Trump’s FEDERAL ARRAIGNMENT Transcript FINALLY Released
by Karen Friedman Agnifilo
MeidasTouch
Jun 15, 2023
Legal AF Host and Former Prosecutor Karen Friedman Agnifilo reports on the newly released transcripts from Trump’s federal indictment arraignment in Miami.
Transcript
transcripts are out I'm Karen Friedman
agnifolo from legal AF and we just got
the transcripts from the arraignment in
federal court of Donald Trump in the
southern district of Florida we heard
lots of reporting from reporters who
were in the room don't forget there were
no cameras allowed there was no
recording allowed so we did get lots of
reporting from people who were in the
room but we finally got the transcripts
I got to read them myself and so let's
talk about exactly what happened
in Donald Trump's Federal arraignment in
the southern district of Florida
so he was arraigned by judge Jonathan
Goodman Jack Smith was also there we
were are told by reporters he wasn't
sitting in the well so he wasn't
mentioned in the transcript anywhere but
we we know he was there the arraignment
started at 2 55 pm and it ended at 3 44
pm and it was in courtroom
13-3 this was both the initial
appearance and the arraignment of both
Donald Trump and Walt waltin also known
as Walt Nauta
an initial appearance is the first time
you go to court the arraignment is when
you are told what your charges are they
most of the time happen at the same time
but not always so this was both the
initial appearance and the arraignment
of Donald Trump it was only the initial
appearance of Walt Nauta his arraignment
has been put over a couple of weeks and
I'll tell you why in a minute the
lawyers who were there the prosecutors
were Jay Bratt David harbach and Julie
Edelstein and the lawyers for Donald
Trump or Chris kais and Todd Blanche and
Stanley Woodward appeared for Walt Nauta
pre-trial Services was also there and
pre-trial Services is a really important
agency that works for the federal
government and they interview every
single person who's arrested and they
make a recommendation to the court about
whether the person should be released
and if they or or should they be held
you know in other words should they be
they held in jail pre-trial or should
bail be set or are there conditions on
their release and pre-trial services
will also monitor somebody who's
released with conditions so that's what
pre-trial Services is I don't know
whether or not they interviewed Donald
Trump I assume they did because that's
part of the standard arrest processing
and uh so so we'll get to that in a
minute uh when I when we explain what
the conditions are that the judge said
so the judge started by thanking
everyone Under the Sun including the
entire literally the entire law
enforcement Community uh court reporters
everybody just thanked everybody and
then he reminded everybody that there's
no photos or videos of anyone uh in the
room you're not allowed to use devices
and that includes people in the
spillover room so what that told me is
they had a spillover room there was a
room which is very common to do if the
courtroom's not big enough to hold all
the people that there is you know when
there's cases that have a lot of
interest they open up another room and
they and they stream on video what's
happening in in the courtroom and so the
judge was speaking to both rooms both
the people in the courtroom as well as
the spillover room that there's no
photos no videos no recording whatsoever
so they uh the judge took the defendants
both Trump and Nauta uh separately and
they they didn't in other words he
didn't do both at the same time he just
did Donald Trump first and he asked
Donald Trump's lawyers are they
temporarily representing him or are they
permanent and that's important because
you know sometimes attorneys appear for
arraignment only and then uh and then
and then a defendant goes and looks for
a more permanent lawyer you can also
change lawyers at any time but these
lawyers Todd Blanche and Chris kise
indicated to the judge that they were
permanently representing Donald Trump
and so they might add new lawyers to the
team there was lots of reporting that
they're interviewing other lawyers but
apparently these two lawyers are in for
both the trial and the appeal they said
that on the record as well
the the judge then said you know
normally in this in this uh District
people wave the formal reading of the
indictment because it's 44 pages long if
a defendant doesn't waive the formal
reading of the indictment they would
have sat there and the judge would have
or the clerk would have read every
single thing that's in that 44-page
indictment however Donald Trump's
lawyers said as is very common uh we
waive the formal reading of the
indictment and entered a plea of not
guilty which is also was expected that's
obviously he's going to enter a plea of
not guilty and he demanded a jury trial
and that's a formality that you have to
do you demand a jury trial and and so
that's noted on the record and he'll get
a jury trial the judge then went on to
explain what's typical in our district
is how he put it so he said you know and
so it sounded like he was he was
educating both the lawyers who don't
necessarily practice their everyday and
Donald Trump as well as everybody else
who's reading these transcripts knowing
that we would read them he wanted to
make sure that he was educating
everybody so he would say things like uh
what what typically happens in our
district the typical steps in our
district are that the defense would
request a standing discover Discovery
order is that what your uh what you're
requesting Mr Blanche and Mr Blanche
would say yes your honor so at standing
Discovery order means
that uh that there's an order by the
judge standing means it's in effect the
whole the whole time the whole pendency
of the case and in order means it's a
court order because only the court can
order you to do anything in a criminal
case and it's a discovery order which
means the government is under an
obligation to provide Discovery at the
appropriate time to the defense then the
judge says and I assume you want a Brady
order and he said I assume that the
prosecutors know their Brady obligation
but I'm doing a standard Brady order as
well and Brady is comes from a very
famous case Brady versus Maryland which
is a Supreme Court case
um that's been around for decades and it
basically says if a prosecutor has any
information in their possession that is
exculpatory to the defense they must
turn it over and they must turn it over
right away you can't hold on to it you
have to turn it over at the soonest
possible practical time and you have to
say I have this information in in my
possession that tends to exculpate you
means it tends to show your innocence
even if you think the person's lying as
a prosecutor it's not up to you to say
well I think that person's lying I have
a witness who came forward and said it
wasn't him that's considered Brady you
have to turn it over
so the judge issued a standard Brady
order again standard so then they get to
the part and this is the part that that
I found frankly somewhat disgraceful uh
because they get to the part about bail
or Bond right about release because you
know everyone was calling this
arraignment perfunctory you know and I
heard a lot of people say it's just
perfunctory it's just an arraignment
well you know now I've been a prosecutor
for a very long time and now I'm a
defense attorney there's nothing at all
perfunctory about bail I mean about
um about an arraignment you were
formally told what your charges are and
and you know I tell all my clients and
um and frankly you know most as a
prosecutor you assume the same I tell my
clients bring your toothbrush you don't
know there you can't there is there is
no way you can assume that you are not
going to have bail Set uh in a case or
you could be remanded which means you
know no amount of money will get you out
and means there are no it means you are
held and detained period full stop no
bail
um but oftentimes if you do set bail
there are large amounts of money
especially in really serious cases
so I didn't I'm probably the only person
uh who didn't think this but I didn't
think it was it was going to be you know
no conditions to Donald Trump in a case
like this but apparently that's what
happened so the judge asked the
prosecutor Mr harbach uh you know I'm
I'm seeing that you are recommend not
recommending any dollar amount uh for
bail here and the prosecutor said that
is correct your honor and you are
recommending a personal recognizance
release which just means you get to walk
out that's it on your own that's correct
your honor and that is recommended by
the United States right right and you
don't want any conditions imposed other
than the because there's two standard
conditions number one and number five
which basically are like come back to
court and don't get arrested that's it
just don't commit any other crimes while
you're out but the other conditions that
are standard conditions that everyone
else has to abide by they don't apply
right you don't you don't view him as a
Flight Risk do you government government
says no so you're not asking for any
special conditions nope no Financial
component nope
and he says you know 18 USC 3142 sub a
sub 1 allows a defendant to be released
on their own recognizance on an
unsecured Bond if they're not a Flight
Risk and the person won't endanger the
safety of another person or the
community and he said basically are you
asking that he not surrender his
passport Port are you requesting that
that's standard I've never had a client
who hasn't had to surrender their
passport in federal court that's
outrageous okay nope no limitation on
international travel what about domestic
travel is there any limitation on that
because you know it's standard a
standard condition is no travel outside
the southern district of Florida or
whatever District you're in in a federal
case again all my clients can't leave
the district that uh that the case is in
that's a standard condition of release
nope your honor we don't see that as
necessary
okay then they get to you know they get
to one that says uh how about how about
the standard condition of forbidding him
from possessing firearms government uh
what's your position on Firearms
ammunition and dangerous devices nope no
problem he can do that too and then the
judge says what about are you requesting
that he avoid contact with the
co-defendants and you know what they
said nope we're not requesting that
either judge he works for Walt Nauta
works for Trump so that would not be
practicable so nope he can have contact
with the co-defendants
and the judge then said are you
requesting that Donald Trump report to
priest trial services in any way again
every one of my clients has to go to
pre-trial services and they said no they
said we're not asking for that at all
they're not asking for any special
condition of release and pre-trial
Services said the same thing they said
we're not requesting anything either
judge and so the judge says well okay
and clearly this judge was surprised
because this is so highly unusual and
Donald Trump is being treated
differently than everybody else once
again
the judge said you know what despite the
part of course the defense has no
objection to that right why as a defense
attorney would you have any objection to
these incredible terms and these
incredible conditions because Donald
Trump this doesn't matter he can just go
about living his life despite the fact
that he has another open indictment and
we know of two more open criminal uh
cases you know pending investigations
both uh January 6 with Jack Smith and
um and Fulton County with uh fonnie
Willis but despite the fact that there's
two indictments now and two other
pending cases no conditions judge and I
bet if you looked in the entire country
you will not find another case involving
a defendant who has two separate
indictments and two separate
jurisdictions and two other pending uh
Court in the I mean two other pending
criminal investigations and they get
this kind of a deal but he's Donald
Trump and so here he he gets this but I
think the judge was a little taken aback
that that there was Zero conditions and
he is going to protect the Integrity of
the case because you know he's the judge
that's all he really cares about is the
Integrity of the case so he says
however despite the party's
recommendations to me I am going to take
it upon myself to impose some additional
special conditions think thank you judge
thank you for you know being the
grown-up in the room and seeing that you
know what guess what Donald Trump is a
criminal defendant and shouldn't be
treated differently than everybody else
and he says I'm going to require that
Donald Trump avoid all contact with
Witnesses and victims except through
counsel and this will be effective once
the defense attorney receives a written
list of those Witnesses and victims from
the prosecutor and the prosecution
this prohibition is only effective to
those people who are written on the list
and he's also said the second condition
is he can't communicate with his
co-defendant Walt Nauta about the case
except through Council so in other words
he can have contact with uh Mr Nauta
since he still works for Donald Trump
but they can't talk about the case
unless they're with their lawyers now
Todd Blanche uh Trump's attorney
objected to these conditions he says
this isn't practical the witnesses
include his protection detail and
everyone who's around him every day is
just like with Nauta this happened at his
home in Mar-A-Lago it also happened at
his other Home Bedminster these people
work with him every day and he says you
know then he says and one witness is the
president's lawyer obviously that
doesn't work that was surprising that
I'm sure he means Evan Corcoran and so
Evan Corcoran is still his lawyer and
even though we know he's the one who is
turned over his notes and is telling
everybody what uh telling the prosecutor
what um
uh exactly what happened and what Donald
Trump did and said so that was
interesting that Trump still considers
Evan Corcoran his lawyer and then um the
prosecutor says okay you know what let's
just let me make a suggestion Mr harbox
says let me make a suggestion the
government will come up with a list not
all the witnesses but a list of people
who this requirement is necessary for
and that will accommodate Mr blanche's
uh
issue about incidental contact because
Mr Trump you know speaks to these people
uh every day so he and Mr Blanche um
Todd Blanche said you know what uh you
know I'm not sure about this I don't
want this I don't want this requirement
but but harbox says the prosecutor says
you know what judge let us let let me
and Mr uh Blanche try and come up with
something a proposal for you judge and
we'll come to you with a list and and
we'll I think we can sort this out
amongst ourselves clearly they were
caught flat-footed and didn't realize
this was going to happen and they were
totally unprepared because they spent
the next I'd say 10 15 minutes going
back and forth about this we have two
lists you know one for no contact at all
and others for don't discuss the case
and Blanche is upset about this and says
we can't do this and you know and then
and then um and then harbox says well
give us time to try to work it out and
they're going back and forth and backing
back and forth and um one point Blanche
says you know why should there be any
conditions everybody although all the
witnesses have lawyers you know and then
the court says that's a really broad
statement in fact every single witness
has their own lawyer but then of course
he hems and Haws and walks that back
because he doesn't want to admit that
yes everyone has a lawyer how do I know
because Trump is paying for everyone's
lawyers but but that's neither here nor
there that's what I think he didn't mean
to spill that that can of beans
um and so you know they go back and
forth on this for quite some time and
um and they ultimately land on uh the
you know because I think Todd Blanche
realizes
um realizes at a certain point going
wait a minute because he says is the
Court's requirement that the government
is going to give us a full witness list
because we'll take that and so I think
they realized you know oh my God you
don't normally get a full witness list
in fact some people are secret you have
no idea that they're cooperating and you
don't want to let the defense know that
they're cooperating because we know
Donald Trump will then you know bully
them put their name out there and and
really intimidate them and and and you
know like he has for every other every
other person out there call them names
you know whatever so so Todd Blanche
wakes up and realizes the this could be
a gift but you know uh but the judge
says no no no not so much let's just do
this okay let's just get a list of
people from the government that will
tell us that who it is that that uh
Trump should not speak about the facts
of the case that's it and if if the
person's not on the list and he talks
about the facts of the case then he's
not in violation of this order just
people on the list so the government's
gonna have to go back and say they're
probably they're going to probably say
this is not a full witness list these
are just the people that we don't want
Donald Trump to talk about the case with
so we'll see what they come up with but
that was a little bit of a
inelegant
um back and forth that people did not
expect and
um and there was a lot of time spent on
that but then they turned to the
co-defendant Walt Nauta
Stanley Woodward appeared for him but
he's not admitted in the southern
district of Florida which is a
requirement to appear in court there so
the judge used his discretion and
allowed Mr Woodward to represent him and
appear on the record for his initial
appearance but not for the arraignment
and so the initial the initial
appearance he gave the same conditions
on Mr Nauta that he did to Mr Trump which
is nothing and so it's the exact same
Bond and they put over his arraignment
for June 27th at 9 45 a.m before the
chief magistrate Edwin Torres but then
he said you know there's a Federal
Criminal procedure 10B that indicates Mr
Nauta doesn't have to appear physically
if he doesn't want to for arraignment if
he follows the procedures of the rule
but the lawyer does have to appear which
I found very interesting because that is
very different from New York State Court
where a defendant has to appear for his
arraignment
but I guess federally you don't have to
so he may or may not appear he may
appear on video he may appear in person
or he might not appear at all his bond
is already set as as exactly what what
Trump had and then the judge ends it
with the good news is when Mr Nauta
appears it will not be with me it'll be
the chief Magistrate Judge Ed Torres my
involvement in this case I think ends
right about now so he clearly didn't
want to have anything to do with this he
just you know it was his day uh that he
was signed up to be the duty judge to
handle any arraignments that came in and
that was that so now
um after Mr Nauta is arraigned the entire
matter will go before judge Eileen
Cannon who has been assigned this case
uh through the wheel which means it was
a random just assignment you know that
that comes up on the wheel
um you know when when they got Eileen
Cannon uh Jack Smith basically was the
opposite of winning the lotto it was the
worst possible hand you can draw because
she's already made some terrible rulings
on this case in the past during the
investigation and showed that she has
bias against Trump so we'll see where
that goes
um I'm sorry she has bias for Trump not
against Trump uh she has bias against
the government for bringing this case
um
so it was not a great not a great draw
um I think this you know arraignment was
fairly outrageous because you know I
want to just draw your attention to a
couple of other cases uh do you remember
Airman Jack Tashara who was arrested a
while back in Massachusetts he was a
young kid with the Air National
Guardsmen uh he he's the one who posted
classified documents about the word on
in Ukraine on social media and he also
sought to obstruct investigators he also
had a history of violent and racist
remarks and he is also a target for
hostile foreign power you know this is a
guy who worked on I.T for classified
computer systems and you know what he
also possessed the documents and only
showed them to a small group of people
to brag right just to kind of show off
look what I can get look what I can do
doesn't this sound familiar the entire
set of facts getting these documents and
bragging to a small group of people and
showing it to them then obstructing
investigators you know when they try to
retrieve this back and uh and and also
having a history of violent and racist
remarks well guess where Jack Tashara is
he is in jail why because he's dangerous
and he's a Flight Risk and this is a
serious case and so he's in jail
awaiting his trial also compare it to
Chelsea Manning Edward Snowden other
cases of of uh you know leaked documents
and you know it's just a very familiar
that anyone else who who does this is
considered a threat to National Security
but someone who who foments a violent
insurrection
who spews racist hateful uh violent
remarks and who recklessly and willfully
possesses and maintains and shows off
classified documents that are our most
secret materials
and who also has several criminal cases
that are either pending or under
investigation somehow he is released
with no conditions because he is once
again treated differently than everybody
else but not in the way he means he gets
away with everything that nobody else
does because he thinks he is above the
law and it is time now to hold him
accountable
thank you for joining I'm Karen Friedman
agnifolo from legal AF you can catch me
on Wednesdays with Michael popock at 8pm
Eastern Live on YouTube or wherever you
get your podcasts and you can also watch
legal AF on Saturdays with Ben Meiselas
and Michael popock also Saturdays at 8
pm Eastern
Trump lashes out at Gov. Doug Ducey following certification
Re: Trump lashes out at Gov. Doug Ducey following certificat
by admin » Thu Jun 15, 2023 11:13 pm
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 37523
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Trump lashes out at Gov. Doug Ducey following certificat
by admin » Sun Jun 18, 2023 3:33 am
Trump SCREWS Himself with WORST Legal Defense Ever
by Michael Popock
MeidasTouch
Jun 17, 2023
Michael Popok of Legal AF breakdowns all 4 of Trump’s main defenses to the Mar a Lago criminal indictment and explains why they are all doomed to fail and will never be presented to any future jury.
Transcript
this is Michael popock legal AF every
day Donald Trump and his lawyers and his
lackeys try to float new defenses to the
criminal prosecution of Donald Trump
down in Miami on Mar-A-Lago there's four
major ones I've heard them all I've
looked at them all and I'm here to tell
you that they're all dead bang losers
let's go over them one at a time plus
new information I picked up concerning
Donald Trump's likely Witnesses against
him Evan Corcoran his former lawyer
let's start with Defense number one
you'll hear a lot about it it works in
rallies it works in Cuban cafes in Miami
it doesn't work in a court of law and
that is the presidential records act
allows Donald Trump to magically
designate what is personal records and
what is presidential records and he's a
very busy man he just didn't get around
to doing it and therefore the whole
search warrant uh subpoena process was
flawed and all of that should be in his
favor that's all a lie I mean let me
just call it out I know that on other
mainstream media channels they like to
pussyfoot around about calling something
what it is but not on the Midas touch
Network the presidential records Act is
not there's no good faith interpretation
of it or uh construction of it that fits
with Donald Trump's defense not one bit
of it the ACT says that everything that
goes to the operation of being the
president of the United States anything
that goes to being
the job function responsibilities
constitutional duties those are by their
very nature presidential records
therefore the people's documents and
need to be returned upon the end of the
office to have them properly archived by
the national and presidential archivist
as the presidential archive that's it
plain and simple any other argument that
you've heard about he's saved somehow or
the presidential record act will be a
defense and the jury will be so
instructed is a lie
presidential records act does not give
him a defense to the Espionage Act
violations the acts of obstruction the
acts of interference the acts of hiding
documents the acts of lying to his
lawyers the Department of Justice and
the FBI and ultimately to federal judges
that led to the ultimate execution of
the search warrant and even since the
execution of the search warrant
let's let's be clear Donald Trump has
had almost a year since the execution of
the search warrant to either work out a
deal with the Department of Justice go
back through his documents return the
presidential papers and beg for
forgiveness he hasn't done it he's never
done it that's why there was an
execution of a search warrant in August
of last year that's why he was indicted
last week for his own misconduct he
likes to say in his rallies this is a
sad day for democracy a sad day for
justice it isn't it shows the justice
system works and that if you commit
crimes you're not going to be given a
pass just because you were the former
president that's not how that works so
let's take off the board the
presidential records act defense because
everything that we're talking about
those hundreds and hundreds of National
Defense information documents some
marked top secret and classified go to
his constitutional and other duties as
president and needed to be returned full
stop period end of story
so now let's move on to the Espionage
Act the second defense you're going to
hear or have heard from Donald Trump at
rallies and after he left the
arraignment is that the Espionage Act
isn't being properly applied to him
because he's not a spy or
um you know he wasn't spying for another
country that is a complete
misrepresentation of the substance of
that statute yes it has a very sexy name
Espionage Act sounds like double agents
and triple agents and people wearing you
know uh uh all sorts of raincoats and
hats and okay but that's not what it
applies to it applies to anyone who with
with withholds willfully withholds
National Defense information material
that's it
it's not yours it is ndi National
Defense information you don't return it
you've just committed a violation of the
Espionage Act and whether you were going
to do it for transactional purposes
because you were going to trade it for
something with one of our allies or
enemies or you were just going to use it
for the future transactional use doesn't
matter that's not the Criminal Intent
that's required for the violation of the
Espionage Act it's only that you've
willfully meaning it wasn't accidental
that's what willful generally means in
the law intentional acts and everything
that's listed in the indictment and so
much more we haven't even heard about
yet when this case goes to trial in
terms of the evidence mountain of
evidence the Department of Justice Jack
Smith have indicates willfulness and
intent not accidental it wasn't The
Accidental Espionage violator Donald
Trump was the intentional and willful
Espionage Act Violator
if you take one thing away from the
indictment it's how involved personally
Donald Trump was in hiding and secreting
documents from the National Archive than
the FBI then the Department of Justice
then his own lawyers then federal judges
period
he selected what boxes would go back to
the National Archive personally after
reviewing them
he gave instructions to his lawyers
to not be truthful to the National
Archive to not be truthful to the FBI he
when when he wasn't sure if they would
do the right thing
Donald Trump made the decision which
boxes to put in the storage room in
Mar-A-Lago for his lawyer to look at a
week later and which ones to leave out
and then move boxes in and out of that
room after the lawyer had left under his
own video cameras before the Department
of Justice arrived
that was Donald Trump's decision making
it wasn't he had lackeys and buffers
reviewing the boxes he would have dozens
and dozens of boxes delivered through
Walt nowra and other people up to his
personal Residence at Mar-A-Lago where
he personally re viewed them period
that's your takeaway from the indictment
and everything I just talked about
instructing his lawyers to lie to the
National Archive instructing his lawyers
to lie about documents that existed but
he didn't want turned over making them
lie on forms that they had done their
due diligence to look for documents
hiding the documents moving the
documents moving them from Mar-A-Lago
within Mar-A-Lago moving them away from
his lawyer so he wouldn't see them
moving them to Bedminster those are all
badges of intent those are all
willfulness that is what the criminal
statute requires and nothing more
he is Reading in and telling his
gullible followers and those that want
to push back
and go after the Biden crime family talk
about projection that
um of the
um he didn't commit Espionage because
he's not a double agent he's not a spy
this isn't Boris and Natasha this isn't
Rocky and Bullwinkle
that's not what the statute says all you
have to do is you have to have them in
your possession and even if you don't
use them for any purpose the fact that
you have them in a box one box 15 boxes
20 boxes whether they're mixed in with
your personal dirty t-shirts and shoes
or whatever you're claiming or not
you've committed an act of uh to violate
the Espionage Act no different than you
know to Shara the national Guardsmen
intelligence officer who did the same
thing and is now in subject to 16 count
felony indictment for violations of the
Espionage Act
let's go to this take that off the board
that defense never gonna work
that'll that'll never get past motion
practice let alone be presented to a
jury because it's not a defense
you can't create new elements of a crime
and then say that they're not present
those are not the elements of the crime
and therefore that's not a defense to
the crime the third is selective
prosecution oh he whines at length about
selective prosecution and all of his his
surrogates do too whether they're a Lena
Haba or or Stephen Chung whoever that is
who tweets out things or sends things to
social media selective prosecution what
about ISM this is the what about ISM
defense what about Hillary's server
what about Joe Biden's Garage in the
Corvette what about Pence everybody's
doing it everybody's committing
violations of the Espionage Act it's my
artist rendering of the whiny defense
which we'll never see the light of day
in a courtroom and will never be
presented to a jury but I guess it makes
good good media makes good sound bites
for the day and allows him to collect
tens of millions of dollars from his
gullible followers but that's not a
defense first of all it's not a defense
even if the federal government only
prosecuted him because of his own bad
acts and never prosecuted anybody else
that doesn't give you selective
prosecution under the law that's one
secondly
there was a selective prosecution the
fact this is like comparing comparing
him to Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden is
like comparing apples to bowling balls
and chainsaws this isn't even this isn't
even Apple to other fruit this is Apple
does something else entirely different
Hillary Clinton didn't hide her server
they did she didn't say Well they're
coming to Chappaqua to take the server
from the basement let me go Send It On A
Plane down to Little Rock and put it in
my mother-in-law's trailer I mean that's
not what happened okay
as soon as it came it came I became
known that she was using her personal
email account and had a personal server
maintained by an I.T guy in her basement
while she was Secretary of State she
turned it over
right sure a couple of emails got Lost
in Translation but she didn't hide it
she didn't obfuscate she had an obstruct
she didn't lie to the federal government
the federal agents the FBI the
Department of Justice her own lawyers
people on her staff federal judges
she didn't do that so how is that
comparable
that's like comparing somebody that's
guilty of vehicular manslaughter to
somebody else that's guilty at best at
attempted jaywalking
yes it involves streets and cars but
that's all they have in common
and so take that off the board Joe Biden
having old documents that he didn't even
know he had that were locked in closets
that were with the the University of
Delaware for a Future Foundation of his
or in a or in a garage who cares
you have to have willfulness to commit a
crime this is not a regulatory
administrative violation Mr Trump and
your lawyers
this isn't a slap on the wrist this is a
crime and in this country under our
judicial system and our LA and our
system of jurisprudence there has to be
Criminal Intent we call it men's rare
willful mind
where is the willful mine for Joe Biden
where's the willfulness the willful in
Criminal Intent for Hillary Clinton but
it's all over the indictment and the
facts that have been developed by the
Department of Justice against Joe Biden
I mean see you now you got me doing it
against Donald Trump sorry sorry
followers and listeners but you knew
where that was going
so missing willfulness you don't have a
crime
plain and simple first day law school
criminal law 101. must show men's Raya
and that's the difference between civil
law and criminal law is the lack of mens
rea willfulness Criminal Intent all over
Trump missing from Pence Biden Clinton
period full stop we're done no further
comparison take it off the board now
let's go to their attempts to suppress
evidence of course they don't like the
thousands of documents dozens of boxes
and top secret and classified
information that was obtained in the
search warrant so they're going to try
with judge Cannon whoever the judge is
going to be to suppress the evidence
claiming that it was somehow an improper
search warrant
now they can attack the foundation of
the search warrant and try to argue that
the affidavits and support of it were
invalid
and therefore the Magistrate Judge never
should have issued the search warrant
search warrant should never have been
executed documents should never have
been taken out of Mar-A-Lago suppress
suppress suppress
in the law we call that the fruit from
The Poisoned tree the fruit from the
poisonous tree you can't eat the fruit
of a poisonous tree so if the process
was tainted you can't use the results of
that process that's the general
the general approach
but that doesn't apply here
that Magistrate Judge Reinhardt in
listening to the evidence that was
presented had probable cause to issue
that search warrant and they were right
he was moving the documents in and out
of Mar-A-Lago within Mar-A-Lago and
hiding them and getting dozens of people
to help him do that
and that ladies and gentlemen is
probable cause that the documents are
not going to be properly maintained or
retained in order to use just a regular
old-fashioned subpoena process that we
got to go in and knock down the door and
go grab the boxes
so he's not going to win suppression on
the Mar-A-Lago the Mar-A-Lago execution
of the search warrant which was based
primarily on witness testimony that was
obtained by the Department of Justice
they're also going to try to attack Evan
Corcoran who they they oh my God if I
could think of a witness that they fear
more than Evan Corcoran I can't think of
it Evan Corcoran is not just the former
lawyer but put a pin on that I want to
talk about something on this attic I'm
not sure he's still the he's the former
lawyer for Donald Trump anymore but it
was announced that he resigned that he
at one point was a target of the
criminal investigation because he ended
up lying to the Department of Justice
and the FBI about having done a search
which the video timer shows his entire
search of dozens of boxes behind a
locked door
lasted less than an hour it was like 47
minutes and came out with you know his
his um his 34 pages of documents that he
said were classified needed to be
returned ignoring the hundreds more next
door in the office desk drawer
Donald Trump's own personal living
quarters and all that
a federal judge chief judge of the
Circuit Court in District of Columbia
that oversees all things grand jury
already found based on the evidence that
there was more likely than not that
Donald Trump with Evan corcoran's help
committed a crime or fraud about those
documents
and use the crime fraud exception to the
general attorney-client privilege to
strip the attorney-client privilege away
from Donald Trump because the client
holds the privilege and forced the
lawyer to testify not just testify turn
over 50 pages of single space notes that
he took about Donald Trump and the
instructions he gave Donald Trump and
the information Donald Trump
communicated back to him and an audio
tape that the lawyer Evan Corcoran
recorded as his own private musings
about the case all went to the
prosecutor of course they hate that it's
not just used as evidence to get the
indictment it's Evan Corcoran coming
through the courthouse steps to up the
courthouse steps and through the back
wooden door to take the stand
when the government says our first
witness your honor we call M Evan
Corcoran
that's my artist rendering of the
reaction
it's gonna be like that because he's
going to have to testify about all of
those attorney clients deep dark secret
relationship and Communications with
Donald Trump
to commit crimes about the Mar-A-Lago
documents
so they're really worried about that on
the Trump side so they're going to file
a motion with judge Cannon or whoever
it's going to be
and try to suppress
Evan Corcoran from ever testifying any
of his evidence
and I have a high degree of confidence
based on knowing judge Beryl Howell the
chief judge of the District of Columbia
who heard all the evidence that she got
it right
she got it right related to that ruling
that there was a crime fraud exception
that applied stripping it from Donald
Trump now the judges in the southern
district of Florida don't have to listen
it's not dispositive when judges in
another place even Chief Judges in
another place in this case the District
of Columbia make a ruling about an issue
it's persuasive
the Appellate Court the 11th circuit and
the Supreme Court will certainly find it
persuasive but at the end of the day the
trial judge sitting in southern district
of Florida
her boss is not Barrel Howell sitting in
the District of Columbia her boss is the
11th circuit and ultimately the U.S
Supreme Court so she could say well uh
you know Barrel Barrel House screwed up
here and that should never have been
allowed and I don't find that it was a
proper
um uh attorney-client uh privilege
stripping uh by them and therefore I'm
going to suppress I'm going to exclude
all things Evan Corcoran look first it's
got that motion is going to come we're
going to follow it here only on the
Midas touch Network where I do my hot
takes at the intersection of Law and
politics
I predict that's going to lose if it
doesn't lose in front of uh Canon it'll
lose at the 11th circuit and ultimately
the U.S Supreme Court could delay things
in the trial some of these things are
going to lead to potential delay in the
trial pushing it into early 2024 or
mid-2024 but that's his last hope that
he's Trump is able to suppress the
Mar-A-Lago search warrant results
I think that's a dead-on arrival loser
based on the evidence that I know about
and try to suppress Evan Corcoran and
knowing judge Beryl Howell and how
careful she is I believe she got that
role that law right she's applying it
right to the facts and again if Canon
screws it up the 11th circuit won't
which is her boss is sitting in Atlanta
and then we go on to the U.S Supreme
Court that's the big four defenses
you're going to hear over and over ad
nauseum from Donald Trump I'm almost
fatigued talking about them and it's
only been a week but that's what you're
going to hear everybody Trot out and
when you're debating or discussing these
things with friends and family some of
which who may sit on a different
political side of the spectrum than you
those these are going to be their
talking points selective prosecution uh
suppression Mar-A-Lago search war was
not properly done Evan Corcoran should
never testified against Donald Trump uh
he wasn't a spy so no Espionage Act uh
he gets to magically create things into
personal papers that were National
Defense information so no Espionage Act
no obstruction no that I mean I I mean
he's just going to die the death of a
thousand paper cuts how many of these
things can he explain away in front of a
jury most of these defenses if not all
of them will never see the inside of a
courtroom
to get to a jury because they'll be
destroyed before that by the Department
of Justice and proper appellate rulings
we'll follow him here on the Midas touch
Network as that's where I do my work at
the intersection of Law and politics I'm
a practicing lawyer for more than 30
years including in the southern district
of Florida where I practice for over 20
years I've been before the judges were
talking about I know how these cases are
going to turn out based on my own
personal experience and my own judgment
and that's what I bring to you in these
kind of hot ticks if you like what I'm
doing in a hot take like this one give
me a thumbs up it helps it helps with
the quality and quantity of what we
provide every day on the Midas touch
Network we curate the best of these
analyzes we bring it to you on
Wednesdays and Saturdays on a podcast
called Legal AF on the Midas touch
network if you like what I'm doing I'm
Michael popock you can follow me on all
things social media at Ms this is
Michael popock legal AF reporting
foreign
by Michael Popock
MeidasTouch
Jun 17, 2023
Michael Popok of Legal AF breakdowns all 4 of Trump’s main defenses to the Mar a Lago criminal indictment and explains why they are all doomed to fail and will never be presented to any future jury.
Transcript
this is Michael popock legal AF every
day Donald Trump and his lawyers and his
lackeys try to float new defenses to the
criminal prosecution of Donald Trump
down in Miami on Mar-A-Lago there's four
major ones I've heard them all I've
looked at them all and I'm here to tell
you that they're all dead bang losers
let's go over them one at a time plus
new information I picked up concerning
Donald Trump's likely Witnesses against
him Evan Corcoran his former lawyer
let's start with Defense number one
you'll hear a lot about it it works in
rallies it works in Cuban cafes in Miami
it doesn't work in a court of law and
that is the presidential records act
allows Donald Trump to magically
designate what is personal records and
what is presidential records and he's a
very busy man he just didn't get around
to doing it and therefore the whole
search warrant uh subpoena process was
flawed and all of that should be in his
favor that's all a lie I mean let me
just call it out I know that on other
mainstream media channels they like to
pussyfoot around about calling something
what it is but not on the Midas touch
Network the presidential records Act is
not there's no good faith interpretation
of it or uh construction of it that fits
with Donald Trump's defense not one bit
of it the ACT says that everything that
goes to the operation of being the
president of the United States anything
that goes to being
the job function responsibilities
constitutional duties those are by their
very nature presidential records
therefore the people's documents and
need to be returned upon the end of the
office to have them properly archived by
the national and presidential archivist
as the presidential archive that's it
plain and simple any other argument that
you've heard about he's saved somehow or
the presidential record act will be a
defense and the jury will be so
instructed is a lie
presidential records act does not give
him a defense to the Espionage Act
violations the acts of obstruction the
acts of interference the acts of hiding
documents the acts of lying to his
lawyers the Department of Justice and
the FBI and ultimately to federal judges
that led to the ultimate execution of
the search warrant and even since the
execution of the search warrant
let's let's be clear Donald Trump has
had almost a year since the execution of
the search warrant to either work out a
deal with the Department of Justice go
back through his documents return the
presidential papers and beg for
forgiveness he hasn't done it he's never
done it that's why there was an
execution of a search warrant in August
of last year that's why he was indicted
last week for his own misconduct he
likes to say in his rallies this is a
sad day for democracy a sad day for
justice it isn't it shows the justice
system works and that if you commit
crimes you're not going to be given a
pass just because you were the former
president that's not how that works so
let's take off the board the
presidential records act defense because
everything that we're talking about
those hundreds and hundreds of National
Defense information documents some
marked top secret and classified go to
his constitutional and other duties as
president and needed to be returned full
stop period end of story
so now let's move on to the Espionage
Act the second defense you're going to
hear or have heard from Donald Trump at
rallies and after he left the
arraignment is that the Espionage Act
isn't being properly applied to him
because he's not a spy or
um you know he wasn't spying for another
country that is a complete
misrepresentation of the substance of
that statute yes it has a very sexy name
Espionage Act sounds like double agents
and triple agents and people wearing you
know uh uh all sorts of raincoats and
hats and okay but that's not what it
applies to it applies to anyone who with
with withholds willfully withholds
National Defense information material
that's it
it's not yours it is ndi National
Defense information you don't return it
you've just committed a violation of the
Espionage Act and whether you were going
to do it for transactional purposes
because you were going to trade it for
something with one of our allies or
enemies or you were just going to use it
for the future transactional use doesn't
matter that's not the Criminal Intent
that's required for the violation of the
Espionage Act it's only that you've
willfully meaning it wasn't accidental
that's what willful generally means in
the law intentional acts and everything
that's listed in the indictment and so
much more we haven't even heard about
yet when this case goes to trial in
terms of the evidence mountain of
evidence the Department of Justice Jack
Smith have indicates willfulness and
intent not accidental it wasn't The
Accidental Espionage violator Donald
Trump was the intentional and willful
Espionage Act Violator
if you take one thing away from the
indictment it's how involved personally
Donald Trump was in hiding and secreting
documents from the National Archive than
the FBI then the Department of Justice
then his own lawyers then federal judges
period
he selected what boxes would go back to
the National Archive personally after
reviewing them
he gave instructions to his lawyers
to not be truthful to the National
Archive to not be truthful to the FBI he
when when he wasn't sure if they would
do the right thing
Donald Trump made the decision which
boxes to put in the storage room in
Mar-A-Lago for his lawyer to look at a
week later and which ones to leave out
and then move boxes in and out of that
room after the lawyer had left under his
own video cameras before the Department
of Justice arrived
that was Donald Trump's decision making
it wasn't he had lackeys and buffers
reviewing the boxes he would have dozens
and dozens of boxes delivered through
Walt nowra and other people up to his
personal Residence at Mar-A-Lago where
he personally re viewed them period
that's your takeaway from the indictment
and everything I just talked about
instructing his lawyers to lie to the
National Archive instructing his lawyers
to lie about documents that existed but
he didn't want turned over making them
lie on forms that they had done their
due diligence to look for documents
hiding the documents moving the
documents moving them from Mar-A-Lago
within Mar-A-Lago moving them away from
his lawyer so he wouldn't see them
moving them to Bedminster those are all
badges of intent those are all
willfulness that is what the criminal
statute requires and nothing more
he is Reading in and telling his
gullible followers and those that want
to push back
and go after the Biden crime family talk
about projection that
um of the
um he didn't commit Espionage because
he's not a double agent he's not a spy
this isn't Boris and Natasha this isn't
Rocky and Bullwinkle
that's not what the statute says all you
have to do is you have to have them in
your possession and even if you don't
use them for any purpose the fact that
you have them in a box one box 15 boxes
20 boxes whether they're mixed in with
your personal dirty t-shirts and shoes
or whatever you're claiming or not
you've committed an act of uh to violate
the Espionage Act no different than you
know to Shara the national Guardsmen
intelligence officer who did the same
thing and is now in subject to 16 count
felony indictment for violations of the
Espionage Act
let's go to this take that off the board
that defense never gonna work
that'll that'll never get past motion
practice let alone be presented to a
jury because it's not a defense
you can't create new elements of a crime
and then say that they're not present
those are not the elements of the crime
and therefore that's not a defense to
the crime the third is selective
prosecution oh he whines at length about
selective prosecution and all of his his
surrogates do too whether they're a Lena
Haba or or Stephen Chung whoever that is
who tweets out things or sends things to
social media selective prosecution what
about ISM this is the what about ISM
defense what about Hillary's server
what about Joe Biden's Garage in the
Corvette what about Pence everybody's
doing it everybody's committing
violations of the Espionage Act it's my
artist rendering of the whiny defense
which we'll never see the light of day
in a courtroom and will never be
presented to a jury but I guess it makes
good good media makes good sound bites
for the day and allows him to collect
tens of millions of dollars from his
gullible followers but that's not a
defense first of all it's not a defense
even if the federal government only
prosecuted him because of his own bad
acts and never prosecuted anybody else
that doesn't give you selective
prosecution under the law that's one
secondly
there was a selective prosecution the
fact this is like comparing comparing
him to Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden is
like comparing apples to bowling balls
and chainsaws this isn't even this isn't
even Apple to other fruit this is Apple
does something else entirely different
Hillary Clinton didn't hide her server
they did she didn't say Well they're
coming to Chappaqua to take the server
from the basement let me go Send It On A
Plane down to Little Rock and put it in
my mother-in-law's trailer I mean that's
not what happened okay
as soon as it came it came I became
known that she was using her personal
email account and had a personal server
maintained by an I.T guy in her basement
while she was Secretary of State she
turned it over
right sure a couple of emails got Lost
in Translation but she didn't hide it
she didn't obfuscate she had an obstruct
she didn't lie to the federal government
the federal agents the FBI the
Department of Justice her own lawyers
people on her staff federal judges
she didn't do that so how is that
comparable
that's like comparing somebody that's
guilty of vehicular manslaughter to
somebody else that's guilty at best at
attempted jaywalking
yes it involves streets and cars but
that's all they have in common
and so take that off the board Joe Biden
having old documents that he didn't even
know he had that were locked in closets
that were with the the University of
Delaware for a Future Foundation of his
or in a or in a garage who cares
you have to have willfulness to commit a
crime this is not a regulatory
administrative violation Mr Trump and
your lawyers
this isn't a slap on the wrist this is a
crime and in this country under our
judicial system and our LA and our
system of jurisprudence there has to be
Criminal Intent we call it men's rare
willful mind
where is the willful mine for Joe Biden
where's the willfulness the willful in
Criminal Intent for Hillary Clinton but
it's all over the indictment and the
facts that have been developed by the
Department of Justice against Joe Biden
I mean see you now you got me doing it
against Donald Trump sorry sorry
followers and listeners but you knew
where that was going
so missing willfulness you don't have a
crime
plain and simple first day law school
criminal law 101. must show men's Raya
and that's the difference between civil
law and criminal law is the lack of mens
rea willfulness Criminal Intent all over
Trump missing from Pence Biden Clinton
period full stop we're done no further
comparison take it off the board now
let's go to their attempts to suppress
evidence of course they don't like the
thousands of documents dozens of boxes
and top secret and classified
information that was obtained in the
search warrant so they're going to try
with judge Cannon whoever the judge is
going to be to suppress the evidence
claiming that it was somehow an improper
search warrant
now they can attack the foundation of
the search warrant and try to argue that
the affidavits and support of it were
invalid
and therefore the Magistrate Judge never
should have issued the search warrant
search warrant should never have been
executed documents should never have
been taken out of Mar-A-Lago suppress
suppress suppress
in the law we call that the fruit from
The Poisoned tree the fruit from the
poisonous tree you can't eat the fruit
of a poisonous tree so if the process
was tainted you can't use the results of
that process that's the general
the general approach
but that doesn't apply here
that Magistrate Judge Reinhardt in
listening to the evidence that was
presented had probable cause to issue
that search warrant and they were right
he was moving the documents in and out
of Mar-A-Lago within Mar-A-Lago and
hiding them and getting dozens of people
to help him do that
and that ladies and gentlemen is
probable cause that the documents are
not going to be properly maintained or
retained in order to use just a regular
old-fashioned subpoena process that we
got to go in and knock down the door and
go grab the boxes
so he's not going to win suppression on
the Mar-A-Lago the Mar-A-Lago execution
of the search warrant which was based
primarily on witness testimony that was
obtained by the Department of Justice
they're also going to try to attack Evan
Corcoran who they they oh my God if I
could think of a witness that they fear
more than Evan Corcoran I can't think of
it Evan Corcoran is not just the former
lawyer but put a pin on that I want to
talk about something on this attic I'm
not sure he's still the he's the former
lawyer for Donald Trump anymore but it
was announced that he resigned that he
at one point was a target of the
criminal investigation because he ended
up lying to the Department of Justice
and the FBI about having done a search
which the video timer shows his entire
search of dozens of boxes behind a
locked door
lasted less than an hour it was like 47
minutes and came out with you know his
his um his 34 pages of documents that he
said were classified needed to be
returned ignoring the hundreds more next
door in the office desk drawer
Donald Trump's own personal living
quarters and all that
a federal judge chief judge of the
Circuit Court in District of Columbia
that oversees all things grand jury
already found based on the evidence that
there was more likely than not that
Donald Trump with Evan corcoran's help
committed a crime or fraud about those
documents
and use the crime fraud exception to the
general attorney-client privilege to
strip the attorney-client privilege away
from Donald Trump because the client
holds the privilege and forced the
lawyer to testify not just testify turn
over 50 pages of single space notes that
he took about Donald Trump and the
instructions he gave Donald Trump and
the information Donald Trump
communicated back to him and an audio
tape that the lawyer Evan Corcoran
recorded as his own private musings
about the case all went to the
prosecutor of course they hate that it's
not just used as evidence to get the
indictment it's Evan Corcoran coming
through the courthouse steps to up the
courthouse steps and through the back
wooden door to take the stand
when the government says our first
witness your honor we call M Evan
Corcoran
that's my artist rendering of the
reaction
it's gonna be like that because he's
going to have to testify about all of
those attorney clients deep dark secret
relationship and Communications with
Donald Trump
to commit crimes about the Mar-A-Lago
documents
so they're really worried about that on
the Trump side so they're going to file
a motion with judge Cannon or whoever
it's going to be
and try to suppress
Evan Corcoran from ever testifying any
of his evidence
and I have a high degree of confidence
based on knowing judge Beryl Howell the
chief judge of the District of Columbia
who heard all the evidence that she got
it right
she got it right related to that ruling
that there was a crime fraud exception
that applied stripping it from Donald
Trump now the judges in the southern
district of Florida don't have to listen
it's not dispositive when judges in
another place even Chief Judges in
another place in this case the District
of Columbia make a ruling about an issue
it's persuasive
the Appellate Court the 11th circuit and
the Supreme Court will certainly find it
persuasive but at the end of the day the
trial judge sitting in southern district
of Florida
her boss is not Barrel Howell sitting in
the District of Columbia her boss is the
11th circuit and ultimately the U.S
Supreme Court so she could say well uh
you know Barrel Barrel House screwed up
here and that should never have been
allowed and I don't find that it was a
proper
um uh attorney-client uh privilege
stripping uh by them and therefore I'm
going to suppress I'm going to exclude
all things Evan Corcoran look first it's
got that motion is going to come we're
going to follow it here only on the
Midas touch Network where I do my hot
takes at the intersection of Law and
politics
I predict that's going to lose if it
doesn't lose in front of uh Canon it'll
lose at the 11th circuit and ultimately
the U.S Supreme Court could delay things
in the trial some of these things are
going to lead to potential delay in the
trial pushing it into early 2024 or
mid-2024 but that's his last hope that
he's Trump is able to suppress the
Mar-A-Lago search warrant results
I think that's a dead-on arrival loser
based on the evidence that I know about
and try to suppress Evan Corcoran and
knowing judge Beryl Howell and how
careful she is I believe she got that
role that law right she's applying it
right to the facts and again if Canon
screws it up the 11th circuit won't
which is her boss is sitting in Atlanta
and then we go on to the U.S Supreme
Court that's the big four defenses
you're going to hear over and over ad
nauseum from Donald Trump I'm almost
fatigued talking about them and it's
only been a week but that's what you're
going to hear everybody Trot out and
when you're debating or discussing these
things with friends and family some of
which who may sit on a different
political side of the spectrum than you
those these are going to be their
talking points selective prosecution uh
suppression Mar-A-Lago search war was
not properly done Evan Corcoran should
never testified against Donald Trump uh
he wasn't a spy so no Espionage Act uh
he gets to magically create things into
personal papers that were National
Defense information so no Espionage Act
no obstruction no that I mean I I mean
he's just going to die the death of a
thousand paper cuts how many of these
things can he explain away in front of a
jury most of these defenses if not all
of them will never see the inside of a
courtroom
to get to a jury because they'll be
destroyed before that by the Department
of Justice and proper appellate rulings
we'll follow him here on the Midas touch
Network as that's where I do my work at
the intersection of Law and politics I'm
a practicing lawyer for more than 30
years including in the southern district
of Florida where I practice for over 20
years I've been before the judges were
talking about I know how these cases are
going to turn out based on my own
personal experience and my own judgment
and that's what I bring to you in these
kind of hot ticks if you like what I'm
doing in a hot take like this one give
me a thumbs up it helps it helps with
the quality and quantity of what we
provide every day on the Midas touch
Network we curate the best of these
analyzes we bring it to you on
Wednesdays and Saturdays on a podcast
called Legal AF on the Midas touch
network if you like what I'm doing I'm
Michael popock you can follow me on all
things social media at Ms this is
Michael popock legal AF reporting
foreign
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 37523
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Trump lashes out at Gov. Doug Ducey following certificat
by admin » Sun Jun 18, 2023 5:49 am
Sarah Palin accidentally makes SHOCKING admission about Trump Supporters on live TV
by Texas Paul
MeidasTouch
Jun 17, 2023
Sarah Palin gave her thoughts on whether or not MAGA is a cult, and well, you have to hear her answer to believe it. Texas Paul reacts.
Transcript
I was with the Trump motorcade yesterday
and I would say that the people at
Versailles at the Cuban restaurant I
wouldn't call them cult members would
you
uh no well folks Sarah Palin's back yep
that's right old sister Sarah the the
pray for me so the witches don't get me
Palin is back
and she's lecturing us on all things of
of all things on
is Maga a cult she appeared on Newsmax
and and gave this response when they
asked her is Maga a cult take it take a
look I was with the Trump motorcade
yesterday and I would say that the
people at Versailles at the Cuban
restaurant I wouldn't call them cult
members would you
uh no you know the definition of a cult
is a group of people who are excessively
supporting what another and a cause all
about Conformity and compliance and
intolerance of anyone who doesn't agree
with what their mission is okay that's
the definition of what the left is
engaged in right now speaking of Colts
all about Conformity and compliance and
heaven forbid you don't agree with them
yeah and you know I I've got a little
bit better of a better answer than that
let's take a little trip down memory
lane folks let's just let's just think
about the way elections used to be
you know we'd come to an election and
everybody put a sign out little sign out
in their yard yeah maybe you put a a big
sign out in your yard if you were really
enthusiastic
and then we'd have that election you
know you might put a bumper sticker on
your car then the election would be over
and then people take those signs down
you know they scrape that bumper sticker
off their car and keep on keeping on
well not anymore not since the cult of
Maga
no it's a year-round ordeal all the time
you know folks used to put American
flags on the front of their house
but now they're hanging Trump Flags
all the time
and then it got worse than that folks
they started Plastering their houses
I mean their their houses you know
there's just one up in Youngstown
Pennsylvania and it's not just that one
they're they're all over the country
where people are now wrapping their
houses
with Trump branded flags and and whatnot
and this one house in Youngstown
Pennsylvania has a 15-foot Effigy of
trump in spotlights
yeah I mean that's a cult folks that's a
CO if you don't think that's a call here
take a look at Marjorie Trader green
with this Effigy Of Trump and see what
she does here there we go
but it's amazing yeah that that's right
folks yeah you've got a sitting member
of Congress
fondling a cardboard cutout over cult
leader
yeah I mean that's a cult folks that's a
and if that's not enough for you they
built a golden statue of him
and put it on display at CPAC if you
don't know what CPAC is it's a con it's
the conservative political action
conference it's the big
Republican conservative get together
every year
they put a golden Trump out there people
were praying to it taking pictures with
it
you know I mean just you know just
touching it you know I mean it it's a
cult folks it's a cult
you know your crazy uncle went out and
bought 100
cartoons digital cartoons
of trump
well I'm not kidding I'm not kidding 100
bucks they went out and bought Trump
bucks
have you ever heard of Biden bucks no no
we don't do that we're not in a cult
there are people that went out and
bought fake Trump money
I'm not kidding and it gets worse than
that you need to keep an eye on your
crazy uncle your crazy pop we've all got
one in the family we all do
you know you got people that put second
mortgages on their houses
yeah he ended up getting divorced and
stuff like that yeah that really
happened folks
it's a cult
and then the rallies
these aren't stump speeches
you know we used to have you know
election time
politicians we'd have to see them then
they'd come out and they'd do they would
do speeches then oh no this cult does
them year round every year election or
not
and what's crazy is to show you how
insane this cult is these people
travel around to the to the rallies it
said I said same people showing up at
all to hear the same stupid speeches
that's a cult folks
that is a cult
it's why they can't understand they lost
it's why they were susceptible to their
cult leader telling them to go desecrate
our capital
and try to overturn the results of an
election they were offered
zero proof
that they that anything was wrong with
they just lost
they were just lost but they were told
by their cult leader
that it was stolen from them so they
desecrated their own capital and tried
to overthrow their own democracy
and he gave them no proof none
whatsoever
and they did it anyways that's a cult
that's a cult
and it's getting worse and worse and
worse folks it's not getting better you
know it started out with somebody hung
hanging a trump flag on the front of
their house now they're desecrating
Flags now they're hanging the American
flag upside down
and desecrating our American flag
and it's you know folks where does it
end
you know people make a joke they make a
joke about the people's temple in Jim
Jones
and how much Maga is like them
the people's simple if you don't know
that was Jim Jones's cult
and you know those people got together
and they mixed up a bunch of poison
Kool-Aid and they drank it and died for
Jim Jones
and and the joke is that the only
difference between the magical and the
Jim Jones cult
is Trump would have branded the Kool-Aid
and sold it to him for eight bucks to
pop
[Music]
I Tell You Folks it's getting it's
getting bad
you know Caribou Barbie here
you know in her response she just
perfectly describes Maga
watch out for your people
watch out for your people it's getting
worse
it's getting worse
one of the things you can do about it
show your people these videos
hit the Subscribe button so that you can
see them when they come out it doesn't
cost you anything
doesn't tangle you up in any way just
hit the Subscribe button it'll let you
know when a new video comes out when you
log on to to this platform
you hit the thumbs up thumbs up button
it'll it'll it'll get this video
circulated around and if you really want
to help out you're about to be see a
commercial from the Midas touch Network
folks the Midas touch network is working
their butts off they are the fastest
growing independent news source in the
country
and they are working their butts off to
make sure that you're crazy people that
are involved in these cult
actually have
information coming back at them they're
not allowed to just stay in their bubble
we get this information out to people
like no one else
so if you can support us great
I love you folks as old Texas Paul out
y'all have a wonderful day
by Texas Paul
MeidasTouch
Jun 17, 2023
Sarah Palin gave her thoughts on whether or not MAGA is a cult, and well, you have to hear her answer to believe it. Texas Paul reacts.
Transcript
I was with the Trump motorcade yesterday
and I would say that the people at
Versailles at the Cuban restaurant I
wouldn't call them cult members would
you
uh no well folks Sarah Palin's back yep
that's right old sister Sarah the the
pray for me so the witches don't get me
Palin is back
and she's lecturing us on all things of
of all things on
is Maga a cult she appeared on Newsmax
and and gave this response when they
asked her is Maga a cult take it take a
look I was with the Trump motorcade
yesterday and I would say that the
people at Versailles at the Cuban
restaurant I wouldn't call them cult
members would you
uh no you know the definition of a cult
is a group of people who are excessively
supporting what another and a cause all
about Conformity and compliance and
intolerance of anyone who doesn't agree
with what their mission is okay that's
the definition of what the left is
engaged in right now speaking of Colts
all about Conformity and compliance and
heaven forbid you don't agree with them
yeah and you know I I've got a little
bit better of a better answer than that
let's take a little trip down memory
lane folks let's just let's just think
about the way elections used to be
you know we'd come to an election and
everybody put a sign out little sign out
in their yard yeah maybe you put a a big
sign out in your yard if you were really
enthusiastic
and then we'd have that election you
know you might put a bumper sticker on
your car then the election would be over
and then people take those signs down
you know they scrape that bumper sticker
off their car and keep on keeping on
well not anymore not since the cult of
Maga
no it's a year-round ordeal all the time
you know folks used to put American
flags on the front of their house
but now they're hanging Trump Flags
all the time
and then it got worse than that folks
they started Plastering their houses
I mean their their houses you know
there's just one up in Youngstown
Pennsylvania and it's not just that one
they're they're all over the country
where people are now wrapping their
houses
with Trump branded flags and and whatnot
and this one house in Youngstown
Pennsylvania has a 15-foot Effigy of
trump in spotlights
yeah I mean that's a cult folks that's a
CO if you don't think that's a call here
take a look at Marjorie Trader green
with this Effigy Of Trump and see what
she does here there we go
but it's amazing yeah that that's right
folks yeah you've got a sitting member
of Congress
fondling a cardboard cutout over cult
leader
yeah I mean that's a cult folks that's a
and if that's not enough for you they
built a golden statue of him
and put it on display at CPAC if you
don't know what CPAC is it's a con it's
the conservative political action
conference it's the big
Republican conservative get together
every year
they put a golden Trump out there people
were praying to it taking pictures with
it
you know I mean just you know just
touching it you know I mean it it's a
cult folks it's a cult
you know your crazy uncle went out and
bought 100
cartoons digital cartoons
of trump
well I'm not kidding I'm not kidding 100
bucks they went out and bought Trump
bucks
have you ever heard of Biden bucks no no
we don't do that we're not in a cult
there are people that went out and
bought fake Trump money
I'm not kidding and it gets worse than
that you need to keep an eye on your
crazy uncle your crazy pop we've all got
one in the family we all do
you know you got people that put second
mortgages on their houses
yeah he ended up getting divorced and
stuff like that yeah that really
happened folks
it's a cult
and then the rallies
these aren't stump speeches
you know we used to have you know
election time
politicians we'd have to see them then
they'd come out and they'd do they would
do speeches then oh no this cult does
them year round every year election or
not
and what's crazy is to show you how
insane this cult is these people
travel around to the to the rallies it
said I said same people showing up at
all to hear the same stupid speeches
that's a cult folks
that is a cult
it's why they can't understand they lost
it's why they were susceptible to their
cult leader telling them to go desecrate
our capital
and try to overturn the results of an
election they were offered
zero proof
that they that anything was wrong with
they just lost
they were just lost but they were told
by their cult leader
that it was stolen from them so they
desecrated their own capital and tried
to overthrow their own democracy
and he gave them no proof none
whatsoever
and they did it anyways that's a cult
that's a cult
and it's getting worse and worse and
worse folks it's not getting better you
know it started out with somebody hung
hanging a trump flag on the front of
their house now they're desecrating
Flags now they're hanging the American
flag upside down
and desecrating our American flag
and it's you know folks where does it
end
you know people make a joke they make a
joke about the people's temple in Jim
Jones
and how much Maga is like them
the people's simple if you don't know
that was Jim Jones's cult
and you know those people got together
and they mixed up a bunch of poison
Kool-Aid and they drank it and died for
Jim Jones
and and the joke is that the only
difference between the magical and the
Jim Jones cult
is Trump would have branded the Kool-Aid
and sold it to him for eight bucks to
pop
[Music]
I Tell You Folks it's getting it's
getting bad
you know Caribou Barbie here
you know in her response she just
perfectly describes Maga
watch out for your people
watch out for your people it's getting
worse
it's getting worse
one of the things you can do about it
show your people these videos
hit the Subscribe button so that you can
see them when they come out it doesn't
cost you anything
doesn't tangle you up in any way just
hit the Subscribe button it'll let you
know when a new video comes out when you
log on to to this platform
you hit the thumbs up thumbs up button
it'll it'll it'll get this video
circulated around and if you really want
to help out you're about to be see a
commercial from the Midas touch Network
folks the Midas touch network is working
their butts off they are the fastest
growing independent news source in the
country
and they are working their butts off to
make sure that you're crazy people that
are involved in these cult
actually have
information coming back at them they're
not allowed to just stay in their bubble
we get this information out to people
like no one else
so if you can support us great
I love you folks as old Texas Paul out
y'all have a wonderful day
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 37523
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Trump lashes out at Gov. Doug Ducey following certificat
by admin » Fri Jun 30, 2023 12:03 am
Trump’s CREEPIEST MOMENT with Ivanka EXPOSED in New Book
by Ben Meiselas
MeidasTouch Network
June 29, 2023
MeidasTouch host Ben Meiselas reports on excerpts from the soon-to-be-released book ‘Blowback’ by former Trump staffer Miles Taylor who exposes a truly creepy moment involving Donald Trump and his daughter Ivanka Trump. Meiselas also discusses other horrific incidents discussed in the book.
Transcript
I'm Ben Meiselas from the MeidasTouch
Network Miles Taylor who served as the
former Chief of Staff of the United
States Department of Homeland Security
in the Trump Administration and then
left and called out the horrific
policies of the Trump Administration is
publishing a new book it's called
Blowback a warning to save democracy
from the next Trump also notable about
Miles Taylor
he authored the September 2018 New York
Times op-ed entitled I am part of the
resistance inside the Trump
Administration under the name Anonymous
we'll talk about that in a little bit
one of the excerpts from the book
blowback was released today and in it
this is what it says and this was Miles
Taylor's first-hand experience in
interacting with Donald Trump and
Trump's then Chief of Staff John Kelly
and it is very notable that Miles Taylor
worked under John Kelly so Miles Taylor
is close with John Kelly they are
witnesses to this here's what is said
and it is beyond beyond creepy and
disgusting but we all know this I think
about Donald Trump quote
aides said that Donald Trump talked about
Ivanka Trump's breasts, her backside, and
what it might be like to have sex with
her, remarks that once led former Chief
of Staff John Kelly to remind Donald
Trump that Ivanka was his daughter it
got to such a problematic point -- I mean
saying it once is problematic, but Trump
would talk about this all the time so
his chief of staff John Kelly had to
tell Donald Trump to stop it. by the way,
Donald Trump now despises his former
Chief of Staff John Kelly and says that John
Kelly was not qualified he's one of a
number of people who Donald Trump hired
who Donald Trump now disparages
this story about how Donald Trump
disgustingly would talk about his own
daughter Ivanka reminds me of a video
that we made here on the MeidasTouch
Network during the 2020 elections that
went megaviral and we even bought a
spot on Fox with this ad I believe uh
let me play this video right now it's
called creepy Trump and it is a video in
the early stages of MeidasTouch that we
created here play this clip a lot of
really creepy
statements that he's made in the
past that make me very uncomfortable
certainly as a mother, but also as a person
who breathes air you're going up the
escalator? yeah I'm going to be dating
her in 10 years. really creepy
statements if Ivanka weren't my daughter perhaps
I'd be dating her
[laughter]
You're so weird!
Stop what you are saying!
[Music]
it makes me very uncomfortable that he would look at certain other americans
the way he apparently has in the past
what does Tiffany have of mom's?
[tiffany trump in 1994, 1-yr-old]
getting Marla's legs
she's got, at this point, nipple [inaudible]
what's the
favorite thing you have in common with
your father either real estate or golf
Donald with your daughter well I was
going to say sex but I can't relate that
he's definitely not a typical father
CREEPY CREEPY CREEPY CREEPY
VOTE HIM OUT
#CREEPY TRUMP
I mean beyond disgusting some other
excerpts from the book blowback will
blow your mind away although as MeidasTouch Network viewers I think we
intuitively know this about Donald Trump
but seeing these experiences talked
about is certainly uh in writing like
this is just demonstrates how
unqualified and how disgraceful Donald
Trump is this is from the book quote
I'll never forget an ex-trump Cabinet
member telling me that Donald Trump is
truly the most evil person that I have
ever met quote we cannot make this
mistake again the cabinet member told
Miles Taylor in responding to some of
the press about his book blowback and
regarding how Donald Trump was talking
about Ivanka constantly Miles Taylor
states
he's a very sick man he's unfit for any
office and somehow he's leading the GOP
field of course Miles Taylor former
Republican I mean to see what's happened
to the modern day Republican party look
Miles Taylor is a friend of the MeidasTouch Network we're going to have him on
in a little bit to talk about his book
blowback but
just you know someone like a Miles
Taylor is someone we could have a
conversation with me and Miles may
disagree on some issues but
fundamentally we support our democracy
here so uh
that's the way it should be we may have
differences in politics and policies
but
I think we both care I know we both care
about our democracy this is from Miles
Taylor as well he goes Trump's Chief of
Staff my former boss
estimated that one-third of Donald
Trump's ideas were flat-out illegal
America can't afford a repeat quote
among us friends let's be honest Donald
Trump's former Chief of Staff and Miles
Taylor's boss said quote about one third of
the things Donald Trump wants us to do
are flat out stupid another third would
be impossible to implement and wouldn't
even solve the problem and a third of
them would be flat out illegal so
one-third stupid one-third impossible
one-third flat out illegal
illegal
here is another part of the book uh the
book blowback talks about how Donald
Trump's top aide Stephen Miller who was
also giving Trump advice on immigration
advocated for using United States drones
in 2018
to blow up migrant boats full of unarmed
civilians
that is in the book as well
according to Miles Taylor this is how
Trump talked about America's neighbors
quote you know why we need this Trump
continued pointing to a photo of the
border wall on his desk that Mexico
never paid for and that Donald Trump
didn't complete and Donald Trump said
because Mexico is a hell hole have I
said that yet because it is it's a
hellhole and no one effing wants that
place
there's another excerpt right here where
Donald Trump wanted to wiretap his staff
as Miles Taylor said not the move of a
man who thinks the team that his team
loves him
he goes on to say how Donald Trump's
paranoia was causing him to unravel so
much so that he wanted to spy on his
immediate lieutenants he allegedly told
aides that he wanted to quote tap the
phones of the White House staff to find
out who was leaking damaging stories
about him to the media Chief of Staff
John Kelly quickly nixed the suggestion
knowing it would be illegal let me also
read here this is one of the things that
Miles Taylor posted he goes history
warns us to be wary of a leader who
pretends to be a quote man of the people
but detests working men and women 2)
acts like a deal maker but easily breaks
promises 3)
ignores experts but is said to be
seduced by himself during his own
speeches 4) calls for opponents to be
locked up but frets about getting
convicted himself 5) manipulates the
media for personal gain but attacks the
quote lying press as enemies 6) vows to
root out corruption but abuses official
powers 7) claims to have the best
lieutenants but surrounds himself with
sycophants 8) relishes supporters'
violence but keeps enough distance to
avoid charges of incitement 9) knows
small lies aren't believable but quote
big lies become gospel 10) builds his
cause around a pledge to make the
country great again while threatening
its very foundations Miles Taylor goes
on to say this is a description of Adolf
Hitler drawn from biographies of the man.
others have sought to follow in his
footsteps finally Miles Taylor
in his book also quotes former GOP
Congressman rep Riggleman who put It
best in an interview for the book
blowback that Republicans privately say
Trump is probably high on meth and yet
they still bow down to him
here is the passage from the book former
GOP Congressman Denver Riggleman who was
elected from Virginia in 2018
recalled that it felt like a hostage
situation on the house floor he was
expecting to support the Maga movement
or else quote as soon as I won I
realized what I'd gotten myself into he
shared with me quote I found that votes
had nothing to do with policy but with
complete loyalty to Donald Trump I just
found it amazing that the other
representatives were so subservient
while they privately mocked Trump as
quote probably being high on meth he
said at first Riggleman toed the party
line and campaigned as a trump supporter
but then ultimately changed his way
folks get get blowback Miles Taylor
isn't even telling me to say that but
I'm going to get a copy of this as well
I think I got a copy of it already I'm
gonna I'm gonna definitely recommend it
though here on the Meidas touch Network
the those are some great excerpts check
it out
by Ben Meiselas
MeidasTouch Network
June 29, 2023
MeidasTouch host Ben Meiselas reports on excerpts from the soon-to-be-released book ‘Blowback’ by former Trump staffer Miles Taylor who exposes a truly creepy moment involving Donald Trump and his daughter Ivanka Trump. Meiselas also discusses other horrific incidents discussed in the book.
Transcript
I'm Ben Meiselas from the MeidasTouch
Network Miles Taylor who served as the
former Chief of Staff of the United
States Department of Homeland Security
in the Trump Administration and then
left and called out the horrific
policies of the Trump Administration is
publishing a new book it's called
Blowback a warning to save democracy
from the next Trump also notable about
Miles Taylor
he authored the September 2018 New York
Times op-ed entitled I am part of the
resistance inside the Trump
Administration under the name Anonymous
we'll talk about that in a little bit
one of the excerpts from the book
blowback was released today and in it
this is what it says and this was Miles
Taylor's first-hand experience in
interacting with Donald Trump and
Trump's then Chief of Staff John Kelly
and it is very notable that Miles Taylor
worked under John Kelly so Miles Taylor
is close with John Kelly they are
witnesses to this here's what is said
and it is beyond beyond creepy and
disgusting but we all know this I think
about Donald Trump quote
aides said that Donald Trump talked about
Ivanka Trump's breasts, her backside, and
what it might be like to have sex with
her, remarks that once led former Chief
of Staff John Kelly to remind Donald
Trump that Ivanka was his daughter it
got to such a problematic point -- I mean
saying it once is problematic, but Trump
would talk about this all the time so
his chief of staff John Kelly had to
tell Donald Trump to stop it. by the way,
Donald Trump now despises his former
Chief of Staff John Kelly and says that John
Kelly was not qualified he's one of a
number of people who Donald Trump hired
who Donald Trump now disparages
this story about how Donald Trump
disgustingly would talk about his own
daughter Ivanka reminds me of a video
that we made here on the MeidasTouch
Network during the 2020 elections that
went megaviral and we even bought a
spot on Fox with this ad I believe uh
let me play this video right now it's
called creepy Trump and it is a video in
the early stages of MeidasTouch that we
created here play this clip a lot of
really creepy
statements that he's made in the
past that make me very uncomfortable
certainly as a mother, but also as a person
who breathes air you're going up the
escalator? yeah I'm going to be dating
her in 10 years. really creepy
statements if Ivanka weren't my daughter perhaps
I'd be dating her
[laughter]
You're so weird!
Stop what you are saying!
[Music]
it makes me very uncomfortable that he would look at certain other americans
the way he apparently has in the past
what does Tiffany have of mom's?
[tiffany trump in 1994, 1-yr-old]
getting Marla's legs
she's got, at this point, nipple [inaudible]
what's the
favorite thing you have in common with
your father either real estate or golf
Donald with your daughter well I was
going to say sex but I can't relate that
he's definitely not a typical father
CREEPY CREEPY CREEPY CREEPY
VOTE HIM OUT
#CREEPY TRUMP
I mean beyond disgusting some other
excerpts from the book blowback will
blow your mind away although as MeidasTouch Network viewers I think we
intuitively know this about Donald Trump
but seeing these experiences talked
about is certainly uh in writing like
this is just demonstrates how
unqualified and how disgraceful Donald
Trump is this is from the book quote
I'll never forget an ex-trump Cabinet
member telling me that Donald Trump is
truly the most evil person that I have
ever met quote we cannot make this
mistake again the cabinet member told
Miles Taylor in responding to some of
the press about his book blowback and
regarding how Donald Trump was talking
about Ivanka constantly Miles Taylor
states
he's a very sick man he's unfit for any
office and somehow he's leading the GOP
field of course Miles Taylor former
Republican I mean to see what's happened
to the modern day Republican party look
Miles Taylor is a friend of the MeidasTouch Network we're going to have him on
in a little bit to talk about his book
blowback but
just you know someone like a Miles
Taylor is someone we could have a
conversation with me and Miles may
disagree on some issues but
fundamentally we support our democracy
here so uh
that's the way it should be we may have
differences in politics and policies
but
I think we both care I know we both care
about our democracy this is from Miles
Taylor as well he goes Trump's Chief of
Staff my former boss
estimated that one-third of Donald
Trump's ideas were flat-out illegal
America can't afford a repeat quote
among us friends let's be honest Donald
Trump's former Chief of Staff and Miles
Taylor's boss said quote about one third of
the things Donald Trump wants us to do
are flat out stupid another third would
be impossible to implement and wouldn't
even solve the problem and a third of
them would be flat out illegal so
one-third stupid one-third impossible
one-third flat out illegal
illegal
here is another part of the book uh the
book blowback talks about how Donald
Trump's top aide Stephen Miller who was
also giving Trump advice on immigration
advocated for using United States drones
in 2018
to blow up migrant boats full of unarmed
civilians
that is in the book as well
according to Miles Taylor this is how
Trump talked about America's neighbors
quote you know why we need this Trump
continued pointing to a photo of the
border wall on his desk that Mexico
never paid for and that Donald Trump
didn't complete and Donald Trump said
because Mexico is a hell hole have I
said that yet because it is it's a
hellhole and no one effing wants that
place
there's another excerpt right here where
Donald Trump wanted to wiretap his staff
as Miles Taylor said not the move of a
man who thinks the team that his team
loves him
he goes on to say how Donald Trump's
paranoia was causing him to unravel so
much so that he wanted to spy on his
immediate lieutenants he allegedly told
aides that he wanted to quote tap the
phones of the White House staff to find
out who was leaking damaging stories
about him to the media Chief of Staff
John Kelly quickly nixed the suggestion
knowing it would be illegal let me also
read here this is one of the things that
Miles Taylor posted he goes history
warns us to be wary of a leader who
pretends to be a quote man of the people
but detests working men and women 2)
acts like a deal maker but easily breaks
promises 3)
ignores experts but is said to be
seduced by himself during his own
speeches 4) calls for opponents to be
locked up but frets about getting
convicted himself 5) manipulates the
media for personal gain but attacks the
quote lying press as enemies 6) vows to
root out corruption but abuses official
powers 7) claims to have the best
lieutenants but surrounds himself with
sycophants 8) relishes supporters'
violence but keeps enough distance to
avoid charges of incitement 9) knows
small lies aren't believable but quote
big lies become gospel 10) builds his
cause around a pledge to make the
country great again while threatening
its very foundations Miles Taylor goes
on to say this is a description of Adolf
Hitler drawn from biographies of the man.
others have sought to follow in his
footsteps finally Miles Taylor
in his book also quotes former GOP
Congressman rep Riggleman who put It
best in an interview for the book
blowback that Republicans privately say
Trump is probably high on meth and yet
they still bow down to him
here is the passage from the book former
GOP Congressman Denver Riggleman who was
elected from Virginia in 2018
recalled that it felt like a hostage
situation on the house floor he was
expecting to support the Maga movement
or else quote as soon as I won I
realized what I'd gotten myself into he
shared with me quote I found that votes
had nothing to do with policy but with
complete loyalty to Donald Trump I just
found it amazing that the other
representatives were so subservient
while they privately mocked Trump as
quote probably being high on meth he
said at first Riggleman toed the party
line and campaigned as a trump supporter
but then ultimately changed his way
folks get get blowback Miles Taylor
isn't even telling me to say that but
I'm going to get a copy of this as well
I think I got a copy of it already I'm
gonna I'm gonna definitely recommend it
though here on the Meidas touch Network
the those are some great excerpts check
it out
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 37523
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Trump lashes out at Gov. Doug Ducey following certificat
by admin » Mon Jul 03, 2023 1:06 am
Trump ARIZONA CRIMINAL PLOT is Finally EXPOSED
by Ben Meiselas
MeidasTouch
Jul 3, 2023
MeidasTouch host Ben Meiselas discusses the latest Washington Post report that Donald Trump threatened the former Arizona Governor Doug Ducey after the 2020 election. Calling Jack Smith!
Transcript
I'm Ben Meiselas from the Meidas touch
Network we know that last week's special
counsel Jack Smith and his team took a
trip to Atlanta and met with the
secretary of state of Georgia Brad
raffensberger Brad raffensberger
Republican Secretary of State of Georgia
received the phone call from Donald
Trump after the 2020 election Brad I
need you to find me 11,780
votes to overturn the results of the
election in Georgia or else Brad bad
things are going to happen to you Brad
raffensberger and his team were
recording that phone call because they
know they were being extorted by Donald
Trump Donald Trump says that was a
perfect phone call nobody was yelling at
him on the phone call that's how he
knows it was perfect nobody was throwing
ketchup so that's also why he thinks it
was perfect and he claims that the only
crime that was committed was that he was
being recorded without his consent of
course Donald Trump is a liar and a
criminal and every single thing he says
is completely and utterly preposterous
and false and just propaganda to his
base who evidently do not care about the
facts and reality but Donald Trump's
calls to Brad raffensberger many legal
observers including myself believe it
was criminal well
um uh special counsel Jack Smith's not
just stopping when it comes to Brad
raffensberger special counsel Jack Smith
may also be focused on other threats
that we haven't necessarily been focused
on here and the Washington Post is
reporting for example that Donald Trump
was not just pressuring Brad
raffensberger they shouldn't come as a
surprise though because we know Trump
was press pressuring lots of officials
but Trump was also pressuring Arizona
governor Doug Ducey to overturn the
results in Arizona the results of the
2020 election a new exclusive Washington
Post report that broke this weekend says
Trump pressured Arizona governor Doug
Ducey to overturn the 2020 election
results in a phone call in late 2020
Donald Trump tried to pressure Arizona
governor Doug Ducey to overturn the
state's presidential election results
saying that if enough fraudulent votes
could be found it would overcome Trump's
loss in Arizona three people familiar
with the matter talked to Washington
Post for this article Trump also
reportedly spoke with uh Pence and told
Pence to basically put pressure on Ducey
Pence called Ducey multiple times but
did not do any of the things that Donald
Trump said that he should do to do see
that is important as well because you
will recall that former vice president
Pence has testified before special
counsel Jack Smith and all of that
special counsel Jack Smith has now
learned so all of the individuals
whether it was Doug Ducey or other
people that Trump was getting Pence to
try to call and threaten special counsel
Jack Smith has that information and
Pence according to the sources in this
article never carried out Donald Trump's
wishes because doesn't say this in the
article but let me fill in the because
Pence knew it was Criminal
so clearly when Jack Smith had former
vice president Pence before a grand jury
he would have asked pencil name me all
of the times Donald Trump told you to
call people why didn't you say the
things that Donald Trump wanted you to
say oh because it was a crime the
article goes on to say that the extent
of Trump's efforts to they use the word
control I'll use the word threaten Ducey
into helping him stay in power has not
yet been reported The Washington Post
reported on it first even though other
efforts by Donald Trump uh and Trump's
lawyers threatening other Arizona
officials has been reported as well
according to people who heard about
these stories from Ducey Ducey described
the pressure he was under after Trump's
loss to numerous people the account was
confirmed by others aware of the call
Ducey told the donor he was surprised
that special counsel Jack Smith's team
had not inquired about his phone call
with Trump and Pence as part of the
Justice Department's investigation into
former president Trump's attempt to
overturn the 2020 election well the
reality is though is that it should have
come as a surprise you now know what the
Midas touch Network why Jack Smith has
the info he has the info from the other
people that he's spoken to and that's
what Jack Smith is
nailing down.
the article says that Ducey did not
record the phone call the way Brad
raffensberger uh recorded the phone call
now at a public office it says Ducey
declined through a spokesperson to
answer specific questions about his
interactions quote this is neither new
nor is it news to anyone following the
issue the last two years spokesman
Daniel scarpinato said in a statement
Governor Ducey defend the results of
Arizona's 2020 election he certified the
election and he made it clear that the
certification provided a trigger for
credible complaints backed by evidence
to be brought forward none were ever
brought forward the government stands by
his action to certify the election and
consider the issue to be in the rear
view mirror
uh the article then goes on to cite a
trump spokesperson who just says oh it's
a Witch Hunt it's a Witch Hunt it's a
Witch Hunt the article goes on to say
it's unclear if Ducey has been contacted
by Smith's office since meeting with
this donor it is unclear if prosecutors
plan to eventually bring charges or how
the calls figure into their
investigation prosecutors have shown
interest into Trump's efforts to
conscript Pence into helping him
according to Witnesses and and subpoenas
previously reviewed by The Washington
Post the article goes on to say how
Trump phoned the governor's cell phone
on November 30th 2020 as Ducey was in
the middle of signing documents certify
you remember this certifying Biden's win
in this state during a live stream video
ceremony Trump's Outreach was
immediately clear to those watching
because Governor ducey's phone as he was
certifying Biden he had the ringtone set
to hell to the chief playing on his
phone Ducey pulled out his phone from
his suit jacket muted the incoming call
and put his phone aside as he was
signing the certification saying that
Biden won that's when Trump was calling
him as the certification was being
signed the article goes on to say four
people familiar with the call said Trump
spoke specifically about his shortfall
of more than ten thousand votes in
Arizona and then espoused a range of
false claims that would show he
overwhelmingly won the election in the
state and encouraged Ducey to study them
at the time Trump's attorneys and allies
spread false claims to explain his loss
including that voters who had died and
non-citizens had cast ballots
after Trump's call to Ducey Trump
directed Pence a former governor who had
known Ducey for years to frequently
check in with Ducey for any progress
uncovering claims of voting
improprieties according to people with
knowledge Pence was expected to report
back his findings and was peppered with
conspiracy theories from Trump and his
team Pence did not pressure Ducey but
told him to call if he found anything
because Trump was looking for evidence a
representative for Pence declined to
comment on the story then it goes on to
say in Arizona Trump and his attorney
Rudy Giuliani called the speaker of the
house remember this Rusty Bowers on
November 22nd 2020 they asked the
speaker to convene the legislature to
investigate their unsubstantiated claims
a voter fraud which included that votes
were cast in Mass by undocumented
immigrants and in the names of deceased
people weeks later on December 31 2020
the White House switchboard left a
message for the chair of the Maricopa
County Board of Supervisors and you
recall all the threats that were
directed at Rusty bowers's way and now
of course we know as well Rudy Giuliani
is cooperating with special counsel Jack
Smith and gave a proper agreement and
provided an interview with Jack Smith's
team right very recently we reported on
it this week so
this is big folks the fact that we now
are alerting that again not just
directed at the secretary of state of
Georgia threats also being directed at
Doug Ducey uh then governor of Arizona
Pence was the conduit of it Pence didn't
execute the threats Pence spoke before
the grand jury Giuliani offered a proper
agreement all of this is shaping up
to be certainly put in the indictment
that we expect to be brought against
Donald Trump so stay tuned the
indictment for election interference I
said is going to be massive my
prediction is going to have hundreds of
criminal counts so just get ready for
that
I'm Ben Meiselas from the Meidas touch
Network hit subscribe we're on our way
to 1.5 million subscribers thanks to
your support check us out at patreon.com
minus touch and make sure you subscribe
to our YouTube channel it is free
***********************
Trump pressured Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey to overturn 2020 election
by Leigh Ann Caldwell, Josh Dawsey and Yvonne Wingett Sanchez
Washington Post
July 1, 2023 at 6:00 a.m. EDT
NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT
President Donald Trump speaks with Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey (R) as they participate in a working lunch with governors at the White House on June 13, 2019. (Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post)
In a phone call in late 2020, President Donald Trump tried to pressure Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey (R) to overturn the state’s presidential election results, saying that if enough fraudulent votes could be found it would overcome Trump’s narrow loss in Arizona, according to three people familiar with the call.
Trump also repeatedly asked Vice President Mike Pence to call Ducey and prod him to find the evidence to substantiate Trump’s claims of fraud, according to two of these people. Pence called Ducey several times to discuss the election, they said, though he did not follow Trump’s directions to pressure the governor.
The extent of Trump’s efforts to cajole Ducey into helping him stay in power has not before been reported, even as other efforts by Trump’s lawyer and allies to pressure Arizona officials have been made public. Ducey told reporters in December 2020 that he and Trump had spoken, but he declined to disclose the contents of the call then or in the more than two years since. Although he disagreed with Trump about the outcome of the election, Ducey has sought to avoid a public battle with Trump.
Ducey described the “pressure” he was under after Trump’s loss to a prominent Republican donor over a meal in Arizona earlier this year, according to the donor, who like others interviewed for this story spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private conversations. The account was confirmed by others aware of the call. Ducey told the donor he was surprised that special counsel Jack Smith’s team had not inquired about his phone calls with Trump and Pence as part of the Justice Department’s investigation into the former president’s attempt to overturn the 2020 election, the donor said.
Ducey did not record the call, people familiar with the matter said.
Now out of public office, the former governor declined through a spokesman to answer specific questions about his interactions with Trump and his administration.
“This is neither new nor is it news to anyone following this issue the last two years,” spokesman Daniel Scarpinato said in a statement. “Governor Ducey defended the results of Arizona’s 2020 election, he certified the election, and he made it clear that the certification provided a trigger for credible complaints backed by evidence to be brought forward. None were ever brought forward. The Governor stands by his action to certify the election and considers the issue to be in the rear view mirror.”
A spokesman for Trump declined to respond to questions about the call with Ducey and instead falsely declared in a statement that “the 2020 Presidential election was rigged and stolen.” The spokesman said Trump should be credited for “doing the right thing — working to make sure that all the fraud was investigated and dealt with.”
It is unclear if Ducey has been contacted by Smith’s office since meeting with the donor. Investigators in the special counsel’s office have asked witnesses about Trump’s calls with governors, including the one to Ducey, according to two people familiar with the matter. It is unclear if prosecutors plan to eventually bring charges or how the calls figure into their investigation. Prosecutors have also shown interest in Trump’s efforts to conscript Pence into helping him, according to witnesses and subpoenas previously reviewed by The Washington Post.
Trump phoned the governor’s cellphone on Nov. 30, 2020, as Ducey was in the middle of signing documents certifying President Biden’s win in the state during a live-streamed video ceremony. Trump’s outreach was immediately clear to those watching. They heard “Hail to the Chief” play on the governor’s ringtone. Ducey pulled his phone from out of his suit jacket, muted the incoming call and put his phone aside. On Dec. 2, he told reporters he spoke to the president after the ceremony, but he declined to fully detail the nature of the conversation. Ducey said the president had “an inquisitive mind” but did not ask the governor to withhold his signature certifying the election results.
But four people familiar with the call said Trump spoke specifically about his shortfall of more than 10,000 votes in Arizona and then espoused a range of false claims that would show he overwhelmingly won the election in the state and encouraged Ducey to study them. At the time, Trump’s attorneys and allies spread false claims to explain his loss, including that voters who had died and noncitizens had cast ballots.
After Trump’s call to Ducey, Trump directed Pence, a former governor who had known Ducey for years, to frequently check in with the governor for any progress on uncovering claims of voting improprieties, according to two people with knowledge of the effort.
Pence was expected to report back his findings and was peppered with conspiracy theories from Trump and his team, the person said. Pence did not pressure Ducey, but told him to please call if he found anything because Trump was looking for evidence, according to those familiar with the calls.
A representative for Pence declined to comment.
In each of the calls, Ducey reiterated that officials in the state had searched for alleged widespread illegal activity and followed up on every lead but had not discovered anything that would have changed the outcome of the election results, according to Ducey’s recounting to the donor.
After learning that Ducey was not being supportive of his claims, Trump grew angry and publicly attacked him.
It is unclear if Ducey and Trump had additional conversations. Publicly, the governor said the state’s election systems should be trusted, even as Trump and his allies sought to reverse his loss.
In Arizona, Trump and his attorney, Rudy Giuliani, called then Speaker of the House Rusty Bowers (R) on Nov. 22, 2020. They asked the speaker to convene the legislature to investigate their unsubstantiated claims of voter fraud, which included that votes had been cast en masse by undocumented immigrants and in the names of deceased people. Weeks later, on Dec. 31, 2020 the White House switchboard left a message for the chair of the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, Clint Hickman, seeking to connect him with Trump. The supervisor, a Republican, did not return the call.
Trump and his allies made similar appeals to officials in Michigan and Georgia. On Jan. 2, 2021, Trump called Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger (R) and said he wanted to undo his loss there by finding additional votes. The next night, the White House switchboard left Hickman another voice mail seeking to connect him to Trump. Hickman did not call back.
Investigators with Smith’s office interviewed Raffensperger this week, and they interviewed Giuliani last week. “The appearance was entirely voluntary and conducted in a professional manner,” said Giuliani spokesman Ted Goodman.
More than half a dozen past and current officials in Arizona contacted by Trump or his allies after his defeat have either been interviewed by Smith’s team or have received grand jury subpoenas seeking records, according to four people familiar with the interviews. Those interviewed include Bowers, the former Arizona House speaker, and three current members of the governing board of Maricopa County, the largest voting jurisdiction in the state that affirmed that Biden won.
Spokespeople for Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs (D) and Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes (D), told The Post this week that their offices have not received correspondence from Smith’s team seeking records about the 2020 election. The Arizona Secretary of State’s office received a grand jury subpoena dated Nov. 22, 2022, that sought information about communications with Trump, his campaign and his representatives, according to an official familiar with the document but not authorized to publicly speak about it.
During his time as governor, Ducey navigated a hot-and-cold relationship with Trump. Ducey, who struck a more conventional approach to governing, was slow to embrace Trump during his first bid for the White House. The two men warmed to each other, and amid the pandemic and Trump’s second bid for the White House, Ducey campaigned for him.
But after Ducey certified Arizona’s election results, affirming the wins of Biden and other Democrats, Trump ridiculed him on social media: “Why is he rushing to put a Democrat in office, especially when so many horrible things concerning voter fraud are being revealed at the hearing going on right now … What is going on with @dougducey?”
That same day, allies of the president gathered in Phoenix to air unproven claims of widespread fraud and claim that state lawmakers could reject the will of voters. Giuliani attended the event, along with Republican lawmakers and activists; Trump dialed in.
The president invoked Ducey repeatedly in the days that followed, according to an archive of his tweets. On Dec. 3, Trump asked if “allowing a strong check of ballots” in Arizona would “be easier on him and the great State of Arizona.” On Dec. 5, Trump wrote that Ducey and Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp (R) “fight harder against us than do the Radical Left Dems.”
A week later, Trump attacked the men again, asking “Who is a worse governor?” He labeled them “RINO Republicans” and baselessly claimed that “They allowed states that I won easily to be stolen.”
Ducey, long eyed by national Republicans as a formidable candidate for the U.S. Senate, passed on a 2024 bid after his standing with the Trump base cratered after Trump’s attacks. After leaving office in January, he was a fellow at the Sine Institute of Policy & Politics at American University, where he spoke about the policies he enacted while in office. Earlier this month, Ducey announced that he is leading a free-enterprise focused political action committee, Citizens for Free Enterprise.
Jacqueline Alemany contributed to this report.
By Leigh Ann Caldwell
Leigh Ann Caldwell is co-author of The Washington Post’s Early 202 and focuses on Congress and politics. She is also an anchor for Washington Post Live, conducting high-impact newsmaking interviews. Before joining The Post in 2022, Caldwell was a correspondent at NBC News, most recently as a member of its congressional unit. Twitter
By Josh Dawsey
Josh Dawsey is a political enterprise and investigations reporter for The Washington Post. He joined the paper in 2017 and previously covered the White House. Before that, he covered the White House for Politico, and New York City Hall and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie for the Wall Street Journal. Twitter
By Yvonne Wingett Sanchez
Yvonne Wingett Sanchez writes about voting issues in Arizona for The Washington Post. She previously covered politics for the Arizona Republic. Twitter
*******************
Trump Pressed Arizona Gov. Ducey To Overturn 2020 Election Results, Report Says
by Ty Roush
Forbes Staff
Jul 1, 2023,05:10pm EDT
TOPLINE
President Donald Trump called Gov. Doug Ducey (R-Ariz.) in 2020 to overturn Arizona’s presidential election results, according to the Washington Post, not long before Trump made a similar request to Georgia state officials, which sparked an ongoing criminal probe into Trump’s actions.
KEY FACTS
>> Trump called Ducey in November 2020 to see whether the state would investigate claims of election fraud in the state, unnamed sources told the Washington Post.
>> Trump also requested Vice President Mike Pence to frequently contact and pressure Ducey, who said in December 2020 that Trump had contacted him, though Pence did not follow through on pressuring him.
>> Ducey also told Pence and Trump—who later accused Ducey of “total corruption”—that the state had already investigated claims of election fraud, noting it had not discovered any evidence.
>> Ducey described the call during a Republican donor event earlier this year, according to the Post, adding that Ducey was surprised special counsel Jack Smith had not contacted him about details of the call as part of the Justice Department’s investigation into Trump.
CHIEF CRITIC
A spokesperson for Ducey told the Post that reports about Trump pressuring Ducey to overturn the election “is neither new nor is it news to anyone following this issue the last two years.” The spokesperson added Ducey stands by his decision to certify Arizona’s election results because no “credible complaints” of election fraud were brought forward.
TANGENT
The Fulton County, Georgia, district attorney’s office has been investigating Trump since 2021 for a similar phone call to Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger (R-Ga.), in which Trump asked Raffensberger to “find” votes to overturn the state’s election results. Trump also reportedly pressured other state legislators to decertify the state’s election results. Trump’s legal team previously requested the investigation be thrown out. Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis said in April she would announce possible criminal charges as a result of the investigation between July 11 and September 1, though it is unclear whether charges will be brought against Trump.
BIG NUMBER
74. That’s how many more electoral college votes President Joe Biden had than Trump in winning the presidency, 306 to 232. Even with Arizona’s 11 votes, combined with Georgia’s 16, Trump would not have won.
KEY BACKGROUND
Ducey—the former CEO of Cold Stone Creamery—served as Arizona’s governor from 2015 to 2023 after first being elected as state treasurer in 2010. He serves as the CEO of the Citizens for Free Enterprise political action committee. Trump trailed President Joe Biden by just under 11,000 votes in Arizona’s 2020 presidential election. Trump and his campaign have repeatedly claimed there was widespread election fraud during the election while calling for results to be overturned, while subsequent legal challenges failed and no evidence has ever emerged. Claims of election fraud in Arizona centered on Maricopa County, in which some Republican legislators—including gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake—falsely claimed ballot results were skewed.
Ty Roush: I cover breaking news for Forbes. Before Forbes, I worked as a reporter for USA Today in Asheville and Black Mountain, North Carolina.
******************************
Trump pressured former Arizona governor to overturn 2020 election results: Trump narrowly lost to Joe Biden in Arizona.
by Rachel Scott, Katherine Faulders, and Lucien Bruggeman
abc news
July 1, 2023, 3:46 PM
Former President Donald Trump attempted to pressure then-Gov. Doug Ducey to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election in Arizona, according to multiple sources familiar with the matter. The Washington Post first reported the allegations.
Sources also confirm to ABC News that Trump dispatched [ordered] former Vice President Mike Pence to pressure Ducey to find fraudulent votes in the state, and that while Pence did call Ducey multiple times in the aftermath of the election, he did not follow those orders.
Trump narrowly lost Arizona to Joe Biden in November 2020.
No recording of the call was made, sources told ABC News.
A spokesperson for Ducey called this reporting "nothing more than a 'copy and paste' of a compilation of articles from the past two years, disguised as something new."
"Governor Ducey defended the results of Arizona’s 2020 election, he certified the election, and he made it clear that the certification provided a trigger for credible complaints backed by evidence to be brought forward. None were ever brought forward. The Governor stands by his action to certify the election and considers the issue to be in the rear view mirror — it’s time to move on," the spokesperson said in a statement.
Trump's campaign, in response to the reporting, reiterated the former president's view that "the 2020 Presidential election was rigged and stolen," but did not refute the story.
"These witch-hunts are designed to interfere and meddle in the 2024 election in an attempt to prevent President Trump from returning to the White House to make this country great again," the statement from Trump's campaign said.
by Ben Meiselas
MeidasTouch
Jul 3, 2023
MeidasTouch host Ben Meiselas discusses the latest Washington Post report that Donald Trump threatened the former Arizona Governor Doug Ducey after the 2020 election. Calling Jack Smith!
Transcript
I'm Ben Meiselas from the Meidas touch
Network we know that last week's special
counsel Jack Smith and his team took a
trip to Atlanta and met with the
secretary of state of Georgia Brad
raffensberger Brad raffensberger
Republican Secretary of State of Georgia
received the phone call from Donald
Trump after the 2020 election Brad I
need you to find me 11,780
votes to overturn the results of the
election in Georgia or else Brad bad
things are going to happen to you Brad
raffensberger and his team were
recording that phone call because they
know they were being extorted by Donald
Trump Donald Trump says that was a
perfect phone call nobody was yelling at
him on the phone call that's how he
knows it was perfect nobody was throwing
ketchup so that's also why he thinks it
was perfect and he claims that the only
crime that was committed was that he was
being recorded without his consent of
course Donald Trump is a liar and a
criminal and every single thing he says
is completely and utterly preposterous
and false and just propaganda to his
base who evidently do not care about the
facts and reality but Donald Trump's
calls to Brad raffensberger many legal
observers including myself believe it
was criminal well
um uh special counsel Jack Smith's not
just stopping when it comes to Brad
raffensberger special counsel Jack Smith
may also be focused on other threats
that we haven't necessarily been focused
on here and the Washington Post is
reporting for example that Donald Trump
was not just pressuring Brad
raffensberger they shouldn't come as a
surprise though because we know Trump
was press pressuring lots of officials
but Trump was also pressuring Arizona
governor Doug Ducey to overturn the
results in Arizona the results of the
2020 election a new exclusive Washington
Post report that broke this weekend says
Trump pressured Arizona governor Doug
Ducey to overturn the 2020 election
results in a phone call in late 2020
Donald Trump tried to pressure Arizona
governor Doug Ducey to overturn the
state's presidential election results
saying that if enough fraudulent votes
could be found it would overcome Trump's
loss in Arizona three people familiar
with the matter talked to Washington
Post for this article Trump also
reportedly spoke with uh Pence and told
Pence to basically put pressure on Ducey
Pence called Ducey multiple times but
did not do any of the things that Donald
Trump said that he should do to do see
that is important as well because you
will recall that former vice president
Pence has testified before special
counsel Jack Smith and all of that
special counsel Jack Smith has now
learned so all of the individuals
whether it was Doug Ducey or other
people that Trump was getting Pence to
try to call and threaten special counsel
Jack Smith has that information and
Pence according to the sources in this
article never carried out Donald Trump's
wishes because doesn't say this in the
article but let me fill in the because
Pence knew it was Criminal
so clearly when Jack Smith had former
vice president Pence before a grand jury
he would have asked pencil name me all
of the times Donald Trump told you to
call people why didn't you say the
things that Donald Trump wanted you to
say oh because it was a crime the
article goes on to say that the extent
of Trump's efforts to they use the word
control I'll use the word threaten Ducey
into helping him stay in power has not
yet been reported The Washington Post
reported on it first even though other
efforts by Donald Trump uh and Trump's
lawyers threatening other Arizona
officials has been reported as well
according to people who heard about
these stories from Ducey Ducey described
the pressure he was under after Trump's
loss to numerous people the account was
confirmed by others aware of the call
Ducey told the donor he was surprised
that special counsel Jack Smith's team
had not inquired about his phone call
with Trump and Pence as part of the
Justice Department's investigation into
former president Trump's attempt to
overturn the 2020 election well the
reality is though is that it should have
come as a surprise you now know what the
Midas touch Network why Jack Smith has
the info he has the info from the other
people that he's spoken to and that's
what Jack Smith is
nailing down.
the article says that Ducey did not
record the phone call the way Brad
raffensberger uh recorded the phone call
now at a public office it says Ducey
declined through a spokesperson to
answer specific questions about his
interactions quote this is neither new
nor is it news to anyone following the
issue the last two years spokesman
Daniel scarpinato said in a statement
Governor Ducey defend the results of
Arizona's 2020 election he certified the
election and he made it clear that the
certification provided a trigger for
credible complaints backed by evidence
to be brought forward none were ever
brought forward the government stands by
his action to certify the election and
consider the issue to be in the rear
view mirror
uh the article then goes on to cite a
trump spokesperson who just says oh it's
a Witch Hunt it's a Witch Hunt it's a
Witch Hunt the article goes on to say
it's unclear if Ducey has been contacted
by Smith's office since meeting with
this donor it is unclear if prosecutors
plan to eventually bring charges or how
the calls figure into their
investigation prosecutors have shown
interest into Trump's efforts to
conscript Pence into helping him
according to Witnesses and and subpoenas
previously reviewed by The Washington
Post the article goes on to say how
Trump phoned the governor's cell phone
on November 30th 2020 as Ducey was in
the middle of signing documents certify
you remember this certifying Biden's win
in this state during a live stream video
ceremony Trump's Outreach was
immediately clear to those watching
because Governor ducey's phone as he was
certifying Biden he had the ringtone set
to hell to the chief playing on his
phone Ducey pulled out his phone from
his suit jacket muted the incoming call
and put his phone aside as he was
signing the certification saying that
Biden won that's when Trump was calling
him as the certification was being
signed the article goes on to say four
people familiar with the call said Trump
spoke specifically about his shortfall
of more than ten thousand votes in
Arizona and then espoused a range of
false claims that would show he
overwhelmingly won the election in the
state and encouraged Ducey to study them
at the time Trump's attorneys and allies
spread false claims to explain his loss
including that voters who had died and
non-citizens had cast ballots
after Trump's call to Ducey Trump
directed Pence a former governor who had
known Ducey for years to frequently
check in with Ducey for any progress
uncovering claims of voting
improprieties according to people with
knowledge Pence was expected to report
back his findings and was peppered with
conspiracy theories from Trump and his
team Pence did not pressure Ducey but
told him to call if he found anything
because Trump was looking for evidence a
representative for Pence declined to
comment on the story then it goes on to
say in Arizona Trump and his attorney
Rudy Giuliani called the speaker of the
house remember this Rusty Bowers on
November 22nd 2020 they asked the
speaker to convene the legislature to
investigate their unsubstantiated claims
a voter fraud which included that votes
were cast in Mass by undocumented
immigrants and in the names of deceased
people weeks later on December 31 2020
the White House switchboard left a
message for the chair of the Maricopa
County Board of Supervisors and you
recall all the threats that were
directed at Rusty bowers's way and now
of course we know as well Rudy Giuliani
is cooperating with special counsel Jack
Smith and gave a proper agreement and
provided an interview with Jack Smith's
team right very recently we reported on
it this week so
this is big folks the fact that we now
are alerting that again not just
directed at the secretary of state of
Georgia threats also being directed at
Doug Ducey uh then governor of Arizona
Pence was the conduit of it Pence didn't
execute the threats Pence spoke before
the grand jury Giuliani offered a proper
agreement all of this is shaping up
to be certainly put in the indictment
that we expect to be brought against
Donald Trump so stay tuned the
indictment for election interference I
said is going to be massive my
prediction is going to have hundreds of
criminal counts so just get ready for
that
I'm Ben Meiselas from the Meidas touch
Network hit subscribe we're on our way
to 1.5 million subscribers thanks to
your support check us out at patreon.com
minus touch and make sure you subscribe
to our YouTube channel it is free
***********************
Trump pressured Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey to overturn 2020 election
by Leigh Ann Caldwell, Josh Dawsey and Yvonne Wingett Sanchez
Washington Post
July 1, 2023 at 6:00 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.
President Donald Trump speaks with Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey (R) as they participate in a working lunch with governors at the White House on June 13, 2019. (Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post)
In a phone call in late 2020, President Donald Trump tried to pressure Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey (R) to overturn the state’s presidential election results, saying that if enough fraudulent votes could be found it would overcome Trump’s narrow loss in Arizona, according to three people familiar with the call.
Trump also repeatedly asked Vice President Mike Pence to call Ducey and prod him to find the evidence to substantiate Trump’s claims of fraud, according to two of these people. Pence called Ducey several times to discuss the election, they said, though he did not follow Trump’s directions to pressure the governor.
The extent of Trump’s efforts to cajole Ducey into helping him stay in power has not before been reported, even as other efforts by Trump’s lawyer and allies to pressure Arizona officials have been made public. Ducey told reporters in December 2020 that he and Trump had spoken, but he declined to disclose the contents of the call then or in the more than two years since. Although he disagreed with Trump about the outcome of the election, Ducey has sought to avoid a public battle with Trump.
Ducey described the “pressure” he was under after Trump’s loss to a prominent Republican donor over a meal in Arizona earlier this year, according to the donor, who like others interviewed for this story spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private conversations. The account was confirmed by others aware of the call. Ducey told the donor he was surprised that special counsel Jack Smith’s team had not inquired about his phone calls with Trump and Pence as part of the Justice Department’s investigation into the former president’s attempt to overturn the 2020 election, the donor said.
Ducey did not record the call, people familiar with the matter said.
Now out of public office, the former governor declined through a spokesman to answer specific questions about his interactions with Trump and his administration.
“This is neither new nor is it news to anyone following this issue the last two years,” spokesman Daniel Scarpinato said in a statement. “Governor Ducey defended the results of Arizona’s 2020 election, he certified the election, and he made it clear that the certification provided a trigger for credible complaints backed by evidence to be brought forward. None were ever brought forward. The Governor stands by his action to certify the election and considers the issue to be in the rear view mirror.”
A spokesman for Trump declined to respond to questions about the call with Ducey and instead falsely declared in a statement that “the 2020 Presidential election was rigged and stolen.” The spokesman said Trump should be credited for “doing the right thing — working to make sure that all the fraud was investigated and dealt with.”
It is unclear if Ducey has been contacted by Smith’s office since meeting with the donor. Investigators in the special counsel’s office have asked witnesses about Trump’s calls with governors, including the one to Ducey, according to two people familiar with the matter. It is unclear if prosecutors plan to eventually bring charges or how the calls figure into their investigation. Prosecutors have also shown interest in Trump’s efforts to conscript Pence into helping him, according to witnesses and subpoenas previously reviewed by The Washington Post.
Trump phoned the governor’s cellphone on Nov. 30, 2020, as Ducey was in the middle of signing documents certifying President Biden’s win in the state during a live-streamed video ceremony. Trump’s outreach was immediately clear to those watching. They heard “Hail to the Chief” play on the governor’s ringtone. Ducey pulled his phone from out of his suit jacket, muted the incoming call and put his phone aside. On Dec. 2, he told reporters he spoke to the president after the ceremony, but he declined to fully detail the nature of the conversation. Ducey said the president had “an inquisitive mind” but did not ask the governor to withhold his signature certifying the election results.
But four people familiar with the call said Trump spoke specifically about his shortfall of more than 10,000 votes in Arizona and then espoused a range of false claims that would show he overwhelmingly won the election in the state and encouraged Ducey to study them. At the time, Trump’s attorneys and allies spread false claims to explain his loss, including that voters who had died and noncitizens had cast ballots.
After Trump’s call to Ducey, Trump directed Pence, a former governor who had known Ducey for years, to frequently check in with the governor for any progress on uncovering claims of voting improprieties, according to two people with knowledge of the effort.
Pence was expected to report back his findings and was peppered with conspiracy theories from Trump and his team, the person said. Pence did not pressure Ducey, but told him to please call if he found anything because Trump was looking for evidence, according to those familiar with the calls.
A representative for Pence declined to comment.
In each of the calls, Ducey reiterated that officials in the state had searched for alleged widespread illegal activity and followed up on every lead but had not discovered anything that would have changed the outcome of the election results, according to Ducey’s recounting to the donor.
After learning that Ducey was not being supportive of his claims, Trump grew angry and publicly attacked him.
It is unclear if Ducey and Trump had additional conversations. Publicly, the governor said the state’s election systems should be trusted, even as Trump and his allies sought to reverse his loss.
In Arizona, Trump and his attorney, Rudy Giuliani, called then Speaker of the House Rusty Bowers (R) on Nov. 22, 2020. They asked the speaker to convene the legislature to investigate their unsubstantiated claims of voter fraud, which included that votes had been cast en masse by undocumented immigrants and in the names of deceased people. Weeks later, on Dec. 31, 2020 the White House switchboard left a message for the chair of the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, Clint Hickman, seeking to connect him with Trump. The supervisor, a Republican, did not return the call.
Trump and his allies made similar appeals to officials in Michigan and Georgia. On Jan. 2, 2021, Trump called Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger (R) and said he wanted to undo his loss there by finding additional votes. The next night, the White House switchboard left Hickman another voice mail seeking to connect him to Trump. Hickman did not call back.
Investigators with Smith’s office interviewed Raffensperger this week, and they interviewed Giuliani last week. “The appearance was entirely voluntary and conducted in a professional manner,” said Giuliani spokesman Ted Goodman.
More than half a dozen past and current officials in Arizona contacted by Trump or his allies after his defeat have either been interviewed by Smith’s team or have received grand jury subpoenas seeking records, according to four people familiar with the interviews. Those interviewed include Bowers, the former Arizona House speaker, and three current members of the governing board of Maricopa County, the largest voting jurisdiction in the state that affirmed that Biden won.
Spokespeople for Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs (D) and Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes (D), told The Post this week that their offices have not received correspondence from Smith’s team seeking records about the 2020 election. The Arizona Secretary of State’s office received a grand jury subpoena dated Nov. 22, 2022, that sought information about communications with Trump, his campaign and his representatives, according to an official familiar with the document but not authorized to publicly speak about it.
During his time as governor, Ducey navigated a hot-and-cold relationship with Trump. Ducey, who struck a more conventional approach to governing, was slow to embrace Trump during his first bid for the White House. The two men warmed to each other, and amid the pandemic and Trump’s second bid for the White House, Ducey campaigned for him.
But after Ducey certified Arizona’s election results, affirming the wins of Biden and other Democrats, Trump ridiculed him on social media: “Why is he rushing to put a Democrat in office, especially when so many horrible things concerning voter fraud are being revealed at the hearing going on right now … What is going on with @dougducey?”
That same day, allies of the president gathered in Phoenix to air unproven claims of widespread fraud and claim that state lawmakers could reject the will of voters. Giuliani attended the event, along with Republican lawmakers and activists; Trump dialed in.
The president invoked Ducey repeatedly in the days that followed, according to an archive of his tweets. On Dec. 3, Trump asked if “allowing a strong check of ballots” in Arizona would “be easier on him and the great State of Arizona.” On Dec. 5, Trump wrote that Ducey and Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp (R) “fight harder against us than do the Radical Left Dems.”
A week later, Trump attacked the men again, asking “Who is a worse governor?” He labeled them “RINO Republicans” and baselessly claimed that “They allowed states that I won easily to be stolen.”
Ducey, long eyed by national Republicans as a formidable candidate for the U.S. Senate, passed on a 2024 bid after his standing with the Trump base cratered after Trump’s attacks. After leaving office in January, he was a fellow at the Sine Institute of Policy & Politics at American University, where he spoke about the policies he enacted while in office. Earlier this month, Ducey announced that he is leading a free-enterprise focused political action committee, Citizens for Free Enterprise.
Jacqueline Alemany contributed to this report.
By Leigh Ann Caldwell
Leigh Ann Caldwell is co-author of The Washington Post’s Early 202 and focuses on Congress and politics. She is also an anchor for Washington Post Live, conducting high-impact newsmaking interviews. Before joining The Post in 2022, Caldwell was a correspondent at NBC News, most recently as a member of its congressional unit. Twitter
By Josh Dawsey
Josh Dawsey is a political enterprise and investigations reporter for The Washington Post. He joined the paper in 2017 and previously covered the White House. Before that, he covered the White House for Politico, and New York City Hall and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie for the Wall Street Journal. Twitter
By Yvonne Wingett Sanchez
Yvonne Wingett Sanchez writes about voting issues in Arizona for The Washington Post. She previously covered politics for the Arizona Republic. Twitter
*******************
Trump Pressed Arizona Gov. Ducey To Overturn 2020 Election Results, Report Says
by Ty Roush
Forbes Staff
Jul 1, 2023,05:10pm EDT
TOPLINE
President Donald Trump called Gov. Doug Ducey (R-Ariz.) in 2020 to overturn Arizona’s presidential election results, according to the Washington Post, not long before Trump made a similar request to Georgia state officials, which sparked an ongoing criminal probe into Trump’s actions.
KEY FACTS
>> Trump called Ducey in November 2020 to see whether the state would investigate claims of election fraud in the state, unnamed sources told the Washington Post.
>> Trump also requested Vice President Mike Pence to frequently contact and pressure Ducey, who said in December 2020 that Trump had contacted him, though Pence did not follow through on pressuring him.
>> Ducey also told Pence and Trump—who later accused Ducey of “total corruption”—that the state had already investigated claims of election fraud, noting it had not discovered any evidence.
>> Ducey described the call during a Republican donor event earlier this year, according to the Post, adding that Ducey was surprised special counsel Jack Smith had not contacted him about details of the call as part of the Justice Department’s investigation into Trump.
CHIEF CRITIC
A spokesperson for Ducey told the Post that reports about Trump pressuring Ducey to overturn the election “is neither new nor is it news to anyone following this issue the last two years.” The spokesperson added Ducey stands by his decision to certify Arizona’s election results because no “credible complaints” of election fraud were brought forward.
TANGENT
The Fulton County, Georgia, district attorney’s office has been investigating Trump since 2021 for a similar phone call to Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger (R-Ga.), in which Trump asked Raffensberger to “find” votes to overturn the state’s election results. Trump also reportedly pressured other state legislators to decertify the state’s election results. Trump’s legal team previously requested the investigation be thrown out. Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis said in April she would announce possible criminal charges as a result of the investigation between July 11 and September 1, though it is unclear whether charges will be brought against Trump.
BIG NUMBER
74. That’s how many more electoral college votes President Joe Biden had than Trump in winning the presidency, 306 to 232. Even with Arizona’s 11 votes, combined with Georgia’s 16, Trump would not have won.
KEY BACKGROUND
Ducey—the former CEO of Cold Stone Creamery—served as Arizona’s governor from 2015 to 2023 after first being elected as state treasurer in 2010. He serves as the CEO of the Citizens for Free Enterprise political action committee. Trump trailed President Joe Biden by just under 11,000 votes in Arizona’s 2020 presidential election. Trump and his campaign have repeatedly claimed there was widespread election fraud during the election while calling for results to be overturned, while subsequent legal challenges failed and no evidence has ever emerged. Claims of election fraud in Arizona centered on Maricopa County, in which some Republican legislators—including gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake—falsely claimed ballot results were skewed.
Ty Roush: I cover breaking news for Forbes. Before Forbes, I worked as a reporter for USA Today in Asheville and Black Mountain, North Carolina.
******************************
Trump pressured former Arizona governor to overturn 2020 election results: Trump narrowly lost to Joe Biden in Arizona.
by Rachel Scott, Katherine Faulders, and Lucien Bruggeman
abc news
July 1, 2023, 3:46 PM
Former President Donald Trump attempted to pressure then-Gov. Doug Ducey to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election in Arizona, according to multiple sources familiar with the matter. The Washington Post first reported the allegations.
Sources also confirm to ABC News that Trump dispatched [ordered] former Vice President Mike Pence to pressure Ducey to find fraudulent votes in the state, and that while Pence did call Ducey multiple times in the aftermath of the election, he did not follow those orders.
Trump narrowly lost Arizona to Joe Biden in November 2020.
No recording of the call was made, sources told ABC News.
A spokesperson for Ducey called this reporting "nothing more than a 'copy and paste' of a compilation of articles from the past two years, disguised as something new."
"Governor Ducey defended the results of Arizona’s 2020 election, he certified the election, and he made it clear that the certification provided a trigger for credible complaints backed by evidence to be brought forward. None were ever brought forward. The Governor stands by his action to certify the election and considers the issue to be in the rear view mirror — it’s time to move on," the spokesperson said in a statement.
Trump's campaign, in response to the reporting, reiterated the former president's view that "the 2020 Presidential election was rigged and stolen," but did not refute the story.
"These witch-hunts are designed to interfere and meddle in the 2024 election in an attempt to prevent President Trump from returning to the White House to make this country great again," the statement from Trump's campaign said.
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 37523
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Trump lashes out at Gov. Doug Ducey following certificat
by admin » Tue Jul 04, 2023 7:04 am
Trump: My First Arrest Review before My Next Arrest!
by John Di Domenico
Jun 10, 2023
John Di Domenico the #1 Donald Trump impersonator in the world based on TV, Film, Commercial, Voice Overs and Live appearances.
John has been seen and heard as Trump on Conan O'Brien, Jimmy Kimmel, Howard Stern, Chelsea Handler, James Corden and many more!
Transcript
hello everybody so great to be back here
in Marla with some of the people I
haven't seen some of you in a while
but it's great to be back here and out
of the crime infested New York City
we're looting rioting murder rats and
Mayhem are happening 24 hours a day I
don't know how I live there like
Marjorie Taylor green said it's a Gotham
City but oh roly-poly Alvin Brad cares
about are my business jaywalking
violations but he cost them 34 felony
counts over some teeny tiny bookkeeping
errors there's no real crime in this
case other than the turncoat Michael
Cohen who was arrested indicted went to
court and then set the jail for a couple
of short years for everything I told him
to do but he deserved it
but for me it's different they're
crucifying me for being white and
successful and Jesus like so much
winning and by the way Jesus was very
very rich no one talks about that that's
why they hated him I think we all know
what's going on with my corrupt case all
right they call it the r word the r word
Reverse Racism but April 4th was the
greatest day in history and I said it
and I meant it it was a beautiful day in
New York we left Trump Tower tremendous
building I put my fist in the air over
my head to show I'm down with the
struggle
I kept a low profile just like Jesus did
before he was driven to his persecution
we drove down with 11 car motorcade to
the courthouse the fake Courthouse you
know what Jesus said he said it's easier
for a camel to pass through the eye of a
needle than a rich man to get a fair
Shake but what if it's a really teeny
tiny camel who knows the New York Police
Department did a great job I got to the
courthouse building everyone was hugging
me taking selfies
apologizing big strong policemen were
crying their eyes out on their knees
underneath begging me begging me for
forgiveness sure sure president Trump
sir we're so sorry about this sir like
Jesus I forgave them but not the guy who
let the door close in my face he's going
to hell but to everyone else I said it's
not you it's the corrupt communist
socialist Marxist woke Disney system
that has taken over our country with
trans beer and African-American mermaids
that I was led into the room where the
fingerprints are taken the fingerprint
room the officer did it officer Diaz
Diaz very attractive like a curvy Salma
Hayek she said she couldn't believe how
large sexy and masculine my hands were
right she cried and said I had the most
beautiful fingerprints in the history of
fingerprints with very deep grooves that
made the printing process printing
process very easy
I didn't know this but they're called
friction skin this right here friction
ridges that's what a fingerprint is no
one talks about that no one talks about
that she gave me a big hug told me she
loves me loves me and donated to my
campaign on the spot she also said she'd
come and visit me in my cell anytime
she's maybe a five a little Broad in the
beam but you know
you know what I'm talking about but I'm
not going to say no to a handy if I'm
stuck in a Cell for a couple of days or
a couple of weeks then it was mug shot
time they walked me over I asked how
many poses do you want
they only wanted three so I went with
blue steel latigra and Magnum that's the
one who have the very serious face
Magnum they loved it the officer took
the photograph said that he had
photographed literally thousands of
people being indicted arrested and
arraigned but only I captured the depth
the soul of everything that was going
through my brain in just three photos so
incredible that I was taken upstairs and
arraigned in front of the Crooked judge
judge Juan La Cucaracha
I have to be honest I was a little I was
a little concerned I mean all I could
think of was when I was entering my my
plea
the one time I write a check for sex I
get screwed the one time can you believe
it and I have to say stormy was not
worth this mess I have to tell you you
know it was like a cavern in there
honestly I could hear Echoes I mean she
takes on eight guys at a time of course
I'm small compared to Mandingo I mean
it's amazing what you think about in a
moment like that and I thought I used to
hold the nuclear codes in a briefcase
and now I'm in a holding cell and they
won't even allow me my own belt
it's just so crazy
I was zoning out and then someone read
the people of the state of New York
against Donald J Trump J for genius
indictment number I'll never forget it
715-43-23 has been unsealed
I couldn't hear anything all of a sudden
it was loud my vision was blurry it was
like that war movie shaving Ryan's
privates on the beach with Tom Hank he
lost his hearing to Boom it was back and
then judge Jose guacamole asked me how
do I plead guilty or not guilty and I
said El JoJo corrupto very not guilty
extremely unguilty the least guilty
person in the history of guildiness so
unbelievably guilty major negative
guiltiness hugely unguilty maximum not
guilty
then because I'm bilateral I said I am
muy innocente capiche even the bailiff
tough guy tears in his eyes he said he'd
never seen anyone so not guilty then
every police officer and everyone in the
court started that slow clap they did in
every 80s movie
the disgrace judge banged his Mexican
gavel into the pinata trying to quiet
them but they kept clapping then they
started chanting Trump Trump trump
the judge broke his gavel trying to shut
everybody up order order
tears streaming down their faces Trump
trump
I said you're out of order judge you're
out of order I said screw this
I'm out of here the police put me on
their shoulders carried me out to the
motorcade women were throwing their
pennies at me children were throwing
rose petals a guy in a wheelchair wrote
up to me wrote up to me in the
wheelchair I touched him on the shoulder
and he got right up he could walk I told
him you can walk without that chair and
he did the crowd went wild and threw
money
then we headed to the airport the fake
news covered every move I made they were
tracking me like I was Santa Claus
because well technically on the way to
the airport I thought about a brand new
show instead of The Apprentice which was
the number one reality show in the
history of Television how about the
apprehended we take all of my indicted
friends and we see who can get their
case dismissed first
as I look back
on the entire court proceeding that day
it was a breeze and I don't have to be
back in court until December 4th
December 4th that's like a year from now
or eight months whatever comes first and
when I'm there I'm gonna say Merry
Christmas to judge antifa not happy
holidays like the Communists do
the best news is I've been fundraising
like crazy I reached over five million
dollars by the end of my arrayment day
with numbers like that arrest me every
day getting arrested was the best thing
that could have happened to me on the
other hand it was a total travesty of
justice and never should have happened
but I'm glad it did but it was terrible
but in a good way
between now and December 4th everything
could change the case could be dismissed
all of the witnesses could suddenly die
in the same plane crash or Subway judge
wonton tomato could end up with a
toaster in his bathtub you never know
we'll have to wait and see if you know
what I mean to my incredible followers I
know I send you 10 emails a day asking
you for money but now it's me in front
of you please send me money lots and
lots of money I'm a billionaire but I do
not like to spend my money I like to
spend your money and for me to spend
your money I need you to send your money
okay
can't make it any clearer folks
I take everything now venmo PayPal
Bitcoin cash App gift cards boats cars
real estate whatever it is we will take
it
this was great for me
but I gotta go my tea time's almost up
Trump bless you and Trump Bless America
how are we doing on the fundra how much
today wow that's a lot of money great
all right I'll be on the course if you
need me
hello everybody it's me president Trump
greatest president in the history of
President a lot of people say when I
talk they go like this I go like this
but what I need you to do is to go like
this or like this or this whatever it is
to make sure you subscribe to this video
channel and not only that hit the
notification Bell because you'll want to
know what the latest video is coming out
so subscribe and hit the Bell ding ding
ding bong bong bing bing bong ding dong
Bing bug believe me
by John Di Domenico
Jun 10, 2023
John Di Domenico the #1 Donald Trump impersonator in the world based on TV, Film, Commercial, Voice Overs and Live appearances.
John has been seen and heard as Trump on Conan O'Brien, Jimmy Kimmel, Howard Stern, Chelsea Handler, James Corden and many more!
Transcript
hello everybody so great to be back here
in Marla with some of the people I
haven't seen some of you in a while
but it's great to be back here and out
of the crime infested New York City
we're looting rioting murder rats and
Mayhem are happening 24 hours a day I
don't know how I live there like
Marjorie Taylor green said it's a Gotham
City but oh roly-poly Alvin Brad cares
about are my business jaywalking
violations but he cost them 34 felony
counts over some teeny tiny bookkeeping
errors there's no real crime in this
case other than the turncoat Michael
Cohen who was arrested indicted went to
court and then set the jail for a couple
of short years for everything I told him
to do but he deserved it
but for me it's different they're
crucifying me for being white and
successful and Jesus like so much
winning and by the way Jesus was very
very rich no one talks about that that's
why they hated him I think we all know
what's going on with my corrupt case all
right they call it the r word the r word
Reverse Racism but April 4th was the
greatest day in history and I said it
and I meant it it was a beautiful day in
New York we left Trump Tower tremendous
building I put my fist in the air over
my head to show I'm down with the
struggle
I kept a low profile just like Jesus did
before he was driven to his persecution
we drove down with 11 car motorcade to
the courthouse the fake Courthouse you
know what Jesus said he said it's easier
for a camel to pass through the eye of a
needle than a rich man to get a fair
Shake but what if it's a really teeny
tiny camel who knows the New York Police
Department did a great job I got to the
courthouse building everyone was hugging
me taking selfies
apologizing big strong policemen were
crying their eyes out on their knees
underneath begging me begging me for
forgiveness sure sure president Trump
sir we're so sorry about this sir like
Jesus I forgave them but not the guy who
let the door close in my face he's going
to hell but to everyone else I said it's
not you it's the corrupt communist
socialist Marxist woke Disney system
that has taken over our country with
trans beer and African-American mermaids
that I was led into the room where the
fingerprints are taken the fingerprint
room the officer did it officer Diaz
Diaz very attractive like a curvy Salma
Hayek she said she couldn't believe how
large sexy and masculine my hands were
right she cried and said I had the most
beautiful fingerprints in the history of
fingerprints with very deep grooves that
made the printing process printing
process very easy
I didn't know this but they're called
friction skin this right here friction
ridges that's what a fingerprint is no
one talks about that no one talks about
that she gave me a big hug told me she
loves me loves me and donated to my
campaign on the spot she also said she'd
come and visit me in my cell anytime
she's maybe a five a little Broad in the
beam but you know
you know what I'm talking about but I'm
not going to say no to a handy if I'm
stuck in a Cell for a couple of days or
a couple of weeks then it was mug shot
time they walked me over I asked how
many poses do you want
they only wanted three so I went with
blue steel latigra and Magnum that's the
one who have the very serious face
Magnum they loved it the officer took
the photograph said that he had
photographed literally thousands of
people being indicted arrested and
arraigned but only I captured the depth
the soul of everything that was going
through my brain in just three photos so
incredible that I was taken upstairs and
arraigned in front of the Crooked judge
judge Juan La Cucaracha
I have to be honest I was a little I was
a little concerned I mean all I could
think of was when I was entering my my
plea
the one time I write a check for sex I
get screwed the one time can you believe
it and I have to say stormy was not
worth this mess I have to tell you you
know it was like a cavern in there
honestly I could hear Echoes I mean she
takes on eight guys at a time of course
I'm small compared to Mandingo I mean
it's amazing what you think about in a
moment like that and I thought I used to
hold the nuclear codes in a briefcase
and now I'm in a holding cell and they
won't even allow me my own belt
it's just so crazy
I was zoning out and then someone read
the people of the state of New York
against Donald J Trump J for genius
indictment number I'll never forget it
715-43-23 has been unsealed
I couldn't hear anything all of a sudden
it was loud my vision was blurry it was
like that war movie shaving Ryan's
privates on the beach with Tom Hank he
lost his hearing to Boom it was back and
then judge Jose guacamole asked me how
do I plead guilty or not guilty and I
said El JoJo corrupto very not guilty
extremely unguilty the least guilty
person in the history of guildiness so
unbelievably guilty major negative
guiltiness hugely unguilty maximum not
guilty
then because I'm bilateral I said I am
muy innocente capiche even the bailiff
tough guy tears in his eyes he said he'd
never seen anyone so not guilty then
every police officer and everyone in the
court started that slow clap they did in
every 80s movie
the disgrace judge banged his Mexican
gavel into the pinata trying to quiet
them but they kept clapping then they
started chanting Trump Trump trump
the judge broke his gavel trying to shut
everybody up order order
tears streaming down their faces Trump
trump
I said you're out of order judge you're
out of order I said screw this
I'm out of here the police put me on
their shoulders carried me out to the
motorcade women were throwing their
pennies at me children were throwing
rose petals a guy in a wheelchair wrote
up to me wrote up to me in the
wheelchair I touched him on the shoulder
and he got right up he could walk I told
him you can walk without that chair and
he did the crowd went wild and threw
money
then we headed to the airport the fake
news covered every move I made they were
tracking me like I was Santa Claus
because well technically on the way to
the airport I thought about a brand new
show instead of The Apprentice which was
the number one reality show in the
history of Television how about the
apprehended we take all of my indicted
friends and we see who can get their
case dismissed first
as I look back
on the entire court proceeding that day
it was a breeze and I don't have to be
back in court until December 4th
December 4th that's like a year from now
or eight months whatever comes first and
when I'm there I'm gonna say Merry
Christmas to judge antifa not happy
holidays like the Communists do
the best news is I've been fundraising
like crazy I reached over five million
dollars by the end of my arrayment day
with numbers like that arrest me every
day getting arrested was the best thing
that could have happened to me on the
other hand it was a total travesty of
justice and never should have happened
but I'm glad it did but it was terrible
but in a good way
between now and December 4th everything
could change the case could be dismissed
all of the witnesses could suddenly die
in the same plane crash or Subway judge
wonton tomato could end up with a
toaster in his bathtub you never know
we'll have to wait and see if you know
what I mean to my incredible followers I
know I send you 10 emails a day asking
you for money but now it's me in front
of you please send me money lots and
lots of money I'm a billionaire but I do
not like to spend my money I like to
spend your money and for me to spend
your money I need you to send your money
okay
can't make it any clearer folks
I take everything now venmo PayPal
Bitcoin cash App gift cards boats cars
real estate whatever it is we will take
it
this was great for me
but I gotta go my tea time's almost up
Trump bless you and Trump Bless America
how are we doing on the fundra how much
today wow that's a lot of money great
all right I'll be on the course if you
need me
hello everybody it's me president Trump
greatest president in the history of
President a lot of people say when I
talk they go like this I go like this
but what I need you to do is to go like
this or like this or this whatever it is
to make sure you subscribe to this video
channel and not only that hit the
notification Bell because you'll want to
know what the latest video is coming out
so subscribe and hit the Bell ding ding
ding bong bong bing bing bong ding dong
Bing bug believe me
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 37523
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Trump lashes out at Gov. Doug Ducey following certificat
by admin » Thu Jul 06, 2023 9:32 am
Newly Unearthed Emails Show Trump Attorneys Coordinating Fake Electors: Two Nevada electors reportedly received immunity for testimony in Jack Smith's investigation.
by Josh Kovensky
Talking Points Memo
June 30, 2023 7:00 a.m.
Updated June 30, 2023 8:55 p.m.
Faced with loss in the 2020 election, Trump campaign attorneys built an elaborate mind palace in which the former president could steal victory from the jaws of defeat.
The problem was, building that universe required persuading real people to lie — not in the imaginary world where Trump reversed his loss, but in the actual world where lying has consequences.
Emails first released by the Jan. 6 Committee that have not previously been reported on in detail reveal how several key Trump attorneys coordinated the actions of two fake electors from the state of Nevada — both of whom have now reportedly received immunity in exchange for testimony in Special Counsel Jack Smith’s investigation.
The emails show Trump attorney Kenneth Chesebro directing would-be fake electors Jim DeGraffenreid and Michael McDonald how to become fake electors — a topic now at the center of Smith’s review of Trump’s effort to reverse the 2020 election. Private messages, also released by the committee, show that McDonald, DeGraffenreid, and other Nevada fake electors were eager to participate in what Chesebro described to them as an effort to “keep alive the possibility that the votes could be flipped to Trump and Biden.”
But the messages also show that the electors were aware, and at times concerned, about the potential legal issues at play. In one message that DeGraffenreid sent to another fake elector the day before they cast their ballots on Dec. 14 the two discussed the procedures needed under state law to cast the electoral votes, with DeGraffenreid writing that “facts and legalities don’t matter – only what you can burn someone with.”
The next day, the fake electors would take the first step towards what may end up being a scheme to defraud the United States via the creation of fake legal documents submitted to Congress and the National Archives. DeGraffenreid and McDonald didn’t return TPM’s requests for comment. Chesebro did not return a request for comment.
One GOP operative familiar with the fake electors effort told TPM that the electors themselves had been misled.
“These guys were innocent people just doing what folks they trusted had asked them to do,” the person said, telling TPM that senior Trump campaign officials in the state understood that The Donald had lost Nevada. “They knew they couldn’t win in Nevada.”
Legal experts and former federal prosecutors have long described the fake electors scheme as the most direct, provable crime in Trump’s attempt to reverse his 2020 loss. While filling out a document proclaiming yourself an elector for a losing candidate is not a crime, lying to the federal government — or presenting a document to federal agencies or Congress saying that you are an elector — is.
The New York Times reported on Wednesday that one of the Trump allies involved in the scheme, Rudy Giuliani, spoke with Smith’s office this week under a proffer agreement — often, but not always, the prelude to a cooperation agreement. CNN reported that Mike Roman, a Trump campaign official who delivered the fake elector ballots to Congress, is cooperating with the special counsel.
In the materials released by the January 6 Committee, the pace of messages — between DeGraffenreid, McDonald, other fake electors, RNC operatives, and Trump campaign attorneys including Chesebro — picked up on Dec. 10, 2020, as the Trump campaign organized fake electors in Nevada.
Chesebro described Nevada in a Dec. 9, 2020 memo to Wisconsin Trump attorney Jim Troupis as “extremely problematic” because that state’s laws imposed more requirements on the electors than others did.
The next day, Chesebro made his pitch to the Nevada electors themselves. Introducing himself as an attorney who was contacting them at Giuliani’s direction, Chesebro explained over a series of messages how they would become “alternate electors,” and how he would ensure that it was legal.
Chesebro attached copies of the memos that he had circulated within the Trump campaign, telling the electors that their ballots would go to Congress with two purposes in mind: to debate “election irregularities,” and to “keep alive the possibility that the votes could be flipped to Trump and Biden.” In a separate message, Chesebro sent a manual on how to cast Electoral College votes in Nevada, drafts of Nevada Electoral College ballots, a draft certificate of Trump-Pence elector votes, and a form to fill Electoral College vacancies in Nevada to a group of RNC regional political directors. That message was forwarded on to DeGraffenreid and McDonald — both of whom have now received immunity.
David Becker, executive director of the center for election innovation and research, told TPM that the ballots were bogus partly because, by Dec. 14, 2020, the courts had ruled decisively on the Trump campaign’s challenges to the election.
“By that point, we already knew who won those elections,” he said.
The messages show that Chesebro was aware of the issue, asking DeGraffenreid on Dec. 11 if he knew whether “all court challenges in Nevada are final.” DeGraffenreid forwarded the message to Jesse Binnall, another Trump campaign attorney involved in the 2020 election litigation.
While the fake electors themselves at times seem to understand that what they were involved in was legally perilous and, at other times, appear to believe that the reasoning provided by Chesebro gave them a path forward.
Later that day, DeGraffenreid forwarded Chesebro’s messages to other electors, saying that they explained the “process and the justification for our actions.”
After receiving direction from Chesebro on how to become fake electors, and discussing it among themselves, DeGrafffenreid and others acted: they cast ballots presenting themselves as Nevada’s electors. Now, they’ve reportedly received immunity to testify about the experience.
Dennis Aftergut, a former federal prosecutor and of counsel to Lawyers Defending Democracy, told TPM that the Trump attorneys could lead investigators further upwards.
“Chesebro was working very closely with [John] Eastman and certainly [Boris] Epshteyn,” he said. “They are all one short step away from Trump.”
by Josh Kovensky
Talking Points Memo
June 30, 2023 7:00 a.m.
Updated June 30, 2023 8:55 p.m.
Faced with loss in the 2020 election, Trump campaign attorneys built an elaborate mind palace in which the former president could steal victory from the jaws of defeat.
The problem was, building that universe required persuading real people to lie — not in the imaginary world where Trump reversed his loss, but in the actual world where lying has consequences.
Emails first released by the Jan. 6 Committee that have not previously been reported on in detail reveal how several key Trump attorneys coordinated the actions of two fake electors from the state of Nevada — both of whom have now reportedly received immunity in exchange for testimony in Special Counsel Jack Smith’s investigation.
The emails show Trump attorney Kenneth Chesebro directing would-be fake electors Jim DeGraffenreid and Michael McDonald how to become fake electors — a topic now at the center of Smith’s review of Trump’s effort to reverse the 2020 election. Private messages, also released by the committee, show that McDonald, DeGraffenreid, and other Nevada fake electors were eager to participate in what Chesebro described to them as an effort to “keep alive the possibility that the votes could be flipped to Trump and Biden.”
In Fri, Dec 11, 2020, 01:20 Kenneth Chesebro [DELETE] wrote:
Thanks for passing this along.
No, the COA need not be attached to the electoral votes -- the purpose of having the electoral votes sent in to Congress is to provide the opportunity to debate the election irregularities in Congress, and to keep alive the possibility that the votes could be flipped to Trump and Biden.
In that connection, you can tell me whether all court challenges Nevada are final? I'm wondering if there will an effort to seek Supreme Court review of this decision:
https://thehill.com/homenews/administra ... -biden-win
Thanks again!
But the messages also show that the electors were aware, and at times concerned, about the potential legal issues at play. In one message that DeGraffenreid sent to another fake elector the day before they cast their ballots on Dec. 14 the two discussed the procedures needed under state law to cast the electoral votes, with DeGraffenreid writing that “facts and legalities don’t matter – only what you can burn someone with.”
The next day, the fake electors would take the first step towards what may end up being a scheme to defraud the United States via the creation of fake legal documents submitted to Congress and the National Archives. DeGraffenreid and McDonald didn’t return TPM’s requests for comment. Chesebro did not return a request for comment.
One GOP operative familiar with the fake electors effort told TPM that the electors themselves had been misled.
“These guys were innocent people just doing what folks they trusted had asked them to do,” the person said, telling TPM that senior Trump campaign officials in the state understood that The Donald had lost Nevada. “They knew they couldn’t win in Nevada.”
Legal experts and former federal prosecutors have long described the fake electors scheme as the most direct, provable crime in Trump’s attempt to reverse his 2020 loss. While filling out a document proclaiming yourself an elector for a losing candidate is not a crime, lying to the federal government — or presenting a document to federal agencies or Congress saying that you are an elector — is.
The New York Times reported on Wednesday that one of the Trump allies involved in the scheme, Rudy Giuliani, spoke with Smith’s office this week under a proffer agreement — often, but not always, the prelude to a cooperation agreement. CNN reported that Mike Roman, a Trump campaign official who delivered the fake elector ballots to Congress, is cooperating with the special counsel.
In the materials released by the January 6 Committee, the pace of messages — between DeGraffenreid, McDonald, other fake electors, RNC operatives, and Trump campaign attorneys including Chesebro — picked up on Dec. 10, 2020, as the Trump campaign organized fake electors in Nevada.
Chesebro described Nevada in a Dec. 9, 2020 memo to Wisconsin Trump attorney Jim Troupis as “extremely problematic” because that state’s laws imposed more requirements on the electors than others did.
The next day, Chesebro made his pitch to the Nevada electors themselves. Introducing himself as an attorney who was contacting them at Giuliani’s direction, Chesebro explained over a series of messages how they would become “alternate electors,” and how he would ensure that it was legal.
Mr. DeGraffenried,
Mayor Giuliani and others with the Trump-Pence campaign (including Justin Clark and Nick Trainer) asked me to reach out to you and the other Nevada electors to run point on the plan to have all Trump-Pence electors in all six contested States meet and transmit their votes to Congress on Monday, Dec. 14.
I'm one of the lawyers handling the state-court litigation in Wisconsin, the first State which made definite plans to have our electors vote on Monday.
Confidentially, so you can understand how we're messaging it, below is a draft press release by our lead lawyer in WI, which would be released only after we file papers in the WI Supreme Court (following an expected loss in the lower court), which we expect to do Saturday.
I'd appreciate if you or someone else on your team could get in touch with me as soon as possible. I have two memos explaining the rationale for the electors voting on Monday (though you may already have those), and I am preparing drafts of the documents that the electors in Nevada could sign to effect their votes, in case having drafts in hand would be of help.
Call or write anytime, night or day.
Sincerely,
Ken Chesebro
Chesebro attached copies of the memos that he had circulated within the Trump campaign, telling the electors that their ballots would go to Congress with two purposes in mind: to debate “election irregularities,” and to “keep alive the possibility that the votes could be flipped to Trump and Biden.” In a separate message, Chesebro sent a manual on how to cast Electoral College votes in Nevada, drafts of Nevada Electoral College ballots, a draft certificate of Trump-Pence elector votes, and a form to fill Electoral College vacancies in Nevada to a group of RNC regional political directors. That message was forwarded on to DeGraffenreid and McDonald — both of whom have now received immunity.
David Becker, executive director of the center for election innovation and research, told TPM that the ballots were bogus partly because, by Dec. 14, 2020, the courts had ruled decisively on the Trump campaign’s challenges to the election.
“By that point, we already knew who won those elections,” he said.
The messages show that Chesebro was aware of the issue, asking DeGraffenreid on Dec. 11 if he knew whether “all court challenges in Nevada are final.” DeGraffenreid forwarded the message to Jesse Binnall, another Trump campaign attorney involved in the 2020 election litigation.
While the fake electors themselves at times seem to understand that what they were involved in was legally perilous and, at other times, appear to believe that the reasoning provided by Chesebro gave them a path forward.
Later that day, DeGraffenreid forwarded Chesebro’s messages to other electors, saying that they explained the “process and the justification for our actions.”
After receiving direction from Chesebro on how to become fake electors, and discussing it among themselves, DeGrafffenreid and others acted: they cast ballots presenting themselves as Nevada’s electors. Now, they’ve reportedly received immunity to testify about the experience.
Dennis Aftergut, a former federal prosecutor and of counsel to Lawyers Defending Democracy, told TPM that the Trump attorneys could lead investigators further upwards.
“Chesebro was working very closely with [John] Eastman and certainly [Boris] Epshteyn,” he said. “They are all one short step away from Trump.”
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 37523
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Trump lashes out at Gov. Doug Ducey following certificat
by admin » Sat Jul 08, 2023 5:36 am
Attorney disciplinary committee recommends Rudy Giuliani be disbarred for 2020 election legal work
by Katelyn Polantz
CNN Reporter, Crime and Justice
Updated 2:44 PM EDT, Fri July 7, 2023
An attorney disciplinary committee has recommended Rudy Giuliani be disbarred in Washington, DC, for his efforts on behalf of then-President Donald Trump to overturn the 2020 election results.
The committee, which weighs cases of legal ethics and attorney misconduct in the District of Columbia, issued the report and recommendation on Giuliani on Friday following a lawyer misconduct hearing for Giuliani in December that functioned like a trial.
“He claimed massive election fraud but had no evidence of it,” the committee wrote. “By prosecuting that destructive case Mr. Giuliani, a sworn officer of the Court, forfeited his right to practice law. He should be disbarred.”
The panel’s recommendation is not final; the case against Giuliani still must be considered by DC’s Board on Professional Responsibility and by the DC court of appeals.
The committee specifically criticized Giuliani for dishonesty following the 2020 election and what they called “calculated” attempts to undermine trust in elections, when he falsely claimed in a Pennsylvania federal court there had been election fraud that could overturn Joe Biden’s win of the state.
“Mr. Giuliani has not acknowledged or accepted responsibility for his misconduct. To the contrary, he has declared his indignation over being subjected to the disciplinary process,” the committee wrote in its report. “We are convinced that a sanction must be enhanced to ensure that it adequately deters both Respondent (Giuliani) and other attorneys from acting similarly in the future.”
The three-person committee, comprised of two attorneys and a member of the public, was unanimous in recommending Giuliani be disbarred.
Ted Goodman, a political adviser to Giuliani, called the report a “great injustice,” and said “the decision-makers at the DC Bar Association are nothing more than an arm of the permanent regime in Washington.”
Giuliani’s attorneys had argued to the committee that he had a reasonable basis to believe the claims in litigation were true and that he was relying on what others working with the Trump campaign told him about the fraud allegations.
Giuliani, the former top federal prosecutor in Manhattan and a lawyer for Trump, is also facing an attorney ethics review in New York. His law license at this time is temporarily suspended, marking a substantial downfall for the once highly regarded American political and legal figurehead.
“We have considered in mitigation Mr. Giuliani’s conduct following the September 11 attacks as well as his prior service in the Justice Department and as Mayor of New York City. But all of that happened long ago,” the report said on Friday. “The misconduct here sadly transcends all his past accomplishments.”
by Katelyn Polantz
CNN Reporter, Crime and Justice
Updated 2:44 PM EDT, Fri July 7, 2023
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23868881/dc-bar-report-and-recommendation-on-rudy-giuliani.pdf
An attorney disciplinary committee has recommended Rudy Giuliani be disbarred in Washington, DC, for his efforts on behalf of then-President Donald Trump to overturn the 2020 election results.
The committee, which weighs cases of legal ethics and attorney misconduct in the District of Columbia, issued the report and recommendation on Giuliani on Friday following a lawyer misconduct hearing for Giuliani in December that functioned like a trial.
“He claimed massive election fraud but had no evidence of it,” the committee wrote. “By prosecuting that destructive case Mr. Giuliani, a sworn officer of the Court, forfeited his right to practice law. He should be disbarred.”
The panel’s recommendation is not final; the case against Giuliani still must be considered by DC’s Board on Professional Responsibility and by the DC court of appeals.
The committee specifically criticized Giuliani for dishonesty following the 2020 election and what they called “calculated” attempts to undermine trust in elections, when he falsely claimed in a Pennsylvania federal court there had been election fraud that could overturn Joe Biden’s win of the state.
“Mr. Giuliani has not acknowledged or accepted responsibility for his misconduct. To the contrary, he has declared his indignation over being subjected to the disciplinary process,” the committee wrote in its report. “We are convinced that a sanction must be enhanced to ensure that it adequately deters both Respondent (Giuliani) and other attorneys from acting similarly in the future.”
The three-person committee, comprised of two attorneys and a member of the public, was unanimous in recommending Giuliani be disbarred.
Ted Goodman, a political adviser to Giuliani, called the report a “great injustice,” and said “the decision-makers at the DC Bar Association are nothing more than an arm of the permanent regime in Washington.”
Giuliani’s attorneys had argued to the committee that he had a reasonable basis to believe the claims in litigation were true and that he was relying on what others working with the Trump campaign told him about the fraud allegations.
Giuliani, the former top federal prosecutor in Manhattan and a lawyer for Trump, is also facing an attorney ethics review in New York. His law license at this time is temporarily suspended, marking a substantial downfall for the once highly regarded American political and legal figurehead.
“We have considered in mitigation Mr. Giuliani’s conduct following the September 11 attacks as well as his prior service in the Justice Department and as Mayor of New York City. But all of that happened long ago,” the report said on Friday. “The misconduct here sadly transcends all his past accomplishments.”
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 37523
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Trump lashes out at Gov. Doug Ducey following certificat
by admin » Sat Jul 08, 2023 5:39 am
Part 1 of 2
Report and Recommendation of Ad Hoc Hearing Committee Re: Preliminary Order of Discipline Charging Rudolph W. Giuliani with violating Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct based on his prosecution of a lawsuit in Pennsylvania following the 2020 presidential election.
by Robert C. Bernius, Esq., Chair
Board on Professional Responsibility, Ad Hoc Hearing Cmte.
July 7, 2023
THIS REPORT IS NOT A FINAL ORDER OF DISCIPLINE* [* Consult the ‘Disciplinary Decisions’ tab on the Board on Professional Responsibility’s website (http://www.dcattorneydiscipline.org) to view any subsequent decisions in this case.]
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS
BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
AD HOC HEARING COMMITTEE
In the Matter of:
RUDOLPH W. GIULIANI,
Respondent.
A Temporarily Suspended Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals (Bar Registration No. 237255)
Board Docket No. 22-BD-027
Disciplinary Docket No. 2020-D253
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF AD HOC HEARING COMMITTEE
INTRODUCTION
Disciplinary Counsel charged Respondent Rudolph W. Giuliani with violating Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct 3.1 and 8.4(d), based on his prosecution of a lawsuit in Pennsylvania following the 2020 presidential election.
The hearing in this disciplinary matter took place on December 5-8 and 15, 2022. Former President Donald Trump waived his attorney-client privilege, and Respondent testified at the hearing about all matters relevant to post-election litigation. Tr. 1207.1
Disciplinary Counsel proved by clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Giuliani violated Rules 3.1 and 8.4(d). See Board Rule 11.6; In re Cater, 887 A.2d 1, 24 (D.C. 2005). He violated Pennsylvania Rule 3.1 by filing a lawsuit seeking to change the result of the 2020 presidential election when he had no factual basis, and consequently no legitimate legal grounds, to do so. His prosecution of the lawsuit also seriously undermined the administration of justice and violated Pennsylvania Rule 8.4(d).
The right to vote is the “essence of a democratic society.” Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 555 (1964). Respondent’s frivolous lawsuit attempted unjustifiably and without precedent to disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of Pennsylvania voters, and ultimately sought to undermine the results of the 2020 presidential election. He claimed massive election fraud but had no evidence of it. By prosecuting that destructive case Mr. Giuliani, a sworn officer of the Court, forfeited his right to practice law. He should be disbarred.
I. FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Respondent Rudolph W. Giuliani is a member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, admitted on December 2, 1976 and assigned Bar Number 237255. DCX 01. He took inactive (non-practicing) status on December 12, 2002. DCX 02 at 0001; Respondent’s Answer to Specification of Charges at 1. On June 24, 2021, the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, First Judicial Department suspended him pending final disposition of disciplinary proceedings in that jurisdiction. In re Giuliani, 146 N.Y.S.3d 226, 283 (App. Div. 2021) (per curiam). On July 7, 2021, the D.C. Court of Appeals suspended him based on the New York action. Order, In re Giuliani, D.C. App. No. 21-BG-423 (July 7, 2021).
A. 2020 Election Law in Pennsylvania
2. In 2019, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania enacted Act 77, which permitted any registered voter to vote by mail upon request. 2019 Pa. Legis. Serv. Act 2019-77 (S.B. 421), sec. 8, § 1301-D; Tr. 552 (Ortiz). The liberalized vote-bymail procedures, combined with the COVID-19 pandemic, led to an increase in Pennsylvania mail-in ballots from 266,208 in the 2016 election to 2,653,688 in 2020.2 RX 06 at 4, ¶ 19. In the 2020 general election, more than one third of Pennsylvanians voted by mail. DCX 16 at 0007.
3. To vote by mail, voters were required to apply for a ballot, but did not have to specify a reason for doing so. Once the application was approved the county election board sent the voter a package which contained a ballot and two envelopes: a smaller, “secrecy” envelope marked “Official Election Ballot” and a larger, outer envelope preprinted with a bar code and voter declaration. DCX 17 at 0021; DCX 18 at 0029; DCX 21 at 0009. Voters were instructed to mark their ballot, seal it in the smaller envelope and, in turn, seal that envelope in the larger envelope. Id. Voters then filled out, dated, and signed a declaration printed on the larger envelope, and mailed it or delivered it in person to the county board of election. Id. On election day, officials “canvassed” the mail-in ballots to verify that the appropriate information was on the outside of the larger envelope, and that nothing written on the secrecy envelope would reveal the voter’s identity, political affiliation, or candidate preference. DCX 17 at 0021. The secrecy ballot was then opened, and the ballot was counted. DCX 18 at 0028-29.
4. Following enactment of Act 77, several lawsuits were filed before the 2020 election to clarify or challenge the new procedures. Tr. 554 (Ortiz). In Pennsylvania Democratic Party v. Boockvar, 238 A.3d 345 (Pa. 2020), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that if a county election board determined from the outside envelope that a mail-in ballot was deficient – for example, if the voter failed to sign the declaration – the Act did not require the county board to notify the voter and provide an opportunity to correct the mistake (“Notice and Cure”). DCX 17 at 0019-21; Tr. 554-55 (Ortiz); Tr. 134-35 (Giuliani). The Court, on the other hand, did not preclude counties from doing so. Tr. 135 (Giuliani). In the wake of that decision, some counties chose to implement “Notice and Cure”; others did not. DCX 14 at 0009; Tr. 135-36 (Giuliani).3
5. In In re Nov. 3, 2020 Gen. Election, 240 A.3d 591 (Pa. 2020), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that: (a) Act 77 does not permit election boards to compare the signatures on mail-in ballot envelopes with those on voter registration forms; and (b) the Act does not permit partisan election observers to challenge mailin ballots during the canvassing process. DCX 19 at 0012-13; Tr. 556-57 (Ortiz); Tr. 136-38 (Giuliani).
6. In a case brought by the Trump campaign, Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. v. Boockvar, 493 F. Supp. 3d 331 (W.D. Pa. 2020), the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania held that the campaign lacked standing to challenge various Pennsylvania election procedures on a vote dilution theory, which included challenges based on the Electors and Election Clauses of the U.S. Constitution. DCX 18 at 0036-40. In the alternative, the court held that the absence of a signature-comparison process for mail-in ballots did not violate equal protection or substantive due process. DCX 18 at 0052, 0056-60; Tr. 557-561 (Ortiz). The campaign did not appeal that decision. DCX 08 at 0053.
7. On election day, to implement pandemic-compelled social distancing between election workers canvassing mail-in ballots and partisan observers, county election officials erected observational barriers tailored to the physical layouts of individual canvassing sites. DCX 20 at 0003. The Trump campaign objected to the barriers in Philadelphia, but a state trial court denied its request to allow its observers closer access. An intermediate appellate court reversed that decision, (RX 16 at 3 (In re Canvassing Observation, No. 1094, 2020 WL 6551316, at *4 (Pa. Commw. Ct. Nov. 5, 2020)); Tr. 562-63 (Ortiz)), but on further appeal the Pennsylvania Supreme Court approved the barrier placements, holding that “the Election Code does not specify minimum distance parameters for the location” of observers. DCX 20 at 0009 (In re Canvassing Observation, 241 A.3d 339, 351 (Pa. 2020)); Tr. 141-47 (Giuliani); Tr. 563-64 (Ortiz). In the interim, a federal judge worked out an informal settlement to allow observers in Philadelphia closer proximity to canvassing operations. Tr. 564-65 (Ortiz).
B. Post-Election Trump Litigation
8. President Biden won Pennsylvania by a margin of more than 80,000 votes. DCX 22 at 0001-02.
9. The day after the election, November 4, 2020, then-President Trump asked Mr. Giuliani to take charge of post-election litigation challenging the voting results. Tr. 42-43, 45, 481-82, 877-78 (Giuliani). Mr. Giuliani went to a war room in Arlington, Virginia where he immediately met with other attorneys to prepare to bring litigation in approximately ten states (including Pennsylvania). Tr. 483-84 (Giuliani). He intended all of those cases to raise similar claims so they could be consolidated in a single lawsuit that would eventually be heard in the U.S. Supreme Court. Tr. 42-46, 49, 53-54, 483-84, 879, 1188-1190 (Giuliani).
10. The litigation team working for Respondent included multiple attorneys as well as Bernard Kerik (formerly Police Commissioner of New York City (Tr. 812- 13 (Kerik))), whom Respondent engaged as chief investigator. Tr. 457 (Giuliani); Tr. 800 (Bobb); Tr. 821-22, 824-25 (Kerik). Mr. Kerik was asked to coordinate efforts to find evidence of voting improprieties or fraud. Tr. 824-29, 854 (Kerik). In addition, Respondent engaged John Droz (who described his career as “trying to defend science” (Tr. 752-55 (Droz)) to assemble statistical models testing the “legitimacy” of the election. Tr. 758-60, 764, 769-770 (Droz).
11. Mr. Giuliani started to work on litigation specific to Pennsylvania after receiving a telephone call complaining about observational boundaries in Philadelphia during the mail-in ballot canvassing there. Tr. 46-47, 49, 882-86 (Giuliani); Tr. 740-42 (Lewandowski).
12. Election challenges based on state law were required to be brought in state court. Tr. 52-54, 513-16 (Giuliani); DCX 40 at 0006 & n.2. The campaign had lost other cases in the state courts, and local counsel “felt it was a lost cause” to bring post-election challenges there. Tr. 515 (Giuliani). Respondent consequently worked with Pittsburgh attorney Ronald Hicks to prepare a case to be filed in Pennsylvania federal court. DCX 34 at 0141-42; see DCX 05 at 0084; Tr. 51-53, 486-88 (Giuliani).
13. Mr. Giuliani helped draft a complaint on behalf of Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. and on behalf of two individual voters who had mailed defective ballots but had not been given the opportunity to cure them. DCX 05; Tr. 55-56 (Giuliani). The complaint contained seven counts asserting violations of the plaintiffs’ civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Electors and Elections Clauses of the U.S. Constitution. It named as defendants the Pennsylvania Secretary of State and the election boards of seven counties that had returned majorities for President Biden. DCX 05 at 0001, 0011; Tr. 56-57 (Giuliani); Tr. 566 (Ortiz).
14. The initial Complaint was filed on November 9, 2020, in the Middle District of Pennsylvania. DCX 05 at 0001; Tr. 59 (Giuliani); Tr. 566 (Ortiz). Even though he drafted a meaningful portion (up to 30%) of it, Mr. Giuliani was not admitted to practice in the Middle District and did not sign it. Tr. 57, 59, 489, 899 (Giuliani); see DCX 07.
15. Mr. Hicks withdrew his appearance immediately after filing the Complaint. DCX 09 at 0003; Tr. 61-62 (Giuliani). On November 15, 2020, plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint authored by another group of lawyers; it eliminated all but two of the seven original counts. DCX 06; Tr. 61, 490 (Giuliani). Mr. Giuliani did not work on that complaint and did not agree with its more circumscribed approach. Tr. 60-63 (Giuliani).
16. The court admitted Mr. Giuliani pro hac vice on November 17, 2020. DCX 07 at 0002. That same day, he personally argued in opposition to a motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint. DCX 08. By that time, Mr. Giuliani had prepared a Second Amended Complaint. Tr. 71-72 (Giuliani). He believed that the First Amended Complaint wrongly deleted allegations about widespread election fraud that were important to his national litigation strategy. Tr. 64-68 (Giuliani). During the oral argument, he advised District Judge Matthew Brann that he intended to file another complaint. DCX 08 at 0013; Tr. 71-72 (Giuliani).
17. The day after the oral argument, Mr. Giuliani moved for leave to file the Second Amended Complaint, which reintroduced allegations from the original Complaint and added additional counts, all of which were based either on 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or on the Due Process or Electors and Elections Clauses. DCX 09 at 0001- 04; Tr. 491 (Giuliani). At the core of the additional counts were plaintiffs’ claims of systemic election fraud arising from the establishment of observational boundaries. DCX 09 at 0110-0122. The next day, November 19, 2020, plaintiffs sought a temporary restraining order barring defendants from certifying the result of the 2020 election. DCX 10; DCX 11; Tr. 569 (Ortiz).
18. On November 21, 2020, Judge Brann dismissed the First Amended Complaint and denied leave to file the Second Amended Complaint. He also denied plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief. DCX 14 at 0017 (Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. v. Boockvar, 502 F. Supp. 3d 899, 923 (M.D. Pa. 2020)).
19. Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal on November 22, 2020, signed by Mr. Giuliani. DCX 15. The only issue raised on appeal was whether Judge Brann properly denied leave to file the Second Amended Complaint. DCX 16 at 0005; Tr. 594 (Ortiz).
20. The Third Circuit affirmed dismissal of the case. DCX 16 at 0005 (Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. v. Sec’y of Pennsylvania, 830 Fed. Appx. 377, 382 (3d Cir. 2020)). The court held that the Second Amended Complaint did not contain a sufficient factual basis to state a facially plausible claim to relief. DCX 16 at 0008.
C. The Giuliani Complaints Were Factually Deficient
21. The Complaint and Second Amended Complaint (“Giuliani Complaints”) challenged the location of observational barriers and the existence of Notice and Cure procedures, but neither complaint factually linked either of those circumstances to widespread improper voting. See generally DCX 05; DCX 09. They contained only vague and speculative allegations about random and isolated electoral irregularities which did not and could not support Respondent’s inflated legal claims. See ODC Proposed Finding of Fact (“PFF”) 34 (listing the 26 factual allegations in the two complaints); ODC Reply Br. at 4-5.4
22. For that reason, the District Court found that plaintiffs had presented only “strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations, unpled in the operative complaint and unsupported by evidence.” DCX 14 at 0008 (502 F. Supp. 3d at 906).
23. The Third Circuit agreed, holding that the Second Amended Complaint:
DCX 16 at 0012 (830 Fed. Appx. at 391).
D. Respondent’s Oral Argument to the District Court
24. When Mr. Giuliani opposed the motion to dismiss before Judge Brann, the First Amended Complaint was in effect. It had eliminated claims that were based on observational barriers and fraud. Tr. 60, 71, 490 (Giuliani). Compare DCX 05, with DCX 06. Mr. Giuliani, however, had already drafted the Second Amended Complaint reasserting that observational barriers and Notice and Cure practices had caused widespread fraud. Tr. 71-72, 944 (Giuliani). He justified the amendment “because as compared to last week, we have twice as much evidence this week.” DCX 08 at 0022; see DCX 09 at 0001 (seeking leave to add claims in a second amended complaint “based on newly learned facts”).
25. Mr. Giuliani’s oral argument for the most part elaborated on the observational boundary fraud claims of his Second Amended Complaint. DCX 08 at 0012-18; Tr. 71-73 (Giuliani); Tr. 582-86 (Ortiz).
26. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court, in In re Canvassing Observation, 241 A.3d at 346-47, noted that the Election Board in Philadelphia County had established its observational distancing requirements based “on its perceived need for protecting its workers’ safety from COVID-19 and physical assault from those individuals who have contact with its workers; ensuring security of the ballots; efficiently processing large numbers of ballots; protecting the privacy of voters; and ensuring campaign access to the canvassing proceedings . . . .” DCX 20 at 0006.
27. Mr. Giuliani, however, contended that observational boundaries were a per se fraud that he had “personally witnessed” (Tr. 49 (Giuliani)). He claimed they were “a deliberate scheme of intentional and purposeful discrimination” against the Trump campaign (DCX 09 at 0079-0080, ¶ 167), concluding that Democrats “stole an election . . . in this Commonwealth” (DCX 08 at 0027) and that he had “hundreds of affidavits” supporting his assertion (DCX 08 at 0027-28). These claims were simply not true.
28. Mr. Giuliani did not offer any evidence that fraudulent mail-in votes were actually cast or counted. Tr. 381-82 (Giuliani); Tr. 593 (Ortiz); DCX 40 at 0013-27; see DCX 08. In his view, the existence of observational boundaries was enough: the voter “might not have done anything wrong, but [because of the boundaries] the person counting did something wrong and therefore they’re not counted.” Tr. 334 (Giuliani). The only evidence he offered to the court were photographs showing that observers could not see the details of ballots at canvassing sites in Philadelphia and Allegheny Counties. DCX 08 at 0029-31. Because canvassing absentee and mail ballots subject to observational boundaries was a “planned fraudulent process,” he argued, virtually all of the 682,770 mail-in ballots in Philadelphia and Allegheny counties should not have been counted. Id. at 0023- 26, 0116-17; see also Tr. 383-85, 388-89 (Giuliani). Acknowledging that observational boundaries applied equally to both parties, he rationalized that “Democrats weren’t allowed to see it because they couldn’t count on the fact that all Democrats are crooked.” DCX 08 at 0026-27; see also Tr. 194-95 (Giuliani).
29. Mr. Giuliani’s observational boundaries theory was premised on a conclusive presumption of irregularity, i.e., the wholly unfounded supposition that observational boundaries necessarily led to fraudulent counting of mail-in ballots to favor President Biden. See DCX 05 at 0070 (“Consequently, Defendants created a system whereby it was physically impossible for the candidates and political parties to view the ballots and verify that illegally cast ballots were not opened and counted.”); DCX 09 at 0080 (“Defendant County Election Boards carried out this scheme knowing that the absentee and mail ballots which should have been disqualified would overwhelmingly favor Biden . . . .”); id. at 0088 (same). While the number of Democrats voting by mail was expected greatly to surpass the number of Republicans voting by mail, nothing in the record supports Respondent’s thesis that the observational barriers were put in place to avoid detection of a scheme illegally to count Biden votes.
30. The day that Mr. Giuliani made his oral argument, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that the observational boundaries did not violate the election code. DCX 20 at 0009 (In re Canvassing Observation, 241 A.3d at 351).
31. Distinct from the observational boundaries claim, Mr. Giuliani’s Notice and Cure claim was lodged on behalf of two individuals who had mailed in defective ballots that were properly rejected by election officials. DCX 08 at 0019-0020. Rather than seeking to have their votes counted, Mr. Giuliani sued seven other counties that had implemented a Notice and Cure process, seeking on an equal protection theory to take away votes in those defendant counties or even “declar[e] a new election.” Tr. 187 (Giuliani).
32. Claiming that time constraints precluded him from doing so, Mr. Giuliani’s pre-litigation investigation unearthed no evidence of systemic fraud. DCX 08 at 0022-23; Tr. 382 (Giuliani). He briefly visited Philadelphia, and while there focused his attention on the observational boundary restrictions. Tr. 468-475, 1163-1173 (Giuliani). Most of the inspectors with whom he spoke were “in a state of shock” over how the new boundaries differed from practices under prior law. Tr. 1170 (Giuliani); see also Tr. 1173, 1199 (Giuliani).5 None of his interactions, however, unearthed credible proof that observational boundaries or Notice and Cure procedures facilitated widespread fraud. Tr. 234-240, 956-971 (Giuliani).
33. Respondent thus commenced litigation without evidence that its core factual claim was true. He admits as much, maintaining that the “fastmoving” case “did not permit him to investigate fully his client’s position as he would normally do in any other case.” Respondent’s Br. at 2. Even without supporting evidence, he claims, it was reasonable for him to “draw an inference and make an argument that the vote count was illegal and contrary to law.” Id. at 3. We reject this argument.6
34. Despite the lack of proof, Respondent sought an order prohibiting the defendants from counting ballots that had been “cured” and any ballots that had been pre-canvassed or canvassed without “meaningful observation” from poll watchers. DCX 09 at 0113, 0123. Such a remedy would mean disqualifying all mail-in ballots in the defendant counties. Tr. 178-79 (Giuliani). His complaints sought injunctive relief ranging from a prohibition on certifying the results of the 2020 general election (DCX 05 at 0084; DCX 06 at 0062; DCX 09 at 0020, 0122-23; Tr. 577-79 (Ortiz as to DCX 09)) to ordering the Pennsylvania General Assembly to choose the electors (DCX 09 at 0123; Tr. 579-581 (Ortiz)). In his motion for leave to file the Second Amended Complaint, he stated that “[u]ltimately, Plaintiffs will seek the remedy of Trump being declared the winner of the legal votes cast in Pennsylvania . . . and, thus, the recipient of Pennsylvania’s electors.” DCX 09 at 0008-09; Tr. 576 (Ortiz).
35. Four days after the oral argument, the District Court dismissed the case and denied leave to replead. DCX 14.
36. The chief factual objective of the hearing in this disciplinary matter was to ascertain whether Disciplinary Counsel proved by clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Giuliani lacked material evidence to support his claims that observational boundaries and Notice and Cure procedures facilitated widespread, systemic voter fraud and justified the nullification of hundreds of thousands of votes in Pennsylvania. The hearing clearly and convincingly disclosed that there was no such evidence: Respondent based the Pennsylvania litigation only on speculation, mistrust, and suspicion.
E. Observational Boundaries Did Not Facilitate Systemic Election Fraud
37. The record of this disciplinary proceeding includes: (a) all documents in the possession of Mr. Hicks’s firm (DCX 23 & 24); (b) all documents in the possession of Linda Kerns, who signed the Complaint (DCX 05 at 0084-85) and the First Amended Complaint (DCX 06 at 0063) (DCX 25 & 26); (c) all documents in the possession of the law firm that authored the Second Amended Complaint (DCX 09 at 0124) (DCX 27 & 28); (d) all documents in the possession of Mr. Giuliani (DCX 32, 35, 36, 37; Tr. 506-510 (Giuliani)); and (e) the transcript of a Pennsylvania legislative hearing in which Mr. Giuliani participated on November 25, 2020 (DCX 29), which, he claimed, demonstrated “a pattern in Pennsylvania of so many gross irregularities that . . . presents a very solid evidentiary base, direct and circumstantial, supporting responsible allegations of voter fraud.” DCX 32 at 0002.
38. At the hearing in this case Mr. Giuliani belatedly produced another set of declarations and affidavits, RX 01, along with some emails and text messages, RX 02. Tr. 85-86 (Giuliani). His testimony raised the possibility that some relevant materials may have been lost or not turned over, but the only “missing” document he could think of was already included in his document production, albeit without an unknown number of affidavits he “thought” were attached to it. Tr. 90-94, 210- 14 (Giuliani); DCX 32 at 0072-75. He subsequently testified that there might be other missing documents but, if so, they concerned “an illegal voter, it’s one or two.” Tr. 298-99 (Giuliani). Between the time Disciplinary Counsel commenced its investigation of Respondent and the hearing in this matter, Mr. Giuliani reached out to those with whom he had worked and retrieved relevant documents from them which, in turn, he produced to Disciplinary Counsel. Tr. 509-510 (Giuliani).
39. We conclude therefore that the record of the disciplinary hearing contains all the material evidence gathered by Mr. Giuliani, and on his behalf, to support his claims in the Pennsylvania litigation. His nebulous allusions to the existence of additional material documentation are not credible.
40. The documentary evidence that Respondent did produce is fundamentally vague, speculative, or facially incredible. We have reviewed it and have examined with particularity the materials cited by Respondent in his posthearing filings. Respondent’s PFF 36-37. Although the materials identify a handful of isolated election irregularities, they completely fail to demonstrate that the observational boundaries or Notice and Cure procedures facilitated any meaningful fraud or misconduct that could have possibly affected the outcome of the presidential election.
41. At the disciplinary hearing Mr. Giuliani also offered the testimony of Bernard Kerik and John Droz, who produced additional materials purporting to show election fraud. Tr. 751-787 (Droz) (RX 11); Tr. 810-857 (Kerik) (RX 40-43).
42. Mr. Giuliani did not include Mr. Kerik’s documents in his responses to Disciplinary Counsel’s request for evidence (DCX 32, 35, 36, 37; Tr. 97-98 (Giuliani)) and the three subpoenaed law firms did not produce them. DCX 24, 26, 28. Mr. Giuliani did not mention them in the oral argument before Judge Brann (DCX 08), and Mr. Kerik did not testify at the November 25, 2020 legislative hearing (DCX 29). At the disciplinary hearing Mr. Giuliani at first said he did not recall if or when he may have seen the Kerik materials (Tr. 98 (Giuliani)), and later testified that he saw them before the oral argument in the District Court but could not attest to their veracity. Tr. 456-460 (Giuliani).
43. Even if Mr. Giuliani did have the Kerik documents at a relevant time (and it does not appear that he did), they do not show any connection between observational boundaries or Notice and Cure procedures and election fraud. Mr. Kerik (like Mr. Giuliani) could not and would not confirm that the information contained in the Kerik documents was true (Tr. 827-29 (Kerik)) and could not identify its sources. Tr. 839-842 (Kerik). The content of the Kerik documents is in many instances facially incredible. Indeed, Respondent did not offer the Kerik materials in evidence at the disciplinary hearing for their truth, and they were not admitted for that purpose. Tr. 920. For these reasons, we conclude that the Kerik exhibits (RX 40-43) have no probative value in this matter and do not support the allegations made by Mr. Giuliani in the Pennsylvania litigation.
44. Mr. Droz, who acknowledged no expertise in statistics, testified about an exhibit containing statistical “analyses” prepared by third parties, none of whom testified in this disciplinary matter. Tr. 759 (Droz); see RX 11. Mr. Droz could not and would not attest to the veracity of the exhibit, which Respondent again did not offer into evidence for the truth of its content. Tr. 772-73. Mr. Giuliani knew nothing about the credentials of the exhibit’s authors, or about the underlying data they used. Tr. 943-45 (Giuliani). Although he had the exhibit in his possession and claims to have been impressed with aspects of it (Tr. 906-911 (Giuliani)), he did not submit it to the District Court or rely upon it when making his oral argument. Tr. 944-45 (Giuliani). The Droz exhibit fails to establish any causal connection between observational boundaries or Notice and Cure procedures and election fraud. For these reasons we conclude that the Droz exhibit (RX 11) has no probative value in this matter and does not support the allegations in the Pennsylvania litigation.
F. The Notice and Cure Claim Had No Factual Merit
45. The individual plaintiffs lived in counties that did not adopt Notice and Cure procedures, so defective ballots mailed to those counties were not counted. DCX 05 at 0010 (¶¶ 19 & 20); DCX 06 at 0006-07 (¶¶ 15 & 16), 0058-59 (¶ 158); DCX 09 at 0023-25 (¶¶ 22 & 23), 0096-0103 (Count IV), 0105-109 (Count VI). But Mr. Giuliani did not sue the boards of elections in the counties that disqualified the plaintiffs’ ballots and did not seek to have them counted. Tr. 187 (Giuliani).
46. Instead, Respondent sued seven county boards that did offer Notice and Cure to their voters and sought to disqualify the ballots that had been cast in those counties after voters were notified of a defect in their mail-in ballot. DCX 05 at 0001; DCX 06 at 0001; DCX 09 at 0001; DCX 14 at 0011-12; Tr. 176, 187, 495- 502, 510-12 (Giuliani).
47. In Mr. Giuliani’s view, the divergent Notice and Cure practices among the counties constituted an intentional scheme by the seven counties and the Secretary of State to harm the Trump Campaign. Tr. 76 (Giuliani). However, he produced no evidence to support that claim.
48. In any event, the four most populous defendant counties had an aggregate total of approximately 6,500 Notice and Cure votes. DCX 16 at 0011. Respondent did not dispute that number, nor did he proffer a different one.7 The Third Circuit held that even if the Notice and Cure votes in the remaining counties brought the total to 10,000 voters (and even assuming they all voted for President Biden), the result of the election would not have changed. Id.
49. Mr. Giuliani had no evidence to support a claim that the Notice and Cure procedures affected votes in the defendant counties sufficient to approach President Biden’s 80,000-vote victory margin. Tr. 185 (Giuliani). Without such evidence Mr. Giuliani had no legitimate grounds based on Notice and Cure to seek an “injunction that prohibits Defendants from certifying the results of the 2020 presidential general election in Pennsylvania on a statewide basis . . . and/or [an] injunction that the results of the 2020 presidential general election are defective and providing for the Pennsylvania General Assembly to choose Pennsylvania’s electors.” DCX 09 at 0103-05, 0123.8
Report and Recommendation of Ad Hoc Hearing Committee Re: Preliminary Order of Discipline Charging Rudolph W. Giuliani with violating Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct based on his prosecution of a lawsuit in Pennsylvania following the 2020 presidential election.
by Robert C. Bernius, Esq., Chair
Board on Professional Responsibility, Ad Hoc Hearing Cmte.
July 7, 2023
THIS REPORT IS NOT A FINAL ORDER OF DISCIPLINE* [* Consult the ‘Disciplinary Decisions’ tab on the Board on Professional Responsibility’s website (http://www.dcattorneydiscipline.org) to view any subsequent decisions in this case.]
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS
BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
AD HOC HEARING COMMITTEE
In the Matter of:
RUDOLPH W. GIULIANI,
Respondent.
A Temporarily Suspended Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals (Bar Registration No. 237255)
Board Docket No. 22-BD-027
Disciplinary Docket No. 2020-D253
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF AD HOC HEARING COMMITTEE
INTRODUCTION
Disciplinary Counsel charged Respondent Rudolph W. Giuliani with violating Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct 3.1 and 8.4(d), based on his prosecution of a lawsuit in Pennsylvania following the 2020 presidential election.
The hearing in this disciplinary matter took place on December 5-8 and 15, 2022. Former President Donald Trump waived his attorney-client privilege, and Respondent testified at the hearing about all matters relevant to post-election litigation. Tr. 1207.1
Disciplinary Counsel proved by clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Giuliani violated Rules 3.1 and 8.4(d). See Board Rule 11.6; In re Cater, 887 A.2d 1, 24 (D.C. 2005). He violated Pennsylvania Rule 3.1 by filing a lawsuit seeking to change the result of the 2020 presidential election when he had no factual basis, and consequently no legitimate legal grounds, to do so. His prosecution of the lawsuit also seriously undermined the administration of justice and violated Pennsylvania Rule 8.4(d).
The right to vote is the “essence of a democratic society.” Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 555 (1964). Respondent’s frivolous lawsuit attempted unjustifiably and without precedent to disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of Pennsylvania voters, and ultimately sought to undermine the results of the 2020 presidential election. He claimed massive election fraud but had no evidence of it. By prosecuting that destructive case Mr. Giuliani, a sworn officer of the Court, forfeited his right to practice law. He should be disbarred.
I. FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Respondent Rudolph W. Giuliani is a member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, admitted on December 2, 1976 and assigned Bar Number 237255. DCX 01. He took inactive (non-practicing) status on December 12, 2002. DCX 02 at 0001; Respondent’s Answer to Specification of Charges at 1. On June 24, 2021, the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, First Judicial Department suspended him pending final disposition of disciplinary proceedings in that jurisdiction. In re Giuliani, 146 N.Y.S.3d 226, 283 (App. Div. 2021) (per curiam). On July 7, 2021, the D.C. Court of Appeals suspended him based on the New York action. Order, In re Giuliani, D.C. App. No. 21-BG-423 (July 7, 2021).
A. 2020 Election Law in Pennsylvania
2. In 2019, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania enacted Act 77, which permitted any registered voter to vote by mail upon request. 2019 Pa. Legis. Serv. Act 2019-77 (S.B. 421), sec. 8, § 1301-D; Tr. 552 (Ortiz). The liberalized vote-bymail procedures, combined with the COVID-19 pandemic, led to an increase in Pennsylvania mail-in ballots from 266,208 in the 2016 election to 2,653,688 in 2020.2 RX 06 at 4, ¶ 19. In the 2020 general election, more than one third of Pennsylvanians voted by mail. DCX 16 at 0007.
3. To vote by mail, voters were required to apply for a ballot, but did not have to specify a reason for doing so. Once the application was approved the county election board sent the voter a package which contained a ballot and two envelopes: a smaller, “secrecy” envelope marked “Official Election Ballot” and a larger, outer envelope preprinted with a bar code and voter declaration. DCX 17 at 0021; DCX 18 at 0029; DCX 21 at 0009. Voters were instructed to mark their ballot, seal it in the smaller envelope and, in turn, seal that envelope in the larger envelope. Id. Voters then filled out, dated, and signed a declaration printed on the larger envelope, and mailed it or delivered it in person to the county board of election. Id. On election day, officials “canvassed” the mail-in ballots to verify that the appropriate information was on the outside of the larger envelope, and that nothing written on the secrecy envelope would reveal the voter’s identity, political affiliation, or candidate preference. DCX 17 at 0021. The secrecy ballot was then opened, and the ballot was counted. DCX 18 at 0028-29.
4. Following enactment of Act 77, several lawsuits were filed before the 2020 election to clarify or challenge the new procedures. Tr. 554 (Ortiz). In Pennsylvania Democratic Party v. Boockvar, 238 A.3d 345 (Pa. 2020), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that if a county election board determined from the outside envelope that a mail-in ballot was deficient – for example, if the voter failed to sign the declaration – the Act did not require the county board to notify the voter and provide an opportunity to correct the mistake (“Notice and Cure”). DCX 17 at 0019-21; Tr. 554-55 (Ortiz); Tr. 134-35 (Giuliani). The Court, on the other hand, did not preclude counties from doing so. Tr. 135 (Giuliani). In the wake of that decision, some counties chose to implement “Notice and Cure”; others did not. DCX 14 at 0009; Tr. 135-36 (Giuliani).3
5. In In re Nov. 3, 2020 Gen. Election, 240 A.3d 591 (Pa. 2020), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that: (a) Act 77 does not permit election boards to compare the signatures on mail-in ballot envelopes with those on voter registration forms; and (b) the Act does not permit partisan election observers to challenge mailin ballots during the canvassing process. DCX 19 at 0012-13; Tr. 556-57 (Ortiz); Tr. 136-38 (Giuliani).
6. In a case brought by the Trump campaign, Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. v. Boockvar, 493 F. Supp. 3d 331 (W.D. Pa. 2020), the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania held that the campaign lacked standing to challenge various Pennsylvania election procedures on a vote dilution theory, which included challenges based on the Electors and Election Clauses of the U.S. Constitution. DCX 18 at 0036-40. In the alternative, the court held that the absence of a signature-comparison process for mail-in ballots did not violate equal protection or substantive due process. DCX 18 at 0052, 0056-60; Tr. 557-561 (Ortiz). The campaign did not appeal that decision. DCX 08 at 0053.
7. On election day, to implement pandemic-compelled social distancing between election workers canvassing mail-in ballots and partisan observers, county election officials erected observational barriers tailored to the physical layouts of individual canvassing sites. DCX 20 at 0003. The Trump campaign objected to the barriers in Philadelphia, but a state trial court denied its request to allow its observers closer access. An intermediate appellate court reversed that decision, (RX 16 at 3 (In re Canvassing Observation, No. 1094, 2020 WL 6551316, at *4 (Pa. Commw. Ct. Nov. 5, 2020)); Tr. 562-63 (Ortiz)), but on further appeal the Pennsylvania Supreme Court approved the barrier placements, holding that “the Election Code does not specify minimum distance parameters for the location” of observers. DCX 20 at 0009 (In re Canvassing Observation, 241 A.3d 339, 351 (Pa. 2020)); Tr. 141-47 (Giuliani); Tr. 563-64 (Ortiz). In the interim, a federal judge worked out an informal settlement to allow observers in Philadelphia closer proximity to canvassing operations. Tr. 564-65 (Ortiz).
B. Post-Election Trump Litigation
8. President Biden won Pennsylvania by a margin of more than 80,000 votes. DCX 22 at 0001-02.
9. The day after the election, November 4, 2020, then-President Trump asked Mr. Giuliani to take charge of post-election litigation challenging the voting results. Tr. 42-43, 45, 481-82, 877-78 (Giuliani). Mr. Giuliani went to a war room in Arlington, Virginia where he immediately met with other attorneys to prepare to bring litigation in approximately ten states (including Pennsylvania). Tr. 483-84 (Giuliani). He intended all of those cases to raise similar claims so they could be consolidated in a single lawsuit that would eventually be heard in the U.S. Supreme Court. Tr. 42-46, 49, 53-54, 483-84, 879, 1188-1190 (Giuliani).
10. The litigation team working for Respondent included multiple attorneys as well as Bernard Kerik (formerly Police Commissioner of New York City (Tr. 812- 13 (Kerik))), whom Respondent engaged as chief investigator. Tr. 457 (Giuliani); Tr. 800 (Bobb); Tr. 821-22, 824-25 (Kerik). Mr. Kerik was asked to coordinate efforts to find evidence of voting improprieties or fraud. Tr. 824-29, 854 (Kerik). In addition, Respondent engaged John Droz (who described his career as “trying to defend science” (Tr. 752-55 (Droz)) to assemble statistical models testing the “legitimacy” of the election. Tr. 758-60, 764, 769-770 (Droz).
11. Mr. Giuliani started to work on litigation specific to Pennsylvania after receiving a telephone call complaining about observational boundaries in Philadelphia during the mail-in ballot canvassing there. Tr. 46-47, 49, 882-86 (Giuliani); Tr. 740-42 (Lewandowski).
12. Election challenges based on state law were required to be brought in state court. Tr. 52-54, 513-16 (Giuliani); DCX 40 at 0006 & n.2. The campaign had lost other cases in the state courts, and local counsel “felt it was a lost cause” to bring post-election challenges there. Tr. 515 (Giuliani). Respondent consequently worked with Pittsburgh attorney Ronald Hicks to prepare a case to be filed in Pennsylvania federal court. DCX 34 at 0141-42; see DCX 05 at 0084; Tr. 51-53, 486-88 (Giuliani).
13. Mr. Giuliani helped draft a complaint on behalf of Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. and on behalf of two individual voters who had mailed defective ballots but had not been given the opportunity to cure them. DCX 05; Tr. 55-56 (Giuliani). The complaint contained seven counts asserting violations of the plaintiffs’ civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Electors and Elections Clauses of the U.S. Constitution. It named as defendants the Pennsylvania Secretary of State and the election boards of seven counties that had returned majorities for President Biden. DCX 05 at 0001, 0011; Tr. 56-57 (Giuliani); Tr. 566 (Ortiz).
14. The initial Complaint was filed on November 9, 2020, in the Middle District of Pennsylvania. DCX 05 at 0001; Tr. 59 (Giuliani); Tr. 566 (Ortiz). Even though he drafted a meaningful portion (up to 30%) of it, Mr. Giuliani was not admitted to practice in the Middle District and did not sign it. Tr. 57, 59, 489, 899 (Giuliani); see DCX 07.
15. Mr. Hicks withdrew his appearance immediately after filing the Complaint. DCX 09 at 0003; Tr. 61-62 (Giuliani). On November 15, 2020, plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint authored by another group of lawyers; it eliminated all but two of the seven original counts. DCX 06; Tr. 61, 490 (Giuliani). Mr. Giuliani did not work on that complaint and did not agree with its more circumscribed approach. Tr. 60-63 (Giuliani).
16. The court admitted Mr. Giuliani pro hac vice on November 17, 2020. DCX 07 at 0002. That same day, he personally argued in opposition to a motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint. DCX 08. By that time, Mr. Giuliani had prepared a Second Amended Complaint. Tr. 71-72 (Giuliani). He believed that the First Amended Complaint wrongly deleted allegations about widespread election fraud that were important to his national litigation strategy. Tr. 64-68 (Giuliani). During the oral argument, he advised District Judge Matthew Brann that he intended to file another complaint. DCX 08 at 0013; Tr. 71-72 (Giuliani).
17. The day after the oral argument, Mr. Giuliani moved for leave to file the Second Amended Complaint, which reintroduced allegations from the original Complaint and added additional counts, all of which were based either on 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or on the Due Process or Electors and Elections Clauses. DCX 09 at 0001- 04; Tr. 491 (Giuliani). At the core of the additional counts were plaintiffs’ claims of systemic election fraud arising from the establishment of observational boundaries. DCX 09 at 0110-0122. The next day, November 19, 2020, plaintiffs sought a temporary restraining order barring defendants from certifying the result of the 2020 election. DCX 10; DCX 11; Tr. 569 (Ortiz).
18. On November 21, 2020, Judge Brann dismissed the First Amended Complaint and denied leave to file the Second Amended Complaint. He also denied plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief. DCX 14 at 0017 (Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. v. Boockvar, 502 F. Supp. 3d 899, 923 (M.D. Pa. 2020)).
19. Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal on November 22, 2020, signed by Mr. Giuliani. DCX 15. The only issue raised on appeal was whether Judge Brann properly denied leave to file the Second Amended Complaint. DCX 16 at 0005; Tr. 594 (Ortiz).
20. The Third Circuit affirmed dismissal of the case. DCX 16 at 0005 (Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. v. Sec’y of Pennsylvania, 830 Fed. Appx. 377, 382 (3d Cir. 2020)). The court held that the Second Amended Complaint did not contain a sufficient factual basis to state a facially plausible claim to relief. DCX 16 at 0008.
C. The Giuliani Complaints Were Factually Deficient
21. The Complaint and Second Amended Complaint (“Giuliani Complaints”) challenged the location of observational barriers and the existence of Notice and Cure procedures, but neither complaint factually linked either of those circumstances to widespread improper voting. See generally DCX 05; DCX 09. They contained only vague and speculative allegations about random and isolated electoral irregularities which did not and could not support Respondent’s inflated legal claims. See ODC Proposed Finding of Fact (“PFF”) 34 (listing the 26 factual allegations in the two complaints); ODC Reply Br. at 4-5.4
22. For that reason, the District Court found that plaintiffs had presented only “strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations, unpled in the operative complaint and unsupported by evidence.” DCX 14 at 0008 (502 F. Supp. 3d at 906).
23. The Third Circuit agreed, holding that the Second Amended Complaint:
never alleges that any ballot was fraudulent or cast by an illegal voter. It never alleges that any defendant treated the Trump campaign or its votes worse than it treated the Biden campaign or its votes. Calling something discrimination does not make it so.
DCX 16 at 0012 (830 Fed. Appx. at 391).
D. Respondent’s Oral Argument to the District Court
24. When Mr. Giuliani opposed the motion to dismiss before Judge Brann, the First Amended Complaint was in effect. It had eliminated claims that were based on observational barriers and fraud. Tr. 60, 71, 490 (Giuliani). Compare DCX 05, with DCX 06. Mr. Giuliani, however, had already drafted the Second Amended Complaint reasserting that observational barriers and Notice and Cure practices had caused widespread fraud. Tr. 71-72, 944 (Giuliani). He justified the amendment “because as compared to last week, we have twice as much evidence this week.” DCX 08 at 0022; see DCX 09 at 0001 (seeking leave to add claims in a second amended complaint “based on newly learned facts”).
25. Mr. Giuliani’s oral argument for the most part elaborated on the observational boundary fraud claims of his Second Amended Complaint. DCX 08 at 0012-18; Tr. 71-73 (Giuliani); Tr. 582-86 (Ortiz).
26. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court, in In re Canvassing Observation, 241 A.3d at 346-47, noted that the Election Board in Philadelphia County had established its observational distancing requirements based “on its perceived need for protecting its workers’ safety from COVID-19 and physical assault from those individuals who have contact with its workers; ensuring security of the ballots; efficiently processing large numbers of ballots; protecting the privacy of voters; and ensuring campaign access to the canvassing proceedings . . . .” DCX 20 at 0006.
27. Mr. Giuliani, however, contended that observational boundaries were a per se fraud that he had “personally witnessed” (Tr. 49 (Giuliani)). He claimed they were “a deliberate scheme of intentional and purposeful discrimination” against the Trump campaign (DCX 09 at 0079-0080, ¶ 167), concluding that Democrats “stole an election . . . in this Commonwealth” (DCX 08 at 0027) and that he had “hundreds of affidavits” supporting his assertion (DCX 08 at 0027-28). These claims were simply not true.
28. Mr. Giuliani did not offer any evidence that fraudulent mail-in votes were actually cast or counted. Tr. 381-82 (Giuliani); Tr. 593 (Ortiz); DCX 40 at 0013-27; see DCX 08. In his view, the existence of observational boundaries was enough: the voter “might not have done anything wrong, but [because of the boundaries] the person counting did something wrong and therefore they’re not counted.” Tr. 334 (Giuliani). The only evidence he offered to the court were photographs showing that observers could not see the details of ballots at canvassing sites in Philadelphia and Allegheny Counties. DCX 08 at 0029-31. Because canvassing absentee and mail ballots subject to observational boundaries was a “planned fraudulent process,” he argued, virtually all of the 682,770 mail-in ballots in Philadelphia and Allegheny counties should not have been counted. Id. at 0023- 26, 0116-17; see also Tr. 383-85, 388-89 (Giuliani). Acknowledging that observational boundaries applied equally to both parties, he rationalized that “Democrats weren’t allowed to see it because they couldn’t count on the fact that all Democrats are crooked.” DCX 08 at 0026-27; see also Tr. 194-95 (Giuliani).
29. Mr. Giuliani’s observational boundaries theory was premised on a conclusive presumption of irregularity, i.e., the wholly unfounded supposition that observational boundaries necessarily led to fraudulent counting of mail-in ballots to favor President Biden. See DCX 05 at 0070 (“Consequently, Defendants created a system whereby it was physically impossible for the candidates and political parties to view the ballots and verify that illegally cast ballots were not opened and counted.”); DCX 09 at 0080 (“Defendant County Election Boards carried out this scheme knowing that the absentee and mail ballots which should have been disqualified would overwhelmingly favor Biden . . . .”); id. at 0088 (same). While the number of Democrats voting by mail was expected greatly to surpass the number of Republicans voting by mail, nothing in the record supports Respondent’s thesis that the observational barriers were put in place to avoid detection of a scheme illegally to count Biden votes.
30. The day that Mr. Giuliani made his oral argument, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that the observational boundaries did not violate the election code. DCX 20 at 0009 (In re Canvassing Observation, 241 A.3d at 351).
31. Distinct from the observational boundaries claim, Mr. Giuliani’s Notice and Cure claim was lodged on behalf of two individuals who had mailed in defective ballots that were properly rejected by election officials. DCX 08 at 0019-0020. Rather than seeking to have their votes counted, Mr. Giuliani sued seven other counties that had implemented a Notice and Cure process, seeking on an equal protection theory to take away votes in those defendant counties or even “declar[e] a new election.” Tr. 187 (Giuliani).
32. Claiming that time constraints precluded him from doing so, Mr. Giuliani’s pre-litigation investigation unearthed no evidence of systemic fraud. DCX 08 at 0022-23; Tr. 382 (Giuliani). He briefly visited Philadelphia, and while there focused his attention on the observational boundary restrictions. Tr. 468-475, 1163-1173 (Giuliani). Most of the inspectors with whom he spoke were “in a state of shock” over how the new boundaries differed from practices under prior law. Tr. 1170 (Giuliani); see also Tr. 1173, 1199 (Giuliani).5 None of his interactions, however, unearthed credible proof that observational boundaries or Notice and Cure procedures facilitated widespread fraud. Tr. 234-240, 956-971 (Giuliani).
33. Respondent thus commenced litigation without evidence that its core factual claim was true. He admits as much, maintaining that the “fastmoving” case “did not permit him to investigate fully his client’s position as he would normally do in any other case.” Respondent’s Br. at 2. Even without supporting evidence, he claims, it was reasonable for him to “draw an inference and make an argument that the vote count was illegal and contrary to law.” Id. at 3. We reject this argument.6
34. Despite the lack of proof, Respondent sought an order prohibiting the defendants from counting ballots that had been “cured” and any ballots that had been pre-canvassed or canvassed without “meaningful observation” from poll watchers. DCX 09 at 0113, 0123. Such a remedy would mean disqualifying all mail-in ballots in the defendant counties. Tr. 178-79 (Giuliani). His complaints sought injunctive relief ranging from a prohibition on certifying the results of the 2020 general election (DCX 05 at 0084; DCX 06 at 0062; DCX 09 at 0020, 0122-23; Tr. 577-79 (Ortiz as to DCX 09)) to ordering the Pennsylvania General Assembly to choose the electors (DCX 09 at 0123; Tr. 579-581 (Ortiz)). In his motion for leave to file the Second Amended Complaint, he stated that “[u]ltimately, Plaintiffs will seek the remedy of Trump being declared the winner of the legal votes cast in Pennsylvania . . . and, thus, the recipient of Pennsylvania’s electors.” DCX 09 at 0008-09; Tr. 576 (Ortiz).
35. Four days after the oral argument, the District Court dismissed the case and denied leave to replead. DCX 14.
36. The chief factual objective of the hearing in this disciplinary matter was to ascertain whether Disciplinary Counsel proved by clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Giuliani lacked material evidence to support his claims that observational boundaries and Notice and Cure procedures facilitated widespread, systemic voter fraud and justified the nullification of hundreds of thousands of votes in Pennsylvania. The hearing clearly and convincingly disclosed that there was no such evidence: Respondent based the Pennsylvania litigation only on speculation, mistrust, and suspicion.
E. Observational Boundaries Did Not Facilitate Systemic Election Fraud
37. The record of this disciplinary proceeding includes: (a) all documents in the possession of Mr. Hicks’s firm (DCX 23 & 24); (b) all documents in the possession of Linda Kerns, who signed the Complaint (DCX 05 at 0084-85) and the First Amended Complaint (DCX 06 at 0063) (DCX 25 & 26); (c) all documents in the possession of the law firm that authored the Second Amended Complaint (DCX 09 at 0124) (DCX 27 & 28); (d) all documents in the possession of Mr. Giuliani (DCX 32, 35, 36, 37; Tr. 506-510 (Giuliani)); and (e) the transcript of a Pennsylvania legislative hearing in which Mr. Giuliani participated on November 25, 2020 (DCX 29), which, he claimed, demonstrated “a pattern in Pennsylvania of so many gross irregularities that . . . presents a very solid evidentiary base, direct and circumstantial, supporting responsible allegations of voter fraud.” DCX 32 at 0002.
38. At the hearing in this case Mr. Giuliani belatedly produced another set of declarations and affidavits, RX 01, along with some emails and text messages, RX 02. Tr. 85-86 (Giuliani). His testimony raised the possibility that some relevant materials may have been lost or not turned over, but the only “missing” document he could think of was already included in his document production, albeit without an unknown number of affidavits he “thought” were attached to it. Tr. 90-94, 210- 14 (Giuliani); DCX 32 at 0072-75. He subsequently testified that there might be other missing documents but, if so, they concerned “an illegal voter, it’s one or two.” Tr. 298-99 (Giuliani). Between the time Disciplinary Counsel commenced its investigation of Respondent and the hearing in this matter, Mr. Giuliani reached out to those with whom he had worked and retrieved relevant documents from them which, in turn, he produced to Disciplinary Counsel. Tr. 509-510 (Giuliani).
39. We conclude therefore that the record of the disciplinary hearing contains all the material evidence gathered by Mr. Giuliani, and on his behalf, to support his claims in the Pennsylvania litigation. His nebulous allusions to the existence of additional material documentation are not credible.
40. The documentary evidence that Respondent did produce is fundamentally vague, speculative, or facially incredible. We have reviewed it and have examined with particularity the materials cited by Respondent in his posthearing filings. Respondent’s PFF 36-37. Although the materials identify a handful of isolated election irregularities, they completely fail to demonstrate that the observational boundaries or Notice and Cure procedures facilitated any meaningful fraud or misconduct that could have possibly affected the outcome of the presidential election.
41. At the disciplinary hearing Mr. Giuliani also offered the testimony of Bernard Kerik and John Droz, who produced additional materials purporting to show election fraud. Tr. 751-787 (Droz) (RX 11); Tr. 810-857 (Kerik) (RX 40-43).
42. Mr. Giuliani did not include Mr. Kerik’s documents in his responses to Disciplinary Counsel’s request for evidence (DCX 32, 35, 36, 37; Tr. 97-98 (Giuliani)) and the three subpoenaed law firms did not produce them. DCX 24, 26, 28. Mr. Giuliani did not mention them in the oral argument before Judge Brann (DCX 08), and Mr. Kerik did not testify at the November 25, 2020 legislative hearing (DCX 29). At the disciplinary hearing Mr. Giuliani at first said he did not recall if or when he may have seen the Kerik materials (Tr. 98 (Giuliani)), and later testified that he saw them before the oral argument in the District Court but could not attest to their veracity. Tr. 456-460 (Giuliani).
43. Even if Mr. Giuliani did have the Kerik documents at a relevant time (and it does not appear that he did), they do not show any connection between observational boundaries or Notice and Cure procedures and election fraud. Mr. Kerik (like Mr. Giuliani) could not and would not confirm that the information contained in the Kerik documents was true (Tr. 827-29 (Kerik)) and could not identify its sources. Tr. 839-842 (Kerik). The content of the Kerik documents is in many instances facially incredible. Indeed, Respondent did not offer the Kerik materials in evidence at the disciplinary hearing for their truth, and they were not admitted for that purpose. Tr. 920. For these reasons, we conclude that the Kerik exhibits (RX 40-43) have no probative value in this matter and do not support the allegations made by Mr. Giuliani in the Pennsylvania litigation.
44. Mr. Droz, who acknowledged no expertise in statistics, testified about an exhibit containing statistical “analyses” prepared by third parties, none of whom testified in this disciplinary matter. Tr. 759 (Droz); see RX 11. Mr. Droz could not and would not attest to the veracity of the exhibit, which Respondent again did not offer into evidence for the truth of its content. Tr. 772-73. Mr. Giuliani knew nothing about the credentials of the exhibit’s authors, or about the underlying data they used. Tr. 943-45 (Giuliani). Although he had the exhibit in his possession and claims to have been impressed with aspects of it (Tr. 906-911 (Giuliani)), he did not submit it to the District Court or rely upon it when making his oral argument. Tr. 944-45 (Giuliani). The Droz exhibit fails to establish any causal connection between observational boundaries or Notice and Cure procedures and election fraud. For these reasons we conclude that the Droz exhibit (RX 11) has no probative value in this matter and does not support the allegations in the Pennsylvania litigation.
F. The Notice and Cure Claim Had No Factual Merit
45. The individual plaintiffs lived in counties that did not adopt Notice and Cure procedures, so defective ballots mailed to those counties were not counted. DCX 05 at 0010 (¶¶ 19 & 20); DCX 06 at 0006-07 (¶¶ 15 & 16), 0058-59 (¶ 158); DCX 09 at 0023-25 (¶¶ 22 & 23), 0096-0103 (Count IV), 0105-109 (Count VI). But Mr. Giuliani did not sue the boards of elections in the counties that disqualified the plaintiffs’ ballots and did not seek to have them counted. Tr. 187 (Giuliani).
46. Instead, Respondent sued seven county boards that did offer Notice and Cure to their voters and sought to disqualify the ballots that had been cast in those counties after voters were notified of a defect in their mail-in ballot. DCX 05 at 0001; DCX 06 at 0001; DCX 09 at 0001; DCX 14 at 0011-12; Tr. 176, 187, 495- 502, 510-12 (Giuliani).
47. In Mr. Giuliani’s view, the divergent Notice and Cure practices among the counties constituted an intentional scheme by the seven counties and the Secretary of State to harm the Trump Campaign. Tr. 76 (Giuliani). However, he produced no evidence to support that claim.
48. In any event, the four most populous defendant counties had an aggregate total of approximately 6,500 Notice and Cure votes. DCX 16 at 0011. Respondent did not dispute that number, nor did he proffer a different one.7 The Third Circuit held that even if the Notice and Cure votes in the remaining counties brought the total to 10,000 voters (and even assuming they all voted for President Biden), the result of the election would not have changed. Id.
49. Mr. Giuliani had no evidence to support a claim that the Notice and Cure procedures affected votes in the defendant counties sufficient to approach President Biden’s 80,000-vote victory margin. Tr. 185 (Giuliani). Without such evidence Mr. Giuliani had no legitimate grounds based on Notice and Cure to seek an “injunction that prohibits Defendants from certifying the results of the 2020 presidential general election in Pennsylvania on a statewide basis . . . and/or [an] injunction that the results of the 2020 presidential general election are defective and providing for the Pennsylvania General Assembly to choose Pennsylvania’s electors.” DCX 09 at 0103-05, 0123.8
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 37523
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Trump lashes out at Gov. Doug Ducey following certificat
by admin » Sat Jul 08, 2023 5:39 am
Part 2 of 2
II. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Respondent’s conduct took place in connection with a matter pending in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, which has adopted the Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct. See M.D. Pa. L.R. 83.23.2. Disciplinary Counsel therefore charged Respondent with violating Pennsylvania’s Rules of Professional Conduct 3.1 and 8.4(d). See D.C. Rule of Professional Conduct 8.5(b)(1) (“For conduct in connection with a matter pending before a tribunal, the rules to be applied shall be the rules of the jurisdiction in which the tribunal sits, unless the rules of the tribunal provide otherwise . . . .”).
Pennsylvania Rule 3.1 states in relevant part that “[a] lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless there is a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous, which includes a good faith argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law.” See also D.C. Rule 3.1 (same).
Both the District Court and Third Circuit summarily dismissed Respondent’s case, finding that it lacked factual or legal merit. Although suggestive of the result in this disciplinary matter, those decisions do not compel a conclusion that Respondent violated Pennsylvania Rule 3.1. Even though the courts found that Respondent’s litigation had no merit, we must determine whether Respondent’s deficient claims were also “frivolous.”
In that regard, Pennsylvania Rule 3.1 sets forth an objective test. Adams v. Dept. of Pub. Welfare, 781 A.2d 217, 220 n.2 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2001). Both parties have directed the Hearing Committee to In re Spikes, 881 A.2d 1118, 1125 (D.C. 2005) as a guide to our analysis. Spikes held that a claim is frivolous if, after undertaking “an ‘objective appraisal of merit’ . . . , a reasonable attorney would have concluded that there was not even a ‘faint hope of success on the legal merits’ of the action being considered.” 881 A.2d at 1125 (quoting Tupling v. Britton, 411 A.2d 349, 352 (D.C. 1980) and Slater v. Biehl, 793 A.2d 1268, 1278 (D.C. 2002)).
Spikes recognized that “the law is not always clear and never is static,” and that the prohibition of frivolous litigation should not chill zealous advocacy on behalf of a client to press for change and reform in the law. Id. (quoting D.C. Rule 3.1, cmt. [1]); see also Pa. Rule 3.1, cmt. [1]. However, Spikes warned that this “safe harbor” requires a position that is reasoned and supported. Id.; see also Pa. Rule 3.1, cmt. [1] (“The advocate has a duty to use legal procedure for the fullest benefit of the client’s cause, but also a duty not to abuse legal procedure.”); D.C. Rule 3.1, cmt. [1] (same).
Rule 3.1 applies to claims for relief as well as to theories of liability: where claims for relief are “utterly frivolous, implausible to the point of having ‘not even a faint hope of success,’” they too violate Rule 3.1. In re Pearson, 228 A.3d 417, 426 (D.C. 2020) (per curiam) (quoting Spikes, 881 A.2d at 1125).
A. Disciplinary Counsel Proved by Clear and Convincing Evidence that Respondent Violated Pennsylvania Rule 3.1
In the Second Amended Complaint, Respondent alleged that the Defendants implemented “observational barriers” that prevented Trump poll watchers from meaningfully observing the canvassing of mail-in ballots, and by doing so engaged in a “deliberate scheme of intentional and purposeful discrimination” to favor Joseph Biden over Donald Trump. DCX 09 at 0079-0080, 0088, 0096, 0106. Respondent also alleged that the Boards of Elections unlawfully allowed voters to cure facially deficient absentee ballots (Notice and Cure). DCX 09 at 0071, 0087, 0102-05, 0108- 09.
1. The Standing Argument Did Not Violate Pennsylvania Rule 3.1
Disciplinary Counsel argues that none of the Plaintiffs had standing to assert the claims in the Second Amended Complaint, citing Bognet v. Sec’y Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 980 F.3d 336, 348-52 (3d Cir. 2020), decided a little more than a week before Respondent filed that document. See ODC Br. at 32- 33.
Before the District Court, however, Respondent noted his disagreement with Bognet and his intent to preserve the standing issue for appeal. DCX 13 at 0017; see Respondent’s Br. at 28-38 (relying in part on a series of Ninth Circuit cases). Respondent argues to the Hearing Committee that the District Court’s standing analysis erroneously relied on Mecinas v. Hobbs, 468 F. Supp. 3d 1186 (D. Ariz. 2020), a case that was later overturned by the Ninth Circuit when it endorsed a broad theory of “competitive standing” and cited other cases to the same effect. Respondent’s Br. at 32-33 (citing Mecinas v. Hobbs, 30 F.4th 890 (9th Cir. 2022)). Respondent also seeks to distinguish Bognet’s standing ruling based on its differing factual context. Id. at 38-40; DCX 08 at 0021-22.
Given the complexity of the standing issue, Respondent’s acknowledgement of the Bognet holding, and the line of Ninth Circuit cases supporting Respondent’s rational argument for distinguishing Mecinas, Respondent’s standing arguments had at least a faint hope of success and did not violate Pennsylvania Rule 3.1.
2. The Observational Barriers Claim Violated Pennsylvania Rule 3.1
The Pennsylvania election code set forth detailed mail-in ballot procedures to be followed by voters and election workers.
With respect to voters, the code mandated that ballot return envelopes “contain among other things a statement of the electors [sic] qualifications, together with a statement that such elector has not already voted in such primary or election.” 25 Pa. Stat. Ann. § 3146.4 (absentee ballots); see 25 Pa. Stat. Ann. § 3150.14(b) (mail-in ballots). It also provided that after placing the ballot inside the secrecy envelope, the voter must place the secrecy envelope in the ballot return envelope. “The elector shall then fill out, date and sign the declaration printed on such envelope.” 25 Pa. Stat. Ann. § 3146.6(a) (absentee ballots); 25 Pa. Stat. Ann. § 3150.16(a) (mail-in ballots).
Section 3146.8 of the law set forth the procedures to be followed by election workers during the canvassing process, which included examining the voter declarations and ensuring that the voter was eligible to vote.
The code also provided that poll watchers “shall be permitted to be present when the envelopes containing official absentee ballots and mail-in ballots are opened and when such ballots are counted and recorded” (25 Pa. Stat. Ann. § 3146.8(b)) and “be permitted to remain in the room in which the absentee ballots and mail-in ballots are pre-canvassed.” 25 Pa. Stat. Ann. § 3146.8(g)(1.1).
However, the code did not allow poll watchers to challenge ballots at canvassing. In re Nov. 3, 2020 Gen. Election, 240 A.3d 591, 610 (Pa. 2020). By the time that Respondent filed the Second Amended Complaint, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court had held that although observers had to be “in the room,” they did not have to be within any minimum distance of canvassing activities because they were not permitted to challenge individual ballots during the canvassing process. DCX 20 at 0008 (In re Canvassing Observation, 241 A.3d at 350). Even with observational barriers, poll watchers:
Id. at 0009 (In re Canvassing Observation, 241 A.3d at 350-51).
Despite these rulings, Respondent alleged that the observational boundaries facilitated a sinister scheme by Democrats fraudulently to steal the election from Donald Trump (FF 28) and award it to Joseph Biden:
DCX 09 at 0079-0080, ¶ 167 (Second Amended Complaint). Respondent claimed that the observational barriers “created a system whereby it was physically impossible for the candidates and political parties to view the ballots and verify that illegally cast ballots were not opened and counted.” Id. at 0086, ¶ 188.
The Second Amended Complaint sought an emergency order to stop the certification of the election or, in the alternative, prohibit the counting of absentee and mail-in ballots that “Trump Campaign’s watchers were prevented from observing.” Id. at 0020-21, ¶ 18. It “estimated that 680,770 ballots were processed by the Allegheny and Philadelphia County Boards of Elections when no observation was allowed.” Id. at 0075, ¶ 155. Thus, Respondent asked the court to throw out 680,770 ballots merely because Trump poll watchers had not observed those votes being canvassed. Id. at 0021, ¶ 18; DCX 08 at 0107-0112; FF 28. The Second Amended Complaint also alleged that “[u]pon information and belief, a substantial portion of the approximately 1.5 million absentee and mail-in votes in Defendant Counties should not have been counted,” and that the vast majority of those votes favored Biden, “thus resulting in returns indicating Biden won Pennsylvania.” DCX 09 at 0097, ¶ 223.
In short, Respondent claimed that if observers were not close enough to meticulously inspect ballots during canvassing, those ballots should not be counted. Yet, as the Third Circuit noted, the Second Amended Complaint failed to “allege[] facts showing improper vote counting.” DCX 16 at 0010. And we have found that Respondent possessed no evidence of widespread fraud or impropriety. FF 37-44. His claim instead rested on the unsupported conclusive presumption that ballots canvassed without close third-party oversight were fraudulent and must not be counted. FF 29.
Mr. Giuliani’s argument that he did not have time fully to investigate his case before filing it is singularly unimpressive. He sought to upend the presidential election but never had evidence to support that effort. Surely Rule 3.1 required more.
After an objective appraisal of the facts, a reasonable attorney would have concluded that there was not even a faint hope of success of the observational barriers claim. Comment [1] to Pennsylvania Rule 3.1 makes clear that, when representing his client, a lawyer may only pursue “lawful and ethical measures.” A lawyer with “excessive and misplaced zeal” breaches his ethical obligations when he litigates a case that has no factual basis. See Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Malloy, No. 178 DB 2014, at 29 (Pa. D. Bd. Rpt. Apr. 26, 2016), recommendation adopted, Order, No. 178 DB 2014 (Pa. June 30, 2016). That is exactly what happened here. Respondent violated Pennsylvania Rule 3.1.
3. The Notice and Cure Claim Violated Pennsylvania Rule 3.1
The ballots of Respondent’s individual clients were defective and properly rejected, but their home counties did not permit them to cure the flaws. FF 31. Respondent did not sue the counties that rejected his clients’ votes. Instead, he sued seven other counties that did give notice and permitted their voters to cure. Id. He claimed that the Pennsylvania election code (1) did not permit Notice and Cure, and (2) that its inconsistent use resulted in disparate treatment of voters based on their county of residence and denied his clients equal protection under the law. See Respondent’s Br. at 42.
Disciplinary Counsel argues that the Notice and Cure claims were frivolous because the individual plaintiffs should have sought to force their home counties to count their votes, rather than seek to prohibit the seven defendant counties from counting cured ballots. ODC Br. at 13-14.
Respondent’s argument that Pennsylvania election law did not permit notice and cure was based on 25 Pa. Stat. Ann. § 3146.8(a) (election boards “shall safely keep the ballots in sealed or locked containers until they are to be canvassed by the county board of elections”) and 25 Pa. Stat. Ann. § 3146.8(g)(1.1) (prohibiting the disclosure of “any portion of any pre-canvass meeting prior to the close of the polls”). See DCX 11 at 0013, 0022-23. He contended before the Hearing Committee that it was reasonable for him to rely on Boockvar to argue that notice and cure “was not allowed to be implemented by the Executive Branch of government (Secretary of State), and only the Legislature could enact such a procedure,” Respondent’s Br. at 13, relying on the following language from Boockvar:
238 A.3d at 374 (emphasis added); see Respondent’s Br. at 13-14. We agree with Respondent that his theory challenging the use of Notice and Cure had at least a faint hope of success on the merits. Accord Republican Nat’l Comm. v. Chapman, No. 447 M.D. 2022, 2022 WL 16754061, at *17 (Pa. Commw. Ct. Sept. 29, 2022), aff’d by an equally divided court, without op., Order, 284 A.3d 207 (Pa. 2022) (per curiam).
We also agree with Respondent that his equal protection theory based on the divergent uses of Notice and Cure was not frivolous. In Pierce v. Allegheny County Bd. of Elections, 324 F. Supp. 2d 684 (W.D. Pa. 2003), the court considered an equal protection challenge arising out of disparate treatment of absentee ballots. The relevant Pennsylvania statute provided that “an elector voting by absentee ballot is to mail the absentee ballot or deliver it in person.” Id. at 691 (citing 25 Pa. Stat. § 3146.6(a)). The precise question in Pierce was whether the phrase “in person” permitted third-party hand-delivery of absentee ballots. Id.
Allegheny County initially permitted third parties to hand deliver absentee ballots without restriction. It then reversed course and prohibited third-party hand- delivery, before finally allowing third-party hand-delivery with a certification from the person who delivered the ballot. Id. at 690. Philadelphia County did not permit third-party hand-delivery. Id. at 698.
Pierce sua sponte considered the effect of these different policies, recognizing that the permissibility of third-party hand-delivery of absentee ballots was an unsettled question of Pennsylvania law. Id. at 699. Pierce concluded that if the in-person requirement was directory and not mandatory:
Id. at 699 (first emphasis added). Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000), also provides some arguable support to Respondent. In Bush, the Supreme Court halted a statewide recount following the 2000 election because the use of standardless manual recounts violated the Equal Protection clause. 531 U.S. at 103. Bush involved a statewide recount, not the manner in which individual counties treated absentee ballots, and Bush also observed that “[t]he question before the Court is not whether local entities, in the exercise of their expertise, may develop different systems for implementing elections.” Id. at 109. Nonetheless, Bush asserted that:
Id. at 104.
Considering the discussion in Pierce and the ambiguities in the Bush opinion, we conclude that there was at least a faint hope of success in Respondent’s legal argument that disparate Notice and Cure treatment of similarly situated voters by county officials violated the Equal Protection clause. See also Charfauros v. Bd. of Elections, 249 F.3d 941, 945, 953 (9th Cir. 2001) (finding an equal protection violation where the elections board “changed the rules of the game midstream” for challenges to voter eligibility).
That is not the end of the analysis, however. Disciplinary Counsel argues that Respondent’s proposed remedy – an injunction prohibiting certification of the presidential election or tendering the election to the Pennsylvania General Assembly – was itself frivolous. ODC Br. at 14.
Respondent does not directly respond to Disciplinary Counsel’s argument that he had no basis to halt certification of the election simply because a few thousand mail-in voters were allowed to cure defects. Rather he argues generally that it is inappropriate to sanction an advocate for a requested remedy, especially at the early stages in litigation, and asks us to focus on the preliminary relief requested in the motion for a temporary restraining order – to bar certification of the election pending further Court order – rather than on the ultimate relief requested in the Second Amended Complaint. Respondent’s Br. at 53-55.
Pennsylvania courts liberally construe election law in favor of the right to vote. In re Canvass of Absentee Ballots of Nov. 4, 2003 Gen. Election, 843 A.2d 1223, 1231 (Pa. 2004). However, they will not permit the counting of votes cast in violation of the election code. See id. at 1234. Thus, in In re Canvass of Absentee Ballots of Nov. 4, 2003 Gen. Election (Appeal of Pierce), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court determined that the requirement of in-person delivery was mandatory and voided fifty-six ballots “delivered in contravention of this mandatory provision.” Id.; accord Boockvar, 238 A.3d at 376, 378 (rejecting the argument that “no voter should be disenfranchised for failing to place his or her mail-in ballot in the secrecy envelope before returning it to the Boards”). But even though Respondent could properly seek to invalidate votes that were cured, his request for relief was frivolous because even if all “notice and cure” ballots were assumed to be Biden votes, and all were disqualified, President Biden would have won Pennsylvania by 70,000 votes instead of 80,000 votes. FF 48.
Had Respondent sought more circumscribed relief appropriate to the supposed Notice and Cure injury, the Rule 3.1 calculus may have been different. However, Respondent attempted to parlay the appropriate denial of his clients’ two invalid votes into the nullification of massive numbers of legally-cast ballots. Respondent’s claimed right to a draconian injunction (FF 49) was, as Judge Brann noted, “unhinged”:
DCX 14 at 0016.
The Notice and Cure claim for relief is clearly “shocking in itself” and “outlandish.” See Pearson, 228 A.3d at 425. Respondent’s assertion of it violated Pennsylvania Rule 3.1.
B. Disciplinary Counsel Proved By Clear and Convincing Evidence that Respondent Violated Pennsylvania Rule 8.4(d)
Pennsylvania Rule 8.4(d) prohibits a lawyer from engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice. Clogging the courts with unnecessary and frivolous cases is such a violation. See, e.g., Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Altman, 228 A.3d 508, 513-14 (Pa. 2020) (violations of Rule 8.4(d) for filing meritless request for attorney’s fees and motion for protective order to preclude discovery). Frivolous cases impose an “unnecessary burden” on the judicial system, waste the time and resources of the court, delay the hearing of cases with merit, and cause unwarranted expense to other litigants. Spikes, 881 A.2d at 1126-27 (citing Slater, 793 A.2d at 1277) (violation of D.C. Rule 8.4(d) for filing meritless defamation action based on privileged communication to Disciplinary Counsel). Mr. Giuliani brought a case that had no factual support. It caused an astonishing waste of the resources of the District Court, the Third Circuit, and multiple defendants in a compressed time frame. Respondent violated Rule 8.4(d).
III. SANCTION
Disciplinary Counsel recommends that Respondent be disbarred. Respondent, on the other hand, contends that if he is found to have violated any Rules, he should receive only an informal admonition or reprimand or, at most, a 30-day suspension.
Although Respondent violated the Pennsylvania Rules, District of Columbia law fixes the sanction to be imposed on him. See In re Tun, 286 A.3d 538, 543 (D.C. 2022).
Discipline is not intended to punish a respondent, but it should serve to deter a respondent and others from engaging in similar misconduct. In re Hutchinson, 534 A.2d 919, 924 (D.C. 1987) (en banc); In re Reback, 513 A.2d 226, 231 (D.C. 1986) (en banc). In a sanction determination, the Court typically assesses (1) the seriousness of the conduct at issue; (2) the prejudice, if any, to the client resulting from the misconduct; (3) whether the misconduct involved dishonesty; (4) violations of other provisions of the disciplinary rules; (5) previous disciplinary history; (6) whether or not the attorney acknowledges his misconduct; and (7) circumstances in aggravation or mitigation. See, e.g., In re Martin, 67 A.3d 1032, 1053 (D.C. 2013). The Court also considers “‘the moral fitness of the attorney’ and ‘the need to protect the public, the courts, and the legal profession.’” In re Rodriguez-Quesada, 122 A.3d 913, 921 (D.C. 2015) (quoting In re Howes, 52 A.3d 1, 15 (D.C. 2012)). Finally, a sanction should be consistent with that imposed for comparable misconduct, D.C. Bar R. XI, § 9(h)(1), while recognizing that “each case must be decided on its particular facts.” Hutchinson, 534 A.2d at 924 (quoting In re Haupt, 422 A.2d 768, 771 (D.C. 1980) (per curiam)).
In this case, Mr. Giuliani committed two disciplinary rule violations, but since the Rule 8.4(d) violation is based on the same conduct as the Rule 3.1 violation, we do not view it as an aggravating factor. Moreover, even though Respondent has been suspended by the New York Courts, that action is not final and therefore we do not consider it as prior discipline. As well, prejudice to Mr. Giuliani’s clients is not a relevant consideration in this case.
The issue of dishonesty strikes closer to the mark. We cannot clearly and convincingly say that Mr. Giuliani intentionally lied to the District Court in connection with the Pennsylvania litigation, and he was not charged with doing so. But his hyperbolic claims of election fraud and the core thesis of the Pennsylvania litigation were utterly false, and recklessly so. Mr. Giuliani’s rash overstatement claiming that the election was stolen had no evidence to support it. FF 28. His utter disregard for facts denigrates the legal profession:
Giuliani, 146 N.Y.S.3d at 283 (citations omitted).
Moreover, Mr. Giuliani has not acknowledged or accepted responsibility for his misconduct. Tr. 1254-56 (Giuliani). To the contrary, he has declared his indignation (he is “shocked and offended” (Tr. 343 (Giuliani))) over being subjected to the disciplinary process (“I really believe I’ve been persecuted for three or four years” (Tr. 68 (Giuliani))) and suggests merely an informal admonition or reprimand as an appropriate sanction. Respondent’s Br. at 62. In view of Respondent’s intransigence, we are convinced that a sanction must be enhanced to ensure that it adequately deters both Respondent and other attorneys from acting similarly in the future. See Cater, 887 A.2d at 17.
Finally, public confidence in our courts, the law, and the legal profession are very much at stake in this unprecedented case. We cannot blind ourselves to the broader context in which Mr. Giuliani’s misconduct took place. It was calculated to undermine the basic premise of our democratic form of government: that elections are determined by the voters. The Pennsylvania claims were carefully calibrated to blend into a nationwide cascade of litigation intended to overturn the presidential election. FF 9. Since John Adams established the precedent in 1800, no president – until 2020 – refused to accept defeat and step away from that office. And no lawyer – until 2020 – used frivolous claims of election fraud to impede the peaceful transition of presidential power and disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of voters.
Mr. Giuliani’s effort to undermine the integrity of the 2020 presidential election has helped destabilize our democracy. His malicious and meritless claims have done lasting damage and are antagonistic to the oath to “support the Constitution of the United States of America” that he swore when he was admitted to the Bar. This is not a partisan political view; prominent conservatives who spent “most of [their] adult lives working to support the Constitution and the conservative principles upon which it is based” have concluded that “[r]epetition of these false charges causes real harm to the basic foundations of the country, with 30 percent of the population lacking faith in the results of our elections” and “is not sustainable in a democracy.” Sen. John Danforth et al., Lost, Not Stolen: The Conservative Case that Trump Lost and Biden Won the 2020 Presidential Election, at 1, 3, 6 (July 2022), https://lostnotstolen.org/wp-content/up ... tolen-The- Conservative-Case-that-Trump-Lost-and-Biden-Won-the-2020-Presidential- Election-July-2022.pdf.
We are well aware of the sanctions imposed in Spikes, 881 A.2d at 1128 (30- day suspension), in In re Yelverton, 105 A.3d 413, 431-32 (D.C. 2014) (30-day suspension with fitness), and in Pearson, 228 A.3d at 417 (90-day suspension). We appreciate too that our sanction recommendation is constrained by the sanctions imposed for comparable misconduct. Yet even though the respondents in Pearson, Yelverton, and Spikes were found to have violated the same rules as Respondent, the misconduct underlying his violations is immensely more acute. His frivolous claims impacted not only the court and parties involved but threatened irreparable harm to the entire nation.
We have considered in mitigation Mr. Giuliani’s conduct following the September 11 attacks as well as his prior service in the Justice Department and as Mayor of New York City. But all of that happened long ago. The misconduct here sadly transcends all his past accomplishments. It was unparalleled in its destructive purpose and effect. He sought to disrupt a presidential election and persists in his refusal to acknowledge the wrong he has done. For these reasons, we unanimously recommend that Mr. Giuliani be disbarred.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Hearing Committee finds that Respondent Rudolph W. Giuliani violated Pennsylvania Rules 3.1 and 8.4(d) and should be disbarred from the practice of law in the District of Columbia. See D.C. Bar Rule XI, § 1(a). We further recommend that Respondent’s attention be directed to the requirements of D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14, and their effect on eligibility for reinstatement. See D.C. Bar R. XI, § 16(c).
AD HOC HEARING COMMITTEE
Robert C. Bernius, Esq., Chair
Carolyn Haynesworth-Murrell, Public Member
Jay A. Brozost, Esq., Attorney Member
______________
Notes:
1 The hearing transcript is designated as “Tr.” Disciplinary Counsel’s and Respondent’s exhibits are designated “DCX” and “RX,” respectively. “FF” indicates our Findings of Fact.
2 See U.S. Election Assistance Comm’n, Election Administration and Voting Survey 2020 Comprehensive Report i, 34 (Aug. 16, 2021); U.S. Election Assistance Comm’n, The Election Administration and Voting Survey 2016 Comprehensive Report 24 (June 29, 2017).
3 Respondent asserted that the counties that implemented Notice and Cure engaged in an illegal scheme to dilute votes in those counties that chose not to implement the process. See FF 47-49, infra.
4 “Disciplinary Counsel has never disputed whether Mr. Giuliani had some basis . . . to allege the scattering of minor election improprieties . . . . The question is not whether the allegations of the complaints had some factual basis, but whether those facts, assuming them to be true, supported the legal claims alleged in the complaints.” ODC Reply Br. at 5.
5 The observational boundaries permitted under the new law were also compelled by COVID-19 social distancing considerations. FF 26; Tr. 138-39 (Giuliani). It is not surprising, therefore, that the boundaries created distrust among some veteran (and partisan) poll watchers.
6 Respondent testified that “a complaint is a prediction. It’s not a statement of what you definitely are going to get, what you’re definitely going to prove.” Tr. 390 (Giuliani). He further stated that “[a]ll those questions have to be answered, which you can’t answer at this stage of the litigation, so you put out all the allegations you have, the ones that help you, the ones that don’t, and then you work your way through it in the litigation.” Tr. 192-93 (Giuliani). Compare Respondent’s statement with Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009), which held that “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face’” (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).
7 The Second Amended Complaint predicted that there were 70,000 cured ballots, DCX 09 at 0021, but in truth Mr. Giuliani “had no idea how many – how broad the practice was of [notice and] cure.” Tr. 501 (Giuliani); see Tr. 168-69 (Giuliani).
8 The Third Circuit described this request for relief as “breathtaking,” a “drastic remedy” for which Mr. Giuliani could cite no authority. DCX 16 at 0010.
9 The Third Circuit found this claim to be “conclusory” with “no specific facts” to back it up. DCX 16 at 0009.
II. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Respondent’s conduct took place in connection with a matter pending in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, which has adopted the Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct. See M.D. Pa. L.R. 83.23.2. Disciplinary Counsel therefore charged Respondent with violating Pennsylvania’s Rules of Professional Conduct 3.1 and 8.4(d). See D.C. Rule of Professional Conduct 8.5(b)(1) (“For conduct in connection with a matter pending before a tribunal, the rules to be applied shall be the rules of the jurisdiction in which the tribunal sits, unless the rules of the tribunal provide otherwise . . . .”).
Pennsylvania Rule 3.1 states in relevant part that “[a] lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless there is a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous, which includes a good faith argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law.” See also D.C. Rule 3.1 (same).
Both the District Court and Third Circuit summarily dismissed Respondent’s case, finding that it lacked factual or legal merit. Although suggestive of the result in this disciplinary matter, those decisions do not compel a conclusion that Respondent violated Pennsylvania Rule 3.1. Even though the courts found that Respondent’s litigation had no merit, we must determine whether Respondent’s deficient claims were also “frivolous.”
In that regard, Pennsylvania Rule 3.1 sets forth an objective test. Adams v. Dept. of Pub. Welfare, 781 A.2d 217, 220 n.2 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2001). Both parties have directed the Hearing Committee to In re Spikes, 881 A.2d 1118, 1125 (D.C. 2005) as a guide to our analysis. Spikes held that a claim is frivolous if, after undertaking “an ‘objective appraisal of merit’ . . . , a reasonable attorney would have concluded that there was not even a ‘faint hope of success on the legal merits’ of the action being considered.” 881 A.2d at 1125 (quoting Tupling v. Britton, 411 A.2d 349, 352 (D.C. 1980) and Slater v. Biehl, 793 A.2d 1268, 1278 (D.C. 2002)).
Spikes recognized that “the law is not always clear and never is static,” and that the prohibition of frivolous litigation should not chill zealous advocacy on behalf of a client to press for change and reform in the law. Id. (quoting D.C. Rule 3.1, cmt. [1]); see also Pa. Rule 3.1, cmt. [1]. However, Spikes warned that this “safe harbor” requires a position that is reasoned and supported. Id.; see also Pa. Rule 3.1, cmt. [1] (“The advocate has a duty to use legal procedure for the fullest benefit of the client’s cause, but also a duty not to abuse legal procedure.”); D.C. Rule 3.1, cmt. [1] (same).
Rule 3.1 applies to claims for relief as well as to theories of liability: where claims for relief are “utterly frivolous, implausible to the point of having ‘not even a faint hope of success,’” they too violate Rule 3.1. In re Pearson, 228 A.3d 417, 426 (D.C. 2020) (per curiam) (quoting Spikes, 881 A.2d at 1125).
A. Disciplinary Counsel Proved by Clear and Convincing Evidence that Respondent Violated Pennsylvania Rule 3.1
In the Second Amended Complaint, Respondent alleged that the Defendants implemented “observational barriers” that prevented Trump poll watchers from meaningfully observing the canvassing of mail-in ballots, and by doing so engaged in a “deliberate scheme of intentional and purposeful discrimination” to favor Joseph Biden over Donald Trump. DCX 09 at 0079-0080, 0088, 0096, 0106. Respondent also alleged that the Boards of Elections unlawfully allowed voters to cure facially deficient absentee ballots (Notice and Cure). DCX 09 at 0071, 0087, 0102-05, 0108- 09.
1. The Standing Argument Did Not Violate Pennsylvania Rule 3.1
Disciplinary Counsel argues that none of the Plaintiffs had standing to assert the claims in the Second Amended Complaint, citing Bognet v. Sec’y Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 980 F.3d 336, 348-52 (3d Cir. 2020), decided a little more than a week before Respondent filed that document. See ODC Br. at 32- 33.
Before the District Court, however, Respondent noted his disagreement with Bognet and his intent to preserve the standing issue for appeal. DCX 13 at 0017; see Respondent’s Br. at 28-38 (relying in part on a series of Ninth Circuit cases). Respondent argues to the Hearing Committee that the District Court’s standing analysis erroneously relied on Mecinas v. Hobbs, 468 F. Supp. 3d 1186 (D. Ariz. 2020), a case that was later overturned by the Ninth Circuit when it endorsed a broad theory of “competitive standing” and cited other cases to the same effect. Respondent’s Br. at 32-33 (citing Mecinas v. Hobbs, 30 F.4th 890 (9th Cir. 2022)). Respondent also seeks to distinguish Bognet’s standing ruling based on its differing factual context. Id. at 38-40; DCX 08 at 0021-22.
Given the complexity of the standing issue, Respondent’s acknowledgement of the Bognet holding, and the line of Ninth Circuit cases supporting Respondent’s rational argument for distinguishing Mecinas, Respondent’s standing arguments had at least a faint hope of success and did not violate Pennsylvania Rule 3.1.
2. The Observational Barriers Claim Violated Pennsylvania Rule 3.1
The Pennsylvania election code set forth detailed mail-in ballot procedures to be followed by voters and election workers.
With respect to voters, the code mandated that ballot return envelopes “contain among other things a statement of the electors [sic] qualifications, together with a statement that such elector has not already voted in such primary or election.” 25 Pa. Stat. Ann. § 3146.4 (absentee ballots); see 25 Pa. Stat. Ann. § 3150.14(b) (mail-in ballots). It also provided that after placing the ballot inside the secrecy envelope, the voter must place the secrecy envelope in the ballot return envelope. “The elector shall then fill out, date and sign the declaration printed on such envelope.” 25 Pa. Stat. Ann. § 3146.6(a) (absentee ballots); 25 Pa. Stat. Ann. § 3150.16(a) (mail-in ballots).
Section 3146.8 of the law set forth the procedures to be followed by election workers during the canvassing process, which included examining the voter declarations and ensuring that the voter was eligible to vote.
The code also provided that poll watchers “shall be permitted to be present when the envelopes containing official absentee ballots and mail-in ballots are opened and when such ballots are counted and recorded” (25 Pa. Stat. Ann. § 3146.8(b)) and “be permitted to remain in the room in which the absentee ballots and mail-in ballots are pre-canvassed.” 25 Pa. Stat. Ann. § 3146.8(g)(1.1).
However, the code did not allow poll watchers to challenge ballots at canvassing. In re Nov. 3, 2020 Gen. Election, 240 A.3d 591, 610 (Pa. 2020). By the time that Respondent filed the Second Amended Complaint, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court had held that although observers had to be “in the room,” they did not have to be within any minimum distance of canvassing activities because they were not permitted to challenge individual ballots during the canvassing process. DCX 20 at 0008 (In re Canvassing Observation, 241 A.3d at 350). Even with observational barriers, poll watchers:
had the opportunity to observe the mechanics of the canvassing process. [They] witnessed Board employees inspecting the back of ballot envelopes containing the voter’s declaration, before sending them on for processing; witnessed ballots being removed from their secrecy envelopes, and naked ballots which had been delivered to the Board without a secrecy envelope being segregated from ballots which arrived within such envelopes; saw that the ballot processing methods utilized by the Board were not destroying the ballot envelopes containing the voter’s declaration; and perceived that the ballot secrecy envelopes were being preserved during their processing. . . . Although [they] could not view the actual declarations on the ballot envelopes, nor examine individual secrecy envelopes for improper markings, . . . this information would only be necessary if [they] were making challenges to individual ballots . . . . [S]uch challenges are not permissible under the Election Code.
Id. at 0009 (In re Canvassing Observation, 241 A.3d at 350-51).
Despite these rulings, Respondent alleged that the observational boundaries facilitated a sinister scheme by Democrats fraudulently to steal the election from Donald Trump (FF 28) and award it to Joseph Biden:
Democrats who controlled the Defendant County Election Boards engaged in a deliberate scheme of intentional and purposeful discrimination . . . by excluding Republican and Trump Campaign observers from the canvassing of the mail ballots in order to conceal their decision not to enforce [certain ballot] requirements . . . [and] to count absentee and mail ballots which should have been disqualified.9
DCX 09 at 0079-0080, ¶ 167 (Second Amended Complaint). Respondent claimed that the observational barriers “created a system whereby it was physically impossible for the candidates and political parties to view the ballots and verify that illegally cast ballots were not opened and counted.” Id. at 0086, ¶ 188.
The Second Amended Complaint sought an emergency order to stop the certification of the election or, in the alternative, prohibit the counting of absentee and mail-in ballots that “Trump Campaign’s watchers were prevented from observing.” Id. at 0020-21, ¶ 18. It “estimated that 680,770 ballots were processed by the Allegheny and Philadelphia County Boards of Elections when no observation was allowed.” Id. at 0075, ¶ 155. Thus, Respondent asked the court to throw out 680,770 ballots merely because Trump poll watchers had not observed those votes being canvassed. Id. at 0021, ¶ 18; DCX 08 at 0107-0112; FF 28. The Second Amended Complaint also alleged that “[u]pon information and belief, a substantial portion of the approximately 1.5 million absentee and mail-in votes in Defendant Counties should not have been counted,” and that the vast majority of those votes favored Biden, “thus resulting in returns indicating Biden won Pennsylvania.” DCX 09 at 0097, ¶ 223.
In short, Respondent claimed that if observers were not close enough to meticulously inspect ballots during canvassing, those ballots should not be counted. Yet, as the Third Circuit noted, the Second Amended Complaint failed to “allege[] facts showing improper vote counting.” DCX 16 at 0010. And we have found that Respondent possessed no evidence of widespread fraud or impropriety. FF 37-44. His claim instead rested on the unsupported conclusive presumption that ballots canvassed without close third-party oversight were fraudulent and must not be counted. FF 29.
Mr. Giuliani’s argument that he did not have time fully to investigate his case before filing it is singularly unimpressive. He sought to upend the presidential election but never had evidence to support that effort. Surely Rule 3.1 required more.
After an objective appraisal of the facts, a reasonable attorney would have concluded that there was not even a faint hope of success of the observational barriers claim. Comment [1] to Pennsylvania Rule 3.1 makes clear that, when representing his client, a lawyer may only pursue “lawful and ethical measures.” A lawyer with “excessive and misplaced zeal” breaches his ethical obligations when he litigates a case that has no factual basis. See Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Malloy, No. 178 DB 2014, at 29 (Pa. D. Bd. Rpt. Apr. 26, 2016), recommendation adopted, Order, No. 178 DB 2014 (Pa. June 30, 2016). That is exactly what happened here. Respondent violated Pennsylvania Rule 3.1.
3. The Notice and Cure Claim Violated Pennsylvania Rule 3.1
The ballots of Respondent’s individual clients were defective and properly rejected, but their home counties did not permit them to cure the flaws. FF 31. Respondent did not sue the counties that rejected his clients’ votes. Instead, he sued seven other counties that did give notice and permitted their voters to cure. Id. He claimed that the Pennsylvania election code (1) did not permit Notice and Cure, and (2) that its inconsistent use resulted in disparate treatment of voters based on their county of residence and denied his clients equal protection under the law. See Respondent’s Br. at 42.
Disciplinary Counsel argues that the Notice and Cure claims were frivolous because the individual plaintiffs should have sought to force their home counties to count their votes, rather than seek to prohibit the seven defendant counties from counting cured ballots. ODC Br. at 13-14.
Respondent’s argument that Pennsylvania election law did not permit notice and cure was based on 25 Pa. Stat. Ann. § 3146.8(a) (election boards “shall safely keep the ballots in sealed or locked containers until they are to be canvassed by the county board of elections”) and 25 Pa. Stat. Ann. § 3146.8(g)(1.1) (prohibiting the disclosure of “any portion of any pre-canvass meeting prior to the close of the polls”). See DCX 11 at 0013, 0022-23. He contended before the Hearing Committee that it was reasonable for him to rely on Boockvar to argue that notice and cure “was not allowed to be implemented by the Executive Branch of government (Secretary of State), and only the Legislature could enact such a procedure,” Respondent’s Br. at 13, relying on the following language from Boockvar:
[T]he Election Code . . . does not provide for the “notice and opportunity to cure” . . . . To the extent that a voter is at risk for having his or her ballot rejected due to minor errors made in contravention of those requirements, we agree that the decision to provide a “notice and opportunity to cure” procedure to alleviate that risk is one best suited for the Legislature.
238 A.3d at 374 (emphasis added); see Respondent’s Br. at 13-14. We agree with Respondent that his theory challenging the use of Notice and Cure had at least a faint hope of success on the merits. Accord Republican Nat’l Comm. v. Chapman, No. 447 M.D. 2022, 2022 WL 16754061, at *17 (Pa. Commw. Ct. Sept. 29, 2022), aff’d by an equally divided court, without op., Order, 284 A.3d 207 (Pa. 2022) (per curiam).
We also agree with Respondent that his equal protection theory based on the divergent uses of Notice and Cure was not frivolous. In Pierce v. Allegheny County Bd. of Elections, 324 F. Supp. 2d 684 (W.D. Pa. 2003), the court considered an equal protection challenge arising out of disparate treatment of absentee ballots. The relevant Pennsylvania statute provided that “an elector voting by absentee ballot is to mail the absentee ballot or deliver it in person.” Id. at 691 (citing 25 Pa. Stat. § 3146.6(a)). The precise question in Pierce was whether the phrase “in person” permitted third-party hand-delivery of absentee ballots. Id.
Allegheny County initially permitted third parties to hand deliver absentee ballots without restriction. It then reversed course and prohibited third-party hand- delivery, before finally allowing third-party hand-delivery with a certification from the person who delivered the ballot. Id. at 690. Philadelphia County did not permit third-party hand-delivery. Id. at 698.
Pierce sua sponte considered the effect of these different policies, recognizing that the permissibility of third-party hand-delivery of absentee ballots was an unsettled question of Pennsylvania law. Id. at 699. Pierce concluded that if the in-person requirement was directory and not mandatory:
then different standards have been employed in different counties across the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to determine whether an absentee ballot should be counted. That kind of disparate treatment implicates the equal protection clause because uniform standards will not be used statewide to discern the legality of a vote in a statewide election. . . . Because of these different statewide standards, plaintiffs state a justiciable claim that defendant’s policies violate the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and this federal claim cannot be dismissed.
Id. at 699 (first emphasis added). Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000), also provides some arguable support to Respondent. In Bush, the Supreme Court halted a statewide recount following the 2000 election because the use of standardless manual recounts violated the Equal Protection clause. 531 U.S. at 103. Bush involved a statewide recount, not the manner in which individual counties treated absentee ballots, and Bush also observed that “[t]he question before the Court is not whether local entities, in the exercise of their expertise, may develop different systems for implementing elections.” Id. at 109. Nonetheless, Bush asserted that:
The right to vote is protected in more than the initial allocation of the franchise. Equal protection applies as well to the manner of its exercise. Having once granted the right to vote on equal terms, the State may not, by later arbitrary and disparate treatment, value one person’s vote over that of another.
Id. at 104.
Considering the discussion in Pierce and the ambiguities in the Bush opinion, we conclude that there was at least a faint hope of success in Respondent’s legal argument that disparate Notice and Cure treatment of similarly situated voters by county officials violated the Equal Protection clause. See also Charfauros v. Bd. of Elections, 249 F.3d 941, 945, 953 (9th Cir. 2001) (finding an equal protection violation where the elections board “changed the rules of the game midstream” for challenges to voter eligibility).
That is not the end of the analysis, however. Disciplinary Counsel argues that Respondent’s proposed remedy – an injunction prohibiting certification of the presidential election or tendering the election to the Pennsylvania General Assembly – was itself frivolous. ODC Br. at 14.
Respondent does not directly respond to Disciplinary Counsel’s argument that he had no basis to halt certification of the election simply because a few thousand mail-in voters were allowed to cure defects. Rather he argues generally that it is inappropriate to sanction an advocate for a requested remedy, especially at the early stages in litigation, and asks us to focus on the preliminary relief requested in the motion for a temporary restraining order – to bar certification of the election pending further Court order – rather than on the ultimate relief requested in the Second Amended Complaint. Respondent’s Br. at 53-55.
Pennsylvania courts liberally construe election law in favor of the right to vote. In re Canvass of Absentee Ballots of Nov. 4, 2003 Gen. Election, 843 A.2d 1223, 1231 (Pa. 2004). However, they will not permit the counting of votes cast in violation of the election code. See id. at 1234. Thus, in In re Canvass of Absentee Ballots of Nov. 4, 2003 Gen. Election (Appeal of Pierce), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court determined that the requirement of in-person delivery was mandatory and voided fifty-six ballots “delivered in contravention of this mandatory provision.” Id.; accord Boockvar, 238 A.3d at 376, 378 (rejecting the argument that “no voter should be disenfranchised for failing to place his or her mail-in ballot in the secrecy envelope before returning it to the Boards”). But even though Respondent could properly seek to invalidate votes that were cured, his request for relief was frivolous because even if all “notice and cure” ballots were assumed to be Biden votes, and all were disqualified, President Biden would have won Pennsylvania by 70,000 votes instead of 80,000 votes. FF 48.
Had Respondent sought more circumscribed relief appropriate to the supposed Notice and Cure injury, the Rule 3.1 calculus may have been different. However, Respondent attempted to parlay the appropriate denial of his clients’ two invalid votes into the nullification of massive numbers of legally-cast ballots. Respondent’s claimed right to a draconian injunction (FF 49) was, as Judge Brann noted, “unhinged”:
Even assuming that they can establish that their right to vote has been denied, which they cannot, Plaintiffs seek to remedy the denial of their votes by invalidating the votes of millions of others. Rather than requesting that their votes be counted, they seek to discredit scores of other votes, but only for one race. This is simply not how the Constitution works.
DCX 14 at 0016.
The Notice and Cure claim for relief is clearly “shocking in itself” and “outlandish.” See Pearson, 228 A.3d at 425. Respondent’s assertion of it violated Pennsylvania Rule 3.1.
B. Disciplinary Counsel Proved By Clear and Convincing Evidence that Respondent Violated Pennsylvania Rule 8.4(d)
Pennsylvania Rule 8.4(d) prohibits a lawyer from engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice. Clogging the courts with unnecessary and frivolous cases is such a violation. See, e.g., Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Altman, 228 A.3d 508, 513-14 (Pa. 2020) (violations of Rule 8.4(d) for filing meritless request for attorney’s fees and motion for protective order to preclude discovery). Frivolous cases impose an “unnecessary burden” on the judicial system, waste the time and resources of the court, delay the hearing of cases with merit, and cause unwarranted expense to other litigants. Spikes, 881 A.2d at 1126-27 (citing Slater, 793 A.2d at 1277) (violation of D.C. Rule 8.4(d) for filing meritless defamation action based on privileged communication to Disciplinary Counsel). Mr. Giuliani brought a case that had no factual support. It caused an astonishing waste of the resources of the District Court, the Third Circuit, and multiple defendants in a compressed time frame. Respondent violated Rule 8.4(d).
III. SANCTION
Disciplinary Counsel recommends that Respondent be disbarred. Respondent, on the other hand, contends that if he is found to have violated any Rules, he should receive only an informal admonition or reprimand or, at most, a 30-day suspension.
Although Respondent violated the Pennsylvania Rules, District of Columbia law fixes the sanction to be imposed on him. See In re Tun, 286 A.3d 538, 543 (D.C. 2022).
Discipline is not intended to punish a respondent, but it should serve to deter a respondent and others from engaging in similar misconduct. In re Hutchinson, 534 A.2d 919, 924 (D.C. 1987) (en banc); In re Reback, 513 A.2d 226, 231 (D.C. 1986) (en banc). In a sanction determination, the Court typically assesses (1) the seriousness of the conduct at issue; (2) the prejudice, if any, to the client resulting from the misconduct; (3) whether the misconduct involved dishonesty; (4) violations of other provisions of the disciplinary rules; (5) previous disciplinary history; (6) whether or not the attorney acknowledges his misconduct; and (7) circumstances in aggravation or mitigation. See, e.g., In re Martin, 67 A.3d 1032, 1053 (D.C. 2013). The Court also considers “‘the moral fitness of the attorney’ and ‘the need to protect the public, the courts, and the legal profession.’” In re Rodriguez-Quesada, 122 A.3d 913, 921 (D.C. 2015) (quoting In re Howes, 52 A.3d 1, 15 (D.C. 2012)). Finally, a sanction should be consistent with that imposed for comparable misconduct, D.C. Bar R. XI, § 9(h)(1), while recognizing that “each case must be decided on its particular facts.” Hutchinson, 534 A.2d at 924 (quoting In re Haupt, 422 A.2d 768, 771 (D.C. 1980) (per curiam)).
In this case, Mr. Giuliani committed two disciplinary rule violations, but since the Rule 8.4(d) violation is based on the same conduct as the Rule 3.1 violation, we do not view it as an aggravating factor. Moreover, even though Respondent has been suspended by the New York Courts, that action is not final and therefore we do not consider it as prior discipline. As well, prejudice to Mr. Giuliani’s clients is not a relevant consideration in this case.
The issue of dishonesty strikes closer to the mark. We cannot clearly and convincingly say that Mr. Giuliani intentionally lied to the District Court in connection with the Pennsylvania litigation, and he was not charged with doing so. But his hyperbolic claims of election fraud and the core thesis of the Pennsylvania litigation were utterly false, and recklessly so. Mr. Giuliani’s rash overstatement claiming that the election was stolen had no evidence to support it. FF 28. His utter disregard for facts denigrates the legal profession:
False statements intended to foment a loss of confidence in our elections . . . damage the proper functioning of a free society. When those false statements are made by an attorney, it also erodes the public’s confidence in the integrity of attorneys admitted to our bar and damages the profession’s role as a crucial source of reliable information . . . . It tarnishes the reputation of the entire legal profession and its mandate to act as a trusted and essential part of the machinery of justice . . . .
Giuliani, 146 N.Y.S.3d at 283 (citations omitted).
Moreover, Mr. Giuliani has not acknowledged or accepted responsibility for his misconduct. Tr. 1254-56 (Giuliani). To the contrary, he has declared his indignation (he is “shocked and offended” (Tr. 343 (Giuliani))) over being subjected to the disciplinary process (“I really believe I’ve been persecuted for three or four years” (Tr. 68 (Giuliani))) and suggests merely an informal admonition or reprimand as an appropriate sanction. Respondent’s Br. at 62. In view of Respondent’s intransigence, we are convinced that a sanction must be enhanced to ensure that it adequately deters both Respondent and other attorneys from acting similarly in the future. See Cater, 887 A.2d at 17.
Finally, public confidence in our courts, the law, and the legal profession are very much at stake in this unprecedented case. We cannot blind ourselves to the broader context in which Mr. Giuliani’s misconduct took place. It was calculated to undermine the basic premise of our democratic form of government: that elections are determined by the voters. The Pennsylvania claims were carefully calibrated to blend into a nationwide cascade of litigation intended to overturn the presidential election. FF 9. Since John Adams established the precedent in 1800, no president – until 2020 – refused to accept defeat and step away from that office. And no lawyer – until 2020 – used frivolous claims of election fraud to impede the peaceful transition of presidential power and disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of voters.
Mr. Giuliani’s effort to undermine the integrity of the 2020 presidential election has helped destabilize our democracy. His malicious and meritless claims have done lasting damage and are antagonistic to the oath to “support the Constitution of the United States of America” that he swore when he was admitted to the Bar. This is not a partisan political view; prominent conservatives who spent “most of [their] adult lives working to support the Constitution and the conservative principles upon which it is based” have concluded that “[r]epetition of these false charges causes real harm to the basic foundations of the country, with 30 percent of the population lacking faith in the results of our elections” and “is not sustainable in a democracy.” Sen. John Danforth et al., Lost, Not Stolen: The Conservative Case that Trump Lost and Biden Won the 2020 Presidential Election, at 1, 3, 6 (July 2022), https://lostnotstolen.org/wp-content/up ... tolen-The- Conservative-Case-that-Trump-Lost-and-Biden-Won-the-2020-Presidential- Election-July-2022.pdf.
We are well aware of the sanctions imposed in Spikes, 881 A.2d at 1128 (30- day suspension), in In re Yelverton, 105 A.3d 413, 431-32 (D.C. 2014) (30-day suspension with fitness), and in Pearson, 228 A.3d at 417 (90-day suspension). We appreciate too that our sanction recommendation is constrained by the sanctions imposed for comparable misconduct. Yet even though the respondents in Pearson, Yelverton, and Spikes were found to have violated the same rules as Respondent, the misconduct underlying his violations is immensely more acute. His frivolous claims impacted not only the court and parties involved but threatened irreparable harm to the entire nation.
We have considered in mitigation Mr. Giuliani’s conduct following the September 11 attacks as well as his prior service in the Justice Department and as Mayor of New York City. But all of that happened long ago. The misconduct here sadly transcends all his past accomplishments. It was unparalleled in its destructive purpose and effect. He sought to disrupt a presidential election and persists in his refusal to acknowledge the wrong he has done. For these reasons, we unanimously recommend that Mr. Giuliani be disbarred.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Hearing Committee finds that Respondent Rudolph W. Giuliani violated Pennsylvania Rules 3.1 and 8.4(d) and should be disbarred from the practice of law in the District of Columbia. See D.C. Bar Rule XI, § 1(a). We further recommend that Respondent’s attention be directed to the requirements of D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14, and their effect on eligibility for reinstatement. See D.C. Bar R. XI, § 16(c).
AD HOC HEARING COMMITTEE
Robert C. Bernius, Esq., Chair
Carolyn Haynesworth-Murrell, Public Member
Jay A. Brozost, Esq., Attorney Member
______________
Notes:
1 The hearing transcript is designated as “Tr.” Disciplinary Counsel’s and Respondent’s exhibits are designated “DCX” and “RX,” respectively. “FF” indicates our Findings of Fact.
2 See U.S. Election Assistance Comm’n, Election Administration and Voting Survey 2020 Comprehensive Report i, 34 (Aug. 16, 2021); U.S. Election Assistance Comm’n, The Election Administration and Voting Survey 2016 Comprehensive Report 24 (June 29, 2017).
3 Respondent asserted that the counties that implemented Notice and Cure engaged in an illegal scheme to dilute votes in those counties that chose not to implement the process. See FF 47-49, infra.
4 “Disciplinary Counsel has never disputed whether Mr. Giuliani had some basis . . . to allege the scattering of minor election improprieties . . . . The question is not whether the allegations of the complaints had some factual basis, but whether those facts, assuming them to be true, supported the legal claims alleged in the complaints.” ODC Reply Br. at 5.
5 The observational boundaries permitted under the new law were also compelled by COVID-19 social distancing considerations. FF 26; Tr. 138-39 (Giuliani). It is not surprising, therefore, that the boundaries created distrust among some veteran (and partisan) poll watchers.
6 Respondent testified that “a complaint is a prediction. It’s not a statement of what you definitely are going to get, what you’re definitely going to prove.” Tr. 390 (Giuliani). He further stated that “[a]ll those questions have to be answered, which you can’t answer at this stage of the litigation, so you put out all the allegations you have, the ones that help you, the ones that don’t, and then you work your way through it in the litigation.” Tr. 192-93 (Giuliani). Compare Respondent’s statement with Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009), which held that “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face’” (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).
7 The Second Amended Complaint predicted that there were 70,000 cured ballots, DCX 09 at 0021, but in truth Mr. Giuliani “had no idea how many – how broad the practice was of [notice and] cure.” Tr. 501 (Giuliani); see Tr. 168-69 (Giuliani).
8 The Third Circuit described this request for relief as “breathtaking,” a “drastic remedy” for which Mr. Giuliani could cite no authority. DCX 16 at 0010.
9 The Third Circuit found this claim to be “conclusory” with “no specific facts” to back it up. DCX 16 at 0009.
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 37523
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Return to United States Government Crime
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests