Trump lashes out at Gov. Doug Ducey following certification

[admin]

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.

[admin]

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:

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]

Jack Smith Delivers FATAL BLOW in Trump Investigation
by Michael Popok
MeidasTouch
Mar 22, 2023

Michael Popok of Legal AF reports on new bombshell appellate decision against Trump, upholding trial judge’s finding that Trump likely committed crime regarding handling of Mar a Lago documents, waiving any attorney client privilege, and compelling his attorney Evan Corcoran to appear again before the grand jury to testify and to produce to the DOJ his attorney notes and phone call transcripts immediately. Will Trump appeal next to the Supreme Court?



Transcript

0:00
says Michael popock legal if well we
0:02
already have a ruling by the DC
0:04
appellate three-judge panel against
0:07
Donald Trump against his uh lawyer Evan
0:11
Corcoran the lead lawyer in everything
0:13
related to Mar-A-Lago and the documents
0:16
National Security documents that were
0:18
improperly retained and that criminal
0:20
investigation by Jack Smith you might be
0:22
thinking didn't I just hear earlier
0:24
today on another hot take bite from
0:26
popock and legal AF that they just fully
0:28
briefed it over an eight-hour period by
0:31
order of the Appellate Court and it only
0:33
all got briefed just by 6 a.m how could
0:37
we possibly be talking about a ruling
0:38
just eight hours later we're done ladies
0:40
and gentlemen we are completely done
0:42
this is a 14-hour process by the
0:45
Appellate Court three judge panel and
0:47
they have ruled against Donald Trump
0:48
they have ruled to support the trial
0:51
judge the then chief judge of the D.C
0:53
Circuit Court Beryl Howell who at the
0:56
time until she left the position and
0:59
became just a regular regular old trial
1:00
judge she was responsible for all of the
1:03
grand juries in the District of Columbia
1:05
that including the ones Jack Smith is
1:08
Prosecuting in front of related to
1:11
Donald Trump
1:12
Evan Corcoran who had
1:16
um all of the decision making related to
1:19
the Mar-A-Lago documents from the
1:20
beginning from the initial interaction
1:23
between Donald Trump and the National
1:25
Archives the pretty please return all
1:27
the documents all the way to the
1:29
subpoena that the Department of Justice
1:31
had an issue because they were getting
1:33
foot dragging from Donald Trump and
1:35
getting nonsense and and fraudulent and
1:38
false statements being made to them even
1:40
by lawyers and then the search warrant
1:42
in June all of that Evan Corcoran
1:44
touched all of that fingerprints are on
1:46
all of that and he's Christina Bob's
1:48
boss for the purposes of interacting
1:50
with the Department of Justice
1:51
Department of Justice filed evidence
1:54
with Barrel Howell on Friday to convince
1:57
her based on the evidence that they had
1:59
that they at least had a prima fascia
2:03
um uh amount of evidence present to
2:06
establish that Donald Trump committed a
2:09
crime related to the Mar-A-Lago
2:10
documents and that he willingly or
2:13
unwittingly had his lawyers involved in
2:17
that process in other words he used the
2:20
lawyers to perpetrate the crime the The
2:23
Waiting or unwitting part is whether the
2:25
lawyers knew it doesn't matter under the
2:27
crime fraud exception of the
2:29
attorney-client privilege which we've
2:31
talked a lot about and in piercing the
2:33
attorney-client privilege it doesn't
2:34
matter whether the lawyer participated
2:37
willingly in that conspiracy or was
2:39
duped by his own client it just matters
2:42
whether there was a fraud or a crime
2:44
committed in the obtaining of the legal
2:47
advice in the communications and Barrel
2:49
Howell on Friday ruled that there was
2:51
Trump and Corcoran move for an appeal
2:54
and to stay the order and while the
2:57
Appellate Court gave them the briefest
2:59
of stays really just from Saturday until
3:02
Wednesday that's it they said we're
3:06
going to brief this really really
3:07
quickly we're going to make this
3:08
decision really quickly why why you
3:10
might be wondering are they moving so
3:12
quickly I'll give you one reason it may
3:14
be because Jack Smith is on a fast track
3:18
to making a charging decision an
3:21
indictment of Donald Trump related to
3:23
Mar-A-Lago of all of the moving parts of
3:25
all the grand juries in Washington we've
3:28
always thought on our podcast legal AF
3:30
that the one that Jack Smith was closest
3:33
to the simplest case was Mar alago and
3:36
the fact that the Appellate Court moved
3:38
so quickly off of the ruling on Friday
3:40
by judge Beryl Howell indicates to me
3:43
that that the Department of Justice has
3:45
let it be known that they're at the very
3:47
end they're on the if they're not on the
3:49
one-yard line of making the charging
3:51
decision
3:52
which of course is a recommendation by
3:55
the special counsel to Merrick Garland
3:57
Merrick Garland can override it I don't
4:00
think he will here and then it's the
4:02
indict it it goes it's getting the
4:04
indictment
4:05
um from return from the grand jury
4:08
they're moving awful quick here about
4:11
top secret documents could be National
4:13
Security rationale for that more likely
4:16
department of justice has got an itchy
4:18
trigger finger and they want to indict
4:20
indict indict they need Evan Corcoran to
4:22
go back in without attorney-client
4:24
privilege and do it so we've got a
4:26
ruling today we've got a ruling just
4:28
hours after the full briefing by Donald
4:31
Trump's lawyers and team and the
4:33
Department of Justice working throughout
4:35
the night and early morning to
4:36
accommodate this trial deadline set by
4:39
the three-judge panel and the
4:40
three-judge panel took another seven
4:42
hours and reviewed everything and did
4:44
the following one they said we're
4:46
getting rid of the stay that
4:48
administrative stay we put in place just
4:50
to hold the ring while we looked at the
4:52
issue that's going on Barrel Howell's
4:54
decision ordering Evan Corcoran to
4:56
testify about what we think is six
4:58
topics in and around the subpoena and
5:01
search warrant uh that finding that
5:03
Beryl Howell made about the crime fraud
5:06
exception applies we support it we are
5:10
going to uphold her decision to compel
5:13
Evan Corcoran to go back to the grand
5:15
jury could be as early as tomorrow to
5:18
give further testimony without the
5:20
benefit of protection of the
5:21
attorney-client privilege and by the way
5:23
for good measure the court has also
5:26
ruled because we can tell from the uh
5:28
the docket entry by the clerk on the on
5:32
the long written electronic docket for
5:34
every case that exists in Federal and
5:36
State Court we can tell from the clerk's
5:38
entry that the other component of the
5:41
order compels Evan Corcoran to turn over
5:45
his attorney notes on these issues and
5:48
even some phone call transcripts that
5:50
apparently Evan Corcoran has for phone
5:53
calls that he he I mean there's nothing
5:55
like not trusting your client you you
5:57
record phone calls and then you create
5:58
transcripts of those phone calls I mean
6:01
it's insane but he has them and now he's
6:03
been ordered by the Appellate Court in
6:05
the D.C circuit the three-judge panel to
6:07
turn those over to the Department of
6:09
Justice so he's got nowhere to hide
6:11
there's no more fig leaf for Donald
6:12
Trump or Evan Corcoran they got to go
6:15
into the belly the belly of the Beast
6:17
and now testify before the grand jury
6:19
without any insulation of the
6:21
attorney-client privilege so says the
6:23
three-judge panel a very interesting
6:25
three-judge panel not only three
6:27
Democratic appointed judges two of them
6:30
by Biden one of them Michelle Childs was
6:33
on the shortest of short lists to be a
6:36
U.S Supreme Court Justice in the seat
6:38
now occupied by katanji Brown Jackson if
6:41
you recall she was the one from South
6:43
Carolina that that Lindsey Graham was
6:45
pushing hard for Joe Biden to pick well
6:47
Joe Biden picked her but picked her for
6:49
this position where she's on the DC
6:51
Circuit Court of Appeals the highest
6:53
court just below the Supreme Court in
6:55
the hierarchy of all of the federal
6:57
courts that's where we are eight out you
7:00
know eight hours nine hours of briefing
7:02
nine hours of consideration by the three
7:04
judge panel so what happens next
7:06
everybody might be thinking we can't
7:07
wait for the next hot take Pope tell us
7:09
what happens next there's two two uh
7:12
different streams you know the road
7:14
divides as follows one Donald Trump can
7:17
ask for what's called an unbank review
7:20
by the entirety of every judge on the
7:23
D.C circuit that DC circuit bench which
7:26
is about 20 or so judges that skews
7:29
Democrat
7:31
I'm not sure he's going to win with an
7:33
on Bank review of what these three
7:35
judges did knowing these three judges
7:37
voted in UNIF in unanimity
7:41
um uh and completely 3-0 against Donald
7:45
Trump
7:46
um I think that's not going to work for
7:48
him at the on Bank level so he can skip
7:50
that take that order and ask for an
7:53
emergency review by the U.S Supreme
7:55
Court
7:57
but he's got to go through one judge in
7:59
particular who is basically the Circuit
8:01
Judge or the duty judge over the D.C
8:03
circuit and that is the chief judge of
8:06
the United States John Roberts
8:09
John Roberts is going to have to if he's
8:11
asked buying a buying a quick
8:13
application which is as hard as Trump is
8:16
fighting tooth and nail to avoid Evan
8:18
corcoran's phone transcripts and and uh
8:22
notes to to go to the Department of
8:24
Justice to stop that from happening you
8:26
can be assured he's going to try to go
8:28
for a John Roberts special and get a um
8:31
uh a special fast Shadow docket review
8:35
now John Roberts has two choices he can
8:38
review the papers and make a decision on
8:40
his own he's empowered to do that on an
8:42
emergency appellate basis but he can ask
8:45
for a briefing to him he can put another
8:48
stay in place for a short amount of time
8:50
stop Evan Corcoran from testifying and
8:53
turning over those notes and ringing
8:55
that Bell which can't be unrung until
8:57
John Roberts has an opportunity on a
9:00
fast track to look at the papers sort of
9:02
like with the three judges just did at
9:04
the DC Circuit Court he might give him
9:06
another week to brief everything and
9:08
hold the ring until until then or he can
9:11
decide to turn it over to the full
9:13
Supreme Court and let all nine justices
9:16
decide this issue so here is my
9:19
prediction Donald Trump skips the on
9:22
Bonk review doesn't ask for the full D.C
9:24
circuit to do it he does a fast track
9:26
you know Saturday night special to to
9:29
John Roberts he tries to convince John
9:31
Roberts alone to make the decision to
9:33
first grant a stay allow for full
9:36
briefing and make the decision himself
9:38
and not turn it over to the full panel
9:40
here's what I think happens Trump does
9:42
that John Roberts issues an order of
9:45
another administrative state for another
9:47
short amount of time maybe a week ask
9:50
for full briefing on a fast track
9:52
between Donald Trump's lawyers and the
9:54
Department of Justice just like they
9:56
just got through doing you know go take
9:58
a nap Department of Justice I know you
10:00
just finished your brief at 6am
10:02
or a little bit before because you're
10:04
going to be briefing again to the
10:05
Supreme Court I think starting maybe
10:07
even as early as tomorrow or later in
10:09
the week and then John Roberts is going
10:11
to decide given how important this
10:13
decision is and who the target is in
10:16
Donald Trump whether he's going to make
10:17
this decision himself rejecting or
10:20
granting
10:22
um the decision of the three judge panel
10:24
or he's going to kick it back to the
10:26
full panel the full nine of the Supreme
10:28
Court I think he kicks it back to the
10:30
full nine of the Supreme Court and then
10:32
we got to do the numbers we gotta you
10:33
know how high can you count and how many
10:36
people will support Donald Trump in this
10:38
now look up until now for those that are
10:41
just joining
10:42
generally this Supreme Court even though
10:45
right right wing and Maga has sided with
10:49
the Department of Justice and against
10:50
Donald Trump on issues related to
10:53
presidential papers
10:55
uh testimony at the Grand Jury level and
10:58
even a little bit of the attorney-client
11:00
relationship and privilege and
11:02
communication privilege those have
11:03
generally gone against Donald Trump even
11:06
though he hand-picked many of these
11:07
people on the Supreme Court but we're
11:09
going to have to see with this sort of
11:11
lawyers being asked to be Witnesses
11:13
compelled to be Witnesses with the
11:15
attorney-client privilege being stripped
11:17
away from them with attorney notes being
11:19
turned over this is Big Stake stuff now
11:22
this is high ticket stuff I think it
11:25
goes to the full U.S Supreme Court
11:26
eventually and I think they make a
11:29
ruling ultimately maybe five to four but
11:31
ultimately in favor of the Department of
11:33
Justice but we'll follow it just like
11:35
we're following all of these fast-moving
11:38
locomotives of stories around the
11:41
various jurisdictions criminally and
11:43
civilly on Donald Trump not just
11:46
District of Columbia Georgia with fawnee
11:49
Willis New York with Leticia James on
11:51
the Civil side Alvin Bragg on the
11:53
criminal side
11:54
and all the civil cases including the
11:57
Civil rape case which is now scheduled
11:58
to go to trial in New York against
12:00
Donald Trump on the 25th of April we
12:02
follow it all I do a hot take like this
12:05
I used to say about every day I'm doing
12:07
them about every hour now given how fast
12:10
this wheels of Justice are moving and
12:13
then to kind of bring it all together
12:14
every Wednesday and Saturday I co-anchor
12:18
a podcast called Legal AF which is the
12:21
leading political and legal podcast out
12:24
there we're doing it on YouTube we're
12:26
doing it on every place you can pull
12:27
your podcast and I we have co-anchors
12:29
Ben mysalis co-founder of Midas Touch
12:32
and a criminal defense lawyer at his own
12:34
right and a plaintiff's lawyer and Karen
12:36
Friedman agnifolo formerly the number
12:38
two prosecutor of the Manhattan DA's
12:41
office and she's got some very
12:42
insightful things to say about all
12:44
things Trump prosecution if you like
12:46
what I'm doing you can follow me on all
12:49
social media including Twitter at Ms
12:51
popoc this is Michael popock legal AF
1

[admin]

Jordan Klepper Takes on a Handful of Trump Arrest Protesters
by Jordan Klepper
The Daily Show
Mar 22, 2023 #DailyShow #Comedy



Jordan Klepper chats with the handful of Trump supporters who actually turned out to protest the former president's predicted arrest.#DailyShow #Comedy

Transcript

0:02
foreign
0:06
last week Donald Trump declared his
0:09
arrest was imminent and called for a
0:11
protest to take our nation back outside
0:13
the Manhattan District Attorney's office
0:15
so yesterday I ventured all the way
0:17
downtown and joined the media circus to
0:19
observe this crowd of Maga protesters
0:21
who were definitely around here
0:24
somewhere yeah this is the truth social
0:26
here it says
0:28
Tuesday protests take our nation back
0:31
excuse is this the protest for Trump or
0:34
the Trump protest or the supporting are
0:36
we taking our nation back is that today
0:39
I thought it was today so I did have the
0:41
day right and then I found a proud and
0:44
totally concealed Trump supporter why
0:46
are you here because I'm here to support
0:48
Trump because they want that Dino so
0:50
Trump went on his own social media and
0:54
he called out people his supporters to
0:56
come out here and support him and right
0:58
now that's just you I'm him here heavy
1:01
as the crowd
1:03
[Music]
1:06
I'm here to actually see what's going on
1:08
everyone was talking about it so I came
1:10
here to check it out you wanted to see
1:11
it with your own eyes that's right
1:13
because I don't believe what I'm hearing
1:15
on the news meeting so what have you
1:17
seen so far
1:19
absolutely almost nothing nothing
1:21
correct this was an unusual Maga rally
1:25
the numbers were low and it was in my
1:28
own City however the arguments over some
1:30
basic facts were refreshingly familiar
1:33
do you think it's fair
1:35
Trump to be indicted if that does happen
1:38
this week
1:39
listen I don't know all the specific
1:41
facts but what I do know is he's my
1:45
president right now I think he's my
1:47
president you think he's serving the
1:48
role as your president currently well he
1:51
he's in my heart he's he's my president
1:53
okay good I just have to be clear
1:54
sometimes well sure sure you think Joe
1:55
Biden is President right
1:57
no I think that man is is a scam I just
2:01
know that allegedly he's there because
2:03
that man doesn't make any sense to me
2:05
but technically he is there he is
2:06
serving the role of President maybe I
2:08
don't know I haven't been down I've been
2:09
having been Washington D.C I've not seen
2:11
him walk in the White House
2:12
you don't think he actually spends time
2:14
in the white house I don't know well
2:16
there are videos of him in the white
2:17
house he's can we just I just want to
2:19
get Beyond this fact he is the president
2:21
United States Donald Trump was the
2:23
president United States fact
2:26
that's what some say oh okay this is
2:28
something right Deborah why are you here
2:30
today Joe Biden is going after him
2:33
because I didn't know why he's going
2:34
after them because they're going to push
2:35
him out the door and probably bring oh
2:37
Michelle Michael Obama in okay but
2:40
Michael Obama that's correct okay they
2:42
may why why do you call her my clothes
2:44
what did Joan River say what did Joan
2:47
Rivers say that's correct if anybody
2:49
remember what she said do you get most
2:50
of your news from Joan Rivers oh no I
2:52
don't get none of my news from don't
2:53
remember I'm just telling you what she
2:55
said about Michael Obama okay regardless
2:58
of their sources the Maga crowd which
the police estimated to be between three
and six people believe these charges
3:06
were Unworthy of a former president I
3:08
don't feel Trump should be in trouble
3:10
that's unconstitutional I feel to indict
3:14
a president this is a political attack
3:16
yes they're not charging somebody else
3:18
for this crime
3:19
everything is political right they did
3:22
charge somebody else with this exact
3:24
crime
3:27
yeah and so why should he be charged
3:30
well Michael Cohen
3:32
was charged pled guilty served time in
3:35
jail disloyalty
3:39
[JORDAN KLEPPER] this is about a man who cheated on his
wife with a porn star while his wife was
at home with their newborn son
but loyalty is
a big issue for you
[TRUMP SUPPORTER] listen,
we are men, right?
[JORDAN KLEPPER] So we all know Trump
doesn't understand how the law Works.
Turns out he doesn't know when it works
4:01
either but for Maga supporters feeling
4:03
fomo about missing the Donald Showdown
4:05
with Justice I'm confident you'll get
4:07
another chance how long are you gonna be
4:09
here today
4:10
I don't know maybe a couple more hours
4:12
walk around and grab something to eat if
4:14
Trump is indicted in Georgia next you
4:17
going there
4:18
I don't know maybe I will it's like a
4:20
big old indictment tour right let's see
4:22
in Georgia maybe we'll swing by DC
4:25
[Music]

[admin]

Alvin J. Bragg, N.Y. District Attorney's, Response to Jim Jordan, Bryan Steil, and James Comer's letter Re Investigation into Donald Trump's violations of New York State penal law. "The Letter's requests are an unlawful incursion into New York's sovereignty."
by Alvin J. Bragg
3/23/23

DISTRICT ATTORNEY
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
ONE HOGAN PLACE
NEW YORK, N.Y. 10013
212) 335-9000

ALVIN L. BRAGG, JR.
DISTRICT ATTORNEY

LESLIE B. DUBECK
GENERAL COUNSEL

March 23, 2023

By email

The Honorable Jim Jordan
Chairman, House Committee on the Judiciary

The Honorable Bryan Steil
Chairman, House Committee on House Administration

The Honorable James Comer
Chairman, House Committee on Oversight and Accountability

Dear Chairman Jordan, Chairman Steil, and Chairman Comer:

The District Attorney of New York County is investigating allegations that Donald Trump engaged in violations of New York State penal law. The investigation is one of thousands conducted by the Office of the District Attorney in its long history of pursuing justice and protecting New Yorkers. The investigation has been conducted consistently with the District Attorney's oath to faithfully execute the laws of the State of New York. The District Attorney pledged that the DA's Office would "publicly state the conclusion of our investigation -- whether we conclude our work without bringing charges, or move forward with an indictment."1 He stands by that pledge. And if charges are brought at the conclusion, it will be because the rule of law and faithful execution of the District Attorney's duty require it.

Your letter dated March 20, 2023 (the "Letter"), in contrast, is an unprecedent inquiry into a pending local prosecution. The Letter only came after Donald Trump created a false expectation that he would be arrested the next day2 and his lawyers reportedly urged you to intervene.3 Neither fact is a legitimate basis for congressional inquiry.

In New York, the District Attorney is a constitutional officer charged with "the responsibility to conduct all prosecutions for crimes and offenses cognizable by the courts of the county in which he serves." People v Di Falco, 44 .Y.2d 482, 486 (1978); see also Matter of Haggerty v. Himelein, 89 N.Y.2d 431, 436 (1997); Matter of Schumer v. Holtzman, 60 .Y.2d 46, 52 (1983). These are quintessential police powers belonging to the State, and your letter treads into territory very clearly reserved to the states. It suggests that Congress's investigation is being "conducted solely for the personal aggrandizement of the investigators or to 'punish' those investigated," and is, therefore, "indefensible." Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178, 187 (1957).

As articulated below, the District Attorney is obliged by the federal and state constitutions to protect the independence of state law enforcement functions from federal interference. The DA's Office therefore requests an opportunity to meet and confer with committee staff to better understand what information the DA's Office can provide that relates to a legitimate legislative interest and can be shared consistent with the District Attorney's constitutional obligations.

Compliance with the Letter Would Interfere with Law Enforcement

The Letter seeks non-public information about a pending criminal investigation, which is confidential under state law. CPL§ 190.25(4)(a) ("Grand jury proceedings are secret"); Penal Law § 215.70 (prosecutor's disclosure of grand jury evidence is a felony unless "in the proper discharge of his official duties or upon written order of the court"); Sanchez v. City of New York, 201 A.D.2d 325, 326 (1st Dept. 1994) (witness statements to the District Attorney's Office protected by the public interest privilege); Public Officers Law § 87(2)(e) (shielding materials "compiled for law enforcement purposes" from public disclosure where disclosure would "interfere with law enforcement investigations" or "disclose confidential information relating to a criminal investigation").4

These confidentiality provisions exist to protect the interests of the various participants in the criminal process -- the defendant, the witnesses, and members of the grand jury -- as well as the integrity of the grand jury proceeding itself. Like the Department of Justice, as a prosecutor exercising sovereign executive powers, the District Attorney has a constitutional obligation to "protect the government's ability to prosecute fully and fairly," to "independently and impartially uphold the rule of law," to "protect witnesses and law enforcement," to "avoid flight by those implicated in our investigations," and to "prevent additional crimes."5

Consistent with these constitutional obligations, the DA's Office is cognizant of DOJ's "[l]ongstanding" policy of not providing Congress with non-public information about investigations. 6

With regard to pending federal investigations, "Congress seems generally to have been respectful of the need to protect material contained in open criminal investigative files. There is almost no precedent for Congress attempting to subpoena such material, and even fewer examples of the DOJ actually producing such documents."7

Requests Regarding the Exercise of State Police Powers Violate New York's Sovereignty

The Letter's requests are an unlawful incursion into New York's sovereignty. Congress's investigative jurisdiction is derived from and limited by its power to legislate concerning federal matters. See, e.g., Eastland v. U. S. Servicemen's Fund, 421 U.S. 491, 503-05 (1975); Barenblatt v. United States, 360 U.S. 109, 111-12 (1959); Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U.S. 168, 195- 96 (1880).

The Constitution limits Congress's powers to those specifically enumerated; and the Tenth Amendment ensures that any unenumerated powers are reserved to the States. New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144, 155-56 (1992). It is therefore generally understood that a Congressional committee may not "inquire into matters which are . . . reserved to the States." Charles W. Johnson, et al., House Practice: A Guide to the Rules, Precedents, and Procedures of the House at 254 (GPO 2017)8; see also Watkins, 354 U.S. at 187 ("The power of the Congress to conduct investigations ... comprehends probes into departments of the Federal Government .... ") (emphasis added).9

Among the powers reserved to the states, "[p]erhaps the clearest example of traditional state authority is the punishment of local criminal activity." Bond v. United States, 572 U.S. 844, 858 (2014). Thus, federal interference with state law enforcement "is peculiarly inconsistent with our federal framework." Cameron v. Johnson, 390 U.S. 611, 618 (1968); see also Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898, 931 n.15 (1997) (Tenth Amendment limits federal power over local law enforcement). Invoking these principles of comity, equity, and federalism, the Supreme Court held, in Younger v. Harris, that federal courts may not interfere in pending state criminal prosecutions absent extraordinary circumstances. 401 U.S. 37 (1971). This holding reflects a "continuance of the belief that the National Government will fare best if the States and their institutions are left free to perform their separate functions in their separate ways." Id. at 44.

Against this history, it is clear that Congress cannot have any legitimate legislative task relating to the oversight of local prosecutors enforcing state law. To preserve the Constitution's federalist principles, the District Attorney is duty bound by his constitutional oath to New York's sovereign interest in the exercise of police powers reserved to the States under the Tenth Amendment.

Congressional Review of a Pending Criminal Investigation Usurps Executive Powers

Congress is not the appropriate branch to review pending criminal matters. As the Supreme Court noted in Watkins, "Congress [is not] a law enforcement or trial agency. These are functions of the executive and judicial departments of government." 354 U.S. at 187. "[T]he power [of Congress] to investigate must not be confused with any of the powers of law enforcement; those powers are assigned under our Constitution to the Executive and the Judiciary." Quinn v. United States, 349 U.S. 155, 161 (1955).

If a grand jury brings charges against Donald Trump, the DA's Office will have an obligation, as in every case, to provide a significant amount of discovery from its files to the defendant so that he may prepare a defense. The Letter's allegation that the DA's Office is pursuing a prosecution for political purposes is unfounded, and regardless, the proper forum for such a challenge is the Courts of New York, which are equipped to consider and review such objections. In addition, review by the U.S. Supreme Court would be available to the extent any criminal case raises federal issues. That is the mechanism afforded to every defendant in a criminal case. Congress has no role to play in that review, especially as to a pending state criminal proceeding. See Younger, 401 U.S. at 43-45.

Federal Funding is an Insufficient Basis to Justify These Unconstitutional Requests

The Letter indicates that its requests may be related to a review of federal public safety funds. But the Letter does not suggest any way in which either the District Attorney's testimony about his prosecutorial decisions or the documents and communications of former Assistant District Attorneys on a pending criminal investigation would shed light on that review.

Nonetheless, to assist Congress in understanding the ways in which the DA's Office has used federal funds, we are preparing and will submit a letter describing its use of federal funds.

* * *

We trust that you appreciate the importance of our federal system, state law enforcement activities, and the critical need to maintain the integrity and independence of state criminal law enforcement from federal interference. While the DA's Office will not allow a Congressional investigation to impede the exercise of New York's sovereign police power, this Office will always treat a fellow government entity with due respect. Therefore, again, we request a meet and confer to understand whether the Committee has any legitimate legislative purpose in the requested materials that could be accommodated without impeding those sovereign interests. We simply expect that our office also be treated "in a manner consistent with [New York's] status as a residuary sovereign [] and joint participant [] in the governance of the Nation." Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706, 748 (1999) (Kennedy, J.).

Respectfully Submitted,
Leslie B. Dubeck
General Counsel

cc: Honorable Jerrold Nadler, Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary
Honorable Joseph Morelle, Ranking Member, Committee on House Administration
Honorable Jamie Raskin, Ranking Member, Committee on Oversight and Accountability
Majority Staff, Committee on the Judiciary
Minority Staff, Committee on the Judiciary
_______________

Notes:

1 Statement by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg on Ongoing Investigation Concerning the Trump Organization (April 7, 2022), available at: https://www.manhattanda.org/statement-b ... anization/.

2 Trump says 'illegal leaks' indicate he'll be arrested Tuesday, FoxNews, March 18, 2023, available at: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump- ... ed-tuesday.

3 Shane Goldmacher, et al., For the G.O.P., a Looming Trump Indictment Takes Center Stage, N.Y. Times (March 20, 2023) (quoting a letter from Joseph Tacopina, a lawyer for Donald Trump, to Chairman Jordan, encouraging Congress to investigate the District Attorney).

4 That the investigation relates to a former President does not change this analysis. Even Donald Trump has conceded that he is not immune from local criminal prosecution. See Trump v. Vance, 591 U.S._, 140 S. Ct. 2412, 2426-27 (2020) (noting that the President "concedes -- consistent with the position of the Department of Justice -- that state grand juries are free to investigate a sitting President with an eye toward charging him after the completion of his term").

5 Letter from Assistant Attorney General Carlos Uriarte to Chairman Jordan, dated January 20, 2023, at page 3-4. (Available at https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000185 ... af-d4afeba 70000).

6 Id. at 3.

7 Todd David Peterson, Congressional Oversight of Open Criminal Investigations, 77 Notre Dame L. Rev. 13 73, 1410 (2002); see also Alissa M. Dolan & Todd Garvey, CRS Report for Congress: Congressional Investigations of the Department of Justice, 1920-2012: History, Law, and Practice, 2 (Nov. 5, 2012) (available at https://sgp.fas.org/crs/ misc/ R42811.pdf) ("Department [of] Justice] rarely releases- and committees rarely subpoena-material relevant to open criminal investigations.").

8 Available at http://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO- ... CE-115.pdf.

9 Consistent with this general understanding, this type of inquiry appears to be unprecedented. The only precedent is one aimed at an ongoing state civil investigation that was never enforced. See Lemos, et al. Letter to House Committee on Science & Technology (Sept. 13, 2016) (scholarly review of subpoenas from the House Committee on Science & Technology to state Attorneys General regarding pending civil investigations, and stating: "To our knowledge, Congress has never before attempted to use its investigatory authority to interfere with an ongoing state investigation."), available at page 814 of https://doc.house.gov/meetings/SY/SY00/20160914/105259/ HHRG-114-SY00-20160914-SD004.pdf.

[admin]

Jim Jordan's Request for Production of Documents to Mark F. Pomerantz, Former NY County Special Asst. District Attorney
by Jim Jordan
3/22/23

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
2138 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING
WASHINGTON, DC 20515-6216
(202)225-6906
judiciary.house.gov

March 22, 2023

Mr. Mark F. Pomerantz
Former New York County Special Assistant District Attorney
Free & Fair Litigation Group
128 E. Broadway, Unit 793
New York, NY 10002

Dear Mr. Pomerantz:

New York County District Attorney Alvin Bragg is reportedly about to engage in an unprecedented abuse of prosecutorial authority: the indictment of a former President of the United States and current declared candidate for that office. This indictment comes after years of the District Attorney’s office aggressively pursuing charges, including by appointing you as an unpaid “special assistant district attorney” to lead the investigation into every facet of President Trump’s finances.1 Last year, you resigned from the office over Bragg’s initial reluctance to move forward with charges, shaming Bragg in your resignation letter—which was subsequently leaked—into bringing charges.2 Based on your unique role in this matter, and your subsequent public statements prejudicing the impartiality of any prosecution, we request your cooperation with our oversight of this politically motivated prosecutorial decision.

The New York County District Attorney’s Office has been investigating President Trump since at least 2018, looking for some legal theory on which to bring charges.3 The facts surrounding the impending indictment have “been known for years.”4 Michael Cohen, President Trump’s disgraced former lawyer, pleaded guilty over four years ago to charges based on the same facts at issue in the impending indictment.5 By July 2019, however, federal prosecutors determined that no additional people would be charged alongside Cohen.6

In January 2022, soon after Bragg took office, he expressed doubts about President Trump’s case and suspended the investigation.7 This decision caused you and your colleague, Carey Dunne, to resign in protest.8 You penned a scathing resignation letter in which you baselessly accused President Trump of “numerous felony violations,” and asserted it would be “a grave failure of justice” if Bragg did not pursue charges.9 You urged Bragg to hold President Trump “fully accountable for his crimes,” asserting that Bragg’s decision “will doom any future prospects” for prosecution.10 Your resignation letter found its way into the New York Times, word-for-word, and your criticisms of Bragg’s investigation were widely reported by news outlets.11 Your unrelenting pursuit of President Trump followed you into the private sector as you and Dunne started a law firm dedicated to “weighing ways” to bar President Trump from holding future office.12 Just this month, you published a book excoriating Bragg for not aggressively prosecuting President Trump, laying bare the office’s internal deliberations about the investigation and your personal animus toward President Trump.13

It now appears that your efforts to shame Bragg have worked as he is reportedly resurrecting a so-called “zombie” case against President Trump using a tenuous and untested legal theory. 14 Even the Washington Post quoted “legal experts” as calling Bragg’s actions “unusual” because “prosecutors have repeatedly examined the long-established details but decided not to pursue charges.”15 In addition, Bragg’s star witness—Michael Cohen—has a serious credibility problem as a convicted perjurer and serial fabricator with demonstrable prejudice against President Trump.16 Under these circumstances, there is no scenario in which Cohen could fairly be considered an unbiased and credible witness.

The inference from the totality of these facts is that Bragg’s impending indictment is motivated by political calculations. The facts of this matter have not changed since 2018 and no new witnesses have emerged.17 The Justice Department examined the facts in 2019 and opted not to pursue further prosecutions at that time. Even still, according to reporting, the investigation “gained some momentum this year,” and Bragg’s office “convened a new grand jury in January to evaluate the issue.”18 The only intervening factor, it appears, was President Trump’s announcement that he would be a candidate for President in 2024.19

Your actions, both as a special prosecutor and since leaving the District Attorney’s office, cast serious doubt on the administration of fair and impartial justice in this matter. Your words in the New York Times have unfairly disparaged President Trump, an innocent and uncharged man, as a felon to millions of Times readers. Your book again unfairly disparaged President Trump, and now opens the door to examination about the District Attorney’s office commitment to evenhanded justice. In light of this unprecedented and overzealous partisan investigation, Congress has a keen interest in these facts to inform potential legislation to improve the functioning and fairness of our criminal justice system, and to better delineate prosecutorial authority between federal and local officials. In addition, because the circumstances of this matter stem, in part, from Special Counsel Mueller’s investigation,20 Congress may consider legislative reforms to the authorities of special counsels and their relationships with other prosecuting entities.

Accordingly, to advance our oversight, please produce the following documents and information in your personal possession for the period January 1, 2017, to the present:

1. All documents and communications between or among the New York County District Attorney’s Office and the U.S. Department of Justice, its component entities, or other federal law enforcement agencies referring or relating to New York County District Attorney’s investigation of President Donald Trump;

2. All documents and communications between or among you and representatives of the New York County District Attorney’s Office referring or relating to President Donald Trump; and

3. All documents and communications between or among you and representatives of the New York County District Attorney’s Office referring or relating to your appointment and role as a Special Assistant District Attorney for New York County.

In addition, your testimony is necessary to advance our oversight and to inform potential legislative reforms. We therefore ask that you testify in a transcribed interview about these matters as soon as possible. Please provide this information and contact Committee staff to schedule your transcribed interview as soon as possible but not later than 10:00 a.m. on March 27, 2023.

Further, this letter serves as a formal request to preserve all existing and future records and materials relating to the topics addressed in this letter. You should construe this preservation notice as an instruction to take all reasonable steps to prevent the destruction or alteration, whether intentionally or negligently, of all documents, communications, and other information, including electronic information and metadata, that are or may be responsive to this congressional inquiry. This instruction includes all electronic messages sent using your official and personal accounts or devices, including records created using text messages, phone-based message applications, or encryption software.

The Committee on the Judiciary has jurisdiction over criminal justice matters in the United States and matters involving threats to civil liberties pursuant to Rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives.21 If you have any questions about this request, please contact Committee staff at (202) 225-6906. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

Jim Jordan
Chairman

cc: The Honorable Jerrold Nadler, Ranking Member
_______________

Notes:

1 William K. Rashbaum et al., A former federal prosecutor has joined the Manhattan D.A.’s team investigating the Trump family business, N.Y. TIMES (Feb. 19, 2021); Ben Protess et al., How the Manhattan DA’s investigation into President Donald Trump unraveled, N.Y. TIMES (March 5, 2022).

2 Read the Full Text of Mark Pomerantz’s Resignation Letter, N.Y. TIMES (Mar. 23, 2022) [hereinafter “Pomerantz Letter].

3 Andrew Feinberg, New York prosecutors warn Trump of possible indictment, report says, THE INDEPENDENT (Mar. 10, 2023).

4 Mark Berman et al., The prosecutor, the ex-president and the ‘zombie’ case that came back to life, WASH. POST (Mar. 17, 2023).

5 Shawna Chen, Timeline: The probe into Trump’s alleged hush money payments to Stormy Daniels, AXIOS (Mar. 18, 2023).

6 Id.; see Berman et al., supra note 4.

7 Shayna Jacobs et al., Prosecutor who resigned over stalled Trump probe says ex-president committed felonies, WASH. POST (Mar. 23, 2022).

8 Id.

9 Pomerantz Letter, supra note 2.

10 Id.

11 Id.

12 Shayna Jacobs, Lawyers who investigated Trump form group to oppose anti-democratic policies, WASH. POST (Jan. 11, 2023).

13 MARK POMERANTZ, PEOPLE VS. DONALD TRUMP: AN INSIDE ACCOUNT (2023).

14 Berman et al., supra note 4.

15 Id.

16 Christopher Lopez, Progressive DA Alvin Bragg’s case against Trump hinges on witnesses with ‘credibility problems’: Andy McCarthy, FOX NEWS (Mar. 19, 2023); Marisa Schultz, Jim Jordan, Mark Meadows ask Justice Department to probe Cohen for perjury, N.Y. POST (Feb. 28, 2019); Michael Cohen pleads guilty to lying to Congress, ASSOC. PRESS (Nov. 29, 2018).

17 Berman et al., supra note 4.

18 Id.

19 Max Greenwood, Trump announces 2024 run for president, THE HILL (Nov. 15, 2022).

20 Ben Protess et al., How Michael Cohen turned against President Trump, N.Y. TIMES (Apr. 21, 2019).

21 Rules of the U.S. House of Representatives, R. X (2023).

[admin]

Judge says several Trump aides [Mark Meadows, John Ratcliffe, Robert O'Brien, and Ken Cuccinelli], sources told CNN, including former chief of staff, must testify to Jan. 6 grand jury
by Zachary Cohen, Kristen Holmes and Katelyn Polantz
CNN
Mar 24, 2023 Updated 8 hrs ago 0

A federal judge has ordered several former Donald Trump aides, including Mark Meadows, to testify before a grand jury as part of the criminal investigation into efforts to overturn the 2020 election, rejecting the former president's claims of executive privilege, multiple sources confirmed to CNN.

Trump's legal team had challenged subpoenas issued by special counsel Jack Smith demanding testimony and documents from Meadows, the former president's White House chief of staff, as well as several others by asserting executive privilege.

In a sealed decision last week, then-Chief Judge Beryl Howell rejected the Trump team's claims of privilege for Meadows and other top Trump administration officials who were subpoenaed by Smith, including former Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe, former national security adviser Robert O'Brien and former Department of Homeland Security official Ken Cuccinelli, sources told CNN.

Trump's privilege claims for other former White House aides, including Stephen Miller and Dan Scavino, also were rejected, the sources said.

Trump's legal team is expected to appeal the decision, one source familiar with the matter said.

ABC News first reported the ruling.

Some of the witnesses who have already appeared before the grand jury but refused to answer some questions related to their interactions with Trump will now likely have to return.

A Trump spokesperson slammed the decision in a statement, accusing the Justice Department of "continuously stepping far outside the standard norms in attempting to destroy the long accepted, long held, Constitutionally based standards of attorney-client privilege and executive privilege."

"There is no factual or legal basis or substance to any case against President Trump. The deranged Democrats and their comrades in the mainstream media are corrupting the legal process and weaponizing the justice system in order to manipulate public opinion, because they are clearly losing the political battle."

O'Brien and Cuccinelli recently appeared before the grand jury after receiving subpoenas as part of Smith's probe.

The investigation into efforts to overturn the 2020 election ahead of the January 6, 2021, attack at the US Capitol is one of two ongoing probes overseen by special counsel Smith.

It is separate from the state-level criminal investigation in Georgia related to efforts by Trump and his allies to upend the 2020 election results there and another in New York centered around the former president's alleged role in hush money payments to an adult film star.

Smith also oversees the criminal probe stemming from the discovery of classified documents recovered from Trump's Mar-a-lago residence.

This story has been updated with additional details.

The-CNN-Wire

™ & © 2023 Cable News Network, Inc., a Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All rights reserved.

[admin]

Ari Melber Covers All the Issues re Donald Trump's Indictment: (1) The "Unprecedented" nature of indicting a former President (The Constitution says no one is above the law, but for two centuries we have treated Presidents as Kings; finally, we have "Restoration of the Republic"); (2) The "Unprecedented" nature of this indictment (Many high-level people in the Trump org have already been indicted on similar and same charges, including Allen Weisselberg and Michael Cohen); (3) A person cannot be indicted if he/she is running for office (Running for office does not stop the criminal-judicial system); (4) Can an indicted person run for office? (Many indicted persons have previously run for office, including Eugene Debs, who got 1 million votes); (5) Indictment will help Trump get re-elected (it has not helped previously indicted candidates for office, but Michael Steele says "things have changed," since nobody believes any longer that paying a porn star hush money is a big deal, although that is not really the point of this indictment, but rather interference in an election), (6) Is Trump shocked on hearing of the indictment? (Tony Schwartz, author of "Art of the Deal" says Trump knows himself to be a life-long conman, and is always afraid, angry and outraged that he would be caught, that a cat has 9 lives, but not 900 lives, and now that he's been caught, prosecutors can see a life full of committing crimes; that his grasp on reality is delusional and thin, that he probably has not imagined himself in a jail cell), (7) Is this going to cause another insurrection? (Trump already asked people to come "take their country back" on a specific day to protest his indictment, and only 3-6 people showed up, so the answer is perhaps "no".)
by Ari Melber
MSNBC
March 31, 2023

[admin]

https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000187 ... f7d0920000

DISTRICT ATTORNEY
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
ONE HOGAN PLACE
New York, N. Y. 10013
(212) 335-9000
ALVIN L. BRAGG, JR. DISTRICT ATTORNEY
March 31, 2023
By email
The Honorable Jim Jordan
Chairman, House Committee on the Judiciary
The Honorable Bryan Steil
Chairman, House Committee on House Administration
The Honorable James Comer
Chairman, House Committee on Oversight and Accountability
Dear Chairman Jordan, Chairman Steil, and Chairman Comer:
Yesterday, the District Attorney of New York County filed charges against Donald Trump for
violations of New York law.1
The charges filed yesterday were brought by citizens of New
York, doing their civic duty as members of a grand jury, who found probable cause to accuse
Mr. Trump of having committed crimes in New York.
Like any other defendant, Mr. Trump is entitled to challenge these charges in court and avail
himself of all processes and protections that New York State’s robust criminal procedure
affords. What neither Mr. Trump nor Congress may do is interfere with the ordinary course
of proceedings in New York State. Your first letter made an unprecedented request to the
District Attorney for confidential information about the status of the state grand jury
investigation—now indictment— of Mr. Trump. Your second letter asserts that, by failing to
provide it, the District Attorney somehow failed to dispute your baseless and inflammatory
allegations that our investigation is politically motivated. That conclusion is misleading and
meritless. We did not engage in a point-by-point rebuttal of your letter because our Office is
legally constrained in how it publicly discusses pending criminal proceedings, as prosecutorial
offices are across the country and as you well know. That secrecy is critical to protecting the
privacy of the target of any criminal investigation as well as the integrity of the independent
grand jury’s proceedings.2

1
The charges contained in the indictment are merely allegations, and the defendant is presumed innocent unless and until
proven guilty.
2 See, e.g., McKeever v. Barr, 920 F.3d 842, 844 (D.C. Cir. 2019) (“The Supreme Court has long maintained that the proper
functioning of our grand jury system depends upon the secrecy of grand jury proceedings. That secrecy safeguards vital
interests in (1) preserving the willingness and candor of witnesses called before the grand jury; (2) not alerting the target
The Honorable Jim Jordan, et al.
March 31, 2023
Page 2 of 6
The Committees Lack Jurisdiction to Oversee a State Criminal Prosecution
Your recent letter states that the purpose of your inquiry is to conduct “an examination of the
facts” relating to the investigation of Mr. Trump.3
But Congress has no warrant for interfering
with individual criminal investigations—much less investigations conducted by a separate
sovereign. See United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 561 (1995) (“Under our federal system, the
States possess primary authority for defining and enforcing the criminal law.”); Younger v.
Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 44 (1971) (“This underlying reason for restraining courts of equity from
interfering with criminal prosecutions is reinforced by an even more vital consideration, the
notion of ‘comity,’ that is, a proper respect for state functions.”); cf. Gamble v. United States, 139
S. Ct. 1960 (2019) (recognizing state sovereign interests in the criminal justice context). The
Committees’ attempted interference with an ongoing state criminal investigation—and now
prosecution—is an unprecedented and illegitimate incursion on New York’s sovereign
interests.
Moreover, your examination of the facts of a single criminal investigation, for the supposed
purpose of determining whether any charges against Mr. Trump are warranted, is an improper
and dangerous usurpation of the executive and judicial functions. See Trump v. Mazars USA,
LLP, 140 S. Ct. 2019, 2032 (2020) (“Congress may not issue a subpoena for the purposes of
‘law enforcement’ because “those powers are assigned under our Constitution to the Executive
and the Judiciary.”); Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc., 514 U.S. 211, 219, 224 (1995) (“The Framers
of our Constitution lived among the ruins of a system of intermingled legislative and judicial
powers” and accordingly created a system that separated “the legislative power to make general
law from the judicial power to apply that law in particular cases.”). Even worse, based on your
reportedly close collaboration with Mr. Trump in attacking this Office and the grand jury
process,4
it appears you are acting more like criminal defense counsel trying to gather evidence
for a client than a legislative body seeking to achieve a legitimate legislative objective.
The Committees’ Vague and Shifting Legislative Purpose is Insufficient
You suggest that your request has a valid legislative purpose because Congress may consider
legislation to shield former presidents from state criminal investigations for “personal acts”
that do not involve their conduct in office. You did not identify any such legislative purpose
in your initial letter, suggesting that your proposal to “insulate current and former presidents”
of an investigation who might otherwise flee or interfere with the grand jury; and (3) preserving the rights of a suspect
who might later be exonerated.” (citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted)); People v. DiNapoli, 27 N.Y.2d 229,
235 (1970) (identifying five policy reasons for maintaining the secrecy of grand jury proceedings).
3 See also The Lead with Jake Tapper, CNN, Mar. 26, 2023 (https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/202 ... r-full.cnn) (Comer: “[Bragg] should come explain to us exactly what he’s investigating”).
4
Annie Grayer et al., Inside the backchannel communications keeping Donald Trump in the loop on Republican investigations, CNN.com
(March 28, 2023), https://tinyurl.com/mr3n675p.
The Honorable Jim Jordan, et al.
March 31, 2023
Page 3 of 6
from state criminal investigations is a baseless pretext to interfere with our Office’s work.5

Indeed, we doubt that Congress would have authority to place a single private citizen—
including a former president or candidate for president—above the law or to grant him unique
protections, such as removal to federal court, that are unavailable to every other criminal
defendant. “[E]very President takes office knowing that he will be subject to the same laws as
all other citizens upon leaving office. This is a feature of our democratic republic, not a bug.”
Comm. on Ways and Means v. U.S. Dep’t of Treasury, 45 F.4th 324, 338 (D.C. Cir. 2022).
Even if you were seriously considering such legislation and had the constitutional authority to
enact it (which you do not), your request for information from the District Attorney and his
former attorneys concerning an ongoing criminal probe is unnecessary and unjustified.
Congress has many sources from which it could seek information on the wisdom of this
legislation, including from former federal or state prosecutors not involved in this pending
matter. The “unique constitutional position” our Constitution affords the states with respect
to the criminal law “means that Congress may not look” to active state investigations “as a
‘case study’ for general legislation.” Trump, 140 S. Ct. at 2035-36 (2020). Likewise, it is unclear
what pertinence the requested documents have to Congress’s evaluation of whether to grant
a former president or presidential candidate with immunity from prosecution for state crimes.
The documents and information relating to the pending criminal case would be relevant only
if Congress is intending to specifically prevent this prosecution—an intent that you purport
to disclaim.6
The DA’s Office Uses Limited Federal Funds to Effectively Fight Crime & Help
Victims
The Committees’ initial rationale for its inquiry related to this Office’s use of federal funds.
Over the last decade and a half, this Office has contributed to the federal fisc. Indeed, the DA’s
Office has helped the Federal Government secure more than one billion dollars in asset
forfeiture funds in the past 15 years. The DA’s Office receives only a small fraction of those
forfeited funds.
5
This concern is heightened given that some committee members have explicitly stated an intent to interfere with the state
proceeding. For example, responding to Trump’s statement that he would be arrested, Representative Marjorie Taylor
Greene stated that “Republicans in Congress MUST subpoena these communists and END this! We have the power to
do it and we also have the power to DEFUND their salaries and departments!”, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (@
RepMTG), Twitter (Mar. 18, 2023, 8:59 AM), https://twitter.com/RepMTG/status/1637076244708614144, and that
Republicans who “do nothing to stop” the prosecution “will be exposed to the people and will be remembered, scorned,
and punished by the base”, Rep. Marjorie Tylor Greene (@mtgreenee), Twitter (Mar. 18, 2023, 7:57 AM)
https://twitter.com/mtgreenee/status/16 ... 4314917888. See also Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (@realannapaulina),
Twitter (Mar. 18, 2023, 3:42 PM), https://twitter.com/realannapaulina/sta ... 6225501191 (“Pay attention to
who is being silent on what is currently happening to Trump.”).
6
Letter from Rep. Jim Jordan, H. Comm. on the Judiciary, et al. to Hon. Alvin L. Bragg, Jr., District Attorney, New York
County (March 23, 2023) at 7 (asserting that “the Committees’ oversight will in no way ‘stop [the] prosecution or set limits
on the management of a particular case”).
The Honorable Jim Jordan, et al.
March 31, 2023
Page 4 of 6

Our review of the Office’s records reflect that, of the federal forfeiture money that the Office
helped collect, approximately $5,000 was spent on expenses incurred relating to the
investigation of Donald J. Trump or the Trump Organization. These expenses were incurred
between October 2019 and August 2021. Most of those costs are attributed to the Supreme
Court case, Trump v. Vance—subpoena-related litigation in which the DA’s Office prevailed
and which led to the indictment and conviction of Trump Organization CFO Allen
Weisselberg and two Trump organizations. No expenses incurred relating to this matter have
been paid from funds that the Office receives through federal grant programs.
Federal Grant Programs
Currently, the DA’s Office participates in three federal grant programs relating to our
casework.7
Award letters relating to these programs are attached. The Office can provide
additional documentation regarding these grants on a rolling basis to be agreed upon in the
previously requested meet and confer.
Stop Violence Against Women Act Program. The DA’s Office receives $50,000 in federal grant
money yearly via New York State’s Division of Criminal Justice Services during our current
award period, which runs from January 1, 2021, to December 31, 2025, for work to hold
accountable those who commit acts of violence against women. These funds are used to help
pay a portion of the salaries for senior positions in the Special Victims Division of the Office,
including those who prosecute the most serious acts of violence and who directly interface
and help victims of crime through the process. We note that, according to the National
Coalition Against Domestic Violence, New York has the third lowest rate of domestic violence
victimization for women of all 50 states.8
Victims of Crime Act, Victim and Witness Assistance Grant Program. The DA’s Office receives
$583,111.04 in federal grant money yearly during our current award period, which runs from
October 1, 2022, to September 30, 2025, from the Victims of Crime Act Victim and Witness
Assistance Grant Program, which is sub-granted from the federal government through the
New York State Office of Victim Services to our Office. All these funds are used by our
Witness Aid Services Unit (WASU). WASU provides a variety of court-related services, social
services, and counseling services designed to meet the needs of crime victims, witnesses, and
their families. The Unit also provides information related to the prosecution of the case, assists
victims in understanding the criminal justice system, and provides information regarding crime
victims’ rights. WASU ensures that crime victims, witnesses, and their families can access the
7
In addition, to support the Federal Government’s High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas (HIDTA) program, the DA’s
Office receives funds and acts as the financial fiduciary recipient for grant funding for the New York/New Jersey HIDTA.
Expenditure of these funds is directed by an executive board of law enforcement partners; the DA’s Office does not
control decision-making on the use of these funds.
8
National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, State-By-State Statistics, available at: https://ncadv.org/state-by-state.
The Honorable Jim Jordan, et al.
March 31, 2023
Page 5 of 6
services they need to address their trauma and rebuild their lives, while also helping them
navigate New York’s complex court system. All these efforts help make our city safer; by
ensuring victims participate in court processes, they help hold those who commit crimes
accountable for their actions, and by addressing trauma they help prevent future criminality.
Our Office’s focus on public safety in every aspect of our work, including WASU, is one thing
that helps explain why an expert analysis of the overall impact of the cost of crime per resident,
taking into account the cost of both violent and property crime, found New York City the
fifth safest large city in America.9
Department of Justice, Justice Assistance Grant. The DA’s Office receives $204,730 in federal grant
money during our current award period, which runs from October 1, 2020, to September 30,
2024, from the Department of Justice’s Justice Assistance Grant program which is sub-granted
from the City of New York. These funds go towards addressing violent and other felony
crimes in our jurisdiction. With the help of these funds, New York City has the fifth lowest
rate of homicides of the top 50 most populated cities in the United States.10
* * *
Finally, as you are no doubt aware, former President Trump has directed harsh invective
against District Attorney Bragg and threatened on social media that his arrest or indictment in
New York may unleash “death & destruction.” As Committee Chairmen, you could use the
stature of your office to denounce these attacks and urge respect for the fairness of our justice
system and for the work of the impartial grand jury. Instead, you and many of your colleagues
have chosen to collaborate with Mr. Trump’s efforts to vilify and denigrate the integrity of
elected state prosecutors and trial judges and made unfounded allegations that the Office’s
investigation, conducted via an independent grand jury of average citizens serving New York
State, is politically motivated. See, e.g., Annie Grayer et al., Inside the backchannel communications
keeping Donald Trump in the loop on Republican investigations, CNN.com (March 28, 2023),
https://tinyurl.com/mr3n675p (“House GOP Conference Chair Elise Stefanik . . . and
Trump spoke several times last week alone, where she walked him through the GOP’s plans
for an aggressive response to Bragg.”). We urge you to refrain from these inflammatory
accusations, withdraw your demand for information, and let the criminal justice process
proceed without unlawful political interference.
9
Deb Gordon, Safest Cities In America 2023: Violent Crime Rate Increases Drive Per Capita Cost of Crime, available at
https://www.moneygeek.com/living/safest-cities/, analyzing 263 cities with populations of over 100,000 using FBI data
and relying on academic measurement of the cost of crime to society.
10 Bloomberg News analysis of murder rates in the top 50 most populated cities in America, using data from the Major
Cities Chiefs Association, Federal Bureau of Investigation, local police departments, media reports, and the US Census
Bureau, available at: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/artic ... postmortem.
The Honorable Jim Jordan, et al.
March 31, 2023
Page 6 of 6
If you will not withdraw your request, we reiterate our willingness to meet and confer with
you or your staff about how we can accommodate your request without violating our
obligations as prosecutors to protect the integrity of an ongoing criminal prosecution. We
respectfully request that you provide us with a list of questions you wish to ask District
Attorney Bragg and to describe the type of documents you think we could produce that would
be relevant to your inquiry without violating New York grand jury secrecy rules or interfering
with the criminal case now before a court. We trust you will make a good-faith effort to reach
a negotiated resolution before taking the unprecedented and unconstitutional step of serving
a subpoena on a district attorney for information related to an ongoing state criminal
prosecution.
Respectfully Submitted,
Leslie B. Dubeck
General Counsel
cc: Honorable Jerrold Nadler, Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary
Honorable Joseph Morelle, Ranking Member, Committee on House Administration
Honorable Jamie Raskin, Ranking Member, Committee on Oversight and
Accountability
Majority Staff, Committee on the Judiciary
Minority Staff, Committee on the Judiciary

[admin]

"They asked us to stand down": Ex-Manhattan DA says Trump DOJ intervened in Stormy Daniels probe: Legal expert says it was an "odd request" because DOJ "did not indict Trump or anyone else after that point"
by Gabriella Ferrigine
Salon
PUBLISHED APRIL 3, 2023 11:36AM (EDT)


Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance Jr. arrives at his office on July 01, 2021 in Lower Manhattan New York City. (Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images)

Former Manhattan District Attorney Cy Vance said that the Justice Department [under Donald Trump] asked his office to "stand down" in its investigation of the 2016 hush-money payment to adult film star Stormy Daniels.

Vance faced questions about why he failed to file charges against former President Donald Trump in the probe after a grand jury indicted him in connection to the payment last week.

"Why didn't you charge the hush money case? Why didn't you ever charge it in 2018, 2019, 2020?" NBC News' Chuck Todd asked Vance on "Meet the Press."

"I don't want to get into the deliberations that might be covered by grand jury material. But... I was asked by the U.S. attorney's office of the Southern District to stand down on our investigation, which had commenced involving the Trump Organization," Vance replied. "And as you know, as someone who respects that office a great deal and believing that they may have perhaps the best laws to investigate, I did so."

Todd pressed Vance on the details of the probe.

"Did your office conclude that a stand alone felony charge for these hush money payments wasn't worth it because of so many of the uncertainties around the legal theory?" Todd asked. "And that's why you were pursuing this larger issue, that this was just one part of sort of how the Trump Organization lied on their on their business records."

"Again, I don't want to get into our deliberations," Vance said. "But we have historically filed cases of false documentation, elevating them to felonies when federal statutes were involved. It's never been done that I know of with regard to federal election law, which is a quite a specific area of law. But I think the question is not so much why didn't I do it or we did it, but why this district attorney is doing it. And that really requires us to be patient and to wait. This process isn't going to be accelerated by us talking about it."

Vance also spoke with former White House Press Secretary and MSNBC host Jen Psaki about the once-seemingly deadened hush-money case.

"We learned from the Southern District of New York that they asked us to stand down … they had this ongoing investigation and they wished that we put our efforts on hold while they completed their investigation," Vance said. "I felt it was appropriate for me to hit the pause button."

"I was surprised, after Michael Cohen pleaded guilty, that the investigation from the Southern District on that issue did not go forward. By that time we had moved on to other matters," Vance continued.

Inside with Jen Psaki
@InsideWithPsaki
“We learned from the Southern District of New York that they asked us to stand down... they wished that we put our efforts on hold.”
Fmr. Manhattan DA Cyrus Vance to @jrpsaki on SDNY's request to pause their investigation of Donald Trump & the hush money to Stormy Daniels
12:14 PM · Apr 2, 2023

Former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti described the DOJ intervention as an "odd request" given that the "SDNY did not indict Trump or anyone else after that point."

"Did then-Attorney General Barr play any role in that request? Did Trump?" Mariotti wondered

Renato Mariotti
@renato_mariotti
Cy Vance stated today that the SDNY, while Trump was President, asked him to hold off on the hush money investigation.
Did then-Attorney General Barr play any role in that request? Did Trump?
It's an odd request because SDNY did not indict Trump or anyone else after that point.
Inside with Jen Psaki

@InsideWithPsaki
“Ultimately Mr. Bragg decided that the case Mark [Pomerantz] was presenting him after I left in January 2022 was not a case he felt comfortable going forward on at that time."

Former Manhattan DA Vance talks to @jrpsaki about the hand off to DA Bragg.

1:15 PM · Apr 2, 2023

MSNBC legal analyst Lisa Rubin explained that it is "not atypical" for federal and local prosecutors to have a "turf war" over a case.

"What is unusual, however, is for the feds to both insist that they're all over the investigation, only to have it watered down at the insistence of political appointees and then drop it entirely, as SDNY did in summer 2019," she tweeted.

Lisa Rubin · Apr 2, 2023
@lawofruby
I too thought this was big (& told @AlexWitt as much today.) But what I wish I had had more time to say is this: It’s not atypical for the feds and the Manhattan DA to have a turf war about a case—and for the feds to prevail. 1/

Mueller, She Wrote
@MuellerSheWrote
NEW: Cy Vance tells @jrpsaki the SDNY under Barr told the Manhattan DA to STAND DOWN on the hush money investigation.

Lisa Rubin
@lawofruby
What is unusual, however, is for the feds to both insist that they’re all over the investigation, only to have it watered down at the insistence of political appointees and then drop it entirely, as SDNY did in summer 2019. 2/
2:21 PM · Apr 2, 2023

Lisa Rubin · Apr 2, 2023
@lawofruby
Replying to @lawofruby
And as Vance further explained to @jrpsaki today, not only did DANY lose a year and change due to SDNY’s power play but soon after, its own investigation was frustrated by a complete shut down of NY grand juries occasioned by COVID. 3/

Lisa Rubin
@lawofruby
That’s not to let either Manhattan DA fully off the hook for the failure to indict Trump for a years-old scandal until last week, but the combination of DOJ’s interference both with SDNY and DANY and COVID’s impact on courts account for a healthy chunk of that time. FIN
2:26 PM · Apr 2, 2023

Gabriella Ferrigine is a news fellow at Salon. She began writing at a young age, inspired by the many books she read as well as the world around her. Originally from the Jersey Shore, she moved to New York City in 2016 to attend Columbia University, where she received her B.A. in English and M.A. in American Studies. Currently, Gabriella is pursuing an M.A. in Magazine Journalism at NYU. Prior to working at Salon, she was a staff writer at NowThis News.

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

Rep. Lofgren: Trump’s rhetoric is more over the top than pre Jan. 6
MSNBC
Apr 3, 2023 #msnbc #trump #january6

Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) discusses the ex-president’s dangerous rhetoric ahead of his arraignment



Transcript

>>> [NICOLLE WALLACE] AS ALL OF US WATCHING
TODAY'S COVERAGE KNOW AND AS WE
GIRD OURSELVES FOR THE DAYS AND
WEEKS TO COME, IT'S WORTH
REMEMBERING THAT THE WHEELS OF
JUSTICE GRIND VERY SLOWLY, AND
THIS IS LIKELY THE BEGINNING OF
THE BEGINNING IN WHAT IS SURE TO
BE A LONG PROCESS IN EFFORTS TO
HOLD THE TWICE IMPEACHED
DISGRACED, NOW INDICTED
CRIMINALLY EX-PRESIDENT
ACCOUNTABLE, KNOWING WE'RE ONLY
AT THE START OF THIS
THERE ALSO COMES THE REALIZATION
THAT THERE'S STILL A LOT WE
DON'T KNOW,
INCLUDING THE POSSIBILITY OF THE
EX-PRESIDENT ALSO BECOMING THE
FIRST PRESIDENT EVER TO FACE
MULTIPLE INDICTMENTS.
IT'S POSSIBLE.
AS WE AWAIT THE RESULT OF
INVESTIGATIONS INTO THE
CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS, HE
SQUIRRELLED AWAY AT HIS
MAR-A-LAGO HOME, AND HIS
ATTEMPTS TO OVERTURN THE 2020
ELECTION RESULTS BECAUSE HE
LOST.
AS WELL AS POTENTIAL
INTERFERENCE IN THE FULTON
COUNTY GEORGIA ELECTION RESULT.
WITH ALL THE UNKNOWNS, THERE ARE
THINGS ABOUT TRUMP WE DO KNOW.
THINGS THAT FOR YEARS HE'S DONE,
AND WILL CONTINUE TO DO DESPITE
THE LEGAL WOES HE FACES.
ONE OF THEM IS SOMETHING THAT OUR
NEXT GUEST ONCE COINED THE BIG
GRIFT.
AFTER NEWS OF HIS INDICTMENT
BROKE, THE FORMER PRESIDENT'S
CAMPAIGN CLAIMS THEY RAISED
MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN THE FIRST
24 HOURS FROM HIS SUPPORTERS.
THEY'RE NOW SAYING THAT NUMBER
IS UP TO 7 MILLION.
JOINING US, DEMOCRATIC
CONGRESSWOMAN, ZOE LOFGREN OF
CALIFORNIA, SHE SERVED AS AN
IMPEACHMENT MANAGER DURING TRUMP'S FIRST IMPEACHMENT TRIAL, AND OF
COURSE HAS MADE REGULAR APPEARANCES
ON THIS PROGRAM TO KEEP US
ABREAST OF THE WORK OF THE
JANUARY 6th SELECT COMMITTEE.
I THOUGHT OF YOUR PUBLIC
PRESENTATION IN THE JANUARY 6th
SELECT COMMITTEE'S PUBLIC
HEARINGS AND THE BIG GRIFT
BECAUSE IT'S HAPPENING AGAIN,
BATESED ON GARRETT HAAKE'S
REPORTING FROM ABOARD THE SKIES BETWEEN
PALM BEACH AND MANHATTAN.
IS THERE ANY RECOURSE FOR
RAISING MONEY FROM SOMEONE'S
POLITICAL SUPPORTERS TO PAY YOUR
PERSONAL LEGAL BILLS?

>> [REP. ZOE LOFGREN] WELL, THERE ARE FEC ISSUES.
THERE ARE SOME RULES THAT YOU
CAN RAISE FUNDS IN A POLITICAL
CAMPAIGN AND LEGALLY USE THEM
FOR -- TO DEFEND YOURSELF.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT
REPRESENTATIONS HE'S MADE IN HIS
E-MAILS TO HIS FOLLOWERS, NOR
WHETHER HE HAS TAKEN THE STEPS
NECESSARY TO LEGITIMIZE THE
EXPENDITURE ON LEGAL FEES, BUT,
YOU KNOW, THE EX-PRESIDENT TAKES
ANY OPPORTUNITY TO RAISE MONEY
FROM HIS CORE SUPPORTERS, AND
HE'S DOING THAT AGAIN.

>> [NICOLLE WALLACE] WELL, RAISING MONEY FROM HIS
CORE SUPPORTERS AND COZYING UP
TO IMAGES OF VIOLENCE AT THE PEOPLE WHO THREATEN HIM, IS THE STORY THAT THE
SELECT COMMITTEE INVESTIGATED AND TOLD IN ITS PUBLIC
HEARINGS AND FINAL REPORT.
WHEN YOU SEE HIM REPOSTING AND
DISSEMINATING IMAGES OF THE
BASEBALL BAT AND ALVIN BRAGG'S
FACE, AND RAISING HOWEVER MUCH
HE'S RAISED FROM HIS SUPPORTERS
AT A TIME WHEN HE FACES CRIMINAL
EXPOSURE BECAUSE OF MONEY HE
ILLEGALLY ACCOUNTED FOR IN
SILENCING ALLEGEDLY A PORN STAR,
WHERE DO YOUR THOUGHTS GO?

>> [REP. ZOE LOFGREN] WELL, I'M VERY CONCERNED
ABOUT HIS RHETORIC, WHICH IS
ACTUALLY EVEN MORE OVER THE TOP
THAN IN THE DAYS AND WEEKS AND
MONTHS PRECEDING JANUARY 6th.
WHETHER OR NOT HIS CORE
SUPPORTERS WILL RESPOND WITH THE
SAME KIND OF MOB VIOLENCE THAT
WE SAW ON JANUARY 6th, I
CERTAINLY HOPE NOT, AND FROM THE
PRESS REPORTS, IT LOOKS LIKE THE
SOCIAL MEDIA DOES NOT INDICATE
THE KIND OF MOB VIOLENCE THAT
WAS PLANNED AND EXECUTED ON
JANUARY 6th.
HOWEVER, WE ALL KNOW THAT THERE
ARE UNHINGED PEOPLE IN OUR
COUNTRY WHO DO RESPOND TO
REQUESTS TO ENGAGE IN VIOLENCE.
YOU DON'T HAVE TO HAVE EVERY
PERSON WHO'S A SUPPORTER OF A
POLITICAL CANDIDATE TO RESPOND
IT'S JUST THOSE PEOPLE WHO ARE
ON THE EDGE WHO MIGHT BE FEELING
THAT THE PRESIDENT IS ASKING
THEM TO TAKE IA BAT TO THE
DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S HEAD.
I JUST THINK IT WOULD BE MUCH
PREFERABLE FOR OUR COUNTRY
NOT TO INCITE VIOLENCE, TO TREAT
THIS AS THE WAY IT SHOULD BE
TREATED.
CHARGES WILL BE UNVEILED
TOMORROW.
THE EX-PRESIDENT IS ENTITLED TO
DUE PROCESS.
A PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE,
UNLESS CONVICTED. AND WE'LL SEE
THIS PLAY OUT.
I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR ALL
OF US TO STAND UP AND SUPPORT
OUR GOVERNMENT, OUR SYSTEM OF
GOVERNMENT, THE CONSTITUTION.
AND UNFORTUNATELY, ONCE AGAIN, IT
DOESN'T LOOK LIKE THE
EX-PRESIDENT IS IN THAT SPOT

>> [NICOLLE WALLACE] I MEAN, ALVIN BRAGG IS A
PARTICULARLY INTENSE FOCUS FOR
TRUMP AND HIS SUPPORTERS BECAUSE
HE'S GONE FIRST.
WE'VE HAD A LOT OF CONVERSATIONS
ABOUT WHERE DOJ WAS. I GUESS, IF WE'RE BEING FAIR,
MERRICK GARLAND WASN'T THERE
UNTIL MARCH AFTER THE
INSURRECTION. BUT FROM MARCH UNTIL THE APPOINTMENT OF JACK SMITH, IT IS CLEAR FROM
THE OUTSIDE THAT THE EVENTS AND ACTS THAT YOU AND YOUR COMMITTEE INVESTIGATED WERE
NOT UNDER CLOSE SCRUTINY BY THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT. I WANT TO SHOW YOU SOMETHING CY VANCE SAID ABOUT WHY HE DIDN'T BRING CHARGES IN
THE
HUSH MONEY CASE?

[CHUCK TODD] WHY DIDN'T YOU CHARGE THE HUSH MONEY CASE? WHY DIDN'T YOU EVER CHARGE IT IN
2018, 2019, 2020?

>> [FORMER D.A. CYRUS VANCE] CHUCK, I DON'T WANT TO GET INTO THE
DELIBERATIONS THAT MIGHT BE
COVERED BY GRAND JURY MATERIAL,
BUT AS I BELIEVE YOU KNOW, I WAS
ASKED BY THE U.S. ATTORNEYS'
OFFICE IN THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT
TO STAND DOWN ON OUR
INVESTIGATION.
AS SOMEONE WHO RESPECTS THAT
OFFICE A GREAT DEAL AND
BELIEVING THAT THEY MAY HAVE PERHAPS
THE BEST LAWS TO INVESTIGATE, I
DID SO.
BUT I THINK THE QUESTION WAS NOT
SO MUCH WHY DIDN'T I DO IT, OR
WE DID IT, BUT WHY THIS DISTRICT
ATTORNEY IS DOING IT, AND THAT
REALLY REQUIRES US TO BE
PATIENT, AND TO WAIT.
THIS PROCESS ISN'T GOING TO BE
ACCELERATED BY US TALKING ABOUT
IT.
IT'S GOING TO BE MOVED BY THE
COURT AT THE PACE THE COURT SEES
FIT, AND I GUARANTEE THE COURT
WILL WANT THIS TO MOVE QUICKLY.

>>> [NICOLLE WALLACE] HAVE YOU EVER HEARD OF THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK OR ANY FEDERAL U.S.
ATTORNEYS' OFFICE TELLING A LOCAL
PROSECUTOR TO QUOTE STAND DOWN
ON SOMETHING THEY DIDN'T BRING?

>> [REP. ZOE LOFGREN] WELL, I WAS VERY ALARMED BY
THE TESTIMONY OR THE INTERVIEW
THAT YOU JUST PLAYED.
YOU KNOW, I HAVE BEEN INVOLVED
IN CASES, FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN I
CHAIRED THE HOUSE ETHICS COMMITTEE
WHERE WE WOULD BE INVESTIGATING A
MEMBER OF CONGRESS, AND THE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE WOULD ASK
US TO BACK OF,F BECAUSE THEY WERE
BRINGING AN ACTION, AND WE
ALWAYS DID BECAUSE WE DIDN'T
WANT TO RUIN THEIR INVESTIGATION
AND POTENTIAL CRIMINAL
INDICTMENT.
I'VE NEVER BEEN A U.S.
ATTORNEY OR IN THEIR OFFICE.
SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE PATTERN
IS, BUT CERTAINLY IF THE DOJ HAS
A CLEARER PATH FORWARD AND ASKS
A PROSECUTOR TO STAND PAT WHILE
THEY PURSUE IT, THAT WOULD NOT
BE A SURPRISE, BUT WHAT IS A
SURPRISE IS THAT THEY DIDN'T
ACTUALLY PURSUE THAT. AND THEN
THE QUESTION IS WAS IT DONE
BASICALLY TO PROTECT THE
PRESIDENT?
WAS IT EVER THEIR INTENT TO
BRING THIS CASE? AND DID THEY
INTERFERE WITH THE DISTRICT
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE JUST TO
PROTECT THE PRESIDENT?
THAT'S WHAT CAME TO MY MIND WHEN
I SAW THAT IT WAS A CONCERN.

>> [NICOLLE WALLACE] YEAH, I MEAN, IN THE TIME
FRAME HE GIVES US IS '17 AND
'18, OBVIOUSLY DONALD TRUMP WAS
PRESIDENT, BILL BARR WAS THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL. BUT THAT OFFICE
FOUND THAT DONALD TRUMP
COORDINATED AND DIRECTED THE
HUSH MONEY SCHEME TO TWO WOMEN,
KAREN McDOUGAL AND STORMY
DANIELS AND THEN TOLD CY VANCE IN
THAT TWO-YEAR PERIOD TO STAND
DOWN.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO KNOW WHETHER
OR NOT MERRICK GARLAND LOOKED AT
THE EVIDENCE WHEN HE BECAME
ATTORNEY GENERAL AND THAT OFFICE
WAS NO LONGER UNDER THE THUMB OF
BILL BARR?

]>> [REP. ZOE LOFGREN] WELL, IF HE HASN'T YET, I
IMAGINE THE INTERVIEW YESTERDAY
WILL CAUSE SOME PEOPLE TO TAKE A
LOOK
IT'S INTERESTING THAT THE
DEPARTMENT TOOK THE POSITION
BASED ON OFFICE OF LEGAL
COUNSEL PAPER THAT A SITTING
PRESIDENT COULDN'T BE INDICTED,
AND YET ASKED THE LOCAL PROSECUTOR TO WITHHOLD ON THEIR INVESTIGATION. SO I DON'T KNOW ANY MORE THAN WHAT'S BEEN PUT IN THE PUBLIC ARENA, BUT THIS DOESN'T SMELL SO GOOD. AND I THINK SOMEBODY OUGHT TO LOOK INTO IT.