Trump lashes out at Gov. Doug Ducey following certification

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

Postby admin » Wed Apr 12, 2023 1:40 am

Page 1 of 2

Complaint against Jim Jordan and Mark Pomerantz
Alvin L. Bragg, Jr., vs. Jim Jordan and Mark Pomerantz
Case No. 23-cv-3032
by Alvin L. Bragg, Jr.
4/11/23

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/ ... erence.pdf

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

ALVIN L. BRAGG, JR., in his official capacity as
District Attorney for New York County,

Plaintiff,

v.

JIM JORDAN, in his official capacity as Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary; COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY OF THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES; and MARK F. POMERANTZ,

Defendants.

Case No. 23-cv-3032

INTRODUCTION

1. Plaintiff District Attorney Alvin L. Bragg, Jr. brings this action in response to an unprecedently brazen and unconstitutional attack by members of Congress on an ongoing New York State criminal prosecution and investigation of former President Donald J. Trump. Beginning on March 20, 2023, Representative Jim Jordan, Chairman of the House Committee on the Judiciary (the “Committee”), began a transparent campaign to intimidate and attack District Attorney Bragg, making demands for confidential documents and testimony from the District Attorney himself as well as his current and former employees and officials. Two days after Mr. Trump was arraigned on 34 felony counts in New York State Supreme Court, Chairman Jordan and the Committee served a subpoena on Mark Pomerantz, a former Special Assistant District Attorney who participated in an investigation of Mr. Trump and his businesses. The subpoena seeks to compel Mr. Pomerantz to testify in a deposition on April 20, 2023. Chairman Jordan’s demands, including his subpoena to Mr. Pomerantz, seek highly sensitive and confidential local prosecutorial information that belongs to the Office of the District Attorney and the People of New York. Basic principles of federalism and common sense, as well as binding Supreme Court precedent, forbid Congress from demanding it.

2. Congress has no power to supervise state criminal prosecutions. Nor does Congress have the power to serve subpoenas “for the personal aggrandizement of the investigators or to punish those investigated.” Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP, 140 S. Ct. 2019, 2032 (2020) (quoting Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178, 187 (1957)) (internal quotation marks omitted). Yet that is precisely what Chairman Jordan is trying to do. He and his allies have stated they want the District Attorney to come to Capitol Hill to “explain” himself and to provide “a good argument” to Congress in support of his decision to investigate and prosecute Mr. Trump. And they have threatened that the House of Representatives will “hold Alvin Bragg . . . to account” for indicting Mr. Trump. Now, Chairman Jordan has subpoenaed one of the District Attorney’s former Special Assistants to interrogate him about his official prosecutorial activities. But subpoenaing a former line prosecutor to talk about an ongoing criminal prosecution and investigation is no less of an affront to state sovereignty than subpoenaing the District Attorney himself. Chairman Jordan claims he is seeking to conduct “oversight.” But he has no power under the Constitution to oversee state and local criminal matters. By definition, then, he has no legitimate legislative purpose for issuing this subpoena. The subpoena threatens the sovereign powers of the States, confidence in the secrecy of grand jury proceedings, and the integrity of an ongoing criminal prosecution. This Court should enjoin its enforcement.

3. The Constitution “with[held] from Congress a plenary police power,” United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 566 (1995), which “is controlled by 50 different States instead of one national sovereign,” Nat’l Fed. of Indep. Bus. v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519, 536 (2012); accord United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598, 618 (2000). “[P]rimary authority” “for defining and enforcing the criminal law” is vested in the States. Lopez, 514 U.S. at 561 n.3. That division of authority requires that “[o]rdinarily” there should “be no interference with [state] officers,” who are “charged with the duty of prosecuting offenders against the laws of the State and must decide when and how this is to be done.” Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 45 (1971). “Federal intrusions into state criminal trials frustrate both the States’ sovereign power to punish offenders and their goodfaith attempts to honor constitutional rights.” Engle v. Isaac, 456 U.S. 107, 128 (1982).

4. The charges the District Attorney filed against Mr. Trump were approved by citizens of New York. They did their civic duty as members of a grand jury pursuant to the federal Constitution and laws of the State of New York. Like any other defendant, Mr. Trump is entitled to challenge these charges in court. He can avail himself of all the processes and protections that New York State’s robust criminal procedure affords.

5. But rather than allowing the criminal process to proceed in the ordinary course, Chairman Jordan and the Committee are participating in a campaign of intimidation, retaliation, and obstruction. Mr. Trump in particular has threatened New York officials with violent and racist vitriol. At a March 25, 2023 rally, for instance, Mr. Trump stated that “the thugs and criminals who are corrupting our justice system will be defeated, discredited, and totally disgraced.”1 On social media, he threatened “death & destruction” and to wage “war” if he was indicted. Mr. Trump also called District Attorney Bragg a “SOROS BACKED ANIMAL”—a dog whistle Chairman Jordan repeated on television on March 23, 2023, calling District Attorney Bragg “the Soros-backed, new DA, left-wing DA Alvin Bragg.”2 Mr. Trump even shared a social media post that appeared to be a picture of himself threateningly wielding a baseball bat to District Attorney Bragg’s head.

Image

6. These statements have had a powerful effect. District Attorney Bragg has received multiple death threats. In one instance, he received a package containing suspicious white powder with a note making a specific death threat against him. Since Mr. Trump falsely predicted he would be arrested on March 18, 2023, in fact, the District Attorney’s Office has received more than 1,000 calls and emails from Mr. Trump’s supporters, many of which are threatening and racially charged. But rather than denounce efforts to vilify and denigrate the District Attorney and the grand jury process, House Republicans are participating in those efforts.3

7. Chairman Jordan, along with other congressmen, have made no secret that the purpose of the Committee’s inquiry is to “conduct oversight” and undertake an “examination of the facts” supporting the indictment—the same facts already evaluated by an independent grand jury of New Yorkers—and to hold the District Attorney “to account.” Chairman Jordan and the Committee have, in essence, appointed Congress as a super grand jury that can flex its subpoena power to second guess the judgment of New York citizens and interfere with the state criminal justice process. In his letters and public statements, however, Chairman Jordan and his congressional allies have changed their story multiple times, creating as it suits them a scattershot hodgepodge of new purported legislative interests and purposes that supposedly justify the Committee’s unwarranted “incursion” into a state criminal case. Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898, 920 (1997). Each of these is a baseless pretext for hauling Mr. Pomerantz to Washington for a retaliatory political circus designed to undermine the rule of law and New York’s police power. And in cases like this one implicating “substantial” federalism or separation of powers concerns, the Supreme Court’s decision in Mazars requires the federal courts to probe Congress’s asserted purposes for pretext and evidence. 140 S. Ct. at 2036. The Chairman has also admitted that subpoenaing Mr. Pomerantz is only the first step of his subpoena strategy. As Chairman James Comer of the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability put it, Mr. Trump’s allies in the House “fully expect to see Alvin Bragg answering questions in front of Congress as soon as [they] can make it happen.”4

8. Members of Congress are not free to invade New York’s sovereign authority for their or Mr. Trump’s political aims. Congress has no authority to “conduct oversight” into District Attorney Bragg’s exercise of his duties under New York law in a single case involving a single defendant. Nor can Congress force a former prosecutor to make extrajudicial statements during a criminal prosecution about that prosecution or related criminal investigations—statements that the New York Rules of Professional Conduct forbid, in part, because they could prejudice Mr. Trump’s right to a fair trial and prompt due process concerns. See N.Y.R. Prof. Cond. Rule 3.6; see also Powers v. Coe, 728 F.2d 97, 105 (2d Cir. 1984). Compelling Mr. Pomerantz to provide this type of testimony is unprecedented. As one former counsel for the House and legal scholar explained in testimony provided to Congress itself:

[T]here hasn’t been a subpoena enforcement against a state attorney general in 200 years . . . and there’s an excellent reason. State Attorneys General have their own state sovereign authority. They are frequently elected. They have their own base, their own electoral base, their own mission, and their mission is to pursue things that Congress can’t.5


9. Mr. Trump is free to avail himself of any and all criminal procedure processes available to him. Indeed, his motions in his criminal case are due in August. If he wishes to argue that his prosecution is “politically motivated,” he is free to raise that concern to the New York state criminal court. Chairman Jordan is not, however, free to unconstitutionally deploy Congress’s limited subpoena power for raw political retaliation, intimidation, or obstruction.

10. District Attorney Bragg therefore brings this action in response to the Committee’s plainly unconstitutional subpoena. He brings two causes of action.

11. First, the subpoena served on Mr. Pomerantz is invalid, unenforceable, unconstitutional, and ultra vires because it has no legitimate legislative purpose, Watkins, 354 U.S. at 187, and manifestly fails each of the four factors the Supreme Court established in Mazars to evaluate the enforceability of a congressional subpoena directed to another branch of government. 140 S. Ct. at 2035–36. Namely, Congress has no power under Article I of the Constitution to oversee, let alone disrupt, ongoing state law criminal matters, and the shifting array of legislative purposes the Chairman has invoked in favor of his demands do not “warrant[] the significant step” of seeking information from the District Attorney. Id. at 2035. The subpoena also is vastly “broader than reasonably necessary to support” the Chairman’s purported “legislative objective”— an objective the Chairman has provided not a whit of “evidence” to support. Id. at 2036. And finally, the subpoena is unduly burdensome, particularly in light of the ongoing criminal prosecution and investigation of Mr. Trump.

12. Second, even if Chairman Jordan and the Committee were able to demonstrate a valid legislative purpose and withstand the Mazars test (they cannot), the subpoena still would not be enforceable because it could allow the Committee to seek secret grand jury material, confidential investigative material, and information clearly protected by the attorney-client, work product, deliberative process, law enforcement, informant’s, and public interest privileges. These privileges exist to protect precisely the type of information Chairman Jordan and the Committee are seeking—confidential law enforcement and legal materials compiled during investigations and in the lead-up to a prosecution. The privileges are designed to prevent the type of obstruction and interference with ongoing criminal investigations and prosecutions that Chairman Jordan and the Committee’s actions represent.

13. In sum, Congress lacks any valid legislative purpose to engage in a free-ranging campaign of harassment in retaliation for the District Attorney’s investigation and prosecution of Mr. Trump under the laws of New York. That campaign is a direct threat to federalism and the sovereign interests of the State of New York. This Court should enjoin the subpoena and put an end to this constitutionally destructive fishing expedition. It should protect New York’s lawful pursuit of criminal justice and permit this State’s criminal justice system to function under the careful supervision of the New York Supreme Court free from unconstitutional congressional interference. This Court should grant judgment to District Attorney Alvin L. Bragg, Jr.

PARTIES

14. Plaintiff Alvin L. Bragg, Jr. is the District Attorney for Manhattan. District Attorney Bragg brings this suit in his official capacity.

15. Defendant Jim Jordan is a Republican member of the U.S. House of Representatives and Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary. He is sued in his official capacity.

16. Defendant Committee on the Judiciary is a standing committee of the United States House of Representatives.

17. Defendant Mark F. Pomerantz was a Special Assistant District Attorney in the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office from 2021 to 2022. In that role, Mr. Pomerantz assisted with the Office’s investigation into Mr. Trump’s personal and business finances. On February 23, 2022, Mr. Pomerantz resigned his appointment.

18. The District Attorney sues Mr. Pomerantz to protect the District Attorney’s Office’s interests and privileges and in light of the District Attorney’s Office’s instruction to Mr. Pomerantz not to provide any information or materials relating to his work in the District Attorney’s Office in response to the subpoena. As the Supreme Court has made clear, the important structural constitutional interests at stake “are no less palpable here simply because the subpoena[] w[as] issued to [a] third part[y].” Mazars, 140 S. Ct. at 2035.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

19. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because this case arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States.

20. This Court has authority to issue a declaratory judgment and order other relief that is just and proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202.

21. Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) and (e)(1) because a substantial part of the events giving rise to this action occurred in the Southern District of New York. Chairman Jordan served Mr. Pomerantz with a subpoena in New York, where he resides. That subpoena seeks testimony relating to law enforcement investigations and an active prosecution the District Attorney is conducting in Manhattan and related grand jury proceedings.

22. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Chairman Jordan and the Committee under CPLR § 302 because they “engage[d] in [a] persistent course of conduct” and “expect[ed] or should reasonably expect the act to have consequences in the state.” The Chairman and the Committee have reached into New York State to serve a subpoena on Mr. Pomerantz, a former Special Assistant in the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office, as part of an ongoing effort to obstruct, impede, and delegitimize a local criminal prosecution in New York City. They have also demanded documents and testimony from three other New Yorkers, including the District Attorney himself. By his own reckoning, Chairman Jordan and the Committee are seeking to conduct “oversight” of an ongoing New York State criminal investigation and an ongoing New York State criminal prosecution pending in New York State court. They are seeking highly sensitive and confidential prosecutorial information concerning an ongoing local prosecution and investigation the District Attorney’s Office is properly conducting on behalf of the People of New York. They have thereby purposefully availed themselves of this forum and subjected themselves to personal jurisdiction in the State of New York in connection with this controversy.

23. The Chairman and the Judiciary Committee have also availed themselves of this forum by planning to hold a field hearing in New York City on April 17, 2023 regarding the District Attorney’s prosecutorial policies.

24. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Mr. Pomerantz because he is a resident of New York.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

A. District Attorney Bragg Takes Office And Reduces Crime In New York City.


25. The Manhattan District Attorney’s Office investigates and prosecutes violations of New York State law. New York State law confers on district attorneys the authority “to prosecute all crimes and offenses cognizable by the courts of the county for which he shall have been elected or appointed.” N.Y. County L. § 927; see also id. § 700. Each case the Office brings is brought on behalf of “The People of the State of New York.”

26. Plaintiff Alvin L. Bragg, Jr. is the first Black person to serve as District Attorney of Manhattan. District Attorney Bragg has spent two decades in public service, having previously served as Chief Deputy Attorney General in the New York Attorney General’s office and as an Assistant United States Attorney in the Southern District of New York. As a long-time white collar prosecutor, District Attorney Bragg believes in holding powerful people accountable for harming everyday New Yorkers.

27. As of April 2, 2023, the year-to-date statistics for New York City, and Manhattan specifically, continue to trend downward: homicides are down 14.3% and down further in Manhattan; shooting incidents are down 17.3%; rapes are down 33.3% and down further in Manhattan; robbery is down 7.6% and down further in Manhattan; and burglary is down 21% and down further in Manhattan. Total index crimes are down 1.3% in Manhattan, despite being up slightly citywide. The work of the District Attorney’s Office in the last year is contributing to these successes. Gun prosecutions by the Office were up approximately 18% in the District Attorney’s first year in office. Last year, the District Attorney’s Office secured indictments against gun traffickers, ghost gun manufacturers, and members of a violent criminal enterprise. The Office is also making use of available tools to reduce recidivism: with recent amendments to bail eligibility the Office has sought bail in 400 property crime cases that would not have been baileligible otherwise. And in just the past week, the Office has required landlords to initiate civil eviction proceedings against seven unlicensed cannabis shops that are operating unlawfully in Manhattan.

B. District Attorney Bragg Continues His Predecessor’s Investigations Into Mr. Trump.

28. When he assumed office on January 1, 2022, District Attorney Bragg inherited years-long investigations into the financial activities of Donald J. Trump and the Trump Organization. District Attorney Bragg issued a public statement on April 7, 2022, confirming that his Office had continued the investigations through its staff of experienced career prosecutors.

29. District Attorney Bragg also inherited an indictment of two Trump entities (Trump Corporation and Trump Payroll Corp.) and Allen Weisselberg, the former chief financial officer of the Trump Organization. The charges against the Trump entities went to trial with opening statements beginning on Monday, October 31, 2022. Donald Trump announced his candidacy for President the next month, while the trial and previously announced investigations by the District Attorney remained ongoing.

30. District Attorney Bragg’s Office secured the trial conviction of the two Trump entities and a guilty plea from Mr. Weisselberg for, among other crimes, defrauding New York State and New York City tax authorities. Following the trial verdict in December of 2022, a New York State court fined the Trump Corporation and the Trump Payroll Corp. $1.6 million for running the decade-long tax fraud scheme and sentenced Mr. Weisselberg to five months incarceration followed by five years’ probation.

31. Other investigations remained ongoing. The New York State Constitution Bill of Rights establishes that all “capital or otherwise infamous crime[s]” must be brought through a grand jury indictment. N.Y. Const. Art. I § 6; see also U.S. Const., amend. V. A grand jury in New York consists of 23 New Yorkers who must decide whether documents, witness testimony, and other evidence presented by prosecutors supports returning an indictment for violations of New York law. Grand jurors are selected at random from the general population of New York County without regard to their personal political affiliation.

32. In early 2023, the news media reported on a grand jury investigation into allegations against Mr. Trump and the possibility that Mr. Trump might be criminally charged. In response, Mr. Trump and his supporters in Congress launched efforts to attack the District Attorney’s integrity, intimidate his Office, and mount “an aggressive response” to preempt potential criminal charges.6 House Republicans regularly kept Mr. Trump updated on these developments. For example, Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene “keep[s] him up[dated] on everything that [they’re] doing,” and House Republican Conference Chair Elise Stefanik has “walked [Mr. Trump] through the GOP’s plans for an aggressive response to Bragg.”7 It has been reported that Mr. Trump has himself been preparing plans to exact revenge on District Attorney Bragg if Mr. Trump returns to the White House in 2024. Some of his advisors have reportedly recommended that he “unleash” the Department of Justice’s “Civil Rights Division” to prosecute District Attorney Bragg “for supposedly ‘racist law enforcement practices.’”8

33. The effort to obstruct the grand jury’s investigation into Mr. Trump picked up steam on March 10, 2023. On that day, Mr. Trump’s lawyer, Joseph Tacopina, sent Chairman Jordan a letter describing District Attorney Bragg as a “rogue local district attorney.”9 Mr. Tacopina urged Chairman Jordan to deploy the powers of his office to investigate what he described as District Attorney Bragg’s “egregious abuse of power.”10

34. On March 18, 2023, Mr. Trump announced on Truth Social, his social media platform, that he believed he would be arrested the following Tuesday. Mr. Trump claimed to have sourced this information—which was false—from “ILLEGAL LEAKS” in the “CORRUPT & HIGHLY POLITICAL MANHATTAN DISTRICT ATTORNEYS OFFICE.” Mr. Trump urged his supporters to “PROTEST, TAKE OUR NATION BACK!”

Image

35. Mr. Trump’s post calling for “protest[s]” bears a striking resemblance to the December 19, 2020 tweet in which he urged his supporters to protest after he lost the 2020 Presidential election: “Big protest in D.C. on January 6th. Be there, will be wild!”11 The House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the U.S. Capitol concluded that Mr. Trump’s December 19, 2020 tweet served as “a call to arms” for “extremists and conspiracy theorists” that had the effect of “summoning a mob.”12 “For the Proud Boys . . . President Trump’s tweet set in motion a chain of events that led directly to the attack on the U.S. Capitol.”13

36. Mr. Trump was not arrested the following Tuesday, March 21, 2023, as he had predicted on social media. Although his prediction was false, his call to “protest” and “take our nation back” prompted law enforcement agencies to deploy a significant security response, including around the New York State Supreme Court criminal courthouse in lower Manhattan and the District Attorney’s Office.

37. Meanwhile, on March 19, 2023, House Speaker Kevin McCarthy amplified Mr. Trump’s incendiary rhetoric, accusing District Attorney Bragg of “abusing his office to target President Trump” and announced that Congress would “investigate any use of federal funds that are used to facilitate the perversion of justice by Soros-backed DA’s across the country.” George Soros is a Jewish American businessman and philanthropist known for his support of liberal causes and candidates. He is frequently cited as a boogeyman in rightwing, and often anti-Semitic, conspiracy theories and dog whistles. District Attorney Bragg does not know Mr. Soros and has never communicated with him.

Image

38. Other House Representatives have also expressed their support for Mr. Trump. House Republican Conference Chair Stefanik frequently speaks with Mr. Trump and has expressed that she believes District Attorney Bragg should testify before Congress to explain his decision to investigate the former president. Representative Greene, a member of the Committee on Oversight and Accountability, also frequently speaks with Mr. Trump and has called for District Attorney Bragg’s arrest. On March 22, 2023, she falsely tweeted that District Attorney Bragg was “breaking the law” and “trying to incite civil unrest with his Soros funded political war.”

Image

C. Chairmen Of Three Congressional Committees Send A Letter Requesting Documents and Testimony from District Attorney Bragg, Mr. Pomerantz, and Carey Dunne.

39. After receiving the letter from Mr. Trump’s counsel and in the wake of Speaker McCarthy’s tweet vowing an investigation, on March 20, 2023, chairmen of three Congressional committees sent a letter to District Attorney Bragg purporting to launch an investigation into his “decision to pursue such a politically motivated prosecution.”14 The signatories included Chairman Jordan, Chairman Comer, and Chairman Bryan Steil of the Committee on House Administration (together the “Chairmen” and the “Committees,” respectively).

40. The letter blithely accused District Attorney Bragg of “an unprecedented abuse of prosecutorial authority: the indictment of a former President of the United States and current declared candidate for that office.” And it demanded that District Attorney Bragg give testimony and produce the following three categories of documents 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 your office’s investigation of President Donald Trump;

2. All documents and communications sent or received by former employees Carey Dunne and Mark Pomerantz referring or relating to President Donald Trump; and

3. All documents and communications referring or relating to the New York County District Attorney Office’s receipt and use of federal funds.”

41. The Chairmen stated that their requests were based on Rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives and the need for (1) “congressional scrutiny about how public safety funds appropriated by Congress are implemented by local law-enforcement agencies,” (2) “oversight to inform potential legislative reforms about the delineation of prosecutorial authority between federal and local officials,” and (3) “consider[ation] [of] legislative reforms to the authorities of special counsels and their relationships with other prosecuting entities.”

42. Rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives identifies the jurisdictions and functions of the standing committees in the House, including the Committee on the Judiciary, the Committee on House Administration, and the Committee on Oversight and Accountability.

43. On March 22, 2023, Chairman Jordan sent letters to Mr. Pomerantz and Carey Dunne. Mr. Dunne was the General Counsel to former Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. from 2017 to 2021 and Special Assistant District Attorney to District Attorney Bragg from January 1, 2022 to February 24, 2022. In those roles, Mr. Dunne helped lead the District Attorney’s investigation into Mr. Trump’s tax records and the Trump Organization’s tax-fraud scheme.

44. The letters to Mr. Pomerantz and Mr. Dunne both requested their “cooperation with [the Chairmen’s] oversight of this politically motivated prosecutorial decision” and “overzealous” investigation. Specifically, the letters requested the following documents and information for January 1, 2017 to the present from Mr. Pomerantz and Mr. Dunne, both of whom have not worked at the District Attorney’s Office in about a year:

“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 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 Special Assistant District Attorney for New York County.”


45. The letter to Mr. Pomerantz stated that he had previously “resign[ed] in protest” of a decision by District Attorney Bragg to “suspend[] the investigation” into Mr. Trump when District Attorney Bragg took office. The letter went on to state that Mr. Pomerantz’s 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,” and alleged that Mr. Pomerantz had “unfairly disparaged” Mr. Trump, “an innocent and uncharged man, as a felon to millions of [New York Times] readers.” The letter further stated that Mr. Pomerantz’s “book again unfairly disparaged President Trump, and now opens the door to examination about the District Attorney’s office [sic] commitment to evenhanded justice.”

D. District Attorney Bragg Responds.

46. District Attorney Bragg’s Office timely responded to the demand on March 23, 2023. Leslie Dubeck, General Counsel for the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office, wrote in a letter to the Chairmen that the investigation into Mr. Trump “is one of thousands conducted by the Office of the District Attorney in its long history of pursuing justice and protecting New Yorkers” and “has been conducted consistently with the District Attorney’s oath to faithfully execute the laws of the State of New York.” In the letter, Ms. Dubeck states that the request by the Chairmen “is an unprecedented inquiry into a pending local prosecution,” which came only “after Donald Trump created a false expectation he would be arrested the next day and his lawyers reportedly urged [the Chairmen] to intervene.”

47. The letter states that compliance with the Chairmen’s request “would interfere with law enforcement.” Specifically, the Chairmen’s request “seeks non-public information about a pending criminal investigation, which is confidential under state law” because “[g]rand jury proceedings are secret.”

48. The letter also states that the requests “are an unlawful incursion into New York’s sovereignty” because a “Congressional committee may not ‘inquire into matters which are . . . reserved to the States,’” and “[p]erhaps the clearest example of traditional state authority is the punishment of local criminal activity.” It explained that the District Attorney’s investigation is a “quintessential police power[] belonging to the State” and because the Chairmen’s inquiry “treads into territory very clearly reserved to the states,” it is “indefensible.” The letter further explained that the requests would “usurp[] executive powers” because “Congress [is not] a law enforcement or trial agency.” Ms. Dubeck also made clear that the District Attorney’s Office was not “pursuing a prosecution for political purposes.”

49. Notwithstanding these objections, Ms. Dubeck stated that the District Attorney’s Office would submit a letter describing its use of federal funds. Ms. Dubeck further stated that “this Office will always treat a fellow government entity with due respect” and requested the opportunity to meet and confer regarding the Chairmen’s inquiry.

E. Former President Donald Trump Launches Attacks on Social Media and Puts District Attorney Bragg And Other New Yorkers at Risk.

50. Following the parties’ letter exchanges, Mr. Trump began to lob even more incendiary messages on Truth Social about District Attorney Bragg. On March 23, 2023, he inveighed that “BRAGG REFUSES TO STOP DESPITE OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY” and described the District Attorney in dehumanizing terms, calling him a “SOROS BACKED ANIMAL.” These attacks by Mr. Trump and others have been widely condemned as both racist and antisemitic.

Image

51. Minutes later, Mr. Trump accused District Attorney Bragg of “CARRYING OUT THE PLANS OF THE RADICAL LEFT LUNATICS.” He also stated that “OUR COUNTRY IS BEING DESTROYED, AS THEY TELL US TO BE PEACEFUL!”

Image

52. Also on that day, Mr. Trump shared a photograph on Truth Social of a side-by-side image of himself and District Attorney Bragg. Mr. Trump was holding a baseball bat in the photograph, and their side-by-side juxtaposition suggested that Mr. Trump was winding up the bat to strike the District Attorney.

Image

53. In the early hours of March 24, 2023, Mr. Trump threatened that an indictment would unleash “death & destruction” that would be “catastrophic for our Country.” Mr. Trump queried: “What kind of person can charge another person, in this case a former President of the United States, . . . when it is known by all that NO Crime has been committed[?]” He then supplied his followers with an answer, alluding to District Attorney Bragg: “Only a degenerate psychopath that truely [sic] hates the USA.”

Image

54. Later that day, a package containing suspicious white powder arrived at the District Attorney’s Office along with a note making a specific death threat against the District Attorney. The New York City Police Department and the Department of Environmental Protection responded and ultimately concluded the substance was not dangerous.

55. In the aftermath, the District Attorney’s Office received more than 1,000 calls and emails from individuals claiming to be Mr. Trump’s supporters, many of which were threatening and racially charged. District Attorney Bragg also received multiple death threats.

F. The Chairmen Continue to Insist on Document Production and Testimony.

56. On March 25, 2023, the Chairmen sent District Attorney Bragg’s Office another letter. They ignored Ms. Dubeck’s request to meet and confer.

57. The letter states that the Committees are “conducting oversight of [the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office’s] reported effort to indict a former President of the United States and current declared candidate for that office.” The Chairmen, for the first time, declared that they were considering whether Congress “should take legislative action to protect former and/or current Presidents from politically motivated prosecutions by state and local officials.”

58. The letter claimed that the inquiry is proper because (1) the Committees “are authorized to conduct such an inquiry,” (2) “the inquiry is on a matter on which legislation could be had,” and (3) “the requests are pertinent to the committees’ inquiry.”

59. The letter further explains that the inquiry into the circumstances of a prosecutorial decision to indict a former President of the United States “on a novel and untested legal theory” falls within the scope of the Committee on the Judiciary’s “oversight of criminal justice matters to inform potential legislation.” It also states that the inquiry could inform whether Congress drafts legislation to “insulate current and former presidents from such improper state and local prosecutions”—purported legislation the Chairmen did not even hint at in their March 20, 2023 letter. The Chairmen speculated without any evidence that these prosecutions could create a conflict “between the federal law-enforcement officials required to protect the former President and local law-enforcement officials required to enforce your indictment.” Despite the District Attorney’s Office’s commitment to provide a letter detailing the use of the Office’s federal funds, the Chairmen reiterated their request for such information and insisted that a letter from the District Attorney’s Office would not be enough. The Chairmen requested a response by March 31, 2023.

60. Subsequently, on an interview with CNN’s Jake Tapper, Chairman Comer was asked about the Chairmen’s letters to District Attorney Bragg.15 Chairman Comer candidly explained his view that the District Attorney should “come explain to us exactly what he’s investigat[ing].” He further stated, “if Mr. Bragg wants to come in and explain to us what he is doing and he makes a good explanation, . . . then we’ll back off.” And when Mr. Tapper noted, “well, he’s investigating as I understand it potential violations of state crimes,” Chairman Comer responded: “even at that, . . . when you look at what we believe the role of the Manhattan DA should be is to fight crime. I mean that’s one of the biggest issues in New York.” He went on to state, “we believe our tax dollars would be better spent prosecuting local criminals—that’s what a DA is supposed to do.” Mr. Tapper also asked: “if [District Attorney Bragg] refuses to come in willingly, will you subpoena him?” Chairman Comer responded: “Well, that’ll be up to Jim Jordan. He’s the lead investigator in this particular situation.” Mr. Tapper queried in response: “Jim Jordan who refused to comply with a congressional subpoena in the previous Congress?”

61. Also on March 25, 2023, Ms. Dubeck sent a letter to Mr. Pomerantz and Mr. Dunne instructing them, as former employees of the District Attorney’s Office, to not respond to Chairman Jordan’s requests in light of the ongoing discussions and concerns over the inquiry. In that letter, the District Attorney’s Office explained that the Chairmen’s requests “raise significant concerns about federalism, state sovereignty, the limits on congressional power, and the purpose and legality of the [Judiciary Committee’s] inquiry. In addition, the documents and information requested are protected from disclosure for many reasons, including because they relate to an ongoing criminal investigation, and are subject to the attorney client privilege, work product doctrine, and other legal protections.”

62. The letter specifically instructed Mr. Pomerantz to “as a former employee and attorney of the DA’s Office, [] not provide any information or materials relating to your work in the DA’s Office in response to [the Judiciary Committee’s] request. In addition, please direct [the Judiciary Committee] to communicate with the DA’s Office regarding the request.” The letter made clear the District Attorney’s Office was writing “[t]o protect the DA’s Office’s interests and privileges” and had asked the Committee “to provide additional information regarding their inquiries.”

G. Donald Trump Persists in His Attacks on Social Media.

63. On March 28, 2023, Mr. Trump re-posted to his Truth Social account an article by Wayne Allyn Root titled “Democrats Want to Indict & Arrest President Trump. They Want a War? Let’s Give it to Them.” That same day, a supporter of Mr. Trump who was protesting District Attorney Bragg’s investigation pulled a knife on a family—including two small children— outside the Manhattan Criminal Court. Court officers arrested the protester, who was holding a sign that read: “I support Trump, do you?”

64. On March 29, 2023, following news reports that the grand jury had recessed for several weeks, Mr. Trump continued his attacks on Truth Social. He stated that he had “GAINED SUCH RESPECT FOR THIS GRAND JURY” for not being a “RUBBER STAMP” and described District Attorney Bragg as “HIGHLY PARTISAN” and “HATEFUL.”

Image

65. A day later, on March 30, 2023, Mr. Trump described District Attorney Bragg as a “Radical Left, Soros Backed Lunatic[]” in a post on Truth Social. He also implied that a New York Times columnist wrote that Mr. Trump “should be prosecuted” “because [he is] WHITE.” He concluded “we are now a Nation in Decline being stupidly led into World War III.”

Image

H. Mr. Pomerantz and Mr. Dunne Respond.

66. On March 27, 2023, Mr. Pomerantz responded to Chairman Jordan’s March 22, 2023 correspondence. In the letter, Mr. Pomerantz states that he will “act in a manner consistent with the instructions [he has] received from DANY” and requested that Chairman Jordan relay any communication to the District Attorney’s Office.

67. That same day, Mr. Dunne also responded to Chairman Jordan’s March 22, 2023 correspondence. Like Mr. Pomerantz, Mr. Dunne declined to respond to the inquiry and referred any communication to the District Attorney’s Office. In the letter, Mr. Dunne also stated that the District Attorney’s Office is the legal holder of various privileges, including the attorney-client privilege, implicated by Chairman Jordan’s inquiry. The letter further states that “[a]s the legal holder of such privileges,” the Office’s position that the inquiry was “constitutionally infirm” was “[their] prerogative.”

I. New York State Supreme Court Unseals The Fact That Mr. Trump Has Been Indicted And The Chairmen (And Other Members Of Congress) React.

68. On March 30, 2023, the New York State Supreme Court issued an order unsealing the fact that a Manhattan grand jury had returned an indictment charging Mr. Trump with a certain number of undefined crimes. Mr. Trump is the first American president, current or former, to be indicted.

69. It did not take long for Mr. Trump to start casting doubt on the integrity of the District Attorney’s Office, and on the judicial system as a whole. On March 30, 2023, he claimed that the charges against him were “Fake, Corrupt, and Disgraceful.” And on the morning of March 31, 2023, he asserted on Truth Social: “The Judge ‘assigned’ to my Witch Hunt Case [] HATES ME.” He further stated that the judge’s name “is Juan Manuel Marchan [sic], [he] was handpicked by Bragg & the Prosecutors, & is the same person who ‘railroaded’ my 75 year old former CFO, Allen Weisselberg, to take a ‘plea’ deal.”

Image

70. Later that day, Mr. Trump posted again on Truth Social, specifically referencing Mr. Pomerantz:

Image

71. Mr. Trump’s followers have followed suit. Hours after the indictment, District Attorney Bragg and his Office received numerous overtly racist and antisemitic emails and messages.16 One email stated: “Hay George Soros a** hole puppet If you want President Trump come and get me to. Remember we are everywhere and we have guns.” Other messages called the District Attorney “black trash [f----r]” and “Aids Infested.”
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 37523
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

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

Postby admin » Wed Apr 12, 2023 1:41 am

Page 2 of 2

72. Mr. Trump’s supporters in Congress have also followed his lead, although none of them articulated the legislative reform proposals the Chairman has invoked as the basis for this congressional subpoena and his other demands. On March 30, 2023, Speaker McCarthy tweeted using language that indicated his goal was retribution against District Attorney Bragg, not legislation:

Image

73. The Speaker’s caucus followed suit. That same day, and after the news broke that Mr. Trump would be indicted, Chairman Jordan tweeted: “Outrageous.” Representative Ronny Jackson tweeted “When Trump wins, THESE PEOPLE WILL PAY!!” Later, he stated that “it will ultimately be Alvin Bragg that pays the price for this abuse of office!”

74. On March 31, 2023, Representative Dan Bishop, a member of defendant Committee on the Judiciary, tweeted that “The subpoenas should now fly.”

Image

J. District Attorney Bragg Responds to the Chairmen.

75. District Attorney Bragg’s Office responded to the Chairmen on March 31, 2023. In that response, Ms. Dubeck reiterated the Office’s position: Congress cannot interfere with a state criminal investigation or usurp judicial and executive functions, and the Chairmen’s “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” and “an unprecedented and illegitimate incursion on New York’s sovereign interests.”

76. The letter states that the Chairmen’s alleged legislative purpose for the inquiry— potential legislation to “insulate current and former presidents”—is “baseless pretext to interfere with [the] Office’s work.” The letter queried whether “Congress would [even] have authority to place a single private citizen—including a former president or candidate for president—above the law.” It further stated that “based on [the Chairmen’s] reportedly close collaboration with Mr. Trump in attacking this Office and the grand jury process, it appears [the Chairmen] are acting more like a criminal defense counsel trying to gather evidence for a client than a legislative body seeking to achieve a legitimate legislative objective.”

77. As Ms. Dubeck indicated she would in her March 23, 2023 correspondence, she provided in the March 31, 2023 letter further detail and information about the Office’s use of federal funds. Specifically, Ms. Dubeck clarified that “[n]o expenses incurred relating to this matter [including the investigation and prosecution of Mr. Trump] have been paid from funds that the Office received through federal grant programs.” She identified three federal grant programs that the District Attorney’s Office participates in: (1) Stop Violence Against Women Act Program; (2) Victim and Witness Assistance Grant Program; and (3) Justice Assistance Grant.

78. Ms. Dubeck also stated that the Office has “contributed to the federal fisc,” in part by “help[ing] the Federal Government secure more than one billion dollars in asset forfeiture funds in the past 15 years.” Of that forfeiture money, the Office spent approximately $5,000 “on expenses incurred [between October 2019 and August 2021] relating to the investigation of Donald J. Trump or the Trump Organization.” The letter clarified that most of these expenses related to Trump v. Vance, 140 S. Ct. 2412 (2020), the Supreme Court case “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.”

79. In light of the death threats the District Attorney had received, Ms. Dubeck also urged the Chairmen to “denounce the[] attacks” and “refrain from inflammatory accusations” instead of continuing to “vilify and denigrate the integrity of elected state prosecutors and trial judges.” Ms. Dubeck further urged the Chairmen to “let the criminal justice process proceed without unlawful political interference.”

80. Ms. Dubeck again requested to meet and confer with the Chairmen.

81. The Chairmen did not accept that request. Instead, in the days following the District Attorney’s March 31, 2023 letter, Chairman Jordan and the Committee focused on the $5,000 of forfeiture funds the District Attorney’s Office had used in investigating Mr. Trump or the Trump Organization between October 2019 and August 2021. Specifically, defendant Committee on the Judiciary tweeted that the $5,000 of forfeiture funds “BOLSTER[S] GOP INVESTIGATION”:

Image

82. And in an interview conducted on Fox News with Maria Bartiromo, Chairman Jordan stated, “they keep saying ‘oh you’re not supposed to be involved because, you know, this is a local prosecution decision,’ and we’re saying well look you used federal funds, you conceded that in your response to” the March 25, 2023 letter.17

83. In other words, Chairman Jordan and the Committee argued the District Attorney’s use of $5,000 from federal forfeiture funds prior to 2021 on matters relating to Mr. Trump other than his indictment was sufficient to confer authority on Congress to investigate the now-pending criminal prosecution. But they provided no explanation, and none exists, as to how mere federal funds (even if they had been used in preparing for the pending prosecution of Mr. Trump) could justify invading state sovereignty to conduct federal “oversight” of a single ongoing state criminal investigation or prosecution to begin with.

K. Donald Trump and His Supporters Continue to Interfere with an Ongoing State Criminal Proceeding.

84. On April 3, 2023, Mr. Trump falsely accused District Attorney Bragg of “illegally LEAK[ING] . . . the pathetic Indictment against [him]” on Truth Social. He stated that as a result of this “illegal” leak, District Attorney Bragg “MUST BE IMMEDIATELY INDICTED.”

Image

85. Eleven minutes later, he once again falsely accused the District Attorney of “ILLEGALLY LEAK[ING] THE 33 points of Indictment” and called for the District Attorney’s resignation.

86. On April 4, 2023—the very day of his scheduled arraignment—Mr. Trump stated on Truth Social that New York County was a “VERY UNFAIR VENUE” and “THE HIGHLY PARTISAN JUDGE & HIS FAMILY ARE WELL KNOWN TRUMP HATERS.”

Image

87. Later that day, Mr. Trump’s son, Donald Trump Jr., shared an article on Twitter that identified Judge Juan Merchan’s daughter and included a picture of her. He called into question Judge Merchan’s impartiality and alleged that his daughter had worked on the Biden- Harris campaign, which he claimed was another “relevant” “connection in this hand picked democrat show trial.” Representative Greene shared a similar article.

88. Also on April 4, 2023, Chairman Jordan and Chairman Comer issued a statement expressing “concern” over “reports [that] the New York District Attorney may seek an unconstitutional gag order” because “[t]o put any restrictions on the ability of President Trump to discuss his mistreatment at the hands of this politically motivated prosecutor would only further demonstrate the weaponization of the New York justice system.”18

89. That same day, Speaker McCarthy once again evoked the specter of punishment, reiterating that District Attorney Bragg would be “held accountable by Congress” for “attempting to interfere in our democratic process by invoking federal law to bring politicized charges against President Trump [and] admittedly using federal funds.”

Image

90. Later that night on April 4, Chairman Jordan and Mr. Comer did an interview on the Fox News program Jesse Watters Primetime. During that interview, Chairman Jordan stated “Mr. Pomerantz . . . is someone we want to talk to as well. He has left the DA’s office. He has written a book. He’s the guy who threw the fit and I think put the pressure on Mr. Bragg to go through with the ridiculous action that he took today.”19 The book to which Chairman Jordan referred was Mr. Pomerantz’s account of the District Attorney’s Office’s investigation into Mr. Trump and the Trump Organization, published on February 7, 2023. Before the book was published, the District Attorney’s Office wrote to Mr. Pomerantz and, referring to the existence of then-pending proceedings, expressly confirmed that Mr. Pomerantz did not have authority to make public any privileged or confidential information he acquired while serving as a Special Assistant. The Office requested to review a manuscript of the book before publication but was not provided that opportunity. Mr. Pomerantz subsequently stated publicly that he was “confident that all of my actions with respect to the Trump investigation, including the writing of my forthcoming book, are consistent with my legal and ethical obligations.”20

91. In response to Chairman Jordan’s statement about the book, Mr. Watters stated: “Biden sent his goon into the DA’s office, and that’s what lit this fuse.” Chairman Comer shortly thereafter reiterated “we’re serious about this . . . I fully expect to see Alvin Bragg answering questions in front of Congress as soon as we can make it happen. This is unacceptable, and we’re not going to back down on this.” Chairman Comer therefore confirmed that the subpoena to Mr. Pomerantz was the first action of a subpoena strategy, with the ultimate goal of subpoenaing the District Attorney himself.

L. Mr. Trump Is Arraigned, And Chairman Jordan And The Committee Subpoena Mr. Pomerantz.

92. On April 4, 2023, Mr. Trump traveled from Florida to New York for his arraignment, arrest, and fingerprinting. He was accompanied by the Secret Service, who had coordinated effectively with New York State Supreme Court security officers in advance of the arraignment. On information and belief, Mr. Trump’s transit to (and from) New York was safe. No security incidents or breaches were reported with respect to Mr. Trump’s safety.

93. Later that day, Mr. Trump was arraigned in New York State Supreme Court and his indictment and the District Attorney’s statement of facts were unsealed. The indictment accuses Mr. Trump of 34 felony counts of Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree in violation of New York Penal Law § 175.10. Specifically, District Attorney Bragg alleged that Mr. Trump “repeatedly and fraudulently falsified New York business records to conceal criminal conduct that hid damaging information from the voting public during the 2016 presidential election.”21 The criminal conduct involved, among other things, a scheme in which Mr. Trump and other participants “violated election laws,” “made and caused false entries in the business records of various entities in New York,” and “took steps that mischaracterized, for tax purposes, the true nature of the payments made in furtherance of the scheme.”22

94. Mr. Trump entered a plea of not guilty before Judge Merchan.

95. The indictment vindicates a distinct state interest in the integrity of business records within New York State. As District Attorney Bragg observed, “[t]rue and accurate business records are important everywhere,” and “are all the more important in Manhattan, the financial center of the world.”23 He further explained that “we have a history in the Manhattan DA’s office of vigorously enforcing white collar law,” and that the charge of falsifying business records is “the bread and butter of our white-collar work,” which the Office has charged as a felony “hundreds” of times.24

96. During the arraignment, prosecutors raised to the court Mr. Trump’s recent “public statements threatening our city, our justice system, our courts, and our office.” They noted Mr. Trump had made “irresponsible social media posts that target various individuals involved in this matter, and even their families”; that he had “threatened potential death and destruction, and that is a quote, and world war three, another quote, if these charges were brought and he was indicted.” Prosecutors also informed the Court that Mr. Trump had posted “a picture that depicts Mr. Trump wielding a baseball bat at the head of the District Attorney.” Before handing the court copies of these posts, prosecutors noted that Mr. Trump’s comments have “led to extensive public safety measures being put into place.” Prosecutors asked the court to impose an “appropriately restricted protective order” to ensure “the defendant does not disseminate any information provided as discovery through threatening online posts.”

97. Following the parties’ discussion of the prosecutors’ concerns, the court instructed the parties’ counsel “speak to [their] client [or witnesses] and anybody else you need to, and remind them to please refrain [] from making statements that are likely to incite violence or civil unrest. Please refrain from making comments or engaging in conduct that has the potential to incite violence, create civil unrest, or jeopardize the safety or well-being of individuals.” And the court concluded, “please do not engage in words or conduct which jeopardizes the rule of law, particularly as it applies to these proceedings in this courtroom.”

98. Hours later, Mr. Trump made a statement in Florida. He told his supporters: “[t]he criminal is the District Attorney because he illegally leaked massive amounts of grand jury information, for which he should be prosecuted or at a minimum, he should resign” and “I have a Trump hating judge, with a Trump hating wife and family, whose daughter worked for Kamala Harris and now receives money from the Biden-Harris campaign and a lot of it.”25

99. On April 6, 2023, two days after Mr. Trump was arraigned, Chairman Jordan and the House Judiciary Committee served a subpoena on Mr. Pomerantz directing him to appear and testify at a deposition before the Committee regarding the District Attorney’s investigation. The subpoena directs Mr. Pomerantz to appear before the Committee on April 20, 2023.

100. In the cover letter accompanying the subpoena, the Committee states that based on Mr. Pomerantz’s “role as a special assistant district attorney leading the investigation into President Trump’s finances,” he is “uniquely situated to provide information that is relevant necessary to inform the Committee’s oversight and potential legislative reforms” related to “insulat[ing] current and former Presidents from [] politically motivated state and local prosecutions.” The Committee claims that such potential legislative reforms could include: (i) broadening “the existing statutory right of removal of certain criminal cases from state court to federal court”; (ii) investigating potential conflicts between “federal law-enforcement officials required by federal law to protect a former President and local law-enforcement officials required to enforce an indictment”; and (iii) enhancing “reporting requirements concerning the use of federal forfeiture funds or to prohibit the use of federal forfeiture funds to investigate a current or former President or presidential candidate.”

101. The letter states that Mr. Pomerantz has “no basis to decline to testify” regarding matters he wrote about (and later promoted in television interviews) in his February 2023 book, People vs. Donald Trump: An Inside Account. The book details some of Mr. Pomerantz’s views and his depiction of his personal experiences working on the District Attorney’s investigation into Donald Trump. The letter cites passages in Mr. Pomerantz’s book, which the letter argues reveal that the District Attorney’s Office’s investigation of Donald Trump was politically motivated. The letter says, for instance, that Mr. Pomerantz “frivolously compare[d] President Trump to mob boss John Gotti.” And it alleges that Mr. Pomerantz said there was “no doubt in [Mr. Pomerantz’s] mind that [President] Trump deserved to be prosecuted,” demonstrating that Mr. Pomerantz was personally “searching for any basis on which to bring criminal charges” against Mr. Trump. The letter also points to Mr. Pomerantz’s personal perceptions of Mr. Trump as a “malignant narcissist” and “megalomaniac who posed a real danger to the country” whose behavior made Mr. Pomerantz “angry, sad, and [] disgusted.” These views, the letter speculates, were evidence that Mr. Pomerantz “prejudg[ed] the results of the District Attorney’s investigation” which contributed to the “political pressure” on District Attorney Bragg to “bring charges against former President Trump.”

102. Contrary to the Chairman’s contentions, however, Mr. Pomerantz’s book did not and could not waive any privilege belonging to the District Attorney’s Office. Prior to the book’s publication, the District Attorney had instructed Mr. Pomerantz to make no disclosures relating to the “existence, nature, or content” of any communications or records or documents that relate in any manner to the investigation he participated in as a Special Assistant. The District Attorney’s Office also did not have the opportunity to review any drafts or excerpts of Mr. Pomerantz’s book prior to publication.

103. The letter also states that under Rule X of the House of Representatives, the Committee has jurisdiction “to conduct oversight of criminal justice matters to inform potential legislation.” Rule X, however, makes no reference to State criminal justice—only stating that the Committee has jurisdiction over “[c]riminal law enforcement and criminalization” as well as “[t]he judiciary and judicial proceedings, civil and criminal.” H.R. Rule X, clause 1 (l)(1), (7). Other sections of Rule X expressly make reference to the States, however, confirming that Rule X(l) on the Judiciary Committee’s jurisdiction does not confer on the Judiciary Committee jurisdiction over State criminal (let alone civil) matters.

104. In the hours following his service of the subpoena, Chairman Jordan tweeted the following:

Image

105. He also retweeted a report by Breitbart News that “Rep @Jim_Jordan has issued his first subpoena for House Republicans’ investigation of the Manhattan district attorney’s indictment of former President Donald Trump,” suggesting more subpoenas would follow. (emphasis added).

106. Media reports after the subpoena was served indicated that the subpoena was part of an “all-out blitz” Mr. Trump was preparing to commence.26 That blitz will reportedly be directed towards “Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, Judge Juan Merchan, and anyone else in the judicial system who dares cross” Mr. Trump.27 “Meanwhile, powerful Republican lawmakers on Capitol Hill are preparing to use the levers of the legislative branch to run interference for Trump following his historic arrest and arraignment in Manhattan this week.”28

M. Chairman Jordan Demands Documents And Testimony From A Current Employee Of The District Attorney’s Office.

107. On April 7, 2023, Chairman Jordan sent a letter to Matthew Colangelo, Senior Counsel at the District Attorney’s Office.

108. The letter requested documents and testimony in light of Mr. Colangelo’s “history of working for law-enforcement entities that are pursuing President Trump and the public reporting surrounding [his] decision to work for the New York County District Attorney’s Office.” The Chairman argued Mr. Colangelo is “uniquely situated to provide information that is relevant and necessary to inform the Committee’s oversight and potential legislative reforms.” The Chairman requested Mr. Colangelo’s cooperation in his “personal capacity.” The Chairman’s letter requested four categories of documents from Mr. Colangelo for the period June 22, 2021 to December 5, 2022:

• All documents and communications between or among you and anyone affiliated, in any way, with the New York County District Attorney’s Office referring or relating to your potential or future employment with that Office, including, but not limited to (a) [t]he substance or type of work that you would potentially do for that Office; (b) [t]hat Office’s motivation for or interest in hiring you; or (c) [y]our personal motivation for or interest in working for that Office;
• All documents and communications between or among you and anyone affiliated, in any way, with the New York County District Attorney’s Office referring or relating to President Donald J. Trump; the Trump Organization; or any other entity owned, controlled by, or associated with President Donald J. Trump;
• All documents and communications between or among you and anyone not affiliated with the New York County District Attorney’s Office referring or relating to both your potential or future employment with that Office and (a) President Donald J. Trump; (b) [t]he Trump Organization; or (c) [a]ny other entity owned, controlled by, or associated with President Donald J. Trump;
• Any other documents or communications referring or relating to both your potential or future employment with the New York County District Attorney’s Office and (a) President Donald J. Trump; (b) [t]he Trump Organization; or (c) [a]ny other entity owned, controlled by, or associated with President Donald J. Trump.
 
The letter also asked that Mr. Colangelo testify before the Committee no later than April 21, 2023.

109. The Chairman’s letter said he sought information and documents relating to the “circumstances and chain of events that led to [Mr. Colangelo’s] hiring by the New York County District Attorney’s Office.” In other words, the Chairman now wanted to exercise “oversight” of the District Attorney’s personnel decisions. The Chairman argued this information would “shed substantial light on the underlying motives for that Office’s investigation into and indictment of President Trump.” Specifically, the Chairman pointed to the fact that when Mr. Colangelo worked at the New York Attorney General’s Office, he “ran investigations into President Trump, leading ‘a wave of state litigation against Trump administration policies.’” The Chairman opined that District Attorney Bragg hired Mr. Colangelo to “fill the void left by the departure of . . . Mark Pomerantz and Carey Dunne.”

110. The letter to Mr. Colangelo confirms the subpoena issued to Mr. Pomerantz is just the first of many the Chairman is planning to send to current and former District Attorney’s Office employees and officials to wreak havoc on their prosecutorial activities pursuant to New York law. In fact, Representative Wesley Hunt, a member of the Judiciary Committee, confirmed just that when he gave an interview on Fox News on April 6, 2023. During that interview, Mr. Hunt stated: “I can assure you that Jim Jordan, who’s the head of the Judiciary Committee, we have a plan for all of these people to expose them for exactly who they are.”29 He continued: “They have an agenda to destroy our country. They have an agenda to destroy the very fabric of America. We’ve got to expose this so that in two years, the American people—we, the people—can get this right.” Chairman Jordan retweeted a clip of Mr. Hunt’s interview, signaling, on information and belief, that he approved of Mr. Hunt’s statements. Mr. Trump subsequently posted the clip to his Truth Social account as well.

111. On April 10, 2023, the New York Post reported that the House Judiciary Committee would hold a “field hearing” in New York City at 9:00 am Monday, April 17 at the Jacob Javits Federal Building to examine “New York’s rampant crime and victims of Alvin Bragg.”30 A source told the New York Post that purported “victims” of District Attorney Bragg’s “policies” and “failure[s] to prosecute” would be witnesses at the hearing, although a witness list was not made immediately available for examination. A source also told the New York Post that the House Judiciary Committee and Congressman Jordan had not ruled out inviting the District Attorney to attend the hearing. Chairman Jordan and the Judiciary Committee specifically tweeted about the hearing:

Image

Image

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(Injunctive & Declaratory Relief)
The Subpoena Is Ultra Vires And
Exceeds the Committee’s Constitutional Authority


112. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

113. The subpoena served on Mr. Pomerantz is invalid, unenforceable, unconstitutional, and ultra vires because it has no legitimate legislative purpose. See Watkins, 354 U.S. at 187.

114. The Chairman and the Committee have stated that their purpose in seeking information from current and former employees and officials of the District Attorney’s Office is to “conduct oversight” into a local criminal prosecution and as part of an overall investigative plot to demand unconstitutionally that District Attorney Bragg “explain himself” and provide a “good explanation” and a “good argument” to Congress. They have also made clear that the subpoena is designed to punish District Attorney Bragg for his prosecutorial decisions—i.e., as Speaker McCarthy stated, to “hold Alvin Bragg and his unprecedented abuse of power to account.” The subpoena Chairman Jordan and the Committee have served on Mr. Pomerantz is part and parcel of these unlawful aims.

115. But Congress lacks any enumerated power entitling it to “conduct oversight” into a single state prosecution in which a local grand jury has voted to bring criminal charges. The Supreme Court held more than 140 years ago that Congress may not deploy its subpoena power to “interfere with” a case “pending in a court of competent jurisdiction.” Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U.S. 168, 194 (1880). Congress is not “a law enforcement or trial agency,” for “[t]hese are functions of the executive and judicial departments of government.” Watkins, 354 U.S. at 187. “No inquiry is an end in itself; it must be related to, and in furtherance of, a legitimate task of the Congress. Investigations conducted solely for the personal aggrandizement of the investigators or to ‘punish’ those investigated are indefensible.” Id. And under the Tenth Amendment, the “powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” U.S. Const. amend X. This framework reflects our principles of federalism and dual sovereignty, by which the states “remain independent and autonomous within their proper sphere of authority.” Printz, 521 U.S. at 928. The Constitution “reposed [police power] in the States.” Morrison, 529 U.S. at 618. It clearly conferred “primary authority for defining and enforcing the criminal law” on the States. Lopez, 514 U.S. at 561 n.3. There is no congressional power to interfere—as the Chairman and the Committee seek to do here—with the states’ “proper sphere of authority” to police. Printz, 521 U.S. at 928. In short, Congress has no legitimate legislative objective to pursue here.

116. As a result, in his letters and public statements, Chairman Jordan and his congressional allies have changed their story multiple times, creating new and constantly shifting purported legislative interests and purposes that supposedly justify the Committee’s unwarranted “incursion” into a state criminal case. Printz, 521 U.S. at 920. These are just obvious pretexts for interfering with the District Attorney’s Office’s work enforcing the laws of the State of New York on behalf of the People.

117. The subpoena served on Mr. Pomerantz fails to satisfy the Supreme Court’s test in Mazars. 140 S. Ct. at 2035. Namely, the purported legislative purposes Chairman Jordan has invoked to support the subpoena are unsupported, speculative, specious, and/or unconstitutional. The subpoena is more broad than reasonably necessary to support any claimed congressional objective. Chairman Jordan and the Judiciary Committee have offered no evidence in support of any legislative purpose they have attempted to invoke to justify their subpoena. And the subpoena is unduly burdensome because it would substantially burden both the New York criminal justice system and the District Attorney’s Office as it prepares for Mr. Trump’s criminal trial. The Committee’s subpoena also burdens the District Attorney and the criminal justice system by politicizing Mr. Trump’s trial and undermining the public’s faith in the integrity of the criminal justice system. The Committee’s subpoena to Mr. Pomerantz and its other intrusive serial requests for documents and testimony are plainly aimed at burdening the District Attorney’s Office by harassing them, attempting to intimidate them, and trying to distract them from their preparation of Mr. Trump’s criminal case.

118. The subpoena is also ultra vires because the Judiciary Committee does not have jurisdiction over State criminal prosecutions under Rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives.

119. The demands for documents and testimony that Chairman Jordan has made on District Attorney Bragg and current and former District Attorney’s Office employees or officials similarly lack any valid legislative purpose. In the event Chairman Jordan or the Committee serves a subpoena on the District Attorney himself or any of his current or former employees or officials, such subpoenas will also be invalid, unenforceable, unconstitutional, and ultra vires.

120. Plaintiff suffers and is continuing to suffer irreparable harm from the risk that Mr. Pomerantz may be forced to comply with the subpoena served on him, including but not limited to irreparable harm to New York’s sovereign dignitary interests. Plaintiff further lacks any adequate remedy at law.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(Injunctive & Declaratory Relief)
Violation of Grand Jury Secrecy And Privilege


121. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

122. Even if Chairman Jordan and the Committee were able to demonstrate a valid legislative purpose and withstand the Mazars test (they cannot), the subpoena still would not be enforceable because it could allow the Committee to seek secret grand jury material, confidential investigative material, and documents and communications that are clearly privileged under the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine, the deliberative process privilege, the law enforcement privilege, the informant’s privilege, and the public interest privilege.

123. Grand jury materials are secret and privileged under New York State law. See N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law § 190.25(4)(a); N.Y. Penal Law § 215.70. “The attorney-client privilege protects communications (1) between a client and his or her attorney (2) that are intended to be, and in fact were, kept confidential (3) for the purpose of obtaining or providing legal advice.” United States v. Mejia, 655 F.3d 126, 132 (2d Cir. 2011). The attorney work product doctrine protects documents prepared in anticipation of litigation by a party or its representative. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3); Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 511–12 (1947); PepsiCo, Inc. v. SEC, 563 F. Supp. 828, 830 (S.D.N.Y. 1983) (explaining that work product privileges are part of federal law). The deliberative process privilege protects deliberations regarding agency information, such as recommendations and analysis. The law enforcement privilege protects, among other things, law enforcement techniques and procedures, confidentiality of sources, and otherwise prevents interference with an investigation. The informant’s privilege protects from retaliation members of the public who provide information to the government during an investigation. The public interest privilege applies to confidential communications between or to public officers in the performance of their duties where the public interest requires that those confidential communications or sources should not be revealed. The risk of disclosure is only heightened because the regulations governing House depositions permit only two “personal, nongovernmental” attorneys to accompany Mr. Pomerantz to his deposition and bar “government agency personnel” from the District Attorney’s Office to attend and protect the Office’s privilege. The regulations also empower a partisan decisionmaker—the Committee chairman—to overrule a privilege objection and order a witness to answer a question.

124. Privilege has not been waived by virtue of Mr. Pomerantz’s book. Nor can grand jury secrecy be waived at all. Mr. Pomerantz did not receive written authorization to disclose any communications, records, or documents that relate in any manner to the investigation he participated in as a Special Assistant. He was expressly informed of the need to receive that written authorization prior to the publication of his book and was expressly unauthorized to reveal any privileged or secret information. The District Attorney’s Office did not have the opportunity to review any drafts or excerpts of Mr. Pomerantz’s book prior to publication, despite asking to conduct such a pre-publication review. And Mr. Pomerantz publicly stated before the book was published that he was “confident that all of my actions with respect to the Trump investigation, including the writing of my forthcoming book, are consistent with my legal and ethical obligations.”

125. The demands for documents and testimony that Chairman Jordan has made on District Attorney Bragg and current and former District Attorney’s Office employees or officials also improperly seek privileged and confidential material.

126. Plaintiff will suffer imminent irreparable harm if the secret and privileged material is compelled to be disclosed, including but not limited to irreparable harm to New York’s sovereign dignitary interests.

127. Plaintiff lacks any adequate remedy at law.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff asks this Court to enter judgment in his favor and to provide the following relief:

a. A declaratory judgment that the subpoena served on Mr. Pomerantz is invalid, unconstitutional, ultra vires, and/or unenforceable;

b. A permanent injunction, preliminary injunction, and temporary restraining order enjoining any enforcement of the subpoena served on Mr. Pomerantz and enjoining Mr. Pomerantz’s compliance with the subpoena;

c. In the event Chairman Jordan or the Committee serves subpoenas on the District Attorney himself or any of his current or former employees or officials, a declaratory judgment that those subpoenas are invalid, unconstitutional, ultra vires, and/or unenforceable as well as a permanent and preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of any such subpoena;

d. Plaintiff’s reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys’ fees; and

e. For such other and further relief as this Court determines proper.

Dated: April 11, 2023

GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
/s Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr. _____________
Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr.
333 South Grand Ave.,
Los Angeles, California 90071
Tel: (213) 229-7804
[email protected]

Mylan L. Denerstein
Lee R. Crain
200 Park Avenue
New York, New York 10166
Tel: (212) 351-3850
[email protected]
[email protected]

Katherine Moran Meeks (phv forthcoming)
1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Tel: (202) 955-8258
[email protected]

NEW YORK COUNTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEY’S OFFICE

Leslie B. Dubeck
General Counsel to the New York County
District Attorney
One Hogan Place
New York, New York 10013
Tel: (212) 335-9000
[email protected]

Counsel for Plaintiff Alvin L. Bragg, Jr.

_______________

Notes:

1 Julia Shapero, Trump vows to remove ‘thugs and criminals’ from justice system at rally, amid legal woes, The Hill (Mar. 25, 2023), https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/3 ... criminals- from-justice-system-at-rally-amid-legal-woes/.

2 The Art of Not Being Indicted with Rep. Jim Jordan, The Charlie Kirk Show (Mar. 23, 2023), https://omny.fm/shows/the-charlie-kirk- ... jim-jordan.

3 Annie Grayer et al., Inside the Backchannel Communications Keeping Donald Trump in the Loop on Republican Investigations, CNN (Mar. 28, 2003), https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/28/politics ... ckchannel/ index.html.

4 Luke Broadwater and Jonathan Swan, Republicans Vowed to Grill Bragg About Trump, but It’s Not So Simple, N.Y. Times (Apr. 5, 2023), https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/05/us/p ... gsubpoena- trump.html#:~:text=%E2%80%9CWe%20do%20want%20Mr.%20Bragg,not%20going%20to%20 back%20down.%E2%80%9D.

5 Affirming Congress’ Constitutional Oversight Responsibilities: Subpoena Authority and Recourse for Failure to Comply with Lawfully Issued Subpoenas: Hearing Before H. Comm. On Science, Space, and Technology, 114th Cong. (2016) (statement of Charles Tiefer, Former Acting General Counsel, U.S. House of Representatives).

6 Grayer, supra note 3.

7 Id.

8 Asawin Suebsaeng, Adam Rawnsley, Trump Already Has a Plan to Get Revenge on Alvin Bragg, Rolling Stone (Mar. 23, 2023), https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/p ... vin-bragg- 1234702976/.

9 Annie Karni and Luke Broadwater, House G.O.P., Defending Trump, Targets Bragg Ahead of Expected Indictment, N.Y. Times (Mar. 20, 2023), https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/20/us/p ... canstrump- indictment.html.

10 Id.

11 Maggie Haberman et al., Trump Claims His Arrest Is Imminent and Calls for Protests, Echoing Jan. 6, N.Y. Times (Mar. 18, 2023), https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/18/us/p ... tests.html.

12 Final Report of the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the U.S. Capital, House Rep. 117-000, at Foreword & p. 6 (Dec. 22, 2022), available at https://tinyurl.com/mr364uyt.

13 Id.

14 Previously, Chairman Jordan requested from the U.S. Department of Justice documents relating to the special counsel investigation into President Biden’s handling of classified material. The Department of Justice responded by stating that it would withhold such documents because “[d]isclosures to Congress about active investigations risk jeopardizing those investigations and creating the appearance that Congress may be exerting improper political pressure or attempting to influence Department decisions in certain cases. Judgments about whether and how to pursue a matter are, and must remain, the exclusive responsibility of the Department.” Zachary Cohen, DOJ tells House Judiciary chair it will not hand over most Biden special counsel probe documents until investigation complete, CNN (Jan. 30, 2023), https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/30/politics ... alcounsel- documents/index.html.

15 State of the Union with Jake Tapper & Dana Bash, interview by Jake Tapper of James Comer, CNN (Mar. 26, 2013), https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/202 ... r-full.cnn.

16 Molly Crane-Newman, Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg inundated with racist emails, death threats amid Trump indictment; ‘We are everywhere and we have guns,’ N.Y. Daily News (Mar. 31, 2023), https://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/ ... t-threats- 20230401-vimpdgvbrnfe5bq5d6wdw4g7ty-story.html.

17 Sunday Morning Futures, interview by Maria Bartiromo with Jim Jordan (Fox News, Apr. 2, 2023), https://www.foxnews.com/video/6323835580112.

18 Jim Jordan (@Jim_Jordan), Twitter (Apr. 4, 2023), https://twitter.com/Jim_Jordan/status/1 ... WSgM4tAAAA.

19 Jesse Watters Primetime, interview by Jesse Watters with Jim Jordan and James Comer (Fox News, Apr. 4, 2023), https://www.foxnews.com/video/6323980648112.

20 Shayna Jacobs, Ex-prosecutor’s book could hurt Trump investigation, district attorney worries, The Washington Post (Jan. 18, 2023), https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... manhattan/.

21 Statement of Facts, The People of the State of New York v. Donald J. Trump, IND-714543-23 (Apr. 4, 2023).

22 Id.

23 CNBC Television, Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg holds press conference following Trump’s arraignment, YouTube (Apr. 4, 2023), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2XoDZjOMs8.

24 Id.

25 Kelly Garrity, Trump decries charges against him as an ‘insult to our country,’ Politico (Apr. 4, 2023), https://www.politico.com/news/2023/04/0 ... t-00090499.

26 Tim Dickenson, Asawin Suebsaeng, Adam Rawnsley, Trump’s Lawyers Are Begging Him for Restraint. His Political Allies Are Preparing to ‘Fight Dirty’, Rolling Stone (Apr. 6, 2023), https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/p ... nt-debate- 1234711049/.

27 Id.

28 Id.

29 See Rep. Wesley Hunt Press Office (@RepWPH), Twitter (Apr. 7, 2023), https://twitter.com/RepWPH/status/16443 ... r-79EtAAAA.

30 Steven Nelson, House panel to examine ‘victims’ of Bragg policies as GOP casts doubt on NYC prosecutor who took on Trump, New York Post (Apr. 10, 2023), https://nypost.com/2023/04/10/house-jud ... ee-tohold- nyc-hearing-on-victims-of-da-alvin-braggs-policies/.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 37523
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

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

Postby admin » Sat Apr 15, 2023 2:56 am

Witnesses Asked About Trump’s Handling of Map With Classified Information: The map is just one element of the Justice Department’s inquiry into former President Donald Trump’s possession of sensitive documents and whether he obstructed justice in seeking to hold onto them.
by Maggie Haberman, Adam Goldman and Alan Feuer
New York Times
April 12, 2023

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

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


Federal investigators are asking witnesses whether former President Donald J. Trump showed off to aides and visitors a map he took with him when he left office that contains sensitive intelligence information, four people with knowledge of the matter said.

The map has been just one focus of the broad Justice Department investigation into Mr. Trump’s handling of classified documents after he departed the White House.

The nature of the map and the information it contained is not clear. But investigators have questioned a number of witnesses about it, according to the people with knowledge of the matter, as the special counsel overseeing the Justice Department’s Trump-focused inquiries, Jack Smith, examines the former president’s handling of classified material after leaving office and weighs charges that could include obstruction of justice.

One person briefed on the matter said investigators have asked about Mr. Trump showing the map while aboard a plane. Another said that, based on the questions they were asking, investigators appeared to believe that Mr. Trump showed the map to at least one adviser after leaving office.

A third person with knowledge of the investigation said the map might also have been shown to a journalist writing a book. The Washington Post has previously reported that investigators have asked about Mr. Trump showing classified material, including maps, to political donors.

The question of whether Mr. Trump was displaying sensitive material in his possession after he lost the presidency and left office is crucial as investigators try to reconstruct what Mr. Trump was doing with boxes of documents that went with him to his Florida residence and private club, Mar-a-Lago.

Among the topics investigators have been focused on is precisely when Mr. Trump was at the club last year. In particular, they were interested in whether he remained at Mar-a-Lago to look at boxes of material that were still stored there before Justice Department counterintelligence officials seeking their return came to visit in early June, according to two people familiar with the questions.

Understand the Trump Documents Inquiry

The Justice Department is conducting a criminal investigation into Donald Trump’s handling of classified files after he left office.

Special Counsel: Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed Jack Smith, a longtime prosecutor, to take over the inquiry. Here is what Smith’s role entails.

A Behind-the-Scenes Battle: A legal fight over obtaining evidence from a lawyer who represented Trump in the inquiry has brought into sharper view where the Justice Department might be headed with the case.

Comparison With Biden Case: The discovery of classified documents from President Biden’s time as vice president prompted comparisons to Trump’s hoarding of records. But there are key differences.


Mr. Trump typically leaves Florida for his club in Bedminster, N.J., earlier than he did last year, when he was still at Mar-a-Lago for the visit from the Justice Department officials, on June 3. Investigators have been gathering evidence about whether Mr. Trump had aides bring him boxes to sift through after a grand jury subpoena was issued in May for any government documents Mr. Trump still had in his possession, the people said.

After the June 3 visit, when Justice Department officials were handed a batch of documents with classified markings that had been found at Mar-a-Lago, a lawyer for Mr. Trump signed a certification saying a “diligent search” had been conducted and all government material had been returned. That statement proved untrue two months later when the F.B.I. found hundreds of pages of additional classified documents during a court-authorized search.

Investigators have also asked questions about whether Gen. Mark A. Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was ever mentioned in discussions related to the boxes of material, as well as whether donors to Mr. Trump were ever part of discussions about the material, according to people familiar with the questions.

Christopher M. Kise, a lawyer working with Mr. Trump on some of his cases, faulted the Justice Department for its focus on the former president’s handling of classified material, like documents related to his dealings with the North Korean leader Kim Jong-un. Mr. Kise suggested that the department should be focused on the recent leaks of intelligence under the Biden administration about the war in Ukraine.

“Seems the priorities are misplaced here,” he said. “America’s national security apparatus is spending much time and taxpayer money alleging President Trump had old photos of K.J.U. and some outdated map while real wartime intelligence data is flying out the door. Might be time to focus on what matters.”

The documents investigation being overseen by Mr. Smith, the special counsel, is running in parallel with another he is managing that is focused on Mr. Trump’s efforts to remain in power after his election loss in 2020 and how those efforts led to the Jan. 6, 2021, assault on the Capitol.

As part of the documents investigation, federal prosecutors have been building a potential case that Mr. Trump obstructed justice by seeking to avoid returning all the classified material in his possession after leaving office.

Investigators have compiled extensive witness testimony, texts and emails from a number of key witnesses. They have constructed a timeline of Mr. Trump’s actions and movements and interviewed dozens of people, including close advisers to Mr. Trump as well as staff members at Mar-a-Lago and former administration officials who had knowledge of how he handled documents in different settings.

They have heard from witnesses who described Mr. Trump being urged repeatedly in 2021 by aides and advisers to return material to the National Archives, and then how he handled the grand jury investigation by the Justice Department that began early last year and resulted in a subpoena for any remaining classified material in Mr. Trump’s possession.

Among the witnesses interviewed was a Mar-a-Lago employee who moved boxes with a close aide to Mr. Trump, Walt Nauta, according to people familiar with the events.

It remains less clear whether prosecutors are building a case for other potential charges beyond obstruction. In seeking the search warrant used last summer at Mar-a-Lago, prosecutors cited potential violations of the Espionage Act, which relates to mishandling of national defense information, and the removal or destruction of records, in addition to obstruction.

Prosecutors have now interviewed nearly everyone who could offer insight in connection with the documents, according to one person briefed on the range of witnesses.

Among those interviewed recently is one of the lawyers involved in Mr. Trump’s response to the grand jury subpoena for remaining documents. Prosecutors successfully asked the chief judge who had been presiding over the grand jury until recently, Judge Beryl A. Howell, to allow them to question the lawyer, M. Evan Corcoran.

Judge Howell ruled that Mr. Corcoran had to testify to the grand jury in the case and could not invoke attorney-client privilege on certain topics. Judge Howell cited what is known as a crime-fraud exception to attorney-client privilege.

Her order ruling that Mr. Corcoran must testify was said to be accompanied by an 86-page memorandum of law. She found that the Justice Department had met the threshold for having a credible case that Mr. Trump had obstructed justice, justifying its request to override attorney-client privilege and require Mr. Corcoran’s testimony about his role, according to people familiar with the memorandum’s contents.

Judge Howell wrote not only about Mr. Trump’s actions in relation to the subpoena last year, but also wrote that what she called “misdirection” with the National Archives in 2021 and early last year was “apparently a dress rehearsal” for how he handled the subpoena in May, according to a person briefed on its contents.

“The court certainly appears to have allowed the government to invade the attorney-client privilege based on minimal proof,” Mr. Kise said.

In a recent interview with Newsmax, Mr. Trump complained that Mr. Corcoran was being compelled to testify, saying he had always believed an attorney “can’t be subpoenaed.”

“If they testify truthfully, they’ll see I did nothing wrong,” Mr. Trump said.

This week, top congressional leaders and the senior Democrats and Republicans on the intelligence committees in both chambers of Congress gained access to classified documents recovered from Mr. Trump, as well as a smaller number discovered in recent months to be in the possession of President Biden from years earlier, and some recovered from former Vice President Mike Pence.

Maggie Haberman is a senior political correspondent and the author of “Confidence Man: The Making of Donald Trump and the Breaking of America.” She was part of a team that won a Pulitzer Prize in 2018 for reporting on President Trump’s advisers and their connections to Russia. @maggieNYT

Adam Goldman reports on the F.B.I. and national security from Washington, D.C., and is a two-time Pulitzer Prize winner. He is the coauthor of “Enemies Within: Inside the NYPD's Secret Spying Unit and bin Laden's Final Plot Against America.” @adamgoldmanNYT

Alan Feuer covers extremism and political violence. He joined The Times in 1999. @alanfeuer
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 37523
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

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

Postby admin » Fri Apr 21, 2023 3:06 am

‘Prove Mike Wrong:’ The five million dollar reality check
by Chris Hayes
MSNBC

Mike Lindell's Unfortunate Week Gets Quite a Bit Worse: A Federal Judge Delivered Some Bad News to MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell this week. But the Results of His "Cyber Symposium" Made Matters Worse, by Steve Benen
How a Reno Casino Con Man Duped the CIA And Pulled One of the ‘Most Dangerous Hoaxes’ In American History, by Travis Daub
Infamous ‘Hoax’ Artist Behind Trumpworld’s New Voter Fraud Claim: He tricked the Bush administration into thinking he could detect terrorist signals in al Jazeera broadcasts. Now Dennis Montgomery has a new set of believers, by Will Sommer
Reality an unwelcome guest at 'pillow guy' big reveal event to restore Trump presidencyby Rachel Maddow
’The Man Who Conned The Pentagon’, by NPR, All Things Considered
Was Donald Trump Reinstated as President Today? It’s August 13, and you know what that means: Mike Lindell and his legion of MAGA die-hards are waiting for the former president to take back the White House. There’s still time!, by Jacob Silverman
Watch a defensive Mike Lindell get fact-checked by CNN over his baseless claims that China hacked the election, by Grace Dean
Conspiracy theorist Mike Lindell said to be hiding Colorado clerk who reportedly leaked election data to ‘Q’, MyPillow CEO said Tina Peters was “worried about her safety”, by Graig Graziosi
Cyber expert says his team can’t prove Mike Lindell’s claims that China hacked election, by Joseph Clark
Trump REINSTATED TODAY 8/13 says Mike Lindell. DJT announces Shadow Cabinet!, by John Di Domenico


Mike Lindell was so confident in his “evidence” that China interfered with the 2020 presidential election, he offered five million dollars to anyone who could prove him wrong. Bob Zeidman, a computer forensics expert and Trump voter who took up that challenge and did indeed prove Lindell wrong, joins Chris Hayes. “I didn’t really know up until yesterday whether I was going to win. I knew that I should have won. I knew that I met the challenge – because that was easy – but whether I was going to be awarded the money by the arbitrators was a little up in the air,” Zeidman says of his experience.



Transcript

>> [CHRIS HAYES] IN 2021, MONTHS AFTER JOE
BIDEN HAD BEEN SWORN IN AS
PRESIDENT, MIKE PILLOW, WHO
HAD BEEN SPREADING CONSPIRACY
THEORIES ABOUT THE PRESIDENTIAL
ELECTION BEING STOLEN FROM
DONALD TRUMP, MADE A STRIKING
CLAIM.
HE WAS SO CONFIDENT THAT HE HAD
EVIDENCE SHOWING THAT CHINA
INTERFERED IN THE 2020
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, HE
OFFERED A $5 MILLION DOLLAR
REWARD TO ANYONE WHO COULD
PROVE HIM WRONG.
THE STUNT WAS PART OF A CYBER
SYMPOSIUM HE WAS HOSTING IN
AUGUST OF 2021.
HE NAMED THE CONTEST, "PROVE
MIKE WRONG."

>> [REPORTER] NOW, MIKE, AND IF SOMEONE
COMES FORWARD AND SAYS, "THIS IS
BS, AND I'M GOING TO SHOW YOU
WHY," AND HE'S GOING TO SHOW HOW
WHAT YOU'RE SHOWING IS NOT THE
TRUTH, AND INVALID, AND YOU'RE
GOING TO GIVE HIM THE TIME TO
SPEAK AND SHOW THE EVIDENCE,
THIS PERSON WILL GET $5 MILLION,
RIGHT?

>> [MIKE LINDELL] $5 MILLION AT THAT SYMPOSIUM,
THAT WILL BE LIVESTREAMED ON TV!
THAT'S WHY WE PUT UP THE $5
MILLION, OR I PUT UP THE $5
MILLION MYSELF.

>> [CHRIS HAYES] ALL RIGHT, WELL, SOMEONE
DECIDED TO TAKE MIKE UP ON THAT
CHALLENGE, AND NOW AN
ARBITRATION PANEL HAS AGREED
THAT A MAN NAMED BOB ZEIDMAN
DID, INDEED, PROVE MIKE WRONG.
WASHINGTON POST WRITES, QUOTE,
"THE PANEL SAID ROBERT ZEIDMAN, A
COMPUTER FORENSICS EXPERT AND
63-YEAR-OLD TRUMP VOTER FROM
NEVADA, WAS ENTITLED TO THE $5
MILLION DOLLAR PAYOUT.
ZEIDMAN HAD EXAMINED LINDELL'S DATA AND
CONCLUDED THAT NOT ONLY DID IT NOT PROVE
VOTER FRAUD, IT ALSO HAD NO
CONNECTION TO THE 2020
ELECTION...
LINDELL SAID IN A TEXT TO THE
POST: 'THEY MADE A TERRIBLY
WRONG DECISION!
THIS WILL BE GOING TO COURT!'"
AND BOB ZEIDMAN, THE WINNER OF THAT
CONTEST, JOINS ME NOW.
IT'S GOOD TO HAVE YOU ON THE
PROGRAM, MR. ZEIDMAN.
CONGRATULATIONS ON THE FINDING
IN YOUR FAVOR.
LET'S START WITH JUST HOW YOU FOUND
YOURSELF ENTERING THE CONTEST
TO BEGIN WITH, HOW YOU HEARD
ABOUT IT, AND WHY YOU DID IT.

>> [BOB ZEIDMAN] SURE, SO CHRIS, THANKS FOR
HAVING ME.
YEAH, I ACTUALLY WAS GETTING A
LOT OF PRESSURE FROM FRIENDS,
BECAUSE THIS IS MY FIELD.
I'M A FORENSIC SCIENTIST, AND I
TESTIFY IN COURT.
AND THEY KEPT TELLING ME, "YOU NEED
TO GO."
SOME OF THEM SAID, "YOU MIGHT
WIN $5 MILLION."
AND MY RESPONSE WAS THAT IF
HE'S OFFERING $5 MILLION, HE
HAS GOT THE PROOF, SO I'M NOT
GOING TO WIN IT.
AND ANYWAY, THREE DAYS OF A
CONFERENCE IS NOT ENOUGH TIME TO
EXAMINE ALL THE DATA THAT HE
WAS ALLEGEDLY SHOWING,
OR PRESENTING.
BUT EVENTUALLY, I THOUGHT,
WELL, THIS WILL BE HISTORIC
IN SOME SENSE OR ANOTHER. IT
WILL BE HISTORIC.
MAYBE IT'LL ACTUALLY SHOW THAT
THE ELECTION NEEDS TO BE
OVERTURNED.
BUT WHATEVER IT SHOWS, THERE WILL BE INTERESTING PEOPLE THERE, AND
I WILL GET TO MEET THEM, AND
HANG OUT WITH THEM. SO THAT'S
WHAT INITIALLY GOT ME, GAVE ME
THE INCENTIVE TO GO.

>> [CHRIS HAYES] SO, YOU DO FORENSIC ANALYSIS
FOR A LIVING.
YOU HAD FRIENDS WHO SAID YOU
SHOULD GO.
YOU WENT TO THE SYMPOSIUM.
THERE'S SOME GROUP OF FILES.
LIKE, WHAT ACTUALLY WAS THE
EVIDENCE HERE?

>> [BOB ZEIDMAN] WELL, WHAT WAS PRESENTED WAS
A NUMBER OF FILES, AND WE WERE
LOOKING AT THEM.
AND I CAN TELL YOU, FIRST OF ALL,
WE WERE SELECTED,
EVERYONE WHO CAME WAS A TRUMP
SUPPORTER,
INCLUDING ME.
LOOK, WE CAN GET INTO THAT.
I HAVE PROBLEMS WITH TRUMP, AND I
DON'T PLAN TO VOTE FOR HIM NEXT
TIME, BUT, YOU KNOW, THEY
INVITED A LOT OF CYBER EXPERTS WHO WERE
TRUMP SUPPORTERS, AND
EVERYBODY LOOKED AT THIS AND
SAID, "THIS ISN'T WHAT WE
EXPECTED.
IT'S NOTHING ABOUT THE
ELECTION."
MOST OF US DIDN'T KNOW WHAT IT
WAS.
BUT I STARTED DOING SOME SIMPLE
TRANSFORMATIONS, AND EVERY TIME
I DID THIS TRANSFORMATION, I
GOT SOMETHING THAT I RECOGNIZED.
AND EVENTUALLY, I FOUND THAT
MOST OF THE FILES WERE WORD
DOCUMENTS.
ONE WAS A TABLE OF NUMBERS THAT
WERE BASICALLY MEANINGLESS.
ANOTHER ONE WAS HUNDREDS, OR
THOUSANDS OF PAGES, WHERE IT
LOOKED LIKE SOMEBODY HAD BEEN
RANDOMLY TYPING LETTERS INTO
A DOCUMENT.
BUT THEN THERE
WAS A TRANSFORMATION, SEVERAL
TRANSFORMATIONS DONE,
SO WHEN IT WAS HANDED TO US
IT LOOKED LIKE OH, SOME KIND OF
SOPHISTICATED COMPUTER DATA.
AND SO WITHIN A FEW HOURS, I
SLIPPED OUT OF THE ROOM WHERE
EVERYBODY WAS LOOKING OVER THE
DATA, AND I WENT BACK TO THE HOTEL TO
WRITE UP A REPORT. AND I CALLED
MY WIFE, AND I TALKED TO HER
QUIETLY, AND
I SAID, "START THINKING ABOUT
WHAT YOU WANT TO DO WITH $5
MILLION."

>> [CHRIS HAYES] BECAUSE IT WAS THAT EVIDENT
TO YOU THAT THESE FILES
AMOUNTED TO NOTHING THAT COULD
REMOTELY BEGIN TO SHOW --
AND THESE WERE FROM THE
INTERNAL FILES OF VOTING
MACHINES?
LIKE, WHAT EVEN WAS THE
PUTATIVE NATURE OF THE EVIDENCE?

>> [BOB ZEIDMAN] WELL, IT WASN'T CLEAR.
LINDELL HAD PROMISED P-CAPS,
WHICH ARE CAPTURES OF PACKET DATA ON THE
INTERNET.
NOW THERE'S ALSO JUST A
LOGICAL QUESTION,
HOW COULD SOMEBODY CAPTURE
EVERY PACKET ON THE INTERNET
AND KEEP A FILE.
I MEAN, THERE'S JUST TOO MUCH
DATA.
IN THE TIME WE ARE SPEAKING
THERE'S PROBABLY MORE DATA THAN
YOU COULD FIT ON TO ANY HARD
DRIVE IN EXISTENCE.
BUT LINDELL HAD IT.
HE PURCHASED IT FROM SOMEONE
WHO'S NOT VERY REPUTABLE.
BUT AGAIN, IT TURNS OUT IT WAS
IN NO RECOGNIZABLE FORMAT, AND I
WAS ABLE TO SHOW, GOING FILE
BY FILE, SHOW THAT WHAT THE
DATA ACTUALLY WAS, NONE OF IT
WAS RELATED TO ELECTIONS.

>> [CHRIS HAYES] YEAH, I WANT TO JUST READ
FROM THIS PIECE FROM THE
WASHINGTON POST REPORTING THAT
"THE FILES PROVIDED TO ZEIDMAN" -- YOU --
"AND OTHER EXPERTS WERE
PRIMARILY TEXT OR PDF FILES.
ZEIDMAN TESTIFIED THAT ONE WAS
A FLOW CHART PURPORTING TO SHOW
HOW ELECTIONS GENERALLY WORK.
ANOTHER, WHEN UNENCRYPTED, WAS A LIST OF
INTERNET IP ADDRESSES,
AND OTHERS WERE ENORMOUS FILES
OF WHAT APPEARED TO ZEIDMAN TO
BE RANDOM NUMBERS AND LETTERS."
NOW, YOU WRITE UP THE REPORT,
AND THEN DID YOU THINK YOU WERE
GOING TO, LIKE, HOW DID YOU
THINK THIS WAS GOING TO WORK?
WAS IT LIKE, A NOVELTY CHECK?
WAS IT GOING TO BE A "PRICE IS
RIGHT" KIND OF SITUATION?
OR DO YOU THINK HE WOULD TRY TO
STIFF YOU?
WHAT WAS YOUR EXPECTATION?

>> [BOB ZEIDMAN] WELL, SO I REGISTERED A
COPYRIGHT.
I FILED MY REPORT WITH THE U.S.
COPYRIGHT OFFICE. BECAUSE I
FIGURED, WHETHER IT'S DONE ON
PURPOSE OR ACCIDENTALLY, THE
EVENT WAS FAIRLY DISORGANIZED.
WE DIDN'T HAVE AN AGENDA. MOST
OF THE TIME IT WAS LINDELL
SPEAKING NONSTOP, WHERE HE
WOULD INVITE PEOPLE UP, BUT DIDN'T
GIVE THEM A CHANCE TO SPEAK.
SO I THOUGHT THEY WOULD LOSE
IT, AND THEN I WOULD CHALLENGE
THEM THAT WAY.
BUT INSTEAD, THEY ACTUALLY
KEPT
IT. IT GOT TO THE RIGHT PERSON.
BUT THEY NEVER RESPONDED UNTIL
I FOUND SOME LAWYERS TO TAKE MY
CASE. AND WE WROTE TO LINDELL,
AND THEY SAID, "OH NO, HE FAILED THE
CHALLENGE," AND THEY SENT BACK A
COUPLE OF PAGES OF EXPLANATION
ABOUT WHY I FAILED THE
CHALLENGE.
I DON'T WANT TO GO INTO DETAIL
NOW, BUT IT'S PRETTY LUDICROUS.
AND I'M WRITING A BOOK ABOUT
IT.
BUT IT DIDN'T MAKE ANY SENSE.
SO THEN WE WENT TO ARBITRATION, AS
REQUIRED BY THE AGREEMENT
THAT I SIGNED. AND, YOU KNOW,
THE ARBITRATORS DIDN'T BUY IT.
BUT I WILL TELL YOU, EVEN THROUGH
THE ARBITRATION -- I'VE BEEN
THROUGH THE SYSTEM A LOT.
I THINK THE AMERICAN LEGAL
SYSTEM IS GREAT.
IT'S BETTER THAN ANY OTHER IN
THE WORLD. IT ALLOWS DAVID
TO TAKE ON GOLIATH. BUT IT'S
NOT PERFECT.
AND I KNEW THAT THERE WAS A
CHANCE THAT SOMEBODY COULD SAY,
THEY DON'T LIKE ME, OR THERE WAS
A LAW THAT SOMEBODY FINDS THAT I
DIDN'T ADHERE TO THIS LAW. AND IN
ARBITRATION IT'S A
LITTLE BIT ARBITRARY, SO THEY
CAN EVEN SAY THINGS OR MAKE
JUDGMENTS THAT DON'T CONFORM TO
THE LAW.
SO I REALLY DIDN'T KNOW, UP
UNTIL YESTERDAY, WHETHER I WAS
GOING TO WIN.
I KNEW THAT I SHOULD'VE WON. I
KNEW THAT I'D MET THE CHALLENGE,
BECAUSE THAT WAS EASY.
BUT, YOU KNOW, WHETHER I WAS
GOING TO BE AWARDED THE MONEY BY
THE ARBITRATORS WAS A LITTLE UP
IN THE AIR.

>> [CHRIS HAYES] WELL, YOU WERE.
IT LOOKS LIKE IT MIGHT BE THE
FIRST CHAPTER IN A LONG BOOK,
ONE WHICH YOU WILL BE WRITING. THANK YOU. THIS IS REALLY A WILD STORY. AND THANK YOU FOR SHARING WITH US TONIGHT, BOB.

[BOB ZEIDMAN] THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME.

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

Mike Lindell’s firm told to pay $5 million in ‘Prove Mike Wrong’ election-fraud challenge
by Chris Dehghanpoor, Emma Brown and Jon Swaine
The Washington Post
Updated April 20, 2023 at 11:11 a.m. EDT|Published April 20, 2023 at 9:53 a.m. EDT

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

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


MyPillow founder and prominent election denier Mike Lindell made a bold offer ahead of a “cyber symposium” he held in August 2021 in South Dakota: He claimed he had data showing Chinese interference and said he would pay $5 million to anyone who could prove the material was not from the previous year’s U.S. election.

He called the challenge “Prove Mike Wrong.”

On Wednesday, a private arbitration panel ruled that someone did.

The panel said Robert Zeidman, a computer forensics expert and 63-year-old Trump voter from Nevada, was entitled to the $5 million payout.

Zeidman had examined Lindell’s data and concluded that not only did it not prove voter fraud, it also had no connection to the 2020 election. He was the only expert who submitted a claim, arbitration records show.

He turned to the arbitrators after Lindell Management, which created the contest, refused to pay him.

In their 23-page decision, the arbitrators said Zeidman proved that Lindell’s material “unequivocally did not reflect November 2020 election data.” They directed Lindell’s firm to pay Zeidman within 30 days.

In a statement to The Washington Post, Zeidman said he was “really happy” with the arbitrators’ decision. “They clearly saw this as I did — that the data we were given at the symposium was not at all what Mr. Lindell said it was,” he said. “The truth is finally out there.”

Zeidman’s attorney, Brian Glasser, said the panel’s decision stands as a warning to others who have made wild allegations about election fraud. “I think the arbitrators thought it important that these claims be vetted, because they’ve done great harm to our country,” he said.

Image
Computer forensics entrepreneur Robert Zeidman. (Courtesy of Robert Zeidman)

Lindell said in a text to The Post: “They made a terribly wrong decision! This will be going to court!” His attorneys did not reply to a request seeking comment.

A copy of contest rules submitted in the arbitration said disputes would be “resolved exclusively by final and binding arbitration” and noted that arbitration “is subject to very limited review by courts.”

Glasser said the panel’s decision cannot be directly appealed but that Lindell could ask a federal court to quash it on the basis that it represented a “manifest injustice.” The statutory grounds for such a claim are narrow, and it is “extremely rare” for such a claim to succeed, according to Glasser.

Lindell also faces a $1.3 billion defamation suit from Dominion Voting Systems and a defamation lawsuit from one of Dominion’s former executives.

In the months after Trump’s 2020 election loss, Lindell spent millions of dollars to finance lawsuits, support right-wing activists nationwide and launch a streaming television station dedicated to amplifying election-fraud falsehoods.

During frequent media appearances, he had advertised his three-day symposium as the event where he would finally provide data proving his claims. And he issued his high-stakes challenge.

“There’s a $5 million prize for anybody that can prove the election data that I have from the 2020 election was false, is not from the 2020 election,” Lindell said on the conservative show “The Glazov Gang,” which streams online.

The data he planned to reveal, he said, were “packet captures” that would demonstrate Chinese government interference. Packet captures, or “pcaps,” are a specific file format that is an industry standard for archiving internet traffic.

“They were captured in real time and preserved. They cannot be altered. … They’re 100 percent evidence,” Lindell said on the show. “So it will show an intrusion. This was an attack from China.”


The symposium, he later told arbitrators, was meant to “do three things: to make the media show up, cyber guys show up, and politicians to open their eyes and say, ‘Hey, we got to check into this.’”

Lindell’s claims that he had packet captures intrigued Zeidman, who has served as an expert for tech firms in intellectual property lawsuits. Describing himself as a “reasonable” and “moderate conservative” who voted twice for Donald Trump, Zeidman told the arbitration panel he was skeptical of Lindell’s claims. But he said he also did not believe Lindell would promote unvetted data, so he thought the conference could offer a “great chance to see history in the making, perhaps an election overturned.”

At the event, Zeidman received the contest rules. There was no mention of disproving Chinese interference, according to contest forms submitted in the arbitration case. Rather, winners would have to prove that the data provided “does NOT reflect information related to the November 2020 election.”

Image
(Obtained by The Washington Post)

Prove Mike Wrong Challenge Official Rules

1. Overview. Lindell Management, LLC. ("Lindell") has created a contest where participants will participate in a challenge to prove that the data Lindell provides, and represents reflects information from the November 2020 election, unequivocally does NOT reflect information related to the November 2020 election (the "Challenge"). In case more than one person is found to have met the ...

6. Winners. The winners will be determined on August 12, 2021 by 9:00 pm CDT. The three-member panel selected by Lindell will identify the winners based on their professional opinion that the submission proves to a 100% degree of certainty that the data shown at the Symposium is not reflective of November 2020 election data. If more than one winner is selected, the $5 million prize will ...


At the symposium, participants interested in the contest were given a badge with a hot-pink dot to indicate they were cyber experts and could enter a room where Lindell’s data was shared.

The files provided to Zeidman and other experts were primarily text or PDF files. Zeidman testified that one was a flow chart purporting to show how elections generally work. Another, when unencrypted, was a list of internet IP addresses, and others were enormous files of what appeared to Zeidman to be random numbers and letters.

The packet captures that Lindell had promised were nowhere to be found, according to Zeidman.

Zeidman laid out his findings in a 15-page report. “I have proven that the data Lindell provides … unequivocally does not contain packet data of any kind and do not contain any information related to the November 2020 election,” he wrote.


Six weeks after the symposium, Zeidman sent a letter to Lindell Management to claim the prize. He got back a denial, and the following month he filed for arbitration, a type of proceeding that allows parties to resolve disputes outside the court system.

The private arbitration proceedings in Lindell’s home state of Minnesota included written briefs, depositions and a three-day hearing in January with sworn testimony from Zeidman, Lindell, subject-matter experts and witnesses. The Post obtained records from the proceeding.

Asked why he had decided to go to the trouble of seeking a hearing, Zeidman testified that he wanted the money and wanted to push back against stolen-election claims. “Mr. Lindell has a lot of followers,” Zeidman said. “He’s making a lot of statements to people that I know, people that are good friends of mine, people that are influential. And they are claiming that he has the data that shows that this election was stolen.”

Zeidman’s lawyers wrote to the panel that the data presented at the symposium contained “no recognizable data in any known data format.”


Lindell testified at arbitration that he did not share what he had described as his key data to support the foreign intrusion claim during the conference. He held off, he said, after a man seeking a selfie poked him in the side as the symposium was nearing an end — an act that Lindell called an assault and said he took as a signal the government might tamper with his central information if he made it public.

Lindell told the panel that, after the incident, his “red team” advisers warned him against making that information public. “They said it could be a poison pill put in the data and we really shouldn’t release the China stuff,” he said.

The arbitrators did not address the substance of Lindell’s claims about vote tampering, noting that they were “not asked to decide whether China interfered in the 2020 election.”
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 37523
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

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

Postby admin » Sun Apr 23, 2023 2:31 am

Blame Rupert Murdoch and Fox for Iraq, Trump, and The Big Lie
by Mehdi Hasan
MSNBC
Apr 20, 2023 #RupertMurdoch #FOXNews #TheBigLie

"Three of the most destructive events of my lifetime -- the Iraq war, the Brexit vote, and the rise of Trump and his Big Lie simply could not have happened without Rupert Murdoch." In this week's deep dive, Mehdi examines the influence that Rupert Murdoch and his media empire have had on decades of global events.



Transcript

[Mehdi Hasan] Back in 2005, or was it 2006, I was a young TV news producer working at Sky News in London, then part of the Rupert Murdoch media Empire. And one day, Rupert Murdoch himself, turns up in the Newsroom in West London for a visit. We're sitting at our desks, frozen in fear, as the big boss, the media Mogul himself, wanders the Newsroom floor, looking over our shoulders, as we work at our computers. Imagine my surprise, nearly two decades later, to see this scene in the critically acclaimed HBO drama, and my favorite TV show, Succession.

[Man 1] Hey hey hey hey hey, so, uh, so Logan said --

[Tom Wambsgans] Logan's in? Where? Upstairs? In a sales meeting?

[Man 1] He's on the floor, Tom.

[Tom Wambsgans] On the floor?

[Man 3] Wait. Explain exactly what he's doing with his body and his face?

[Man 1] I don't know. Just moseying, terrifyingly moseying. He's wearing sunglasses inside. It looks like if Santa Claus was a hitman.

[Mehdi Hasan] Yes, Logan Roy, the cynical ruthless media billionaire -- and spoiler alert -- until very recently, until his shocking on-screen death, the lead character on Succession, who bears a, shall we say, passing resemblance to the very real life, and very alive, cynical, ruthless media billionaire Rupert Murdoch.

Now the writers of Succession like to say the Roys are not based on the Murdochs, or only on the Murdochs. But it's hard not to see the similarities between Logan and family, and Rupert and family: an immigrant who comes to America, and builds a media empire. Check. In charge of a right-wing, scandal-plagued cable channel. Check. Bent on picking Presidents, and dominating politics. Check. Three super ambitious squabbling kids from a second marriage, all trying to succeed him. I mean, here's Logan Roy addressing the staff of his news organization, ATN, in a recent episode, standing on boxes of paper to do so. And here's Rupert Murdoch addressing the staff of one of his news organizations, The Wall Street Journal, back in 2007.

Or just compare and contrast, as many have, Murdoch testifying in front of a British parliamentary Committee in 2011 over a scandal involving his media empire, and Logan Roy and his son testifying in front of Congress over a scandal involving his fictitious media empire.

[Rupert Murdoch] This is the most humble day of my life.

[Logan Roy] When I read of the abuses of power alleged in my cruise division, well, that was the worst day of my life."

[Congressman] So none of your UK staff drew your attention to this serious wrongdoing, even though the case received widespread media attention?

[Rupert Murdoch] I think my son can perhaps answer that in more detail. He was a lot closer to it.

[Congressman] Mr. Logan Roy, what did you personally know about the operation of a system of obfuscation of wrongdoing in your cruise division by means of the keeping of shadow logs?

[Logan Roy] At that point I believe my son was across that operation.

[Mehdi Hasan] With Murdoch, as with Logan Roy, it's all about the ego, the power, the influence.

[Australian Broadcasting Corporation] You like the feeling of power you have as a newspaper proprietor, of being able to, sort of, formulate policies for a large number of newspapers in every state of Australia?

[Rupert Murdoch] Well, [inaudible] yes.

[Logan Roy] I'm 100 feet tall. These people are pygmies.

[Mehdi Hasan] It's the power of Rupert Murdoch, and the sheer power of Murdoch, to do damage to our politics, our media, our world which is what I want to discuss and examine today. Because as we've just seen this week, Rupert Murdoch narrowly escaped testifying publicly in the case brought against Fox by Dominion voting systems. In a major anti-climax, Dominion agreed to settle with Fox just moments before opening arguments were set to begin in court on Tuesday, leaving Fox with a $787.5 million dollar hole in their pocket -- a seemingly huge number -- but in the context of the $14 billion dollars in Revenue that they got last year, it's just 5.%.

And Fox, the quote unquote "news channel," is of course, just a sliver of the massive media Empire beneath Rupert Murdoch, an Empire with a footprint on three continents: hundreds of print TV and publishing outlets, and billions of dollars in profits, that all started when Rupert's father, Keith Murdoch, an Australian journalist and newspaper publisher, left him his company, "News Limited," after his death.

Taking over the business in his early 20s, the younger Murdoch spent the next decade buying up small papers across Australia before making the leap into the British and American markets. Today he's the man behind names like the Wall Street Journal, and the New York Post in the U.S.; The Times and the Sun in the UK; The Herald Sun and the Daily Telegraph in Australia; International publishing giant Harper-Collins; and of course Fox.

The list goes on and on. It's staggering to see just how much influence Murdoch has in the U.S., let alone on a global scale. And if Succession has taught us anything, it's that rich and powerful people will put that influence to use. And Murdoch, for one, doesn't hide this. He's been meeting with, and lobbying presidents for decades, going as far back as JFK, who he met in the Oval Office in 1961; and Ronald Reagan, who invited him to dinner -- a dinner so enthralling, The Washington Post reports, that the President himself fell asleep.

And then there was Donald Trump, not really known as a hugger, who seemed to make an exception for Rupert Murdoch. But it wasn't just hugs and golf outings -- Trump is the one chauffeuring Murdoch around the golf course in this video -- but also frequent Oval Office phone calls, as the New Yorker reported in 2019.

And it's not just U.S. presidents he's met with. He's met with prime ministers around the world, too, like Margaret Thatcher in the UK, and John Howard in Australia. Murdoch's influence on politics is hard to overstate. But don't just take it from me. Take it from former Australian prime minister, Kevin Rudd, on this very show.

[Kevin Rudd] In the last 21 federal and state elections, over the last decade in Australia, in each and every one of them, Murdoch has acted as a relentless campaigning beast for the conservative side of politics, and increasingly drifting the agenda on the right to the far right. These two things together: monopoly, plus an overwhelming ideological bias to the far right, frankly is a big challenge, and a threat to the vibrancy of our own democracy.

[Mehdi Hasan] The fact of the matter here is that Murdoch doesn't just have the power to settle lawsuits. He has the power to move world events, almost always, in my view, in a negative and harmful way. I mean, as we'll demonstrate today, three of the most destructive events of my lifetime: Iraq war; the Brexit vote; and the rise of Trump and his Big Lie, simply could not have happened without Rupert Murdoch.

Let's go back 20 years. The US invasion of Iraq began with a campaign of bombings known as Shock and Awe, and as U.S. and Coalition troops prepared to enter harm's way on March the 20th, 2003, some of the people responsible for the war were watching from a safe distance, thousands of miles away. As David Kirkpatrick reported in the New York Times, "He watched the explosions over Baghdad on a panel of seven television screens mounted in the wall ... telling friends and colleagues over the phone of his satisfaction that after weeks of a hand-wringing the battle had finally begun."

"The battle had finally begun." Now you could be forgiven for thinking this was an account from the White House Situation Room where George Bush, and Dick Cheney, and Don Rumsfeld, spent plenty of time in those early days of the Iraq War. But according to the Times, the scene, with those seven monitors, was actually at Fox headquarters in LA. And the guy sharing his satisfaction with friends and colleagues was Rupert Murdoch.

You can understand why he was satisfied. He had used all his power and influence to make it happen. The New York Times even called it "Mr. Murdoch's War." For months his vast media organization agitated for Invasion. The Guardian newspaper examined 175 Murdoch owned papers in the run-up to war. Coincidentally -- completely coincidentally -- all of them supported the invasion. There was one hold out in Tasmania, but It ultimately fell into line with its corporate cousins, too. But sure, there was no pressure from the top there!

"I think that all our papers are certainly supportive of the Armed Forces," Murdoch told the New York Times in the spring of 2003. "But that is not me calling the editors." No! Just coincidence!

"How lucky can Murdoch get!" the Guardian observed. "He hires 175 editors and, by remarkable coincidence, they all seem to love the nation which their boss has chosen as his own."

But there was no pretense of separation between Murdoch and his cable channel, Fox. "When Mr. Murdoch is in New York during major news events, as he was during the first full week of the war, he attends the 8 A.M. meetings of the producers of Fox News, sometimes two or three times a week, a Fox executive told the Times."

And this is what Murdoch's Network looked like back then.

[Fox News] Coalition forces are cutting to Iraqi defenses quickly.

[Fox News] Today they are tasting freedom.

[Fox News] Well it may be too early to say, "we told you so," but if the tests are accurate, the U.S. may have just found its smoking gun.

[Fox News] Our president, the man they call their liberator.

[Sean Hannity] By golly, he has done a pretty great job here.

[Fox News] OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM

[Mehdi Hasan] Yes, they really had theme music, and an animation where a fighter jet turns into a bald eagle. There was also the American flag constantly waving on the screen, there were the repeated descriptions of American forces as liberators, and the constant fear-mongering about fictitious WMDs. There were attacks on other reporters who dared to report on setbacks in the war effort.

But it wasn't just Murdoch's media Empire that was turned towards the push for war. Sometimes it takes a personal touch. In the final days before the invasion, British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, had still not publicly committed to taking part in the invasion -- at least, not on the timeline that the U.S. wanted. On the night of March the 11th, 2003, according to the diary of a top Blair aid, he got a call from Rupert Murdoch. As the Independent Newspaper notes, "A later inquiry says that Downing Street has no record of this call, implying that the Tycoon did not need to go through the Downing Street switchboard. According to the diary, kept by Blair spin doctor, Alistair Campbell, Murdoch was pressing on timing, saying how News International would support us, etc. "Both Tony Blair and I felt it was prompted by Washington, and another example of their over-crude diplomacy."

Murdoch later called it rubbish to suggest he was lobbying for war on behalf of U.S. Republicans. But still this account suggests that Murdoch had a direct line to the British prime minister -- no need to go through the switchboard.

But you don't even have to take the word of Tony Blair's aid. Because Murdoch was also making the case for war himself, in public. "We can't back down now, where you hand over the whole of the Middle East to Saddam. I think Bush is acting very morally, very correctly," he said ahead of the invasion.

And he continued to defend the war, even as casualties mounted, and WMDs were nowhere to be found. In the fall of 2006, he told reporters, "The death toll, certainly of Americans there, by the terms of any previous war, are quite minute." Maybe not surprising that Murdoch's longtime rival, CNN founder Ted Turner, talking about Iraq, once called Murdoch a "warmonger."

But why was Rupert Murdoch so big on the Iraq war effort to begin with? Was it his love for democracy in the Middle East, his Devotion to the neo-conservative political project, or was it just good for business?

Fox's Prime Time ratings were up 45% the year of the invasion: the unseated cable news longtime rival CNN. That translated into revenue which more than doubled during peak war coverage.

There was real money to be made from the illegal Invasion, for everyone. Murdoch told an Australian magazine in 2003, "The greatest thing to come out of this for the world economy, if you could put it that way, would be $20 dollars a barrel for oil. That's bigger than any tax cut in any country."

Yeah, cheaper oil! Talk about quiet part out loud.

Whatever his motivations, Rupert Murdoch helped make that war happen. As even the right-wing editor of the Daily Mail once said, "I'm not sure that the Blair government, or Tony Blair, would have been able to take the British people to war if it hadn't been for the implacable support provided by the Murdoch papers. There's no doubt that came from Mr. Murdoch himself."

But you don't have to take a Murdoch rival's word for it. You could listen to Murdoch.

[Davos, Switzerland, WEF] Have you shaped that agenda at all, in terms of perceptions of the war, in terms of how the war is viewed?

[Rupert Murdoch] No, I don't think so. I mean, we've tried. [Laughter]

[Davos, Switzerland, WEF] "Tried" in what way?

[Rupert Murdoch] Well, we basically supported -- our papers and television, I would say supported the Bush policy in the Middle East.

[Mehdi Hasan] I've said it before on this show, the original Big Lie was the WMD lie. And almost two decades before Murdoch's Fox was pushing Trump's big election lie -- which I'll get to in a moment -- it was pushing George Bush's big Iraq lie about weapons of mass destruction. And as with the election lie, their viewers, back then, believed it!

A 2003 survey found that 80% of regular Fox viewers believe something demonstrably false about the WMD-based war effort. And the facts never actually did catch up with them. Even in 2015, 12 years after the invasion, a survey found that more than half of Fox viewers thought the WMDs were discovered in Iraq! They weren't! But that's the sheer power of Murdoch's propaganda.

So let's turn now to Brexit, the UK's decision to leave the European Union. Since that pivotal vote in 2016, the UK has seen no less than four prime ministers resign, and utter havoc unleashed on the British economy, and the undermining of the European Union at a time when domestic far-right populists are on the rise, and Vladimir Putin's expansionist Russia is at the doorstep.

And yet Brexit almost didn't happen. The "leave" side, the pro-Brexit side, won the 2016 referendum by less than four percentage points, with 51.9% of citizens voting to leave, and 48.1% voting to remain.

So how is it that the British public could make such a self-sabotaging decision by such a narrow margin? As we saw with the Iraq War, Murdoch played a crucial role, beginning with that personal touch. Again, don't just take it from me, take it from a former conservative prime minister of the UK in the 1990s, John Major. Here he is recounting, years later, a conversation with Murdoch that he had at a dinner during his 1997 election campaign.

[John Major] Mr. Murdoch said that he really didn't like our European policies. If we couldn't change our European policies, his papers could not, and would not, support the conservative government. My feeling -- and he did not say this -- my feeling was that what he was edging towards was a referendum on leaving the European Union.

[Mehdi Hasan] Of Murdoch's four British papers at the time, only one ended up supporting John Major in 1997.

Fast forward to 2016, and Murdoch wasn't just "edging" towards Brexit, he was bolting for it, bolting with the help of his hard right tabloid the Sun newspaper, the most widely read print newspaper in all of the UK. And the Sun did far more than throw out some cheeky pro-Brexit headlines. Their parent company, News Group Newspapers, actually registered themselves with the UK's electoral commission as an official "Leave EU" campaign Group, after spending more than 96,000 pounds on the Sun's "Believe in Britain" posters. That's right. Murdoch's news organization doubled down as a pro-Brexit lobbying group, as one does when they are pursuing the most basic standards of "journalistic integrity."

It didn't stop there. There were also the false claims. The Sun published a story about migrants from Europe found in the back of a truck, a supposed instance of Europeans flooding the UK under the EU's "Freedom of Movement" laws, except the Sun had to issue a correction after social media users pointed out that those migrants weren't from Europe, they were from Iraq and Kuwait. The Sun ran this headline claiming "Queen Backs Brexit," a claim disputed by the Queen. And an independent press watchdog later condemned the headline as "significantly misleading."

Now, you could say that the Sun is just a newspaper, a tabloid, a couple of sheets of paper with words stamped onto them. How much impact could it really have on public opinion? Well, let me take you to the city of Liverpool. You see, by chance, a lot of the people in Liverpool don't read the Sun. That's because the paper wrongly blamed local football fans, soccer fans, for an incident at a match in 1989. So many residents since have basically boycotted the Sun because of that awful coverage of the Hillsborough tragedy.

So, in Liverpool, researchers found that residents were 10% less Eurosceptic than the rest of the UK. It also found that Liverpool residents' views of the EU improved significantly as a result of the newspaper, the Sun, boycott.

Of course, correlation does not mean causation. The Sun was not the only tabloid to be overwhelmingly pro-Brexit at the time. But it's impossible to deny that the Sun has had a clear impact on British opinion.

Now, question: why did Murdoch care so much about Brexit, getting Brexit done, to begin with? Perhaps he was bothered by the alleged lack of democracy in the EU, or the supposed attack on UK National sovereignty -- though he's not even a British citizen. Well, Evening Standard reporter, Anthony Hilton, says he once asked Murdoch why he was so anti-Europe? And he says Murdoch replied, "When I go into Downing Street they do what I say; when I go to Brussels they take no notice."

Wow!

Now, Murdoch denies ever having said that, but we do know that he's long been critical of EU regulations -- in fact, most regulations. And we do know that Brexit made him, and his media empire, stronger, while making his opponents, his critics, weaker. Just another coincidence!

But if you think Murdoch's role in Iraq, or Brexit, was bad, now it's time to talk Trump, Trumpism, and the Big Lie. Rupert Murdoch was deeply involved in the biggest political event of our lifetimes: the rise of Donald J Trump. All roads lead back to him, and to Fox. Again.

Now I know what you're thinking: Maybe the Fox News quote unquote "stood up" to Trump back in 2016. Former Fox star, Megyn Kelly, was famously clashing with the Donald back then. And Rupert Murdoch went so far as to refer to Trump as "an idiot." But these are Minor Details, because the fact is Fox, for many years, in advance of 2016, laid the groundwork for Trump's presidential victory. Fox built a conservative audience enraged and agitated by "birther" conspiracies, and anti-immigrant sentiment. They primed millions of viewers to care about ridiculous non-issues that Donald Trump would successfully exploit during his first primary campaign, and then general election campaign.

Not to mention the fact that starting in 2011, Fox literally gave then-private-citizen, then-businessman Donald Trump, free air time every week with his own recurring segment, "Mondays with Trump."

[Fox Mondays With Trump] Bold, brash, and never bashful. The Donald now makes his voice loud and clear every Monday on Fox.

[Donald Trump] My message is a better message than anybody else.

[Fox Mondays With Trump] Monday Mornings With Trump, on Fox and Friends.

[Fox News Reporter] If you were in charge of this super committee, what would happen?

[Donald Trump] Well, first of all, there would have been no "Super Committee." This should have been a deal made between the President -- if he was a proper leader, which he's not.

[Fox News Reporter to young boy] Do you know who this guy is, right here?

[Boy] Donald Trump?

[Fox News Reporter to young boy] Yeah, that's right. [Laughter]

[Donald Trump] I called Steve. And I said, you know, I just saw the nicest guy on television, and his bike was stolen -- and you knew about the report -- and I said, "Let's get him a new bike, get him a beauty."

[Mehdi Hasan] Fox contributed to the myth of Donald Trump way before he became candidate Trump. And after he took the Republican nomination, they basically became his propaganda arm. And once he took the White House, they morphed into State TV.

[Lou Dobbs, Fox News] America has always been a country that seems to get lucky. And we are lucky to have Donald Trump step up for the most important job in this country.

[Judge Jeanine Pirro] The whole idea to say that women who support Trump are numbor dead inside! How dare you trash the women in this country!

[Fox News] A majority of veterans and service members, giving high marks to President Trump.

[Fox News] The most extraordinary, wonderful thing today, was nominating President Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize.

[Sean Hannity] Joe Biden just got steamrolled by President Trump.

[Mehdi Hasan] Then comes 2020, when Trump lost his re-election bid, and Fox and Murdoch had a moment of opportunity to break with Trump, the man Murdoch once called "an idiot." They had the chance to say, "You lost. We're done with you, now let's move on." And yet, even while bashing Trump in private, Fox hosts and guests still pushed the Big Lie on their shows, which is why Fox was in court this week with Dominion voting systems.

And not just Fox hosts. Rupert Murdoch himself, in private, was calling out Trump lies. In an email to Fox CEO Suzanne Scott, revealed in the Dominion filings, Murdoch suggested Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity, and Laura Ingraham, together, say something like, "the election is over, and Joe Biden won." Going so far as to call Trump's election narrative "a myth."

After January the 6th, Murdoch wrote in this email, to Suzanne Scott, "Trump insisting on the election being stolen, and convincing 25% of Americans, was a huge disservice to the country. Pretty much a crime. Inevitable it blew up on January 6th."

But when asked in his Dominion deposition whether he could have told a host -- his own hosts -- "stop putting Giuliani, Rudy Giuliani, on the air," he answered, quote, "I could have, but I didn't."

So if Murdoch thought his hosts were going too far with their support for the Big Lie, if he had the power to stop them, why did Murdoch's Network continue to push pro-Trump, Pro Big-Lie content to its audience? Not because Murdoch respects Trump. Not because Murdoch believed in the Big Lie. He didn't. But he does believe in ratings.

"A big message with Trump people" -- that's the reason he gave when demanding the firing of the Fox journalists who had accurately -- accurately -- called the key State of Arizona for Joe Biden on Election night. Murdoch emailed Scott, Suzanne Scott, to voice concern about losing viewers to far-right cable channel Newsmax. And the Fox chairman also admitted to former house Speaker Paul Ryan, a Fox Board member, that his star primetime host, Sean Hannity, had been privately disgusted by Trump for weeks, but was scared to lose viewers.

Once again, the number one priority for Rupert Murdoch, and his media empire, was not telling the truth about Trump, or the election -- it was their bottom line. And don't just take my word for it. Take his! In his Dominion deposition, Murdoch told lawyers, "Nobody wants Trump as an enemy," because, as Murdoch said, "if Trump says don't watch Fox News, maybe some don't." Yeah "Profile-In-Courage" there, Rupert!

Look. On TV Succession, Logan Roy may now be dead, but in the real world, Rupert Murdoch is very much alive, having beaten COVID in his 90s, beaten a broken back in his 80s, and even beaten cancer in his 60s, after which he famously declared, "I'm now convinced of my own immortality."

This week Murdoch beat Dominion. He did. Don't think paying $787 million is a defeat for Murdoch. No, he dodged accountability. Again. He dodged having to take the witness box, and testify under oath. Again.

As media critic Jack Shafer writes in a piece this week for Politico, headlined, "Rupert Wins Again," quote, "ever since Rupert Murdoch busted out of Adelaide, Australia, ever since he conquered the newspaper market in England, ever since he came to dominate cable news with Fox, he's paid his way out of jams. It's all a part of Murdoch's way of doing business."


Shafer calls Murdoch "indestructible." Which is both true, and ironic. Because he may be indestructible, but he's helped cause so much destruction. From the killing fields of Iraq, to the chaos of Brexit Britain, to the Big Lie and the insurrection here in the United States. All in the service not of principle, or even ideology. But for the sake of power and money.

Once again, you don't have to take my word for it. When asked in his Dominion deposition why Fox continued to give a platform to the pillow guy and conspiracy theorist, Mike Lindell, even after January the 6th, Rupert Murdock agreed with the Dominion lawyers that his approach is not red or blue, it's green.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 37523
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

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

Postby admin » Tue Apr 25, 2023 2:27 am

Letter from Fani T. Willis to Patrick Labat, Sheriff of Fulton County Re the need for heightened security and preparedness in coming months due to this pending announcement.
by Fani T. Willis, District Attorney
April 24, 2023

OFFICE OF THE FULTON COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY
ATLANTA JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
136 PRYOR STREET SW, 3RD FLOOR
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303
TELEPHONE 404-612-4980

April 24, 2023

Fani T. Willis
District Attorney

Via Hand Delivery

Hon. Patrick Labat
Sheriff of Fulton County
185 Central Avenue, S.W.
Atlanta, GA 30303

Via Hand Delivery

Dear Sheriff Labat:

My staff and I greatly appreciate the efforts you have made to increase security at the Fulton County Courthouse. While these efforts have addressed security needs related to several high-profile trials and investigations, as we have discussed, the need for vigilance will increase.

In the near future, I will announce charging decisions resulting from the investigation my office has been conducting into possible criminal interference in the administration of Georgia’s 2020 General Election. I am providing this letter to bring to your attention the need for heightened security and preparedness in coming months due to this pending announcement.

Open-source intelligence has indicated the announcement of decisions in this case may provoke a significant public reaction. We have seen in recent years that some may go outside of public expressions of opinion that are protected by the First Amendment to engage in acts of violence that will endanger the safety our community. As leaders, it is incumbent upon us to prepare.

I will be announcing charging decisions resulting from this investigation during Fulton County Superior Court’s fourth term of court, which will begin on July 11, 2023, and conclude on September 1, 2023. Please accept this correspondence as notice to allow you sufficient time to prepare the Sheriff's Office and coordinate with local, state and federal agencies to ensure that our law enforcement community is ready to protect the public.


As your strategic planning process begins, collaboration with my investigative leadership team is vital. My team will be in touch in coming days to set up appropriate conversations.

My staff and I are grateful for the work of the Sheriff's Office in ensuring the safety of the public during this time. Thank you for your efforts, and we look forward to working with you.

Yours in Service,

Fani T. Willis
Fulton County District Attorney
Atlanta Judicial Circuit

cc: Hon. Robb Pitts
Hon. Khadijah Abdur-Rahman
Hon. Marvin S. Arrington Jr.
Hon. Dana Barrett
Hon. Bob Ellis
Hon. Natalie Hall
Hon. Bridget Thorne
Hon. Robert McBurney
Mr. Dick Anderson
Mr. Alton Adams
Ms. Che Alexander
Ms. Harriett Thomas
Mr. Fred Hoffman
Ms. Dorsha Simmons
Ms. Anita Harris
Mr. Preston Thompson
Ms. Pamela Lyons-Johnson
Mr. Edward Leidelmeijer
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 37523
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

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

Postby admin » Fri Apr 28, 2023 2:06 am

Hear Arnold Schwarzenegger's prediction about Trump
by CNN
Apr 27, 2023

In an exclusive interview with CNN's Dana Bash, former California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger calls out hate speech, confronts rising antisemitism and talks about his predictions for Trump in 2024. #CN



Transcript

>>> Tonight, a special treat.
Former California governor and action star Arnold schwarzenegger sat down with Dana bash
to talk about how he's combatted rising antisemitism and hate crimes in America.
Dana, I'm envious.
What a privilege you've had.
I've been in his company before.
He is really interesting.
>> No question about it.
And especially on this topic.
He invited me here to los Angeles to usc.
He has schwarzenegger institute set up there to focus on public policy.
And broadly, about bringing people together.
His focus lately has been about combatting hate.
He called this forum a terminating hate.
I'm sure you get that.
And the whole idea was to bring people together like a former skin head, which he did, and
a rabbi was there, to have a conversation across lines, among people that don't normally
have
[9:36:37 PM]
people that don't normally have these conversations, and his personal connection to this was fascinating.
>> You have worn so many hats in your lifetime.
A body builder, movie star, governor of California.
You're using this chapter of your life to speak out against hate.
Against antisemitism in particular.
Why?
>> Well, it's not this particular -- it's like anything that I see that really bothers
me, I get involved with it.
If it is the fight against fossil fuels, a cleaner environment, motivating people to
get up and become successful, or if it is prejudice and hatred that I've seen over the
years rise.
So it became kind of alarming to me.
You don't have to just sit there and watch this whole thing.
I think that you can get involved and use your platform to speak out about it because
of
[9:37:39 PM]
to speak out about it because of my history.
I come from a country that was part of the second World War.
Austria, hitler himself was part Austrian.
And it is all because we let this grow.
This antisemitism and this hatred.
So I come from a place that has been done once before.
And I don't want that to happen again.
>> You stood up at this forum and you said --
>> And I was born with a father that was a Nazi.
Think about that.
>> The air went out of the room.
I've heard you talk about your father but not like that.
What made you say it that way?
>> You have to understand, when I improvise a speech, I don't think about how I say something
[9:38:40 PM]
think about how I say something or what I say.
>> You used the story of your father to try to reach people who are getting sucked into
groups that propagate hate.
Talk about making that connection?
>> My father was, and so many other millions of men were sucked into a hate system through
lies and deceits, and so we have seen where that leads.
I've seen firsthand how broken those men were.
The kind of atrocities happened.
How many millions of people had to die and then they ended up losers.
The confederacy loses.
They say, oh, this just doesn't work.
Let's just go and get along and love is more powerful than hate.
[9:39:42 PM]
love is more powerful than hate.
>> In this video that did you last month -- >> I want to talk today about the rising hate
and anti-semitism we've seen all over the world.
>> Reporter: Which was incredibly powerful and has been seen how many times now?
>> Apparently, at least 100 million people saw it.
And billions of impressions.
>> You drew this parallel between participating in Nazi hate during World War II and hateful
ideology that is growing in the U.S.
Now.
Is that the path America is on right now?
>> I don't know if it is the path that we're on but I notice the danger.
>> You put out another video after January 6th, 2021, and you compared the storming of
the capitol to crystal night when Nazis burned synagogues, jewish businesses and homes.
About 30,000 jewish men were
[9:40:42 PM]
About 30,000 jewish men were taken.
That was the beginning of it.
What did you mean by that?
What did you see on January 6th that reminded you of the beginning of years of hatred and
killing in Germany and Austria?
>> The first thing that came to my mind when I saw the insurrection that this is very dangerous.
It is a wake-up call to let people know, you have to take this seriously.
Not just like let's get those right wingers, put them to jail.
No.
This is much more than that.
What creates something like that?
And sadly, I have to say, that no one really has covered it well.
The insurrection.
Because they only said what they did was wrong and they have to go to jail and punish them.
But no one really has gotten into why was it that way?
[9:41:43 PM]
into why was it that way?
What powers do people have that are really upset and angry with government?
>> Part of it is that they were told the election in 2020 was stolen.
>> But remember that it is always kind of the straw that breaks the camel's back.
So it's not that that would drive anyone to Washington.
I think it was an unbelievable dissatisfaction.
There is so much anger.
>> You said history shouldn't repeat itself.
Donald Trump is now the front runner to be the nominee of your party, the Republican
party.
Given everything you said, does that concern you?
>> Absolutely not.
Being the front runner of one party and letting them dig this hole deeper and deeper is going
to make it easy for the Democrats to win.
[9:42:45 PM]
Democrats to win.
It is sad to see that.
That they couldn't come up with a new talent, a new face that is a reasonable, smart, intelligent
person that can lead this country in a Republican way.
>> Do you think there's no way he would win again?
>> No.
>> What if he did?
>> What a question.
I can guarantee you that he will go maybe get the Republican nomination.
Then when it come down to the actual election.
There are too many people now that have seen what he did as president.
I think when it comes to the majority on election day, I think they will see the difference
between one or the other.
That believe me, I'm not the first one to say, this is really great to have Biden back
as president.
No.
There's no better option, the way it looks like now.

>> Connecting this back to January 6th.
[9:43:45 PM]
January 6th.
You say the country, you were leader, the governor of a very big state.
How do you reach those people when they are listening to the lies of the 2020 election
and a leader who is perpetuating that still?
>> They will be buying into it because they want to.
Even when you hear the evidence.
For instance, fox, with tucker Carlson being fired, by spreading the wrong news, and fox
going to court because they've lied intentionally.
Not mistakenly, intentionally.
Over and over again about this.
People hear that but it doesn't mean anything because they just want to believe the election
was stolen.
Because trump is their man.
>> And that relates to the hate that you're trying to stop and the, kind of the temperature
you're trying to help bring down in this country.
How do you do that?
>> It's not just that.
[9:44:47 PM]
>> It's not just that.
Prejudice and hate goes in so many directions.
It is not if you believe the trump election was stolen or not.
It has nothing to do with trump.
It has to do with just in general, all over the world, we have this problem now that there
is this hate and prejudice.
We are talking about white against black, black against white, immigrants, it's just,
you know, he's from over there and he's a Muslim and he's a Jew
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 37523
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

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

Postby admin » Sat Apr 29, 2023 1:55 am

Donald Trump embraces Jan. 6 defendant who wants Mike Pence executed: Micki Larson-Olson, who served months in jail for her actions on Jan. 6, told NBC News that politicians who certified the results of the 2020 election deserve to be be killed for treason.
by Ryan J. Reilly and Olympia Sonnier
NBC News
April 28, 2023, 10:12 AM MDT / Updated April 28, 2023, 10:20 AM MDT

MANCHESTER, N.H. — Former President Donald Trump embraced a Jan. 6 defendant at a diner during a campaign stop Thursday night, calling the woman, who served prison time for her actions during the Capitol attack and wants former Vice President Mike Pence executed for treason, "terrific."

The appearance came the same day Pence testified before a federal grand jury as part of special counsel Jack Smith's investigation into Trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election and keep himself in power.

Micki Larson-Olson, a QAnon supporter who said she considers Trump the "real president," was convicted last year of unlawful entry on Capitol grounds. On Thursday night, she met Trump for the first time at the Red Arrow Diner in Manchester.

On Jan. 6, Larson-Olson climbed the scaffolding set up for Joe Biden's inauguration and held on when police tried to remove her; she later bragged on social media and in an interview that it took six officers to remove her. Larson-Olson told NBC News that she "refused" to leave the platform and has "absolutely no regrets" about her actions that day.

“My only regret is that I wasn’t stronger, that I couldn’t hold on longer,” Larson-Olson told NBC News in an hourlong interview Friday. She said she told officers they were going to have to shoot her to get her off the platform. “You can shoot me dead, for all I care, I’m not walking down these damn stairs," Larson-Olson said she told officers.

Larson-Olson said she believes that the members of Congress who voted to certify Biden's presidential election should be executed.


Image
Former President Donald Trump greets Micki Larson-Olson while visiting the Red Arrow Diner in Manchester, N.H., on Thursday.Jabin Botsford / The Washington Post via Getty Images

“The punishment for treason is death, per the Constitution,” Larson-Olson said. “I believe every single person, every single person that stole a voice from our collective voice of 'We the people, of the people, for the people, by the people,' deserves death, and no less than that.”

Larson-Olson added that she “would like a front seat of Mike Pence being executed" and that he should be the "No. 1" person on her list of those who committed treason.


A spokesman for the Trump campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Neither did a Pence spokesman.

The meeting comes as Trump has said he may pardon those charged in the Capitol attack and just a month after he opened a campaign rally with a song performed by the "J6 choir" made up of Jan. 6 defendants who are incarcerated awaiting trial.

Larson-Olson said she drove nearly 2,000 miles from Abilene, Texas, to see Trump in New Hampshire on Thursday night.

Larson-Olson was introduced to Trump as a "Jan. 6er," and he signed the backpack that she said she was carrying with her that day and waived her past security so he could embrace her. “Listen, you just hang in there,” Trump said, calling her a “terrific woman" and kissing her on the cheek. Trump said it was “so bad” what has been done to Jan. 6 “patriots.”

"If I were to imagine what it would be like to hug Jesus Christ — not that I'm saying President Trump is Jesus Christ — but, just, you know, if I was to imagine what it would be like to hug Jesus Christ, that's what it felt like for me," Larson-Olson said. "It was so personal and intimate."


Larson-Olson said that she got out of prison last month after serving more than 160 days and that she was often placed in more restrictive confinement because of her refusal to comply with Covid protocols. She said she'd do it all over again because she believes that Trump is the true president.

"They could've shoved me in there for the rest of my life," Larson-Olson said. She said the judge sentenced her because she had no regrets for what happened on Jan. 6.


Larson-Olson is one of a handful of Jan. 6 defendants who were actually detained on the scene during the Capitol attack, although court documents suggest that she was never formally arrested given the chaos of the day. While most of the more than 1,000 people who have been charged in connection with the attack have had their cases litigated in D.C. federal court, Larson-Olson’s case went before a jury in D.C. Superior Court.

In viewing S-1's Facebook page, S-1 wrote on her Facebook page at 11:14 pm on January 6, 2020, "I am so sorry for everyone worried about me. I have a cheap tracphone and had no internet service. I have NEVER felt BRAVER, STRONGER IN MY WHOLE LIFE. I GOT TEAR GASSED AND STOOD BACK UP ON A BALCONY SHOWING MY Q FLAG and a Troops for Trump flag. I walked all over in my high heeled boots. I got dragged through the grass by 2 cops, that did that twice and told me to stand and I said no. I need my back pack and they wouldn't let me get it, but they finally gave up and the Captain let me get it. I gave him my WE'RE READY TO FIGHT POEM. I GOT CARRIED DOWN MANY FLIGHTS OF STAIRS BY COPS AFTER getting tear GASSED. It's all good. I will be back tomorrow."


Charging documents in the case say that, in an interview at her Airbnb in Washington on Jan. 19, 2021, Larson-Olson "told agents that it took six police officers to get her off of the scaffolding" and that she was "holding onto the scaffolding while the officers were trying to get her down." Larson-Olson also said "she did not comply with their directions to stand so the officers dragged her on the ground away from the scaffolding and then left her there."

"I have NEVER felt BRAVER, STRONGER IN MY WHOLE LIFE," Larson-Olson wrote on Facebook on the night of Jan. 6, saying she resisted police and planned to return to the Capitol. "I GOT CARRIED DOWN MANY FIGHTS OF STAIRS BY THE COPS AFTER getting tear GASSED. It's all good. I will be back tomorrow."

Larson-Olson was found guilty and Superior Court Judge Michael O'Keefe sentenced her to 180 days of incarceration in September 2022.

Ryan J. Reilly reported from Washington, and Olympia Sonnier reported from Manchester.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 37523
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

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

Postby admin » Tue May 16, 2023 1:44 am

Rudy Giuliani sued by former employee for alleged sexual assault and harassment
Giuliani is accused of making "sexual demands."

by Aaron Katersky
May 15, 2023, 7:16 PM



Image[/quote]

A former associate is suing Rudy Giuliani for alleged sexual assault and harassment, wage theft and other misconduct, accusing the former mayor and Trump lawyer of making "sexual demands" and going on "alcohol-drenched rants that included sexist, racist, and antisemitic remarks," many of which were allegedly recorded.

Noelle Dunphy said she began working for Giuliani in 2019 as his director of business development. Giuliani "began abusing Ms. Dunphy almost immediately after she started working for" him, according to her lawsuit.

"He made clear that satisfying his sexual demands -- which came virtually anytime, anywhere -- was an absolute requirement of her employment and of his legal representation," the lawsuit said.

According to Dunphy, Giuliani promised her a $1 million annual salary but the offer came with a catch: Giuliani was in the midst of an acrimonious divorce and he told Dunphy that her pay would have to be deferred and her employment kept "secret" until the divorce proceedings finished. He claimed that his "crazy" ex-wife and her lawyers were watching his cashflow and that his ex-wife would "attack" and "retaliate" against any female employee that Giuliani hired, the lawsuit said.

Part of the job required Dunphy to record her interactions with Giuliani "anytime, anywhere, as well as Giuliani's interactions with others," the lawsuit said.

"But unbeknownst to Ms. Dunphy, Giuliani apparently decided during the interview that he would use the job offer and his representation as a pretext to develop a quid pro quo sexual relationship with Ms. Dunphy. He was later recorded telling Ms. Dunphy, 'I've wanted you from the day I interviewed you,'" the lawsuit said.

Ted Goodman, Giuliani's political and communications adviser, told ABC News in a statement the former mayor "unequivocally denies" the allegations. "Mayor Giuliani's lifetime of public service speaks for itself and he will pursue all available remedies and counterclaims," Goodman said.

A spokesperson for the former mayor told ABC New York station WABC "Giuliani vehemently and completely denies the allegations in the complaint and plans to thoroughly defend against these allegations. This is pure harassment and an attempt at extortion."

According to the lawsuit, a week into her employment, Giuliani had Dunphy flown to New York on a chartered plane and insisted she stay in a guest suite in his Upper East Side apartment. The two drank and at one point "Giuliani then pulled her head onto his penis, without asking for or obtaining any form of consent. He held her by her hair. It became clear to Ms. Dunphy that there was no way out of giving him oral sex. She did so, against her will," the lawsuit said.

Giuliani often demanded that Dunphy work naked, in a bikini, or in short shorts with an American flag on them that he bought for her, the lawsuit said.

"When they were apart, they would often work remotely via videoconference, and during those conferences Giuliani almost always asked her to remove her clothes on camera. He often called from his bed, where he was visibly touching himself under a white sheet," the lawsuit said.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 37523
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

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

Postby admin » Tue May 16, 2023 1:50 am

Part 1 of 3

Complaint for wide-ranging sexual assault and harassment, wage theft, and other misconduct against Rudolph W. Giuliani
Noelle Dunphy vs. Rudolph W. Giuliani
Index No.: 650033/2023
by Justin T. Kelton
May 15, 2023

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK

NOELLE DUNPHY,
Plaintiff,
-against-
RUDOLPH W. GIULIANI, GIULIANI PARTNERS, LLC, GIULIANI GROUP, LLC, GIULIANI SECURITY & SAFETY, LLC, JOHN and/or JANE DOES 1-10,
Defendants.



Index No.: 650033/2023

VERIFIED COMPLAINT

Plaintiff Noelle Dunphy (“Ms. Dunphy”), by and through her undersigned attorneys, Abrams Fensterman, LLP, brings this Verified Complaint against Defendants Rudolph W. Giuliani (“Giuliani”), Giuliani Partners, LLC (“GP”), Giuliani Group, LLC (“GG”), Giuliani Security & Safety, LLC (“GSS”) (collectively, the “Giuliani Companies”), and John and/or Jane Does 1-10, and alleges as follows upon knowledge as to herself and her own actions, and otherwise upon information and belief:

INTRODUCTION

1. This lawsuit arises from unlawful abuses of power, wide-ranging sexual assault and harassment, wage theft, and other misconduct by Rudolph W. Giuliani and his Companies.

2. When Giuliani hired Ms. Dunphy in January 2019, he was at the height of his influence, serving as the personal lawyer for then-President Donald Trump. He had fashioned himself publicly as a major player in American politics, a successful businessman, and an important powerbroker who wielded enormous control over others.

3. Giuliani worked aggressively to hire Ms. Dunphy, offering her what seemed like a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to work as his Director of Business Development with a salary of $1 million per year plus expenses. As an added inducement, Giuliani also offered to provide pro bono legal representation to Ms. Dunphy in connection with an ongoing dispute arising from an abusive ex-partner. To Ms. Dunphy, the chance to work for an influential politician once dubbed “America’s Mayor,” combined with the prospect of free legal representation by a former United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, was a rare opportunity that was simply too good to pass up.

4. But Giuliani’s offer came with a significant catch: Giuliani was in the midst of an acrimonious divorce, and he told Ms. Dunphy that her pay would have to be deferred and her employment kept “secret” until the divorce proceedings finished. He claimed that his “crazy” exwife and her lawyers were watching his cashflow, and that his ex-wife would “attack” and “retaliate” against any female employee that Giuliani hired. Giuliani promised Ms. Dunphy that his divorce would be resolved “any day now,” and therefore the deferral of her pay and the need to keep her employment secret would soon end. Ms. Dunphy reluctantly agreed to defer her pay and not to publicize her employment because she viewed the job, the salary, and the free legal representation as being worth the wait.

5. Unfortunately, Giuliani’s seemingly generous offers were a sham motivated by his secret desire to pursue a sexual relationship with Ms. Dunphy—in total disregard for the restraints that should have protected her as his employee and client. As Giuliani later admitted in a recorded statement, he “wanted [Ms. Dunphy] from the day [he] interviewed [her].”

6. Giuliani began abusing Ms. Dunphy almost immediately after she started working for the Defendants. He made clear that satisfying his sexual demands—which came virtually anytime, anywhere—was an absolute requirement of her employment and of his legal representation. Giuliani began requiring Ms. Dunphy to work at his home and out of hotel rooms, so that she would be at his beck and call. He drank morning, noon, and night, and was frequently intoxicated, and therefore his behavior was always unpredictable.

7. Giuliani also took Viagra constantly. While working with Ms. Dunphy, Giuliani would look to Ms. Dunphy, point to his erect penis, and tell her that he could not do any work until “you take care of this.” Thus, Ms. Dunphy worked under the constant threat that Giuliani might demand sex from her at any moment. Even when the Covid-19 pandemic halted Giuliani’s ability to physically assault her, he demanded that she disrobe during their work-related videoconferences.

8. Giuliani also abused his position as Ms. Dunphy’s lawyer to pressure her into sex. In one instance, for example, Giuliani promised Ms. Dunphy that he would give her $300,000 if she would forgo her legal rights in connection with her pending case and “fuck me like crazy.” This statement was recorded.1

9. As Ms. Dunphy continued her work for Giuliani and the Giuliani Companies, the work environment became increasingly hostile. In addition to his sexual demands, Giuliani went on alcohol-drenched rants that included sexist, racist, and antisemitic remarks, which made the work environment unbearable. Many of these comments were recorded.

10. Despite the horrible conditions that she endured, Ms. Dunphy excelled at work. She generated substantial business opportunities, was available around the clock, helped Giuliani maintain his public image, and diligently ensured that his day-to-day business needs were met. Ultimately, however, Giuliani and his Companies callously tossed Ms. Dunphy aside, never paying her for the work she performed, and leaving her traumatized by the abuse she had suffered.

11. Giuliani presented himself as a generous employer and a hero who would use his legal prowess to save Ms. Dunphy from a difficult situation. But he was neither of those things. Giuliani assaulted and harassed Ms. Dunphy, forced her to work in a deplorable work environment, in secret, and robbed her of the pay she is owed. Through this case, Ms. Dunphy seeks a measure of justice from a man who thought his power and connections rendered him untouchable.

PARTIES

12. Ms. Dunphy is an individual who resided in New York at certain times and Florida at other times during the relevant time periods.

13. Defendant Rudolph W. Giuliani is an individual who at all relevant times was a resident of the State of New York, New York County.

14. Defendant Giuliani Partners, LLC is a Delaware Limited Liability Company, with a principal place of business in New York, New York County. Upon information and belief, Giuliani was and is the sole member of Giuliani Partners, and exercises operating control over the entity.

15. Defendant Giuliani Group, LLC is a Delaware Limited Liability Company, with a principal place of business in New York, New York County. Upon information and belief, Giuliani was and is the sole member of Giuliani Group, and exercises operating control over the entity.

16. Defendant Giuliani Security & Safety LLC is a Delaware Limited Liability Company, with its principal place of business in New York, New York County. Upon information and belief, Giuliani was and is the sole member of Giuliani Group, and exercises operating control over the entity.

17. Upon information and belief, John and/or Jane Does 1-10 are individuals who reside in the State of New York.

18. The Giuliani Companies comprise a “single employer” or “single integrated enterprise” since they share interrelated operations, centralized control of labor relations, common management, and common ownership or financial control.

19. Upon information and belief, Giuliani owns a controlling interest in each of the Giuliani Companies, and he exercises complete dominion and control over the Giuliani Companies.

20. Giuliani and the Giuliani Companies constitute “joint employers” with respect to Ms. Dunphy since they share authority to hire and fire employees such as Ms. Dunphy, determined rate, method, and timing of her pay, approved payment of business expenses, had authority to discipline her, controlled her work schedule and other terms and conditions of her employment, and directed and supervised her work.

21. The work performed by Ms. Dunphy benefited all Defendants and/or directly or indirectly furthered their joint interests, and Defendants shared control of Ms. Dunphy’s employment, either directly or indirectly, because Defendants either control, are controlled by, or are under common control with each other. Defendants are therefore collectively Ms. Dunphy’s “joint employers” under the New York Labor Law’s broad definition of “employer.” 29 C.F.R. § 791.2(b).

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

22. The Court has personal jurisdiction pursuant to Civil Practice Law and Rules (“CPLR”) § 301 because, inter alia, Giuliani has resided in New York at all relevant times, and each of the Giuliani Companies had a principal place of business in New York at all relevant times.

23. Venue is proper in this County pursuant to CPLR § 503 because a substantial part of the events giving rise to Ms. Dunphy’s claims took place in New York County, where Giuliani resides, works, and maintains offices for the Giuliani Companies.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

A. Ms. Dunphy’s Background


24. Ms. Dunphy is a Columbia University graduate and skilled businesswoman with 22 years of experience in business development, associate producing, and communications.

25. Ms. Dunphy has owned her own consulting firm, Strategic Consulting, since 2001.

26. Throughout her career, Ms. Dunphy has worked with companies to generate increased business, create new revenue streams, and promote positive brand images.

27. Despite her professional successes, Ms. Dunphy has experienced substantial pain and hardship. When she met Giuliani, Ms. Dunphy was highly vulnerable, having just begun the arduous process of recovering from severe domestic abuse. She was involved in a difficult lawsuit arising from that situation,2 and she was desperate for an opportunity to move forward in a positive direction.

B. Background of Giuliani and the Giuliani Companies

28. Giuliani is a lawyer,3 former Mayor of New York City, and former United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York.

29. Giuliani prides himself on being a well-connected political power broker. When Ms. Dunphy met Giuliani, he was known as a longtime friend and close confidante of then-President Donald Trump, in addition to being a member of Trump’s legal team.

30. Giuliani also owns and manages several businesses, including the Giuliani Companies.

31. Giuliani operated the Giuliani Companies as his personal fiefdoms, disregarding virtually all corporate formalities and blurring the boundaries between the Companies and their personnel. Upon information and belief, employees of the Giuliani Companies regularly acted and referred to themselves as working for Giuliani and did not maintain separation among the Giuliani Companies. For example, Giuliani’s former interim CEO, Maria Ryan, wrote in emails that GP and GSS “are one,” meaning that they operate as a single company. Upon information and belief, the Giuliani Companies had intermingled bank accounts, and Giuliani treated his corporate credit card as a personal credit card.

32. Upon information and belief, Giuliani has a history of using his businesses— including, but not limited to the Giuliani Companies—to groom and aggressively pursue women for sexual relationships.

33. For example, upon information and belief, Giuliani repeatedly agreed to give significant job titles and large salaries to women he found attractive, with the intention of having a sexual relationship with them. Upon information and belief, Giuliani achieved this goal in several instances, and engaged in sexual relationships with women he had hired and whose employment he controlled completely.

34. Upon information and belief, Giuliani had an affair with Maria Ryan, who was Giuliani Partners’ interim CEO, although Giuliani claimed in the media that there was “no proof” that the two had sex.4 In addition, media reports note that Giuliani had an affair with his communications director in the 1990s.5 Media reports also reflect that Giuliani had an affair with Jennifer LeBlanc,6 a GOP fundraiser who, upon information and belief, received indirect payments from Giuliani and who, upon information and belief, worked in Gracie Mansion when Giuliani was Mayor. And, upon information and belief, Giuliani also hired 19-year-old Christianne Allen as the Communications Director for the Giuliani Companies because, as he told Ms. Dunphy, he had “a certain sexual attraction to” Ms. Allen. In fact, Giuliani admitted to Ms. Dunphy that he kissed Ms. Allen. These statements were recorded.

35. Ms. Dunphy knew nothing about this predatory history until she became a victim of the same scheme.

C. Giuliani Tries To Hire Ms. Dunphy In 2016 And Then Again In 2019

i. Giuliani’s First Overture in September 2016


36. In September 2016, Giuliani met Ms. Dunphy while they both were waiting in the lobby of Trump Tower in Manhattan.

37. Giuliani spoke to Ms. Dunphy and began asking for details about her work and life, and then indicated that he was interested in hiring her to work for him.

38. Ms. Dunphy had no reason to believe that the interaction was anything other than business.

39. Giuliani gave Ms. Dunphy his business card at the end of the interaction and asked that she contact him to talk further about working with him.

40. Ms. Dunphy had no intention of working with Giuliani and did not contact him.

41. Ms. Dunphy had no contact with Giuliani until he contacted her again in 2019.

ii. Giuliani’s Second Overture in January 2019

42. On or about January 9, 2019, Giuliani sent Ms. Dunphy an unsolicited Facebook message and friend request. A true and correct copy of the Facebook friend request is annexed hereto as Exhibit A.

43. Ms. Dunphy was surprised that Giuliani had tracked her down years after their first interaction. But the timing was fortuitous, as Ms. Dunphy was seeking new career opportunities, and she also needed legal advice.

44. Ms. Dunphy accepted Giuliani’s friend request and responded to his message. Giuliani invited her to a formal interview for a business development job with his organization.

45. Ms. Dunphy agreed to meet Giuliani for a job interview in Florida, where she was living at the time.

D. Giuliani Hires Ms. Dunphy as Director of Business Development and Agrees to Represent Ms. Dunphy Pro Bono.

46. On January 21, 2019, Giuliani interviewed Ms. Dunphy at the Trump International Golf Club of West Palm Beach, Florida. During the interview, they discussed Ms. Dunphy’s career and experience, and her legal issues. They also spoke about her ability to help Giuliani generate new revenue streams and to support him on a day-to-day basis, including by fielding media inquiries.

47. The interview seemed to go well. Giuliani told Ms. Dunphy that he was impressed by her experience, and he offered her a job as Director of Business Development for the Giuliani Companies, and also as his executive assistant for travel, communications, and public relations.

48. Giuliani told Ms. Dunphy that her salary would be $1 million per year, and that any business expenses she incurred would be reimbursed.


49. Upon information and belief, the salary that Giuliani offered Ms. Dunphy was within the same general range that Giuliani and the Giuliani Companies paid to other employees of Giuliani and the Giuliani Companies, when accounting for expenses and other benefits, including for example Maria Ryan (who served in various roles).

50. During the job interview, Giuliani and Ms. Dunphy discussed that her responsibilities would include generating business opportunities, including speeches and clients which Giuliani told her historically earned him approximately $10 million per year, public relations work (such as editing Giuliani’s social media posts and ensuring that he was presentable to the public), monitoring his email, assisting him with responding to emails, making travel arrangements, scheduling meetings, and generally being “on call” for whatever Giuliani and his Companies needed. Giuliani told Ms. Dunphy that the job required her to be available “24/7.”7

51. As they talked, Ms. Dunphy suggested several ideas for ways in which Giuliani and his Companies could generate revenue. These included creating a podcast,8 creating a Netflix series, documentaries, and other similar endeavors. Later, Giuliani took advantage of several of these suggestions, and Ms. Dunphy worked to develop some of these projects.

52. Giuliani and Ms. Dunphy also discussed during the interview that she one day write a book on Giuliani and Trump.

53. Giuliani gave Ms. Dunphy permission to record her interactions with Giuliani anytime, anywhere, as well as Giuliani’s interactions with others. Giuliani thereafter continually permitted and authorized Ms. Dunphy to make such recordings. He never asked her to stop recording any interaction. At times, Giuliani pressed “record” himself on Ms. Dunphy’s cell phone to record their conversations.

54. As the parties reached agreement on the general terms of Ms. Dunphy’s employment, Giuliani added a strange requirement: Ms. Dunphy’s pay would have to be deferred and her employment kept “secret” until Giuliani’s divorce proceedings finished. Giuliani claimed that this arrangement was necessary because his ex-wife and her lawyers were watching his cashflow and he was limited in what he could spend and who he could hire. Giuliani also claimed that his ex-wife would “attack” and “retaliate” against any female employee that Giuliani hired.

55. Giuliani told Ms. Dunphy that his divorce would settle “any day now” and therefore the need to keep her employment secret and her pay deferred would not last long.

56. Giuliani promised Ms. Dunphy that in the meantime, he would pay her in cash whenever he could so that she could support herself during the deferral period.

57. During the interview, Giuliani offered Ms. Dunphy an additional inducement: he had learned that she was a survivor of domestic abuse and he offered to represent her pro bono in connection with legal matters arising from those circumstances. Giuliani later sent Ms. Dunphy an email confirming this arrangement, a redacted copy of which follows:

Image

58. Giuliani had served as the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York. Thus, his offer of pro bono legal representation was an important inducement of seemingly incalculable value due to his experience and recognition in New York legal circles.

59. At the end of the interview, Ms. Dunphy accepted Giuliani’s job offer and reluctantly agreed to defer her pay and keep her employment non-public, based on: ( i) Giuliani’s job offer (including the salary of $1 million per year and expenses); (ii) his claim that his divorce would be finalized soon; and (iii) his promise that he would represent Ms. Dunphy pro bono.

60. Ms. Dunphy was excited, and she called her parents soon after being hired to tell them about her new job and salary.

61. But unbeknownst to Ms. Dunphy, Giuliani apparently decided during the interview that he would use the job offer and his representation as a pretext to develop a quid pro quo sexual relationship with Ms. Dunphy. He was later recorded telling Ms. Dunphy, “I’ve wanted you from the day I interviewed you.”

E. Ms. Dunphy Begins Working For The Giuliani Defendants.

62. Right after the job interview on January 21, 2019, Giuliani required that Ms. Dunphy attend a work-related meeting with his team and certain of Giuliani’s Ukrainian associates to discuss her work for the Giuliani Companies.

63. During this meeting, Giuliani drank to excess, and he pressured Ms. Dunphy to drink.

64. After a long first day on the job, Giuliani told his bodyguard to take a separate car so he could have privacy in the back seat with Ms. Dunphy as his limo service drove her home in a black SUV. Ms. Dunphy was surprised by this request from her new boss.

65. After the bodyguard left, Giuliani kissed Ms. Dunphy and asked if he could enter her home.

66. Ms. Dunphy was stunned and shaken. She politely declined and thanked him for her new job and his legal representation. As he was preparing to leave, Giuliani told Ms. Dunphy that since they would be working from different locations that week, he would like it if Ms. Dunphy sent him some flirtatious photos. Giuliani’s conduct seemed strange, but Ms. Dunphy still had no idea of what was to come. After his car left, she went into her apartment, locked the door, and tried to make sense of what had just happened.

67. After dropping Ms. Dunphy off, Giuliani called Ms. Dunphy five times that same evening.

F. Giuliani Begins Asking Ms. Dunphy Bizarre And Intrusive Sexual Questions Under The Guise Of Providing Legal Advice.

68. At around the same time that Ms. Dunphy began working for Giuliani and the Giuliani Companies, Giuliani and Ms. Dunphy began working together on her legal matters.

69. Under the guise of providing Ms. Dunphy legal advice, Giuliani started asking Ms. Dunphy for extremely personal details relating to her past, including explicit details about prior sexual encounters.

70. Ms. Dunphy was disturbed by these personal questions, but Giuliani claimed that this information was necessary for his “research” in connection with her case.

71. As Ms. Dunphy would soon learn, Giuliani’s probing questions were not designed to help him provide legal advice. Rather, Ms. Dunphy would come to understand that Giuliani was aroused by discussing Ms. Dunphy’s sexual history and violent relationships. Ms. Dunphy did not know it yet, but Giuliani would force her to repeat the cycle of abuse she had suffered.

G. Giuliani Subjects Ms. Dunphy To A Sexually-Charged And Hostile Work Environment, Repeatedly Assaults Her, And Refuses To Pay Her Salary.

72. After Giuliani hired Ms. Dunphy on January 21, 2019, Giuliani called Ms. Dunphy almost daily, often repeatedly, to discuss current events and business-related issues. For example, Giuliani called Ms. Dunphy 14 times on January 24, 2019.

73. Giuliani often required that Ms. Dunphy discuss business and current events with him on the phone for eight to ten hours a day, sometimes late into the evening. Thus, Ms. Dunphy began working long hours for Giuliani and his Companies.

74. Because Giuliani was both her boss and her lawyer, she felt that she had to respond as he required.

75. On January 25, 2019, Giuliani paid to fly Ms. Dunphy to New York on a semiprivate chartered plane. Giuliani used an employee of the Giuliani Companies, JoAnne Zafonte, to make these travel arrangements. Copies of records related to these travel arrangements are annexed hereto as Exhibit B.

76. That evening, Giuliani, travelling with his security team, met Ms. Dunphy at the airport. Giuliani smelled of alcohol. They had a business dinner that night and planned to travel to the office for work that upcoming Monday.

77. Giuliani insisted that Ms. Dunphy stay in a guest suite in his Upper East Side apartment. Ms. Dunphy was surprised by this unusual request, but Giuliani assured her that employees often slept in his guest suite, which included a private bedroom and private bathroom.

78. Ms. Dunphy was uncomfortable with this arrangement and tried to secure other accommodations. She asked her family and friends for places to stay in New York. But Giuliani insisted that she stay in his apartment. Since Giuliani was her boss and attorney, she felt pressured to do as he asked and ultimately agreed to stay in his guest suite temporarily.

79. Upon arrival at Giuliani’s apartment, Ms. Dunphy was surprised to find that Giuliani had alcoholic beverages ready for them.

80. Ms. Dunphy was not much of a drinker, but Giuliani pressured her to drink with him. Giuliani offered Ms. Dunphy scotch, which she declined because she virtually never drank hard alcohol. Undeterred, Giuliani poured them both glasses of red wine. In an effort to be polite, Ms. Dunphy accepted the wine. Giuliani and Ms. Dunphy each drank two or three glasses of wine.

81. Giuliani was substantially larger than Ms. Dunphy, who was a women’s size small or medium at the time.

82. Ms. Dunphy became intoxicated more easily than Giuliani because of her smaller size and the fact that she rarely drank, while Giuliani often drank large quantities of alcohol.

83. After finishing their drinks, Ms. Dunphy went to the guest suite alone. She put her suitcase on the bed, closed the door to the room, and took a shower.

84. When Ms. Dunphy got out of the shower, she was startled to see that Giuliani had entered the guest suite, uninvited. She was still intoxicated.

85. Ms. Dunphy was frightened. She said she wanted to get dressed, unpack, and settle in. She asked for privacy. She said she would meet him in the living room when she was ready. But Giuliani would not leave. He sat on the bed and pulled down his pants. The following screenshot from the film Borat: Subsequent Moviefilm depicts Giuliani acting in a similar manner to how he acted with Ms. Dunphy:

Image

86. Giuliani then pulled her head onto his penis, without asking for or obtaining any form of consent. He held her by her hair. It became clear to Ms. Dunphy that there was no way out of giving him oral sex. She did so, against her will.

87. Ms. Dunphy was shocked and saddened by what had happened. She did not want to have any sexual encounter with Giuliani, of any kind. But Ms. Dunphy felt extreme pressure to go along with Giuliani’s demands because she could not lose her promised salary or her legal representation by the uniquely qualified and connected lawyer.

88. After pressuring her into performing oral sex, Giuliani required Ms. Dunphy to accompany him to a late dinner with Giuliani’s friend and business associate Lev Parnas. Ms. Dunphy asked Giuliani for the name of the Human Resources director, because she was considering reporting what had happened. Giuliani said that he did not have a Human Resources department and bragged that no one would ever sue him because he was connected to President Trump, and he had private investigators who would punish anyone who complained.

89. They went to the work dinner, which involved discussions about various matters including media relations, certain legal issues, and the political climate.

90. Over the following two days (Saturday and Sunday), Giuliani and Ms. Dunphy worked from his residence. They sat at the dining room table in his three-bedroom penthouse apartment, and sometimes worked from the living room couch. Her tasks that weekend included bringing him scotch on demand and brainstorming ideas for interviews, shows, and Netflix series.

91. She also reviewed her contacts with entertainment industry professionals, sought their advice, analyzed various options, and researched documentary makers and producers. She later reached out to certain producers and had lengthy meetings with them about potential projects for Giuliani.

H. Giuliani Loads His Email Account Onto Ms. Dunphy’s Computer.

92. Giuliani told Ms. Dunphy that part of her duties would involve monitoring his email, notifying him about important emails, working with him to craft responses if needed, reminding him about scheduled meetings and appearances, and keeping track of files in case he needed them.

93. Therefore, Giuliani added one of his work email accounts into Ms. Dunphy’s email program on her computer, typing his password onto her computer.

94. Once Giuliani’s email account was loaded onto Ms. Dunphy’s computer, at least 23,000 emails associated with the account, including many from before her employment with Giuliani, were stored on her computer.

95. Since Giuliani gave Ms. Dunphy access to his email account, she had access to information that was, upon information and belief, privileged, confidential, and highly sensitive.

96. For example, Ms. Dunphy was given access to emails from, to, or concerning President Trump, the Trump family (including emails from Donald Trump, Jr., Ivanka Trump, and Eric Trump), Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, former FBI director Louis Freeh, Trump lawyer Jay Sekulow, Secretaries of State, former aides to President Trump such as Steve Bannon, Reince Priebus, and Kellyanne Conway, former Attorneys General Michael Mukasey and Jeff Sessions, media figures such as Rupert Murdoch, Sean Hannity, and Tucker Carlson, and other notable figures including Newt Gingrich, presidential candidates for Ukraine, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey, the Ailes family, the LeFrak family, Bernard Kerik, Igor Fruman, Lev Parnas, and attorneys Marc Mukasey, Robert Costello, Victoria Toensing, Fred Fielding, and Joe DeGenova.

97. Ms. Dunphy understood that she was given access to these emails because she was employed by Giuliani and the Giuliani Companies. Indeed, although Giuliani and his surrogates have argued that Ms. Dunphy was not an employee of Giuliani or the Giuliani Companies, it is impossible to understand Giuliani’s decision to give Ms. Dunphy complete access to (and copies of) these sensitive emails in any other context.

98. As a lawyer, Giuliani sent and received emails containing privileged information that could not legally be shared with Ms. Dunphy if she were not an employee or consultant. Likewise, Giuliani’s business often involved highly confidential information, and upon information and belief, there were confidentiality and nondisclosure agreements governing access to some of this information. Upon information and belief, those agreements barred Giuliani from sharing covered confidential information with someone who was not an employee or consultant.

99. Giuliani never asked Ms. Dunphy to sign a non-disclosure or confidentiality agreement.

100. As part of her work, Ms. Dunphy warned Giuliani about the dangers of his use of a regular Gmail account for his work, and about his habit of logging in from unsecured Wi-Fi networks in foreign nations and hotel lobbies. She researched additional security measures for him, recommended them to him, and recommended experts to review his practices.

I. Giuliani Takes Ms. Dunphy To The Giuliani Companies’ Office And Introduces Her As A New Employee, And Ms. Dunphy Continues Working For Defendants.

101. On Monday, January 28, 2019, Giuliani took Ms. Dunphy to the Giuliani Companies’ office at 445 Park Avenue, 18th floor, New York, New York.

102. At the office, Ms. Dunphy met several employees of the Giuliani Companies, including Giuliani’s office manager JoAnne Zafonte, CEO of GSS John Huvane, Giuliani’s head of security and friend Beau Wagner, attorney and Giuliani friend Dennison Young, and other staff.

103. Ms. Dunphy continued working for Defendants during the course of that week. For example, she began to coordinate travel arrangements for Giuliani through JetSmarter and negotiated a better plan and travel membership for him. A true and correct copy of an email chain between Ms. Dunphy and a representative from JetSmarter dated January 30, 2019 is annexed hereto as Exhibit C.

104. Ms. Dunphy also helped Giuliani prepare for an upcoming interview about Roger Ailes, the former Chairman of Fox News. Ms. Dunphy tried to discourage Giuliani from participating in the interview because an employee of Fox had publicly alleged that Mr. Ailes sexually abused her and blackmailed her into becoming his “sex slave.” But Giuliani insisted that Ailes, who had passed away, was a “good friend” and he decided to participate in the interview. Therefore, Ms. Dunphy prepared Giuliani to try to avoid or deflect from topics that could harm Giuliani’s reputation, since part of her job was public relations for Giuliani. Ms. Dunphy accompanied Giuliani to this interview on January 29, 2019, to ensure Giuliani would not embarrass himself. This interview, including out-takes, was recorded.

105. Giuliani kept working with Ms. Dunphy on her legal matters during this time. He edited and drafted affidavits, drafted and revised agreements for her, and communicated with the attorney who was making court appearances on Ms. Dunphy’s behalf, Christopher Mukon, Esq. (“Mr. Mukon”).

J. Giuliani Moves Ms. Dunphy’s Work Location From The Companies’ Offices To His Apartment And Continues Forcing Ms. Dunphy To Satisfy His Sexual Demands.

106. Over the next few days, Giuliani grew obsessive and would not let Ms. Dunphy out of his sight. He aggressively pursued a sexual relationship with Ms. Dunphy, and to facilitate this goal, he insisted that they work mostly at his apartment rather than the Giuliani Companies’ offices. Giuliani made clear that satisfying his sexual demands was a requirement of Ms. Dunphy’s employment.

107. Giuliani preferred working with Ms. Dunphy in his home (and later from hotels) so that he could easily transition from work, to demanding sexual gratification, and back to work. Thus, Ms. Dunphy worked under the virtually constant threat that Giuliani might initiate sexual contact at any moment. Although Ms. Dunphy never knew when Giuliani might force sexual contact on her, upon information and belief, his actions were premeditated because, in many instances, he had taken Viagra or similar medication beforehand in preparation.

108. Giuliani often demanded that she work naked, in a bikini, or in short shorts with an American flag on them that he bought for her. When they were apart, they would often work remotely via videoconference, and during those conferences Giuliani almost always asked her to remove her clothes on camera. He often called from his bed, where he was visibly touching himself under a white sheet.

109. Throughout the employment and attorney-client relationship, Giuliani forced Ms. Dunphy to perform oral sex on him. He often demanded oral sex while he took phone calls on speaker phone from high-profile friends and clients, including then-President Trump. Giuliani told Ms. Dunphy that he enjoyed engaging in this conduct while on the telephone because it made him “feel like Bill Clinton.”

110. Upon information and belief, some of the individuals who Giuliani spoke with on these calls were law clients of Giuliani (such as Mr. Trump), who were unaware that Ms. Dunphy was in the room and could overhear their conversations. At certain times, Ms. Dunphy overheard discussions which contained, upon information and belief, privileged or confidential information. These discussions included, for example, strategies as to how to deal with the investigation being conducted by Robert Mueller, and whether it might be possible to distract, intimidate, or otherwise dissuade Mueller from proceeding against Trump.

111. As part of her duties, Giuliani and Ms. Dunphy had discussions about documents that might help counteract the Mueller investigation, including reviewing documents labeled “Executive Privilege” and discussing potential legal arguments summarized in documents that Giuliani had received from another lawyer.

112. During this time, the work environment was regularly affected by Giuliani’s chronic alcoholism. Giuliani was rarely sober around Ms. Dunphy. Since he regularly drank all day and night, it became part of Ms. Dunphy’s responsibilities to fetch his alcohol and make sure that he was a “functioning alcoholic.” She worked hard to ensure that despite Giuliani’s excessive drinking, he did not appear drunk. If Giuliani became too drunk, it was her job to remove him from the situation. Ultimately, the most important and time-consuming aspect of Ms. Dunphy’s job became preventing Giuliani from creating media disasters. During this time, when Ms. Dunphy was not by his side, he appeared with hair dye dripping from his forehead, appeared wearing excessive amounts of self-tanner, and hosted a press conference in the parking lot of Four Seasons Total Landscaping.

113. Giuliani began to tell Ms. Dunphy that he loved her. Often, this was while he was coercing her into performing oral sex on him. He sometimes also referred to her as a “best friend” and he often told her that he “needed” her. Due to Ms. Dunphy’s vulnerable state, and the power imbalance between them as boss/employee and lawyer/client, she began to believe him. And Giuliani engaged in a pattern of conduct that was designed to make her financially and emotionally dependent on him, and to coerce her to remain as his secret employee.

114. Ms. Dunphy confided in a friend about the abuse she had experienced. She told her friend that Giuliani acted like performing oral sex was a requirement of her job, and that he pressured her for oral sex constantly. Ms. Dunphy also told the friend how she felt like she had no choice but to comply, given the circumstances.

K. Giuliani Keeps Refusing To Pay Ms. Dunphy The Salary She Is Owed, But Strings Her Along With Small Cash Payments.

115. All the while, Giuliani was telling Ms. Dunphy that he needed to keep deferring her pay and keep her employment secret, but he promised her that she would eventually be paid in full and receive credit for her work.

116. Giuliani also continued to tell Ms. Dunphy that his divorce would settle “any day,” and then he and his Companies would make her whole by paying what she was owed.

117. To tide Ms. Dunphy over and keep her obedient to him, Giuliani sometimes paid Ms. Dunphy in increments of no more than $5,000 in cash, at random times. For example, Giuliani paid Ms. Dunphy $4,000 in cash on February 1, 2019, before she traveled from New York to Florida, as part of her “deferred pay.”

118. Giuliani also authorized certain of Ms. Dunphy’s business expenses to be paid by using a corporate credit card for one of the Companies. These expenses included, for example, Uber and Lyft expenses for work-related travel.

119. To bolster his claims about the need to keep Ms. Dunphy’s employment “secret,” Giuliani told Ms. Dunphy about other schemes he undertook to reduce the amounts he owed to his ex-wife.9 For example, Giuliani told Ms. Dunphy that someone owed him $1 million, but Giuliani hinted that instead of having the money paid to him, he had his friend, Robert Stryk, hold it for him. He said, “Robert Stryk just got me a million-dollar payment.” This statement was recorded.

120. Likewise, Giuliani told Ms. Dunphy about other instances in which he would have others receive and hold money that was due to him so that his ex-wife would not know that he received the money. Upon information and belief, these individuals holding the money would give Giuliani cash from time to time so that the funds could not be traced to Giuliani.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 37523
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

PreviousNext

Return to United States Government Crime

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests