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.
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.
George Santos is a ‘perfect monument’ to House GOP lies by Lawrence O'Donnell MSNBC Jan 26, 2023
MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell explains how George Santos’s newest lie that his response to the press will be “comprehensive,” along with his failure to answer questions about his possible campaign finance crimes, shows how “House Republicans are fully accepting of lies told to them that they know are lies.”
Transcript
0:01 WASHINGTON D.C. AND WE WILL 0:02 SHOW YOU THAT IN THE MID THANK 0:05 YOU ALEX EMIGRATE TO. 0:07 >> THANK YOU. 0:09 WELL IT EXACTLY THE SAME LAST 0:10 NIGHT WHEN WE BEGAN THIS 0:11 PROGRAM WITH THE NEWS THAT 0:13 GEORGE ANTHONY TO SANTOS DID 0:14 NOT ACCEPT AN INVITATION TO 0:17 WHITE HOUSE RECEPTION FOR ALL 0:18 MEMBERS OF CONGRESS BOTH 0:20 PARTIES. 0:21 PROBABLY BECAUSE THE WHITE 0:23 HOUSE TOXICITIES. 0:24 THEY DO BACKGROUND CHECKS OF 0:26 EVERY VISITOR. 0:27 WE NOW KNOW EXACTLY WHERE 0:30 CONGRESSMAN DEVOLDER SANTOS WAS 0:33 WHEN WE DELIVER THAT REPORT. 0:35 ALONG WITH THE BREAKING NEWS 0:36 LAST NIGHT THAT THE PERSON 0:37 LISTED AS THE NEW TREASURE 0:46 GEORGE SANTOS WAS NOT SIGNED BY 0:48 THE PERSON HE'S SERVED AS A 0:59 TREASURE ON MANY CAMPAIGNS. 0:59 HE HAD A WRITTEN STATEMENT OF 1:01 THE NEW CAMPAIGN FINANCE 1:02 DARTMOUTH BEARING ELECTRONICS 1:05 INTEREST COMPLETELY WRONG. 1:06 HE DIDN'T AUTHORIZE THE SANDERS 1:09 CAMPAIGN TO LOSE THE SIGNATURE. 1:11 HE DOES NOT VOTE FOR ANY 1:12 INFORMATION AND THAT NEW 1:16 CAMPAIGN. 1:17 IT CHANGES THE DESCRIPTION THAT 1:19 FLOWED INTO THE CAMPAIGN. 1:23 IT CAME FROM THE CANDIDATES 1:24 PERSONAL FUNDS. 1:29 THEY DO NOT REVEAL. 1:32 FROM 99% OF POLITICIANS, THAT 1:37 NEWS BREAKING LAST NIGHT 1:40 WOULD'VE BEEN THE VERY WORST 1:42 NEWS OF THEIR LIVES. 1:45 IT WOULD'VE BEEN THE DARKEST 1:46 MOMENT OF THEIR LIFE AS 1:47 POLITICIANS FOR 99% OF THE 1:50 POLITICIANS. 1:53 THEY NEVER LIED ABOUT WHERE 1:54 THEIR INTO SCHOOL, WHERE THEY 1:54 WORK, OR RANDOMLY THROWN 1:57 SOMEONE ELECTRONICS IGNORANT TO 1:58 THEIR CAMPAIGN FINANCE FILINGS. 2:01 IT SEEMS TO HAVE A POSSIBLE 2:04 CAMPAIGN FINANCE CRIME. 2:07 MOST POLITICIANS NEVER COME 2:10 CLOSE TO SCANDAL MOMENT. 2:11 GEORGE ANTHONY FOUND HIMSELF IN 2:13 THIS AT EXACTLY THIS TIME, THIS 2:17 VERY MINUTE LAST TIME. 2:23 WHEN THEY ARE THIS FAR DOWN THE 2:24 TEE POLAND SCANDAL, THE 2:26 POSSIBLE CRIME. 2:27 IT HAS STATE FEDERAL 2:28 PROSECUTORS CLOSING IN ON IT. 2:31 WE KNOW EXACTLY WHERE GEORGE 2:33 SANTOS WAS LAST NIGHT. 2:38 WHEN I WAS REVEALING THE LATEST 2:39 ELEMENTS OF WHAT MAYBE THE 2:42 CAMPAIGN. 2:43 WHEN HE WAS OUT OF THE TUNNEL 2:44 WASHINGTON D.C., YOU WOULD 2:46 THINK BY NOW THE GEORGE SANTOS 2:49 MIGHT TAKE A CERTAIN PLEASURE 2:51 IN WEARING AN N95 MASK, EVEN IF 2:53 HE THINKS HE'S NOT AT RISK OF 2:57 COVID-19. 2:58 JUST TO MAKE IT THAT MUCH 2:59 HARDER TO RECOGNIZE MELTED ON 3:00 THE WORLD, YOU WOULD THINK BY 3:02 NOW. 3:06 IT'S WHAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN 3:07 ANOTHER PAIR OF GLASSES. 3:09 THEY WOULDN'T GO OUT THERE 3:11 TOWARDS ON MYSTICAL TRADEMARK 3:15 EYEGLASSES. 3:15 AT THIS TIME LAST NIGHT, HE WAS 3:18 IN PLACE WHERE MOST PEOPLE 3:19 DON'T LOOK AT THAT CAME FROM 3:21 THE OFFICE. 3:21 MOST PEOPLE ARE VERY CASUALLY 3:22 JESS THERE BUT GEORGE ANTHONY 3:25 DEVOLDER SANTOS PROVING ONCE 3:28 AGAIN THAT HE DESPERATELY 3:28 CRAVES AND PATHOLOGICALLY 3:30 THRIVES THE TENSION IS GETTING 3:35 INTO A KARAOKE BAR IN 3:36 WASHINGTON D.C.. 3:37 HE WENT JUST AS GEORGE SANTOS. 3:42 HE WENT TO A PLACE CALLED HILL 3:43 COUNTRY JUST OF PENNSYLVANIA 3:47 AVENUE BETWEEN THE CAPITOL AT, 3:48 HOUSE EAST UP TO WEIGH -- 3:53 SNOT THE NEIGHBORHOOD YOU GO TO, 3:55 NOT THE PLACE TO GO TO MIDNIGHT 3:57 IN WASHINGTON D.C.. 4:01 YOU CAN DO THIS IF YOU WANT TO 4:03 BE SEEN. 4:03 HE WAS SEEN. 4:05 HE WAS VIDEOED EXACTLY 10:10 4:08 PM. 4:11 WHO'S BEEN NBC NEWS STAFFER. 4:13 IT WENT LIKE THIS. 4:16 >> YOU ARE NOT GOING TO TRY TO 4:18 INTERVIEW ME. 4:19 >> I WILL TELL YOU THIS, YOU 4:21 ARE RECORDING. 4:23 I WILL SAY THIS, -- 4:29 >> SO, OUT OF THE TOWN AS 4:38 EXACTLY WHAT HE DOES THE OFFICE 4:40 BUILDING. 4:41 HE REVELED IN TENSION OF THE 4:43 CAMERA, IF YOU JUST ANSWER 4:45 QUESTIONS. 4:48 HE LIES HE JUST ATTORNEY 4:52 RESPONSE TO THE PRESS IS GONNA 4:53 BE COMPREHENSIVE. 4:54 THAT IS A LOT. 4:54 I WILL NOT BE COMPREHENSIVE. 4:56 HE WILL NOT ANSWER EVERY 4:57 QUESTION WITH ASKED HIM. 5:00 HE MIGHT NEVER ANSWER ANY 5:02 QUESTIONS ASKED OF HIM OUTSIDE 5:07 OF A COURTROOM. 5:08 YOU HAVE A RIGHT NOT TO TESTIFY, 5:09 WE MAY NEVER HEAR GEORGE SANTOS 5:12 ANSWER A SINGLE QUESTION ABOUT 5:15 WHERE HE GOT THE $700,000. 5:19 IT'S NOW OFFICIALLY LISTED AS 5:23 AN ILLEGAL CAMPAIGN 5:27 CONTRIBUTION. 5:28 THEY DID NOT COME FROM THE 5:29 CANDIDATES PRECIP FUND. 5:32 IT'S ONLY SOURCE RUN AMOK THAT 5:36 LARGE CAN COME FROM. 5:39 THERE ARE TWO REASONS THAT 5:40 SANTOS STILL A MEMBER OF THE 5:43 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 5:45 KEVIN MCCARTHY IS THE WEAKEST 5:48 WEAKER DESPERATELY NEEDS 5:52 SANTOS. 5:53 HE NEEDS THE MONEY. 5:54 AT THIS POINT THERE IS NO 5:56 EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER THAT GEORGE 5:59 SANTOS HAS EVER EARNED MORE 6:03 MONEY THAN THE PAYCHECK HE'S 6:05 GETTING RIGHT NOW. 6:12 WE HAVE NEVER SEEN A SANTOS TAX 6:15 RETURN. 6:16 SO, WE HAVE NO IDEA IF HE HAS 6:18 EVER MADE THAT MUCH MONEY 6:20 BEFORE AN'S LIFE. 6:21 HE IS NEVER LIVED LIKE SOMEONE 6:23 MAKING THIS MUCH A YEAR. 6:28 HE'S NEVER HAD THE HOME OF THAT 6:32 INCOME HAS PROVIDED FOR AN 6:33 INDIVIDUAL. 6:33 YOU SEE POLITICIANS LIKE GEORGE 6:35 SANTOS, NOT THAT WE'VE EVER 6:36 SEEN ONE LIKE HIM BEFORE. 6:39 WHEN YOU SEE A POLITICIAN AND 6:43 THIS MUCH HOPE WAS TROUBLE WITH 6:43 HIS PREVIOUS SUPPORTER BECKHAM 6:45 DEMANDING HERE IS NINE, ALONG 6:47 WITH HIS FELLOW REPUBLICAN 6:49 DEMANDING HE RESIGN. 6:54 ALL THESE POLITICIANS NEED THE 6:56 MONEY, THEY ONLY THE PAYCHECK. 7:00 THEY ONLY THEN CAN FROM THE 7:01 JOB. 7:02 EVERYONE IS DEMANDING THE 7:03 RESIGNED FROM IT. 7:05 EVERY DAY THAT GEORGE ANTHONY 7:06 REMAINS IN THE HOUSE OF 7:07 REPRESENTATIVES, HE DOUBLE 7:09 UNDERLINES THE HOUSE REPUBLICAN 7:13 PARTY'S RELATIONSHIP TO LYING. 7:14 AND WHAT HE SHOWS IS THAT LINE 7:18 IS A COMFORTABLE TWO WAY STREET 7:20 FOR HOUSE REPUBLICANS. 7:22 YES A LOT OF THEIR VOTERS FOR 7:25 2020 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. 7:26 THE REPUBLICANS OF ALWAYS LIKE 7:27 TO VOTERS ABOUT TAX CUTS FOR 7:28 THE RICH. 7:30 ACTUALLY, IT SOMEHOW INCREASES 7:31 REVENUE TO THE TREASURY. 7:35 IN FACT, THAT DRAMATICALLY CUTS 7:37 THE REVENUE TO THE TREASURY AS 7:38 IT HAS OVERTIME. 7:40 IT'S CREATING HUGE DEFICITS. 7:42 CREATES NATIONAL DEBT AS TAP 7:44 CUTS HAVE EVERY TIME. 7:46 MANY OF YOU COULD SPEND THE 7:48 NEXT SEVERAL MINUTES RATTLING 7:49 OFF LIES HOUSE REPUBLICANS HAVE 7:51 TOLD, WITHOUT EVEN INCLUDING 7:52 THE DANGEROUS QANON MADNESS. 7:58 BUT THE LESS EMPHASIZED PART OF 8:00 THE REPUBLICAN LIE, THAT HOUSE 8:03 REPUBLICANS ARE FULLY ACCEPTING 8:05 OF LIES TOLD TO THEM. 8:11 THANK MINERALIZE. 8:13 MOST OF THE HOUSE REPUBLICANS 8:15 KNEW THAT EVERYTHING DONALD 8:17 TRUMP AND RUDY GIULIANI SAID 8:18 ABOUT THAT ELECTION WAS A LIE. 8:21 BUT THEY WANTED TO BE LIED TO. 8:28 GEORGE SANTOS LYING TO THEM IS 8:32 SOMETHING THAT REPUBLICANS IN 8:33 THE HOUSE EXCEPT EVERY DAY FROM 8:35 DONALD TRUMP. 8:36 AND OTHER REPUBLICANS. 8:37 BUT I LIKE DONALD, TRUMP GEORGE 8:38 SANTOS HAVE SNOW FALLING IN THE 8:40 REPUBLICAN PARTY. 8:41 HE DOESN'T EVEN HAVE A 8:41 FOLLOWING ANYMORE IN HIS LONG 8:43 ISLAND CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT 8:45 PUBLIC. 8:48 CONGRESSMAN SANTOS DOES NOT 8:49 REPRESENT THE THINKING OF A 8:51 MAJORITY OF THE REPUBLICAN 8:52 PARTY VOTERS. 8:53 THEY FEEL NOTHING FOR GEORGE 8:53 SANTOS. 8:54 NOTHING POSITIVE. 8:55 AND SO, GEORGE SANTOS WHO HAS 8:59 BECOME THE MOST FAMOUS 9:01 REPUBLICAN FRESHMAN CONGRESSMAN 9:04 HISTORY POSTAL PREVENTATIVE 9:07 CENTER EVERY DAY IN THE HOUSE 9:08 OF REPRESENTATIVES IS THE 9:10 PERFECT MONUMENT THE LIVES 9:13 PUBLICANS TELL TO THEIR VOTERS 9:19 AND EACH OTHER. 9:19 THE HOUSE REPUBLICAN POSITION 9:23 IS ALLY. 9:23 THEY TELL ONLY WHEN WE HAVE A 9:27 DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT. 9:32 ON THE DEBT CEILING, WHEN THERE 9:35 IS A REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT -- 9:37 >> SO, WHEN THEY START TALKING 9:39 ABOUT USING THE DEBT CEILING AS 9:43 A WATCH TO NEGOTIATE FOR THINGS 9:44 THAT THEY WANT, THEY HAVE TOLD 9:45 ME VERY STRONGLY THAT THEY 9:48 WOULD NEVER USE
***************************************
Man [Christian Lopez] says George Santos pitched investment in firm Feds call a Ponzi scheme by Laura Coates CNN Jan 26, 2023
CNN's Laura Coates speaks with Christian Lopez and his attorney Tiffany Bogosian about a 2020 dinner during which Lopez says George Santos tried to get him to invest $300,000 in a firm that Federal authorities say is a Ponzi scheme. Santos has denied any wrongdoing.
Transcript
0:01 In that case, stick around, 0:04 please come back and it is a 0:08 business dinner, back in 2020. 0:10 That was attended by Christian 0:12 Lopez, and his attorney with 0:14 iffy because Ian. 0:17 Santos, looking for harbor city 0:20 capital, which is a Florida 0:22 -based investment firms. 0:24 Lopez says, he was pitching him 0:26 to invest $300, 000, but Lopez 0:30 declined. 0:30 The exchange commission is 0:35 accused of being a Ponzi 0:36 scheme. 0:36 Santos denied any knowledge, 0:39 but Cynthia because in, and 0:41 Andrew Lopez joins us now. 0:42 I want to begin with you and, 0:44 welcome to the program. 0:45 Christian, let me begin with 0:47 you here. 0:49 Per the reporting, Santos 0:50 brought you to a restaurant, 0:53 the hidden November of 2020. 0:56 He want to do to invest about 0:59 $300,000. 0:59 Can you tell us what happened 1:01 in that instance? 1:01 >> Yes. 1:03 He was trying to pitch me some 1:05 ideas that, basically, is 1:10 giving 300, 000, and every tool 1:13 in a few weeks, and is not make 1:17 any sense to me, honestly. 1:18 >> You describe the situation 1:20 out of a scene from goodfellas. 1:22 Tell me about what you mean? 1:24 >> When you go into this 1:27 restaurant we, were greeted 1:29 very good. 1:29 We were like family. 1:30 I've never step foot in there 1:31 in my life. 1:32 I neither had my lawyer, or my 1:34 girlfriend. 1:34 We go in there is going on to a 1:39 second floor, and it's a big 1:41 room. 1:41 One table, a butler, and George 1:45 Santos. 1:46 Right there I would say, what? 1:48 This is different. 1:49 This is nice. 1:52 I had never been treated this 1:55 nice before, but we are going 1:56 to see what's going on here. 2:00 They went they ordered some 2:02 food, they went to order the 2:05 business, and that is looking 2:08 at it all along there. 2:10 It makes no sense. 2:12 >> What were the red flags that 2:13 made you suspicious about this 2:15 venture? 2:15 >> Basically, he was saying, 2:19 the worst thing you could say 2:20 to anybody. 2:21 If you give us 300, 000, you 2:23 are not allowed to know what 2:25 you are investing into. 2:26 Basically, I give money to him, 2:28 and I don't know if he is 2:30 making bombs, I don't know, 2:32 drugs, whatever he invest this 2:34 money into, I don't know where 2:35 he sending it. 2:36 He said, it has nothing to do 2:37 with you. 2:37 All you need to do is give me 2:39 the money, and then every 2 to 2:41 3 weeks, I will give you 2:44 $3,000. 2:44 And I said, how? 2:45 How does this make sense? 2:47 It just doesn't sound right. 2:49 And then he tried to use the 2:52 fact that he was in line with 2:55 trump, and he had people, and 2:56 all of these other things, and 2:57 they would do good. 3:01 It is things like that. 3:02 >> Let's bring you in here, 3:04 Tiffany. 3:04 You should know that the sec is 3:06 looking into this as a Ponzi 3:08 scheme, and of course, any 3:12 criminal activity suggested as 3:14 what's being purchased, what 3:15 the money has been going for. 3:16 So we will, note of course, we 3:18 did reach out to George Santos 3:19 for comment, and did not 3:20 receive it in this instance. 3:22 Tiffany, you know Santos, and 3:25 you agreed to dinner is the 3:29 liaison in the two, it could be 3:31 a scam. 3:31 What set off alarm bells to you? 3:35 >> Unfortunately, I was the 3:37 mediary between Christian and 3:39 George. 3:39 I read tread data, 1000%, but 3:42 thankfully, it did not go 3:43 further. 3:45 So, essentially, for junior 3:50 high school with me we, 3:53 attended I.S. 1:25 and sunny 3:55 side queens. 3:57 After junior high school, we 3:59 lost touch, and we reacquainted 4:02 ourselves in 2019. 4:06 In this case, Christians case 4:09 occurred in 2018. 4:10 By the time it came to 4:12 settlement, it was 2020, and as 4:14 a closer to a settlement, I 4:16 mean, this was my first, large 4:19 case, out of law school, on my 4:21 own. 4:21 I was excited about it, and I 4:23 was telling everybody. 4:26 Everywhere that I had worked, 4:27 with different annuity 4:28 companies, and this is as far 4:32 as they go with it. 4:33 Harbor city capital, which I 4:35 find so ironic he says, fake 4:37 news, fake media, disingenuous 4:40 reporting. 4:43 He never said anything about 4:45 harbor city capital, at that 4:46 center. 4:46 He led us to believe, and lead 4:49 Christian to believe that at 4:50 the time, they worked for 4:54 Goldman Sachs. 4:55 The personal banker on behalf 4:57 of Goldman Sachs, and all of 4:59 these representations is on 5:02 behalf of Goldman Sachs. 5:03 In fact, so the red flags came 5:07 up as far as, you don't know 5:09 what you are investing in. 5:10 For me, the red flags came up a 5:13 media immediately, and when I 5:16 read $300,000 a month on an 5:18 interest and investment. 5:19 I have worked with several 5:20 annuity companies, with large 5:23 investments. 5:27 $3,000 a month is unheard of. 5:29 That was a huge red flag, and 5:32 there after, he followed up 5:33 with Christian sending 5:35 confidence, and memorandums, 5:36 again, from harbor city 5:38 capital. 5:38 Acting at the dinner is on 5:43 behalf of Goldman Sachs. 5:46 It was an employee of Goldman 5:49 Sachs, and the fact that 5:51 Christian is applying to this 5:54 is, essentially, him calling me, 5:56 and was very upset. 5:57 That was the last conversation 5:59 they had at home, which is 6:01 where, he said, he was very 6:04 upset. 6:05 It was an embarrassment to 6:06 covax, and was a cpany 6:08 current. 6:08 I said, listen this is the 6:11 nature business, clients have 6:14 to choose who to not vote with 6:17 you. 6:18 And so, essentially, he never 6:20 spoke to me after that we'll 6:23 have these lines were exposed, 6:26 he never worked for Goldman 6:28 Sachs, for citigroup, or 6:29 anything like that, I was 6:31 beyond belief. 6:31 Now, you are thinking, somebody 6:33 is pulling into their own 6:35 pockets to disperse this kind 6:36 of money, to create these, 6:38 bells and these whistles, to 6:39 essentially take advantage. 6:40 He was, essentially, going to 6:44 make off with, it essentially. 6:46 >> At one point, I would say -- 6:48 sorry to interrupt you, but all 6:50 three of us were to shaking our 6:51 head, throughout the story, and 6:53 just thinking that this is what 6:54 you are describing, and what 6:56 you are telling here. 6:56 Especially, it is not in a 6:58 vacuum. 6:58 We talk about this as a sitting member of congress. Thank you so much all of you for joining us today. I appreciate it.
How Barr’s Quest to Find Flaws in the Russia Inquiry Unraveled: The review by John Durham at one point veered into a criminal investigation related to Donald Trump himself, even as it failed to find wrongdoing in the origins of the Russia inquiry. by Charlie Savage, Adam Goldman and Katie Benner New York Times Jan. 26, 2023
NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT
YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.
[x] The veteran prosecutor John H. Durham was given the job of determining whether there was any wrongdoing behind the investigation into the 2016 Trump campaign’s ties to Russia. Credit Samuel Corum for The New York Times
WASHINGTON — It became a regular litany of grievances from President Donald J. Trump and his supporters: The investigation into his 2016 campaign’s ties to Russia was a witch hunt, they maintained, that had been opened without any solid basis, went on too long and found no proof of collusion.
Egged on by Mr. Trump, Attorney General William P. Barr set out in 2019 to dig into their shared theory that the Russia investigation likely stemmed from a conspiracy by intelligence or law enforcement agencies. To lead the inquiry, Mr. Barr turned to a hard-nosed prosecutor named John H. Durham, and later granted him special counsel status to carry on after Mr. Trump left office.
But after almost four years — far longer than the Russia investigation itself — Mr. Durham’s work is coming to an end without uncovering anything like the deep state plot alleged by Mr. Trump and suspected by Mr. Barr.
Moreover, a monthslong review by The New York Times found that the main thrust of the Durham inquiry was marked by some of the very same flaws — including a strained justification for opening it and its role in fueling partisan conspiracy theories that would never be charged in court — that Trump allies claim characterized the Russia investigation.
Interviews by The Times with more than a dozen current and former officials have revealed an array of previously unreported episodes that show how the Durham inquiry became roiled by internal dissent and ethical disputes as it went unsuccessfully down one path after another even as Mr. Trump and Mr. Barr promoted a misleading narrative of its progress.
** Mr. Barr and Mr. Durham never disclosed that their inquiry expanded in the fall of 2019, based on a tip from Italian officials, to include a criminal investigation into suspicious financial dealings related to Mr. Trump. The specifics of the tip and how they handled the investigation remain unclear, but Mr. Durham brought no charges over it.
** Mr. Durham used Russian intelligence memos — suspected by other U.S. officials of containing disinformation — to gain access to emails of an aide to George Soros, the financier and philanthropist who is a favorite target of the American right and Russian state media. Mr. Durham used grand jury powers to keep pursuing the emails even after a judge twice rejected his request for access to them. The emails yielded no evidence that Mr. Durham has cited in any case he pursued.
** There were deeper internal fractures on the Durham team than previously known. The publicly unexplained resignation in 2020 of his No. 2 and longtime aide, Nora R. Dannehy, was the culmination of a series of disputes between them over prosecutorial ethics. A year later, two more prosecutors strongly objected to plans to indict a lawyer with ties to Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign based on evidence they warned was too flimsy, and one left the team in protest of Mr. Durham’s decision to proceed anyway. (A jury swiftly acquitted the lawyer.)
Now, as Mr. Durham works on a final report, the interviews by The Times provide new details of how he and Mr. Barr sought to recast the scrutiny of the 2016 Trump campaign’s myriad if murky links to Russia as unjustified and itself a crime.
Mr. Barr, Mr. Durham and Ms. Dannehy declined to comment. The current and former officials who discussed the investigation all spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the legal, political and intelligence sensitivities surrounding the topic.
A year into the Durham inquiry, Mr. Barr declared that the attempt “to get to the bottom of what happened” in 2016 “cannot be, and it will not be, a tit-for-tat exercise. We are not going to lower the standards just to achieve a result.”
But Robert Luskin, a criminal defense lawyer and former Justice Department prosecutor who represented two witnesses Mr. Durham interviewed, said that he had a hard time squaring Mr. Durham’s prior reputation as an independent-minded straight shooter with his end-of-career conduct as Mr. Barr’s special counsel.
“This stuff has my head spinning,” Mr. Luskin said. “When did these guys drink the Kool-Aid, and who served it to them?”
[x] Attorney General William P. Barr took office in 2019 with suspicions about the origins of the Russia investigation. Credit Doug Mills/The New York Times
An Odd Couple
A month after Mr. Barr was confirmed as attorney general in February 2019, the special counsel Robert S. Mueller III ended the Russia investigation and turned in his report without charging any Trump associates with engaging in a criminal conspiracy with Moscow over its covert operation to help Mr. Trump win the 2016 election.
Mr. Trump would repeatedly portray the Mueller report as having found “no collusion with Russia.” The reality was more complex. In fact, the report detailed “numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump campaign,” and it established both how Moscow had worked to help Mr. Trump win and how his campaign had expected to benefit from the foreign interference.
That spring, Mr. Barr assigned Mr. Durham to scour the origins of the Russia investigation for wrongdoing, telling Fox News that he wanted to know if “officials abused their power and put their thumb on the scale” in deciding to pursue the investigation. “A lot of the answers have been inadequate, and some of the explanations I’ve gotten don’t hang together,” he added.
While attorneys general overseeing politically sensitive inquiries tend to keep their distance from the investigators, Mr. Durham visited Mr. Barr in his office for at times weekly updates and consultations about his day-to-day work. They also sometimes dined and sipped Scotch together, people familiar with their work said.
In some ways, they were an odd match. Taciturn and media-averse, the goateed Mr. Durham had spent more than three decades as a prosecutor before Mr. Trump appointed him the U.S. attorney for Connecticut. Administrations of both parties had assigned him to investigate potential official wrongdoing, like allegations of corrupt ties between mafia informants and F.B.I. agents, and the C.I.A.’s torture of terrorism detainees and destruction of evidence.
By contrast, the vocal and domineering Mr. Barr has never prosecuted a case and is known for using his law enforcement platform to opine on culture-war issues and politics. He had effectively auditioned to be Mr. Trump’s attorney general by asserting to a New York Times reporter that there was more basis to investigate Mrs. Clinton than Mr. Trump’s “so-called ‘collusion’” with Russia, and by writing a memo suggesting a way to shield Mr. Trump from scrutiny for obstruction of justice.
But the two shared a worldview: They are both Catholic conservatives and Republicans, born two months apart in 1950. As a career federal prosecutor, Mr. Durham already revered the office of the attorney general, people who know him say. And as he was drawn into Mr. Barr’s personal orbit, Mr. Durham came to embrace that particular attorney general’s intense feelings about the Russia investigation.
[x] President Donald J. Trump openly suggested that Mr. Durham should charge his adversaries with crimes. Credit Doug Mills/The New York Times
‘The Thinnest of Suspicions’
At the time Mr. Barr was confirmed, he told aides that he already suspected that intelligence abuses played a role in igniting the Russia investigation — and that unearthing any wrongdoing would be a priority.
In May 2019, soon after giving Mr. Durham his assignment, Mr. Barr summoned the head of the National Security Agency, Paul M. Nakasone, to his office. In front of several aides, Mr. Barr demanded that the N.S.A. cooperate with the Durham inquiry.
Referring to the C.I.A. and British spies, Mr. Barr also said he suspected that the N.S.A.’s “friends” had helped instigate the Russia investigation by targeting the Trump campaign, aides briefed on the meeting said. And repeating a sexual vulgarity, he warned that if the N.S.A. wronged him by not doing all it could to help Mr. Durham, Mr. Barr would do the same to the agency.
Mr. Barr’s insistence about what he had surmised bewildered intelligence officials. But Mr. Durham spent his first months looking for any evidence that the origin of the Russia investigation involved an intelligence operation targeting the Trump campaign.
Mr. Durham’s team spent long hours combing the C.I.A.’s files but found no way to support the allegation. Mr. Barr and Mr. Durham traveled abroad together to press British and Italian officials to reveal everything their agencies had gleaned about the Trump campaign and relayed to the United States, but both allied governments denied they had done any such thing. Top British intelligence officials expressed indignation to their U.S. counterparts about the accusation, three former U.S. officials said.
Mr. Durham and Mr. Barr had not yet given up when a new problem arose: In early December, the Justice Department’s independent inspector general, Michael E. Horowitz, completed his own report on the origins of the Russia investigation.
The inspector general revealed errors and omissions in wiretap applications targeting a former Trump campaign adviser and determined that an F.B.I. lawyer had doctored an email in a way that kept one of those problems from coming to light. (Mr. Durham’s team later negotiated a guilty plea by that lawyer.)
But the broader findings contradicted Mr. Trump’s accusations and the rationale for Mr. Durham’s inquiry. Mr. Horowitz found no evidence that F.B.I. actions were politically motivated. And he concluded that the investigation’s basis — an Australian diplomat’s tip that a Trump campaign adviser had seemed to disclose advance knowledge that Russia would release hacked Democratic emails — had been sufficient to lawfully open it.
[x] Michael Horowitz, the Justice Department’s inspector general, found no evidence that the F.B.I.’s actions in opening the investigation into the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia were politically motivated. Credit Anna Moneymaker/The New York Times
The week before Mr. Horowitz released the report, he and aides came to Mr. Durham’s offices — nondescript suites on two floors of a building in northeast Washington — to go over it.
Mr. Durham lobbied Mr. Horowitz to drop his finding that the diplomat’s tip had been sufficient for the F.B.I. to open its “full” counterintelligence investigation, arguing that it was enough at most for a “preliminary” inquiry, according to officials. But Mr. Horowitz did not change his mind.
That weekend, Mr. Barr and Mr. Durham decided to weigh in publicly to shape the narrative on their terms.
Minutes before the inspector general’s report went online, Mr. Barr issued a statement contradicting Mr. Horowitz’s major finding, declaring that the F.B.I. opened the investigation “on the thinnest of suspicions that, in my view, were insufficient.” He would later tell Fox News that the investigation began “without any basis,” as if the diplomat’s tip never happened.
Mr. Trump also weighed in, telling reporters that the details of the inspector general’s report were “far worse than anything I would have even imagined,” adding: “I look forward to the Durham report, which is coming out in the not-too-distant future. It’s got its own information, which is this information plus, plus, plus.”
And the Justice Department sent reporters a statement from Mr. Durham that clashed with both Justice Department principles about not discussing ongoing investigations and his personal reputation as particularly tight-lipped. He said he disagreed with Mr. Horowitz’s conclusions about the Russia investigation’s origins, citing his own access to more information and “evidence collected to date.”
But as Mr. Durham’s inquiry proceeded, he never presented any evidence contradicting Mr. Horowitz’s factual findings about the basis on which F.B.I. officials opened the investigation.
By summer 2020, it was clear that the hunt for evidence supporting Mr. Barr’s hunch about intelligence abuses had failed. But he waited until after the 2020 election to publicly concede that there had turned out to be no sign of “foreign government activity” and that the C.I.A. had “stayed in its lane” after all.
[x] Mr. Barr later wrote that his relationship with Mr. Trump eroded because his “failure to deliver scalps in time for the election.” Credit Anna Moneymaker for The New York Times
An Awkward Tip
On one of Mr. Barr and Mr. Durham’s trips to Europe, according to people familiar with the matter, Italian officials — while denying any role in setting off the Russia investigation — unexpectedly offered a potentially explosive tip linking Mr. Trump to certain suspected financial crimes.
Mr. Barr and Mr. Durham decided that the tip was too serious and credible to ignore. But rather than assign it to another prosecutor, Mr. Barr had Mr. Durham investigate the matter himself — giving him criminal prosecution powers for the first time — even though the possible wrongdoing by Mr. Trump did not fall squarely within Mr. Durham’s assignment to scrutinize the origins of the Russia inquiry, the people said.
Mr. Durham never filed charges, and it remains unclear what level of an investigation it was, what steps he took, what he learned and whether anyone at the White House ever found out. The extraordinary fact that Mr. Durham opened a criminal investigation that included scrutinizing Mr. Trump has remained secret.
But in October 2019, a garbled echo became public. The Times reported that Mr. Durham’s administrative review of the Russia inquiry had evolved to include a criminal investigation, while saying it was not clear what the suspected crime was. Citing their own sources, many other news outlets confirmed the development.
The news reports, however, were all framed around the erroneous assumption that the criminal investigation must mean Mr. Durham had found evidence of potential crimes by officials involved in the Russia inquiry. Mr. Barr, who weighed in publicly about the Durham inquiry at regular intervals in ways that advanced a pro-Trump narrative, chose in this instance not to clarify what was really happening.
By the spring and summer of 2020, with Mr. Trump’s re-election campaign in full swing, the Durham investigation’s “failure to deliver scalps in time for the election” began to erode Mr. Barr’s relationship with Mr. Trump, Mr. Barr wrote in his memoir.
Mr. Trump was stoking a belief among his supporters that Mr. Durham might charge former President Barack Obama and former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. That proved too much for Mr. Barr, who in May 2020 clarified that “our concern of potential criminality is focused on others.”
Even so, in August, Mr. Trump lashed out in a Fox interview, asserting that Mr. Obama and Mr. Biden, along with top F.B.I. and intelligence officials, had been caught in “the single biggest political crime in the history of our country” and the only thing stopping charges would be if Mr. Barr and Mr. Durham wanted to be “politically correct.”
Against that backdrop, Mr. Barr and Mr. Durham did not shut down their inquiry when the search for intelligence abuses hit a dead end. With the inspector general’s inquiry complete, they turned to a new rationale: a hunt for a basis to accuse the Clinton campaign of conspiring to defraud the government by manufacturing the suspicions that the Trump campaign had colluded with Russia, along with scrutinizing what the F.B.I. and intelligence officials knew about the Clinton campaign’s actions.
Mr. Durham also developed an indirect method to impute political bias to law enforcement officials: comparing the Justice Department’s aggressive response to suspicions of links between Mr. Trump and Russia with its more cautious and skeptical reaction to various Clinton-related suspicions.
He examined an investigation into the Clinton Foundation’s finances in which the F.B.I.’s repeated requests for a subpoena were denied. He also scrutinized how the F.B.I. gave Mrs. Clinton a “defensive briefing” about suspicions that a foreign government might be trying to influence her campaign through donations, but did not inform Mr. Trump about suspicions that Russia might be conspiring with people associated with his campaign.
[x] The Durham inquiry looked for evidence that Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign had conspired to frame Donald J. Trump. Credit Doug mills/The New York Times
Dubious Intelligence
During the Russia investigation, the F.B.I. used claims from what turned out to be a dubious source, the Steele dossier — opposition research indirectly funded by the Clinton campaign — in its botched applications to wiretap a former Trump campaign aide.
The Durham investigation did something with parallels to that incident.
In Mr. Durham’s case, the dubious sources were memos, whose credibility the intelligence community doubted, written by Russian intelligence analysts and discussing purported conversations involving American victims of Russian hacking, according to people familiar with the matter.
The memos were part of a trove provided to the C.I.A. by a Dutch spy agency, which had infiltrated the servers of its Russian counterpart. The memos were said to make demonstrably inconsistent, inaccurate or exaggerated claims, and some U.S. analysts believed Russia may have deliberately seeded them with disinformation.
Mr. Durham wanted to use the memos, which included descriptions of Americans discussing a purported plan by Mrs. Clinton to attack Mr. Trump by linking him to Russia’s hacking and releasing in 2016 of Democratic emails, to pursue the theory that the Clinton campaign conspired to frame Mr. Trump. And in doing so, Mr. Durham sought to use the memos as justification to get access to the private communications of an American citizen.
One purported hacking victim identified in the memos was Leonard Benardo, the executive vice president of the Open Society Foundations, a pro-democracy organization whose Hungarian-born founder, Mr. Soros, has been vilified by the far right.
In 2017, The Washington Post reported that the Russian memos included a claim that Mr. Benardo and a Democratic member of Congress, Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida, had discussed how Loretta E. Lynch, the Obama-era attorney general, had supposedly promised to keep the investigation into Mrs. Clinton’s emails from going too far.
But Mr. Benardo and Ms. Wasserman Schultz said they had never even met, let alone communicated about Mrs. Clinton’s emails.
Mr. Durham set out to prove that the memos described real conversations, according to people familiar with the matter. He sent a prosecutor on his team, Andrew DeFilippis, to ask Judge Beryl A. Howell, the chief judge of the Federal District Court in Washington, for an order allowing them to seize information about Mr. Benardo’s emails.
But Judge Howell decided that the Russian memo was too weak a basis to intrude on Mr. Benardo’s privacy, they said. Mr. Durham then personally appeared before her and urged her to reconsider, but she again ruled against him.
Rather than dropping the idea, Mr. Durham sidestepped Judge Howell’s ruling by invoking grand-jury power to demand documents and testimony directly from Mr. Soros’s foundation and Mr. Benardo about his emails, the people said. (It is unclear whether Mr. Durham served them with a subpoena or instead threatened to do so if they did not cooperate.)
Rather than fighting in court, the foundation and Mr. Benardo quietly complied, according to people familiar with the matter. But for Mr. Durham, the result appears to have been another dead end.
In a statement provided to The Times by Mr. Soros’s foundation, Mr. Benardo reiterated that he never met or corresponded with Ms. Wasserman Schultz, and said that “if such documentation exists, it’s of course made up.”
[x] Nora R. Dannehy in 2009. A longtime aide to Mr. Durham, Ms. Dannehy resigned from his team in 2020 after disputes with him over prosecutorial ethics. Credit Mark Wilson/Getty Images
Internal Strife
As the focus of the Durham investigation shifted, cracks formed inside the team. Mr. Durham’s deputy, Ms. Dannehy, a longtime close colleague, increasingly argued with him in front of other prosecutors and F.B.I. agents about legal ethics.
Ms. Dannehy had independent standing as a respected prosecutor. In 2008, Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey assigned her to investigate whether to charge senior Bush administration officials with crimes related to a scandal over the firing of U.S. attorneys; she decided in 2010 that no charges were warranted.
Now, Ms. Dannehy complained to Mr. Durham about how Mr. Barr kept hinting darkly in public about the direction of their investigation. In April 2020, for example, he suggested to Fox News that officials could be prosecuted, saying that “the evidence shows that we are not dealing with just mistakes or sloppiness. There is something far more troubling here.”
Ms. Dannehy urged Mr. Durham to ask the attorney general to adhere to Justice Department policy and not discuss the investigation publicly. But Mr. Durham proved unwilling to challenge him.
The strains grew when Mr. Durham used grand jury powers to go after Mr. Benardo’s emails. Ms. Dannehy opposed that tactic and told colleagues that Mr. Durham had taken that step without telling her.
By summer 2020, with Election Day approaching, Mr. Barr pressed Mr. Durham to draft a potential interim report centered on the Clinton campaign and F.B.I. gullibility or willful blindness.
On Sept. 10, 2020, Ms. Dannehy discovered that other members of the team had written a draft report that Mr. Durham had not told her about, according to people briefed on their ensuing argument.
Ms. Dannehy erupted, according to people familiar with the matter. She told Mr. Durham that no report should be issued before the investigation was complete and especially not just before an election — and denounced the draft for taking disputed information at face value. She sent colleagues a memo detailing those concerns and resigned.
[x] Cracks formed in Mr. Durham’s team as the scope of his investigation shifted. Credit Manuel Balce Ceneta/Associated Press
Two people close to Mr. Barr said he had pressed for the draft to evaluate what a report on preliminary findings would look like and what evidence would need to be declassified. But they insisted that he intended any release to come during the summer or after the Nov. 3 election — not soon before Election Day.
In any case, in late September 2020, about two weeks after Ms. Dannehy quit, someone leaked to a Fox Business personality that Mr. Durham would not issue any interim report, disappointing Trump supporters hoping for a pre-Election Day bombshell.
Stymied by the decision not to issue an interim Durham report, John Ratcliffe, Mr. Trump’s national intelligence director, tried another way to inject some of the same information into the campaign.
Over the objections of Gina Haspel, the C.I.A. director, Mr. Ratcliffe declassified nearly 1,000 pages of intelligence material before the election for Mr. Durham to use. Notably, in that fight, Mr. Barr sided with Ms. Haspel on one matter that is said to be particularly sensitive and that remained classified, according to two people familiar with the dispute.
Mr. Ratcliffe also disclosed in a letter to a senator that “Russian intelligence analysis” claimed that on July 26, 2016, Mrs. Clinton had approved a campaign plan to stir up a scandal tying Mr. Trump to Russia.
The letter acknowledged that officials did “not know the accuracy of this allegation or the extent to which the Russian intelligence analysis may reflect exaggeration or fabrication.” But it did not mention that there were many reasons that suspicions about the Trump campaign were arising in that period — like the diplomat’s tip, Mr. Trump’s flattery of President Vladimir V. Putin, his hiring of advisers with links to Russia, his financial ties to Russia and his call for Russia to hack Mrs. Clinton.
The disclosure infuriated Dutch intelligence officials, who had provided the memos under strictest confidence.
[x] Mr. Durham accused Michael Sussmann of lying in a meeting with an F.B.I. official. He was acquitted. Credit Samuel Corum for The New York Times
‘Fanning the Flames’
Late in the summer of 2021, Mr. Durham prepared to indict Michael Sussmann, a cybersecurity lawyer who had represented Democrats in their dealings with the F.B.I. about Russia’s hacking of their emails. Two prosecutors on Mr. Durham’s team — Anthony Scarpelli and Neeraj N. Patel — objected, according to people familiar with the matter.
Five years earlier, Mr. Sussmann had relayed a tip to the bureau about odd internet data that a group of data scientists contended could reflect hidden communications between the Trump Organization and Alfa Bank of Russia. The F.B.I., which by then had already launched its Russia investigation, briefly looked at the allegation but dismissed it.
Mr. Durham accused Mr. Sussmann of lying to an F.B.I. official by saying he was not conveying the tip for a client; the prosecutor maintained Mr. Sussmann was there in part for the Clinton campaign.
Mr. Scarpelli and Mr. Patel argued to Mr. Durham that the evidence was too thin to charge Mr. Sussmann and that such a case would not normally be prosecuted, people familiar with the matter said. Given the intense scrutiny it would receive, they also warned that an acquittal would undermine public faith in their investigation and federal law enforcement.
When Mr. Durham did not change course, Mr. Scarpelli quit in protest, people familiar with the matter said. Mr. Patel left soon after to take a different job. Both declined to comment.
The charge against Mr. Sussmann was narrow, but the Durham team used it to make public large amounts of information insinuating what Mr. Durham never charged: that Clinton campaign associates conspired to gin up an F.B.I. investigation into Mr. Trump based on a knowingly false allegation.
Trial testimony, however, showed that while Mrs. Clinton and her campaign manager hoped Mr. Sussmann would persuade reporters to write articles about Alfa Bank, they did not want him to take the information to the F.B.I. And prosecutors presented no evidence that he or campaign officials had believed the data scientists’ complex theory was false.
After Mr. Sussmann’s acquittal, Mr. Barr, by then out of office for more than a year, suggested that using the courts to advance a politically charged narrative was a goal in itself. Mr. Durham “accomplished something far more important” than a conviction, Mr. Barr told Fox News, asserting that the case had “crystallized the central role played by the Hillary campaign in launching as a dirty trick the whole Russiagate collusion narrative and fanning the flames of it.”
And he predicted that a subsequent trial, concerning a Russia analyst who was a researcher for the Steele dossier, would also “get the story out” and “further amplify these themes and the role the F.B.I. leadership played in this, which is increasingly looking fishy and inexplicable.”
[x] Mr. Durham’s prosecution of Igor Danchenko, a Russia analyst who was a researcher for the Steele dossier, ended in acquittal. Credit Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
That case involved Igor Danchenko, who had told the F.B.I. that the dossier exaggerated the credibility of gossip and speculation. Mr. Durham charged him with lying about two sources. He was acquitted, too.
The two failed cases are likely to be Mr. Durham’s last courtroom acts as a prosecutor. Bringing demonstrably weak cases stood in contrast to how he once talked about his prosecutorial philosophy.
James Farmer, a retired prosecutor who worked with Mr. Durham on several major investigations, recalled him as a neutral actor who said that if there were nothing to charge, they would not strain to prosecute. “That’s what I heard, time and again,” Mr. Farmer said.
Delivering the closing arguments in the Danchenko trial, Mr. Durham defended his investigation to the jury, denying that his appointment by Mr. Barr had been tainted by politics.
He asserted that Mr. Mueller had concluded “there’s no evidence of collusion here or conspiracy” — a formulation that echoed Mr. Trump’s distortion of the Russia investigation’s complex findings — and added: “Is it the wrong question to ask, well, then how did this get started? Respectfully, that’s not the case.”
The judge interrupted him: “You should finish up, Mr. Durham.”
William K. Rashbaum and Julian E. Barnes contributed reporting.
The ugly truth EXPOSED about the Durham/Barr investigation of those who investigated Trump-Russia by Glenn Kirschner Jan 26, 2023 #TeamJustice
The New York Times just published a remarkable deep-dive piece ,pulling back the curtain on the John Durham investigation of the origins of the Trump-Russia investigation, exposing the ugliness and lack of ethics that apparently ran rampant through the Durham investigation.
This video surveys some of the most troubling aspect of the Durham probe revealed in The New York Times reporting.
Transcript
0:00 so friends remember the John Durham 0:02 investigation 0:04 that's the one where Bill Barr appointed 0:07 this guy John Durham as a special 0:09 counsel to investigate the investigators 0:12 who investigated Donald Trump 0:16 well the New York Times just pulled back 0:18 the curtain on the Durham investigation 0:22 and what we see behind that curtain 0:25 is ugly 0:28 let's talk about that 0:30 because Justice matters 0:40 [Music] 0:42 thank you 0:47 hey all Glenn kirschner here 0:49 so friends there's some great reporting 0:51 out by the New York Times specifically 0:54 by investigative journalists Katie 0:56 Benner Adam Goldman and Charlie Savage 0:58 about the John Durham investigation 1:03 you recall the one 1:04 Donald Trump was really angry about the 1:08 Bob Mueller investigation into the 1:11 coordination between the Trump campaign 1:13 and the Russians an investigation that 1:16 revealed more than 140 contacts between 1:21 Trump campaign officials and Russians an 1:25 investigation that meticulously detailed 1:28 and documented multiple counts of 1:30 obstruction of justice by Donald Trump 1:33 and Donald Trump didn't like it one bit 1:37 so what did he do he convinced his then 1:41 attorney general Bill Barr 1:43 to appoint a special counsel to 1:47 investigate the investigators that had 1:50 investigated him and documented all that 1:53 dirt 1:54 specifically Bill Barr's mandate was to 1:57 try to undermine the origins of the 2:01 trump-russia investigation 2:04 well now the New York Times has pulled 2:07 the curtain back on the John Durham 2:10 investigation of the investigators and 2:14 boy it's ugly behind that curtain 2:17 here is some of that new reporting by 2:21 the New York Times 2:22 headline how Barr's quest to find flaws 2:26 in the Russia inquiry unraveled 2:30 the review by John Durham at one point 2:32 veered into a criminal investigation 2:35 related to Donald Trump himself 2:38 even as it failed to find wrongdoing in 2:42 the origins of the Russia inquiry 2:45 and that article begins 2:47 it became a regular Litany of grievances 2:50 from president Donald Trump and his 2:52 supporters 2:54 the investigation into his 2016 2:56 campaign's ties to Russia was a Witch 3:00 Hunt they maintained that had been 3:02 opened without any solid basis went on 3:05 too long and found no proof of collusion 3:09 egged on by Mr Trump Attorney General 3:12 William Barr set out in 2019 to dig into 3:16 their shared theory that the Russia 3:19 investigation likely stemmed from a 3:22 conspiracy by intelligence or law 3:25 enforcement agencies 3:27 to lead the inquiry Mr Barr turned to a 3:30 hard-nosed prosecutor named John Durham 3:32 and later granted Him special counsel 3:35 status to carry on after Mr Trump left 3:39 office 3:40 but after almost four years far longer 3:44 than the Russia investigation itself Mr 3:47 Durham's work is coming to an end 3:49 without uncovering anything like the 3:52 Deep State plot alleged by Mr Trump and 3:56 suspected by Mr Barr 3:59 Mr Trump would repeatedly portray the 4:02 Mueller report as having found no 4:04 collusion with Russia 4:06 the reality was more complex in fact the 4:10 report detailed numerous links between 4:13 the Russian government and the Trump 4:16 campaign indeed I think it documented 4:19 more than 140 contacts between the Trump 4:23 campaign and Russians 4:26 and it established both how Moscow had 4:29 helped to work Mr Trump win and how his 4:32 campaign had expected the benefit from 4:35 the foreign interference 4:37 plus as I mentioned the Mueller report 4:40 documented multiple instances where 4:43 Donald Trump obstructed Justice 4:46 now I'm not going to go through the 4:48 whole parade of horribles cataloged in 4:51 the New York Times article it's a 4:53 lengthy piece and I urge you to read it 4:56 for yourself 4:58 but there are a few things that jump out 5:00 like 5:01 several prosecutors senior prosecutors 5:05 on on John Durham's team resigned quit 5:09 left the investigation 5:12 because of concerns they had about the 5:15 ethics of the investigation that was 5:17 being conducted by Durham one of the 5:19 prosecutors who quit was a long time 5:22 colleague of mine at the DC U.S 5:25 attorney's Office his name is Anthony 5:27 scarpelli and I will take Mr scarpelli's 5:30 ethics to the bank 5:32 every day of the week and he quit rather 5:35 than follow what John Durham wanted to 5:39 do 5:40 the article also talked about a former 5:42 Federal prosecutor who left the 5:44 Department of Justice and became a 5:46 defense attorney and he was representing 5:48 some of the Witnesses in the Durham 5:51 probe and he said what he saw of the 5:54 conduct of John Durham quote made his 5:57 head spin 5:59 then the article talked about how the 6:02 the Department of Justice Inspector 6:04 General had conducted a full 6:07 investigation into the origins of the 6:11 Trump Russia investigation and found it 6:13 was properly opened 6:16 so what does Bill Barr do he tries to 6:19 undermine 6:20 the results the conclusion of the 6:24 Department of Justice inspector 6:26 General's investigation why because it 6:28 didn't comport with where he wanted 6:31 things to go and more importantly where 6:33 Donald Trump wanted things to go I'm not 6:36 going to continue to catalog the entire 6:38 parade of horribles laid out in the New 6:40 York Times article but friends I want to 6:43 focus on one horrible in particular 6:46 and in the New York Times piece you can 6:49 find it under the heading of an awkward 6:52 tip let me set it up Bill Barr and John 6:54 Durham were globetrotting 6:57 asking foreign officials if you know 7:00 they had any dirt about the origins of 7:04 the trump-russia investigation you know 7:07 that would comport with the narrative 7:10 they were looking for 7:12 and here is what the article relates in 7:15 the section titled an awkward tip 7:18 on one of Mr Barr and Mr Durham's trips 7:21 to Europe according to people familiar 7:23 with the matter Italian officials while 7:27 denying any role in setting off the 7:29 Russia investigation 7:31 unexpectedly offered a potentially 7:34 explosive tip linking Mr Trump to 7:39 certain suspected Financial crimes 7:42 Mr Barr and Mr Durham decided that the 7:45 tip was too serious and credible to 7:48 ignore but rather than assign it to 7:51 another prosecutor which is what should 7:53 have been done 7:55 Mr Barr had Mr Durham investigate the 7:58 matter himself 8:00 giving him criminal prosecution powers 8:03 for the first time even though the 8:06 possible wrongdoing by Mr Trump did not 8:10 fall squarely within Mr Durham's 8:12 assignment to scrutinize the origins of 8:15 the Russia inquiry the people said Mr 8:19 Durham after investigating something he 8:22 should not have been investigating 8:24 Mr Durham never filed charges 8:28 and it remains unclear what level of an 8:31 investigation it was what steps he took 8:34 what he learned and whether anyone at 8:37 the White House ever found out 8:40 the extraordinary fact that Mr Durham 8:42 opened a criminal investigation that 8:45 included scrutinizing Mr Trump has 8:49 remained secret until it was Unearthed 8:53 by those investigative reporters let me 8:57 name them again Katie Benner Adam 8:59 Goldman and Charlie Savage of the New 9:02 York Times but let me just recap that 9:04 friends 9:07 so Durham had a mandate to investigate 9:13 the origins of the Trump Russia 9:16 investigation that was his jurisdiction 9:18 that was his authority 9:21 and and bar and Durham together went 9:23 globetrotting looking for the kind of 9:25 evidence and information that would 9:28 support their narrative you know that 9:30 would give Mr Trump what he wanted 9:33 evidence that the trump-russia 9:35 investigation never should have been 9:37 opened in the first place there was no 9:40 such evidence because it was properly 9:43 opened and it bore fruit 9:47 while they were globetrotting meeting 9:50 with Italian government officials those 9:53 government officials said I can't help 9:55 you on the origins of the Trump Russia 9:58 investigation but we do have evidence of 10:01 financial Crimes by Donald Trump 10:04 at that point what should have happened 10:08 was a prosecutor not Mr Durham who had a 10:13 narrow jurisdictional mandate about what 10:16 he was supposed to be investigating 10:18 another doj prosecutor or team should 10:21 have been assigned to follow up on the 10:24 information the awkward tip 10:27 presented by the Italian government 10:29 officials that's not what Bill Barr did 10:32 no he said the John Durham uh why don't 10:35 you just look into this one yourself 10:38 and it was serious they said they even 10:40 opened a criminal investigation into 10:42 this allegation of financial Crimes by 10:44 Donald Trump 10:46 and then it got buried 10:51 we know nothing about it 10:54 we don't know whether charges should 10:56 have been brought but were killed by 10:59 some combination of Durham and Bill Barr 11:03 we have no idea 11:05 what happened we do know 11:08 that wasn't John Durham's to investigate 11:10 in the first place given his 11:14 jurisdictional mandate what he was 11:15 supposed to be looking at the whole 11:18 thing stinks 11:21 to use a legal term friends 11:24 so I suspect this is just one of the 11:27 first big old shoes to drop 11:30 about what was going on in this Durham 11:32 investigation let me finish with this 11:35 though friends what we do know 11:38 is that when this whole attempt to 11:42 undermine the Trump Russia investigation 11:45 failed 11:47 what did Durham do well then he kind of 11:49 shifted Focus over to the Hillary 11:52 Clinton campaign yeah yeah maybe they 11:55 were the ones who were you know putting 11:58 disinformation in the mix about Donald 12:00 Trump maybe they were the ones that we 12:03 should investigate and remember when 12:06 Durham went down that second path 12:09 he actually brought charges against not 12:12 one but two people and he took those 12:14 people to trial and he failed miserably 12:17 in fact some of the prosecutors walked 12:20 off the investigation because they 12:22 didn't even believe those cases should 12:25 be brought to trial 12:27 you know to say the Durham debacle was 12:30 an embarrassment a fiasco from start to 12:33 finish as an understatement it looks 12:35 like it was worse than a debacle worse 12:37 than a fiasco 12:40 you know friends when I was a federal 12:42 prosecutor if somebody had assigned me 12:45 an investigation and I put a team 12:48 together and I investigated that case 12:50 that was assigned to me as well as 12:53 exhaustively as aggressively as 12:56 honorably as ethically as I possibly 13:00 could and I came to a conclusion 13:03 and after I came to that conclusion 13:06 I had somebody from the Trump 13:08 Administration say you know what Glenn 13:10 now we're going to investigate you for 13:15 conducting that investigation 13:18 make no mistake about it that is what 13:20 Donald Trump and Bill Barr and John 13:23 Durham did 13:24 to say that's a recipe for governmental 13:26 and investigative disaster 13:30 is a gross understatement 13:33 you know it feels like 13:36 the whole concept of Justice was nowhere 13:39 near what Trump and Barr and Durham did 13:43 and justice 13:46 matters 13:48 and friends as always please stay safe 13:50 please stay tuned and I look forward to 13:52 talking with you again soon
Lawmakers file to expel Rep. George Santos from Congress by CBS New York Feb 9, 2023
Rep. Ritchie Torres was among the lawmakers who have filed for Rep. George Santos to expelled from Congress, citing his lies.
Transcript
0:00 We are following a breaking story in 0:01 Washington D.C lawmakers have filed for 0:03 the expulsion of embattled Congressman 0:06 George Santos let's take a listen to 0:08 what they had to say earlier this 0:09 afternoon 0:10 well I think you all for uh for joining 0:12 us today uh just uh just a few minutes 0:15 ago we filed uh in the house floor an 0:18 expulsion of George Santos of 0:21 Congressman Santos it's really important 0:23 for us to recognize that George Santos 0:25 is a fraud 0:27 a liar he has lied about the most 0:29 horrific shooting in the lgbtq modern 0:32 history the Pulse Nightclub shooting 0:34 he's lied about 9 11. he's lied about 0:36 the Holocaust he's lied about his 0:38 education he's lied about his career and 0:41 as we all know just recently he's been 0:43 now given classified access to important 0:45 information and classified information 0:47 that he should not have there's been 0:49 numerous Republicans that have called 0:51 for his uh Expo expulsion or a 0:53 resignation from Congress I want to also 0:56 note that today myself 0:59 and the two other freshman members that 1:01 are lgbtq uh congresswoman Becca ballen 1:05 uh Congressman Eric Sorensen have been 1:07 talking about this explosion resolution 1:09 uh to get George Santos out of Congress 1:12 in addition to that uh two other members 1:14 have been leading efforts uh to really 1:17 take on uh George Santos and of course 1:19 that has been Congressman Dan Goldman 1:21 who's also a freshman and Congressman 1:22 Richie Torres and they have been leading 1:24 efforts as well with the house Ethics 1:26 Committee and so those have been things 1:27 been really really important for us 1:28 particularly as freshmen in their 1:30 leadership and so again we have filed an 1:33 official expulsion resolution What The 1:35 Hell House Ethics Committee uh to get 1:37 rid of George Santos it is time for him 1:39 to go we give him plenty of time to 1:41 resign and he has chosen not to do so so 1:43 I want to first turn this over to 1:45 Congressman Becca ballant who's going to 1:46 say a few words and then we're gonna 1:47 have a few folks I'll also engage thank 1:49 you Robert really 1:51 happy to be out here today to say 1:54 that so many of us ran on a platform of 1:58 Shoring up the Democracy of making it 2:01 possible for Americans to believe in 2:05 government again and right now many of 2:07 you know we're at an all-time low 2:09 confidence in government 60 years ago 75 2:12 percent of Americans polled said that 2:14 they had trust that the government would 2:16 most of the time 2:18 take care of them do right by them right 2:21 now only two in ten Americans will say 2:23 that having George Santos in congress 2:26 with us is not at all helping us to 2:29 rebuild trust in government and as 2:31 Robert said as as a proud member of the 2:34 LGBT community 2:36 excuse me the lgbtq community 2:38 outraged that he lied about the Pulse 2:41 Nightclub shooting as the granddaughter 2:43 of someone killed in the Holocaust 2:45 outraged that he used that to get 2:48 elected and um you know I didn't ever 2:50 thought I'd say this but I stand with 2:52 Mitt Romney he has to go 2:54 and Congressman Eric Sorensen 2:57 I stand here today to speak on behalf of 3:00 those who are trustworthy in our 3:02 government 3:03 I was a kid growing up different in 3:07 Rockford Illinois not thinking that 3:09 anyone was going to allow me growing up 3:11 gay to be the meteorologist on my 3:13 television in my hometown not only did I 3:16 get to do that but over 20 years I 3:19 earned the trust of the people that have 3:22 sent me here to represent them I'm the 3:25 very first lgbtq member of Congress from 3:27 the state of Illinois and it happened 3:30 outside of Chicago 3:32 but incredibly I'm only here because the 3:36 people have learned that they can trust 3:38 me I'm not saying I got the weather 3:40 right when I was on television every day 3:43 but the people could trust me when they 3:45 had to make life-saving decisions to 3:47 take their families to the basement 3:48 because the tornado was real 3:50 I stand here with other members of 3:53 Congress who are trustworthy we're here 3:56 to serve the constituents in our 3:58 district we're here to to serve the 4:01 people of the United States of America 4:03 and we need to make sure that everyone 4:06 in this body in this incredible body of 4:08 the House of Representatives does the 4:10 same and clearly there's one of us that 4:13 does not I think the congressman 4:14 Congressman Dan Goldman thank you uh 4:17 Congressman Garcia 4:18 um and thank you for for filing this 4:20 motion uh this resolution rather it is a 4:23 shame that it has come to this uh it is 4:26 a shame that the Speaker of the House 4:29 the Republican conference chairwoman 4:31 Elise stefanik who was George Santos's 4:34 biggest supporter during his campaign 4:37 and helped him rehire staff after many 4:40 resigned because of his lies it is a 4:43 shame that they did not ask George 4:46 Santos to resign from Congress and 4:48 instead thought that they could stem the 4:51 wave of opposition based on making him 4:54 resign from his committees he should 4:56 have resigned he should not be a member 4:59 of Congress and we are left with no 5:02 choice but to put a resolution on the 5:05 house floor to expel him from Congress 5:08 he defrauded his voters he defrauded the 5:11 state of New York he had as used in the 5:16 most Shameless fashion his uh the the 5:21 true uh monuments or I should say the 5:24 true travesties of so many different 5:26 communities including the LGBT community 5:29 and the Pulse Nightclub including the 5:32 Jewish Community by claiming falsely 5:34 that he is Jewish in a district that is 5:37 more than 20 percent Jewish and claiming 5:40 that his ancestors escaped the Holocaust 5:42 this is not just a simple liar this is a 5:45 con man who does not belong in Congress 5:48 and he needs to go so we will put this 5:51 resolution on the floor and we will have 5:54 an up or down vote on whether or not 5:56 George Santos a Serial fraudster belongs 6:00 as a member of Congress thank you thank 6:03 you now looking through Congressman 6:04 Richard Torres 6:06 you know yesterday George Santos said 6:08 that he refuses 6:10 to go to the back of the room or the 6:12 back of the bus and 6:13 you know it's plausible that Mr Santos 6:15 is so delusional that he's mistaking 6:16 himself for Rosa Parks but he is not a 6:19 victim here we're the victim of his 6:21 fraudulent Behavior 6:23 you know Senator Mitt Romney spoke for 6:25 the majority of Americans he spoke for 6:28 both Democrats and Republicans when he 6:30 referred to George Santos as a sick man 6:33 there was something sick about a man who 6:36 lies about his mother dying on 9 11 who 6:39 lies about his employees dying in the 6:41 pulse mass shooting who lies about his 6:43 ancestors surviving the Holocaust who 6:45 lies about struggling with brain cancer 6:48 there's something sick about a man who 6:50 not only lies pathologically but 6:53 violates almost every law imaginable 6:55 house ethics campaign Finance law 6:57 Securities Law and so we're here to send 7:00 a clear message that if Kevin McCarthy 7:02 refuses to hold George Santos 7:04 accountable we will 7:06 we will hold George Santos accountable 7:08 for conduct Unbecoming of a congressman 7:11 we are going to expel George Santos 7:13 because he is a deep rot at the very 7:16 core of the United States Congress in a 7:19 country of 330 million people 7:22 only 535 have the high honor of serving 7:26 in the United States Congress 7:27 one of those people should not be George 7:29 Santos period 7:31 absolutely and just uh just to conclude 7:33 we want to just also note 7:35 um that uh Congressman Torres 7:36 congresswoman ballot Congressman 7:38 Sorensen myself we're all lgbtq and 7:41 George Santos of course uh is is gay uh 7:45 we think and uh he had he has uh 7:48 disgraced our community and what we hear 7:51 within our community is a huge disgust 7:54 and shame for his behavior and his lies 7:57 within our own community so it's 7:59 important for us as gay people as queer 8:01 people minus 10 gold of course and an 8:04 ally and an ally which is which uh with 8:06 Mr Goldman uh to uh to take on um really 8:09 this liar and this fraud and so this has 8:12 already been filed today or we look 8:14 forward to working we've been talking of 8:15 course to uh House Republicans we 8:17 already know many of those who have 8:19 already 8:20 um asked for his resignation and so 8:22 we're going to get this onto the floor 8:23 and we're going to expel George Santo so 8:25 thank you very much are there any quick 8:26 questions 8:27 for an indictment or for ethics to bring 8:29 charges well I think it's pretty clear 8:31 obviously that he's violated campaign 8:33 Finance rules he's violated ethics rules 8:35 I mean he's practically admitted to them 8:38 and he is lying about everything that we 8:40 know him as a person and so it's it's uh 8:42 it's pretty obviously the time to expel 8:43 himself he had plenty of time to resign 8:45 and he's chosen not to 8:48 know I would just add one thing the law 8:51 doesn't actually preclude him from lying 8:55 about his education his employment 8:58 history his religion any of the other 9:01 his uh his qualifications for the job 9:04 the law is very focused on financial 9:09 disclosures and campaign finances and he 9:11 should be held accountable because even 9:14 his own statements have revealed that 9:17 his financial disclosures are false but 9:20 we cannot wait for him to be indicted or 9:24 for an Ethics investigation because 9:26 those things will not address the things 9:29 that he has already admitted to lying 9:31 about he is a Serial liar who does not 9:34 have the trust of his constituents 78 9:37 percent of whom have said that he should 9:39 not be in Congress and should resign and 9:41 he does not have any credibility to walk 9:44 these Halls of Congress he does not 9:46 belong here and his own constituents by 9:48 the way and uh Congressman Goldman and 9:49 Carson Torres know this they've called 9:51 for his expulsion and resignation and so 9:52 we've heard that from his constituents 10:00 obviously almost I think 10 Republicans 10:01 have called for a resignation and so 10:03 that's something that we're all going to 10:03 be working on so the majority of House 10:05 Republicans in New York 10:07 have called for George Santos to resign 10:09 and Mr Goldman and I just had a meeting 10:11 with the governor of the New York 10:12 delegation George Santos was not invited 10:14 like his colleagues want nothing to do 10:16 with him his constituents want nothing 10:17 to do with them he's persona non grata 10:19 to every single Republican except the 10:21 leadership that's protecting him that 10:22 was a bipartisan delegation so New York 10:25 Congress members and bottom line he was 10:28 elected under false pretenses 10:30 we don't need to wait for an indictment 10:33 that's right any other questions yeah 10:34 are you just 10:36 are interested this might set in the 10:37 future if Republicans decide that a 10:39 democrat's a liar yeah this is an 10:42 unprecedented person I mean I mean 10:43 there's nothing that we know about him 10:45 that we know is truthful he's lied 10:47 literally about his entire background 10:48 and so I think this is an unprecedented 10:49 moment uh and the house should come 10:51 together to expel we also do want to set 10:53 a precedent for excluding a future 10:54 George Santos that's the kind of 10:56 precedent we want to set absolutely I 10:57 can guarantee that all five of us would 11:00 be standing here we wouldn't need to be 11:02 standing here if there was a Democrat 11:04 who lied up and down like George Santos 11:07 did we as Democrats would never accept 11:10 this within our own party and it's time 11:12 for the Republican party to do the right 11:14 thing absolutely any final questions 11:17 I I have not personally spoken directly 11:20 to him I've passed him in in the halls 11:22 but I I we have not jacked out I look 11:23 forward to talking to him I told him 11:24 about space and he should be expelled 11:27 uh he's attacked me on Twitter yeah 11:30 um I think what did he say stop 11:31 obsessing about me I'm married uh you 11:34 know 11:35 I'm I'm I will admit that I'm fully 11:37 obsessed with driving Mr Santos out of 11:39 Congress because he has no business 11:40 being here 11:49 yes absolutely so we've been actually uh 11:52 talking to the leader he's aware of 11:54 what's happening today 11:55 thinking it's 70 Republicans founded 11:57 this stuff I I think we should I think 11:59 we're going to work to get several 12:00 Republicans we're gonna we're gonna work 12:01 to expel them I think that's the goal 12:02 regardless of where the Republicans the 12:04 American people have a right to know 12:05 where each and every member of Congress 12:08 stands with respect to George Santos 12:09 right it's one thing to condemn him 12:11 behind the scenes it's something else to 12:13 force a vote and see where everyone 12:15 stands I think we need transparency 12:17 absolutely we need to restore the full 12:19 faith and trust of the government that 12:23 is representing the people 12:28 we're going to demand a vote and I think 12:30 at the end of the day we want to know 12:31 also where Kevin McCarthy stands I mean 12:33 clearly he's giving him actions to 12:34 classified briefings unacceptable so 12:36 it's time to expel George Santos I think 12:38 one last thing that related to Kevin 12:41 McCarthy and Elise stefanik they have 12:44 not asked him to resign now some people 12:46 have said that's because they have such 12:48 a narrow majority but there's been 12:51 extensive reporting that they both were 12:53 aware of George Santos's lies during the 12:55 campaign and the question then is are 12:57 they not asking him to resign because 13:00 they are worried about what their 13:01 involvement was and that that might come 13:03 out so that's an open question that has 13:06 yet to be answered they have not 13:07 addressed that 13:08 and Kevin McCarthy forced him out of his 13:10 committee we're just saying why stop 13:11 there we should force him out of 13:13 Congress absolutely
Trump lawyers hand over laptop, more classified documents to feds by Victor Nava New York Post February 10, 2023 9:55pm
Former President Donald Trump’s legal team has given federal prosecutors more documents with classified markings and an aide’s laptop in recent months, according to a report.
The handovers happened in December of last year and in January, according to CNN. Also turned over to investigators was an empty folder marked “Classified Evening Briefing,” the news outlet reported.
Lawyers for the 76-year-old former commander-in-chief reportedly discovered the documents during a search of boxes at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate in December and turned them over to the Justice Department.
The laptop, which belongs to an aide employed by Save America PAC, reportedly contained copies of the same documents found by Trump’s lawyers in December, and it was given to investigators in January, along with a thumb drive.
In November, Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed veteran prosecutor Jack Smith to lead two investigations into the former president, including one related to Trump’s mishandling of presidential documents and classified records.
FBI agents seized hundreds of pages of classified documents and other presidential records during a raid of Trump’s Palm Beach, Fla., residence and private club last August.
President Biden and former Vice President Mike Pence have also faced classified document scandals since Trump’s issues surfaced.
Last month, it was uncovered that lawyers for the 80-year-old president discovered several classified documents at the Penn Biden Center think tank in Washington, DC, in November 2022. More classified material was later discovered at Biden’s Wilmington, Del., home, which was searched by the FBI in January.
On Friday, FBI agents searched Pence’s Indiana home for five hours, removing one document with classified markings more than three weeks after the former vice president turned over two boxes of records marked as sensitive to the bureau.
Trump campaign paid researchers to prove 2020 fraud but kept findings secret: An outside firm’s work was never released publicly after researchers uncovered no evidence that the election had been rigged for Joe Biden by Josh Dawsey The Washington Post February 11, 2023 at 2:29 p.m. EST
NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT
YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.
Former president Donald Trump’s 2020 campaign commissioned an outside research firm in a bid to prove electoral-fraud claims but never released the findings because the firm disputed many of his theories and could not offer any proof that he was the rightful winner of the election, according to four people familiar with the matter.
The campaign paid researchers from Berkeley Research Group, the people said, to study 2020 election results in six states, looking for fraud and irregularities to highlight in public and in the courts. Among the areas examined were voter machine malfunctions, instances of dead people voting and any evidence that could help Trump show he won, the people said. None of the findings were presented to the public or in court.
About a dozen people at the firm worked on the report, including econometricians, who use statistics to model and predict outcomes, the people said. The work was carried out in the final weeks of 2020, before the Jan. 6 riot of Trump supporters at the U.S. Capitol.
Trump continues to falsely assert that the 2020 election was stolen despite abundant evidence to the contrary, much of which had been provided to him or was publicly available before the Capitol assault. The Trump campaign’s commissioning of its own report to study the then-president’s fraud claims has not been previously reported.
“They looked at everything: change of addresses, illegal immigrants, ballot harvesting, people voting twice, machines being tampered with, ballots that were sent to vacant addresses that were returned and voted,” said a person familiar with the work who, like others, spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe private research and meetings. “Literally anything you could think of. Voter turnout anomalies, date of birth anomalies, whether dead people voted. If there was anything under the sun that could be thought of, they looked at it.”
The findings were not what the Trump campaign had been hoping for, according to the four people. While the researchers believed there were voting anomalies and unusual data patterns in a few states, along with some instances in which laws may have been skirted, they did not believe the anomalies were significant enough to make a difference in who won the election.
The research also contradicted some of Trump’s more conspiratorial theories, such as his baseless allegations about rigged voting machines and large numbers of dead people voting.
A person familiar with the findings said there were at least a dozen hypotheses that Trump’s team wanted tested.
“None of these were significant enough,” this person said. “Just like any election, there are always errors, omissions and irregularities. It was nowhere close enough to what they wanted to prove, and it actually went in both directions.”
Senior officials from Berkeley Research Group briefed Trump, then-chief of staff Mark Meadows and others on the findings in a December 2020 conference call, people familiar with the matter said. Meadows showed skepticism of the findings and continued to maintain that Trump won. Trump also continued to say he won the election. The call grew contentious, people with knowledge of the meeting said.
The research group’s officials maintained privately that they did not come into the research with any predetermined conclusions and simply wanted to examine the data provided by the Trump campaign in the battleground states.
Through a spokesman, Meadows declined to comment.
“President Trump received a record-breaking 74 million votes, the most of any sitting president in the history of the country. Anyone who takes a look at Joe Biden glitching through his presidency knows who really won the election,” Trump spokesman Steven Cheung said. Biden won 81 million votes and won the electoral college, 306 to 232.
Cheung did not answer a question about Trump’s reaction to the researchers’ findings.
A spokesperson for Berkeley Research Group said, “Our experts provide independent and objective factual analysis and as a matter of firm policy, we do not comment on client engagements or on privileged and confidential matters.”
The findings from Berkeley were among the many streams of information after the election that showed Trump he lost. According to testimony presented to the Jan. 6 committee, Trump was repeatedly told by advisers that he did not win the election but continued to cast about for others who would entertain his theories and say that he had won. Dozens of judges — including many Trump appointees — rejected his campaign’s attempts to challenge election results in court.
Trump has continued to spread false claims that he won the election, frustrating some of his advisers who wish he would move to a forward-looking message as part of his 2024 bid to reclaim the presidency.
The Berkeley research came about, according to people familiar with the matter, after Trump as well as some of his advisers became convinced the election was stolen. Others on his team wanted a sober analysis of what they could say and prove, some of the people said. Some of Trump’s advisers even hoped that a definitive report from Berkeley Research Group might tamp down some of the false claims.
“The goal was to find out what actually happened,” one of these people said. “If you remember in that time, there were all sorts of crazy things being said. We wanted to sort it out.”
The Berkeley research was done through a subsidiary company called East Bay Dispute and Advisory. Federal Election Commission filings show the Trump campaign paid East Bay Dispute and Advisory more than $600,000 in the final weeks of 2020. A person familiar with the matter said there were also other researchers commissioned to help prove electoral fraud from outside Berkeley Research Group. The payments were described as consulting fees.
The states studied by the analysts over a period of several weeks included Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Arizona and Nevada, according to people familiar with the matter. All but Nevada had been won by Trump in 2016 but flipped to the Democratic nominee four years later.
The Washington Post has not reviewed a copy of the report, but three people familiar with its contents described the findings.
Those who worked on the report included Janet Thornton, who has about 40 years of experience in accounting and investigations, according to Berkeley Research Group’s website. Others included Craig Freeman and John Auerbach, the people said. Their professional biographies describe decades of experience in accounting, investigating corporate fraud and handling other complicated inquiries.
Auerbach, who is now with a different firm, declined to comment. Freeman, who left Berkeley as well, and Thornton did not respond to requests for comment.
Josh Dawsey is a political enterprise and investigations reporter for The Washington Post. He joined the paper in 2017 and previously covered the White House. Before that, he covered the White House for Politico, and New York City Hall and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie for the Wall Street Journal.
Mike Pence will fight a grand jury subpoena to testify about Trump's election crimes, & he will lose by Glenn Kirschner Feb 14, 2023 #TeamJustice
Mike Pence was happy to reveal Donald Trump's election crimes for profit in his book, titled, "So Help Me God." But now, Pence has announced that he will not comply with a grand jury subpoena directing him to testify about Trump's crimes. In support of his efforts to avoid having to testify before the grand jury, Pence is claiming an absurd privilege, as is discuses in this video.
But in a sweet bit of irony, after Pence loses his court battle and a judge orders him to testify, Pence's book title will come in hand, as the last words that will be administered to him when he is sworn in before the grand jury will be, "so help me God."
Transcript
so friends former vice president Mike Pence has tons of incriminating information and evidence about Donald Trump's efforts to try to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election so naturally special counsel Jack Smith has subpoenaed Mike Pence to the grand jury to testify about Donald Trump's crimes. And now we've learned Mike Pence will fight that grand jury subpoena. Let's talk about that, because justice matters. Hey all, Glenn Kirchner here. So friends, special counsel Jack Smith has subpoenaed former vice president Mike Pence to testify before the grand jury investigating Donald Trump's election crimes. And now we've learned that Mike Pence will fight that grand jury subpoena. Mike Pence is determined to conceal from the grand jury the evidence, the information he has, about Donald Trump's pressure campaign trying to get him -- Mike Pence -- to refuse to certify Joe Biden's win. Mike Pence has decided he's not interested in sharing that incriminating evidence with the grand jury. And we know Mike Pence has incriminating evidence against Donald Trump. How do we know that? Well, he revealed it in a book. Put a pin in that. We're going to come back to that. But let's start with a new reporting by Politico about Mike Pence's decision to fight the grand jury subpoena. Headline: Pence to fight special counsel subpoena on Trump's 2020 election denial. And that article begins: Mike Pence is preparing to resist a grand jury subpoena for testimony about former president Donald Trump's push to overturn the 2020 election. According to two people familiar with the vice president's thinking, Pence's decision to challenge special counsel Jack Smith's request, has little to do with executive privilege, the people said. Rather, Pence is set to argue that his former role as president of the Senate -- therefore a member of the legislative branch -- shields him from certain Justice Department demands. Pence allies say he's covered by the Constitutional provisions that protects Congressional officials from legal proceedings related to their work, language known as the speech or debate clause. Now friends, if you're saying to yourself, that makes no damn sense, I'm with you. Because here's Mike Pence's argument. Mike Pence is saying, well, yes, I'm a member of the executive branch -- heck, I was vice president of the United States -- but I'm also a member of the legislative branch. And because members of the legislative branch have this thing called speech and debate clause protection, I'm going to claim that too. So I can claim executive privilege in some circumstances -- because after all, I'm a member of the executive branch -- and I can claim speech and debate clause privileges, because I'm also a member of the legislative branch. How does Mike Pence justify this hare-brained scheme, this claim that he's a member of Congress? Well, he says, you know, once every four years I am called in to perform the ceremonial duty of, you know, opening the envelopes on January 6th and counting the Electoral College votes. Of course, we already know what the votes are, and what the count and the tally will be, but that duty makes me a member of the legislative branch. Friends, there's a legal term for an argument like that: horseshit! And no, I usually don't use language like that, but the arrogance, and the faux superiority of these ruling class criminals, like Donald Trump, and Mike Pence, you know, trying to assert that they're just above the law -- they're above the rules by which the rest of us commoners must live. You know, his argument that he's a member of the executive branch and the legislative branch earns that, you know, descriptive term: horseshit. Maybe he's a member of the Judiciary, too! You know, maybe he's a member of all three branches of government! Yes friends, I'm exasperated, and infuriated. Not just because Mike Pence is making a bogus argument -- an argument he will lose -- he will be ordered to appear and testify before the grand jury. We'll talk about that near the end of this video. But it is so exasperating because, whereas Mike Pence is saying, I couldn't possibly reveal this incriminating evidence and information to the grand jury, he's already revealed it in a book for profit! Arguably, he's waived the right to claim it enjoys any kind of privilege. So what I want to do is, I want to take a minute to just go through some of what Mike Pence has already revealed in his book for profit about his conversations with Donald Trump, in which Donald Trump incriminates himself -- indeed, in which Donald Trump commits crimes -- because Donald Trump was urging Mike Pence to violate the law, to violate the Electoral count act, to obstruct Congress's official proceedings, of certifying Joe Biden's election win. And when you are urging, and demanding, and pressuring, and threatening, a government official to violate the law, you're committing a crime. And Mike Pence has already revealed the crimes of Donald Trump in his book, which he has titled "So help me God." So friends, let's have a look at some of what Mike Pence revealed in his book about the crimes of Donald Trump. Because Mike Pence wrote at length about the conversations he had in which Donald Trump was insisting that he -- Mike Pence -- violate the law -- violate the Electoral Count Act. Donald Trump was threatening him, urging him to obstruct the official Congressional proceedings -- the certification of Joe Biden's election win. And when you are urging, and you are threatening, and you are insisting, that a government official should violate federal law, you are committing a crime. In advance of Mike Pence publishing his book, which is titled, "So help me God," The Hill did an article. And it related some of the highlights -- I would call them the low lights -- of what Mike Pence wrote in that book about his incriminating conversations with Donald Trump. And I want to tick through some of what Mike Pence revealed in his book -- the same information he's trying to now conceal from the Grand Jury, claiming it enjoys all sorts of nonsensical privileges. Here is some of what The Hill wrote about Mike Pence's book. Headline: Pence's new book details Trump's lengthy January 6 pressure campaign. And that article reads in part: Then vice president Mike Pence was getting on the phone with then president Trump the evening of December 13, 2020, just as chatter was exploding on the internet that he -- Pence -- could delay, or block, the certification of Trump's electoral loss to Joe Biden. In his new memoir, "So help me God," Pence wrote about how Trump told him during that call that he should decline to participate in Congress's certification of that vote if he -- Pence -- wanted to be popular. "So Mike, I need you to violate the law. I need you to commit federal crimes. I need you to ignore your Constitutional responsibilities, because it'll make you popular. The article continues: Quote, 'he told me I was trending number two on Twitter,' as people began speculating whether I was going to participate in the January 6 proceedings at all. Pence wrote, quote, 'given the widening concern of so many people about election fraud, supporters around the country were arguing that I should decline to participate altogether. The President concurred.' Pence wrote, quote, 'if you want to be popular, don't do it,' he -- Trump -- suggested. Pence's Memoir stated, quote, He then went a step further. I might convene the session, and then at some point walk out. 'It would be the coolest thing you could do,' he -- Trump -- said jokingly. 'Otherwise, you're just another Rino.' We laughed at the controversy, and at his crack. Ah -- just two high government officials enjoying a laugh over the prospect of killing our democracy! Pence continues at that point: 'There was no angst between us, and there was no talk of rejecting electors, or returning votes to the States. But the friction grew in the following days and weeks.' Pence wrote in his book, On Christmas day of 2020, Pence said he called Trump -- as he had in previous years -- but the conversation quickly turned to talk of the election. Quote, 'As we ended the call, he -- Trump -- said with a sigh, 'If we prove we won a state, and speaker Nancy Pelosi certifies anyway, I don't think we can let that happen. You'll figure it out', he -- Trump -- added, Pence wrote. But Pence just can't stop disclosing stuff in this book, can he, incriminating information about Donald Trump, that Pence now wants to conceal from the Grand Jury. The article continues: Pence spoke again with Trump on New Year's Day of 2021, when the president, quote, 'came on strong' about why Pence had opposed a lawsuit from representative Louis Gohmert that sought to establish the vice president had the power to reject electoral votes. After Pence explained that he did not believe the argument in the lawsuit was consistent with the Constitution, Trump told him, 'you're too honest,' and predicted that, quote, 'hundreds of thousands are going to hate your guts.' Think about it friends. Donald Trump is pressuring Mike Pence, saying 'hundreds of thousands of people will hate your guts if you abide by the law, if you follow the Constitution, if you certify Joe Biden's election win. Hundreds of thousands of Americans will hate your guts. Don't do it.' The next day. Pence wrote Trump -- called him in the morning -- and said, 'You have the absolute right to reject electoral votes.' That was a lie. That was counseling Mike Pence to commit a crime. 'You can be a historical figure,' he -- Trump -- said, his tone growing more confrontational. 'But if you wimp out, you're just another somebody.' Pence wrote of the conversation in an oval office conversation that day. Trump told Pence he had the power to decertify, which Pence pushed back on. At that point, Pence wrote, Trump called his vice president naive, and suggested Pence lacked the courage needed to reject the votes. And Trump said, quote, 'You'll go down as a wimp,' he predicted, adding, 'If you do that, I made a big mistake five years ago,' Pence wrote. So yes, friends, Mike Pence, as revealed in his book, has sharply incriminating evidence about and against Donald Trump. And he was happy to reveal it in his book for profit, but he's fighting to conceal it from the Grand Jury. In a very real sense, he is fighting to shield Donald Trump from being held accountable for his crimes. You know, Mike Pence has proven himself to be the smallest, most cowardly man in America. But let's finish with some sweet irony, because Mike Pence decided to title his book, "So help me God," and you know what? Those are the exact last words of the oath he will be administered, after the courts reject his absurd privilege claim, and compel him to testify before the Grand Jury. "So help me God." And that is precisely what the courts will do: reject his privilege claim, and compel him to testify. Because justice matters. Friends, as always, please stay safe, please stay tuned, and I look forward to talking with you all again soon.
Lev Parnas Says Trump Knew Everything In Ukraine Scandal: The former Giuliani associate suggested Vice President Mike Pence, Attorney General William Barr and former national security adviser John Bolton were all in the know. by Nick Visser Huff Post Jan 15, 2020, 07:39 PM EST Updated Jan 16, 2020
Lev Parnas, an associate of Rudy Giuliani at the center of the Ukraine scandal that led to President Donald Trump’s impeachment, said both men were fully aware “of all my movements” and that the president knew “exactly what was going on” as he waged a pressure campaign to dig up dirt on a presidential campaign rival.
“President Trump knew exactly what was going on,” Parnas told MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow in an interview that aired Wednesday. “He was aware of all my movements. I wouldn’t do anything without the consent of Rudy Giuliani or the president. I have no intent, I have no reason to speak to any of these officials.”
The explosive comments come the same day the House voted to send two articles of impeachment against the president to the Senate for trial. The House voted largely along party lines to impeach Trump on charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress last month. He is just the third American president to be impeached.
"He lied," Parnas says of President Trump's denial that he knows him. "He knew exactly who we were. He knew exactly who I was especially because I interacted with him at a lot of events... I was with Rudy when he would speak to the president — plenty of times." pic.twitter.com/Y3D51xtSTi
— MSNBC (@MSNBC) January 16, 2020
White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham on Thursday shrugged off the Parnas accusations, claiming once again that “the president did nothing wrong.”
“These allegations are being made by a man who is currently out on bail for federal crimes and is desperate to reduce his exposure to prison,” Grisham said in a statement to NBC News.
“The facts haven’t changed — the president did nothing wrong and this impeachment, which was manufactured and carried out by the Democrats has been a sham from the start,” she added.
The pressure campaign in Ukraine was a central fixture of the House impeachment vote after a parade of current and former Trump administration officials detailed an effort by the White House to pressure Ukraine to announce an investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter in exchange for political favors.
“It was all about Joe Biden, Hunter Biden,” Parnas said Wednesday. “It was never about corruption.”
Aside from Giuliani and the president, Parnas alluded that Vice President Mike Pence, Attorney General William Barr and former national security adviser John Bolton were involved in some way with the pressure campaign.
At one point, Parnas detailed efforts to pressure Ukraine to announce an investigation into the Bidens, saying Giuliani instructed him to threaten to withhold “all aid” to the country as well as a visit by Pence to Zelensky’s inauguration.
“At our meeting, I was very, very stern. It was a heated conversation basically telling him what needs to be done,” Parnas said. “At the end of the conversation, I told him that if he didn’t announce an investigation, that Pence would not show up, nobody would show up to his inauguration.”
When Maddow asked if Pence was aware of the campaign, Parnas responded that “everybody was in the loop.” He also said Bolton would be one of the most knowledgeable people about the episode who has not yet spoken publicly (although he has said he will testify if subpoenaed by the Senate).
“Bolton, 100%,” Parnas said. “He knows what happened there.”
Parnas emerged as a key figure in that effort during the House inquiry. He was indicted last fall on campaign finance charges and has since split with Giuliani, Trump’s personal lawyer, pledging to speak openly about his efforts with Ukraine.
In the interview with Maddow, Parnas elaborated that members of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s team were told to meet with him because he was on the ground as a representative of the Trump administration “doing their work.”
“I mean they have no reason to speak to me,” Parnas said. “Why would President Zelensky’s inner circle, or Minister [of Internal Affairs Arsen] Avakov, or all these people or [former] President Poroshenko meet with me? Who am I? They were told to meet with me.”
“That’s the secret that they’re trying to keep,” he added.
[x] U.S. President Trump's personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani has coffee with Ukrainian-American businessman Lev Parnas at the Trump International Hotel in Washington, U.S. September 20, 2019. REUTERS/Aram RostonREUTERS STAFF / REUTERS
Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee released a trove of records on Tuesday that Parnas’s attorneys turned over to congressional investigators. The cache includes previously unseen handwritten notes by Parnas that demonstrate how Giuliani communicated with Zelensky on behalf of Trump. The documents also include letters and WhatsApp messages between Parnas and a man who may have tracked the location of then-U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch.
One note has instructions to get Zelensky to “announce that the Biden case will be investigated.”
The details are sure to complicate the Senate’s impeachment duties. Republican leaders, including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), have been attempting to hold a speedy trial with no new witnesses, but pressure has been building to hear from members of Trump’s orbit who have so far remained quiet about what they know.
This article has been updated to include White House response.
