Trump lashes out at Gov. Doug Ducey following certification

[admin]

Secretary of State's Office confirms it has received Cochise County certification
by Mary Jo Pitzl and Ryan Randazzo
Arizona Republic
December 1, 2022

Compelled by a court order, the Cochise County Board of Supervisors certified the results of the Nov. 8 election Thursday on a 2-0 vote.

The vote means all Arizona counties have agreed to send their results to the Secretary of State's Office and ends a weekslong election drama spooling out of the southeastern Arizona county.

The board's two Republican supervisors since October have raised doubts about the reliability of vote tabulation machines. Their actions resulted in a series of losing court battles, the most recent coming Thursday, when a judge ordered them to canvass the election results and get the results to the Arizona secretary of state by 5 p.m.

The Secretary of State's Office confirmed Thursday evening that it had received the Cochise certification, which will allow it to proceed with the statewide canvass, scheduled for 10 a.m. Monday. The canvass is the official proclamation of the winners from the November election and sets in motion the work on three automatic recounts required by law.

Supervisor Tom Crosby did not attend the board meeting ordered by Pima County Superior Court Judge Casey McGinley, although Crosby was present two hours earlier for the court hearing. He later told The Republic he stayed away on the advice of the board's newly hired attorney.

Crosby, along with Supervisor Peggy Judd, had ignored repeated legal advice that their actions were illegal, forcing the board to seek outside counsel to represent them.

"I don't like to be threatened," Judd said before casting her vote to certify. She said she was relieved to not be threatened with jail time, as had been intimated in a Mohave County supervisors' meeting earlier this week. However, defying a court order risked contempt charges.

Judd defended her actions, saying it was important to ensure elections are "fair and good," and balked at making the motion to certify the results. Instead, she deferred to Ann English, the board's chair and a Democrat who has opposed her colleagues' moves.

"I'm not done fighting. I couldn't even make the motion," Judd said.

The vote came after a one-hour court hearing at which McGinley ordered the board to convene a meeting Thursday afternoon to canvass the election results.

He reprimanded the board for its failure to fulfill the obligation to do so earlier this week. The hearing lasted less than a half-hour and proceeded without an attorney representing the board.

McGinley rejected Crosby's request to continue the hearing until Tuesday so the board's attorney — hired two hours before the hearing — could "get up to speed."

“The board has exceeded its lawful authority,” McGinley said, adding the law “unambiguously requires” a vote within 20 days of the election. That date was Monday, Nov. 28.

He said there is only one exception to that deadline: if votes are missing or still being tabulated. That was not the case in Cochise County, he said.

McGinley is not new to the Cochise election issue. On Nov. 7, he ruled that the board had broken the law by pursuing a 100% hand count of every ballot cast in the Nov. 8 election.

Crosby and Judd in Thursday's hearing leaned on an insistence that they needed more information about whether ballot tabulation machines were certified by an accredited laboratory. They set a Friday meeting to explore the issue further and then consider canvassing results.

English told the court that meeting was a tactic to delay certification and further air election conspiracy theories.

Attorneys for the Arizona Alliance of Retired Americans said that point was underscored by comments Judd made to the New York Times earlier this week. Judd said the machine complaints were a pretext to mask their real concern, which was Election Day problems in Maricopa County.

English called the planned Friday meeting "a sort of smack down between the Secretary of State and the election deniers," citing the agenda laid out by Crosby. The Secretary of State's Office said earlier this week it would not participate.

English called the plan "a circus that doesn’t have to happen. I’ve had enough. The public has had enough."

Hours earlier, the board held an emergency meeting and hired attorney Daniel McCauley on a 2-1 vote. But McCauley did not appear in court, telling the supervisors he needed until at least Tuesday to get familiar with the case.

English voted against the action, saying it was "too little, too late" to hire a lawyer so close to the hearing who was not familiar with the case.

She said she previously hoped to have legal representation, but hiring a lawyer so late essentially only would allow a lawyer to go to court and ask for a continuance, which she said was not in the county's best interest.

in casting her "yes" vote on the attorney hire, Judd said, "I can’t talk. It hurts. But yeah. I’m OK with doing it. I feel it’s better than doing nothing. Sorry. We did work pretty hard to try to figure that out when Mr. Blehm wasn’t available."

The supervisors on Tuesday voted to hire attorney Bryan Blehm to defend them and the county government against two lawsuits, even though they had not discussed the matter with him. On Wednesday, they were caught flat-footed when Blehm declined the offer, as did another attorney he had recommended.

The three supervisors were present in the Bisbee courtroom as McGinley considered requests from Secretary of State Katie Hobbs, as well as the retiree group, to order the board to certify election results. That certification, by law, was due Monday. But on a 2-1 vote, the board voted to delay a decision until week's end.

'This craziness has to stop':'This craziness has to stop': Ex-prosecutors recommend charging Cochise County supervisors

While McAuley, the board's emergency legal hire, was not in court, he did file a motion to move the case from state to federal court. That motion came after McGinley had concluded the hearing and called a 15-minute recess so he could ponder his decision.

The motion was never addressed. And even if it had been, it would have presented an impossibility: It wanted the case moved to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arizona. There is no such court.

The drawn-out drama also brought another late claim, one that likely will be dismissed since the certification has occurred.

On Wednesday, the county was hit with a claim seeking $25,000 in damages for the board's inaction on certification. Paul Sivertsen, a Cochise County resident, said the board's failure to certify dismissed his vote and disenfranchised his rights as a voter.

Hobbs has said if Cochise does not submit its certification in time for Monday's statewide canvass, the county's 47,000 votes would not be counted. A court order could avert that scenario.

Sivertsen is seeking the compensation because, he said in a news release, he believes monetary fines are the only way to prevent "future anti-democratic and unlawful maneuvers."

[admin]

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida Re whether the district court had jurisdiction to block the United States from using lawfully seized records in a criminal investigation. The answer is no.
by the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit
12/01/2022

USCA11Case: 22-13005 Date Filed: 12/01/2022 Page: 1 of 21

[PUBLISH]

In the United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit

No. 22-13005

DONALD J. TRUMP,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida
D.C. Docket No. 9:22-cv-81294-AMC

Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, GRANT, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

This appeal requires us to consider whether the district court had jurisdiction to block the United States from using lawfully seized records in a criminal investigation. The answer is no.

Former President Donald J. Trump brought a civil action seeking an injunction against the government after it executed a search warrant at his Mar-a-Lago residence. He argues that a court-mandated special master review process is necessary because the government’s Privilege Review Team protocols were inadequate, because various seized documents are protected by executive or attorney-client privilege, because he could have declassified documents or designated them as personal rather than presidential records, and—if all that fails—because the government’s appeal was procedurally deficient. The government disagrees with each contention.

These disputes ignore one fundamental question—whether the district court had the power to hear the case. After all: “Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They possess only that power authorized by Constitution and statute, which is not to be expanded by judicial decree.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511U.S. 375, 377 (1994) (citation omitted).

This case was such an expansion. Exercises of equitable jurisdiction—which the district court invoked here—should be “exceptional” and “anomalous.” Hunsucker v. Phinney, 497 F.2d 29, 32 (5th Cir. 1974).1 Our precedents have limited this jurisdiction with a four-factor test. Richey v. Smith, 515 F.2d1239, 1243–44 (5th Cir. 1975). Plaintiff’s jurisdictional arguments fail all four factors.

In considering these arguments, we are faced with a choice: apply our usual test; drastically expand the availability of equitable jurisdiction for every subject of a search warrant; or carve out an unprecedented exception in our law for former presidents. We choose the first option. So the case must be dismissed.

I.

As Plaintiff’s presidential term drew to a close in January 2021, movers transferred documents from the White House to his personal residence, a South Florida resort and club known as Mar-a-Lago. Over the course of that year and into the next, and consistent with its responsibilities under the Presidential Records Act, 44 U.S.C. §§ 2201–2209, the National Archives and Records Administration sought to obtain missing presidential records that its officials believed were in Plaintiff’s possession.

The government first sought the voluntary return of the records. In January 2022, after months of discussions, Plaintiff transferred fifteen boxes of documents to the National Archives. Inside were “newspapers, magazines, printed news articles, photos, miscellaneous print-outs, notes, presidential correspondence, personal and post-presidential records, and a lot of classified records.” Affidavit in Support of an Application Under Rule 41for a Warrant to Search and Seize ¶ 24, In re Sealed Search Warrant, No. 22-mj-08332 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 9, 2022) (“Warrant Affidavit”) (quotation omitted).

The Department of Justice was alerted about the classified materials in February 2022. Id. It then sought access to the fifteen boxes so that the “FBI and others in the Intelligence Community” could examine them to assess “important national security interests,” including “the potential damage resulting from the apparent manner in which these materials were stored.” The National Archives later advised Plaintiff that it planned to provide the FBI access to the records in roughly one week. When he requested a delay of up to eleven days, the National Archives agreed.

When the new deadline arrived in April 2022, Plaintiff requested yet another extension. He also informed the National Archives that if it declined to grant it, he would make a “protective assertion of executive privilege” over the documents. The National Archives rejected that assertion as unviable—saying the “question in this case is not a close one”—and informed Plaintiff’s representatives that it would give the FBI access to the records. Plaintiff did not follow through with any effort to block the FBI’s review of the documents. So the FBI reviewed the records in mid- May, more than three months after it first learned that classified documents had been stored at Mar-a-Lago. It found 184 documents marked at varying levels of classification, including twenty-five marked top secret. Warrant Affidavit ¶ 47.

In the meantime, the FBI had developed evidence that even more classified information likely remained at Plaintiff’s residence. The Department of Justice obtained a grand-jury subpoena for all documents or writings bearing classification markings that were in Plaintiff’s custody or control, and Plaintiff’s counsel was served with the subpoena in early May.

Plaintiff did not assert claims of privilege or declassification in response to the subpoena. But he did seek more time to produce the requested documents, and the government eventually extended the compliance deadline to June 7, 2022. A few days before the deadline was set to expire, Plaintiff’s representatives produced an envelope wrapped in tape, which was consistent with an effort to comply with handling procedures for classified documents. Warrant Affidavit ¶¶ 58, 60. It contained thirty-eight classified documents, seventeen of which were marked top secret. Id. A declaration accompanying the documents certified that a “diligent search was conducted” of the boxes moved from the White House and that “[a]ny and all responsive documents” had now been produced.

Even so, the FBI developed more evidence that other classified documents remained at Mar-a-Lago. In August 2022— over one-and-a-half years after the end of Plaintiff’s presidential administration, six months after the first transfer of boxes to the National Archives, and three months after the subpoena was served—the Department of Justice sought a search warrant. It presented an FBI agent’s sworn affidavit to a Florida magistrate judge, who agreed that probable cause existed to believe that evidence of criminal violations would likely be found at Mar-a- Lago. Warrant Affidavit at 1, 32; Notice of Filing of Redacted Documents at 2, In re Sealed Search Warrant, No. 22-mj-08332 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 11,2022)(“Search Warrant”). The magistrate judge issued a search warrant for the offices, storage rooms, and potential storage sites at Plaintiff’s residence, and authorized the seizure of:

All physical documents and records constituting evidence, contraband, fruits of crime, or other items illegally possessed in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 793, 2071, or 1519,including the following:

a. Any physical documents with classification markings, along with any containers/boxes (including any other contents) in which such documents are located, as well as any other containers/boxes that are collectively stored or found together with the aforementioned documents and containers/boxes;

b. Information, including communications in any form, regarding the retrieval, storage, or transmission of national defense information or classified material;

c. Any government and/or Presidential Records created between January 20, 2017, and January 20, 2021; or

d. Any evidence of the knowing alteration, destruction, or concealment of any government and/or Presidential Records, or of any documents with classification markings.

Search Warrant at 4. The warrant affidavit described a set of protocols proposed by the government to create a “Privilege Review Team.” Warrant Affidavit ¶ 81. The team was made up of agents who were not otherwise participating in the investigation; they were tasked with reviewing certain seized documents to protect Plaintiff’s attorney-client privilege. See id. ¶¶ 81–84.

The FBI executed the search warrant on August 8. Agents seized approximately 13,000 documents and a number of other items, totaling more than 22,000 pages of material. Despite the certification from Plaintiff that “[a]ny and all” documents bearing classification markings had been produced, fifteen of the thirty-three seized boxes, containers, or groups of papers contained documents with classification markings, including three such documents found in desks in Plaintiff’s office. All told, the search uncovered over one hundred documents marked confidential, secret, or top secret.

Plaintiff requested a copy of the warrant affidavit, an opportunity to inspect the seized property, a detailed list of what was taken from the residence and where it was found, and consent to the appointment of a special master “to protect the integrity of privileged documents.” The government denied those requests shortly after the search.

A few weeks later, Plaintiff filed a new action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, which he styled as a “Motion For Judicial Oversight And Additional Relief.” The motion asked the court to (1) appoint a special master; (2) enjoin review of the seized materials until a special master was appointed; (3) require the United States to supply a more detailed list of the items seized; and (4) order the United States to return any item seized that was not within the scope of the search warrant. The motion was a civil filing and did not explain how the district court had jurisdiction to act on all of its requests. It did, however, claim to be a precursor to an eventual motion under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g). That rule permits a “person aggrieved by an unlawful search and seizure of property or by the deprivation of property” to “move for the property’s return.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(g).

The district court could not identify a sufficient jurisdictional basis for the filing, so it requested a jurisdictional brief. Days later, Plaintiff responded that the district court had “equitable and ancillary jurisdiction,” as well as “anomalous jurisdiction,” to enjoin the government and appoint a special master. He also suggested that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 53 may create an independent cause of action to appoint a special master, but cited no authority for that theory. As for the requested injunction against the United States, Plaintiff noted that the “law’s ambiguity” meant that “principles of fairness” supported exercising jurisdiction over the entire motion.

The next day—August 27—the district court issued an order declaring “its preliminary intent to appoint a special master” and requiring the government to provide Plaintiff with a more detailed list of seized items. The court stated that it had jurisdiction pursuant to the court’s “inherent authority” and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 53(b)(1), which reads: “Before appointing a master, the court must give the parties notice and an opportunity to be heard. Any party may suggest candidates for appointment.”

After a response from the government that included a description of its privilege filter process, the district court issued a September 5 order directing the appointment of a special master under soon-to-be developed procedures, and barring the government from using any of the seized documents “pending resolution of the special master’s review process.” The order was issued “[p]ursuant to the Court’s equitable jurisdiction and inherent supervisory authority.”

Three days later, the government filed a notice of appeal. It also filed a motion for a partial stay of the injunction so that it could continue using the seized documents bearing classification markings in its criminal investigation. The district court rejected the partial stay on September 15. It also issued an order naming the special master and setting out his specific duties.

The government sought a partial stay from this Court the next day. We granted the stay, concluding that the district court likely had no equitable jurisdiction to issue an order relating to the classified documents. Trump v. United States, No. 22-13005, 2022 WL 4366684, at *1, *7 (11th Cir. Sept. 21, 2022). Plaintiff applied for relief in the Supreme Court, but that request was denied. Trump v. United States, No. 22A283, 2022 WL7255980, at *1(U.S. Oct. 13, 2022).

On October 5, this Court approved the government’s request for expedited briefing in its appeal of the September 5 order blocking review of the seized documents and directing the appointment of a special master. Now, with the benefit of oral argument, we conclude that the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider Plaintiff’s initial motion or to issue any orders in response to it.

II.

Because federal courts lack general jurisdiction, it “is to be presumed that a cause lies outside” of our “limited jurisdiction.” Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377. The “burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction.” Id. We review an exercise of equitable jurisdiction for abuse of discretion. See Richey, 515 F.2d at 1243. And review of a preliminary injunction includes the power to dismiss the entire action based on jurisdiction or the merits. Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674, 691 (2008).

III.

Only the narrowest of circumstances permit a district court to invoke equitable jurisdiction. Such decisions “must be exercised with caution and restraint,” as equitable jurisdiction is appropriate only in “exceptional cases where equity demands intervention.” In re $67,470, 901 F.2d 1540, 1544 (11th Cir. 1990); see also Hunsucker, 497 F.2d at 32. This is not one of them.

“It is a familiar rule that courts of equity do not ordinarily restrain criminal prosecutions.” Douglas v. City of Jeannette, 319 U.S. 157, 163 (1943). To avoid unnecessary interference with the executive branch’s criminal enforcement authority—while also offering relief in rare instances where a gross constitutional violation would otherwise leave the subject of a search without recourse—this Circuit has developed an exacting test for exercising equitable jurisdiction over suits flowing from the seizure of property. Richey v. Smith instructs courts to consider four factors: (1) whether the government displayed a “callous disregard” for the plaintiff’s constitutional rights; (2) “whether the plaintiff has an individual interest in and need for the material whose return he seeks”; (3) “whether the plaintiff would be irreparably injured by denial of the return of the property”; and (4) “whether the plaintiff has an adequate remedy at law for the redress of his grievance.” 515 F.2d at 1243–44 (quotation omitted).

Plaintiff’s jurisdictional brief in the district court dispatched with all four of these inquiries in a single paragraph. But Richey’s inquiry is not as simple as that filing made it out to be.

When we examine Plaintiff’s arguments about the Richey factors, we notice a recurring theme. He makes arguments that— if consistently applied—would allow any subject of a search warrant to invoke a federal court’s equitable jurisdiction. That understanding of Richey would make equitable jurisdiction not extraordinary, “but instead quite ordinary.” United States v. Search of Law Office, Residence, and Storage Unit Alan Brown, 341F.3d 404, 415 (5th Cir. 2003) (quotation omitted). Our precedents consistently reject this approach. We have emphasized again and again that equitable jurisdiction exists only in response to the most callous disregard of constitutional rights, and even then only if other factors make it clear that judicial oversight is absolutely necessary.

A.

We begin with whether Plaintiff has shown a “callous disregard” for his constitutional rights. Whether that sort of violation has occurred is the “foremost consideration” for a court when deciding whether it may exercise its equitable jurisdiction in this context. United States v. Chapman, 559 F.2d 402, 406 (5th Cir. 1977). When considering this factor, our precedent emphasizes the “indispensability of an ‘accurate allegation’ of ‘callous disregard.’” Id.(quoting Richey, 515 F.2d at 1243) (alteration adopted); see also Hunsucker, 497 F.2d at 34 n.10 (collecting cases). Absent that, courts will not intervene in an ongoing investigation—and rightly so. Because the vast majority of subjects of a search warrant have not experienced a “callous disregard” of their constitutional rights, this factor ensures that equitable jurisdiction remains extraordinary. Otherwise, “a flood of disruptive civil litigation” would surely follow. Deaver v. Seymour, 822 F.2d 66, 71(D.C. Cir. 1987). This restraint guards against needless judicial intrusion into the course of criminal investigations—a sphere of power committed to the executive branch.

The callous disregard standard has not been met here, and no one argues otherwise. The district court’s entire reasoning about this factor was that it “agrees with the Government that, at least based on the record to date, there has not been a compelling showing of callous disregard for Plaintiff’s constitutional rights.” None of Plaintiff’s filings here or in the district court contest this finding.

Instead, he says callous disregard of his constitutional rights is not indispensable to Richey’s test. That is an incorrect reading of our precedent, as well as inconsistent with the longstanding principles outlined above. Chapman, 559 F.2d at 406. And the fact that Richey considers three other factors in its test does not suggest otherwise. To the contrary, these factors underscore how rare this exercise of jurisdiction should be—even a callous disregard of constitutional rights is not enough, on its own, to allow for the type of relief that Plaintiff seeks.2 As we did in Chapman, we will consider the remaining factors for the sake of completeness.

B.

The second Richey factor is “whether the plaintiff has an individual interest in and need for the material whose return he seeks.” 515 F.2d at 1243. Plaintiff’s jurisdictional brief mischaracterized this standard, referring to “the parties’ need for the seized material” (emphasis added). He is wrong to suggest that jurisdiction somehow depends on the balance of interests between the parties—the relevant inquiry is if he needs the documents.

Plaintiff has made no such showing. His jurisdictional brief in the district court asserted that the government had improperly seized his passports and that its continued custody of “similar materials” was “both unnecessary and likely to cause significant harm.” But the passports had already been returned before he filed his first motion, and his jurisdictional brief did not explain what “similar materials” were at issue or why he needed them.

The district court was undeterred by this lack of information. It said that “based on the volume and nature of the seized material, the Court is satisfied that Plaintiff has an interest in and need for at least a portion of it,” though it cited only the government’s filings and not Plaintiff’s. But that is not enough. Courts that have authorized equitable jurisdiction have emphasized the importance of identifying “specific” documents and explaining the harm from their “seizure and retention.” See, e.g., Harbor Healthcare Sys., L.P. v. United States, 5 F.4th 593, 600 (5th Cir. 2021) (Harbor did “far more than assert vague allegations” by pointing to “thousands” of privileged documents that the government retained for four years). Neither the district court nor Plaintiff has offered such specifics.

Indeed, Plaintiff does not press the district court’s theory on appeal. Instead, he argues that the Presidential Records Act gives him a possessory interest in the seized documents. This argument is unresponsive. Even if Plaintiff’s statutory interpretation were correct (a proposition that we neither consider nor endorse), personal interest in or ownership of a seized document is not synonymous with the need for its return.3 In most search warrants, the government seizes property that unambiguously belongs to the subject of a search. That cannot be enough to support equitable jurisdiction.

Having failed to show his own need, Plaintiff attempts—as he did in the district court—to reverse the standard, arguing that the government does not need the non-classified documents for its investigation. This is not self-evident, but it would be irrelevant in any event. Plaintiff’s task was to show why he needed the documents, not why the government did not. He has failed to meet his burden under this factor.

C.

Richey next asks “whether the plaintiff would be irreparably injured by denial of the return of the property.” 515 F.2d at 1243. In his jurisdictional brief, Plaintiff suggested only that the government’s “continued custody” of documents “similar” to his passport was “likely to cause significant harm.” And again, the district court stepped in with its own reasoning. It identified potential irreparable harm that could arise based on (1) improper disclosure of “sensitive information” to the public; (2) the United States’s retention and potential use of privileged materials; and (3) the stigma associated with the threat of future prosecution.

Plaintiff has adopted two of the district court’s arguments, dedicating a single page of his brief to discussing the first and third theories of harm. On the first argument, Plaintiff echoes the district court and asserts that he faces an “unquantifiable potential harm by way of improper disclosure of sensitive information to the public.” It is not clear whether Plaintiff and the district court mean classified information or information that is sensitive to Plaintiff personally. If the former, permitting the United States to review classified documents does not suggest that they will be released. Any official who makes an improper disclosure of classified material risks her own criminal liability. See, e.g., 18 U.S.C. § 798. What’s more, any leak of classified material would be properly characterized as a harm to the United States and its citizens—not as a personal injury to Plaintiff.

As for records that may otherwise be “sensitive,” it cannot be that prosecutors reading unprivileged documents seized pursuant to a lawful warrant constitutes an irreparable injury for purposes of asserting equitable jurisdiction. Here too, Plaintiff’s argument would apply to nearly every subject of a search warrant. The district court’s unsupported conclusion that government possession of seized evidence creates an “unquantifiable” risk of public disclosure is not enough to show that Plaintiff faces irreparable harm.

Similar reasoning guides our approach to the other potential injury identified by Plaintiff: the threat and stigma of future criminal prosecution. No doubt the threat of prosecution can weigh heavily on the mind of anyone under investigation. See Richey, 515 F.2d at 1243 n.10; see also Deaver, 822 F.2d at 70. But without diminishing the seriousness of the burden, that ordinary experience cannot support extraordinary jurisdiction. Alan Brown, 341 F.3d at 415; see also Cobbledick v. United States, 309 U.S. 323, 325 (1940). The third Richey factor also weighs against exercising equitable jurisdiction.

D.

Finally, Richey asks “whether the plaintiff has an adequate remedy at law for the redress of his grievance.” 515 F.2d at 1243– 44. In deciding this factor for Plaintiff, the district court’s answer was that he “would have no legal means of seeking the return of his property for the time being and no knowledge of when other relief might become available.” This is not a sufficient justification. To start, Plaintiff invokes Rule 41(g) in his brief on appeal, but only to say that it has been applied in other cases. The only argument that he has plausibly made relating to that rule is for the return of documents “not within the scope of the Search Warrant.” There is no record evidence that the government exceeded the scope of the warrant—which, it bears repeating, was authorized by a magistrate judge’s finding of probable cause. And yet again, Plaintiff’s argument would apply universally; presumably any subject of a search warrant would like all of his property back before the government has a chance to use it.

Plaintiff’s alternative framing of his grievance is that he needs a special master and an injunction to protect documents that he designated as personal under the Presidential Records Act. But as we have said, the status of a document as personal or presidential does not alter the authority of the government to seize it under a warrant supported by probable cause; search warrants authorize the seizure of personal records as a matter of course. The Department of Justice has the documents because they were seized with a search warrant, not because of their status under the Presidential Records Act. So Plaintiff’s suggestion that “whether the Government is entitled to retain some or all the seized documents has not been determined by any court” is incorrect. The magistrate judge decided that issue when approving the warrant. To the extent that the categorization of these documents has legal relevance in future proceedings, the issue can be raised at that time.

All these arguments are a sideshow. The real question that guides our analysis is this—adequate remedy for what? The answer is the same as it was in Chapman: “No weight can be assigned to this factor because [Plaintiff] did not assert that any rights had been violated, i.e., that there has been a callous disregard for his constitutional rights or that a substantial interest in property is jeopardized.” 559 F.2dat 407. If there has been no constitutional violation—much less a serious one—then there is no harm to be remediated in the first place. This factor also weighs against exercising equitable jurisdiction.

IV.

None of the Richey factors favor exercising equitable jurisdiction over this case. Plaintiff, however, asks us to refashion our analysis in a way that, if consistently applied, would make equitable jurisdiction available for every subject of every search warrant. He asks us to ignore our precedents finding that a callous disregard for constitutional rights is indispensable. He asks us to conclude that a property interest in a seized item is a sufficient “need” for its immediate return. He asks us to treat any stigma arising from the government’s access to sensitive personal information or the threat of potential prosecution as irreparable injuries. And he asks us to find that he has no other remedy apart from equitable jurisdiction, even though he faces no remediable harm. Anyone could make these arguments. And accepting them would upend Richey, requiring federal courts to oversee routine criminal investigations beyond their constitutionally ascribed role of approving a search warrant based on a showing of probable cause. Our precedents do not allow this, and neither does our constitutional structure.

Only one possible justification for equitable jurisdiction remains: that Plaintiff is a former President of the United States. It is indeed extraordinary for a warrant to be executed at the home of a former president—but not in a way that affects our legal analysis or otherwise gives the judiciary license to interfere in an ongoing investigation. The Richey test has been in place for nearly fifty years; its limits apply no matter who the government is investigating. To create a special exception here would defy our Nation’s foundational principle that our law applies “to all, without regard to numbers, wealth, or rank.” State of Georgia v. Brailsford, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 1, 4 (1794).

* * *

The law is clear. We cannot write a rule that allows any subject of a search warrant to block government investigations after the execution of the warrant. Nor can we write a rule that allows only former presidents to do so. Either approach would be a radical reordering of our case law limiting the federal courts’ involvement in criminal investigations. And both would violate bedrock separation-of-powers limitations. Accordingly, we agree with the government that the district court improperly exercised equitable jurisdiction, and that dismissal of the entire proceeding is required.

The district court improperly exercised equitable jurisdiction in this case. For that reason, we VACATE the September 5 order on appeal and REMAND with instructions for the district court to DISMISS the underlying civil action.

_______________

Notes:

1 See Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc) (adopting as binding precedent all published cases of the former Fifth Circuit decided prior to the close of business on September 30, 1981).

2 Plaintiff’s lawyers claimed at oral argument that the special master process is necessary to determine whether a constitutional violation happened. This justification finds no support in our precedent and would result in a dramatic and unwarranted expansion of equitable jurisdiction.

3 During discussion of this factor at oral argument, Plaintiff’s counsel noted that the seized items included “golf shirts” and “pictures of Celine Dion.” The government concedes that Plaintiff “may have a property interest in his personal effects.” While Plaintiff may have an interest in these items and others like them, we do not see the need for their immediate return after seizure under a presumptively lawful search warrant.

[admin]

Trump calls for ‘termination’ of election rules in Constitution to overturn 2020 election
by Jared Gans
The Hill
12/03/22 2:18 PM ET

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.

Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump

So, with the revelation of MASSIVE & WIDESPREAD FRAUD & DECEPTION in working closely with Big Tech Companies, the DNC, & the Democrat Party, do you throw the Presidential Election Results of 2020 OUT and declare the RIGHTFUL WINNER, or do you have a NEW ELECTION? A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution. Our great "Founders" did not want, and would not condone, False & Fraudulent Elections!

De 03, 2022 at 7:44 AM

Former President Trump called for the termination of the Constitution’s rules regarding elections to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election following the release of more detailed information about Twitter’s role in suppressing a story about Hunter Biden.

“A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution,” Trump said in a Truth Social post.

“Our great ‘Founders’ did not want, and would not condone, False & Fraudulent Elections!” he continued.

Deputy White House Press Secretary Andrew Bates disagreed with this call to terminate Constitutional rules, saying, “Attacking the Constitution and all it stands for is anathema to soul of our nation, and should be universally condemned.”

“The Constitution brings the American people together — regardless of party — and elected leaders swear to uphold it. It’s the ultimate monument to all of the Americans who have given their lives to defeat self-serving despots that abused their power and trampled on fundamental rights,” Bates said.

Trump’s post comes after the first of the “Twitter files” on “free speech suppression” were posted on Twitter on Friday. The posts focused on the controversy surrounding President Biden’s son Hunter Biden and Twitter’s reaction limiting the spread of posts about it.

The New York Post published a story in October 2020, less than a month before Election Day, alleging that Hunter Biden used his influence to connect a Ukrainian businessman with his father while he was serving as vice president.

A laptop that allegedly was dropped off at a Delaware computer repair shop included evidence demonstrating Hunter Biden’s actions, former Trump attorney and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani told the Post.

There were widespread concerns about the authenticity of the laptop’s contents at the time, and Twitter took steps to block users from sharing the link to the story on its platform.

The Federal Election Commission ruled last year that Twitter did not break any election laws when it blocked users from sharing links to the story, saying that it was for a valid commercial reason and not a political one.

Major news organizations were later able to verify some of the emails on the laptop.

Trump said the revelations show “MASSIVE & WIDESPREAD FRAUD & DECEPTION” from Big Tech, the Democratic National Committee and the Democratic Party, asking if the 2020 election results should be thrown out and he should be declared the winner or if a new election should be held.

The posts on Twitter’s response to the Hunter Biden story do not show evidence of a widespread conspiracy to limit the content but some chaos, confusion and disagreement among Twitter employees about the platform’s reasoning for censoring it.

White House Deputy Press Secretary Andrew Bates responded to Trump’s comments on Saturday by say that “attacking the Constitution and all it stands for is anathema to the soul of our nation, and should be universally condemned.”

“You cannot only love America when you win,” Bates told The Hill.

Updated 12/4/2022 at 6:15 a.m.

[admin]

Trump search team finds at least 2 classified documents outside of Mar-a-Lago
by Dan Mangan
@_DANMANGAN
CNBC
PUBLISHED WED, DEC 7 20223:30 PM EST UPDATED 4 HOURS AGO

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.

KEY POINTS

**A team hired by Donald Trump discovered more records marked classified outside of his Mar-a-Lago residence.

** The Washington Post first reported that a team hired by Trump found at least two items marked classified in a West Palm Beach, Florida, storage unit used by the former president. Those items were immediately turned over to the FBI.

**Trump is under criminal investigation by the Department of Justice for his removal of government records from the White House when he left office in January 2021.

A team hired by Donald Trump discovered more records marked classified outside of his Florida residence, which was raided in August by the FBI searching for such documents, NBC News confirmed Wednesday.

The Washington Post first reported that a team hired by Trump found at least two items marked classified in a West Palm Beach, Florida, storage unit connected to the former president. Those items were immediately turned over to the FBI, according to the Post.

The New York Times later published a similar report about the search and discovery.

“People close to Mr. Trump had said earlier on Wednesday that no classified material had been found during the searches, a claim that was later proved incorrect,” the Times reported.

Two people familiar with the matter later confirmed that two documents marked classified were found in a federal storage facility containing Trump’s possessions. The storage unit is run by the General Services Administration and Trump has never been inside it, one of the people told NBC.

The search of other Trump-linked properties outside of his Mar-a-Lago club in Palm Beach was conducted after a federal judge urged the former president’s lawyers to confirm they had fully complied with a grand jury subpoena requiring them to surrender any material marked classified.

In addition to the storage unit in Florida, Trump’s golf club in Bedminister, New Jersey, and Trump Tower in New York City, also were reportedly searched.

Trump is under criminal investigation by the Department of Justice for his removal of government records from the White House when he left office in January 2021, as well as for possible obstruction of justice in connection with efforts by federal authorities to recover those documents.

An FBI raid of Mar-a-Lago on Aug. 8 discovered thousands of pages of government documents, more than 100 of which were marked classified or highly classified.

A lawyer for Trump did not immediately respond to a request for comment from CNBC about the reports.

[admin]

Marjorie Taylor Greene’s Jan. 6 ‘joke’ has been building for a long time
by Aaron Blake
Staff writer
Updated December 12, 2022 at 12:40 p.m. EST|Published December 12, 2022 at 12:35 p.m. EST

An early high water mark in the GOP’s efforts to minimize the events of Jan. 6, 2021, came in early February 2022: The Republican National Committee not only voted to censure two members who had joined the committee investigating the insurrection, it decided to insert a phrase into the censure resolution practically dripping with provocation: “legitimate political discourse.”

Supporters of the measure quickly sought to assure that the phrase didn’t refer to those who stormed the U.S. Capitol and got violent, but the resolution itself made no such distinction. And it was little mystery why: Republicans had spent the past year downplaying the events of that day and trying to rewrite a story that didn’t reflect particularly well on the party. The resolution invited those who believed this attack on the seat of government wasn’t that bad, or even that it was justified — that is, a significant portion of the GOP — to go right on believing that.

This weekend saw another such event: Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) making a “joke” about how Jan. 6 could have turned out differently had she been in charge, while mocking those who have cast blame on her and Trump ally Stephen K. Bannon.

“I want to tell you something: If Steve Bannon and I had organized that, we would have won,” Greene said. “Not to mention, it would’ve been armed.”

Terrence Daniels (Captain Planet)
@Terrence_STR
Marjorie Taylor Greene’s Jan 6th comments at Gala:
“I got to tell you something, if Steve Bannon and I had organized that, we would have won. Not to mention, it would’ve been armed.”

Reckon there would be a lot more people doing a lot more prison time if ya were

The following media includes potentially sensitive content.
5:44 PM · Dec 11, 2022

The statement carries with it all the plausible deniability that the RNC resolution did, since Greene was telling jokes onstage at an event for young Republicans in New York. (Her office issued a statement criticizing those who were “trying to weaponize a sarcastic joke I made.”) The provocateur congresswoman is inviting journalists to write this up as if it were an entirely serious comment, at which point she can claim persecution — a valued commodity.

But consider the game Greene is playing. She’s making Jan. 6 a punchline and inviting extremists in her party to believe that there’s more than a hint of truth in her quip — even that she’s expressing common cause with the insurrectionists (“we would have won”). And given her priors, it’s no secret what the intent is, no matter how much she’ll claim otherwise.

It’s a remarkable moment, but also one that’s been a long time coming.

The night of Jan. 6 and in the days and weeks afterward, GOP leaders lamented and almost universally condemned it as a particularly dark day in our nation’s history. House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) took the House floor a week later to say President Donald Trump bore “responsibility” — and even that he should be censured.

“Of all the days here, last Wednesday was the worst day I’ve ever seen in Congress,” McCarthy said. “Our country is deeply hurt. So where do we go from here? After all the violence and chaos of the last week, it is important to remember that we’re still here to deliver a better future for all Americans. It does not matter if you are liberal, moderate or conservative. All of us must resist the temptation of further polarization.”

Within months, though, GOP members not only cast doubt on the “insurrection” label — which is, in fact, apt — but they lodged conspiracy theories seeking to absolve their supporters of blame. Along the way, their media allies like Fox’s Tucker Carlson offered baseless and later-debunked suggestions that this was the product of FBI instigation.

When Republicans declined to sign off on a bipartisan Jan. 6 commission, they effectively admitted that they were doing so because they didn’t want to keep talking about that day. But to make the case that it wasn’t worth probing, of course, they had to imply that it wasn’t that big a deal.

By early 2022 came the RNC censure resolution, which was condemned by some members of the party for its reference to “legitimate political discourse.” But the die was cast. As Trump has pushed the idea of pardons for those accused of wrongdoing on Jan. 6, the party has drifted more and more into believing that the L-word applied.

A Monmouth University poll in July showed not only that many more Republicans labeled Jan. 6 a “legitimate protest” than an “insurrection,” but that more Republicans also labeled it a “legitimate protest” even than a “riot.”

[x]
Republicans' shifting views on labels for Jan. 6. Percentage of Republicans who believe each is an appropriate term for Jan. 6

Against that backdrop, a particularly extreme congresswoman from Georgia has decided that a quip like this might land with a certain crowd of young Republicans in New York.

But also consider the substance of the quip. While Greene hasn’t been linked to organizing the insurrection, she did tell people on the eve of Jan. 6, “You can’t allow it to just transfer power ‘peacefully’ like Joe Biden wants and allow him to become our president, because he did not win this election.”

Bannon was even more forthright in predicting chaos that day, after whipping his listeners into a frenzy over false allegations of a stolen election. “All hell is going to break loose tomorrow,” he said on Jan. 5. “Just understand this: All hell is going to break loose tomorrow. It’s going to be moving. It’s going to be quick.”

And despite the narrative that is often spun by Republicans, there is plenty of evidence that insurrectionists were armed. To what extent? We’ll never fully know because the vast majority of them weren’t apprehended at the time.

But comments downplaying the events of that day are key to the effort to retcon it. And Greene arguably has more power than ever to do so, thanks to how important she is to McCarthy’s chances of becoming speaker next month. So despite GOP leaders, including McCarthy, having initially made such stark statements about just how dark that day was, you can bet they’ll have relatively little to say about someone turning it into a punchline and inviting listeners to imagine a more successful insurrection.

The effect, though, is that the next provocation will be even more dramatic, and the events of that day will continue to be legitimized in the minds of a significant number of Americans.

[admin]

GOP Congressman [Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.)] Wanted Trump to Invoke ‘Marshall Law’ to Stay in Office: Leaked Texts
by Charisma Madarang
Rolling Stone
Mon, December 12, 2022 at 7:37 PM·4 min read

Former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows was forced to hand over 2,319 text messages to the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol. The trove of text messages were obtained by Talking Points Memo, which on Monday reported on the extent to which Meadows was communicating with members of Congress about overturning the 2020 election.

While CNN previously reported that Meadows was kept informed of efforts to seize voting machines and other schemes to overturn President Biden’s win by Trump allies in contested states, the TPM report identifies a startling message from Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.) to Meadows, sent on Jan. 17, 2021, just three days before Joe Biden was scheduled to take office.

In the text, Norman appears to propose that then-President Trump impose martial law — or, as Norman put it, “Marshall Law” — during his final hours of office to overturn the election in his favor.

“Mark, in seeing what’s happening so quickly, and reading about the Dominion law suits attempting to stop any meaningful investigation we are at a point of � no return � in saving our Republic !! Our LAST HOPE is invoking Marshall Law!! PLEASE URGE TO PRESIDENT TO DO SO!!” [-- Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.)]

Norman wrote.

Judd Legum
@JuddLegum

Wow. @RepRalphNorman urged the White House Chief of Staff, Mark Meadows, to convince Trump to DECLARE MARTIAL LAW and stay in office

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/feature/m ... 0-election
3:58 PM · Dec 12, 2022
Read the full conversation on Twitter

The series also shows that Meadows was at the center of hundreds of incoming discussions among 34 members of Congress about plans to help Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election results.

Several members of Congress were also identified as leading players in the effort to undo Trump’s loss and messaged Meadows about plans to challenge the election results including Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), and Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Ala.).

Rep. Brooks texted Meadows on Dec. 21, 2020, referring to plans to hold a “White House meeting regarding formulation of our January 6 strategies.” Soon after, Meadows messaged Fox News personality Brian Kilmeade, confirming the meeting happened.

“The President and I met with about 15 members of Congress to discuss the evidence of voter fraud in various states as well as discuss the strategy for making the case to the American people,” Meadows wrote to Kilmeade later that day.

Among those members identified by the Jan. 6 committee as having participated in the meeting were Reps. Jordan, Brian Babin (R-Texas), Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.), Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.), Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.), Andy Harris (R-Md.), Jody Hice (R-Ga.), Scott Perry (R-Pa.) and then-Rep.-elect Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.).

Prior to the midterms, Rep. Greene faced a legal challenge to disqualify her from running for Congress due to her alleged role on Jan 6.

“Good morning Mark, I’m here in DC. We have to get organized for the 6th,” Greene wrote to Meadows on Dec. 31, CNN reported. “I would like to meet with Rudy Giuliani again. We didn’t get to speak with him long. Also anyone who can help. We are getting a lot of members on board. And we need to lay out the best case for each state.”

By Jan. 17, Greene told Meadows that several Republicans in Congress wanted Trump to declare martial law. She, too, appeared to think giving power to the military was named after a person named Marshall. “In our private chat with only Members, several are saying the only way to save our Republic is for Trump to call for Marshall law,” Green wrote. “I don’t know on those things. I just wanted you to tell him. They stole this election. We all know. They will destroy our country next. Please tell him to declassify as much as possible so we can go after Biden and anyone else!”

More recently, Greene told the New York Post‘s Zach Williams that if she and Steve Bannon had organized the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, they would have executed a successful coup, and would have “been armed.”

As previously reported by Rolling Stone, organizers of the Jan. 6 riots in Washington, D.C., said they participated in “dozens” of planning meetings with White House staff and members of Trump’s team, including Meadows. “Meadows was 100 percent made aware of what was going on,” said an organizer. “He’s also like a regular figure in these really tiny groups of national organizers.”

[admin]

‘Utterly Deranged Logic’: Reporter On Meadows And Members Of Congress Texting To Overturn 2020
by MSNBC
Dec 13, 2022

New reporting from politics news outlet Talking Point Memo on more than 450 text messages shared between Mark Meadows and at least 34 members of Congress allegedly depict their plotting to overturn the election starting on election night and going through to President Biden’s inauguration. A lead TPM reporter covering this story, Hunter Walker, and Rep. Madeleine Dean join Joy Reid to discuss.



*********************

The Meadows Texts
by TPM

Mark Meadows Exchanged Texts With 34 Members Of Congress About Plans To Overturn The 2020 Election: The Messages Included Battle Cries, Crackpot Legal Theories, And ‘Invoking Marshall Law!!’[/b]
by Hunter Walker, Josh Kovensky and Emine Yücel
December 12, 2022 5:34 p.m.

White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows exchanged text messages with at least 34 Republican members of Congress as they plotted to overturn President Trump’s loss in the 2020 election.

Those messages are being fully, publicly documented here for the first time.

The texts are part of a trove Meadows turned over to the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack that was obtained by TPM. For more information about the story behind the text log and our procedures for publishing the messages, read the introduction to this series. Meadows’ exchanges shed new light on the extent of congressional involvement in Trump’s efforts to spread baseless conspiracy theories about his defeat and his attempts to reverse it. The messages document the role members played in the campaign to subvert the election as it was conceived, built, and reached its violent climax on Jan. 6, 2021. The texts are rife with links to far-right websites, questionable legal theories, violent rhetoric, and advocacy for authoritarian power grabs.

One message identified as coming from Rep. Ralph Norman (R-SC) to Meadows on January 17, 2021, three days before Joe Biden was set to take office, is a raw distillation of the various themes in the congressional correspondence. In the text, despite a typo, Norman seemed to be proposing a dramatic last ditch plan: having Trump impose martial law during his final hours in office.

Ralph Norman

Mark, in seeing what’s happening so quickly, and reading about the Dominion law suits attempting to stop any meaningful investigation we are at a point of � no return � in saving our Republic !! Our LAST HOPE is invoking Marshall Law!! PLEASE URGE TO PRESIDENT TO DO SO!!

The text, which has not previously been reported, is a particularly vivid example of how congressional opposition to Biden’s election was underpinned by paranoid and debunked conspiracy theories like those about Dominion voting machines. Norman’s text also showed the potentially violent lengths to which some congressional Republicans were willing to go in order to keep Trump in power. The log Meadows provided to the select committee does not include a response to Norman’s message.

Reached via cell phone on Monday morning, Norman asked TPM for a chance to review his messages before commenting.

“It’s been two years,” Norman said. “Send that text to me and I’ll take a look at it.”

TPM forwarded Norman a copy of the message calling for “Marshall Law!!” We did not receive any further response from the congressman.

Based on TPM’s analysis, Meadows received at least 364 messages from Republican members of Congress who discussed attempts to reverse the election results with him. He sent at least 95 messages of his own. The committee did not respond to requests for comment. Some of Meadows’ texts — notably with Fox News personalities and a couple members of Congress — have already been made public by the committee, media outlets, and in the book “The Breach.” However, the full scope of his engagement with congressional Republicans as they worked to overturn the election has not previously been revealed.

Meadows’ text log shows what the scheme to reverse the election results looked like behind the scenes, revealing new details about which members of Congress helped spearhead the efforts and the strategies they deployed. The members who messaged Meadows about challenging the election included some of the highest-profile figures on the right flank in Congress, such as Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), and Rep. Mo Brooks (R-AL), all of whom are identified as playing leading roles in the effort to undo Trump’s defeat.

One message that was dated Dec. 30, 2020 and was identified as coming from Trump campaign adviser Jason Miller described Brooks as a “ringleader” of the effort to block the electoral certification.

Jason Miller

FYI…So I asked Ali Pardo from our press shop to get in touch with Rep. Mo Brooks’ office since he seems to be the ringleader on the Jan 6th deal. They say they will have as many as 50 members on board 1/6…but we won’t have a list of names until Sunday or Monday. This may not surprise you, but no one from the legal team has made contact with them at all. They request examples of fraud, numbers, names, whatever supporting evidence can be provided. We’ve now supplied that, but our legal squad isn’t exactly buttoned up. I bring this up for a simple reason – if we’re hoping to move real numbers on the 6th, I think we need to quickly start mobilizing our real-deal allies. I’m ready to go, I have bodies to help, will follow your lead.

Mark Meadows

Thanks Jason. You are the best. I will bring it up with potus and I plan to meet with them on Saturday.

Miller declined to comment on this story. Brooks, who spoke with TPM on Monday morning, agreed that he played a leading part in the objection. The congressman, who is set to leave office when the next term begins on Jan. 3, 2023, suggested his case for objecting to the election result was based on a bipartisan 2005 report co-authored by former President Jimmy Carter and James Baker III, who served in multiple Republican administrations.

“There are a number of different people who took leadership roles,” Brooks said of the election challenge, adding, “I was certainly the leader with respect to the arguments that centered on arguments related to the 2005 report and on non-citizen voting.”

While the Carter-Baker report identified risks for “potential fraud” and instances where there was some malfeasance, it also concluded that “there is no evidence of extensive fraud in U.S. election.” Nevertheless, the document has since been exaggerated and mischaracterized by Trump and others to justify election-related conspiracy theories. Nevertheless, Brooks argued the Carter-Baker report and other prior studies showed “massive voter fraud” and suggested anyone who was not familiar with the reasoning behind those conclusions was unqualified to discuss American elections.

“That’s like claiming you’re a Christian but you don’t read the Bible,” Brooks said.

When pressed on conclusions from experts and from Trump-appointed officials that there was no significant fraud in the 2020 election, Brooks hung up the phone.

Based on the log, some of the election objectors saw themselves as participating in an epic battle. Rep. Brian Babin (R-TX) sent at least 21 messages to Meadows and received at least four responses. On November 6, he dramatically urged Meadows to refuse to give up.

Brian Babin

Mark, When we lose Trump we lose our Republic. Fight like hell and find a way. We’re with you down here in Texas and refuse to live under a corrupt Marxist dictatorship. Liberty! Babin

Babin and his office did not respond to requests for comment.

Meadows’ messages also provide an indication of the support the election objection received from right-wing dark money groups. The text log shows how the Republican efforts to fight the electoral certification at the Capitol became more organized and gained steam in the days after Biden’s victory. On Nov. 9, Edward Corrigan, the president and CEO of the Conservative Partnership Institute, wrote Meadows to say Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) would be holding a meeting about legal strategies with his colleagues at the organization’s Capitol Hill townhouse.

“Mike Lee has about a dozen Senators coming over to CPI tonight and they wanted to hear from a legal expert on what’s going on with the campaign,” Corrigan wrote. “Any suggestions who would be good for that?”

CPI, which would go on to employ Meadows after Trump left office, is a dark money group that has been described by NPR as “among the most powerful messaging forces in the MAGA universe.” It hosted meetings for the far- right House Freedom Caucus and, according to Meadows’ log, served as something of a headquarters for members of Congress working to overturn the election. Corrigan did not respond to a request for comment.

In addition to Lee’s meeting, Babin sent a text to Meadows in late December 2020 describing plans for an “objector meeting” at CPI. Babin was apparently concerned other members of Congress could try to thwart the efforts to object to the electoral certification and seemingly hoped former Vice President Mike Pence — who Trump and many of his allies felt had the power to certify alternate slates of pro-Trump electors — was on their side.

Brian Babin

Mark, Looks like objectors will be meeting this Saturday, 6pm at the CPI facility. We would like to have you there. B PS. Probably need to keep our ears open to any machinations by Senate Dems and Republicans who want to change rules. Would you reach out to the VP and see if he will help prevent that?

Many of the Republican efforts to overturn the election played out in the public eye. During the period between the election and Jan. 6 multiple Republican members of Congress participated in rallies where they amplified violent rhetoric and spread false claims of fraud to question the results. The attack on the Capitol interrupted the electoral certification, but it continued that evening and 147 Republicans still voted to overturn the results as they were surrounded by National Guard troops and broken glass.

While some of the more than 450 texts that Republican members of Congress exchanged with Meadows indicate they were disturbed by the violence of Jan. 6, the messages also show in colorful detail how the same members of Congress played a direct role in ratcheting up opposition to the election result and in stoking Trump’s baseless claims of fraud. (Officials at every level of government including Republicans and members of the Trump administration have confirmed there was no widespread fraud in the 2020 election.)

Based on Meadows’ text log, overheated battle cries began streaming into his phone as the votes were still being counted on Election Day, Nov. 3, 2020. Texts the committee identified as coming from members of Congress declared “our Trump team is kicking ass today” and “Fight until hell freezes over than fight them on the ice.”

On Nov. 4, 2020, the day after the election, Rep. Billy Long (R-MO) wrote Meadows claiming he was personally aware of two instances of alleged fraud where people voted twice in Nevada. Based on this claim, he urged Meadows to push for a review of the race in that key state.

“I know of at least 2 people who told me they mailed in their ballots and voted in person so you can tell them they might be interested in going over all votes in Nevada,” Long wrote.

“Ok,” Meadows replied.

Long did not respond to a request for comment.

On the evening of Nov. 4, 2020, Rep. Warren Davidson (R-OH) wrote Meadows to suggest, “John James should lead the challenge in Michigan,” an apparent reference to the 2020 GOP nominee for Senate in that state who would go on to lose his race after disputing the results without providing evidence. Last month, James won election to represent Michigan’s 10th House district. James, who, at the time, was baselessly claiming “there is enough credible evidence to warrant an investigation” into the election in Michigan, did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Davidson did not respond to a request for comment.

Shortly after the message from Davidson, the log contains one identified as coming from Rep. Mike Kelly (R-PA), who offered a profane description of his support for the suits against the results in his home state. Meadows responded indicating he appreciated Kelly’s work.

Mike Kelly

We’re in Philadelphia suing Pa. Sec. of State for her illegal meddling in this election and will continue to expose fraudulent actions. Let me know if there’s anything I can do to fight these MF’ers in Pa.? Our President is heroic !! Thank you for all you’ve done and please let the President know just how much he’s loved and appreciated in Pennsylvania! Sincerely, Mike Kelly

Mark Meadows

I will. Thanks mike

Kelly did not respond to a request for comment.

President Joe Biden wouldn’t ultimately be declared the winner of the election by major media outlets until Nov. 7, 2020. In the four days between the election and the projection of Biden’s win, votes were being counted in key battleground states.

On Nov. 5, as the numbers began to look bleak for Trump, congressional Republicans wrote Meadows with offers to help fight against the results. Among them was Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX) who said, “We have no tools / data / information to go out and fight RE: election / fraud. If you need / want it, we all need to know what’s going on.”

“Thanks so much. Working on it for surrogates briefing,” Meadows replied, indicating the Trump team was preparing to help organize congressional opposition to the vote.

Later that same day, Babin also suggested he and his colleagues were eager to prevent Trump’s impending loss. Without evidence, he described it as a “theft” and indicated GOP leadership was trying to focus on their election victories rather than Trump’s defeat.

Brian Babin

Dear Mark, Many of us as Republican House members want to help the President in any way we can to prevent the outright theft of this presidential election. So far I’ve only heard our leadership talk about us picking up five new diverse members while the Presidency is at stake. We need some guidance as to what we should be saying and doing. Please let some of us know what you would suggest. In earnest prayer for POTUS and our Republic. Brian Babin

The text messages show Republican members of Congress strategizing in real time to reverse the results. Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-ND) piped in with an offer to “put some cash together for the defense fund.” In a conversation with TPM on Monday, Cramer confirmed he offered to help with a defense fund, however, he said the conversation did not go anywhere.

“What I recall is I probably did offer to help if they were raising money for a defense fund or something,” Cramer explained. “I never got a response.”

Cramer, who ultimately was not among the 147 Republicans who objected to the electoral certification, also said all of his messages were “proper” and efforts to “be helpful” to “friends” in the White House.

“None of the text messages from me are condemning in any way other than to just try to get all the information again, be as helpful as you can,” Cramer said.

Other members of Congress sent Meadows questionable legal theories and wildly undemocratic plans to have the vote overturned at the state level. Rep. Mark Green (R-TN) pointed to a segment on the far-right cable network Newsmax where the political operative Dick Morris argued Republican state legislatures had the power to “declare” Trump the winner based on unproven allegations of fraud.

Mark Green

Dick Morris is saying State Leg can intervene and declare Trump winner.�NC, PA, MI, WI all have GOP Leg. �

Mark Green

https://www.newsmax.com/t/newsmax/article/995477/220

The text log does not include responses from Meadows to these texts from Babin, Cramer, and Green. Green’s communications director, Rachel del Guidice, provided a statement to TPM that suggested his ideas came from people in his district rather than the congressman himself.

“Congressman Green was passing along what constituents were sending him to keep the White House informed on the sentiments of his constituents,” del Guidice said. “He wasn’t advocating for any specific course of action.”

The next day, Rep. Greg Murphy (R-NC) sent Meadows a couple of texts with another version of the state legislature strategy gleaned from the far-right website Revolver, which is run by Darren Beattie, a former Trump White House speechwriter who was fired from that post in August 2018 after it was revealed he participated in a 2016 conference with a high-profile white nationalist. Murphy’s text was largely copied and pasted from a Revolver article that claimed “The Vote Has Been Hopelessly Contaminated. Republican State Legislatures Must Now Move to Appoint Pro-Trump Electors.”

“Why are we not pursuing this strategy?” Murphy asked before sharing text from the Revolver article, and adding, “Please pay close attention to the very last paragraph.”

The text logs did not include any response from Meadows. Murphy did not respond to a request for comment.

On Nov. 7, shortly after news outlets called the election for Biden, Norman sent a message encouraging Meadows to set up a “game plan” and “FIGHT.”

Ralph Norman

Guys, if there was ever a time to stand with our leader who has strengthened our military, stood for life for the unborn, supported Israel, built the wall , appointed conservative judges ect. And we lay down and abandon him JUST BECAUSE THE BIASED MEDIA HAS CALL THE ELECTION?? Now is the time to fight and ADVOCATE for a recount in GA, AZ, Pennsylvania!! What our delegation is doing in SC is gathering on the statehouse steps on Tuesday to advocate for standing with our president and other arguments/options that are at our disposal. For anyone willing to discuss our game plan let me or anyone else know and let’s get on a conference call with concrete plans of action. I will go anywhere anytime to help our cause. Bottom line, it’s time we FIGHT FOR THE ONE PERSON WHO HAS CHANGED THIS COUNTRY!! WAY TOO SOON TO GIVE IN NOW!!

As Trump’s allies were trying to come up with a plan on Capitol Hill, far-right activists were also gathering to protest the election around the country. The text log shows Meadows was in communication with Amy Kremer, who organized a “March For Trump” bus tour and ultimately helped plan the Jan. 6, 2021, rally on the White House Ellipse where the former president spoke and urged the crowd to “fight like hell” before many of them marched to the Capitol as it was being stormed. Messages in the log also highlight how Republican members of Congress were participating in a series of pre-Jan. 6 election protests around the country. On the afternoon of Nov. 7, Kevin Brady (R-TX) wrote Meadows to let him know that he had spoken at a “Defend the President Rally” in his home state.

“Asked the crowd to cheer for our President. They are still in the fight!” Brady wrote.

“I will pass it to potus. Thank you and thank them,” Meadows replied.

A spokesperson for Brady provided a statement to TPM that suggested he was simply trying to be helpful and encouraging.

“On the fourth day after the election, before all votes had been reported and prior to the later election contest strategy by the Trump campaign, Congressman Brady sent Mr. Meadows a photo of a local rally for the President and a single general inquiry on how he might help. There was no response from Mr. Meadows,” the spokesperson said.

Brady’s spokesperson also emphasized that he was not one of the 147 Republicans who objected to the election results.

Conspiracy theories are a major theme of Meadows’ messages with Republican members of Congress following Trump’s defeat. On the evening of Nov. 7, Rep. Ted Budd (R-NC) shared a message claiming there were links between Dominion Voting Systems and billionaire George Soros. Dominion was a focus in many 2020 election conspiracies that were thoroughly debunked. In some messages to associates, Meadows, who expressed openness to other wild theories, indicated that the Dominion theories were too far-fetched even for him. Soros has long been a fixture of far-right conspiracy theories that blend overheated analysis of the financier’s funding of progressive causes with anti-Semitic tropes.

“Praying for your health! FYI Dominion Voting Systems is owned by State Street Capital, which are Carlyle (Rubenstein alums), Rubenstein is a longtime co-investor with Soros Capital,” wrote Budd.

Budd’s message seemed to be a misspelling of Staple Street management, a private equity firm that owns Dominion, coupled with a series of claims that there were some kind of ties between various other investors. Budd did not respond to a request for comment. Last month, Budd earned a promotion when he was elected to one of the Senate seats in his home state. He is set to take office next month.

CPI was not the only conservative dark money group that aided the push to overturn the election. On Dec. 2, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) wrote Meadows and indicated he was participating in Georgia rallies organized by Club For Growth. While those events were focused on that state’s Senate runoff race, Gohmert and Greene reportedly brought up the presidential race in their remarks. In his text to Meadows, Gohmert was hoping for a ride on Air Force One or a White House visit.

Louie Gohmert

Mark, Club for Growth wanted me to help in GA Dec 11& 12 on their bus tour, I’ve also been asked to help this wkend (while I’m still trying to spur people to get REAL winner of Pres recognized since without the Pres OFFICIALLY re-elected, we’re done). Would it be possible to ride AF One to GA Saturday? I’d only need a ride down since I’d stay there longer. Also if Pres had anytime I could drop by today, would love to see u both. Thanks. Louie

Gohmert had previously texted Meadows asking to visit the White House and been rebuffed by the chief of staff. Based on the log, Meadows did not respond to his message about a ride on the presidential plane. Gohmert did not respond to a request for comment.

Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ) is another member of Congress who texted Meadows outlandish conspiracy theories about the election. According to the log, shortly after 11 p.m. on Dec. 16, 2020, Gosar wrote in with his own completely inaccurate concerns about Dominion.

Paul Gosar

When is the 45 days up? What date starts the clock ?? Nov 3rd? If it is, then that is December 18!!! China bought Dominion in October for $400 million. If that’s not interference, then should have a report with details and specifics that would validate that either way. And if they didn’t…… Call me I have some fireworks coming out of AZ early tomorrow. Call me anytime, I’m up.

The claim made by Gosar reportedly originated with far right conspiracy theorist Alex Jones’ website, InfoWars. Gosar also included a link to an executive order signed by Trump in 2018 that called for the director of national intelligence to “conduct an assessment of any information indicating that a foreign government” attempted to interfere with the election within 45 days of ballots being cast. Gosar also sent Meadows a link to a fringe blog called “Some Bitch Told Me” and a since-deleted set of files that he said showed “Massive fraud coming out of AZ.” In total, the log shows Gosar sent Meadows 13 messages, nearly half of which came between Dec. 16-17, 2020. Based on the log, Meadows did not respond to any of them.

Despite Gosar seemingly gleaning his assertions from InfoWars and “Some Bitch Told Me,” Anthony Foti, a spokesperson for the congressman insisted, “at no time did he share a conspiracy theory.”

“Congressman Gosar filed objections to certification from Arizona under the Electoral Count Act,” Foti wrote in an email to TPM, adding, “His comments were based on factual occurrences.”

Meadows did entertain some of the conspiracy theories forwarded along by the Republican members of Congress — and in at least one case, he acted on them.

On Dec. 29, 2020, Babin sent Meadows a link to an article describing claims by Republican legislators in Pennsylvania that the state’s election results didn’t “add up.” The article included a statement from Pennsylvania’s Department of State that noted in detail how the lawmakers’ claims were “uninformed” and called them a “so-called analysis [that] was based on incomplete data.” Nevertheless, Meadows seemed to take Babin’s article seriously and indicated he sent it on to the Justice Department.

“Yes. Already forwarded it to DOJ,” Meadows replied to Babin’s message with the link.

On Dec. 30, 2020, Sen. Cynthia Lummis (R-WY), who had just been elected, wrote Meadows and suggested the debunked Pennsylvania analysis convinced her to object to the electoral certification.

Cynthia Lummis

Dear Mark, In light of the forensic accounting report by Pennsylvania legislators, I have reached out to Sen. Josh Hawley’s staff to serve as a �wingman� to him on Jan. 6. Please include me in the loop as you gain access to equally persuasive evidence from other states. Thank you, Cynthia Lummis

In a text to TPM, Lummis provided an explanation for her message to Meadows.

“I voted against the Pennsylvania electors because Pennsylvania conducted its 2020 election in violation of its own Pennsylvania Constitution. Sen. Hawley had publicly expressed the same concern about Pennsylvania. That explains the text to Mark Meadows,” wrote Lummis. “I did not vote against the Arizona electors. I do not know how Sen Hawley voted re: Arizona’s electors.”

Meadows’ log also shows certain congressional Republicans playing key roles in the effort to overturn the election. In a Dec. 19, 2020, message, Rep. Jody Hice claims to be “leading the GA electoral college objection on Jan 6.” In a phone call with TPM, Sarah Selip, a spokesperson for Hice, noted he was outspoken in his opposition to the election results in his home state.

“Our boss did lead the electoral objection for Georgia. I mean that’s just how it is,” said Selip.

Ted Cruz, meanwhile, seems to have played a major part in heading up objections in the Senate. On Jan. 2, he sent Meadows a link to a statement he released with Lummis and nine other colleagues vowing to “vote on January 6 to reject the electors from disputed states as not ‘regularly given’ and ‘lawfully certified’ (the statutory requisite), unless and until that emergency 10-day audit is completed.” Meadows had a one-word response to Cruz.

“Perfect,” said Meadows.

The following day, Trump campaign adviser Jason Miller wrote Meadows that Trump himself was pressing Georgia’s senators to “to get on board with the Cruz effort.” A spokesperson for Cruz declined to comment.

Brooks wrote Meadows on Dec. 21, 2020, about plans to have a “White House meeting regarding formulation of our January 6 strategies.” Later that day, Meadows sent a message to Fox News personality Brian Kilmeade later that day indicating the meeting took place.

“The President and I met with about 15 members of Congress to discuss the evidence of voter fraud in various states as well as discuss the strategy for making the case to the American people,” Meadows wrote to the cable news host. (Eleven of those members — including Babin, Biggs, Gaetz, Gosar, Rep. Andy Harris (R-MD), Hice, Jordan, Rep. Scott Perry (R-PA) and Rep.-elect Marjore Taylor Greene (R-GA) — were later identified by the Jan. 6 Committee, citing White House visitor logs. Meadows aide Cassidy Hutchinson testified that Rep. Debbie Lesko (R-AZ) also attended the meeting.)

As the electoral certification approached, members of Congress sent Meadows messages expressing concern and anger that some Republicans were not backing their efforts. On the evening of Jan. 5, 2021, Norman wrote Meadows about House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy.

“Mark, I hear McCarthy is giving equal time to let those who are opposed to the challenge of the electoral votes which is LUDICROUS!! Trump needs to call Kevin!!” Norman wrote.

Later that same night, Jordan presented a plan for Pence to throw out the results as he presided over the certification.

Jim Jordan

On January 6, 2021, Vice President Mike Pence, as President of the Senate, should call out all electoral votes that he believes are unconstitutional as no electoral votes at all — in accordance with guidance from founding father Alexander Hamilton and judicial precedence. �No legislative act,� wrote Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 78, �contrary to the Constitution, can be valid.� �The court in Hubbard v. Lowe reinforced this truth: ��That an unconstitutional statute is not a law at all is a proposition no longer open to discussion.� �226 F. 135, 137 (SDNY 1915), appeal dismissed, 242 U.S. 654 (1916). � Following this rationale, an unconstitutionally appointed elector, like an unconstitutionally enacted statute, is no elector at all.

Trump would later rage at Pence for not taking this approach. Meadows responded to Jordan on the morning of Jan. 6 indicating the vice president was not on board.

“I have pushed for this. Not sure it is going to happen,” Meadows said.

Jordan’s communications director, Russell Dye, told TPM that the message outlining the strategy to object to the electoral certification had been forwarded to the congressman by Joseph Schmitz, a former Department of Defense inspector general.

“In other words, the idea mentioned in the text was not crafted by Mr. Jordan. It was a legal theory developed by a former DOD Inspector General,” Dye said.

Asked about the other texts that indicated Jordan played a leading role in the effort to challenge the election by Republican House members, Dye suggested it was part of the congressman’s duties.

“Mr. Jordan was carrying out his Constitutional duties as a Member of Congress when he objected to electors on January 6, 2021 — just like Democrats did in 2001, 2005, and 2017,” said Dye.

In the wake of the attack on the Capitol, some members wrote to Meadows and offered encouragement for Trump. One of them was Rep. Andrew Clyde (R-GA). On Jan. 9, he had an idea for Trump to return to social media after he was banned from Twitter and Facebook for his part in fomenting the violence.

Andrew Clyde

Mark, This is Rep Andrew Clyde GA-09. I would like to pass to POTUS that we are still with him, I believe in him and I want to encourage him. I will do my best to continue to fight for election integrity too. Jody Hice suggested this was a good way to reach President Trump with encouragement. I truly hope he does create a new platform to complete with Twitter and I hope he calls it �Trumpet� and then we can send out �notes� to each other! Jennifer and I pray for POTUS daily, and FLOTUS too.

As ever, Meadows was on board with the plan.

“I will share it with him,” Meadows said. “Thanks Andrew”

Below is a list of all of the members of Congress identified in Meadows’ text message log. We have also included details about whether we were able to verify the contact information associated with their names and our efforts to include their comments on this story.

______________

Notes:

1. Rep. Andy Biggs (R-AZ) – Biggs’ number was identified by committee investigators and independently confirmed by TPM. Biggs did not respond to a request for comment.
2. Rep. Mike Kelly (R-PA) – Kelly’s number was identified by committee investigators and independently verified through public records by TPM. Kelly did not respond to a request for comment.
3. Rep. Billy Long (R-MO) – Long’s number was identified by committee investigators and independently verified through public records by TPM. Long did not respond to a request for comment.
4. Rep. Warren Davidson (R-OH) – Davidson’s number was identified by committee investigators and independently verified through public records by TPM. Davidson did not respond to a request for comment.
5. Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX) – Roy, who ultimately did not vote to object to the election results, previously confirmed he sent the texts Meadows provided to the committee when CNN reported on his messages. When asked about this story, a Roy spokesperson directed TPM to an earlier response.
6. Rep. Brian Babin (R-TX) – Babin’s number was identified by committee investigators. TPM was unable to independently verify that the number belongs to him. Babin did not respond to a request for comment.
7. Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-ND) – Cramer, who ultimately did not vote to object to the election results, spoke to TPM for this story and his comments are included above.
8. Rep. Mark Green (R-TN) – Green’s number was identified by committee investigators and confirmed by TPM. His office provided a statement which was included in the story above.
9. Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) – Gohmert’s number was identified by committee investigators and independently verified through public records by TPM. Gohmert and his office did not return requests for comment.
10. Rep. Greg Murphy (R-NC) – Murphy’s number was identified by committee investigators and independently verified through public records by TPM. Murphy and his office did not return requests for comment.
11. Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ) – Committee investigators identified Gosar as using multiple phone numbers and an email address to text Mark Meadows. TPM has independently verified one of the numbers as well as the email. Gosar’s office provided a statement for this story, part of which is included above.
12. Rep. Ralph Norman (R-SC) – Norman’s number was identified by committee investigators and independently confirmed by TPM. He spoke to us for this story and his comments are detailed above.
13. Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) – Lee, who ultimately did not vote to object to the election results, has confirmed he sent the texts Meadows provided to the committee that were identified as coming from his phone. Lee and his office did not respond to a request for comment on this story.
14. Rep. Kevin Brady (R-TX) – Brady’s number was identified by committee investigators and independently confirmed by TPM. In a response that is included in this story, a spokesperson for Brady stressed that he did not vote to object to the election results.
15. Rep. Scott Perry (R-PA) – Perry’s number was identified by committee investigators. TPM was unable to independently verify that the number belongs to him. Perry and his office did not respond to a request for comment.
16. Rep. Ted Budd (R-NC) – Budd’s number was identified by committee investigators and independently verified through public records by TPM. Budd and his office did not return requests for comment.
17. Rep. Tom Emmer (R-MN) – Emmer’s number was identified by committee investigators and independently verified through public records by TPM. He ultimately did not vote to object to the election results. Emmer and his office did not return requests for comment.
18. Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) – Jordan’s number was identified by committee investigators. TPM was unable to independently verify that the number belongs to him. Jordan’s communications director provided a comment, which is included in the story above.
19. Rep. Richard Hudson (R-NC) – Hudson’s number was identified by committee investigators and independently confirmed by TPM. A spokesperson requested to see the texts identified as coming from Hudson in the Meadows log. They did not respond to subsequent requests for comment.
20. Rep. Jody Hice (R-GA) – Hice’s number was identified by committee investigators and independently verified through public records by TPM. A spokesperson provided a comment, which is included in the story above.
21. Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R-GA) – Loudermilk’s number was identified by committee investigators and independently confirmed by TPM. He did not respond to a request for comment.
22. Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) – Committee investigators identified Johnson, who ultimately did not vote to object to the election results, using an email address that was confirmed by TPM. A Johnson spokesperson also issued a statement saying, “that he saw no scenario in which any of Biden’s electors would be disallowed. He also believes it is indisputable that there were a number of election irregularities that need to be addressed.”
23. Sen. David Perdue (R-GA) – Perdue’s number was identified by committee investigators and independently confirmed by TPM. Perdue, who left office on January 3, 2021 and was not present for the electoral certification, declined to comment on record.
24. Rep. Rick Allen (R-GA) – Allen’s number was identified by committee investigators. TPM was unable to independently verify that the number belongs to him. Allen and his office did not respond to a request for comment.
25. Rep. Bob Gibbs (R-OH) – Gibbs’ number was identified by committee investigators and independently verified through public records by TPM. Gibbs and his office did not respond to a request for comment.
26. Rep. Mo Brooks (R-AL) – Brooks’ number was identified by committee investigators and independently confirmed by TPM. He defended his actions in a phone interview that is included in the story above.
27. Rep. Mike Johnson (R-LA) – Johnson’s number was identified by committee investigators and independently verified through public records by TPM. Johnson and his office did not respond to a request for comment.
28. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) – Cruz’s number was identified by committee investigators and independently verified through public records by TPM. A spokesperson for Cruz declined to comment on this story.
29. Sen. Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) – Lummis’ phone number was identified by committee investigators and independently confirmed by TPM. She sent us a text message that is included in the story above.
30. Rep. Marjorie Taylor-Greene (R-GA) – Greene’s number was identified by committee investigators and independently confirmed by TPM. Her office did not respond to a request for comment.
31. Rep. Barry Moore (R-AL) – Moore’s number was identified by committee investigators and independently verified through public records by TPM. Moore and his office did not respond to a request for comment.
32. Rep. Fred Keller (R-PA) – Keller’s number was identified by committee investigators and independently confirmed by TPM. Keller and his office did not respond to a request for comment.
33. Rep. Dan Bishop (R-NC) – Bishop’s number was identified by committee investigators and confirmed by TPM. He provided a statement defending his objection to the election results: “My analysis of the tactics, purposes and possible impacts of the Democrats’ national litigation campaign to disrupt 2020 election operations remains 100% factual and accurate. Consequently, I have no regrets about publishing it,” Bishop said.
34. Rep. Andrew Clyde (R-GA) – Clyde’s number was identified by committee investigators and independently confirmed by TPM. His office responded to a request for comment by pointing out some of his messages were reported by CNN. They did not respond to questions about the substance of his remarks.

Update: This post has been updated to provide additional details about rallies in Georgia, and comment from Rep. Jim Jordan’s office.

Hunter Walker (@hunterw) is an investigative reporter for Talking Points Memo. He is an author and former White House correspondent whose work has appeared in a variety of publications including: the New Yorker, Rolling Stone, and New York Magazine. He can be reached at [email protected]

Josh Kovensky is an investigative reporter for Talking Points Memo, based in New York. He previously worked for the Kyiv Post in Ukraine, covering politics, business, and corruption there.

Emine Yücel is a national political reporter for TPM. A native of Istanbul, Turkey, Emine has worked as a politics production assistant for PBS’ Washington Week and NewsHour Weekend and a news assistant for NPR’s Investigations Team. She double majored in African American studies and Neuroscience at Northwestern University, where she also competed on the varsity fencing team. She later received her master’s degree in Social Justice and Investigative Reporting from the Medill School of Journalism at Northwestern.

***********************************

A Plot To Overturn An American Election: TPM Has Obtained Explosive Evidence Uncovered By The January 6 Select Committee
by Hunter Walker
December 12, 2022 3:31 p.m.

The messages you are about to read are the definitive, real-time record of a plot to overturn an American election.

TPM has obtained the 2,319 text messages that Mark Meadows, who was President Trump’s last White House chief of staff, turned over to the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack. Today, we are publishing The Meadows Texts, a series based on an in-depth analysis of these extraordinary — and disturbing — communications.

The vast majority of Meadows’ texts described in this series are being made public for the very first time. They show the senior-most official in the Trump White House communicating with members of Congress, state-level politicians, and far-right activists as they work feverishly to overturn Trump’s loss in the 2020 election. The Meadows texts illustrate in moment-to-moment detail an authoritarian effort to undermine the will of the people and upend the American democratic system as we know it.

The text messages, obtained from multiple sources, offer new insights into how the assault on the election was rooted in deranged internet paranoia and undemocratic ideology. They show Meadows and other high-level Trump allies reveling in wild conspiracy theories, violent rhetoric, and crackpot legal strategies for refusing to certify Joe Biden’s victory. They expose the previously unknown roles of some members of Congress, local politicians, activists and others in the plot to overturn the election. Now, for the first time, many of those figures will be named and their roles will be described — in their own words.

Meadows turned over the text messages during a brief period of cooperation with the committee before he filed a December 2021 lawsuit arguing that its subpoenas seeking testimony and his phone records were “overly broad” and violations of executive privilege. The committee did not respond to a request for comment on this story. Since then, Meadows has faced losses in his efforts to challenge the subpoena in court. However, that legal battle is ongoing and is unlikely to conclude before next month, when the incoming Republican House majority is widely expected to shutter the committee’s investigation. Earlier this year, Meadows reportedly turned over the same material he gave the select committee to the Justice Department in response to another subpoena. These messages are key evidence in the two major investigations into the Jan. 6 attack. With this series, the American people will be able to evaluate the most important texts for themselves.

Meadows has not, thus far, responded to multiple requests for comment. The texts Meadows provided to the select committee encompass the period from election night in 2020 through President Joe Biden’s inauguration on Jan. 20, 2021. It is not clear which, if any, texts Meadows withheld from the committee, but the text message log offers multiple hints it is only a partial record of his conversations. There are discussions that clearly lack prior context and messages where participants indicate there is further communication taking place on encrypted channels.

But despite the seeming gaps, Meadows’ text record is still incredibly revealing. Some of the contents of the log were published in “The Breach,” a book about the Jan. 6 attack that I co-wrote with Denver Riggleman, a former Republican congressman and senior technical adviser to the committee. In our book, Riggleman described how he and his fellow committee investigators dubbed Meadows’ text log “the crown jewels” because they served as the “road map to an insurrection.” Along with the text messages that appeared in “The Breach,” some of Meadows’ messages have also been revealed by media outlets. The Washington Post published his exchanges with Ginni Thomas, the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Some of Meadows’ conversations with Fox News personalities and other members of the media were disclosed by the select committee. CNN and I have published Meadows’ conversations with some Republican members of Congress including; Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT), Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX), Rep. Lee Zeldin (R-NY), Rep. Scott Perry (R-PA), and Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA). Additionally, CNN has published Meadows’ texts with Fox News personality Sean Hannity and his messages from the period directly surrounding the Jan. 6 attack. However, there’s more. So much more.

TPM is kicking off this series with an exclusive story showing that the log includes more than 450 messages with 34 Republican members of Congress. Those texts show varying degrees of involvement by members of Congress, from largely benign expressions of support for Trump to the leading roles played by Reps. Jim Jordan (R-OH), Jody Hice (R-GA), Mo Brooks (R-AL), and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) in the plot to reverse Trump’s defeat. We reached out to all these legislators, and will be detailing their roles and responses to our questions in the first installment of the series, which is coming later today.

Committee investigators received the text messages from Meadows’ legal team without names associated with the individual texts, only phone numbers. They tied phone numbers to individuals based on law enforcement databases of public records and their own intelligence work. For these stories, we are relying on the identifications of those texting with Meadows that were made by the committee’s investigators. We have indicated where we were able to independently confirm their work through our own public records searches and reporting. The text message contents received by the committee contained tokens that replaced emojis and certain punctuation. They also include many typos and grammatical errors. Other than replacing tokens where they seemed to clearly be standing in for apostrophes, we have strived to present these texts in their original format as received by the committee. TPM has conducted an in-depth review of Meadows’ entire text log with a team of reporters and editors working over five weeks.

Much of the undemocratic attempt to reverse Trump’s defeat played out in the public eye. Lawyers allied with Trump and his campaign launched a failed legal blitz that sought to challenge the election results based on questionable evidence. Republican politicians and activists staged months of rallies around the country to protest the vote. It all culminated on Jan. 6, 2021, when Trump appeared at a rally on the Ellipse and urged his die-hard supporters to “fight like hell” as his loss was being certified at the U.S. Capitol. Thousands of Trump supporters, including many who marched directly to the Capitol from Trump’s speech, stormed into the building, smashed windows, and fought brutally with law enforcement, leading to multiple deaths and a brief interruption in the electoral certification. That evening, surrounded by National Guard troops and broken glass, 147 Republicans voted to overturn the results

Meadows’ text log shows what the scheme to subvert the 2020 election looked like behind the scenes. It reveals the roots of the violence and its key enablers in Washington. The messages show the plot began well before Jan. 6 and continued afterward. They are essential documentation of a dark day in American history.

Hunter Walker (@hunterw) is an investigative reporter for Talking Points Memo. He is an author and former White House correspondent whose work has appeared in a variety of publications including: the New Yorker, Rolling Stone, and New York Magazine. He can be reached at [email protected]

[admin]

A TPM Exclusive Series: The Meadows Texts Part 2 of __

Freedom Caucus Chair Scott Perry’s Work To Overturn 2020 Election Included A ‘Cyber Team’ And An Italian Job
by Hunter Walker and Josh Kovensky
December 12, 2022 6:48 p.m.

It had been one week since the 2020 presidential election and three days since news outlets called the race, and Rep. Scott Perry (R-PA) was frantically working to reverse President Trump’s loss.

Perry had an aggressive plan. Based on the text log obtained by TPM, Perry wrote Trump White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows about his efforts to set up a “cyber team.” It would seize voting machines around the country and put them under “lock and key.”

Scott Perry

Mark, these are instructions are from the cyber forensic team. Please ensure widest dissemination and action. Plz tell every state senior that they need to: 1. Preserve the specific voting machines (scanners) used at the polling places where the glitch occurred. (Put them under lock and key – nobody touches them) 2. Preserve the machines at the precinct or tally location that were used to total the votes and upload them to the Internet or state counting facility. (Put them under lock and key – nobody touches them ) 3. Preserve all email communications with the officials responsible for the software updates, authorization software updates, and deploying software updates to the voting machines. 4. Preserve all non-email communications by the officials related to the same (text messages, imessages, whatsapp, etc) – and fact of phone calls (date/time stamps) 5. Preserve all communications (as listed in 3 and 4) by the voting machine technicians or corporate officials responsible for the creation and deployment of software updates. 6. Preserve all software logs, source code, continuous deployment/continuous integration logs, associated with the software updates process that resulted in the glitch. 7. Preserve the technicians, laptop, ipad, phone, or any other device used in the official execution of their duties to update voting machines

Perry, who later became the chairman of the far-right House Freedom Caucus, was one of 34 members of Congress who exchanged more than 400 texts with Meadows about efforts to overturn Trump’s loss in the 2020 presidential election. Those texts were included in the log that Meadows turned over to the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack. For this series, The Meadows Texts, we are relying on the identifications of those texting with Meadows that were made by the committee’s investigators. To read more about the story behind that text log and our procedures for publishing the messages, check out the introduction to this series. Perry and his office did not respond to a request for comment.

The log may only be a partial record of Meadows’ communications, but Perry was one of the chief of staff’s most frequent correspondents included in it. The pair exchanged at least 62 messages in the period from Election Day, Nov. 3, 2020, through Biden’s inauguration on Jan. 20, 2021. CNN has previously published some of Perry’s messages with Meadows.

The texts between Perry and Meadows show the congressman attempting to involve himself in nearly every aspect of the campaign to block Biden’s win. They also reveal Perry to be someone who appeared to sincerely buy into outlandish conspiracy theories that the election was stolen by an array of shadowy international cyber warriors — and who was willing to use his position and influence in government to sow doubt and subvert the vote based on those deeply paranoid convictions.

Officials at every level of state and federal government — including multiple high-level members of Trump’s own administration — have confirmed there was no widespread fraud in the 2020 presidential election. Voting machines were central to the many thoroughly debunked conspiracy theories espoused by Trump and his allies in Pennsylvania and other key states. Pennsylvania counties each have different election procedures; however, they all complied with a 2018 directive from Trump’s Department of Homeland Security that called on local jurisdictions to use voting systems that include paper ballots that can be audited and verified by hand. The only notable issue reported in the state during the 2020 election was a man who used the names of dead relatives to cast multiple votes for Trump.

On Nov. 8, 2020, the day after Biden was projected as the winner of the election, Perry texted Meadows and urged him to connect with Sidney Powell, the firebrand far-right attorney. Powell would go on to pin Trump’s defeat on a communist conspiracy masterminded by deceased Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez. In messages with other contacts, Meadows, who entertained some conspiracy theories about the vote, indicated that Powell’s ideas were too far-fetched even for him. Perry seemingly had no such doubts and pressed Meadows, “please do not delay in speaking” with Powell.

The next day, Perry relayed a request from Cleta Mitchell, another right-wing attorney who worked on the Trump campaign’s failed legal blitz to challenge the election results in multiple states. According to Perry’s text, Mitchell was eager to set up a 501(c)(4) non-profit to support her efforts.

“Cleta asked if she should set up a C4 to deal with raising money and paying for the cyber portion. She offered to do it if necessary,” Perry wrote.

The text message log did not include responses from Meadows to Perry’s missives about the lawyers. However, in multiple messages, Perry indicated he was also communicating with Meadows on Signal, an encrypted messaging platform, and urged the chief of staff to check the Signal app.

By Nov. 10, Perry was working on the “cyber team.” In a series of texts that day, Perry said he was attempting to contribute to efforts in three key swing states: Michigan, Wisconsin and Arizona.

After sending Meadows the “instructions” from the “cyber forensic team” about locking down voting machines, Perry passed along a link to a conspiracy theory about the vote count in Pennsylvania posted by the Epoch Times, a far-right pro-Trump newspaper affiliated with the Falun Gong religious movement. Perry also asked Meadows for “a point of contact in Wisconsin and Arizona,” and for other people associated with “the cyber effort.” Meadows appeared to direct Perry to Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX), although Trump’s chief of staff misspelled the congressman’s first name as “Cip.”

“Roger, thank you. I will contact him now,” Perry wrote.

Roy’s text messages with Meadows were previously reported by CNN in April. When asked for comment on this series, a spokesperson for Roy pointed to a statement he issued at that time declaring, “​​No apologies for my private texts or public positions.”

As time went on, Perry appeared to become increasingly consumed by conspiracy theories related to the election. On the morning of Nov. 12, he sent a flurry of messages to Meadows and Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH). Perry’s download to the pair began with a rambling 501-word, six-part strategy for challenging the vote in Pennsylvania that Perry said he was forwarding from a legislator in the state. Perry described the missive as a “a reasonable assessment,” but it was filled with easily debunked election delusions.

“People think Dominion software was hacked,” the lengthy text said, referencing a voting machine company that was central to many 2020 conspiracies. Multiple Trump administration officials have testified that the claims about Dominion had no merit. In some of his text messages, Meadows actually indicated he was skeptical of the theory. Dominion ultimately filed a series of defamation lawsuits against Trump allies who pushed the theory publicly. While some of those cases are ongoing, the company has had some success in initial court decisions.

Perry followed that message up by sending Meadows and Jordan what he described as a tip received “from an intel friend.”

“DNI needs to task NSA to immediately seize and begin looking for international comms related to Dominion – was china malware involved?” Perry wrote.

One minute later, he added that the Office of the Director of National Intelligence — run at that time by a former House colleague of his — needed to “audit their overseas accounts at CIA” and also take a look at the National Endowment for Democracy, a grantmaking organization for foreign NGOs. It’s not clear how the endowment was supposed to be involved. The organization’s board of directors includes prominent Trump allies: Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY) and Elliott Abrams, a Trump administration diplomat. Meadows’ text logs do not show any reply to Perry’s messages from Meadows or Jordan. Nevertheless, he persisted.

“This whole situation was seen coming a hundred miles away and they did nothing,” Perry wrote, adding, “And Gina is still running around on the Hill covering for the Brits who helped quarterback this entire operation.”

Perry’s message is seemingly a reference to a massive cover-up being orchestrated by Trump CIA director Gina Haspel and the United Kingdom. While the log doesn’t contain any response from Meadows or Jordan to these messages. Jordan and his office did not respond to requests for comment on this story.

On the afternoon of Nov. 12, Meadows wrote Perry asking if one of his contacts would be “willing to sign an affidavit,” presumably detailing claims about the election. Perry was, of course, eager to make the connection and also shared another series of conspiracy theories about the vote in his home state.

Scott Perry

Believe me, I’m going to do everything I can including putting you on the phone with her. Also, apparently, our dept of state shut down all its systems on Oct 2/3 and lost all its data requiring them to replace all their hard drives. Don’t know yet if it matters but the state legislative auditors are holding that for their subpoenas next week.

One week later, on Nov. 19, Perry let Meadows know he was working with “Rudy’s folks in Philly,” an apparent reference to the legal effort being run by Trump’s personal attorney, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani. Over the next few days, Perry communicated with Meadows about connecting Pennsylvania lawmakers both with “Rudy’s folks” and Trump. Giuliani did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Perry also expressed a desire to push U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Bill McSwain, a Trump appointee, to investigate the vote. McSwain’s decision not to challenge the results was apparently a source of frustration for Trump. Earlier this year, as McSwain mounted an unsuccessful bid for governor, Trump attacked him for doing “absolutely nothing on the massive election fraud that took place in Philadelphia and throughout the commonwealth.”

Scott Perry

Thanks for doing that. Talking with Rudy’s folks in Philly, they want the PA legislative leaders invited ASAP for Sunday or Monday. They are in all day tomorrow passing the budget so that’s out. Let me know if you want to discuss it.

Mark Meadows

As long as you are coordinating. That is fine

Scott Perry

The call will have to come from The White House.

Mark Meadows

Can you send me the number for the speaker and the leader of PA Legislature. POTUS wants to chat with them

Scott Perry

Yes sir

Scott Perry

What will it take for Bill Mcswain to open an investigation?

Perry’s correspondence with Meadows, as recorded in the log, thinned out in Dec. 2020. However, the congressman was clearly still on board with the effort to challenge Trump’s loss. On Dec. 19, Rep. Jody Hice (R-GA), who was playing a leading role organizing the objection to the electoral certification that was set to take place at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, wrote Meadows a message where he indicated he was confident Perry would back the effort. Perry was ultimately one of the 147 congressional Republicans who objected to the electoral certification in the hours after the Capitol was stormed by Trump supporters.

On Christmas Eve 2020, Perry tried to connect with Meadows.

“Mark, let me know if we can talk some strategy. Just a few minutes,” he wrote.

There was no reply in the logs. Perry texted Meadows again after the holiday. His tone was decidedly urgent.

“Mark, just checking in as time continues to count down. 11 days to 1/6 and 25 days to inauguration. We gotta get going!” Perry wrote.

Just over a half hour later, Perry was pressing Meadows to install Jeffrey Clark, the assistant attorney general for the DOJ’s natural resources section, as acting attorney general.

Clark became the central figure in a bizarre episode where Trump essentially tried to launch a coup through the DOJ, attempting to enlist federal law enforcement in his campaign to reverse his defeat.

As the linchpin of that plan, Trump wanted Clark, a longtime environmental lawyer and staunch loyalist, installed as acting attorney general. On his Twitter page, Clark has described himself as someone who was simply “concerned about the 2020 election” and as “one of the top targets of the politically motivated J6 Committee.”

Per a Senate Judiciary Committee report released last year, if he was placed atop the Justice Department, the plan was for Clark to send letters to multiple swing states informing them the DOJ had concluded that their election results were indeterminate. That report identified Perry as the one who introduced Clark to Trump.

The texts show Perry was pressing Meadows to speak with Clark over and over again.

Scott Perry

Mark, you should call Jeff. I just got off the phone with him and he explained to me why the principal deputy won’t work especially with the FBI. They will view it as as not having the authority to enforce what needs to be done.

Mark Meadows

I got it. I think I understand. Let me work on the deputy position

Part of what Clark was meant to do once in power was tee up the White House to make use of an executive order that Trump signed in 2018. That order, which was nominally aimed at combating foreign interference in American elections, granted broad power to the president and his Cabinet to impose sanctions if law enforcement officials declared there had been foreign meddling. In the wake of his loss, various Trump allies fixated on the order and the idea that a declaration of outside interference in the election could trigger all manner of responses, including the seizure of voting machines and martial law.

Perry appeared to be convinced there had been foreign interference. Per the texts, he was fixated on what later became known as “ItalyGate.” This conspiracy theory posited that Trump’s loss was really due to a hacking effort masterminded by an Italian defense contractor that used military-grade satellites to zap voting machines and steal the election for Biden. A House committee found last year that Meadows urged senior DOJ officials to investigate the theory, while the Jan. 6 committee found that a Trump appointee got the Pentagon to examine it. Per the Senate report, on both Dec. 29 and Dec. 30, 2020, Meadows urged DOJ officials to investigate ItalyGate.

On Dec. 30, Perry texted Meadows that “US 18-95” had been poorly explained at a meeting the previous day — an apparent reference to the U.S. statute that governs the activities of foreign agents on American soil.

On New Year’s Eve, shortly before midnight, Perry had another idea that he texted to Meadows.

“Why can’t we just work with the Italian government?” Perry asked.

He followed that message up with a link to a YouTube video outlining the conspiracy. Days later, on Jan. 2, 2021, Perry was juggling both the alleged Italian menace and the fate of Jeff Clark, whose bid to become attorney general was imploding as senior DOJ and White House legal officials threatened Trump with mass resignations were he to be appointed AG.

Perry pressed Meadows to get Trump on the phone with Rome. According to the log, Perry sent Meadows a message that seemed to suggest Trump should reach out to former Italian Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte, whose name was misspelled in Perry’s text.

“Also,has POTUS been able to have a conversation with Conti? Can he move the ball today?” Perry asked.

The log does not include any responses from Meadows to Perry’s various messages about ItalyGate. However, it seemed Perry was aware Meadows was in communication with Clark.

“Please call me the instant you get off the phone with Jeff,” Perry wrote on the evening of Jan. 2.

Clark’s quest to become the country’s top federal law enforcement officer crashed and burned that very evening when DOJ officials spent hours persuading Trump to drop him as attorney general, putting an end to the scheme.

But it wasn’t the only plot afoot. The most dramatic of Trump’s efforts to stay in power came on Jan. 6 as the former president urged the thousands of his supporters who had converged on Washington to “fight like hell” as they stormed the U.S. Capitol. Perry, the texts show, was not done with the Trump White House after that fateful day. On Jan. 7, he sent Meadows one more message.

“Mark, please call when you can,” Perry wrote.

Rep. Scott Perry
A selection of key texts between Rep. Scott Perry (R-PA) and Mark Meadows.

11/8/20 at 2:32 p.m.

Scott Perry
Mark, please do not delay in speaking with him or Sydney Powell.

11/9/20 at 10:25 p.m.

Scott Perry
Cleta asked if she should set up a C4 to deal with raising money and paying for the cyber portion. She offered to do it if necessary.

11/10/20 at 10:11 a.m.

Scott Perry
Mark, so you're read in on what I've done I just sent this text to Josh Steinman. It is his contact in Michigan who I got from Ronna Mcdaniel. Her name is: Kim Jornes. Josh, this is Kim from Michigan. She will be your initial contact for your cyber team there. She is loading signal and will await your correspondence regarding team contact and instructions. Acknowledge receipt please.

11/10/20 at 8:49 p.m.

Scott Perry
Mark, these are instructions are from the cyber forensic team. Please ensure widest dissemination and action. Plz tell every state senior that they need to: 1. Preserve the specific voting machines (scanners) used at the polling places where the glitch occurred. (Put them under lock and key - nobody touches them) 2. Preserve the machines at the precinct or tally location that were used to total the votes and upload them to the Internet or state counting facility. (Put them under lock and key - nobody touches them ) 3. Preserve all email communications with the officials responsible for the software updates, authorization software updates, and deploying software updates to the voting machines. 4. Preserve all non-email communications by the officials related to the same (text messages, imessages, whatsapp, etc) - and fact of phone calls (date/time stamps) 5. Preserve all communications (as listed in 3 and 4) by the voting machine technicians or corporate officials responsible for the creation and deployment of software updates. 6. Preserve all software logs, source code, continuous deployment/continuous integration logs, associated with the software updates process that resulted in the glitch. 7. Preserve the technicians, laptop, ipad, phone, or any other device used in the official execution of their duties to update voting machines

11/10/20 at 8:57 p.m.

Scott Perry
https://www.theepochtimes.com/pennsylva ... 4zmZyT7oEs

11/10/20 at 9:02 p.m.

Scott Perry
I still need a point of contact in Wisconsin and Arizona.

11/10/20 at 9:17 p.m.

Scott Perry
Mark, I need the contact for a guy named Alex who is supposed to be handling the cyber effort.

11/10/20 at 9:40 p.m.

Mark Meadows
Cip Roy

11/10/20 at 9:43 p.m.

Scott Perry
Roger, thank you. I will contact him now.

11/11/20 at 7:09 a.m.

Scott Perry
I spoke with Alex and things are more clear now. I'm going to keep working it but if I sense my involvement is impending, I will bail out.

11/12/20 at 1:08 p.m.

Scott Perry
Can you tell me who is in charge of the Wisconsin recount?

11/12/20 at 3:17 p.m.

Mark Meadows
Let me know if she is willing to sign an affidavit

11/12/20 at 3:29 p.m.

Scott Perry
Believe me, I'm going to do everything I can including putting you on the phone with her. Also, apparently, our dept of state shut down all its systems on Oct 2/3 and lost all its data requiring them to replace all their hard drives. Don't know yet if it matters but the state legislative auditors are holding that for their subpoenas next week.

11/19/20 at 10:11 p.m.

Scott Perry
Thanks for doing that. Talking with Rudy's folks in Philly, they want the PA legislative leaders invited ASAP for Sunday or Monday. They are in all day tomorrow passing the budget so that's out. Let me know if you want to discuss it.

11/20/20 at 6:29 a.m.

Mark Meadows
As long as you are coordinating. That is fine

11/20/20 at 7:44 a.m.

Scott Perry
The call will have to come from The White House.

11/21/20 at 9:30 a.m.

Mark Meadows
Can you send me the number for the speaker and the leader of PA Legislature. POTUS wants to chat with them

11/21/20 at 2:16 p.m.

Scott Perry
Yes sir

11/21/20 at 10:25 p.m.

Scott Perry
What will it take for Bill Mcswain to open an investigation?

12/24/20 at 10:16 p.m.

Scott Perry
Mark, let me know if we can talk some strategy. Just a few minutes.

12/26/20 at 7:24 p.m.

Scott Perry
Mark, just checking in as time continues to count down. 11 days to 1/6 and 25 days to inauguration. We gotta get going!

12/26/20 at 7:55 p.m.

Scott Perry
Mark, you should call Jeff. I just got off the phone with him and he explained to me why the principal deputy won't work especially with the FBI. They will view it as as not having the authority to enforce what needs to be done.

12/26/20 at 8:04 p.m.

Mark Meadows
I got it. I think I understand. Let me work on the deputy position

12/26/20 at 8:05 p.m.

Scott Perry
Roger. Just sent you something on Signal

12/27/20 at 7:07 p.m.

Scott Perry
Can you call me when you get a chance? I just want to talk to you for a few moments before I return the presidents call as requested.

12/28/20 at 11:23 a.m.

Scott Perry
Did you call Jeff Clark?

12/29/20 at 10:32 a.m.

Scott Perry
Mark, I sent you a note on signal

12/30/20 at 12:50 a.m.

Scott Perry
Mark, need to re-visit US 18-951. It was not explained well yesterday. I think can add important context.

12/30/20 at 1:25 p.m.

Scott Perry
Check your signal please.

12/31/20 at 11:44 p.m.

Scott Perry
Why can't we just work with the Italian government?

12/31/20 at 11:44 p.m.

Scott Perry
https://youtu.be/YwtbK5XXAMk

1/2/21 at 11:37 a.m.

Scott Perry
This is what I sent to Jim: I suspect we will be operating under the two-hour rule for limiting debate plus the rule that each member can speak only once for five minutes or less (3 USC 17).

1/2/21 at 11:37 a.m.

Scott Perry
Can we conclude this does not preclude the ability of the President of the Senate�Vice President Pence�to admit testimony before commencing the debate?

1/2/21 at 11:37 a.m.

Scott Perry
�admit testimony� means Senate or House convenes as committee of the whole and hears sworn statements from persons who are willing to offer evidence and views but who are NOT members of Congress.

1/2/21 at 11:38 a.m.

Scott Perry
�Debate� takes place in House solely between members of the House. And �debate� takes place in Senate solely between members of the Senate.

1/2/21 at 11:39 a.m.

Scott Perry
Also,has POTUS been able to have a conversation with Conti? Can he move the ball today?

1/2/21 at 10:51 p.m.

Scott Perry
Please call me the instant you get off the phone with Jeff.

1/5/21 at 4:28 p.m.

Scott Perry
Please check your signal

1/7/21 at 3:35 p.m.

Scott Perry
Mark, please call when you can

Hunter Walker (@hunterw) is an investigative reporter for Talking Points Memo. He is an author and former White House correspondent whose work has appeared in a variety of publications including: the New Yorker, Rolling Stone, and New York Magazine. He can be reached at [email protected]

Josh Kovensky is an investigative reporter for Talking Points Memo, based in New York. He previously worked for the Kyiv Post in Ukraine, covering politics, business, and corruption there.

***************************

As The 2020 Election Slipped Away, Andy Biggs And Mark Meadows Schemed To Reverse The Vote In Arizona
by Kate Riga and Hunter Walker
December 12, 2022 8:31 p.m.

The election-night exchanges between Rep. Andy Biggs (R-AZ) and former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows on Nov. 3, 2020, read like any other conversation between a campaign stakeholder and his ally in a battleground state.

They were watching the returns, hyper-focused on ballot batches and voting patterns. Biggs, who at the time was the chairman of the far-right House Freedom Caucus, was confident the election was going Trump’s way in Arizona.

“This is the first hour voting trend,” Andy texted Meadows. “Republicans voting at three times Dems.”

“Outstanding,” Meadows glowed in response.

But the record of texts between the two took a darker turn over the next few weeks as other networks followed the early projection from the Fox News decision desk and called the Grand Canyon State for Joe Biden. Even as Meadows and Biggs both seemingly acknowledged that the numbers looked grim for their man, they schemed together to put pressure on Arizona officials and to devise plans to challenge the election results.

Meadows’ conversations with Biggs during the period from Election Day until Biden’s inauguration on Jan. 20, 2021, are part of a tranche of communication Meadows turned over to the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack. TPM has obtained the text log, which includes messages exchanged between Meadows and at least 34 members of Congress discussing efforts to overturn Trump’s election loss. For this series, The Meadows Texts, we are relying on the identifications of those texting with Meadows that were made by the committee’s investigators. To read more about the story behind that text log and our procedures for publishing the messages, check out the introduction to this series.

Based on the log, Biggs was one of Meadows’ most frequent congressional correspondents, with the pair exchanging 63 messages. Biggs’ number was identified by committee investigators and independently confirmed by TPM. He did not respond to a request for comment. Biggs’ communications with Meadows paint a picture of two increasingly desperate men, grasping at fantastical conspiracy theories when the real votes did not produce a Trump win.

As Arizona slipped further from Trump’s reach, their texts became increasingly frantic. Late on election night, Fox News called the state for Biden. It was the first network to do so, and its decision prompted outrage on the right. While that projection eventually proved correct, other major decision desks were not yet ready to call the state. Biggs messaged Meadows with a plea: “Whatever happens no one can concede.”

Andy Biggs

So, Fox called bu this is the situation that has been reported to me: outstanding ballots are600-700K statewide. Those are dropped off and day of votes. Fox doesn’t know what they are doing. Too many votes. Probably one more report tonight.

Andy Biggs

Mark they will start counting in Maricopa county tomorrow morning at 7:30 AM and they will go and release only one report at the end of the day. Whatever happens no one can concede because the president will win the state. After you and I talked another 10,000 votes came the presidents way so please make sure no one in the campaign or press office says anything about conceding in Arizona because I am very confident that as this thing goes President Trump is going to win

On Nov. 6, as the votes were still being counted, Meadows wrote Biggs looking for any reason to be optimistic.

“Any hope for Az,” Meadows asked.

“I’ve been trying to get hold of our legal and party teams in Arizona,” Biggs replied, before scratching off his calculations of how much of the outstanding vote Trump had to win to come back. “So still doable,” he concluded.

But things were bleak for Trump and his allies. The Associated Press made its call several hours after Fox and the other major broadcast networks caught up in the next few days. By Friday, when Meadows was looking for a silver lining in Arizona, NBC, ABC and CBS had all projected Biden as the state’s victor.

Less than eight hours after he indicated an Arizona victory was still “doable” for Trump, Biggs had begun cooking up a plot to challenge the results in the state.

Andy Biggs

I’m sure you have heard of this proposal. It is to encourage the state legislatures to appoint a look doors in the various states where there’s been shenanigans. If I understand right most of those states have Republican Legislature’s. It seems to be comport with glorified Bush as well as the Constitution. And, well highly controversial, it can’t be much more controversial than the lunacy that were sitting out there now. And It would be pretty difficult because he would take governors and legislators with collective will and backbone to do that. Is anybody on the team researching and considering lobbying for that?

Through the typos, Biggs seemed to be floating a variation of the fake electors scheme, a gambit where Trump allies would put their names to an alternate slate of electors that could be approved by Republican lawmakers in states Biden won. Versions of the plot became popular among members of the Trump camp as legal avenues to overturn the 2020 election dwindled, and the idea that Trump electors could be swapped in for Biden electors was key to Trump allies’ growing interest in the day when electoral votes would be counted and certified, Jan. 6. The fake electors schemes have led to multiple investigations.

On Nov. 6, Meadows was succinct in response:

“I love it,” he wrote.

While the two continued to track the numbers and tried to calculate the outstanding vote share in the state, it was clear that the door was closing. Even as they seemed to acknowledge the real results, the pair took a turn toward the tin foil-hatted and set aside the vote counts in favor of increasingly bizarre conspiracy theories that could help Trump clinch Arizona anyway. Biggs’ initial text with the “highly controversial” idea was previously published by CNN.

However, it is just one of several messages where Biggs proposed last-ditch, conspiracy-theory-fueled schemes to wrench back the state. Most of those messages are being reported here for the first time.

On Nov. 7, the day after he suggested the plan to have Republican-controlled state legislatures essentially throw out the results, Biggs sent Meadows another text urging Trump not to give up.

“Please don’t let the President concede. We must exhaust all options,” he wrote.

Trump — and Biggs — then set their sights on Arizona Republican Gov. Doug Ducey, who had been an ally of the former president. On Nov. 8, Biggs indicated he had spoken directly with Trump, who had asked him to reach out to Ducey. The plan was apparently not a success.

Andy Biggs

Hey Mark the president asked me to call Governor Ducey I did and Ducey won’t talk to me he will only let me talk to his Chief of Staff. But based on hints that were given to me looks like the governor wants to punch this to county board of supervisors. I did talk to the legal team and as a result I’ve placed some calls to the board of supervisors without connecting so far. I’ll keep trying

Ducey famously resisted — and literally ignored — calls from Trump about refusing to certify Biden’s victory.

In the days after Biggs’ effort to contact the governor, as he continued monitoring and expressed frustration about the pace of returns, Biggs also seemed to acknowledge there were not enough real votes for Trump to win.

Mark Meadows

How many total ballots left

Andy Biggs

We think there’s still around 55-60k

Mark Meadows

Ok

Andy Biggs

Wait all day for 5k ballots… This is inexcusable.

Andy Biggs

Not enough

Andy Biggs

Still more than 40k provisional ballots and about 7.5k other ballots. Question is how many provisionals are valid

With the numbers going against them, Biggs dashed down the conspiracy rabbit hole. On Nov. 12, he wrote Meadows to advise him of a contact who wanted “to talk about dominion software.” Dominion Voting Systems and its beleaguered employees found themselves at the center of a MAGA-fueled firestorm when Trump’s allies and acolytes baselessly hypothesized that the voting hardware and software company had provided machinery that flipped Trump votes to Biden. Employees received floods of death threats, and the company ultimately lodged a $1.6 billion defamation suit against Fox News, and separate lawsuits against other far-right news networks and Trump allies, for giving the lie life.

That same afternoon, Meadows seemingly set his sights on another local Republican to press for help. He asked Biggs to pass along contact information for Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich. Biggs was happy to oblige.

Mark Meadows

Can you get me the attorney general of Arizona phone number

Andy Biggs

Yes

Mark Meadows

Thanks

The following day, Biggs suggested a new scapegoat in the form of undocumented immigrants, proposing to challenge the totals on the premise that immigrants had somehow fraudulently voted in great enough numbers to swing the election.

Andy Biggs

So one of the remedies that may still be left is to enjoin the certification of the election based on the Fed only ballots. If we can’t get the investigation done in time for that, we should make sure we have it done in time and can demonstrate that a significant number of illegal aliens votes in the election so that the legislature, when called into certify the electors, can reject them based on fraud. What do you think?

Meadows was also amenable to this scheme.

“I like it,” he replied.

As the month wound down, the pair mused over the “number of native Americans in Arizona.” Meadows also asked Biggs to get him Ducey’s cell phone. On Nov. 22, Biggs offered one more idea to reverse Trump’s loss: a plan to “audit” ballots, an idea he indicated he was exploring with Arizona Republican Party Chairwoman Kelli Ward.

Andy Biggs

Also I am talking with Kelly Ward about the so-called adjudicated ballots. That’s the 130,000 ballots she’s talking about. I’m trying to get to the bottom of the process and see if there’s a way we can audit those

“Ok,” Meadows responded.

At this point, even Biggs seemed to realize their chances were slim.

“Don’t hold out false hope on that,” Biggs added. “But there is a glimmer potentially there but we shouldn’t get overhyped on it.”

By the end of the month, all that was left was the Trump legal team led by Rudy Giuliani, en route to Arizona for a rally. In a Nov. 29 message to Meadows, Biggs derisively referred Giuliani and his colleagues as “the circus.” But Biggs was clearly willing to join the sideshow.

“Hey Mark, the circus is coming to town tomorrow and I wanted your input. Giuliani and company will be in downtown Phoenix,” Biggs wrote. “I’m planning on being there. Anything I should look out for your address when I speak to the crowd?”

The following day, Nov. 30, Giuliani and his team held what they dubbed a “hearing” at a hotel in downtown Phoenix. In a recap of the session, the Arizona Republic newspaper noted that, despite the title, it was “not an official legislative event” and that Biggs and Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ) were seated behind Giuliani as various witnesses cast doubt on voting machines and ballot counting. Meanwhile, a few blocks away, as Giuliani’s “hearing” was underway, Ducey and Brnovich were together at the state’s Capitol certifying the election results. When Trump called the governor during that ceremony, he did not pick up.

Rep Andy Biggs

A selection of key texts between Rep. Andy Biggs (R-AZ) and Mark Meadows.

11/3/20 at 10:08 a.m.

Andy Biggs
this is the first hour voting trend. Republicans voting at three times Dems.

11/3/20 at 10:10 a.m.

Mark Meadows
Outstanding

11/3/20 at 6:35 p.m.

Andy Biggs
This is the latest. We've expanded our leader Democrats to well over 30,000 votes. Also I called my consultants again and they tell me that the independence are probably breaking even better than two or 3% for Trump because they're so active today. And that an independent voting for Biden would've already done it through mail in ballot because they don�t trust the Covid. Ha ha

11/3/20 at 11:31 p.m.

Andy Biggs
So, Fox called bu this is the situation that has been reported to me: outstanding ballots are600-700K statewide. Those are dropped off and day of votes. Fox doesn't know what they are doing. Too many votes. Probably one more report tonight.

11/4/20 at 2:59 a.m.

Andy Biggs
Mark they will start counting in Maricopa county tomorrow morning at 7:30 AM and they will go and release only one report at the end of the day. Whatever happens no one can concede because the president will win the state. After you and I talked another 10,000 votes came the presidents way so please make sure no one in the campaign or press office says anything about conceding in Arizona because I am very confident that as this thing goes President Trump is going to win

11/4/20 at 9:14 p.m.

Andy Biggs
Still about 340k Maricopa County ballots. And 180k additional statewide

11/4/20 at 9:15 p.m.

Mark Meadows
Ok

11/4/20 at 9:19 p.m.

Mark Meadows
Not enough to help us get there

11/4/20 at 9:20 p.m.

Andy Biggs
Well he won by 59% of the 75,000 some odd votes today. He needs to win by 56% of everything to win so I think there's plenty of boats there provided the ratio stay strong

11/4/20 at 9:20 p.m.

Mark Meadows
Ok

11/6/20 at 12:52 a.m.

Mark Meadows
Any hope for Az

11/6/20 at 12:54 a.m.

Andy Biggs
I've been trying to get hold of our legal and party teams in Arizona. By my calculations president needs to win about 59 1/2% of the outstanding balance to win. There are 225,000 statewide balance (140,000 Maricopa county ballots left ). So still doable

11/6/20 at 8:48 p.m.

Andy Biggs
I'm sure you have heard of this proposal. It is to encourage the state legislatures to appoint a look doors in the various states where there's been shenanigans. If I understand right most of those states have Republican Legislature�s. It seems to be comport with glorified Bush as well as the Constitution. And, well highly controversial, it can't be much more controversial than the lunacy that were sitting out there now. And It would be pretty difficult because he would take governors and legislators with collective will and backbone to do that. Is anybody on the team researching and considering lobbying for that?

11/6/20 at 8:56 p.m.

Mark Meadows
I love it.

11/7/20 at 2:51 p.m.

Andy Biggs
Please don't let the President concede. We must exhaust all options

11/8/20 at 4:17 p.m.

Andy Biggs
Hey Mark the president asked me to call Governor Ducey I did and Ducey won't talk to me he will only let me talk to his Chief of Staff. But based on hints that were given to me looks like the governor wants to punch this to county board of supervisors. I did talk to the legal team and as a result I've placed some calls to the board of supervisors without connecting so far. I'll keep trying

11/10/20 at 8:24 p.m.

Mark Meadows
How many total ballots left

11/10/20 at 8:25 p.m.

Andy Biggs
We think there's still around 55-60k

11/10/20 at 8:25 p.m.

Mark Meadows
Ok

11/10/20 at 9:22 p.m.

Andy Biggs
Wait all day for 5k ballots... This is inexcusable.

11/11/20 at 10:19 p.m.

Andy Biggs
Not enough

11/12/20 at 11:49 a.m.

Andy Biggs
This guy is the one that wants to talk about dominion software Thanks

11/12/20 at 3:44 p.m.

Mark Meadows
Can you get me the attorney general of Arizona phone number

11/12/20 at 3:50 p.m.

Andy Biggs
Yes

11/12/20 at 3:57 p.m.

Mark Meadows
Thanks

11/13/20 at 1:50 p.m.

Andy Biggs
So one of the remedies that may still be left is to enjoin the certification of the election based on the Fed only ballots. If we can't get the investigation done in time for that, we should make sure we have it done in time and can demonstrate that a significant number of illegal aliens votes in the election so that the legislature, when called into certify the electors, can reject them based on fraud. What do you think?

11/13/20 at 2:13 p.m.

Mark Meadows
I like it

11/17/20 at 6:56 p.m.

Andy Biggs
I'm speaking to the Arizona GOP executive board tonight. Anything you'd like me to tell them in particular

11/18/20 at 7:40 p.m.

Andy Biggs
Mark the total number of native Americans in Arizona is an excess of 425,000. I'm waiting for the number of voters to come back

11/22/20 at 6:55 p.m.

Mark Meadows
What is gov Ducey cell phone

11/22/20 at 6:57 p.m.

Andy Biggs
Also I am talking with Kelly Ward about the so-called adjudicated ballots. That's the 130,000 ballots she's talking about. I'm trying to get to the bottom of the process and see if there's a way we can audit those

11/22/20 at 6:59 p.m.

Mark Meadows
Ok

11/22/20 at 7:00 p.m.

Andy Biggs
Don't hold out false hope on that but there is a glimmer potentially there but we shouldn't get overhyped on it

11/22/20 at 7:00 p.m.

Mark Meadows
Ok

11/29/20 at 7:14 p.m.

Andy Biggs
Hey Mark, the circus is coming to town tomorrow and I wanted your input. Giuliani and company will be in downtown Phoenix I'm planning on being there. Anything I should look out for your address when I speak to the crowd?

Kate Riga (@Kate_Riga24) is a D.C. reporter for TPM and cohost of the Josh Marshall Podcast.

Hunter Walker (@hunterw) is an investigative reporter for Talking Points Memo. He is an author and former White House correspondent whose work has appeared in a variety of publications including: the New Yorker, Rolling Stone, and New York Magazine. He can be reached at [email protected]

[admin]

Experts say a Trump-backed charity is pushing the boundaries of tax law
Tom Dreisbach
NPR
August 31, 2022

5:06 AM ET

[x]
Former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, right, and former Republican Sen. Jim DeMint, left, attend a summit organized by the America First Policy Institute on July 25. Meadows and DeMint have both been involved with the Conservative Partnership Institute, a nonprofit raising concerns among tax experts. Oliver Contreras/SIPA USA via Reuters

In a Washington, D.C., townhouse just blocks from the U.S. Capitol, multiple figures connected to the failed plot to overturn the 2020 election have coalesced around an increasingly influential organization: the nonprofit Conservative Partnership Institute (CPI).

Among those at the center of the group are former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows and former Trump campaign lawyer Cleta Mitchell. Both Meadows and Mitchell have been subpoenaed by a grand jury as part of a Georgia district attorney's investigation into former President Donald Trump's effort to overturn the election.

An NPR review of social media accounts, campaign finance records and leaked audio suggests that CPI may be risking legal trouble as well over its tax-exempt status. Experts in tax law told NPR that the nonprofit group appears to be pushing the boundaries of charity law by closely entwining itself with explicitly Republican and pro-Trump political organizations.

"If I was looking at this as an IRS agent or as an outside lawyer for that matter, I would say there's enough here that I want to do some digging," said Lloyd Hitoshi Mayer, an expert in nonprofit law at the University of Notre Dame School of Law. "There are definitely yellow flags here."

As an IRS-recognized charity, CPI is exempt from certain federal, state and local taxes. That status also gives CPI's donors the lucrative benefit of deducting their contributions at tax time. But, as Mitchell herself has noted, those benefits come with some strings attached by federal law.

"We are a nonpartisan, educational, charitable organization," Mitchell told the audience for a CPI "Election Integrity Summit" in March. "We don't endorse candidates. We don't endorse political parties."

Mitchell's comment that day about CPI remaining nonpartisan was conspicuous given the event's programming, which involved a collaboration between CPI, the Republican National Committee and other conservative groups.

The IRS has an "absolute" ban on charities from participating — both "directly" and "indirectly" — in any political candidates' campaigns. In general, these groups are allowed to comment on political issues. Charities can even get involved in nonpartisan voter registration, but are more tightly restricted when it comes to candidates and campaigns. The IRS also prohibits charities from working significantly for a non-charitable "private benefit," as opposed to the public good. In one landmark case, the IRS revoked a group's nonprofit status for providing benefits to a political party. Organizations that violate the law can also be hit with tax penalties.

At CPI's event in Pennsylvania, according to leaked audio obtained by the investigative watchdog organization Documented, two RNC "election integrity" officials told the audience about how to enlist in the party's poll watching efforts in the 2022 midterms. Those efforts, they said, could help with the Republicans' election-related legal challenges.

The room also buzzed with support for Trump's past and possibly future campaigns.

"Donald Trump did not lose Pennsylvania!" said a Republican county commissioner. (President Biden defeated Trump in Pennsylvania by more than 80,000 votes in 2020.)

"I was on Trump's campaign in 2016, I was on in '20. Hopefully, I'll be on in '24 if he hires me," said another speaker, Mike Roman.

A local Tea Party leader asked the crowd, "How many of you would like to see Trump run again?"

After some applause, he added, "Why would Trump run again? Because he loves America."

Twitter accounts from CPI have also explicitly discussed political candidates.

The account for CPI's Election Integrity Network has retweeted the campaign accounts of U.S. Rep. Lauren Boebert, R-Colo., as well as Kari Lake, the Republican candidate for Arizona governor.

[x]
The Election Integrity Network, a project of the nonprofit Conservative Partnership Institute, amplified a tweet from the campaign account for Kari Lake, the Republican nominee for Arizona governor. "That's no different than CPI handing out copies of the campaign's campaign literature," said Lloyd Hitoshi Mayer, a law professor at the University of Notre Dame. Screenshot via Twitter

"That's no different than CPI handing out copies of the campaign's campaign literature," argued the University of Notre Dame's Mayer. "That violates the prohibition on campaign intervention."

The Election Integrity Network also tweeted an article that criticized the campaign of Wyoming Rep. Liz Cheney ahead of her primary election, which she ultimately lost to a Republican rival.

"That's also across the line," asserted Mayer, who noted the law has "zero tolerance" for charities and political campaign activity.

Another official CPI Twitter account also promoted an op-ed from its chairman, former Republican Sen. Jim DeMint, about what congressional Republicans should do to win the 2020 election. (DeMint's advice: "be more like Trump.") After NPR contacted CPI for comment and asked about that post, every tweet from CPI from before March 2022 was deleted.

CPI declined to answer specific questions for this story on the record. In an emailed statement, a spokesperson for CPI said, "the Conservative Partnership Institute fully complies with the IRS rules on tax-exempt organization activity. CPI does not engage in any political campaign activity."

The IRS declined to comment.

What is CPI?

The Conservative Partnership Institute has rapidly staked out territory in Washington, D.C., as a central hub for the pro-Trump wing of the Republican Party.

The staunchly conservative DeMint founded CPI in 2017 after a stint at the head of The Heritage Foundation. DeMint ascended in the Republican Party around the time of the 2010 Tea Party-backed wave election, and was widely considered a conservative "kingmaker." On paperwork filed with the IRS, CPI defined its mission as providing "the conservative movement with the tools, tactics, resources, and strategies to help make it successful in advancing conservative policy solutions." Charities are allowed to advocate and discuss issues from an ideological perspective, even if that perspective is more closely aligned with one political party or another, as long as they tread carefully when discussing specific candidates or groups of candidates.

In addition to Meadows, other members of the Trump administration also joined CPI and its connected entities, including former White House speechwriter Stephen Miller and former Department of Justice lawyer Jeff Clark. Like Mitchell and Meadows, Clark has also faced investigation for his role in trying to overturn the 2020 election, and FBI agents executed a search at his home earlier this year.

CPI has dramatically increased its fundraising since its inception, and raised nearly $20 million in 2021, according to their annual report. As a nonprofit, CPI does not have to publicly disclose its donors. Federal Election Commission records, however, indicate that Trump's "Save America" political action committee gave CPI $1 million in 2021, and Trump has promoted CPI's work.

In addition to "election integrity" events held around the country, CPI says it has provided media, marketing, accounting and legal services for conservative members of Congress. The organization has compared itself to a "WeWork" space for conservatives, where they have access to TV and podcast recording studios. CPI boasts in its 2021 annual report that it hosted multiple Republican lawmakers' podcasts, including Rep. Ken Buck's "Shootin' Straight with Ken Buck" and Rep. Andy Biggs' "What's the BIGGS Idea?" The group also said it provided training to dozens of conservative members of Congress and more than 200 congressional staffers in 2021.

CPI has played a key role in developing plans to fire tens of thousands of career federal workers in a second Trump administration, according to reporting from Axios.

Many of the legal restrictions on CPI's activity comes from its status as a charity under section 501(c)(3) of the tax code. Different kinds of tax-exempt nonprofits have much more freedom to get involved in politics. 501(c)(4) "social welfare" organizations like the National Rifle Association and the League of Conservation Voters, for example, have become key players in political contests.

But 501(c)(3) groups have a key advantage that 501(c)(4) organizations lack: Their donors can deduct their contributions.

"You can provide long-lasting support for the Conservative Partnership Institute while enjoying financial benefits for yourself," CPI says on its website. The site includes information on how people can include CPI in their wills and get a deduction on the estate tax, for example, or donate stock to reduce their capital gains tax. The Election Integrity Network project of CPI also separately solicits "tax-deductible" contributions. And CPI has reportedly received donations from some mega-rich individuals.

Campaign finance records and leaked audio raise more concerns for CPI

Campaign finance records have indicated that three Republican candidates --Colorado's Boebert, Sen. Mike Braun, R-Ind., and Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, — paid CPI thousands of dollars for "campaign events" and "fundraising events" in 2021.

[x]

If those records are accurate, Mayer said, they could raise serious concerns for CPI.

"CPI can't be hosting campaign events for anybody," said Mayer, "unless they were, for example, hosting them for anybody across the political spectrum."

FEC records do not indicate any Democratic campaign has paid CPI for any purpose.

After NPR asked about those records, the Lee campaign amended its FEC filing to state that it paid CPI for "food and beverage" rather than "fundraising events."

"Upon review, the filing has been amended to reflect the more accurate nature of the payment which was to cover the cost of food and catering for dinners attended by various U.S. Senators related to their official duties," said Lee campaign adviser Matt Lusty. "These funds were not disbursed to facilitate fundraising events."

The Boebert and Braun campaigns did not respond to NPR's requests for comment. FEC disclosure forms state that there are potential legal penalties for filing "false, erroneous, or incomplete" information.

Leaked audio from another CPI "election integrity" event in March 2022 raised other potential concerns.

At that event, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis told a crowd that Republicans had recently made big progress in registering more voters than Democrats. Then, DeSantis said to cheers from the audience, "We need everybody to come out and really, really have a huge, huge November in the state of Florida. I think there's gonna be opportunities to do a lot of great things across the country — House, Senate, governors' races."

DeSantis is currently running for reelection. DeSantis' press secretary, Bryan Griffin, told NPR that, "this was not an official event," as part of his duties as governor.

Philip Hackney, a former lawyer in the IRS' office of general counsel, said if he was CPI's attorney, DeSantis' appearance "would give me heartburn."

Charities can invite political candidates to their events in a non-candidate capacity. But, in those cases, the IRS says the charity must then maintain "a nonpartisan atmosphere" and ensure "no campaign activity occurs in connection with the candidate's attendance."

Mitchell has tried to get ahead of scrutiny of CPI's nonprofit status by suggesting the group would also provide a platform for Democrats at its election integrity events, even though the events are largely premised on the false claim that Trump won the 2020 election. One event even featured an activist who promoted the QAnon conspiracy theory.

"I've written letters to the Democratic Party saying, 'would you like to participate with us in our sessions?'" Mitchell said at an event in Pennsylvania earlier this year. "I have not yet gotten a response."

Representatives of the Democratic National Committee and the Pennsylvania Democratic Party said they were unaware of receiving any invitation from Mitchell to that event, but said they needed more information to be certain — especially if an email was sent to, for example, a general inbox.

NPR called and emailed Mitchell multiple times and asked about whom she might have contacted without receiving a response. When Mitchell eventually answered her phone, she said she was out of the country, and added, "I'm not going to talk to you anyway," before hanging up. CPI declined to provide documentation or answer questions about Mitchell's assertion.

Is CPI providing a "private benefit" to Republican Party groups?

In addition to the concerns about overlapping with political campaigns, tax experts told NPR the group is risking additional scrutiny about whether it's operating for the benefit of Republican Party entities.

Mayer and Hackney both pointed to the facts in a case from the 1980s, which bears striking similarities to the situation with CPI.

In 1986, staffers with the National Republican Congressional Committee incorporated the American Campaign Academy as a charity with the mission of training people to work on political campaigns.

The IRS and the U.S. Tax Court found that American Campaign Academy was acting "more than incidentally" for the private benefit of the Republican Party, in part because trainees were on to work for predominantly Republican candidates and officials. As part of its analysis, the court noted that the American Campaign Academy "had significant ties to the Republican party."

In addition to podcast and media services for Republican elected officials, CPI has also spent tens of thousands of dollars to fly dozens of conservative Republican members of Congress to policy retreats hosted at luxury resorts.

A February 2021 retreat took place at the Biltmore Hotel in Coral Gables, Fla. A year later, CPI also paid for representatives' flights and lodging for a retreat at the oceanfront Ritz-Carlton resort on Florida's Amelia Island. Nearly all of the invitees were members of the staunchly conservative House Freedom Caucus, including Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, Rep. Paul Gosar, R-Ariz., and Rep. Scott Perry, R-Pa.

CPI's collaboration with the RNC on "election integrity" events is also reflected in the group's downloadable "Citizens Guide To Building An Election Integrity Infrastructure." The guide asserts that it is nonpartisan, but also specifically references how people can work with "the local GOP."

"If you simply work for one party or the other, you are likely stepping over the line," said Hackney, who is now a law professor at the University of Pittsburgh.

Lax IRS enforcement generally

Groups like CPI may be more willing to push the boundaries of charity law because of an overall lack of IRS enforcement.

[x]

"There's very little enforcement at all in the IRS in general, much less among the [tax] exempt organizations part of it," said Ellen Aprill of Loyola Law School.

Between 2010 and 2018, the IRS lost 15,000 enforcement employees, which, unsurprisingly, led to less enforcement.

Nearly 1.5 million tax-exempt organizations filed tax returns in 2019, according to a report from the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration. Of that large group, only about 2,000 — or 0.13% of the total — were even examined by the IRS.

In the last two decades, the IRS has also faced significant blowback when it looked into whether tax-exempt groups were violating rules around political campaign activity.

In 2004, the IRS launched an audit of the NAACP in response to a speech that criticized then-President George W. Bush and his handling of the Iraq War. The NAACP and Democrats angrily denounced the IRS action, and the NAACP was ultimately cleared of any wrongdoing.

In 2013, the IRS faced even more criticism from conservatives for allegedly improperly targeting conservative Tea Party groups seeking tax-exempt status. The IRS official at the center of the controversy, Lois Lerner, resigned under pressure. A subsequent bipartisan Senate investigation and an investigation from a Treasury Department inspector general found that the IRS had acted improperly with both liberal and conservative-leaning groups, by screening for keywords linked to Occupy Wall Street as well as the Tea Party. Republican and Democratic congressional investigators ultimately split on the question of whether the IRS singled out conservative groups due to political bias.

"The IRS was so hammered during the Tea Party controversy that you're just not seeing enforcement in these cases," said Hackney.

Aprill agreed, saying that the controversy, "seems as if it has burned their fingers some."

Before joining CPI, Cleta Mitchell worked as a lawyer for conservative groups that accused the IRS of targeting. She said the agency was illegitimate, and called for a radical solution: amend the Constitution to eliminate federal income tax, and "abolish the IRS."

"It has too much power, too much money, too many employees and it needs to be absolutely jerked out at the roots," Mitchell told Congress in 2014.

After losing staff and resources over the last several years, however, the IRS has recently received a major infusion of funding from the Inflation Reduction Act recently passed by Democrats and signed by President Biden. The IRS has said "it will take time" to implement the law, and it remains to be seen whether more funding will lead to additional scrutiny of groups like CPI.

[admin]

Why Fanone thinks GOP lawmakers that defied subpoenas should be arrested
by CNN
Dec 18, 2022

CNN law enforcement analyst and former officer who defended the Capitol on January 6, Michael Fanone, discusses potential criminal referrals by the January 6th House select committee to the Justice Department for former President Trump's role in the insurrection. #CNN #News



Transcript

The other big story we are
0:06
following this afternoon, the
0:07
house investigating January
0:11
6th.
0:11
In less than 24 hours the panel
0:13
is expected to make criminal
0:15
referrals to the justice
0:15
department, recommending the
0:18
prosecution former president
0:19
Donald Trump.
0:20
The referrals are expected to
0:22
include charges of insurrection,
0:24
obstruction of an official
0:26
proceeding, and conspiracy to
0:28
defraud the federal government.
0:29
It will be the culmination of
0:30
almost a year and a half of
0:32
investigations into the former
0:33
president, his allies, and the
0:34
attempt to overturn the 2020
0:35
election.
0:36
>> As a former prosecutor, I
0:42
think there is sufficient
0:43
evidence to charge the
0:43
president.
0:44
>> To get a conviction, though?
0:46
>> I don't know what the
0:47
justice department has, what in
0:49
the public record.
0:50
It seems pretty plain to me.
0:52
This is someone who in multiple
0:55
ways trying to pressure state
0:57
officials to find votes that
0:59
didn't exist, this is someone
1:01
who tried to interfere with a
1:03
joint session, even inciting a
1:05
mob to attack the capitol.
1:07
If that's not criminal, then I
1:10
don't know what is.
1:11
>> Joining me now, one of the
1:15
officers who defended the
1:16
capitol on January 6th, law
1:18
enforcement analyst and former
1:19
D.C. Metropolitan police
1:20
officer, Michael pinon.
1:22
He's the author of the book,
1:23
hold the line.
1:24
The insurrection and one cops
1:26
battle for America's soul.
1:27
Mike, thanks again for being
1:29
with us.
1:29
As always, we appreciate it.
1:30
We are at the end of a 17 month
1:34
congressional investigation
1:34
into everything that happened
1:36
that day.
1:36
You and I have talked about
1:38
this several times.
1:38
I know you've been pessimistic
1:40
about any kind of prospect of
1:41
trump being brought up on
1:43
charges, ultimately, for his
1:44
role in what happened on
1:46
January 6th.
1:46
Does the committee offering up
1:48
these criminal referrals to the
1:50
justice department, do you
1:51
think it moves us in that
1:53
direction of seeing charges,
1:55
real criminal charges, a
1:57
prosecution brought against the
1:58
former president?
1:58
What do you think?
1:59
>> I mean, I don't know if this
2:05
is going to have any influence
2:07
on the department of justice.
2:09
Obviously, at that executive
2:13
level of government agencies,
2:16
politics does play a part in
2:18
their decision-making, despite
2:18
them saying it does not.
2:21
I think it is appropriate that
2:25
this is the way the select
2:26
committee concludes the 17
2:30
month investigation.
2:31
Although for me, I don't need a
2:34
piece of paper referring
2:35
criminal charges for
2:39
individuals that were the
2:40
target of that investigation.
2:43
The investigation, and the
2:46
evidence that it turned up in
2:47
and of itself, to me, is the
2:51
criminal referral.
2:54
>> And as we just mentioned,
2:55
the committee is expected to
2:56
urge the department of justice
2:58
to prosecute trump on three
2:59
charges, including insurrection.
3:02
The referral of criminal
3:04
charges, the president will be
3:06
a moment in American history.
3:07
Icing will close out the day
3:10
tomorrow with that headline, in
3:12
every newspaper across the
3:13
country, on every television
3:14
network across the country.
3:17
Will that feel like any measure
3:19
of justice for you?
3:20
>> For me, personally, no.
3:24
There's a lot of people that I
3:26
have spoken to, specifically in
3:28
Washington, that are like, well,
3:30
he was twice impeached.
3:30
That's a big deal.
3:31
Well, I think for the average
3:33
American, that doesn't mean
3:34
anything.
3:36
There were no consequences as a
3:38
result of that.
3:39
And quite frankly, I don't
3:41
believe political
3:42
accountability is real
3:44
accountability.
3:45
This is a person who, there is
3:49
a significant amount of
3:50
evidence that has been turned
3:52
up that he committed criminal
3:54
acts, as well as many of his
3:57
allies.
3:58
Some of whom are still in power
3:59
today.
4:00
And so I think that the only
4:05
accountability is criminal
4:05
accountability.
4:07
Donald Trump should be indicted,
4:10
as should his coconspirators
4:13
and allies that have supported
4:15
the crimes that he committed,
4:17
and he committed crimes
4:20
themselves.
4:20
Those individuals should be put
4:22
on trial for America, and as
4:25
I've said before, we should
4:26
accept the results of that
4:28
trial, even if they are in fact
4:33
a conviction, which leads
4:35
Donald Trump to serve time in
4:36
prison.
4:37
>> And what would that charge
4:40
be?
4:40
What should be indicted on, do
4:41
you think?
4:43
>> Obviously, I believe he is
4:47
guilty of obstruction, and I do
4:51
believe that he, along with
4:53
members of his administration
4:56
and his allies not engaged in
5:00
efforts to defraud the American
5:00
people.
5:02
By lying about the results of
5:05
the 2020 election, which was
5:09
proven to have been free and
5:11
fair, and that as a result of
5:14
those lies, and the pressure
5:17
campaign that he and his allies
5:22
engaged in, that we saw the
5:25
violence that played out on
5:27
January 6th at united's
5:28
capital.
5:28
>> The committee is also
5:33
considering whether to hold
5:35
Republican lawmakers
5:36
accountable for defying their
5:37
subpoenas during the
5:39
investigation.
5:39
Mike, as you saw throughout the
5:40
investigation, up on capitol
5:42
hill, several members of
5:43
congress were able to thumb
5:46
their nose at the committee and
5:47
not participate.
5:48
What do you think should happen
5:48
there?
5:50
>> I mean, listen, I was a cop
5:56
for 20 years.
5:57
And if you defied a subpoena,
6:00
you were arrested.
6:02
That's it.
6:03
I know that there has been talk
6:06
about --
6:08
there may not be any official
6:12
mechanism to do so, other than
6:16
I guess the United States
6:18
police, or maybe it's the house
6:20
and senate sergeant at arms.
6:22
But listen, they need to --
6:24
if you are going to restore the
6:26
credibility of congress in
6:28
leading these kinds of
6:31
investigations, people that
6:32
defy subpoenas should be
6:33
arrested.
6:34
Subpoenasand, talent Kinzinger, our key
6:39
member of the January six
6:40
committee.
6:41
He is leaving congress and in
6:42
his farewell speech on the
6:44
floor, he reflected on the cost
6:45
that came with pursuing the
6:47
truth.
6:48
Let's listen to that.
6:48
>> Had I know that standing up
6:51
for truth would cost me my job,
6:55
friendships, and even my
6:57
personal security I would --
7:00
without hesitation, do it all
7:02
over again.
7:04
>> I can rest easy at night,
7:06
knowing that I fulfilled my all
7:09
oath to the office.
7:10
I know many in this institution
7:12
cannot do the same.
7:15
>> What do you think about that,
7:17
Mike?
7:17
>> I suppose you probably can
7:20
relate to what he just said
7:21
there.
7:22
>> Oh, absolutely.
7:25
Adam is one of the few members
7:27
of congress that I have
7:31
considerable considerable
7:32
amount of respect for and also
7:33
the privilege to call a
7:35
personal friend of mine.
7:37
There are a lot of parallels
7:39
between his experiences and my
7:42
experience, especially when it
7:44
comes to the amount of threats
7:46
that have been leveled against
7:49
our families.
7:50
That being said, I kind of
7:55
developed this saying when I
7:59
speak to people that the truth
8:00
will set you free from in
8:02
employment.
8:05
Unfortunately, that seems to be
8:09
the way of the world.
8:10
At least in regards to here in
8:12
America, at this point in time.
8:15
>> But you and other officers
8:18
were awarded the congressional
8:20
gold medal for your response to
8:22
the riot, to the insurrection.
8:24
Have you had some time to
8:29
reflect on that moment?
8:30
>> I'm --
8:32
I mean, in a way, I guess.
8:36
I don't want to take away from
8:38
the experience that these other
8:42
officers that had that.
8:44
Many of whom, it was the first
8:46
that they were recognized for
8:50
what they did on January 6th,
8:52
which was nothing short of
8:55
incredibly courageous and
8:57
selfless.
9:01
And fortunately, I got to see
9:04
how the sausage is made in
9:06
regards to that awards so it
9:11
lost a lot of its significance
9:13
and meaning for me personally.
9:15
Also, all timidly, I paid a
9:18
high price to advocate --
9:23
advocating for acknowledgment
9:25
for all of those other officers
9:30
that I saw fight so bravely on
9:34
January 6th.
9:34
>> Mike, there are so many
9:38
Americans around the country so
9:40
thank here for what you did on
9:41
that day, and rest of the
9:42
officers, as you mentioned who
9:44
defended the capitol on January
9:45
6th.