Trump lashes out at Gov. Doug Ducey following certification

[admin]

Part 1 of 2

Unindicted Co-Conspirators in 1/6 Cases Raise Disturbing Questions of Federal Foreknowledge
by revolver news
June 14, 2021

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.

Of all the questions asked, words spoken, and ink spilled on the so-called “Capitol Siege” of January 6, 2021, none hold the key to the entire event quite like what Sen. Amy Klobuchar asked of Christopher Wray.

The Democrat from Minnesota asked the Trump-appointed FBI Director: Did the federal government infiltrate any of the so-called “militia” organizations claimed to be responsible for planning and executing the Capitol Siege?

Amy Klobuchar questions FBI Director about Capitol Insurrection, Proud Boys, by Forbes Breaking News, Mar 2, 2021

Christopher Wray is able to uncomfortably weasel his way out of answering the question directly, partially because Klobuchar does him the courtesy of not asking him the question directly. Klobuchar instead asks the FBI director if he wishes he had infiltrated the militia organizations allegedly involved in 1/6 — assuming from the outset that there was in fact no infiltration, thereby providing the FBI director an easy way to avoid addressing the question one way or another.

Revolver News is willing to address the matter directly in the following three questions:

• In the year leading up to 1/6 and during 1/6 itself, to what extent were the three primary militia groups (the Oath Keepers, the Proud Boys, and the Three Percenters) that the FBI, DOJ, Pentagon and network news have labeled most responsible for planning and executing a Capitol attack on 1/6 infiltrated by agencies of the federal government, or informants of said agencies?
• Exactly how many federal undercover agents or confidential informants were present at the Capitol or in the Capitol during the infamous “siege” and what roles did they play (merely passive informants or active instigators)?
• Finally, of all of the unindicted co-conspirators referenced in the charging documents of those indicted for crimes on 1/6, how many worked as a confidential informant or as an undercover operative for the federal government (FBI, Army Counterintelligence, etc.)?

[x]
WATCH: CHECK OUT DARREN BEATTIE'S LATEST INTERVIEWS

From now on, all discussion of 1/6 must give way to a laser-like focus on the questions above, with an unwavering persistence at obtaining the answers.

If the narrative about 1/6 does not conform to the questions above, the American people will never learn the most important truth about what 1/6 is, and what kind of country they’re really living in.

If it turns out the federal government did in fact have undercover agents or confidential informants embedded within the so-called militia groups indicted for conspiring to obstruct the Senate certification on 1/6, the implications would be nothing short of seismic. Especially if such agents or informants enjoyed extremely senior-level positions within such groups.

One of the key consensus points among the FBI-DOJ and the regime media is the idea that, while 1/6 is primarily the fault of Trump-supporting QAnon-infused “domestic terrorists,” it is secondarily the fault of so-called “intelligence failures.”

Klobuchar’s own question at the March 2, 2021 FBI hearing (above) reinforces this “intelligence failure” narrative, but she is not alone. A five-month “bipartisan” Senate investigation recently arrived at the very same “intelligence failure” narrative to explain the breach of the Capitol and associated events on 1/6:

A bipartisan Senate investigation of the deadly Jan. 6 insurrection found security and intelligence failures at every level of government that led to the breach of the Capitol by a pro-Trump mob as lawmakers in a joint session were certifying the 2020 election.

The 95-page report, a product of a roughly five-month, joint probe by the Senate Homeland Security and Rules Committees, found significant breakdowns ranging “from federal intelligence agencies failing to warn of a potential for violence to a lack of planning and preparation by (U.S. Capitol Police) and law enforcement leadership.” There was no overall operational or staffing plan for that fateful day, a total failure of leadership, according to the committees. [ABC News]

If it turns out that the federal government (FBI, Army Counterintelligence, or a similar agency) had undercover agents or confidential informants embedded in any of the groups involved in 1/6, the “federal intelligence agencies failing to warn of a potential for violence” looks less like an innocent mistake and more like something sinister.

Indeed, if the federal government knew of a potential for violence in or around the Capitol on 1/6 and failed to call for heightened security, the agencies responsible may in fact be legally liable for the damages incurred during that day.

It is unsettling to entertain the possibility that the federal government knew of a potential for violence on 1/6 and did nothing to stop it. It presents the question: why would agencies, or certain elements within, sit back and let something like this happen on purpose?

A still more disturbing possibility arises from a careful study of the unindicted co-conspirators listed throughout the various charging documents of individuals facing the most serious charges related to 1/6.

We at Revolver News have noticed a pattern from our now months-long investigation into 1/6 — and in particular from our meticulous study of the charging documents related to those indicted. In many cases the unindicted co-conspirators appear to be much more aggressive and egregious participants in the very so-called “conspiracy” serving as the basis for charging those indicted.

The question immediately arises as to why this is the case, and forces us to consider whether certain individuals are being protected from indictment because they were involved in 1/6 as undercover operatives or confidential informants for a federal agency.

Here it is useful to draw a distinction between two discrete categories of participants in the so-called Capitol Siege.

The first category is the group of mostly harmless tourists who walked through already opened doors and already-removed barricades, and at most were guilty of minor trespassing charges and light property offenses. The second group consists of those who were violent with police officers, broke down barricades, smashed windows, belonged to a “militia” group engaged in military-style planning prior to the event, discussed transporting heavy weaponry, and so forth.

Up until now, the overwhelming (perhaps exclusive) share of counter-establishment reporting on 1/6 has focused on absolving the first group. And this is a valuable thing. The notion that these harmless “MAGA moms” wandering around the Capitol were domestic terrorists engaged in an insurrection is absurd. That many of these people are being held in prison, without bail, under harsh conditions, amounts to an unacceptable and outrageous abuse of basic human rights.

However, the possibility that the federal government had undercover operatives or informants involved in the events of 1/6, from its planning to its execution, compels us to turn our attention to the second category of participants.

We are especially interested in the unindicted co-conspirators who belonged to any of the big three “militia groups” — the Oath Keepers, the Proud Boys, and the Three Percenters. Indeed, it is these militia groups whose behavior, statements and planning leading up to and during 1/6 most closely align with the “violent insurrectionist” caricature we hear about in the media, and which the government claims to be going after in its aggressive prosecutions.

If it turns out that an extraordinary percentage of the members of these groups involved in planning and executing the Capitol Siege were federal informants or undercover operatives, the implications would be nothing short of staggering. This would be far worse than the already bad situation of the government knowing about the possibility of violence and doing nothing. Instead, this would imply that elements of the federal government were active instigators in the most egregious and spectacular aspects of 1/6, amounting to a monumental entrapment scheme used as a pretext to imprison otherwise harmless protestors at the Capitol — and in a much larger sense used to frame the entire MAGA movement as potential domestic terrorists.

This is what’s at stake in getting to the bottom of 1/6.

And so we proceed, unafraid, to investigate the question on which everything else pertaining to 1/6 hinges — did the government have informants or undercover agents in any or all of the “big three” militia groups leading up to or on 1/6? How many of the key unindicted co-conspirators in DOJ prosecutions are unindicted because they are undercover operatives or confidential informants?

In short, what did the federal government know in advance about 1/6, when did they know it — and how far did any undercover operations go?

Something’s Rotten in Michigan: The Forgotten Case of the Whitmer Kidnapping Plot

Of course, we could point to countless examples in America’s history of undercover agents and informants being actively involved in various “domestic terror plots.” But for the purposes of the argument we’re making here we need only go back a few months prior to 1/6 — to the so-called “Whitmer Kidnapping Plot.”

Indeed, what if we told you that scarcely three months before the 1/6 Capitol Siege, the FBI arrested 14 people for planning to kidnap Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer and overthrow the State Government — and that the alleged conspiracy to overthrow the State government involved storming of the State Capitol?

And what if we told you that of the 14 individuals who allegedly plotted the “kidnapping” and overthrow of the state government, at least five were undercover agents and federal informants? And as if that’s not enough, many of the individuals allegedly involved in this plot appear to belong to the “Three Percenters,” one of the very same militia groups now blamed for storming January 6.

And, as the cherry on top, what if we told you that the director of the Detroit FBI Field Office, who oversaw the infiltration operation of the Michigan Plot, was subsequently granted a highly coincidental promotion to the D.C. office, where he is now the lead FBI agent for all 1/6 cases?

As crazy as it sounds, all of this is true. A full account of the Michigan Plot and its parallels to the Capitol Siege runs outside the scope and purposes of this article. Nonetheless, it will be useful to briefly flesh out some of the most salient details alluded to above.

The left-wing blog Jacobin, of all places, provides a good description of the allegation and charges:

Since last week, the headlines have been lit up by a shocking story out of Michigan: the FBI had foiled a plot hatched by anti-lockdown protesters and right-wing militia members to kidnap and try for “treason” Michigan governor Gretchen Whitmer, who one of the ringleaders called a “tyrant bitch.”

According to a federal affidavit and court testimony, the plot involved surveilling Whitmer’s vacation home in Western Michigan and the surrounding area, procuring explosives and tactical gear to fight off police, taking part in armed training exercises, and even possibly blowing up a nearby bridge. The alleged plotters discussed using a fake pizza delivery to kidnap Whitmer, leaving Whitmer on a boat in the middle of Lake Michigan, and even kidnapping Virginia governor Ralph Northam, one of the “tyrants” who, they believed, were abusing their power to order statewide lockdowns in response to the coronavirus pandemic. [Jacobin]

Drawing upon entrapment cases used in the War on Terror, the Jacobin piece expresses concerns that the whole Michigan Plot itself may have been the result of entrapment of vulnerable, cognitively deficient and mentally unstable individuals by FBI informants. The following passage discusses the pathetic state of Adam Fox, the man designated by the government as the “mastermind” of the kidnapping plot:

According to the FBI’s affidavit, the bureau made heavy use of informants and undercover agents in the case. At least four took part — specifically, two informants and two undercover agents, on whose evidence gathering the criminal complaint was based on — though it’s implied that some unspecific number of additional personnel were involved.

And, as with earlier, Muslim-targeting cases, the FBI appears to have been integral to the plotters’ ability to carry out the scheme. The affidavit notes that an undercover agent told the ringleader it would cost $4,000 to procure explosives. Four of the accused planned to meet with another undercover agent posing as an explosives expert to pay for them and, they were told, to get some excess tactical gear the agent had the day they were arrested. In court, Richard Trask, the agent who authored the affidavit, said he didn’t know how much money the defendants had on them when they were put in handcuffs, aside from the $275 held by Adam Fox, pegged by Trask as the ringleader.

Even the profile of Fox is not unlike those of earlier targets like Shareef and Hester. Fox was reportedly struggling with money and had been on the brink of homelessness after his girlfriend kicked him out of her house, before being taken in by his friend and employer, who let him stay temporarily in the basement of his vacuum store. It was there in that cramped storage space, cluttered with boxes and spare vacuum parts, where Fox was living with his two dogs and meager possessions, that he at one point held a meeting to allegedly plan out the kidnapping. [Jacobin]

The possibility of an FBI entrapment-type operation is especially disturbing in light of the striking parallels between the Michigan Plot and the so-called Capitol Siege of 1/6.

The Michigan Plot did not start out as a kidnapping. According to the DOJ’s own indictment, the plot started as a plan to “storm the Capitol building” in Lansing, Michigan. And the “conspirators” would do so by amping up “at least 200 men” from an upcoming unrelated rally planned at the Michigan Capitol building (a rally that was focused on the Second Amendment, not insurrection) by agitating enough rallygoers to run inside and occupy the building.

Paragraph 10 of the FBI affidavit describes the plot to “storm the state capitol”:

10. Fox, in coordination with CROFT, met with members of the militia group at various times in June 2020. During one such meeting on June 18, 2020, which was audio recorded by CHS-2, FOX, militia group leadership, including Michigan resident Ty GARBIN, and CHS-2 met at a Second Amendment rally at the State capitol in Lansing, Michigan. In an effort to recruit more members for the operation, FOX told GARBIN and CHS-2 he planned to attack the Capitol and asked them to combine forces.

“CHS-2” refers to a “Confidential Human Source,” which means government informant. As mentioned above, the groups involved with this alleged plot were absolutely replete with undercover informants and operatives. Consider the following excerpt, from the same FBI affidavit:

4. In the course of its investigation, the FBI relied on information provided by Confidential Human Sources (CHS) and Undercover Employees (UCE) over several months. Not all CHSs and UCEs were present at all times, however, at least one CHS or UCE was usually present during the group meetings. Those CHSs and UCEs consensually recorded the meetings and conversations with the subjects. Some meetings or conversations were recorded by more than one CHS or UCE. Certain CHSs also had access to group or individual texts, online chats, and phone calls. Each CHS was vetted for reliability by the FBI agent handling the source. None of the CHSs were aware of the other CHSs involved with the groups in order to preserve the independence of their reporting. Although multiple CHSs were used over the course of the investigation, this complaint only relies on audio recordings and information provided by CHS-1, CHS-2, UCE-1 and UCE-2. [FBI Affidavit]

In the above excerpt, the FBI acknowledges the use of both confidential informants and undercover employees over the course of several months leading up to the so-called “thwarted plot.” Specifically, the complaint acknowledges two confidential informants and two undercover employees. Subsequent to the DOJ’s filing charges, however, another deep undercover informant unexpectedly outed himself (more on that later), bringing the tally of known government operatives up to five.

Here’s a clip of one of the informants talking about storming the Michigan State Capitol:



No wonder this Michigan plot didn’t take the federal authorities by surprise!

FBI infiltrators comprised, at the very least, 26 percent of the plotters. That is, at least five FBI operatives have been disclosed, against just 14 suspects indicted.

A look at the annotated indictment reveals that at every level of the plot, FBI operatives played the most important leadership roles:

-The plot’s “explosives expert,” who the plotters were accused of planning to buy bombs from, turned out to be an FBI agent.

-The head of transportation for the militia outfit turned out to be an undercover FBI agent.

-The head of security for the militia outfit turned out to be an undercover FBI informant.

-At least two undercover FBI informants were active participants in the initial June 6, 2020 meeting in which the plot to storm Capitol buildings was allegedly hatched — meaning at least three FBI informants infiltrated before the conspiracy even started.

In one of the plot’s climactic scenes, in the main van driving up to look at Governor Whitmer’s vacation home, three out of the five people in the van — 60 percent of the plot’s senior leaders — were federal agents and informants:

31. FOX, CROFT, CHS-2, a UCE, and an individual from Wisconsin traveled in the first vehicle. While in the vehicle, CROFT and FOX discussed detonating explosive devices to divert police from the area of the vacation home. They stopped at the M-31 highway bridge on the way, where FOX and the UCE inspected the underside of the bridge for places to seat an explosive charge. FOX took a picture of the bridge’s support structure, which he later shared with CHS-2 in their encrypted chat. From there, they drove to a public boat launch across the lake from the vacation home to watch for the other cars in their group. [FBI]

You may be wondering how you get “three out of five” when the DOJ’s complaint only acknowledges two undercover FBI operatives: UCE (meaning “Undercover Employee,” or full-time agent) and CSH-2.

That is because the FBI went to great lengths to hide their affiliation with the fifth person in the van, describing him only as “an individual from Wisconsin” (again, more on this later).

Let’s take stock of what we have so far. We have a group of plotters that is heavily infiltrated by FBI informants and undercover agents, who were allegedly planning to kidnap the Michigan governor and storm the state capitol.

What we also know is that many of the main figures indicted in this plot seem to be associated with a militia group called the “Three Percenters” — one of the very same “big three” militia groups primarily charged with orchestrating 1/6.

Just to take a few examples:

The FBI alleged Adam Fox and Barry Croft were the supposed masterminds of the plot, with Adam Fox described as the Michigan state leader of the Three Percenters and Barry Croft as a national leader of the Three Percenters.

The FBI secured a search warrant to tap national Three Percenters leader Barry Croft’s Facebook account in April 2020, two months before the Michigan Plot was even allegedly hatched. For almost the entirety of 2020, every time Barry Croft’s Facebook account got banned, the FBI would tap each new alt account he created under a new warrant.

Michigan Plot indicted co-conspirators Brian Higgins and Michael Null were identified as Three Percenters as well.

As was Michael Jung, who was not indicted in relation to the kidnapping plot. Jung allegedly was a member of both the Oath Keepers and second in command of the Wisconsin Branch of the Three Percenters. Jung’s 2-acre homestead in Wisconsin is where the DOJ alleges the Michigan “plotters” held firearms training and field exercises under the watchful eye of undercover informants.

And so we see the strange parallels between the so-called Michigan Plot and the so-called 1/6 Capitol Siege. In Michigan you had an alleged plot involving the storming of a state capitol, allegedly involving members of one of the very same key militia groups associated with the 1/6 plot. And we’re supposed to believe that despite massive and now publicly confirmed FBI and government infiltration of the Michigan Plot, there was no similar infiltration for 1/6?

Such a position appears still less plausible when we consider a final, suspicious connection between the Michigan Plot and 1/6.

The head of the FBI field office in Detroit, Steven D’Antuono, who oversaw the infiltration (and incitement?) operation into the Michigan plot was quickly and quietly promoted to lead the coveted Washington, DC field office:

Steven M. D’Antuono, who was named chief of the Detroit FBI office a year ago, has been promoted to head the Washington Field Office, a coveted post in the bureau.

FBI Director Christopher Wray made the announcement Tuesday, just several days after D’Antuono’s agents and state police busted up a plot to abduct Gov. Gretechen Whitmer. His official new title is assistant director in charge. [Deadline Detroit]

If you’ve been following along so far, you can probably take a guess as to what Steven D’Antuono is up to in his new, coveted perch…

That’s right, he’s one of the key figures overseeing the investigation into the 1/6 Capitol Siege. What a coincidence!



Let’s recap what we’ve established. Just months prior to the U.S. Capitol Siege on 1/6, the FBI thwarted a similar plot involving a siege at the Michigan State Capitol, whose plotters belong to one of the three main militia groups associated with 1/6. The FBI was able to thwart this on the basis of an astonishing infiltration rate of said groups involving undercover operatives and informants who had been working in such capacity, just in one tiny Michigan network, for more than seven months. They were so well-infiltrated that they already had three informants embedded in this random Three Percenter network before any plot was even hatched. Furthermore, just days after the plot was foiled, FBI director Christopher Wray quietly promoted the FBI Special Agent in Charge of the Michigan Plot operation to a coveted D.C. field post, where he now oversees the investigation into 1/6.

The Special Agent in Charge, by the way, is who establishes, extends, renews and supervises all FBI undercover operations.

The above parallels between the Michigan Plot and 1/6 do not necessarily mean that the the FBI had undercover informants and operatives who were involved in 1/6. But it sure as heck reinforces our intuition that it’s a distinct possibility. And it forces us to ask the question once again — if the government foiled the Michigan Plot, why didn’t they step in to stop the so-called siege on 1/6?

It is now imperative for anyone who cares about the truth to demand that Christopher Wray answer the question — to what extent did the FBI or any other government agency infiltrate the key militia groups associated with the U.S. Capitol Siege?

And more pressing still, a question to which we now turn our attention: how many of the unindicted co-conspirators in 1/6 prosecutions are unindicted on account of a prior arrangement with the federal government as an undercover operative or informant?

Shock and Awe: The DOJ’s Standard of Prosecution

Revolver News’s investigative team noticed from the very beginning a highly unusual and hard-to-explain feature of the conspiracy indictments filed against the Oath Keepers and the Proud Boys.

Revolver took special notice of not only the unusual volume of unindicted co-conspirators, but a still more unusual feature that the statements and actions of the unindicted co-conspirators in many cases seemed far more egregious and aggressive than those of the persons actually indicted.

It is essential here to make an important note of clarification. The purpose of this analysis here is not to aid in the prosecution of any of these unindicted co-conspirators. Rather, our aim is to point out that, given the standards of indictment applied to those actually indicted, it is very strange and indeed suspicious that certain unindicted co-conspirators have managed to avoid indictment. This does not necessarily mean that we approve of the standard of indictment itself. Quite the contrary, the aggressive standard of indictment and prosecution, through an unimaginably broad application of “conspiracy” charges, is immoral, unjust, and absurd.

We hope that one consequence of this seismic exposé will be a serious and prompt reform of the justice system to prevent such aggressive and politically motivated prosecutions on the part of the government.

Broadly speaking, there are three primary reasons to see an unindicted co-conspirator in a criminal complaint: grants of immunity, pragmatic considerations, and evidentiary concerns.

Grants of immunity are traditionally only issued as the result of a plea deal reached between a defendant and prosecutors. Specifically, in exchange for agreeing to testify against “Big Fish” in the conspiracy, a “Little Fish” may remain an unindicted co-conspirator and never be charged.

But there are two reasons this possibility is far less likely in the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys indictments.

First, the timing doesn’t add up. The first indictment in the Oath Keepers case, already containing multiple key unindicted co-conspirators, was filed on January 27.

The First Superseding Indictment was filed on February 19. The Second Superseding Indictment was filed on March 12. The Third Superseding Indictment was filed on March 31. But the first plea deal in the Oath Keepers case was not struck until April 16. This means that none of the unindicted co-conspirators in the first three months of filings could have gotten a grant of immunity.

And even then, only one guy so far has copped a plea. Informal plea negotiations among the broader group didn’t even start until last week.

There are what appears to be upwards of 20 unindicted co-conspirators in the Oath Keepers indictments, all playing various roles in the conspiracy, who have not been charged for virtually the exact same activities — and in some cases much, much more severe activities — as those named alongside them in indictments.

The timeline and fact pattern suggests therefore that the only unindicted co-conspirator who could be unindicted as the result of a grant of immunity would have to be the single person from the Fourth Superseding Indictment onward, which was filed on May 26.

The other reasons to typically see unindicted co-conspirators — pragmatic concerns and evidentiary concerns — seem far less likely in this case as well.

The DOJ kicked off what has become one the largest and most aggressive prosecutorial dragnets in American history by announcing a campaign of “Shock and Awe.” No one gets off the hook. No one gets leniency. And everyone playing a bit part gets maximum time because this is about sending a message.

Listen to then-Acting U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Michael Sherwin describing this remarkably merciless “Shock and Awe” prosecutorial campaign:



Here’s a partial transcript:

I wanted to ensure, and our office wanted to ensure, that there was shock and awe. That we could charge as many people as possible before [January] 20th. And it worked because we saw through media posts that people were afraid to come back to D.C., because they were like, ‘If we go there, we’re going to get charged.’

We saw “Shock and Awe” in action in the DOJ’s terrifyingly twisted “conspiracy” case against George Tanios, discussed at length in a previous Revolver report.

READ MORE: Assault Charges Spell Problems for DOJ, FBI in Officer Sicknick Case

RELATED: One Month Later, CNN Finally Admits What Revolver Reported All Along

George Tanios and his companion Julian Khater have been charged with nine criminal counts for actions taken on 1/6 just outside the steps of the U.S. Capitol building. The most serious charge was assault on an officer with a dangerous weapon, arising from Khater’s alleged use of Tanios’s chemical spray to tag Officer Sicknick and two other officers in the face.

MORE: MAGA Blood Libel: Why Are They Hiding the Medical Report?

There, Tanios: (1) did not go in the Capitol; (2) did not use any bear spray himself; (3) had bear spray in his backpack and when his buddy Khater reached in to take it out, Tanios actively tried to stop him; and (4) in the end, it turns out, as prosecutors now acknowledge, his buddy never even used the bear spray.

And still, the DOJ has slapped this 39-year-old sandwich shop owner, George Tanios, with 60 years worth of stacking “conspiracy” charges because he said, “Hold on, hold on, not yet, not yet.”

As we proceed to consider the following unindicted co-conspirators, keep in mind this George Tanios “Shock and Awe” standard of prosecution.

[admin]

Part 2 of 2

The Unindicted Co-Conspirators

The first suspiciously unindicted co-conspirators we will consider are the “Person Two” and “Person Three” who are unindicted co-conspirators in the indictment against Oath Keeper Thomas Caldwell (and the 15 named co-defendants).

For those unfamiliar, Thomas Caldwell is a 65-year-old from Virginia and an alleged member of the Oath Keepers, which the DOJ refers to as a “paramilitary” or “militia” group. The Caldwell case served as one of the first major indictments following the January 6 incident.

The DOJ press release provides more detail:

Jessica Marie Watkins, 38, and Donovan Ray Crowl, 50, both of Champaign County, Ohio; and Thomas Caldwell, 65, of Clarke County, Virginia, were indicted today in federal court in the District of Columbia on charges of conspiracy, obstructing an official proceeding, destruction of government property, and unlawful entry on restricted building or grounds, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 1512, 1361, and 1752. Watkins and Crowl were arrested on Jan. 18; Caldwell was arrested on Jan. 19. All three individuals originally were charged by criminal complaint. The maximum penalty for Obstructing an Official Proceeding is a sentence of up to 20 years in prison.

According to the charging documents, Watkins, Crowl, and Caldwell communicated with each another in advance of the Jan. 6, 2021, incursion on the U.S. Capitol and coordinated their attack. Watkins, Crowl, and Caldwell are all affiliated with the Oath Keepers, while Watkins and Crowl are also members of the Ohio State Regular Militia. Watkins claimed to be a commanding officer within the Ohio State Regular Militia in a social media post. [Department of Justice]

A careful read of the indictment against Caldwell reveals that a certain “Person Two” was a key co-conspirator alongside Caldwell in nearly every dimension relevant to the charges in question.

Person Two planned logistics with Caldwell days in advance of 1/6, stayed in the same hotel room for days together, and when Caldwell allegedly “stormed the barricades” into restricted areas outside the U.S. Capitol, Person Two is alleged to have “stormed the barricades” right beside him.

But five months since the acts both co-conspirators allegedly committed, only Caldwell has been charged. Person Two, for some mysterious reason, remains an unindicted co-conspirator.

For example, the DOJ alleges:

48. Meanwhile, CALDWELL, who was positioned on the west side of the Capitol, joined with PERSON TWO and others known and unknown in storming past barricades and climbing stairs up to a balcony on the West side of the Capitol building. [DOJ – Fourth Superseding Indictment]

Person Two is with Caldwell side by side, doing the same actions, going into the same restricted areas of the Capitol, coming out, every step of the way from the beginning of the day until they return to a hotel they share together. But for some strange reason, Person Two, who could not have gotten a plea deal, is not indicted, named, or pursued at all. From the government’s brief against reconsideration of detention:

Did you see us storm the Capitol today? [Person Two] is exhausted and will give you the long version later… I will send you now a sequence of pics as we get bearer, climb through the construction and scaffolding meant to stop us, up the stairway where they were shooting teargas and the grins after we were in as well as the view looking out from the balcony.

…

Hell yeah! [Person Two] and I rolled with the Oathkeepers and some other militia.

…

On my side another round of indiscriminate tear gas shots. I gotta say, I was carrying my American flag and I got up on that fountain and I said let’s go. Patriots forward! And people were screaming it and we surged forward. I will neve forget the feeling. And [Person Two] I said . . . do you want to go and [Person Two] said something like let’s go!

…

We got to the level where they do the inauguration and I gotta say it was exhilarating to stand there with thousands, some even hanging from the scaffolding, waving my American flag and [PERSON TWO] waving the flag singing America the beautiful and the Star spangled banner with hundred of thousands of people I didn’t know.

…

On my side the cops showed up on a level above us with riot guns and about this time I had left [PERSON TWO] and [name omitted] one of our other pals by the railing about 20 yards back.

And more, from the fourth superseding indictment:

52. On December 30, 2020, WATKINS and CALDWELL exchanged the following text messages:

WATKINS: Looks like we are greenlight to come to DC on the 6th. The Rally Point still at your place?

CALDWELL: Not that I am aware… Here’s the rub: [PERSON TWO] and I will be in a hotel within striking distance of the city starting on the 4th so we won’t even BE here.

Even more suspicious than Person 2 described above is Person 3, who is yet another unindicted co-conspirator in the Caldwell indictment.

Note that in the Michigan Plot described in the previous section, both the main van driver and explosives supplier were undercover FBI operatives.

Here, the Oath Keepers’ main bus driver and supposed explosives supplier remains an unindicted co-conspirator. That person is simply listed as “Person 3” in the complaints.

Consider the following from paragraph 64 of the Caldwell indictment:

On January 1, 2021, CALDWELL wrote to CROWL, “Check with Cap. I recommended the following hotel to her which STILL has rooms (unbelieveble).” CALDWELL then sent a link to the Comfort Inn Ballston, the same hotel that he recommended to others on January 1. CALDWELL continued, “[PERSON TWO] and I are setting up shop there. [PERSON THREE] has a room and is bringing someone. He will be the quick reaction force. Its going to be cold. We need a place to spend the night before minimum. [PERSON ONE] never contacted me so [PERSON TWO] and I are going our way. I will probably do pre-strike on the 5th though there are things going on that day. Maybe can do some night hunting. Oathkeeper friends from North Carolina are taking commercial buses up early in the morning on the 6th and back same night. [PERSON THREE] will have the goodies in case things go bad and we need to get heavy.” [DOJ – Fourth Superseding Indictment]

In arguing defendant Caldwell should be denied bail, the DOJ cites Caldwell’s “leadership role in planning the events of January 6” as including “finding lodging” for Person Three. They even explicitly refer to Person Three as “a third co-conspirator.” Why is this “third co-conspirator” still unindicted?

Perhaps most significantly, the government has proffered, and the indictment alleges, that Defendant Caldwell played a leadership role in planning the events of January 6, 2021: by (1) finding lodging just outside Washington, D.C. for himself, co-defendant Watkins, co-defendant Crowd, and a third co-conspirator, Person Three, whom Caldwell said would be serving as part of the “quick reaction force” to support the operations on January 6 (ECF No. 18 at 7-9); (2) distributing maps to the quick reaction force to help it find the quickest route to the Capitol, should its services be required (id. At 9); and (3) by discussing whether it would be possible to recruit people with boats to join the plan, so that they could participate in the quick reaction force and ferry “the heavy weapons” across the Potomac River, should that become necessary during the events of January 6 (id. At 9). [DOJ – Caldwell Bond Motion]

In the Michigan Plot, an undercover FBI operative was the recipient of hand-drawn maps from the “plotters” doing reconnaissance missions. Here in 1/6, it is once again the mysteriously unindicted co-conspirator “Person 3” who receives hand-drawn maps:

75. On January 4, 2021, CALDWELL emailed PERSON THREE several maps along with the message, “These maps walk you from the hotel into D.C. and east toward the target area on multiple roads running west to east including M street and P street, two of my favorites…” [DOJ – Fourth Superseding Indictment]

Further, in the Michigan Plot, defense counsel alleges it was an undercover FBI operative who actually organized and paid for the hotel rooms during the key planning meeting on June 6, 2020.

Robert Snell @robertsnellnews Jan 13, 2021
Replying to @robertsnellnews
The group talked about the benefit of kidnapping Whitmer before the Nov. 2020 presidential election, the government alleged.
Whitmer, at the time a rumored candidate for a cabinet appointment in Joe Biden's administration, would have a much larger security detail after Nov.
Robert Snell
@robertsnellnews
Croft's lawyer Joshua Blanchard believes the government set up the meeting of militia members last summer in Ohio that led to the Gov. Whitmer kidnap plot, and that the feds paid for attendees' hotel rooms.
"The government is the driving force," Blanchard says
2:50 PM Jan 13, 2021

Here, our mysteriously unindicted “Person Three” reserved and paid for various Oath Keeper hotel rooms:

68. KELLY MEGGS paid for two rooms, each for two people, at the Comfort Inn Ballston from January 5-6, 2021. The rooms were reserved under the name of Person Three.

69. Person Three paid for one room at the Comfort Inn Ballston from January 5-6, 2021. [DOJ – Fourth Superseding Indictment]

From the indictment, Person 3 was tasked with stashing the heavy weapons at the “QRF hotel”, and standing by as QRF operator in case he was summoned to take the weapons directly to protesters at the scene. [Indictment, paragraphs 83, 84 and 90 and Bond Hearing, pp. 13-14]

This same pattern applies to the booking of most Oath Keeper hotel rooms:

82. On January 4, 2021, PERSON TEN checked into the Hilton Garden Inn in Vienna, Virginia. The room was reserved and paid for using a credit card in PERSON ONE’s name.

95. MINUTA, using his personal email address and his personal home address, reserved three rooms at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C., under the names of MINUTA, JAMES, and PERSON TWENTY. A debit card associated with PERSON FIFTEEN was used to pay for the room reserved under MINUTA’s name. [DOJ Indictment]

Indeed, the curious lack of indictments filed against the entire gamut of Persons referenced as playing leadership roles within the Oath Keepers on 1/6 raises red flags. This includes: Person 2, Person 3, Person 10, Person 14, Person 15, Person 16, Person 19 and Person 20, along with many co-conspirators listed only as “an individual.”

For example, while transgender bar owner and Ohio Oath Keeper Jessica Watkins is inside the mezzanine of the U.S. Capitol, she is being directed, encouraged and egged on by “an individual” whose identity the DOJ clearly knows, since the DOJ stipulates the “individual” had “participated in at least one prior Oath Keeper operation:”

141. An individual who had participated in at least one prior Oath Keeper operations with WATKINS responded, “Get it Jess. Do your fucking thing. This is what we fucking [unintelligible] up for. Everything we fucking trained for.” [DOJ Indictment]

Among such individuals, consider the alleged administrator of the “Stop the Steal J6” Zello channel.

The Zello channel in question was populated by patriot/militia personalities who were variously monitoring and participating in 1/6 activities in real-time. For those unfamiliar, Zello is an app that allows for walkie-talkie functionality on a cell phone. Because phones signals were “jammed” by law enforcement in the Capitol area, Zello’s walkie-talkie function was useful (and pre-planned) to stay in communication.

The DOJ alleges:

114. At 2:03pm, the administrator of the “Stop the Steal J6” Zello channel directed the group, “You are executing citizen’s arrest. Arrest this assembly, we have probable cause for acts of treason, election fraud.” [DOJ Indictment]

The DOJ point-blank says this Zello channel administrator “directed the group” as it was carrying out the alleged Capitol attack. If the group is carrying out a conspiracy (and that’s what the defendants are charged with), this Zello channel administrator is directing the conspiracy in real-time. Further, applying the George Tanios “shock and awe” standard, it would certainly appear that direct instructions and active encouragement to co-conspirators in real-time to perform “citizens arrests” on the assembly (presumably Congress) is far worse than George Tanios merely saying “Hold on, hold on, not yet,” which was the sole hook needed for the DOJ to jail him without bail facing 60 years of charges.

An important reminder for the reader: the point of this exercise is not to encourage the prosecution of this or any other unindicted co-conspirator. The purpose is to suggest the oddity that such co-conspirators have not been indicted, given the absurdly severe “Shock and Awe” standard applied to those who have been. To the extent that this double-standard suggests that the unindicted co-conspirator remains such because he or she has a relationship with the federal government, this is of profound public interest.

We do not mean however to legitimize or condone the “Shock and Awe” standard applied to those indicted, or the wide scope and abusive application of “conspiracy” statutes to target political dissidents.

Under the same (absurd and unjust) standard of prosecution applied to this and every other 1/6 case, this statement, made in real-time over private walkie-talkie to the Oath Keepers inside the Capitol is immediately sufficient to charge this “individual” with conspiracy as well. Is this person being protected? If so, why?

Turning to the Proud Boys side, it appears that the individual who set up the Proud Boys’ communications infrastructure is still being protected by the DOJ. The DOJ refers to this person only as “UCC-1” (UCC meaning an explicitly spelled out “unindicted co-conspirator”):

47. At 9:09 p.m. UCC-1 broadcast a message to the New MOSD and Boots on the Ground channels that read: Stand by for the shared baofeng channel and shared zello channel, no Color, be decentralized and use good judgment until further orders” UCC-1 also wrote, “Rufio is is in charge, cops are the primary threat, don’t get caught by them or BLM, don’t get drunk until off the street.” UCC-1 then provided a specific radio frequency of 477.985. [DOJ – First Superseding Indictment]

Note that the “baofeng channel” here refers to encrypted two-way Chinese Baefeng radios.

Recall in the very beginning of this report, the Senate hearing exchange (in which Sen. Amy Klobachar asks FBI Director Wray if he wishes the FBI infiltrated the Proud Boys) begins with her exasperation over the Proud Boys having “Chinese radio”:

“And they show up, we now know in this complaint, with encrypted two-way Chinese radios…”

What a dark irony if it turns out that the very radios in question here were supplied to the Proud Boys group by an informant or undercover agent!

UCC-1, as well as two additional unindicted co-conspirators referred to only as “Person-One” and “Person-Two” in the Proud Boys indictment, were all in Proud Boys “upper tier leadership,” and appear to have been the most prolific planners and incendiary advocates of “insurrection” in the run-up to and on the day of 1/6.

For example, the DOJ cites statements made almost exclusively by unindicted co-conspirators as statements that “revealed a plan to storm the Capitol and to let the crowd loose.” Below is a direct quote from that DOJ motion. Note that only a single statement in this entire exchange, cited as the DOJ’s proof of an ongoing conspiracy, is made by a conspirator the DOJ actually indicted (Charles Donahoe). Even then, the indicted conspirator’s statements are orders of magnitude less specific, conspiratorial and incendiary than those made by unindicted co-conspirators UCC-1, Person-1 and Person-2:[/size][/b]

Statements made contemporaneous to the event, however, revealed a plan to storm the Capitol and to let the crowd loose, e.g.:

UCC-1: I want to see thousands of normies burn that city to ash today
Person-2: Would be epic
UCC-1: The state is the enemy of the people
Person-2: We are the people
UCC-1: Fuck yea
Person-1: God let it happen . . . I will settle with seeing them smash some pigs to dust
Person-2: Fuck these commie traitors
Person-1: It’s going to happen. These normiecons have no adrenaline control . . . They are like a pack of wild dogs
DONOHOE: I’m leaving with a crew of about 15 at 0830 to hoof it to the monument no colors
Person-2: Fuck it let them loose
Person-1: I agree . . .

[May 13 DOJ filing, p. 7]

For this exchange, made on 1/6, in the exclusive, encrypted senior leaders-only chat of the Proud Boys, the DOJ has sufficient grounds to indict UCC-1, Person-1 and Person-2 as co-conspirators.

But the roles of UCC-1, Person-1 and Person-2 look even worse when you understand the structure and hierarchy of the Proud Boys chain of command on 1/6.

First, there were only a very small handful of people in the “upper tier leadership” private Telegram chat of the Proud Boys. When the channel was set up on December, 29, 2020, it was just six people, including Proud Boys national chairman Enrique Tarrio, longtime Proud Boys “thought leader” Joseph Biggs, Proud Boys Auburn chapter head Ethan Nordean, and Proud Boys Philadelphia chapter head Zachary Rehl. That’s four named individuals and two-unnamed.

On December 29, 2020, the Proud Boys Chairman announced the leadership and structure of the Ministry of Self-Defense. The leadership and structure included an “upper tier leadership” of six people, which included Proud Boys Chairman, Nordean, Biggs, and Rehl. Later that evening, Donohoe explained the structure with reference to the upcoming trip to Washington, D.C. Among other things, Donohoe explained that the MOSD was a “special chapter” within the organization. The “special chapter” was not to have any interaction with other Proud Boys attending the event. Other Proud Boys attending the event were to coordinate with their own chapters and “do whatever you guys want.” [May 13 DOJ filing, pp. 3-4]

After 1/6, it came to light that Proud Boys national chairman Enrique Tarrio had been a “prolific” FBI informant for years, and Proud Boys “thought leader” Joseph Biggs had been an FBI informant for several months.

The day before 1/6, the Proud Boys national chairman Enrique Tarrio, a known FBI informant, was arrested on weapons charges and ordered by a Judge to stay away from D.C.

Enrique Tarrio, the leader of the right-wing group the Proud Boys, has been ordered to stay away from Washington, D.C., after he was arrested on vandalism and weapons charges. The ruling comes one day before pro-Trump demonstrations are planned in Washington as Congress convenes to count the Electoral College votes ahead of President-elect Joe Biden’s inauguration on January 20.

Tarrio was released from custody on Tuesday, but Judge Renee Raymond ordered him to stay away from Washington. Raymond said the government’s request for Tarrio to stay away was reasonable given his prior statements about burning anything associated with Black Lives Matter, Raymond also ordered that Tarrio not possess a firearm or ammunition while in Washington.

Tarrio was arrested Monday after he arrived in Washington on a charge stemming from the destruction of a Black Lives Matter banner at a historically Black church. He was found to be in possession of several high-capacity firearms, stemming in felony charges. [CBS]

A full discussion of Tarrio is outside the scope of this piece. For now, we will simply note how remarkably convenient it is that the head of the Proud Boys, a known FBI informant, just happened to get arrested and banned from D.C. the day before the January 6 protest, in which Proud Boys were involved.

What better excuse for the leader not to be present on that fateful day?

Upon Tarrio’s arrest on January 4, the “upper tier leadership” of the MOSD Telegram channel was “nuked” and a channel, “New MOSD” took its place. We now know this top leadership Telegram group included unindicted co-conspirators UCC-1, Person-1 and Person-2 (as well as Proud Boys North Carolina chapter leader Charles Donahoe).

On January 4, 2021, shortly after Proud Boys Chairman’s arrest pursuant to a warrant issued by D.C. Superior Court, DONOHOE expressed concern that encrypted communications that involved Proud Boys Chairman would be compromised when law enforcement examined Proud Boys Chairman’s phone. DONOHOE then created a new channel on the encrypted messaging application, entitled “New MOSD,” and took steps to destroy or “nuke” the earlier channel. After its creation, the “New MOSD” channel included NORDEAN, BIGGS, REHL, DONOHOE, and a handful of additional members. [DOJ – First Superseding Indictment]

The DOJ cites Person-1 as saying the following:

[quote]Person-1: God let it happen . . . I will settle with seeing them smash some pigs to dust
Person-1: It’s going to happen. These normiecons have no adrenaline control . . . They are like a pack of wild dogs
Person-2: Fuck it let them loose
Person-1: I agree . . .

[Bond Motion][/quote]

Furthermore, DOJ cites Person-1 as belonging to Proud Boys’ “upper tier leadership”:

A video call was held with prospective members of the MOSD on December 30, 2020. The self-proclaimed leadership of the MOSD introduced the chapter and explained the expectations, including the strict chain of command. As one member (“Person-1”) of the upper tier leadership explained…

[Bond Motion]

This unindicted co-conspirator, Person-1, then explained that all Proud Boys leaders must obey the orders of any person in the senior leadership chat. That means UCC-1, Person-1 and Person-2 had directorial authority over indicted defendants in the group:

“[Directions] could come from any single person that you see on your screen right now… but the one thing that everyone has to understand, is, yes, you might be getting told things from different people, but it’s all information from the same plan. [Joe] Biggs] is not going to tell you something different than I’m gonna tell you. [Proud Boys Chairman] is not going to tell you something different than Zach [Rehl] is going to tell you. It’s all one operational plan, so don’t get hung up on the delivery. The information is all the same. [Bond Motion]

So if UCC-1, Person-1 and/or Person-2 were undercover informants or agents, note that instruction given by them to other Proud Boys in the chat was to be taken as a direction coming straight “from the top.”

40. On January 4, 2021, at 7:15 p.m., DONOHOE posted a message on various encrypted messaging channels, including New MOSD, which read, “Hey have been instructed and listen to me real good! There is no planning of any sorts. I need to be put into whatever new thing is created… DONOHOE then wrote, “Stop everything immediately” and then “This comes from the top.”

And in fact, these unindicted co-conspirators did appear to override indicted defendants:

41. On January 4, 2021, at 8:20 p.m., an unindicted co-conspirator (“UCC-1”) posted to New MOSD channel: “We had originally planned on divying them up and getting baofeng channels picked out.” [DOJ – First Superseding Indictment]

The next day, UCC-1 did in fact set up and distribute the Baofeng Chinese radio frequency [paragraph 47].

While UCC-1 set up the Chinese radios and walkie-talkie teams, and Person-1 gave operational instructions, Person-2 was repeatedly posting into the senior leadership chat the most inflammatory and inciting comments of anyone in the organization:

On January 4, prior to his arrival in Washington, D.C., Proud Boys Chairman communicated his expectation that he would be arrested upon entering Washington, D.C. Shortly thereafter, UCC-1 wrote, “We should tell our guys and double down.” Another member of MOSD leadership (“Person-2”) subsequently wrote, “I say fuck it. Let’s set it off[.]” Person-2 then posted “J20” and then “Drag them out by the fucking hair” and then “If they steal it[.]”

Notably, Person-1 and Person-2 were the same participants in the Telegram message chats on January 6 who expressed their hope that the “normies” would “burn that city to ash” and suggested that those on the ground should “turn them loose.” In addition, Person-2 was the individual who posted an alert in the Telegram messages: “Storming the Capitol now” and directed participants to “Get there.” [DOJ Motion]

By the severe “Shock and Awe” prosecutorial standard applied to George Tanios, it is difficult to understand how the unindicted co-conspirators described above have not yet been indicted.

As yet another reminder, we are not advocating for the prosecution or indictment of anyone. Rather, we are pointing out the seeming double standard applied to certain indicted persons (George Tanios, for example) and a number of highly suspicious unindicted co-conspirators, with a view toward the strong possibility that the latter categories contain federal informants and undercover operatives.

Conclusion

By way of conclusion, let us return to a curious feature of the Michigan Plot described earlier in this report.

During one of the plot’s climactic scenes, in the main van driving up to look at Whitmer’s vacation house, three out of the five people in the van — 60 percent of the plot’s senior leaders — were undercover agents and operatives:

31. FOX, CROFT, a CHS-2, a UCE, and an individual from Wisconsin traveled in the first vehicle. While in the vehicle, CROFT and FOX discussed detonating explosive devices [DOJ Indictment]

The FBI and DOJ went to great lengths to conceal the fact that the fifth man in the van, “an individual from Wisconsin,” was actually a deep undercover federal informant.

This “individual” allegedly organized the initial June 6, 2020 meeting in Dublin, Ohio where the entire Michigan Plot was allegedly hatched. He even allegedly paid for the attendees’ hotel rooms to travel there.

No wonder that the FBI-DOJ tried to conceal the central role of their mole in setting in motion a conspiracy blamed entirely on patriot/militia groups!

The “individual from Wisconsin,” also referenced variously throughout the Michigan Plot courts documents as “an individual”, is the longtime government mole Steve Robeson. We know this, because in November 2020, one month after the October 2020 indictment was filed, Steve Robeson blew his cover by spilling on a livestream: “I am the individual from Wisconsin.”

The criminal complaint describes a late-night surveillance run in mid-September from the group’s remote training site in Luther to Whitmer’s vacation home in northern Michigan. Three vehicles made the trip, including a truck containing five people: accused ringleader Adam Fox, Croft, an informant, an undercover FBI agent and “an individual from Wisconsin.”

“That’s me,” Robeson tells members during the online meeting. “I’m the individual from Wisconsin.” [Detroit News]

Steve Robeson, 58, had been penetrating right-wing patriot/militia groups as a secret informant for the Federal government for over 35 years.

Robeson has a history of testifying for the government. In 1985, he testified against a suspect in a murder and arson case involving members of the Ghost Riders motorcycle gang, according to a Wisconsin State Journal article. The article portrays Robeson as a jailhouse snitch who shared a county jail cell with one defendant in the case. [Detroit News]

In a possible preview of what might come for some of the unindicted co-conspirators in 1/6, the FBI-DOJ burned Robeson, their own secret informant, by hitting the man they paid to infiltrate patriot groups with a 10-year charge for owning a gun (as a convicted child molester, he was not allowed to own a gun, which the FBI obviously knew in advance). Perhaps this is the price that Robeson paid for blowing his cover?

There is a fascinating moment in the October 14 preliminary hearing where Detroit FBI Field Office Special Agent Richard Trask brings personal notes to the stand, which he only consults when talking about key events concerning the “individual from Wisconsin”. When questioned on cross-examination about the contents of the notes and why they weren’t disclosed to defense counsel, Special Agent Trask says his admits his notes were prepped in a joint meeting the night before between the FBI and DOJ. When defense counsel Mr. Graham motions the judge for a copy of the notes, DOJ prosecutor Mr. Kessler rushes in to specify that defense counsel will only get a redacted version of the notes because they relate to unindicted co-conspirators and concealed-identity informants. [Preliminary Hearing Transcript – also see image sequence 1, 2, 3, 4]

Steve Robeson (“an individual”) being outed as a deep undercover FBI mole just months ago in the Michigan Plot, among other incidents, calls into question every major unindicted co-conspirator in the 1/6 case docket referred to only as “an individual.” Indeed, in the case of Robeson, the FBI and DOJ conspired to use this exact language trick to hide the existence of secret FBI informants from the judge, defense counsel and the public.

In the end, we are left with burning questions that ought to entirely reshape the way the nation thinks and talks about the events of 1/6.

From now on, every politician, commentator, and concerned citizen who cares about 1/6 has a duty to put the pressure on FBI director Christopher Wray to come clean.

In the very beginning of this piece we drew attention to Senator Klobuchar asking Christopher Wray about infiltration, but formulating the question in a way that assumed there was none. Don’t you ever kick yourself, she asked the FBI director, for not having infiltrated these groups that planned to do violence on 1/6?

Now, armed with the formidable research in this article, any politician in Senator Klobuchar’s shoes ought to kick themselves if they don’t ask the following:

Director Wray: How many of the unindicted co-conspirators in January 6 cases are now, or have been, undercover agents or confidential informants?

Indeed, pulling on the thread developed in this ground-breaking report could unravel the full story of what the FBI really knew about 1/6 — a potentially extraordinary scandal.

Stay tuned. We’re not done yet.

[admin]

NY Court Suspends Rudy Giuliani's Law License for Stream of "Uncontroverted" Lies About the Election
by Glenn Kirschner
Jun 24, 2021

In a stunning 33-page court order, the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, suspended Rudy Giuliani's law license for his steady stream of what the court calls "uncontroverted lies" about the 2020 presidential election. The court sets out in excruciating detail the evidence that proves Giuliani lied about, among other things, voting in Pennsylvania, voting in Georgia, dead people voting, underage people voting, convicted felons voting, etc. The judges detailed how Giuliani lied at press conferences, at state legislative hearings, on radio interviews, podcasts, TV shows and in court.

This video reviews the highlights (or perhaps lowlights) of the court's findings about Giuliani's sweeping and systematic lies designed to undermine confidence in our free and fair elections.



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

Giuliani Law License Suspended is Part 1 of Accountability: SDNY Criminal Investigation is Part 2
by Glenn Kirschner
Jun 25, 2021

A unanimous 5-judge panel of the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, suspended Rudy Giuliani's law license for his incessant, uncontroverted lies about the 2020 election. That is an important Part 1 of accountability for Giuliani's wrongdoing. Part 2 involves the ongoing criminal investigation the Department of Justice/Southern District of New York US Attorney's Office is conducting of Giuliani. Additionally, Part 3 of accountability should be an investigation of Giuliani's potential exposure for inciting the January 6 insurrection by urging the angry mob to engage in "trial by combat" right before the mob went to the US Capitol and got . . . combative.

[admin]

In the Matter of Rudolph W. Giuliani, An Attorney and Counselor-At-Law
by Attorney Grievance Committee for the First Judicial Department
Motion No. 2021-00491
May 3, 2021

Supreme Court of the State of New York
Appellate Division, First Judicial Department
Rolando T. Acosta, P.J.,
Dianne T. Renwick
Sallie Manzanet-Daniels
Judith J. Gische
Barbara R. Kapnick, JJ.

Motion No. 2021-00491
Case No. 2021-00506

In the Matter of
RUDOLPH W. GIULIANI
(ADMITTED AS RUDOLPH WILLIAM GIULIANI),
an attorney and counselor-at law:

ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE FOR THE
FIRST JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT,
Petitioner,
RUDOLPH W. GIULIANI,
(OCA ATTY. REGISTRATION NO. 1080498),
Respondent.

Disciplinary proceedings instituted by the Attorney Grievance Committee for the First Judicial Department. Respondent was admitted to the Bar of the State of New York at a Term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court for the Second Judicial Department on June 25, 1969.

Appearances:

Jorge Dopico, Chief Attorney,
Attorney Grievance Committee, New York
(Kevin M. Doyle, of counsel), for petitioner.

Barry Kamins, Esq. and John Leventhal, Esq., Aidala, Bertuna & Kamins, P.C., for respondent.

IN THE MATTER OF RUDOLPH W. GIULIANI, AN ATTORNEY

PER CURIAM

The Attorney Grievance Committee moves for an order, pursuant to Judiciary Law §90(2) and the Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters (22 NYCRR) §1240.9(a)(5), immediately suspending respondent from the practice of law based upon claimed violations of rules 3.3(a); 4.1; 8.4(c) and 8.4(h) of the Rules of Professional Conduct (22 NYCRR 1200.0) (Rules of Conduct or RPC). Respondent was admitted to practice as an attorney and counselor at law in the State of New York on June 25, 1969, under the name Rudolph William Giuliani. He maintains a law office within the First Judicial Department.

For the reasons that follow, we conclude that there is uncontroverted evidence that respondent communicated demonstrably false and misleading statements to courts, lawmakers and the public at large in his capacity as lawyer for former President Donald J. Trump and the Trump campaign in connection with Trump’s failed effort at reelection in 2020. These false statements were made to improperly bolster respondent’s narrative that due to widespread voter fraud, victory in the 2020 United States presidential election was stolen from his client. We conclude that respondent’s conduct immediately threatens the public interest and warrants interim suspension from the practice of law, pending further proceedings before the Attorney Grievance Committee (sometimes AGC or Committee).

The Nature of this Proceeding

During the course of this ongoing investigation into numerous complaints of respondent’s alleged professional misconduct, the AGC seeks respondent’s immediate suspension from the practice law in the State of New York. Under certain circumstances, such serious interim relief is available, pending a full formal disciplinary proceeding. Interim suspension is available even where formal charges have not yet been filed (22 NYCRR 1240.9[a]).

All attorneys who are licensed to practice law in New York are subject to the Rules of Conduct, which establish a framework for the ethical practice of the law and a lawyer’s duties as an officer of the legal system (Preamble to the Rules of Professional Conduct, ¶¶ 1, 8). Violation of these rules may lead to professional discipline (22 NYCRR 1240). The ultimate purpose of any disciplinary proceeding, however, is not to impose punishment for breaches of the Rules of Conduct, but rather "to protect the public in its reliance upon the integrity and responsibility of the legal profession" (Matter of Nearing, 16 AD2d 516, 518 [1st Dept 1962]; see Matter of Gould, 4 AD2d 174 [1st Dept 1957]).

Each Judicial Department of the Appellate Divisions of the New York Supreme Court is responsible for the enforcement of the Rules of Professional Conduct within its departmental jurisdiction (Judiciary Law § 90[2]). Attorney Grievance Committees, either upon receipt of a written complaint, or acting sua sponte, are charged with investigating misconduct through various means, including interviewing witnesses, directing the attorney under investigation to submit written responses or appear for a formal interview, and other actions necessary to investigate the complaint (22 NYCRR 1240.7). Once the investigation is complete, the Committee may commence a formal proceeding in which the attorney has the right to be heard. If the Committee concludes that the attorney may face public discipline, then, consistent with the objective of “protect[ing] the public, maintain[ing] the integrity and honor of the profession, or deter[ing] others from committing similar misconduct,” the matter is brought before the Appellate Division (22 NYCRR 1240.7[d][2][v]; see also 1240.8; Matter of Nearing, 16 AD2d at 518). The Court is tasked with the responsibility of reviewing the record and deciding whether there has been any misconduct and if so, what the appropriate discipline would be (22 NYCRR 1240.8).

In certain cases, the Committee may, during the pendency of its investigation, make a motion to the Court for an attorney’s interim suspension. Interim suspension is a serious remedy, available only in situations where it is immediately necessary to protect the public from the respondent’s violation of the Rules (22 NYCRR 1240.9; see Matter of Liebowitz, 2020 WL 7421390 [SD NY 2020]). At bar, the AGC is proceeding on the basis that there is uncontroverted evidence of professional misconduct (22 NYCRR 1240.9[a][5]; Matter of Aris, 162 AD3d 75, 81 [1st Dept 2018]; Matter of Pomerantz, 158 AD3d 26, 28 [1st Dept 2018]).1 Importantly, when an attorney is suspended on an interim basis, he or she nonetheless has an opportunity for a postsuspension hearing (22 NYCRR 1240.9[c]).

Uncontroverted Claims of Misconduct

Only uncontroverted claims of professional misconduct may serve as a basis for interim suspension on this motion. In connection with its claim that uncontroverted attorney misconduct has occurred, the AGC relies upon the following provisions of the New York Rules of Professional Conduct:

rule 3.3 which provides that: “(a) A lawyer shall not knowingly: (1) make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal . . . .”

rule 4.1 which provides that: “In the course of representing a client, a lawyer shall not knowingly make a false statement of fact or law to a third person,” and

rule 8.4 “A lawyer or law firm shall not: . . . (c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation, . . . or (h) engage in any other conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness as a lawyer.”

Under the Rules of Professional Conduct, the prohibition against false statements is broad and includes misleading statements as well as affirmatively false statements (Matter of Antoine, 74 AD3d 67, 72 [1st Dept 2010]; Matter of Piepes, 259 AD2d 135, 137 [2d Dept 1999]; see ABA Model Rule 4.1, commentary [“Misrepresentations can also occur by partially true, but misleading statements or omissions that are the equivalent of affirmative false statements”]). In addition, the Rules concern conduct both inside and outside of the courtroom (see Matter of Coyne, 136 AD3d 176 [1st Dept 2016]; Matter of Liotti, 111 AD3d 98 [1st Dept 2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 862 [2014]; Matter of Rios, 109 AD3d 64 [1st Dept 2013]; Matter of Krapacs, 189 AD3d 1962 [3d Dept 2020]).

In general, the AGC relies upon statements that respondent made following the 2020 election at press conferences, state legislative hearings, radio broadcasts (as both a guest and host), podcasts, television appearances and one court appearance. Respondent concedes that the statements attributed to him in this motion were all made in the context of his representation of Donald J. Trump and/or the Trump campaign (Giuliani affidavit ¶¶ 8, 32).

Preliminary Issues

Respondent raises an overarching argument that the AGC's investigation into his conduct violates his First Amendment right of free speech.2 He does not attack the constitutionality of the particular disciplinary rules; he seemingly claims that they are unconstitutional as applied to him. We reject respondent’s argument. This disciplinary proceeding concerns the professional restrictions imposed on respondent as an attorney to not knowingly misrepresent facts and make false statements in connection with his representation of a client. It is long recognized that “speech by an attorney is subject to greater regulation than speech by others" (Gentile v State Bar of Nevada, 501 US 1030, 1051 [1991]). Unlike lay persons, an attorney is "a professional trained in the art of persuasion" (Ohralik v Ohio State Bar Assn., 436 US 447, 465 [1978]). As officers of the court, attorneys are "an intimate and trusted and essential part of the machinery of justice" (Gentile v State Bar of Nevada, 501 US at 1072 [internal quotation marks omitted]). In other words, they are perceived by the public to be in a position of knowledge, and therefore, "a crucial source of information and opinion" (Gentile v State Bar of Nevada, 501 US at 1056 [internal quotations marks omitted]). This weighty responsibility is reflected in the "ultimate purpose of disciplinary proceedings [which] is to protect the public in its reliance upon the integrity and responsibility of the legal profession" (Matter of Nearing, 16 AD2d at 518). While there are limits on the extent to which a lawyer's right of free speech may be circumscribed, these limits are not implicated by the circumstances of the knowing misconduct that this Court relies upon in granting interim suspension in this case (see Kathleen M. Sullivan, The Intersection of Free Speech and the Legal Profession: Constraints on Lawyers’ First Amendment Rights, 67 Fordham L Rev 569 [1998] available at https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol67/iss2/11/ [last accessed June 1, 2021]). 3

Respondent also raises lack or absence of knowledge as a general defense, stating that even if his statements were false or misleading, he did not make the statements knowing they were false when he made them. We agree that the Rules of Professional Conduct only proscribe false and misleading statements that are knowingly made. Both rules 3.3 and 4.1, expressly provide for an element of knowingness. Rule 8.4 (c), however, contains no such express element. In New York there are no cases which directly hold that a violation of rule 8.4(c) must be knowing, although there is authority that implies it. In a Federal case applying New York’s Rules, the court found that there was a violation of rule 8.4(c) where false statements made by the offending attorney were not inadvertent, but were knowing (Matter of Gilly, 206 F Supp 3d 940, 944 [SD NY 2016]). This Court thereafter imposed reciprocal discipline based on that finding (Matter of Gilly, 149 AD3d 230 [1st Dept 2017]). Sister state jurisdictions have held that knowledge is a required element of misconduct in violation of rules identical to RPC 8.4(c) (see Office Of Disciplinary Counsel v Anonymous Attorney A., 552 Pa 223, 230, 714 A2d 402, 406 [1998] [listing sister states requiring a culpable mental state for violation of rule 8.4(c)]; see also Attorney Grievance Commn. of Maryland v Dore, 433 Md 685, 698, 73 A3d 161, 169 [2013][holding that violation of rule 8.4(c) requires a knowingly dishonest statement]). We, therefore, hold that in order to find a violation of RPC 8.4(c), the AGC is required to satisfy a knowing standard. Knowingness is expressly defined in the Rules of Professional Conduct. Rule 1.0(k) provides that “[k]nowingly,” “known,” “know” or “knows” “denotes actual knowledge of the fact in question. A person’s knowledge may be inferred from circumstances.” Thus, the element of knowingness must be considered in connection with each particular claim of misconduct.

On this motion, whenever the AGC has sustained its burden of proving that respondent made knowing false and misleading factual statements to support his claim that the presidential election was stolen from his client, respondent must then demonstrate that there is some legitimate dispute about whether the statement is false or whether the statement was made by him without knowledge it was false. Conclusory or vague arguments will not create a controverted issue as to whether there has been misconduct. Consequently, once the AGC has established its prima facie case, respondent’s references to affidavits he has not provided, or sources of information he has not disclosed or other nebulous unspecified information, will not prevent the Court from concluding that misconduct has occurred.4 Respondent cannot create a controverted issue of misconduct based upon what he does not submit to this Court (see S.J. Capelin Assoc. v Globe Mfg. Corp., 34 NY2d 338, 342 [1974] [the plaintiff did not raise issue of fact where affidavit merely stated bald, conclusory assertions and there was no claim that facts were not within the plaintiff’s control]; see also Primiano Elec. Co. v HTS-NY, LLC, 173 AD3d 620, 622 [1st Dept 2019] [the defendant failed to raise an issue of fact by relying on the contents of an expert report which was, in turn, based on an unsubmitted report of a third-party’s opinion]). Nor will offers to provide information at a later time, or only if the Court requests it, suffice.

Instances of Attorney Misconduct

In making this motion, the AGC primarily relies on claims that respondent made false and misleading factual statements to cast doubt on the reliability of the results of the 2020 presidential election, in which Joseph R. Biden was constitutionally certified and then inaugurated as the 46th President of the United States. We find that the following false statements made by respondent constitute uncontroverted proof of respondent’s professional misconduct.

Respondent repeatedly stated that in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania more absentee ballots came in during the election than were sent out before the election. The factual “proof” he claimed supported his conclusion was that although Pennsylvania sent out only 1,823,148 absentee ballots before the election, 2,589,242 million absentee ballots were then counted in the election. This factual statement regarding the number of ballots mailed out before the election was simply untrue. The true facts are that 3.08 million absentee ballots were mailed out before the general election, which more than accounted for the over 2.5 million mail-in ballots that were actually tallied.

Notwithstanding the true facts, respondent repeatedly advanced false statements that there were 600,000 to 700,000 fabricated mail-in ballots, which were never sent to voters in advance of the election.5 Respondent made these false claims during his November 8, 2020 radio program, Uncovering the Truth with Rudy Giuliani & Dr. Maria Ryan, during a November 25, 2020 meeting of the Republican State Senate Majority Policy Committee in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, during a December 2, 2020 meeting of the Michigan House Oversight Committee, during his December 17, 2020 broadcast of the radio show Chat with the Mayor, and he repeated it during an episode of Steve Bannon's the War Room: Pandemic podcast on December 24, 2020.

Respondent does not deny that his factual statement, that only 1.8 million mail-in ballots were requested, was untrue. His defense is that he did not make this misstatement knowingly. Respondent claims that he relied on some unidentified member of his “team” who “inadvertently” took the information from the Pennsylvania website, which had the information mistakenly listed (Giuliani affidavit ¶49). There is simply no proof to support this explanation. For instance, there is no affidavit from this supposed team member who is not identified by name or otherwise, nor is there any copy of the web page that purportedly listed the allegedly incorrect data. In fact, the only proof in this record is the official data on the Pennsylvania open data portal correctly listing the ballots requested as 3.08 million.

The above identified misstatements violate Rules of Professional Conduct 4.1 and 8.4(c).

On November 17, 2020 respondent appeared as the attorney for plaintiff on a matter captioned Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. v Boockvar (Boockvar), in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (502 F Supp 3d 899, affd 830 Fed Appx 377 [3d Cir 2020]). He was admitted pro hac vice based on his New York law license.

Respondent repeatedly represented to the court that his client, the plaintiff, was pursuing a fraud claim, when indisputably it was not. Respondent’s client had filed an amended complaint before the November 17, 2020 appearance in which the only remaining claim asserted was an equal protection claim, not based on fraud at all. The claim concerned the experience of two voters having their mail-in ballots rejected and challenged the notice and cure practices concerning mail-in ballots in different counties.

The plaintiff’s original complaint had included claims about canvassing practices. The plaintiff, however, voluntarily withdrew those claims when it served the amended complaint. Notwithstanding, respondent insisted on extensively arguing a fraud case based on the withdrawn canvassing claims. 6 7

Respondent’s mischaracterization of the case was not simply a passing mistake or inadvertent reference. Fraud was the crown of his personal argument before the court that day. In his opening remarks, respondent claimed that the allegations in the complaint concerned “widespread, nationwide voter fraud of which this is a part…." He persisted in making wide ranging conclusory claims of fraud in Pennsylvania elections and other jurisdictions allegedly occurring over a period of many years. Respondent argued that the plaintiff’s fraud arguments pertained to the canvassing claim, notwithstanding that there was neither a fraud nor a canvassing claim before the court. Respondent’s fraud argument spanned pages 12 to 31 of the transcript.

After opposing counsel pointed out, and respondent’s own co-counsel agreed, that the plaintiff had asserted no claims of fraud the court made the following inquiries and received the following answers from respondent:

"THE COURT: So it's correct to say then that you're not alleging fraud in the amended complaint?

"RESPONDENT: No, Your Honor, it is not, because we incorporate by reference in 150 all of the allegations that precede it, which include a long explanation of a fraudulent, fraudulent process, a planned fraudulent process.

"THE COURT: So you are alleging fraud?

RESPONDENT: Yes, Your Honor."

Later in the transcript, after the court pointed respondent to the amended complaint, the following further court inquiries and responses occurred:

"THE COURT: . . . So the amended complaint—does the amended complaint plead fraud with particularity?

"RESPONDENT: No, Your Honor. And it doesn’t plead fraud. It pleads the -- it pleads the plan or scheme that we lay out in 132 to 149 without characterizing it."

These proceedings were open by phone line to as many as 8,000 journalists and other members of the public. At the outset of the argument it was reported that at least 3,700 people had already dialed in.

It is considered a false and misleading statement under the Rules of Professional Conduct to mispresent the status of a pending proceeding, whether in or out of court (Matter of Zweig, 117 AD3d 96 [1st Dept 2014]; Matter of Napolitano, 78 AD3d 18 [2d Dept 2010]; Matter of Passetti, 53 AD3d 1031 [3d Dept 2008]). Stating that a case presents a fraud claim when it does not, is a false and misleading statement about the status of a pending proceeding.

Respondent argues that there was no misconduct because he truthfully told the court that day that there were no fraud claims. This defense rings hollow. Respondent’s original position, that there was a fraud claim, was made despite an amended complaint in which his very own client withdrew any fraud related claim. Respondent's own cocounsel represented, in respondent’s presence, that the plaintiff was not asserting a fraud claim and there was extensive argument by opposing counsel. It is indisputable that respondent had to be aware that there were no fraud claims in the case. Significant time and effort were expended on respondent's false misrepresentations to the court regarding the nature of the proceedings. This resulted in respondent’s arguments in support of fraud appearing to be seemingly unanswered on the record and misleading the listening public, because fraud was not a part of the case. Respondent’s so-called admission of the true status of the case did not occur until he was pressed by the court to concede the point at page 118 of the transcript.

The confusion respondent created by falsely insisting that there was a fraud/canvassing claim before the court persisted beyond that court appearance. The parties were given leave to submit briefs. Plaintiff’s brief included argument about the canvassers' claim, even though it had been withdrawn. Consequently, the court addressed the claim in its subsequent decision and dismissed it on the merits. In footnote 127 the court stated “Count I makes no mention of the poll-watching allegations, nor does it seek relief for any violation of law on the basis of those allegations. Out of an abundance of caution, however, the Court considers whether these allegations state a claim” (Boockvar, 502 F Supp 3d at 921 n 127).

The above identified misstatements violate RPC 8.4(c). These misstatements violate RPC 3.3 because they were made before a tribunal. These misstatements violate RPC 4.1 because they were made to third parties consisting of over 3,700 members of the press and the public.

Respondent repeatedly stated that dead people “voted” in Philadelphia in order to discredit the results of the vote in that city. He quantified the amount of dead people who voted at various times as 8,021; while also reporting the number as 30,000. As the anecdotal poster child to prove this point, he repeatedly stated that famous heavyweight boxer Joe Frazier continued to vote years after he was dead and stated on November 7, 2020 “he is still voting here.” The public records submitted on this motion unequivocally show that respondent’s statement is false. Public records show that Pennsylvania formally cancelled Mr. Frazier’s eligibility to vote on February 8, 2012, three months after he died.

As for respondent's argument that his misstatements were unknowing, respondent fails to provide a scintilla of evidence for any of the varying and wildly inconsistent numbers of dead people he factually represented voted in Philadelphia during the 2020 presidential election. Although respondent assured the public that he was investigating this claim, respondent has not provided this tribunal with any report or the results of any investigation which supports his statements about how many dead voters he claims voted in Philadelphia in the 2020 presidential election. Respondent claims his statements were justified because the state of Pennsylvania subsequently agreed to purge 21,000 dead voters from its rolls in 2021. This fact, even if true, is beside the point. This statistic concerns the whole state. Purging voter rolls does not prove that the purged voters actually voted in 2020 and per force it does not prove they voted in Philadelphia. It does not even prove that they were dead in November 2020. Moreover, the number of statewide purged voters (21,000) bears no correlation to the numbers of dead voters respondent factually asserted voted in Philadelphia alone (either 8,000 or 30,000). Clearly any statewide purging of voters from the voting rolls in 2021 could not have provided a basis for statements made by respondent in 2020, because the information did not exist. Regarding Mr. Frazier, respondent claims he reasonably relied on the reporting of a “blogger.” The blog article provided on this motion, however, never claims that Mr. Frazier voted in the 2020 election. Nor could it, because the claims made in the article (in which respondent was quoted) are based upon an alleged review of public records from 2017 and 2018.8

Respondent made these false statements at least twice before the AGC brought this motion; first at a November 7, 2020 press conference at Four Seasons Total Landscaping and again during the November 25, 2020 meeting of the Republican State Senate Majority Policy Committee in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania. Despite the unequivocal evidence provided in this very motion, that Mr. Frazier is not on the Pennsylvania voting rolls, respondent continued to endorse this fictionalized account in the March 4, March 11 and March 14, 2021 episodes of his broadcast radio show Chat with the Mayor, all of which aired after this motion was brought.

The above identified misstatements violate RPC 4.1 and RPC 8.4(c ).

Respondent repeated to lawmakers and the public at large numerous false and misleading statements regarding the Georgia presidential election results. These statements, as particularized below, were all knowingly made with the object of casting doubt on the accuracy of the vote. Respondent's general claim, without providing this Court with any documentary support, that he relied on “hundreds of pages of affidavits and declarations in [respondent’s] possession that document gross irregularities…” will not suffice to controvert the specific findings that he knowingly made the false statements that are particularized below.

Respondent made extensive and wide-ranging claims about Dominion Voting Systems Inc.'s voting machines manipulating the vote tallies to support his narrative that votes were incorrectly reported. Georgia, however, had completed a hand count of all ballots cast in the presidential audit.9 The hand audit, which relied exclusively on the printed text on the ballot-marking device, or bubbled-in the choice of the absentee ballot, confirmed the results of the election with a zero percent risk limit. Respondent's statement that the vote count was inaccurate, without referencing the hand audits, was misleading. By law, this audit was required to take place following the election and be completed no later than December 31, 2020 (Ga Ann § 21-2-498). Respondent’s statements were made while the hand audit was proceeding and after it concluded. We understand that Dominion has sued respondent for defamation in connection with his claims about their voting machines (Complaint, US Dominion, Inc. v Giuliani, 1:21-cv- 00213, US District Court, District of Columbia [Washington], January 25, 2021). Consequently, we do not reach the issue of whether respondent’s claims about the Dominion voting machines were false, nor do we need to.

In view of the hand counts conducted in Georgia, we find that respondent’s statements about the results of the Georgia election count are false. Respondent provides no basis in this record for disputing the hand count audit. Respondent made these statements at least on December 3, 2020 when appearing before the Georgia Legislature’s Senate Judiciary Committee, during a December 6, 2020 episode of the radio show Uncovering the Truth, during a December 22, 2020 episode of his radio show Chat with the Mayor, he alluded to it in a December 27, 2020 episode of Uncovering the Truth, and then again during a January 5, 2021 episode of the War Room podcast.

The above identified misstatements violate RPC 4.1 and RPC 8.4(c).

At various times, respondent claimed that 65,000 or 66,000 or 165,00 underage voters illegally voted in the Georgia 2020 election. The Georgia Office of the Secretary of State undertook an investigation of this claim. It compared the list of all of the people who voted in Georgia to their full birthdays. The audit revealed that there were zero (0) underage voters in the 2020 election. While a small number of voters (four) had requested a ballot prior to turning 18, they all turned 18 by the time the election was held in November 2020. Respondent does not expressly deny the truth of this information. Instead respondent claims that he reasonably relied on “expert” affidavits, including one by Bryan Geels, in believing the facts he stated were true. None of these affidavits were provided to the Court. Respondent claims that Mr. Geels opined that there were “more than 65,000 individuals who voted had registered to vote prior to their 17th birthday” (Giuliani affidavit ¶62). At a bare minimum, the statement attributed to Mr. Geels does not support respondent’s claim that the number of underage teenage voters was 165,000. But respondent’s statement about what was said to him is insufficient as to all of respondent’s statements on underage voters for other reasons. We do not have the affidavit that respondent claims Mr. Geels prepared and he relied on. We do not know when the affidavit was provided to respondent. We do not know what data or source information Mr. Geels relied on in reaching his conclusion, nor do we know what methodology Mr. Geels used for his analysis. Other than respondent calling him an “expert,” we do not know Mr. Geels' actual area of expertise or what qualifies him as such (see Guide to NY Evid Rule 7.01, Opinion of Expert Witness). Merely providing names and conclusory assertions that respondent had a basis for what he said, does not raise any disputed issue about whether misconduct has occurred.

Respondent made statements regarding underage voters in Georgia on his radio show, Chat with the Mayor, at least on January 5, January 7, and January 22, 2021. He then repeated this statement on the April 27th episode of his radio show, after this motion for interim suspension was brought.

The above identified misstatements violate RPC 4.1 and RPC 8.4(c).

Respondent stated to lawmakers, and the public at large, that more than 2,500 Georgia felons voted illegally. The Georgia Secretary of State also investigated this claim. By comparing lists from the Departments of Corrections and Community Supervision, with the list of people who actually voted in November 2020, the Secretary of State identified a universe of 74 potential felony voters, who were then investigated. Even if all 74 identified persons actually voted illegally, the number is nowhere near the 2,500 that respondent claimed and the number would, in any event, be statically irrelevant in supporting a claim that the election was stolen (see Bognet v Secretary Commonwealth of Pa., 980 F3d 336, 351 [3d Cir 2020], cert granted, judgment vacated sub nom Bognet v Degraffenreid ---US---, 2021 WL 1520777, 2021 US LEXIS 1952 [2021] [for the plaintiff to have standing, challenged votes must be sufficient in number to change outcome]; Sibley v Alexander, 916 F Supp 2d 58, 62 [DC 2013] [the plaintiff failed to satisfy redressability element where the three challenged electoral votes would not change outcome of election]).10 Respondent’s statements that there were 2,500 voting felons is false.

Respondent claims to have relied on the unproduced affidavit of Mr. Geels for this information as well. Respondent states that Mr. Geels opined that “there could have been” more than 2,500 incarcerated felons who voted (Giuliani affidavit ¶62). This opinion, as phrased and as reported by respondent, is wholly speculative. It is also conclusory, rendering it insufficient for the same reasons as is Mr. Geels' reported opinion regarding underage voters.

On January 5, 2021, during a War Room podcast respondent stated that at least 2,500 felons voted in the Georgia election.

The above identified misstatements violate RPC 4.1 and RPC 8.4(c).

Respondent stated that dead people voted in Georgia during the 2020 presidential election. He claimed that he had the names of 800 dead people who voted based upon the number of people who had passed away in 2020. Respondent further stated that this number was really in the thousands. At another point he claimed that 6,000 dead people had voted. This claim was refuted by the Georgia Secretary of State. After reviewing public records, the Secretary of State concluded that potentially two votes may have been improperly cast in the name of dead voters in the 2020 election and those instances were being investigated. Respondent's claim of thousands of dead voters is false. So is respondent’s claim of 800 dead voters. The two potentially dead voters discovered by the Secretary of State during its investigation is not statistically relevant to affect election results and does not support any narrative of fraud. Respondent does not claim that either of the identified experts he relied upon for information about the Georgia election made any statement to him whatsoever regarding the number of dead people in whose names votes were allegedly cast in the 2020 election and he does not provide any other source for the false numerical information he disseminated (Giuliani affidavit ¶62).

On December 22, 2020, during a War Room podcast, respondent stated that 6,000 dead people voted. On January 3, 2021, during an episode of Uncovering the Truth, respondent stated that 10,515 dead people voted. On January 5, 2021, during a War Room podcast, respondent stated that 800 or more dead people voted in the Georgia election. On the April 7, 2021 episode of his radio show Chat with the Mayor, respondent challenged the Georgia Secretary of State’s finding that only potentially two votes were cast in the name of dead voters, despite having no evidence to refute the facts developed after investigation of public records. The April 7th false statement was made after this motion for interim suspension was brought.

The above identified misstatements violate RPC 4.1 and RPC 8.4(c).

Respondent represented that video evidence from security cameras depicted Georgia election officials engaging in the illegal counting of mail-in ballots. Although respondent acknowledged that he had viewed the surveillance videos in their entirety (this statement is available at https://rudygiulianics.com/episode/vide ... ncecaught- red-handed-trump-won-georgia-rudy-giuliani-ep-92/3:56 [last accessed June 1, 2021]) the version of the videos shown to the public was comprised only of snippets.11 The gist of his claim was that illegal ballots were being surreptitiously retrieved from suitcases hidden under a table and then tabulated. In fact, the entirety of the videos shows the “disputed” ballots were among those in a room filled with people, including election monitors, until about 10:00 pm. At about 10:00 p.m., the boxes – not suitcases – containing the ballots were placed under a table in preparation for the poll watchers to leave for the evening. Those boxes were reopened and their contents retrieved and scanned when the state official monitor intervened, instructing the workers that they should remain to tabulate the votes until 10:30 p.m. that evening. When viewed in full context and not as snippets, the videos do not show secreting and counting of illegal ballots. Based upon the claim, however, the Georgia Secretary of State conducted an investigation. The video tapes were viewed in their entirety by the Secretary’s office, law enforcement, and fact checkers who, according to Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, all concluded that there was no improper activity.

Respondent's argument with respect to the video is that a reasonable observer could conclude that there was an illegal counting of the mail-in ballots. If, as respondent claims, he reviewed the entire video, he could not have reasonably reached a conclusion that illegal votes were being counted. We disagree that the video can be viewed as evidence of illegal conduct during the vote tabulation process or that it provided a reasonable basis for respondent’s conclusions.

Respondent showed the snippets of video and/or made false statements regarding its content on at least the following occasions: the podcast Rudy Giuliani’s Common Sense on December 4, 2020, the radio show Uncovering the Truth on December 6, 2020 and then again on the same radio show on December 27, 2020 and January 3, 2021; on December 3, 2020 at a hearing before the Georgia State Legislature; and yet again on December 8, 2020 and December 10, 2020 on respondent’s Chat with the Mayor radio program, and on December 19, 2020, and January 5, 2021 as a guest on the War Room podcast.

The above identified misstatements violate RPC 4.1 and RPC 8.4(c).

Respondent made false and misleading statements that “illegal aliens” had voted in Arizona during the 2020 presidential election. These false facts were made by respondent to perpetuate his overall narrative that the election had been stolen from his client.

On November 30, 2020, respondent appeared before a group of Arizona legislators at the Hyatt Regency Hotel in Phoenix. It was acknowledged during that session that no statewide check on undocumented noncitizens had been performed. In other words, there was no data available from which to draw any conclusion about undocumented noncitizens. Nonetheless, respondent persisted in stating, during that same session, that there were “say” five million “illegal aliens” in Arizona and that “[i]t is beyond credulity that a few hundred thousand didn’t vote . . . .” Undeterred by the lack of any empirical evidence, in a December 17, 2020 episode of Chat with the Mayor, respondent queried “Do you think more than 10,000 illegal aliens voted in Arizona?....We know that way more than 10,000 illegal immigrants voted.” During an appearance on the War Room podcast on December 24, 2020 respondent once again claimed with respect to the number of undocumented noncitizens who voted in Arizona that “the bare minimum is 40 or 50,000, the reality is probably about 250,000 . . . .” He then used these unsubstantiated figures to support a claim that Trump won Arizona by about 50,000 votes (id.). After the New Year, in another episode of the War Room podcast, the number of “illegal immigrants” respondent was claiming had voted illegally changed yet again. This time respondent claimed there were 32,000 of such illegal votes. Respondent admitted in the podcast that he did not have the “best sources” to justify this estimate, but stated that he was relying on “newspaper and records” for his claims (id.). Respondent later either reiterated and/or agreed with statements made by others, that undocumented noncitizens had voted in Arizona in the 2020 election; he made these statements during the March 9th, 11th, and April 27, 2021 broadcasts of his Chat with the Mayor radio show and on April 21, 2021 during an appearance on the War Room podcast. Respondent made these misstatements most recently after the AGC brought this motion for his interim suspension.

On their face, these numerical claims are so wildly divergent and irreconcilable, that they all cannot be true at the same time. Some of the wild divergences were even stated by respondent in the very same sentence. Moreover, at the November 30, 2020 hearing, when it was brought to respondent’s attention that no study to support the conclusions had been done, respondent persisted in making these false factual statements. In January 2021, respondent even admitted that he did not have the “best sources” to justify the numbers he was stating as fact. Nonetheless, respondent has failed to produce any sources, whether “best” or marginal, to support any of the figures he has presented to the public with authority. He has not identified, let alone produced the “newspaper and records” he claimed were the bases for his assertions when he made them.

Respondent argues that he reasonably relied on Arizona State Senator Kelly Townsend, who respondent claims collected information on noncitizen voters. Respondent does not tell us what Senator Townsend actually said to him or when she said it. We do not have an affidavit or any statement from Senator Townsend. We simply have none of the information Senator Townsend is claimed to have collected. Saying that Senator Townsend collected information does not explain any of respondent’s numbers, let alone why they are wildly divergent. Respondent’s claim, that he also relied on “other witnesses” who testified that thousands of individuals voted despite any proof of citizenship, lacks detail and is not specific enough to be considered by this Court as probative. Not one of those witnesses is identified, none of their testimony is provided, nor has respondent provided an affidavit from any of them. Respondent cannot rely on this “evidence” to controvert that he knowingly made false statements to the public about the number of "illegal aliens" or "illegal immigrants" voting in the Arizona 2020 presidential election.

The above identified misstatements violate RPC 4.1 and RPC 8.4(c ).

We find that all of these acts of misconduct, when considered separately or taken together, also establish that respondent violated RPC 8.4 (h) because his conduct adversely reflects on his fitness as a lawyer.

We recognize that the AGC has identified other instances of respondent’s misconduct. We make no substantive decision on those additional claims at this time because the record is insufficiently developed on those claims in this motion for interim relief. The additional claims may be part of any formal charges that the AGC will interpose in the full disciplinary proceeding that will follow this interim suspension. We find, nonetheless, that the incidents we have identified in this decision satisfy the requirement of uncontroverted misconduct required for an interim suspension.

Immediate Threat to the Public Interest

Uncontroverted claims of misconduct alone will not provide a basis for interim suspension, unless there is a concomitant showing of an immediate threat to the public interest (22 NYCRR 1240.9[a]). We recognize that this case presents unique circumstances. Nonetheless, there are certain factors we generally consider in connection with whether an immediate threat of harm to the public has been established.

Violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct in and of themselves necessarily means that there is harm to the public (Matter of Nearing, 16 AD2d at 516). One obvious factor to consider on an interim suspension application is whether the misconduct is continuing (Matter of Singer, 301 AD2d 336, 337 [1st Dept 2002]). Even where there are no actual incidents of continuing misconduct, immediate harm threatening the public can be based on the risk of potential harm when considered in light of the seriousness of the underlying offense (Matter of Tannenbaum, 16 AD3d 66 [1st Dept 2005]). Many cases where the seriousness of the offending conduct alone satisfies the immediate threat requirement for an interim suspension concern the mishandling of money (see Matter of Hornstein, 121 AD3d 1 [1st Dept 2014]; Matter of Jackson, 103 AD3d 10 [1st Dept 2013]; Matter of Schachter, 100 AD3d 45 [1st Dept 2010]; Matter of Tannenbaum at 67). The broader principle to be drawn from these cases is that when the underlying uncontroverted evidence of professional misconduct is very serious, the continued risk of immediate harm to the public during the pendency of the underlying disciplinary proceeding is unacceptable. For example, we have ordered interim suspensions where the offense is serious, although the risk of recurrence is slight, because the attorney intends to resign from the practice of law (Matter of Kressner, 72 AD3d 112 [1st Dept 2010]). Another consideration, related to the seriousness factor, is whether the underlying misconduct is likely to result in a substantial sanction at the conclusion of the formal disciplinary hearing proceeding. We adopt this factor in reliance on sister state authority on the same issue (see Tapp v Ligon, 2013 Ark 259, 428 SW3d 492 [2013] [interim suspension likened to a preliminary injunction; substantial likelihood that significant sanction would be imposed]; In re Discipline of Trujillo, 24 P3d 972 [Utah 2001] [substantial likelihood, based on all the available evidence, that a significant sanction will be imposed on the attorney at the conclusion of any pending disciplinary proceeding]).

Consideration of these factors in this case leads us to conclude that the AGC has made a showing of an immediate threat to the public, justifying respondent’s interim suspension. We find that there is evidence of continuing misconduct, the underlying offense is incredibly serious, and the uncontroverted misconduct in itself will likely result in substantial permanent sanctions at the conclusion of these disciplinary proceedings.

Respondent argues that there is no immediate threat of future harm, because he has and will continue to exercise personal discipline to forbear from discussing these matters in public anymore. He also claims that because legal matters following the 2020 election have concluded, he will no longer be making any statements about the election under the authority of being an attorney.

Notwithstanding respondent’s claim that he has exercised self-restraint by not publicly commenting on the election, there are numerous instances demonstrating the opposite. Focusing only on the false statements that support our conclusion of uncontroverted misconduct (and not his statements about 2020 election matters generally), respondent has made or condoned the following false statements just since the AGC brought this application for his interim suspension: On his March 4, 2021 radio show Chat with the Mayor, respondent reprised his claim that Joe Frazier had voted from the grave. On the March 9th episode of his radio show Chat with the Mayor, respondent stated in substance that immigrants voted illegally in the 2020 presidential election. On the March 11th episode of his radio show Chat with the Mayor he again referred to Joe Frazier and “illegals” voting in Arizona. On the March 14th episode of Chat with the Mayor, respondent recounted the tale of Joe Frazier voting after he died and joked with his co-host about the Philadelphia cemeteries emptying on election day. On his April 8th episode of Chat with the Mayor, respondent disputed the fact that in Georgia only two dead people had voted, even though, as previously indicated, respondent had no informational basis for making that statement and disputing the results of Georgia’s investigation. On the April 27th episode respondent once again falsely stated that there were 65,000 underage teenage voters who had voted in Georgia. Respondent also stated that there were 38,000 “illegal immigrants” voting in Arizona, while at the same time estimating the number at maybe 5,000 or maybe 100,000 (id.). Imminent threat to the public is established by this continuing pattern of respondent’s offending conduct and behavior. We cannot rely on respondent’s representations that he will exercise restraint while these proceedings are pending.

Contrary to respondent’s assertion, there are many ongoing legal matters all over the United States that arise from the narrative of a stolen election. Respondent himself points to an ongoing audit of the 2020 ballots presently occurring in Maricopa County, Arizona (Arizona Public Integrity Alliance v Fontes, 250 Ariz 58, 475 P3d 303 [2020]). Another audit of the 2020 ballots has just been authorized in Fulton County, Georgia by Chief Judge Brian Amero of the Henry County Superior Court (see Julia Harte, Judge allows self-described anti-fraud group to review Georgia ballots [May 21, 2021], https://www.reuters.com/business/legal/ ... oupreview- georgia-ballots-2021-05-21/ [last accessed June 1, 2021]). The Federal government and many state legislators are actively engaged in enacting competing laws concerning voting in this country (see e.g. The John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act [S4263, 116th Cong. [2019-2020]; The Voting Rights Advancement Act [HR 4, 116th Cong. [2019-2020]; The Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2019 [S561, 116th Cong. [2019]; For the People Act of 2021 [HR 1, SR 1, 117th Cong. [2021]; Iowa SF 413 [signed by the Governor of Iowa on March 8, 2021]; Georgia SB 202 [passed by the Georgia House and Senate on March 25, 2021]; Florida SB 90 [signed by the Governor of Florida on May 6, 2021], Texas S.B.7 12). Many of the state laws are facing serious court challenges (see e.g. League of United Latin American Citizens of Iowa v Pate, ---F Supp 3d---, CVCV-061476 [Dist. Ct., Polk County Iowa]; New Georgia Project v Raffensperger 484 F Supp 3d 1265 [ND Ga 2020], Georgia NAACP v Raffensperger, --- F Supp 3d ---, No. 1:2021-CV-01259 [ND Ga 2021], AME Church v Kemp, ---F Supp 3d - --, No. 1:2021-CV-01284 [ND Ga 2021], Asian Americans Advancing Justice -Atlanta v Raffensperger, ---F Supp 3d ---, No. 1:2021-CV-01333 [ND Ga 2021], VoteAmerica v Raffensperger, ---F Supp 3d ---, No. 1:2021-CV-01390 [ND Ga 2021], Concerned Black Clergy v Raffensperger, ---F Supp 3d---, No. 1:2021-CV-01728 [ND Ga 2021], Coalition For Good Governance v Raffensperger, ---F Supp 3d---, No. 1:20-CV-01677 [ND Ga 2020], Florida Rising v Lee, ---F Supp 3d---, No. 4:21-CV-00201 [ND Fla 2021]).

The risk that respondent will continue to engage in future misconduct while this disciplinary proceeding is pending is further borne out by his past, persistent and pervasive dissemination of these false statements in the media. This is not a situation where the uncontroverted misconduct consisted of only a few isolated incidents. Rather, each of the false statements identified and analyzed herein were made multiple times on multiple platforms, reaching countless members of the public. They continued after this motion was brought, and despite respondent facing imminent suspension from the practice of law.

The seriousness of respondent’s uncontroverted misconduct cannot be overstated. This country is being torn apart by continued attacks on the legitimacy of the 2020 election and of our current president, Joseph R. Biden.13 The hallmark of our democracy is predicated on free and fair elections. False statements intended to foment a loss of confidence in our elections and resulting loss of confidence in government generally 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 (Matter of Nearing, 16 AD2d at 516). 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 (Ohralik v Ohio State Bar Assn, 436 US at 447). Where, as here, the false statements are being made by respondent, acting with the authority of being an attorney, and using his large megaphone, the harm is magnified. One only has to look at the ongoing present public discord over the 2020 election, which erupted into violence, insurrection and death on January 6, 2021 at the U.S. Capitol, to understand the extent of the damage that can be done when the public is misled by false information about the elections. The AGC contends that respondent’s misconduct directly inflamed tensions that bubbled over into the events of January 6, 2021 in this nation’s Capitol. Respondent’s response is that no causal nexus can be shown between his conduct and those events. We need not decide any issue of “causal nexus” to understand that the falsehoods themselves cause harm.14 This event only emphasizes the larger point that the broad dissemination of false statements, casting doubt on the legitimacy of thousands of validly cast votes, is corrosive to the public’s trust in our most important democratic institutions.

Before Judge Brann in the Boockvar case, respondent himself stated: “I don’t know what’s more serious than being denied your right to vote in a democracy.” We agree. It is the very reason why espousing false factual information to large segments of the public as a means of discrediting the rights of legitimate voters is so immediately harmful to it and warrants interim suspension from the practice of law.

Accordingly, the AGC’s motion should be granted and respondent is suspended from the practice of law in the State of New York, effective immediately, and until further order of this Court.

All concur.

It is Ordered that the motion is granted and respondent is suspended from the practice of law in the State of New York pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90(2) and 22 NYCRR 1240.9(a) (5), effective the date hereof, until such time as disciplinary matters pending before the Committee have been concluded, and until further order of this Court, and

It is further Ordered that respondent is commanded to desist and refrain from the practice of law in any form, either as principal or agent, clerk or employee of another; that respondent is forbidden to appear as an attorney or counselor-at-law before any court, judge, justice, board or commission or other public authority; that respondent is forbidden to give another an opinion as to the law or its application or advice in relation thereto, all effective the date hereof, until such time as disciplinary matters pending before the Committee have been concluded and until further order of this Court, and

It is further Ordered that respondent is directed to fully comply with the provisions of the Court's rules governing the conduct of disbarred or suspended attorneys (see 22 NYCRR 1240.15), which are made a part hereof, and

It is further Ordered that, within 20 days of the date of service of this decision, respondent may submit a request, in writing, to this Court for a post suspension hearing (see 22 NYCRR 1240.9[c]).

Entered: June 24, 2021

[Signed]
Susanna Molina Rojas
Clerk of the Court

_______________

Notes:

1 22 NYCRR 1240.9(a) states in pertinent part: “A respondent may be suspended from practice on an interim basis during the pendency of an investigation or proceeding on application or motion of a Committee…..upon a finding by the Court that the respondent has engaged in conduct immediately threatening the public interest. Such a finding may be based upon . . . (5) other uncontroverted evidence of professional misconduct.”

2 Giuliani affidavit ¶6 “. . . Petitioner’s allegations regarding statements that I made, violates my First Amendment right of free speech . . . " (see also Answer ¶¶ 25-26).

3 Notably, at least one Federal court has recently determined attorney efforts to undermine a legitimate presidential election warranted the attorney's referral to the grievance committee (Wisconsin Voters Alliance v Pence, 2021 WL 23298, *2, 2021 US Dist LEXIS 127, *4-6 [DDC Jan. 4, 2021 Civil Action No. 20-3791 (JEB)], and 2021 WL 6359, *1, 2021 US Dist LEXIS 35064, *6 [DDC Feb. 19, 2021]).

4 In opposition to this motion, respondent refers to affidavits he has not provided (Giuliani affidavit ¶¶11, 50, 61, 62, 66). He also relies on a “confidential informant” (Giuliani affidavit ¶82). We do not understand, nor does respondent explain why, as a private attorney seemingly unconnected to law enforcement he would have access to a “confidential informant” that we cannot also have access to. At yet another point respondent claims he relies on a Trump attorney who chooses not to be identified (Giuliani affidavit ¶43). Respondent also refers to hundreds of witnesses, experts, and investigative reports, none of which have been provided or identified (Giuliani affidavit ¶14) and an Excel spreadsheet, also not provided, purportedly listing the names of thousands of deceased voters who allegedly cast ballots in Michigan (Giuliani affidavit ¶51).

5 These numbers roughly correlate to mail-in ballots received, less the false amount of mail-in ballots respondent claims were sent out, as adjusted for the overall percentage of mail-in votes that were cast for Biden.

6 We accept for purposes of this proceeding respondent’s characterization of the withdrawn claim as a fraud claim. It is not clear to us that this characterization is correct, but it does not affect our analysis.

7 Coincidently, while the parties were in court that day, they received word that the state claims regarding canvassing had been decided against the plaintiff in the Supreme Court of the State of Pennsylvania (In re Canvassing Observation, 241 A3d 339 [Pa 2020], cert denied sub nom Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. v Degraffenreid, ---US---, 141 SCt 1451 [2021]). The plaintiff’s subsequent efforts to reinstate the voluntarily withdrawn federal claim concerning the canvassers was also denied in Boockvar.

8 The blogger's representation regarding what the public record revealed was inaccurate.

9 In this motion, because the AGC only relies on the audit referred to in the Georgia Secretary of State’s January 6, 2021 letter to Congress, we only consider this one audit. Georgia’s election results were, however, actually audited three times, and no evidence of widespread fraud was discovered (Daniel Funke, Fact check: No evidence of fraud in Georgia election results (June 1, 2021), https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/fac ... rgiaaudit- hasnt-found-30-000-fake-ballots/5253184001/ [last accessed June 12, 2021]).

10 On December 1, 2020, former Attorney General William Barr stated that the Department of Justice had uncovered nothing indicating massive election fraud and that there was nothing showing that the outcome of the election would be different.

11 The full videos are found at https://securevotega.com/factcheck/. The snippets shown during respondent’s show, while once available on YouTube, have been taken down for violating their community standards (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PchtaUsRH70 [last accessed June 2, 2021])


12 As of May 28, 2021, the Brennan Center for Justice reports that more than 14 states have enacted new laws this year that will restrict voting rights (Voting Laws Roundup: May 2021, BrennanCenter.org (May 28, 2021), https://www.brennancenter.org/ourwork/ research-reports/voting-laws-roundup-May-2021 [last accessed June 2, 2021]).

13 E.g. A May 17-19 national poll conducted by Reuters/Ipsos reported that while only 3% of Democrats believe that Trump won the 2020 election, 53% of Republicans so believe (Reuters, 53% of Republicans view Trump as true U.S. president, https://www.reuters.com/world/us/53-rep ... tersipsos- 2021-05-24/ [last accessed June 2, 2021])

14 Legal causation is an issue in criminal and civil actions that have arisen in the aftermath of the January 6, 2021 Capitol riots. We understand that respondent is a defendant in at least one civil action seeking to hold him responsible for the January 6, 2021 riots (Thompson v Trump, Giuliani, ---F Supp 3d---, 1:21-cv-00400, US District Court, District of Columbia [Washington], January 25, 2021).

[admin]

The Senator Who Decided to Tell the Truth: A Michigan Republican spent eight months searching for evidence of election fraud, but all he found was lies.
by Tim Alberta
The Atlantic
JUNE 30, 2021

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.

Ed McBroom

-- REPORT ON THE NOVEMBER 2020 ELECTION IN MICHIGAN, by COMMITTEE MEMBERS Senator Edward McBroom – Chair Senator Lana Theis – Majority Vice Chair Senator Jeff Irwin – Minority Vice Chair Senator John Bizon, 6/23/21

VULCAN, Michigan—Right around the time Donald Trump was flexing his conspiratorial muscles on Saturday night, recycling old ruses and inventing new boogeymen in his first public speech since inciting a siege of the U.S. Capitol in January, a dairy farmer in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula sat down to supper. It had been a trying day.

The farmer, Ed McBroom, battled sidewinding rain while working his 320 acres, loading feed and breeding livestock and at one point delivering a distressed calf backwards from its mother’s womb, before hanging the newborn animal by its hind legs for respiratory drainage. Now, having slipped off his manure-caked rubber boots, McBroom groaned as he leaned into his home-grown meal of unpasteurized milk and spaghetti with hamburger sauce. He would dine peacefully at his banquet-length antique table, surrounded by his family of 15, unaware that in nearby Ohio, the former president was accusing him—thankfully, this time not by name—of covering up the greatest crime in American history.

A few days earlier, McBroom, a Republican state senator who chairs the Oversight Committee, had released a report detailing his eight-month-long investigation into the legitimacy of the 2020 election. The stakes could hardly have been higher. Against a backdrop of confusion and suspicion and frightening civic friction—with Trump claiming he’d been cheated out of victory, and anecdotes about fraud coursing through every corner of the state—McBroom had led an exhaustive probe of Michigan’s electoral integrity. His committee interviewed scores of witnesses, subpoenaed and reviewed thousands of pages of documents, dissected the procedural mechanics of Michigan’s highly decentralized elections system, and scrutinized the most trafficked claims about corruption at the state’s ballot box in November. McBroom’s conclusion hit Lansing like a meteor: It was all a bunch of nonsense.

“Our clear finding is that citizens should be confident the results represent the true results of the ballots cast by the people of Michigan,” McBroom wrote in the report. “There is no evidence presented at this time to prove either significant acts of fraud or that an organized, wide-scale effort to commit fraudulent activity was perpetrated in order to subvert the will of Michigan voters.”

For good measure, McBroom added: “The Committee strongly recommends citizens use a critical eye and ear toward those who have pushed demonstrably false theories for their own personal gain.”

This reflected a pattern throughout the report—a clear and clinical statement of facts, accompanied by more animated language that expressed disgust with the grifters selling deception to the masses and disappointment with the voters who were buying it. Sitting at his dinner table, I told the senator that his writing occasionally took a tone of anger. He smirked. “I don’t know that I ever wrote angry,” McBroom replied. “But I tried to leave no room for doubt.”

So much for that. Soon after the report was released, Trump issued a thundering statement calling McBroom’s investigation “a cover up, and a method of getting out of a Forensic Audit for the examination of the Presidential contest.” The former president then published the office phone numbers for McBroom and Michigan’s GOP Senate majority leader, Mike Shirkey, urging his followers to “call those two Senators now and get them to do the right thing, or vote them the hell out of office!”

McBroom had grown up a “history nerd.” He idolized the revolutionary Founders. He inhaled biographies of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson and Teddy Roosevelt. He revered the institution of the American presidency. And here was the 45th president, calling him out by name, accusing him of unthinkable treachery.

“Surreal,” McBroom said quietly. He leaned back, running his hands through a mess of sweaty blond hair. Then he folded his thick arms, which bulged from a red cutoff button-up shirt, staring heavenward in search of the words. Some 30 seconds went by. “Just … surreal.”

Perhaps trying to cheer himself, McBroom told me he doubted whether Trump had personally written that statement. He doubted even more whether Trump had actually read the report. (If he had, Trump would understand why an Arizona-style “forensic audit” would be pointless.) But this was cold comfort. In many ways, Trump was a stand-in for the constituents McBroom knew who insisted that the election was stolen, who raged against the scheming Democrats and the spineless Republicans, who believed that America was succumbing to an illegitimate leftist takeover. Most of them, McBroom realized, would not read the report, either. And he wasn’t sure what more he was supposed to do for them.

“I can’t make people believe me,” McBroom said, an air of exasperation in his voice. “All I can hope is that people use their discernment and judgment, to look at the facts I’ve laid out for them, and then look at these theories out there, and ask the question: Does any of this make sense?”

McBroom admitted to being a bit discouraged. It’s hard enough for an elected official to convince the public of something it doesn’t want to accept. Yet here he was, a lowly state lawmaker from the pastures of Dickinson County, struggling to win the hearts and minds of Trump voters while engaged in a zero-sum showdown with Trump himself.

“All politicians lie. That’s what people believe, right?” McBroom said. “Well, somebody is lying. It’s either me or—”

He stopped himself. “Somebody else.”

Mcbroom didn’t ask for any of this.

A fourth-generation farm boy from the U.P., he studied music education and social studies at Northern Michigan University, harboring dreams of being a teacher and leading a church choir. (He went one-for-two. McBroom is the music director at nearby First Baptist of Norway.) When several of his siblings passed on the opportunity to take over the family farm, McBroom assumed responsibility. He moved his wife, Sarah, whom he’d met at a college choir outing, and their young family to the farm. Joining them were McBroom’s younger brother, Carl; his wife (and Sarah’s sister), Susan; and their children. Together, Ed and Carl planned to grow the family business and raise their two clans as one on the sprawling McBroom compound.

Before long, however, Ed came to a detour. Having joined a host of farm-related civic organizations in the region, he found himself networking with politicians, and soon, unwittingly, being groomed to run for office himself. (Michigan has some of the tightest term limits in the nation and churns through legislators, which presents a constant demand for neophyte recruits.) McBroom had his doubts. Politics seemed an ugly, undignified game for a pious young farmer. And yet, he glowed with certain passions—outlawing abortion, preserving family values, fighting bureaucrats on behalf of the little guy—that could not be championed in the stables.

With the blessing of Carl, who committed to carrying the load on the homestead, McBroom ran for the state House of Representatives in 2010. Harnessing the energy of the Tea Party to defeat an incumbent Democrat—back when Democrats still represented rural northern Michigan—McBroom arrived in Lansing with visions of being a great conservative reformer.

They didn’t last. The Tea Party movement, he realized, was more interested in union-busting and ideological one-upmanship than in achieving tangible results. Meanwhile, his perch on the Agriculture Committee was proving ineffectual; state agencies so regularly pushed around the policy makers that McBroom wondered why he was even bothering to pass legislation. Feeling outmatched, he contemplated quitting the legislature. Only in the twilight of his time in the House did McBroom discover what seemed like his salvation, and what could later be considered his curse: the Oversight Committee. Realizing that the panel had the power to touch all areas of policy while holding the executive branch and Lansing bureaucracy to account, McBroom recommitted himself to politics. He picked the right horse for speaker of the House, maneuvered onto the committee, and positioned himself to continue oversight work if promoted to the Senate.

It was no foregone conclusion that he would seek higher office; in fact, McBroom took two years off from Lansing after his term-limited retirement in 2016. But by 2018 he was ready to resume his legislative career, running for a Senate seat that was his for the taking. Then tragedy struck: On July 7 of that year, Carl was killed in a car wreck near the farm. McBroom froze his campaign. He was now responsible not only for the entirety of a massive agricultural enterprise, and for his own five children, but for Carl’s seven children—plus the one Susan was carrying. He wasn’t sure how the farm would function with him being gone four days a week. But even if he worked the farm full-time, he wasn’t sure it could stay afloat. A Senate salary might offer a bridge to survival.

Having prayed and prayed on the decision, McBroom continued with the campaign. He felt God telling him he was needed in Lansing. After winning the seat, McBroom was promptly named chair of the Senate Oversight Committee. This offered an ideal work-life balance, granting him the autonomy to work odd hours that accommodated his 400-mile commute. It was a dream job—until the nightmare of November 2020.

“Two days after the election, Mike Shirkey calls me, and he says, ‘What do you think about all of this?’” McBroom recalled. “And I said, ‘I think people deserve answers.’”

At that moment, Michigan had emerged as America’s epicenter of electoral dysfunction. Despite boasting a wider margin than other contested states—Joe Biden led Trump by roughly 155,000 votes in the unofficial tally—Michigan was plagued by a series of episodes that lent themselves easily to misinformation and outright conspiracy. There was the reporting error in rural Antrim County, a Republican stronghold, that showed Biden trouncing Trump by an impossible margin. There was the late-night ballot dump at the TCF Center in Detroit, where poll workers covered the windows to prevent harassment from unsanctioned visitors. There were the widespread rumors about excess mail ballots floating around the state, a notion that found traction because of the historic swarm of voters taking advantage of a newly adopted no-excuse absentee-voting law. There was, above all, mass confusion about why the vote was taking so long to tabulate—and why Biden appeared to be the beneficiary.

“At the beginning, even before the investigation, I had a lot of those questions in my own heart,” McBroom told me. “Like, you watch the news or look on Facebook, and some of this seems really strange. What was going on over there? How did those votes get switched? Where did all those ballots come from in the middle of the night? These are legitimate questions, and it would have been unfair to just toss them aside.”

On November 6, McBroom announced that his committee would convene an investigation, beginning the next day, into allegations of misconduct in Michigan’s election. “Many of you have asked me to weigh in on the current election turmoil. I’ve been getting it from both sides who are fervent for the victory of their candidate,” he wrote in a Facebook post. “I guess I haven’t been inclined because my fervent desire is for a fair and honest result.”

Not everyone in Lansing knew what to make of McBroom and his investigation. Some Democrats saw a Trump-supporting, anti-abortion zealot from a deep-red district where failure to wave the “Stop the Steal” flag might be fatal. Some Republicans saw an unfailingly earnest, devoutly religious man who was offended by the president’s antics and wouldn’t hesitate to wield a righteous hammer against his own party. As the committee got to work, and concerns piled up across the ideological spectrum, one person never doubted where McBroom’s conclusion was headed. “He is a good and honest person,” said Aaron Van Langevelde, a longtime friend of McBroom and the former GOP canvassing official who received death threats after voting to certify Biden’s statewide victory. “[He] is always going to put his service to the people above politics.”

When he began investigating Detroit’s late-night dump of absentee votes—ballots that are uniquely numbered and require signature verification—McBroom said his mental cinema played scenes from The Italian Job. “You know, someone climbs up into the truck through a manhole cover underneath, puts new boxes in, takes old boxes out,” he said. “And so, you ask yourself, Is that even possible?”

He continued: “Okay, sure. Somebody could break into the truck, whether it’s through the manhole cover, or the driver's complicit, or whatever. But then what? What are you switching the ballots with? Is somebody going to go to find thousands of ballots, match the numbers and signatures on all of them, then swap them out, all in a very limited amount of time, just to push Trump down to 10 percent, instead of 12 percent? … As I ran through all the possible calculations, I was able to reassure myself, like, This is not how you would steal an election.”

In his report, McBroom made clear that other conclusions were even simpler to reach.

What about dead voters? The committee reviewed a list of 200 deceased Wayne County residents who allegedly voted from the grave; it found two instances in which ballots were cast under those names, and both cases were clerical errors. (One man mistakenly voted under the identity of a dead relative who had the same name; one woman returned her absentee ballot, then died four days before the election.)

What about jurisdictions with more votes than registered voters? There were none to be found.

Julian Sanchez: Trump is looking for fraud in all the wrong places

What about absentee ballots being counted multiple times? Nope—the poll books would have registered a disparity. (It’s not uncommon for poll books to be out of balance by a handful of votes; anything more would invite scrutiny and a recount that would invalidate ballots counted twice.)

What about tabulators being hacked with vote-switching software? Impossible, the report found, because the tabulators, no matter what Mike Lindell claims, were not connected to the internet to begin with.

While McBroom’s report crackled with annoyance at certain far-flung beliefs, he saved his saltiest language for the Antrim County saga. To recap: On the morning after Election Day, with all 16,044 votes in the county tallied, an unofficial count showed Biden leading Trump by 3,200 votes. The county clerk quickly determined that an inputting error was publishing the candidates’ totals in the wrong database fields; then, in the race to correct that mistake, officials made an additional inputting error. All of this was resolved within 24 hours, and the county’s updated totals reflected exactly what the tabulators had counted—a 3,800 vote lead for Trump. But this net swing of some 7,000 votes, and the underlying confusion about computer inputs, spawned a nationwide campaign to uncover codes in Dominion voting machines, like the ones used in Antrim County, that changed Trump votes to Biden votes.

The only problem? Dominion’s tabulators had counted the vote accurately, as confirmed by subsequent canvassing efforts and a hand recount. Human inputting error was responsible for the initial bad numbers, a fact obvious to everyone except those who stood to benefit from pretending otherwise. “All compelling theories that sprang forth from the rumors surrounding Antrim County are diminished so significantly as for it to be a complete waste of time to consider them further,” McBroom wrote in the report. “The Committee finds [that] those promoting Antrim County as the prime evidence of a nationwide conspiracy to steal the election place all other statements and actions they make in a position of zero credibility.”

He didn’t stop there. Galvanized by the shameless grifting he’d encountered during the course of his investigation, McBroom stunned his GOP colleagues by referring to Michigan’s attorney general for possible prosecution “those who have been utilizing misleading and false information about Antrim County to raise money or publicity for their own ends.”

This represented the one plot twist in McBroom’s report. (Some Democrats expressed surprise at McBroom’s recommending enhanced election-security policies, but most of his proposals are not new, and he has distanced himself from some of his party’s more restrictive new measures.) Concluding that the election wasn’t stolen is one thing. Suggesting that certain people who alleged a stolen election ought to be prosecuted—by a progressive attorney general who is loathed by the conservative base—is another thing entirely.

McBroom is aware of the risks. He will be accused of trying to silence conservatives, of censoring his own constituents, of punishing anyone who dares to question the legitimacy of the Biden administration and the U.S. elections system. But he makes no apologies. “Fraud is fraud,” he shrugged. “If they lied to people to make money off people, that’s a crime.”

I asked McBroom whether, under that standard, Trump—whose affiliated entities raised enormous sums of money under the guise of a legal strategy to overturn the election results—might be vulnerable to prosecution. He laughed nervously. “We didn’t investigate Trump. The report didn’t investigate him. So I have to stick to what the report says.”

Whatever the report says, its findings make evident that Trump, in concert with an unruly apparatus of right-wing personalities and causes, systematically tricked large portions of the American public into believing something that simply is not true. And yet, even while he recommends possible prosecutions, the urgency McBroom feels at this moment has less to do with going after bad actors and more to do with reaching “the good people who are buying this junk.” This includes people in his own district, friends and community members McBroom has known his entire life who refuse to accept what he is telling them.

“It’s been very discouraging, and very sad, to have people I know who have supported me, and always said they respected me and found me to be honest, who suddenly don’t trust me because of what some guy told them on the internet,” McBroom said. “And they’re like, ‘Yeah, but this is a good guy too.’ And I’m like, ‘How do you know that? Have you met him? You’ve met me. So why are you choosing to believe him instead of me?’”

After having kept quiet for much of the day—cooking, sweeping, applying Band-Aids, directing traffic, shooing the children outside to complete their chores—Sarah McBroom spoke up.

“That’s what has struck me. It’s seeing people that we know—some of them we know very well—who are choosing not to believe Ed, because they believe someone on Facebook they’ve never met,” she said. “I just don’t understand. Like, really? You believe that person over Ed?”

A little while earlier, when discussing the scourge of social media, Ed McBroom joked about quitting Facebook to keep his sanity. Then he rattled off the incoming fire he’s been dealing with daily—not just social-media posts and messages, but angry emails and texts from random numbers. Some people accuse him of being in league with Biden; others claim that China bought him off. Occasionally the screeds get nasty and downright threatening, though he said the most disturbing communications of that nature are delivered in middle-of-the-night phone calls. The senator knows that people can locate his farm easily enough, and worries about being gone so much during the week, leaving Sarah and Susan alone with the 13 children. (Both women, he noted, are trained and highly qualified to operate the collection of rifles that hung in a cabinet behind us.)

Still, whatever fleeting dread he feels about personal backlash is diminished by his concern for the country’s sudden epistemological crisis. Not long ago, McBroom said, he would have defaulted to dismissing any notions of mass societal irrationality. He is not dismissive anymore. He sees large portions of the voting public rejecting the basic tenets of civic education and sequestering into “this alternate world” of social media. He hears from constituents about “enemies” on the other side of political disputes and a looming civil conflict to resolve them. And he wonders, as an amateur historian, whether the “very real trouble” we’re in can be escaped.

“It’s easy to look at the current status of American culture, American politics, the American church, and be really apoplectic right now. It’s very easy to give in to that sense of panic,” McBroom told me. “But we go through different cycles in this country. I’m hoping we’re in a cycle of riots and demonstrations on and off, [and not] the cycle where we end up in civil war. I’ve encountered some folks who are like, ‘Maybe it’s time to rise up’—you know, ‘refreshing the tree of liberty with the blood of patriots,’ that stuff. And I say to them, ‘Are you seriously going to go looking for people with biden signs in their yards? I mean, is that what you’re going to do? Make a list? Is this what this is coming to? You’re ready to go out and fight your neighbors? Because I don’t think you really are. I think you’re talking stupid.’”

McBroom closed his eyes and took a heavy breath. “These are good people, and they’re being lied to, and they’re believing the lies,” he said. “And it’s really dangerous.”

Tim Alberta is a staff writer at The Atlantic.

[admin]

Another Republican Telling The Truth Becomes The Target Of Trump: The Atlantic’s Tim Alberta discusses his profile of Michigan State Senator Ed McBroom who debunked claims of voter fraud in his state, and how that has drawn the ire of the former president.
MSNBC
Jul 2, 2021

-- REPORT ON THE NOVEMBER 2020 ELECTION IN MICHIGAN, by COMMITTEE MEMBERS Senator Edward McBroom – Chair Senator Lana Theis – Majority Vice Chair Senator Jeff Irwin – Minority Vice Chair Senator John Bizon, 6/23/21

It was 12 hours, or 15 hours, after McBroom’s report was published that Trump put out a press release publishing McBroom’s phone number, and accusing him of a “cover-up”. Those were his words.



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

Trump Calls McBroom's Michigan Election Report a 'Cover Up,' Asks Supporters to Call His Office
by Zoe Kalen Hill
Newsweek
6/24/21 AT 3:16 PM 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.

Former President Donald Trump called Michigan State Senate's election investigation a "cover up" concerning the 2020 presidential election, and urged his supporters to contact two state senators and have them "do the right thing."

Since last November's contest, Trump continues to allege that fraud took place in the election that saw Joe Biden win, even though there has been no evidence to corroborate such a claim. Biden took Michigan with 16 electoral votes.

Trump's Save America PAC sent out an email with a statement from the former president. In the message, Trump called out two Republican Michigan state senators: Majority Leader Mike Shirkey and Ed McBroom.

"Michigan State Senators Mike Shirkey and Ed McBroom are doing everything possible to stop voter audits in order to hide the truth about November 3rd," Trump's statement began.

"The Senate 'investigation' of the election is a cover up, and a method of getting out of a Forensic Audit for the examination of the Presidential contest."

Trump referenced Michigan's Senate Oversight Committee report on the November 2020 general election, which was released Wednesday night, in his statement. He implied that the report's findings warranted a forensic audit.

"Instead of doing a Forensic Audit, they want to investigate the Patriots who have fought for the truth and who are exposing a very possibly Rigged Election. The truth will come out and RINO's will pay at the polls, especially with primary voters and expected challenges," he wrote.

In the statement, Trump also referred to the city of Detroit as the "most corrupt election city in the U.S.," and alleged that "corrupt" politicians are wrong in saying Michigan had no voter fraud.

McBroom, who lead the investigation into the 2020 election, said that the committee investigated every major concern including dead people voting and issues with a voting center in Detroit.

"People are, understandably, confused by recent changes to election laws, as well as by practices, orders and determinations made by state and local governments in response to the pandemic. They are right to demand answers and deserve nothing less than the truth amidst so much shouting and misrepresentation from both sides of the political spectrum," McBroom said in a statement about the report.

"This investigation was lengthy, thorough, and revealing. We found both real vulnerabilities and resiliency within the state's elections system. We also discovered the extent to which our elections officials go to facilitate them," he also said.

"After innumerable hours over many months, watching, listening, and reading both in-person testimony and various other accounts, I am confident in asserting that the results of the November 2020 General Election in Michigan were accurately represented by the certified and audited results."

Meanwhile, the former president called on his supporters to take action and listed the apparent office numbers for both senators at the end of the released statement.

"Our County was based on free and fair elections and that's what we must have!" Trump concluded. "Call those two senators now and get them to do the right thing, or vote them the hell out of office.

Newsweek reached out to McBroom and Shirkey for comment.

[admin]

Why the Trump Org Criminal Charges May Open the Indictment Flood Gates: A Matter of Precedent
by Glenn Kirschner
Jul 6, 2021

Other countries prosecute their criminal leaders - Presidents, Prime Ministers, etc. For example, France, South Korea, South Africa and Italy have all prosecuted former leaders for crimes they committed while in office. However, in the United States there is no precedent for prosecuting a criminal former president.

Prosecutors generally don't like to take maiden legal voyages, that is, bring a case that is unprecedented. Prosecutors like to have legal precedent as a blueprint. They like to have the comfort and cover of being able to point to an appellate court opinion - legal precedent - and say, "this has been done before, so I am not breaking new legal ground."

However, logic and common sense dictate that, if you require precedent to indict a criminal former president then we could NEVER charge a criminal former president. Indeed, the way prosecutors create precedent is by doing something for the first time.

The real question is - is there anything prohibiting the prosecution of a former president for crimes he committed while in office. The answer is a definitive NO - there is no law, no statute, no appellate court opinion and no Supreme Court precedent prohibiting the prosecution of a former president.

This video discusses prosecutorial considerations in taking a maiden legal voyage - brining a novel case for which there is no legal precedent and relates example of when such novel legal cases have been brought in the courts of Washington, DC.

[admin]

No. 45 Offers Nothing New At Rambling Ohio Rally
by Stephen Colbert
The Late Show
Jun 28, 2021

Even some of his most fervent supporters changed the channel during the former president's speech last weekend, finding little new content amid his litany of old punchlines and complaints. #Colbert #Comedy #Monologue

[admin]

Giuliani Urged Trump To 'Just Say We Won' On Election Night, Book Claims
by MSNBC
Jul 14, 2021

The new book 'I Alone Can Fix It', in part, details former President Trump's attorney Rudy Giuliani on the election night of 2020 urging Trump to declare victory over Joe Biden ahead of the polls. The Morning Joe panel discusses.



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

Rudy Giuliani urged Donald Trump to falsely claim election victory, new book says
by ABC.net.au
7/14/21

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.

Mr Giuliani reportedly encouraged Mr Trump to declare victory despite the vote count.(Reuters: Jonathan Ernst/File photo)

As Donald Trump's hopes for a second term as US president began to fade on election night 2020, former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani repeatedly urged him to simply declare himself the winner, a new book claims.

Key points:

* Rudy Giuliani reportedly advised Donald Trump claim he was winning despite the vote going in Joe Biden's favour

* Mr Trump's advisers, the book says, tried to shoot down the suggestion in private

* On Monday Mr Giuliani claimed without evidence antifa was behind the shooting of a US Capitol rioter

An excerpt from the book I Alone Can Fix It published by the Washington Post describes in detail the chaotic, angry scenes at the White House as the election results began to go current US president Joe Biden's way.

Mr Giuliani, who at the time was Mr Trump's personal lawyer, initially outlined the "strategy" to the then-president's advisers, Bill Stepien, Mark Meadows and Jason Miller.

A viewing party was underway at the White House and "some people thought Giuliani may have been drinking too much".

The advisers took Mr Giuliani and they went through each of the key battleground states, which at that point were too early to call.

“Just say we won,” Mr Giuliani said about each.

"Giuliani’s grand plan was to just say Trump won, state after state, based on nothing. Stepien, Miller and Meadows thought his argument was both incoherent and irresponsible," according to the book.


Mr Trump's advisers reportedly said it was difficult to rein in Mr Trump's impulses when Mr Giuliani was telling him what he wanted to hear.(Reuters: Mike Segar)

“We can’t do that,” Mr Meadows reportedly said, raising his voice.

Later, when Fox News dramatically and unexpectedly called hotly contested Arizona for Mr Biden, Mr Trump became incensed.

“What the f--- is Fox doing?” Trump screamed. Then he barked orders to [Jared] Kushner: “Call Rupert! Call James and Lachlan!” And to Jason Miller: “Get Sammon. Get Hemmer. They’ve got to reverse this.” The president was referring to Fox owner Rupert Murdoch and his sons, James and Lachlan, as well as Bill Sammon, a top news executive at Fox.

Trump’s tirade continued. “What the f---?” he bellowed. “What the f--- are these guys doing? How could they call this this early?”

At this point Mr Giuliani stepped in to spruik his strategy and urged Mr Trump to ignore the Arizona call.

“Just go declare victory right now,” Giuliani told Trump. “You’ve got to go declare victory now.”

The suggestion infuriated Mr Trump's advisers, who had already shot it down in private.

One of the advisers recalled that it was difficult to be the "responsible parent" in the room when there was a "cool uncle around taking the kid to the movies and driving him around in a Corvette", referring to Mr Trump as the child.

By this point, the authors say, Mr Trump was already claiming "something nefarious was at play" as the election continued to slip away.

"They’re stealing this from us," Mr Trump reportedly said.

"We have this thing won. I won in a landslide and they’re taking it back."

About 2:00am, he spoke at the viewing party, falsely claiming to have won states such as Georgia and North Carolina that were at that point too close to call, and to be winning others such as Michigan and Wisconsin where he was behind.

“This is a fraud on the American public,” Mr Trump reportedly said.

"This is an embarrassment to our country. We were getting ready to win this election. Frankly, we did win this election. We did win this election."

Giuliani in hot water


Mr Giuliani speaks to media outside his apartment building after the suspension of his law licence in New York City.(Reuters: Andrew Kelly)

Last month, Mr Giuliani had his law licence suspended by a New York Appeals Court because he made false statements while trying to get courts to overturn Mr Trump's loss in the presidential race.

Last week, a District of Columbia Court of Appeals suspended his licence pending the disposition of his New York suspension, though his licence in Washington was already inactive.

Undeterred, Mr Giuliani on Monday gave an interview to Newsmax, a right-wing US news channel, in which he asserted without evidence that the police shooting of Capitol rioter Ashli Babbitt on January 6 was a "completely phony operation" and part of a "plot" by antifa.

ABC/AP

[admin]

The FBI Allegedly Used At Least 12 Informants In The Michigan Kidnapping Case: Defense attorneys said they will argue that the FBI “induced or persuaded” the defendants to go along with the violent scheme.
by Jessica Garrison and Ken Bensinger
BuzzFeed
July 12, 2021

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.

Toward capturing the votes of the center bloc the first step is to identify and count the members. That done, everything else depends on where they are to sit. The best technique is to detail off known and stalwart supporters to enter into conversation with named middle-bloc types before the meeting actually begins. In this preliminary chat the stalwarts will carefully avoid mentioning the main subject of debate. They will be trained to use the opening gambits listed below, corresponding to the categories a to f, into which the middle bloc naturally falls:

a. "Waste of time, I call it, producing all these documents. I have thrown most of mine away."

b. "I expect we shall be dazzled by eloquence before long. I often wish people would talk less and come to the point. They are too clever by half, if you ask me."

c. "The acoustics of this hall are simply terrible. You would have thought these scientific chaps could do something about it. For half the time I CAN'T HEAR WHAT IS BEING SAID. CAN YOU?"

d. "What a rotten place to meet! I think there is something the matter with the ventilation. It makes me feel almost unwell. What about you?"

e. "My goodness, I don't know how you do it! Tell me the secret. Is it what you have for breakfast?"

f. "There's so much to be said on both sides of the 18 question that I really don't know which side to support. What do you feel about it?"

If these gambits are correctly played, each stalwart will start a lively conversation, in the midst of which he will steer his middle-blocsman toward the forum. As he does this, another stalwart will place himself just ahead of the pair and moving in the same direction. The drill is best illustrated by a concrete example. We will suppose that stalwart X (Mr. Sturdy) is steering middle-blocsman Y (Mr. Waverley, type f) toward a seat near the front. Ahead goes stalwart Z (Mr. Staunch), who presently takes a seat without appearing to notice the two men following him. Staunch turns in the opposite direction and waves to someone in the distance. Then he leans over to make a few remarks to the man in front of him. Only when Waverley has sat down will Staunch presently turn toward him and say, "My dear fellow--how nice to see you!" Only some minutes later again will he catch sight of Sturdy and start visibly with surprise. "Hallo, Sturdy--I didn't think you would be here!" "I've recovered now," replies Sturdy. "It was only a chill." The seating order is thus made to appear completely accidental, casual, and friendly. That completes Phase I of the operation, and it would be much the same whatever the exact category in which the middle-blocsman is believed to fall.

Phase II has to be adjusted according to the character of the man to be influenced. In the case of Waverley (Type f) the object in Phase II is to avoid any discussion of the matter at issue but to produce the impression that the thing is already decided. Seated near the front, Waverley will be unable to see much of the other members and can be given the impression that they practically all think alike.

"Really," says Sturdy, "I don't know why I bothered to come. I gather that Item Four is pretty well agreed. All the fellows I meet seem to have made up their minds to vote for it." (Or against it, as the case may be.)

"Curious," says Staunch. "I was just going to say the same thing. The issue hardly seems to be in doubt."

"I had not really made up my own mind," says Sturdy. 20 "There was much to be said on either side. But opposition would really be a waste of time. What do you think, Waverley?"

"Well," says Waverley, "I must admit that I find the question rather baffling. On the one hand, there is good reason to agree to the motion ... As against that ... Do you think it will pass?"

"My dear Waverley, I would trust your judgment in this. You were saying just now that it is already agreed."

"Oh, was I? Well, there does seem to be a majority. ... Or perhaps I should say ..."

"Thank you, Waverley," says Staunch, "for your opinion. I think just the same but am particularly interested to find you agree with me. There is no one whose opinion I value more."

Sturdy, meanwhile, is leaning over to talk to someone in the row behind. What he actually says, in a low voice, is this, "How is your wife now? Is she out of hospital?" When he turns back again, however, it is to announce that the people behind all think the same. The motion is as good as passed. And so it is if the drill goes according to plan.

While the other side has been busy preparing speeches and phrasing amendments, the side with the superior technique will have concentrated on pinning each middle-blocsman between two reliable supporters. When the crucial moment comes, the raising of a hand on either side will practically compel the waverer to follow suit. Should he be actually asleep, as often happens with middle-blocsman in categories d and e, his hand will be raised for him by the member on his right. This rule is merely to obviate both his hands being raised, a gesture that has been known to attract unfavorable comment. With the middle bloc thus secured, the motion will be carried with a comfortable margin; or else rejected, if that is thought preferable. In nearly every matter of controversy to be decided by the will of the people, we can assume that the people who will decide are members of the middle bloc. Delivery of speeches is therefore a waste of time. The one party will never agree and the other party has agreed already. Remains the middle bloc, the members of which divide into those who cannot hear what is being said and those who would not understand it even if they did. To secure their votes what is needed is primarily the example of others voting on either side of them. Their votes can thus be swayed by accident. How much better, by contrast, to sway them by design!

-- Parkinson's Law and Other Studies in Administration, by C. Northcote Parkinson

Members of the armed extremist group Wolverine Watchmen inside the Michigan Capitol in April 2020. Seth Herald / Reuters

The government employed at least a dozen confidential informants to infiltrate groups of armed extremists who allegedly plotted to kidnap the governor of Michigan, according to a new filing in federal court on Monday.

The filing, made by one of the five defendants in the federal case, asked that prosecutors be ordered to share more information about those informants, their relationship with the FBI, and the specific roles they played in building the case. It came among a blizzard of 15 new defense motions in the high-profile case, including requests to move it to a different district, to suppress evidence from a search warrant, and to try at least one defendant separately from the others.

Taken together, the new court papers offered a glimpse of the evolving defense strategies in the case, with several attorneys saying that they plan to argue that the FBI “induced or persuaded” the men to go along with the scheme.

The alleged plot to kidnap Gov. Gretchen Whitmer made international headlines last October, when the Department of Justice announced it had charged six men in a kidnapping conspiracy. Five of the defendants — Barry Croft, Adam Fox, Daniel Harris, Kaleb Franks, and Brandon Caserta — have all pleaded not guilty and have been held without bail since their arrests. A sixth, Ty Garbin, pleaded guilty and agreed to cooperate in the case in January.

According to the Justice Department, the men met and trained over a six-month period in 2020, during which time they developed a plan to kidnap Whitmer from her second home and possibly take her out of state where she could be put on “trial” for being a “tyrant.” No plan was ever executed before authorities made arrests.

Eight other men were charged under Michigan’s anti-terrorism statutes for providing material support to the plotters. Half of the defendants in the combined cases were members of a militant group known as the Wolverine Watchmen, which was associated with the Three Percenters extremist movement. All but two are from the state of Michigan.

A trial in the federal case is currently scheduled for October. Monday marked a filing deadline for defense motions in that case.

Although prosecutors have acknowledged using informants to build the case, the court file to date has provided very little detail on their activities or identities save for one informant, who testified in March. According to an attorney for Franks, the government has shared ID numbers linked to 12 confidential informants but, with one exception, has not provided background on how they were recruited, what payments they may have received from the FBI, where they are based, or what their names are.

Such information would be crucial to “preparation of a defense to the charges,” Franks’ lawyer, Scott Graham, claimed.

Franks, meanwhile, asked that the case be moved out of the Western District of Michigan, on the grounds that “press coverage of (and participation in) this matter has corrupted the potential trial atmosphere to the point that Mr. Franks will be denied a fair trial in Michigan.”

Graham specifically cited a motion filed by BuzzFeed News to obtain access to exhibits shown in a hearing in the case in January as an example of the media involvement in the case and the risk of “prejudice in this case based on the extensive, negative, pervasive press coverage of the allegations.”

Franks also asked to be tried separately because he is not facing a bomb charge that was added to the case earlier this year. That count, conspiracy to use a weapon of mass destruction, applies to three of the other defendants who are alleged to have tried to build explosive devices or procure bomb-making materials. According to attorney Graham, potential allegations by prosecutors in court about that charge “will certainly go far in frightening jurors and eliciting emotional decisions from them.”

In yet another motion, filed late on Sunday, an attorney for Croft claimed that prosecutors had provided more than 5,000 duplicate files as it shared evidence, including no fewer than 15 copies of the same audio recording, significantly increasing the burden on the defense.

Separately the attorney, Joshua Blanchard, asked the court to exclude from evidence some items that were recovered from Croft’s Delaware residence during an FBI search in October because, he claims, they were outside the scope of the warrant. Among those items were a 1-kilogram silver bar, a handwritten code cipher, and “Mr. Croft’s hat.”

Croft, a long-haul truck driver and father of three girls, is known among Three Percenters for often wearing a tricorn hat like those from the time of the American Revolution.