The stories you want. The opinions that matter.
No, thanks
Tag: christopher wray
Bannon: Biden's 'Deep State' May Be Planning To Assassinate Trump

Bannon: Biden's 'Deep State' May Be Planning To Assassinate Trump

As Republicans cash in on right-wing outrage over the FBI raid on former President Donald Trump’s winter home Mar-a-Lago — pelting Trump supporters with fundraising emails and pleas for donations — Trump ally Steve Bannon is taking things a step further, leveling bogus accusations against the FBI and invoking the “deep state.”

Bannon, a former Trump White House strategist indicted and then pardoned by Trump, appeared on a recent version of Infowars with conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, and performed a bogus rant. He accused the FBI of planting evidence against Trump at Mar-a-Lago and claimed that the Biden government had plans to assassinate the ex-president.

“I do not think it’s beyond this administrative state and their deep state apparatus to actually try to work on the assassination of President Trump. I think – I think everything’s on the table,” Bannon told Jones in the interview.

The “deep state” is a prominent term in the QAnon lexicon used to describe a fictitious group of actors in the highest levels of government independently running the United States in secret.

“I think security ought to be at the highest it’s ever been. And honestly, I think he ought to – and I think he should – have flown down [to] Mar-a-Lago this morning, walked out there at noon today, and said, ‘hey, I’m running for president, United States. Suck on that,’” Bannon added.

Bannon, who was arrested on federal charges of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and money laundering but later pardoned by Trump, was convicted of contempt of Congress for defying a congressional subpoena and faces up to two years in prison.

Bannon also denounced the FBI raid as a “desecration” on “one of the great buildings in this country” that has seen “many iconic moments.”

“We need...you [Donald Trump] need to get to Mar-a-Lago, the exact place that they desecrated, because it was a desecration. They did it on purpose. They understand how Mar-a-Lago resonates with not just MAGA, but to the American people,” Bannon said on the show.

Referring to the notable figures that Trump hosted at Mar-a-Lago, Bannon continued his tirade, saying, “So many important things happened there – to go and desecrate it the way they did, particularly over this administrative issue at the National Archives... clearly they’re, as you know, Alex, on a fishing expedition or on a planting expedition, I wouldn’t put it past [them] to have planted stuff ... this is criminal.”

Then, the former strategist labeled the FBI — led by Christopher Wray, a Trump appointee — and the DOJ “lawless criminal organizations.”

Trump, his allies, and almost all senior Republicans have expressed outrage at the raid, which, according to multiple reports, concerns classified documents Trump kept at Mar-a-Lago from his tenure in the White House.

“MAR-A-LAGO was RAIDED,” Trump messaged his supporters on Tuesday morning. “The Radical Left is corrupt. Return the power to the people! Will you fight with me? Donate.”

The feigned outrage followed a familiar script: anger at the raid, claims of political persecution, QAnon-style accusations against the Biden administration -- and an invitation to send money.

'Red Flags Everywhere': New Report Shows FBI, DHS Ignored January 6 Warnings

'Red Flags Everywhere': New Report Shows FBI, DHS Ignored January 6 Warnings

Reprinted with permission from AlterNet

A new report from the Washington Post published on Sunday detailed a deep dive into the extensive warnings the federal government received of potential violence and efforts to interfere with Congress's counting of the Electoral College votes on January 6. Despite this ample foreshadowing, the administration and law enforcement agencies were still unable or unwilling to prepare adequate defenses to keep the mob from storming the Capitol that day.

The FBI, in particular, comes off looking inept — if not driven by politically inspired cowardice or indifference.

"The FBI received numerous warnings about January 6 but felt many of the threatening statements were 'aspirational' and could not be pursued," the report found. "In one tip on December 20, a caller told the bureau that Trump supporters were making plans online for violence against lawmakers in Washington, including a threat against Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah). The agency concluded the information did not merit further investigation and closed the case within 48 hours."

Donell Harvin, the head of intelligence at the homeland security office in Washington, D.C., did raise the alarm, according to the report. It explained how he "organized an unusual call for all of the nation's regional homeland security offices" — a call joined by hundreds of officials sharing their concerns. They were reportedly warning of an attack on January 6 at 1 p.m. at the U.S. Capitol, just when the insurrection occurred. The planning was happening all over social media, after all — inspired by then-President Donald Trump's own tweets and rhetoric. Harvin reached out to the FBI and other agencies to warn them of what was coming, the report found.

He feared a "mass casualty event," according to the Post.

"While the public may have been surprised by what happened on January 6, the makings of the insurrection had been spotted at every level, from one side of the country to the other," it said. "The red flags were everywhere."

Despite specific warnings of the exact nature of the attack that was coming — the planning of which would certainly be illegal — it appears the FBI limited itself for fear of infringing on First Amendment-protected activity. The Post also suggested that FBI Director Christopher Wray, who was often under fire from Trump, feared angering the man who appointed him by speaking out about the potential for violence.

"The FBI chief wasn't looking for any more confrontations with the president," the Post found, citing current and former law enforcement officials.

Wray remains in his position to this day.

Meanwhile, the Post reported, the Department of Homeland Security did not put out a security bulletin to alert other agencies of the dangers, despite receiving, "sobering assessments of the risk of possible violence on January 6, including that federal buildings could be targeted by protesters."

As has previously been reported, officials in the U.S. Capitol Police were aware of at least some of the danger posed by Trump supporters still angry about the election in the run-up to January 6. These warnings, however, didn't make it to Chief Steven Sund, and he failed to effectively coordinate with the National Guard to get protection for the Capitol. The Capitol Police itself was woefully under-prepared for the assault, as has been widely reported. Sund resigned following the attack, one of the few officials to face real accountability for the failures that led up to that day.


Domestic Terror Threats Have ‘Exploded’ Since 2020

Domestic Terror Threats Have ‘Exploded’ Since 2020

FBI Director Chris Wray told members of Congress on Tuesday that the number of domestic terror cases in the United States has "exploded" over the past year and a half, confirming many suspicions surrounding the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol.

On Tuesday, Wray told members of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee that the FBI's domestic terrorism caseload has "more than doubled" since the spring of 2020, "from about 1,000 to around 2,700 investigations."

Read NowShow less
FBI Director Christopher Wray

FBI Director Faces Sharp New Scrutiny Over Kavanaugh Probe

Reprinted with permission from Alternet

When then-U.S. Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh was accused of sexual misconduct by Christine Blasey Ford — a psychology professor at Palo Alto University — in 2018, the FBI conducted an investigation. But Kavanaugh's critics argued that the investigation should have been much more comprehensive in light of the fact that then-President Donald Trump had nominated him for a lifetime appointment on the highest judicial body in the United States. FBI Director Christopher Wray's handling of that investigation, according to Guardian reporter Stephanie Kirchgaessner, continues to be scrutinized three years later.

Kirchgaessner explains, "The FBI director, Chris Wray, is facing new scrutiny of the Bureau's handling of its 2018 background investigation of Brett Kavanaugh, including its claim that the FBI lacked the authority to conduct a further investigation into the then-Supreme Court nominee. At the heart of the new questions that Wray will face later this week, when he testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee, is a 2010 memorandum of understanding that the FBI has recently said constrained the agency's ability to conduct any further investigations of allegations of misconduct."

In 2018, Kavanaugh was accused of sexual misconduct not only by Ford, but also, by Deborah Ramirez (one of Kavanaugh's classmates at Yale University in the 1980s) and web developer Julie Swetnick (who also knew Kavanaugh during his Yale days). Ford testified during now-Justice Kavanaugh's Senate confirmation hearings; Ramirez and Swetnick did not. And critics of Kavanaugh believed that Ramirez and Swetnick's allegations should have been thoroughly investigated by law enforcement. Kavanaugh flatly denied their accusations.

"The FBI closed its extended background check of Kavanaugh after four days and did not interview either Blasey Ford or Kavanaugh," Kirchgaessner notes. "The FBI also disclosed to the Senate this June — two years after questions were initially asked — that it had received 4500 tips from the public during the background check and that it had shared all 'relevant tips' with the White House counsel at that time. It is not clear whether those tips were ever investigated."

In a letter sent to two Democratic U.S. senators, Sen. Chris Coons of Delaware and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, the FBI said that under the 2010 memo of understanding, it didn't have the authority to "unilaterally conduct further investigative activity absent instructions from the requesting entity." Kirchgaessner reports, however, that "an examination by The Guardian of the 2010 MOU, which was signed by the then-Attorney General Eric Holder and then-White House Counsel Robert Bauer, does not make explicitly clear that the FBI was restricted in terms of how it would conduct its investigation."

According to Kirchgaessner, "Wray is likely to face scrutiny on why information that was specific to the allegations of sexual misconduct was not fully explored, including evidence that was reportedly offered to investigators by an alleged witness named Max Stier, an attorney and former classmate of Ramirez, who reportedly notified senators that he had witnessed an event similar to the one recounted by Ramirez. Stier's account was never examined by the FBI."

The FBI declined to be interviewed for Kirchgaessner's article, but Whitehouse agreed to be interviewed.

The Rhode Island Democrat told the Guardian, "In its years-late response to our questions, the FBI leaned hard on the notion that this MOU limited its authority to be the FBI and investigate wrongdoing. Now that we have the MOU, it's even harder to understand the Bureau's excuses for ignoring credible information it received. Director Wray ought to be ready to answer my questions about this episode — I won't stop asking until he does."