Altruistic World Online Library

by **admin** » Mon Dec 19, 2022 6:40 am

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.

by **admin** » Tue Dec 27, 2022 2:54 am

Trump spreads holiday jeers with Truth Social rant directed at ‘Radical Left Marxists,’ ‘Department of Injustice’
by Mark Moore
New York Post
December 25, 2022 12:16pm Updated

[x]
Former President Donald Trump took to Truth Social over the holidays to blast the media, the Jan. 6 committee and the Justice Department, among others. AFP via Getty Images.

‘Twas the night before Christmas at Mar-a-Lago and not a creature was stirring — except for the former president, who was ranting.

Donald Trump expressed his version of goodwill to all in a Christmas Eve posting on his Truth Social platform, directing tidings to the “Radical Left Marxists,” the “Department of Injustice,” and the “LameStream Media.”

“Merry Christmas to EVERYONE, including the Radical Left Marxists that are trying to destroy our Country, the Federal Bureau of Investigation that is illegally coercing & paying Social and LameStream Media to push for a mentally disabled Democrat over the Brilliant, Clairvoyant, and USA LOVING Donald J. Trump, and, of course, The Department of Injustice, which appointed a Special ’Prosecutor’ who, together with his wife and family, HATES ’Trump’ more than any other person on earth,” he said in a series of Christmas messages.

“LOVE TO ALL!” he added bizarrely.

Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump 14h
Merry Christmas to EVERYONE, including the Radical Left Marxists that are trying to destroy our Country, the Federal Bureau of Investigation that is illegally coercing & paying Social and LameStream Media to push for a mentally disabled Democrat over the Brilliant, Clairvoyant, and USA LOVING Donald J. Trump, and, of course, The Department of Injustice, which appointed a Special ’Prosecutor’ who, together with his wife and family, HATES ’Trump’ more than any other person on earth. LOVE TO ALL!

Dec 24, 2022, 6:14 AM

Donald Trump’s Christmas Eve greeting to those who he’s not a fan of.

On Christmas morning, he continued to spread the holiday jeer.

“On this very cold but beautiful Christmas Day, look at our Nation NOW on the Southern Border compared to only a short time ago during the Trump Administration,” he wrote in a posting Sunday.

“We had the most SECURE Border in our history, versus the ‘horror show’ that that is happening now, with record setting numbers of people, many of them hardened Criminals (including Killers, Human Traffickers and Drug Dealers), POURING INTO OUR COUNTRY at a rate the likes of which we have never seen before,” Trump said, adding “The USA is dying from within!!!”

On this very cold but beautiful Christmas Day, look at our Nation NOW on the Southern Border compared to only a short time ago during the Trump Administration. We had the most SECURE Border in our history, versus the 'horror show' that is happening now, with record setting numbers of people, many of them hardened Criminals (including Killers, Human Traffickers and Drug Dealers), POURING INTO OUR COUNTRY at a rate the likes of which we have never seen before. The USA is dying from within!!!"

Christmas morning at his Florida resort was a time of reflection for the former president.

[x]
The House select committee in its final report blamed former President Donald Trump for instigating the violence at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. AP

“Just two years ago we were Energy Independent, had almost Zero Inflation, there was no war with Russia and Ukraine (would NEVER have happened!), ISIS was defeated, our Military was rebuilt and respected (before the disaster of Afghanistan), our Border was Strong, the Economy was GREAT, the China Virus was in retreat (Operation Warp Speed was considered a modern day ’miracle’), and we weren’t the laughing stock of the World,” he wrote before going into all-caps mode.

Just two years ago we were Energy Independent, had almost Zero Inflation, there was no war with Russia and Ukraine (would NEVER have happened!), ISIS was defeated, our Military was rebuilt and respected (before the disaster of Afghanistan), our Border was Strong, the Economy was GREAT, the China Virus was in retreat (Operation Warp Speed was considered a modern day 'miracle'), and we weren't the laughing stock of the World. TODAY, LIKE NEVER BEFORE, WE ARE A NATION IN DECLINE, A FAILING NATION!

“TODAY, LIKE NEVER BEFORE, WE ARE A NATION IN DECLINE, A FAILING NATION!” he said in holiday wishes to the nation.

For Trump on Christmas Eve, there were no visions of sugar plums dancing in his head, just the nagging reminder that the House select committee wrapped up its investigation into the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot by blaming him for the violence in its final report.

[x]
A mob of pro-Trump supporters at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. Getty Images

“The Unselect Committee’s January 6th Report is a Hoax, no different than RUSSIA, RUSSIA, RUSSIA, and all of the other Scams that the Disinformation laden Democrats have been planting for years,” he said in a Christmas Eve message, continuing to claim he won the 2020 election and absolving himself of guilt for Jan. 6.

“I had almost nothing to do with January 6th. FREE SPEECH!” he said.

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

Donald Trump Spends Christmas Raging on Truth Social
by Ewan Palmer
Newsweek
12/26/22 AT 5:32 AM EST

Former President Donald Trump spent his Christmas Day posting on social media about his grievances and pushing false claims about the 2020 Election.

Throughout the course of December 25, Trump posted a total of seven times on his Truth Social account, touching on a number of topics such as immigration, Mike Pence, and the midterms.

Trump started his festive posting with a message asking people on this "very cold but beautiful" Christmas Day to look at how the administration of President Joe Biden has been dealing with illegal immigration on the southern border and contrasting it with the actions of his administration.

"We had the most SECURE Border in our history, versus the 'horror show' that is happening now, with record setting numbers of people, many of them hardened Criminals (including Killers, Human Traffickers and Drug Dealers), POURING INTO OUR COUNTRY at a rate the likes of which we have never seen before. The USA is dying from within!!!" Trump wrote on Christmas Day morning.

[x]
Former president Donald Trump uses his cellphone as he holds a roundtable discussion in the State Dining Room of the White House in Washington, D.C., on June 18, 2020. Trump spent Christmas Day posting on social media about his grievances and pushing false claims about the 2020 Election. SAUL LOEB/AFP/GETTY IMAGES

Trump soon followed up this post with another attacking Biden's performance as president and listing a number of examples explaining why the U.S. is currently a "failing nation" now he is no longer in the White House.

"Just two years ago we were Energy Independent, had almost Zero Inflation, there was no war with Russia and Ukraine (would NEVER have happened!), ISIS was defeated, our Military was rebuilt and respected (before the disaster of Afghanistan), our Border was Strong, the Economy was GREAT, the China Virus was in retreat (Operation Warp Speed was considered a modern day 'miracle'), and we weren't the laughing stock of the World," Trump said.

A few hours later, Trump re-shared a Truth Social post he wrote on December 24 in which he wished a merry Christmas to everyone except the "Radical Left Marxists that are trying to destroy our Country, the Federal Bureau of Investigation that is illegally coercing & paying Social and LameStream Media to push for a mentally disabled Democrat over the Brilliant, Clairvoyant, and USA LOVING Donald J. Trump."

The former president re-shared the message with the added line: "Our Country is under attack by the Radical Left Democrats. They are truly seeking to DESTROY AMERICA!!!"

Trump was still not done with his Christmas Day social media posts, and once again attacked the "radical left Democrats" in a subsequent post, accusing them of having "WEAPONIZED THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM AT A LEVEL NEVER SEEN BEFORE IN THE USA. WITH NO BORDERS AND CROOKED ELECTIONS, OUR COUNTRY IS IN THIRD WORLD TROUBLE!!!"

The post arrived just days after the House Select Committee investigating the January 6 attack recommended that the Department of Justice charge the former president with offenses including assisting an insurrection and conspiring to defraud the United States over his role in the Capitol riot.

The panel also released its 845-page report on the January 6 attack that accused Trump of being the leading figure in a "multi-part conspiracy" to overturn the 2020 election results and being the "central cause" of the insurrection at the Capitol.

In further Truth Social posts on Christmas Day, Trump simply wrote "SAVE AMERICA" and defended his endorsements in the midterm elections. The former president and his losing MAGA and election denying candidates have been blamed for the GOP not taking control of the Senate and only just achieving a majority in the House in the November elections.

While quoting an unknown source, Trump wrote: "'PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS 233-22 IN THE MIDTERM ELECTIONS. HE IS ALSO LEADING, BY A LOT, ALL REPUBLICANS, AND BIDEN, IN ALMOST EVERY POLL.' This, despite the horrendous and never ending FAKE NEWS—Incredible statistics that people just don't want to talk about!"

Trump ended his Christmas Day Truth Social posts by once more falsely suggesting that Pence, his former vice president, had the power to reject the electoral votes on January 6, 2021 and keep Trump in power despite his purely ceremonial role as president officer of the Senate.

"The Vice President did indeed have the power to send Electoral Votes back to State Legislatures for reapproval despite the constant drum from Democrats and RINOS that he 'ABSOLUTELY DID NOT,'" wrote Trump. "BUT, they just put CLARIFYING language in the disgraceful 'OMINOUS' BILL, making sure that A V.P. DOESN'T DO WHAT THEY ALL SAID COULD NOT BE DONE. So why the new language? Because it was just another political Con Job!"

Trump was referring to the House approving efforts to change the wording of the Electoral Count Act of 1887 to clarify that a vice president's role in certifying the election results is merely ceremonial, and that they do not have the power to determine who actually won an election.

The false suggestion that Pence could have stopped Biden becoming president by rejecting some state's election results was frequently pushed by Trump before the January 6 attack. As the violence at the Capitol was unfolding he tweeted that Pence "didn't have the courage to do what should have been done" by preventing the 2020 election results from being certified.

During the riot at the Capitol, Trump supporters were heard chanting "hang Mike Pence."

In comparison, Biden kept his December 25 social media posts brief, tweeting: "Jill and I wish you a very Merry Christmas. We hope you and your loved ones are surrounded by love, happiness, and cheer this holiday season."

by **admin** » Tue Dec 27, 2022 3:54 am

The Final Campaign Inside Donald Trump’s sad, lonely, thirsty, broken, basically pretend run for reelection. (Which isn’t to say he can’t win.)
by Olivia Nuzzi
New York’s Washington correspondent
Dec 23, 2022
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article ... -2024.html

[x]
Party of One

[x]
THE POWER TRIP DEC. 23, 2022 Illustration: Zohar Lazar for New York Magazine

I.

Donald Trump was calling from Mar-a-Lago. It was a Monday afternoon in the middle of December. He was at his desk in what is known as 45 Office, a room on the second floor, above what is known as the Donald J. Trump Grand Ballroom, 20,000 square feet festooned with 16 sedan-size crystal chandeliers and what he claims to be $7 million of gold leaf.

Members of the Mar-a-Lago Club, who pay $200,000 initiation fees and annual fees of $14,000, may use the space, at an additional cost, for “important occasions that inspire, enchant, and exceed every expectation.” At the galas and bat mitzvahs and weekend weddings, Trump often wanders in. How could he resist a room like this? He smiles and waves. He joins groomsmen for photos. He steps onto the dance floor with the bride. Dark suit jacket, no tie, shirt unbuttoned, red MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN hat on his head. He tilts his face to the strobe lights and pumps his fists in the air. Sometimes he grabs a microphone and gives a speech. He knows what the people who show up here want.

ON THE COVER
—

Photo: Damon Winter/The New York Times/ Redux
It was in that optimistic spirit, 28 days ago, that the former president, impeached and voted out of office and impeached again, amid multiple state and federal investigations, under threat of indictment and arrest, on the verge of a congressional-committee verdict that would recommend four criminal charges to the Feds over his incitement of a mob that attacked the U.S. Capitol and threatened to hang his vice-president in a failed attempt to stop the certification of the 2020 election results, announced his third presidential campaign. Since then, he has barely set foot outside the perimeter of Mar-a-Lago. For 28 days, in fact, he has not left the state of Florida at all.

He is sensitive about this. He does not like what it suggests. So he does not accept the premise. “Sometimes I don’t even stay at Mar-a-Lago,” he told me. What do you mean you don’t stay there, I asked. Where do you stay? “I stay here,” he said, “but I am outside of Mar-a-Lago quite a bit. I’m always largely outside of Mar-a-Lago at meetings and various other things and events. I’m down in Miami. I go to Miami, I go to different places in Florida.”

What he means when he says “Miami” is that his SUV rolls down the driveway, past the pristine lawn set for croquet and through the Secret Service checkpoint at the gate, for the two-hour trip to another piece of Trump real estate, the Trump National in Doral, about eight miles from the airport in Miami-Dade County. There, he meets regularly with an impressive, ideologically diverse range of policy wonks, diplomats, and political theorists for conversations about the global economy and military conflicts and constitutional law and I’m kidding. He goes there to play golf. “He just goes, plays golf, comes back, and fucks off. He has retreated to the golf course and to Mar-a-Lago,” one adviser said. “His world has gotten much smaller. His world is so, so small.”

He is sensitive about smallness. His entire life, he has rejected smallness. Tall buildings, long ties, big head, big mouth, big swings, big league. “When he was in New York in 2016, the whole world was coming to him. Now we’ve got the Villages, and it shows,” the adviser said, referring to the famous Central Florida retirement community.

He had wanted to be in the movie business. It’s important to never forget this about him. He watches Sunset Boulevard, “one of the greatest of all time,” again and again and again. A silent-picture star sidelined by the talkies, driven to madness, in denial over her faded celebrity. When he was a businessman, he showed it to guests aboard his 727. When he was president, he held screenings of it for White House staff at Camp David.

He once showed it to his press secretary Stephanie Grisham, who later described how “the president, who could never sit still for anything without talking on the phone, sending a tweet, or flipping through TV channels, sat enthralled.” And he once showed it to Tim O’Brien, the biographer, who wrote that when Norma Desmond cried, “Those idiot producers. Those imbeciles! Haven’t they got any eyes? Have they forgotten what a star looks like? I’ll show them. I’ll be up there again, so help me!,” Trump leaned over O’Brien’s shoulder and whispered, “Is this an incredible scene or what? Just incredible.”

A washed-up star locked away in a mansion from the 1920s, afraid of the world outside, afraid it will remind him that time has passed … Well, he does not like the way it sounds for Trump. He still talks that way, in the third person. “This was the same thing in 2016. They said first, ‘Oh, Trump is just doing it for fun,’ and then they learned that wasn’t true,” he told me. “And then they said, ‘Well, he won’t win.’ And they learned that wasn’t true.”

He bought Mar-a-Lago in 1985 during a creditor-funded acquisition spree that included a new hotel, a new casino, a hospital, and the abandoned freight yard between West 59th and 72nd Streets, where he threatened to build his own Hollywood above the Hudson River on a 76-acre expanse that in surface area amounted to 0.5 percent of the Island of Manhattan. Over the next three years, he registered as a Republican (he would later switch to the Independence Party, then the Democratic Party, then back to Republican, then independent, then the Republican Party again) and began commenting on matters of foreign policy in the press. He offered to negotiate with the Russians. He began, whenever possible, to encourage the idea that others were encouraging him to run for president.

When he and Ivana Trump divorced, she was blamed for her attention to the fussy business of high society, something that had never been of much interest to her husband. “Mar-a-Lago had been Ivana Trump’s idea,” Marie Brenner wrote in Vanity Fair, because it was she who aspired for the Trumps to become the new Vanderbilts. Trump didn’t give a shit about “Palm Beach phonies,” he said. But the settlement with Ivana, who fell to her death down the staircase of her Upper East Side townhouse this summer and is buried on the first hole of Trump’s New Jersey golf course, told a different story. He had given her the $30 million mansion in Greenwich. He kept Mar-a-Lago for himself.

The truth was that the symbolic value of the historic Mar-a-Lago estate, built by General Foods owner and socialite Marjorie Merriweather Post, was impossible to quantify. If Trump Tower was a monument to the awesome scale of Trump’s ambitions, Mar-a-Lago was a venue for the mythmaking required to support their expanding scope. It was not the Villages, and it was not Sunset Boulevard. Not to Trump. Really, the sun does not set on Mar-a-Lago. In fact, on South Ocean Boulevard, the two-lane road that zigzags along the barrier island’s terrain of Mizner-style estates (“Bastard-Spanish-Moorish-Romanesque-Gothic-Renaissance-Bull-Market-Damn-the-Expense,” as the writer Alva Johnston once put it) and Atlantic coastline, the sun rises.

II.

The plan in 2016 was to prove the haters wrong by running, to poll well enough to be able to say he could have won, and to return to the fifth floor of his building where he filmed The Apprentice, his NBC reality show. But NBC killed his contract over his comments about Mexico sending rapists across the border. He no longer had a vehicle for the attention he required. He had to keep going. The fifth floor became campaign headquarters. Trump was always his most Trump when he was in a bind. “That’s the Trump you want: You want him defensive, you want him belligerent,” a member of the current campaign staff told me. But that’s not how Trump sounded now. He sounded old all of a sudden. Tired. There was a heaviness to him. A hollowness, too. He will turn 77 in June.

As president-elect on the 26th floor of Trump Tower, he entertained everyone from Leonardo DiCaprio to Bill Gates. Post-presidency, on the second floor of Mar-a-Lago, he has welcomed QAnon believers and Holocaust deniers. Once, the question was, How could this be? He was the boy who cried campaign, a bullshit artist, a camp act. And when he landed in Iowa, when he circled cornfields in his TRUMP chopper, when he told Evangelicals his favorite Bible verse was “2 Corinthians,” the question became, Will this work? We couldn’t look away then. Now we can’t bear — or can’t be bothered — to look. The people who remain at his side, well, let’s just say Trump 2024 is not sending its best. And that’s by the standards of 2020. And 2016.

Why is he doing this now? And Why is he doing this at all? And What is his fucking problem? Few people are certain of the answers. “It seems like a joke,” said one ex–Trump loyalist, a former White House official. “It feels like he’s going through the motions because he said he would.” One month in, the campaign exists more as a half-formed idea than a nomination-securing operation. The $99 NFTs it’s selling as contributions are the most honest advertising Trump has ever engaged in.

If you’re looking for an indication of how bad things are going, it’s Brick Man not just being there but being in the VIP section.
On the phone, I told him what people who know him well had told me about the popular theories of why he would begin running in place for the presidency now, two years after he lost the election in disgrace, a few days after he lost the midterms for the Republican Party, more than a year before the nominating contests, and two years before the general election.

First, there is his need for attention, which is tied up with his fear of boredom. “He doesn’t have anything else to do,” one adviser told me. “What else can he do? Why did he see Kanye? He wants to be relevant and wants the limelight. He’s thirsty.”

Trump did not like this. “I think I’ve always been relevant. Like, I’ve been relevant from a very young age. I’ve been in the mix, to be honest,” he said.

The second is his fear of arrest. The prior time we talked, in July, this was already out there, the idea that his lawyers had advised him it was worth a shot to run as soon as he could as fast as he could in the direction of the White House, with or against the political winds, on the thinking that prosecutors, worried already about accusations of political persecution, might be spooked by an active presidential campaign. And that was before the FBI raid on Mar-a-Lago. Before we knew about the stolen classified material stashed in the basement. The appearance of legal pressure has only mounted in the past month. In the span of 24 hours, the January 6 committee announced referrals for criminal charges (obstruction of an official proceeding; conspiracy to defraud the United States; conspiracy to make a false statement and to “incite,” “assist,” or “aid or comfort” an insurrection), and the House Ways and Means Committee announced it would release six years of his tax returns, information he had fought bitterly to keep private throughout his earlier campaigns and presidency.

“That didn’t play into it,” Trump said. He did not like this, either. “I did nothing wrong,” he said. Had his lawyers given him that advice, as some of his advisers told me they had? “No,” he said. “I don’t know how you get indicted if you’ve done nothing wrong. I’ve done nothing wrong.”

He repeated that phrase, “I’ve done nothing wrong,” nine times in 30 minutes. I’ve done nothing wrong. I’ve done nothing wrong. I’ve done nothing wrong. I’ve done nothing wrong. I’ve done nothing wrong. I’ve done nothing wrong. I’ve done nothing wrong. I’ve done nothing wrong. I’ve done nothing wrong.

Then there was the matter of Ron DeSantis. “I’ve always gotten along with him,” Trump said. He went on about how DeSantis had been “losing by a tremendous margin” when he “came and asked for my endorsement” during his 2018 bid for governor. This is essential to understand. DeSantis came to him. He applies the Meisner technique. He recites the story over and over. DeSantis recognized the power of Trump just as everyone else did. But the story was getting less believable. In his most recent campaign, DeSantis did not pay him any such visit and won in a landslide. National polls had changed. Two days after we spoke, The Wall Street Journal had DeSantis beating Trump 52 to 38 percent.

I started to ask his opinion, as a Florida resident, of DeSantis as a governor. I used the phrase “governed by.” He flinched. He did not like the sound of that. “Well, I live in Florida,” he said, “but you know, when you say ‘governed by’ him …” He paused. He was annoyed. He did not like the idea that he was in any way under the rule of another person. Nor that the person was another clueless sonofabitch standing on Trump’s shoulders thinking he was really 20 feet tall. “You know, these people forget,” he said. “Politicians tend to forget.”

The very Establishment that had run the Republican Party into the wilderness before his improbable primary and general-election victories in 2016 was trying to cleave him from the herd once again. Now, when they were winning, they thought it was because people liked them, when really they won because they were with Trump, and people liked Trump, and those people liked people Trump liked. The Republican Party didn’t know what it had with Trump, as Trump saw it. They were losers when he came along and did them the favor of making people care, of giving them something to believe in. He was the winner.

“Guys like Mitch” — as in McConnell — “who is, I think, not good,” Trump said, “he was getting creamed. If I didn’t endorse him, he wouldn’t be a senator right now.” And Mitt Romney, who said Trump’s endorsement was the kiss of death for Republicans in the midterms? “The kiss of death was when Mitt Romney ran for president and got obliterated by Obama in a race that he should have won. That was the kiss of death,” Trump said. So no, he isn’t afraid of DeSantis, he said. He isn’t afraid of anyone. “I don’t think anybody can beat me in a primary.”

He said the whole truth about why he was running was this: “I wanted to put my cards on the table, and I did that. I think we did that very strongly.” He was talking now about the announcement itself in the Donald J. Trump Grand Ballroom. “It was considered to be a very successful announcement,” he said.

III.

On the day he announced his candidacy this past November, the air was heavy with oleander and snipped greenery and sea mist colliding with mold and wood polish and hotel soap and the metallic vapor of Diet Coke and the alcoholic ferment of generations of cougars in Chanel No. 5. The floor was staged for something between a rally and a cocktail party. Rows of tables and chairs formed a press filing in the back, then the risers for the TV networks, then the red velvet rope. “The room was packed,” Trump told me. “Sold out.” Tickets were not sold at all. Guests were invited. The room was full, but it was not at capacity. Chairs remained empty, some more glaringly than others.

“There was a lot of media there. We maxed out,” Trump told me. “We had so many from the media we were not able to let them come into the room. They were outside on the lawn.” At MAGA rallies in recent years, and since the end of his presidency in particular, the press pen has been an odd sight. The identifiable faces from the major networks and mainstream publications show up here and there but not en masse as before. Still a zoo, different captives. The area behind the metal barricades is full of far-right celebrities. When Trump asks his fans to turn around and boo the fake news, they are yelling at themselves. In the Grand Ballroom, Sebastian Gorka stood tall on the press riser, his hair sprayed to the high heavens, arms outstretched, phone angled just so. He flashed a hideous grin and moved slowly in a circle. An epic panoramic selfie. A few feet away, Mike “the MyPillow Guy” Lindell filmed a stand-up.

A short blonde woman who identified herself as Sidney, part of the advance team, grabbed at the hem of my dress and yelled. She threatened to remove me from the premises for standing too far outside the perimeter of the press area. The MAGA personalities, meanwhile, hopped right over the rope, moving back and forth from the VIP guest area. One man, coughing and sweating, asked me if I knew where to find a personality from One America News Network. He was there on OAN’s invitation, he said. He kept coughing. I got him a bottle of water from the back. He said he would pray for me.

Trump emerged to the sounds of “Do You Hear the People Sing?” from Les Misérables and Lee Greenwood’s “God Bless the USA,” which, along with “Memory” from Cats and the theme from Air Force One and “Tiny Dancer” and “You Can’t Always Get What You Want” and “YMCA,” form the foundation of the idiosyncratic MAGA score. “We always have known that this was not the end,” he said. “This was the beginning of our fight to rescue the American Dream, and it’s a word you don’t use — two words, I don’t want to be Joe, that’s two words, American Dream.” He went on a brief tangent to mock President Biden for the way he misspeaks. “That was not good what he did. There are a lot of bad things, like going to Idaho and saying, ‘Welcome to the state of Florida, I really love it.’” Then, abruptly, he returned to the point: “In order to make America great and glorious again, I am tonight announcing my candidacy for president of the United States.” It felt like nothing when he said that. It felt like he didn’t mean it, didn’t care. People in the audience checked their watches. Secret Service agents yawned. Trump looked out and paused. Everyone could sit down, he said. He didn’t want to make them stand for so long.

As he continued his speech, 64 minutes total, Hannity cut away. “The energy, and I felt the energy in the ballroom, was fantastic, actually,” Trump said. I told him he had seemed bored and disengaged. “No, I’m not bored. I’m not bored,” he said. “I thought it should be a calm, solid speech. It wasn’t a rally … I thought the demeanor should be much calmer. And I think that’s what was portrayed, which is maybe what you’re referring to … Weren’t you there?” I was, I said. “Yeah, didn’t you think there was a great energy in the ballroom?” He answered himself. “I did. People were going rather wild, to put it mildly,” he said.

It was like watching Elvis at the end if he was completely relegated to just piano bars.
Across the ballroom, I saw a familiar figure. It was Roger Stone, lingering in the back with “you maggots in the media,” as he called us. I’d met Stone for the first time eight years earlier when he was shopping opposition research on the governor of New Jersey, Chris Christie, who was expected to seek the Republican presidential nomination despite a convoluted political scandal back home that had made the improbable leap to a national media fixation. If he bounced back, he would be in Trump’s way. Another charismatic, loudmouth East Coast RINO skilled at attracting the fickle attentions of the press. Stone and his protégé Sam Nunberg wanted Trump to run for president, so they would need to kill off Christie.

They were an odd pair, dopey and a little frightening, but interesting. I didn’t bite on the Christie oppo, but I kept in touch. In politics, I was learning, there were a lot of crazy characters or people pretending to be crazy to exert control or promote crazy ideas to achieve their desired outcomes, and every once in a while, the crazy characters really did know something useful, or someone useful, if you figured out how to listen to them in such a way as to filter out the bullshit, or at least the irrelevant bullshit. Later that year, I was working on a story about the Christie administration’s dealings in Atlantic City, pegged to the closure of the Trump Taj Mahal. I asked Nunberg if he could arrange an interview for me. Within minutes, a Trump Tower secretary was patching me through.

I remember I was in a cab. “I made a lot of money in Atlantic City,” Trump told me. “I want you to write in your story that Mr. Trump made a lot of money in Atlantic City.” At the end of the conversation, he paused expectantly. I picked up that he was waiting for me to ask the question that his promotion of birtherism, the racist conspiracy theory that Barack Obama was not born in the United States, was designed to invite. I was not especially interested in the answer, but asking it seemed only fair since he had entertained rather politely all the questions I’d wanted to ask. Was he going to run in 2016? He exhaled with a single note of laughter, like, Of course, this question again, this question I am not actively dying for people to ask me. “Well, I’m certainly looking at it,” he said. He would make a judgment based on whether the trajectory of the country turned around in the coming months. Lots of people, he added, wanted him to run.

Depending on whom you asked, Stone had either been fired or quit the 2016 campaign amid a feud with a rival faction of staffers, but he never fully left Trump’s grasp. He didn’t go on the record to insult or criticize him, even when, frustrated by the perception that Stone had been instrumental in his success, Trump insulted or criticized him. To Trump, Trump was the only one responsible for Trump’s success. Inclined to conspiratorial thinking, Stone aligned himself with Alex Jones, and over time, after he was frog-marched from his Fort Lauderdale home by the police and charged with lying to Congress amid the Russia investigations, he seemed to earn back Trump’s appreciation. In one of his final acts as president, Trump offered Stone a pardon. Stone made his way out of the ballroom before the speech was over. “I saw it as controlled and disciplined and on message,” he told me later. “Some of your colleagues are disappointed that he did not self-destruct out of the gate.”

Nunberg was not in the ballroom. He had been kicked out of Trumpworld early, fired over old social-media posts in which he used racist slurs. He had taken a much different path after the events of 2016. Amid the investigations, he began to appear often on cable news to needle Trump. He was still drinking then, and he went on an infamous bender during which he gave chaotic interviews to CNN and New York. Then he got sober. He left New York. He now has a girlfriend. So the morning after the announcement, when I reached him by phone, he drew in a sharp breath through his teeth. He hates Trump. In his view, Trump had fired and rehired and fired and betrayed and maligned him. In theory, as the kind of still-a-little-Trumpian character who loves revenge, he should take only pleasure in observing his old boss’s accumulating failures. But this? It was almost too pathetic. “It was sad to watch,” Nunberg said. “It was like watching Elvis at the end.” On second thought, it was worse than that: “It was like watching Elvis at the end if he was completely relegated to just piano bars.” He laughed a sad laugh. “Couldn’t have happened to a nicer guy.”

“It’s not there. In this business, you can have it and have it so hot and it can go overnight and it’s gone and you can’t get it back. I think we’re just seeing it’s gone. The magic is gone,” an adviser said. “When Seb Gorka and Raheem Kassam and Kash Patel and Devin Nunes are your stars, that’s the D-list. It was D-list MAGA. When Brick Man — that freak, Brick Man — is in the VIP seating, we’ve got a problem.” Brick Man is a man who wears a suit made of fabric with — you guessed it — a brick pattern. The bricks symbolize the wall on the U.S.-Mexico border. He wandered around the ballroom offering interviews to reporters. I have a high tolerance for this kind of shit, obviously, and I could not. “If you’re looking for an indication of how bad things are going,” the adviser added, “it’s Brick Man not just being there but being in the VIP section. Don Jr.’s not there!”

IV.

It was true.

Three days earlier, Mar-a-Lago had been crawling with Trumps. On the lawn after a hurricane, Tiffany Trump, the only child from Trump’s second marriage, to Marla Maples, wed Michael Boulos, a 25-year-old heir to a billion-dollar motorcycle-distribution company. Tiffany’s older sister, Ivanka, dressed as Grace Kelly in powder blue, served as matron of honor. It was convenient timing. In 2015, when Trump announced his first presidential campaign, he was joined by all of his children in the atrium of Trump Tower. Ivanka was the opener. Don Jr., Eric, and Tiffany stood off to the side with their father’s third wife. They were a powerful tool on the campaign trail, a way for Trump to respond to the general impression that he was an asshole. How bad could he be if his children were functional adults who still loved him?

By November 15, on the night of the announcement, half the Trumps were gone.

Something about the chandeliers’ light reacting to the alleged $7 million of gold leaf made the whole room a little fuzzy. I squinted from the top of a riser near a C-Span camera. There was Eric, tall and blond, hard to miss; his wife, Lara, with her narrow frame and distinct trot; Ivanka’s husband, Jared Kushner, pale with dark hair and a cold stare detectable at any distance; and Don Jr.’s fiancée, Kimberly Guilfoyle, a former Fox News personality once married to California’s Democratic governor, Gavin Newsom. That was it.

Minutes after her father’s announcement, Ivanka released a statement to the press: “I love my father very much. This time around I am choosing to prioritize my young children and the private life we are creating as a family. I do not plan to be involved in politics. While I will always love and support my father, going forward I will do so outside the political arena. I am grateful to have had the honor of serving the American people and I will always be proud of many of our Administration’s accomplishments.” Tiffany never explained her absence. Don Jr., meanwhile, said he’d been caught in bad weather on a hunting trip.

“There’s nobody around him who wants him to do it,” an adviser said. “Forget Jared and Ivanka — Don Jr. doesn’t want him to do it! The only person who wants him to do it is Eric’s wife, Lara, because she’s so ambitious.” Lara led buses emblazoned with WOMEN FOR TRUMP through swing states in 2020. She considered her own campaign for Senate in North Carolina but opted instead for Fox News, where she was a paid contributor until that evening in the ballroom; network rules dictate that paid contributors cannot be campaign consultants.

Melania had trailed her husband into the ballroom with Barron, the couple’s teenage son. After the midterms, the New York Times reported, Trump blamed his wife for his decision to endorse Dr. Oz, the reality-TV personality who lost an important U.S. Senate seat in Pennsylvania for the Republican Party. “He’s like, ‘She has no political instincts!’” a second former White House official said. Whatever else is true of the former First Lady, she is beautiful. She never looks bad. But you can tell when she’s trying and when I REALLY DON’T CARE, DO U? On this occasion, she lacked her distinct polish. Not for the first time, she looked, also, unhappy.

Before a wall of American flags, each kept in place by a gold screw in the shape of an eagle, Trump was alone. He is sensitive about this, too. He does not like how it looks. “I’m seeing people all the time. I have congressmen outside right now waiting to see me. I have many people from Congress coming to see me, I have senators coming to see me, I have a lot of people. I’m not isolated,” he told me. I said, “But at the announcement, Ivanka was not there, and Don Jr. was not there — ”

He cut in. “Don was going to be there! Don was going to be there!” he said. “But there was a very tremendous storm, and he called up. He said, ‘What do you think?’ I said, ‘Don’t. Just relax and stay where you are.’ But Don was going to be there.” And Ivanka? “Jared was there, I believe,” he said. “I think that all members of my family are with me. It doesn’t mean that they’re going to work on the campaign, but they’re always 100 percent with me.” He couldn’t blame Ivanka, he said. “She did a very good job, and she was treated unfairly, and I don’t want to see that happen, you know? It’s a nasty business.”

V.

The new campaign is registered with the Federal Election Commission from a P.O. box in northern Virginia near the sleek nerve center of the failed 2020 reelection. The web address listed on the paperwork redirected to a domain seller. DJTFP24.com is just for campaign officials to create email addresses, the campaign told me. The actual website launched in mid-December. There is less clarity about the headquarters.

First, I was told headquarters are — present tense — in the “Palm Beach area.” That’s according to Steven Cheung, a veteran of the 2016 campaign and the administration who departed amid a purge of suspected West Wing leakers and is now communications director of Trump 2024. According to another campaign official, there are no headquarters. Not yet. The campaign plans to rent a space in the Palm Beach area. This is the new Trump campaign, same as the old Trump campaigns, so who knows whom to trust? For now, campaign business is conducted by phone, over Zoom, in the lobbies of the Marriotts and Holiday Inns in West Palm Beach, and, only as it relates to meetings with the candidate himself, at Mar-a-Lago. The candidate does not provide work space to his staff at his private club. Unless they have $200,000 to spare.

“A bunch of campaign staffers have moved down to Palm Beach already,” Cheung said. Whoever they are. The first FEC reports for campaign expenditures will not be filed until the end of the year, and the candidate is reluctant to get into specifics before he is legally required to do so. “We’re doing structure, and we’re doing people. We’ve hired some great people, who will be announced,” Trump told me. “A lot of money is coming in … How much did I raise? How much did I raise?” A muffled voice, high in pitch, answered the question. Who was that? “Just, uh, a person,” Trump said, “uh, who’s giving me the information.”

The person was Susie Wiles, a veteran Republican operative who has worked for everyone from Ronald Reagan to Jack Kemp to George H.W. Bush to, in this century, Ron DeSantis. Her résumé lists 15 “SPECIALTIES” in the following order and capitalization: “Critical Thinking; Creative Solutions; Creating Order from Chaos; Building Relationships; Managing Perceptions; Campaigns; Political Strategy; Lobbying; Legislative Strategy; Public Policy; Crisis Communications; Strategic Communications; Media Relations; Public Relations; Community Outreach.” An odd fit for Trump, she is a grandmother and, according to CNN, an avid bird-watcher. She follows Ina Garten and Martha Stewart on Instagram.

Wiles has been around Trump since 2016, when she managed the campaign to victory in Florida. She did it again in 2020 and by a wider margin, even as other swing states that had once broken Trump’s way flipped for Biden. But she did not become Trump’s top adviser until the past two years, after everything fully went to shit. It’s a similar story with the handful of others who make up the campaign.

For many people inside, the first half of the administration was about staying there. The second half was about getting out, about how and when and whether they could or would, about what that would be like. On his way to defeat and isolated by the pandemic, the president started to scare even those who had been willing for years to forgive anything.

“I think that really fucked up his head,” the first former White House official said. “He was already on that path, he was so desensitized and emboldened, and then during COVID, his interactions with real people were so cut off. During this tragic time where horrible things were happening, he wasn’t experiencing any of it. It was an ugly cocktail of the pandemic and race — after George Floyd — these things that activated his worst features. He lost touch with what was real, whatever limited ability he had before to connect was just gone.” He was more inclined to crack than others. “Here’s a person who is so untethered as it is, who largely escapes accountability, and there were always weird people around him, but the more the normal people disappeared, and all he’s surrounded by are the cuckoo birds,” the official trailed off. “His brain was vulnerable too because I think he was probably whatever his version of depressed is.”

“I don’t want to excuse it,” the official continued. It wasn’t like working for Trump had ever been defensible. But it was easy to live in the fantasy world he had created. It encouraged fantasies of your own. “I always wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt,” the official said, “to see the good things, and I think a lot of that was just giving myself a reason to be there.”

Among Trumpworld’s known regulars who did not flee in an outright panic, this early period of the new campaign is a time for self-interested planning. Some are reluctant to make their participation official for financial reasons; some are waiting for things to get even worse to swoop in and save the day; some are waiting to see if it does get worse so they can pretend they were never going to get involved. The people who swear they will never be dragged back sometimes do seem to mean it, but sometimes it seems they are just trying to convince themselves.

“It’s a campaign that’s always done historically questionable shit,” said one staffer who would know. “A normal campaign will announce in May or June, but him coming out early is like, Yeah, I’m doing this, you don’t have to worry. Just worry about winning. It’s what his people needed. He fucking needed to. This country’s in a shit place. He’s been beat the fuck up for years, and the last two years especially have been really, really rough.” Nobody cares, this staffer said, that it looks dead from the outside. “It’s not like we’re sitting here and doing nothing.” And the small circle is a nice change for the moment. Life is less about office politics when there is no office. “No one’s really trying to knife each other, praise be to God. That will be changing, though, I’m sure.” The idea that people wouldn’t crawl back to Trump once the “frenzy” sparked up again went against the basic laws of Trumpian gravity. Soon, this staffer believes, “the whole chorus will start singing.”

The second former White House official said, “I think if he’s even our nominee, we may lose our country. Even if I don’t believe he can win a general again, I think he could burn down the country. I think it’s that dangerous. I’m terrified.” The current staff, this person said, reflects this. “No decent people want anything to do with him,” the former official said. “I think he knows he’s got a fucking F-team and he’s embarrassed by it.” Still, this person admitted, the F-team may have a point: “There are so many gross opportunists, the minute it looks like he’ll win, they’ll all be back.”

Cheung sent over a list of events and endorsements, all campaign activity to date. In written communications, the campaign refers to the candidate as POTUS, the acronym that pertains to sitting presidents. Bill Clinton’s staff refers to him now as WJC; Barack Obama’s, BHO. But Trump clings to his dream that he could never be a loser. And so, to his staff, he’s POTUS.

Trump’s campaign schedule, described to me as “busy,” involved 11 events over the course of the month. One event was the announcement itself. Five events took place at Mar-a-Lago. Four events were not events at all but taped videos that were aired at events where Trump was not physically present. The endorsements were just as impressive: Kari Lake, Matt Gaetz, Elise Stefanik, Paul Gosar, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Max Miller, the New York Young Republicans, the Texas agriculture commissioner. The most high-profile Trump-endorsed candidate to win in the midterms, J. D. Vance, was not on this list. Neither was Trump’s former press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders, now governor-elect of Arkansas. I asked her why she hadn’t endorsed him. She didn’t respond.

Not on the official record of campaign activity was the event on November 22, exactly one week after the announcement, which spoke to just how much Trump is operating without meaningful staff or advice. That evening, Kanye West arrived for dinner with white supremacist and Holocaust denier Nick Fuentes in tow.

In the past, the dinner with Ye and Fuentes would have become the responsibility of Ivanka and Jared. They were there when Trump hesitated to condemn David Duke, and when he shared an offensive image of a six-pointed star alongside a pile of cash, and when he repeatedly told a Jewish group, “I don’t want your money.” Melania may have gone on record to say, “He’s not Hitler,” but it was Ivanka and Jared, the only Jewish members of the family, who could actually help him wriggle out of trouble.

But this time, Ivanka and Jared were in the Middle East, touring the pyramids and climbing on the backs of camels with their three children on their way to Qatar for the World Cup, where there was business to tend to. They were joined there by an employee from Affinity Partners, the investment firm Kushner founded in 2021, for which he has raised a reported $3 billion — a majority, $2 billion, from the Saudi public-investment fund.

When calls began to come in looking for help, looking for public support, even looking for a response, Kushner refused. Trump’s Nazi associations and overtures are his problem now. Kushner has also started giving out his father-in-law’s number to people who call with the usual asks, whereas in the past he would have positioned himself as a go-between. “He was like, ‘Look, I’m out. I’m really out,’” a person with knowledge of the situation said. So why was he at the announcement? “I realize it’s complicated because Jared is there,” this person said. The “mixed message” was “a combination of having respect for a family member and drawing clear lines for your life.” Another person, also speaking on the condition of anonymity, said that perhaps Kushner felt a sense of “familial obligation.” Nunberg, liberated to speak as Nunberg, had a different explanation. “Jared was there for the Saudis,” he said, only half-joking.

Ivanka has been careful since the January 6 insurrection. She has said very little in public. After her mother died, she retreated further. Her father’s explanation for her absence, that she was sick of negative press, channels his own mentality in the wrong way. When Trump was a child, his minister was Norman Vincent Peale, the author of The Power of Positive Thinking. More than anything else, this was Ivanka’s biggest nonmaterial inheritance. There are things about the campaigns and the White House, about problems with her father, that are “so bleak,” according to the first former White House official, and a “struggle” for her to acknowledge. To do so would be both a betrayal of her family and an act of manifestation. It would infect her every moment. “It’s not that she doesn’t see it; it’s that she’s trying not to look,” the official said. “She chooses to focus on things that make her happy.”

While the couple wait for contractors to finish their Indian Creek Island estate, they live in a condo in Surfside, Florida. Jared’s new office is a few minutes away in an open-concept loft. At home, Ivanka takes calls from the balcony overlooking the water. When her father entered politics, she was building a lifestyle brand inside the Trump Organization. She had completed two high-profile real-estate-development deals that confirmed she was first in the line of succession. She knew her place in the world.

In seven years, almost everything about the world and her place in it has changed. Those who know her well, and know her now, say the idea that she is sitting around desperate to get invited back to the Met Gala isn’t right. That she is not in denial the way her father is. She doesn’t necessarily think charitable deeds will earn her reentry to New York society, though she is documenting those deeds on social media and on sympathetic media outlets. (Before all this, “sympathetic media outlet” meant Vogue; today, it means Fox News.) She spends her time with her children, mostly, and when alone, she tries to figure out who she is now. She learned guitar. She surfs. She practices meditation. The child tax credit, paid family leave, workforce development — when Ivanka thinks about her time in the White House, she chooses to think about the policy areas where she feels she had a real impact, whether or not anyone will ever give her credit. She decided she’s no longer the kind of person who must serve at her father’s side when her father is who her father is and he doesn’t listen to her anyway.

Without his daughter and son-in-law to turn to in the wake of dinner with Ye and Fuentes, Trump was left to defend himself on his preferred platform, Truth Social. To me, he said, “Kanye West called me up, and he wanted to know if I could meet him because he has a lot of problems. And I did that. He brought some people that I didn’t — Nick Fuentes — who I didn’t know at all. We sat down, we had a very quick meal. It wasn’t two hours, as somebody said. It was a very quick meal, it went very fast. It was pleasant. There was nothing said of any great import. And that was the end of that. All of a sudden, the press made a fake story out of it.”

On the phone, he was defensive about Ivanka and Jared. “I don’t need anybody’s advice! I don’t need any advice! I’m pretty good. I think I’m pretty good at doing advice,” he said. If he was so good, why did he have dinner with an anti-semite? “I had dinner with a very troubled man who was asking for help, and I didn’t know his views on Israel because I don’t study Kanye. I didn’t know that Kanye said anything negative about Israel because it’s not exactly something that I would be in a position to know.”

If he had better people around him, wouldn’t they have known? Wouldn’t they have prevented that? Trump and Wiles talked over each other. West had “always been very good to me,” Trump said, “and I believe he wanted advice. And I do that for people, sometimes at my own risk, I guess. But I do that for people. I like helping people that have difficulties in life. And I think, you know, from that standpoint, I did the right thing.” So the problem, he implied, was that he was simply too generous for his own good? “I believe I am overly generous, and I don’t think that’s a bad thing. But sometimes it can make life a little bit more difficult,” he said. “I am overly generous.”

Do you remember how Sunset Boulevard ends? Norma Desmond shoots and kills the writer, a fraudster who has fallen under the spell of her charisma, just as he summons the courage to walk away. Her sycophantic butler flips. There are no enablers left to protect her. A final fantasy, a fake movie set, is staged in the mansion’s entryway. The lights go on, and she is lured before the cameras, where the police are waiting to haul her away.

Want more stories like this one? Subscribe now to support our journalism and get unlimited access to our coverage. If you prefer to read in print, you can also find this article in the January 2, 2023, issue of New York Magazine.

by **admin** » Tue Dec 27, 2022 7:39 am

Trump finally Snaps, has complete Meltdown over January 6 report
by Brian Tyler Cohen
Dec 26, 2022

Transcript

0:00
[Donald Trump] We wanted security we wanted safety
0:03
there was no Insurrection and there
0:05
wasn't going to be an Insurrection it
0:08
was made up by these sick people Nancy
0:11
Pelosi and the D.C mayor refused if
0:14
they'd listened to me my recommendation
0:17
none of this would have happened and you
0:19
wouldn't have heard about January 6th as
0:23
we know it they covered up multiple
0:25
tweets and they covered up a video which
0:28
were censored by Twitter and the FBI in
0:32
which I called for Law and Order and for
0:35
no violence and then they pushed and
0:37
absurd and discredited story where I
0:40
supposedly lunch for the steering wheel
0:43
in an attempt to commandeer a
0:46
presidential limousine think of it I
0:49
lunged for a steering wheel and they
0:51
believed that story nobody believes that
0:54
story the committee barely even
0:55
discussed the catastrophic security
0:58
failures at the Capitol and they didn't
1:00
discuss the other thing the reason that
1:03
everybody went there the election which
1:06
was a corrupt disaster they did not
1:10
discuss why the doors were flung wide
1:12
open for people to walk right in and
1:15
they didn't discuss the role of federal
1:17
informants most importantly the unselect
1:21
committee did not produce a single shred
1:24
of evidence that I in any way intended
1:27
or wanted violence at our Capital the
1:31
evidence does not exist because the
1:34
claim is baseless and a monstrous lie
1:37
they know it it's just like the
1:39
russia-russia Russia hoax this is
1:42
absolutely no different it's
1:44
misinformation the only thing they're
1:47
good at cheating in elections
1:49
misinformation the events of January 6
1:52
were not an Insurrection they were a
1:55
protest that tragically got out of
1:57
control and which the left has been
1:59
weapon organizing ever since to censor
2:02
spion and persecute American citizens
2:06
the entire phony hoax is about taking
2:09
away your speech taking away your vote
2:12
and taking away your freedom
2:14
these are sick people these are marxists

2:17
[Brian Tyler Cohen] Well, looks like Donald Trump finally
2:19
found out about the January 6
2:20
committee's final report because here he
2:22
is melting down on air in the wake of
2:24
the committee sending four criminal
2:25
referrals to the special counsel
2:26
including obstructing an official
2:28
proceeding making false statements
2:30
defrauding the U.S and inciting an
2:32
Insurrection of course leave it to Trump
2:34
to view himself as the victim only after
2:36
his crimes were put on full display now
2:38
in terms of Trump's response he starts
2:40
off here by claiming quote there was no
2:42
Insurrection that it was quote made up
2:44
by these people in other words the
2:46
strategy here is just to pretend that
2:48
the Insurrection didn't happen people
2:49
stormed the U.S Capitol amid the haze of
2:51
pepper spray and chance to have the vice
2:53
president assassinated for not anointing
2:55
the guy who lost the winner nope didn't
2:57
see nothing he then said Nancy Pelosi
3:00
and the DC mayor refused which is a
3:01
reference to this conspiracy theory that
3:03
Pelosi and mayor Bowser withheld the
3:05
National Guard or law enforcement from
3:07
responding on January 6th which is an
3:09
abject lie neither one of those people
3:11
has any jurisdiction of the National
3:12
Guard of the Capitol Police period
3:14
Republicans can pretend that they did
3:16
but it's nothing more than make-believe
3:18
but even though they have no
3:19
jurisdiction even still Pelosi did call
3:22
for law enforcement

[Nancy Pelosi] Hi governor [on the phone: Gov. Ralph Northam, Governor of Virginia]
3:26
This is Nancy. Governor, I don't know if you have
3:29
been approached about the Virginia
3:31
National Guard Mr Hoyer was
3:34
speaking to Governor Hogan but I
3:38
still think you probably need the okay
3:39
of the uh the federal government in
3:43
order to come into another jurisdiction?
Thank you.

[Chuck Schumer] The Secretary of the Army. He's authorized --

[Nancy Pelosi] Oh my gosh. They're just breaking windows. They're doing all kinds of, I mean, it's really
3:55
they said somebody was shot it's just
3:58
it's just horrendous and all at the
4:00
instigation of the president of the
4:03
United States
4:04
okay thank you Governor I appreciate
4:06
what you're doing and if you don't mind
4:08
I'd like to stay in touch thank you
4:11
[Chuck Schumer] The Virginia Guard has been called in[Nancy Pelosi] Yeah, I
4:15
was just talking to Governor Northam and
4:17
what he said is they sent 200 of State
4:21
Police
4:22
and a unit of the National Guard.
[On the phone Jeffrey Rosen, Acting Attorney General]
They're
4:26
breaking windows and going in uh uh
4:29
obviously ransacking our offices and all
4:32
the rest of that that's nothing the
4:35
concern we have about uh personal safety
4:39
personal safety just transcends
4:42
everything but the fact is on any given
4:45
day they're breaking the law in many
4:47
different ways and quite frankly much of
4:51
it at the instigation of the president
4:52
of the United States and now if he could
4:56
it could at least uh somebody.

[Chuck Schumer] Yeah, why
4:59
don't you get the president to tell them
5:00
to leave the capital Mr attorney general
5:02
in your law enforcement responsibility
5:05
a public statement they should all leave
5:07
okay?

[Republican leaders Mitch McConnell, Steve Scalise and John Thune join Democratic leaders to call DoD. 3:46 p.m.]
[Steny Hoyer] You also have troops this is Denny
5:10
Hoyer, troops Fort McNair
5:12
Andrews Air Force Base, other 5:15
military bases thank you. We need active
5:17
duty National Guard--

[Brian Tyler Cohen] So Not only was
5:19
Pelosi not able to call in the National
5:21
Guard but she tried to anyway so when
5:23
Trump says that they refused someone
5:25
might want to hand him a mirror Trump
5:27
then goes on to claim that he was
5:28
censored on Twitter when he posted a
5:30
very very innocent video only this is
5:33
what the video actually said:

[President Donald Trump] I know your
5:35
pain I know you're hurt
5:38
we had an election that was stolen from
5:41
us it was a landslide election and
5:44
everyone knows it especially the other
5:47
side
5:48
but you have to go home now we have to
5:51
have peace we have to have Law and Order
5:53
we have to respect our great
5:56
people in Law and Order we don't want
5:58
anybody hurt it's a very tough period of
6:01
time there's never been a time like this
6:03
where
6:04
such a thing happened where they could
6:06
take it away from all of us from me from
6:09
you from our country this was a
6:11
fraudulent election.

[Brian Tyler Cohen] He validated the
6:14
very reason for the Insurrection
6:16
continuing to falsely suggest that he
6:18
was wronged in the election or that it
6:20
was somehow stolen and fraudulent so not
6:22
only is there no remorse here but the
6:24
guy actually continues to promote the
6:26
very lie that caused the Insurrection in
6:27
the first place if you're wondering why
6:29
Twitter removed the video they probably
6:31
recognized the very simple fact that when
6:33
you perpetuate this idea of a stolen
6:35
election it tends to cause thousands of
6:37
people to storm the capitol seeking to
6:39
assassinate anyone who suggests
6:40
otherwise and by the way for those who
6:42
say yeah but he told his people to go
6:43
home in that video and he called for Law
6:45
and Order right he called for Law and
6:47
Order more than three hours after the
6:49
Insurrection first started and not
6:51
earlier that's like an arsonist standing
6:53
in front of a forest fire that he set
6:54
hours ago and calling for protecting the
6:57
forest you don't get credit for opposing
6:59
the thing that you quite literally just
7:00
inspired and then Trump's lies get more
7:03
Insidious like when he yet again repeats
7:05
the lie at the heart of all of this and
7:07
he says this:

[President Donald Trump] The committee barely even
7:09
discussed the catastrophic security
7:11
failures at the Capitol and they didn't
7:14
discuss the other thing the reason that
7:16
everybody went there the election which
7:20
was a corrupt disaster.

[Brian Tyler Cohen] And look I may be
7:23
misremembering but I'm pretty sure
7:25
everyone did discuss the legitimacy of
7:27
the election arguably 100 times per day
7:30
specifically the more than 60 court
7:32
cases including nine at the hands of
7:34
trump appointed judges that Trump and
7:35
his allies lost all of which suggested
7:38
that there was fraud in the election so
7:39
Trump trafficking in this fairy tale that
7:41
we didn't talk about the legitimacy of
7:43
the election but in fact we had election
7:45
officials secretaries of State Governors
7:47
judges even Trump's own White House
7:49
officials who all defended the results
7:51
and the only person spreading any
7:53
disinformation in that realm was Donald
7:55
Trump from there another Insidious lie:

[President Donald Trump] 7:58
most importantly the unselect committee
8:01
did not produce a single shred of
8:03
evidence that I in any way intended or
8:07
wanted violence at our Capitol.

[Brian Tyler Cohen] That
8:10
purportedly the January 6 committee
8:12
provided no evidence that Trump knew
8:13
about or wanted violence only small
8:16
issue considering they did.

[Cassidy Hutchinson, Former Aide to Mark Meadows] When we were
8:19
in the off stage announce area tent
8:22
behind the stage
8:23
he was very concerned about the shot
8:26
meaning the photograph that we would get
8:28
because the rally space wasn't full
8:31
um
8:32
one of the reasons which I've previously
8:34
stated was because
8:36
he wanted it to be full and for people
8:39
to not feel excluded because they'd
8:41
come forward to watching at the rally
8:44
um and he felt the mags were at fault
8:45
for not letting everybody in but another
8:47
leading reason and likely the primary
8:51
reason is because he wanted it full and
8:53
he was angry that we weren't letting
8:55
people through the mags with weapons
8:57
what the Secret Service deemed as
8:59
weapons and are
9:01
weapons.
9:02
but when we were in the off stage
9:04
announce tent I was part of a
9:06
conversation, I was in the
9:09
vicinity of a conversation where I
9:10
overheard the president say something
9:12
the effect of you know "I don't effing care
9:14
that they have weapons
9:16
they're not here to hurt me take the
9:18
effing bags away let my people in they
9:20
can march to the capitol from here let the
9:22
people in take the effing mags away."

[Brian Tyler Cohen] "I
9:25
don't care that they have weapons
9:26
they're not here to hurt me." In other
9:28
words not only did Trump know that
9:30
people were armed but he wanted the
9:32
armed people to be in the crowd so
9:34
unless he thought that guns were used as
9:36
some peace offering then yeah pretty
9:38
sure the guy wanted the violence but
9:40
here's my favorite part of all of this
9:41
when Trump inadvertently proves just how
9:43
full of shit he actually is:

[President Donald Trump] No different
9:46
it's misinformation the only thing
9:49
they're good at cheating in elections
9:51
misinformation the events of January 6
9:55
were not an Insurrection.

[Brian Tyler Cohen] He accuses the
9:58
Democrats of spreading misinformation
9:59
and in the very next breath says that
10:02
the Democrats cheated in the election
10:03
and that the events of January 6 were
10:05
not an Insurrection tell you what Trump
10:07
may lie his face off but he's very good
10:09
at projection and if these statements
10:11
seem even more deranged and deluded than
10:13
normal there is a reason for that he's
10:15
backed into a corner the special counsel
10:17
is bearing down on him he doesn't have
10:19
the levers of government to protect him
10:21
and after this report and the criminal
10:22
referrals from the January 6 committee he
10:24
knows he's screwed this isn't Trump
10:26
coming from a place of strength he's
10:28
coming from a position of weakness a
10:30
position of desperation and fear and if
10:32
this video shows us anything it's that
10:34
he knows it better than anyone
10:36

by **admin** » Tue Dec 27, 2022 11:17 am

Trump's tax returns and the corruption at the top of the IRS during the Trump years
by Glenn Kirschner
#TeamJustice
Dec 26, 2022

The information that has emerged as a result of the disclosure of former President Donald Trump's tax returns paints a picture of sweeping corruption at the top of the IRS, as this video discusses.

Transcript

0:01
so friends I'm afraid I finally have to
0:03
turn to Donald Trump's tax returns
0:07
specifically there's a picture emerging
0:10
and it's a picture that looks like at
0:13
best some really
0:15
ugly favoritism and cronyism at the IRS
0:20
and at worst some deep governmental
0:24
abuses
0:26
let's talk about that
0:28
because Justice matters
0:40
thank you
0:45
hey all Glenn kirschner here
0:47
so friends I'll be honest with you I've
0:49
been holding off doing a video about the
0:52
release of Donald Trump's tax returns
0:54
I'm not much of a tax guy
0:57
but it looks like this story is kind of
1:00
reaching critical mass on the
1:02
governmental corruption front so let's
1:05
take it on
1:07
but let's try to break this story into
1:09
some bite-sized pieces
1:12
one
1:13
based on the release of Donald Trump's
1:15
tax returns it looks like he very likely
1:18
may have
1:19
cheated on his taxes
1:22
I know I know you're shocked nobody
1:24
could have seen this coming
1:28
number two during Donald Trump's
1:30
presidency
1:32
his IRS commissioner
1:34
this guy Charles Reddick
1:38
failed or refused to conduct the
1:42
mandatory audits the required reviews of
1:47
Donald Trump's tax returns
1:50
which must be which must be done each
1:52
and every year a president is in office
1:55
Charles Reddick flat out refused to do
1:59
his job to scrutinize Donald Trump's tax
2:02
returns
2:04
three while Charles Reddick was Donald
2:09
Trump's IRS commissioner he was earning
2:12
hundreds of thousands of dollars off of
2:16
trump properties
2:20
here's some of the new reporting let's
2:22
start with the Washington Post
2:25
the many scandals Trump's tax records
2:28
reveal
2:30
and that article begins in 2020
2:32
president Donald Trump and Melania Trump
2:35
paid no federal income taxes
2:39
by claiming millions in dubious
2:41
deductions and carrying over losses from
2:45
previous years
2:47
somehow that's not the most scandalous
2:49
detail to emerge following The house's
2:52
four-year legal brawl to obtain Mr
2:56
Trump's tax returns it turns out the
2:59
Internal Revenue Service did not conduct
3:02
let alone complete mandatory
3:05
examinations of Mr Trump's returns while
3:08
he was President despite its own
3:11
internal policy from 1977 requiring such
3:16
reviews and the White House's claims
3:19
that they were happening
3:23
in other words friends
3:25
Donald Trump's repeated incessant claim
3:29
that he couldn't release his tax returns
3:32
while he was President because they were
3:34
under audit that was a lie
3:38
a lie in which his IRS commissioner
3:41
Charles reddig was complicit
3:46
so what else do we know about Donald
3:48
Trump's IRS commissioner Charles Reddick
3:51
other than the fact that he didn't once
3:53
correct Donald Trump's repeated lies
3:57
incessant lies about how he couldn't
4:00
possibly release his tax returns while
4:03
he was in office because he was under
4:05
audit each and every year
4:08
well here's some reporting from back in
4:10
2020. by an Ethics Watchdog organization
4:15
crew citizens for responsible ethics in
4:19
Washington here's what else we know
4:22
about Charles Reddick
4:24
headline Trump's IRS Chief has made
4:27
hundreds of thousands from Trump
4:30
properties while in office
4:34
and that article begins
4:36
Charles Reddick the Trump appointed IRS
4:38
commissioner who has refused to release
4:41
president Trump's tax returns has made
4:44
hundreds of thousands of dollars renting
4:47
out Trump properties while in office
4:50
according to documents obtained by crew
4:53
last year this was published in 2020 so
4:56
that would be 2019 last year reddig said
5:00
it was his decision whether to turn over
5:03
Trump's tax returns to Congress under
5:05
the supervision of Treasury secretary
5:08
Steve mnuchin
5:10
an analysis of reddig's personal
5:11
financial disclosures for the last two
5:14
years shows reddick-making one hundred
5:17
thousand to two hundred thousand dollars
5:19
a year from two units at Trump
5:22
International Waikiki
5:24
Trump made a detour to visit the
5:27
property during a trip to Asia in his
5:29
first year in office a Priceless
5:32
promotional appearance for the business
5:35
he still profits from as president
5:38
Reddick bought a 50 stake in the units
5:41
in in 2006 three years before the
5:45
property opened likely benefiting the
5:48
future president whose company got 10
5:50
percent of total pre-sales in other
5:53
words friends you scratch my back I'll
5:57
scratch yours
5:59
so let's look at a basic timeline
6:01
in 2016 Charles Reddick authored an
6:06
op-ed for Forbes defending Donald
6:09
Trump's refusal to disclose his tax
6:12
returns to the American voters while he
6:15
was running for office
6:17
in 2018 Charles Reddick was therefore
6:21
nominated by Donald Trump to be IRS
6:25
commissioner
6:26
in 2019 Charles Reddick together with
6:30
treasury secretary Steve mnuchin
6:32
violated the law
6:35
by refusing to turn over Donald Trump's
6:37
tax returns to the house Ways and Means
6:41
Committee
6:42
they refused to comply with the law
6:45
which said upon request from the
6:47
chairman of the house Ways and Means
6:49
Committee
6:50
for any person's tax returns they shall
6:54
be provided
6:56
reddig and mnuchin said we don't care
6:58
about the law we are not turning over
7:00
Donald Trump's tax returns all the while
7:04
Charles reddig is profiting from Trump
7:09
properties
7:12
let's go back to the Washington Post
7:14
reporting
7:16
in April 2019 on the very day the
7:20
committee the house Ways and Means
7:22
Committee inquired about the status of
7:25
mandatory presidential audits which were
7:27
not being conducted on Donald Trump as
7:30
they should have been
7:31
on that very day the IRS notified Mr
7:35
Trump that his 2015 return would be
7:39
examined
7:40
yeah so in other words friends they got
7:42
caught Redding and mnuchin got caught
7:45
doing a favor though for Donald Trump
7:49
they were refusing to do the annual
7:52
audits that were required of a
7:55
president's tax returns and the Very day
7:57
the house Ways and Means Committee
7:59
called them on it they contacted Trump
8:02
and said oh oh we're going to look at
8:04
your tax returns
8:06
but not to worry because Charles Reddick
8:09
has had a really compelling explanation
8:11
for why the IRS year after year
8:15
was failing to do the required audit on
8:18
Donald Trump's tax returns
8:21
Mr Trump's taxes were so complicated
8:24
that it is not possible to obtain the
8:28
resources available to examine all
8:31
potential issues in other words even if
8:35
the agency wanted to which it didn't
8:38
it lacked the resources for a thorough
8:42
review well you know it's funny
8:45
it's funny that they didn't have the
8:47
resources to conduct the mandatory
8:50
review of Donald Trump's tax returns and
8:53
yet somehow
8:54
they had plenty of time and enough
8:56
resources
8:58
to conduct
9:00
non-mandatory audits of guys like Jim
9:04
Comey and Andy McCabe
9:08
Donald Trump's vowed enemies plenty of
9:12
time and resources for those discretion
9:15
or discretionary
9:16
non-mandatory audits but no time no
9:20
resources
9:21
to audit the president's tax returns as
9:25
the IRS was required to do
9:28
this is some IRS BS
9:32
under the leadership
9:34
of Charles reddig and the supervision of
9:38
Treasury secretary Steve mnuchin you
9:41
know I've asked this question before
9:43
friends how long do the American people
9:45
have to suffer the indignity of this
9:48
abject corruption in government
9:51
specifically under the Trump Reign under
9:55
the Trump Rule and when will
9:57
accountability come
10:00
for guys like reddig and mnuchin not to
10:04
mention Donald Trump
10:06
it's got to come we've got a clean house
10:09
we have to address it there needs to be
10:12
accountability because if there's not
10:15
the same thing is going to happen over
10:17
and over and over again
10:21
and that is no kind of America
10:26
because Justice
10:29
matters
10:32
told you I didn't want to do a story
10:33
about Donald Trump's taxes
10:36
friends as always please stay safe
10:39
please stay tuned and I look forward to
10:41
talking with you all again
10:43
tomorrow

by **admin** » Wed Dec 28, 2022 7:35 am

Jan. 6 witness [Cassidy Hutchison] testified she saw Mark Meadows burn documents
by Pamela Brown
CNN
Dec 27, 2022

The January 6 committee released another batch of transcripts, including two more of its interviews with blockbuster witness Cassidy Hutchinson and testimony from several other Trump White House officials.

Transcript

0:00
us tonight, ac360 starts now.
0:08
>> The former president chief
0:11
of staff sent shedding
0:12
documents and sending them on
0:13
fire and qanon being discussed
0:15
favorably at the highest level
0:16
of the white house.
0:18
Pamela brown here for Anderson
0:19
tonight, those are just some
0:21
revelations from testimony
0:23
released today by the January
0:25
6th committee.
0:26
In both cases, testimony by
0:28
Cassidy Hutchison, one close
0:30
aide to chief of staff mark
0:32
meadows, CNN Jessica snider
0:33
joins us with the latest on the
0:34
striking newly-revealed
0:36
testimony, really just stunning
0:38
details coming out of these
0:40
transcripts, Jessica.
0:41
>> Yeah, Pamela.
0:42
We have seen this for the past
0:44
two days, this in particular,
0:45
these new details, that is
0:47
particularly because one of
0:48
these is Cassidy Hutchison's
0:50
final deposition, it dates from
0:53
June 2022, crucially that was
0:54
right after Cassidy Hutchinson
0:56
had fired heard from rural
0:58
attorney, and her new attorney
0:59
was letting her correct the
1:01
record and until every truth to
1:02
the committee.
1:04
First thing, she told the
1:05
committee that you saw mark
1:06
meadows burning documents in
1:07
his office fireplace.
1:09
She said about one dozen times,
1:11
that amounted to estimation to
1:13
one for twice a week, that was
1:15
between December 2020 and
1:17
January 2021.
1:18
She says also, at least twice,
1:20
she saw meadows burden
1:21
documents after meeting with
1:23
Republican congressman Scott
1:24
Harry, who of course, was
1:26
subpoenaed by the committee but
1:27
never complied.
1:28
Then in addition, Cassidy
1:31
Hutchinson told the committee
1:31
how the discussions about qanon
1:34
conspiracies get really
1:35
permeated throughout the white
1:36
house throughout the election,
1:37
she said not only did mark
1:40
meadows bring it up, but
1:41
congressman Marjorie Taylor
1:42
Greene.
1:43
She made mention of what the
1:44
far-right political movement
1:45
that spreads the outlandish
1:47
conspiracy theories.
1:48
And then Cassidy Hutchinson
1:50
said she had this exchange with
1:51
white house trade advisor Peter
1:53
Navarro.
1:54
Cassidy Hutchinson saying, at
1:57
one, point I sarcastically said,
1:59
oh, is this from the qanon
2:00
friends, Peter?
2:01
Peter would talk to me
2:02
frequently about the qanon
2:04
forums.
2:05
He said have you looked into,
2:05
it casts?
2:06
I think they point out a lot of
2:07
good ideas.
2:08
You really need to read this.
2:10
Make sure the chief sees it.
2:12
Cassidy Hutchinson says I did
2:13
not take this as sarcasm.
2:15
Pamela, of course Peter Navarro
2:17
has been indicted for not
2:19
complying with the committees
2:20
subpoenas, but as the
2:23
transcripts trickle out
2:25
throughout the week, there are
2:26
a lot of crucial new details
2:27
that we might not seen before.
2:30
>> Yeah, it's remarkable that
2:31
the top administration official
2:33
like Peter Navarro would be
2:35
giving credence to qanon in
2:37
these ridiculous conspiracy
2:39
theories.
2:39
Also we are learning more about
2:40
what former white house deputy
2:42
press secretary judge dearie
2:43
told the committee, and rumors
2:45
that he heard about the former
2:46
president consider conceding
2:48
during the week of the 2020
2:50
election.
2:51
What do you know?
2:52
>> Yes, he told the committee
2:54
that he heard all this gossip
2:55
from the white house
2:56
colleagues.
2:56
Still, it was the week after
2:58
the 2020 election, he toured
3:00
from them that trump in fact
3:01
was considering conceding, and
3:03
even inviting the Bidens to the
3:05
white house.
3:05
Judge a dealer said he was
3:07
looped in on these
3:08
conversations, Pamela, because
3:10
he would have been the one
3:11
arranging the press access for
3:12
any sort of visits from Biden.
3:14
He told committee this.
3:15
He said in the week after the
3:18
election, there was gossip
3:19
around the building that was
3:21
seriously considered and
3:23
sitting, even inviting the
3:24
president elect to the incoming
3:26
first lady to the white house.
3:27
Of course, none of those things
3:30
happened, Pamela, trump refused
3:32
to concede, he held on to the
3:35
--
3:36
another the rumors came to
3:37
fruition.
3:37
>> They did not.
3:38
But I know for my reporting at
3:39
the time, white house officials,
3:41
they were a saying that that's
3:43
what they were hearing.
3:44
So really interesting, Jessica
3:46
snider, stay with, us thank you
3:48
so much.
3:48
I want to bring in CNN chief
3:50
analyst --
3:51
along with CNN legal analyst
3:52
and former federal prosecutor
3:54
general for Rodgers.
3:56
Gloria, is there any parallel
3:57
in U.S. History that you are
3:59
aware of, for a white house
4:01
chief of staff to be burning
4:02
documents in a fireplace inside
4:04
the white house?
4:05
>> You know, off the top of my
4:06
head, I cannot think of any.
4:08
Even Richard Nixon did not burn
4:10
the tapes.
4:11
There was a gap, but he did not
4:13
burn the tapes.
4:15
This is stunning.
4:16
Look at the timing of this.
4:18
After the election, before
4:20
January 6th.
4:21
I think we should point out
4:22
that we don't know what those
4:23
documents were.
4:25
We don't know whether they were
4:27
required by the archives
4:28
because of the presidential
4:30
records act to be preserved.
4:31
But I would say that unless
4:33
this was some kind of a
4:34
shopping list, that he was
4:36
throwing inside of the
4:37
fireplace, for these dozen
4:39
times that this is a real
4:41
problem for mark meadows.
4:43
What was he thinking about when
4:44
he threw things in the
4:46
fireplace that he thought
4:48
needed to be destroyed?
4:49
>> According to the testimony
4:52
from Cassidy Hutchinson, to --
4:56
Scott Perry who tried to
4:57
install Jeffrey Clark as head
4:59
of the og's attorney general,
5:02
who try to get them to
5:03
investigate some of the
5:05
conspiracy theories, and as we
5:06
know defy the subpoena from the
5:09
committee.
5:09
Jennifer, is there any legal
5:10
justification that you know
5:11
that would permit a chief of
5:13
staff to burn documents like
5:15
this?
5:16
>> As Gloria said, Pamela, only
5:18
if it was something that had
5:19
nothing to do with the job,,
5:21
and almost everything has to be
5:24
maintained for the presidential
5:25
records act.
5:25
It's likely that whatever was
5:27
being burned was being burnt in
5:29
violation of the act.
5:30
The problem is, if you are
5:31
thinking about criminal law, of
5:33
course, it's not good enough to
5:35
say it probably was, you would
5:37
need proof beyond a reasonable
5:38
doubt.
5:39
It gives prosecutor another
5:40
reason to dig into mark meadows
5:43
as potentially either a
5:44
criminal defendant or their
5:47
crucial insider witness in the
5:49
investigation.
5:49
>> Let's talk a little bit more
5:51
about that.
5:52
We know Cassidy hundreds in is
5:53
already cooperating with the
5:55
justice department, how do you
5:56
think this fits into their
5:58
investigation?
5:59
Does it give them leverage
6:00
against meadows?
6:01
>> They have long had a lot of
6:05
leverage against mark meadows,
6:06
he has been central to all of
6:08
the different strands and the
6:09
plot they were pursuing for
6:11
some time.
6:12
This is just added to the pile
6:14
of evidence that they want to
6:15
confront mark meadows about.
6:17
They certainly will be looking
6:18
at meadows.
6:19
The question is, if you already
6:21
talking to them?
6:22
Are they treating him like a
6:23
potential defendant?
6:25
Are they going to approach him
6:26
as a cooperating witness?
6:27
That will be for the doj to
6:29
decide, but they have all the
6:30
options on the table because
6:32
there is so much evidence that
6:33
mark meadows is at the center
6:36
of the conspiracy and knew
6:37
about the various parts.
6:38
>> Gloria, what do you make of
6:40
the fact that former trump aide
6:43
Peter Navarro --
6:47
the qanon conspiracy theories
6:49
inside the white house.
6:51
>> It's bizarre it's outrageous
6:55
and I never thought I would say
6:58
white house and qanon in the
7:00
same sentence.
7:01
It is remarkable to me that
7:03
this even went as high as the
7:05
president, the former president
7:07
himself.
7:07
Cassidy Hutchison talks about
7:09
Marjorie Taylor Greene being at
7:12
a trump rally in Georgia before
7:15
January 6th.
7:16
And this is a quote from
7:19
Cassidy Hutchinson, she was
7:19
showing him pictures of them,
7:21
union qanon, traveling to
7:23
Washington D.C. For the rally
7:25
on the sixth.
7:26
What did the former president
7:28
say about that?
7:29
That is great?
7:30
So excited to see qanon at my
7:32
rally?
7:33
I mean, what was that about?
7:35
>> And I remember covering the
7:37
white house, the president was
7:38
asked multiple times about
7:40
qanon, he was always reluctant
7:41
to bash them, or criticize
7:43
them.
7:44
This just adds an interesting
7:46
layer to that, Jessica, Cassidy
7:49
Hutchinson, also testified at
7:50
the Canadian gab committee
7:52
about how mark meadows manage
7:53
the oval office meeting during
7:55
the transition period.
7:56
What did she tell them?
7:57
>> We are talking about mark
7:58
meadows, she said she saw him
8:00
burning documents, but also
8:01
turned out that he was giving
8:03
this directive to some of the
8:04
white house staff during the
8:05
transition period to keep what
8:07
he would call a close hold on
8:09
any of their meetings.
8:10
He basically said, don't worry
8:12
about what that means, I will
8:14
explain it later.
8:15
Don't give any of this
8:17
information out, don't leak it,
8:18
don't tell anybody.
8:19
On top of that, Cassidy
8:21
Hutchison said that that means
8:23
none of these meetings were
8:25
recorded in the oval office
8:26
diaries so there is no record
8:28
of them.
8:29
She says she does not remember
8:30
exactly what was discussed of
8:31
these meetings, if anything
8:34
surrounding January 6th was
8:35
discussed, but it really adds
8:36
this other layer to mark
8:37
meadows potentially, on the one
8:40
hand burning documents, and
8:42
also making a concerted effort
8:43
not to create any documents
8:45
that were supposed to be
8:46
created as a record of what was
8:48
going on at the white house.
8:50
That's another concerning
8:52
element of this.
8:53
>> Gloria, what Cassidy
8:54
Hutchison said about this was
8:56
cooperated by what sources told
8:57
CNN, the white house diarist
8:59
told the committee earlier this
9:01
year that significantly less
9:02
information about trump calls
9:03
and visits are being provided
9:05
no lazy days leading up to
9:07
start January 6th.
9:08
Putting the pieces together,
9:09
know what was happening in the
9:10
months after the election, it
9:12
begs the question of what
9:13
meadows was trying to keep
9:15
close hold.
9:16
>> Who was he trying to protect?
9:18
This is the question.
9:21
If the president, the former
9:22
president's behavior grew more
9:23
and more bizarre, if there was
9:25
discussions going on inside the
9:28
oval office about January 6th,
9:29
for example, or about changes
9:33
at the justice department.
9:35
Et cetera, et cetera which we important
9:38
conversations that need to be
9:40
archived.
9:41
What mark meadows was saying is,
9:43
shush, don't tell the American
9:45
people about this.
9:46
Don't let the American people
know what was going on in the Oval Office.
Gloria Borger, Jennifer Rogers, Jessica Schneider, Thank you so much.

by **admin** » Sat Jan 21, 2023 2:31 am

Part 1 of 2

Order on Sanctions ["Donald J. Trump and Plaintiff’s lead attorney—Alina Habba and Habba Madaio & Associates—are jointly and severally liable for $937,989.39.38"]
Donald J. Trump vs. Hillary R. Clinton
U.S. District Court So. Dist. of Fla., Case No. 22-14102-CV-MIDDLEBROOKS
by Donald M. Middlebrooks, United States District Judge
January 19, 2023.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE No. 22-14102-CV-MIDDLEBROOKS

DONALD J. TRUMP,
Plaintiff,
v.
HILLARY R. CLINTON, et al.,
Defendants.
_________________________________________/

ORDER ON SANCTIONS

This case should never have been brought. Its inadequacy as a legal claim was evident from the start. No reasonable lawyer would have filed it. Intended for a political purpose, none of the counts of the amended complaint stated a cognizable legal claim.

Thirty-one individuals and entities were needlessly harmed in order to dishonestly advance a political narrative. A continuing pattern of misuse of the courts by Mr. Trump and his lawyers undermines the rule of law, portrays judges as partisans, and diverts resources from those who have suffered actual legal harm.

I previously granted Defendant Charles Dolan’s motion for sanctions, brought pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. (DE 284). Now before me is a motion seeking sanctions brought by eighteen other Defendants. Upon consideration of the Motion (DE 280), Response (DE 285) and Reply (DE 287), for the reasons that follow and also for those stated in my previous Order, sanctions are awarded.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff initiated this lawsuit on March 24, 2022, alleging that “the Defendants, blinded by political ambition, orchestrated a malicious conspiracy to disseminate patently false and injurious information about Donald J. Trump and his campaign, all in the hope of destroying his life, his political career, and rigging the 2016 Presidential Election in favor of Hillary Clinton.” (DE 1 ¶ 9).

The next day, Alina Habba, Mr. Trump’s lead counsel told Fox News’ Sean Hannity:

You can’t make this up. You literally cannot make a story like this up . . . and President Trump is just not going to take it anymore. If you are going to make up lies, if you are going to try to take him down, he is going to fight you back. And that is what this is, this is the beginning of all that.1

She then explained on Newsmax:

What the real goal [of the suit] is, is democracy, is continuing to make sure that our elections, continuing to make sure our justice system is not obstructed by political enemies. That cannot happen. And that’s exactly what happened. They obstructed justice. They continued the false narrative . . . This grand scheme, that you could not make up, to take down an opponent. That is un-American.2

On April 20, 2022, less than a month after the Complaint was filed, Hillary Clinton moved for dismissal with prejudice. Her motion identified substantial and fundamental factual and legal flaws. Each of the other Defendants followed suit, pointing to specific problems with the claims against them. The problems in the Complaint were obvious from the start. They were identified by the Defendants not once but twice, and Mr. Trump persisted anyway.

Despite this briefing and the promise “to cure any deficiencies,” Plaintiff’s counsel filed the Amended Complaint on June 21, 2022. (DE 177). The Amended Complaint failed to cure any of the defects. See DE 267, Order of Dismissal (September 8, 2022). Instead, Plaintiff added eighty new pages of largely irrelevant allegations that did nothing to salvage the legal sufficiency of his claims. (DE 267 at 64). The Amended Complaint is 193 pages in length, with 819 numbered paragraphs, and contains 14 counts, names 31 defendants, 10 John Does described as fictitious and unknown persons, and 10 ABC Corporations identified as fictitious and unknown entities.

On July 14, 2022, the United States moved pursuant to the Westfall Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2679 (d)(i), to substitute itself as Defendant for James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, and Kevin Clinesmith. (DE 224). On July 21, 2022, I granted the motion to substitute. (DE 234).

On September 8, 2022, I dismissed the case with prejudice as to all Defendants except for the United States.3 I issued a detailed and lengthy Order, which I incorporate by reference here. (DE 267). I found that fatal substantive defects which had been clearly laid out in the first round of briefing, precluded the Plaintiff from proceeding under any of the theories presented. I found that the Amended Complaint was a quintessential shotgun pleading, that its claims were foreclosed by existing precedent, and its factual allegations were undermined and contradicted by the public reports and filings upon which it purported to rely. I reserved jurisdiction to adjudicate issues pertaining to sanctions.

Undeterred by my Order and two rounds of briefing by multiple defendants, Ms. Habba continued to advance Plaintiff’s claims. In a September 10, 2022, interview with Sean Hannity, the host asked her “Why isn’t [Hillary Clinton] being held accountable for what she did?” Ms. Habba’s response reiterated misrepresentations on which this lawsuit was based:

Because when you have a Clinton judge as we did here, Judge Middlebrooks who I had asked to recuse himself but insisted that he didn’t need to, he was going to be impartial, and then proceeds to write a 65-page scathing order where he basically ignored every factual basis which was backed up by indictments, by investigations, the Mueller report, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, not to mention Durham, and all the testimony we heard there, we get dismissed. Not only do we get dismissed, he says that this is not the proper place for recourse for Donald Trump. He has no legal ramifications. Where what [sic] is the proper place for him? Because the FBI won’t help when you can do anything, obstruct justice, blatantly lie to the FBI, Sussmann’s out, he gets acquitted, where do you go? That’s the concern for me, where do you get that -- that recourse?4

She also indicated that, while Mr. Trump doubted the suit would succeed, she nevertheless “fought” to pursue it:

You know, I have to share with you a story, Sean, that I have not shared with anybody. The recourse that I have at this point is obviously to appeal this to the 11th Circuit as Gregg said. But when I brought this case and we were assigned you know, this judge and we went through the recusal process, we lost five magistrates, including Reinhart [sic] who’s dealing with the boxes as we know. The former president looked at me and he told me, you know what Alina. You’re not going to win. You can’t win, just get rid of it, don’t do the case. And I said, no, we have to fight. It’s not right what happened. And you know, he was right, and it’s a sad day for me personally because I fought him on [it] and I should have listened, but I don’t want to lose hope in our system. I don’t. So, you know I’m deciding whether we’re going to appeal it.5

Defendants now move to recover attorneys’ fees and costs under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, 28 U.S.C. § 1927, the Defend Trade Secrets Act, and/or this Court’s inherent power. (DE 280 at 1). In Part II, I find that a sanction under this Court’s inherent power is appropriate. I do so by examining Plaintiff’s (and his lawyers’) conduct throughout this litigation. In Part III, I look to Plaintiff’s conduct in other cases. And in Part IV, I determine the reasonableness of Defendants’ attorneys’ fees and costs.

II. ANALYSIS OF LITIGATION CONDUCT IN THIS CASE

“‘[T]ampering with the administration of justice . . . involves far more than an injury to a single litigant. It is a wrong against the institutions set up to protect and safeguard the public.’” Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 44 (1991) (citation omitted). A court’s inherent power includes the ability to assess attorneys’ fees and costs against the client, the attorney or both when either has “acted in bad faith, vexatiously, wantonly, or for oppressive reasons.” Id. at 45-46.

The “inherent power of a court can be invoked even if procedural rules exist which sanction the same conduct.” Chambers, 501 U.S. at 46. “[ I]f in the informed discretion of the Court, neither the statute nor the Rules are up to the task,” the Court may safely rely on its inherent power “to sanction bad faith conduct in the course of litigation.” Id. at 50; see also Peer v. Lewis, 606 F.3d 1306, 1314 (11th Cir 2010).

“The key to unlocking a court’s inherent power is a finding of bad faith.” Barnes v. Dalton, 158 F.3d 1212, 1214 (11th Cir. 1998) (citations omitted).

“The inherent-powers standard is a subjective bad faith standard.” Purchasing Power, LLC v. Bluestem Brands, Inc., 851 F.3d 1218, 1223 (11th Cir. 2017). However, absent direct evidence of subjective bad faith, this standard can also be met if an attorney’s conduct is “tantamount to bad faith,” meaning the “attorney’s conduct is so egregious that it could only be committed in bad faith.” Id. at 1224–25 (citing Roadway Exp., Inc. v. Piper, 447 U.S. 752, 767 (1980)). An attorney’s conduct is “tantamount to bad faith” if he “recklessly raises a frivolous argument.” Id. at 1225 (quoting Barnes, 158 F.3d at 1214). “Recklessness alone does not satisfy the inherent powers standard,” but “recklessness plus a frivolous argument suffice.” Id.

The inherent power “is both broader and narrower than other means of imposing sanctions.” Peer, 606 F.3d at 1314 (quoting Chambers, 501 U.S. at 46). It is broader in the sense that while other sanction mechanisms only reach certain individuals or conduct, the inherent power extends to the full range of litigation abuses. Id.

In my informed discretion, I find that Rule 11, 28 U.S.C. § 1927, and the Defend Trade Secrets Act are not “up to the task” of confronting the litigation abuse involved here. Rule 11 is backward looking, limited to pleading and motion abuse, and experience has shown it to be ineffective at deterrence. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, Advisory Committee Notes. Section 1927 “only applies to unnecessary filings after the lawsuit has begun.” Macort v. Prem Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 786 (11th Cir. 2006). And the Defend Trade Secrets Act may only provide limited relief. The purpose of the inherent power to sanction a party is to vindicate judicial authority without resorting to contempt of court and to make the non-violating party whole. See Chambers, 501 U.S. at 45-46; see also Purchasing Power, LLC, 851 F.3d at 1223.

Here, we are confronted with a lawsuit that should never have been filed, which was completely frivolous, both factually and legally, and which was brought in bad faith for an improper purpose. Mr. Trump is a prolific and sophisticated litigant who is repeatedly using the courts to seek revenge on political adversaries. He is the mastermind of strategic abuse of the judicial process, and he cannot be seen as a litigant blindly following the advice of a lawyer. He knew full well the impact of his actions. See Byrne, 261 F.3d at 1121. As such, I find that sanctions should be imposed upon Mr. Trump and his lead counsel, Ms. Habba.

A. The Case Was Initiated By A Shotgun Pleading Designed To Serve A Political Purpose.

The deliberate use of a shotgun pleading is an abusive litigation tactic which amounts to obstruction of justice. See Davis v. Coca Cola Bottling Co. Consol., 516 F.3d 955, 982 n.66 (11th Cir. 2008), abrogated on other grounds by Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007). This case involved three categories of shotgun pleadings condemned by the Eleventh Circuit: (1) a complaint containing multiple counts where each count adopts the allegations of all preceding counts, causing each successive count to carry all that came before and the last count to be a combination of the entire complaint; (2) a complaint that is replete with conclusory, vague, and immaterial facts not obviously connected to any particular cause of action; and (3) a complaint that asserts multiple claims against multiple defendants without specifying which of the defendants are responsible for which acts or omissions, or which of the defendants the claim is brought against. See Barmapov v. Amulal, 986 F.3d 1321, 1324 (11th Cir. 2021); Weiland v. Palm Beach Cnty. Sheriff’s Off., 792 F.3d 1313, 1320 (11th Cir. 2015).

I find that the pleadings here were abusive litigation tactics. The Complaint and Amended Complaint were drafted to advance a political narrative; not to address legal harm caused by any Defendant.

The 819 paragraphs of the 186-page Amended Complaint are filled with immaterial, conclusory facts not connected to any particular cause of action. Consider the incendiary charge that Mr. Comey, the Director of the FBI, conspired with Ms. Clinton to maliciously prosecute him. Leaving aside the fact that Mr. Trump was never prosecuted, examine the allegations in the Amended Complaint pertaining to Mr. Comey. The first mention of Mr. Comey, other than identifying him as a party, was in paragraph 349: “Therefore, senior FBI officials Comey, McCabe, Page, Strzok, the DNC and Clinton orchestrated a plan to falsely accuse Flynn of colluding with Russia to protect the potential dissemination of the intimate details of their plot.” The next few paragraphs pertain to the FBI’s investigation of Michael Flynn, Mr. Trump’s former security advisor, who was subsequently fired for lying to the Vice President and the FBI. (¶ 383). The Amended Complaint alleges that Mr. Comey “scrambled to reopen” the investigation into Mr. Flynn (¶ 356), met with Mr. McCabe to discuss the investigation (¶ 359), and decided not to notify the incoming Trump administration of the investigation of Flynn (¶¶ 360-63). Next, the Amended Complaint cites a letter from the Director of National Intelligence, John Ratcliff, to Senator Lindsey Graham:

Ratcliff’s letter stated that Clinton and her campaign conceived the false Russia collision [sic] story to protect Clinton’s presidential bid, which was at the time, in trouble because of revelations about her illegally using a private email server to handle classified information. Ratcliff confirmed in the letter that Obama, Comey and Strzok knew about it.

(Amended Complaint at ¶ 369).6 [6 This provocative allegation stirred my curiosity, so I looked up the Ratcliff letter. The allegation in the Amended Complaint fails to mention that the information came from a Russian intelligence analysis and that Mr. Ratcliffe commented: “The IC (intelligence community) does not know the accuracy of this allegation or the extent to which the Russian intelligence analysis may reflect exaggeration or fabrication.” Letter from John Ratcliff, Dir. of Nat’l Intel., to Sen. Lindsey Graham, U.S. Senate (Sept. 29, 2020) https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/press/ ... -hurricane. Mr. Trump’s lawyers saw no professional impediment or irony in relying upon Russian intelligence as the good faith basis for their allegation.]

The Amended Complaint continues with allegations about a meeting between Mr. Comey, President Obama, Vice President Biden, and Sally Yates (then a national security advisor) where President Obama directed Mr. Comey to investigate Mr. Flynn and not inform Mr. Trump. (Id. ¶¶ 372-377). The Amended Complaint alleges that Mr. Flynn was interviewed by the FBI, and that subsequently Acting Attorney General Yates informed Mr. Trump’s White House Counsel Don McGahn that Mr. Flynn misled Vice President Pence and other administration officials about the nature of his conversations with the Russian Ambassador. (Id. ¶ 379). The Amended Complaint then concludes: “Ultimately, the Defendants, including Comey, McCabe, Strzok, and Page, were successful in causing Flynn to be ousted as National Security Advisor.” (Id. ¶ 384).

The Amended Complaint then turns to the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane investigation and four court-approved FISA applications targeting Carter Page. (Id. ¶¶ 385-90). The Amended Complaint alleges:

The FISA applications were reviewed by numerous FBI agents, FBI attorneys, and National Security Division (NSD) attorneys and, as required by law, was ultimately certified by the FBI Director James Comey and approved by then Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates.

(Id. ¶ 391).

From there, the Amended Complaint states: “In fact, no probable cause existed and there was no truth to any of the allegations against Carter Page, Donald J. Trump, or the Trump campaign.” (Id. ¶ 392).

The Amended Complaint then discusses the FISA warrant application and Mr. Comey’s approval of those warrants and alleges: “Mr. Comey was aware, or should have been aware, that there was no evidentiary basis for the FISA application, and that the Steele Dossier was not a credible source.” (Id. ¶¶ 292-407).

The next mention of Mr. Comey states that on May 8, 2017, he was fired from his position as Director of the FBI. The Amended Complaint then alleges that Mr. Comey “had documented several of his interactions with Mr. Trump in a series of memos,” and that after leaving the FBI, Mr. Comey shared those memos with a friend who he directed to leak to a New York Times reporter. (Id. ¶¶ 449-52).

The Amended Complaint continues:

453. The outcome that Comey desired – per his own admission to Congress – was to “prompt” the appointment of a special counsel to investigate Donald J. Trump’s alleged conspiracy with the Russian government.

454. The IG’s report noted that Comey had “set a dangerous example” by “releas[ing] sensitive information” to “create public pressure for official action.”

455. Comey was successful in getting the special master [sic] appointed, due to his unlawful leaking of information, even though Comey didn’t have enough evidence to pursue it in his own official capacity.

456. In May 2017, Robert Mueller was appointed as Special Counsel to “oversee the previously-confirmed FBI investigation of Russian government efforts to influence the 2016 Presidential Election and related matters.”7

This is what the Plaintiff’s lawyers considered to be the short and plain statement of the claim that Mr. Comey maliciously prosecuted Mr. Trump and conspired with Ms. Clinton to do so. These allegations, about investigating Mr. Flynn, signing FISA warrant applications pertaining to Mr. Page, or leaking information about his interactions with Mr. Trump, do not allege that Mr. Comey initiated an investigation of Mr. Trump, much less a prosecution. And the implausible claim that Mr. Comey conspired with Ms. Clinton, given the impact of his announcements on her 2016 campaign, not only lacks substance but is categorically absurd.

The Amended Complaint is a hodgepodge of disconnected, often immaterial events, followed by an implausible conclusion. This is a deliberate attempt to harass; to tell a story without regard to facts.

In order to understand the scope of this abuse, multiply the above discussion by thirty-one defendants and their lawyers, forced to try to analyze and defend against the sprawling Complaints. I sifted through the thread of allegations against each defendant only to find they added up to no cognizable claim. And the pleadings were drafted in a way to disguise that fact.

In three instances the Eleventh Circuit has found shotgun pleadings, less problematic than the pleadings here, as a basis for sanctions. See Jackson v. bank of Am., N.A., 898 F.3d 1348 (11th Cir. 2018); Byrne v. Nezhat, 261 F.3d 1075 (11th Cir. 2001); Pelleteir v. Zweifel, 921 F.2d 1465 (11th Cir. 1991).

In Jackson, the court described the case as an “abuse of process” effectuated “by filing a multi-count, incomprehensible complaint that flouted the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this Circuit’s well-established precedent.” Jackson, 898 F.3d at 1348. “By attempting to prosecute an incomprehensible pleading to judgment, the Plaintiffs obstructed the due administration of justice in the District Court.” Id.

The facts in Jackson are similar, although less egregious than here. The complaint in Jackson alleged fourteen causes of action and contained 109 paragraphs of allegations and each of the claims incorporated all previous allegations. The Defendants filed a motion for more definite statement identifying the complaint as a shotgun pleading. The Plaintiff did not oppose the motion but sought leave to file an amended complaint. The amended complaint “swelled to twenty-three pages and 123 paragraphs, made minor changes to a number of factual allegations, added two new counts, and listed one or more Defendants in parentheses under the heading of each count . . . . ” Id. at 1348. The Court of Appeals stated: “[h]ere, after being put on notice by Defendants of the specific defects in their complaint, the Jacksons filed an amended complaint afflicted with the same defects . . . . ” Id. Stating that “[t]olerating such behavior constitutes toleration of obstruction of justice,” the Court affirmed the trial judge’s order dismissing the amended complaint and instructed plaintiff’s counsel to show cause why he should not be ordered to pay double costs and expenses, including attorney’s fees and costs incurred in defending the appeal pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. Id. at 1357-59. The Court pointed out that the defendants had identified the deficiency and the Eleventh Circuit’s precedent in their motion. “If [plaintiffs’ counsel] was not aware of the precedent when he filed the [plaintiffs’] initial complaint, Defendants’ motion told him all he needed to know.” Id. at 1359. Nevertheless “he stood fast, brazenly filing a facsimile of his initial pleading.” Id.

Similarly here, Defendant Neustar identified the shotgun pleading deficiency and the Eleventh Circuit’s precedent as one of its grounds for dismissal of Mr. Trump’s initial Complaint. (DE 160 at 7-8, n.8). The Defendants’ joint Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint did likewise. (DE 226 at 46-47). The Plaintiff refused to acknowledge this clear precedent. Instead, he added 80 new pages, and new defendants (including his former Deputy Attorney General and a California Congressman) in order to rehash old grievances from the 2016 election.

The other two Eleventh Circuit opinions analyze the use of shotgun pleadings to support a frivolous RICO claim. In both, the Court found the tactic deserving of sanctions. In Pelletier, the Court of Appeals reversed the denial of a Rule 11 sanctions motion in a civil RICO case. Pelletier, 921 F.2d at 1465.8 Analyzing in detail the amended complaint in that case, the Court of Appeals concluded that the plaintiff failed to establish any of the required predicate acts, to show any continuing relationship or pattern of acts, or any injury flowing from those acts. Id. at 1496-1500.

Concluding that each of the counts in the amended complaint were objectively frivolous when filed, the Court of Appeals found it apparent that the case was brought to harass the defendants:

Our conclusion is buttressed by the manner in which [plaintiff] pled his case in the district court and briefed it on appeal . . . . [These] are quintessential “shotgun” pleadings, replete with factual allegations that could not possibly be material to any of the causes of action they assert. Each count incorporates all of these factual allegations and states, further, that it is based on the conduct in the complaint attributable to [defendant] and “those acting in concert with him.” Anyone schooled in the law who read these complaints, however, would know that many of the facts alleged could not possibly be material to all of the counts.

Pelletier, 921 F.2d at 1518. The appellate court found the amended complaint was conclusory, baseless and without any merit. In deciding that the claim was prosecuted in bad faith, the court rejected the thought that it might have been the “product of incompetent lawyering, and thus excusable, rather than” a tool of harassment, because the plaintiff was skilled in the law and had been warned he was likely to run afoul of Rule 11. Id. at 1519. The Court concluded:

We think that imposing sanctions in this case would serve the dual purpose of deterring the filing of frivolous claims and defenses while not chilling attorneys’ legitimate enthusiasm and creativity in advancing legal and factual theories. At a time when the federal courts -- which are a scarce dispute resolution resource, indeed -- are straining under the pressure of an ever-increasing caseload, we simply cannot tolerate this type of litigation. Particularly with regard to civil RICO claims, plaintiffs must stop and think before filing them.

Id. at 1522 (emphasis in original).9

In Byrne, the court affirmed a $400,000 sanction against counsel, under Rule 11, Section 1927, and the court’s inherent powers, finding that the expansion of a simple “garden variety medical malpractice” case to include RICO and other baseless claims was frivolous from the outset and doomed to fail. Byrne, 261 F.3d at 1115.

Identifying the complaint and amended complaint in Byrne as shotgun pleadings, id. at 1106, 1129, the Court of Appeals emphasized the harm presented by the tactic and the authority of Article III courts to control the practice through inherent powers:

Shotgun pleadings, if tolerated, harm the court by impeding its ability to administer justice. The time a court spends managing litigation framed by shotgun pleadings should be devoted to other cases waiting to be heard . . . . Although obstruction of justice is typically discussed in the context of criminal contempt, the concept informs the rules of law—both substantive and procedural—that have been devised to protect the courts and litigants (and therefore the public) from abusive litigation tactics, like shotgun pleadings. If use of an abusive tactic is deliberate and actually impedes the orderly litigation of the case, to-wit: obstructs justice, the perpetrator could be cited for criminal contempt.

Byrne, 261 F.3d at 1131-32, 1130 n.110 (citations omitted).

In Byrne, the Court pointed out that plaintiffs file shotgun pleadings and frivolous claims to extort settlement of unmeritorious claims. Here, although his complaint asked for damages in excess of twenty-four million dollars, treble damages under RICO, and attorneys’ fees and costs, I do not think Mr. Trump or his lawyers actually thought the Defendants would ever agree to settle. This suit was filed for equally improper purposes—to harass and punish, for fundraising, and to advance a political agenda.

B. The Pleadings Contained Factual Allegations That Were Knowingly False Or Made With Reckless Disregard For The Truth.

The Plaintiff consistently misrepresented and cherry-picked portions of public reports and filings to support a false factual narrative. Often the report or filing actually contradicted his allegations. It happened too often to be accidental; its purpose was political, not legal. Factual allegations were made without any evidentiary support in circumstances where falsity is evident.

Examples include:

The Mueller Report. A section of the Amended Complaint is titled “A String of Federal Investigations Clear Donald J. Trump and Uncover the Defendant’s Illicit Conspiracy.” (Amended Complaint ¶100). After a two-year investigation, the Special Counsel “found no evidence that Donald Trump or his campaign ever colluded with the Russian Government.” (Id. ¶460). The Amended Complaint further alleges that Special Counsel Mueller “went on to exonerate Donald J. Trump and his campaign with his finding that there was no evidence of collusion with Russia.” (Id. at ¶7). While perhaps acceptable as a cable news talking point, that allegation is neither an accurate nor fair reading of the Mueller Report.10

First, the Mueller Report stated that “[ i]n evaluating whether evidence about collective action constituted a crime, we applied the framework of conspiracy, not the concept of ‘collusion.’” Mueller Report Volume I at 8. Second, in determining whether the conduct “amounted to a violation of federal criminal law” the question was “whether admissible evidence would probably be sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction.” Mueller Report Volume I at 8. Third, the Report found:

[W]hile the investigation identified numerous links between individuals with ties to the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump Campaign, the evidence was not sufficient to support criminal charges . . . . [T]he investigation established that several individuals affiliated with the Trump Campaign lied to the [Special Counsel’s Office], and to Congress about their interactions with Russian-affiliated individuals and related matters.

Mueller Report at 9. Fourth, with respect to obstruction of justice, the Report states: “While this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.” Mueller Report Volume II at 2; (DE 147-1).

Crossfire Hurricane Investigation. A core aspect of the Plaintiff’s claim is his contention that Ms. Clinton, Mr. Comey, and others were responsible for the Crossfire Hurricane Investigation. The Complaint and Amended Complaint copiously cite to the IG Report to support these allegations. But the IG Report found that the FBI opened the investigation “for an authorized purpose” and “with adequate factual predication” that had nothing to do with the Defendants or the Steele Dossier. (DE 143-1 at 347).

Charles Dolan Allegations. As set forth in my Order granting Rule 11 sanctions (DE 284), the Plaintiff alleged that Mr. Dolan was a former Chairman of the DNC (Amended Complaint ¶ 96), a senior Clinton Campaign Official (id. ¶ 4), and “an individual with intimate ties to the Clinton Campaign and one of its close associates” (DE 177 ¶ 96). In fact, as Mr. Dolan’s lawyer told Plaintiff’s counsel, he was none of those things. It made no difference. Despite an affidavit from Mr. Dolan saying he lived in Virginia, and the fact that service upon him occurred there, the Amended Complaint claimed he lived in New York. The Plaintiff’s lawyers’ excuse: There are a lot of Dolans—some of them live in New York. (DE 270 at 10).

The Complaint and Amended Complaint allege that Mr. Dolan was responsible for allegations in the Steele Dossier concerning salacious activity by Mr. Trump in Moscow. Mr. Dolan’s lawyers’ warnings that this was untrue went unheeded. In defending against sanctions, the Plaintiff’s lawyers pointed to the Danchenko Indictment.11 However, the Danchenko Indictment does not support Plaintiff’s claims, rather it contradicts and undermines them.

Criminal Indictments. The Complaint and Amended Complaint rely substantially on the Sussmann,12 Danchenko, and Clinesmith13 Indictments. The Plaintiff alleges that “these ‘speaking’ indictments not only implicate many of the Defendants named herein but also provide a great deal of insight into the inner workings of the Defendants’ conspiratorial enterprise. Based on the facts that have already been uncovered throughout the course of Durham’s investigation, it seems all but certain that additional indictments are forthcoming.” (Amended Complaint ¶ 8).

The Indictments themselves are not relevant. An untried indictment is not evidence of the conduct alleged. See United States v. Machado, 886 F.3d 1070 (11th Cir. 2018). A criminal indictment should be no more than the starting point for a lawyer’s good faith pre-filing investigation. The danger of overreliance has been demonstrated here, in light of the acquittals of Mr. Sussmann and Mr. Danchenko. That is not to say an indictment has no significance -- a grand jury has issued it with the assistance of a lawyer for the government. But a plaintiff’s good faith pre-filing inquiry cannot simply ignore the facts in an indictment that contradict and undermine his allegations while touting those he likes.

The Sussmann Indictment charged Mr. Sussmann with falsely telling the FBI’s General Counsel that he was not acting on behalf of a client when he conveyed allegations about email communications between the Trump Organization and a bank affiliated with the Russian government. But the Plaintiff relied on the Indictment to support his allegations of theft of trade secrets, violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and violations of the Stored Communications Act in Counts I, VII, VIII, and IX. (DE 177 at 119, 163, 166, 170).

As the Order of Dismissal points out, there are legal deficiencies in these claims. But the Sussmann Indictment also warned the Trump lawyers of factual problems. It specified that the communications involved “purported DNS data reflecting apparent DNS lookups between Russian Bank-1 and an email domain, ‘mail l.trump-email.com.’” (Sussmann Indictment ¶ 16). DNS data is meant to be public and as part of the infrastructure for the internet, accessible to any entity. The Indictment further advises that the FBI determined “that the email server at issue was not owned or operated by the Trump Organization, but rather had been administered by a mass marketing email company that sent advertisements for Trump hotels and hundreds of other clients.” (Sussmann Indictment ¶ 7). The Sussmann Indictment does not support and instead contradicts the conclusory trade secret and unauthorized access allegations set forth in Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint.

And as noted above, the Danchenko Indictment contains allegations that, if true, were fatal to the Plaintiff’s conspiracy claims. The Danchenko Indictment states that, according to Mr. Dolan, “individuals affiliated with the Clinton Campaign did not direct and were not aware of” Mr. Dolan’s meetings and activities with Mr. Danchenko and other Russian nationals. (Danchenko Indictment ¶ 36). Further, it alleges that according to Mr. Dolan, he was unaware of the specifics of Mr. Danchenko’s project against Trump or that Mr. Danchenko’s reporting would be provided to the FBI. (Id. ¶ 52). In responding to Mr. Dolan’s sanctions motion, the lawyers claimed their allegations were “directly sourced” from the Danchenko Indictment. (DE 270 at 10). That is plainly untrue.

Twitter Suspension. To support his damages claim, Plaintiff alleged that he was “banned from different social media platforms, including Twitter” as a result of “the misinformation campaign waged by Hillary Clinton.” (Amended Complaint ¶ 524 n.277). However, Twitter suspended Mr. Trump on January 8, 2021—two days after the January 6th attack on the Capitol—because it determined Mr. Trump’s tweets posed “the risk of further incitement of violence.”14

Moreover, in a lawsuit Mr. Trump filed against Twitter, attempting to show state action, he alleges that “Democrat legislators” pressured Twitter to censor him and that he was banned for exercising his right of free speech. Trump et al. v. Twitter et al., No. 3:21-CV-08378 (N.D. Cal. July 7, 2021) (DE 1 ¶¶ 6, 48).

The assertion that the Twitter ban was caused by misinformation by Ms. Clinton five years earlier is plainly false.

C. The Plaintiff’s Legal Theories Were Frivolous, Foreclosed By Existing Precedent.

The Plaintiff recklessly advanced claims foreclosed by existing precedent that the most basic legal research would have revealed. It was not that the Complaint and Amended Complaint were inadequate in any respect, they were inadequate in nearly every respect, even after the deficiencies had been identified in the multiple motions to dismiss. The Eleventh Circuit has squarely held that to knowingly advance frivolous claims constitutes bad faith meriting sanctions under a court’s inherent powers. Peer, 606 F.3d at 1316 (reversing district court’s failure to award sanctions under inherent powers based upon Circuit Court’s finding that lawyer “knowingly pursued a frivolous claim, and thus acted in bad faith.”).

I will not detail all of the failings of the Amended Complaint here. Most are identified in the Order of Dismissal. I concluded that fundamental substantive defects precluded the Plaintiff from proceeding under any of the theories he advanced.

In arguing against the imposition of sanctions, the Plaintiff attempts to defend his legal positions. For instance, he contends that while novel, his assertion that the RICO statute of limitations should be tolled because of the former President’s duties is a compelling argument for an extension of existing law. (DE 284 at 4). But Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997), does not leave room for that argument. See Trump v. Vance, 140 S. Ct. 2412 (2020) (holding that President is “neither absolutely immune from state criminal subpoenas seeking his private papers nor entitled to a heightened standard of need”); Trump v. United States, No. 22-13005, 2022 WL 17352069 (11th Cir. 2022) (holding district court lacks equitable jurisdiction to block government investigation of former President). That is especially true here where Mr. Trump, in his personal capacity, found time during his presidency to file other civil actions. See, e.g., Trump v Mazars USA, LLP, 140 S. Ct. (2019); Trump v Deutsche Bank AG, 943 F.3d 627 (2d Cir. 2019); Trump v Comm. on Ways & Means, 391 F. Supp. 3d 93, 95 (D.D.C. 2019).

The argument that the statute of limitations should be extended because of the tolling provision of the Clayton Act is likewise frivolous. Even were it to be applicable to RICO, none of the government proceedings identified by the Plaintiff—the Sussmann and Danchenko Indictments, or the FEC proceeding—bear any relation to RICO. And in addition to the statute of limitations, Plaintiff’s RICO claim failed at every step of the substantive RICO analysis.

The Plaintiff does not even attempt to respond with respect to most of the legal failings of his claims. To reiterate a few:

• The malicious prosecution claim without a prosecution;

• The theory of personal jurisdiction based on an allegation that defendants “knew that Florida is a state in the United States which was an important one;”

• The trade secret claim without a trade secret or ownership;

• The Computer Fraud and Abuse claim foreclosed by Van Buren v United States, 141 S. Ct. 1648 (2021); and

• Obstruction of justice untethered to any official proceeding.

Despite its 193 pages, the Amended Complaint did not come close to stating a legal claim. That was never its intended purpose.

III. A PATTERN OF ABUSE OF THE COURTS.

I have explained why the totality of the problems with the Complaint, Amended Complaint, and the arguments and statements of Plaintiff’s counsel show that this lawsuit was filed and prosecuted in bad faith. But this case is part of Mr. Trump’s pattern of misusing the courts to serve political purposes. Federal courts have both the inherent power and the constitutional obligation to protect their jurisdiction from conduct that impairs their ability to carry out Article III functions. Procop v. Strickland, 792 F.2d 1069, 1073 (11th Cir. 1986); see also Martin-Trigona v. Shaw, 986 F. 2d 1384, 1388 (11th Cir. 1993) (affirming dismissal because lawsuit filed on behalf of vexatious litigant); O'Neal v. Allstate Indem. Ins. Co. Inc., No. 20-14712, 2021 WL 4852222, at *6 (11th Cir. Oct. 19, 2021).

Thus, while a litigant’s conduct in other cases would normally not be relevant, when the court is faced with a sanctions motion against a repeat offender, undeterred by admonitions, it has the authority to consider that litigant’s outside conduct. See Johnson v. 27th Ave. Caraf, Inc., 9 F.4th 1300, 1313-14 (11th Cir. 2021) (finding district court had “inherent power to investigate the scope and extent” of litigant’s misconduct that “threaten[ed] the integrity of the court.”); O'Neal, 2021 WL 4852222, at *5 (rejecting a plaintiff’s sanctions appeal, in part, because “the district court [] conducted a comprehensive examination of Plaintiff's litigation history, cited dozens of Plaintiff's past cases, concluded that only two had merit, and provided examples of past cases where Plaintiff followed an abusive strategy similar to that employed in this case . . . . ”).

A. Trump v. Pulitzer Board

On November 15, 2021, on behalf of Mr. Trump, Ms. Habba demanded the Pulitzer Prize Board “take immediate steps to strip the New York Times and the Washington Post of the 2018 Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting.”15 By correspondence styled “Demand Letter, Notice of Potential Litigation and Non-Spoliation of Evidence,” she threatened “prompt legal action” should the prize not be withdrawn.

Then, on May 27, 2022, Mr. Trump wrote stating: “I again call on you to rescind the Prize you awarded on blatantly fake, derogatory and defamatory news. If you choose not to do so, we will see you in court.”16

On October 13, 2022, Weber, Crabb, & Wein, P.A., another law firm representing Mr. Trump, wrote again threatening suit, claiming that in refusing to rescind the award “the Board and its members acted not only with reckless disregard for the truth, but with authentic animosity and malice toward President Trump and the desire to cause him true harm [sic].” As such, according to these lawyers, “the members of the Board are individually liable” for damages, including punitive damages for defamation.17

A little over a week later, Mr. Trump, at a rally in Robstown, Texas, held on October 22, 2022, announced: “Within the next two weeks we’re suing the Pulitzer organization to have those prizes taken back.”18

On December 13, 2022, Mr. Trump followed up on his threat by filing a lawsuit in a state court in Okeechobee, Florida, a location with no apparent connection to Mr. Trump or any of the defendants. Trump v. Members of the Pulitzer Prize Board et al., No. 22-CA-000246, (Fla. 19th Cir. Ct. Dec. 13, 2022) (hereinafter “Trump v. Pulitzer”) (DE 1). He sued, individually, nineteen members of the Pulitzer Prize Board alleging defamation by implication.”19 The complaint, 29 pages, 145 paragraphs, similar to the Amended Complaint at issue here, misrepresents the findings of the Mueller Report and the origins of the Operation Crossfire investigation. The alleged defamatory statement reads:

A. Statement from the Pulitzer Prize Board. The Pulitzer Prize Board has an established formal process by which complaints against winning entries are carefully reviewed. In the last three years, the Pulitzer Board has received inquiries, including from former President Donald Trump about submissions from the New York Times and the Washington Post on Russian interference in the U.S. elections and its connections to the Trump campaign – submissions that jointly won the 2018 National Reporting Prize.

These inquires prompted the Pulitzer Board to commission two independent reviews of the work submitted by those organizations to our National Reporting competition. Both reviews were conducted by individuals with no connection to each other. The separate reviews converged in their conclusions: that no passages or headlines, contentions or assertions in any of the winning submissions were discredited by facts that emerged subsequent to the [2018 Pulitzer Prizes in National Reporting Stand] conferral of the prizes.

(Trump v. Pulitzer, DE 1 ¶ 117).

It has been said that journalism is the first draft of history.20 The 2018 Pulitzer Award for National Reporting honored the staffs of the New York Times and the Washington Post “[f]or deeply sourced, relentlessly reported coverage in the public interest that dramatically furthered the nation’s understanding of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and its connection to the Trump campaign, the President-elect’s transition team and his eventual administration.”21 The effort by Mr. Trump and his lawyers to use the courts to bully journalists as part of a dishonest and futile attempt to rewrite history is a shameless attack on a freedom essential to democracy. See Mills v Alabama, 384 U.S. 214, 218-19 (1966) (“[T]he press serves . . . as a powerful antidote to any abuses of power by government officials and a constitutionally chosen means for keeping officials elected by the people responsible to all of the people who they were selected to serve.”).

by **admin** » Sat Jan 21, 2023 2:31 am

Part 2 of 2

B. Trump v. New York Attorney General

In March 2019, the New York Office of the Attorney General (“OAG”) headed by Attorney General Letitia James (“AG James”), began investigating Mr. Trump and his New York business.22 (James AC ¶ 64). The OAG initiated its investigation following Congressional testimony by Michael Cohen, “a former senior executive of the Trump Organization and Special Counsel to Mr. Trump,” wherein he produced copies of Plaintiff’s financial statements that allegedly inflated the value of his assets to obtain favorable loans and insurance coverage, while the Trump Organization simultaneously deflated the value of those same assets to reduce its tax burden. (Trump v. James, DE 9 at 8-9). According to Mr. Trump, the Cohen testimony was a pretext to justify the OAG Investigation, and he points to various public statements by AG James as support for his theory that the OAG is “nothing more than a weapon in [AG James’s] arsenal to wage war on [Mr. Trump].” (James AC ¶¶ 67, 76).

On August 24, 2020, the OAG commenced a special proceeding in the New York Supreme Court, New York County, to enforce subpoenas served during the Investigation.23 (James AC ¶ 75). On February 17, 2022, Justice Engoron, the state-court Justice presiding over the special proceeding, denied a motion to quash filed by Mr. Trump and granted the OAG’s motion to compel (“February 2022 Order”). See People of the State of New York v. The Trump Organization, Inc., No. 451G85/2020, 2022 WL 489625 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnty. Feb. 17, 2022). Justice Engoron rejected the Trump Respondents’24 argument that the OAG Investigation was based on “personal animus” and that it amounted to selective prosecution. See id. at *5-6.

Justice Engoron’s Order has been affirmed by the state-appellate courts in New York. On May 26, 2022, the February 2022 Order was unanimously affirmed by the New York Appellate Division’s First Department. People by James v. Trump Org., Inc., 205 A.D.3d 625 (1st Dep’t 2022) (affirming finding that the OAG Investigation was “lawfully initiated” and not selective prosecution). On June 14, 2022, in a two-sentence order, the New York Court of Appeals—New York’s highest court—dismissed Mr. Trump’s appeal. People by James v. Trump Org., Inc., 38 N.Y.3d 1053 (2022) (holding that “no substantial constitutional question is directly involved.”).

Simultaneously, in December 2021, Mr. Trump and the Trump Organization LLC sued AG James under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York. Trump v. James, No. 21-cv-1352, 2022 WL 1718951 at *1 (N.D.N.Y. May 27, 2022). Mr. Trump alleged that the OAG’s investigation infringed on various of his constitutional rights. As summarized by Judge Sannes, Mr. Trump (and the Organization) asserted that AG James:

(1) violated their Fourteenth Amendment due process rights by commencing “investigations against Plaintiffs in bad faith and without a legally sufficient basis,” (2) violated their First Amendment rights by seeking to stifle Plaintiffs’ free speech and retaliate against Plaintiffs based upon Mr. Trump's political views, (3) violated their Fourth Amendment rights by issuing subpoenas without any “justifiable legal or factual basis,” and (4) abused process to advance her own political career and injure Mr. Trump personally and politically.

Id. at *4. Judge Sannes granted AG James’s Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) on the grounds of Younger Abstention, id. at *14, and stated that, in the alternative, the case would be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) because of res judicata, id. at *19. The Court also noted: “Plaintiffs’ assertions that [AG James] conducted a ‘baseless fishing expedition’ and ‘knowingly advanced claims that were unwarranted under existing law,’ are wholly unsupported.” Id. at *12 n.13 (citation omitted). Mr. Trump has appealed to the Second Circuit. (Trump v. James DE 9 at 11).

On September 21, 2022, following its Investigation, the OAG commenced an enforcement action pursuant to New York Law §63(12) (“Enforcement Action”). (Id. at 12). On November 14, 2022, following a granting of the OAG’s motion for preliminary injunction, Justice Engoron appointed the Honorable Barbara Jones, a retired federal judge, to serve as monitor of the Trump Organization. (Trump v. James, DE 9-1 at 2). Mr. Trump appealed to the New York Appellate Division’s First Department, where it remains pending. (Trump v. James, DE 9 at 13).

Then, on November 2, 2022, Mr. Trump filed a lawsuit against AG James in a Florida state court, the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit for Palm Beach County, Florida. (Trump v. James, DE 1-1 at 11). The following day, he posted the following on Truth Social:

Statement by Donald J. Trump, 45th President of the United States of America

A puppet judge of the New York Attorney General and other sworn enemies of President Trump and the Republican Party has just issued a ruling never before seen anywhere in America. It is Communism come to our shores.

Businesses will be fleeing New York, which they already are, for other states and other countries. Today’s ridiculous ruling by a politically-motivated, hand-picked judge makes it even more vital for courts in both New York and Florida to do the right thing and stop this inquisition.

We have to fight back against radical tyranny and save our Country!25

On November 14, 2022, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint and an Emergency Motion for Temporary Injunction. (Trump v. James, DE 19; DE 1-1 at 113). Plaintiff brought three counts against Defendant, “individually.” Count I is brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for various constitutional violations. (James AC at 26). Count II alleges violations of Plaintiff’s rights to privacy and property under Florida law. (Id. at 31). Count III alleges violations of Plaintiff’s rights as grantor and beneficiary of the Trust. (Id. at 35). In his Emergency Motion, Plaintiff requested a temporary injunction against Defendant, “either personally, through an agent or through any other persons acting in active concert or participation with her, from requesting, demanding, possessing or disclosing the 2020 or 2022 amendments” of Plaintiff’s Trust. (Trump v. James, DE 1-1 at 113).

On November 16, 2022, Defendant removed the case to this Court, where it is now pending before me. (Trump v. James, DE 1). The James AC copies verbatim substantial portions of the dismissed New York federal action. It begins with provocative rhetoric, all too familiar:

Extraordinary wrongdoing requires extraordinary relief. As set forth below, James has repeatedly abused her position as Attorney General for the State of New York to pursue a vendetta against President Trump, a resident of Palm Beach County, Florida, with the stated goal of destroying him personally, financially, and politically. Suffice it to say that these actions are contrary to both the Constitutions and the laws of New York and Florida and the United States Constitution.

(James AC ¶ 1).

On December 21, 2022, I denied the Emergency Motion for Temporary Injunction finding that none of the prerequisites for an injunction were met. (Trump v. James, DE 14). I found that Plaintiff’s attempt to sidestep rulings by the New York courts by suing AG James individually rather than in her official capacity was plainly frivolous. (Id. at 6). I found there was no likelihood of success on the merits, no irreparable harm, and to “impede a civil Enforcement Action by the New York Attorney General would be unprecedented and contrary to the interests of the people of New York.” (Id. at 8). I urged Mr. Trump and his lawyers to reconsider their opposition to AG James’s Motion to Dismiss because “[t]his litigation has all the telltale signs of being both vexatious and frivolous.” (Id. at n.6).

C. Trump v. Twitter

On July 7, 2021, Mr. Trump, Linda Cuadros, and the American Conservative Union, individually and on behalf of the class, sued Twitter, Inc. and Jack Dorsey. The complaint was filed in U.S. District Court in the Southern District of Florida. Donald J. Trump et al. v. Twitter, Inc. et al., No. 21-CV-22441 (S.D. Fla.) (hereinafter “Trump v. Twitter”).26 The case was subsequently transferred to the Northern District of California pursuant to Twitter’s forum selection clause. (Trump v. Twitter, DE 87).

Shortly after announcing the lawsuits, Mr. Trump started sending “breaking news alert” text messages directly to his followers including a link27 that asked them to donate to his Save America PAC:

President Trump is filing a LAWSUIT against Facebook and Twitter for UNFAIR CENSORSHIP! For the NEXT HOUR we’ve activated a 5X-IMPACT on ALL GIFTS! Please contribute IMMEDIATELY to INCREASE your impact by 500% and to get your name on the Donor List President Trump sees!28

Mr. Trump’s primary claim in all three of the cases is that the defendants censored his speech in violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. See Trump v. Twitter, DE 1; Trump v. YouTube, DE 1; Trump v. Facebook, DE 1. A problem with his argument is that Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube are private companies, and the First Amendment applies only to governmental abridgements of speech. See Manhattan Cmty. Access Corp. v. Halleck, 139 S. Ct. 1921, 1928 (2019) (“[T]he Free Speech Clause prohibits only governmental abridgment of speech. The free-speech clause does not prohibit private abridgment of speech.”) (emphasis in original). Mr. Trump’s only viable course of action was to allege that the companies were so dominated by governmental authorities as to be considered “state actors.”

With respect to Twitter, aspects of Mr. Trump’s argument bear directly on the claims made against Ms. Clinton and the Defendants here. Recall that in this case, Mr. Trump’s lawyers point to the suspension of his Twitter account as the only example of economic injury that he suffered and blame the suspension on disinformation by Ms. Clinton; never mind that Twitter closed Mr. Trump’s account after the Jan 6th attack on the Capitol because of “the risk of further incitement of violence.” (Trump v. Twitter, DE 21 ¶114).

But in the Twitter litigation, the Trump lawyers claim that it was Democratic members of Congress, Vice President Harris, and First Lady Michelle Obama, that “coerced” Twitter to censor Mr. Trump. (Id. ¶¶ 48-61).

The District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed the case in its entirety finding that “the amended complaint does not plausibly allege that Twitter acted as a government entity when it closed plaintiffs’ accounts.” Trump v. Twitter Inc., No. 21-cv-08378-JD 2022 WL 1443233, at *7 (N.D. Cal. May 6, 2022). Appeal of the dismissal is currently pending in the Ninth Circuit. See Trump v. Twitter, Inc., et al., 22-cv-15961 (9th Cir.).

D. Trump v. CNN

On October 16, 2019, Charles Harder, as “litigation counsel for President Donald J. Trump and Donald J. Trump for President, Inc.” advised CNN that “my clients intend to file legal action against you to seek compensatory damages, treble damages, punitive damages, injunctive relief, reimbursement of legal costs, and all other available legal and equitable remedies to the maximum extent permitted by law.”29 Claiming violation of the Lanham Act because of “misrepresentations to the public, to your advertisers, and others,” the letter claimed “[n]ever in the history of this country has a President been the subject of such a sustained barrage of unfair, unfounded, unethical and unlawful attacks . . . . ” Id.

On March 6, 2020, represented by Mr. Harder, Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. sued CNN for libel based upon an article by a contributor entitled “Soliciting dirt on your opponents from a foreign government is a crime. Mueller should have charged Trump campaign officials with it.”30 Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. v. CNN Broad., Inc., 20-CV-01045-MLB (N.D. Ga. Mar. 6, 2020) (hereinafter “Trump v. CNN”) (DE 1). The district court found the complaint did not adequately plead actual malice and dismissed it with leave to amend no later than November 30, 2020. Trump v. CNN, 500 F. Supp. 3d 1349, 1358 (N.D. Ga. Nov. 11, 2020). Plaintiff’s counsel subsequently advised that an amended complaint would not be filed, so on December 31, 2020, the case was dismissed without prejudice for failure to comply with the Court’s order. (Trump v CNN, DE 38).

Mr. Trump then began fundraising for another lawsuit against CNN, issuing the following appeal:

I’m calling on my best and most dedicated supporters to add their names to stand with me in my impending lawsuit against fake news CNN . . . Add your name immediately to show your support for my upcoming lawsuit against fake news CNN.31

On October 3, 2022, Mr. Trump sued CNN for Defamation Per Se (Count I) and Defamation (Count II). Trump v. Cable News Network, Inc., No. 22-CV-61842-AHS (S.D. Fla. Oct. 3, 2022) (hereinafter “Trump v CNN II”), DE 1 at 19, 24. While claiming to meet the “actual malice” standard of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), Mr. Trump’s lawyers argue it “does not—and should not—apply where the defendant is not publishing statements to foster debate, critical thinking, or [the] ‘unfettered interchange of ideas’ but rather seeks to participate in the political arena by offering propaganda.” (Trump v CNN II, DE 1 ¶ 65 n.42).

Less than 24 hours later, a fundraising email from Mr. Trump proclaimed: “I am suing the Corrupt News Network (CNN) for DEFAMING and SLANDERING my name.” Supporters were encouraged to contribute $5 or more.32

To be clear, the sanction in this case is not imposed against Mr. Trump for the Pulitzer, Twitter, or CNN litigation. Those cases are before other judges who will make their own determinations. And a decision in Mr. Trump’s Florida lawsuit against the New York Attorney General, a case now pending before me, is premature.

However, this widespread and persistent conduct points to the need for deterrence in this case and helps explain why Rule 11, Section 1927, and the Defend Trade Secrets Act are not up to the task. This is purposeful conduct, some of which occurs beyond the pleadings and even outside of the courtroom. “[ I]t is a wrong against the institutions set up to protect and safeguard the public.” Chambers, 501 U.S. at 44. Mr. Trump’s deliberate use of a frivolous lawsuit for an improper purpose constitutes bad faith. And the behavior is not unique, but part of a plan, or at least a playbook. The telltale signs:

• Provocative and boastful rhetoric;

• A political narrative carried over from rallies;

• Attacks on political opponents and the news media;

• Disregard for legal principles and precedent; and

• Fundraising and payments to lawyers from political action committees.33

And when a ruling is adverse, accusations of bias on the part of judges—often while the litigation is ongoing.

But “[l]egal trials are not like elections, to be won through the use of the meeting-hall, the radio, and the newspaper.” Bridges v. California, 314 U.S. 252, 270 (1940). Frivolous lawsuits should not be used as a vehicle for fundraising or fodder for rallies or social media. Mr. Trump is using the courts as a stage set for political theater and grievance. This behavior interferes with the ability of the judiciary to perform its constitutional duty.

IV. CONSEQUENCES

Having determined that sanctions are appropriate under inherent authority, I must now determine what those sanctions should be. I find that an award of Defendants’ attorneys’ fees and costs is a fair and just sanction given Plaintiff’s and his counsel’s actions in this case. See Chambers, 501 U.S. at 56-58. What follows, then, is an analysis of what amount of fees and costs is reasonable. See Bynum v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 166 Fed. Appx. 730, 736 (5th Cir. 2006) (remanding imposition of sanctions for proof of incurred fees and expenses to determine reasonableness).

A. Defendants’ Fee Application And Plaintiff’s Objections

Before analyzing the reasonableness of Defendants’ fee request, I will briefly explain what materials I considered in reaching my conclusions. A fee applicant bears the burden of providing an adequate application, but the opposing party must raise clear objections for a court to rule on them. See Am. Civ. Liberties Union of Georgia v. Barnes, 168 F.3d 423, 428 (11th Cir. 1999) (“‘objections and proof from fee opponents’ concerning hours that should be excluded must be specific and ‘reasonably precise.’”) (citation omitted).

Defendants request $1,058,283.50 in fees and costs. See generally Defendants’ Joint Motion for Sanctions (DE 280-2) (hereinafter “Application”). The Application is a 304-page document filed in support of Defendants’ fee request. See id. The Application contains eleven exhibits in support of the requested fees for each set of lawyers/law firms representing (some jointly) the Defendants in this case. Each exhibit contains (1) a declaration attesting to the authenticity of the hours and rates billed, with a corresponding summary of fees based on stages of the case; (2) background information on each timekeeper that describes professional experience and credentials; and (3) time entries.

In response, Plaintiff filed largely indecipherable objections. (DE 285-1) (hereinafter “Objections”); (DE 297) (hereinafter “Corrected Objections”). I will highlight just a few of these issues. First, Plaintiff’s Objections relied on an unsigned draft of the Application. Compare Objections at 241 (stating on Mr. Tyrrell’s signature line, “draft for circulation”) with Application at 255 (containing Mr. Tyrrell’s signature). This was significant not just because it was unsigned, but because some of the calculations changed from the draft to the final Application. Compare Objections at 273 (Ms. Lett’s declaration stating total fees under Chart C as $5,650) with Application at 285 (Ms. Lett’s declaration stating total fees under Chart C as $9,375). In an effort to clarify the record, I sua sponte ordered Plaintiff to file corrected objections. (DE 292).

Plaintiff’s Corrected Objections were equally unhelpful. First, Plaintiff still relies on certain draft portions of the Application. Compare Corrected Objections at 307 (Ms. Lett’s declaration stating in all caps and yellow highlighted text “DATE” and “FILL IN RESULT OF CONFERRAL”) with Application at 285 (Ms. Lett’s declaration stating the date and result of conferral). As a result, many of the same numerical discrepancies remained. See, e.g., id. Second, there are multiple miscalculations. For instance, in raising line-by-line objections to Defendant Joffe’s attorneys’ fees, Plaintiff failed to multiply the hourly rate by the number of hours billed, making the total amount objected to uncertain. (See Corrected Objections at 302). I doubt that this was intentional because nowhere else in the Corrected Objections does this appear to happen. (See, e.g., id. at 268). In another example, in calculating the total fees incurred by Defendant DNC, Plaintiff failed to include the $15,632.50 incurred in the third stage of the case. (See id. at 93) (concluding total fees incurred $170,192, rather than $185,824.50).

These errors, taken as a whole, render the entire document unreliable. I considered whether to offer Plaintiff yet another opportunity to cure his objections. Without a motion, however, I did not find it to be a fair exercise of this Court’s discretion. In almost every area of law, a party waives an objection for failing to properly raise it. So too here. Thus, to the extent that Plaintiff’s objections were not clearly identifiable, I did not consider them.

B. Reasonableness Of Fees

Of the total request for fees and costs ($1,058,283.50), $14,292.39 are costs incurred for electronic legal research and $600 in pro hac vice filing fees. Plaintiff does not object to either.34 (See generally Corrected Objections at 33-35). Filing fees are taxable costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1920. However, consistent with the finding of other courts in this Circuit and other circuit courts, costs incurred for electronic legal research are considered a component of attorneys’ fees rather than costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1920. Springer v. Convergy's Corp., 2006 WL 8439203 at *2 (M.D. Fla. July 7, 2006). I find the award of $14,292.39 for electronic legal research reasonable given Plaintiff’s lack of objection and the sprawling nature of his claims, which while frivolous, were numerous enough to necessitate substantial legal research.

“[T]he starting point in any determination for an objective estimate of the value of a lawyer’s services is to multiply hours reasonably expended by a reasonable hourly rate.” Norman v. Hous. Auth. of City of Montgomery, 836 F.2d 1292, 1299 (11th Cir. 1988) (citing Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983)). “The product of these two figures is the lodestar and there is a ‘strong presumption’ that the lodestar is the reasonable sum the attorneys deserve.” Bivins v. Wrap It Up, Inc., 548 F.3d 1348, 1350 (11th Cir. 2008) (citation omitted). In determining the lodestar, “the court is to consider the 12 factors enumerated in Johnson v. Georgia Hwy. Exp., Inc., 488 F.2d 714 (5th Cir. 1974).”35 Id. at 1350. “After the lodestar is determined . . . the court must next consider the necessity of an adjustment for results obtained.” Norman, 836 F.2d at 1302. And finally, “‘[t]he court . . . is itself an expert on the question and may consider its own knowledge and experience concerning reasonable and proper fees and may form an independent judgment either with or without the aid of witnesses as to value.’” Id. at 1303 (citation omitted).

1. Reasonable Hourly Rate

“A reasonable hourly rate is the prevailing market rate in the relevant legal community for similar services by lawyers of reasonably comparable skills, experience, and reputation.” Norman, 836 F.2d at 1302. The “relevant legal community” is generally “‘the place where the case is filed.’” Barnes, 168 F.3d 437. “More typically, the fee applicant asks for rates approximating the highest charged in the community, whereas the fee opponent generally submits evidence of the lowest rate charged in any part of the community.” Norman, 836 F.2d at 1300. That is not the case here.

Almost all of Defendants’ attorneys seek substantially discounted rates, ranging from 28% to 66% less than the rates actually billed. (See, e.g., Application at 102). On a sliding scale based on experience, Defendants’ attorneys seek rates ranging from $255-800 for lawyers and $120-150 for paralegals. Plaintiff objects to the total amount as “unreasonable or excessive,” but he limits those objections to purported deficiencies in “billing judgment” (more on this below). Nowhere in his response in opposition or dozens of pages of line-by-line objections does Plaintiff challenge the rate charged by Defendants’ attorneys.

Defendant Joffe’s attorneys (and paralegal) are the only ones not to have discounted their rates. Defendant Joffe’s lead attorney, Mr. Tyrrell, seeks his “ordinary non-local rates,” on the grounds that he qualifies for an exception applicable to attorneys with “extensive prior experience with a particular factual situation.” (Id. at 252 n.1); see also Barnes, 168 F.3d at 438 (stating that non-local rates may be acceptable if attorney had “extensive prior experience with a particular factual situation,” but refusing to apply that exception where no obvious savings or efficiencies resulted). While Plaintiff does not object, I refuse to apply the Barnes exception where it is not obvious that Defendant Joffe’s attorneys provided any significant gains in efficiencies. Compare (Application at 283) (Defendant Orbis Business Intelligence Ltd.’s attorneys, who raised a successful personal jurisdiction challenge, seeking fees for about 90 hours) with (id. at 251) (Defendant Joffe’s attorneys, who also raised a successful personal jurisdiction challenge, seeking fees for about 208 hours). Moreover, Mr. Tyrell’s declaration (Application at 251) speaks to his purported prior knowledge, not that of Defendant Joffe’s other attorneys and paralegal who also seek their non-local rates. Accordingly, in considering the Johnson factors, the discounted rate of the other attorneys in this case, and my own experience, I will discount Defendant Joffe’s attorneys’ and paralegal’s fees. See Appendix A at 5.

I find the rest of the rates charged by Defendants’ attorneys reasonable. See generally Appendix A. In reaching this conclusion, I considered my own experience, the Johnson factors, and what reasonably comparable attorneys in a similar case in this legal community might be expected to charge. Plaintiff’s lack of objection further supports the reasonableness of the rates. Given that there are dozens of attorneys, I will refrain from explaining my reasoning for each and every one of them—although I have considered them all. In reference to the Johnson factors, I considered the complexity of the allegations leveled by Plaintiff and the skill it required to succinctly respond to each allegation with well-reasoned arguments. In my view, this case required excellent lawyering to defend against the overwhelming number of convoluted allegations and frivolous claims raised by Plaintiff. Indeed, these lawyers are some of the best in the country, and accordingly charge top dollar (as evidenced by the rates actually paid by Defendants). In their ranks are litigators that have argued, and won, several cases before the U.S. Supreme Court; served in positions of great significance in government; graduated from and taught at prestigious law schools; clerked for federal district courts, circuit courts, and the U.S. Supreme Court; and obtained victories for their clients to the tune of billions of dollars. (See, e.g., Application at 9, 53, 56, 105, 209).

Having set reasonable rates for the lawyers involved (See generally Appendix A), I now move on to evaluating the time they spent on their work in this case.

2. Hours Reasonably Expended

In determining the number of hours “reasonably expended,” the Supreme Court requires fee applicants to exercise “billing judgment.” Hensley, 461 U.S. at 434 (citations and quotations omitted). Therefore, attorneys “should make a good faith effort to exclude from a fee request hours that are excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary.” Id. “This must necessarily mean that the hours excluded are those that would be unreasonable to bill to a client and therefore to one’s adversary irrespective of the skill, reputation or experience of counsel.” Norman, 836 F.2d at 1301 (emphasis in original). “Redundant hours generally occur where more than one attorney represents a client,” but in such cases attorneys may still be compensated “if they are not unreasonably doing the same work.” Id. at 1302.

Where—as is the case here—“fee documentation is voluminous . . . an hour-by-hour review is simply impractical and a waste of judicial resources.” Loranger v. Stierheim, 10 F.3d 776, 783 (11th Cir. 1994); see also Fox v. Vice, 563 U.S. 826, 838 (2011) (explaining that “trial courts . . . should not, become green-eyeshade accountants. The essential goal in shifting fees (to either party) is to do rough justice, not to achieve auditing perfection. So trial courts may take into account their overall sense of a suit, and may use estimates in calculating and allocating an attorney’s time. And appellate courts must give substantial deference to these determinations, in light of ‘the district court's superior understanding of the litigation.’”). Notwithstanding, I am mindful of this Court’s obligation to “produce an order on attorneys’ fees that allows for ‘meaningful review.’” Barnes, 168 F.3d at 428.

Here, the fee documentation is certainly voluminous. See, e.g., Padurjan v. Aventura Limousine & Transp. Serv., Inc., 441 Fed. Appx. 684, 687 (11th Cir. 2011) (“The more than $200,000 [the movant] seeks in attorneys’ fees is indication enough that this case is voluminous.”). Defendants’ Application seeks over a million dollars in fees, is 304-pages long, and includes hundreds of time entries by dozens of lawyers.

In response, Plaintiff raised line-by-line objections by way of tables at the end of each exhibit. (See generally Corrected Objections). The tables, while not descriptive in any meaningful way, do identify objected to entries under the following categories: block billing, duplicative, excessive, vague, and clerical. Accordingly, I will balance the aforementioned competing directives—not to attempt “auditing perfection” yet still allow for “meaningful review”—by analyzing a mostly random selection36 of Plaintiff’s “billing judgment” objections under each of his categories. The entries excerpted below serve as a representative sample of the entries that I examined and the reasoning applied therein.

C. Objections

1. Block Billing

Plaintiff’s objections to block billing are largely overblown. It is true that lawyers should avoid block billing (i.e., billing for several tasks in the same time entry) to, at least in this context, allow a court to ascertain the number of hours reasonably expended per task. The degree of block billing identified by Plaintiff simply does not rise to a level that merits an across-the-board cut of hours. However, I am inclined to cut back in individual cases if the block billing spanned several hours and included numerous tasks. See, e.g., Barnes, 168 F.3d at 429 (“The records often lump together all the tasks performed by an attorney on a given day without breaking out the time spent on each task.”).

By way of example, Plaintiff objects to the following entries for block billing:

1) Review & revise defendants’ draft reply brief; review Trump’s opposition brief; emails re: draft reply brief.

(Application at 122) (8/10/2022, 3.9 hours, $2,145).

2) Review Trump amended complaint; review previous motions practice; review draft portion of motion to dismiss Trump amended complaint; discussion with A. Eisen re: draft motion to dismiss.

(Id. at 241) (6/28/2022, 5 hours, $3,500).

3) April 2022: Confer and strategize via email and telephone with counsel regarding case, initial appearances, local rules, and complaint; review complaint; review draft motion to dismiss; draft and file pro hac motions; review and file response to motion to expedite.

(Id. at 21) (4/1/2022, 15 hours, $9,375).

The first two examples do not merit a reduction in hours. The second tows the line, but I find that even if the timekeeper had entered those times separately, five hours would nonetheless be reasonable. This same reasoning applies to the first example and to all of the other objections for block billing that I looked at. The third, however, is the sort of block billing that requires a reduction in hours because it is impossible for the Court to accurately divvy up the time per task in a reasonable manner. The timekeeper for this entry is Attorney Markus. A closer look at his time entries revealed a similar pattern. I note however that as local counsel, his role was not as susceptible to itemized billing and his total hours were not substantial. But I will cut his hours by 15%. See Appendix A at 2.

2. Duplicative

Plaintiff’s objections for “duplicative” time entries are not presented in a way that allows this Court to properly review and analyze them. Plaintiff’s table simply points out entries that he believes are “duplicative” but does not say what it duplicates. Instead, Plaintiff leaves it up to the Court to piece together a cogent series of objections. I refuse to do so. But even when I reviewed the relevant time entries with an eye for duplicative billing, I did not find any unreasonable billing that merits a cut in hours.

3. Excessive

Plaintiff objects to, among others, the following time entries as “excessive”:

1) Review draft DNC motion to dismiss brief and share with RAK for final review (Application at 76) (5/6/2022, 2.3 hours, $1,610).

2) Reviewing amended complaint; reviewing, editing draft brief. (Id. at 24) (7/7/2022, 5.5 hours, $3,850).

3) Review & revise motion to dismiss brief re: Trump lawsuit; emails to & from I. Garcez, A. Lopez re: same

(Id. at 118) (5/4/2022, 2.9 hours, $1,595).

Plaintiff’s objections are unconvincing. It is no surprise that these lawyers, when responding to such an egregious example of shotgun pleadings and subsequent opposition, had to spend numerous hours thoroughly analyzing the allegations and crafting exhaustive responses. I find these time entries, and others like it, reasonable.

4. Vague

“[T]he general subject matter of the time expenditures ought to be set out with sufficient particularity so that the district court can assess the time claimed for each activity.” Norman, 836 F.2d at 1303. Notwithstanding, the court can rely on “its own knowledge and experience . . . and may form an independent judgment” when determining the reasonableness of fees. Id. Plaintiff objects to the following time entries as “vague”:

1) Review complaint and continue revisions to [redacted].

(Application at 65) (4/6/2022, 4.5 hours, $3,150).

2) Research [redacted].

(Id. at 79) (5/18/2022, 1.7 hours, $637.50).

3) Miscellaneous communications, including with client and other counsel, regarding status of matter, ongoing coordination, and related matters; review and analyze materials re: same.

(Id. at 275) (7/19/2022, 1.4 hours, $1,435.50).37

The first and third time entries provide sufficient detail to overcome an objection for being vague. The same is true for almost all other time entries viewed under this category. Only the second time entry rises to the level of being vague. The timekeeper for the second entry is Attorney Turner. A closer look at her time entries revealed a similar pattern. While I find Attorney Turner’s total hours to be relatively low, I will cut her hours by 15% to account for the handful of vague entries. See Appendix A at 2.

5. Clerical

Consistent with the idea that, “the hours excluded are those that would be unreasonable to bill to a client and therefore to one's adversary irrespective of the skill, reputation or experience of counsel,” Norman, 836 F.2d at 1301 (emphasis in original), lawyers should not (in the interest of reducing fees) bill their clients for clerical work that a non-lawyer could just as well do.

It appears that Plaintiff’s only objections under the category of “clerical” (totaling $390) is for work done by Ms. Dietrich, a “Senior Case Manager,” a role akin to a paralegal. (Corrected Objections at 33-35; 56; 92). Ms. Dietrich’s hourly rate is $150, a reasonable rate for paralegals. (Application at 58). Billing a client for clerical work done by a non-lawyer related to its case is completely reasonable and expected.

D. Adjustment Of The Lodestar

The lodestar in this case is $937,989.39. See Appendix A at 1. Having determined the lodestar, the Court must next “consider the necessity of an adjustment for results obtained.” Norman, 836 F.2d at 1302. The Parties have not argued for an adjustment, and I do not find one to be necessary.

Relatedly, however, I find that apportionment of the lodestar is necessary. The amount of fees awarded in this case, while reasonable, is substantial. As such, joint and several liability (a presumption under Rule 11, but not here) would be inappropriate. Cf. Fowler v. Ritz-Carlton Hotel Co., LLC, No. 3:10-CV-884-J-34JRK, 2016 WL 11468583, at *7 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 2, 2016) (apportioning fee based on ability to pay). The parties that bear the brunt of the responsibility for the sanctionable conduct—Plaintiff and his lead attorney—should be jointly and severally liable for the sanction. The Rule 11 sanctions that I imposed on the other lawyers in this case (See DE 284) is sufficient. See Gallop v. Cheney, 667 F.3d 226, 231 (2d Cir. 2012), as amended (Feb. 3, 2012) (vacating sanctions against local counsel due to level of involvement).

Accordingly, Plaintiff Donald J. Trump and Plaintiff’s lead attorney—Alina Habba, and Habba Madaio & Associates—are jointly and severally liable for the total amount.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the forgoing reasons, and having carefully considered the record, the written submissions of the Parties, and applicable law, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:

1. Defendants’ Joint Motion for Sanctions (DE 280) is GRANTED.

2. Plaintiff Donald J. Trump and Plaintiff’s lead attorney—Alina Habba and Habba Madaio & Associates—are jointly and severally liable for $937,989.39.38

SIGNED in chambers at West Palm Beach, Florida this 19th day of January, 2023.

Donald M. Middlebrooks

United States District Judge

cc: counsel of record

_______________
Notes:

1 Fox News, Trump Sues Clinton, Steele for ‘False Narrative’ About Russian Collusion (March 25, 2022), https://www.foxnews.com/video/6301845469001. 2 Newsmax, Trump Suing Hillary Clinton Over Russia Hoax, Habba Madaio & Associates LLP – News (March 31, 2022), https://habbalaw.com/news/trump-suing-h ... ussia-hoax.

3 The United States’ Motion to Dismiss under Federal Rule 12(b)(i) was granted and the Amended Complaint as to it was dismissed without prejudice.

4 Transcript from FOX: Hannity WLNR 28709447, Sept. 10, 2022.

5 Id.

6 This provocative allegation stirred my curiosity, so I looked up the Ratcliff letter. The allegation in the Amended Complaint fails to mention that the information came from a Russian intelligence analysis and that Mr. Ratcliffe commented: “The IC (intelligence community) does not know the accuracy of this allegation or the extent to which the Russian intelligence analysis may reflect exaggeration or fabrication.” Letter from John Ratcliff, Dir. of Nat’l Intel., to Sen. Lindsey Graham, U.S. Senate (Sept. 29, 2020) https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/press/ ... -hurricane. Mr. Trump’s lawyers saw no professional impediment or irony in relying upon Russian intelligence as the good faith basis for their allegation.

7 In a footnote to paragraph 456, the Amended Complaint cites to the Justice Department announcement of the appointment of the Special Counsel. That statement by Deputy Attorney Rosenstein, also sued by Mr. Trump, reads in part as follows: “‘My decision is not a finding that crimes have been committed or that any prosecution is warranted. I have made no such determination. What I have determined is that based upon the unique circumstances, the public interest requires me to place this investigation under the authority of a person who exercises a degree of independence from the normal chain of command.’” See Press Release, Office of Public Affairs, Appointment of Special Counsel, U.S. Dep’t of Just., (May 17, 2017) https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/appointm ... al-counsel.

8 Pelletier and Byrne were abrogated on other grounds by Bridge v. Phoenix Bond & Indem. Co., 553 U.S. 639, 661 (2008) (holding “plaintiff asserting a RICO claim predicated on mail fraud need not show, either as an element of its claim or as a prerequisite to establishing proximate causation, that it relied on the defendant's alleged misrepresentations.”). I do not rely on Pelletier and Byrne as they relate to mail fraud. See Jackson v. Bank of Am., N.A., 898 F.3d 1348, 1358, 1360 (11th Cir. 2018) (citing Pelletier and Byrne as good law for purposes of sanctions resulting from improper pleading). A more detailed analysis of why Mr. Trump lacked standing to bring his RICO claim is set forth in my Order granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. (DE 267 at 42-43).

9 In Pelletier, the Court not only reversed the district court’s denial of Rule 11 sanctions and remanded for a determination of an appropriate amount, but also determined that the appeal was frivolous on the merits and awarded double costs and reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

10 1 Robert S. Mueller, III, U.S. Dep’t of Just., Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election (2019); 2 Robert S. Mueller, III, U.S. Dep’t of Just., Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election (2019).

11 United States v. Danchenko, No. 1:21-cr-00245-AJT, (E.D. Va. Nov. 3, 2021) (hereinafter “Danchenko Indictment”).

12 United States v. Sussmann, No. 1:21-cr-00582-CRC, (D.D.C. Sept. 16, 2021) (Hereinafter “Sussmann Indictment”).

13 United States v. Clinesmith, No. 1:20-cr-00165-JEB, (D.D.C. Aug. 14, 2020) (Hereinafter “Clinesmith Indictment”).

14 Twitter Inc., Permanent Suspension of @realDonaldTrump, Twitter Blog (Jan 8, 2021), https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/c ... suspension.

15 Demand Letter from Alina Habba, Lawyer for Former President Donald J. Trump, to Bud Kliment, Interim Administrator, The Pulitzer Prizes (Nov. 15, 2021), https://www.documentcloud.org/documents ... izes-board.

16 Letter from Donald J. Trump, to Ms. Marjorie Miller, Administrator, The Pulitzer Prize (May 27, 2022). For copy of letter see Katie Robertson, Pulitzer Board Rejects Trump Request to Toss Out Wins for Russia Coverage, N.Y. Times (July 18, 2022), https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/18/busi ... trump.html.

17 Letter from R. Quincy Bird and Jeremy D. Bailie, Lawyers for Donald J. Trump, to Marjorie Miller, Administrator, The Pulitzer Prize Board (Oct. 13, 2022) https://cdn.nucleusfiles.com/bf/bf8ec68 ... -final.pdf.

18 See Julia Shapero, Trump doubles down on threats to sue Pulitzer board at Texas rally, The Hill (Oct. 22, 2022, 11:06 PM), https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing ... xas-rally/.

19 Defamation by implication is “the concept that literally true statements can be defamatory where they create a false impression.” Jews for Jesus, Inc. v. Rapp, 997 So. 2d 1098, 1106 (Fla. 2008). (citations omitted). The Florida Supreme Court explained that “if the defendant juxtaposes a series of facts so as to imply a defamatory connection between them, or creates a defamatory implication by omitting facts, he may be held responsible for the defamatory implication, unless it qualifies as an opinion, even though the particular facts are correct.” Id. at 1108.

20 While first use of the phrase is debated, it is often attributed to Philip Graham, the former president and publisher of the Washington Post from a speech he gave to Newsweek reporters in 1963: “So let us today drudge on about our inescapably impossible task of providing every week a first rough draft of history that will never be completed . . . . ” Katherine Graham, Personal History (1998).

21 Staffs of The New York Times and The Washington Post, The Pulitzer Prizes, https://www.pulitzer.org/winners/staffs ... ngton-post.

22 The following procedural history and underlying facts are taken from filings in the case which subsequently ended up before me: Donald J. Trump v. Letitia James, No. 22-81780-CV-DMM (S.D. Fla.) (hereinafter “Trump v. James”). The amended complaint in that case is at Docket Entry 19 and is hereafter referred to as “James AC.”

23 The special proceeding is styled, People v. The Trump Organization, Index No. 451685/2020.

24 Donald J. Trump, Ivanka Trump, and Donald Trump, Jr.

25 @realDonaldTrump, Truth Social (Nov. 2, 2022, 5:51 PM), https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrum ... 3674316908.

26 That same day, Mr. Trump also sued YouTube, LLC; Sundar Pichai, the chief executive officer of Google LLC and Alphabet Inc.; Facebook, Inc.; and its chief executive officer, Mark Zuckerberg. See Trump et al. v. YouTube, LLC,. et al., No. 21-CV-22445 (S.D. Fla.) (hereinafter “Trump v. YouTube”); Trump et al. v. Facebook, Inc. et al., No. 21-CV-22440 (S.D. Fla.) (hereinafter “Trump v. Facebook”). Both of these cases were transferred to the Northern District of California.

27 The text message read, “Pres Trump: I am SUING Facebook & Twitter for UNCONSTITUTIONAL CENSORSHIP. For a short time, 5X-IMPACT on all gifts! Donate NOW: bit.ly/3hiWKi5.” The link in the text message brought recipients to a dynamic website prompting them with the above request for donations. While the website has since changed, it has been documented in other places. See, e.g., Jake Lahut, Trump announces lawsuits against Facebook and Twitter, immediately starts fundraising off it, Business Insider (July 7, 2021, 12:54 PM), https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-f ... ely-2021-7.

28 Lahut, supra note 26 (showing a Tweet from Twitter User @NYTnickc including screenshots of the text message and donation website) (emphasis in original).

29 Demand Letter from Charles J. Harder, Lawyer for Donald J. Trump, to Jeff Zucker, President and CEO of CNN, and David Vigilante, Executive Vice President and General Counsel of CNN (Oct. 16, 2019). For copy of letter see @michaelglassner, Twitter (Oct. 18, 2019 12:04 PM), https://twitter.com/michaelglassner/sta ... l-coverage (posting copy of letter).

30 Larry Noble, Soliciting dirt on your opponents from a foreign government is a crime. Mueller should have charged Trump campaign officials with it, CNN (June 13, 2019 at 3:37 PM), https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/13/opinions ... index.html.

31 Marco Margaritoff, Trump Begs Supporters For Donations Toward 'Upcoming' CNN Lawsuit, Yahoo News (August 6, 2022), https://news.yahoo.com/trump-begs-suppo ... 11363.html.
32 See Erik Larsen, Trump Uses CNN Lawsuit to Raise Money, Bloomberg (Oct. 4, 2022), https://money.yahoo.com/trump-uses-cnn- ... 32468.html.

33 Mr. Trump’s Save America PAC has spent $9.7 million in legal bills since 2021 according to a Washington Post review of FEC Filings. Devin Barrett, Josh Dawsey, and Isaac Stanley-Becker, Trump’s committee paying for lawyers of key Mar-a-Lago witnesses, The Washington Post (Dec. 5, 2022, 5:52 PM), https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... bills-pac/. Over $2 million has reportedly been paid to Ms. Habba. Steven Lubet, Cassidy Hutchinson transcript reveals new low for Trump World, The Hill (Dec 28, 2022, 8:00 AM), https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/3 ... ump-world/. Ms. Habba, in addition to her role as a lawyer, has become a senior advisor for Mr. Trump’s new MAGA, political action committee. According to a MAGA Inc. spokesperson, “whether it’s on legal matters or political issues, she is more than capable to represent President Trump in a variety of venues.” Ryan King, Trump Attorney Alina Habba joins MAGA Inc., Washington Examiner (Oct. 26, 2022, 9:55 AM), https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/poli ... s-maga-inc.

34 Plaintiff appears to object, without explanation, to Defendant Danchenko’s costs incurred for electronic legal research ($6,389) as “vague.” (Corrected Objections at 244). This is nonsensical and likely a mistake. “Vague,” as used by Plaintiff everywhere else in his Corrected Objections refers to vague time entries (more on this below). Nowhere else does Plaintiff raise a “vague” objection for costs incurred for electronic legal research, which are typically barebones receipts. (See, e.g., id. at 301). I will overrule this objection as I can discern no basis for it.

35 As summarized in Bivins, the 12 factors are:

(1) the time and labor required; (2) the novelty and difficulty of the questions; (3) the skill requisite to perform the legal service properly; (4) the preclusion of employment by the attorney due to acceptance of the case; (5) the customary fee; (6) whether the fee is fixed or contingent; (7) time limitations imposed by the client or the circumstances; (8) the amount involved and the results obtained; (9) the experience, reputation, and ability of the attorneys; (10) the “undesirability” of the case; (11) the nature and length of the professional relationship with the client; and (12) awards in similar cases.

Bivins, 548 F.3d at 1350 n.2.

36 For “block billing” and “excessive,” I focused primarily on entries with unusually high amounts charged. The logic being that such entries were more likely to yield examples of improper block billing or excessive billing.

37 This is Mr. Tyrell’s non-local rate. For the reasons explained above, I am reducing it to $700. See Appendix A at 5.

38 “[S]anctions must never be hollow gestures: their bite must be real.” Martin v. Automobile Lamborghini Exclusive, Inc., 307 F. 3d 1332, 1336 (11th Cir. 2002). But for the bite to be real it must be an amount a person can pay. Id. I believe the monetary sanctions imposed here are well within Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s lawyer ability to pay, and therefore I have not thought it necessary to conduct an intrusive inquiry into their finances. However, should Plaintiff or Plaintiff’s lawyer (and law firm) believe that the amount would seriously jeopardize their financial status, see, e.g., Baker v Alderman, 158 F. 3d 516 (11th Cir. 1998), that individual or firm should file within ten (10) days of this Order, under seal, a verified statement of net worth which includes assets and liabilities. In the event of such a filing, the obligation of that individual or law firm will be tolled until further order of the Court.

by **admin** » Mon Jan 23, 2023 1:11 am

The fabulist looking fabulous: 2005 video - that appears to show George Santos bragging about dressing in drag and performing in Rio de Janeiro clubs - surfaces hours after he DENIED the claims
by Elizabeth Elkind
DailyMail.com
PUBLISHED: 15:10 EST, 19 January 2023 | UPDATED: 17:21 EST, 19 January 2023
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... video.html

** Beleaguered New York Republican Rep. George Santos denied reports that he performed as a drag queen named Kitara in Brazil 15 years ago
** Two acquaintances claim he participated in drag beauty pageants, per Reuters
** He's identified as one of two people cross-dressing in a 2008 photo
** A video emerged Thursday purporting to show Santos in drag in 2005

New video has surfaced on Thursday appearing to show New York Republican Rep. George Santos discussing his participation in drag shows in Brazil, according to an explosive report.

Video first obtained by the New York Post purportedly depicts Santos, speaking in Portuguese, listing off the venues at which he did 'presentations' - all of them being prominent drag venues around Rio de Janeiro.

It was reportedly taken in 2005 at a Pride Parade in Rio's suburbs.

'I’m doing a presentation at 1140 in Jacarepaguá, in Cascadura at Egito place. I’ve already done one at Cabana Casa Nova, at Gloria (downtown) and at Le boy in Copacabana,' he said according to a DailyMail.com translation of the report.

Santos goes on to praise the LGBTQ event as 'very organized.'

'I liked it,' he added.

He told the Post regarding the video, 'Absolutely false and just another bit of nonsense from the pile on effect I’m dealing with.'

[x]
The video purportedly shows Santos in a black dress discussing the local Pride Parade

The beleaguered New York Republican denied a pair of unseemly allegations on Thursday morning, as questions mount over the freshman lawmaker's unraveling backstory.

He called claims that he 'performed' as a drag queen named Kitara in Brazil circa 2008 'false,' while also calling accusations that he swindled a disabled veteran out of medical dollars for his sick dog 'insane.'

Santos, who is under growing pressure to resign as details of his backstory continue to unravel, was identified in a 15-year-old photo depicting two drag queens on Brazil's Icaraí Beach.

[x]
Embattled freshman Republican Rep. George Santos of New York has been under growing pressure to resign as key details of his backstory continue to unravel. He has thus far refused to step down

A Brazilian drag queen named Eula Rochard told independent journalist Marisa Kabas that she was the other person in the photo and named Santos, now 34, as her friend alongside her.

Rochard described Santos to NBC News as having an 'outgrown sense of grandeur' and said he lied frequently.

She said Santos was 'never the type of drag queen who could hold down the show.'

Santos' critics have made clear that their issue does not lie with his alleged cross-dressing, but rather the hypocrisy of aligning himself with ideologies in the Republican Party that actively oppose LGBTQ lifestyles.

But the freshman congressman denounced the claim as 'false' and accused the media of chasing 'outrageous' stories.

'The most recent obsession from the media claiming that I am a drag Queen or "performed" as a drag Queen is categorically false,' Santos wrote on Twitter Thursday morning.

'The media continues to make outrageous claims about my life while I am working to deliver results. I will not be distracted nor fazed by this.'

He's rebuffed all calls to step down, and since getting to Capitol Hill, has appeared to align himself with conservative lawmakers - many of whom have made opposition to community drag shows a cornerstone of their culture war platforms.

But in the 2008 photo, the person identified as Santos appears to be dressed in a strapless red top or dress while sporting longer brown hair. While the photo is grainy, some element of makeup is visible.

His Democratic critics accused Santos of hypocrisy for aligning himself with people whose ideologies see the drag community as an object of scorn.

Santos' Congressional office did not return a request for comment sent by DailyMail.com on Wednesday night.

George Santos
@Santos4Congress

The most recent obsession from the media claiming that I am a drag Queen or "performed" as a drag Queen is categorically false.

The media continues to make outrageous claims about my life while I am working to deliver results.

I will not be distracted nor fazed by this.

On Thursday morning, Santos lashed out against claims that he once performed as a drag queen in Brazil

Two acquaintances of the beleaguered congressman told Reuters in a late Wednesday report that Santos participated in Brazilian drag shows a decade and a half ago.

One of those people was Rouchard, who claimed Santos was involved in Rio de Janeiro's cross-dressing scene since around 2005.

Rochard reportedly recalled Santos going by 'Anthony' rather than 'George' at the time. She said she was in her late teens when she knew Santos.

George Anthony Devolder Santos is the congressman's full name.

'Anthony Devolder' was also the name Santos used when he allegedly scammed a disabled veteran out of charity money to save his dying dog.

Santos reacted to that accusation on Twitter Thursday, 'The reports that I would let a dog die is shocking & insane.'

'My work in animal advocacy was the labor of love & hard work. Over the past 24hr I have received pictures of dogs I helped reduce throughout the years along with supportive messages,' he wrote. 'These distractions won’t stop me!'

[x]

Marisa Kabas
@MarisaKabas

NEW: I just spoke by phone with Eula Rochard, a Brazilian drag queen who was friends with George Santos when he lived near Rio. She said everyone knew him as Anthony (*never* George), or by his drag name, Kitara, and confirms this photo is from a 2008 drag show at Icarai Beach.

3:29 PM Jan 18, 2023

This photo emerged on Wednesday, allegedly depicting Santos, now 34, as a drag queen in 2008

Navy veteran Rich Osthoff, who was homeless at the time, told CNN he was connected to Santos as someone who had experience rescuing animals when his service dog, a pit bull named Sapphire, developed a tumor.

Santos purportedly set up a GoFundMe for the dog. But after he raised $3,000 he reportedly became hard to reach and eventually disappeared with the funds.

The dog died.

And House Republican leaders guaranteed that Santos will have his own Congressional workload, despite mounting concern over his place on Capitol Hill.

He'll be serving on two committees in the 118th Congress - the Small Business panel and the Committee on Science, Space and Technology.

Meanwhile, Santos is under federal and state investigations as well as a Congressional ethics inquiry amid questions over how he came about his recent personal wealth, including the $700,000 he donated to his 2022 campaign.

by **admin** » Fri Jan 27, 2023 4:02 am

Ex-boyfriend [Pedro Vilarva] of George Santos speaks out to CNN
by Erib Burnett
CNN
Jan 26, 2023

CNN's Erin Burnett talks to the former boyfriend of embattled Rep. George Santos (R-NY) about their relationship and the many false claims Santos has publicly made. #CNN #News

Transcript

0:00
New video tonight of embattled
0:01
Republican Congressman George Santos
0:03
under fire
0:04
for telling a long list of lies
0:05
to voters.
0:06
Dodging questions from our Manu
0:07
Raju, specifically refusing to say why
0:09
among many other lies,
0:11
he falsely claimed to be a member
0:13
of the Baruch College volleyball team.
0:15
Here's Santos, his response.
0:17
Why did you lie
0:18
about being on a volleyball
0:20
you're like American people.
0:22
When you stop
0:25
reporting, I'll start to show
0:26
where you actually were on a volleyball
0:28
team.
0:28
Is that right?
0:29
In college, Baruch College.
0:30
Is that true?
0:32
Is that true?
0:34
This is Santos
0:35
ex-boyfriend is speaking
0:36
to OUTFRONT
0:37
for his first television interview
0:39
and an OUTFRONT exclusive.
0:40
Pedro Vilarva
0:41
shared this photo with us of him
0:43
celebrating Christmas with Santos
0:45
and other loved ones in 2014.
0:48
He told me that Santos went by the name
0:49
Anthony Devolder when they dated.
0:51
They lived together for about a year.
0:53
And the Lava says
0:54
he repeatedly turned down
0:55
Santos proposals to get engaged
0:59
Pedro joins me now from Brazil.
1:01
And Pedro,
1:02
I very much appreciate your time
1:03
and I know
1:04
that you're
1:05
deciding to speak out
1:06
was a very careful decision
1:09
Does this George Santos,
1:11
the one that we are now all seeing, sound
1:14
like the man that you dated
1:15
and lived with?
1:17
No.
1:18
Not at all.
1:20
Completely different person.
1:23
How so?
1:26
It's just
1:27
at the beginning of the relationship.
1:29
It was fine.
1:31
He was so sweet, caring
1:35
He actually showed
1:37
that he actually cared, you know?
1:39
But later on,
1:40
like when I started finding out the lies,
1:43
I thought that was it.
1:45
That it was my phone.
1:46
The ones that he stole, that
1:49
you ponded that I believe
1:52
the jewelry as well from from our friend
1:55
that used to live with us.
1:57
And so,
1:58
like the tickets to Hawaii that he had
2:01
purchased for us to
2:02
go where he was planning
2:03
to be
2:04
proposing for the third time as well.
2:07
Well, the engagement never happened.
2:09
Nothing like that.
2:11
I know you say Santos
2:14
repeatedly asked you to get engaged
2:16
before you broke up,
2:17
and he appears, Pedro,
2:18
to reference you
2:19
in an Instagram post
2:20
that you shared with us from 2015
2:23
he writes,
2:24
This is my family that I managed to
2:26
screw up.
2:27
I will not give up.
2:28
I will fight till the end.
2:29
I love you, PvE.
2:31
I miss you now.
2:33
Pedro, you were 18
2:34
and Santos was 26 when you met him.
2:37
When did you know
2:39
that you couldn't trust him?
2:42
Towards the end of the relationship.
2:44
It was more started.
2:45
Like I started finding out
2:46
about the lights in December
2:48
and then it went on till February.
2:52
And then
2:53
that's when I broke up with them.
2:55
And then I went on my way.
2:58
But then later on,
2:59
like we still had contact with each other
3:01
because he didn't like,
3:02
I found out about the lies,
3:03
but we still kept
3:05
in contact with each other
3:06
just being like, Oh, how are you?
3:09
How's your mom and stuff?
3:10
Because when I found out
3:10
that she was sick, I still cared for her.
3:13
And then I went to visit her
3:14
a couple of times later on.
3:16
But then
3:17
when I found out about the other stuff,
3:19
I was like, What a psycho
3:22
You know,
3:23
I want to share a picture of you
3:24
that you shared
3:25
with us of you and his mother.
3:27
You say you were close.
3:28
And besides, you know,
3:30
he said she's was a survivor of the nine
3:32
11 terror attacks, right? She was.
3:33
He also claims
3:34
she was an executive at Citigroup.
3:36
She was a part of many of his lies there.
3:38
There you are with her.
3:39
This is a picture you shared with us.
3:42
Did did she ever discuss
3:43
these these lives with you?
3:45
Did she know any of this?
3:47
Oh, I never
3:50
know. Nine 11? No.
3:52
Citigroup, nothing like that
3:54
from when I was with them.
3:56
I never saw her going to work
3:57
at Citigroup. Or anything.
3:59
And they never mentioned anything
4:01
about nine 11,
4:02
even because I was born on nine 11.
4:05
And if I see if they knew that
4:08
I was born in nine 11,
4:09
I think they were going to reference that
4:11
and say something about it,
4:13
but never heard anything about it.
4:16
I want to play Jorge Santos
4:18
what we've all now heard
4:19
Pedro explaining
4:20
who he is
4:21
in his own words over the years.
4:24
My grandparents survived the Holocaust.
4:27
I'm a Latino, too.
4:28
My mom was a nine elevenths survivor.
4:31
They sent me to a good prep school, so
4:33
and which was harassment.
4:34
Prep in the Bronx.
4:35
I actually went to school on
4:38
on a volleyball scholarship.
4:39
And when I was in Peru,
4:40
we were the number one volleyball.
4:42
But I put myself through college
4:44
and got an MBA from
4:45
NYU and also founded my own
4:47
nonprofit organization.
4:49
Prior to running, I decided to close it.
4:52
It was an animal rescue
4:53
We had a great organization.
4:55
We were able to save animals, dogs,
4:57
cats, horses.
4:58
I've lived an honest life.
4:59
I've never been accused, sued of anything
5:04
bad doing.
5:06
I do want to
5:07
note, of course,
5:07
he was charged with embezzlement.
5:09
So he has obviously been
5:10
accused of bad doing.
5:11
But you know, Pedro,
5:12
the point is
5:13
some of these lies were so minor
5:15
and yet so specific.
5:16
I mean, the volleyball one. Right.
5:18
Not just saying that
5:19
he played volleyball,
5:20
but he had a scholarship
5:21
that he slayed teams
5:22
from Harvard and Yale
5:23
that he was the smallest player
5:24
on the team, that he needed
5:25
to get two knee replacements.
5:27
I mean, you know,
5:27
he went deep with the lies.
5:30
Why does he do this?
5:31
I think he was I don't know.
5:33
I think he's just out of his mind.
5:35
And one lie led to the other.
5:38
And now this.
5:39
Everybody found out.
5:40
Like they're finding out
5:42
like the little stuff as well.
5:44
I just think
5:46
he should now be in Congress.
5:49
And one.
5:51
Oh, my God.
5:51
It was so many things that I found out
5:53
afterwards as well.
5:55
Things that I did not know
5:56
because I still believe that
5:57
he actually went to college.
5:59
Like like he used to say
6:01
I already knew about the Citigroup.
6:03
They he said that he used to work in
6:05
like those investments.
6:06
And so so I already knew that
6:08
those were lies
6:09
because I never saw him working actually.
6:13
But then
6:15
the other stuff,
6:16
like the stuff about the part
6:19
he actually did used to say
6:21
about the organization,
6:22
about football as well,
6:24
that he used to do like
6:28
he there was another person.
6:30
They also had a pet organization,
6:32
so they used to have like a little
6:34
picking fights with each other as also
6:38
But then I never saw
6:39
anything going towards there like
6:44
charity stuff when we were together.
6:47
He never used to do anything.
6:48
So for his dad.
6:49
So it was so it's.
6:51
You know, what do you say?
6:52
Are you surprised he's
6:53
now a member of Congress?
6:55
That
6:56
that was that was an ambition that he had
7:00
always what he always looked for
7:03
was fame and power.
7:06
That's all the all he cared about.
7:09
And he got it.
7:09
He got the thing
7:11
of the lies
7:12
and he got the power
7:13
that he's in Congress now.
7:14
But it's a he shouldn't be there.
7:17
Well, the story has gotten so big, right?
7:19
Everyone everyone
7:20
is paying attention to it.
7:21
You know,
7:21
he's being spoofed by late
7:23
night shows and other comedians.
7:26
Here's a clip from this
7:27
weekend's Saturday Night Live.
7:28
Don't know if you saw it,
7:29
but I'll play it for you, Peter.
7:32
You lied about your mom dying in nine 11.
7:34
I think I said seven 11.
7:36
No, you know,
7:38
you even lied about being Jewish.
7:39
No, I said I was Jewish.
7:42
Jewish people need to know who you are.
7:44
Okay, well,
7:44
I am George
7:45
Santo's mischievous older sister.
7:48
Nasty.
7:50
I graduated on a volleyball scholarship
7:52
from Baraka tomorrow night.
7:53
University
7:57
I see you laughing.
7:58
People are laughing.
7:59
But obviously, you know,
8:01
this is serious stuff.
8:02
I mean,
8:02
do you think that he'll ever resign?
8:06
I don't think so.
8:07
His ego's too is too big.
8:10
Isn't too high.
8:11
He's not going to resign
8:13
if they don't find out
8:14
something to get him off
8:15
he's not going to do it, that's for sure.
8:17
All right.
8:18
Well, Pedro, I appreciate your time.
8:19
Thank you very, very much.
8:22
I appreciate your time as well.
8:24
Thank you so much.

Altruistic World Online Library

Trump lashes out at Gov. Doug Ducey following certification

Re: Trump lashes out at Gov. Doug Ducey following certificat

Re: Trump lashes out at Gov. Doug Ducey following certificat

Re: Trump lashes out at Gov. Doug Ducey following certificat

Re: Trump lashes out at Gov. Doug Ducey following certificat

Re: Trump lashes out at Gov. Doug Ducey following certificat

Re: Trump lashes out at Gov. Doug Ducey following certificat

Re: Trump lashes out at Gov. Doug Ducey following certificat

Re: Trump lashes out at Gov. Doug Ducey following certificat

Re: Trump lashes out at Gov. Doug Ducey following certificat

Re: Trump lashes out at Gov. Doug Ducey following certificat

Who is online