Tag: fbi
Omar al Bayoumi

25 Years After 9/11, Questions Persist Over FBI Pursuit Of Saudi Suspects

Within a few days of the terror attacks that killed nearly 3,000 people on Sept. 11, 2001, FBI agents identified an important possible suspect: a middle-aged Saudi graduate student who provided crucial help to two of the al-Qaida hijackers as they settled in San Diego early the year before.

The Saudi, Omar al-Bayoumi, had since moved to England, and he was arrested there at the FBI’s request. A police search of his home and office yielded a trove of evidence that quickly deepened investigators’ suspicions about Bayoumi and his dealings with the terrorists. But what happened to much of that evidence after it was delivered to the FBI remains a mystery.

Bayoumi was questioned and released by British police and later returned to Saudi Arabia. For years thereafter, the FBI would insist he wasn’t really a suspect at all — that Bayoumi had met the hijackers by chance, had helped them unwittingly and seemed nothing like a militant Islamist.

As the 25th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks is marked Friday, questions about how the FBI handled Bayoumi’s case have only grown, driven in part by evidence that was seized from him in 2001 but not made public for years or even shared with field agents who sought to investigate his role.

That evidence and other FBI information, now filed in a federal lawsuit against the Saudi government by victims of the attacks, has undercut both Bayoumi’s claims of innocence and the FBI’s profile of him as a genial, pro-American civil servant. While he was living publicly as a student, it shows, Bayoumi worked closely with Saudi religious officials, operated as a Saudi intelligence asset and collaborated with several clerics who would later emerge as militant Islamists tied to al-Qaida.

This week, representatives of the 9/11 families are again demanding an end to what they have called the Justice Department’s silence about what happened to the Bayoumi evidence and why he and other Saudis were not more aggressively pursued. The families have also questioned whether the Trump administration — which has strengthened U.S. diplomatic and business ties to the Saudi royal family — is committed to pursuing the truth about the possible role of Saudi officials.

“We still have not been given the full picture of what happened,” said Kathleen Zapata, whose father, Joseph Coppo, was killed in the World Trade Center. “Why are we having to fight against our own government simply to get answers about the most horrible attack ever on American soil?”

A White House spokesperson said, “President Trump is leading the most transparent administration in history, and his team is working diligently on identifying records that are responsive to these families’ request.” A Justice Department spokesperson declined to comment, noting that many of the officials involved in the early 9/11 investigation no longer work for the government.

While former Presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama and Joe Biden are expected to attend a ceremony at the 9/11 memorial in New York, President Donald Trump has said he will commemorate the anniversary separately at the Pentagon.

The Saudi government has long denied any role in the attacks, often citing FBI and CIA statements that the royal family was an enemy of al-Qaida and its Saudi-born leader, Osama bin Laden. A spokesperson for the Saudi Embassy in Washington did not return messages asking for comment, including a request to speak to Bayoumi.

From San Diego to Dulles International Airport

A ProPublica examination of how the FBI handled the Bayoumi evidence shows that questions surrounding the Saudi connections to the 9/11 plot date to Jan. 15, 2000, when the first two hijackers landed in Los Angeles on a flight from Bangkok.

The CIA had followed the two men, Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar, as they met with other Qaida operatives in Malaysia days before. But the agency said it lost track of them when they flew to Thailand and then entered the United States using their real names and Saudi passports. (The CIA did not inform the FBI of their presence in the United States until Aug. 24, 2001, according to the report of the 9/11 Commission.)

Unlike several Qaida operatives who led the hijacking teams, Mihdhar and Hazmi spoke no English and knew almost nothing of life in a Western society. The mastermind of the plot, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, told CIA interrogators he advised them to seek help from Muslim communities in California, according to the 9/11 Commission. But the commission and many U.S. terrorism experts expressed skepticism that he would deploy such ill-equipped operatives without providing them with any contacts in the United States.

Bayoumi claimed his meeting with the hijackers was happenstance. After driving from San Diego on Feb. 1, 2000, he said, he had a meeting at the Saudi Consulate in Los Angeles and then went to a nearby halal cafe. There, he later told the FBI, he overheard Hazmi and Mihdhar speaking Gulf-accented Arabic and introduced himself. Seeking to be hospitable, he said, he told them they might want to try San Diego.

Shortly after the men stepped off a bus there three days later, Bayoumi said, he happened to run into them again at a local mosque. The next day, he arranged for them to rent an apartment in the building where he lived with his family, co-signed their lease and set up a bank account for them, briefly loaning them about $1,500 for the deposit. He went on to introduce them to more than two dozen local men who helped them in various ways.

The FBI had already looked closely at Bayoumi, launching a preliminary investigation in 1998 after neighbors reported what they said were suspicious gatherings of young Arab men at his apartment. That inquiry determined that Bayoumi, who had worked for the Saudi civil aviation ministry, was still receiving a generous government stipend through an aviation company for which he did no work. The investigation found no criminal activity, however, and it was closed after six months, officials said.

Barely a week after the 9/11 attacks, the FBI asked the British authorities to arrest Bayoumi in Birmingham, England, where he had begun graduate business studies at Aston University.

David Campbell, then a young terrorism investigator, was dispatched from London by the Metropolitan Police Service, which is responsible for counterterrorism efforts across Britain. He recalled flying back down the highway in a special police vehicle with his handcuffed prisoner in the back seat, the sirens blaring. “They’d been told they had one of the 9/11 terrorists,” he said in an interview.

The FBI sent three agents from the United States to assist with Bayoumi’s interrogation at the Paddington Green police station in Central London. They were joined by a senior FBI attache, Joseph Hummell, who worked closely with the police service’s Anti-Terrorist Branch, known as SO13.

But despite those close contacts and the FBI’s considerable information about Bayoumi, very little of it was shared with Campbell and the Birmingham detective who joined him in questioning the suspect.

“We were really in the dark,” Campbell recalled. “They never even mentioned that he had been under investigation by the FBI in San Diego in 1998.”

Nor, Campbell said, were the interrogators briefed about the materials that had just been taken from Bayoumi’s Birmingham home and office, which included boxes of papers, correspondence, photographs, computer disks, videotapes and an address book. Yet some of those items had been immediately flagged as important, records show.

Among them was a diagram in Bayoumi’s handwriting that appeared to calculate the trajectory of an airplane to a point on the horizon. Another was a video of Bayoumi touring and describing the U.S. Capitol, a building that had been identified by U.S. investigators as a prospective al-Qaida target.

After questioning Bayoumi for almost a week, Campbell said, he and the Birmingham detective joined two senior SO13 officers on a conference call with Justice Department attorneys in the United States. The two interrogators were given a brief opportunity to express their view that Bayoumi’s account seemed deeply suspicious and full of falsehoods, Campbell said.

It didn’t seem to matter. The U.S. officials, who included lawyers in Washington and federal prosecutors in New York, concluded quickly that they did not have sufficient evidence to seek Bayoumi’s extradition.

“When the call ended, we just looked at each other in complete disbelief,” Campbell recalled.

FBI documents declassified in response to a 2021 executive order by Biden give a partial answer to what happened to the Bayoumi evidence.

One memorandum on Oct. 11, 2001, notes that New Scotland Yard, as the Metropolitan Police Service was often called, had provided the FBI attache’s office with “copies of all recovered exhibits, including mirror images of all computers.” A complete copy of the trove was also sent via Federal Express to the FBI’s New York Field Office, the memo noted.

By then, however, the agency’s new director, Robert Mueller, had taken the unusual step of ordering that the 9/11 case be run out of its Washington headquarters. The Penttbomteam, as it became known in the FBI’s clunky acronym for Pentagon/Twin Towers Bombing, mobilized thousands of FBI agents and analysts around the world.

One group focused on the hijackers of American Airlines Flight 77, the plane that crashed into the Pentagon, tracing the path of Hazmi and Mihdhar from Southern California to Dulles International Airport in Virginia, where they abandoned a used Toyota Corolla registered to one of their former addresses in San Diego.

How the headquarters team translated and analyzed the materials obtained from Bayoumi in Britain is unclear. But the team did not appear to share the evidence widely. In another memo, dated May 15, 2002, the San Diego FBI office noted that it was asked to review only five of the more than 80 VHS tapes seized from Bayoumi in Birmingham. Two of those were duplicates and included footage of a paintball fight and a family trip to Sea World. “Nothing of significant investigative/evidential value has been discovered,” the memo stated.

Although Bayoumi’s friends and associates helped the hijackers with everything from part-time jobs to flying lessons (they flunked out because their English was so poor), FBI leaders dismissed the idea that any of the people who helped them knew they were Qaida operatives sent on a still-evolving terrorist mission.

“As far as we know, they contacted no known terrorist sympathizers in the United States,” Mueller told a joint panel of the Senate and House intelligence committees in September 2002. “To this day, we have found no one in the United States except the actual hijackers who knew of the plot.”

The FBI’s more conclusive account of its Penttbom findings came before the bipartisan 9/11 Commission. The young agent leading the Flight 77 investigation team, Jacqueline Maguire, echoed Mueller’s earlier testimony, saying in 2004 that Bayoumi’s meeting with the California hijackers had been “a random encounter” and that he had helped them without knowing their true aim. Maguire also said the FBI had no indication the hijackers had initially sought out another figure who raised suspicions, Fahad al-Thumairy, the imam of the Saudi-built King Fahd Mosque in Culver City, California.

Michael Jacobson, a former State Department counterterrorism official who was a key commission investigator, said he knew some FBI agents in California were convinced that Bayoumi and Thumairy had helped the hijackers deliberately. But Maguire and her boss, Mary Galligan, who oversaw the Penttbom team, “were both consistently pushing back hard on any narrative of a support network,” Jacobson said in an interview.

Maguire and Galligan declined to comment.

When investigators from the 9/11 Commission interviewed Bayoumi and Thumairy in Saudi Arabia in 2003, Maguire — who had already interviewed the two Saudis for the FBI months earlier — joined them as an official escort. The interviews, which were managed by Saudi intelligence officials, were notable for Bayoumi’s efforts to ingratiate himself and Thumairy’s seemingly brazen lies, former officials said. Thumairy said he had never met the hijackers and did not even know Bayoumi, despite telephone records showing numerous calls between them. The Saudi Embassy did not respond to a request to speak to Thumairy.

In its final report, the commission said it could not confirm that Thumairy helped the two terrorists but found it was “fairly certain that Hazmi and Mihdhar spent time at the King Fahd mosque and made some acquaintances there.”

Echoing the FBI’s assessment, the commission described Bayoumi as “a devout Muslim, obliging and gregarious,” and found no evidence he “believed in violent extremism or knowingly aided extremist groups.” It would take years before those conclusions were forcefully challenged.

Daniel Gonzalez, a San Diego FBI agent who had been looking at Hazmi and Mihdhar’s circle since the day after the attacks, became the case agent for Operation Encore, a “subfile” or follow-on inquiry to the original 9/11 case. But while he and other agents made significant breakthroughs, former officials said, they faced constant skepticism from FBI headquarters and were sometimes blocked outright in their efforts to pursue the case.

In 2007, in an interview with a key source in Jordan, Gonzalez learned of two other important witnesses in Los Angeles, young Muslim immigrants who had also helped the hijackers. The two later confirmed the hijackers had gone to the King Fahd Mosque after arriving in Los Angeles and met repeatedly with Thumairy. One of the men said Thumairy also arranged for the hijackers to be driven to their first meeting with Bayoumi at the halal cafe — undercutting Bayoumi’s claim that he met them by chance.

For years, Encore agents said, they continued to press for more of the materials seized from Bayoumi in Britain. At one point, Gonzalez got a phone call from Washington asking if he wanted some old Penttbom evidence that was about to be destroyed. The materials — copies of some of Bayoumi’s long-sought papers, including the suspicious flight diagram — stunned the Encore team, Gonzalez said.

In June 2012, a small group of Encore investigators and analysts flew to London to try to review the Bayoumi search evidence more thoroughly. According to three former officials familiar with the trip, they viewed dozens of hours of videotapes and took new copies of much of the Metropolitan Police material.

For reasons that remain unclear, however, the team either did not see or did not focus on a few videotapes that would later become evidence in the 9/11 families’ lawsuit, including the tape of Bayoumi at the U.S. Capitol. While some terrorism experts have interpreted the recording as Bayoumi’s effort to “case” the site for a possible attack, lawyers for the Saudi government described it as a tourist video.

The Bayoumi videos also included extensive footage of two Saudi religious officials who not long before had commanded attention from both the FBI and CIA. The two men, Adel al-Sadhan and Mutaeb al-Sudairy, were emissaries of the Saudi Ministry of Islamic Affairs who had traced what intelligence officials saw as a strikingly suspicious path around the United States. The Saudi Embassy did not respond to a request to speak to the men.

In addition to traveling to Washington, D.C., with Bayoumi, the two clerics visited Los Angeles and San Diego a year before the hijackers and stayed at one of the homes where Hazmi and Mihdhar later lived. Sudairy also spent several months living in Columbia, Missouri, with an American al-Qaida member, Ziyad Khaleel, who provided Osama bin Laden with the satellite phone that FBI officials said he used to orchestrate the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.

Just before and after the hijackers arrived in San Diego, telephone records show, Bayoumi also made a series of calls to Sudairy in Washington, Thumairy in Los Angeles and Anwar al-Aulaqi, a Yemeni American cleric. Aulaqi, who ran a San Diego mosque that Bayoumi had funded through Saudi donations, was described by FBI witnesses as a spiritual adviser to Hazmi and Mihdhar. Aulaqi later emerged as an important al-Qaida leader before he was killed in a U.S. drone strike in 2011.

Unanswered Questions

In 2014 and 2015, a panel of security experts was assembled to review the FBI’s implementation of reforms called for by the 9/11 Commission. The 9/11 Review Commission, as the second panel was called, was also tasked with looking again at questions about the 9/11 plot that remained unanswered.

Maguire, the FBI’s primary liaison to the review panel, again disputed suspicions about Bayoumi. “He came here for school and everything seems accidental with Bayoumi,” the commission was told in a 2014 briefing led by Maguire.

The review panel concluded there was not enough new information to revise the 9/11 Commission’s finding that there was no “witting assistance” to the hijackers. But Tim Roemer — a Democratic former congressman from Indiana who served on the 2002 joint intelligence inquiry, the 9/11 Commission and the Review Commission — made a point of pressing for further investigation into the Saudi question. He was struck that Maguire and other FBI officials were still pushing back.

“There was consistent feedback from some levels of the FBI that simply wanted to close the case and claim that what Bayoumi did was purely coincidence and somehow accidental,” Roemer said.

Roemer insisted that the Review Commission formally recommend that the FBI continue to examine the Saudi issue. But shortly after it did so, officials at FBI headquarters renewed their pressure to shut down Operation Encore. In 2016, the head of the agency’s Joint Terrorism Task Forces finally relented, reassigning the case and disbanding the team that had been investigating it for years.

The next year, a pair of memorandums sent by the FBI’s Washington field office confirmed something that the Encore agents had long suspected: Between the late 1990s and Sept. 11, 2001, Bayoumi was paid a monthly stipend as a co-optee, or part-time agent, of the Saudi intelligence services.

By then, Gonzalez had retired. The Encore investigators who remained were working new jobs. Along with other documents from the FBI investigation, the memos were initially withheld from the 9/11 families by the Justice Department, which classified them as state secrets during Trump’s first term. The Encore agents saw the memos for the first time when they were finally made public in 2022 under Biden’s executive order.

“Somebody needs to explain to the American people why we didn’t see this information before,” Gonzalez said in an interview.

Reprinted with permission from Pro Publica

Fox Praises Trump For Defending Election Integrity, While He Keeps Undermining It

Fox Praises Trump For Defending Election Integrity, While He Keeps Undermining It

In the week before President Donald Trump’s July 16 prime-time address, during which he pushed conspiracy theories that China interfered in his 2020 election defeat, Fox News has portrayed Trump as a leader on election security. However, his second administration has repeatedly taken actions to weaken the nation’s election security, including dismantling much of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, disbanding multiple task forces to combat foreign influence on elections, and failing to work with local and state officials to secure elections.Fox claims Trump will help secure America’s elections
Fox News anchor Bill Hemmer previewing Trump’s address: “He made election integrity a main pillar for his second term agenda.” [Fox News, America’s Newsroom, 7/15/26]

Fox claims Trump will help secure America’s elections

  • Fox News anchor Bill Hemmer previewing Trump’s address: “He made election integrity a main pillar for his second term agenda.” [Fox News, America’s Newsroom, 7/15/26]
  • Fox contributor Johnny Jones: “Election integrity is what President Trump is working on finding and establishing.” [Fox News, The Five, 7/10/26]
  • Fox contributor Ben Domenech: “It’s a “wise move” for Trump to “make a case” for legislation related to elections because “they are popular when you look at them in a polling situation.” Domenech claimed that Americans “tried to have major changes happen in this country when it comes to election integrity. They do not believe those changes have been made. The president is arguing in favor of them.” [Fox News, Special Report, 7/14/26]
  • Fox anchor Trace Gallagher defended Trump from criticism about “the GOP midterm election integrity.” Gallagher aired a clip of former CIA Director John Brennan saying that “Donald Trump is going to do everything in his power, and beyond that, to be able to affect the outcome of the election.” [Fox News, Fox News @ Night, 7/13/26]

But the Trump administration has repeatedly undermined election security

  • CNN detailed how the Trump administration dismantled much of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency infrastructure that combats election threats. CNN reported that these Trump administration efforts have included firing 130 CISA staffers, “including 10 regional security specialists who worked with local and state election officials.” The acting agency director also “put all election-security and counter-disinformation work on hold pending an internal review” in early 2025. Former Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem “also ordered CISA in February and March to cancel more than $9 million in annual contracts with the Center for Internet Security, a non-profit group. Many of the cuts imposed by DHS targeted the Elections Infrastructure Information Sharing and Analysis Center, or EI-ISAC, which brought together more than 1,300 election and law enforcement officials around the country to help monitor and share information about threats to voting.” [CNN, 4/9/25]
  • CNN also reported that the Trump administration “disbanded the FBI’s Foreign Influence Task Force,” which “was among several agencies that warned that Russia, Iran and other countries were conducting operations meant ‘to undermine public confidence in the integrity of U.S. elections and stoke divisions among Americans.’” CNN described it as “a key FBI task force charged with investigating foreign efforts to influence elections.” CNN additionally reported that the administration “also left in the wind the fate of another FBI task force that investigated threats against election workers and polling places.” [CNN, 4/9/25]
  • CNN: “Secret US cyber operations shielded 2024 election from foreign trolls, but now the Trump admin has gutted protections.” CNN reported that “a year into a second Trump administration, many of the government centers previously tasked with repelling foreign influence operations have been disbanded or downsized — and local election officials are preparing to face a continued onslaught of foreign influence operations largely on their own.” The article continued: “The administration has shut down foreign-influence-focused centers at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the FBI and the State Department that helped warn the public that China, Russia and Iran’s spy services were targeting Americans with election-related disinformation. The Department of Homeland Security has also slashed its election security teams, which pass intelligence to local election offices and help them defend against cyber threats.” [CNN, 1/28/26]
  • NBC News reported that multiple state officials say the Trump administration has canceled election security briefings. A February article reported that several secretaries of state “said intelligence briefings from the federal government were invaluable during the first Trump administration,” but the administration stopped those briefings. The article noted that a February invitation by the Trump administration to participate in a call with the FBI about midterm election preparations was “the first time they have heard from anyone in this Trump administration about election security in months — or ever.” [NBC News, 2/9/26]
  • Nextgov: Trump’s 2027 budget proposal “would notably eliminate CISA’s election security program entirely, including cutting funding for information-sharing support to state and local officials and removing dedicated election security advisors across the country.” Nextgov reported that Trump’s budget proposal “would also end CISA’s support for the Elections Infrastructure Information Sharing and Analysis Center, or EI-ISAC, a key hub for sharing threat intelligence, cyber alerts and incident response resources with state and local election officials.” According to the article, these actions “would scale back one of the federal government’s main avenues for coordinating with state and local election officials on election cybersecurity risks like ransomware attacks, phishing campaigns and efforts by foreign adversaries to probe election systems and conduct influence operations.” [Nextgov, 4/7/26]
  • NOTUS: “The Justice Department Hasn’t Taken Its Usual Steps to Protect the 2026 Election.” NOTUS reported that “five months out from the midterm elections that will determine control of Congress, his Justice Department has canceled election-integrity training sessions for prosecutors and FBI agents, deleted a 281-page guide to prosecuting election offenses, fired most of the lawyers in its Public Integrity Section and failed to replace the director of its Election Crimes Branch.” Additionally, “the DOJ has not taken the usual steps to establish a ‘command center’ to monitor and address the typical emergencies that pop up around Election Day, three sources with knowledge of the situation told NOTUS. A command center team would address things like voter intimidation and targeted disinformation meant to hinder a fair process. These actions — and inactions — have alarmed current and former prosecutors, who say the Justice Department is not prepared to deal with threats to election integrity in the November elections.” [NOTUS, 6/8/26]
  • Last week, Trump fired Democratic members of the Election Assistance Commission. On July 10, The Associated Press reported: “The White House on Friday confirmed the executive action against members of the Election Assistance Commission, which distributes federal grants to states, oversees the testing of voting systems and maintains the national voter registration form.” According to the AP, “It’s the latest instance of the Republican president trying to exert White House influence over how U.S. elections are conducted.” [The Associated Press, 7/10/26]
Reprinted with permission from Media Matters
Foul Smell Arises From ICE Killing Of Longtime Houston Resident

Foul Smell Arises From ICE Killing Of Longtime Houston Resident

There was a time when the federal government’s record justified withholding judgment, when, in the wake of another gut-wrenching killing by ICE agents, a fair-minded person could count on the Department of Justice to investigate its own officers and bring charges if the facts warranted them.

That time is long past. ICE is now a rogue agency. It has lied about and obstructed the investigation of previous killings, and it has been regularly contemptuous of court orders. As the chief judge of the federal district of Minnesota wrote, “ICE has likely violated more court orders in January 2026 than some federal agencies have violated in their entire existence.” The presumption of regularity—the baseline courtesy we once extended to the government’s account of what its agents did—has been put through a wood chipper.

So when word emerged of another ICE killing—this one in Houston, of a longtime resident named Lorenzo Salgado Araujo—and ICE immediately claimed that the victim had “weaponized his vehicle” to run down an officer who fired only in self-defense, there was every reason to expect the worst.

And the worst is just what we’ve gotten—not just in the facts of the killing itself, but in the federal government’s apparent determination to circle the wagons and smother any effort to achieve justice.

It is a fetid, still-unfolding scandal, and it has come in four stages: the killing; the official excuse; the evidence that gives that excuse the lie; and the wagon-circling to foreclose any accountability.

Lorenzo Salgado Araujo was, by every measure, what our political leaders all claim to prize. 52 years old, he had lived in the country for 35 years, raising 3 sons—all U.S. citizens—whom he sent to college while running a construction business that gave dozens of other people jobs. He was diligently in the process of legalizing his immigration status.

As Bill Kristol put it, Salgado Araujo was a better American than the people leading our country.

Last Tuesday, July 7, Salgado Araujo woke up at his normal five a.m., got in his work van, and picked up his crew, comprising 3 other men, including his younger brother, Victor.

As he was on his way to work, at around 6:50 a.m., ICE agents confronted the van and delivered the fatal shots. The details remain murky but are coming into focus.

One particular heart-rending detail: That morning, Salgado Araujo’s wife, worried that something had gone wrong, called their eldest son, Ronaldo. Ronaldo drove to the site, found his father’s white van, but no sign of him. Then a video surfaced on his social-media feed: a man on the ground, shot, struggling. Ronaldo recognized his father instantly: not by his face, he said, but by his voice, crying for help as he lay bleeding out in the street.

Salgado Araujo arrived at Ben Taub Hospital, where all three of his sons had been born, carrying no identification. At the family press conference, a community leader asserted ICE agents removed all his personal identification. He therefore was logged in as a John Doe. He died hours later.

As we were learning about the killing, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued an official statement. It cited no actual sources other than “information we are receiving.” People familiar with the ICE playbook could probably recite the account with their eyes closed.

DHS reported that Salgado Araujo had refused commands and “weaponized his vehicle in an attempt to run over an ICE law enforcement officer,” who fired “in self-defense.”

That’s more or less the identical account, down to the use of the word “weaponized,” that they proffered after the killing of Renée Good. But video evidence showed that the shot that killed Good was fired through her open driver’s side window, with the agent standing out of the vehicle’s path—severely undermining the claim that the shooter was defending himself from Good’s car plowing into him.

So Salgado Araujo’s killing and the official defense repeated the same rotten pattern as in the Good case. The third stage, as with Good, was the revelation of facts that make the official claims of self-defense look like a bald lie.

Good’s killing arose in the context of a robust, lawful demonstration. Consequently, there was a lot of video that rolled in. The 6:50 a.m. shooting on their way to a construction site is harder to piece together. Moreover, the ICE agents were not wearing body cameras, notwithstanding the promise in February in the wake of the Minnesota tragedies that DHS would “rapidly acquire and deploy body cameras to DHS law enforcement across the country.”

But there were three eyewitnesses: the three workers in the van with Salgado Araujo. Their accounts would be central to any bona fide investigation.

That makes ICE’s treatment of them particularly reprehensible. Instead of trying to elicit the facts from them, ICE put all three in immigration detention, apparently facing removal. The agency reportedly has imposed pressure on them to self-deport.

Fortunately, an attorney for the surviving passengers, Hugo Balderas-Ibarra, was able to speak to all of them, separately, in detention. Each of them flatly contradicts ICE’s self-defense scenario.

According to the lawyer’s account, all three passengers report that they were heading to work around 6:30 a.m. when an unmarked car pulled up behind them at a stoplight. When the light turned green, the unmarked car swung onto the shoulder, cut in front of them, and tapped its brakes. At that point, Salgado Araujo made a U-turn, and then the officers switched on their lights. According to the passengers, Salgado Araujo was on a road with heavy construction and crawling along at about five miles per hour.

One of the three, Jose Trinidad Rojas, wrote out his denunciation of ICE’s version by hand. “That is a lie,” Rojas wrote. “It is impossible for them to say that they were going to get run over … there were no officers in front of or behind the vehicle. They were on the sides.”

The ICE car rammed the van, not the other way around. Another ICE vehicle then pulled up on the other side, hemming them in.

An ICE officer proceeded to jump out of the unmarked car and ran at the van from the side, yelling “stop.” He began firing through the front passenger window. A shot hit Salgado Araujo in the abdomen. Victor, the brother, was in the passenger seat and said that when the officer fired the fatal shot, “the gun was in front of my face.”

If the witnesses’ unanimous and separate accounts are accurate, the ICE “weaponized vehicle” yarn fails outright. Salgado Araujo was not bearing down on the shooter, who shot through the front passenger window, so obviously was not in danger from the car.

One final wrenching detail. ICE was not even looking for Salgado Araujo or any of his passengers. Their target was a Guatemalan national who had nothing to do with Salgado Araujo, and who was nowhere in the vicinity. But supposedly someone in the van “resembled the target,” at least to the ICE agents.

Not so the aftermath. The feds appear to be waist-deep, and getting deeper, in a conspiracy to prevent the investigation of Salgado Araujo’s killing and stonewall any efforts to determine if a crime occurred.

A straight-shooting Department of Justice would initiate an investigation in the Civil Rights Division into whether the agents deprived Salgado Araujo of his civil rights in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 242. It’s the same charge that the officers who killed George Floyd were convicted of. The Department has employed it against law enforcement officers.

If the feds chose not to move forward, the assumption would be that the state authorities, who have a strong interest in possible homicide charges under state law, would get the baton, and that the feds would cooperate with their efforts, starting with the sharing of evidence.

With Todd Blanche’s DOJ, this normal approach is a pipedream.

First, the federal authorities appear to be undertaking efforts to prevent the most important evidence we now have, the eyewitness accounts, from ever seeing the light of day. All three witnesses were immediately taken into immigration detention and are now facing removal. If they are deported, the evidence walks out of the country with them.

As for the state of Texas’s efforts to look into the killing, the feds are actively trying to squelch it. Harris County DA Sean Teare revealed that “federal authorities continue exclusively handling all aspects in this case,” and that “access to key evidence remains under federal control.” The Houston Police Department issued a carefully worded statement: local law enforcement has “no independent jurisdiction to investigate federal agencies or federal law enforcement personnel who are acting in the course and scope of their official duties.”

That hedged account significantly understates Houston PD’s independent role. It incorporates the legal standard for federal immunity, roughly whether the federal agents’ conduct was necessary and proper. If a court were to determine that was the case, Houston law enforcement would be stymied; but that’s the whole issue that a state prosecution would take on. There is no law that strips a state of the power to investigate a killing within its borders simply because the killer wore a federal badge.

And most gallingly, the feds are not even pretending to undertake an investigation of the killing. They have announced a two-part inquiry. The DHS Inspector General—Joseph Cuffari’s office, currently sitting on more than six hundred open misconduct complaints against DHS employees—will “lead” the inquiry. But the Inspector General has no criminal jurisdiction over a homicide; at most, it can find that some internal deadly-force protocol was broken.

But never fear, the FBI is also on the case. Actually, never mind and start fearing: the FBI’s Houston office has announced that its inquiry will focus on whether Salgado Araujo assaulted a federal officer. They have opened a file on the victim and aren’t even looking into the killing. It’s akin to a kick to the dead victim’s stomach.

Even the most benign reading of the facts of Salgado Araujo’s killing screams out for a thorough investigation. The more sinister versions—fully warranted by ICE’s recent track record—present a litmus test for any Department of Justice.

A government that violates the Constitution, then lies about it, then circles the wagons to keep the lies from coming out, is failing that test in real time; worse, it gives every indication of indifference to, if not pride in, its derelictions. The deeply bitter irony is that the victim’s humility and dedication to the American dream were matched, point for point, by the government’s hubris and indifference to the rule of law.

It all doesn’t pass the smell test, meaning, in this case, it stinks to high heaven.

Harry Litman is a former United States Attorney and the executive producer and host of the Talking Feds podcast. He has taught law at UCLA, Berkeley, and Georgetown and served as a deputy assistant attorney general in the Clinton Administration. Please consider subscribing to Talking Feds on Substack.

Reprinted with permission from Talking Feds.

Ten Years Later, Right-Wing Media Ghouls Revive Bogus Seth Rich Murder Conspiracy

Ten Years Later, Right-Wing Media Ghouls Revive Bogus Seth Rich Murder Conspiracy

It's 2026 and MAGA lickspittle Benny Johnson is hosting a discussion of whether Hillary Clinton had former Democratic National Committee staffer Seth Rich killed in 2016.

“This is why it's called a conspiracy theory,” former American Conservative contributing editor Chris Brunet told Johnson during a lengthy interview about Rich’s tragic murder on Johnson’s show Wednesday. “It's because it's a conspiracy of top DNC officials, including Hillary Clinton, to essentially murder Seth Rich in cold blood, is the conspiracy theory. And I believe that's what happened. I don’t believe he was the victim of a random mugging.”

Brunet added that President Donald Trump “should open a new investigation into the murder of Seth Rich to try to find his killers.”

“I would love for there to be a full investigation into this,” Johnson replied, later telling his audience to subscribe to Brunet’s Substack and “send tips if you know anything about this.”

These ghouls are reviving the Seth Rich conspiracy theory nearly a decade after it first became a cause célèbre for the online right, which baselessly linked Rich’s tragic murder on July 10, 2016, in what police determined was an unsolved botched robbery while he was walking home late at night in Washington, D.C., to WikiLeaks’ release 12 days later of thousands of internal DNC emails whose contents damaged Clinton’s presidential campaign.

News accounts citing intelligence sources quickly suggested that Russian hackers had stolen the emails and provided them to WikiLeaks; the U.S. intelligence community publicly stated in October 2016 that Russia had hacked the DNC; and the final report from then-special counsel Robert Mueller, who secured indictments against 12 Russian intelligence officers for the DNC hack, concluded that the emails were stolen and released through WikiLeaks as part of a Kremlin plot to undermine Clinton’s campaign.

But right-wing conspiracy theorists, seeking to undermine arguments that Trump was too close to the Kremlin, claimed based on just about nothing that Rich had been the true source of the emails, and that he had been murdered — perhaps on Clinton’s order — in retaliation for their release.

The conspiracy theory was relegated to far-right fever swamps at first. But the story burst into the mainstream 10 months after Rich’s death, after Fox News published a thinly sourced online article and aired a series of on-air segments that bought into the far-right narrative. Veteran Fox host Sean Hannity became the conspiracy theory’s biggest champion, arguing that it debunked “the whole Russia collusion narrative.”

Meanwhile, Rich’s anguished family begged him and the rest of the conspiracy theorists to stop. “With every conspiratorial flare-up, we are forced to relive Seth’s murder and a small piece of us dies as more of Seth’s memory is torn away from us,” his parents wrote in The Washington Post. Ultimately, Fox retracted its article, claiming that it had not met the network’s standards, and Hannity stopped talking about the story.

This was perhaps the saddest and most grotesque saga I’ve seen come out of the right-wing media in my 19 years at Media Matters. And as the 10th anniversary of Rich’s murder approaches, the conspiracy theorists are back.

The hook for Brunet’s appearance on Johnson’s show is an allegation from attorney Ty Clevenger, posted online Monday and boosted the next day by the conspiracy theory site Gateway Pundit, claiming that “an attorney for the government told me that I would soon be getting confirmation that several hundred pages of documents related to Seth Rich were found in a previously-hidden room at FBI headquarters” where they were supposedly “among the files designated for destruction.”

Jim Hoft, an endless font of credulity and stupidity, explained in his post why this is supposed to matter:

This is the same FBI that originally told Clevenger back in 2017 it had zero records on Seth Rich because the bureau “was not involved” in the investigation of his death. They claimed it was nothing more than a “botched robbery” handled solely by local D.C. police.
Over the years, through relentless FOIA litigation and court pressure, the FBI has been forced to admit it actually possesses thousands of pages of Seth Rich documents, including his work laptop, an image of his personal laptop, and a DVD. Yet they continue to fight tooth and nail to keep the full truth hidden.

One possible explanation for this alleged disparity is that while the FBI did say in May 2017 that it was not involved in the investigation of Rich’s death, Mueller’s April 2019 final report suggests that some investigation did subsequently take place: It specifically confirms that Rich was not the source that provided the DNC emails to WikiLeaks. The records, in other words, could have been created while the FBI was knocking down the online right’s conspiracy theory.

The fever-swamp explanation, however, is that the FBI was in on the conspiracy in which Clinton had Rich killed for leaking the DNC emails to WikiLeaks, covered it up, kept all the evidence through the four years of the first Trump administration and the four years of the Biden administration and only decided to destroy them when Trump came back into power, but waited too long and his minions found it.

Dabbling in this particular insanity is not without risk. While Fox did not hold its employees accountable for their repulsive behavior, the network paid what was reportedly “a lucrative seven figure payment to the Rich family” to get them to settle a lawsuit. But the story offers Johnson’s ilk a priceless opportunity to talk about FBI documents that aren’t the Epstein files that acting Attorney General Todd Blanche is illegally withholding.

Reprinted with permission from Media Matters

Shop our Store

Headlines

Editor's Blog

Trending

World