Peltola’s apartment in Washington to feed Meatball, but the congresswoman later brought the reptile into her office on Capitol Hill. On at least one occasion, the crickets escaped in the office and had to be recaptured, according to two former aides who witnessed it as well as a photo viewed by The Times that showed aides in the office trying to trap the crickets using manila folders and small paper cups.

First, no, Terence, for better or worse it is actually not unusual for members of Congress to ask their staffers to feed, or even walk, their pets. West Virginia Senator Jim Justice’s staffers even cart Babydog around the Senate for him. Feeding a chameleon is less of an ask than walking a dog. The fact that you tried to make a scandal out of the time some crickets escaped in Peltola’s office reflects badly on you and makes Peltola look cooler.

That story was, in my opinion, a stupid story and a poor editorial decision.

And Elisa Rios was one of the people behind that earlier ill-considered story. And then went on to make certain claims about the campaign’s — and more importantly, Peltola’s — role in getting fake Dan Sullivan on the ballot.

I actually have no problem with relying on Rios for the stacked ballot story after she tried to renege, to which decision the story itself dedicates 176 words and this explanation dedicates 617 words. But there are two problems with the way NYT dealt with Rios.

First, this story is about something Rios and others did. The people who were worried this would be discovered? Are the ones who are exposing it. The aides the story describes as deeply corrupt? They are the people Peltola fired or demoted. NYT is not transparent about the extent that their sources are burning an operation they themselves are the key participants in. It is not transparent whether the unnamed “aides” described in emails and texts include anyone beyond Anton McParland (who was demoted but not fired, and refused to comment on this story) or their own sources. And especially given that the single tie their story makes to Marc Elias (who is the one who fired these staffers) is about something where a proposal “fizzled” after consulting with lawyers,

Jacquelyn Lopez, an attorney with the Elias Law Group, the firm that represents both the committee and the Peltola campaign, was part of this effort, according to Ms. Rios. In a text message from April viewed by The Times, a campaign consultant asked Ms. Rios: “Do we need to follow up with Jackie about maga party stuff?”

In another message from that month that misspelled Mr. Kurtz’s first name, Mr. McParland wrote: “Jackie is calling Jarid.” Ms. Lopez did not respond to a request for comment.

The MAGA party plan fizzled out in May.

… The claim of law firm involvement is unsubstantiated at best, if not affirmatively misleading.

This is a story primarily about what NYT’s own sources did; aside from the role Jarid Kurtz, the shady guy who recruited others, played in this, NYT’s story does not remotely substantiate its claims about the involvement of people beyond its sources and McParland. At that level it is bad journalism.

But the more important issue is this one. The single solitary source NYT gives for the claim that Peltola herself knew about this is Rios.

Ms. Peltola was not directly involved in the project, Ms. Rios said, but she was “definitely aware.”

There’s no other substantiation for that claim, just Rios’ verbal claim. And including that claim after Rios tried to renege is pretty problematic. That’s really the only newsworthy part of the story, because both parties have shitholes like Jarid Kurtz. And it is entirely reliant on Rios.

The story has other problems. As everyone remotely sentient notes, NYT never bothers to explain in these stories the significance of ranked choice voting, which is why people stack ballots in AK but also makes it less damaging, even while doing a separate story tying the scandal the NYT created entirely by relying on Rios’ claim about Peltola’s awareness to GOP efforts to defeat ranked choice at the ballot.

Similarly, while the main story prominently notes that ballot-stacking is legal,

Ballot-stacking tactics are common in politics and generally considered legal — and have been employed by both parties in Alaska. But this operation, which has not been reported before, reveals the lengths to which Democrats went to seek advantage in a Senate race that could determine control of the chamber.

When it comes to describing GOP ballot-stacking in Alaska, it leaves out GOP efforts to do so this year, which were more obviously tied to the GOP Senate Committee.

Republicans have also taken advantage of this system. When Ms. Peltola ran for re-election to the House two years ago, the state Republican Party backed an effort to help a Democrat — an inmate who ran his campaign from a New York prison — stay on the ballot.

Compare NYT’s incompetent reporting with CNN’s more thorough treatment.

One group, Fair Deal Alaska, spent more than $800,000 attacking Peltola while promoting a lesser-known Democratic candidate and a Green Party candidate. A post-primary campaign finance filing revealed the group was mostly funded by the Senate Leadership Fund, the top GOP super PAC in Senate races.

And in 2024, Alaska’s Democratic Party sued to keep someone off the US House ballot: Eric Hafner, who has no apparent ties to the state and is serving time in a federal prison in New York. The Democratic Party argued that it and its preferred candidate — ironically, Peltola — would be harmed because having an unaffiliated Democrat on the ballot “would confuse voters.”

A divided state Supreme Court allowed Hafner to remain on the ballot. He is running again this year, also in the House race, and is on the November 3 ranked vote general election ballot.

In NYT’s explanation, they excuse focusing on Democratic efforts to the exclusion of GOP ones by claiming this story is interesting, “just a great story all the way around.”

Ballot-stacking is generally considered legal. Republicans have used the tactic in Alaska. What was newsworthy about the effort that led us to write an article?

Amy: It’s not unprecedented for campaigns or major parties to find decoy candidates with the same name as a major-party contender. But it is rare, and that’s what made the candidacy of Dan J. Sullivan unusual. We’ve also written extensively about other ballot-stacking efforts, by both parties — including in Alaska this year. Dan J. Sullivan’s candidacy also became a subject of interest in the Alaska political world and beyond, and questions were being raised when he barely campaigned. There is also the fact that the Peltola campaign so vigorously denied it, for so long. That made it a bigger story, in the end.

I’d add: Dan J. Sullivan is a retired schoolteacher who lives in a remote village accessible only by plane or boat. He has a Che Guevara magnet on his fridge. He gave money to a past campaign of Mary Peltola. It’s just a great story all the way around.

Kellen: Yes, Democrats have made the point that Republicans have done this, which is true. That doesn’t mean we can’t or shouldn’t write about particularly glaring or interesting examples of it. And in this case, we were able to pull back the curtain and take readers inside the plan in an unusually detailed way.

But they have not, of course, reported on another “glaring or interesting example,” the one in Nevada where Danielle Ford is confusing Democratic voters by suggesting Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez backs her rather than Democrat Aaron Ford for governor, a race where, unlike Alaska, if people mistakenly vote for Danielle, their vote will be lost.

Which is to say the only reason they’re reporting this story is because they’ve platformed people who were fired, the very campaign staffers most involved in this.

Where NYT’s poor editorial decisions becomes participation in a criminal conspiracy to steal an election is in the way they portray DOJ’s involvement in all this. A week ago, Todd Blanche went on the Sunday shows and made it clear he was doing what Jeffrey Clark promised — but was thwarted from doing — six years ago. “Just say the election was corrupt.” Trump instructed his then Acting Attorney General. “And leave the rest to me and the Republican Congressmen,” Trump said days before he launched a coup attempt.

NYT’s story about that parroted Blanche’s claim that this is just a good government effort.

He defended the department’s actions in a statement to The New York Times, saying the suit relied “solely on federal law” and was not intended to benefit any candidate or party.

“The Department of Justice does not seek to stop any ballot from being cast or to stop the certification of Alaska’s election,” he wrote. “This litigation seeks to ensure that after Alaskans cast their ballots, they are preserved in a manner so that only Alaska’s governing officials have the information necessary to make a determination as to whether Alaskan voters were confused or misled.”

Shortly before one of his deputies filed the Alaska suit, Mr. Blanche cast the department’s recent lawsuits as a good-government effort and dismissed the likelihood of a department effort to block certification of the results in any given state as a “doomsday scenario.”

This is one of the problems with focusing only on Peltola and not the GOP efforts: you are part of DOJ’s false claim that this is unusual or criminal. NYT should be calling out DOJ’s selective focus but it is instead capitalizing on it.

And while it quotes a lot of people saying that DOJ’s lawsuit lacks merit, it doesn’t say why: because states run elections, not the federal government. It is illegal to do this — or would be if SCOTUS weren’t in the bag for Trump and hadn’t given Trump immunity for ordering Todd Blanche to do this — the same way Trump’s efforts to demand GOP officials find 11,780 votes for him in 2020 was or should be illegal.

Another story allowing an anonymous DOJ official to explain why DOJ was violating every norm to investigate something that is not a Federal crime,

The subpoenas, most if not all of which were issued to Democrats, were part of an effort to quickly establish the facts in the case, taking advantage of federal authorities and investigative tools not readily available to local law enforcement authorities, a senior Justice Department official said.

… Quotes Republican Benjamin Ginsburg (who opposed Trump’s attempt to steal the 2020 election), without — again — explaining why. States run elections, not the Feds.

“It’s performance art this close to the election,” said the Republican election lawyer Benjamin Ginsberg. “I don’t see a federal crime.”

He also said he does not believe the federal government can prove it has standing in the case.

And then, again, when reporting how Alaska US Attorney Michael Heyman publicly announced an investigation while declining to describe any crime, NYT again treated this as a both-sides issue.

Mr. Heyman said the inquiry kicked into high gear after The New York Times reported that aides to Mary Peltola, Mr. Sullivan’s Democratic opponent, helped enlist the other candidate, Dan J. Sullivan. But he declined to say what crimes — if any — were being investigated.

“You’re assuming that there is a crime being committed,” he told a reporter who asked what the wrongdoing in question was, adding: “I’m not going to go into the details about what specific crimes we’re investigating.”

Democrats and former officials have accused the department of pursuing a political goal in the guise of a legal one: to publicize a scheme, sordid but not illegal under state law, to energize Republicans ahead of next week’s midterm elections.

Mr. Heyman said his office was acting in good faith to protect the integrity of the election.

This is not a both-sides thing. It is Donald Trump engaging in the same criminal ploy he did in 2020. And the NYT is a giddy participant in it.

Patrick Healy, through your stupid editorial choices, you are playing the same role in a criminal conspiracy to steal an election that Fox News did in 2020. This is not “a great story all the way around.” It has become an attempt to overthrow democracy.

That’s not journalism.

Update: As Harpie noted below, Judge Sharon Gleason dismissed this case, on the grounds that there is no legal way to do what DOJ wants.

The State seeks dismissal of the Amended Complaint “so that Alaska can proceed to administer its elections consistent with state and federal law.”74 And the Court finds that further amendment would be futile because this Court lacks the authority to order that certain ballots cast by Alaskans be segregated so that federal law enforcement officials can conduct an unspecified investigation of the voters who cast them. As such, the United States’ Amended Complaint is dismissed without leave to amend.

DOJ has already noticed an appeal, claiming (as Trump did in 2020) that this is just procedural.

The post NYT’s Meatball Editorial Choices appeared first on emptywheel.

Since Nicole Sandler is moving this week, LOLGOP and I did the Friday roundup instead.

The post Fridays [with Nicole Sandler] with LOLGOP appeared first on emptywheel.

And sure enough, he did. After filing his notice, Woodward, along with Henrique Carneiro, filed a contemptuous response claiming that Judge April Perry’s order to turn over a bunch of information was, instead, an invitation.

The Court states that its request is based on an “agreement” it reached with the United States at the October 1 hearing. ECF No. 276. The United States clarifies that it has not agreed to provide any information to the Court. Even though the Court repeatedly pressed government counsel for an answer to its question whether the United States would “cooperate” with judicial fact-finding, 10/1 Tr. 23:1–4, 23:18–22, 24:21–23, 25:22–24, government counsel made clear that “there’s a limitation in terms of what [he could] answer” on behalf of the Department of Justice, and he conditioned his answers in terms of his limited “understanding,” id. at 23:23–24, 25:25.

To be clear, the United States does not read the Court’s October 9 minute entry as a directive creating any obligation to produce any information. Rather, the United States reads the minute entry as inviting voluntary cooperation with a judicial investigation, as it uses the terms “ask” and “request[].” ECF No. 276. If the Court intended for its October 9 minute entry to serve as a directive, the Court should enter an amended order and the United States will respond accordingly at the appropriate time, although for the reasons articulated below, the United States believes further proceedings would not be appropriate.

In DC today, Judge Ana Reyes announced she is appointing a Special Master to assess whether Woodward himself lied to her in the golf course case.

I think Woodward aspires to engage in contemptuous behavior in four districts in a day. The day is still young in CA, and even younger in AK, so I fully expect Woodward to do something contemptuous in those districts before we’re done.

The post Predictably, Stan Woodward Contemptuously Stomped into the Broadview 6 Case appeared first on emptywheel.

Yeah, yeah, I know – Hayley Stevens’ political career as a Michigan Democrat is smouldering. Apparently there was more butt hurt about her loss in the primary to Michigan’s senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed; damage control is now under way.

It’s important to put this aside for now to focus on the GOP’s senate candidate, Mike Rogers.

It’s not a good look that Rogers left his Coral Springs Florida home (or his Virginia home) to run for the open senate seat Gary Peters leaves with his retirement. Why couldn’t the MIGOP field anybody else in Michigan, who’s been living in the state and knows what Michiganders have faced for the last decade?

Why does Rogers think he’s entitled to pull a reverse carpetbag his way into the Senate? Was it too much work to try and build name cred in his new home state Florida?

Or is Rogers simply comfortable with switching loyalties as if they’re a winter coat? Coat off, coat on – presto, he’s an MIGOP’r again.

Last week The American Prospect published an article in collaboration with the Center for Media and Democracy about the end of Rogers’ relationship with cybersecurity firm IronNet. The company declared bankruptcy but not before paying off a promissory note held by Rogers as a secured creditor.

Convenient, hmm?

Ironnet was founded in 2014 by Gen. Keith Alexander almost immediately upon his retirement from his role as Director of the National Security Agency. The firm raised a butt load of venture capital:

… In October 2015, IronNet received $32.5 million in funding from Trident Capital Cybersecurity (now ForgePoint Capital) and Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers in a Series A investment.[33][6] In May 2018, IronNet raised an additional $78 million in a round led by C5 Capital alongside existing investors ForgePoint Capital and Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers.[34] In August 2021, IronNet went public on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) via a SPAC merger with LGL Systems Acquisition Corp.[35] Alexander was later replaced by Linda Zecher on 12 July 2023, as CEO of IronNet. …

(emphasis mine)

The firm represented a trend the Washington Post noted at the time, in which many high-ranked military retirees had taken jobs with foreign governments. IronNet allowed Alexander to walk a fine, fuzzy line – he was not directly employed by foreign governments but his firm was hired as a consultancy by foreign governments.

Mike Rogers joined Alexander at IronNet some time after his departure from Congress in 2015; he’d been the House rep for MI-08 from 2001 to 2015. It’s not clear exactly when Rogers extended a promissory note to the business; it’s only been reported that the note was paid off before IronNet filed for bankruptcy.

It’s odd that Rogers was employed at IronNet and also on the team at another Alexander-founded venture IP3/IronBridge.

Some of the old timers here may recall contributor Jim White and Marcy both have written about IP3 /IronBridge because of its relationship with Michael Flynn.

Retired Generals of Flynn-Associated IP3: “United States Mideast Strategy Is Resourcing Conflict” – Jim White

Did the Flynn-Associated IP3 Presentation Anticipate the Saudi Orb? – Jim White

The Ridiculous — and Chilling — IP3 Plan for Saudi Economic Diversification – Jim White

Michael Flynn: Serial Doublecrosser – Jim White

Jared Kushner’s Pervasive Corruption Pops Up In Surprising Ways – emptywheel

The Legal and Political Significance of Nuclear Document[s] Trump Is Suspected to Have Stolen – emptywheel

The company proposed some highly questionable plans for diversification of Saudi Arabia’s economy, including development of nuclear power. It sounded a lot like a means for transfer of nuclear technology to KSA. IP3 and Michael Flynn’s role in the company’s business strategy were scrutinized by Congress; this may have throttled the company’s plans going forward.

One of the resources Jim White pointed to mentioned the “Iron Bridge Group” which included cybersecurity. Was IronNet a subsidiary of IP3/IronBridge or a member of a holding company structure under the name “Iron Bridge Group”?

In which case Mike Rogers may have played a leadership role in a business relying on technology transfers to KSA. IronNet was contracted by KSA to establish an education facility for the purposes of teaching cybersecurity. Was this service actually provided or was it just a front for information transfer?

IronNet is now defunct, having declared bankruptcy; what was left was bought by C5 Capital and ITC Secure to form a new entity, Collective Defense. This all seems rather innocuous until one notes that C5 was an early investor in IronNet, helmed by South African Andre Pienaar who had ties to Russian oligarch Viktor Vekselberg. Close to Putin, Vekselberg has been repeatedly sanctioned by the US.

Pienaar was right there at the beginning, not just monetarily but physically:

Photo: IronNet’s first day as publicly traded stock; William Welch and Keith Alexander co-founders at center, Andre Pienaar behind Alexander (AP photo by Richard Drew)

Yet Pienaar probably shouldn’t have been involved with either IP3 or IronNet, as The American Prospect and Center for Media and Democracy noted:

Pienaar, in turn, allegedly had a close association with the twice-sanctioned Russian oligarch Viktor Vekselberg, with documents obtained by the AP indicating that Pienaar sat on the board of a South African mine as a representative of Vekselberg. In addition, the AP reported that he helped the Kremlin-connected oligarch court London’s rich and famous, and interviewed former intelligence officials who believed that given his alleged ties to Vekselberg, Pienaar should have been prohibited from investing in IronNet.

(emphasis mine)

ITC Secure should also not have been permitted to buy IronNet assets because it is also owned in part if not entirely by Pienaar.

But there’s another fresher problem about Mike Rogers, apart from his questionable role in IP3/IronBridge and IronNet.

Today, Rogers appears to be a director of a business with links to Pienaar. According to the LilSis database, Rogers joined 4iQ while Pienaar was a director:

The company changed its name in 2020 to Constella and Rogers continues to appear on its website as a director.

Screenshot of Constella board including Mike Rogers

It’s not clear whether Pienaar has an ongoing role with Constella whether leadership or ownership. A post on Medium in 2020 indicated there had been a change in financing and leadership which was not spelled out. 4iQ’s merger with a Spanish firm resulting in the business name change may have resolved this or it may merely be whitewashing the links between Pienaar and the rest of the business.

The 2023 financial report Rogers released and shared by Business Insider reflects an ownership position in Constella.

Screenshot, excerpt from financial report published Dec. 2020 by Mike Rogers (via Business Insider)

Again, does Rogers still have a relationship with Pienaar through Constella?

It’s disturbing that this hasn’t been examined yet the election is less than a handful of days away.

It’s not as if Rogers isn’t aware of the risks posed to national security given his background as an FBI agent and a former member of the House Intelligence Committee, that his background will appeal to foreign countries while he serves and/or owns security consultancies. Rogers should know better; strike that, Rogers knows better. He’s a hypocrite based on his own words:

In an interview, Mike Rogers, former chairman of the U.S. House Intelligence Committee, said he has watched with growing concern as more and more former American intelligence officials cash in by working for foreign countries.

“These skill sets do not belong to you,” he said of ex-U.S. agents, but to the U.S. government that trained them. Just as Washington wouldn’t let its spies work in the pay of foreign nations while employed at the NSA, he said, “Why on God’s green earth would we encourage you to do that after you leave the government?”

As for Hayley Stevens: it’s not a good look that her mega-donor fiancé made such a public splash he was throwing money to Rogers’ campaign after Stevens’ rather tepid effort to support Democratic primary winner El-Sayed.

She’s made some weakly conciliatory noises since then which didn’t help her personal optics. A solid Senate majority is far too important to the Democratic Party and to the nation in order to stem Trump’s fascist rampage. Only full-throated support should come from Democrats for candidates who’ve won the Democratic Party base’s nod.

What is known about Mike Rogers’ business-related exposures makes it even more clear that El-Sayed *must* win Michigan’s open senate seat.

Rogers is and has been compromised; we can’t trust him to serve our nation’s security interests.

~ ~ ~

UPDATE — 2:50 PM ET —

OMFG get a load of this from the campaign trail in Michigan today:

Aaron Rupar @atrupar.com

Mike Rogers: “When you sign up for a government job, you cannot use it for your own financial gain”

[video, Mike Rogers with Sen. Tim Scott in front of a RogersForCongress campaign bus]

5:56 PM · Oct 30, 2026

What about after quitting or retirement, Mike, can you sell out to foreign countries for employment for personal gain?

The post Mike Rogers’ Questionable Loyalties [UPDATE] appeared first on emptywheel.

As a rule, Trump prefers men with full heads of hair (one ally surmised it’s because the president believes they’re genetically superior, and a second person laughingly—but seriously—concurred) and usually likes garrulous operatives with big personalities.

Neither effort to package up Blair as a scapegoat mentions Hispanic voters. Neither — not even the one claiming Trump doesn’t like bald men — mentions Stephen Miller.

VoteHub says 60% of Texas’ Senate votes have been cast; it shows the modeled vote as neck-and-neck but treats it as Tilt D.

James Talarico has not won this race yet. But Ken Paxton’s campaign increasingly has the odor of flopsweat. His speakers are begging attendees to stay.

He has canceled at least two rallies (one, two), eliciting jokes he has snuck off to Ohio for mental health treatment.

If Paxton loses, it will be because of a combination of four reasons. The same affordability concerns that have created a Blue Wave nationwide. He’s an epically corrupt asshole. The GOP has capitulated to data centers in Texas (Talarico has hung that on Paxton by warning the AG would be the personal Senator of Elon Musk).

And Stephen Miller’s dragnet.

That part — Stephen Miller’s dragnet and its effect on the Hispanic vote in Texas — has not gone unmentioned. Indeed, before the fluffy profile prepping to scapegoat James Blair, the Atlantic had a long story about Losing the Big Ass Truck Vote — Hispanics — in Texas. It goes through the cultural reasons and disinformation that led Hispanics to vote for Trump. Then it describes Benny Melendez, who won’t let himself blame Trump, but will blame Miller.

Benny Melendez, a general contractor who started his business seven years ago, invited me to a half-built house he is trying to finish outside McAllen. Melendez told me that he used to build on spec, investing his own money in a project with confidence that he’d quickly flip a sale. Now he builds only for clients who pay up front. Building a house used to take him four months, but now it takes eight to 12, he said, because he can’t find enough workers.

Melendez voted for Trump two years ago and doesn’t “hate” him. He was less generous, and more profane, about the Trump adviser Stephen Miller, who orchestrated an ICE crackdown that has become so disruptive that Melendez and other members of his trade group felt like they had to get more involved in politics. At least 15 men he used to work with have been deported, and several of them were arrested by ICE en route to a job site. “If you have a ladder on your truck, they’ll start following you, and they’ll stop you,” Melendez said. “It is difficult for me to hear a 40-, 50-year-old guy cry in private with me, telling me he’s afraid that ICE is going to take him.” Melendez told me that the Rio Grande Valley is best-known for having a low cost of living and being family-oriented. “And now those are the two things being taken away from us,” he said.

[snip]

A crew of subcontractors working for Melendez was supposed to install kitchen cabinets at the house that day. They didn’t show. Neither did the guys scheduled to pave the driveway. ICE vehicles had been spotted that morning in the area, and alerts had gone out across radio stations and social media. Most of the ICE officers making the arrests are other Hispanic men who grew up in the Rio Grande Valley, Melendez said, and as he watched video clips from construction sites, he recognized a close friend, despite his face mask. “I wrote to my friend and said, Dude, you know I love you, but you’re losing my respect,” he said. Melendez was even more disgusted when the friend told him the pay was too good to quit.

This is a very very important insight. First, because it’s true: Stephen Miller is responsible for a significant part of the lost Hispanic vote (and reactions to Trump’s dragnet among other communities). But also, people who won’t blame Trump are happy to blame Miller, in very bitter terms.

Someone will get blamed, and James Blair is not going to be the most obvious scapegoat for a lot of people.

The Atlantic, by pitching this as a story about trucks, treats it as a cultural story. And a big part of the Hispanic swing in Texas is the same low-information voters swinging hard against high prices we’re seeing everywhere, something that could remain fluid.

But the WSJ version of the equivalent story describes reasons why it could be something more — the kind of realignment caused by Proposition 187 in California. That’s true because of the sheer increase in turnout.

Early voting figures in Texas point to a surge in Hispanic voter turnout. As of Monday, the eighth day of the state’s two-week early voting period, turnout in the region was far ahead of the 2022 midterms. Statewide, Hispanic turnout was making up a higher share of the electorate compared with the same point in the 2022 and 2024 elections, according to an analysis by Texas consulting and analysis firm Ryan Data & Research.

These are newly politicized voters.

More importantly, in the WSJ version, another builder, Abad Morales, similarly situated as Melendez (who caps the WSJ story, describing his vote as punishment) took what is often the first step to far deeper involvement in politics: running for precinct delegate.

Abad Morales, who owns a construction company here in South Texas, was swayed by President Trump’s 2024 campaign question: “Are you better off today than you were four years ago?”

Two years later, he is asking himself the same question—and now, he says, life has only gotten worse.

Morales is having a harder time finding workers for his construction jobs and says the cost of everything continues to rise. His company won’t be able to host an annual toy drive this year because he has opted instead to use the money to help friends and local families who have been deported.

His frustration with Trump has pushed him deeper into politics. Once largely disengaged, Morales is now running for the city commission in Weslaco and has become a Democratic precinct chair. By his count, he has helped register more than 350 voters this year.

“I’m done. I don’t think it’s right what he’s doing at all,” Morales, 36 years old, said of Trump. “We need a change. It’s time to put our foot down and make a change.”

This is the kind of step that may create lifelong Democrats.

There are a lot of viral images from this election so far. But one that has picked up in recent days is one that I first saw with this tweet, but has been picked up by the Houston Chronicle, Houston Public Media, HuffPo, and (just minutes ago) WaPo. Houston voters are putting their “I Voted” stickers on the memorial to Lorenzo Salgado Araujo, one of the many victims shot in cold blood by ICE goons.

Voters — in Houston, at least — are making it crystal clear what their vote is about.

And we can’t let Stephen Miller avoid accountability for that.

Update: This is priceless!

The post Stephen Miller Messed with Texas appeared first on emptywheel.

As they describe it, informant F-9 is effectively part of the prosecution team, yet the government has permitted him to cherry pick which materials he provides the government even as he discusses shredding materials.

The government’s primary informant in this case was the Southern Poverty Law Center’s longest-contracted informant, F-9. His work in the program was almost certainly the most rewarding role F-9 ever had, both financially and professionally. Apparently, F-9 chose not to pay taxes on his income for 30 years. In addition, while contracting as an SPLC informant, F-9 started a meaningful personal relationship. But between December 2021 and July 2023, everything changed. In that timeframe, F-9 learned his income from the SPLC would be significantly reduced, his personal relationship ended, and his relationship with the SPLC was terminated. In the midst of this, he was contacted by federal law enforcement about meeting with an IRS Criminal Investigation Division agent—at a time when he knew he faced serious criminal and financial exposure for his failure to pay taxes on decades of income.

Following these personal setbacks, F-9 pivoted from assisting the SPLC in its mission to dismantle hate groups to assisting the government in its criminal investigation against the SPLC. F-9 began what would become his deep involvement in the government’s investigation. For its part, the government seems willing to overlook F-9’s extreme biases, self-serving motives, and personal and professional misconduct, including covertly taking SPLC records and privileged information. Over hundreds of contacts with the government over the last several years, F-9 has transformed his role as a mere witness into an active member of the government’s investigative team.

[snip]

To be clear, F-9 should have been merely a witness in this case. But the government has treated him like part of the prosecutorial team itself, choosing to allow F-9 to decide which of the documents, recordings, and photographs in his possession he will produce, and how and when he will produce them. F-9 admitted that he has a “house full of documents,” some of which he has referenced plans to “shred.” Despite the volume of material F-9 professes he possesses, and his reference to shredding some of that material, the government has never given him a subpoena or executed a search warrant or, as far as the defense knows, taken meaningful steps to ensure he preserves all the material he obtained from the SPLC. Instead, the prosecution team is content to allow F-9 to direct what documents will be provided to it and when. And it has broadly immunized F-9 from criminal charges, including for any misconduct related to his cooperation in this investigation that occurred before August 2026

I wrote about the problems with F-9 when DOJ superseded the indictment for the sole purpose of adding his ex, Heidi Beirich, to it.

The other thing the indictment does — the thing that’s making headlines — is to charge Heidi Beirich along with SPLC. As CBS reported, DOJ is getting details about Beirich wrong.

Beirich previously served as the director of the Southern Poverty Law Center’s Intelligence Project, which is the monitoring and research arm of the nonprofit, according to her LinkedIn profile. She rose through the ranks, starting first as a writer in 1999. She left the SPLC in December 2019.

[snip]

At a press conference Wednesday, Attorney General Todd Blanche mistakenly identified Beirich as the SPLC’s “former CFO.”

“I think, as alleged in the indictment, this individual participated in the scheme,” he said. “I believe she was part of the effort to open bank accounts… and make payments to individuals for reasons that were not accurate as described,” he said, before the indictment was available on the public docket.

As I’ve noted above, two of the three new charges are among the three Beirich is charged with. So the new charges may reflect the backflips they’ve made to include her.

And, to a significant extent, the charges against Beirich may be nothing more than Todd Blanche’s effort to criminalize bad break-ups to help the Nazis.

Starting with S1, DOJ made much of the fact that Beirich was in a romantic relationship with one of the informants, F-9. F-9 was an informant, not an extremist. SPLC paid him $1,200,000 over decades to infiltrate the National Alliance, and in 2014, he stole a bunch of documents from them. Beirich paid a different informant money to take the fall for stealing those documents.

And for a number of years, she lived with F-9.

iv. HEIDI BEIRICH oversaw payments of donors’ money to the Fs, including F-9. BEIRICH was also in a romantic relationship with F-9. During this relationship, BEIRICH and F-9 shared a house and two bank accounts. Between 2015 and 2021, approximately $140,000.00 in donors’ money flowed from SPLC operating account, through the Tech Writers account, and was ultimately deposited into the joint bank accounts held by F-9 and BEIRICH. This amounted to approximately 66% of all money ever deposited into their joint bank accounts. BEIRICH then used donors’ money to pay the couple’s personal living expenses.

This allegation of the romantic relationship, while it aroused all the far right trolls (and does describe a dangerous conflict), says far less than the horn-dogs at DOJ would like it to say.

SPLC was paying F-9 around $85,000 a year to infiltrate neo-Nazi groups (the first indictment alleged he was getting paid around $100,000 a year, and DOJ has tweaked with their time span in ways that makes this data further suspect). In the seven years Beirich and F-9 lived together, he put an average of $20,000 a year into their joint bank accounts. The fact that that represented 66% of the money that went into the joint bank accounts suggests he may have been getting paid more than Beirich. In any case, this suggests Beirich and F-9 were spending $30,000 a year on their joint living expenses.

Whoop

Dee

Doo

But imagine, this paragraph seems to be arguing, if donors found out the people whom SPLC paid — both staffers and the informants they knew about — used their salaries to live off of?!?!?! And lived lifestyles modest enough two of them could get by on $30,000?

To make things worse, SPLC has made it clear form the start that F-9 is gunning for SPLC. In a letter sent to Kevin Davidson on April 17, attorney Addy Schmidt warned Davidson he needed to inform the grand jury of F-9’s intense bias against the SPLC.

[Redacted], known as “F-9,” a source of evidence offered against the SPLC, is intensely biased against the SPLC because [one and a half lines redacted] Of course, the government would also be obligated to inform the grand jury if any other witnesses whom it is relying on harbor similar biases and/or that there are other compelling reasons to question the veracity of the information they have provided.

So the guy on whom DOJ has built this indictment also happens to be the guy who lived with its new villain, but doesn’t anymore.

On top of that, SPLC claims that someone on whom DOJ has relied for information about the organization lied to the government, falsely claiming that SPLC deleted its informant files (which SPLC provided to the FBI in April).

And the fact that F-9 played an even bigger role in this prosecution than has been disclosed makes the timeline of that relationship of particular interest.

Here’s that timeline:

• 1996: S-9 begins informing for SPLC.
• March 2022: F-9 starts talking to SPLC investigators.
• September 25, 2025: Charlie Kirk EO.
• October 14 to 24, 2025: MDAL opens investigation.
• October 16, 2025: MDAL reaches out to Liberty Counsel; obtains letter to Stephen Miller.
• December 9, 2025: F-9 told the government that he had a storage unit holding six steel file cabinets, about 37,000 photographs, and “handwritten notes, files . . . recordings.” He described, “Some of my stuff is up there in a storage garage now, stolen by this guy that wants 15 grand from me to turn over my life’s work in six steel file cabinets and 37,000 color photographs I took.”
• December 11, 2025: F-9 claimed there was not information to subpoena. Says, “I would expect to be compensated for my time.”
• December 15, 2025: F-9 travels to Montgomery to provide “intelligence briefing,” with “15 exhibits, a 111-page document, and a thumb drive.”
• December 16, 2025: F-9 asks, “Can you people lend me $15,000 to pay this idiot? I’ve given you quite a bit of stuff. This will make your case. I don’t care whether you admit that or not. What I have will make your case. Can you lend me or pay me $15,000?”
• Between December 22, 2025 and February 6, 2026: F-9 sent photographs and screenshots of documents.
• February 2, 2026: “I need to be paid. I don’t wanna come down there and not be paid. I spent a lot of time and resources now on this. You don’t work for free. I am absolutely broke. I am now maxed on my credit cards. I’ve had to sell my car to pay this guy that I reported to the FBI. It cost me $15,000. I am out. Is there a probability—not a possibility—a probability, that the FBI will pay me? They used to pay me!”
• February 20, 2026: SPLC learns they’re under investigation.
• February 24, 2026: F-9 travels to Montgomery to provide “intelligence briefing,” provided “roughly 35 to 40 pounds of documents, binders, and thumb drives” and “some of the SPLC’s board minutes.”
• February 25, 2026: DOJ tells SPLC it has learned SPLC destroyed informant files. SPLC says that’s not true.
• February 27, 2026: F-9 starts demanding to be immunized.
• April 17, 2026: SPLC provides 14,856 pages of informant files to DOJ.
• April 22, 2026: First Indictment.
• June 2, 2026: Superseding Indictment (shores up fraud problems).
• June 3, 2026: Beginning period of sending 1,327 texts.
• June 25, 2026: The agent asked F-9 whether he knew two individuals and whether he had “numbers by chance,” explaining that “[w]e are still running down these merchant accounts.”
• July 22, 2026: F-9 told the agent he had “[l]eft him alone the last couple days” and was “[w]aiting to see if he hears from [Person 2] or [Person 1].” Later that night, he added: “Feel like I can work [Person 1]. Not particularly hinked (so far.)”
• July 30, 2026: F-9 texted the agent, “You need a witness that can explain how the Center lost its way,” and offered up a witness.
• August 2026: DOJ immunized F-9, including for criminal conduct during investigation.
• August 3, 2026: F-9 told the agent he “[m]ay have the receipt in an expense report.” The agent replied, “Please try to find it. Do you still have other expense reports?” When F-9 answered, “Think so,” the agent wrote: “Great, we need them.”
• August 4, 2026: The agent asked F-9, “Can you make August 14 work? Travel in on 13th and meet with us on 14th,” and also let F-9 know that “[t]he USAO travel coordinator will be calling you today.”
• August 12, 2026: Superseding 2 indictment adds Heidi Beirich, F-9’s former partner.
• August 14, 2026: F-9 provides “intelligence briefing,” and another thumb drive.
• August 20, 2026: F-9 sent the agent his own analysis of the dates on which certain SPLC bank accounts were opened and asked, “Forward this traffic to IRS man?” F-9 also identified what he claimed might be angry victim donors. “Might want to reach out to find out who and why.”
• August 25, 2026″ the agent asked F-9, “Did you record call where [document destruction] was mentioned?”
• August 27, 2026: F-9 told the agent that “the Grand Jury would surely issue a Mail Fraud by Omission indictment against the Center and [former SPLC personnel] in particular, yes?” “That superseding indictment would be devastating . . . .”
• August 31, F-9 texted: “Slogging through thumbs. Think I found what you need. Sending two audio files.” The agent responded, “Thank you. I will listen immediately.”
• August 31, 2026: The agent told F-9, “New trial date is 1 February.” F-9 replied: “Five months to firm up and find more. Thank you.”
• Between August 31 and September 1, 2026: F-9 provided four short audio clips via text message.
• September 6, 2026: While “[b]uilding [his] slide deck,” F-9 asked the agent whether a particular video “has evidentiary value.” The agent told him, “I would not include it for the meeting purpose.”
• September 7: the agent asked F-9 to “[p]lease bring the recordings and the original document on [F-XX].” F-9 sent the agent a recording of a March 2019 SPLC senior leadership meeting in which the SPLC’s Legal Director participated. [note: the parties are currently briefing an attorney-client dispute]
• September 9, 2026: F-9 provides “intelligence briefing.”
• September 9, 2026: F-9 asked the agent, “Briefing well received?” and then, “We sell the Fraud by Omission?”
• September 16, 2026: F-9 told the agent: “For more than nine months, I’ve gone above and beyond to search for the files you’ve requested.”

In other words, when FBI first investigated SPLC on tax charges that didn’t pan out, they learned of F-9, whose gravy train at SPLC was being phased out. Then Stephen Miller came in with a plan to destroy SPLC and they went to this guy to make the case for them.

And a guy who alleged owed 30 years in taxes found a way to put himself on the FBI payroll, because, “They used to pay me!” and in the process attempt to take down SPLC — and his former partner — in exchange.

Along the way, he may lied to make himself more valuable, by claiming that SPLC had destroyed its informant files (which SPLC at least denies). Immediately after SPLC told DOJ that was not true, he started demanding they immunize him. Remember, one of the things that has scandalized the far right is that he stole a shit-ton of records from National Alliance; it appears he also stole a shit-ton of documents from the SPLC. Ultimately, DOJ did immunize him for things that may include such lies and thefts, both of them.

And the money involved is pretty significant.

F-9 has demanded a host of benefits from the government in exchange for information and documents in his possession, including immunity from criminal prosecution (which he was subsequently given), “payment,” including an explicit request to be paid $10,000 “at least” and a monthly stipend in exchange for the information he has and will continue to provide to the government, and “compensat[ion].” 2025R00327-0099213 at 46; 2025R00327-0099227 at 16; 2025R00327-0099231 at 27; 2025R00327-0000987 at 11. With regard to F-9’s tax liability, after understanding he was “on the hook for 30 years’ worth of payments that are indeed taxable[,]” F9 made his expectation plain: “My expectation in assisting you I think very conclusively in charging the Southern Poverty Law Center with mail fraud would be for me to have complete

DOJ claims he was paid $1,200,000 over the years he worked for SPLC (I suspect SPLC knows DOJ has the wrong numbers, meaning F-9 may be hiding how much he did make). Even assuming he would have paid 10% in taxes, he’d still owe over $100,000. Plus he wants monthly fees.

I have no idea whether the underlying request — for a preservation order and subpoena — will work. But one thing this request does is highlight the extent to which what DOJ has been deliberately filtered by a guy with a grudge.

The post The SPLC Breakup Gone Wrong Went REALLY REALLY Wrong appeared first on emptywheel.

The reason you rush out those charges — the reason you predicate an aggressive investigation based off false claims about 2020 election fraud the President rolled out in July — is to make everyone at the FBI think twice before they test claims of voter fraud that get reported. It’s to inoculate bullshit like the Hunter Biden “laptop” from legal scrutiny. If you, as an FBI Agent, don’t simply pass on election fraud claims unquestioningly, you might be the one sitting in a courtroom in the near future.

And testimony Margaret Donovan elicited from Bryan Witt reveals just how high a priority Kash Patel has placed on chilling any scrutiny of tampering — particularly foreign tampering — in next week’s election.

As Anna Bower laid out, Witt described that Kash demanded updates on this effort “at least weekly,” and both Deputy Directors — Andrew Bailey (who is from Missouri, which may explain why this investigation was located there, but who also recently quit amid reports he “was constantly flagging things that were unconstitutional”), and Chris Raia — as well as a Perez who might be the Criminal and Cyber Branch Operations Director, Jose Perez were involved in the case.

Donovan: What involvement did FBI director have in updates?

Witt: It was basically a check-in on frequent basis…at least weekly. Wanted to know if we had enough resources, etc. There were video conferences, weekly meetings…

Donovan: You said deputy directors involved?

Witt: Yes…Andrew Bailey, Chris Raia, I think Perez attended at least 1 meeting….

Donovan: Have you ever in your 24-year career ever had an FBI director and 2 deputy directors involved in a 1001 false statements case?

Witt: This was the first time

Yes, all these details will be useful for Donovan if this case survives and she immediately files for a vindictive prosecution claim.

But this description also tells you how big a priority it is for Kash Patel to make sure no one at FBI does what Floris and Benavides did in 2020, express professional skepticism about bullshit voter fraud claims.

And just as Pam Bondi’s obsession with prosecuting Don Lemon meant that four drug traffickers went free in January, this obsession with ensuring the FBI does not protect US elections has a cost.

While Kash has been ensuring that the FBI doesn’t protect US elections, hackers have scored four high profile hacks on the people who are supposed to be keeping the US, including US elections, safe:

• In March, Iranian-backed hackers hacked Kash Patel himself
• Last month, while FBI’s top leadership was having weekly meetings trying to prevent FBI agents from keeping the US safe, Shiny Hackers hacked the entire FBI
• On Tuesday, unknown hackers compromised the Federal Election Commission’s filing system for a time, bring down the funding databases
• Yesterday, Distributed Denial of Secrets rolled out a database hacked by the self-identified “Department of Peace,” identifying 41,000 DHS personnel, including those at CISA who used to keep elections safe

The problem with these bullshit investigations is not just that they’re wildly partisan, corrupt, and — so far at least — end up in spectacular dick-stepping.

They distract the FBI from keeping the United States safe.

Donald Trump and Kash Patel set out to ensure that no one would dare try to keep the election safe from foreign interference. Based on Witt’s testimony, it is one of Kash’s highest priorities.

And unsurprisingly, that deliberately destructive focus has left US security and election services vulnerable to attack.

Update: Craig Unger describes a Russian disinformation campaign that Elon Musk is letting disseminate — precisely the kind of thing that might have been flagged in 2020.

The post All Kash Patel’s Hacks appeared first on emptywheel.

There are two things the existing charges attempt to criminalize: Giving Senators (in this case Chuck Grassley and Ron Johnson) a defensive briefing warning them that they may be talking to people pushed by foreign spies — something in another time Grassley said the FBI did not do enough of! Part of this is an effort by Grassley, Johnson, and John Solomon to rehabilitate Andrii Telizhenko (which effort I keep promising I’ll return to). That grievance is addressed by charging Floris with lying about disseminating a Ukraine report the two Senators released.

The existing charges also attempt to criminalize tracking foreign efforts to lead Americans to believe propaganda campaigns about senior American officials, the core focus of the Foreign Influence Task Force that Kash is, generally, trying to criminalize.

But we learned yesterday that this effort to criminalize those who combat disinformation didn’t start with a focus on the Rudy Giuliani hard drive masquerading as the Hunter Biden laptop. It started with these two documents the White House released in July: An intelligence report sharing an allegation that China had scraped TikTok data to create tens of thousands of fake US driver’s licenses to use to vote for Joe Biden, and a thread of communications describing how that report was withdrawn shortly after release.

Donald Trump described the recall of the report this way in his speech on July 16:

Compounding the travesty, the second set of documents we are releasing reveals that members of the Deep State — a very, very famous group of people, in many cases — in our intelligence agency, worked to actively suppress and downplay information about the extent of China’s sinister election meddling, covering it up from both the president and the American people like nobody thought was possible.

[snip]

They did not disclose to me as president or to anyone else. And to the best of our knowledge, they did not inform Congress. In fact, all they kept saying is, this is the most secure election in the history of our country — a standard, very pat line that was divvied out to say.

[snip]

Raw intelligence obtained by the FBI in 2020, yet buried by rogue bureaucrats, stated that China’s activities even included an attempt to manufacture illegal ballots for Joe Biden. Documents show that during this period, dozens of significant CIA and NSA reports about China’s election targeting were kept out of the presidential briefing.

The next day, per testimony from Bryan Witt, Kash Patel personally ordered a team in Missouri (probably tied to Andrew Bailey, then still the Deputy FBI Director) to start investigating it.

The report itself described that a source “with indirect access, none of whose reporting has been corroborated for less than a year” passed on a story from an “identified sub-source, who claimed they obtained the information from unidentified PRC government officials.”

This is similarly nested intelligence as the pee tape and most other reports in the dossier were — Christopher Steele’s subsource Igor Danchenko described what Russian spooks told him — with one really big difference: This source had no record of reliability, whereas Steele had years of reliability (albeit on a slightly different topic).

There was a problem with the claim in any case: It said China was stripping name, ID, and address from TikTok. But TikTok doesn’t have address.

Nevertheless, the report was circulated to an astonishing range of recipients, including the White House Situation Room; eventually it got shared with Chuck Grassley.

Apparently after that, someone assessed that it did not meet the terms of circulation, an anagram DRAIN, which includes, A, Authoritative, whether “the source of the information in the raw report could credibly have had access to the information provided.” After it went out, people at FBI said that it should be recalled until the source was recontacted.

And in the same period, the person contacted Floris and Benavides and asked for their support in recalling the report.

The report explaining why they recalled the intelligence report explained that the person who offered the information was basically a walk-in — this was his first contact with the FBI.

More of the backup describing why they recalled the report describe that the source also claimed “the Chinese Government had underground bases in Republican states to disperse Coronavirus.”

The aftermath of this — and the reason Grassley learned about it — focused on two issues: One, a mandate after this and one other tip that people coordinate with Headquarters before disseminating an election claim, and also, concerns that this tip conflicted with testimony Chris Wray had given.

In the aftermath, there was some discussion about the fact that fake drivers licenses from China were usually used as fake IDs for drinking.

That’s how this investigation into Floris and Bevanides started: Because a report that didn’t make sense on its face from an FBI walk-in was recalled, the FBI Director personally ordered up FBI Agents to conduct a criminal investigation.

Right wingers have spent years saying nothing in the Steele dossier should have been disseminated. But they set out to charge Nikki Floris and Bradley Benavides because they exercised caution six years ago about something even less corroborated.

The post Kash Patel Tried to Criminalize Scrutinizing Garbage Tips that Serve Trump’s Lies appeared first on emptywheel.

Jeanine Pirro and Todd Blanche and Kash Patel were so determined to ensure nothing like that happens between now and Tuesday — to ensure that no one at the FBI would reject frivolous claims of election fraud by criminalizing doing so — that they flubbed the charges they filed against Floris and Benavides last week.

Assuming frivolous claims of election fraud and hacks like this one Kash failed to prevent and ginned up political violence don’t prevent voters from ousting the GOP next Tuesday, DOJ may have caused serious problems for themselves.

I’ll explain the proof that’s what Kash and the others were doing, warning FBI agents that they will be prosecuted if they reject frivolous claims of election fraud.

But first I want to explain how the attorneys for Benavides and Floris used the preliminary hearing to collect evidence that will surely be used in lawsuits and, hopefully, impeachment or criminal indictments in the not too distant future.

It started with a shift in magistrates. Magistrate judges take turns as the duty judge who review any new warrants in a week. When people sought some explanation for the timing of the Ilhan Omar raid, the fact that Matthew Sharbaugh, who is pretty hawkish, was on duty was one explanation I saw floated. Sharbaugh also signed the original complaint against Floris and Benavides, which was defective in several ways and should never have been signed. But Zia Faruqui was on duty for Floris and Benavides’ initial appearance last week. In my experience, he starts each such hearing by explaining that his job is to protect the rights of the defense. So when Floris and Benavides insisted on a preliminary hearing to test whether there really was probable cause to arrest them, he agreed. And when DOJ tried to submit a mulligan at the last minute, Faruqui refused.

The preliminary hearing presented a real problem for DOJ — I don’t know if they had thought any further than just charging FBI Agents who had worked hard to ensure the integrity of the election before the election. In an attempt to defend the charges, they had to put someone on the stand under oath and shore up problems with their evidentiary claims, which I’m certain is one reason they submitted their mulligan: to avoid exacerbating false claims made in the first one.

But the switch also involved swapping Byron Militello, who signed the first affidavit, to Bryan Witt, who would have signed the second and who testified yesterday: We can’t know how Militello would have performed on the stand. We do know he made several material misrepresentations about his key witnesses in a sworn affidavit. And we know — this came quite late in the hearing — that another of his affidavits had been questioned in the past.

So maybe that resulted in someone a bit more honest trying to defend these charges.

Ron Safer, one of the attorneys for Benavides, started.

The defendants here are differently situated. The claims Floris lied are pretty much entirely manufactured, created by treating criminal investigations and counterintelligence investigations as the same thing. Not so Benavides: while there are word games (about the one true laptop) behind the claimed lies pertaining to him, he really did testify in ways that conflict with communications submitted in the complaint. So Safer has to show that the FBI has no evidence that Benavides intentionally lied, as opposed to forgot. And he has to show that even if he lied, those lies did not materially thwart HJC’s investigation.

DOJ was always going to have a problem proving these alleged lies were material. And as I noted, the initial affidavit relied not on witness testimony about materiality, but information provided by Jim Jordan’s committee, meaning the vague claims they made that these alleged lies thwarted HJC’s investigation were not something Jordan’s flunkies were willing to say under oath. But as Anna Bower described in a follow-up to her live coverage, it was far worse. The witness in question is Steve Castor, Counsel for HJC and a former Trump impeachment defense attorney. Witt confessed that he only interviewed Castor on Monday, and Castor in turn confessed that he was not present for either of these interviews and may not have reviewed a transcript, either. (Note, I think DOJ is affording Castor more Speech or Debate protection than DOJ afforded the January 6 Committee during the Steve Bannon contempt prosecution.) So not only didn’t anyone ask the pertinent questions to establish proof that any lies Floris and Benvides told thwarted an HJC investigation, but their chosen witness is not competent for that task.

After establishing that Witt had no basis to claim Benavides’ statements were material and had not looked for evidence that Benavides intentionally lied, Safer then did something that defense attorneys love to do in false statements cases: He presented the witness with proof he he also made a false statement. Safer pointed to a claim Witt had made in the revised complaint that (as far as I can tell on a quick glance) was not in the original: Witt claimed that both Benavides and Floris were sworn in for their HJC testimony.

On July 19, 2023, FLORIS, and on September 28, 2023, BENAVIDES, despite having been called to testify truthfully before the Committee, and both of whom were sworn to tell the truth in connection with their respective testimonies to the Committee, [my emphasis]

Safer got Witt to concede that they were not sworn. Here’s how Bower captured it:

Safer: But in your affidavit you said they were, right? And that’s a false statement?

Witt: It wasn’t an intentionally false statement
Safer: Whether a false statement is a crime depends on intent, right?

Witt: I would think so

Now, when I’ve seen defense attorneys do this before, I have understood it to be for the benefit of the jury. It’s a very dramatic way to explain to the jury the import of intent for false statements charges. Obviously, there’s no jury here and Faruqui doesn’t need this lesson. I suspect Safer did this for Witt’s benefit, to make him think, to demonstrate to him how easy it is for someone to take an inadvertent false statement and make it a crime, to put him on the defensive.

But for the vagaries of political fortune, Witt could be the one facing charges, not Benavides. And with that demonstration, Witt’s testimony may have shifted, from defending the trumped up charges to telling the truth.

Safer’s cross continued for some time, getting into the one true laptop and Witt’s failure to test the background of the defendants, much less establish a motive to lie. And just before a break, Witt offered this explanation for why he didn’t investigate the defendants more broadly.

Safer: You investigate drug dealers and human traffickers. You know how important history, credibility is…Before you came into court to accuse these public servants, wasn’t it important to do a little research on their background?

Witt: I was instructed to investigate this specific issue

He was following orders.

And that’s when Margaret Donovan took over.

A word about Donovan. Remember all the times I have said it was especially stupid for Jeanine Pirro to fuck up the Davey Hearn case, on which Norm Eisen was a defense attorney, because Eisen files lawsuits like some people write emails? You could say the same about Donovan. She represents a shit-ton of FBI Agents and AUSAs who’ve been fired in Trump’s purges, including Brian Driscoll, who (per Politico) was in the courtroom watching. Her FBI complaints feature loads of detail about how Kash Patel, personally, knew he was violating the law when firing her clients. In the lawsuit she and Abbe Lowell filed on behalf of nine FBI Agents fired for investigating Trump’s stolen documents case, she described how Kash had congratulated two of her clients for their great work shortly before he fired them. And very on point for the topic of this post, she also laid out detailed proof that Kash had lied, in two separate appearances before Congress this year, about his role as a private citizen helping Trump to steal classified documents.

On behalf of the FBI Agents Kash has fired, Margaret Donovan has spent a good deal of time accumulating what could be an impeachment of Kash Patel if and when Jamie Raskin gets a gavel in January. And by rushing through charges against Floris and Benavides on a complaint, Jeanine Pirro gave her an exceptional opportunity to do far more of that.

Here’s how Josh Gerstein described the way Donovan got Witt — freshly admonished by Safer about the danger of false statements — to explain how this investigation arose directly out of Trump’s efforts in July to revisit his fraudulent claims about 2020, which led to a list of people to criminalize, which led Witt to find a new reason to investigate Floris when his first predication came up dry.

Witt acknowledged that Patel launched the probe one day after a speech Trump gave in July complaining about alleged interference in U.S. elections by American intelligence and law enforcement officials.

“It was announced the night before and I was tasked with this the next morning,” Witt said. “President Trump had a national address and two of the items that he announced, we were tasked with in Kansas City.”

Witt said officials probed Floris as well as “multiple” other people including “several” public integrity section attorneys and intelligence officials.

Floris’ attorney Margaret Donovan asked if the case was brought in a rush.

“At times we were being pushed,” Witt said without adopting Donovan’s word. “Initially, there were check-ins from high level executives, to include [the] deputy director and Director Patel himself.”

Donovan asked Witt if he’d ever referred to the case as a “witch hunt.” He said he couldn’t recall doing so, but some of his colleagues may have said something similar.

“I think people generally viewed it as that around the office,” Witt said. He also said he’d “grumbled” to others that it was a “distraction” from his existing public corruption cases in Missouri.

See Bower for more of the details proving this is a trumped up investigation that Donovan elicited.

And then, after Faruqui asked Witt if he still stood by his affidavit even in spite of the problem with the prior Militello affidavit, but before Donovan even got into the way the affidavit wildly misrepresents counterintelligence investigations, Faruqui broke for the day.

Understand: Margaret Donovan has barely begun attacking the problems with the affidavit not already exposed by Safer. She’s going to come back today with a Powerpoint to do that.

What she has done is shown how this investigation — how these rushed charges — are part of an attempt to bully the FBI into refusing to scrutinize shoddy claims of voter fraud, foreign or domestic.

It’s not yet clear what shenanigans Trump will attempt to prevent Jamie Raskin from getting a gavel in January — though it is clear these charges are part of that.

Yet because Pirro is such a reckless, hubristic dumbass, the lawyer representing a goodly number of the FBI Agents Kash Patel has purged turned it on its head, into an opportunity to lay out Kash Patel’s crimes.

The post How Jeanine Pirro Offered Up Evidence to Indict Kash Patel appeared first on emptywheel.

The “superseding complaint” adds an obstruction charge, without adding any evidence to support corrupt purpose besides MAGAt fever dreams, an element of that offense. But it substantially appears to be an attempt to clean up one of the shoddiest FBI affidavits I have ever seen and — perhaps most importantly — to swap Byron Militello, who signed the original affidavit,

For Bryan Witt, who wrote this one, which nevertheless remains unsigned, by either him or Zia Faruqui.

Unless DOJ can persuade Magistrate Judge Faruqui that merely presenting a new complaint buys them a few more days before the preliminary hearing scheduled for 11AM, then one of these men can be expected to take the stand and answer for the claims made in the affidavit.

As noted, Militello’s original affidavit was one of the shoddiest affidavits I’ve ever seen, lacking two critical paragraphs that have been added to the affidavit: An explanation of the basis for the affiant’s knowledge:

5. The facts set forth in this affidavit are based at least in part on information I have obtained from my personal involvement in the investigation and from other law enforcement officers who have been involved in this investigation, as well as documents I have reviewed, and on my training and experience. Where I have reported statements made by others or from documents that I have reviewed, those statements are reported in substance and in part, unless otherwise indicated.

And a description of his qualifications:

6. I am a Special Agent with the FBI and have been so employed since in and around January 2002. In and around May 2002, I was assigned to the FBI Phoenix Division, Sierra Vista Resident Agency where I investigated matters involving public corruption, civil rights, human smuggling, domestic terrorism, and drug trafficking. In and around February 2008, I was assigned to the Kansas City Field Office, where I have investigated matters involving public corruption, financial crimes, and civil rights. Prior to my Sierra Vista RA FBI assignment, I participated in a ive-month basic training program at the FBI Academy in Quantico, Virginia. At the FBI Academy, I received training in investigating federal criminal offenses, interviewing suspects, tactical operations, and firearms. As a Special Agent, I am authorized to investigate violations of laws of the United States and to execute warrants issued under the authority of the United States.

MAGAts have argued that the search warrant against Ilhan Omar — which was signed by the same Magistrate Judge who signed the original complaint against Floris and Benavides, Matthew Sharbaugh — must be substantive since he approved it. But the fact he approved the complaint against Floris and Benavides without these critical elements pretty much undermines that assumption.

Meanwhile, there are a few telling changes in the affidavit, backing off some (but not all) of the false claims that Militello put his name to.

Just as one example, the superseding affidavit adds a caveat — “apparently” — about whether Hunter Biden really did leave a laptop at John Paul Mac Isaac’s repair shop, though the revised affidavit still falsely claims the FBI only got the contents of the laptop, and not both the actual laptop and a non-matching hard drive of it.

It changed the description of an October 2020 meeting at which Benavides purportedly learned about the laptop — but at which he should have learned, but did not, that the FBI had never validated it — by describing that other Criminal Division personnel described the laptop, not he himself.

Compare this:

At a subsequent meeting in October 2020, FBI Employee 1 confirmed with BENAVIDES and other members of the FITF that the FBI had obtained the contents of the laptop, that the laptop belonged to Hunter Biden, and that it related to the investigations into him.

[snip]

20. On October 22, 2020, BENAVIDES sent an Outlook meeting invitation to FBI Employee 1—of the FBI’s Criminal Division—entitled “To Discuss Laptop,” which FBI Employee 1 accepted. They met in person at FBI headquarters. During the meeting, BENAVIDES, FBI Employee 1, and others discussed the Hunter Biden laptop in detail, including the source of the laptop and the contents of it. Per an October 2026 interview with FBI Employee 1, FBI Employee 1 made clear during the meeting that the FBI was in possession of the contents of the laptop, that the laptop belonged to Hunter Biden, and that evidence relating to the Hunter Biden investigations was on the laptop. [my emphasis]

With this:

10. In October 2020, at a subsequent meeting, FBI Employee 1 was present when personnel from the FBI’s Criminal Division confirmed with BENAVIDES and other members of the FITF that the FBI had obtained the contents of the laptop, that the laptop belonged to Hunter Biden, and discussed the materials that had been reviewed from the laptop in relation to ongoing criminal investigations.

[snip]

33. On October 22, 2020, BENAVIDES sent an Outlook meeting invitation to FBI Employee 1—of the FBI’s Criminal Division—entitled “To Discuss Laptop,” which FBI Employee 1 accepted. They met in person at FBI headquarters. During the meeting, BENAVIDES, FBI Employee 1, and others discussed the Hunter Biden laptop in detail, including the source of the laptop and the contents of it. Per an October 2026 interview with FBI Employee 1, FBI Employee 1 was present when personnel from the FBI Criminal Division made clear during the meeting that the FBI was in possession of the contents of the laptop, that the laptop belonged to Hunter Biden, and that evidence relating to Hunter Biden was on the laptop.  [my emphasis]

FBI Employee 1’s testimony is hearsay as to the “reality” of the laptop, which serves to validate what were basically lies from the trial team.

There are other caveats that go to the core of the charges against Floris and Benavides. The original affidavit claimed they were “at the center” of FITF’s interactions with the Hunter Biden case teams. The revised affidavit says they were only “involved in” such interactions. By itself that caveat largely destroys the claim that Floris’ alleged lies were material, or even that they were lies.

There are similar caveats throughout — enough to question whether Militello, and not Floris and Benavides, are the ones who committed a crime by lying.

My favorite, though, goes right to the core of the fever dream that animates this case, which is part of the same obsession that routinely misrepresents whether 51 former spooks said the hard drive masquerading as a laptop that Rudy Giuliani rolled out in those weeks was an information operation or Russian disinformation.

The original affidavit claimed that the Foreign Interference Task Force discussed “whether information about [Hunter Biden] was Russian disinformation.” The revised affidavit described that it discussed “whether information about him stemmed from Russian disinformation.”

The difference is subtle, to be sure (though given that this is an attempt to rehabilitate Andrii Telizhenko, a favorite source for John Solomon, Chuck Grassley, and Ron Johnson, an important one, because at the time the FBI believed Telizhenko may have been the victim of disinformation). But it goes to the core of misrepresentations in both these affidavits about the purpose of the FITF.

Both these affidavits wildly misrepresent what Floris and Benavides were doing, the scope of their analysis, and their goals. And that misrepresentation goes to the core of how counterintelligence works.

This affidavit still has a number of obvious flaws: It’s still an ever-loving mess, with random mentions of one or another fever dream that don’t relate to the charges. The testimony from Jim Jordan’s committee is still presented as “information shared,” not something his staffer wants to be held accountable for it (the revised affidavit describes the HJC witness as a male who “oversaw” these interviews, which is interesting given that Caroline Nabity “oversaw” the interview of Laura Dehmlow that took place two days before Floris’ interview). The claim Floris lied is based on misrepresentations about what a counterintelligence investigation is, and the claim that Benavides’ inaccurate statements are lies are undermined by exculpatory evidence. The new conspiracy charge lacks the requisite evidence of corrupt purpose.

But at the last minute, the FBI got cold feet about key representations they had made, newly admitting that their central witness is primarily a hearsay witness who repeated the false claims of the Hunter Biden trial team.

Update: I’ve corrected my claim that FBI Employee 1’s testimony was hearsay as to what happened in the meeting. It does, however, serve to “confirm” details about which the investigative team were not fully candid about.

The post FBI Agent Byron Militello Gets Cold Feet on His Indirect Witness in the Floris Case appeared first on emptywheel.