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 lashes out at Gov. Doug Ducey following certification
Re: Trump lashes out at Gov. Doug Ducey following certificat
by admin » Mon Feb 13, 2023 2:33 am
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 37523
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Trump lashes out at Gov. Doug Ducey following certificat
by admin » Tue Feb 14, 2023 4:35 am
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
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.
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.
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 37523
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Trump lashes out at Gov. Doug Ducey following certificat
by admin » Wed Feb 15, 2023 2:16 am
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.
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.
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 37523
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Trump lashes out at Gov. Doug Ducey following certificat
by admin » Thu Feb 16, 2023 2:53 am
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.
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.
Hayley Miller contributed reporting.
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.
Hayley Miller contributed reporting.
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 37523
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Trump lashes out at Gov. Doug Ducey following certificat
by admin » Sat Feb 25, 2023 12:26 am
Former judge [Michael Luttig] critiques Pence's rejection of special counsel's subpoena
Story by Robert Legare
msn.com
Feb 17, 2022
Washington —When former Vice President Mike Pence was subpoenaed by special counsel Jack Smith, who is investigating any involvement by former President Donald Trump in the events surrounding the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, he soon announced his opposition to testifying. He called the subpoena "unconstitutional," arguing that under the Constitution, "the executive branch cannot summon officials in the legislative branch into a court in any other place."
As vice president, Pence was a member of the executive branch during the Trump administration but also held the unique role of president of the Senate and presided over the joint session of Congress that certified the 2020 Electoral College votes. On the basis of the responsibilities related to the election, he is invoking the Constitution's Speech or Debate clause, which protects members of Congress from being questioned about their legislative actions by other branches of the federal government. Pence's legal team plans to argue that he should not have to testify, in part because of the duty he fulfilled on Jan. 6, 2021.
"On the day of January 6, I was acting as president of the Senate, presiding over a joint session described in the Constitution itself. So I believe that that Speech and Debate clause of the Constitution actually prohibits the executive branch from compelling me to appear in a court, as the Constitution says, or in any other place," Pence said this week in Iowa, "We'll stand on that principle and we'll take that case as far as it needs to go, if it needs be to the Supreme Court of the United States."
This argument is likely to result in sealed court hearings and legal briefs filed under seal, as Pence's team and federal prosecutors try to convince a federal judge in Washington, D.C. that their interpretation of the law is the right one.
One prominent conservative legal voice — whose counsel Pence sought after the 2020 election — has cast doubt on Pence's legal strategy. Former federal Judge Michael Luttig, a staunch conservative jurist who personally advised Pence that he did not have the unilateral power to overturn Joe Biden's victory, wrote on Twitter that while the issue raised is an "unsettled question of constitutional law," any privileges a vice president obtains from his or her role in Congress are "few in number and limited in scope."
Luttig, who testified before a House Jan. 6 select committee hearing about his advice to Pence regarding the presidential electors, wrote on Thursday that any immunity Pence would have under the Speech or Debate Clause would not be sufficient to reject the subpoena.
"If there are privileges and protections enjoyed by a Vice President when he or she serves as the President of the Senate during the Joint Session to count the electoral votes, those privileges and protections would yield to the demands of the criminal process," Luttig wrote. The protections Pence plans to invoke, he contended, will likely not apply.
CBS News has reached out to Pence's team for any reaction to Luttig's analysis.
Scott Fredericksen, a former federal prosecutor and independent counsel, says Luttig's skepticism is warranted.
"I don't think it's viable," he said of Pence's claim of privilege. "Is it an open question? Technical yes, because there has never been a ruling from a court, let alone the Supreme court" on the issue.
But he continued, "I think it is highly unlikely that it would be viable, highly unlikely that it would be sustained by a court."
Fredericksen says a few factors weigh heavily against Pence's claim of privileged status as a legislator: Pence was not an elected member of Congress at the time, and he has repeatedly asserted that his role on Jan. 6 was a ceremonial one.
After a concerted pressure campaign by Trump and his allies to convince Pence to deny Mr. Biden's victory in the joint session of Congress and return the issue to the states, Pence publicly revealed some of his conversations with Trump and characterized his role that day as merely presiding over the lawmakers, both of which Smith's team of prosecutors have likely taken into consideration.
The unique legal strategy Pence is now taking, according to Fredericksen, may still be a smart one politically because it could delay any testimony against his former boss just as the presidential primary season is getting underway.
A former senior Justice Department official, who spoke with CBS News on the condition of anonymity to speak freely, differs from Luttig and suggests that Pence's legal theory is "credible."
"The notion that he should enjoy a legislative immunity seems likely to be correct," the former official said, "To the extent that the question is, 'was the Vice President seeking to get information on how to carry out his legislative duties,' that would apply."
Still, the former Justice Department official said many questions are raised by Pence's assertion of this broad and novel privilege, like the scope of his duties in the Senate and the issues prosecutors seek to cover in the questioning.
"I think it's credible but, whether it will apply is something the courts will figure out," the former official added.
Pence is not the first official in Trump's orbit to claim legislative immunity in an attempt to quash a subpoena. South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham asked the courts to block him from testifying before a special grand jury in Fulton County, Georgia, investigating allegations of election interference by Trump and his allies. Ultimately, a federal judge ruled Graham had to testify, but could avoid questions that explicitly dealt with his role as a lawmaker. The Supreme Court declined the senator's request to further consider the issue.
The former vice president himself was sued in a civil action brought by Texas GOP Rep. Louie Gohmert over Pence's role in certifying the results of the presidential election. The Justice Department during the Trump administration, in defending Pence, wrote that the Speech or Debate clause could offer protection to the vice president "in his official capacity as the President of the Senate."
And the federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., is reportedly adjudicating a secret case concerning Rep. Scott Perry and the seizure of his cell phone by federal investigators. The Pennsylvania Republican had previously argued similar legislative immunity shielded him from such acts. A hearing is set for late next week.
Both Fredericksen and the former Justice Department official agree it is likely some of these legal issues were raised by Smith's team, but not issuing a subpoena to Pence could have left them vulnerable if they decide to bring a case against Trump.
"You learn as a prosecutor you have to bring every important witness in or face the prospect of a defense attorney pointing out their absence" to a jury, Fredericksen noted.
"They fully expect to have this challenge," he said, echoing Luttig's analysis, but the demands of the criminal investigation could surmount any attempt by Pence to avoid testifying.
Smith's office declined to comment.
Story by Robert Legare
msn.com
Feb 17, 2022
Washington —When former Vice President Mike Pence was subpoenaed by special counsel Jack Smith, who is investigating any involvement by former President Donald Trump in the events surrounding the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, he soon announced his opposition to testifying. He called the subpoena "unconstitutional," arguing that under the Constitution, "the executive branch cannot summon officials in the legislative branch into a court in any other place."
As vice president, Pence was a member of the executive branch during the Trump administration but also held the unique role of president of the Senate and presided over the joint session of Congress that certified the 2020 Electoral College votes. On the basis of the responsibilities related to the election, he is invoking the Constitution's Speech or Debate clause, which protects members of Congress from being questioned about their legislative actions by other branches of the federal government. Pence's legal team plans to argue that he should not have to testify, in part because of the duty he fulfilled on Jan. 6, 2021.
"On the day of January 6, I was acting as president of the Senate, presiding over a joint session described in the Constitution itself. So I believe that that Speech and Debate clause of the Constitution actually prohibits the executive branch from compelling me to appear in a court, as the Constitution says, or in any other place," Pence said this week in Iowa, "We'll stand on that principle and we'll take that case as far as it needs to go, if it needs be to the Supreme Court of the United States."
This argument is likely to result in sealed court hearings and legal briefs filed under seal, as Pence's team and federal prosecutors try to convince a federal judge in Washington, D.C. that their interpretation of the law is the right one.
One prominent conservative legal voice — whose counsel Pence sought after the 2020 election — has cast doubt on Pence's legal strategy. Former federal Judge Michael Luttig, a staunch conservative jurist who personally advised Pence that he did not have the unilateral power to overturn Joe Biden's victory, wrote on Twitter that while the issue raised is an "unsettled question of constitutional law," any privileges a vice president obtains from his or her role in Congress are "few in number and limited in scope."
Luttig, who testified before a House Jan. 6 select committee hearing about his advice to Pence regarding the presidential electors, wrote on Thursday that any immunity Pence would have under the Speech or Debate Clause would not be sufficient to reject the subpoena.
"If there are privileges and protections enjoyed by a Vice President when he or she serves as the President of the Senate during the Joint Session to count the electoral votes, those privileges and protections would yield to the demands of the criminal process," Luttig wrote. The protections Pence plans to invoke, he contended, will likely not apply.
CBS News has reached out to Pence's team for any reaction to Luttig's analysis.
Scott Fredericksen, a former federal prosecutor and independent counsel, says Luttig's skepticism is warranted.
"I don't think it's viable," he said of Pence's claim of privilege. "Is it an open question? Technical yes, because there has never been a ruling from a court, let alone the Supreme court" on the issue.
But he continued, "I think it is highly unlikely that it would be viable, highly unlikely that it would be sustained by a court."
Fredericksen says a few factors weigh heavily against Pence's claim of privileged status as a legislator: Pence was not an elected member of Congress at the time, and he has repeatedly asserted that his role on Jan. 6 was a ceremonial one.
After a concerted pressure campaign by Trump and his allies to convince Pence to deny Mr. Biden's victory in the joint session of Congress and return the issue to the states, Pence publicly revealed some of his conversations with Trump and characterized his role that day as merely presiding over the lawmakers, both of which Smith's team of prosecutors have likely taken into consideration.
The unique legal strategy Pence is now taking, according to Fredericksen, may still be a smart one politically because it could delay any testimony against his former boss just as the presidential primary season is getting underway.
A former senior Justice Department official, who spoke with CBS News on the condition of anonymity to speak freely, differs from Luttig and suggests that Pence's legal theory is "credible."
"The notion that he should enjoy a legislative immunity seems likely to be correct," the former official said, "To the extent that the question is, 'was the Vice President seeking to get information on how to carry out his legislative duties,' that would apply."
Still, the former Justice Department official said many questions are raised by Pence's assertion of this broad and novel privilege, like the scope of his duties in the Senate and the issues prosecutors seek to cover in the questioning.
"I think it's credible but, whether it will apply is something the courts will figure out," the former official added.
Pence is not the first official in Trump's orbit to claim legislative immunity in an attempt to quash a subpoena. South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham asked the courts to block him from testifying before a special grand jury in Fulton County, Georgia, investigating allegations of election interference by Trump and his allies. Ultimately, a federal judge ruled Graham had to testify, but could avoid questions that explicitly dealt with his role as a lawmaker. The Supreme Court declined the senator's request to further consider the issue.
The former vice president himself was sued in a civil action brought by Texas GOP Rep. Louie Gohmert over Pence's role in certifying the results of the presidential election. The Justice Department during the Trump administration, in defending Pence, wrote that the Speech or Debate clause could offer protection to the vice president "in his official capacity as the President of the Senate."
And the federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., is reportedly adjudicating a secret case concerning Rep. Scott Perry and the seizure of his cell phone by federal investigators. The Pennsylvania Republican had previously argued similar legislative immunity shielded him from such acts. A hearing is set for late next week.
Both Fredericksen and the former Justice Department official agree it is likely some of these legal issues were raised by Smith's team, but not issuing a subpoena to Pence could have left them vulnerable if they decide to bring a case against Trump.
"You learn as a prosecutor you have to bring every important witness in or face the prospect of a defense attorney pointing out their absence" to a jury, Fredericksen noted.
"They fully expect to have this challenge," he said, echoing Luttig's analysis, but the demands of the criminal investigation could surmount any attempt by Pence to avoid testifying.
Smith's office declined to comment.
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 37523
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Trump lashes out at Gov. Doug Ducey following certificat
by admin » Thu Mar 02, 2023 4:47 am
Schumer, Jeffries demand Rupert Murdoch tells Fox News hosts to retract Trump election lies and apologize to viewers
by Michael McAuliff and Dave Goldiner
New York Daily News
Mar 01, 2023 at 2:10 pm
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Sen. Chuck Schumer and Rep. Hakeem Jeffries Wednesday demanded that right-wing Fox News hosts publicly retract their backing of former President Trump’s false claims that the 2020 election was stolen — and tell viewers they’re sorry.
The New York congressional leaders warned Fox chairman Rupert Murdoch to instruct Tucker Carlson and other network hosts to stop spreading Trump’s claims, especially after admitting they were lies.
“We demand that you direct Tucker Carlson and other hosts on your network to stop spreading false election narratives and admit on the air that they were wrong to engage in such negligent behavior,” Schumer and Jeffries wrote.
“Though you have acknowledged your regret in allowing this grave propaganda to take place, your network hosts continue to promote, spew, and perpetuate election conspiracy theories to this day,” the leaders added.
Jeffries, a Brooklyn Democrat, told reporters at his weekly press conference that Murdoch’s right-leaning network has a special responsibility to tell Americans the truth about Trump and its own talking heads.
“Perhaps it’s time for America to be able to move past that Big Lie,” the powerful House minority leader said. “And an important step would be those who know it was a big lie, to publicly repudiate it.”
Murdoch did not immediately respond to the letter. Neither did Carlson or fellow Fox News hosts Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham.
The Australian media mogul has admitted under oath that he knew Trump’s claims were false, but said the hosts “endorsed” the lies.
“I would have liked us to be stronger in denouncing it,” Murdoch said in a deposition.
Trump hit back at Murdoch, saying he should stand by his network’s conservative hosts instead of dumping on them.
“Certain BRAVE & PATRIOTIC FoxNews Hosts, who (Murdoch) scorns and ridicules, got it right. He got it wrong,” Trump wrote on his social media site. “THEY SHOULD BE ADMIRED & PRAISED, NOT REBUKED & FORSAKEN!!!”
Fox is facing a $1.6 billion defamation suit filed by Dominion Voting Systems, which sells electronic voting hardware and software.
Dominion says Fox News hosts deliberately amplified false claims by supporters of Trump that Dominion machines had changed votes in the 2020 election.
It claims that Fox executives knew the network was broadcasting “known lies ... but chose to let it continue.”
“You can continue a pattern of lying to your viewers and risking democracy or move beyond this damaging chapter in your company’s history by siding with the truth and reporting the facts,” Schumer and Jeffries wrote to Murdoch. “We ask that you make sure Fox News ceases disseminating the Big Lie and other election conspiracy theories on your network.”
Ironically some of the strongest evidence in the case has come from the hosts themselves who admitted that they gave platforms to Trump acolytes like lawyers Sidney Powell and Rudy Giuliani even though they derided them as incorrigible liars.
Fox lawyers say the comments from Murdoch and the hosts were cherrypicked and the network did its best to show viewers both sides of Trump’s election lies that led to the failed insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021.
The Democratic leaders also slammed as “irresponsible” the decision of Republican House Speaker Kevin McCarthy to grant hours of surveillance footage from the Jan. 6 attack exclusively to Carlson.
Jeffries said he hoped GOP leaders are having second thoughts about the deal with Carlson, who has downplayed the severity of the violent insurrection attempt and suggested it was a “false flag” operation designed to make Trump supporters look bad.
by Michael McAuliff and Dave Goldiner
New York Daily News
Mar 01, 2023 at 2:10 pm
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Sen. Chuck Schumer and Rep. Hakeem Jeffries Wednesday demanded that right-wing Fox News hosts publicly retract their backing of former President Trump’s false claims that the 2020 election was stolen — and tell viewers they’re sorry.
The New York congressional leaders warned Fox chairman Rupert Murdoch to instruct Tucker Carlson and other network hosts to stop spreading Trump’s claims, especially after admitting they were lies.
“We demand that you direct Tucker Carlson and other hosts on your network to stop spreading false election narratives and admit on the air that they were wrong to engage in such negligent behavior,” Schumer and Jeffries wrote.
“Though you have acknowledged your regret in allowing this grave propaganda to take place, your network hosts continue to promote, spew, and perpetuate election conspiracy theories to this day,” the leaders added.
Jeffries, a Brooklyn Democrat, told reporters at his weekly press conference that Murdoch’s right-leaning network has a special responsibility to tell Americans the truth about Trump and its own talking heads.
“Perhaps it’s time for America to be able to move past that Big Lie,” the powerful House minority leader said. “And an important step would be those who know it was a big lie, to publicly repudiate it.”
Murdoch did not immediately respond to the letter. Neither did Carlson or fellow Fox News hosts Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham.
The Australian media mogul has admitted under oath that he knew Trump’s claims were false, but said the hosts “endorsed” the lies.
“I would have liked us to be stronger in denouncing it,” Murdoch said in a deposition.
Trump hit back at Murdoch, saying he should stand by his network’s conservative hosts instead of dumping on them.
“Certain BRAVE & PATRIOTIC FoxNews Hosts, who (Murdoch) scorns and ridicules, got it right. He got it wrong,” Trump wrote on his social media site. “THEY SHOULD BE ADMIRED & PRAISED, NOT REBUKED & FORSAKEN!!!”
Fox is facing a $1.6 billion defamation suit filed by Dominion Voting Systems, which sells electronic voting hardware and software.
Dominion says Fox News hosts deliberately amplified false claims by supporters of Trump that Dominion machines had changed votes in the 2020 election.
It claims that Fox executives knew the network was broadcasting “known lies ... but chose to let it continue.”
“You can continue a pattern of lying to your viewers and risking democracy or move beyond this damaging chapter in your company’s history by siding with the truth and reporting the facts,” Schumer and Jeffries wrote to Murdoch. “We ask that you make sure Fox News ceases disseminating the Big Lie and other election conspiracy theories on your network.”
Ironically some of the strongest evidence in the case has come from the hosts themselves who admitted that they gave platforms to Trump acolytes like lawyers Sidney Powell and Rudy Giuliani even though they derided them as incorrigible liars.
Fox lawyers say the comments from Murdoch and the hosts were cherrypicked and the network did its best to show viewers both sides of Trump’s election lies that led to the failed insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021.
The Democratic leaders also slammed as “irresponsible” the decision of Republican House Speaker Kevin McCarthy to grant hours of surveillance footage from the Jan. 6 attack exclusively to Carlson.
Jeffries said he hoped GOP leaders are having second thoughts about the deal with Carlson, who has downplayed the severity of the violent insurrection attempt and suggested it was a “false flag” operation designed to make Trump supporters look bad.
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 37523
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Trump lashes out at Gov. Doug Ducey following certificat
by admin » Tue Mar 07, 2023 3:12 am
Inside the Panic at Fox News After the 2020 Election: “If we hadn’t called Arizona,” said Suzanne Scott, the network’s chief executive, according to a recording reviewed by The New York Times, “our ratings would have been bigger.”
by Peter Baker
New York Times
March 4, 2023
NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT
WASHINGTON — A little more than a week after television networks called the 2020 presidential election for Joseph R. Biden Jr., top executives and anchors at Fox News held an after-action meeting to figure out how they had messed up.
Not because they had gotten the key call wrong — but because they had gotten it right. And they had gotten it right before anyone else.
Typically, it is a point of pride for a news network to be the first to project election winners. But Fox is no typical news network, and in the days following the 2020 vote, it was besieged with angry protests not only from President Donald J. Trump’s camp but from its own viewers because it had called the battleground state of Arizona for Mr. Biden. Never mind that the call was correct; Fox executives worried that they would lose viewers to hard-right competitors like Newsmax.
And so, on Monday, Nov. 16, 2020, Suzanne Scott, the chief executive of Fox News Media, and Jay Wallace, the network’s president, convened a Zoom meeting for an extraordinary discussion with an unusual goal, according to a recording of the call reviewed by The New York Times: How to keep from angering the network’s conservative audience again by calling an election for a Democrat before the competition.
Maybe, the Fox executives mused, they should abandon the sophisticated new election-projecting system in which Fox had invested millions of dollars and revert to the slower, less accurate model. Or maybe they should base calls not solely on numbers but on how viewers might react. Or maybe they should delay calls, even if they were right, to keep the audience in suspense and boost viewership.
“Listen, it’s one of the sad realities: If we hadn’t called Arizona, those three or four days following Election Day, our ratings would have been bigger,” Ms. Scott said. “The mystery would have been still hanging out there.”
Bret Baier and Martha MacCallum, the two main anchors, suggested it was not enough to call a state based on numerical calculations, the standard by which networks have made such determinations for generations, but that viewer reaction should be considered. “In a Trump environment,” Ms. MacCallum said, “the game is just very, very different.”
The conversation captured the sense of crisis enveloping Fox after the election and underscored its unique role in the conservative political ecosystem. The network’s conduct in this period has come under intense scrutiny in a $1.6 billion defamation lawsuit by Dominion Voting Systems.
Court filings in recent days revealed that Fox executives and hosts considered fraud claims by the Trump camp to be “really crazy stuff,” as Rupert Murdoch, the head of the Fox media empire, put it, yet pushed them on air anyway. The recording of the Nov. 16 meeting adds further context to the atmosphere inside the network at that time, when executives were on the defensive because of their Arizona call and feared alienating Mr. Trump and his supporters.
In a statement on Saturday, the network said: “Fox News stood by the Arizona call despite intense scrutiny. Given the extremely narrow 0.3 percent margin and a new projection mechanism that no other network had, of course there would be a wide-ranging post-mortem surrounding the call and how it was executed no matter the candidates.”
In the cross hairs now is Ms. Scott, who joined the network at its inception in 1996 as a programming assistant and worked her way up to become chief executive in 2018. Media analysts have speculated that she may take the fall; Mr. Murdoch testified in a deposition that executives who knowingly allowed lies to be broadcast “should be reprimanded, maybe got rid of.” But Fox later put out word that she was not in danger.
Ms. Scott was among the executives who grew alarmed after the network’s Decision Desk called Arizona for Mr. Biden at 11:20 p.m. on election night on Nov. 3, 2020, a projection that infuriated Mr. Trump and his aides because it was a swing state that could foreshadow the overall result. No other network called Arizona that night, although The Associated Press did several hours later, and the Fox journalists who made the call stood by their judgment.
At 8:30 the next morning, Ms. Scott suggested Fox not call any more states until certified by authorities, a formal process that could take days or weeks. She was talked out of that. But the next day, with Mr. Biden’s lead in Arizona narrowing, Mr. Baier noted that Mr. Trump’s campaign was angry and suggested reversing the call. “It’s hurting us,” he wrote Mr. Wallace and others in a previously reported email. “The sooner we pull it even if it gives us major egg. And put it back in his column. The better we are. In my opinion.”
Arizona had never been in Mr. Trump’s column, and the Decision Desk overseen by Bill Sammon, the managing editor for Washington, resisted giving it “back” to a candidate who was losing just to satisfy critics.
But on Friday night, Nov. 6, when Mr. Sammon’s team was ready to call Nevada for Mr. Biden, sealing his victory, Mr. Wallace refused to air it. “I’m not there yet since it’s for all the marbles — just a heavier burden than an individual state call,” Mr. Wallace wrote in a text message obtained by The Times.
Rather than be the first to call the election winner, Fox became the last. CNN declared Mr. Biden the victor the next day at 11:24 a.m., followed by the other networks. Fox did not concur until 11:40 a.m., some 14 hours after Mr. Sammon’s election team internally concluded the race was over.
While Mr. Biden held onto Arizona by 10,000 votes, the explosive fallout from the Fox call panicked the network. Viewers erupted. Ratings fell. “I’ve never seen a reaction like this, to any media company,” Tucker Carlson told Ms. Scott in a Nov. 9 message released in a court filing. Ms. Scott complained to a colleague that Mr. Sammon did not understand “the impact to the brand and the arrogance in calling AZ” and it was his job “to protect the brand.”
On Nov. 16, Ms. Scott and Mr. Wallace convened the Zoom meeting to discuss the Arizona decision. Mr. Sammon and Arnon Mishkin, the director of the Decision Desk, were included. Chris Stirewalt, the political editor who had gone on air to defend the call, was not.
Ms. Scott invited Mr. Baier and Ms. MacCallum, “the face” of the network, as she called them, to describe the heat they were taking, according to the recording reviewed by The Times.
“We are still getting bombarded,” Mr. Baier said. “It became really hurtful.” He said projections were not enough to call a state when it would be so sensitive. “I know the statistics and the numbers, but there has to be, like, this other layer” so they could “think beyond, about the implications.”
Ms. MacCallum agreed: “There’s just obviously been a tremendous amount of backlash, which is, I think, more than any of us anticipated. And so there’s that layer between statistics and news judgment about timing that I think is a factor.” For “a loud faction of our viewership,” she said, the call was a blow.
Neither she nor Mr. Baier explained exactly what they meant by another “layer.” A person who was in the meeting and spoke on condition of anonymity to describe internal discussions said on Saturday that Mr. Baier had been talking about process because he was upset the Decision Desk had made the Arizona call without letting the anchors know first.
Fox reached its call earlier than other networks because of the cutting-edge system that it developed after the 2016 election, a system tested during the 2018 midterm elections with great success — Fox projected that Democrats would capture the House before its competitors. But now Mr. Wallace was having second thoughts.
“We created a new mousetrap,” he said. But he asked, “Was the mousetrap too good?” He added: “Part of me is like: Oh, should we have been more conservative and should we have stuck with N.E.P.,” the National Election Pool used by other networks. “Would that have changed things? Would there still be this ire?”
Mr. Mishkin acknowledged that the Arizona call seemed “premature” but noted that “it did land correctly” and that Fox rightly made clear it was “a dogfight in the Electoral College.” Mr. Sammon stood by the call. “If I may defend the Decision Desk for a moment, they got all 50 states right,” he said. “We called Arizona. It was a good call. It held up.”
Ms. Scott pressed Mr. Sammon to admit that Arizona “became much closer than even you anticipated it becoming.”
He pushed back. “From a statistical standpoint,” he said, “I literally never worried about the Arizona call. From a lot of other standpoints it was very painful for reasons that we’re all aware of. But statistically, I really was very confident in that call. That’s just the truth.”
Ms. Scott agreed it was important to be right. “But I think we’re living in a new world in a sense, where half of the voting population doesn’t believe in big corporations, big tech, big media,” she said. “There’s a lack of trust. And when they feel like things are being done behind closed doors in rooms that they can’t understand, it exacerbates the emotion and how they feel about the process.”
Tom Lowell, the managing editor for news, said Fox had been left “as the canary in this nasty coal mine,” suggesting other networks had deliberately delayed calls out of malice. “I think some outlets willfully held back calls that they probably could have made to watch us twist in the wind,” he said.
Ms. Scott asserted that CNN had delayed to hold viewer attention. “CNN historically I think has always been late because — purely for ratings,” she said. “And I think you have to ask yourself, is that a good enough reason? Trust, public trust, viewership, I mean there’s different parameters.”
She added that she was merely “raising the questions” about holding back calls. “There is a philosophy around that.” (Matt Dornic, a CNN spokesman, on Saturday denied holding back calls for ratings, saying its journalists “make calls as soon as we’re confident they’re right.”)
The Arizona dispute was not an abstract discussion. Georgia would soon hold runoff elections for two Senate seats that would determine control of the chamber. The question was raised about how to call those races given that Republicans seemed favored to win.
“If we’re going to be first to call the Senate for G.O.P. control, that’s OK too,” Mr. Baier said, prompting awkward laughs. (The person in the meeting said Mr. Baier was joking.)
What no one said at the meeting was that Ms. Scott would not let Mr. Sammon’s team risk the network’s brand again. She decided to push out Mr. Sammon and Mr. Stirewalt, but fearing criticism for firing journalists who had gotten the call right, opted to wait until after Georgia.
Mr. Murdoch was not keen on waiting. On Nov. 20, four days after the Zoom meeting, according to documents filed by Dominion, he told Ms. Scott, “Maybe best to let Bill go right away,” which would “be a big message with Trump people.”
Mr. Sammon, who had called every election correctly over 12 years at Fox and had just been offered a new three-year contract, was told that same day that his contract would not be renewed after all. He heard not from Fox but from his lawyer, Robert Barnett. Mr. Stirewalt was out too.
Fox would, in the end, wait until after Georgia to announce the purge, without attributing it to the Arizona call. Mr. Sammon, who negotiated a severance package, would call his departure a “retirement,” while Stirewalt’s dismissal was characterized as a “restructuring.”
Three weeks later, Fox announced a new multiyear contract extension for Ms. Scott.
***********************
Busted: Fox News caught on secret recording amid billion dollar lawsuit for peddling lies
by Ari Melber
MSNBC
Mar 6, 2023 #msnbc #foxnews #rupertmurdoch
MSNBC Chief Legal Correspondent Ari Melber reports on a bombshell leak in the billion dollar legal earthquake rocking Fox News and its Chief Rupert Murdoch. The New York Times obtaining a recording of a Zoom meeting with Fox’s CEO and the network’s top anchors, which reveals an internal panic over losing viewers for reporting accurate facts. CEO Suzanne Scott saying “if we hadn’t called Arizona… our ratings would have been even bigger.” (This is an excerpt of the full discussion that aired on MSNBC). Check out the video playlist for "The Beat with Ari Melber": http://www.msnbc.com/ari
Transcript
0:01
THESE TRULY EXTRAORDINARY TIMES.
0:02
WE ARE GRATEFUL.
0:03
"THE BEAT" WITH ARI MELBER
0:05
STARTS RIGHT NOW.
0:06
>> I'M ARI MELBER.
0:07
THE TOP STORY ROCKING
0:08
CONSERVATIVE POLITICS AND FOX
0:09
NEWS TONIGHT IS A HUGE NEW LEAK
0:11
ABOUT THIS MOMENT IN 2020 WHEN
0:13
FOX NEWS ACCURATELY REPORTED
0:15
BIDEN WON ARIZONA, WHICH STOKED
0:17
A MAGA BACKLASH WHICH UPENDED
0:20
THE NETWORK, FED THE SERIES OF
0:24
JOURNALISTS -- THAT FOX NOW IS
0:26
FACING POTENTIAL ACCOUNTABILITY
0:28
FOR, POTENTIALLY OVER A BILLION
0:30
DOLLARS IN LAWSUIT FINES.
0:31
IT'S ALSO NOW LED TO THE
0:33
ABSOLUTE BLOCKBUSTER LEAK TO
0:38
"THE NEW YORK TIMES."
0:38
IF YOU'RE THINK, OR I HEARD
0:40
ABOUT OTHER LEAKS, THIS ONE IS
0:42
DIFFERENT AND NEW AND NARRATES A
0:45
SECRET MEETING BETWEEN FOX EXECS
0:47
AND HOSTS ABOUT THAT ARIZONA
0:54
CALL.
0:54
AN INTERNAL FREAKOUT WHERE
0:56
VIEWERS WERE MAD AND BAILING ON
0:58
FOX BECAUSE THEY REPORTED IN
0:59
THAT INSTANCE, ONE, UNDENIABLE
1:02
FACT ABOUT THE ELECTION.
1:03
AND THE EXECUTIVES AND ANCHORS,
1:05
GREAT BARE AND MAR THAT
1:07
McCOLLUM, ON THIS CALL THEY
1:09
DISCUSS THEY WERE LOSING VIEWERS
1:10
BECAUSE THEY CORRECTLY CALLED
1:12
ARIZONA FOR BIDEN.
1:13
AND THEN THEY DISCUSS WHETHER
1:14
THE COMPANY SHOULD REVERSE THAT
1:17
CALL, AS A KIND OF LIE TO
1:20
APPEASE ANGRY TRUMP VIEWER OR
1:22
CHANGE THEIR ENTIRE ELECTION
1:23
COVERAGE GOING FORWARD,
1:24
BASICALLY SAYING, TELLING THE
1:25
TRUTH IN THIS INSTANCE HAS
1:31
REVERBERATED SO POORLY, MAYBE WE
1:32
SHOULD STOP TELLING THE TRUTH.
1:34
THIS IS ABSOLUTELY DAMNING AND
1:37
INCRIMINATING STUFF.
1:37
KEEP IN MIND BEFORE WE GO
1:39
FURTHER, AND I'M GOING TO SHOW
1:40
YOU THE RECEIPTS -- NEWS OUTLET
1:44
DO NOT AUTOCRACY OFF REPORTING
1:46
TO THE HIGHEST AUDIENCE.
1:47
THEY DON'T STATE KNOWING
1:51
FALSEHOODS ONLY FOR RATINGS.
1:52
OF ALL THE VALID CRITIQUE FOR
1:54
MEDIA, AND THERE ARE MANY, THIS
1:55
TYPE OF THING, JUST CANCELING AN
1:57
ELECTION CALL OR REVERSING IT,
1:59
THIS DOESN'T EVEN COME UP.
2:00
NO LEGITIMATE NEWS ORGANIZATION
2:01
HAS FACED EVIDENCE OF ANYTHING
2:03
LIKE THIS IN ITS ELECTION
2:05
COVERAGE IN THE MODERN ERA.
2:06
IN ORDER, IF YOU'RE LISTENING TO
2:08
THIS STORY AND GOING, WELL, I
2:09
HAVE A LOT OF FRIENDS WHO
2:12
CRITICIZE THE PRESS, SURE, THOSE
2:15
CRITIQUES ARE VALID.
2:16
THE A CRITIQUES ABOUT THE PRESS,
2:19
BIAS, SELECTIVE COVERAGE,
2:20
CORPORATE INTERFERENCE, NONE OF
2:21
THAT GOES ANYWHERE CLOSE TO
2:22
THIS -- A FOX CEO NOW CAUGHT ON
2:27
TAPE SAYING, IF WE HADN'T CALLED
2:28
ARIZONA ACCURATELY, OUR RATINGS
2:30
WOULD HAVE BEEN HIGHER.
2:31
AND GIVES AWAY THE GAME BY
2:33
SAYING IT WAS BAD THAT FOX'S
2:34
ELECTION EFFORT TOLD THE TRUTH
2:36
ABOUT ARIZONA, SAYING, AGAIN,
2:39
FROM THIS NEWLY LEAKED CALL IT
2:40
WAS NOT TO DO ACTUAL ELECTION
2:44
COVERAGE IT WAS TO, QUOTE,
2:45
PROTECT THE BRAND.
2:45
WHEN FOX'S OWN ELECTION EXPERT
2:47
PUSHES BACK -- WE'RE SEEING
2:49
BEHIND THE CURTAIN OF HIGH LEVEL
2:51
STUFF YOU NEVER NORMALLY SEE.
2:54
THE EXPERT PUSHES BACK, SAYS
2:55
THEY HAD THE CALL RIGHT, WHICH
2:57
IS TRUE.
2:57
THEN "THE NEW YORK TIMES"
2:58
REPORTS THAT THE FOX CEO SCOTT
3:02
AGREED IT WAS IMPORTANT TO BE
3:02
RIGHT BUCK QUOTE, I THINK WE'RE
3:04
LIVING IN A NEW WORLD IN A
3:05
SENSE, WHERE HALF THE VOTING
3:08
POPULATION DOESN'T BELIEVE IN
3:09
BIG CORPS WEIGHS, BIG MEDIA.
3:11
THERE'S A LACK OF TRUST.
3:13
THIS IS SUCH B.S.
3:14
I WANT TO YOU MAKE SURE YOU
3:16
UNDERSTAND EXACTLY WHAT IT IS,
3:17
BECAUSE IT'S AN ECHO YOU MIGHT
3:19
HEAR FROM SOMEONE AS A DINNER
3:22
PARTY OR BARBECUE.
3:24
THOSE PEOPLE ON YOUR SCREEN
3:25
YOU'RE SEEING NOW LIE TO YOU.
3:28
THEY UNDERMINE TRUST.
3:30
THEN REFER TO A, LA OF TRUST,
3:31
WHICH IS THEIR JUSTIFICATION FOR
3:33
WHAT THEY'RE DOING, AND TO TELL
3:34
YOU THE OBVIOUS TONIGHT, BECAUSE
3:37
SOMETIMES I DO THAT, IT IS
3:39
ILLOGICAL TO SAY YOU CAN'T
3:41
REPORT THE TRUTH IF HALF THE POP
3:43
LAS VEGAS DISAGREES WTS TRUTH.
3:45
WE'RE BACK TO 101 HERE.
3:47
THE WHOLE ROLE OF A LEGITIMATE
3:50
NEWS ORGANIZATION IS TO REPORT
3:52
FACTS REGARDLESS OF PEOPLE'S
3:54
DISAGREEMENT AND ESPECIALLY WHEN
3:55
THERE'S A COORDINATED ATTACK ON
3:56
THE FACTS.
3:57
IN THIS CASE, AN ATTACK FROM THE
3:59
OUTGOING GOVERNMENT TRYING TO
4:00
OVERTHROW THE ELECTION WHERE
4:01
PEOPLE WERE KILLED AND A COUP
4:02
WAS ATTEMPTED.
4:04
THAT'S OF COURSE WHAT MAKES ALL
4:05
THIS IMPORTANT.
4:06
THAT'S WHY IT'S STILL IN THE
4:07
NEWS BECAUSE OF THE SHEER SAKE
4:08
OF IT, NOT JUST SOME RANDOM
4:12
ISOLATED LIE FROM SOMEBODY WHO
4:14
ADMIT THESE RUN FOX NEWS TO
4:20
PROTECT -- IN THAT SAME CALL,
4:25
MARTHA MacCALLUM TALKS ABOUT THE
4:31
BACKLASH.
4:31
BRETT BEHR RAISES THE IDEA OF
4:33
REVERING THE CALL.
4:35
THE SOONER WE PULL IT, EVEN IF
4:39
IT GIVES YOUS A MAJOR EGG BACK
4:40
IN TRUMP'S COLUMN, THE BETTER WE
4:42
ARE IN MY OPINION.
4:44
DAMN, PEOPLE JUST TELLING ON
4:46
THEMSELVES.
4:47
MR. BAIER CLEARLY DIDN'T KNOW
4:49
THIS ZOOM CALL WOULD GET OUT TO
4:50
THE ENTIRE WORLD, AND THIS NEWLY
4:54
LEAKED CALL SHOWS IN HIS OWN
4:56
WORDS -- I'M NOT ADD ANYTHING
4:58
HERE -- BAIER WANTED TO PULL THE
5:02
ACCURATE REPORT.
5:02
HERE WAS MAKING THAT CALL.
5:04
>> THE FOX NEWS DECISION DESK IS
5:06
CALLING ARIZONA FOR JOE BIDEN.
5:09
THAT IS A BIG GET FOR THE BIDEN
5:13
CAMPAIGN.
5:14
FOX NEWS WENT ON TO FIRE ONE OF
5:15
THE ELECTION STAFFERS WHO WAS
5:17
INVOLVED IN MAKING THE CORRECT
5:20
ARIZONA CALL.
5:21
WE DID KNOW THAT ALREADY.
5:23
THIS LEAKED ZOOM CONVERSATION
5:25
ADDS A LOT MORE CONTEXT AT IT
5:27
SHOWS FOX IS THE KIND OF MEDIA
5:31
COMPANY WHERE GETTING A STORY
5:33
RIGHT GET YOU FIRED.
5:35
THEY DID NOT PUBLICLY REVERSE
5:38
THAT CALL.
5:39
ALL THIS COMES AS RUPERT MURDOCH
5:45
ADMITS HE KNEW TRUMP'S CALL WAS
5:47
CRAZY AND SOME ENDORSED IT ANY
5:48
WAY.
5:49
NOW, HOW DID WE GET HERE?
5:51
WHY IS THIS STILL IN THE NEWS?
5:53
WELL, FOR WEEKS THE BILLION
5:56
DOLLARS DEFAMATION CASE AGAINST
5:58
FOX HAS DRIVEN SOME REALLY ROUGH
6:00
HEADLINES BASED ON THAT CASE AS
6:02
MATERIAL.
6:03
SECRET TEXTS, EMAILS,
6:05
DEPOSITIONS GOING PUBLIC LIKE
6:06
THE MURDOCH ONE, AND THAT IS ALL
6:08
AN UNAVOIDABLE PART OF LEGAL
6:10
TRIAL DISCOVERY.
6:12
BUT THERE IS NO INDICATION FROM
6:15
"THE NEW YORK TIMES" WHERE THIS
6:16
NEW CALL RECORDING LEAK CAME
6:20
FROM.
6:21
IT'S POSSIBLE, I SUPPOSE, THAT
6:22
IT WAS A RECORDING ACCIDENTALLY
6:24
MADE BY FOX THAT WENT INTO SOME
6:26
EVIDENCE GROUPING AND GOT TURNED
6:30
OVER.
6:30
IT'S TECHNICALLY POSSIBLE.
6:32
WE CANNOT AT THIS HOUR RULE THAT
6:33
OUT.
6:33
BUT MOST PEOPLE ON THAT CALL
6:36
WOULD NOT WANT IT RECORDED IN
6:36
THE FIRST PLACE, COULD NOT
6:38
KNOWINGLY RECORD IT TO PUT IT IN
6:41
THE EVIDENCE PILE "THE NEW YORK
6:42
TIMES" STATES THE LEAK IN THEIR
6:44
REPORTING IS BASED ON, QUOTE, A
6:51
REVIEW OF THE RECORDING OF THE
6:53
CALL.
6:53
THE POSSIBILITY THAT SOMEONE
6:55
INSIDE FOX SECRETLY RECORDED IT
6:56
AS THAT HEAT WAS RISING, KNOWING
6:58
THAT SOME DAY THAT CALL COULD BE
7:00
USED TO DAMAGE THE PEOPLE ON IT
7:01
OR EVEN THE FOX CEO HERSELF.
7:05
IT RAISES THE POSSIBILITY THAT
7:06
THIS CALL WAS LEAKED BY FOX
7:09
ITSELF TO HURT PEOPLE AT THE TOP
7:11
OF FOX BECAUSE THERE ARE PEOPLE
7:13
EVEN ABOVE THAT WORRIED ABOUT
7:14
THE HEAT RIGHT NOW.
7:16
"THE NEW YORK TIMES" JUST
7:17
DOESN'T SAY.
7:18
AND AS IS OUR PRACTICE WE TELL
7:20
YOU WHAT WE KNOW AND DON'T KNOW.
7:21
WE DON'T HAVE THE SOURCING, BUT
7:24
WE HAVE CLUES.
7:24
THIS IS A TIME WHEN THE CALLS
7:26
KEEP CLOSING IN AT A COMPANY RUN
7:33
BY PEOPLE WEATHERS BY SCANDALS.
7:37
THESE ARE THE PEOPLE WHO
7:39
KNOWINGLY CONTRIBUTED TO THE
7:40
ATTEMPTED OVERTHROW OF YOUR
7:41
GOVERNMENT.
by Peter Baker
New York Times
March 4, 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.
WASHINGTON — A little more than a week after television networks called the 2020 presidential election for Joseph R. Biden Jr., top executives and anchors at Fox News held an after-action meeting to figure out how they had messed up.
Not because they had gotten the key call wrong — but because they had gotten it right. And they had gotten it right before anyone else.
Typically, it is a point of pride for a news network to be the first to project election winners. But Fox is no typical news network, and in the days following the 2020 vote, it was besieged with angry protests not only from President Donald J. Trump’s camp but from its own viewers because it had called the battleground state of Arizona for Mr. Biden. Never mind that the call was correct; Fox executives worried that they would lose viewers to hard-right competitors like Newsmax.
And so, on Monday, Nov. 16, 2020, Suzanne Scott, the chief executive of Fox News Media, and Jay Wallace, the network’s president, convened a Zoom meeting for an extraordinary discussion with an unusual goal, according to a recording of the call reviewed by The New York Times: How to keep from angering the network’s conservative audience again by calling an election for a Democrat before the competition.
Maybe, the Fox executives mused, they should abandon the sophisticated new election-projecting system in which Fox had invested millions of dollars and revert to the slower, less accurate model. Or maybe they should base calls not solely on numbers but on how viewers might react. Or maybe they should delay calls, even if they were right, to keep the audience in suspense and boost viewership.
“Listen, it’s one of the sad realities: If we hadn’t called Arizona, those three or four days following Election Day, our ratings would have been bigger,” Ms. Scott said. “The mystery would have been still hanging out there.”
Bret Baier and Martha MacCallum, the two main anchors, suggested it was not enough to call a state based on numerical calculations, the standard by which networks have made such determinations for generations, but that viewer reaction should be considered. “In a Trump environment,” Ms. MacCallum said, “the game is just very, very different.”
The conversation captured the sense of crisis enveloping Fox after the election and underscored its unique role in the conservative political ecosystem. The network’s conduct in this period has come under intense scrutiny in a $1.6 billion defamation lawsuit by Dominion Voting Systems.
Court filings in recent days revealed that Fox executives and hosts considered fraud claims by the Trump camp to be “really crazy stuff,” as Rupert Murdoch, the head of the Fox media empire, put it, yet pushed them on air anyway. The recording of the Nov. 16 meeting adds further context to the atmosphere inside the network at that time, when executives were on the defensive because of their Arizona call and feared alienating Mr. Trump and his supporters.
In a statement on Saturday, the network said: “Fox News stood by the Arizona call despite intense scrutiny. Given the extremely narrow 0.3 percent margin and a new projection mechanism that no other network had, of course there would be a wide-ranging post-mortem surrounding the call and how it was executed no matter the candidates.”
In the cross hairs now is Ms. Scott, who joined the network at its inception in 1996 as a programming assistant and worked her way up to become chief executive in 2018. Media analysts have speculated that she may take the fall; Mr. Murdoch testified in a deposition that executives who knowingly allowed lies to be broadcast “should be reprimanded, maybe got rid of.” But Fox later put out word that she was not in danger.
Ms. Scott was among the executives who grew alarmed after the network’s Decision Desk called Arizona for Mr. Biden at 11:20 p.m. on election night on Nov. 3, 2020, a projection that infuriated Mr. Trump and his aides because it was a swing state that could foreshadow the overall result. No other network called Arizona that night, although The Associated Press did several hours later, and the Fox journalists who made the call stood by their judgment.
At 8:30 the next morning, Ms. Scott suggested Fox not call any more states until certified by authorities, a formal process that could take days or weeks. She was talked out of that. But the next day, with Mr. Biden’s lead in Arizona narrowing, Mr. Baier noted that Mr. Trump’s campaign was angry and suggested reversing the call. “It’s hurting us,” he wrote Mr. Wallace and others in a previously reported email. “The sooner we pull it even if it gives us major egg. And put it back in his column. The better we are. In my opinion.”
Arizona had never been in Mr. Trump’s column, and the Decision Desk overseen by Bill Sammon, the managing editor for Washington, resisted giving it “back” to a candidate who was losing just to satisfy critics.
But on Friday night, Nov. 6, when Mr. Sammon’s team was ready to call Nevada for Mr. Biden, sealing his victory, Mr. Wallace refused to air it. “I’m not there yet since it’s for all the marbles — just a heavier burden than an individual state call,” Mr. Wallace wrote in a text message obtained by The Times.
Rather than be the first to call the election winner, Fox became the last. CNN declared Mr. Biden the victor the next day at 11:24 a.m., followed by the other networks. Fox did not concur until 11:40 a.m., some 14 hours after Mr. Sammon’s election team internally concluded the race was over.
While Mr. Biden held onto Arizona by 10,000 votes, the explosive fallout from the Fox call panicked the network. Viewers erupted. Ratings fell. “I’ve never seen a reaction like this, to any media company,” Tucker Carlson told Ms. Scott in a Nov. 9 message released in a court filing. Ms. Scott complained to a colleague that Mr. Sammon did not understand “the impact to the brand and the arrogance in calling AZ” and it was his job “to protect the brand.”
On Nov. 16, Ms. Scott and Mr. Wallace convened the Zoom meeting to discuss the Arizona decision. Mr. Sammon and Arnon Mishkin, the director of the Decision Desk, were included. Chris Stirewalt, the political editor who had gone on air to defend the call, was not.
Ms. Scott invited Mr. Baier and Ms. MacCallum, “the face” of the network, as she called them, to describe the heat they were taking, according to the recording reviewed by The Times.
“We are still getting bombarded,” Mr. Baier said. “It became really hurtful.” He said projections were not enough to call a state when it would be so sensitive. “I know the statistics and the numbers, but there has to be, like, this other layer” so they could “think beyond, about the implications.”
Ms. MacCallum agreed: “There’s just obviously been a tremendous amount of backlash, which is, I think, more than any of us anticipated. And so there’s that layer between statistics and news judgment about timing that I think is a factor.” For “a loud faction of our viewership,” she said, the call was a blow.
Neither she nor Mr. Baier explained exactly what they meant by another “layer.” A person who was in the meeting and spoke on condition of anonymity to describe internal discussions said on Saturday that Mr. Baier had been talking about process because he was upset the Decision Desk had made the Arizona call without letting the anchors know first.
Fox reached its call earlier than other networks because of the cutting-edge system that it developed after the 2016 election, a system tested during the 2018 midterm elections with great success — Fox projected that Democrats would capture the House before its competitors. But now Mr. Wallace was having second thoughts.
“We created a new mousetrap,” he said. But he asked, “Was the mousetrap too good?” He added: “Part of me is like: Oh, should we have been more conservative and should we have stuck with N.E.P.,” the National Election Pool used by other networks. “Would that have changed things? Would there still be this ire?”
Mr. Mishkin acknowledged that the Arizona call seemed “premature” but noted that “it did land correctly” and that Fox rightly made clear it was “a dogfight in the Electoral College.” Mr. Sammon stood by the call. “If I may defend the Decision Desk for a moment, they got all 50 states right,” he said. “We called Arizona. It was a good call. It held up.”
Ms. Scott pressed Mr. Sammon to admit that Arizona “became much closer than even you anticipated it becoming.”
He pushed back. “From a statistical standpoint,” he said, “I literally never worried about the Arizona call. From a lot of other standpoints it was very painful for reasons that we’re all aware of. But statistically, I really was very confident in that call. That’s just the truth.”
Ms. Scott agreed it was important to be right. “But I think we’re living in a new world in a sense, where half of the voting population doesn’t believe in big corporations, big tech, big media,” she said. “There’s a lack of trust. And when they feel like things are being done behind closed doors in rooms that they can’t understand, it exacerbates the emotion and how they feel about the process.”
Tom Lowell, the managing editor for news, said Fox had been left “as the canary in this nasty coal mine,” suggesting other networks had deliberately delayed calls out of malice. “I think some outlets willfully held back calls that they probably could have made to watch us twist in the wind,” he said.
Ms. Scott asserted that CNN had delayed to hold viewer attention. “CNN historically I think has always been late because — purely for ratings,” she said. “And I think you have to ask yourself, is that a good enough reason? Trust, public trust, viewership, I mean there’s different parameters.”
She added that she was merely “raising the questions” about holding back calls. “There is a philosophy around that.” (Matt Dornic, a CNN spokesman, on Saturday denied holding back calls for ratings, saying its journalists “make calls as soon as we’re confident they’re right.”)
The Arizona dispute was not an abstract discussion. Georgia would soon hold runoff elections for two Senate seats that would determine control of the chamber. The question was raised about how to call those races given that Republicans seemed favored to win.
“If we’re going to be first to call the Senate for G.O.P. control, that’s OK too,” Mr. Baier said, prompting awkward laughs. (The person in the meeting said Mr. Baier was joking.)
What no one said at the meeting was that Ms. Scott would not let Mr. Sammon’s team risk the network’s brand again. She decided to push out Mr. Sammon and Mr. Stirewalt, but fearing criticism for firing journalists who had gotten the call right, opted to wait until after Georgia.
Mr. Murdoch was not keen on waiting. On Nov. 20, four days after the Zoom meeting, according to documents filed by Dominion, he told Ms. Scott, “Maybe best to let Bill go right away,” which would “be a big message with Trump people.”
Mr. Sammon, who had called every election correctly over 12 years at Fox and had just been offered a new three-year contract, was told that same day that his contract would not be renewed after all. He heard not from Fox but from his lawyer, Robert Barnett. Mr. Stirewalt was out too.
Fox would, in the end, wait until after Georgia to announce the purge, without attributing it to the Arizona call. Mr. Sammon, who negotiated a severance package, would call his departure a “retirement,” while Stirewalt’s dismissal was characterized as a “restructuring.”
Three weeks later, Fox announced a new multiyear contract extension for Ms. Scott.
***********************
Busted: Fox News caught on secret recording amid billion dollar lawsuit for peddling lies
by Ari Melber
MSNBC
Mar 6, 2023 #msnbc #foxnews #rupertmurdoch
MSNBC Chief Legal Correspondent Ari Melber reports on a bombshell leak in the billion dollar legal earthquake rocking Fox News and its Chief Rupert Murdoch. The New York Times obtaining a recording of a Zoom meeting with Fox’s CEO and the network’s top anchors, which reveals an internal panic over losing viewers for reporting accurate facts. CEO Suzanne Scott saying “if we hadn’t called Arizona… our ratings would have been even bigger.” (This is an excerpt of the full discussion that aired on MSNBC). Check out the video playlist for "The Beat with Ari Melber": http://www.msnbc.com/ari
Transcript
0:01
THESE TRULY EXTRAORDINARY TIMES.
0:02
WE ARE GRATEFUL.
0:03
"THE BEAT" WITH ARI MELBER
0:05
STARTS RIGHT NOW.
0:06
>> I'M ARI MELBER.
0:07
THE TOP STORY ROCKING
0:08
CONSERVATIVE POLITICS AND FOX
0:09
NEWS TONIGHT IS A HUGE NEW LEAK
0:11
ABOUT THIS MOMENT IN 2020 WHEN
0:13
FOX NEWS ACCURATELY REPORTED
0:15
BIDEN WON ARIZONA, WHICH STOKED
0:17
A MAGA BACKLASH WHICH UPENDED
0:20
THE NETWORK, FED THE SERIES OF
0:24
JOURNALISTS -- THAT FOX NOW IS
0:26
FACING POTENTIAL ACCOUNTABILITY
0:28
FOR, POTENTIALLY OVER A BILLION
0:30
DOLLARS IN LAWSUIT FINES.
0:31
IT'S ALSO NOW LED TO THE
0:33
ABSOLUTE BLOCKBUSTER LEAK TO
0:38
"THE NEW YORK TIMES."
0:38
IF YOU'RE THINK, OR I HEARD
0:40
ABOUT OTHER LEAKS, THIS ONE IS
0:42
DIFFERENT AND NEW AND NARRATES A
0:45
SECRET MEETING BETWEEN FOX EXECS
0:47
AND HOSTS ABOUT THAT ARIZONA
0:54
CALL.
0:54
AN INTERNAL FREAKOUT WHERE
0:56
VIEWERS WERE MAD AND BAILING ON
0:58
FOX BECAUSE THEY REPORTED IN
0:59
THAT INSTANCE, ONE, UNDENIABLE
1:02
FACT ABOUT THE ELECTION.
1:03
AND THE EXECUTIVES AND ANCHORS,
1:05
GREAT BARE AND MAR THAT
1:07
McCOLLUM, ON THIS CALL THEY
1:09
DISCUSS THEY WERE LOSING VIEWERS
1:10
BECAUSE THEY CORRECTLY CALLED
1:12
ARIZONA FOR BIDEN.
1:13
AND THEN THEY DISCUSS WHETHER
1:14
THE COMPANY SHOULD REVERSE THAT
1:17
CALL, AS A KIND OF LIE TO
1:20
APPEASE ANGRY TRUMP VIEWER OR
1:22
CHANGE THEIR ENTIRE ELECTION
1:23
COVERAGE GOING FORWARD,
1:24
BASICALLY SAYING, TELLING THE
1:25
TRUTH IN THIS INSTANCE HAS
1:31
REVERBERATED SO POORLY, MAYBE WE
1:32
SHOULD STOP TELLING THE TRUTH.
1:34
THIS IS ABSOLUTELY DAMNING AND
1:37
INCRIMINATING STUFF.
1:37
KEEP IN MIND BEFORE WE GO
1:39
FURTHER, AND I'M GOING TO SHOW
1:40
YOU THE RECEIPTS -- NEWS OUTLET
1:44
DO NOT AUTOCRACY OFF REPORTING
1:46
TO THE HIGHEST AUDIENCE.
1:47
THEY DON'T STATE KNOWING
1:51
FALSEHOODS ONLY FOR RATINGS.
1:52
OF ALL THE VALID CRITIQUE FOR
1:54
MEDIA, AND THERE ARE MANY, THIS
1:55
TYPE OF THING, JUST CANCELING AN
1:57
ELECTION CALL OR REVERSING IT,
1:59
THIS DOESN'T EVEN COME UP.
2:00
NO LEGITIMATE NEWS ORGANIZATION
2:01
HAS FACED EVIDENCE OF ANYTHING
2:03
LIKE THIS IN ITS ELECTION
2:05
COVERAGE IN THE MODERN ERA.
2:06
IN ORDER, IF YOU'RE LISTENING TO
2:08
THIS STORY AND GOING, WELL, I
2:09
HAVE A LOT OF FRIENDS WHO
2:12
CRITICIZE THE PRESS, SURE, THOSE
2:15
CRITIQUES ARE VALID.
2:16
THE A CRITIQUES ABOUT THE PRESS,
2:19
BIAS, SELECTIVE COVERAGE,
2:20
CORPORATE INTERFERENCE, NONE OF
2:21
THAT GOES ANYWHERE CLOSE TO
2:22
THIS -- A FOX CEO NOW CAUGHT ON
2:27
TAPE SAYING, IF WE HADN'T CALLED
2:28
ARIZONA ACCURATELY, OUR RATINGS
2:30
WOULD HAVE BEEN HIGHER.
2:31
AND GIVES AWAY THE GAME BY
2:33
SAYING IT WAS BAD THAT FOX'S
2:34
ELECTION EFFORT TOLD THE TRUTH
2:36
ABOUT ARIZONA, SAYING, AGAIN,
2:39
FROM THIS NEWLY LEAKED CALL IT
2:40
WAS NOT TO DO ACTUAL ELECTION
2:44
COVERAGE IT WAS TO, QUOTE,
2:45
PROTECT THE BRAND.
2:45
WHEN FOX'S OWN ELECTION EXPERT
2:47
PUSHES BACK -- WE'RE SEEING
2:49
BEHIND THE CURTAIN OF HIGH LEVEL
2:51
STUFF YOU NEVER NORMALLY SEE.
2:54
THE EXPERT PUSHES BACK, SAYS
2:55
THEY HAD THE CALL RIGHT, WHICH
2:57
IS TRUE.
2:57
THEN "THE NEW YORK TIMES"
2:58
REPORTS THAT THE FOX CEO SCOTT
3:02
AGREED IT WAS IMPORTANT TO BE
3:02
RIGHT BUCK QUOTE, I THINK WE'RE
3:04
LIVING IN A NEW WORLD IN A
3:05
SENSE, WHERE HALF THE VOTING
3:08
POPULATION DOESN'T BELIEVE IN
3:09
BIG CORPS WEIGHS, BIG MEDIA.
3:11
THERE'S A LACK OF TRUST.
3:13
THIS IS SUCH B.S.
3:14
I WANT TO YOU MAKE SURE YOU
3:16
UNDERSTAND EXACTLY WHAT IT IS,
3:17
BECAUSE IT'S AN ECHO YOU MIGHT
3:19
HEAR FROM SOMEONE AS A DINNER
3:22
PARTY OR BARBECUE.
3:24
THOSE PEOPLE ON YOUR SCREEN
3:25
YOU'RE SEEING NOW LIE TO YOU.
3:28
THEY UNDERMINE TRUST.
3:30
THEN REFER TO A, LA OF TRUST,
3:31
WHICH IS THEIR JUSTIFICATION FOR
3:33
WHAT THEY'RE DOING, AND TO TELL
3:34
YOU THE OBVIOUS TONIGHT, BECAUSE
3:37
SOMETIMES I DO THAT, IT IS
3:39
ILLOGICAL TO SAY YOU CAN'T
3:41
REPORT THE TRUTH IF HALF THE POP
3:43
LAS VEGAS DISAGREES WTS TRUTH.
3:45
WE'RE BACK TO 101 HERE.
3:47
THE WHOLE ROLE OF A LEGITIMATE
3:50
NEWS ORGANIZATION IS TO REPORT
3:52
FACTS REGARDLESS OF PEOPLE'S
3:54
DISAGREEMENT AND ESPECIALLY WHEN
3:55
THERE'S A COORDINATED ATTACK ON
3:56
THE FACTS.
3:57
IN THIS CASE, AN ATTACK FROM THE
3:59
OUTGOING GOVERNMENT TRYING TO
4:00
OVERTHROW THE ELECTION WHERE
4:01
PEOPLE WERE KILLED AND A COUP
4:02
WAS ATTEMPTED.
4:04
THAT'S OF COURSE WHAT MAKES ALL
4:05
THIS IMPORTANT.
4:06
THAT'S WHY IT'S STILL IN THE
4:07
NEWS BECAUSE OF THE SHEER SAKE
4:08
OF IT, NOT JUST SOME RANDOM
4:12
ISOLATED LIE FROM SOMEBODY WHO
4:14
ADMIT THESE RUN FOX NEWS TO
4:20
PROTECT -- IN THAT SAME CALL,
4:25
MARTHA MacCALLUM TALKS ABOUT THE
4:31
BACKLASH.
4:31
BRETT BEHR RAISES THE IDEA OF
4:33
REVERING THE CALL.
4:35
THE SOONER WE PULL IT, EVEN IF
4:39
IT GIVES YOUS A MAJOR EGG BACK
4:40
IN TRUMP'S COLUMN, THE BETTER WE
4:42
ARE IN MY OPINION.
4:44
DAMN, PEOPLE JUST TELLING ON
4:46
THEMSELVES.
4:47
MR. BAIER CLEARLY DIDN'T KNOW
4:49
THIS ZOOM CALL WOULD GET OUT TO
4:50
THE ENTIRE WORLD, AND THIS NEWLY
4:54
LEAKED CALL SHOWS IN HIS OWN
4:56
WORDS -- I'M NOT ADD ANYTHING
4:58
HERE -- BAIER WANTED TO PULL THE
5:02
ACCURATE REPORT.
5:02
HERE WAS MAKING THAT CALL.
5:04
>> THE FOX NEWS DECISION DESK IS
5:06
CALLING ARIZONA FOR JOE BIDEN.
5:09
THAT IS A BIG GET FOR THE BIDEN
5:13
CAMPAIGN.
5:14
FOX NEWS WENT ON TO FIRE ONE OF
5:15
THE ELECTION STAFFERS WHO WAS
5:17
INVOLVED IN MAKING THE CORRECT
5:20
ARIZONA CALL.
5:21
WE DID KNOW THAT ALREADY.
5:23
THIS LEAKED ZOOM CONVERSATION
5:25
ADDS A LOT MORE CONTEXT AT IT
5:27
SHOWS FOX IS THE KIND OF MEDIA
5:31
COMPANY WHERE GETTING A STORY
5:33
RIGHT GET YOU FIRED.
5:35
THEY DID NOT PUBLICLY REVERSE
5:38
THAT CALL.
5:39
ALL THIS COMES AS RUPERT MURDOCH
5:45
ADMITS HE KNEW TRUMP'S CALL WAS
5:47
CRAZY AND SOME ENDORSED IT ANY
5:48
WAY.
5:49
NOW, HOW DID WE GET HERE?
5:51
WHY IS THIS STILL IN THE NEWS?
5:53
WELL, FOR WEEKS THE BILLION
5:56
DOLLARS DEFAMATION CASE AGAINST
5:58
FOX HAS DRIVEN SOME REALLY ROUGH
6:00
HEADLINES BASED ON THAT CASE AS
6:02
MATERIAL.
6:03
SECRET TEXTS, EMAILS,
6:05
DEPOSITIONS GOING PUBLIC LIKE
6:06
THE MURDOCH ONE, AND THAT IS ALL
6:08
AN UNAVOIDABLE PART OF LEGAL
6:10
TRIAL DISCOVERY.
6:12
BUT THERE IS NO INDICATION FROM
6:15
"THE NEW YORK TIMES" WHERE THIS
6:16
NEW CALL RECORDING LEAK CAME
6:20
FROM.
6:21
IT'S POSSIBLE, I SUPPOSE, THAT
6:22
IT WAS A RECORDING ACCIDENTALLY
6:24
MADE BY FOX THAT WENT INTO SOME
6:26
EVIDENCE GROUPING AND GOT TURNED
6:30
OVER.
6:30
IT'S TECHNICALLY POSSIBLE.
6:32
WE CANNOT AT THIS HOUR RULE THAT
6:33
OUT.
6:33
BUT MOST PEOPLE ON THAT CALL
6:36
WOULD NOT WANT IT RECORDED IN
6:36
THE FIRST PLACE, COULD NOT
6:38
KNOWINGLY RECORD IT TO PUT IT IN
6:41
THE EVIDENCE PILE "THE NEW YORK
6:42
TIMES" STATES THE LEAK IN THEIR
6:44
REPORTING IS BASED ON, QUOTE, A
6:51
REVIEW OF THE RECORDING OF THE
6:53
CALL.
6:53
THE POSSIBILITY THAT SOMEONE
6:55
INSIDE FOX SECRETLY RECORDED IT
6:56
AS THAT HEAT WAS RISING, KNOWING
6:58
THAT SOME DAY THAT CALL COULD BE
7:00
USED TO DAMAGE THE PEOPLE ON IT
7:01
OR EVEN THE FOX CEO HERSELF.
7:05
IT RAISES THE POSSIBILITY THAT
7:06
THIS CALL WAS LEAKED BY FOX
7:09
ITSELF TO HURT PEOPLE AT THE TOP
7:11
OF FOX BECAUSE THERE ARE PEOPLE
7:13
EVEN ABOVE THAT WORRIED ABOUT
7:14
THE HEAT RIGHT NOW.
7:16
"THE NEW YORK TIMES" JUST
7:17
DOESN'T SAY.
7:18
AND AS IS OUR PRACTICE WE TELL
7:20
YOU WHAT WE KNOW AND DON'T KNOW.
7:21
WE DON'T HAVE THE SOURCING, BUT
7:24
WE HAVE CLUES.
7:24
THIS IS A TIME WHEN THE CALLS
7:26
KEEP CLOSING IN AT A COMPANY RUN
7:33
BY PEOPLE WEATHERS BY SCANDALS.
7:37
THESE ARE THE PEOPLE WHO
7:39
KNOWINGLY CONTRIBUTED TO THE
7:40
ATTEMPTED OVERTHROW OF YOUR
7:41
GOVERNMENT.
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 37523
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Trump lashes out at Gov. Doug Ducey following certificat
by admin » Wed Mar 08, 2023 9:32 am
Forwarded message
From: Marlene Bourne [DELETE]
Date: Sat, Nov 7, 2020, 5:07 PM
Subject: Election Fraud Info
To: <sidneypowell@[DELETE]; <tfitton@[DELETE]; <lou@loudobbs[DELETE]
Dear Mrs. Powell, Mr. Fitton, and Mr. Dobbs:
I was told to email you the following pieces of information:
You're probably already aware of voting irregularities in a number of states, which have one common thread: Dominion Voting Systems.
Don't you find it curious that Nadeam Elshami, Nancy Pelosi's longtime Chief of Staff is a key executive there, and that Richard Blum, Senator Feinstein's husband, is not only a significant shareholder of that company, but in Avid Technologies as well?
As a point of reference... back in 2009, Diebold sold their election machines division. An anti-trust suit was immediately filed that conveniently ensured that, in 2010, Dominion Voting Systems would acquire the assets "in order to restore competition". With the acquisition of another large california election machine company in the same timeframe, that gave Dominion an even bigger monopoly than Diebold ever had - yet no one has ever filed an anti-trust suit against them. Friends in high places indeed.
But the monopoly isn't necessarily the issue - it's the software. A piece of code was inserted such that, once ballots were fed into the database for tabulation, up to 3% of votes for Mr. Trump would automatically switch to Mr. Biden; this was capped at 3% because it was supposedly determined that anything higher than that would raise suspicions, but that 3% would be enough to tip a tight race.
How as this done?
In conjunction with a company by the name of Scytl, which provides election night reporting (and other online election management tools). You'd think that kind of hugely important software would developed and managed by a US company (or the US government itself), but...no, it's based in Spain. Which means it's the Spanish who decide who wins our elections and who doesn't. Or do they? It's a bit of a corporate shell game (with hundreds of companies involved) and while it appears that the ultimate parent company is actually British, I find it interesting that the owner is French. Here's a project for a curious investigative journalist to dig into.
You might was to see what ties Scytl company executives (all the way up the shell company food chain) have to the SSCI. Because that is the root of everything here. The base of the pyramid, so to speak. In that respect, Daniel Jones - A Feinstein staffer - and his newly formed Penn Quarter Group, are the fulcrum.
(By the way, that magic sweet spot of 3% isn't arbitrary. That's what American Express charges merchants as a transaction fee...and also happens to be the cut that Jared Kushner gets from all donations to the GOP - which is line-itemed in the software he helped to create - with his brother, I think it was - as a transaction fee. I thought I'd throw that in there in the interest of fairness to both sides).
Anyway, there's also an issue with mail-in paper ballots. Not the absentee ballots, but the mail-in ballots arbitrarily sent to people; the ones that keep mysteriously appearing in the middle of the night. The paper used to print those does NOT have a special watermark as is being reported; instead, the paper fibers were embedded with anti-counterfeiting securing features to detect fraud...much like how the Treasury embeds security features into paper money. I'll bet it's digital DNA - nanotechnology.
Detection is easy: simply use the same marker to detect fake $100 bills. Or at least, that's ONE of the anti-counterfeit features in place. Either way, it was done by the US military. In fact, I'm told that Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney briefed Mr. Trump on this last year.
Mr. Fitton's FOIA lawsuits to gain the kind of information he does is certainly helpful, but I think everyone at this point knows that the Department of Justice will do nothing. I mean, when they're handed the complete NSA database (what was it? 600 million pages of who, what, why, when, where, and how...terabytes of information on dozens of hard drives)...I suppose it takes a while to sort through it all. Or, maybe not. Ask Mossad and Shin Bet. They have a software backdoor into every intelligence database in the US...and around the world.
Besides, as I've pointed out to the FBI myself (on an entirely different matter that is now proving to be related), technically, this is a matter in which the Pentagon - the US military - has original jurisdiction.
Along those lines, I always thought it curious how Mrs. Powell's case with General Flynn seemed more like a court martial, than a regular civilian court process.
As for Mr. Dobbs...are you award that Mr. Ailes, Mr. Murdoch, and the handful of other (non-US) owners of the major US media outlets secretly huddle most days to determine how best to portray Mr. Trump as badly as possible? The global hatred of the man has everything to do with the fact that, as a political outsider, Mr. Trump has disrupted a well-oiled global money laundering operation; one that revolves around the congress critters, lobbyists, and public relations firms. There are trillions at stake...never come between a thief and his money. The recent COVID relief bills are simply one mechanism to try to feed money they've lost out on over the past 4 years back into that system.
As an aside, I'll throw this out there just because it's so interesting...and related...SCOTUS Justice Scalia wasn't accidentally shot during a hunting trip on John Poindexter's Texas ranch. He was purposefully killed at the annual Bohemian Grove camp...a club for members of the Mega-Group, during a weeklong human hunting expedition. NEVER accept an invitation to be a guest at that camp. Ever.
That being said. Who am I? And how do I know all of this?
I spent most of my career (15+ years) as a successful technology analyst; an expert in the field of nanotechnology, which touches on everything. I was superbly accurate with my forecasts and ideas. I always thought I was just a really gifted that way, but it's turned out to be a bit more than that.
I've had the strangest dreams since I was a little girl. Most were just odd - others were clearly predictions. Over time, they became more...vivid...and more...interactive. About ten years ago, an event took place that seemed to amplify these abilities, by vastly more than an order of magnitude.
Although the most vivid "dreams" take place while dozing, they're not normal dreams; but I'm not sure the Native American term "visions" really fits, either. It's more like time-travel in a semi-conscious state; and all senses are involved. But that's not all - when I'm awake, I see what others don't see, and hear what others don't hear.
There's a movie, Thunderheart, in which the Native American sheriff explains it best to an FBI agent who is just learning to tap into his Native American heritage...he tells him to "listen to the wind". That makes sense to me.
Stranger still, I was in a car accident in 1992; and something took place that I've never been able to explain. For all intents and purposes, I was internally decapitated, and yet, I live. I breathe, I shop, I laugh, I get old, I walk the earth.
The Wind tells me I'm a ghost, but I don't believe it. Although it appears that I was shot in the back shortly after submitting a tip to the FBI two years ago...at the time, I thought I just tripped and fell during a walk and bruised my ribs...but I had a vision about a year later in which I stood in the same spot and felt my soul leave my body. It was like having a band-aid being ripped off your skin. And yet, I continue to walk the earth.
Despite that, the wind tells me that no one can harm me; it protects me and keeps me safe.
Anyway, I've gotten a little off track, and I'll be the first to admit that while the last bit is pretty wackadoodle, it's relevant...and I can tell you this about everything else above:
Time always...eventually...proves me correct.
Kindest Regards,
Mars.
*********************************
Trump spurred ‘existential crisis’ at Fox News, lawsuit exhibits show: ‘I hate him passionately,’ Tucker Carlson wrote of Donald Trump in a text to a colleague on Jan. 4, 2021
by Sarah Ellison
Washington Post
Updated March 7, 2023 at 11:20 p.m. EST Published March 7, 2023 at 10:51 p.m. EST
NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT
For years, Fox News executives and hosts cultivated a close relationship with Donald Trump. But after he lost the 2020 presidential election and turned his back on the network — inspiring many once-loyal viewers to do the same — the relationship curdled.
And the ensuing pressure caused tension, second-guessing and infighting within Fox on the scale of an “existential crisis,” as one senior executive called it, a cache of internal communications released Tuesday as part of a $1.6 billion defamation lawsuit indicates.
“We are very, very close to being able to ignore Trump most nights,” prime-time host Tucker Carlson texted a colleague on Jan. 4, 2021. “I truly can’t wait.”
Carlson, who had shared private meetings with the president and defended him on-air, added in a text: “I hate him passionately. … What he’s good at is destroying things. He’s the undisputed world champion of that. He could easily destroy us if we play it wrong.”
Carlson’s private thoughts are especially striking in light of a new round of criticism this week that he misrepresented exclusive security-camera footage from the U.S. Capitol through a lens of Trumpian misinformation to downplay the severity of the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection.
Dominion Voting Systems, an election-technology company, has sued Fox, arguing that the cable-news giant gravely hurt its economic future by allowing allies of Trump to claim falsely on Fox programs that it rigged the election in favor of Joe Biden.
The materials unveiled Tuesday included a large selection of exhibits mentioned in past legal motions that have generated headlines and controversy for the network. Internal communications and sworn testimony suggest that top executives and hosts privately doubted the veracity of election fraud claims even as Fox continued to air them — which Dominion argues was motivated by fear of losing Trump-supporting viewers.
“Maybe Sean and Laura went too far,” Fox’s billionaire co-founder Rupert Murdoch emailed the company CEO, referring to prime-time stars Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham, who had entertained the baseless election conspiracy theories on-air.
“All very well for Sean to tell you he was in despair about Trump,” Murdoch continued, “but what did he tell his viewers?”
What emerges from the emails is an organization riven by internal conflicts as they grappled with the burgeoning crisis spawned by the loss of favor from Trump — which threatened to send some of his most ardent supporters to rival cable news channels.
Fox News has defended its decision to air the claims of Trump’s attorneys by saying they were newsworthy arguments. And in a statement Tuesday, Fox representatives dismissed the significance of the newly revealed exhibits, saying that Dominion used “distortion and misinformation” and that the company “twist[ed] and even misattribut[ed] quotes” in presenting the material.
Not long after Murdoch agonized over whether his hosts had “gone too far,” one of the most high-ranking news editors, Bill Sammon, texted a colleague: “In my 22 years affiliated with Fox, this is the closest thing I’ve seen to an existential crisis — at least journalistically.” The “crisis” was the network’s continued focus on what Sammon called “supposed election fraud.”
His colleague Chris Stirewalt, then a politics editor who played a key role in Fox’s decision to call Arizona for Biden, replied: “What I see us doing is losing the silent majority of viewers as we chase the nuts off a cliff.” (Both Sammon and Stirewalt were later pushed out of their jobs at Fox.)
Ingraham and Carlson also disparaged Trump’s attorney, Rudy Giuliani, a Nov. 18, 2020, text conversation shows.
Ingraham texted Carlson that “Giuliani embarrassed the President” during court battles over the election. Ingraham, who previously worked as an attorney, scoffed that Giuliani was unable to answer a judge’s questions that “a second year law student would known.”
She went on to call another prominent member of Trump’s legal team, Sidney Powell, “a complete nut,” and stated that “no one will work with her. Ditto with Rudy.”
Yet even while mocking the conspiratorial claims, the prime-time hosts also expressed frustration at decisions by the network’s news division to contradict some of those claims. And they expressed special disdain for the news division’s early prediction that Biden would win the hotly contested state of Arizona — an announcement that infuriated Trump and many of his fans.
“We are all officially working for an organization that hates us,” Ingraham wrote in one text thread with Carlson and Hannity.
In another, in mid-November 2020, as they watched Fox viewers flip to more conservative upstart channels, Ingraham wrote to the group, “My anger at the news channel is pronounced.”
Yet as tensions roiled Fox, the faces of the network were not always united in their approach. When Hannity’s producer noted that Carlson was getting “blasted on Twitter” for criticizing Powell on his show, Hannity replied, “His problem.”
“Trump people are … pissed,” Hannity texted his producer, who replied that Hannity’s show succeeded because “we just didn’t talk about Sidney’s claims.”
The newly unveiled exhibits show the extraordinary energy and attention devoted to mollifying Trump and his die-hard supporters in the days after Fox correctly called the election for Biden.
In one internal message, Raj Shah, a Fox Corp. senior vice president, shared survey data with colleagues showing that Fox’s favorability ratings dropped sharply after the election. The network’s brand was “under heavy fire from our customer base,” he wrote. “I’d like to get honest/deeper feedback from Fox viewers on the brand, the handling of the election, if they feel like they have been somehow betrayed by the network.”
(Shah, in a separate communication, called Powell’s election fraud claims “totally insane” and “just MIND BLOWINGLY NUTS.”)
Shah warned senior leaders that Fox’s declining favorability among its core audience was “getting pretty perilous” and said he had shared his views with Lachlan Murdoch, the CEO of the news network’s parent company, as well as Viet Dinh, the company’s chief legal and policy officer. His views, he wrote in an email on Nov. 11, 2020, were that “bold, clear and decisive action is needed for us to begin to regain the trust that we’re losing with our core audience.”
One defamation expert said Dominion’s court filings were striking for what he saw as Fox’s misplaced emphasis of priorities.
“The picture so far shows deep involvement of people responsible for the editorial process who were more concerned about the opinion of certain politicians than the truth,” said David Logan, a professor at Roger Williams School of Law.
Six weeks before the 2020 election, Murdoch emailed Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law and senior adviser, to weigh in on campaign advertising.
“Know you are spending less on tv than Biden,” Murdoch wrote. “However my people tell me his [advertisements] are a lot better creatively than yours.” He signed the email “Rupert” and appeared to send it using his iPhone.
Kushner replied the next day, assuring the media mogul, “Should have some new creative out this week. I did a review and like what [I’m] seeing.”
But despite Murdoch’s intelligence gathering for Kushner, Trump lost.
Fox News has previously said that Dominion has “cherry-pick[ed]” salacious details “utterly irrelevant to the legal issues in this case.” With these latest filings, the public got a fuller view of the context to some of the blockbuster revelations that came out weeks ago in legal motions.
Defamation cases typically involve one statement or phrase by one individual or a few, not months of on-air monologues and internal exchanges between dozens of individuals.
At their most outlandish, some Fox hosts entertained claims that Dominion was a front for the government of Venezuela and that its voting machines were capable of flipping votes from one candidate to another.
After Rupert Murdoch saw a New York Post cover telling Trump to move on, the Fox Corp. chairman told the paper’s former editor in chief, Col Allan, “Sounds like Donald read this.” An hour later on Dec. 28, 2020, he sent his congratulations to Allan for a “great” editorial.
“If he doesn’t tweet it’ll mean he’s read it and stopped to think,” Murdoch wrote, another example of a fruitless desire to quiet Trump’s baseless election conspiracy claims.
Carlson, in his text exchange with a colleague, expressed his ultimate frustration with Trump’s administration. “We’re all pretending we’ve got a lot to show for it, because admitting what a disaster it’s been is too tough to digest,” he wrote. “But come on. There really isn’t an upside to Trump.”
Isaac Stanley-Becker, Emma Brown, Dan Rosenzweig-Ziff, Yvonne Wingett Sanchez and Jonathan O’Connell contributed to this report.
*********************************
Tucker Carlson 'passionately' hates Trump & the truth
by Lawrence O’Donnell
MSNBC
Mar 7, 2023 #msnbc #tuckercarlson #foxnews
MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell analyzes the latest documents released in the Dominion Voting Systems defamation lawsuit against Fox, which include Tucker Carlson telling his fellow Fox hosts in texts that the election lies being repeated on the network were making him “paranoid and crazy.”
Transcript
>> TUCKER CARLSON'S
0:08
PARANOID AND CRAZY AND THOSE
0:11
ARE HIS WORDS DESCRIBING
0:14
HIMSELF.
0:15
IN A MASSIVE NEW --
0:17
IN THE DOMINION --
0:20
FOR LYING ABOUT DOMINION'S
0:22
VOTING MACHINES IN THE LAST
0:24
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, CLAIMING
0:25
THAT THOSE MACHINES SWITCHED
0:29
VOTES AND EVERYONE AT FOX KNEW
0:30
THAT WAS A LIE, EVERYONE AT FOX
0:34
EXCEPT MARIA BARTIROMO KNEW
0:36
THAT EVERYTHING FROM FOX WAS
0:38
SPEWING ABOUT DOMINION WAS A
0:40
LIE AND EVERYONE EXCEPT MARIA
0:42
BARTIROMO NEW.
0:44
EVERYTHING DONALD TRUMP'S
0:45
LAWYERS SAID WHO'S LICENSED
0:47
PRACTICE LAW HAS BEEN SUSPENDED,
0:49
EVERYTHING SHE WAS SAYING ABOUT
0:51
DOMINION WAS A LIE.
0:53
TONIGHT'S RELEASE, FOX 10 PM
0:59
LAURYN GREENE TEXTS CUFF TUCKER
1:00
CARLSON SAYING, SYDNEY POWELL
1:02
IS A BIT NUTS, TO WHICH TUCKER
1:04
CARLSON SAYS SHE IS MAKING
1:06
EVERYONE A BIT PARANOID AND
1:07
CRAZY, INCLUDING ME.
1:10
THE TEXT MESSAGES AND EMAILS
1:12
FROM INSIDE FOX SHOW TUCKER
1:14
CARLSON MOSTLY TELLS THE TRUTH
1:17
WHEN HE THINKS HE IS
1:21
COMMUNICATING PRIVATELY IN FOX,
1:22
HE CONSTANTLY, CONSTANTLY
1:24
THROWS PALACE THE LOGICAL LIES
1:27
AT HIS T V AUDIENCE WHO HE
1:29
FIRMLY BELIEVES IS WAY TOO
1:32
STUPID TO FIGURE OUT THAT A
1:34
SELF PARANOID AND CRAZY FOX
1:38
HOST IS LYING TO HIM.
1:42
AS HE DID LAST NIGHT, BY
1:44
CLAIMING THAT THERE WAS NOTHING
1:46
VIOLENT ABOUT --
1:47
ON JANUARY 6TH BECAUSE --
1:52
BUT VIDEO SUPPLIED FROM THE
1:55
CAPITAL, --
1:56
TUCKER CARLSON FOUND SOME
1:58
MOMENTS AS I TOLD YOU HE WOULD
2:00
WEAR NO ONE WAS BEING THE DAY
2:04
THAT JOHN LEWIS --
2:06
WAS ALMOST BEATEN TO DEATH FOR
2:08
DARING TO CROWDS --
2:12
LIKE THIS ONE.
2:14
OF THE ALABAMA STATE TROOPER
2:16
VICIOUSLY BEATING JOHN LEWIS.
2:19
BUT IF YOU HAD A CAMERA ON THAT
2:21
SAME STATE TROOPER, SAME GUY IN
2:23
THAT PHOTOGRAPH, IF YOU HAD A
2:25
CAMERA ON HIM FROM A COUPLE OF
2:26
HOURS BEFORE THAT MOMENT,
2:28
TUCKER CARLSON WOULD TELL YOU
2:30
THAT THAT WAS A PERFECTLY
2:31
PEACEFUL LAW-ABIDING POLICE
2:33
OFFICER WHO NEVER DID ANYTHING
2:35
WRONG THAT DAY.
2:36
MOST OF THE NEWS FOOTAGE OF
2:38
PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY'S --
2:41
NOVEMBER 22ND, 1963 SHOWS A
2:43
SPIRALING PRESIDENT BEING
2:44
WELCOMED BY THE PEOPLE OF
2:46
DALLAS, --
2:47
TUCKER CARLSON COULD SHOW HIS
2:49
AUDIENCE THAT FILM OF THE
2:51
SMILING PRESIDENT WAVING TO THE
2:53
CROWD IN HIS MOTORCADE TO PROVE
2:57
TO HIS AUDIENCE THAT NOTHING
2:59
BAD HAPPENED IN DALLAS THAT DAY.
3:02
THAT IS ALL TUCKER CARLSON
3:04
THINKS HE HAS TO DO WITH HIS
3:07
AUDIENCE.
3:08
JUST DON'T SHOW THEM THE TRUE
3:11
FILM OF THE BULLETS AND DURING
3:14
THE PRESIDENTS DEBT.
3:15
BACK OF THE HEAD IN THE NECK.
3:16
DON'T SHOW THAT.
3:17
YOU CAN TELL TUCKER CARLSON'S
3:19
AUDIENCE THAT JOHN F. KENNEDY
3:21
WAS NOT ASSASSINATED IN DALLAS
3:23
THAT DAY.
3:24
AND MAY STILL BE AMONG US.
3:25
THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT TUCKER
3:27
CARLSON DID LAST NIGHT IN HIS
3:30
PEAK VERSION OF BEING PARANOID
3:34
AND CRAZY AND SPEWING
3:38
PATHOLOGICAL LIES AT THE VERY
3:40
SAME TIME.
3:41
KEVIN MCCARTHY PICK THE PERSON
3:46
ROOKIE NOT NAMED MURDAUGH WHO
3:47
HAS BEEN MOST PROTESTS WE
3:49
EXPOSED IN THE LEGAL FILINGS AS
3:51
BEING PARANOID AND CRAZY AND A
3:53
PATHOLOGICAL LIAR.
3:54
THAT IS THE PERSON WHO KEVIN
3:56
MCCARTHY PICKED TOOK, FOR
3:58
CARLSON --
4:00
HAVE ALL THE PEOPLE HE COULD'VE
4:01
PICKED TO GIVE HIM THE VIDEO
4:04
TAKEN BY CAMERAS ON THE CAPITOL
4:07
CAMPUS ON JANUARY 6TH SO THAT
4:09
TUCKER CARLSON, THE CRAZY,
4:12
PARANOID, PATHOLOGICAL LIAR,
4:14
COULD PRETEND THAT NOTHING
4:15
VIOLENT HAPPENED AT THE CAPITOL
4:17
THAT DAY.
4:19
SO THAT TUCKER CARLSON COULD
4:20
PRETEND NOBODY COMMITTED A
4:22
CRIME.
4:23
SO THAT TUCKER CARLSON COULD
4:24
PRETEND THAT THE THOUSAND
4:26
PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN ARRESTED
4:28
AND CHARGED WITH CRIMES BY THE
4:30
JUSTICE DEPARTMENT DID NOTHING
4:32
WRONG SO THAT DONALD TRUMP
4:33
COULDN'T SAY TODAY AS HE DID IN
4:35
HIS REVIEW OF TUCKER CARLSON'S
4:37
VIDEO LAST NIGHT THAT EVERYBODY,
4:42
OH THOUSAND OF THEM, CHARGED
4:43
WITH A CRIME ON JANUARY 6TH
4:45
SHOULD BE EMMY'S ELITE RELEASED
4:46
FROM CUSTODY AND PROSECUTION.
4:49
THERE IS A MASSIVE AMOUNT OF
4:50
MATERIAL IN THIS LATEST FILE
4:52
INCLUDING AN EMAIL FROM REPORT
4:54
MURDAUGH --
4:56
WHO TECHNICALLY HOLDS THE
4:58
RIDICULOUS TITLE OF CEO OF FOX
5:00
BUT IS REALLY JUST A RUPERT
5:02
MURDOCH ASSISTANT.
5:04
THE EMAIL IS THE DAY AFTER JOE
5:05
BIDEN'S INAUGURATION --
5:09
BEGINS THE DAY IN A MEETING
5:10
WITH MITCH MCCONNELL AND
5:12
LINDSEY GRAHAM AND HE TELLS
5:13
SUZANNE SCOTT WHAT HE HEARD IN
5:14
THAT MEETING.
5:15
STILL GETTING MUD THROWN OUT
5:16
US.
5:17
IS IT AN ARGUABLE THAT HIGH
5:19
PROFILE FOX VOICES FED THE
5:21
STORY THAT THE ELECTION WAS
5:22
STOLEN AND THAT JANUARY 6TH, AN
5:26
IMPORTANT CHANGE, TO HAVE
5:29
RESULTS OVERTURNED?
5:30
AN IMPORTANT CHANCE TO HAVE
5:32
RESULTS OVERTURNED.
5:33
MAYBE JOHN AND LAURA WENT TOO
5:34
FAR.
5:35
ALL VERY WELL FOR SEAN TO TELL
5:37
YOU HE WAS IN DESPAIR ABOUT
5:38
TRUMP BUT WHAT DID HE TELL YOU
5:40
HIS VIEWERS?
5:41
RUPERT MURDOCH KNOWS EXACTLY
5:43
WHAT SEAN HANNITY TOLD HIS
5:46
VIEWERS, HE PAID SEAN HANNITY
5:48
MILLIONS UPON MILLIONS, TENS
5:50
AND TENS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS
5:52
TO TELL HIS VIEWERS WHAT RUPERT
5:55
MURDOCH HAD SHOWN HIM.
5:57
YOU BELIEVE THOSE VIEWERS
5:59
WANTED TO HEAR, THAT THE
6:00
ELECTION WAS STOLEN.
6:01
THAT THE TRUMP PRESIDENCY WOULD
6:02
BE RESTORED.
6:04
UNDER OATH RUPERT MURDOCH SAID
6:06
HE WAS AWARE OF NO EVIDENCE
6:08
WHATSOEVER, OF ANY ELECTION
6:10
FRAUD IN ANY STATE AND HE SAID
6:11
UNDER OATH THAT HE HAD NO
6:12
EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER THAT THERE
6:14
WAS ANYTHING EVEN SLIGHTLY
6:17
WRONG WITH A SINGLE DOMINION
6:18
VOTING MACHINE ANYWHERE.
6:20
ALL OF FOXES COVERAGE ABOUT
6:22
DOMINION, ALL OF IT, WAS BASED
6:24
ON A WOMAN WHO CALLS HERSELF
6:28
WACKADOODLES.
6:30
THIS WOMAN SUPPLIED SYDNEY
6:32
POWELL WITH HER THEORY OF THE
6:34
CASE.
6:35
EVERYTHING DONALD TRUMP --
6:38
AND FOX WAS SAYING ABOUT
6:40
DOMINION CAME FROM SOMEONE
6:41
NAMED MARLENE BOURNE FOR IN.
6:45
A FEW HOURS AFTER ALL THE
6:48
NETWORKS, INCLUDING FOX, CALLED
6:49
THE ELECTION FOR JOE BIDEN ON
6:51
SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 7TH, 2022.
6:55
WE HAVE THIS EMAIL THAT DAY,
6:57
BECAUSE SYDNEY POWELL ORDERED
6:59
IT.
7:00
AND TO MARIA BARTIROMO THAT --
7:04
OF COURSE THERE IS ELECTION
7:05
FRAUD.
7:06
ONLY MARIA BARTIROMO BELIEVED
7:08
THIS.
7:09
MARIA BARTIROMO IS THE ONLY
7:11
PERSON AT FOX WHO WAS NOT
7:14
TRAFFICKING IN PATHOLOGICAL
7:15
LIES, BECAUSE SHE BELIEVED THIS
7:18
EMAIL.
7:20
FROM MARLENE BOURNE.
7:21
IT WAS FORWARDED TO HER IN ITS
7:23
ENTIRETY FROM SYDNEY POWELL.
7:25
MARLENE BOURNE EXPLAINS THAT THE
7:29
DEVIL WAS IN THE SOFTWARE.
7:32
IT IS THE SOFTWARE, A PIECE OF
7:34
CODE WAS INSERTED SUCH THAT,
7:36
ONCE BALLOTS WERE FED INTO THE
7:37
DATABASE FOR CALCULATION, UP TO
7:39
3% OF VOTES FOR MR. TRUMP WOULD
7:41
AUTOMATICALLY SWITCH TO MR.
7:42
BIDEN.
7:43
THIS WAS KEPT 3% BECAUSE IT WAS
7:45
SUPPOSEDLY DETERMINED THAT
7:46
ANYTHING HIGHER THAN THAT WOULD
7:47
RAISE SUSPICIONS, BUT THAT 3%
7:49
WOULD BE ENOUGH TO TIP A TIGHT
7:52
RACE.
7:53
SHE SAID THAT THE SOFTWARE WAS
7:55
RIGGED TO DO THIS IN SPAIN.
8:00
IT'S THE SPANISH TO DECIDE WHO
8:01
WINS OUR ELECTIONS AND WHO
8:03
DOESN'T.
8:04
AND THEN SHE SAYS SOMETHING
8:06
ABOUT THE 3% THAT MARIA BUT
8:09
AROMA RED, BUT THEN DECIDED TO
8:13
NEVER TELL HER AUDIENCE.
8:16
MARLENE BOURNE SAID 3% QUOTE,
8:19
ALSO HAPPENS TO BE THE CUT THAT
8:21
JARED KUSHNER GETS FROM ALL
8:23
DONATIONS TO THE GOP, WHICH IS
8:25
LINE ITEM IN THE SOFTWARE HE
8:26
HELPED TO CREATE, WITH HIS
8:28
BROTHER, I THINK IT WAS, AS A
8:30
TRANSACTION FEE.
8:31
I THOUGHT I THROW THAT IN THERE
8:32
IN THE INTEREST OF FAIRNESS TO
8:34
BOTH SIDES.
8:38
OF COURSE, THERE'S NO EVIDENCE
8:39
THAT WHAT SHE SAID ABOUT JARED
8:41
KUSHNER'S TRUE EITHER.
8:42
SHE WENT ON TO SAY, THERE'S
8:44
ALSO AN ISSUE WITH MAIL-IN
8:46
PAPER BALLOTS.
8:47
NOT THE ABSENTEE BALLOTS, BUT
8:49
THE MAIL-IN BALLOTS ARBITRARILY
8:51
SENT TO PEOPLE.
8:54
THOSE ARE IDENTICAL BALLOTS.
8:58
ALL ABSENTEE BALLOTS IN HISTORY
9:02
HAVE BEEN MAIL-IN BALLOTS.
9:04
O ABSENTEE BALLOTS NOW ARE
9:07
MAIL-IN BALLOTS.
9:08
SEE SHE THEN SAID THAT THE
9:11
RUPERT MURDOCH QUOTE, AND A
9:13
HANDFUL OF OTHER NON U.S.
9:14
OWNERS OF THE MAJOR U.S. MEDIA
9:16
OUTLETS SECRETLY HAD ALMOST
9:18
DAYS TO DETERMINE HOW BEST TO
9:20
PORTRAY MR. TRUMP AS BADLY AS
9:22
POSSIBLE.
9:23
FIRST OF ALL, THERE ARE NO
9:25
OTHER --
9:26
LIKE RUPERT MURDOCH WHO OWN ANY
9:27
OF THE BIG TV NETWORKS.
9:29
THE REASON MARIA BUTTERY MOSE
9:32
--
9:32
RUPERT MURDOCH TRIES TO PORTRAY
9:33
DONALD TRUMP AS BADLY AS
9:35
POSSIBLE WAS QUOTE, AS A
9:37
POLITICAL OUTSIDER, MR. TRUMP
9:39
HAS DISRUPTED A WELL OILED
9:41
GLOBAL MONEY LAUNDERING
9:43
OPERATION.
9:45
SO, THE WOMAN, MARIA BARTIROMO
9:50
BELIEVES ABOUT DOMINION VOTING
9:52
MACHINES IS TELLING HER, IN
9:54
THAT SAME EMAIL THE THAT HER
9:57
BOSS, RUPERT MURDOCH IS ONE OF
9:59
THE MASTERMINDS IN A GLOBAL
10:01
MONEY LAUNDERING OPERATION.
10:04
DID MARIA BUT ROMO BELIEVE THAT
10:06
PART OF THE EMAIL?
10:09
IT IS A VERY LONG EMAIL.
10:11
MOST OF IT IS NOT ABOUT THE
10:13
DOMINION VOTING MACHINES.
10:14
IT IS ABOUT MORE RUPERT MURDOCH
10:18
MONEY LAUNDERING AND OTHER
10:19
STUFF.
10:20
MOST OF IT IS EVEN MORE
10:21
PARANOID AND CRAZY THAN TUCKER
10:24
CARLSON.
10:25
MOST OF THE EMAIL IS PARANOID
10:28
AND CRAZY.
10:29
AT A LEVEL THAT EVEN MARIA
10:31
BARTIROMO SHOULD BE ABLE TO
10:33
DETECT, BUT APPARENTLY MARIA
10:36
BROTHER ROMO IS NOT INFORMED
10:38
ENOUGH TO BE ABLE TO SEPARATE
10:41
FACT FROM FICTION IN THE MOST
10:42
OBVIOUS WAY.
10:44
MARLENE BOURNE'S EMAIL SAYS, AS AN
10:47
ASIDE, OFFER THIS OUT THERE
10:49
JUST BECAUSE IT'S SO
10:50
INTERESTING, AND RELATED.
10:52
SCOTUS JUSTICE SCALIA WASN'T
10:53
ACCIDENTALLY SHOT DURING A
10:54
HUNTING TRIP ON JOHN
10:56
POINDEXTER'S TEXAS RANCH.
10:58
HE WAS PURPOSEFULLY KILLED AT
11:00
THE ANNUAL BOHEMIAN GROVE CAMP,
11:03
A CLUB FOR MEMBERS OF THE MEGA
11:06
GROUP, DURING WEEK LONG HUMAN
11:10
HUNTING EXPEDITION.
11:13
NEVER ACCEPT AN INVITATION TO
11:14
BE A GUEST AT THAT CAMP.
11:16
EVER.
11:18
A HUMAN HUNTING EXPEDITION.
11:20
JUSTICE SCALIA WAS ON A HUMAN
11:23
HUNTING EXPEDITION.
11:24
TO HUNT AND KILL HUMAN BEINGS,
11:26
SOMEHOW HE ENDED UP AT.
11:28
BOHEMIAN GROVE IS A LARGELY
11:30
RICH REPUBLICAN BUSINESSMAN'S
11:33
RETREAT THAT HAPPENS EVERY
11:34
SUMMER IN CALIFORNIA.
11:39
JUSTICE SCALIA DIED IN HIS
11:40
SLEEP AS A HOUSEGUEST IN TEXAS.
11:46
FEBRUARY 13TH, 2016.
11:48
MARIA BARTIROMO APPARENTLY HAS
11:50
NO IDEA WHEN OR HOW JUSTICE
11:54
SCALIA DIED, BECAUSE SHE BASED
11:57
ALL OF HER COVERAGE ON THIS
12:00
EMAIL.
12:01
THE LAST THIRD OF THE EMAIL
12:05
ANSWERS THE QUESTION, MARLENE BOURNE
12:07
ASKS IN HER EMAIL WHEN SHE
12:09
SAYS, WHEN I?
12:11
AND HOW I DO I KNOW ALL OF THIS?
12:13
SHE ANSWERS, I SPENT MOST OF MY
12:15
CAREER, 15 PLUS YEARS, AS A
12:17
SUCCESSFUL TECHNOLOGY ANALYST.
12:19
THAT IS IT.
12:20
THAT IS HER QUALIFICATION FOR
12:22
FOX TO BASE ALL OF THEIR
12:24
COVERAGE ON DOMINION ON THIS
12:28
PERSON.
12:29
AND THERE IS MORE.
12:30
SHE WROTE, I'VE HAD THE
12:32
STRANGEST DREAM SINCE I WAS A
12:34
LITTLE GIRL.
12:34
MOST WERE JUST ODD, OTHERS WERE
12:36
CLEARLY PREDICTIONS.
12:37
OVERTIME, THEY BECAME MORE
12:38
VIVID AND MORE INTERACTIVE.
12:40
ABOUT TEN YEARS AGO, AN EVENT
12:41
TOOK PLACE THAT SEEM TO AMPLIFY
12:43
THESE ABILITIES, BY VASTLY MORE
12:46
THAN AN ORDER OF MAGNITUDE.
12:48
IT IS MORE LIKE TIME TRAVEL IN
12:49
SEMICONSCIOUS STATE, AND ALL
12:51
SENSES ARE INVOLVED.
12:52
BUT THAT'S NOT ALL, WHEN I'M
12:54
AWAKE, I SEE WHAT OTHERS DON'T
12:55
SEE, AND HEAR WHAT OTHER STONE
12:57
HERE.
13:00
LIKE VOTING MACHINES CHANGING
13:03
VOTES.
13:04
SHE SEES THAT.
13:05
HERE'S THAT.
13:06
SHE QUOTED A MOVIE IN WHICH ONE
13:09
CHARACTER TELLS ANOTHER
13:10
CHARACTER TO LISTEN TO THE
13:11
WIND.
13:12
AND THEN SHE WROTE, THE WIND
13:12
TELLS ME I'M A GHOST, BUT I
13:14
DON'T BELIEVE IT.
13:15
ALTHOUGH, IT APPEARS THAT I WAS
13:17
SHOT IN THE BACK SHORTLY AFTER
13:20
SUBMITTING A TIP TO THE FBI TWO
13:22
YEARS AGO.
13:23
AT THE TIME, I THOUGHT I JUST
13:24
TRIPPED AND FELL DURING A WALK
13:26
AND BRUISED MY RIBS, BUT I HAD
13:28
A VISION ABOUT A YEAR LATER IN
13:30
WHICH I STOOD IN THE SAME SPOT
13:32
AND FELT MY SOUL LEAVE MY BODY.
13:35
IT WAS LIKE HAVING A BAND-AID
13:37
BEING RIPPED OFF YOUR SKIN.
13:38
AND YET, I CONTINUE TO WALK THE
13:40
EARTH.
13:41
DESPITE THAT, THE WIND TELLS ME
13:42
THAT NO ONE CAN HARM ME.
13:43
IT PROTECTS ME AND KEEPS ME
13:45
SAFE.
13:46
ANYWAY, I'VE GOTTEN A LITTLE
13:46
OFF TRACK, AND BE THE FIRST TO
13:48
ADMIT THAT WHILE THE LAST BIT
13:49
IS PRETTY WACKADOO DOLE, IT'S
13:52
RELEVANT.
13:53
AND I CAN TELL YOU THIS ABOUT
13:55
EVERYTHING ELSE --
13:57
TIME ALWAYS, EVENTUALLY, PROVE
14:00
ME CORRECT.
14:02
KINDEST REGARDS, THE MARS.
14:06
THAT IS THE EMAIL.
14:08
THAT IS THE EMAIL FROM MARLENE BOURNE
14:11
ON WHICH FOX BASED OLE OF
14:16
ITS ATTACKS ON DOMINION VOTING
14:21
SYSTEMS.
14:21
TUCKER CARLSON KNEW THAT SYDNEY
14:24
POWELL, WHO WAS PUSHING THAT
14:26
EMAIL, IT WAS CRAZY.
14:29
I DID TOO.
14:31
EVERYONE GET.
14:33
I COVERED SYDNEY POWELL AS HE
14:36
PARANOID AS CRAZY PERSON,
14:38
INFLICTING HERSELF IN AMERICA
14:40
THANKS TO DONALD TRUMP,
14:42
COVERING SYDNEY POWELL DID NOT
14:44
MAKE ME PARANOID AND CRAZY.
14:47
BUT SYDNEY POWELL MADE TUCKER
14:50
CARLSON PARANOID AND CRAZY.
14:54
HE SAYS SHE DID.
14:55
BUT THE REASON SYDNEY POWELL
14:58
WAS ABLE TO MAKE TUCKER CARLSON
15:00
PARANOID AND CRAZY IS THAT HE
15:02
ALREADY WAS.
15:03
TUCKER CARLSON SEEDS WHICH WITH
15:07
HATRED.
15:08
HE EXHIBITS IT EVERY NIGHT,
15:10
HATRED FOR MASSES OF PEOPLE,
15:12
HATRED FOR INDIVIDUALS.
15:15
TUCKER CARLSON HATES
15:18
PASSIONATELY.
15:19
AND I KNOW THAT BECAUSE HE HAS
15:21
TOLD US IN WRITING.
15:24
AS DOMINION REVEALS THAT ON
15:27
JANUARY 4TH, TWO DAYS BEFORE
15:29
TUCKER CARLSON WAS ABSOLUTELY
15:32
CERTAIN THAT CONGRESS WOULD
15:34
SMOOTHLY CERTIFY JOE BIDEN'S
15:36
ELECTION ON JANUARY SIX,
15:39
ALTHOUGH TUCKER CARLSON WAS
15:40
AFRAID TO TELL HIS AUDIENCE
15:42
THAT, TUCKER CARLSON TEXTS, WE
15:45
ARE VERY, VERY CLOSE TO BEING
15:46
ABLE TO AVOID TRUMP MOST
15:49
NIGHTS.
15:50
I HATE HIM PASSIONATELY.
15:55
THAT IS TUCKER CARLSON.
15:57
SAYING HE HATES DONALD TRUMP
16:03
PASSIONATELY.
16:04
AND THAT IS NOW THE WASHINGTON
16:06
POST HEADLINE TONIGHT ABOUT
16:08
TUCKER CARLSON, SAYING I HATE
16:10
HIM PASSIONATELY.
16:13
ABOUT DONALD TRUMP.
16:15
DONALD TRUMP HAS BEEN
16:16
PRETENDING TO HIS AUDIENCE THAT
16:18
HIS ONLY PROBLEM WITH FOX WAS
16:20
RUPERT MURDOCH, DONALD TRUMP
16:21
HAS BEEN IGNORING ALL OF THE
16:23
NEGATIVE MESSAGES BY THE PRIME
16:26
TIME FOX HOSTS ABOUT DONALD
16:27
TRUMP, THAT HAVE BEEN EXPOSED
16:29
BY DOMINION.
16:30
AND SO IT IS MOST LIKELY THAT
16:33
DONALD TRUMP WILL HELP TUCKER
16:35
HIDE HIS BIGGEST SECRET EVER
16:39
FROM HIS AUDIENCE, THAT HE
16:41
HATES DONALD TRUMP
16:43
PASSIONATELY.
16:44
NO ONE IN TUCKER'S AUDIENCE IS
16:47
GOING TO KNOW THAT TUCKER
16:49
CARLSON WROTE I HATE TRUMP
16:51
PASSIONATELY.
16:52
AND DONALD TRUMP IS PROBABLY
16:53
GOING TO PROTECT TUCKER'S
16:55
SECRET.
16:56
BUT THE TRUTH ABOUT THE
16:59
PARANOID AND CRAZY AND
17:02
PASSIONATE HATER AND PUFF
17:05
ALLOWED TRICKLE WIRE TUCKER
17:06
CARLSON IS THAT TUCKER CARLSON
17:08
HATES DONALD TRUMP
17:11
PASSIONATELY.
17:12
AND TUCKER CARLSON HAS PROVED
17:15
THAT
From: Marlene Bourne [DELETE]
Date: Sat, Nov 7, 2020, 5:07 PM
Subject: Election Fraud Info
To: <sidneypowell@[DELETE]; <tfitton@[DELETE]; <lou@loudobbs[DELETE]
Dear Mrs. Powell, Mr. Fitton, and Mr. Dobbs:
I was told to email you the following pieces of information:
You're probably already aware of voting irregularities in a number of states, which have one common thread: Dominion Voting Systems.
Don't you find it curious that Nadeam Elshami, Nancy Pelosi's longtime Chief of Staff is a key executive there, and that Richard Blum, Senator Feinstein's husband, is not only a significant shareholder of that company, but in Avid Technologies as well?
As a point of reference... back in 2009, Diebold sold their election machines division. An anti-trust suit was immediately filed that conveniently ensured that, in 2010, Dominion Voting Systems would acquire the assets "in order to restore competition". With the acquisition of another large california election machine company in the same timeframe, that gave Dominion an even bigger monopoly than Diebold ever had - yet no one has ever filed an anti-trust suit against them. Friends in high places indeed.
But the monopoly isn't necessarily the issue - it's the software. A piece of code was inserted such that, once ballots were fed into the database for tabulation, up to 3% of votes for Mr. Trump would automatically switch to Mr. Biden; this was capped at 3% because it was supposedly determined that anything higher than that would raise suspicions, but that 3% would be enough to tip a tight race.
How as this done?
In conjunction with a company by the name of Scytl, which provides election night reporting (and other online election management tools). You'd think that kind of hugely important software would developed and managed by a US company (or the US government itself), but...no, it's based in Spain. Which means it's the Spanish who decide who wins our elections and who doesn't. Or do they? It's a bit of a corporate shell game (with hundreds of companies involved) and while it appears that the ultimate parent company is actually British, I find it interesting that the owner is French. Here's a project for a curious investigative journalist to dig into.
You might was to see what ties Scytl company executives (all the way up the shell company food chain) have to the SSCI. Because that is the root of everything here. The base of the pyramid, so to speak. In that respect, Daniel Jones - A Feinstein staffer - and his newly formed Penn Quarter Group, are the fulcrum.
(By the way, that magic sweet spot of 3% isn't arbitrary. That's what American Express charges merchants as a transaction fee...and also happens to be the cut that Jared Kushner gets from all donations to the GOP - which is line-itemed in the software he helped to create - with his brother, I think it was - as a transaction fee. I thought I'd throw that in there in the interest of fairness to both sides).
Anyway, there's also an issue with mail-in paper ballots. Not the absentee ballots, but the mail-in ballots arbitrarily sent to people; the ones that keep mysteriously appearing in the middle of the night. The paper used to print those does NOT have a special watermark as is being reported; instead, the paper fibers were embedded with anti-counterfeiting securing features to detect fraud...much like how the Treasury embeds security features into paper money. I'll bet it's digital DNA - nanotechnology.
Detection is easy: simply use the same marker to detect fake $100 bills. Or at least, that's ONE of the anti-counterfeit features in place. Either way, it was done by the US military. In fact, I'm told that Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney briefed Mr. Trump on this last year.
Mr. Fitton's FOIA lawsuits to gain the kind of information he does is certainly helpful, but I think everyone at this point knows that the Department of Justice will do nothing. I mean, when they're handed the complete NSA database (what was it? 600 million pages of who, what, why, when, where, and how...terabytes of information on dozens of hard drives)...I suppose it takes a while to sort through it all. Or, maybe not. Ask Mossad and Shin Bet. They have a software backdoor into every intelligence database in the US...and around the world.
Besides, as I've pointed out to the FBI myself (on an entirely different matter that is now proving to be related), technically, this is a matter in which the Pentagon - the US military - has original jurisdiction.
Along those lines, I always thought it curious how Mrs. Powell's case with General Flynn seemed more like a court martial, than a regular civilian court process.
As for Mr. Dobbs...are you award that Mr. Ailes, Mr. Murdoch, and the handful of other (non-US) owners of the major US media outlets secretly huddle most days to determine how best to portray Mr. Trump as badly as possible? The global hatred of the man has everything to do with the fact that, as a political outsider, Mr. Trump has disrupted a well-oiled global money laundering operation; one that revolves around the congress critters, lobbyists, and public relations firms. There are trillions at stake...never come between a thief and his money. The recent COVID relief bills are simply one mechanism to try to feed money they've lost out on over the past 4 years back into that system.
As an aside, I'll throw this out there just because it's so interesting...and related...SCOTUS Justice Scalia wasn't accidentally shot during a hunting trip on John Poindexter's Texas ranch. He was purposefully killed at the annual Bohemian Grove camp...a club for members of the Mega-Group, during a weeklong human hunting expedition. NEVER accept an invitation to be a guest at that camp. Ever.
That being said. Who am I? And how do I know all of this?
I spent most of my career (15+ years) as a successful technology analyst; an expert in the field of nanotechnology, which touches on everything. I was superbly accurate with my forecasts and ideas. I always thought I was just a really gifted that way, but it's turned out to be a bit more than that.
I've had the strangest dreams since I was a little girl. Most were just odd - others were clearly predictions. Over time, they became more...vivid...and more...interactive. About ten years ago, an event took place that seemed to amplify these abilities, by vastly more than an order of magnitude.
Although the most vivid "dreams" take place while dozing, they're not normal dreams; but I'm not sure the Native American term "visions" really fits, either. It's more like time-travel in a semi-conscious state; and all senses are involved. But that's not all - when I'm awake, I see what others don't see, and hear what others don't hear.
There's a movie, Thunderheart, in which the Native American sheriff explains it best to an FBI agent who is just learning to tap into his Native American heritage...he tells him to "listen to the wind". That makes sense to me.
Stranger still, I was in a car accident in 1992; and something took place that I've never been able to explain. For all intents and purposes, I was internally decapitated, and yet, I live. I breathe, I shop, I laugh, I get old, I walk the earth.
The Wind tells me I'm a ghost, but I don't believe it. Although it appears that I was shot in the back shortly after submitting a tip to the FBI two years ago...at the time, I thought I just tripped and fell during a walk and bruised my ribs...but I had a vision about a year later in which I stood in the same spot and felt my soul leave my body. It was like having a band-aid being ripped off your skin. And yet, I continue to walk the earth.
Despite that, the wind tells me that no one can harm me; it protects me and keeps me safe.
Anyway, I've gotten a little off track, and I'll be the first to admit that while the last bit is pretty wackadoodle, it's relevant...and I can tell you this about everything else above:
Time always...eventually...proves me correct.
Kindest Regards,
Mars.
*********************************
Trump spurred ‘existential crisis’ at Fox News, lawsuit exhibits show: ‘I hate him passionately,’ Tucker Carlson wrote of Donald Trump in a text to a colleague on Jan. 4, 2021
by Sarah Ellison
Washington Post
Updated March 7, 2023 at 11:20 p.m. EST Published March 7, 2023 at 10:51 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.
For years, Fox News executives and hosts cultivated a close relationship with Donald Trump. But after he lost the 2020 presidential election and turned his back on the network — inspiring many once-loyal viewers to do the same — the relationship curdled.
And the ensuing pressure caused tension, second-guessing and infighting within Fox on the scale of an “existential crisis,” as one senior executive called it, a cache of internal communications released Tuesday as part of a $1.6 billion defamation lawsuit indicates.
“We are very, very close to being able to ignore Trump most nights,” prime-time host Tucker Carlson texted a colleague on Jan. 4, 2021. “I truly can’t wait.”
Carlson, who had shared private meetings with the president and defended him on-air, added in a text: “I hate him passionately. … What he’s good at is destroying things. He’s the undisputed world champion of that. He could easily destroy us if we play it wrong.”
Carlson’s private thoughts are especially striking in light of a new round of criticism this week that he misrepresented exclusive security-camera footage from the U.S. Capitol through a lens of Trumpian misinformation to downplay the severity of the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection.
Dominion Voting Systems, an election-technology company, has sued Fox, arguing that the cable-news giant gravely hurt its economic future by allowing allies of Trump to claim falsely on Fox programs that it rigged the election in favor of Joe Biden.
The materials unveiled Tuesday included a large selection of exhibits mentioned in past legal motions that have generated headlines and controversy for the network. Internal communications and sworn testimony suggest that top executives and hosts privately doubted the veracity of election fraud claims even as Fox continued to air them — which Dominion argues was motivated by fear of losing Trump-supporting viewers.
“Maybe Sean and Laura went too far,” Fox’s billionaire co-founder Rupert Murdoch emailed the company CEO, referring to prime-time stars Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham, who had entertained the baseless election conspiracy theories on-air.
“All very well for Sean to tell you he was in despair about Trump,” Murdoch continued, “but what did he tell his viewers?”
What emerges from the emails is an organization riven by internal conflicts as they grappled with the burgeoning crisis spawned by the loss of favor from Trump — which threatened to send some of his most ardent supporters to rival cable news channels.
Fox News has defended its decision to air the claims of Trump’s attorneys by saying they were newsworthy arguments. And in a statement Tuesday, Fox representatives dismissed the significance of the newly revealed exhibits, saying that Dominion used “distortion and misinformation” and that the company “twist[ed] and even misattribut[ed] quotes” in presenting the material.
Not long after Murdoch agonized over whether his hosts had “gone too far,” one of the most high-ranking news editors, Bill Sammon, texted a colleague: “In my 22 years affiliated with Fox, this is the closest thing I’ve seen to an existential crisis — at least journalistically.” The “crisis” was the network’s continued focus on what Sammon called “supposed election fraud.”
His colleague Chris Stirewalt, then a politics editor who played a key role in Fox’s decision to call Arizona for Biden, replied: “What I see us doing is losing the silent majority of viewers as we chase the nuts off a cliff.” (Both Sammon and Stirewalt were later pushed out of their jobs at Fox.)
Ingraham and Carlson also disparaged Trump’s attorney, Rudy Giuliani, a Nov. 18, 2020, text conversation shows.
Ingraham texted Carlson that “Giuliani embarrassed the President” during court battles over the election. Ingraham, who previously worked as an attorney, scoffed that Giuliani was unable to answer a judge’s questions that “a second year law student would known.”
She went on to call another prominent member of Trump’s legal team, Sidney Powell, “a complete nut,” and stated that “no one will work with her. Ditto with Rudy.”
Yet even while mocking the conspiratorial claims, the prime-time hosts also expressed frustration at decisions by the network’s news division to contradict some of those claims. And they expressed special disdain for the news division’s early prediction that Biden would win the hotly contested state of Arizona — an announcement that infuriated Trump and many of his fans.
“We are all officially working for an organization that hates us,” Ingraham wrote in one text thread with Carlson and Hannity.
In another, in mid-November 2020, as they watched Fox viewers flip to more conservative upstart channels, Ingraham wrote to the group, “My anger at the news channel is pronounced.”
Yet as tensions roiled Fox, the faces of the network were not always united in their approach. When Hannity’s producer noted that Carlson was getting “blasted on Twitter” for criticizing Powell on his show, Hannity replied, “His problem.”
“Trump people are … pissed,” Hannity texted his producer, who replied that Hannity’s show succeeded because “we just didn’t talk about Sidney’s claims.”
The newly unveiled exhibits show the extraordinary energy and attention devoted to mollifying Trump and his die-hard supporters in the days after Fox correctly called the election for Biden.
In one internal message, Raj Shah, a Fox Corp. senior vice president, shared survey data with colleagues showing that Fox’s favorability ratings dropped sharply after the election. The network’s brand was “under heavy fire from our customer base,” he wrote. “I’d like to get honest/deeper feedback from Fox viewers on the brand, the handling of the election, if they feel like they have been somehow betrayed by the network.”
(Shah, in a separate communication, called Powell’s election fraud claims “totally insane” and “just MIND BLOWINGLY NUTS.”)
Shah warned senior leaders that Fox’s declining favorability among its core audience was “getting pretty perilous” and said he had shared his views with Lachlan Murdoch, the CEO of the news network’s parent company, as well as Viet Dinh, the company’s chief legal and policy officer. His views, he wrote in an email on Nov. 11, 2020, were that “bold, clear and decisive action is needed for us to begin to regain the trust that we’re losing with our core audience.”
One defamation expert said Dominion’s court filings were striking for what he saw as Fox’s misplaced emphasis of priorities.
“The picture so far shows deep involvement of people responsible for the editorial process who were more concerned about the opinion of certain politicians than the truth,” said David Logan, a professor at Roger Williams School of Law.
Six weeks before the 2020 election, Murdoch emailed Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law and senior adviser, to weigh in on campaign advertising.
“Know you are spending less on tv than Biden,” Murdoch wrote. “However my people tell me his [advertisements] are a lot better creatively than yours.” He signed the email “Rupert” and appeared to send it using his iPhone.
Kushner replied the next day, assuring the media mogul, “Should have some new creative out this week. I did a review and like what [I’m] seeing.”
But despite Murdoch’s intelligence gathering for Kushner, Trump lost.
Fox News has previously said that Dominion has “cherry-pick[ed]” salacious details “utterly irrelevant to the legal issues in this case.” With these latest filings, the public got a fuller view of the context to some of the blockbuster revelations that came out weeks ago in legal motions.
Defamation cases typically involve one statement or phrase by one individual or a few, not months of on-air monologues and internal exchanges between dozens of individuals.
At their most outlandish, some Fox hosts entertained claims that Dominion was a front for the government of Venezuela and that its voting machines were capable of flipping votes from one candidate to another.
After Rupert Murdoch saw a New York Post cover telling Trump to move on, the Fox Corp. chairman told the paper’s former editor in chief, Col Allan, “Sounds like Donald read this.” An hour later on Dec. 28, 2020, he sent his congratulations to Allan for a “great” editorial.
“If he doesn’t tweet it’ll mean he’s read it and stopped to think,” Murdoch wrote, another example of a fruitless desire to quiet Trump’s baseless election conspiracy claims.
Carlson, in his text exchange with a colleague, expressed his ultimate frustration with Trump’s administration. “We’re all pretending we’ve got a lot to show for it, because admitting what a disaster it’s been is too tough to digest,” he wrote. “But come on. There really isn’t an upside to Trump.”
Isaac Stanley-Becker, Emma Brown, Dan Rosenzweig-Ziff, Yvonne Wingett Sanchez and Jonathan O’Connell contributed to this report.
*********************************
Tucker Carlson 'passionately' hates Trump & the truth
by Lawrence O’Donnell
MSNBC
Mar 7, 2023 #msnbc #tuckercarlson #foxnews
MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell analyzes the latest documents released in the Dominion Voting Systems defamation lawsuit against Fox, which include Tucker Carlson telling his fellow Fox hosts in texts that the election lies being repeated on the network were making him “paranoid and crazy.”
Transcript
>> TUCKER CARLSON'S
0:08
PARANOID AND CRAZY AND THOSE
0:11
ARE HIS WORDS DESCRIBING
0:14
HIMSELF.
0:15
IN A MASSIVE NEW --
0:17
IN THE DOMINION --
0:20
FOR LYING ABOUT DOMINION'S
0:22
VOTING MACHINES IN THE LAST
0:24
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, CLAIMING
0:25
THAT THOSE MACHINES SWITCHED
0:29
VOTES AND EVERYONE AT FOX KNEW
0:30
THAT WAS A LIE, EVERYONE AT FOX
0:34
EXCEPT MARIA BARTIROMO KNEW
0:36
THAT EVERYTHING FROM FOX WAS
0:38
SPEWING ABOUT DOMINION WAS A
0:40
LIE AND EVERYONE EXCEPT MARIA
0:42
BARTIROMO NEW.
0:44
EVERYTHING DONALD TRUMP'S
0:45
LAWYERS SAID WHO'S LICENSED
0:47
PRACTICE LAW HAS BEEN SUSPENDED,
0:49
EVERYTHING SHE WAS SAYING ABOUT
0:51
DOMINION WAS A LIE.
0:53
TONIGHT'S RELEASE, FOX 10 PM
0:59
LAURYN GREENE TEXTS CUFF TUCKER
1:00
CARLSON SAYING, SYDNEY POWELL
1:02
IS A BIT NUTS, TO WHICH TUCKER
1:04
CARLSON SAYS SHE IS MAKING
1:06
EVERYONE A BIT PARANOID AND
1:07
CRAZY, INCLUDING ME.
1:10
THE TEXT MESSAGES AND EMAILS
1:12
FROM INSIDE FOX SHOW TUCKER
1:14
CARLSON MOSTLY TELLS THE TRUTH
1:17
WHEN HE THINKS HE IS
1:21
COMMUNICATING PRIVATELY IN FOX,
1:22
HE CONSTANTLY, CONSTANTLY
1:24
THROWS PALACE THE LOGICAL LIES
1:27
AT HIS T V AUDIENCE WHO HE
1:29
FIRMLY BELIEVES IS WAY TOO
1:32
STUPID TO FIGURE OUT THAT A
1:34
SELF PARANOID AND CRAZY FOX
1:38
HOST IS LYING TO HIM.
1:42
AS HE DID LAST NIGHT, BY
1:44
CLAIMING THAT THERE WAS NOTHING
1:46
VIOLENT ABOUT --
1:47
ON JANUARY 6TH BECAUSE --
1:52
BUT VIDEO SUPPLIED FROM THE
1:55
CAPITAL, --
1:56
TUCKER CARLSON FOUND SOME
1:58
MOMENTS AS I TOLD YOU HE WOULD
2:00
WEAR NO ONE WAS BEING THE DAY
2:04
THAT JOHN LEWIS --
2:06
WAS ALMOST BEATEN TO DEATH FOR
2:08
DARING TO CROWDS --
2:12
LIKE THIS ONE.
2:14
OF THE ALABAMA STATE TROOPER
2:16
VICIOUSLY BEATING JOHN LEWIS.
2:19
BUT IF YOU HAD A CAMERA ON THAT
2:21
SAME STATE TROOPER, SAME GUY IN
2:23
THAT PHOTOGRAPH, IF YOU HAD A
2:25
CAMERA ON HIM FROM A COUPLE OF
2:26
HOURS BEFORE THAT MOMENT,
2:28
TUCKER CARLSON WOULD TELL YOU
2:30
THAT THAT WAS A PERFECTLY
2:31
PEACEFUL LAW-ABIDING POLICE
2:33
OFFICER WHO NEVER DID ANYTHING
2:35
WRONG THAT DAY.
2:36
MOST OF THE NEWS FOOTAGE OF
2:38
PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY'S --
2:41
NOVEMBER 22ND, 1963 SHOWS A
2:43
SPIRALING PRESIDENT BEING
2:44
WELCOMED BY THE PEOPLE OF
2:46
DALLAS, --
2:47
TUCKER CARLSON COULD SHOW HIS
2:49
AUDIENCE THAT FILM OF THE
2:51
SMILING PRESIDENT WAVING TO THE
2:53
CROWD IN HIS MOTORCADE TO PROVE
2:57
TO HIS AUDIENCE THAT NOTHING
2:59
BAD HAPPENED IN DALLAS THAT DAY.
3:02
THAT IS ALL TUCKER CARLSON
3:04
THINKS HE HAS TO DO WITH HIS
3:07
AUDIENCE.
3:08
JUST DON'T SHOW THEM THE TRUE
3:11
FILM OF THE BULLETS AND DURING
3:14
THE PRESIDENTS DEBT.
3:15
BACK OF THE HEAD IN THE NECK.
3:16
DON'T SHOW THAT.
3:17
YOU CAN TELL TUCKER CARLSON'S
3:19
AUDIENCE THAT JOHN F. KENNEDY
3:21
WAS NOT ASSASSINATED IN DALLAS
3:23
THAT DAY.
3:24
AND MAY STILL BE AMONG US.
3:25
THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT TUCKER
3:27
CARLSON DID LAST NIGHT IN HIS
3:30
PEAK VERSION OF BEING PARANOID
3:34
AND CRAZY AND SPEWING
3:38
PATHOLOGICAL LIES AT THE VERY
3:40
SAME TIME.
3:41
KEVIN MCCARTHY PICK THE PERSON
3:46
ROOKIE NOT NAMED MURDAUGH WHO
3:47
HAS BEEN MOST PROTESTS WE
3:49
EXPOSED IN THE LEGAL FILINGS AS
3:51
BEING PARANOID AND CRAZY AND A
3:53
PATHOLOGICAL LIAR.
3:54
THAT IS THE PERSON WHO KEVIN
3:56
MCCARTHY PICKED TOOK, FOR
3:58
CARLSON --
4:00
HAVE ALL THE PEOPLE HE COULD'VE
4:01
PICKED TO GIVE HIM THE VIDEO
4:04
TAKEN BY CAMERAS ON THE CAPITOL
4:07
CAMPUS ON JANUARY 6TH SO THAT
4:09
TUCKER CARLSON, THE CRAZY,
4:12
PARANOID, PATHOLOGICAL LIAR,
4:14
COULD PRETEND THAT NOTHING
4:15
VIOLENT HAPPENED AT THE CAPITOL
4:17
THAT DAY.
4:19
SO THAT TUCKER CARLSON COULD
4:20
PRETEND NOBODY COMMITTED A
4:22
CRIME.
4:23
SO THAT TUCKER CARLSON COULD
4:24
PRETEND THAT THE THOUSAND
4:26
PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN ARRESTED
4:28
AND CHARGED WITH CRIMES BY THE
4:30
JUSTICE DEPARTMENT DID NOTHING
4:32
WRONG SO THAT DONALD TRUMP
4:33
COULDN'T SAY TODAY AS HE DID IN
4:35
HIS REVIEW OF TUCKER CARLSON'S
4:37
VIDEO LAST NIGHT THAT EVERYBODY,
4:42
OH THOUSAND OF THEM, CHARGED
4:43
WITH A CRIME ON JANUARY 6TH
4:45
SHOULD BE EMMY'S ELITE RELEASED
4:46
FROM CUSTODY AND PROSECUTION.
4:49
THERE IS A MASSIVE AMOUNT OF
4:50
MATERIAL IN THIS LATEST FILE
4:52
INCLUDING AN EMAIL FROM REPORT
4:54
MURDAUGH --
4:56
WHO TECHNICALLY HOLDS THE
4:58
RIDICULOUS TITLE OF CEO OF FOX
5:00
BUT IS REALLY JUST A RUPERT
5:02
MURDOCH ASSISTANT.
5:04
THE EMAIL IS THE DAY AFTER JOE
5:05
BIDEN'S INAUGURATION --
5:09
BEGINS THE DAY IN A MEETING
5:10
WITH MITCH MCCONNELL AND
5:12
LINDSEY GRAHAM AND HE TELLS
5:13
SUZANNE SCOTT WHAT HE HEARD IN
5:14
THAT MEETING.
5:15
STILL GETTING MUD THROWN OUT
5:16
US.
5:17
IS IT AN ARGUABLE THAT HIGH
5:19
PROFILE FOX VOICES FED THE
5:21
STORY THAT THE ELECTION WAS
5:22
STOLEN AND THAT JANUARY 6TH, AN
5:26
IMPORTANT CHANGE, TO HAVE
5:29
RESULTS OVERTURNED?
5:30
AN IMPORTANT CHANCE TO HAVE
5:32
RESULTS OVERTURNED.
5:33
MAYBE JOHN AND LAURA WENT TOO
5:34
FAR.
5:35
ALL VERY WELL FOR SEAN TO TELL
5:37
YOU HE WAS IN DESPAIR ABOUT
5:38
TRUMP BUT WHAT DID HE TELL YOU
5:40
HIS VIEWERS?
5:41
RUPERT MURDOCH KNOWS EXACTLY
5:43
WHAT SEAN HANNITY TOLD HIS
5:46
VIEWERS, HE PAID SEAN HANNITY
5:48
MILLIONS UPON MILLIONS, TENS
5:50
AND TENS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS
5:52
TO TELL HIS VIEWERS WHAT RUPERT
5:55
MURDOCH HAD SHOWN HIM.
5:57
YOU BELIEVE THOSE VIEWERS
5:59
WANTED TO HEAR, THAT THE
6:00
ELECTION WAS STOLEN.
6:01
THAT THE TRUMP PRESIDENCY WOULD
6:02
BE RESTORED.
6:04
UNDER OATH RUPERT MURDOCH SAID
6:06
HE WAS AWARE OF NO EVIDENCE
6:08
WHATSOEVER, OF ANY ELECTION
6:10
FRAUD IN ANY STATE AND HE SAID
6:11
UNDER OATH THAT HE HAD NO
6:12
EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER THAT THERE
6:14
WAS ANYTHING EVEN SLIGHTLY
6:17
WRONG WITH A SINGLE DOMINION
6:18
VOTING MACHINE ANYWHERE.
6:20
ALL OF FOXES COVERAGE ABOUT
6:22
DOMINION, ALL OF IT, WAS BASED
6:24
ON A WOMAN WHO CALLS HERSELF
6:28
WACKADOODLES.
6:30
THIS WOMAN SUPPLIED SYDNEY
6:32
POWELL WITH HER THEORY OF THE
6:34
CASE.
6:35
EVERYTHING DONALD TRUMP --
6:38
AND FOX WAS SAYING ABOUT
6:40
DOMINION CAME FROM SOMEONE
6:41
NAMED MARLENE BOURNE FOR IN.
6:45
A FEW HOURS AFTER ALL THE
6:48
NETWORKS, INCLUDING FOX, CALLED
6:49
THE ELECTION FOR JOE BIDEN ON
6:51
SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 7TH, 2022.
6:55
WE HAVE THIS EMAIL THAT DAY,
6:57
BECAUSE SYDNEY POWELL ORDERED
6:59
IT.
7:00
AND TO MARIA BARTIROMO THAT --
7:04
OF COURSE THERE IS ELECTION
7:05
FRAUD.
7:06
ONLY MARIA BARTIROMO BELIEVED
7:08
THIS.
7:09
MARIA BARTIROMO IS THE ONLY
7:11
PERSON AT FOX WHO WAS NOT
7:14
TRAFFICKING IN PATHOLOGICAL
7:15
LIES, BECAUSE SHE BELIEVED THIS
7:18
EMAIL.
7:20
FROM MARLENE BOURNE.
7:21
IT WAS FORWARDED TO HER IN ITS
7:23
ENTIRETY FROM SYDNEY POWELL.
7:25
MARLENE BOURNE EXPLAINS THAT THE
7:29
DEVIL WAS IN THE SOFTWARE.
7:32
IT IS THE SOFTWARE, A PIECE OF
7:34
CODE WAS INSERTED SUCH THAT,
7:36
ONCE BALLOTS WERE FED INTO THE
7:37
DATABASE FOR CALCULATION, UP TO
7:39
3% OF VOTES FOR MR. TRUMP WOULD
7:41
AUTOMATICALLY SWITCH TO MR.
7:42
BIDEN.
7:43
THIS WAS KEPT 3% BECAUSE IT WAS
7:45
SUPPOSEDLY DETERMINED THAT
7:46
ANYTHING HIGHER THAN THAT WOULD
7:47
RAISE SUSPICIONS, BUT THAT 3%
7:49
WOULD BE ENOUGH TO TIP A TIGHT
7:52
RACE.
7:53
SHE SAID THAT THE SOFTWARE WAS
7:55
RIGGED TO DO THIS IN SPAIN.
8:00
IT'S THE SPANISH TO DECIDE WHO
8:01
WINS OUR ELECTIONS AND WHO
8:03
DOESN'T.
8:04
AND THEN SHE SAYS SOMETHING
8:06
ABOUT THE 3% THAT MARIA BUT
8:09
AROMA RED, BUT THEN DECIDED TO
8:13
NEVER TELL HER AUDIENCE.
8:16
MARLENE BOURNE SAID 3% QUOTE,
8:19
ALSO HAPPENS TO BE THE CUT THAT
8:21
JARED KUSHNER GETS FROM ALL
8:23
DONATIONS TO THE GOP, WHICH IS
8:25
LINE ITEM IN THE SOFTWARE HE
8:26
HELPED TO CREATE, WITH HIS
8:28
BROTHER, I THINK IT WAS, AS A
8:30
TRANSACTION FEE.
8:31
I THOUGHT I THROW THAT IN THERE
8:32
IN THE INTEREST OF FAIRNESS TO
8:34
BOTH SIDES.
8:38
OF COURSE, THERE'S NO EVIDENCE
8:39
THAT WHAT SHE SAID ABOUT JARED
8:41
KUSHNER'S TRUE EITHER.
8:42
SHE WENT ON TO SAY, THERE'S
8:44
ALSO AN ISSUE WITH MAIL-IN
8:46
PAPER BALLOTS.
8:47
NOT THE ABSENTEE BALLOTS, BUT
8:49
THE MAIL-IN BALLOTS ARBITRARILY
8:51
SENT TO PEOPLE.
8:54
THOSE ARE IDENTICAL BALLOTS.
8:58
ALL ABSENTEE BALLOTS IN HISTORY
9:02
HAVE BEEN MAIL-IN BALLOTS.
9:04
O ABSENTEE BALLOTS NOW ARE
9:07
MAIL-IN BALLOTS.
9:08
SEE SHE THEN SAID THAT THE
9:11
RUPERT MURDOCH QUOTE, AND A
9:13
HANDFUL OF OTHER NON U.S.
9:14
OWNERS OF THE MAJOR U.S. MEDIA
9:16
OUTLETS SECRETLY HAD ALMOST
9:18
DAYS TO DETERMINE HOW BEST TO
9:20
PORTRAY MR. TRUMP AS BADLY AS
9:22
POSSIBLE.
9:23
FIRST OF ALL, THERE ARE NO
9:25
OTHER --
9:26
LIKE RUPERT MURDOCH WHO OWN ANY
9:27
OF THE BIG TV NETWORKS.
9:29
THE REASON MARIA BUTTERY MOSE
9:32
--
9:32
RUPERT MURDOCH TRIES TO PORTRAY
9:33
DONALD TRUMP AS BADLY AS
9:35
POSSIBLE WAS QUOTE, AS A
9:37
POLITICAL OUTSIDER, MR. TRUMP
9:39
HAS DISRUPTED A WELL OILED
9:41
GLOBAL MONEY LAUNDERING
9:43
OPERATION.
9:45
SO, THE WOMAN, MARIA BARTIROMO
9:50
BELIEVES ABOUT DOMINION VOTING
9:52
MACHINES IS TELLING HER, IN
9:54
THAT SAME EMAIL THE THAT HER
9:57
BOSS, RUPERT MURDOCH IS ONE OF
9:59
THE MASTERMINDS IN A GLOBAL
10:01
MONEY LAUNDERING OPERATION.
10:04
DID MARIA BUT ROMO BELIEVE THAT
10:06
PART OF THE EMAIL?
10:09
IT IS A VERY LONG EMAIL.
10:11
MOST OF IT IS NOT ABOUT THE
10:13
DOMINION VOTING MACHINES.
10:14
IT IS ABOUT MORE RUPERT MURDOCH
10:18
MONEY LAUNDERING AND OTHER
10:19
STUFF.
10:20
MOST OF IT IS EVEN MORE
10:21
PARANOID AND CRAZY THAN TUCKER
10:24
CARLSON.
10:25
MOST OF THE EMAIL IS PARANOID
10:28
AND CRAZY.
10:29
AT A LEVEL THAT EVEN MARIA
10:31
BARTIROMO SHOULD BE ABLE TO
10:33
DETECT, BUT APPARENTLY MARIA
10:36
BROTHER ROMO IS NOT INFORMED
10:38
ENOUGH TO BE ABLE TO SEPARATE
10:41
FACT FROM FICTION IN THE MOST
10:42
OBVIOUS WAY.
10:44
MARLENE BOURNE'S EMAIL SAYS, AS AN
10:47
ASIDE, OFFER THIS OUT THERE
10:49
JUST BECAUSE IT'S SO
10:50
INTERESTING, AND RELATED.
10:52
SCOTUS JUSTICE SCALIA WASN'T
10:53
ACCIDENTALLY SHOT DURING A
10:54
HUNTING TRIP ON JOHN
10:56
POINDEXTER'S TEXAS RANCH.
10:58
HE WAS PURPOSEFULLY KILLED AT
11:00
THE ANNUAL BOHEMIAN GROVE CAMP,
11:03
A CLUB FOR MEMBERS OF THE MEGA
11:06
GROUP, DURING WEEK LONG HUMAN
11:10
HUNTING EXPEDITION.
11:13
NEVER ACCEPT AN INVITATION TO
11:14
BE A GUEST AT THAT CAMP.
11:16
EVER.
11:18
A HUMAN HUNTING EXPEDITION.
11:20
JUSTICE SCALIA WAS ON A HUMAN
11:23
HUNTING EXPEDITION.
11:24
TO HUNT AND KILL HUMAN BEINGS,
11:26
SOMEHOW HE ENDED UP AT.
11:28
BOHEMIAN GROVE IS A LARGELY
11:30
RICH REPUBLICAN BUSINESSMAN'S
11:33
RETREAT THAT HAPPENS EVERY
11:34
SUMMER IN CALIFORNIA.
11:39
JUSTICE SCALIA DIED IN HIS
11:40
SLEEP AS A HOUSEGUEST IN TEXAS.
11:46
FEBRUARY 13TH, 2016.
11:48
MARIA BARTIROMO APPARENTLY HAS
11:50
NO IDEA WHEN OR HOW JUSTICE
11:54
SCALIA DIED, BECAUSE SHE BASED
11:57
ALL OF HER COVERAGE ON THIS
12:00
EMAIL.
12:01
THE LAST THIRD OF THE EMAIL
12:05
ANSWERS THE QUESTION, MARLENE BOURNE
12:07
ASKS IN HER EMAIL WHEN SHE
12:09
SAYS, WHEN I?
12:11
AND HOW I DO I KNOW ALL OF THIS?
12:13
SHE ANSWERS, I SPENT MOST OF MY
12:15
CAREER, 15 PLUS YEARS, AS A
12:17
SUCCESSFUL TECHNOLOGY ANALYST.
12:19
THAT IS IT.
12:20
THAT IS HER QUALIFICATION FOR
12:22
FOX TO BASE ALL OF THEIR
12:24
COVERAGE ON DOMINION ON THIS
12:28
PERSON.
12:29
AND THERE IS MORE.
12:30
SHE WROTE, I'VE HAD THE
12:32
STRANGEST DREAM SINCE I WAS A
12:34
LITTLE GIRL.
12:34
MOST WERE JUST ODD, OTHERS WERE
12:36
CLEARLY PREDICTIONS.
12:37
OVERTIME, THEY BECAME MORE
12:38
VIVID AND MORE INTERACTIVE.
12:40
ABOUT TEN YEARS AGO, AN EVENT
12:41
TOOK PLACE THAT SEEM TO AMPLIFY
12:43
THESE ABILITIES, BY VASTLY MORE
12:46
THAN AN ORDER OF MAGNITUDE.
12:48
IT IS MORE LIKE TIME TRAVEL IN
12:49
SEMICONSCIOUS STATE, AND ALL
12:51
SENSES ARE INVOLVED.
12:52
BUT THAT'S NOT ALL, WHEN I'M
12:54
AWAKE, I SEE WHAT OTHERS DON'T
12:55
SEE, AND HEAR WHAT OTHER STONE
12:57
HERE.
13:00
LIKE VOTING MACHINES CHANGING
13:03
VOTES.
13:04
SHE SEES THAT.
13:05
HERE'S THAT.
13:06
SHE QUOTED A MOVIE IN WHICH ONE
13:09
CHARACTER TELLS ANOTHER
13:10
CHARACTER TO LISTEN TO THE
13:11
WIND.
13:12
AND THEN SHE WROTE, THE WIND
13:12
TELLS ME I'M A GHOST, BUT I
13:14
DON'T BELIEVE IT.
13:15
ALTHOUGH, IT APPEARS THAT I WAS
13:17
SHOT IN THE BACK SHORTLY AFTER
13:20
SUBMITTING A TIP TO THE FBI TWO
13:22
YEARS AGO.
13:23
AT THE TIME, I THOUGHT I JUST
13:24
TRIPPED AND FELL DURING A WALK
13:26
AND BRUISED MY RIBS, BUT I HAD
13:28
A VISION ABOUT A YEAR LATER IN
13:30
WHICH I STOOD IN THE SAME SPOT
13:32
AND FELT MY SOUL LEAVE MY BODY.
13:35
IT WAS LIKE HAVING A BAND-AID
13:37
BEING RIPPED OFF YOUR SKIN.
13:38
AND YET, I CONTINUE TO WALK THE
13:40
EARTH.
13:41
DESPITE THAT, THE WIND TELLS ME
13:42
THAT NO ONE CAN HARM ME.
13:43
IT PROTECTS ME AND KEEPS ME
13:45
SAFE.
13:46
ANYWAY, I'VE GOTTEN A LITTLE
13:46
OFF TRACK, AND BE THE FIRST TO
13:48
ADMIT THAT WHILE THE LAST BIT
13:49
IS PRETTY WACKADOO DOLE, IT'S
13:52
RELEVANT.
13:53
AND I CAN TELL YOU THIS ABOUT
13:55
EVERYTHING ELSE --
13:57
TIME ALWAYS, EVENTUALLY, PROVE
14:00
ME CORRECT.
14:02
KINDEST REGARDS, THE MARS.
14:06
THAT IS THE EMAIL.
14:08
THAT IS THE EMAIL FROM MARLENE BOURNE
14:11
ON WHICH FOX BASED OLE OF
14:16
ITS ATTACKS ON DOMINION VOTING
14:21
SYSTEMS.
14:21
TUCKER CARLSON KNEW THAT SYDNEY
14:24
POWELL, WHO WAS PUSHING THAT
14:26
EMAIL, IT WAS CRAZY.
14:29
I DID TOO.
14:31
EVERYONE GET.
14:33
I COVERED SYDNEY POWELL AS HE
14:36
PARANOID AS CRAZY PERSON,
14:38
INFLICTING HERSELF IN AMERICA
14:40
THANKS TO DONALD TRUMP,
14:42
COVERING SYDNEY POWELL DID NOT
14:44
MAKE ME PARANOID AND CRAZY.
14:47
BUT SYDNEY POWELL MADE TUCKER
14:50
CARLSON PARANOID AND CRAZY.
14:54
HE SAYS SHE DID.
14:55
BUT THE REASON SYDNEY POWELL
14:58
WAS ABLE TO MAKE TUCKER CARLSON
15:00
PARANOID AND CRAZY IS THAT HE
15:02
ALREADY WAS.
15:03
TUCKER CARLSON SEEDS WHICH WITH
15:07
HATRED.
15:08
HE EXHIBITS IT EVERY NIGHT,
15:10
HATRED FOR MASSES OF PEOPLE,
15:12
HATRED FOR INDIVIDUALS.
15:15
TUCKER CARLSON HATES
15:18
PASSIONATELY.
15:19
AND I KNOW THAT BECAUSE HE HAS
15:21
TOLD US IN WRITING.
15:24
AS DOMINION REVEALS THAT ON
15:27
JANUARY 4TH, TWO DAYS BEFORE
15:29
TUCKER CARLSON WAS ABSOLUTELY
15:32
CERTAIN THAT CONGRESS WOULD
15:34
SMOOTHLY CERTIFY JOE BIDEN'S
15:36
ELECTION ON JANUARY SIX,
15:39
ALTHOUGH TUCKER CARLSON WAS
15:40
AFRAID TO TELL HIS AUDIENCE
15:42
THAT, TUCKER CARLSON TEXTS, WE
15:45
ARE VERY, VERY CLOSE TO BEING
15:46
ABLE TO AVOID TRUMP MOST
15:49
NIGHTS.
15:50
I HATE HIM PASSIONATELY.
15:55
THAT IS TUCKER CARLSON.
15:57
SAYING HE HATES DONALD TRUMP
16:03
PASSIONATELY.
16:04
AND THAT IS NOW THE WASHINGTON
16:06
POST HEADLINE TONIGHT ABOUT
16:08
TUCKER CARLSON, SAYING I HATE
16:10
HIM PASSIONATELY.
16:13
ABOUT DONALD TRUMP.
16:15
DONALD TRUMP HAS BEEN
16:16
PRETENDING TO HIS AUDIENCE THAT
16:18
HIS ONLY PROBLEM WITH FOX WAS
16:20
RUPERT MURDOCH, DONALD TRUMP
16:21
HAS BEEN IGNORING ALL OF THE
16:23
NEGATIVE MESSAGES BY THE PRIME
16:26
TIME FOX HOSTS ABOUT DONALD
16:27
TRUMP, THAT HAVE BEEN EXPOSED
16:29
BY DOMINION.
16:30
AND SO IT IS MOST LIKELY THAT
16:33
DONALD TRUMP WILL HELP TUCKER
16:35
HIDE HIS BIGGEST SECRET EVER
16:39
FROM HIS AUDIENCE, THAT HE
16:41
HATES DONALD TRUMP
16:43
PASSIONATELY.
16:44
NO ONE IN TUCKER'S AUDIENCE IS
16:47
GOING TO KNOW THAT TUCKER
16:49
CARLSON WROTE I HATE TRUMP
16:51
PASSIONATELY.
16:52
AND DONALD TRUMP IS PROBABLY
16:53
GOING TO PROTECT TUCKER'S
16:55
SECRET.
16:56
BUT THE TRUTH ABOUT THE
16:59
PARANOID AND CRAZY AND
17:02
PASSIONATE HATER AND PUFF
17:05
ALLOWED TRICKLE WIRE TUCKER
17:06
CARLSON IS THAT TUCKER CARLSON
17:08
HATES DONALD TRUMP
17:11
PASSIONATELY.
17:12
AND TUCKER CARLSON HAS PROVED
17:15
THAT
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 37523
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Trump lashes out at Gov. Doug Ducey following certificat
by admin » Thu Mar 09, 2023 5:20 am
Tucker Carlson Said He Hates Trump "Passionately" in Bombshell Court Filing
by Seth Meyers
Mar 8, 2023
Seth takes a closer look at new bombshell text messages that reveal what Fox News hosts like Tucker Carlson really say about Trump in private.
by Seth Meyers
Mar 8, 2023
Seth takes a closer look at new bombshell text messages that reveal what Fox News hosts like Tucker Carlson really say about Trump in private.
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 37523
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Trump lashes out at Gov. Doug Ducey following certificat
by admin » Fri Mar 10, 2023 3:20 am
Opinion Approving Stipulation to Discipline Under C.R.C.P. 242.19(c) [Jenna Lynn Ellis, Trump's Senior Attorney]
by Byron M. Large, Presiding Disciplinary Judge
Supreme Court, State of Colorado
The People of the State of Colorado vs. Jenna Lynn Ellis
Case Number: 23PDJ004
March 8, 2023
SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADO
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE BEFORE
THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDING DISCIPLINARY JUDGE
1300 BROADWAY, SUITE 250
DENVER, CO 80203
Complainant: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO
Respondent: JENNA LYNN ELLIS, #44026
Case Number: 23PDJ004
OPINION APPROVING STIPULATION TO DISCIPLINE UNDER C.R.C.P. 242.19(c)
While serving as a senior legal advisor to the then-President of the United States and as counsel for his reelection campaign, Jenna Lynn Ellis (“Respondent”) repeatedly made misrepresentations on national television and on Twitter, undermining the American public’s confidence in the 2020 presidential election. The parties stipulate that Respondent’s misconduct warrants public censure, and the Presiding Disciplinary Judge (“the Court”) approves the parties’ stipulation.
I. STIPULATED FACTS AND ARGUMENT
On February 13, 2023, Jessica E. Yates and Jacob M. Vos, Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel (“the People”), and Michael W. Melito, counsel for Respondent, filed a “Stipulation to Discipline Pursuant to C.R.C.P. 242.19.” In the stipulation, the parties agree that Respondent should be publicly censured.
The parties stipulate to the following facts. From February 2019 to January 15, 2021, Respondent was a senior legal advisor to the then-serving President of the United States. She “was a member of President Trump’s legal team . . . that made efforts to challenge President Biden’s victory in the 2020 Presidential Election.”1 Though Respondent “was part of the legal team . . . she was not counsel of record for any of the lawsuits challenging the election results.”2 Respondent made ten public misrepresentations in November and December 2020 in her capacity as counsel for the then-President’s reelection campaign and as personal counsel to the then-President, while also advertising her status as a lawyer.
Respondent agrees she made the following ten misrepresentations:
• On November 13, 2020, Respondent claimed that “Hillary Clinton still has not conceded the 2016 election.”
• On November 20, 2020, Respondent appeared on Mornings with Maria on Fox Business and stated: “We have affidavits from witnesses, we have voter intimidation, we have the ballots that were manipulated, we have all kinds of statistics that show that this was a coordinated effort in all of these states to transfer votes either from Trump to Biden, to manipulate the ballots, to count them in secret . . .”
• On November 20, 2020, Respondent appeared on Spicer & Co. and stated, “with all those states [Nevada, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Georgia] combined we know that the election was stolen from President Trump and we can prove that.”
• On November 21, 2020, Respondent stated on Twitter under her handle @JennaEllisEsq., “ . . . SECOND, we will present testimonial and other evidence IN COURT to show how this election was STOLEN!”
• On November 23, 2020, Respondent appeared on The Ari Melber Show on MSNBC and stated, “The election was stolen and Trump won by a landslide.”
• On November 30, 2020, Respondent appeared on Mornings with Maria on Fox Business and stated, “President Trump is right that there was widespread fraud in this election, we have at least six states that were corrupted, if not more, through their voting systems. . . We know that President Trump won in a landslide.” She also stated, “The outcome of this election is actually fraudulent it's wrong, and we understand than when we subtract all the illegal ballots, you can see that President Trump actually won in a landslide.”
• On December 3, 2020, Respondent appeared on Mornings with Maria on Fox Business and stated, “The outcome of this election is actually fraudulent it's wrong, and we understand than when we subtract all the illegal ballots, you can see that President Trump actually won in a landslide.”
• On December 5, 2020, Respondent appeared on Justice with Judge Jeanine on Fox News and stated, "We have over 500,000 votes [in Arizona] that were cast illegally . . .”
• On December 15, 2020, Respondent appeared on Greg Kelly Reports on Newsmax and stated, “The proper and true victor, which is Donald Trump . . .”
• On December 22, 2020, Respondent stated on Twitter, through her handle @JennaEllisEsq, “I spent an hour with @DanCaplis for an in-depth discussion about President @realDonaldTrump's fight for election integrity, the overwhelming evidence proving this was stolen, and why fact-finding and truth—not politics—matters!”
Respondent made these misrepresentations on Twitter and on various television programs, including Fox Business, MSNBC, Fox News, and Newsmax. 3 The parties agree that by making these misrepresentations, Respondent violated Colo. RPC 8.4(c), which provides that it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.
The parties ask the Court to approve their stipulation and to publicly censure Respondent for this misconduct. In doing so, the parties rely on Standard 5.13 under the American Bar Association Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions (“ABA Standards”), 4 which provides that “[public censure] is generally appropriate when a lawyer knowingly5 engages in any [noncriminal] conduct that involves dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation and that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law.”
On February 15, 2023, the Court ordered the parties to set this matter for a hearing on the stipulation. The Court asked the parties to address whether ABA Standard 5.13 is the most fitting ABA Standard for Respondent’s misconduct. The Court also directed the parties to address the applicability of other ABA Standards, including ABA Standards 7.1, 7.2, and 5.11(b). At the hearing, which took place on March 1, 2023, the Court heard legal argument from both parties as to the appropriate ABA Standards and in support of their proposed sanction.6 The parties represented that they could not locate published lawyer discipline cases that present facts akin to those to which they stipulate, noting that this case is novel and one of first impression. Throughout the hearing, the parties also signaled that First Amendment considerations, including limitations on lawyers’ speech, were an important part of their analysis in reaching the terms of their negotiated settlement.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW AND LEGAL ANALYSIS
In considering a stipulation to discipline, the Court “may either reject the stipulation and order that the disciplinary proceeding go forward . . . or approve the stipulation and enter an appropriate order.”7 The Court endeavors to accord parties broad latitude to fashion mutually agreeable resolutions, wishes to honor parties’ agreements, and is favorably inclined to accept targeted and proportionate stipulations that protect the public and promote confidence in the legal profession.
Reviewing stipulations “[u]sing discretion and in accordance with the considerations governing imposition of disciplinary sanctions,”8 the Court looks to the ABA Standards as its guiding authority in imposing an appropriate sanction, unless doing so would contradict Colorado Supreme Court case law.9 The Court is also guided by the Colorado Supreme Court’s stated regulatory objectives to increase public understanding of and confidence in the rule of law and to ensure lawyers’ compliance with the rules of professional conduct and other rules in a manner that is fair, efficient, effective, targeted, and proportionate.10 This Court is thus cognizant that disciplinary decisions serve to guide and educate the members of the legal profession.11
The Court understands that this matter presents unique facts, and it is keenly aware that it does not have the benefit of factually analogous cases imposing discipline. Absent comparable prior cases, the Court’s analysis centers exclusively on the ABA Standards and interpretive Colorado Supreme Court case law, which provide a framework to assess the stipulation.
The ABA Standard 5.0 series sanctions lawyers for violations of duties owed to the public, and the ABA Standard 5.1 series specifically focuses on lawyers’ failure to maintain personal integrity. ABA Standard 5.1 appears singular in that it takes no account of the type or quantum of harm a lawyer’s misconduct causes. Under ABA Standard 5.11(b), disbarment is generally appropriate when a lawyer engages in intentional conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation that seriously adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to practice. ABA Standard 5.12 provides for suspension when a lawyer’s dishonesty implicates criminal misconduct. Under a strict reading of the Standards, it is not applicable here.12 ABA Standard 5.13 provides that reprimand is generally appropriate when a lawyer knowingly engages in any other conduct that involves dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation and that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law.13
In contrast, ABA Standard 7.0 implicates violations of the duties lawyers owe as professionals, which generally involve “false or misleading communication about the lawyer or the lawyer’s services, improper communication of fields of practice, improper solicitation of professional employment from a prospective client, unreasonable or improper fees, unauthorized practice of law, improper withdrawal from representation, or failure to report professional misconduct.” Under ABA Standard 7.2, suspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer knowingly engages in conduct that is a violation of a duty owed as a professional and causes injury or potential injury to a client, the public, or the legal system.
Although ABA Standard 7.2 seemingly fits the fact pattern at hand, the Colorado Supreme Court’s opinion in In re Rosen counsels against relying on that Standard outside the context of lawyers’ misrepresentations while executing their professional duties.14 Rosen further counsels against imposing a sanction in the gap left between ABA Standards 5.11(b) and 5.13. Indeed, the Rosen court addressed at length the appropriate Standards to apply when faced with instances of lawyer misrepresentation:
With these authorities in mind, the Court turns to the parties’ stipulation. Respondent and the People agree that Respondent made ten misrepresentations on Twitter and to nationally televised audiences in her capacity as personal counsel to the then-President of the United States and as counsel for his reelection campaign. The parties agree that Respondent made these statements, which violated Colo. RPC 8.4(c), with at least a reckless state of mind. The parties agree that Respondent was not counsel of record in any lawsuits challenging the 2020 election results. The parties agree that Respondent, through her conduct, undermined the American public’s confidence in the presidential election, violating her duty of candor to the public. Finally, the parties agree that two aggravators apply—Respondent had a selfish motive and she engaged in a pattern of misconduct—while one factor, her lack of prior discipline, mitigates her misconduct.
Based on the parties’ agreements and Rosen’s clear directives, the Court concludes that ABA Standard 5.13 applies in this circumstance. Though the aggravating factors outweigh the mitigators, the factors are not so out of balance as to warrant departing from the presumptive sanction of public censure. Given the limited information before the Court—which includes only the four corners of the parties’ stipulation and their arguments supporting this outcome at the hearing on March 1, 2023—the Court finds the terms of the stipulation to be consistent with the considerations governing imposition of disciplinary sanctions and APPROVES the parties’ stipulation in this case.
DATED THIS 8th DAY OF MARCH, 2023.
____________________________________
BRYON M. LARGE
PRESIDING DISCIPLINARY JUDGE
Copies to:
Jessica E. Yates Via Email
Jacob M. Vos [email protected]
Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel [email protected]
Michael W. Melito Via Email
Respondent’s Counsel melito@melitola
_______________
Notes:
1. Stip. ¶ 6(a).
2.Stip. ¶ 6(c).
3. Stip. ¶ 6(e). The Court understands that these television programs are nationally televised broadcasts.
4. Found in ABA Annotated Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions (2d ed. 2019).
5. The parties stipulate that Respondent acted with a mental state that was “at least reckless.” Stip. ¶ 13(b). For disciplinary purposes, recklessness is treated as equivalent to a knowing state of mind, with a limited exception not applicable here. See Colo. RPC 1.0 cmt. 7A; People v. Small, 962 P.2d 258, 260 (Colo. 1998).
6. Yates and Vos appeared on the People’s behalf, and Melito appeared for Respondent, who did not attend the hearing.
7. C.R.C.P. 242.19(c).
8. C.R.C.P. 242.19(c).
9. See In re Roose, 69 P.3d 43, 46-47 (Colo. 2003). The ABA Standards were created to “enhance the consistency of the sanctions imposed in attorney disciplinary proceedings.” Id. at 47.
10. Preamble to Chapters 18 to 20 of the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure, ¶¶ 1- 2.
11. See In Re Attorney C., 47 P.3d 1167, 1174 (Colo. 2002).
12. See In re Convisser, 242 P.3d 299, 313 (N.M. 2010) (“Under Standard 5.13, a reprimand is generally considered appropriate when a lawyer knowingly engages in non-criminal conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation that adversely reflects on his or her fitness to practice law.”); In re Schaeffer, 45 A.3d 149, at *9 (Del. 2012) (“The main distinction between Standard 5.12 and Standard 5.13 appears to be the seriousness of the conduct, with Standard 5.12 focused on ’criminal conduct’ that ’seriously adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to practice’ and Standard 5.13 focused on ’other [presumably non-criminal] conduct.’”) (alteration in original).
13. Significant gaps exist between ABA Standards 5.13 and 5.11(b). Those gaps include the distinction in the mental state—intentional versus knowing—and whether the lawyer’s conduct “adversely reflects” or “seriously adversely reflects” on a lawyer’s fitness to practice law. Moreover, suspension under ABA Standard 5.1 is limited to certain criminal conduct, leaving the binary option of disbarment or public censure as the only available sanctions for noncriminal conduct under this ABA Standard. Courts have repeatedly struggled with this aspect of ABA Standard 5.1’s design. See People v. Steinman, 452 P.3d 240, 250 (Colo. O.P.D.J. 2019) (imposing suspension under ABA Standard 7.2 after a prosecutor made misrepresentations to his supervisors and to another lawyer regarding his work on a civil matter, finding that an analysis under ABA Standard 5.1 “suggests that the presumptive sanction should occupy a middle ground between disbarment and public censure” because the conduct, though intentional, did not seriously adversely reflect on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law); see also In re Graeff, 485 P.3d 258, 265 (Or. 2021) (recognizing that analysis under Standard 5.1 is “not a perfect fit”); In re Flannery, 47 P.3d 891, 895 (Or. 2002) (same); In re Complaint as to Conduct of Carpenter, 95 P.3d 203, 211 (Or. 2004) (same); In re Discipline of Walton, 287 P.3d 1098, 1103 (same).
14. 198 P.3d 116 (Colo. 2008).
15. Id. at 120 (emphasis added).
****************************
Top Trump Lawyer [Jenna Ellis] Throws him UNDER THE BUS to Judge
by Ben Meiselas, MeidasTouch
Mar 9, 2023
Donald Trump’s Senior Election Lawyer Jenna Ellis has signed a formal court document with a Colorado judge admitting to lying about 2020 election fraud. MeidasTouch host Ben Meiselas reports.
Transcript
0:00
I'm Ben micellis from the Midas touch
0:02
Network one of Donald Trump's top
0:04
lawyers back in 2022 who was spreading
0:08
the big lie one of the leaders of his
0:10
legal team Jenna Ellis has now been
0:13
publicly censured by the disciplinary
0:17
authorities overseeing the practice of
0:20
law in the state of Colorado and as part
0:23
of a stipulation Jenna Ellis has
0:26
admitted that she repeatedly lied and
0:29
misrepresented facts regarding the 2020
0:32
election she admits that all of the
0:35
things that she was saying about Donald
0:37
Trump and about the big lie were indeed
0:41
big lies and as part of an opinion
0:44
accepting the censure agreement between
0:47
Jenna Ellis and the State Bar
0:50
disciplinary group in the state of
0:53
Colorado the judge the presiding judge
0:56
of the disciplinary courts there judge
0:59
Brian a m large
1:02
explained that the statements made by
1:04
Jenna Ellis were done quote with at
1:07
least a reckless state of mind and Ellis
1:10
agreed that she quote through her
1:12
conduct undermined the American public's
1:16
confidence in the presidential election
1:18
violating her duty of Candor to the
1:22
public and the judge wrote that it was
1:26
motivated by quote a selfish motive and
1:29
part of a quote pattern of misconduct
1:32
engaged in by Jenna Ellis here let's
1:34
just pull up the document right now so
1:37
you can see that the lies are being
1:41
admitted to by Jenna Ellis let's just
1:43
pull up that page first it says
1:45
respondent Jenna Ellis agrees that she
1:48
made the following 10 misrepresentations
1:51
I'm going to read each of those 10
1:53
misrepresentations that she stipulated
1:55
to making in a moment but first let me
1:59
just show you what this document is
2:01
this is an opinion approving stipulation
2:05
for discipline or to discipline under
2:07
crcp 242 a 19c just a Colorado State Bar
2:14
Code that talks about stipulations for
2:17
uh public censure
2:20
um and this is what it states this is
2:22
the stipulation so Jenna Ellis Trump's
2:24
lawyer is admitting to everything that I
2:27
am about to say while serving as a
2:30
senior legal advisor to the then
2:32
president of the United States and as
2:34
counsel for his re-election campaign
2:37
Jenna Lynn Ellis respondent repeatedly
2:40
made misrepresentations a national
2:42
television and on Twitter undermining
2:45
the American public's confidence in the
2:47
2020 presidential election the party
2:50
stipulate that Jenna Ellis respondents
2:53
misconduct warrants public censure and
2:56
the presiding disciplinary judge of the
2:58
Court approves the party's stipulation
3:01
stipulated facts and argument on
3:04
February 13 2023 Jessica e Yates and
3:08
Jacob M Voss Office of the Attorney of
3:11
Regulation Council the people and
3:13
Michael W molito counsel for Jenna Ellis
3:16
respondent filed a stipulation to
3:19
discipline pursuant to crcp
3:21
24219 in the stipulation the parties
3:25
agree that respondents should be
3:27
publicly censured that Jenna Ellis
3:30
should be publicly censored the parties
3:33
stipulate to the following facts from
3:36
February 2019 to January 15 2021
3:40
respondent was a senior legal adviser to
3:43
the then serving president of the United
3:45
States she quote was a member of
3:47
President Trump's legal team that made
3:50
efforts to challenge President Biden's
3:52
victory in the 2020 presidential
3:54
elections though respondent quote was
3:57
part of the legal team she was not
3:59
Council of record for any of the
4:01
lawsuits challenging the election
4:02
results respondents made 10 public
4:05
misrepresentations in November and
4:08
December 2020 and her capacity as
4:11
counsel for the then president's
4:13
re-election campaign and has personal
4:15
counsel to the then president while also
4:17
advertising her status as a lawyer
4:21
respondent agrees that she made the
4:24
following 10 misrepresentations so here
4:27
we go on November 13 2020 respond and
4:31
claim that quote Hillary Clinton still
4:33
has not conceded the 2016 election that
4:37
was false on November 20 2022 respondent
4:41
appeared on mornings with Maria on Fox
4:44
Business and stated quote we have
4:46
affidavits from Witnesses we have voter
4:49
intimidation we have the ballots that
4:51
were manipulated we have all kinds of
4:53
Statistics that show that this was a
4:56
coordinated effort in all of these
4:58
states to transfer votes either from
5:00
Trump to Biden to manipulate the ballots
5:03
to count them in secret this was false
5:05
on November 20th 2020 respondent
5:08
appeared on spicerenko and stated quote
5:11
with all those states in the Mata
5:13
Michigan Pennsylvania Wisconsin Georgia
5:15
combined we know that the election was
5:18
stolen from president Trump and we can
5:20
prove that when she made that statement
5:22
that was false on November 21 2020
5:25
respondents stated on Twitter under our
5:27
handle at Jenna Ellis Esquire quote
5:30
second we will present testimonial and
5:33
other evidence in court to show how this
5:35
election was stolen exclamation point
5:38
this statement by Jenna Ellis was false
5:40
on November 23 2020 respondent appeared
5:44
on the Ari melber show at MSNBC and
5:46
stated quote
5:48
the election was stolen and Trump won by
5:51
a landslide Jenna Ellis admits that this
5:53
statement was false on November 30th
5:56
2020 Jenna Ellis appeared on mornings
5:59
with Maria on Fox Business and stated
6:01
quote president Trump is right that
6:04
there was widespread fraud in this
6:05
election we have at least six states
6:08
that were corrupted if not more through
6:10
their voting systems we know that
6:12
President Trump won in a landslide she
6:15
also stated quote the outcome of this
6:17
election is actually fraudulent it's
6:20
wrong and we understand that when we
6:21
subtract all the illegal ballots you can
6:24
see that the president Trump actually
6:25
won in a landslide Jenna Ellis admits
6:28
that this statement that she made was
6:30
false on December 3rd 2020 Jenna Ellis
6:34
appeared on mornings with Maria on Fox
6:36
Business and stated to quote the outcome
6:38
of this election is actually fraudulent
6:40
it's wrong and we understand that when
6:42
we subtract all the illegal ballots you
6:44
can see that President Trump actually
6:46
won in a landslide the this statement
6:48
Jenna Ellis now admits was false on
6:51
December 5th 2020 respondent appeared
6:53
unjustice with Judge Jeanine on Fox News
6:55
and stated quote we have over 500 000
6:59
votes in Arizona that were cast
7:02
illegally this statement Jenna Ellis now
7:05
admits was false on December 15 2020 Jen
7:08
Ellis appeared on Greg Kelly reports on
7:10
Newsmax and stated quote the proper and
7:13
true Victor which is Donald Trump that
7:16
statement Jenna Ellis now admits was
7:18
false on December 22nd 2020 respondents
7:22
dated on Twitter through her handle at
7:24
Jenna Ellis Esquire quote I spent an
7:27
hour with at Dan caplis for an in-depth
7:29
discussion about at realdonaldtrump at
7:32
president Trump fight for re-election
7:34
Integrity the overwhelming evidence
7:36
proving this was stolen and why the
7:38
fact-finding truth not politics matters
7:41
Jenna Ellis now admits when she made
7:43
this statement it was false respondent
7:46
made these misrepresentations on Twitter
7:48
and on various television programs
7:50
including Fox Business MSNBC Fox News
7:54
and Newsmax the parties agree that by
7:57
making the these misrepresentations
7:59
respondent violated the car the Colorado
8:02
bar rule 8.4 C which provides that it is
8:06
professional misconduct for a lawyer to
8:09
engage in conduct involving dishonesty
8:12
fraud deceit or misrepresentation thus
8:16
Jenna Ellis is admitting to engaging in
8:19
the conduct of dishonesty fraud deceit
8:22
or misrepresentation the parties ask the
8:26
court to approve their stipulation and
8:29
to publicly censure respondent for this
8:31
misconduct in doing so the parties rely
8:34
on standard 5.13 under the American Bar
8:37
Association standards for imposing
8:40
lawyer sanctions the ABA standards which
8:43
provides that public censure is
8:45
generally appropriate when a lawyer
8:47
knowingly engages in any non-criminal
8:49
conduct that involves dishonesty fraud
8:52
deceit or misrepresentation and that
8:55
adversely adversely reflects on the
8:58
lawyer's Fitness to practice law so as
9:01
we've said before Maga what does it
9:04
stand for make attorneys get attorneys
9:08
and here is yet another example with
9:11
Jenna Ellis and just to remind you when
9:14
Jenna Ellis was making a lot of these
9:16
false statements she was making them
9:18
beside Rudy Giuliani of course you'll
9:20
recall this video where Rudy Giuliani
9:24
farted on Jenna Ellis and then Jenna
9:27
Ellis shortly thereafter contracted
9:30
covid play this clip a single witness
9:34
just like you they don't want to know
9:36
the truth so ultimately the question for
9:40
Jenna Ellis is is was this worth it what
9:43
was it worth it at the end of the day my
9:47
own view though
9:48
is that this public censure does not go
9:51
far enough if you want to know why I
9:54
think there was a public censure as
9:57
opposed to revoking her bar license I
10:00
think I have a good understanding why I
10:04
think her bar license should have been
10:06
revoked
10:07
um she's such even though she was a
10:10
senior Counsel on Trump's legal team
10:13
she's so not a serious individual like
10:17
professionally she's such an awful
10:20
lawyer and you'll recall when I was
10:22
reading you the stipulation the key line
10:24
about why I think it was a censure
10:26
versus revoking her license is that she
10:30
never actually appeared in any
10:32
courtrooms on behalf of Donald Trump she
10:35
just went around and spread these lies
10:38
frequently and and media appearances and
10:42
like fake hearings that they would hold
10:44
in like the lobbies or conference rooms
10:46
at hotels
10:48
and because she wasn't in the cases
10:51
themselves that's why I think they
10:53
ultimately gave her a public censure
10:55
instead of a uh revoking her bar license
11:00
but I think they should have still
11:02
revoked her bar license here but what
11:04
the public censure means is basically
11:07
the judge releases to the public the
11:10
stipulation
11:12
letting the public know that her Fitness
11:15
to practice law that her moral character
11:18
to practice law is clearly impaired
11:22
that's what a public censure is it is a
11:24
judge telling the public that she's a
11:27
liar
11:28
and her admitting to the public that she
11:31
is a liar that's what a public censure
11:34
is as opposed to anything like a
11:37
suspension of her license or revoking
11:40
her license from all of the reporting
11:42
I've read and statements from her
11:44
lawyers and the bar lawyers it doesn't
11:46
look like the state of Colorado is going
11:48
to take any further
11:49
disciplinary action here which I think
11:53
is uh unfortunate however I think that
11:57
this evidence will undoubtedly be used
12:00
in many other cases including criminal
12:04
cases against Donald Trump criminal
12:07
investigations of Donald Trump and
12:09
others in Trump's Inner Circle where you
12:12
have the senior legal advisor to Donald
12:15
Trump admitting that she was knowingly
12:18
and recklessly lying to the public on
12:22
behalf of Donald Trump I think this
12:24
document will provide a lot of help with
12:28
those criminal investigations so there
12:31
is a benefit to having the stipulation
12:33
be entered into I'm Ben Marcellus from
12:36
the Midas touch Network hit subscribe
12:39
we're on our way to 1 million
12:40
subscribers thanks to your support so
12:42
please hit subscribe right now
12:45
also check us out if you can at
12:47
patreon.com Midas Touch
12:50
p-a-t-r-e-o-n.com Midas Touch
12:53
got a lot of great content on our
12:55
patreon site but most importantly it
12:58
helps grow this Independent Media
12:59
platform so check us out there until
13:02
next time I'm Ben Marcellus again hit
13:04
subscribe help us march to 1 million
13:07
subscribers in the month of March our
13:09
blue wall stop the Red Wave and election
13:11
deniers got denied election that's why
13:14
we're celebrating with the new democracy
13:16
prevails team we've got lots of work to
13:18
do but we should all be proud that when
13:20
democracy was tested democracy prevailed
13:23
you've earned this don't wait get yours
13:25
right now at store.mydisttouch.com
13:27
that's store.mydisttouch.com
13:30
[Music]
by Byron M. Large, Presiding Disciplinary Judge
Supreme Court, State of Colorado
The People of the State of Colorado vs. Jenna Lynn Ellis
Case Number: 23PDJ004
March 8, 2023
SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADO
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE BEFORE
THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDING DISCIPLINARY JUDGE
1300 BROADWAY, SUITE 250
DENVER, CO 80203
Complainant: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO
Respondent: JENNA LYNN ELLIS, #44026
Case Number: 23PDJ004
OPINION APPROVING STIPULATION TO DISCIPLINE UNDER C.R.C.P. 242.19(c)
While serving as a senior legal advisor to the then-President of the United States and as counsel for his reelection campaign, Jenna Lynn Ellis (“Respondent”) repeatedly made misrepresentations on national television and on Twitter, undermining the American public’s confidence in the 2020 presidential election. The parties stipulate that Respondent’s misconduct warrants public censure, and the Presiding Disciplinary Judge (“the Court”) approves the parties’ stipulation.
I. STIPULATED FACTS AND ARGUMENT
On February 13, 2023, Jessica E. Yates and Jacob M. Vos, Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel (“the People”), and Michael W. Melito, counsel for Respondent, filed a “Stipulation to Discipline Pursuant to C.R.C.P. 242.19.” In the stipulation, the parties agree that Respondent should be publicly censured.
The parties stipulate to the following facts. From February 2019 to January 15, 2021, Respondent was a senior legal advisor to the then-serving President of the United States. She “was a member of President Trump’s legal team . . . that made efforts to challenge President Biden’s victory in the 2020 Presidential Election.”1 Though Respondent “was part of the legal team . . . she was not counsel of record for any of the lawsuits challenging the election results.”2 Respondent made ten public misrepresentations in November and December 2020 in her capacity as counsel for the then-President’s reelection campaign and as personal counsel to the then-President, while also advertising her status as a lawyer.
Respondent agrees she made the following ten misrepresentations:
• On November 13, 2020, Respondent claimed that “Hillary Clinton still has not conceded the 2016 election.”
• On November 20, 2020, Respondent appeared on Mornings with Maria on Fox Business and stated: “We have affidavits from witnesses, we have voter intimidation, we have the ballots that were manipulated, we have all kinds of statistics that show that this was a coordinated effort in all of these states to transfer votes either from Trump to Biden, to manipulate the ballots, to count them in secret . . .”
• On November 20, 2020, Respondent appeared on Spicer & Co. and stated, “with all those states [Nevada, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Georgia] combined we know that the election was stolen from President Trump and we can prove that.”
• On November 21, 2020, Respondent stated on Twitter under her handle @JennaEllisEsq., “ . . . SECOND, we will present testimonial and other evidence IN COURT to show how this election was STOLEN!”
• On November 23, 2020, Respondent appeared on The Ari Melber Show on MSNBC and stated, “The election was stolen and Trump won by a landslide.”
• On November 30, 2020, Respondent appeared on Mornings with Maria on Fox Business and stated, “President Trump is right that there was widespread fraud in this election, we have at least six states that were corrupted, if not more, through their voting systems. . . We know that President Trump won in a landslide.” She also stated, “The outcome of this election is actually fraudulent it's wrong, and we understand than when we subtract all the illegal ballots, you can see that President Trump actually won in a landslide.”
• On December 3, 2020, Respondent appeared on Mornings with Maria on Fox Business and stated, “The outcome of this election is actually fraudulent it's wrong, and we understand than when we subtract all the illegal ballots, you can see that President Trump actually won in a landslide.”
• On December 5, 2020, Respondent appeared on Justice with Judge Jeanine on Fox News and stated, "We have over 500,000 votes [in Arizona] that were cast illegally . . .”
• On December 15, 2020, Respondent appeared on Greg Kelly Reports on Newsmax and stated, “The proper and true victor, which is Donald Trump . . .”
• On December 22, 2020, Respondent stated on Twitter, through her handle @JennaEllisEsq, “I spent an hour with @DanCaplis for an in-depth discussion about President @realDonaldTrump's fight for election integrity, the overwhelming evidence proving this was stolen, and why fact-finding and truth—not politics—matters!”
Respondent made these misrepresentations on Twitter and on various television programs, including Fox Business, MSNBC, Fox News, and Newsmax. 3 The parties agree that by making these misrepresentations, Respondent violated Colo. RPC 8.4(c), which provides that it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.
The parties ask the Court to approve their stipulation and to publicly censure Respondent for this misconduct. In doing so, the parties rely on Standard 5.13 under the American Bar Association Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions (“ABA Standards”), 4 which provides that “[public censure] is generally appropriate when a lawyer knowingly5 engages in any [noncriminal] conduct that involves dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation and that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law.”
On February 15, 2023, the Court ordered the parties to set this matter for a hearing on the stipulation. The Court asked the parties to address whether ABA Standard 5.13 is the most fitting ABA Standard for Respondent’s misconduct. The Court also directed the parties to address the applicability of other ABA Standards, including ABA Standards 7.1, 7.2, and 5.11(b). At the hearing, which took place on March 1, 2023, the Court heard legal argument from both parties as to the appropriate ABA Standards and in support of their proposed sanction.6 The parties represented that they could not locate published lawyer discipline cases that present facts akin to those to which they stipulate, noting that this case is novel and one of first impression. Throughout the hearing, the parties also signaled that First Amendment considerations, including limitations on lawyers’ speech, were an important part of their analysis in reaching the terms of their negotiated settlement.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW AND LEGAL ANALYSIS
In considering a stipulation to discipline, the Court “may either reject the stipulation and order that the disciplinary proceeding go forward . . . or approve the stipulation and enter an appropriate order.”7 The Court endeavors to accord parties broad latitude to fashion mutually agreeable resolutions, wishes to honor parties’ agreements, and is favorably inclined to accept targeted and proportionate stipulations that protect the public and promote confidence in the legal profession.
Reviewing stipulations “[u]sing discretion and in accordance with the considerations governing imposition of disciplinary sanctions,”8 the Court looks to the ABA Standards as its guiding authority in imposing an appropriate sanction, unless doing so would contradict Colorado Supreme Court case law.9 The Court is also guided by the Colorado Supreme Court’s stated regulatory objectives to increase public understanding of and confidence in the rule of law and to ensure lawyers’ compliance with the rules of professional conduct and other rules in a manner that is fair, efficient, effective, targeted, and proportionate.10 This Court is thus cognizant that disciplinary decisions serve to guide and educate the members of the legal profession.11
The Court understands that this matter presents unique facts, and it is keenly aware that it does not have the benefit of factually analogous cases imposing discipline. Absent comparable prior cases, the Court’s analysis centers exclusively on the ABA Standards and interpretive Colorado Supreme Court case law, which provide a framework to assess the stipulation.
The ABA Standard 5.0 series sanctions lawyers for violations of duties owed to the public, and the ABA Standard 5.1 series specifically focuses on lawyers’ failure to maintain personal integrity. ABA Standard 5.1 appears singular in that it takes no account of the type or quantum of harm a lawyer’s misconduct causes. Under ABA Standard 5.11(b), disbarment is generally appropriate when a lawyer engages in intentional conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation that seriously adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to practice. ABA Standard 5.12 provides for suspension when a lawyer’s dishonesty implicates criminal misconduct. Under a strict reading of the Standards, it is not applicable here.12 ABA Standard 5.13 provides that reprimand is generally appropriate when a lawyer knowingly engages in any other conduct that involves dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation and that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law.13
In contrast, ABA Standard 7.0 implicates violations of the duties lawyers owe as professionals, which generally involve “false or misleading communication about the lawyer or the lawyer’s services, improper communication of fields of practice, improper solicitation of professional employment from a prospective client, unreasonable or improper fees, unauthorized practice of law, improper withdrawal from representation, or failure to report professional misconduct.” Under ABA Standard 7.2, suspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer knowingly engages in conduct that is a violation of a duty owed as a professional and causes injury or potential injury to a client, the public, or the legal system.
Although ABA Standard 7.2 seemingly fits the fact pattern at hand, the Colorado Supreme Court’s opinion in In re Rosen counsels against relying on that Standard outside the context of lawyers’ misrepresentations while executing their professional duties.14 Rosen further counsels against imposing a sanction in the gap left between ABA Standards 5.11(b) and 5.13. Indeed, the Rosen court addressed at length the appropriate Standards to apply when faced with instances of lawyer misrepresentation:
Unless deceit or misrepresentation is directed toward a client, see ABA Standard 4.6, a tribunal, see ABA Standard 6.1, or the legal profession itself (as, for example, by making false representations in applying for admission to the bar), see ABA Standard 7.0, it is considered by the ABA Standards to be the violation of a duty owed to the public, see ABA Standard 5.0. As the violation of a duty owed to the public (as distinguished from a client, a court, or the profession), even conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation, as long as it falls short of actual criminality or comparable intentional conduct seriously adversely reflecting on one's fitness to practice law, should generally be sanctioned only by reprimand, or censure.15
With these authorities in mind, the Court turns to the parties’ stipulation. Respondent and the People agree that Respondent made ten misrepresentations on Twitter and to nationally televised audiences in her capacity as personal counsel to the then-President of the United States and as counsel for his reelection campaign. The parties agree that Respondent made these statements, which violated Colo. RPC 8.4(c), with at least a reckless state of mind. The parties agree that Respondent was not counsel of record in any lawsuits challenging the 2020 election results. The parties agree that Respondent, through her conduct, undermined the American public’s confidence in the presidential election, violating her duty of candor to the public. Finally, the parties agree that two aggravators apply—Respondent had a selfish motive and she engaged in a pattern of misconduct—while one factor, her lack of prior discipline, mitigates her misconduct.
Based on the parties’ agreements and Rosen’s clear directives, the Court concludes that ABA Standard 5.13 applies in this circumstance. Though the aggravating factors outweigh the mitigators, the factors are not so out of balance as to warrant departing from the presumptive sanction of public censure. Given the limited information before the Court—which includes only the four corners of the parties’ stipulation and their arguments supporting this outcome at the hearing on March 1, 2023—the Court finds the terms of the stipulation to be consistent with the considerations governing imposition of disciplinary sanctions and APPROVES the parties’ stipulation in this case.
DATED THIS 8th DAY OF MARCH, 2023.
____________________________________
BRYON M. LARGE
PRESIDING DISCIPLINARY JUDGE
Copies to:
Jessica E. Yates Via Email
Jacob M. Vos [email protected]
Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel [email protected]
Michael W. Melito Via Email
Respondent’s Counsel melito@melitola
_______________
Notes:
1. Stip. ¶ 6(a).
2.Stip. ¶ 6(c).
3. Stip. ¶ 6(e). The Court understands that these television programs are nationally televised broadcasts.
4. Found in ABA Annotated Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions (2d ed. 2019).
5. The parties stipulate that Respondent acted with a mental state that was “at least reckless.” Stip. ¶ 13(b). For disciplinary purposes, recklessness is treated as equivalent to a knowing state of mind, with a limited exception not applicable here. See Colo. RPC 1.0 cmt. 7A; People v. Small, 962 P.2d 258, 260 (Colo. 1998).
6. Yates and Vos appeared on the People’s behalf, and Melito appeared for Respondent, who did not attend the hearing.
7. C.R.C.P. 242.19(c).
8. C.R.C.P. 242.19(c).
9. See In re Roose, 69 P.3d 43, 46-47 (Colo. 2003). The ABA Standards were created to “enhance the consistency of the sanctions imposed in attorney disciplinary proceedings.” Id. at 47.
10. Preamble to Chapters 18 to 20 of the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure, ¶¶ 1- 2.
11. See In Re Attorney C., 47 P.3d 1167, 1174 (Colo. 2002).
12. See In re Convisser, 242 P.3d 299, 313 (N.M. 2010) (“Under Standard 5.13, a reprimand is generally considered appropriate when a lawyer knowingly engages in non-criminal conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation that adversely reflects on his or her fitness to practice law.”); In re Schaeffer, 45 A.3d 149, at *9 (Del. 2012) (“The main distinction between Standard 5.12 and Standard 5.13 appears to be the seriousness of the conduct, with Standard 5.12 focused on ’criminal conduct’ that ’seriously adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to practice’ and Standard 5.13 focused on ’other [presumably non-criminal] conduct.’”) (alteration in original).
13. Significant gaps exist between ABA Standards 5.13 and 5.11(b). Those gaps include the distinction in the mental state—intentional versus knowing—and whether the lawyer’s conduct “adversely reflects” or “seriously adversely reflects” on a lawyer’s fitness to practice law. Moreover, suspension under ABA Standard 5.1 is limited to certain criminal conduct, leaving the binary option of disbarment or public censure as the only available sanctions for noncriminal conduct under this ABA Standard. Courts have repeatedly struggled with this aspect of ABA Standard 5.1’s design. See People v. Steinman, 452 P.3d 240, 250 (Colo. O.P.D.J. 2019) (imposing suspension under ABA Standard 7.2 after a prosecutor made misrepresentations to his supervisors and to another lawyer regarding his work on a civil matter, finding that an analysis under ABA Standard 5.1 “suggests that the presumptive sanction should occupy a middle ground between disbarment and public censure” because the conduct, though intentional, did not seriously adversely reflect on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law); see also In re Graeff, 485 P.3d 258, 265 (Or. 2021) (recognizing that analysis under Standard 5.1 is “not a perfect fit”); In re Flannery, 47 P.3d 891, 895 (Or. 2002) (same); In re Complaint as to Conduct of Carpenter, 95 P.3d 203, 211 (Or. 2004) (same); In re Discipline of Walton, 287 P.3d 1098, 1103 (same).
14. 198 P.3d 116 (Colo. 2008).
15. Id. at 120 (emphasis added).
****************************
Top Trump Lawyer [Jenna Ellis] Throws him UNDER THE BUS to Judge
by Ben Meiselas, MeidasTouch
Mar 9, 2023
Donald Trump’s Senior Election Lawyer Jenna Ellis has signed a formal court document with a Colorado judge admitting to lying about 2020 election fraud. MeidasTouch host Ben Meiselas reports.
Transcript
0:00
I'm Ben micellis from the Midas touch
0:02
Network one of Donald Trump's top
0:04
lawyers back in 2022 who was spreading
0:08
the big lie one of the leaders of his
0:10
legal team Jenna Ellis has now been
0:13
publicly censured by the disciplinary
0:17
authorities overseeing the practice of
0:20
law in the state of Colorado and as part
0:23
of a stipulation Jenna Ellis has
0:26
admitted that she repeatedly lied and
0:29
misrepresented facts regarding the 2020
0:32
election she admits that all of the
0:35
things that she was saying about Donald
0:37
Trump and about the big lie were indeed
0:41
big lies and as part of an opinion
0:44
accepting the censure agreement between
0:47
Jenna Ellis and the State Bar
0:50
disciplinary group in the state of
0:53
Colorado the judge the presiding judge
0:56
of the disciplinary courts there judge
0:59
Brian a m large
1:02
explained that the statements made by
1:04
Jenna Ellis were done quote with at
1:07
least a reckless state of mind and Ellis
1:10
agreed that she quote through her
1:12
conduct undermined the American public's
1:16
confidence in the presidential election
1:18
violating her duty of Candor to the
1:22
public and the judge wrote that it was
1:26
motivated by quote a selfish motive and
1:29
part of a quote pattern of misconduct
1:32
engaged in by Jenna Ellis here let's
1:34
just pull up the document right now so
1:37
you can see that the lies are being
1:41
admitted to by Jenna Ellis let's just
1:43
pull up that page first it says
1:45
respondent Jenna Ellis agrees that she
1:48
made the following 10 misrepresentations
1:51
I'm going to read each of those 10
1:53
misrepresentations that she stipulated
1:55
to making in a moment but first let me
1:59
just show you what this document is
2:01
this is an opinion approving stipulation
2:05
for discipline or to discipline under
2:07
crcp 242 a 19c just a Colorado State Bar
2:14
Code that talks about stipulations for
2:17
uh public censure
2:20
um and this is what it states this is
2:22
the stipulation so Jenna Ellis Trump's
2:24
lawyer is admitting to everything that I
2:27
am about to say while serving as a
2:30
senior legal advisor to the then
2:32
president of the United States and as
2:34
counsel for his re-election campaign
2:37
Jenna Lynn Ellis respondent repeatedly
2:40
made misrepresentations a national
2:42
television and on Twitter undermining
2:45
the American public's confidence in the
2:47
2020 presidential election the party
2:50
stipulate that Jenna Ellis respondents
2:53
misconduct warrants public censure and
2:56
the presiding disciplinary judge of the
2:58
Court approves the party's stipulation
3:01
stipulated facts and argument on
3:04
February 13 2023 Jessica e Yates and
3:08
Jacob M Voss Office of the Attorney of
3:11
Regulation Council the people and
3:13
Michael W molito counsel for Jenna Ellis
3:16
respondent filed a stipulation to
3:19
discipline pursuant to crcp
3:21
24219 in the stipulation the parties
3:25
agree that respondents should be
3:27
publicly censured that Jenna Ellis
3:30
should be publicly censored the parties
3:33
stipulate to the following facts from
3:36
February 2019 to January 15 2021
3:40
respondent was a senior legal adviser to
3:43
the then serving president of the United
3:45
States she quote was a member of
3:47
President Trump's legal team that made
3:50
efforts to challenge President Biden's
3:52
victory in the 2020 presidential
3:54
elections though respondent quote was
3:57
part of the legal team she was not
3:59
Council of record for any of the
4:01
lawsuits challenging the election
4:02
results respondents made 10 public
4:05
misrepresentations in November and
4:08
December 2020 and her capacity as
4:11
counsel for the then president's
4:13
re-election campaign and has personal
4:15
counsel to the then president while also
4:17
advertising her status as a lawyer
4:21
respondent agrees that she made the
4:24
following 10 misrepresentations so here
4:27
we go on November 13 2020 respond and
4:31
claim that quote Hillary Clinton still
4:33
has not conceded the 2016 election that
4:37
was false on November 20 2022 respondent
4:41
appeared on mornings with Maria on Fox
4:44
Business and stated quote we have
4:46
affidavits from Witnesses we have voter
4:49
intimidation we have the ballots that
4:51
were manipulated we have all kinds of
4:53
Statistics that show that this was a
4:56
coordinated effort in all of these
4:58
states to transfer votes either from
5:00
Trump to Biden to manipulate the ballots
5:03
to count them in secret this was false
5:05
on November 20th 2020 respondent
5:08
appeared on spicerenko and stated quote
5:11
with all those states in the Mata
5:13
Michigan Pennsylvania Wisconsin Georgia
5:15
combined we know that the election was
5:18
stolen from president Trump and we can
5:20
prove that when she made that statement
5:22
that was false on November 21 2020
5:25
respondents stated on Twitter under our
5:27
handle at Jenna Ellis Esquire quote
5:30
second we will present testimonial and
5:33
other evidence in court to show how this
5:35
election was stolen exclamation point
5:38
this statement by Jenna Ellis was false
5:40
on November 23 2020 respondent appeared
5:44
on the Ari melber show at MSNBC and
5:46
stated quote
5:48
the election was stolen and Trump won by
5:51
a landslide Jenna Ellis admits that this
5:53
statement was false on November 30th
5:56
2020 Jenna Ellis appeared on mornings
5:59
with Maria on Fox Business and stated
6:01
quote president Trump is right that
6:04
there was widespread fraud in this
6:05
election we have at least six states
6:08
that were corrupted if not more through
6:10
their voting systems we know that
6:12
President Trump won in a landslide she
6:15
also stated quote the outcome of this
6:17
election is actually fraudulent it's
6:20
wrong and we understand that when we
6:21
subtract all the illegal ballots you can
6:24
see that the president Trump actually
6:25
won in a landslide Jenna Ellis admits
6:28
that this statement that she made was
6:30
false on December 3rd 2020 Jenna Ellis
6:34
appeared on mornings with Maria on Fox
6:36
Business and stated to quote the outcome
6:38
of this election is actually fraudulent
6:40
it's wrong and we understand that when
6:42
we subtract all the illegal ballots you
6:44
can see that President Trump actually
6:46
won in a landslide the this statement
6:48
Jenna Ellis now admits was false on
6:51
December 5th 2020 respondent appeared
6:53
unjustice with Judge Jeanine on Fox News
6:55
and stated quote we have over 500 000
6:59
votes in Arizona that were cast
7:02
illegally this statement Jenna Ellis now
7:05
admits was false on December 15 2020 Jen
7:08
Ellis appeared on Greg Kelly reports on
7:10
Newsmax and stated quote the proper and
7:13
true Victor which is Donald Trump that
7:16
statement Jenna Ellis now admits was
7:18
false on December 22nd 2020 respondents
7:22
dated on Twitter through her handle at
7:24
Jenna Ellis Esquire quote I spent an
7:27
hour with at Dan caplis for an in-depth
7:29
discussion about at realdonaldtrump at
7:32
president Trump fight for re-election
7:34
Integrity the overwhelming evidence
7:36
proving this was stolen and why the
7:38
fact-finding truth not politics matters
7:41
Jenna Ellis now admits when she made
7:43
this statement it was false respondent
7:46
made these misrepresentations on Twitter
7:48
and on various television programs
7:50
including Fox Business MSNBC Fox News
7:54
and Newsmax the parties agree that by
7:57
making the these misrepresentations
7:59
respondent violated the car the Colorado
8:02
bar rule 8.4 C which provides that it is
8:06
professional misconduct for a lawyer to
8:09
engage in conduct involving dishonesty
8:12
fraud deceit or misrepresentation thus
8:16
Jenna Ellis is admitting to engaging in
8:19
the conduct of dishonesty fraud deceit
8:22
or misrepresentation the parties ask the
8:26
court to approve their stipulation and
8:29
to publicly censure respondent for this
8:31
misconduct in doing so the parties rely
8:34
on standard 5.13 under the American Bar
8:37
Association standards for imposing
8:40
lawyer sanctions the ABA standards which
8:43
provides that public censure is
8:45
generally appropriate when a lawyer
8:47
knowingly engages in any non-criminal
8:49
conduct that involves dishonesty fraud
8:52
deceit or misrepresentation and that
8:55
adversely adversely reflects on the
8:58
lawyer's Fitness to practice law so as
9:01
we've said before Maga what does it
9:04
stand for make attorneys get attorneys
9:08
and here is yet another example with
9:11
Jenna Ellis and just to remind you when
9:14
Jenna Ellis was making a lot of these
9:16
false statements she was making them
9:18
beside Rudy Giuliani of course you'll
9:20
recall this video where Rudy Giuliani
9:24
farted on Jenna Ellis and then Jenna
9:27
Ellis shortly thereafter contracted
9:30
covid play this clip a single witness
9:34
just like you they don't want to know
9:36
the truth so ultimately the question for
9:40
Jenna Ellis is is was this worth it what
9:43
was it worth it at the end of the day my
9:47
own view though
9:48
is that this public censure does not go
9:51
far enough if you want to know why I
9:54
think there was a public censure as
9:57
opposed to revoking her bar license I
10:00
think I have a good understanding why I
10:04
think her bar license should have been
10:06
revoked
10:07
um she's such even though she was a
10:10
senior Counsel on Trump's legal team
10:13
she's so not a serious individual like
10:17
professionally she's such an awful
10:20
lawyer and you'll recall when I was
10:22
reading you the stipulation the key line
10:24
about why I think it was a censure
10:26
versus revoking her license is that she
10:30
never actually appeared in any
10:32
courtrooms on behalf of Donald Trump she
10:35
just went around and spread these lies
10:38
frequently and and media appearances and
10:42
like fake hearings that they would hold
10:44
in like the lobbies or conference rooms
10:46
at hotels
10:48
and because she wasn't in the cases
10:51
themselves that's why I think they
10:53
ultimately gave her a public censure
10:55
instead of a uh revoking her bar license
11:00
but I think they should have still
11:02
revoked her bar license here but what
11:04
the public censure means is basically
11:07
the judge releases to the public the
11:10
stipulation
11:12
letting the public know that her Fitness
11:15
to practice law that her moral character
11:18
to practice law is clearly impaired
11:22
that's what a public censure is it is a
11:24
judge telling the public that she's a
11:27
liar
11:28
and her admitting to the public that she
11:31
is a liar that's what a public censure
11:34
is as opposed to anything like a
11:37
suspension of her license or revoking
11:40
her license from all of the reporting
11:42
I've read and statements from her
11:44
lawyers and the bar lawyers it doesn't
11:46
look like the state of Colorado is going
11:48
to take any further
11:49
disciplinary action here which I think
11:53
is uh unfortunate however I think that
11:57
this evidence will undoubtedly be used
12:00
in many other cases including criminal
12:04
cases against Donald Trump criminal
12:07
investigations of Donald Trump and
12:09
others in Trump's Inner Circle where you
12:12
have the senior legal advisor to Donald
12:15
Trump admitting that she was knowingly
12:18
and recklessly lying to the public on
12:22
behalf of Donald Trump I think this
12:24
document will provide a lot of help with
12:28
those criminal investigations so there
12:31
is a benefit to having the stipulation
12:33
be entered into I'm Ben Marcellus from
12:36
the Midas touch Network hit subscribe
12:39
we're on our way to 1 million
12:40
subscribers thanks to your support so
12:42
please hit subscribe right now
12:45
also check us out if you can at
12:47
patreon.com Midas Touch
12:50
p-a-t-r-e-o-n.com Midas Touch
12:53
got a lot of great content on our
12:55
patreon site but most importantly it
12:58
helps grow this Independent Media
12:59
platform so check us out there until
13:02
next time I'm Ben Marcellus again hit
13:04
subscribe help us march to 1 million
13:07
subscribers in the month of March our
13:09
blue wall stop the Red Wave and election
13:11
deniers got denied election that's why
13:14
we're celebrating with the new democracy
13:16
prevails team we've got lots of work to
13:18
do but we should all be proud that when
13:20
democracy was tested democracy prevailed
13:23
you've earned this don't wait get yours
13:25
right now at store.mydisttouch.com
13:27
that's store.mydisttouch.com
13:30
[Music]
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 37523
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Return to United States Government Crime
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests