All of them have spent much of the last two weeks on TV, making out of court statements on one or another high profile case.

It makes sense. All are seeking something — to keep his job, in Kash’s case, to get the full time job, in Blanche’s case, to get promoted in Pirro’s case — from Donald Trump. And so they are performing for their audience of one in the way most meaningful for him, on TV.

Plus, given that DOJ officials have twice indicted their predecessor, Jim Comey, and plan to keep indicting him, it has become a fight to the death — or at least, a fight with real potential that the losers of this combat will end up like Comey, hounded for years.

Particularly if they fuck up the cases they’re talking about. And their big yaps inch closer to doing that.

Kash (as Anna Bower noted), clearly referenced grand jury proceedings in the original press conference announcing the second indictment of Jim Comey. And while Comey no doubt would ask for grand jury transcripts based on the way the indictment misstates the law, Kash’s comments give Comey one more reason to ask. If those transcripts do reflect what Kash said — that the grand jury was told that Comey deleted his 86 47 post — then FBI Director Kash would have broken the law in his efforts to talk up Kash’s second indictment of a guy he promised to target in Government Gangsters.

Things could go downhill from there.

Then there’s Blanche, the aspiring Attorney General. First there are his now equivocating false claims in the SPLC case. After Blanche affirmatively denied to Laura Ingraham that DOJ had used information from the non-profit; he stated this Sunday that he didn’t know whether they had, an unsustainable claim for DOJ to make, and one that will be cause for further challenges.

On the Comey case, Blanche is all over TV, claiming that something DOJ discovered in the investigation of Comey distinguished his 86 47 comment from all the others (including Jack Posobiec) who don’t get investigated. Folks are still missing that the problem here is DOJ used a non-threat to get warrants to dig into Comey’s private communications to try to treat it as a threat, and did so when they had adverse rulings on that approach in EDVA. As with Kash, Blanche’s big mouth makes it more likely Comey will be able to challenge the investigation. More importantly, it raises the likelihood that Comey will be able to get broad swaths of communications involving Blanche.

They just keep blabbing their mouth and it makes it more likely they will become the subject of the prosecution, not Comey (or SPLC).

But Jeanine Pirro’s campaign against Cole Allen is far more troubling.

To be sure, unlike the weaponization against Trump’s enemies with SPLC and Comey, the Allen prosecution is righteous. I think there is a great deal of evidence that Allen wanted to target Trump and others. I think someone who brings several guns to a high profile event and starts shooting should and must be prosecuted.

Which is why Pirro’s blabbing is so troubling, because her reality TV performances risk endangering the prosecution. First, after Allen’s attorneys waived his detention hearing last week, Pirro released the videos they had planned to present on Xitter and made contestable representations about what the video showed (she claimed it definitively showed Allen shooting; here’s NYT’s more nuanced case).

Then Pirro went on TV and, on top of saying many things that must be reserved for the courtroom, she had the following exchange with Jake Tapper.

TAPPER: Yes.

I want to ask you this, with all due respect. You were a guest at the dinner…

PIRRO: Yes.

TAPPER: … and potentially, God forbid, a target, right? You’re in the administration.

PIRRO: Right.

TAPPER: Has it been suggested to you at any point by anyone that maybe you need to recuse yourself because you were both a witness and a potential target?

PIRRO: Absolutely not. I mean, there is no way. I mean, that would be like telling witnesses that you can’t testify at the trial because you were there.

The truth is that there were 2,500 of us who were there. And my ability to prosecute this case has nothing to do with my being there.

TAPPER: OK. Let’s talk about it, because you said that the president was the target.

PIRRO: Yes.

TAPPER: And let me just state, before I ask these two questions, I am not questioning that President Trump was the target, but…

PIRRO: Yes. I hope not, because he clearly was.

TAPPER: I’m not. I’m not.

Tapper said, you may be a target, right, you’re in the Administration, and Pirro concedes — “Right” — she might be. Then Tapper asks her if anyone has suggested she should recuse because she was a witness and a potential target. Pirro responds as if only the fact that she’s a witness matters, not that she was a potential target.

She’s wrong that no one has suggested she should recuse. At least, that’s what I suspect the purpose behind the question Allen’s attorneys asked last week.

We also request any information as to whom the government is alleging were the targets of this incident. In the detention memorandum, you reference “high ranking members of the U.S. government” as the defendant’s “intended victims and the significant roles they play.” Please identify the individuals that the government believes were the “targets” and “intended victims.” Specifically, please advise whether the government has ruled out Acting AG Blanche and US Attorney Pirro as targets and how the government has reached that conclusion.

DOJ blew off that question, and its significance, in response.

But this matters not just because Pirro keeps trying the case in the public sphere, making it more likely potential jurors will come into the courthouse with certainty about the claims Pirro has made on TV.

This matters because Pirro, a presumptive victim who won’t recuse, has made at least one affirmatively false claim about Allen.

At the beginning of last week, Allen’s attorneys, Eugene Ohm and Tezira Abe from the Public Defenders office, had to intervene to get unsupervised legal visits with Allen, which Magistrate Judge Matthew Sharbaugh ordered. Then Sunday, they had to move to get Allen removed from suicide watch, describing that he had repeatedly been found not to have suicidal tendencies, but nevertheless treating him under suicide protocols that have the effect of solitary confinement. Just calling attention to the problem seemed to do the trick. Later the same day, his attorneys filed to withdraw that motion because he had been removed from suicide status. The Magistrate Judge on duty, Zia Faruqui, held a hearing anyway.

In the hearing, Faruqui (who presided over a great many January 6 cases, including the case of a defendant who got lost in the system, Lucas Denney) he apologized for the two miscategorizations of Allen and compared his treatment to others who had armed themselves to their teeth and targeted top government officials, like Mike Pence.

Magistrate Judge Zia Faruqui said Cole Allen’s placement in severe lockdown — including a temporary suicide watch that required 24-hour-a-day placement in a padded, lighted cell without access to phone calls, books, religious material or recreational time — appeared to be unfairly punitive and not based on any known medical assessment.

Faruqui, who played a role in hundreds of cases stemming from the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the Capitol, said Allen was being treated more harshly than those defendants, despite similar allegations of political violence aimed at members of Congress and government leaders. Those defendants were housed in a less restrictive wing of the jail known as the Central Treatment Facility, he noted, and were given significant accommodations during their detention.

“The Jan. 6 defendants all were moved to the CTF,” Faruqui said. “Pardons may erase convictions but they do not erase history … He’s being treated differently than anyone I’ve ever observed.”

Faruqui emphasized that despite grave charges against Allen, the court and jail are still supposed to presume his innocence, particularly because he has no criminal history. He apologized to Allen, saying it was partly the court’s role to ensure that someone detained while awaiting trial was subjected to fair and dignified conditions. Faruqui ordered D.C. jail officials to update him by Tuesday morning on when and whether Allen would be moved into less restrictive conditions.

[snip]

“If we can get someone vegan food, we can get you a bible,” the magistrate judge added.

Prosecutors said little during the hearing except to note that Allen had informed FBI agents the night of the alleged assassination attempt that he hadn’t expected to survive, a detail that the jail might have relied upon to consider him a suicide risk. But Faruqui underscored that the medical professionals disagreed and said he interpreted Allen’s purported remark to be an indication he expected to get shot, not that he was seeking to end his life.

Towns noted that the FBI placed two agents outside Cole’s room during his first two days of detention, a decision he described as unprecedented and reflective of the administration’s heightened concerns about the case.

After which Pirro, on her personal Xitter account, claimed that Faruqui’s effort to ensure Allen got the same treatment as other defendants (including January 6 defendants) was, instead, trying to get him preferential treatment.

Welcome to Washington, DC, where U.S. Magistrate Judge Faruqui believes a defendant armed to the teeth and attempting to assassinate the president is entitled to preferential treatment in his confinement compared to every other defendant.

This is a false claim, a false claim from someone personally involved in the prosecution even though she was a presumptive victim of Allen. It is a false claim that ginned up racist opposition targeting Faruqui.

Jeanine Pirro could likely easily convict Cole Allen if she acted like a prosecutor, trying the case in a courtroom. But rather than do that, she has chosen to try Allen in the public sphere and she has chosen to lie about his treatment.

That is precisely the kind of tampering, tampering from a presumptive victim who refused to recuse, that would undermine the case against him.

The post Reality TV in Lieu of Justice: Jeanine Pirro Will Endanger the Cole Allen Prosecution appeared first on emptywheel.

Listen on Spotify (transcripts available)

Listen on Apple (transcripts available)

The post Fridays with Nicole Sandler appeared first on emptywheel.

When DOJ turned to sentencing in November, they tried to ratchet up the punishment by claiming that Russotto had threatened other people, exclusively using the 86 slur, as well, thereby claiming Russotto had more than one victim.

Additionally, as the government intends to prove at sentencing, in the hours prior to those threats, the defendant posted several other threatening posts directed at other individuals and groups, including but not limited to: “86 [Victim 1],” “86 [Victim 2],” “86 [Victim 3],” and “86[Victim 4].”

DOJ later filed an exhibit they argued supported a claim of aggravating evidence. It shows Russotto’s Xitter activity from the evening of May 17, 2025 (when Laura Loomer had launched her successful attempt to get Maurene Comey fired), up through the tweets sent directly to Habba.

Lo and behold, there were other 86 claims, including:

• Directly to Chuck Schumer
• Directly and indirectly to Hakeem Jeffries
• Indirectly to Joe Biden, in addition to tweets sent to Dan Bongino hoping to FJB, seemingly hoping that Joe Biden would have a long and painful death.
• To Dan Bongino asking to 86 “DemonRATS”
• To convicted Jan6er Derrick Evans, asking to 86 Canada
• To others, repeatedly, asking to 86 the N-word, plural
• To multiple people, including John Cornyn and Catturd, asking to 86 Comey or All Comeys

It wasn’t until sentencing, accompanying the testimony of FBI Agent Drew Ulloa, that DOJ added an exhibit. There was a different version of Russotto’s Xitter traffic from May 17 through May 20 again. But there was an additional exhibit showing that, starting on May 16 — the day Secret Service interviewed Jim Comey about his shell picture — Russotto started targeting Comey (and also Brian Krassenstein, whom he threatened directly; Krassenstein’s brother reposted Comey’s 86 47 post, and himself got a visit from Secret Service) with even more explicit death threats; I’ve redacted the C-word here.

Russotto’s replies to people like Catturd appear to be replies to their comments about Comey’s Secret Service interview.

Russotto, whose sentencing memo described his bipolar disorder and alcohol addiction and claimed he was blackout drunk when he sent the threats to Habba, was sentenced to six months home confinement and five years of probation.

Mr. Russotto was arrested for the instant offense on June 27, 2025. The offense conduct involved a series of posts made by Mr. Russotto on the online platform X, between 8:02p.m. and 8:25p.m on May 19, 2025.44 The following day, on May 20, 2025, Mr. Russotto agreed to speak with agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.45 He admitted to the agents that he was drunk on May 19, 2025 and did not remember making the posts.46 This particular conduct occurred while Mr. Russotto was experiencing a blackout from his alcohol consumption. At the time of his arrest, Mr. Russotto’s alcohol use was severe, drinking two bottles of vodka per day.47 Mr. Russotto has accepted responsibility for this offense and decided to waive his constitutional right to a trial jury by pleading guilty.48 He is extremely remorseful and ashamed of his conduct.49 He writes, “I’d like to apologize to Mrs. [redacted name] for my disgusting comments as I am embarrassed and ashamed of my conduct.”50

Now I’m assuming that even though Russotto sent several 86 tweets to the then Deputy Director of the FBI, the FBI didn’t interview those victims, which would include Joe Biden.

I assume, too, that the FBI didn’t interview Comey to find out of he felt the wave of 86 posts accompanied by much clearer death threats than he sent in a picture of shells were true threats.

I also suspect that DOJ used this prosecution, in which a MAGA threatened Habba after she dropped charges against Ras Baraka, to set up the prosecution of Jim Comey (though unlike the Comey indictment, they used the proper intent standard for sending threats). He’s not the only one they charged, DOJ can say (and Todd Blanche may have tried to say at the presser where he introduced this shitshow); they also charged this MAGA!

But for most of a year, DOJ knew that Russotto had also issued death threats against Jim Comey, just as a guy named Spaceman Chuck issued threats against Jim Comey in response to events transpiring in his EDVA prosecution. And it wasn’t until the last minute that they admitted these death threats started by targeting Comey, not Habba.

The post Jim Comey’s Equal Protection Claim appeared first on emptywheel.

What would happen if you shot first … and missed?

In the wake of Cole Allen’s alleged attempt to shoot the President and his top aides, the government has not substantiated a claim they made in the complaint: that before Secret Service Officer VG raised his gun and shot in the direction of Allen, but missed, five times, Allen shot him in the chest (but he was not harmed, because he was wearing a bullet proof vest).

I’ve put excerpts and links to four key documents below; emphases are my own.

The complaint itself, filed on Monday, April 27, charged Allen with an attempt to assassinate the President and discharging his gun during the course of a crime. It did not charge him with assaulting a federal officer, 18 USC 111, as they would have if they could prove it.

Nevertheless, Todd Blanche made the alleged shot at the officer central to his heroic story of law enforcement working.

But we also should recognize what did not happen. Law enforcement did not fail. They did exactly what they are trained to do. This was not an accident. It was the result, as we know now, of preparation. But the men and women who protected us that night were trained, professional, and had an enduring commitment to the rule of law.

[snip]

One Secret off Secret Service officer was shot in the chest, but was wearing a ballistic vest that worked. This heroic officer who was hit fired five times at Allen, who was not shot, but fell to the ground and was promptly arrested.

And thank goodness law enforcement, the Secret Service was able to prevent him from getting into that ballroom.

We’re still looking at that. We it appears and I I don’t want to to overstate because we are still looking at this that there were five five shots that that law enforcement fired. We are we we have all the evidence is being examined very carefully and expeditiously and we’ll know more soon. We do believe that as as the complaint lays out that the suspect that the defendant fired it um out of his shotgun and and we know that that happened. But s far as getting into exacting ballistics, um I’m not going to do that today because it’s still being um being looked at and finalized.

[snip]

And as those of us that have ever shot one of these know, what happens when you shoot that is the the casing stays inside the the firearm and then if you reload it, it pops it out. My understanding is that it was inside the the firearm um but not hadn’t been ejected, which means that that it it hadn’t been pulled back again. But again, I I want folks to understand I’m the acting attorney general. I’m not on the ground doing the investigation. So So I’m I’m telling you what I’ve been told and and we’ll if if that information changes, I’m sure that we’ll let you know.

[snip]

Um I I have two quick questions. I question I just wanted to clarify um you said the one officer fired their weapon five times. Was that the only officer who discharged a firearm?

I want to be very careful in answering that question because this is when you do do ballistics um evidentiary collection and research it is very complicated. So when you fire a bullet the bullet ends up somewhere. Sometimes you find it sometimes you don’t.

[snip]

but but it’s a it’s not an exact science from the standpoint that for example the the buck shot when when that shots it scatters everywhere. Sometimes it just disappears actually depending on where it hits

Then WaPo published stills from a video showing Officer VG from maybe eight feet away from Allen.

And missing.

The detention memo, submitted later in the day yesterday, dropped the claim that Allen had hit Officer VG, though still implied that Allen shot, down the hallway? first, after which Officer VG shot in response.

he held a shotgun in both hands in a raised position parallel to the ground. A USSS officer observed the defendant fire the shotgun in the direction of the stairs leading down to the ballroom. The USSS officer and others at the checkpoint heard the gunshot. The USSS officer drew his service weapon and fired five times at the defendant.

In response to this, Allen’s excellent public defenders (who had had to ask for emergency private access to Allen, which DC Jail had denied for their first meeting), asked a bunch of questions, mostly questions about whether DOJ had any evidence that debunked claims DOJ had made, focused on whether the government had evidence that Allen had not shot his gun or that he had not hit Officer VG.

DOJ responded — in a filing signed only by Jocelyn Ballantine, who has a long history of statements that are not fully forthcoming — dodging the question about whether there was any evidence Allen shot Officer VG. Here, the evidence is that Officer VG “observed” Allen shooting.

your client fired his shotgun in the direction of USSS Officer V.G., which Officer V.G. observed. Additionally, at least one fragment was recovered from the crime scene that was physically consistent with a single buckshot pellet; that fragment was recovered from a location at the scene consistent with your client firing his shotgun in the direction of Officer V.G.

Rather than saying anything about the bullet that allegedly hit the Secret Service Officer, Ballantine instead said those ballistics, four days after someone tried to attack the President, were not yet complete.

The government notes that the analysis of the ballistic vest and related materials is ongoing and not yet complete.

This letter doesn’t rely on a piece of evidence included in the detention memo: that everyone heard the shot. It also doesn’t address the timing: whether Allen or VG really shot first.

There’s one more question Allen’s attorneys asked, which Ballantine completely ignored. They asked whether DOJ had ruled out that Todd Blanche or Jeanine Pirro were intended victims. “[P]lease advise whether the government has ruled out Acting AG Blanche and US Attorney Pirro as targets and how the government has reached that conclusion.”

Of course Blanche would be among the list of Allen’s intended victims. He’s seventh in line of succession to the President. Yet, as Allen’s attorneys note, “Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche has made public statements as a representative of the prosecution.”

This is something I’ve been harping on. Rather than recuse from the investigation, Blanche and Pirro sprinted to the nearest TV camera. And rather describing what appears to have happened: that Officer VG, whose job is to stop someone barreling through a checkpoint by shooting him if necessary missed. And missed again. And again. And again and again. Rather than being stopped, at first, by the Secret Service, Allen tripped and faceplanted, which made it easy to tackle him. Rather than describing what DOJ now claims, five misses and a faceplant, Blanche told a story of heroism.

And it’s not clear at all that, as someone claimed under oath, Allen did shoot Officer VG in the chest (which might have at least explained the Secret Service Officer’s poor aim).

I have no reason to doubt that Allen did plot an attack. I have no reason to question the decision to detain him pretrial.

I do wonder why Blanche endangered a serious case by blabbing to the camera.

Update: Allen’s attorneys declined to challenge his detention today. Nevertheless, DOJ wanted to present its detention case anyway, which Magistrate Judge Moxila Upadhyaya refused to do. It may be they’ve got some tie between Allen’s bullet and the bulletproof vest now.

Complaint

13. At approximately 8:40 p.m., ALLEN approached a security checkpoint on the Terrace Level of the hotel leading to the location of the dinner. ALLEN approached and ran through the magnetometer holding a long gun. As he did so, U.S. Secret Service personnel assigned to the checkpoint heard a loud gunshot. U.S. Secret Service Officer V.G. was shot once in the chest; Officer V.G. was wearing a ballistic vest at the time.

14. Officer V.G. drew his service weapon and fired multiple times at ALLEN, who fell to the ground and suffered minor injuries but was not shot. ALLEN was subsequently arrested.

Detention Memo

Shortly after 8:30 p.m., the defendant approached a USSS security screening checkpoint located on the Terrace Level of the hotel. Entrances to the ballroom were located on the Concourse Level, a floor below the screening checkpoint, down two open flights of stairs. Before the defendant approached the checkpoint, he discarded a long black coat that concealed a 12-gauge pump-action shotgun. The defendant then sprinted through one of the magnetometers at the checkpoint and ran in the direction of the stairs leading to the ballroom where the President and members of his family and Cabinet were located. As the defendant did so, he held a shotgun in both hands in a raised position parallel to the ground. A USSS officer observed the defendant fire the shotgun in the direction of the stairs leading down to the ballroom. The USSS officer and others at the checkpoint heard the gunshot. The USSS officer drew his service weapon and fired five times at the defendant. The defendant fell to the ground, was restrained by law enforcement, and was placed under arrest. The defendant suffered a minor injury to his knee but was not shot.

Discovery

We understand that Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche has made public statements as a representative of the prosecution. We noticed that you did not describe the shotgun ammunition in your detention memorandum. We request that you provide a description of the ammunition. Because some of Acting AG Blanche’s statements indicate that the recovered ballistics evidence is inconsistent with aspects of the government’s theory, evidence collected by the government and/or statements made by witnesses, we are entitled to this information prior to the detention hearing.

Please provide the following information as it relates to the alleged shooting of the Secret Service Officer V.G.:

• Any information in law enforcement’s possession that Mr. Allen did not shoot V.G.
• Any information in law enforcement’s possession that Mr. Allen did not fire a shot at or in the general direction of V.G.
• Any video, including any video enhanced by law enforcement that reveals footage that is inconsistent with the government’s theory that Mr. Allen fired the shotgun
• Any video, including any video enhanced by law enforcement that reveals footage that is inconsistent with the government’s theory that V.G. was struck by ammunition from that shotgun. Any statements by any witnesses that are inconsistent with the government’s theory that Mr. Allen fired the shotgun.
• Any statements by any witnesses that are inconsistent with the government’s theory that V.G. was struck by ammunition from that shotgun.
• Any physical evidence recovered from the scene, including cartridge casings and spent projectiles recovered inconsistent with the government’s theory that Mr. Allen fired the shotgun.
• Any physical evidence recovered from the scene, including cartridge casings and spent projectiles recovered inconsistent with the government’s theory that V.G. was struck by ammunition from that shotgun.
• Any evidence recovered from V.G., including equipment or clothing that is inconsistent with the government’s theory that Mr. Allen fired the shotgun.
• Any evidence recovered from V.G., including equipment or clothing that is inconsistent with the government’s theory that V.G. was struck by ammunition from that shotgun.
• All ballistics information thus far collected and analyzed that do not squarely support the government’s theory of the case.

We also request any information as to whom the government is alleging were the targets of this incident. In the detention memorandum, you reference “high ranking members of the U.S. government” as the defendant’s “intended victims and the significant roles they play.” Please identify the individuals that the government believes were the “targets” and “intended victims.” Specifically, please advise whether the government has ruled out Acting AG Blanche and US Attorney Pirro as targets and how the government has reached that conclusion.

Response

The government’s preliminary ballistics and video analyses show that your client fired his shotgun in the direction of USSS Officer V.G., which Officer V.G. observed. Additionally, at least one fragment was recovered from the crime scene that was physically consistent with a single buckshot pellet; that fragment was recovered from a location at the scene consistent with your client firing his shotgun in the direction of Officer V.G. The government is aware of no physical evidence, digital video evidence, or witness statements that are inconsistent with the theory that your client fired his shotgun in the direction of Officer V.G., or that Officer V.G. was indeed shot once in the chest while wearing a ballistic vest. The government notes that the analysis of the ballistic vest and related materials is ongoing and not yet complete.

The government also recovered five spent 9mm Luger cartridge cases, each of which was determined to have been fired from Officer V.G.’s service weapon. The government also identified five separate bullet holes in the walls opposite from Officer V.G., consistent with the directions that Officer V.G. fired his service weapon. The government recovered no additional casings from the scene beyond your client’s spent shotgun cartridge case and Officer V.G.’s five 9mm cartridge cases.

The preliminary analysis of the crime scene is consistent with the government’s evidence that your client fired at least one shot from the 12-gauge pump action shotgun in the direction of Officer V.G., and that Officer V.G. fired his service weapon five times.

The government is aware of no evidence thus far collected and analyzed that is inconsistent with the above.

With respect to your client’s specific targets or intended victims, your client is currently charged with 18 U.S.C. § 1751(c) (Attempt to Assassinate the President of the United States); he is not presently charged with committing crimes against any other individual

WaPo analysis of video

Garrett Graff on holes in DOJ’s story

The post What if Greedo Didn’t Shoot First? appeared first on emptywheel.

First, Trump appears eager to make it clear that he can orchestrate federal prosecutions based entirely on his whims and petty desires, without regard for merit or evidence. There is, for all intents and purposes, a White House enemies list, and the president seems eager to intimidate and instill fear on those whose names appear on it.

Second, Trump is sending an unsubtle signal to other federal prosecutors who might be inclined to prioritize the rule of law over the White House’s wishes. Indeed, when it comes to the pursuit of the former FBI director, prosecutors who chose not to bring charges against Comey were replaced with those who would follow political instructions. As a second set of charges moves forward, the message to other prosecutors couldn’t be clearer: Play along with the revenge campaign, or face unemployment.

And third, the Comey conviction allows the president to effectively argue that he can force his perceived enemies to endure legal, personal and financial hardships as a direct consequence of their defiance of him, even if the indictments are a joke, and even if the defendants are ultimately acquitted.

It’s true this malicious prosecution is an effort to cow others (though Comey has more resources than many of the people Trump’s DOJ has targeted, especially among ICE protestors charged after ICE assaulted them).

But there’s something they’re missing, one Todd Blanche confessed to yesterday. Trump’s DOJ has been spying on Jim Comey, probably unlawfully, for months.

At the press conference, Blanche attributed the delay to the need to dig through Jim Comey’s privileged communications.

Well, I’m not going to get into the details of the investigation itself, but a lot of these cases, you can look at when the threats were made and when charges are brought. They are not easy cases, and so we have to, there’s a communication that is sent allegedly in this case, so that means we have to look at devices. Mr. Comey is a lawyer. He has lawyers. To the extent we are looking at materials that are potentially privileged, we have to get a wall and set up a wall and let totally independent lawyers look at them. That does not happen overnight or quickly. The Statute of Limitations is five years. We brought it under one year. That is where we are.

Blanche is full of shit: You don’t need to obtain devices to determine whether an Instagram post is a threat. The way they convinced a grand jury to indict this was to provide what they claimed were “the circumstances” that made this a threat.

But they did seize Comey’s accounts.

And they used a filter protocol that they were told was improper last year when two loaner AUSAs from EDNC — the district in which this threat case was charged — described it in Comey’s failed EDVA case.

The United States of America, by and through its assigned Filter Team,1 respectfully files this motion to request authorization and entry of a protocol (Attachment 1, referred to as the “Proposed Protocol”) to govern its handling and disclosure of Potentially Privileged Material (“PPM”). 2

[snip]

As detailed in the Proposed Protocol, the Protocol initially segregates any PPM from the Prosecution Team unless the potential privilege holder(s) or the Court authorizes disclosure of that PPM. Identification of PPM is based on search terms4 as well as further review and sampling by the Filter Team.

The Proposed Protocol then outlines how the Filter Team gives the potential privilege holder(s) access to the PPM and an opportunity to assert any alleged protections or privileges with specificity, as applicable case law requires. Once the potential privilege holders have asserted their claims, the Protocol provides a procedure to (1) disclose non-privileged materials to the Prosecution Team and/or (2) narrow areas of disagreement for the Court’s adjudication.

1 Two Assistant United States Attorneys, and their support staff, from a federal district separate from the Eastern District of Virginia and the Eastern District of North Carolina are assigned to the Filter Team in this case. The Filter Team has a separate reporting and supervisory chain from the Prosecution Team and are not part of the Prosecution Team.

2 “Potentially Protected Material” is defined as material that could potentially garner the protections of the attorney client privilege, work product doctrine, or other legally recognized privileges.

As Judge Michael Nachmanoff noted in one of his opinions governing this dispute, there’s a binding Fourth Circuit opinion about how searches involving lawyers should work.

This Court assesses the appropriate contours of a privilege filter protocol according to the guidelines set forth in In re Search Warrant Issued June 13, 2019, 942 F.3d 159 (4th Cir. 2019), as amended (Oct. 31, 2019). In In re Search Warrant, a Baltimore law firm challenged the government’s use of a Department of Justice filter team to inspect attorney-client privileged materials seized from that firm. Id. at 164. The Fourth Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of the law firm’s motion to enjoin the filter team’s review of the seized material. Relevant to this case, the Fourth Circuit held that “a court is not entitled to delegate its judicial power and related functions to the executive branch, especially when the executive branch is an interested party in the pending dispute.” Id. at 176. The Fourth Circuit observed that, “[i]n addition to the separation of powers issues” that might arise, allowing members of the executive to conduct the filter, even if those members were trained lawyers, raised the possibility that “errors in privilege determinations” would result in “transmitting seized material to an investigation or prosecution team.” Id. at 177. It thus determined that the filter protocol “improperly delegated judicial functions to the Filter Team,” and that instead, “the magistrate judge (or an appointed special master) — rather than the Filter Team — must perform the privilege review of the seized materials[.]” Id. at 178, 181 (collecting cases). The Fourth Circuit further concluded that adversarial proceedings before the magistrate judge were needed prior to the authorization of a filter team and protocol. Id. at 179.

The government shouldn’t be making privilege determinations.

What Todd Blanche confessed last night is that he authorized potentially illegal spying on Jim Comey, the original sin that Donald Trump falsely claimed happened with the Carter Page warrants.

The threat indictment is just the pretext to rummage through all of Jim Comey’s communications. And one reason they rolled this out yesterday probably pertains to Judge Jesse Furman’s opinion yesterday green lighting Maurene Comey’s lawsuit against the government.

Update: Bloomberg confirms that at least one of the AUSAs who tried to get the filter protocol in EDVA worked on the seashell case after returning to EDNC.

Last fall, Boyle loaned two of the office’s more seasoned and newly promoted prosecutors to the US attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia to take over her ultimately unsuccessful indictment of Comey on separate false statements allegations.

At least one of the lawyers who worked on the Virginia case was also among those investigating Comey at some point in the North Carolina threats matter, the people added.

They returned from their Virginia assignment after a judge dismissed the case. Following a few weeks back in Raleigh, both prosecutors left Boyle’s office for private practice, ahead of the threats case going to the grand jury. It’s not clear if Boyle will staff the case with additional prosecutors, as Comey’s defense team prepares to request a dismissal.

The post Todd Blanche Confessed to Using This Shoddy Prosecution to Spy on Jim Comey appeared first on emptywheel.

To be fair, Blanche and Trump’s other lawyers equivocated a bit and claimed it was not a threat directed at Tanya Chutkan or Jack Smith.

The prosecution once again cites President Trump’s August 4, 2023, Truth Social post; however, as previously explained, Doc. 14 at 7–8 n.8, that post did not concern this case. See Nick Robertson, Trump campaign defends threatening social media posts as free speech, The Hill (August 5, 2023) (quoting a Trump campaign statement that “[t]he Truth post cited is the definition of political speech, and was in response to the RINO, China-loving, dishonest special interest groups and Super PACs, like the ones funded by the Koch brothers and the Club for No Growth.”).

In today’s environment, this Court could easily take judicial notice that “[t]he language of the political arena . . . is often vituperative, abusive, and inexact,” Watts, 394 U.S. at 708 (citations omitted), and even “very crude [or] offensive method[s] of stating a political opposition” are not true threats. Id.

Then he insisted this, insinuating that the then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff should be put to death,  was not a threat (while equivocating some more about the “come after you” tweet).

In spite of those past claims, Trump defense attorney Todd Blanche stood up yesterday and claimed Jim Comey’s 86 47 picture was a dangerous threat to Donald Trump. “We take these seriously. Every single one of them.” He went on to claim that this was clearly a threat. “It’s not, in my mind, a very difficult line to look at, and it’s not, in my mind, a difficult line to cross over one way or the other,”

(Sadly, no one asked Blanche why DOJ had not charged the far more serious threats that pardoned Jan6er Christopher Moynihan made against Hakeem Jeffries, meaning he got off with a state misdemeanor rather than a felony.)

I’ve been waiting since Blanche was reappointed for defense attorneys to raise the claims he made in his prior work for Donald Trump, but the closest anyone has come were Judge Hannah Dugan and Congresswoman LaMonica McIver invoking his claims about immunity.

And while most attorneys will say Blanche is not estopped from taking legal positions contrary to those he has held in the past, a problem with the way DOJ charged Comey as if this were a real threat might provide the opportunity. Rather than charging that Comey knowingly and willfully intended to threaten Donald Trump, DOJ instead deemed this a threat because, “a reasonable recipient who is familiar with the circumstances would interpret as a serious expression of an intent to do harm to the President of the United States.”

That is, DOJ made this about the perception of the beholder, not about Comey’s intent. And Todd Blanche stood in front of the TV and included himself among the tiny group of people who would deem this a threat, a position directly contrary to what he said when Trump said far more threatening things, including a threat promising precisely the kind of retaliation this indictment presents.

To be sure, there are undoubtedly quicker ways to get this case thrown out, probably the same way Comey was planning on doing the last time: by pointing out the law in the indictment is wrong, and asking to see the grand jury transcript to show that it is there too.

But in his bid to impress his liege, Todd Blanche is thrusting himself deeper and deeper into these politicized cases and at some point (as it did in the SPLC case), his conduct will be put on trial long before the defendant will be.

The post Defense Attorney Todd Blanche Didn’t Use to Believe Vituperative Speech Was a Threat appeared first on emptywheel.

\When I say the War on Iran is immoral, what exactly do I mean? Let’s examine this question using as a guide The Definition of Morality, an essay from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy by Joshua Gert and Bernard Gert, (Spring 2025 Edition), Edward N. Zalta & Uri Nodelman (eds.),

General

In normal usage we think of morality as our standard for judging whether an action is right or wrong; good, evil, or somewhere in between. In this sense, we are talking about normative judgments. Morality can also mean a code of conduct, which we would call a descriptive use. Thus, we might say killing another person is wrong; that is a normative use. Or we might say that a particular moral code prohibits killing with certain exceptions. This is a descriptive use.

In the descriptive sense a preliminary definition of morality would be the most important code of conduct in a society. That’s too broad, as it picks up a wide range of rules about behavior that we don’t think of as moral, like table manners, or cleaning up our dog’s waste. The authors suggest that all moral codes deal with harm to others or self, and that most also deal with purity/sanctity and loyalty/acceptance of authority.

These three categories may conflict. Thus, a person in authority may order another person to kill in the absence of an exception recognized by the moral code. The moral code must at least provide guidelines for resolving these conflicts.

The only other features common to all moralities are that it is endorsed by an individual, a group, or a society, and acts as a guide to behavior.

This gives us a definition of morality in the descriptive sense something like: a code of conduct which includes guidelines about harm, purity/sanctity, and loyalty/respect for authority, which is accepted by an individual, group or society and which acts as a guideline for action.

In the normative sense, we are looking for a definition oriented towards the group or society. Such a code must be publicly known. It must be rational in the context of the group or society to endorse the system. It must be endorsed by all or substantially all members of the group or society. Moral codes are informal, in the sense that there are no judges enforcing their precepts. The authors say a normative moral code need not be the actual guideline to action. It usually covers actions towards the self as well as towards others.

The authors give four examples of the conditions of a normative code. Here’s one that makes sense

Morality is the informal public system that, given specified conditions, would be accepted by all rational people.

The term “specified conditions” means that the moral code is applicable to the situation, and that the person meets conditions such as adherence to the moral code and awareness of its applicability (I think, but this is not clear from the text.) This definition makes it clear that the normative judgments arise from the context of the group or society.

I like the following definition, though, because I think our moral sense is deeply embedded in out psyches, so that our reaction to a situation is first visceral, and only then recognized or rationalized as moral.

Morality is the informal public system that is picked out by the set of norms for feeling guilt and anger that all rational people, given specified conditions, would accept.

Observations

The foregoing is a summary of the points with which I think most of us would agree. The authors give lots of examples of philosophers who disagree with one or more of these points. For example, some argue that the concept of morality is too diffuse to allow for useful definitions. Working through the details of these views will show the limits of theory. But the details aren’t necessary to understand what we mean in most everyday contexts.

Rationality is a part of both definitions. It is used in the sense of reasonable; not in the sense of provable from first principles, because, of course, there aren’t any universally agreed first principles.

The authors differentiate law, religion, and morality. Law is a code of conduct. It is a public system, in that it is known, or at least knowable by all members of a governmental unit. It is a formal system, in the sense that it has judges and other enforcement mechanisms. It covers conduct that we wouldn’t say was a matter of morals.

Religion is a code of conduct, knowable by its adherents. It is thought to be enforceable in an eschatological way, and its leaders are seen as judges of behavior. It differs from morality in that it governs much more behavior than morality. It is usually supported by stories, often of divine personages, which justify its requirements.

Morality is a guide to behavior. In contrast, law demands compliance; and religion not only demands commpliance but conscious acceptance. Morality and religion are often considerations in law-making, but the converse isn’t true. Some laws permit conduct forbidden by religion and perhaps even morality, for example, legalized prostitution.

Application

It seems to me that in the US we can define our morality in the descriptive sense as a secularized and stripped-down version of Christianity, which I’ll call civic virtue. I’m pretty sure everybody knows what I’m talking about, and after all, it is an informal system.

By secularized, I mean that civic virtue is a human, not divine, system. By stripped-down, I mean that only some of the requirements of Christianity that relate to our behavior towards other people are included. In my view, not all of the Christian requirements of purity, and none of sanctity, are included. Loyalty to the group is a virtue, but not a moral requirement. Adherence to authority is always in question in the US.

Civic virtue is a public system of conduct towards others, taught throughout the nation in churches, schools and at home. It’s universally accepted. Of course there are millions of us who practice other religions, and millions more who are not religious. But I think that all of us expect ourselves and others to comply with the requirements of civic virtue, even if they practice a more strict moral code themselves. For example, some observant women dress modestly to comply with their religious requirement of purity. Civic virtue is universally accepted as a guide to action.

I think civic virtue is at least in part a normative morality. We all agree that killing people is wrong, evil, and immoral, unless one of the exceptions applies, for example, self-defense. Now we can see exactly what I mean when I say the War on Iran is immoral.

At least since St. Augustine, (b. 354, d. 430), Christianity has taught that killing in a Just War is permitted. Augustine’s teachings have been considered the baseline for killing in war by almost all thinkers since.

I won’t go into detail, (please see Rayne’s comment below)  but Trump’s assault on Iran does not meet the criteria for a Just War. So, when I say that the War on Iran is immoral, I mean that the killings are not justified by any exception, and are therefore wrong, immoral and evil by the standards of our civic virtue.

But I know it is immoral because it makes me angry to think of the death and destruction unleashed on a nation and its people just because Trump said so.

That’s the heart of the definition of immoral killings.

Featured image: Detail from Saint Augustine, painting by Antonio Rodríguez

The post Defining Morality appeared first on emptywheel.

• A motion to get Todd Blanche to retract a lie he told Laura Ingraham and to get the Executive Branch to stop lying generally
• A motion to get the transcripts from the grand jury
• A declaration noting that in a February meeting, after prosecutors had claimed SPLC had deleted its F-program files, SPLC corrected that false claim and agreed to respond to a subpoena for the files, with which subpoena it complied on April 17, just two business days before the indictment
• An April 17 letter listing six things that (SPLC maintained) the grand jury must be told
• An April 22 letter asking for a retraction of a lie Todd Blanche told on Laura Ingraham’s show

Before I explain those documents, some background gleaned from the documents.

According to the declaration of William Athanas, one of the SPLC attorneys, he learned that DOJ was investigating SPLC in February and asked for a meeting. At the time, he contacted AUSA John Geer, but he noted he had previously spoken with AUSA Russell Duraski, who was leading the investigation into SPLC in 2022. SPLC met with DOJ on February 25 and April 6. It appears that Geer was one of the AUSAs who attended, in addition to Acting US Attorney Kevin Davidson (Geer, but not Duraski, is cced on the April 17 letter memorializing the meeting).

That’s important because Duraski is the one who signed the indictment. I don’t rule out that they had Duraski, who is not recorded as being warned of any of these issues, do the presentment.

Together, SPLC’s filings claim:

• DOJ got the law wrong on key parts of its financial crime claims
• FBI didn’t ask SPLC for information
• It is relying on one or two biased sources
• Three specific tips and a broader body of information sharing demonstrates the seriousness of its effort to combat right wing extremism
• Todd Blanche lied about that on Laura Ingraham

DOJ got the law wrong on key parts of its financial crime claims

To make the case it needs to see the grand jury transcripts (and with them, whether DOJ properly presented the law to the grand jury), SPLC argued DOJ got the law wrong in key ways.

It argued the government misapplied 18 USC 1014. That’s true, first, because there’s no evidence SPLC was trying to mislead the bank.

For example, the indictment charges 18 U.S.C. § 1014, false statements to a federally insured bank, in Counts Seven through Ten. To adequately plead a violation of Section 1014, the indictment must allege that the false statement11 was made “for the purpose of influencing in any way the action of” a federally insured financial institution. 18 U.S.C. § 1014. Yet the indictment is devoid of any allegation that the SPLC made the statements charged in Counts Seven through Ten with the intent to influence the banks’ actions.

The April 17 letter notes that the local bank knew those were SPLC’s bank accounts.

[T]he SPLC disclosed to the banks that it was the owner-in-interest on those accounts. As the government acknowledged during our February 26 meeting, the local bank representatives—at least—were aware that the SPLC was the owner of those accounts.

A footnote notes an error in the indictment that Andrew Weissmann called out here: recent SCOTUS precedent only criminalizes false, not misleading, statements.

11 The indictment repeatedly characterizes the statements that form the basis of Counts Seven through Ten as “false and misleading.” However, Section 1014 only criminalizes false statements. As the Supreme Court affirmed just one year ago, misleading statements that are not false are insufficient to establish guilt under 18 U.S.C. § 1014. See Thompson v. United States, 604 U.S. 408, 417 (2025).

Additionally, SPLC said it was working on a good faith belief that IRS law had an exception permitting it not to provide 1099s to informants.

[T]here is an exception in the tax laws that provides that nonprofit organizations, such as the SPLC, do not need to issue Form 1099s for payments to informants. See Treas. Reg. § 1.6041-3(I) (providing an exception for “a payment to an informer . . . by an organization that is described in section 501(c)(3) and that makes such payments in furtherance of a charitable purpose to lessen the burdens of government”).

The filing also notes something else Weissmann did, pertinent to the fraud charge: There’s no evidence that SPLC misled donors.

Similarly, Counts One through Four charge wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. While the indictment quotes various portions of the SPLC website in purporting to describe “the Organization,” absent from the indictment is any reference to the SPLC statement(s) to donors that are allegedly fraudulent. And even if the government’s theory is premised on some omission made by the SPLC, the government must still show that such omission was made intentionally to lead donors to believe that their donation would only be used for certain purposes and not others (including the payment of informants), and that the SPLC nonetheless used the donations for those impermissible purposes.

FBI didn’t ask SPLC for information

SPLC includes the fact that FBI did not seek out information from SPLC in its explanation of why DOJ is not entitled to the presumption of regularity (in addition to Kash’s behavior in the wake of Charlie Kirk, among other things).

These irregularities include the Justice Department’s failure to subpoena, or even contact the SPLC during the investigation. See Declaration of William C. Athanas (Athanas Decl.) ¶ 4. Instead, the SPLC contacted the U.S. Attorney’s Office in an effort to understand the nature of the government’s concerns and obtained a meeting on February 25, 2026. Id. ¶¶ 4–5. At that meeting, attended by Acting U.S. Attorney Kevin Davidson and two Assistant U.S. Attorneys, the prosecutors advised that they had been the advised the records of the informant program had been destroyed. Id. ¶ 6. The SPLC corrected this erroneous belief and agreed to accept service of a grand jury subpoena for records which included the information gathered through the informant program, some of which was provided to law enforcement. Id. ¶ 7. The SPLC produced approximately 15,000 pages of records in response to that subpoena on April 17, 2026. Id. ¶ 8. Two business days later, on April 21, 2026,

DOJ is relying on one or two biased sources

But the import of DOJ’s failure to subpoena information from SPLC goes to something else. When they met on February 25, DOJ told them a source had revealed SPLC had deleted all the files from its F-informant program. SPLC corrected that impression at the meeting.

SPLC used that in their April 17 letter to insist that DOJ inform the grand jury that the source who told DOJ that SPLC had deleted the files was providing false information.

The government received false information from a source it is relying on in relation to this investigation. In our meeting on February 26, the government advised that it had received information that all the “F files,” i.e., the SPLC’s files related to this program, had been destroyed, and that based on that information, the government did not contact the SPLC or issue a subpoena. In other words, the government not only received the information that the F files had been destroyed but also believed and relied on that claim. The government now knows that that information is demonstrably false. Under the circumstances, compliance with Justice Manual 9-11.233 requires that the government identify that source of information for the grand jurors and inform the grand jury that you received and relied on information from that source that turned out to be false, so that the grand jurors can properly determine what, if any, credibility to give any other information provided by that.

SPLC also described source F-9, who is described in the indictment as a National Alliance member who broke into their office and stole a bunch of files, but also who was paid the most (a million dollars) over a decade, to be extremely biased for reason it redacts.

SPLC demonstrates the seriousness of its effort to combat right wing extremism

Much of the rest of its complaints–and its demand that Todd Blanche stop lying–pertain to whether SPLC really fought far right extremism. They provide three specific examples that they do:

SPLC provided the government with a 45-page event report in advance of Unite the Right.

The SPLC used the informant program to gather voluminous and detailed information about the risk of violence at Charlottesville. That information was memorialized and provided to law enforcement, including to the FBI’s Mobile, Alabama office—the very office leading the investigation of this case—in advance of the rally in the form of a 45-page “Event Alert.”5 That document warned the FBI of the specific individuals likely to attend the rally and foment violence, providing not only names and pictures, but specific details about associates, backgrounds, and criminal histories. For some of the individuals identified in this Event Alert, the SPLC even provided details about those individuals’ weapons of choice based on intelligence gathered through the informant program.

They provided DOJ with a tip about an attack being planned by an Atomwaffen member.

In 2019, the SPLC gathered through the informant program and provided to law enforcement information which detailed the risk that Individual B, a member of white supremacist extremist group Atomwaffen Division, intended to engage in a major terrorist attack against Las Vegas citizens. The press release issued later by the Department of Justice detailed Individual B’s planned violence:

[Individual B] admitted that, during online conversations between May 2019 and July 15, 2019, he discussed setting fire to a Las Vegas synagogue, and making Molotov cocktails and improvised explosive devices. Individual B further admitted that he conducted surveillance on a bar that he believed catered to the LGBTQ community, located on Fremont Street in Downtown Las Vegas, in preparation for a potential attack.10

And SPLC warned about a person from Vanguard America who was seeking a security clearance so he could work at the Philadelphia Navy Yard.

During the April 6 meeting, defense counsel presented documents and information relating to Individual A, a member of Vanguard America (a well-known extremist group) who sought a national security clearance as part of Individual A’s work at the Philadelphia Navy Yard in 2018. The specific documents counsel provided to the prosecutors showed how and when the informant program gathered and passed information about Individual A to law enforcement. In addition, counsel provided copies of federal court pleadings in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania relating to Individual A’s criminal prosecution based on the conduct the SPLC reported. Those pleadings revealed that after Individual A was indicted based on the information the SPLC provided, the government repeatedly requested that Individual A be detained because of the serious risk of violence he presented.3 The discussion at the MDAL USAO on April 6 left no uncertainty: the information developed through the informant program resulted in the detection of Individual A’s criminal conduct, the SPLC passed information about this to law enforcement, the government investigated and indicted Individual A, and Individual A was detained and received a prison sentence.

SPLC also generally describes:

the extensive coordination that the SPLC maintained with federal and state law enforcement over the years, including but not limited to details regarding criminal activity detected, prevented and prosecuted.

Todd Blanche lied about that on Laura Ingraham

It’s the last specific issue — the tip about the Vanguard America guy — about which SPLC claims Todd Blanche lied to Laura Ingraham.

As SPLC notes: they raised the Vanguard guy in the April 6 meeting that included acting US Attorney Kevin Davidson, they reminded him of Vaguard guy in their April 17 meeting, and Blanche noted he had spoken to Davidson in his presser announcing the charges.

But then he went on Laura Ingraham’s show and affirmatively denied that SPLC had provided any information of value to FBI.

Ms. Ingraham: Now, they [SPLC] say they’re no longer using these informants in this way, and that it was necessary because they had all sorts of threats against the organization; firebombing threats and other acts of purported violence, and that’s why they had to use these informants. And to that you say?

Mr. Blanche: Well to that I say, for one, the indictment charges all the way through 2023, so I’m not- I’m here to speak about what they’re doing right now, but that indictment charges a long period of time through 2023. And second, and more importantly, there’s no allegation or information in the indictment that suggests they shared that information with law enforcement. They have communicated –

Ms. Ingraham: They said they did –

Mr. Blanche: Well, they communicated when they so chose, with law enforcement over the years. There’s no information that we have that suggests that the money they were paying to these informants and these members of these organizations, they then turned around and shared what they learned with law enforcement. To the contrary, or else we would have known, from their own words, that they had given this money to these guys. And we didn’t know. [emphasis original]

That’s not the only lie SPLC accuses Administration officials of telling. SPLC catalogs some of the lies (including one I kept calling out, the claim that SPLC paid the Klan, when the indictment in fact alleges they were paid via a cut-out) and then lists six more.

[S]ince the indictment was returned, officials at the very highest levels of the executive branch have made and maintained a barrage of media and other publicized statements not just describing the allegations but going far beyond the information contained in the indictment and exacerbating the prejudice to the SPLC.

Following on the initial press conference involving Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche and FBI Director Kash Patel, both Acting Attorney General Blanche and Director Patel have participated in interviews on conservative-leaning news outlets including Fox News and NewsNation. Those interviews have then been amplified by immediate publication and recirculation on social media platforms, including X and Truth Social. Both President Donald Trump and his spokesperson, Karoline Leavitt, have made statements about the indictment and the SPLC more broadly; President Trump has made his own statements and reposted news stories on Truth Social and Ms. Levitt has commented during press availabilities and then sat for an interview on Fox News. Associate Deputy Attorney General Aakash Singh joined the chorus as well.

In each instance, the speaker has not confined their comments to the content of the indictment but has instead advanced talking points, such as accusing the SPLC of funding hate groups like the KKK, sowing division in the United States through support of such groups, and organizing the rally in Charlottesville that led to the death of Heather Heyer. Acting Attorney General Blanche has made false factual assertions to further the narratives. Ms. Leavitt claimed that the indictment shows that Charlottesville was a “hoax” perpetrated to discredit President Trump, Mr. Patel said that the SPLC engaged in “the ultimate hypocrisy” by funding hate groups they claimed to want to take out, and Mr. Singh claimed the SPLC was “deceiving the American people . . . all to promote fake racism.” President Trump, during a 60 Minutes interview, stated that “Charlottesville was all funded by the [SPLC]” as “part of the rigging of the election.” President Trump further stated that the allegations in the indictment are “not just allegations…these are facts.”

But the Blanche lie is notable because it refutes something SPLC specifically raised in the days before the indictment, and because SPLC asked for a retraction and got none.

The Magistrate overseeing the case has ordered DOJ to respond to both motions by May 5.

The post SPLC Wants Todd Blanche to Stop Lying appeared first on emptywheel.

Since then, Anna Bower and Molly Roberts have done the very tedious work of reviewing to DiGenova’s public statements.

They describe a number of key confessions from DiGenova:

DiGenova has also been willing to pull back the curtain on the palace intrigue surrounding his recent hiring: Just this month, in an interview with Rudy Giuliani, diGenova claimed that former Attorney General Pam Bondi was “singularly responsible for the delay and investigations into the lawfare against Donald Trump that’s being run out of the…U.S. attorney’s office in Miami and Ft. Pierce.” Saying she had previously nixed his appointment to run the probe, diGenova insisted, “If she had not done that, we would have had indictments brought in the last two months.”

DiGenova further suggested that Bondi had been fired over the president’s frustration with the slow pace of the Miami probe. ”The president’s conversation with her yesterday coming back from the Supreme Court was not pleasant,” he said, referring to the conversation in which Trump reportedly fired Bondi. “The president was ripping mad about the fact that there was no progress on the lawfare investigation in Miami.”

On April 20, the same day he was sworn in, diGenova appeared on WBAL Radio and said the president “personally asked” him to accept the role running what he called “the Russia hoax investigation.” Later—sketching out the Grand Conspiracy in full—he noted “the historical significance of what happened in 2016, 2020 and 2024, where it’s very evident…that there was a very brazen plot against a private citizen, and then a president, and then a post-president, and then a sitting president again, Donald Trump, to deny him his civil rights.”

DiGenova at least claims that:

• Trump personally asked him to lead the probe
• Pam Bondi nixed his appointment
• Bondi was fired because of perceptions that the investigation was not moving quickly enough

Whether or not those are true (I suspect the precipitating incident that led to Bondi’s firing was the failure to tamp down on the Epstein scandal in her testimony, but it is convenient for the blustery DiGenova to claim it was about him), they are his statements which, as Bower and Roberts lay out,

will cause problems for any investigation going forward.

DiGenova’s claim that Bondi nixed the appointment, though, is rather curious. During the attempt to indict Comey on the fly last year, there were reports of Blanche acting like a normal prosecutor, and Bondi getting stuck taking rash steps (like installing Lindsey Halligan) and having to invent justification after the fact.

For the reasons Lawfare lays out, any person hoping to run a successful prosecution, of any of Trump’s adversaries, would object to DiGenova’s appointment, because he’ll open up all sorts of discovery onto vindictive prosecution, leading right into the White House.

And aside from the different positions from which Bondi and Blanche responded to Trump’s apparent request to install DiGenova (Bondi had the job and was trying to keep it, Blanche is in a non-stop audition to get the job permanently), they have different relationships to the reasons why DiGenova is so wildly inappropriate. Bondi defended Trump in impeachment, the risk of which was mitigated when Bill Barr arrested Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, thereby shutting down incorporation of the Dmitry Firtash scandal. And while Lawfare does not include this detail in their otherwise comprehensive post, Blanche represented Fruman, quietly shepherding Fruman to a guilty verdict in which he only served two months of a one year sentence.

The Government respectfully writes in response to questions posed by the Court during the sentencing proceeding for Lev Parnas, with respect to whether Igor Fruman had been released from prison. The Government has conferred with the Bureau of Prisons, and understands that Mr. Fruman reported to the Bureau of Prisons for service of his 366-day sentence on March 13, 2022, was transferred to crisis furlough on May 3, 2022, and then transferred to home incarceration beginning May 25, 2022. The latter two assignments were pursuant to the CARES Act.

Blanche, Paul Manafort’s former attorney picking up a client from Manafort’s other attorneys, Thomas Zehnle and Kevin Downing, who bailed Fruman out of jail in EDVA, stuck to the plan of making Fruman a quiet scapegoat.

That should make Blanche’s false claim that he doesn’t know of any conflict all the more alarming.

Asked about diGenova’s past comments at a recent press conference, Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche pushed back. “I’m not sure what the conflict of interest would be,” he said. “Because somebody has said something in the past about a particular matter, that doesn’t create a conflict, necessarily.”

To some extent, Blanche may be right, given that a disqualifying conflict of interest typically involves conflicting loyalties between clients or financial conflicts of interest.

Sure, Blanche may just be quickly granting Trump everything he wants, from dismissing the sedition cases against adjudged terrorists to paying Mike Flynn millions to this.

Sure, it’s possible Bondi nixed DiGenova’s appointment because she had to pay the reputational price for the Halligan catastrophe.

But it’s also possible that Bondi recognized how unsuited DiGenova is, and Blanche, because he was on the inside of that defense team, doesn’t care.

The post Pam Bondi Refused to Appoint Joe DiGenova appeared first on emptywheel.

In her interview with Donald Trump last night, Norah O’Donnell asked Trump to comment on what she claimed was accused gunman Cole Allen’s motive (she also accused Allen of writing anti-Christian things, even though his manifesto is steeped in religion, however corruptly applied).

Amid an interview in which Trump repeatedly stoked polarization, he attacked O’Donnell for reading words that were first published by the New York Post.

O’Donnell coyly took Trump’s aggressive denial — he’s not a pedophile, he’s not a rapist, Trump claimed, but did not specifically address whether he’s a traitor — as an admission that Allen was talking about him.

NORAH O’DONNELL: The so-called manifesto is a stunning thing to read, Mr. President. He appears to reference a motive in it. He writes this quote, “Administration officials, they are targets.” And he also wrote this, “I am no longer willing to permit a pedophile, rapist, and traitor to coat my hands with his crimes.” What’s your reaction to that?

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Well, I was waiting for you to read that because I knew you would because you’re– you’re he– you’re horrible people. Horrible people. Yeah, he did write that. I’m– I’m not a rapist. I didn’t rape anybody.

NORAH O’DONNELL: Oh you think– do you think he was referring to you?

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: I’m not a pedophile. Excuse me. Excuse me. I’m not a pedophile. You read that crap from some sick person? I got associated with all– stuff that has nothing to do with me. I was totally exonerated. Your friends on the other side of the plate are the ones that were involved with, little’s say, Epstein or other things. But I said to myself, “You know, I’ll do this interview and they’ll probably”– I read the manifesto. You know, he’s a sick person. But you should be ashamed of yourself reading that because I’m not any of those things.

NORAH O’DONNELL: Mr. President these are the gunman’s words –

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: And I was never– excuse me. Excuse me. You shouldn’t be reading that on 60 Minutes. You’re a disgrace. But go ahead. Let’s finish the interview.

As I expected, when Jeanine Pirro charged Allen today, she included 18 USC 1751, attempt to assassinate the President.

Remarkably, however, she included nothing other than Trump’s public announcement that he would be attending and the passage of the manifesto that includes those descriptions (she excluded most of Allen’s references to his Christianity, as well as his view that Secret Service security was inadequate).

And I am no longer willing to permit a pedophile, rapist, and traitor to coat my hands with his crimes.

(Well, to be completely honest, I was no longer willing a long time ago, but this is the first real opportunity I’ve had to do something about it.)

While I’m discussing this, I’ll also go over my expected rules of engagement (probably in a terrible format, but I’m not military so too bad.)

Administration officials (not including Mr. Patel): they are targets, prioritized from highest-ranking to lowest

Secret Service: they are targets only if necessary, and to be incapacitated nonlethally if possible (aka, I hope they’re wearing body armor because center mass with shotguns messes up people who *aren’t*

Hotel Security: not targets if at all possible (aka unless they shoot at me)

Capitol Police: same as Hotel Security

National Guard: same as Hotel Security Hotel Employees: not targets at all

Guests: not targets at all

In order to minimize casualties I will also be using buckshot rather than slugs (less penetration through walls)

I would still go through most everyone here to get to the targets if it were absolutely necessary (on the basis that most people *chose* to attend a speech by a pedophile, rapist, and traitor, and are thus complicit) but I really hope it doesn’t come to that.

There is no other language in the complaint — not even a mention that Allen said he’d start from highest-ranking to lowest — substantiating that Allen’s target was Trump.

To be sure, I have no doubt it was. I believe the attempted assassination charge is totally appropriate.

I just think it funny that, after Trump pretended to be outraged that O’Donnell repeated language that NY Post had already published, Pirro effectively implied he is obviously the person Allen meant when referring to the pedophile, rapist, traitor.

The post Jeanine Pirro Did the Same Thing Norah O’Donnell Did appeared first on emptywheel.